Honda Car Forum

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:04:51 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:

>I could not care less what you choose to believe

Why do you keep answering then? Makes as much sense as the rest of your
drivel.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:

>According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
>more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
>Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
>Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
>a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
>ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition

What? The NHTSA says the Civic can't get out of its own way? Oh my, what
next? Does the NHTSA say what the result would be if everybody drove
Expeditions and kept running into each other? I think you should check out
the acceleration times *and* if you want to make such claims, they do not
jibe with SUV fuel economy.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

In AZ Republic front page last week, a report roll over acident on I10
due to tread seperation on a Ford Expedition. Whole family get killed.
Witness said the car is driving at speed limit.



gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote in message news:<n1uijv8659mp0mbd8nou1n11n0bq2ilt4m@4ax.com>. ..
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:14:21 GMT, IleneDover@lycos.com wrote:
>
> >Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers.
>
> Which would affect the driver fatality rate... how?
>
> For the record, the Expedition *passenger* fatality rate is 62 per
> million registration years. The 4-door Civic rate is 34. You can
> easily calculate that from this data:
>
> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm
>
> (See Mike, that is how one supports one's assertions.)
>
> > In
> >the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
> >accidents.
>
> Maybe a small percentage of accidents but they account for 23% of all
> driver fatalities.
>
> > The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
> >but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
> >SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
> >anti-SUV crowd wanted.
>
> I suspect that you are confusing unsupported assertions from paid
> lobbyists with research but it is pretty hard to tell when you don't
> provide a link to this supposed statement.
>
> > Drive what you want, need, and can
> >afford but one can not beat the laws of physics.
>
> The law of physics dictate that SUVs handle poorly and are prone to
> rollover. Actual experience with millions of vehicles tells us that
> in practice they are overall no safer and often more dangerous for
> their occupants than the cars they replace. They are always more
> dangerous to other vehicles. In the end, every SUV sold increases the
> highway fatality rate a statistical increment.
>
>
> > The fact
> >remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
> >of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
> >they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.
>
> Depends on make and model. No SUV or pickup truck has a lower driver
> death rate than a Camry. You can argue theory all you want, but the
> actual body count is the final arbiter.
>
>
> >That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
> >vehicles
>
> Actually, many charge higher rates for these vehicles and the ones
> that don't are using car owners to subsidize SUV rates (State Farm.)
> Most of your insurance is for liability for injuries to others. If
> you roll your SUV and break your neck, your car insurance only pays to
> repair the SUV.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
> >> >more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
> >> >Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
> >> >Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
> >> >a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
> >> >ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
> >>
> >> And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
> >> million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
> >> Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
> >> may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
> >> more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
> >> rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
> >> for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
> >> crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
> >> vehicle and rollover accidents.
> >>
> >> BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
> >> crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
> >> this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
> >> include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
> >> IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
> >> rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >mike hunt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
> >> >> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
> >> >> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
> >> >> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
> >> >> >of a rollover.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
> >> >> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Check it out here:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
> >> >> >>

DTT <dtmstran@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In AZ Republic front page last week, a report roll over acident on I10
> due to tread seperation on a Ford Expedition. Whole family get killed.
> Witness said the car is driving at speed limit.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...8rollover.html

IMO, those who were killed are fashion victims.

Andrew

Thanks for your support!!! Apparently you have a LOT more
free time than I.



