Time: Why the SUV is All the Rage

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
Forget all of you. I'm tooling around in my Kenworth Pilgrimage.
My SUV is way bigger than all your little SUVs. I can drive over your puny Ford Explorer.
Did I mention my SUV is the only SUV rated in Gallons per Mile by the EPA?
Though I think I'm going to trade it in for The Grand Dominator.
The pilgrimage just isn't roomy enough or get poor enough gas mileage.

That is quality

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Damage != Safety. My car is safer than most every car on the market

Right the safest cars absorb the crash energy and thus the car is damaged but the people are safe. Cars are designed to have severe damage on the front end and absorb the impact energy. That energy is greatest at the front due to head on collisions. Generally the back is not ever hit very hard (cars are usually both going in the same direction so the energy of impact is small). Thus the back is designed to absorb less damage, so rear bumpers should be less damaged than front bumpers.

The safest vehicle in the world will be totaled after a collision and the passengers would be unscratched. They tried it the other way in the past (vehicles that are nearly unscratched but the people are killed) - it just didn't work out.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
Your "observations" are nothing but generalizations cherry picked to support your bias. Everyone *I* know who drives an SUV has regularly used the space in the back and/or the towing capacity.

Tell me, how often is the trunk of your car filled? The back seat used? If it isn't more than half the time, you're being wasteful and need to buy a smaller car.

I'd love to have good statistics, but I don't. That is why throughout my post I said they are just my observations.

I'd love to have something smaller than a Civic (but enclosed, so motorcycles don't count). When I lived in Germany I truely wanted a Smart car. I wish they had them in the US. But they don't. So I bought the smallest car available.

Why not buy a motorcycle and a rain suit? Isn't the environment, crash statistics and ambiguous soccer mom hate more important than your comfort?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Amused

Why not buy a motorcycle and a rain suit? Isn't the environment, crash statistics and ambiguous soccer mom hate more important than your comfort?

Do motorcycles handle well in rain? I wouldn't think they do.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
Why not buy a motorcycle and a rain suit? Isn't the environment, crash statistics and ambiguous soccer mom hate more important than your comfort?

I think a car is far, far safer than a motorcycle in a crash. So while the motorcycle can avoid the accident a bit better than a car, the car is so much more safe that I want the car instead. Note: this is the opposite of my car/SUV argument where the SUV is only marginally safer than the car in most accidents.

Motorcycles get what 80 mph? I'm not positive here, but that is only double what my Civic gets. But my Civic gets triple the typical SUV mileage. There are diminishing returns here. As soon as fuel cells are more developed, I'll get a 70 mpg fuel cell car. That reduces the motorcycle advantage to next to nothing.

I also need to carry two people at all times, one of which cannot hold on (plus a baby may be in the picture soon). So that means normal motorcycles are out of the picture. We could get a motorcycle with that side compartment, but there goes the extra manuverablity (and is that much more dangerous to the people inside). I also use small storage (2 or 3 bags of groceries) frequently. Thus I need a little more storage room than a motorcycle can handle. For those reasons (and comfort) a motorcycle cannot be my main transportation. Unfortunately money doesn't allow me to have a car and a motorcycle. The same isn't true with many SUVs. Often you could buy a car and a pickup for the price of one SUV. Thus you use the pickup when you need to tow something, and the car when you just need to get around town.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: muffstah

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: muffstah
I agree with the comment on wanting more legroom and the such. I purchased my wife an Expidition two years ago so we would have more room for the kid and now second kid. We had a Chevy Silverado and Nissan Sentra and they just weren't practical trying to take the family around and stuffing strollers in the little car.
We're looking for another car now that my nissan is going to retire soon and I was thinking of getting another full size SUV but with the current gas prices going so high, I might have to consider something like a 4 door accord or something.

My SAAB has more legroom than my parent's Explorer, gets 28 mpg on the highway, and is safer.

We got hit once slightly from behind and our rear bumper was fine. The car that hit us ruined their whole front end. So you tell me who had the safer car

I hope you don't design cars for a living.....

The deformation at the front of that car was to absorb the energy of the impact, protecting the ocupants. So the damage you saw was a good thing. Better than solid beams of a ladder chassis spearing your wife after a head on colision.

