The Physics Behind Car Crashes

Guinnessy writes "Physics Today has an article on Vehicle Design and the Physics of Traffic Safety. The article analyzes in detail typical crashes experienced between cars, and cars with SUVs'. According to Marc Ross, Deena Patel, and Tom Wenzel, "The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions. That problem is critical because so many light trucks are used nowadays as car substitutes." They suggest some ways in which both cars and SUVs' can be redesigned to improve safety. Meanwhile Detriot News reports on a Pediatrics journal study says that claims that children are no safer in SUVs than cars because of the rollover risks."

Comments

I reckon..

[DeathByDuke]

..that one of their findings was that cars dont explode upon slightly touching each other!

Re:I reckon..

[Indy Media Watch]

That only happens to American cars which will always explode in a ball of flames, but not until the hero can pull the important passengers to safety, and yell, "Watch out! She's gonna blow!"

Re:I reckon..

[Anonymous Coward]

..that one of their findings was that cars dont explode upon slightly touching each other!

Well, really that depends on whether one considers the Ford Pinto to be a 'car' or not.

Re:I reckon..

[voice_of_all_reason]

I'm still amazed at how easily I accept Grand Theft Auto physics, in that gas tanks apparently have no cover and any car turned on its underside will immediately burst into flames.

Re:I reckon..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with all the Pinto bashing lately?

Yes, there were problems but it was a really fun car with a good engine.

It's not like the Chevy Vega (wonder what that might mean in Portuguese;-).

Re:I reckon..

[genner]

Yeah, it's gotten bad. Back in the 80's they realy knew how to make a car. Sure they would flip but everyone would get out unharmed , just in time for the A-Team to chase them down.

weight& speed are the big issue here

[jacquesm]

you don't have to be Einstein to remember that e=mv^2, and that if you want to reduce the damage to you, yours and the occupants of other vehicles you keep your speed down and your vehicle weight down.

Driving fast in an SUV loaded with kids is about as unresponsible as it gets, I see it quite often though...

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[antifoidulus]

Huh? e=mc^2, where c is the speed of light, a constant. I do believe you are talking about the equation for momentum, which is mv(mass times velocity) ie increasing either mass or velocity raises you momentum linearly.....

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to drive at 100mph. If everyone drove at least 98mph then it's just a risk of a 2mph collision. The higher speed uses gas faster and reduces the vehicle weight. :P

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[my $anity 0]

e is proportional to mass and the square of the velocity, however... kinetic energy = one-half mass times velocity squared KE=1/2mv^2 This does not detract from your argument, however force (mass times acceleration) momentum (mass times velocity) and impulse (change in momentum) figure in here too.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[my $anity 0]

That only applies to crashing into someone in front of or in back of you. If you crash into someone with a car of the same mass head-on, the effective collision is 198mph. Which is going to involve flames and death. Plenty of flames and death.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[hackstraw]

I learned the old school stuff like F=ma.

Also, from the GP that says "keep your speed down and your vehicle weight down".

I would rather be in a fully loaded 18 wheeler going 100 MPH than in a Honda Prelude sitting still.

Now with the SUVs not being any safer for kids, the same is true with antilock breaks. They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[rikkards]

They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.


It is true for the people in your car probably having less injuries when yours has the largest Mass but the question remains of what is the impact when an SUV hits another SUV? Are you still as safe as hitting a car?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[i_should_be_working]

As others have pointed out, this has nothing to do with E=mc^2.

In addition, in a large vehicle the conservation of momentum is on your side. It's not the crash that kills you it's the sudden acceleration (your body going from 30 to 0 mph in a second). But if your vehicle doesn't change velocity much (because of its large mass, mass==resistance to acceleration) then you're fine. The other guy dies. That's why there don't have to be seat belts on buses (though it would still be a good idea). If a bus crashes into something, it's probably not going to stop very fast.

Large mass is not why TFA says SUV's are dangerous, it's because they tip over.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[i_should_be_working]

Whoever is in the car that undergoes the largest acceleration is worse off. Since mass is by definition the resistance to acceleration, the ones in the larger car win. If two equal mass cars collide they both undergo the same acceleration. Ignoring car vs SUV strength, if two cars have a head-on collision at 30mph, the people inside are just as well off (or just as injured) as if it were two SUVs.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Momentum is commonly represented a P=mv^2, not e.
2) Kinetic Energy is KE=(1/2)mv^2
3) Qualify your advice! In crashes against non-deformable barriers, yes keep your speed and weight down. In crashes against other cars, you want to be in the heavier car. Quite obviously having greater mass means more capacity to absorb crash energy.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[khallow]

The special relativity formulation is E=gamma*m*c^2, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), v is velocity of the object, and c is the speed of light.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Vellmont]

And you don't have to be an Einstein to know that kinetic energy isn't what kills people, it's the sudden stop that does. If I jump out of an airplane and atain terminal velocity, but deploy a parashoot I'm a lot safer than jumping out of a tree. The point is that if all that extra weight is put into engineering stronger cars that absorb the impact and slow you down more gradually then you're going to be more likely to survive a crash.

That's not to say that SUVs are safer than normal cars. The rollover risks aren't trivial. Personally I think SUVs should be banned, or at least put into some special category of business only use because of the safety risks they put on other cars. The SUV craze is literally killing more people and making driving for everyone else less safe, and this article proves it.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

the same is true with antilock breaks

Since when? Are you alluding to the misconception that a good driver can stop faster without ABS than an average driver with? With modern ABS this just isnt true anymore, even if you're a rally driver.

And ABS systems let an average driver steer their car in a heavy-braking-potential-skid situation, where the non-abs car will be skidding in an uncontrolled straight line. How many drivers are taught cadence braking these days?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[kfg]

So when that train going 100 mph hits that parked Yugo the train is in really deep shit.

e does not kill. a does. Think hard about I.

KFG

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[hackstraw]

Since when? Are you alluding to the misconception that a good driver can stop faster without ABS than an average driver with?

No, I am alluding to the fact that antilock brakes keep you from skidding which increases your likelihood of flipping your car which is much more fatal than skidding into something.

Antilock brakes are best at reducing the most common and least serious of accidents -- rear end collisions. They simply do not help in dangerous high velocity situations, in fact they are more dangerous.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[gonk]

Antilock brakes are best at reducing the most common and least serious of accidents -- rear end collisions. They simply do not help in dangerous high velocity situations, in fact they are more dangerous.

Please explain how are they more dangerous.

robert

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[FireFury03]

The point is that if all that extra weight is put into engineering stronger cars that absorb the impact and slow you down more gradually then you're going to be more likely to survive a crash.

Well, lets assume that both vehicles involved in a collision are of identical design... actually, lets make it even easier - you're crashing a car into a solid object. If you've got a 1 metre crumple-zone at the front of the car, it means that you _will_ accellerate from whatever speed you were doing to 0mph within the distance of 1 metre. It doesn't matter how heavy or strong the car is, if you're doing 30mph and you hit something solid then you're going to go from 30mph to 0mph in the space of 1 metre. The only thing you can do to improve the performance in a crash is to make sure the accelleration is constant over the length of the whole crumple-zone. I.e. if you're doing 30mph, hit something solid and 90cm later you're doing 20mph then your problem is that you have to lose that 20mph in a distance of only 10cm. Ideally the crumple-zone of a car would be made out of some kind of smart material that changed it's strength depending on the size of an impact, so a 30mph and a 60mph collision would both result in the whole crumple zone being used and the energy distributed over the whole length of it.

