It's Official: SUV owners survive crashes 50% better

[mrplunkey]

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf

Good times. Drill baby drill!

 

[hurricane]

i hope so, with the prices of gas..they better be worth something

 

[Arabian]

I still like my car better than any SUV!

 

[PICK3]

less chance of dying in a minivan!

 

[Arabian]

less chance of dying in a minivan!

Or my Yugo.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I think I'd rather get a truck before another SUV.

 

[nimbus]

SUVs are mainly safer because they are bigger than other vehicles, although to a slight extent it also because they do better in crashes w/stationary objects.

if everyone just keeps buying heavier vehicles in an endless race to exploit other drivers, drivers will be less safe overall because collisions will occur with continually increasing force, not to mention the loss of maneuverability increasing crash frequency, while the marginal benefit of stationary object collision safety diminishes.

if we all drove smaller cars, we'd be a little less safe in stationary object collisions, but a lot safer in car to car crashes because crumple zones would have less energy to absorb. we'd be safer overall.

there is a cutoff with downsizing too because at some point you aren't safe enough with common obstacles people hit like deer or barriers and it outweighs your v2v benefits.

but the right direction currently for overall driver safety is still towards downsizing imo.

as a policymaker i'd push for smaller cars, as a consumer i'd push for bigger. luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons

 

[mrplunkey]

SUVs are mainly safer because they are bigger than other vehicles, although to a slight extent it also because they do better in crashes w/stationary objects.

if everyone just keeps buying heavier vehicles in an endless race to exploit other drivers, drivers will be less safe overall because collisions will occur with continually increasing force, not to mention the loss of maneuverability increasing crash frequency, while the marginal benefit of stationary object collision safety diminishes.

if we all drove smaller cars, we'd be a little less safe in stationary object collisions, but a lot safer in car to car crashes because crumple zones would have less energy to absorb. we'd be safer overall.

there is a cutoff with downsizing too because at some point you aren't safe enough with common obstacles people hit like deer or barriers and it outweighs your v2v benefits.

but the right direction currently for overall driver safety is still towards downsizing imo.

as a policymaker i'd push for smaller cars, as a consumer i'd push for bigger. luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons

I'm ok with that. I'll stick to my range rover. I should get steel plates wellded into it.

 

[samoth]

SUVs are mainly safer because they are bigger than other vehicles, although to a slight extent it also because they do better in crashes w/stationary objects.

if everyone just keeps buying heavier vehicles in an endless race to exploit other drivers, drivers will be less safe overall because collisions will occur with continually increasing force, not to mention the loss of maneuverability increasing crash frequency, while the marginal benefit of stationary object collision safety diminishes.

if we all drove smaller cars, we'd be a little less safe in stationary object collisions, but a lot safer in car to car crashes because crumple zones would have less energy to absorb. we'd be safer overall.

there is a cutoff with downsizing too because at some point you aren't safe enough with common obstacles people hit like deer or barriers and it outweighs your v2v benefits.

but the right direction currently for overall driver safety is still towards downsizing imo.

as a policymaker i'd push for smaller cars, as a consumer i'd push for bigger. luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons

I was just going to say, "well, yeah, duh" and mock people's inability to grasp elemetary Newtonian mechanics, but this poast will suffice.

 

[PICK3]

luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons

Go Barry Go!!!

Obama and EPA Launch 34.1-MPG Fuel-Economy Rules for 2016

 

[mrplunkey]

Go Barry Go!!!

Obama and EPA Launch 34.1-MPG Fuel-Economy Rules for 2016

Cool! So richer people can pay the tax and people on tighter budgets can't.

Maybe our government can skip the middle step and just sell rich people permits to run over poorer ones. This is another example of us not doing government well.

 

[nimbus]

Go Barry Go!!!

Obama and EPA Launch 34.1-MPG Fuel-Economy Rules for 2016

the EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate fuel economy and the standards are actually CO2 emissions standards.

that said increases in vehicle fuel economy save consumers money over a vehicle's lifetime, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create jobs. yay!

 

[nimbus]

Cool! So richer people can pay the tax and people on tighter budgets can't.

Maybe our government can skip the middle step and just sell rich people permits to run over poorer ones. This is another example of us not doing government well.

what tax are you talking about?

 

[PICK3]

my carbon footprint (as well as my cawk print) are huge!

 

[mrplunkey]

the EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate fuel economy and the standards are actually CO2 emissions standards.

that said increases in vehicle fuel economy save consumers money over a vehicle's lifetime, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create jobs. yay!

So would making gas more expensive. $20/gallon sounds good to me.

