Ford Explorer: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

In article <google.com>, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: 
 
 
 

These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
 

Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.

On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
 

I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.

Go figure.

On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
 

Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
 

Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
 

Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
 

The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
 

Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
 

This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
 

Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.

Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
 

....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
 

This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
 

This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
 

Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
 

Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
 

CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
 

There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.

DS

.... yawn ...

- Jeff G
67 Kaiser Jeepster Commando
50 Willys 4x4 Station Wagon
http://jeffgross.com/willys



Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
 

This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.

The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large
vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all
kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different
vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their
characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational
folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it,
are just political propaganda... plain & simple.

Rollover:
advantage: low center of gravity
REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle)
winner: lower - heavier makes it better
loser: higher - lighter makes it worse
advantage: wide wheelbase
REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length)
winner: lower - heavier makes it better
loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse

Collision:
advantage: high MASS
REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision
winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better
loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse

Spinout:
advantage: long wheelbase
REASON: increases leverage required to spin
winner: long - heavier makes it better
loser: short - lighter makes it worse

Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor
statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst.
But these are the political times we live in...

The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist
at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large
vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that?

The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you
imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the
speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's
exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and
bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency.
If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then
TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start!

And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a
large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower?
If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL!

And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is
just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a
similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS!

Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as
well.

Bob



"Dianelos Georgoudis" <com> wrote in message
news:google.com... 

You are an idiot bud.

If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
numbers below indicate.

I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are
they something like 10 fatalities?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: 

Approximately 10/17/03 08:52, Dianelos Georgoudis uttered for posterity:
 

NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep
alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check
the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a
Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work
guys.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ass

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: 

Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is
Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time.