Now, going back to having 2 cars colliding, this is only different to hitting something solid if there is an imbalance in the equation - i.e. one of the cars is slower, lighter or weaker. So assuming you already have a perfect crumple-zone, the only way you can engineer the car to dissipate it's energy over a longer period of time (and therefore make the crash more survivable) is at the expense of the other car in the crash - e.g. make your car massively heavier than the car you're going to hit.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Octorian]

I've also noticed two major classes of SUV drivers:

1) Men who drive like jack-asses who always "must pass you" (regardless of your speed, or how fast they eventually want to be going themselves) and generally are a danger to the road. (Originally, this was most of them.)

2) Women who drive like large road obstructions and are probably a danger because they motivate everyone to want to pass them, and many people are probably careless at how they pass cars in front of them. (Today, I see plenty of these as well)

In other words, two drastically different driver styles, and you now never know what to predict from SUV drivers. In the end, it seems like SUVs have basically replaced the mini-van for many people, and the station wagon (which you could actually see around) is essentially obsolete.

At least with pick-up trucks, people generally buy them because they actually want a utilitarian vehicle. (even if they don't always use them as such)

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

This 1994 study is interesting http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluat e/808206.html

While it says that the most common accidents - rear enders - were decreased, it goes on to say "Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent. "

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[AndroidCat]

But strangely, the bus will rapidly gain mass after an accident, from all the people who said they were on the bus and want to file an injury claim. Even stranger, this mass gain happens even when the accident is simulated.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[MustardMan]

Methinks you're confusing relativity with classical kinetic energy. Not a tough mistake to make, as the original poster said e=mv^2 instead of e=0.5 mv^2.

Crashes are pretty complex - conservation of momentum could help or harm you. You collide with the side of a mountain, and no amount of high school physics is gonna make you feel any better. Or, maybe you crash into a guardrail next to a steep drop - the lighter car is stopped but the SUV blasts through, with a nice happy splat at the end of a long fall.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Alioth]

It is likely that this was not caused by the ABS itself, but an unintended consequence of ABS - people have a car with ABS, therefore feel safer, therefore drive faster or drive more recklessly because they think they can violate the laws of physics because they have ABS. I bet if a driver continues to drive carefully with an ABS equipped car they will be better off.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

Quite possibly.

But you can't ignore the fact that ABS lets you steer the vehicle in a 'panic braking' situation, and its this abilty to steer (cf skidding in a straight line) that lets people turn too hard and rollover their vehicle.

I'd have thought that the ESP systems that are becoming more commonplace would be able to reduce the problem though.

Having said all that, I still prefer my car with no driver aids.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Fahrvergnuugen]

While I agree with you, this came to mind:

Both cars & SUVs are made from steel though. Your analogy only works if the SUV cabin is proportionally strong with its increase in weight. If an SUV weighs 2x as much as a car, then the passenger cabin had better be 2x as strong.

Scenario A:
If two objects weighing 1 run into each other at 30 and they have a structural rigidity of 1

Scenario B:
Two different objects weighing 2 run into each other at 30 and have a structural rigidity of 1.5

In Scenario B, the objects (SUVs) has 100% more force and only 50% as much strength. There will be more carnage as a result of this scenario.

If everyone drove cars that weighed 2,000 pounds instead of 4,000 pounds, the roads would be a lot safer. Not only would there be less carnage in an accident, but lighter cars are more agile so there would be fewer accidents per capita.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[saider]

From the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without?
ABS is designed to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle during emergency braking situations, not make the car stop more quickly. ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads. On very soft surfaces, such as loose gravel or unpacked snow, an ABS system may actually lengthen stopping distances. In wet or slippery conditions, you should still make sure you drive carefully, always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of you, and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions."

ABS is about control, not stopping distances. It allows you to retain control of your vehicle by preventing the wheels from locking up. As such, ABS will not reduce your velocity as much as tradtitional brakes and you will therefore impact with more energy.

However, the benefits of ABS and being able to avoid the collision outweighs the costs of reduced stopping force. So for the untrained driver who simply hits the brakes and waits for impact, ABS can result in higher impact velocities. but used correctly, ABS can help you avoid a collision altogether.

So in some cases (when you cannot maneuver) it is more dangerous, in some cases it is safer.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[beff]

No, I am alluding to the fact that antilock brakes keep you from skidding which increases your likelihood of flipping your car which is much more fatal than skidding into something.

I don't follow that part. What part of skidding decreases your likelihood of flipping? It appears to me that as long as I'm not skidding, its more likely that my car is actually going forward rather than sideways and its awfully hard to flip a car that is travelling forward. But, I may be missing something.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[blank101]

You all have done well to point out the basic physics argument: for a given kinetic energy, it all has to go somewhere in an accident. Decreasing mass and velocity decrease that initial kinetic energy, so less of it has to be removed in an accident.

Kudos, you passed HS physics.

But this wasn't the whole point of the article. In fact, most of the article was about what is the best way to get rid of that kinetic energy--especially the kinetic energy in the passenger. For example, seat belts and airbags end up being (surprise, surprise) engineering tradeoffs. The slower the components decelerate the passengers, the lower the stress on the passenger--that is, until it works to slowly to prevent them from smacking into the dash. Oh, not to mention the vast variability in weight and stature (aka mass and lever arm) that a designer would have to envelop in the design.

And what about the mass of the vehicle? Various people have (as astutely as any good HS physics student should) that lower mass lowers the input energy in a crash. HOWEVER, lower mass also means less mass to absorb the input energy in an accident--that means higher stresses in materials, which means greater deformations. Again, the problem is going to be a balancing act. How does the designer reduce mass while retaining the ability to disperse energy? Pun intended, there is a break even point. Can it be improved by material selection? Maybe, but does that increase the cost of manufacturing a car--or disposing of it? These aren't easy questions with obvious answers. Any idiot could get an engineering degree if they were.

Of course, this was all the real discussion of the article.

Carl

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Vellmont]

You're over simpifying things a bit. Everything you say is true of course, but what you're missing is that cars aren't simple objects, and crashes aren't simple collisions. They crumple differently and can have more forces at one point than another. Also all collsions aren't head-on.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[timster]

Momentum is mv. Not squared.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

When you're in a front-wheel skid you can't steer, you're going to go in a straight line irrespective of steering inputs. Thats the definition of a skid. ABS is designed for one thing only - to let you steer your car under heavy breaking. Thats it.
So what happens when the panicced (sp?) driver sees a crash ahead, slams on the breaks and wrenchs the wheel to the left?

Without ABS he skids in a straight line towards the crash.
With ABS, he steers the car violently to the left and rolls it over

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Fahrvergnuugen]

I think your logic is flawed.

An increase in weight will in fact increase the friction with the road but it will also increase the forward momentum by the same amount. Think about it... what stops better, an empty tractor trailer or a loaded one?