Get a clue.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Amused

Why not buy a motorcycle and a rain suit? Isn't the environment, crash statistics and ambiguous soccer mom hate more important than your comfort?

Do motorcycles handle well in rain? I wouldn't think they do.

Not really, but I thought the concern among the anti-SUV fanatics was for the OTHER driver.

At any rate, Dullard screwed the pooch in his last post. He, no matter how he tried to object (cause he saw the writing on the wall...er screen), has finally contradicted himself on the safety issue.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
Why not buy a motorcycle and a rain suit? Isn't the environment, crash statistics and ambiguous soccer mom hate more important than your comfort?

I think a car is far, far safer than a motorcycle in a crash. So while the motorcycle can avoid the accident a bit better than a car, the car is so much more safe that I want the car instead. Note: this is the opposite of my car/SUV argument where the SUV is only marginally safer than the car in most accidents.

Motorcycles get what 80 mph? I'm not positive here, but that is only double what my Civic gets. But my Civic gets triple the typical SUV mileage. There are diminishing returns here. As soon as fuel cells are more developed, I'll get a 70 mpg fuel cell car. That reduces the motorcycle advantage to next to nothing.

I also need to carry two people at all times, one of which cannot hold on (plus a baby may be in the picture soon). So that means normal motorcycles are out of the picture. We could get a motorcycle with that side compartment, but there goes the extra manuverablity (and is that much more dangerous to the people inside). I also use small storage (2 or 3 bags of groceries) frequently. Thus I need a little more storage room than a motorcycle can handle. For those reasons (and comfort) a motorcycle cannot be my main transportation. Unfortunately money doesn't allow me to have a car and a motorcycle. The same isn't true with many SUVs. Often you could buy a car and a pickup for the price of one SUV. Thus you use the pickup when you need to tow something, and the car when you just need to get around town.

Guess what? Your arguments are the same ones SUV owners use to justify THEIR vehicles. You know it, and have tried to explain it away with ridiculous claims of diminishing returns and marginal safety BS... but it's the same damn thing.

 

[rh71]

I'd like to say is this: ....I drive my fiance's Accord and my Isuzu Rodeo equally now that we've moved in together. I dread driving the Accord aside from it getting better gas mileage. That is the ONLY reason I'm keeping the Accord around. It's absolutely no fun.

If you want to talk accidents and roll-overs... well I don't go around with the mindset that I should drive a Volvo because it's safer. That's not the enjoy-your-life / do-what-you-want kind of thinking for me. And not to mention that I know its limits. Brakes are brakes, even in 4WD. Some SUV drivers REALLY do need to get a clue. I drove in the Buffalo snow for 4.5 years.

If you want to talk about consideration for other drivers (height/visibility/damage to other cars) ... please... do you even put the toilet seat back down for the women in your household ? I don't want to hinder my own lifestyle just to please others any more than I already do. That's my 2 cents.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: muffstah

We got hit once slightly from behind and our rear bumper was fine. The car that hit us ruined their whole front end. So you tell me who had the safer car

According to the NHTSA, my SAAB is a 5 Star car for driver and passenger front impact, while the Expedition is only 4 stars. The Chevy Silverado is even worse.

Plus, the Expedition has a 2 star rating for rollover safety (Has a risk of rollover between 30 percent and 40 percent).

 

[Ornery]

Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price.
by Daniel R. Levine

• "Forcing automakers to build vehicles to meet a drastically higher gas mileage standard would cost us more money, limit our choices and endanger our live. Just ask Tim Kauk, whose two-month-old son was left without a mother after the head-on collision of their subcompact car: "Every time you go out in a small car, you're putting your family's safety on the line. The sacrifice is not worth it."

Report says vehicle safety ratings confusing to consumers
From the Journal Sentinel

• "Many consumers likely believe a 4-star compact car protects them in a crash to a similar degree as a 4-star van or (sports) utility (vehicle), when in fact they are significantly more likely to be injured in a crash when occupying the smaller vehicle," wrote author Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group."

