So it's ok for cars to be stylish and have ground hugging bumpers but it's self centered for an SUV to have a standard truck-height bumper. (Hypocracy statement #1)
The type of collision cited was to the door. In the given case, an SUV hitting a passenger car in the door. A passenger car hitting an SUV in the door will not hit the driver of the SUV in the torso. No hypocricy there. It's spelled with an i, not an a, btw.
If it was because you go offroading frequently enough to require additional ground clearance, then you just gave up that benefit by lowering your bumpers and reducing your approach/departure angles. Or were you just going for a more "macho" look and became squeamish about scaring everybody with your big lifted vehicle and it's dangerous bumpers? (Hypocracy statement #2)
Not that it matters why I chose to raise my vehicle, I admit I chose it for looks and to allow for more fender clearance. I don't go offroading and looking back it was rather a dumb thing to do which I regret even more each time I pull into a gas station. But even in my clouded youthful vision of styling I recognized that higher bumpers would be more dangerous to anyone I would hit or would hit me and so chose to keep them at the factory levels, even at a couple hundred dollars of machine shop time making new brackets and welding them into place. I fail to see the hypocricy in taking personal responsibility at the time. And as I said in my original post "Of course you have the right to choose any vehicle you like. Drive it through a river if you want. See if you can overclock the onboard computer. That wasn't questioned." I fail to see the hypocricy here as well. You do know what the word means, right?
You yourself stated that you were trying to remain solely on topic yet you had to vent your anti SUV opinions in each post. (Hypocracy statement #3)
Your characterization of my remarks is inaccurate. I chastised both blind SUV supporters and SUV haters in my opening line and have the same view of both groups still. My comments about SUVs requiring revision is not anti SUV, it's pro better SUV. Note I didn't even call for current SUVs being revised or an even more ridiculous thing like banning them, only that future ones be made safer. As this would imply that there should be future SUVs how is this against them?
"the Arlington, Va.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety plans to warn Detroit to build better cars before the final evaluations take place". Now where in that quote does it say that SUV's need to be changed? (Hypocracy statement #4)
It doesn't and in that I did stray. Though somehow it seems obvious to me that if SUVs are hitting passenger cars in the door and "creaming the upper part of car doors - and flattening crash dummies." then a lower bumper, like the ones 12" lower in the old standards which the cars are currently passing, would be reasonable. Again, the type of collision is SUV bumper to passenger car door. Raising the bumper on a passenger car is going to do nothing to protect the occupant if it's hit in the door by any vehicle with a high bumper. This is obvious. Raising the bumper on a passenger car to the height of current SUV bumpers is going to present more danger to occupants of other passenger cars. This is obvious. Making car doors stronger would reduce and prevent injury. This is obvious. So is lowering bumper height.
I have maintained throughout this thread that making vehicles "safer" isn't the catch-all answer. We need tougher driving tests and regulations and smarter drivers for all vehicles.
Yes, you have. Thing is, I agree with you on this point, the current "driving tests" are an insult. Personally I'd like to see yearly tests, each test involving more than an hour's worth of testing under a variety of conditions to determine if a person can control their car on loose surfaces, slick surfaces, in reduced visibility and the like. Along with a doctor's physical, real eye exam and literacy test. I figure any test which doesn't flunk 80% of current drivers the first time through and 20% permanently isn't really tough enough. It's funny that to get a CDL (Commercial Driver's License, what you need to drive a semi in this country) you need to undergo a physical once in awhile and are legally required to drive no more than 8 hours in a 12 hour period, but any half blind moron who can't hold their shopping cart straight at K-Mart can take off and drive 18 hours straight while pulling a trailer to go on vacation. Be it in their Honda CRX, Ford Explorer or motorcycle. (Yes, they make trailers for motorcycles, I have one, so let's not say I'm trying to single out SUVs with the trailer comment)
But as I tried to point out, once a collision is occurring the driver doesn't matter. Accidents happen for any number of reasons, the vast majority being driver error yes. But even if everyone on the road were a better driver there would still be accidents. In this one type of accident cited the rate of injury and death could be greatly reduced by lowering the hard collision bumper of an SUV - while even maintaining a cosmetic bulge in the facia to maintain the vehicle's looks.
You mentioned the frame to bumper height relationship. As this would involve a front bumper, towing a trailer isn't at issue. Though even then many go with a frame mounted hitch instead of towing off the bumper in the first place, as my father just did with his F-150 (not a very tall pickup in the full sized class) because the factory bumper height was a few inches too high and he didn't trust it for strength. The hitch isn't in line with the bumper, but because of how it's mounts are bolted on it's at least as strong - and might do nicely if he ever gets rear ended. Getting back to front bumpers, similar brackets can be used there to maintain the strength required, up until the point at which the platform the vehicle is based on undergoes a total revision. At that point the frame itself can be shaped to drop. Frames are rarely straight rails in automobiles,
as you can see in the Chevrolet hydroformed frame.
However, for an example of a current vehicle in which the frame is straight, yet the front bumper is mounted lower, look under the hood of any Peterbilt.
PullMyFinger, I'll take you at your word that you're not one of the people who gets mad about the topic. Though your phrasing and calls of hypocrisy have given a different impression as you might well understand. I still fail to see why there's little or no willingness among SUV supporters for this one change. Approach angles were mentioned, I did some measurements and found this to be even less of a problem than I personally suspected. Bumper strength when it's off the frameline is a concern of course, but as you pointed out many vehicles don't even have frames (unibodies), I think we could agree sufficient strength could be maintained even if the bumper weren't on the frame centerline. Cases where extreme approach angles or extra heavy duty bumpers for winches are required are not the norm, nor would most current factory bumpers accommodate a winch anyway. In those cases people are already modifying their vehicle, even if they were exempted changes to unrevised vehicles could save lifes. Be they entirely innocent lives or people who 'deserve to die' as some have expressed.
I'm not anti-SUV. My family drives SUVs and my S-10 is considered one. My primary vehicle these days is a Geo Metro, but as I did the bumpers on my S-10 years before I had this you can see my opinion is a long standing one, not related to my current car. With it if a little girl on a Huffy hits me I'm the one who is going to get hurt, and I accept that responsibility as a tradeoff for what I save in gas and other costs. My own wellbeing is my right to risk for tradeoffs, not hurting others is high on my list of priorities though. Guess we're coming from different perspectives.
--Mc
well a F250 pickup and anything just isn't an option. I don't drive it for looks. I drive it for functionality, pulling power of diesel, and... well you just need a truck when you live on a farm.
Facebook
Twitter