If you take a volkswagen rabbit (very light car, 1700 lbs or so) and do a 60-0 stop test and then redo the test with 500 pounds of weights in the car, it will definitely stop faster empty.

A very light car with properly sized brakes and properly sized tires will stop faster than a heavier one. It will also corner better (take the lotus elise for example).

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[plague3106]

Thanks for quoting a study thats 12 years old.

I know my car has more than just ABS, it actually does help prevent lateral slippage as well. It can help stop itself from fishtailing, which has been very useful in the snow.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[ozydingo]

Not that i disagree with you main point at all, but I thuoght another benefit of ABS's ability to prevent skidding was to take advantage of the fact that the coefficient of static friction is generally about 2 times that of kinetic friction? (ie there is potentially more force opposing movement when the two surfaces are not moving relative to each other than when they are) Is that assumption incorrect?

Oh, and it's panicked ;-)

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[ozydingo]

Somewhere, everywhere, physics teachers are rolling in their graves.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[TigerPlish]

Lighter cars don't grip the road? How ignorant. Explain, then, the Mazda Miata, or just about any Lotus ever built? How about the old Porsche 914 and the little MGs and Triumphs? For that matter, how about a nice little crotch rocket with really sticky rubber? How come these sub-2500 pound vehicles can exceed the lateral G loadings of say a two-ton pickup?

The suspension design, its geometry, and MOST IMPORTANT, the tires determine grip. (for normal road cars. For all-out race cars, aero is another way to generate grip.. but aero grip goes away when you slow down.)

If you put 20 dollar Wal Mart tires on your car, you deserve to die horribly in a no-grip accident.

If you treasure your life, and that of those you love, then fer $DEITY's sake, put decent rubber on your car. And that' doesn't mean "all seasons". It means summer tires for when it's not snowing, and snow tires for when it is.

Mass is the enemy. Less mass makes for better driving cars. Better grip, better control, better handling. More mass, the American Way, just ruins everything. That's just one reason why EVERYONE builds better-driving cars than America does.

Of course, if you have a small weenie, then your psyche demands you get a big honking chunk of ill-handling, ill-stopping, ill-steering Detroit Heavy Metal. To compensate, y'know.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[cloudmaster]

Turning too hard is a result of going into a turn with too much speed, not ABS. Without ABS, it's just as possible that the car will spin around due to loss of traction, in my experience (driving mostly cars without ABS). For competition driving, non-ABS is great - but for general mind-numbing driving with all the other zombies (in the snow / rain), it's nice to not have to think about pumping the brakes. Dry pavement (or when riding a motorcycle), that's another thing, but how often does the extra couple of feet you can get from a *really* good driver on dry pavement really make the difference?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that, is that the driver that is now skidding with the wheels locked to the left or right will likely regain traction before coming to a stop, and all the existing momentum will then transfer extremely rapidly to the side of the vehicle that is opposite to the direction the wheel is locked, which in turn will very likely overwhelm the suspension and cause a rollover on a vehicle with a high center of mass, such as an SUV. Very similar to a high side on a motorcycle.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[justins]

In addition, in a large vehicle the conservation of momentum is on your side. It's not the crash that kills you it's the sudden acceleration (your body going from 30 to 0 mph in a second).

The mass of the vehicles involved is an interesting and significant data point but it's not the whole story. The way the shape of the vehicle changes during a collision is extremely important. The force with which you're whipped around against your various restraints and airbags is important, but none of that matters if the passenger compartment's geometry radically changes while you're sitting in it.

It is easy to see how some big vehicles are not going to be very great in this regard, as rigidity of the passenger compartment can't be a huge priority in their design. The more safety-oriented Euro manufacturers design their cars around the crew compartment but you obviously aren't going to do that with a vehicle designed primarily to haul cargo.

Large mass is not why TFA says SUV's are dangerous, it's because they tip over.

There have been some other morbidly entertaining SUV safety flaws over the last few years. I'm pretty sure one of the Honda SUVs was the first vehicle to ever cut the legs off a steel crash test dummy.

Rollover certainly isn't the only danger, although it sure ain't pretty. Chassis rigidity doesn't tend to scale as the mass of the vehicle increases. Volvo used to show off its wagons in ads with three of them stacked on top of one another. I wouldn't want to sit in a rolled-over Escalade any longer than I absolutely had to...

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[mumrah]

But isn't the point of having a hugely massive car guaranteeing that you'll win in a collision? Sad thing is, i've actually heard people say this (on radio/tv news interviews) - "I want to make sure my family is safe if we're in a wreck." Nevermind the other car.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[WormholeFiend]

I would rather be in a fully loaded 18 wheeler going 100 MPH than in a Honda Prelude sitting still

Ah, redneck logic at its best...

What do you think happens when a fully loaded 18 wheeler crashes into something at 100mph?

I can tell you. The cab (with you in it) decelerates before the full load right behind it.

Unless you meant that you would rather be at the back of the trailer of the fully loaded 18 wheeler at the moment of an impact?

My bad.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[TomTheHand]

Summer tires don't offer that much of an advantage in the summer, and they offer less grip than all-seasons when it's simply cold. It's not just a matter of snow: the compound used in all-season tires offers more grip when it's cold out and summer tires are rock-hard. Summer tires are for people who want maximum performance in the summer and are willing to make big cold-weather sacrifices for an incremental increase in warm-weather grip (or for people who live in Florida). All season tires are a safer overall choice if you can't afford three sets of tires and don't have time to change them all the time. You don't have to live in Alaska for summer tires to be a bad idea in the winter: I live in North Carolina, and all-season tires provide noticeably better grip than high performance summer tires in the winter here even when it's bone dry out.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[HarvardAce]

I wouldn't want to sit in a rolled-over Escalade any longer than I absolutely had to...

I wouldn't want to sit in any rolled-over vehicle for more than a second or two, since everyone knows that a rolled-over vehicle will spontaneously burst into flames and explode.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather be in a fully loaded 18 wheeler going 100 MPH than in a Honda Prelude sitting still.

I think that depends on if you're right by a cliff...

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[iggymanz]

so what's the downside? 200MPH collisions are totally painless and don't leave people lingering in hospital beds, and endless blabber about "It wasn't my fault". Much better than painful and tedious low speed collisions.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Martin Blank]

Now with the SUVs not being any safer for kids, the same is true with antilock breaks. They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.

I might have bought into this a decade ago, when people were still unfamiliar with how ABS worked. Early on, people would slam on the brakes, get the feedback, and pull back because it felt wrong. They were then dealing with two issues -- whatever they were trying to avoid, and an unexpected sensation from their car. This led to a number of accidents being more severe than they could have been. ABS is far more common now, and most drivers of cars with ABS know what to expect.

My first car with ABS was a 1993 Saturn SL2, and I was warned by the dealer that it was different. So I found a good-sized parking lot, would accelerate to about 20mph and then nail the brakes so I knew the feeling and wouldn't be surprised by it in an emergency. This has helped in a few occasions where I had the need to hit the brakes hard and steer, and the feedback is now in a way slightly comforting because I know that the system is working.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[boingo82]

The point is that if all that extra weight is put into engineering stronger cars that absorb the impact and slow you down more gradually..

That's not necessarily what's being done.