 

[nimbus]

So would making gas more expensive. $20/gallon sounds good to me.

well, a gas tax decreases consumer surplus while more stringent (but not too stringent) fuel economy standards would increase it.


also i think climate change is a more significant externality than oil dependence, so i'd rather CO2 tax than a significantly increased gas tax. but neither are ever going to happen because new taxes are career suicide for a politician and almost impossible to pass

 

[PICK3]

I'll stick to my range rover.

I had you pegged as a Mercedes guy with a domestic diesel truck to pull your toys around

 

[miplank]

Wonder if his range rover spends as much time in the shop as plunk does traveling.

 

[mrplunkey]

what tax are you talking about?

Gas guzzler taxes for cars that don't meet standards.

 

[mrplunkey]

Wonder if his range rover spends as much time in the shop as plunk does traveling.

RR's are maintenance nightmares. Wifes BMW X5 is vastly better.

 

[*ebony*]

the EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate fuel economy and the standards are actually CO2 emissions standards.

that said increases in vehicle fuel economy save consumers money over a vehicle's lifetime, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create jobs. yay!

all that can be done, but as long as there is money to be made/had who fucking cares about all that. There are plenty of resources to utilize and if our efforts were focused more toward researching/utilizing sustainable energy sources, something without harmful byproduct, whose product can be recycled.

This is amazing, and its been YEARS since this was made public...

 

[Smurfy]

SUVs are mainly safer because they are bigger than other vehicles, although to a slight extent it also because they do better in crashes w/stationary objects.

if everyone just keeps buying heavier vehicles in an endless race to exploit other drivers, drivers will be less safe overall because collisions will occur with continually increasing force, not to mention the loss of maneuverability increasing crash frequency, while the marginal benefit of stationary object collision safety diminishes.

if we all drove smaller cars, we'd be a little less safe in stationary object collisions, but a lot safer in car to car crashes because crumple zones would have less energy to absorb. we'd be safer overall.

there is a cutoff with downsizing too because at some point you aren't safe enough with common obstacles people hit like deer or barriers and it outweighs your v2v benefits.

but the right direction currently for overall driver safety is still towards downsizing imo.

as a policymaker i'd push for smaller cars, as a consumer i'd push for bigger. luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons

sounds like you wrote a paper on this in college

 

[Smurfy]

i forgot that ebony is no longer black, she's GREEN

 

[PICK3]

if President Obama gets his way, they could rise to a fleet average 60-plus mpg by 2025

How Detroit Can Still Wring Higher Profits From Better Fuel Efficiency | BNET

 

[nimbus]

Gas guzzler taxes for cars that don't meet standards.

obama had nothing to do with the gas guzzler tax so i don't know why you brought that up in response to Pick3's link




as an aside, yes, you always have to worry about equity issues with taxes like that. but in the case of the gas guzzler tax, it's pretty much only high performance / high luxury cars affected - vehicles that poor people weren't going to buy anyway

 

[nimbus]

sounds like you wrote a paper on this in college

masters in transportation technology and policy, so sorta

 

[nimbus]

all that can be done, but as long as there is money to be made/had who fucking cares about all that. There are plenty of resources to utilize and if our efforts were focused more toward researching/utilizing sustainable energy sources, something without harmful byproduct, whose product can be recycled.

This is amazing, and its been YEARS since this was made public...

electrolysis requires electricity. electricity generation usually has harmful byproducts. i bring that up because there's never any easy solution that makes all our transportation fuels problems go away.

But i agree with the part about needing more sustainable energy sources. And believe me, tons of resources are being dumped into alternative fuels research and subsidies

 

[*ebony*]

sure it requires electricity, and you still end up with some unwanted byproducts, its not perfect, but if it passed safety tests, works just as efficiently....I think just by converting/replacing only a 10th of the machines in this country, still would make huge difference.

 

[*ebony*]

i forgot that ebony is no longer black, she's GREEN

hahaha,

I just think solutions to problems we create/bitch about are the easy part, but habitual creatures that we are, change is the hard part even if its painless.

 

[PICK3]

I want a Hummer

 

[cindylou]

50% better...wow. When you have kids that's huge. Is that just the driver? I didn't read it. lol

 

[PICK3]

50% better...wow. When you have kids that's huge. Is that just the driver? I didn't read it. lol

SUV's are better than they used to be (now with ESC)

still better chance of surviving in a minivan

 

[mrplunkey]

obama had nothing to do with the gas guzzler tax so i don't know why you brought that up in response to Pick3's link




as an aside, yes, you always have to worry about equity issues with taxes like that. but in the case of the gas guzzler tax, it's pretty much only high performance / high luxury cars affected - vehicles that poor people weren't going to buy anyway

Barry's DoT sets and enforces the standards.