Status of Injury and Crashworthiness Consumer Information
TranSafety, Inc

• "Large, heavy cars generally offer more protection to their occupants, with fatalities in lighter vehicles averaging two to three times the fatalities in heavier vehicles. Because of their additional size, larger vehicles allow more "crush space" to absorb impact."

The Issue: Do real-life safety statistics warrant an insurance discount for larger vehicles?

• "State Farm Insurance, the nation's largest underwriter, will begin offering discounts to drivers of safer automobiles. Critics charge that the plan will "legitimize" larger vehicles that pose a danger to smaller cars. But the new policy actually reflects sound risk management."

When Heavy Meets Light

• "...So the statistics show. In 1996, 41,207 people died in traffic accidents, 35,579 of them within their vehicles. Crashes between LTVs and cars resulted in 5,259 fatalities. Of these, 81 percent, or 4,260 fatalities, occurred in the cars. Clearly, the passengers in the larger vehicles came out ahead. But that doesn?t make the LTVs the villains of the piece. Because it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

Safety Pointers for Car Shoppers

• "Larger, heavier vehicles generally are crashworthier than smaller, lighter ones. First, larger vehicles typically have longer crush zones, which helps protect the safety cage in one- and two-vehicle accidents. Plus, the extra weight offers additional safety in two-vehicle crashes -- as the heavier vehicle plows into the lighter one, some of its momentum is transferred to the other vehicle."

The 5 safest cars of all time

• According to the IIHS, vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crumple zones that help prevent damage to the safety cage while reducing the crash forces inside it.
  
  Vehicle weight, on the other hand, protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes, says the IIHS. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backward. This decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. So while all heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions, they may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes.

I'll keep driving the horrible gas guzzlers, and safety is the primary reason!

 

[nord1899]

And the SUV debate continues on and on and on and....

 

[radioouman]

Well, OK then. I have a five star safety rated sub compact car. So I am putting my life on the line every time I drive it?

I don't think so.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I'll keep driving the horrible gas guzzlers, and safety is the primary reason!

Not a single SUV or cruise ship was listed on the 5 safest cars of all-time.

Buick LeSabre (model year 2000)
Honda Civic (model year 2001)
Lincoln LS (model year 2001)
Volkswagen Passat (model years 2000 and 2001)
Volvo S80 (model year 2001)

 

[3L33T32003]

NAST

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Ornery
I'll keep driving the horrible gas guzzlers, and safety is the primary reason!

Not a single SUV or cruise ship was listed on the 5 safest cars of all-time.

Buick LeSabre (model year 2000)
Honda Civic (model year 2001)
Lincoln LS (model year 2001)
Volkswagen Passat (model years 2000 and 2001)
Volvo S80 (model year 2001)

Most of those would leave their occupents in worse shape in a head on with an Excursion. That's a fact. You CAN'T compare vehicles of differing weight classes. You're only trying to fool yourself, but you're in good company.

NHTSA spokesman Tim Hurd said the agency discourages consumers from drawing conclusions between safety results for cars and light trucks because the tests are geared to each vehicle's size "We make sure we tell people that in the frontal test, you can't compare the results of the big car hitting the wall with the small car hitting the wall," he said.

 

[LAUST]

People tired of getting dwarfed by trucks like mine.

When they get out of their big SUV they are still pencil necks and soccer mom's though

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: LAUST
People tired of getting dwarfed by trucks like mine.

When they get out of their big SUV they are still pencil necks and soccer mom's though

Uh....yay for you? You da man?

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: LAUST
People tired of getting dwarfed by trucks like mine.

When they get out of their big SUV they are still pencil necks and soccer mom's though

Uh....yay for you? You da man?

it's a joke, but hey not all of us are robots like you

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: LAUST
People tired of getting dwarfed by trucks like mine.

When they get out of their big SUV they are still pencil necks and soccer mom's though

Uh....yay for you? You da man?

it's a joke, but hey not all of us are robots like you

That actually makes even less sense than your "joke". You're just feeding the sentiment that people who drive huge trucks aren't too bright.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: LAUST
People tired of getting dwarfed by trucks like mine.