Many of the largest SUVs (Suburban for example) are on a longer redesign schedule than your standard passenger vehicle. Going 8 years between a full redesign means you're still getting crash technology that's nearly a decade old.

Making matters even better, is that the largest of SUVs, by virtue of their GVWR (a number that's made up by the manufacturer) are not required to meet several bare-minimum government safety standards.
The current Suburban, with a GVWR of 7000-8600 lbs, is exempt from government roof crush tests. (PDF)(As is any vehicle with a GVWR over 6000 lbs.) Unfortunately, passing them wouldn't mean much either - as the minimum only requires a vehicle with windshield intact to withstand 1.5 times its weight pressed down on the roof.
In a rollover, the windshield is usually gone by the end of the crash, and forces can easily exceed 1.5 times vehicle weight.
The current standard has been in place - and unchanged - since 1971, and many SUVs aren't required to pass even that lax standard. Many are also exempt from other minimum standards, like Steering Wheel Rear Displacement (only applies to cars with GVWR 4,000 lbs and less), and basic braking standards (applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 7,716 lbs and less).

Detroit, of course, insists the existing rules are adequate - the rules that often don't apply to their vehicles.

Even better, it's been shown that they misrepresented data from their own tests to the NHTSA.

Obviously, we all have to be more proactive in researching the safety of the vehicles we purchase - and not just go out and buy something "big" that "feels safe". Often, we may be safer in that type of vehicle, but only in multi-vehicle-non-rollover crashes - and to what expense? Raising the weight of your vehicle may reduce the risk to your family by 1/3 in some wrecks, but you've increased it threefold to the other car.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

SUVs don't kill people. Soccer moms yapping on cell phones in SUVs kill people.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Thuktun]

It also says:

In particular, it is unknown to what extent, if any, the increase is due to incorrect responses by drivers to their ABS systems, and, if so, whether the effect is likely to persist in the future.

They found correlation, not causality. It may be as likely to be that ABS is found to be more likely to be present in more expensive cars, and those that drive expensive cars are more likely to drive while under the influence of cellphones, or something like that.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[yourlord]

Let me start by saying I dislike SUV's. I drive a truck because I want something big but still useful.

That being said, If given a choice between my child dying and saving a family of 6 that I don't know, or my child being saved by the death of said family of 6, I'll save my child. It may sound harsh, but that's my kid and my children trump the rest of the planet as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not saying an SUV is safe by any stretch.

When most vehicles on the road were small cars and light trucks and the occasional SUV then the odds were in favor of the SUV that they would be the heavier vehicle involved in a crash and win the war of weight. Now that a large proportion of the vehicles on the road are SUV's you gain almost nothing as the odds are pretty good you're going to tangle with another SUV or full sized truck. The guy/gal in the Kia Rio is going to die.

The biggest danger in an SUV is the high center of gravity. Standard trucks are better in this regard as they tend to have a lower one. Cars win hands down in this area and are typically much harder to flip.

Regardless of the vehicle, flipping and landing on the roof is the biggest danger to the passengers.

And just as an aside, a friend of the family was driving an old mid 80's suburban and was t-boned by a fully loaded gas truck that was doing 45. It was the mother and every kid (all 4 kids) in the suburban, buckled in, and they all walked away with nothing more than strap bruises. replace that suburban with a neon and I'll give you 3 guesses how many would have died.

With all 4 wheels on the ground they are safer than a Corolla.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

and of course, the auto industry's solution to the rollover issue is to make SUV's wider and heavier.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[budgenator]

In the Army, they made us take special driver's training classes when the M151A2 jeeps were issued because of their high roll-over potential; it consistend mainly of slowing don't and driving smooth. Keep in mind that SUV's have two very major problems; firstly the trucks are built on an external frame which turns it into a battering ram, in a side impact and secondly the vehicles center-of-roll is much higher than its center-of-mass.

If you really want to keep damage to you and yours down, keep the shiney side up; maybe what is needed is a serials of "your brain on drugs" style PSAs ala your kids in a SUV going to soccer practice; your kid in an SUV with soccer equipment bouncing arround like a couple old shoes in the dryer durring a roll-over.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[budgenator]

The belief that you can stop a car hydroplaning on molten tire rubber fast than you can stop a car with ABS is as false as the belief that any technology can mitigate the effects of suicidal stupidity.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[boingo82]

The guy/gal in the Kia Rio is going to die.

Given Kia's abysmal safety record, that guy's probably going to die no matter what or whom he's in a wreck with.

The biggest danger in an SUV is the high center of gravity. Standard trucks are better in this regard as they tend to have a lower one. Cars win hands down in this area and are typically much harder to flip.

What's funny is that trucks still have a much higher death rate than both cars and SUVs, including rollover crashes. Whether this is because of center-of-gravity, or because fewer truck owners wear seatbelts, I'm not sure.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I think SUVs should be banned, or at least put into some special category of business only use because of the safety risks they put on other cars. The SUV craze is literally killing more people and making driving for everyone else less safe, and this article proves it.

I've been in two accidents (neither of them my fault) where if I'd been driving a car, I very probably would have been seriously injured if not killed.

The first was a truck hauling a trailer full of scrap metal that decided to swerve into my lane as I was passing. Caught me between the trailer and the retaining wall before I could even hit the breaks. In a car with "crumple zones," my mother (sitting on the passenger side) would have died and I would have been seriously injured. (We were *extremely* lucky none of the scrap came loose.) Because we were in a SUV, neither of us suffered more than a bad case of shock.

The second was a deer that decided to try playing Frogger across the highway at dusk and happened to land on my windshield. If I'd been in a car, its hooves would have very likely gone through the driver side window and killed me.

The problem is not the SUVs. The problem is all the crappy drivers. Use your goddamn turn signal, learn what you're supposed to do at a fucking four corner stop, and for the love of Evolution, getting to the next red light is NOT a race!

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[pdbogen]

What does current have to do with anything?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[budgenator]

He's impling that in a skid, the vechile becomes unresponsive to steering inputs, which in most cases will be the exact opposite of what should be done, will result in less roll-overs. Personally I don't buy it keeping the vehicle from becoming sideways is the safest for both avoiding roll-overs, and utilising the vehicle designed crash protection devices.

I did see an accident where a car flipped while traveling forward. The driver appearently fell asleep and crossed the expresway median, at about 75 MPH. When the car hit the pavement on the opposite side, it flipped at least one in pitch, and several times in the roll plane. The driver was ejected from the car and fell 15-20 ft. to the pavement along with her household goods. You probably will not believe it really happened, I wouldn't have if I didn't see it.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Oldsmobile]

ABS won't stop you from skidding sideways. Electronic brake force distribution will. Two different things.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[kfg]

It controls the ratio of the quantum flux across the ethereal matrix.

KFG

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Oldsmobile]

That is what I've always thought too. Whats up with all the BS about ABS not shortening stopping distances?

I drive in slippery weather, which is alot like driving on asphalt, only you can go slower before you slip, so it is a good place to practice.