 

[nimbus]

Barry's DoT sets and enforces the standards.

standards for gas guzzler tax haven't changed for like 20 years dude

 

[nimbus]

i think you might have gas guzzler tax and fuel economy standards mixed up a bit

 

[PICK3]

i think you might have gas guzzler tax and fuel economy standards mixed up a bit

as well as your sechual identity

 

[nimbus]

nice 1 bro

 

[mrplunkey]

i think you might have gas guzzler tax and fuel economy standards mixed up a bit

So if ford tells dot to screw themselves, and that they will produce the mpg goals they want instead of their standard, what exactly are the ramifications?

 

[mrplunkey]

as well as your sechual identity

As often as you get rear-ended, you better pay close attention to crash rankings. You prolly thought the entire report was about condoms.

 

[Mr. dB]

No matter what you drive, there's something bigger.

 

[mrplunkey]

i think you might have gas guzzler tax and fuel economy standards mixed up a bit

You are splitting hairs over the definition of a government penalty for not meeting a standard and a tax for not doing what the government wants.

Bottom line: bigger cars that don't meet government standards will still be around. Only wealthier people will have them because the government has artificially driven-up the price.

 

[nimbus]

So if ford tells dot to screw themselves, and that they will produce the mpg goals they want instead of their standard, what exactly are the ramifications?

IRS goes after them

 

[nimbus]

Bottom line: bigger cars that don't meet government standards will still be around. Only wealthier people will have them because the government has artificially driven-up the price.

that's not the case; manufacturers meet the cut off and avoid the tax for all but the most expensive and highest performance vehicles. only wealthy people were going to own those cars anyway.

 

[mrplunkey]

IRS goes after them

Answer: they get a bill from the government that must be passed on to consumers.

 

[nimbus]

i never expressed support for the guzzler tax, just think it's funny that you blame obama for it. didn't hear you complain about it while repubs were in office

 

[mrplunkey]

i never expressed support for the guzzler tax, just think it's funny that you blame obama for it. didn't hear you complain about it while repubs were in office

I'm complaining about escalating the use of fuel efficiency standards to create artificial markets for cars that consumers don't want and that are less safe. It's a retarded idea, regardless of administration.

What's new are two elements: First, we now know for a fact that bigger, SUV-style cars are safer. Second, despite this knowledge we'll still try to force consumers into less safe cars.

Consumers should be able to make their own choices, balancing fuel economy, safety, convenience, luxury, and a whole host of other factors into buying a car -- without government "help". That's not a super-radical idea.

 

[PICK3]

I'm complaining about escalating the use of fuel efficiency standards to create artificial markets for cars that consumers don't want and that are less safe. It's a retarded idea, regardless of administration.

What's new are two elements: First, we now know for a fact that bigger, SUV-style cars are safer. Second, despite this knowledge we'll still try to force consumers into less safe cars.

Consumers should be able to make their own choices, balancing fuel economy, safety, convenience, luxury, and a whole host of other factors into buying a car -- without government "help". That's not a super-radical idea.

what about easy rear entry

 

[mrplunkey]

what about easy rear entry

That should have $25,000 tax on it. Those people have a higher risk of anal tears, so this negative externality must be incorporated into the price of the car.

 

[cindylou]

SUV's are better than they used to be (now with ESC)

still better chance of surviving in a minivan

Yeah, I have this thing. I will never own a minivan. My mom drove me around in one of those!

 

[miplank]

Yeah, I have this thing. I will never own a minivan. My mom drove me around in one of those!

I hear this shit all the time and it always makes me laugh. Won't drive a minivan even though you have a family and it's the most practical way to go. Instead buy a gas guzzling SUV with inferior safety ratings to haul your precious cargo around because you think you're still too young to look like a "soccer mom" even though that is exactly what you are.



FYI- this is directed to ALL mothers that say that.

 

[cindylou]

I hear this shit all the time and it always makes me laugh. Won't drive a minivan even though you have a family and it's the most practical way to go. Instead buy a gas guzzling SUV with inferior safety ratings to haul your precious cargo around because you think you're still too young to look like a "soccer mom" even though that is exactly what you are.



FYI- this is directed to ALL mothers that say that.

lol I know this wasn't just directed at me, but I'm not a soccer mom and I won't buy a vehicle I don't like. You know people buy certain cars for a variety of reasons mixed together, each person different no reason any better than any other. I have a car. That works fine with one kid. Safety matters to me now that I have a kid but it is not the only factor in the decision. Practicality almost has never entered into my car buying decisions. lol Not that I'm buying a car any time soon, my opinion could change once I start hauling kiddos around everywhere...but as it stands right now I'll never own a minivan.