mike hunt




Gorton McGrew wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:14:21 GMT, IleneDover@lycos.com wrote:
>
> >Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers.
>
> Which would affect the driver fatality rate... how?
>
> For the record, the Expedition *passenger* fatality rate is 62 per
> million registration years. The 4-door Civic rate is 34. You can
> easily calculate that from this data:
>
> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm
>
> (See Mike, that is how one supports one's assertions.)
>
> > In
> >the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
> >accidents.
>
> Maybe a small percentage of accidents but they account for 23% of all
> driver fatalities.
>
> > The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
> >but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
> >SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
> >anti-SUV crowd wanted.
>
> I suspect that you are confusing unsupported assertions from paid
> lobbyists with research but it is pretty hard to tell when you don't
> provide a link to this supposed statement.
>
> > Drive what you want, need, and can
> >afford but one can not beat the laws of physics.
>
> The law of physics dictate that SUVs handle poorly and are prone to
> rollover. Actual experience with millions of vehicles tells us that
> in practice they are overall no safer and often more dangerous for
> their occupants than the cars they replace. They are always more
> dangerous to other vehicles. In the end, every SUV sold increases the
> highway fatality rate a statistical increment.
>
> > The fact
> >remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
> >of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
> >they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.
>
> Depends on make and model. No SUV or pickup truck has a lower driver
> death rate than a Camry. You can argue theory all you want, but the
> actual body count is the final arbiter.
>
>
> >That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
> >vehicles
>
> Actually, many charge higher rates for these vehicles and the ones
> that don't are using car owners to subsidize SUV rates (State Farm.)
> Most of your insurance is for liability for injuries to others. If
> you roll your SUV and break your neck, your car insurance only pays to
> repair the SUV.
>
> >
> >
> >mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
> >> >more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
> >> >Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
> >> >Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
> >> >a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
> >> >ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
> >>
> >> And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
> >> million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
> >> Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
> >> may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
> >> more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
> >> rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
> >> for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
> >> crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
> >> vehicle and rollover accidents.
> >>
> >> BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
> >> crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
> >> this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
> >> include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
> >> IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
> >> rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >mike hunt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
> >> >> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
> >> >> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
> >> >> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
> >> >> >of a rollover.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
> >> >> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Check it out here:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
> >> >> >>

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:34:43 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:

>Thanks for your support!!! Apparently you have a LOT more
>free time than I.
>
>
>
>mike hunt
>


What did I post that would support anything you claim? Obviously you
cannot respond to the fact that many of the Pickups and SUVs you hawk
as the pinnacle of safety are more of a threat to their drivers (and
presumably other passengers) than some subcompacts. You can claim
they are safer all you want but when they count the bodies, an F-150
is about twice as likely to kill its driver than is a 4-door Civic.
Even the most dangerous small four door listed, a Kia Sephia, is no
more likely to kill its driver than an F-250 Super Cab.

>Apparently you have a LOT more
>free time than I.

Not surprised you don't have time to study that web page that refutes
the BS you spew. What web page is that again, Gordon? Why it's:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm



>
>
>
>Gorton McGrew wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:14:21 GMT, IleneDover@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>> >Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers.
>>
>> Which would affect the driver fatality rate... how?
>>
>> For the record, the Expedition *passenger* fatality rate is 62 per
>> million registration years. The 4-door Civic rate is 34. You can
>> easily calculate that from this data:
>>
>> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm
>>
>> (See Mike, that is how one supports one's assertions.)
>>
>> > In
>> >the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
>> >accidents.
>>
>> Maybe a small percentage of accidents but they account for 23% of all
>> driver fatalities.
>>
>> > The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
>> >but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
>> >SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
>> >anti-SUV crowd wanted.
>>
>> I suspect that you are confusing unsupported assertions from paid
>> lobbyists with research but it is pretty hard to tell when you don't
>> provide a link to this supposed statement.
>>
>> > Drive what you want, need, and can
>> >afford but one can not beat the laws of physics.
>>
>> The law of physics dictate that SUVs handle poorly and are prone to
>> rollover. Actual experience with millions of vehicles tells us that
>> in practice they are overall no safer and often more dangerous for
>> their occupants than the cars they replace. They are always more
>> dangerous to other vehicles. In the end, every SUV sold increases the
>> highway fatality rate a statistical increment.
>>
>> > The fact
>> >remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
>> >of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
>> >they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.
>>
>> Depends on make and model. No SUV or pickup truck has a lower driver
>> death rate than a Camry. You can argue theory all you want, but the
>> actual body count is the final arbiter.
>>
>>
>> >That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
>> >vehicles
>>
>> Actually, many charge higher rates for these vehicles and the ones
>> that don't are using car owners to subsidize SUV rates (State Farm.)
>> Most of your insurance is for liability for injuries to others. If
>> you roll your SUV and break your neck, your car insurance only pays to
>> repair the SUV.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >mike hunt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
>> >> >more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
>> >> >Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
>> >> >Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
>> >> >a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
>> >> >ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
>> >>
>> >> And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
>> >> million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
>> >> Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
>> >> may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
>> >> more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
>> >> rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
>> >> for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
>> >> crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
>> >> vehicle and rollover accidents.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
>> >> crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
>> >> this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
>> >> include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
>> >> IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
>> >> rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >mike hunt
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
>> >> >> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
>> >> >> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
>> >> >> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
>> >> >> >of a rollover.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
>> >> >> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Check it out here:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
>> >> >> >>