I'd take ABS over regular brakes any day based on my experiences. However, the difference between skillful use of regular brakes and ABS is perhaps overstated.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[hackstraw]

From the same guys:

But there is definitely the other side of the coin. In June of 1995, Delmas Maxwell Johnson of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported the finding that, with passenger cars, there were actually significant increases in fatal rollover crashes in vehicles with ABS. E. Hertz, also with NHTSA, likewise noted that passenger cars with ABS were "more likely to experience fatal rollovers." Johnson, in his article, "Analysis of the Crash Experience of Vehicles Equipped with Antilock Braking Systems (ABS)", observed at the time: "...NHTSA estimates that there has been little or no net crash reduction with ABS, to date." from http://www.brennanlaw.com/lemonlaw/absjury.htm

And...

Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers. from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LTV /

same url:

In fatal crashes, SUVs are twice as likely to have rolled over than passenger cars. A rollover increases the likelihood of occupant ejection, fatality or injury.

same url:

Agency evaluations have found that vehicles with anti-lock brake systems (ABS) have a statistically significant increase in the single vehicle run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects). It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to incorrect use of the ABS system by drivers.

From http://forums.vmag.com/suvtahyuk1099/messages/7217 .html

We just rolled a 2000 Tahoe on the highway at under 55 mph. Appling brakes firmly on dry surface should seemingly not cause the vehicle to start skidding sideways leading to a roll should it?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

"Large mass is not why TFA says SUV's are dangerous, it's because they tip over."

Actually, from my scan of TFA, it's the ladder frame that trucks are built on that is dangerous. A truck's frame is basically two big metal harpoons with an engine in between and a body on top. The two large, stiff members (huh huh) of a ladder frame mosh their way right into the passenger compartment of an impacted vehicle and screw up anything they find there.

Yeah, a big heavy car/truck is going to hurt more when it hits you, but there are additional factors.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Lars T.]

• he said nothing about E=mc^2 (so he did get it wrong)
• your body going from 30 to 0 mph in a second is not going to kill you - That's barely 1.37 g. Formula 1 cars break nearly twice as hard for longer periods. Not to mention rocket starts.
• the article does say that SUVs are dangerous (to others) because they are far heavier (outside a range of 1x to 1.6x).

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[yourlord]

Trucks have the same "I'm safer" stigma as an SUV. In many states the law doesn't require drivers and passengers in trucks to wear seatbelts (at least they used to not require it) so a lot of people don't just to stick it to the man.

You also have tons of redneck hicks that jack them up 12 feet in the air with tires bigger than a 747 wheel with a rebel flag flying from the tailgate. Taking a right at 15mph could roll one over.

I hydroplaned my 4x4 dodge ram quad cab (not jacked up beyond stock) on the freeway one rainy sunday morning (about 6am, still dark) while on the way to work and slid into the woods sideways, down an embankment, at 65mph. Totaled the truck, I didn't flip, and I walked away without a scratch.

I now drive the speed limit on the freeway when dry (limit was 65 so I wasn't really speeding). I drive no faster than 55 on a wet road. I still drive a truck because of the utility. I don't really feel safe in any vehicle anymore.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Lars T.]

So as soon as SUVs have taken over, people will buy Sports Utility Tanks to be safe again.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Lars T.]

Are you even trying to make sense? The deeper I get in the comments here, the dumber the arguments get.

Come on, tell us, how would somebody flip their car and how would breaking with or without ABS make any difference?

If anything, ABS prevents losing control of the car and skidding so that it gets perpendicular with the way it is moving, and then flips over.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

But most of the people who drive these Exxon Valdezs' are the most irresponsible people who believe that they can deny laws of physics because they can deny laws of people. I live at an yuppie-vile here in California hence we have an high ratio of SUV and the accidents here are mostly SUV vs SUV. Most of the accidents are caused by not obeying simple traffic laws like not stopping at stop signs and red lights because they can deny laws of people and they try their hand at denying thelaws of physics which they all seems to fail. The local government prints out yearly statistics of various aspects of life here in our city and SUV seems to have unsually high ratio of injuries vs cars. When I drive by these accidents they vehicles seems to be pretty bashed up and roll overs are common and they also get other vehicles involved because of the size of the vehicles.
Maybe to prevent these irresponsible drivers is to have them do an real life drive test in their SUV to see if they really can handle these vehicles.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[NeutronCowboy]

ABS is about control, not stopping distances. It allows you to retain control of your vehicle by preventing the wheels from locking up. As such, ABS will not reduce your velocity as much as tradtitional brakes and you will therefore impact with more energy.

You are apparently unaware about how ABS works. When brakes lock up and wheels don't spin anymore, the ABS reduces the force transmitted to the brakes until the wheels spin again. They then clamp up again to the force specified by the driver. Rinse and repeat. As a result, the braking power applied to the brakes is within a very small margin of the theoretical maximum. Yes, you could potentially brake better than an ABS system, if you'd know exactly what the current maximum braking force is that the road and tires will support. Chances are though, you merely think that you are a better driver than anyone else out there, and ABS will actually stop you in a shorter distance than you could do yourself, regardless of the condition of the road.

In short, ABS is better than you. Use it.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[jridley]

If you put 20 dollar Wal Mart tires on your car, you deserve to die horribly in a no-grip accident.

Nobody "deserves to die" because of something they bought, or failed to buy. Particularly if they can't afford expensive tires.

Perhaps Charles Manson deserves to die. Probably Hitler deserved to die. Some guy making $12000 at McDonalds who can't afford Pirelli's on his beater doesn't "deserve to die".

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[tompaulco]

More mass, the American Way,...your psyche demands you get a big honking chunk of ill-handling, ill-stopping, ill-steering Detroit Heavy Metal. To compensate, y'know.
Latest figures from Detroit seem to indicate that people are not all that interested in heavy metal anymore. Personally, I've always been more of an import guy. But that is probably because my first two cars were Fords.
Cars that I have owned: '79 Ford Granada
'80 Ford Fairmont
'88 Toyota MR2
'90 Toyota Supra Turbo
'96 Toyota Camry
'98 Toyota Supra Turbo
'96 Lexus SC400
'00 GMC Safari (Still own)
'88 Mazda RX-7 Convertible
'88 Lotus Esprit (Still own)
'01 Lexus ES300 (Still own)

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[tompaulco]

I think it more likely that the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents in cars with ABS is more likely due to the fact that more cars now come with ABS.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Fizzog]

"I want to make sure my family is safe if we're in a wreck."

I've always figured that is why bad drivers buy Volvos.

They know they are eventually going to cause a fatal accident, and they would rather kill somebody else's family than their own.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[psylew]

But you can't ignore the fact that ABS lets you steer the vehicle in a 'panic braking' situation

Which really sucks for anyone who was taught how to brake properly in such a situation. ABS can help stop skidding if you seize up and forget how to brake or just never learned in the first place. For me the only thing it's done is jerk me around so much I lose what little control I did have in any given situation.

I'd take a car where I could directly control the stopping & skidding over a car that suddenly jerks me around so much I lose my bearings any day.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[tompaulco]

So cars with ABS have more rollovers than cars without, and SUVs are more likely to rollover than normal cars. Could it be possible that SUVs are more likely to contain ABS since they are more expensive luxury vehicles. So the problems is probably not ABS, but SUVs?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Russ Steffen]

you don't have to be Einstein to remember that e=mv^2

I'm starting to think the new-for-2007 Toyota 'Antimatter' is a bad idea.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[mfarver]

No.. as the article says, deaccleration of the vehicle itself has very little to do with the safety of the occupants. Even in the most forceful collisions the car will deaccelerate at less than 100G's. Human's regularily survive deaccelerations up to 150-200Gs when the force is spread out.