 

[miplank]

lol I know this wasn't just directed at me, but I'm not a soccer mom and I won't buy a vehicle I don't like. You know people buy certain cars for a variety of reasons mixed together, each person different, no reason any better than any other. I have a car. That works fine with one kid. Safety matters to me now that I have a kid but it is not the only factor in the decision. Not that I'm buying a car any time soon, my opinion could change once I start hauling kiddos around everywhere...but as it stands right now I'll never own a minivan.

I'd agree with you with just having one kid...I'm more talking about the mothers that have 3-4 kids and want a school bus of an SUV that beer bongs gas and has 4wd, but then in the entire time they own it it has never even been in 4wd.

Then after they own one of those and are tired of filling it up all the time they come in wanting to trade it for something that will haul 7 people and get good mileage. Oh, but they won't drive a minivan.

also, as a parent safety shouldn't be the only factor, but it should be your most important reason.

 

[Mr. dB]

I'm complaining about escalating the use of fuel efficiency standards to create artificial markets for cars that consumers don't want and that are less safe. It's a retarded idea, regardless of administration.

What's new are two elements: First, we now know for a fact that bigger, SUV-style cars are safer. Second, despite this knowledge we'll still try to force consumers into less safe cars.

Consumers should be able to make their own choices, balancing fuel economy, safety, convenience, luxury, and a whole host of other factors into buying a car -- without government "help". That's not a super-radical idea.

Seems only fitting that CAFE might help shoot down the SUV. The SUV as we know it was created by CAFE in the first place. When the CAFE standards first came into effect in the late 1980s, trucks were either exempted or had a much more lax standard. Anyway, the car makers discovered that they could take pickup trucks, turn them into giant station wagons, put nice interiors in them, and get around the CAFE fleet numbers. So they loaded up the dealers' lots with Suburbans, Tahoes, Blazers, Explorers and Expeditions, and a trend was born.

So now that SUVs have lost their unfair regulatory advantage, people like you are boo-hooing.

 

[mrplunkey]

Seems only fitting that CAFE might help shoot down the SUV. The SUV as we know it was created by CAFE in the first place. When the CAFE standards first came into effect in the late 1980s, trucks were either exempted or had a much more lax standard. Anyway, the car makers discovered that they could take pickup trucks, turn them into giant station wagons, put nice interiors in them, and get around the CAFE fleet numbers. So they loaded up the dealers' lots with Suburbans, Tahoes, Blazers, Explorers and Expeditions, and a trend was born.

So now that SUVs have lost their unfair regulatory advantage, people like you are boo-hooing.

I'm certainly not boo-hooing. I like being one of the few (or better yet, only) tanks on the road.

Who knows, I may get lucky and get your Tercel caught in the grill of my range rover one day!

 

[miplank]

I'm certainly not boo-hooing. I like being one of the few (or better yet, only) tanks on the road.

Who knows, I may get lucky and get your Tercel caught in the grill of my range rover one day!

I would hardly consider a range rover a "tank"...it's a lil bitty girly suv.

 

[Mr. dB]

The RR does have that "Sloane Ranger" stigma, on the other hand it'll go over grades and get through bogs that will take down any of the GM or Ford SUVs.

 

[miplank]

The RR does have that "Sloane Ranger" stigma, on the other hand it'll go over grades and get through bogs that will take down any of the GM or Ford SUVs.

yeah, but how many of the RR's in the US on the road to you actually believe are ever even driven off of pavement?

 

[Mr. dB]

Oh, and any report about SUVs offering improved crash safety only apply to the ones made in the past decade. Prior to about 2000 or so, trucks weren't designed with the same kind of passenger cages and crumple zones as passenger cars, and the whole firewall would collapse in quite moderate accidents, dumping dashboard and steering column right in the driver's face. No side-impact protection either. They were death traps. It's only when federal crash standards were extended to trucks that the manufacturers started to bring truck and SUV crash safety standards up to the same level of engineering that was going into passenger cars.

 

[Mr. dB]

yeah, but how many of the RR's in the US on the road to you actually believe are ever even driven off of pavement?

0.01%. SUVs are used as urban assault vehicles these days, the off-road abilities are just for bragging rights.

And in the winter these off-road abilities are just enough to get your truck somewhat farther from home than a car before it too gets stuck.

 

[mrplunkey]

0.01%. SUVs are used as urban assault vehicles these days, the off-road abilities are just for bragging rights.

And in the winter these off-road abilities are just enough to get your truck somewhat farther from home than a car before it too gets stuck.