<MikeHunt@lycos.com> wrote in message news:3F3A6760.8928F54F@lycos.com...
> Thanks for your support!!! Apparently you have a LOT more
> free time than I.
>
>
>
> mike hunt

Got shut down huh Mike? Well...it was only a matter of time.

And stop making excuses for someone knowing more that you. Your ascertain
that he has "more time", and that's because he knows more, is ludicrous.

Its obvious you try to show off your knowledge here, when in fact, its
nothing more than shallow common sense.

Now shut yer yap and get out.

I've seen the Insurance company sponsored test reports to which
you refer. If a manufacture were to use THOSE test to verify
that their vehicles meet the federal crash standards, that the
manufactures MUST meet to be able to sell their vehicle in the
US, the governments NHTSA would NOT accept those test as
completed, if they were submitted!! That should tell you how
valid those test are as real science. Those test are simply
designed to produce a particulr result for the benifit of the
insurers. As a retired automotive engineer with thirty years
experience, many of them designing bodies to meet federal
standards, I will tell you a small car with a five star rating is
more dangerous to properly belted passengers than a larger car
with a four star rating and is NEVER as safe as a larger vehicle
with a five star rating and certainly NEVER safer.. Simply
because you have a love affair with the Civic, don't like SUV's,
and choose to believe something different will not change that
fact. One can not defy the laws a physics. The larger vehicle
built to the same standards, as are SUV's and cars, will ALWAYS
do better for the passengers. The fact that the engineers have a
longer area, within which to build in crumples zones, lengthens
the time/distance that the forces of the collision must be
absorbed by the vehicle resulting in fewer force being absorbed
by ones body, refereed to as the 'third collision' when ones
organs hits their skeleton. I've seen five properly belted
passenger in large cars like Town Cars, where the passenger
compartment had NOT been intruded, killed by the third collision
because of high speed. That will happen at much slower speed in
a smaller vehicle, period. I'm merely trying to enlighen some of
the misconception posted in NG's. Whether one choose to believe
that or not is up to the individual, I could not care less. I
don't have any love or need for an SUV or any truck, I drive
large cars. From my years of experience I know I will never buy a
subcompact car
or let my family ride in one. It is your life, your money,
spend it where you wish.






