• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SHOCKNG! SUVs dont drive like cars!

I hate these so called experts.
Here's another stupid "statistic" that makes me cringe when I read or hear it: In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.

Anytime you get hit in the side, no matter what you are hit by, you are more likely to get hurt. There's a nice big bumper, lots of space, and a crumple zone up front, but there isn't squat between you and open air on the sides. If a car hits another car in the side I can guarantee that the person who gets hit in the side is more likely to get hurt.
Let's compare an SUV hitting a car in the side vs. a car hitting another car in the side. Only then can you have a real statistic that means anything.

OK, rant over, I feel better now. 🙂



 
?We?ve laid out what we think is a duplicate of your course and, frankly, we haven?t been able to replicate the result of your test,? said Broomall. ?We can?t even get two wheels up.? The track at Chelsea differed in only one respect: The coefficient of friction was consistent. Said Broomall of the parking lot where AW tests: ?We would never test there.?
Click to expand...

Apparently Jeep never tests their vehicles in THE REAL WORLD
 
Originally posted by: PG
I hate these so called experts.
Here's another stupid "statistic" that makes me cringe when I read or hear it: In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.

Anytime you get hit in the side, no matter what you are hit by, you are more likely to get hurt. There's a nice big bumper, lots of space, and a crumple zone up front, but there isn't squat between you and open air on the sides. If a car hits another car in the side I can guarantee that the person who gets hit in the side is more likely to get hurt.
Let's compare an SUV hitting a car in the side vs. a car hitting another car in the side. Only then can you have a real statistic that means anything.

OK, rant over, I feel better now. 🙂
Click to expand...

I also don't like that these statements make it sound like the ONLY accidents are SUV vs. cars. There's a huge population of SUVs out there too, but you get the impression that a SUV vs. SUV is NOT possible.

 
i saw an A class here in austin. it was from florida.

if they didn't try to make SUVs seem superficially car-like maybe people wouldn't be tempted to drive them like cars.

ok, they're a little better going around a wet corner than a truck.
 
Here's another stupid "statistic" that makes me cringe when I read or hear it: In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.
Click to expand...
Sounds oddly reminiscent, and about as bogus, as the "A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense."
 
Originally posted by: genocide
Apparently Jeep never tests their vehicles in THE REAL WORLD
Click to expand...

Autoweek's parking lot is the real world? 😕
Click to expand...

What's more real - a flat, smooth, consistent friction covered indoor testing ground, or a parking lot with bumps, inconsistencies in the surface, and other oddities that actually mimic the real world and regular pavement people drive on every single day? There's a reason why Jeep lowered the Liberty an inch and a half from the previous years Liberty - because of the same gdamn rollovers Autoweek reported. (NFS4 originally posted a thread about that about 3 months ago)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top