The problem is peak loads as the occupant collides with the interior of the car. The design goal is to keep the passenger in his seat, and the passenger compartment largely intact. A stiffer vehicle hitting a less stiff one causes the softer vehicle to absorb more than its share of the collision force, often exceeding the design force of the softer vehicle (that was designed to absorb only its own velocity, like when hitting the solid barrier in common crash tests).

Crash compatibility appears to be the greatest factor in crash surviability, and the hardest to measure. For example, the standard side impact test crashes a simulated front end of a Ford Tuarus into the car under test. Most vehicles do well in this test becuase the short soft Taurus tends to engage the door framing, pushing the test car away and spreading the impact force out. Try this same test with a taller stiffer vehicle impact and the passengers in the test vehicle are often killed. A famous test found that when the test vehicle was hit with a Dodge 4x4 pickup the passengers sustained much less injuries than when hit by the same model 4x2 pickup despite the 4x4's 800lbs of additional weight. It took many weeks of film analysis to figure out why... the 4x4 came with factory tow hooks mounted under the bumper. These hooks caught the top of the door frame and pushed the test car out of the way... the 4x2 version's bumper rode over the door frame and struck the dummy directly.

Mark

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[tompaulco]

Without ABS he skids in a straight line towards the crash. With ABS, he steers the car violently to the left and rolls it over
No. Physics and trigonometry will show that ABS has very little control over a wheel that is many degrees out of alignment with the direction of travel.
If ABS has any effect, it would be to give you sligtly more velocity in the intended direction when the sideways wheel does regain traction than you would have otherwise. In other words, you would have slightly LESS chance of a rollover.
I do not think vehicles with ABS are more likely to rollover. I think vehicles that rollover are more likely to have ABS.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[shotfeel]

So for the untrained driver who simply hits the brakes and waits for impact, ABS can result in higher impact velocities.

No, that's only true for the trained driver who doesn't lock up the tires. The untrained driver will lock the wheels and hit with even more velocity than the driver with ABS. Once you lock the wheels, your coefficient of friction goes out the window.

Trained Driver without ABS > Untrained driver with ABS > Untrained driver without ABS.

How's that?

Then cosider how many "trained" drivers there really are who won't push the brake pedal to the floor... We all know everyone reading here is a fantastically trained driver.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[shotfeel]

an unintended consequence of ABS - people have a car with ABS, therefore feel safer, therefore drive faster or drive more recklessly because they think they can violate the laws of physics because they have ABS.

I see you've met my wife!

I wish I was only joking. Yes, I had to explain that even with ABS, you still can't stop on icy roads like you can on dry pavement.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[shotfeel]

but how often does the extra couple of feet you can get from a *really* good driver on dry pavement really make the difference?

If I ever actually see said driver, I hope I still don't find out.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[ars]

Sorry but you are wrong. I did some tests on a snowy day. I sped up and then stopped. If I carefully pushed the brakes to not let the car skid I stopped quite nicely. On the other hand when I slammed the brakes, I went into a skid and the ABS kicked in, I slowed but not very much. I had something like 2 to 3 times the stopping distance.

In fact one time (on a different day) I nearly rear ended someone before I let up on the brakes. Figuring out the proper brake pressure is really not that hard - just ease up until you stop skidding and hold there. (BTW the car is a 98.)

ABS is all about control - it doesn't help with stopping. It lets you stear while slamming on the brakes - but if you don't panic and press lightly (no pump or anything) you can do much better.

OTOH many people do panic, so ABS is good to have in general.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's made the difference for me by allowing me to miss by 2 inches instead of crunch by 6 :-)

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[shotfeel]

And you left out a very important factor that puts today's ABS systems ahead in my book - each wheel is regulated independently. You can't do that manually -if one wheel locks, you have to back off all 4. This allows each individual tire to operate at near its maximum stopping power instead of operating near the maximun stopping power of the tire with the least traction.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[tompaulco]

There have been some other morbidly entertaining SUV safety flaws over the last few years. I'm pretty sure one of the Honda SUVs was the first vehicle to ever cut the legs off a steel crash test dummy.
Consumer reports and other safety tests have shown repeatedly that occupants of an SUV are more likely to experience bodily damage during a collision as a traditional automobile in the same conditions. Due to the fact that SUVs usually have elevated floors, the passenger compartment is about the same size as a traditional car. Front seat passengers then have the shock towers and he engine to contend with, so quite often, leg breakage is a factor where it wouldn't be in a car. My Safari is one of the most dangerous in terms of likelihood of getting a broken leg in a head-on driver or passenger front side collission. But I guess it is technically a minivan (which have the same problem)

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[wolrahnaes]

"No, I am alluding to the fact that antilock brakes keep you from skidding which increases your likelihood of flipping your car which is much more fatal than skidding into something."

They keep you from skidding FORWARD. Rollovers occur sideways. Once you're sideways, ABS is irrelevant.

I know this from personal experience, having rolled a pickup truck on the highway and put my ATV on two wheels more times than I can count.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[halltk1983]

Which leads to horrible death by car accident and evolution goes on, right?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

deaccleration of the vehicle itself has very little to do with the safety of the occupants
Bad joke. Deceleration usually IS what kills you in car crash. Of course, you can have your head cut off or steering wheel impaled into your chest, but cars are constructed for this to not happen (unlocking pedals, parts of engine sliding _under_ the driver etc.). But deceleration tears your internal organs apart.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[NeutronCowboy]

regardless of the condition of the road

Sigh. I should have known somebody would point out the one condition where I had trouble with ABS - fresh snow. At least 2 inches of it. That's the only instance I've ever seen where ABS had problems. Not sure what it is - probably the fact that traction comes and goes there, and ABS has problems properly adjusting to the change. At any other time though, you are safer with ABS. I agree you can learn properly modulating your brakes, but it is very unlikely you'll actually get better than ABS.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[wolrahnaes]

Bingo. It's not the SUVs, it's the jackasses who think they need a SUV, and then think that they actually know how to properly drive a taller, heavier vehicle.

SUVs have been around for years, much taller, heavier, and more crash prone than today's models (Compare a fullsize Blazer to an Expedition, for example) but SUV's didn't become "evil" until the last decade, when everybody and their mother decided that station wagons and minivans weren't for them.

I believe that people should be required to prove that they can handle a large vehicle at it's limits before they're allowed to drive it on public roads. Since that will never happen, I just wish that everybody would take their vehicle out to an empty parking lot and push it to the limit, so they can learn how it reacts and how to handle it. Most rollovers are caused by the idiot driver freaking out and cranking the wheel hard, which causes the vehicle to skid, and as soon as it leaves the road it digs in to the dirt and rolls. If these people knew their vehicles better, they wouldn't have done that.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Old Wolf]

However, the benefits of ABS and being able to avoid the collision outweighs the costs of reduced stopping force. So for the untrained driver who simply hits the brakes and waits for impact, ABS can result in higher impact velocities. but used correctly, ABS can help you avoid a collision altogether.