mike hunt



Gorton McGrew wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:34:43 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
>
> >Thanks for your support!!! Apparently you have a LOT more
> >free time than I.
> >
> >
> >
> >mike hunt
> >
>
> What did I post that would support anything you claim? Obviously you
> cannot respond to the fact that many of the Pickups and SUVs you hawk
> as the pinnacle of safety are more of a threat to their drivers (and
> presumably other passengers) than some subcompacts. You can claim
> they are safer all you want but when they count the bodies, an F-150
> is about twice as likely to kill its driver than is a 4-door Civic.
> Even the most dangerous small four door listed, a Kia Sephia, is no
> more likely to kill its driver than an F-250 Super Cab.
>
> >Apparently you have a LOT more
> >free time than I.
>
> Not surprised you don't have time to study that web page that refutes
> the BS you spew. What web page is that again, Gordon? Why it's:
>
> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:14:21 GMT, IleneDover@lycos.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers.
> >>
> >> Which would affect the driver fatality rate... how?
> >>
> >> For the record, the Expedition *passenger* fatality rate is 62 per
> >> million registration years. The 4-door Civic rate is 34. You can
> >> easily calculate that from this data:
> >>
> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm
> >>
> >> (See Mike, that is how one supports one's assertions.)
> >>
> >> > In
> >> >the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
> >> >accidents.
> >>
> >> Maybe a small percentage of accidents but they account for 23% of all
> >> driver fatalities.
> >>
> >> > The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
> >> >but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
> >> >SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
> >> >anti-SUV crowd wanted.
> >>
> >> I suspect that you are confusing unsupported assertions from paid
> >> lobbyists with research but it is pretty hard to tell when you don't
> >> provide a link to this supposed statement.
> >>
> >> > Drive what you want, need, and can
> >> >afford but one can not beat the laws of physics.
> >>
> >> The law of physics dictate that SUVs handle poorly and are prone to
> >> rollover. Actual experience with millions of vehicles tells us that
> >> in practice they are overall no safer and often more dangerous for
> >> their occupants than the cars they replace. They are always more
> >> dangerous to other vehicles. In the end, every SUV sold increases the
> >> highway fatality rate a statistical increment.
> >>
> >> > The fact
> >> >remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
> >> >of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
> >> >they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.
> >>
> >> Depends on make and model. No SUV or pickup truck has a lower driver
> >> death rate than a Camry. You can argue theory all you want, but the
> >> actual body count is the final arbiter.
> >>
> >>
> >> >That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
> >> >vehicles
> >>
> >> Actually, many charge higher rates for these vehicles and the ones
> >> that don't are using car owners to subsidize SUV rates (State Farm.)
> >> Most of your insurance is for liability for injuries to others. If
> >> you roll your SUV and break your neck, your car insurance only pays to
> >> repair the SUV.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >mike hunt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
> >> >> >more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
> >> >> >Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
> >> >> >Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
> >> >> >a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
> >> >> >ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
> >> >>
> >> >> And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
> >> >> million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
> >> >> Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
> >> >> may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
> >> >> more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
> >> >> rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
> >> >> for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
> >> >> crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
> >> >> vehicle and rollover accidents.
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
> >> >> crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
> >> >> this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
> >> >> include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
> >> >> IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
> >> >> rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >mike hunt
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
> >> >> >> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
> >> >> >> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
> >> >> >> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
> >> >> >> >of a rollover.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
> >> >> >> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Check it out here:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
> >> >> >> >>

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:28:18 GMT, gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon
McGrew) wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:57:42 GMT, BenDover@mailcity.com wrote:
>
>>I've seen the Insurance company sponsored [crash] test reports to which
>>you refer.
>
>I am not referring to crash tests. I am discussing fatality rate
>statistics compiled from the federal government's Fatality Analysis
>Reporting System (the official body count) and registration counts
>from R. L. Polk. These are not instrumented test dummies in controlled
>barrier collisions. These are real people in real cars in the real
>world. Simply put, they are the number of drivers who die behind the
>wheel of a Ford Expedition divided by the number of Ford Expeditions
>on the road.
>
>During the period that was researched, there were 1,025,666
>registered Lincoln Town Cars of the model years studied. There were
>383,758 four-door Civics registered. 79 or the Town Car divers died
>versus 18 of the Civic drivers.
>
>79 / 1.025666 million = 77 (Town Car fatality rate)
>
>18 / 0.383758 million = 47 (Civic 4dr fatality rate)

I am 100% in liege with Gordon's opinions on SUVs, but I think that
this particular comparison might not be entirely fair. The average
age of Town Car owners and drivers must be about 75, and that alone
might produce significantly skewed results. Are there any other
vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons available?