This

 

[PICK3]

I don't care about safety ratings

I just want to look kool when I roll up to teh club



just sayin'

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't care about safety ratings

I just want to look kool when I roll up to teh club



just sayin'

I'd think you would want a car that could handle a big load.

 

[PICK3]

I'd think you would want a car that could handle a big load.

If I were a Mo of your status ...

I woodn't be rawking a RR






just sayin'

 

[miplank]

I don't care about safety ratings

I just want to look kool when I roll up to teh club



just sayin'

Does the beige malibu get the job done?

 

[PICK3]

Does the beige malibu get the job done?

yes



along with a 10" cawk

 

[cindylou]

also, as a parent safety shouldn't be the only factor, but it should be your most important reason.

you'll never guilt me into buying a minivan!

 

[nimbus]

I'm complaining about escalating the use of fuel efficiency standards to create artificial markets for cars that consumers don't want and that are less safe. It's a retarded idea, regardless of administration.

What's new are two elements: First, we now know for a fact that bigger, SUV-style cars are safer. Second, despite this knowledge we'll still try to force consumers into less safe cars.

consumers actually do want them, mfrs just aren't making them. also, the new standards are based on vehicle footprint and don't really change vehicle size. mfrs can still make SUVs, they'll just pay if the SUV is inefficient compared to other SUVs of similar size. and before you bring it up, lightweighting is not a strategy used to achieve fuel economy reduction; there are other way cheaper ways to do it still.

Consumers should be able to make their own choices, balancing fuel economy, safety, convenience, luxury, and a whole host of other factors into buying a car -- without government "help". That's not a super-radical idea.

greenhouse gas emissions and oil security issues are externalities, so no, you're wrong, they shouldn't be able to make their own choices without government "help".

 

[nimbus]

Seems only fitting that CAFE might help shoot down the SUV. The SUV as we know it was created by CAFE in the first place. When the CAFE standards first came into effect in the late 1980s, trucks were either exempted or had a much more lax standard. Anyway, the car makers discovered that they could take pickup trucks, turn them into giant station wagons, put nice interiors in them, and get around the CAFE fleet numbers. So they loaded up the dealers' lots with Suburbans, Tahoes, Blazers, Explorers and Expeditions, and a trend was born.

So now that SUVs have lost their unfair regulatory advantage, people like you are boo-hooing.

standards differentiated by class/footprint mean that CAFE pretty much isn't gonna do shit to SUVs. If anything they might get bigger so that they can jump classes and be subject to less stringent standards

 

[PICK3]

In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in 30 congressional districts in seven states revealed 84-90% in favor of legislating mandatory increases.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mrplunkey]

consumers actually do want them, mfrs just aren't making them. also, the new standards are based on vehicle footprint and don't really change vehicle size. mfrs can still make SUVs, they'll just pay if the SUV is inefficient compared to other SUVs of similar size. and before you bring it up, lightweighting is not a strategy used to achieve fuel economy reduction; there are other way cheaper ways to do it still.



greenhouse gas emissions and oil security issues are externalities, so no, you're wrong, they shouldn't be able to make their own choices without government "help".

When left alone, successful companies give customers what they want.

And since you are so keen on government managing externalities, do you like how they are "helping" us with steroid regulation, prostitution laws, recreational drugs, postal service, social security management and every other mess they've created?

Don't get me wrong -- the moment I can decide (or at least influence) the person who decides which externalities further my goals the best, I'll be all for regulating them too.

 

[nimbus]

When left alone, successful companies give customers what they want.

what customers want isn't always in the best interest of our country. also US automakers weren't that successful and def weren't giving people what they wanted

And since you are so keen on government managing externalities, do you like how they are "helping" us with steroid regulation, prostitution laws, recreational drugs, postal service, social security management and every other mess they've created?

i don't know a lot about a lot of issues =/ just from what i know which is pretty limited, im against steroid regs, against prostitution laws, torn on rec drugs, don't shit about postal service or SS. i do happen to know a lot about vehicle and energy markets though which is why i feel good about my stance on regulations

Don't get me wrong -- the moment I can decide (or at least influence) the person who decides which externalities further my goals the best, I'll be all for regulating them too.

i def know what you mean. on the whole i have an issue with excessive regulation, just not in this case

 

[mrplunkey]

what customers want isn't always in the best interest of our country. also US automakers weren't that successful and def weren't giving people what they wanted




i don't know a lot about a lot of issues =/ just from what i know which is pretty limited, im against steroid regs, against prostitution laws, torn on rec drugs, don't shit about postal service or SS. i do happen to know a lot about vehicle and energy markets though which is why i feel good about my stance on regulations




i def know what you mean. on the whole i have an issue with excessive regulation, just not in this case

Just re-read that block of quotes. You're saying that it's ok for government to know best on what size car you can drive without penalty, but they shouldn't tell you to load-up on gear? There's a huge negative externality if I've ever seen one.