When they get out of their big SUV they are still pencil necks and soccer mom's though

Uh....yay for you? You da man?

it's a joke, but hey not all of us are robots like you

That actually makes even less sense than your "joke". You're just feeding the sentiment that people who drive huge trucks aren't too bright.

Not bright???

What the fusk are you talking about??? Every time I see one of LAUST's posts I could swear he's lit.

 

[911paramedic]

LOL You'll be lucky to reach 50MPH during the majority of rush hour days in Atlanta My commute to work is 25 miles and it takes an hour!

So you are running your car for at least 2 hours each day, hmmm, that's some serious pollution. Most people in bigger cities have to do the same thing though.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic

LOL You'll be lucky to reach 50MPH during the majority of rush hour days in Atlanta My commute to work is 25 miles and it takes an hour!

So you are running your car for at least 2 hours each day, hmmm, that's some serious pollution. Most people in bigger cities have to do the same thing though.

Yep....Atlanta has a lovely brown haze in the air on most summer days thanks to all our commuters. Something we didn't have 10 years ago before everyone and their cat decided to move here.

 

[nord1899]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: 911paramedic

LOL You'll be lucky to reach 50MPH during the majority of rush hour days in Atlanta My commute to work is 25 miles and it takes an hour!

So you are running your car for at least 2 hours each day, hmmm, that's some serious pollution. Most people in bigger cities have to do the same thing though.

Yep....Atlanta has a lovely brown haze in the air on most summer days thanks to all our commuters. Something we didn't have 10 years ago before everyone and their cat decided to move here.

Well then, their cat's should just use public transit shouldn't they?!

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price.
by Daniel R. Levine

• "Forcing automakers to build vehicles to meet a drastically higher gas mileage standard would cost us more money, limit our choices and endanger our live. Just ask Tim Kauk, whose two-month-old son was left without a mother after the head-on collision of their subcompact car: "Every time you go out in a small car, you're putting your family's safety on the line. The sacrifice is not worth it."

Report says vehicle safety ratings confusing to consumers
From the Journal Sentinel

• "Many consumers likely believe a 4-star compact car protects them in a crash to a similar degree as a 4-star van or (sports) utility (vehicle), when in fact they are significantly more likely to be injured in a crash when occupying the smaller vehicle," wrote author Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group."

Status of Injury and Crashworthiness Consumer Information
TranSafety, Inc

• "Large, heavy cars generally offer more protection to their occupants, with fatalities in lighter vehicles averaging two to three times the fatalities in heavier vehicles. Because of their additional size, larger vehicles allow more "crush space" to absorb impact."

The Issue: Do real-life safety statistics warrant an insurance discount for larger vehicles?

• "State Farm Insurance, the nation's largest underwriter, will begin offering discounts to drivers of safer automobiles. Critics charge that the plan will "legitimize" larger vehicles that pose a danger to smaller cars. But the new policy actually reflects sound risk management."

When Heavy Meets Light

• "...So the statistics show. In 1996, 41,207 people died in traffic accidents, 35,579 of them within their vehicles. Crashes between LTVs and cars resulted in 5,259 fatalities. Of these, 81 percent, or 4,260 fatalities, occurred in the cars. Clearly, the passengers in the larger vehicles came out ahead. But that doesn?t make the LTVs the villains of the piece. Because it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

Safety Pointers for Car Shoppers

• "Larger, heavier vehicles generally are crashworthier than smaller, lighter ones. First, larger vehicles typically have longer crush zones, which helps protect the safety cage in one- and two-vehicle accidents. Plus, the extra weight offers additional safety in two-vehicle crashes -- as the heavier vehicle plows into the lighter one, some of its momentum is transferred to the other vehicle."

The 5 safest cars of all time

• According to the IIHS, vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crumple zones that help prevent damage to the safety cage while reducing the crash forces inside it.
  
  Vehicle weight, on the other hand, protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes, says the IIHS. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backward. This decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. So while all heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions, they may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes.

I'll keep driving the horrible gas guzzlers, and safety is the primary reason!

I'll keep driving a small car, because I don't want safety that comes at the price of the safety of others. Also, my car has a 5 star safety rating.