>
>If you had made the least effort to read what I wrote and/or go to the
>web site you could have saved yourself the trouble of typing this
>drivel which is totally irrelevant to my argument. If you really were
>an automotive engineer, your commitment to ignorance and poor reading
>skills could go a long way toward explaining the sorry state of
>American automotive offerings.
>
>
>
>
>> If a manufacture were to use THOSE test to verify
>>that their vehicles meet the federal crash standards, that the
>>manufactures MUST meet to be able to sell their vehicle in the
>>US, the governments NHTSA would NOT accept those test as
>>completed, if they were submitted!! That should tell you how
>>valid those test are as real science. Those test are simply
>>designed to produce a particulr result for the benifit of the
>>insurers. As a retired automotive engineer with thirty years
>>experience, many of them designing bodies to meet federal
>>standards, I will tell you a small car with a five star rating is
>>more dangerous to properly belted passengers than a larger car
>>with a four star rating and is NEVER as safe as a larger vehicle
>>with a five star rating and certainly NEVER safer.. Simply
>>because you have a love affair with the Civic, don't like SUV's,
>>and choose to believe something different will not change that
>>fact. One can not defy the laws a physics. The larger vehicle
>>built to the same standards, as are SUV's and cars, will ALWAYS
>>do better for the passengers. The fact that the engineers have a
>>longer area, within which to build in crumples zones, lengthens
>>the time/distance that the forces of the collision must be
>>absorbed by the vehicle resulting in fewer force being absorbed
>>by ones body, refereed to as the 'third collision' when ones
>>organs hits their skeleton. I've seen five properly belted
>>passenger in large cars like Town Cars, where the passenger
>>compartment had NOT been intruded, killed by the third collision
>>because of high speed. That will happen at much slower speed in
>>a smaller vehicle, period. I'm merely trying to enlighen some of
>>the misconception posted in NG's. Whether one choose to believe
>>that or not is up to the individual, I could not care less. I
>>don't have any love or need for an SUV or any truck, I drive
>>large cars. From my years of experience I know I will never buy a
>>subcompact car
>>or let my family ride in one. It is your life, your money,
>>spend it where you wish.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>mike hunt
>>
>>
>>
>>Gorton McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:34:43 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >Thanks for your support!!! Apparently you have a LOT more
>>> >free time than I.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >mike hunt
>>> >
>>>
>>> What did I post that would support anything you claim? Obviously you
>>> cannot respond to the fact that many of the Pickups and SUVs you hawk
>>> as the pinnacle of safety are more of a threat to their drivers (and
>>> presumably other passengers) than some subcompacts. You can claim
>>> they are safer all you want but when they count the bodies, an F-150
>>> is about twice as likely to kill its driver than is a 4-door Civic.
>>> Even the most dangerous small four door listed, a Kia Sephia, is no
>>> more likely to kill its driver than an F-250 Super Cab.
>>>
>>> >Apparently you have a LOT more
>>> >free time than I.
>>>
>>> Not surprised you don't have time to study that web page that refutes
>>> the BS you spew. What web page is that again, Gordon? Why it's:
>>>
>>> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:14:21 GMT, IleneDover@lycos.com wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers.
>>> >>
>>> >> Which would affect the driver fatality rate... how?
>>> >>
>>> >> For the record, the Expedition *passenger* fatality rate is 62 per
>>> >> million registration years. The 4-door Civic rate is 34. You can
>>> >> easily calculate that from this data:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm
>>> >>
>>> >> (See Mike, that is how one supports one's assertions.)
>>> >>
>>> >> > In
>>> >> >the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
>>> >> >accidents.
>>> >>
>>> >> Maybe a small percentage of accidents but they account for 23% of all
>>> >> driver fatalities.
>>> >>
>>> >> > The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
>>> >> >but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
>>> >> >SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
>>> >> >anti-SUV crowd wanted.
>>> >>
>>> >> I suspect that you are confusing unsupported assertions from paid
>>> >> lobbyists with research but it is pretty hard to tell when you don't
>>> >> provide a link to this supposed statement.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Drive what you want, need, and can
>>> >> >afford but one can not beat the laws of physics.
>>> >>
>>> >> The law of physics dictate that SUVs handle poorly and are prone to
>>> >> rollover. Actual experience with millions of vehicles tells us that
>>> >> in practice they are overall no safer and often more dangerous for
>>> >> their occupants than the cars they replace. They are always more
>>> >> dangerous to other vehicles. In the end, every SUV sold increases the
>>> >> highway fatality rate a statistical increment.
>>> >>
>>> >> > The fact
>>> >> >remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
>>> >> >of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
>>> >> >they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.
>>> >>
>>> >> Depends on make and model. No SUV or pickup truck has a lower driver
>>> >> death rate than a Camry. You can argue theory all you want, but the
>>> >> actual body count is the final arbiter.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
>>> >> >vehicles
>>> >>
>>> >> Actually, many charge higher rates for these vehicles and the ones
>>> >> that don't are using car owners to subsidize SUV rates (State Farm.)
>>> >> Most of your insurance is for liability for injuries to others. If
>>> >> you roll your SUV and break your neck, your car insurance only pays to
>>> >> repair the SUV.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >mike hunt
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
>>> >> >> >more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
>>> >> >> >Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
>>> >> >> >Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
>>> >> >> >a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
>>> >> >> >ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
>>> >> >> million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
>>> >> >> Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
>>> >> >> may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
>>> >> >> more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
>>> >> >> rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
>>> >> >> for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
>>> >> >> crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
>>> >> >> vehicle and rollover accidents.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
>>> >> >> crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
>>> >> >> this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
>>> >> >> include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
>>> >> >> IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
>>> >> >> rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >mike hunt
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
>>> >> >> >> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
>>> >> >> >> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
>>> >> >> >> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
>>> >> >> >> >of a rollover.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
>>> >> >> >> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Check it out here:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
>>> >> >> >> >>