That is the problem with deciding which externalities do and don't get addressed. Once you start down that slope, you can justify any type of social engineering you want. I get frustrated particularly with people who have this misguided notion that "the people" control the process (via democracy), but then act shocked when corporations and special interests subvert the process. What else could you possibly expect?

 

[miplank]

consumers actually do want them, mfrs just aren't making them. also, the new standards are based on vehicle footprint and don't really change vehicle size. mfrs can still make SUVs, they'll just pay if the SUV is inefficient compared to other SUVs of similar size. and before you bring it up, lightweighting is not a strategy used to achieve fuel economy reduction; there are other way cheaper ways to do it still.

Consumers want fuel efficient cars that look like Chevy Tahoes, Chrysler 300's, and not a Smart fortwo.

Bottom line is people bitch about filling up their big ass suv's, but at the end of the day that majority of US drivers prefer their big ass Chevy Tahoes and Ford Expeditions etc.

Kinda reminds me of this old man I was talking to a few years ago. He said, "Look at this shit, it looks like goddamn China around here with all these lil ass scooters and shit zipping around. I don't care what the price of gas is i'm still driving my big truck"

 

[mrplunkey]

Consumers want fuel efficient cars that look like Chevy Tahoes, Chrysler 300's, and not a Smart fortwo.

Bottom line is people bitch about filling up their big ass suv's, but at the end of the day that majority of US drivers prefer their big ass Chevy Tahoes and Ford Expeditions etc.

Kinda reminds me of this old man I was talking to a few years ago. He said, "Look at this shit, it looks like goddamn China around here with all these lil ass scooters and shit zipping around. I don't care what the price of gas is i'm still driving my big truck"

Aren't those just redneck peckerwoods who don't understand the intrinsic value of a federal government helping them make decisions?

Sheesh... You'd think people would be more appreciative. You're acting like those narrow-minded women folk do when a helpful social conservative has some insight into how they should treat pregnancies.

 

[nimbus]

Just re-read that block of quotes. You're saying that it's ok for government to know best on what size car you can drive without penalty, but they shouldn't tell you to load-up on gear? There's a huge negative externality if I've ever seen one.

That is the problem with deciding which externalities do and don't get addressed. Once you start down that slope, you can justify any type of social engineering you want. I get frustrated particularly with people who have this misguided notion that "the people" control the process (via democracy), but then act shocked when corporations and special interests subvert the process. What else could you possibly expect?

so to summarize/clarify/keep the issues separate:

first part:

lighter vehicles are safer for society overall. although buying a heavier vehicle increases the driver's safety, it decreases the overall safety of all drivers by even more.

fuel economy standards as currently implemented in and of themselves are good, and have a positive impact on social welfare



second part:

even though certain regulations might benefit society, perhaps governments should not have the authority to impose such regulations because when you look at all sectors, regulation to that extent may do more harm than good overall.

^^ it seems like this is where the debate is headed now. i need to think/learn about that some more

 

[mrplunkey]

so to summarize/clarify/keep the issues separate:

first part:

lighter vehicles are safer for society overall. although buying a heavier vehicle increases the driver's safety, it decreases the overall safety of all drivers by even more.

fuel economy standards as currently implemented in and of themselves are good, and have a positive impact on social welfare



second part:

even though certain regulations might benefit society, perhaps governments should not have the authority to impose such regulations because when you look at all sectors, regulation to that extent may do more harm than good overall.

^^ it seems like this is where the debate is headed now. i need to think/learn about that some more

Is there a study that proves lighter vehicles are safer for society overall? I've never seen one.

 

[nimbus]

Consumers want fuel efficient cars that look like Chevy Tahoes, Chrysler 300's, and not a Smart fortwo.

Bottom line is people bitch about filling up their big ass suv's, but at the end of the day that majority of US drivers prefer their big ass Chevy Tahoes and Ford Expeditions etc.

Kinda reminds me of this old man I was talking to a few years ago. He said, "Look at this shit, it looks like goddamn China around here with all these lil ass scooters and shit zipping around. I don't care what the price of gas is i'm still driving my big truck"

i agree, that's why i like the fact that the new standards are done by vehicle footprint. manufacturers have no incentive to make smaller vehicles, they only have an incentive to improve the efficiency of their current models

 

[nimbus]

Is there a study that proves lighter vehicles are safer for society overall? I've never seen one.

i thought f=ma was enough

 

[mrplunkey]

i thought f=ma was enough

Then let's do a little thought experiment: if we forced the entire US population to use motorcycles, would injuries and fatalities go up or down?