Well said. Unfortunately, if you switch "ABS" for "speeding" [*], the statement is still absolutely true, but now we have thousands of people bleating about "ignorance of physics" and "crash energies are higher", "two legs good four legs bad", etc.

AFAIC the difference between being 95% likely to die in a 60MPH crash versus 99% likely to die in a 90MPH crash, does not outweigh the benefits of being much more likely to avoid the crash in the first place. (NB - I pulled those figures out of my ass, but you get the point).

[*] By 'speeding', I mean 'driving faster than the flow of traffic', I don't include reckless drivers who take a blind bend faster than they can stop if there is a deer around the corner, etc.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Alioth]

It's also this ability to steer that allowed me to avoid hitting a sheep at high speed when one darted out of a field straight into the path of my car and froze. ABS meant me, my car, and one ewe are a lot better off today than they might have been (not that there's a shortage of sheep here, there are more sheep than people).

It's probably no coincidence (that during the increase of ABS equipped cars) that the incidence of flipping a vehicle has increased with the incidence of tall vehicles. In my low car with decent handling, if I remained on the road, I don't think I could flip it if I tried (on the other hand, leaving the road and running into divots and ditches - well then all bets are off). I'm not so sure about taller vehicles with higher centre of gravity, which have increased in popularity as ABS has become common.

One thing about "unintended consequences" that particularly rests in the mind is this. The old Austin Mini had a great safety record. No, it wasn't crashworthy at all - in fact it woudln't meet any half modern crashworthiness standard. The thing is you felt VULNERABLE in a Mini, and Mini drivers drove accordingly. That doesn't mean driving everywhere at a snail's pace, but not being reckless.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Old Wolf]

When brakes lock up and wheels don't spin anymore, the ABS reduces the force transmitted to the brakes until the wheels spin again.

Not quite. The ABS kicks in BEFORE the brakes lock up. By closely monitoring the wheel's angular velocity, they can detect when a lockup is a few milliseconds away. ABS would be totally ineffective if it waited until after a lock-up: in the wet, it can be 10 times harder, or more, for a tyre to regain traction once it is sliding, than it is for the tyre to lose traction in the first place (that's just a fact of rubber physics).

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Old Wolf]

It's not the crash that kills you it's the sudden acceleration (your body going from 30 to 0 mph in a second).

No, that's not true either. It may have been true in the 1960s when cars were rigid steel and a crash produced very high accelerations. But modern cars are designed with "crumple zones" (in fact, in most countries, new car registrations must comply with crumple regulations). So in a frontal crash, the front of your car will be totally fucked up and the engine will be pushed under the rest of the car -- firstly, absorbing a lot of the kinetic energy, and secondly, making the deceleration occur over a longer time period.

The human body can withstand 30+ G's of deceleration, if you recall that guy who offered himself as a crash test dummy..

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[WormholeFiend]

What's the Grand Theft Auto garage cheat code again?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[NeutronCowboy]

Good points that I completely missed. ABS has improved dramatically in effectiveness since its inception.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

what does "winning in a collision" even mean?
i'm honestly tyring to understand how having a heavier car will help you in a collision. the only way to be safer in a collision is to minimize the acceleration that you undergo. you do this by maximizing the time that the collision takes. that is the main factor in the forces that are applied to the colliding vehicles.

for instance, you are in a car with mass m1 going v1 and you hit a car with mass m2 going v2. if both final speeds are 0, car 1 will experience a force of

f = m * a, and a = (v final - v initial) /t

f1 = m1 * (0 - v1) / t

and car 2

f2 = m2 * (0 - v2) / t

so, the way to minimize the force that the cars experience is to maximize the time the collision takes.
and the way to maximize the time is to design the car so that the materials absorb the energy of the applied force better, not to make the cars heavier.

basically, you want the front (or whatever side of the car is hit) to absorb the energy from the collision, not the passenger compartment.
if you have a heavy car designed like a brick, you'll be screwed in a collision because the energy from the collision will find its way to the passengers.
but if you have a light car that is designed really good, you'll be safer in a collision than a heavy car.

just look at f1/indy cars/nascar. they undergo some pretty brutal collisions but are far lighter than your average suv (only like 1500 lbs for an indy car and 3,400 for nascar).
http://www.nascar.com/2005/news/headlines/official /07/14/ford_fusion/
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Racecar/de velopment.html

but the drivers survive those brutal collisions because the cars are designed well.
if you are in a nascar car and you collide head on with an 5000 lb suv at 40 mph, you'll probably suffer no injuries, while the driver in the suv will probably be hurt a little bit, even though your car weighs over a 1000 lbs less.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[tompaulco]

Never went in for the cheat codes myself. Hard work and perseverance got me my cars in GTA...and in real life too.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[dimension6]

Although, most people who have ABS probably don't know their cars have it (or know what it is, or even really think about it). I suppose the percentage that actually are actively aware of their cars' ABS would be inclined to drive more recklessly than if not, however.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[TigerPlish]

Bullshit. That attitude makes for a Nanny State. The BUYERS need to educate themselves on what makes a good tire vs. a horrible one... and it has little to do with price.

You dont need *expensive* tires. Just really good tires. You don't need to blow megabucks to get decent rubber.

Right off the top of my head I can think of 3 tires which are sub-80 dollars a piece (on 14 or 15" wheels) and are fantastic rubber.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

If you see an obstacle on the road ahead of you (stalled car, deer, garbage can, etc.), your first reaction is probably to slam the brake and swerve out of the way. In some cases, swerving out of the way (which you will be able to do with ABS) may put you off the road and roll your car down the embankment. Without ABS, the wheels just lock up and you skid into the obstacle.

Sometimes it's just safer to hit an obstacle and let your belts and airbags protect you, than risk rolling off the road.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Vellmont]

Interesting. Yet one more reason to hate the damn things.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

buses are not designed to do much more than keep out the weather. If a bus crashes into something, it will likely come apart and the occupants be thrown around the inside of the bus or right out of it.

enjoy the ride.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[sm00f]

The ABS just went out on my truck last week and man I love it, it stops sooo much better on icy corners when you can lock the tires up and actually dig into the snow/ice (I live in the woods).. Then I was playing around with it on some icy back roads doing controlled slides with it and just loved it, when I get it fixed im going to figure out how to disable the ABS somehow so the light doesnt come on :)

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[typical]

So for the untrained driver who simply hits the brakes and waits for impact, ABS can result in higher impact velocities.

I don't think that this is the case.

There are three ways to brake:

1) Jam the brake pedal down hard and hold it.

2) Pump the brakes hard, rapidly locking and unlocking them.

3) Hold down the brakes until *just* before the wheels begin to slide, but never actually lock them.

A driver lacking ABS who tries strategy 1 is going to be worse off than a driver with ABS.

A driver who tries strategy 2 on an ABS car is going to be worse off than a driver who uses strategy 2 on a non-ABS car -- however, most folks know that you aren't supposed to pump the brakes on an ABS car. Except for people trained on non-ABS who automatically use this strategy on ABS, most ABS users are going to use strategy 1 versus non-ABS people using strategy 2 -- and the ABS users are going to be better off again.

