Extinction Of The Car Giants

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 20:01
SUV's certainly look like they should be safer, but do, in fact, exhibit poor handling and rollover tendencies. The average driver has less control than in a standard vehicle unless their first instinct is to simply ram another vehicle and let the chips fall where they may.

Furthermore, according to the Colorado Highway Patrol, SUV/4-wheel drive vehicles are more likely to get into single-vehicle accidents ( by far the most common) in bad weather due to a false sense of security. Most people are clueless to the fact that while 4 wheel drive may increase your likelyhood of starting to move on ice, it will do nothing when it comes to stopping.
In fact, the extra mass and typically high center of gravity make the problem worse.


I apologize for the formatting, myfiles. I know you hate it.
Will you still respect me in the morning?

yes, you raise very good points clocker, but i think my basic assertion remains true: mortality rates for SUV drivers and passengers are below average. Maybe they do get into more accidents, but its less likely that they're going to be seriously injured. Driving an SUV may create unique opportunities for getting killed (those inside, not in other vehicles), but the ultimate statistics are: average mortality and serious injury rates, ie, below or above average.

Not to rag on you unduly, but i have been immersed in social policy research lately, and the fact is, the colorado study is just one state, and cites only single vehicle accidents, but doesn't indicate the severity of the crash. So, i suspect that these are mostly non-serious accidents, as most single vehicle crashes are. Its when 2 or more vehicles are involved that the death toll climbs (at least i assume so).

as for 2nd gen noob, I wouldn't rush to criticize the presence of humour, sarcasm or irony in my posts -- my ultimate point is entirely relevant, ie, people will go to great lengths to protect loved ones. Something can indeed be humourous and salient at the same time, even on the topic of carnage.

[clocker]

Myfiles, all of your points are valid.
Have your studies also revealed that insurance companies in the States are raising rates for SUV owners due to the greater damage they inflict and their higher cost of repair?
Given the advances in traction control,ABS braking systems, anti-roll technology, etc. I think that all of the perceived advantages of an SUV are , in fact, more practically available in a normal car.
Like a Subaru WRX, for instance.
I have taken 3 high performance driving schools and in my opinion it would be far easier to handle the Subaru in a accident-avoidence scenario than a Suburban.
In any other instance save a direct head to head confrontation ( which I should think would be statistically of low probability) I would take small and nimble over big and heavy any day.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 21:00
Myfiles, all of your points are valid.
Have your studies also revealed that insurance companies in the States are raising rates for SUV owners due to the greater damage they inflict and their higher cost of repair?
Given the advances in traction control,ABS braking systems, anti-roll technology, etc. I think that all of the perceived advantages of an SUV are , in fact, more practically available in a normal car.
Like a Subaru WRX, for instance.
I have taken 3 high performance driving schools and in my opinion it would be far easier to handle the Subaru in a accident-avoidence scenario than a Suburban.
In any other instance save a direct head to head confrontation ( which I should think would be statistically of low probability) I would take small and nimble over big and heavy any day.

to clarify, the research i'm doing has NOTHING to do with autos. just that i've been parsing study results til the cows come home. As for the climbing insurance rates and higher cost of repair, this has very little to do with safety of passengers -- we all know how easy it is to rack up thousands of dollars in repairs from a fender bender that doesn't even come close to injuring people.

Its great you take driving courses, honestly. But most people, like soccer moms, don't and they don't want to. they buy SUVs to avoid the worst-case fatal accident scenario where people they loved are killed, paralyzed, maimed, etc. And my gut feeling tells me SUV drivers are less likely to die than the average driver.

In any other instance save a direct head to head confrontation ( which I should think would be statistically of low probability) I would take small and nimble over big and heavy any day.

A. you're the kind of person that takes professional driving courses, so in terms of market demographics, you're too small to count. You're being targetted by "performance" vehicles.
B. It is precisely for this head-on scenario that people buy them.

I'm not defending SUV drivers, i commute to work on a 10 year old bicycle. I'm saying, there's method to the madness.

[2nd gen noob]

would you agree with my point that the increase in the number of suv's on the road has increased total deaths/serious accidents on roads over all, myfiles3000.

what you are saying is that people buy suv's to protect their own families, which is fine, but by buying cush a large vehicle they are adding risk towards other road users.

if everyone drove normal cars, the number of deaths would come down, it's that simple.

[clocker]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 14:36
As for the climbing insurance rates and higher cost of repair, this has very little to do with safety of passengers -- we all know how easy it is to rack up thousands of dollars in repairs from a fender bender that doesn't even come close to injuring people.

.

Point taken.
However some of the rising costs that they are having to cover also includes the multitude of court cases involving single vehicle SUV rollover and subsequent passenger death.
Not just fender benders.

We seem to have gotten way off topic here.
I'm surprised that Lamsey hasn't stepped in with his Golden Scimitar and beheaded us.

[J'Pol]

The problem with large cars is that - for the UK - there is only one driving test. You can pass in a Micra and drive a Land Cruiser Amazon home, on the Motorway at 70 MPH.

There should be different tests. Say have 3 classes of car - small, medium and large. You can drive small cars with a large car licence but not the reverse. So if someone gets a small licence and becomes good enough to drive a larger car they can take the test. If they need to they can take lessons.

There should also be a seperate test for motorway driving. Most people don't even know how to get on and off safely.

Plenty folk are happy to drive their Micra to the shops at 30 miles an hour and never learn anything else. Twice a year they go on a motorway and drive at 40. This should not be allowed.

This would make the roads safer, ensuring that people are competent to drive the vehicle, at the speeds allowed.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@20 June 2003 - 08:57


Plenty folk are happy to drive their Micra to the shops at 30 miles an hour and never learn anything else. Twice a year they go on a motorway and drive at 40. This should not be allowed.

This would make the roads safer, ensuring that people are competent to drive the vehicle, at the speeds allowed.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In the States, if you're of legal age, have a pulse and are willing to uncover your face for the photo, bingo!- you get a license. As a nation we have the worst drivers I've ever seen.
I would like to see our tests become more like the Japanese. They assume that driving is a privelege, and you must demonstrate more than minimum competence in order to qualify. A large percentage of first time applicants fail.
We also need to take into account the diminishment of ability that comes with age. In Colorado drivers licenses are renewed every ten years. After a certain age (50?) your eyesight/ reflexes, etc. worsen, and yet AARP rabidly opposes increasing the frequency of testing based on age. This results in the stereotypical "little old lady" who crawls down the interstate or mows down a busstop full of people. Political correctness ( coupled with major lobbying clout) prevents us from dealing with the obvious, i.e.- at some point you become unable to safely handle a motor vehicle.

But your idea is a start, JPaul.

[J'Pol]

They have the grey dollar, a sense of being right and time on their hands. The ideal lobbying group.

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2003 - 16:00
As a nation we have the worst drivers I've ever seen.

The worst drivers I've ever seen are those in Belgium.



Sorry for any Belgians out there, all I can say is be careful!!

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@20 June 2003 - 10:20
They have the grey dollar, a sense of being right and time on their hands. The ideal lobbying group.

They also enjoy the fact that, inevitably, all their current opponents will be in exactly their position.