 

[PICK3]

Is there a study that proves lighter vehicles are safer for society overall? I've never seen one.

or at least a term paper?

 

[Mr. dB]

Then let's do a little thought experiment: if we forced the entire US population to use motorcycles, would injuries and fatalities go up or down?

Reductio ad absurdium is not a logical argument.

 

[75th]

lol @ comparing small cars to motorcycles.

 

[PICK3]

Reductio ad absurdium is not a logical argument.

lol @ comparing small cars to motorcycles.

ololololol! @ Plunkey p'wange!

 

[nimbus]

lol @ comparing small cars to motorcycles.

this

 

[nimbus]

also i'll just restate my first post in the thread since i kinda touch on that anyway


QUOTE. ORIGINALLY POSTED BY NIMBUS

SUVs are mainly safer because they are bigger than other vehicles, although to a slight extent it also because they do better in crashes w/stationary objects.

if everyone just keeps buying heavier vehicles in an endless race to exploit other drivers, drivers will be less safe overall because collisions will occur with continually increasing force, not to mention the loss of maneuverability increasing crash frequency, while the marginal benefit of stationary object collision safety diminishes.

if we all drove smaller cars, we'd be a little less safe in stationary object collisions, but a lot safer in car to car crashes because crumple zones would have less energy to absorb. we'd be safer overall.

there is a cutoff with downsizing too because at some point you aren't safe enough with common obstacles people hit like deer or barriers and it outweighs your v2v benefits.

but the right direction currently for overall driver safety is still towards downsizing imo.

as a policymaker i'd push for smaller cars, as a consumer i'd push for bigger. luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons


/QUOTE

 

[PICK3]

luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons

Apparently I don't have the good sense to avoid fast food binges

Hopefully, the govmint will enact some regulation before all of my arteries close


fuck it ... if things go awry, I'll have Obama Care to fall back on

 

[mrplunkey]

ololololol! @ Plunkey p'wange!

If they had to google "f=ma" in the first place, it doesn't really count.

 

[mrplunkey]

this

I guess we're past that whole "f=ma" thing now. That was sophomoric at best.

So let's move the tought experiment forward: What if every single American was forced to drive a two-seater smartcar?

Hint: What percentage of fatal accidents are actually caused by hitting another moving car, versus a loss of control where they hit something that is stationary?

 

[PICK3]

If they had to google "f=ma" in the first place, it doesn't really count.

agreed

elastic/inelastic collisions wood have been a more application physics concept

Elastic and Inelastic Collisions

 

[nimbus]

Apparently I don't have the good sense to avoid fast food binges

Hopefully, the govmint will enact some regulation before all of my arteries close


fuck it ... if things go awry, I'll have Obama Care to fall back on

lol nobody cares if you ruin your own life

 

[nimbus]

I guess we're past that whole "f=ma" thing now. That was sophomoric at best.

lol, sophomoric is clearly above your level of comprehension still


lighter vehicles are advantageous because the reduce the energy in vehicle to vehicle collisions, so the crumple zones are able to absorb a higher percentage of the crash energy, slow the collision, and reduce the force experienced by the vehicle occupants.

obviously if you switched to motorcycles you are completely changing the crash protection offered by the vehicle and can't make a fair comparison anymore.

 

[nimbus]

agreed

elastic/inelastic collisions wood have been a more application physics concept

Elastic and Inelastic Collisions

if you don't see why f=ma is applicable, then you don't understand why people get injured in a collision

 

[nimbus]

So let's move the tought experiment forward: What if every single American was forced to drive a two-seater smartcar?

Hint: What percentage of fatal accidents are actually caused by hitting another moving car, versus a loss of control where they hit something that is stationary?

Smart car is too drastic of a change; they have a totally different design plus they have tiny crumple zones. Moving this thought experiment forward with something else small like a honda civic, I think we'd be safer.

Hint:


2007 US Fatalities and Injuries by Type of Crash

Although motor-vehicle deaths occur more often in collisions between motor vehicles than any other type of accident, this type represents only about 40% of the total. Collisions between a motor vehicle and a fixed object were the next most common type, with about 31% of the deaths, followed by pedestrian accidents and noncollisions (rollovers, etc.).

While collisions between motor vehicles accounted for less than half of motor-vehicle fatalities, this accident type represented 73% of injuries and 68% of injury accidents and 70% of all accidents. Single-vehicle accidents involving collisions with fixed objects, pedestrians and noncollisions, on the other hand, accounted for a greater proportion of fatalities and fatal accidents compared to less serious accidents. These three accident types made up 57% of fatalities and 56% of fatal accidents, but 30% or less of injuries, injury accidents or all accidents.