Ron

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:25:02 GMT, Milleron
<millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:28:18 GMT, gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon
>McGrew) wrote:
>
>>79 / 1.025666 million = 77 (Town Car fatality rate)
>>
>>18 / 0.383758 million = 47 (Civic 4dr fatality rate)
>
>I am 100% in liege with Gordon's opinions on SUVs, but I think that
>this particular comparison might not be entirely fair. The average
>age of Town Car owners and drivers must be about 75, and that alone
>might produce significantly skewed results. Are there any other
>vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons available?

If you mean the same stats on other vehicles, the IIHS website has
driver fatality stats on a lot of vehicles at:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm

The point about driver influence (and the difference between Civic and
Town Car Drivers) is a good one and it is certainly a factor in the
death rates. In the case of Civic v. Town Car, the Town Car drivers
tend to be older, frailer, possibly impaired to varying degrees but
they tend to drive slower and for fewer miles. On the Civic side,
there would be a fair number of teen drivers.

There are a lot of obvious driver influences that you would expect,
but sometimes not. Check out these driver death rates:

Civic 4-dr 47
Civic 2-dr 68
Integra 4-dr 67
Integra 2-dr 76

Corolla 86
Prism 125

Camry 37
Accord 2-dr 47
Accord 4-dr 62

Kia Sephia 148

Miata 59
Mustang 138
Firebird 267
Camaro 309 (most dangerous on the list)

Explorer 2-dr/
2wd 231
Explorer 4-dr/
2wd 103
Explorer 2-dr/
4wd 76
Explorer 4-dr/
4wd 56

Blazer 4dr/2wd 195
Blazer 2dr/4wd 153
Blazer 4dr/4wd 72

Cavalier 133
Sunbird 205