Of collisions between motor vehicles, angle collisions cause the greatest number of deaths, about 8,500 in 2007, and the greatest number of nonfatal injuries as well as fatal and injury accidents.
The table below indicates the estimated number of motor vehicle deaths, injuries, fatal accidents, injury accidents, and all accidents for various types of accidents.

Excerpted from National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2009 Edition


the fixed object thing is def an advantage for heavy cars. i just dont think it outweighs the benefits of multiple vehicle crash safety. Plus if you hit a tree that isnt going to budge regardless of vehicle size, you are also better off in a lighter car as well provided comparable crumple zones exist for the light and heavy vehicle

 

[nimbus]

If they had to google "f=ma" in the first place, it doesn't really count.

i know you have a phd in ee and that's pretty impressive; i have an ee degree also, only a b.s., but it's not like you would've learned more newtonian physics than i did and there's def no reason to be a condescending shit. especially when you def know that lighter vehicles reduce crash energy, which with the presence of crumple zones reduces forces experienced by passengers and their internal organs, and that there is a strong case for that making v2v collisions more survivable overall

 

[mrplunkey]

Smart car is too drastic of a change; they have a totally different design plus they have tiny crumple zones. Moving this thought experiment forward with something else small like a honda civic, I think we'd be safer.

Gah! Our thought experiment is going terribly. F=ma didn't pan out. And now we can't even pick specific cars. I guess the absurd is now becoming the norm.

So now let's move the thought experiment forward yet another time: You clearly want to choose a small car with fairly advanced safety features such as newer crumple zones. But shouldn't we pick a comparable SUV with similar features?

2007 US Fatalities and Injuries by Type of Crash

Although motor-vehicle deaths occur more often in collisions between motor vehicles than any other type of accident, this type represents only about 40% of the total. Collisions between a motor vehicle and a fixed object were the next most common type, with about 31% of the deaths, followed by pedestrian accidents and noncollisions (rollovers, etc.).

While collisions between motor vehicles accounted for less than half of motor-vehicle fatalities, this accident type represented 73% of injuries and 68% of injury accidents and 70% of all accidents. Single-vehicle accidents involving collisions with fixed objects, pedestrians and noncollisions, on the other hand, accounted for a greater proportion of fatalities and fatal accidents compared to less serious accidents. These three accident types made up 57% of fatalities and 56% of fatal accidents, but 30% or less of injuries, injury accidents or all accidents.

Of collisions between motor vehicles, angle collisions cause the greatest number of deaths, about 8,500 in 2007, and the greatest number of nonfatal injuries as well as fatal and injury accidents.
The table below indicates the estimated number of motor vehicle deaths, injuries, fatal accidents, injury accidents, and all accidents for various types of accidents.

Excerpted from National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2009 Edition

Good facts. Facts progress the debate.

the fixed object thing is def an advantage for heavy cars. i just dont think it outweighs the benefits of multiple vehicle crash safety.

That's opinion.

Plus if you hit a tree that isnt going to budge regardless of vehicle size, you are also better off in a lighter car as well provided comparable crumple zones exist for the light and heavy vehicle

Another thought experiment!

We're going to go with your Honda Civic. Let's also assume you are hitting an immobile object (tree, embankment) at a theoretically survivable speed. Now are you trying to say you'd be safer in that Civic than if you were in a BMW 5-series?

(I chose those because your Civic is #4 on the "Small Cars" list while the BMW 5-series is #3 on the "Big Cars" list (published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2011 report).

 

[Mr. dB]

Are there any stats to say what kind of vehicle is most likely to HAVE a potentially-lethal crash?

 

[miplank]

The smart car has the tridion safety cell as opposed to large crumple zones.

 

[Mr. dB]

The smart car has the tridion safety cell as opposed to large crumple zones.

Yeah, if you look up pictures of wrecked Smart Cars, they look like they fare pretty well, at least at protecting the occupants. The little Scion box has a passenger cage that seems to hold up pretty well in crashes too.

 

[mrplunkey]

Yeah, if you look up pictures of wrecked Smart Cars, they look like they fare pretty well, at least at protecting the occupants. The little Scion box has a passenger cage that seems to hold up pretty well in crashes too.

Crash tests show small car ratings are misleading - USATODAY.com

 

[miplank]

Crash tests show small car ratings are misleading - USATODAY.com

Well, duh!


It's common knowledge, or at least it is to me that a smart car which is in the micro class that gets a "good" rating compared to say a malibu in a midsize class with a "good" rating aren't actually equally as safe.


The ratings are from class to class and only mean they're acceptable for that class size of vehicle.