Strategy 3 is more of a theoretical argument, IMHO. You have to have experience with skidding in your vehicle, with a similar load to what you are driving with during your emergency stop, at the same speed as you are travelling during your emergency stop, on the same surface as you are travelling during your emergency stop, under the same conditions as you are travelling during your emergency stop. This doesn't seem to be really likely -- who tears up their tires practicing skidding in their car? Race car drivers...okay, maybe they get enough practice sliding in a vehicle to beat that same vehicle equipped with an automatic system.

In any event, a driver who tries strategy 3 on an ABS car should perform as well as one using strategy 3 on a non-ABS car -- he avoids sliding, so the ABS never kicks in.

I think that people that say that no-ABS beats ABS assume that the driver of the ABS vehicle is using simple, dumb strategy 1 -- just hit the brakes hard -- and trying to outbrake an experienced driver in a non-ABS vehicle who is successfully attempting strategy 3. That's hardly an apples-and-apples comparison.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[AK Marc]

The belief that you can stop a car hydroplaning on molten tire rubber fast than you can stop a car with ABS is as false as the belief that any technology can mitigate the effects of suicidal stupidity.

you seem to be asserting that the two choices are locking the brakes or ABS. If that is your stance, then you are the one stricken with terminal stupidity.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, nice Cars, some VERY nice cars, a very repectable list, it's nice to see our american cousins do have some common sense in car choices.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[jridley]

Regardless, "deserves to die" is a bit strong, don't you think? There are very few people in human history who "deserve to die".

I'm not saying that these people should be protected by the government. I'm just saying that making a poor choice in buying tires does not mean that your life is now forfeit, and the world would be better off without you.

THAT attitude leads to far worse problems than thinking that perhaps a person's life is worth more than a set of tires.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[N3Bruce]

Mass and tire grip are important, but another important factor is the ratio of sprung to unsprung weight. Sprung weight usually includes the engine, body, parts of the driveline and passengers. Unsprung weight includes the wheels, tires, brakes, and parts of the suspension below the springs. One of the reasons sports cars handle so well is that their unsprung weight is low. Cars with a lightweight independent suspension have relatively low unsprung weight compared to a 4 wheel drive pickup with solid differentials.

  When the supsension hits a dip or bump, the less mass the suspension has compared to the body, the less effect the body has on the suspension's ability to conform to the road, and the less the bumps on the road affect the stability of the body.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[budgenator]

From what I've seen in the lower 48, that's pretty much it. Normal expressway driving is a constant density wave and First snow is a disaster. Sure a few people know how to drive, but they are the expeption rather than the rule,

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[hackstraw]

Read my other post here.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Martin Blank]

Again, since this information is a decade old, from when ABS was comparatively uncommon, I suggest that the situation may have changed significantly in that time as people have grown used to it and understand it better.

I went and looked up the rollover ratings for the Tahoe, BTW. Rollover testing didn't start until 2001, but in that year, the NHTSA rollover resistance rating for the 2WD model is only two stars, and the rating for the 4WD model is three stars. Not exactly spectacular, though better than Ford seems to have done -- they apparently don't have ratings for many of their SUVs, and where they do, they tend behind at least the Tahoe.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[hackstraw]

Again, since this information is a decade old

I'm going on Newtonian physics which is hundreds of years old.

The force in a rollover situation is due to centrifugal force at the center of mass of the vehicle which is somewhere between the ground and the roof of the car. The higher the center of gravity the more likely a rollover. An opposite force is required to roll the car over, otherwise it would keep going in the same direction. The opposite force is called friction, and that friction is between the tires and the road. The more friction there, the more likely the car will flip over.

Antilock brakes, by design, increase the friction during braking between the tires and the road over brakes which lock up and then the tires begin to melt which reduces friction.

To further illustrate the friction between the tires and the road, do a thought experiment where the car or SUV is on a sheet of ice without antilock brakes. The car simply will not flip over, it will spin around in circles.

Where are the geeks that used to visit this site go? Doesn't anybody take physics anymore or remember it?

As I said, and illustrated. Antilock brakes increase your likelihood of dying in a car, and reduce the likelihood of a simple rear end collision.

Also, your argument about people being better drivers now with ABS. A rollover situation is usually a once in a lifetime situation. Almost ever driver with ABS and without simply don't know what to do in that situation because they have never been in one.

Please leave your geek badge and close the door behind you.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Martin Blank]

I am taking the physics into mind. You're the one leaving out the reactions of the driver. I also said that they were more likely to know what to expect when ABS is activated, not that they are better drivers. There's a significant difference. I consider myself an average driver who has gotten lucky on a couple of occasions when swerving to avoid accidents. In each case, I was not distracted by the ABS because I knew what it was. (Anecdotal evidence, yes, but so was yours when you mentioned your rollover.)

A driver in an emergency situation will be able to focus on only one thing at a time. If that thing is suddenly that the braking system is not functioning as expected, then steering may drop from the picture momentarily. The results of this can be a continuation of a swerve beyond what would have happened if the brakes had not distracted the driver to a point of rollover.

I don't believe I have ever stated that the study was invalid now. What I suggested was that the situation may have changed as ABS became more widely used, accepted, and understood. As I look about the internet, I see a lot of references that go back to the study which you quote. I merely question the current relevance because of changing behaviors.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[hackstraw]

You're the one leaving out the reactions of the driver.

Bullshit. Drivers are the initial cause of almost 100% of accidents. From here http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.h tm: "Moreover, some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single distracted driver."

Plus this is about "The Physics Behind Car Crashes", not about the people behind them.

Cars, in general, are safer than they used to be because of air bags, crumple zones, seat belts (and people wearing them), collapsable steering columns, reinforced roofs, etc. People simply do not die as much in cars as they used to. Other vehicles like SUVs are below the safety trend. That is why they are the car of choice for soccer moms.

Again:

"ABS keeps the front (steering) wheels of a vehicle from locking up under panic braking. This allows the driver to retain steering control. This should be a safety improvement, but only if the driver steers appropriately. Many drivers tend to oversteer in panic situations, turning the wheel farther than necessary. If the wheels are locked such oversteering is irrelevant, since a locked wheel slides sideways just as easily as forward. With ABS, however, oversteering is converted into real turning forces, so drivers who tend to oversteer may have more rollover accidents with ABS than without it."

http://www.parceng.com/newsletters/020201.html

You must be an ABS salesman, because nobody would defend at this length a device which has no safety benefits.

ABS is great at reducing rear end collisions especially when the roads are slippery like when raining and snowy. I used to slam on my brakes in the snow with ABS because it was cool. Driving more carefully (larger distance between you and the person in front of you) and slowly in wet and snowy conditions will save you and your car from damage than any ABS. Staying off of the road is your safest bet under those conditions. I have turned around and gone home in a 4x4 with ABS because the roads were snowy and icy.

To die in a rear end collision ABS will not save your life. You are already going too fast relative to the car in front. I've seen a person voluntarily drive a car into a tree at 50 mph with only a seatbelt and unbuckled the belt and walked out of the car (hightschool drivers ed class). It could have been rigged, I don't know. Insurance companies have not noticed a reduction in claims due to ABS.

My first experiment with ABS was in 1987 or 88 with a Mercedes on a wet road where the driver imitated the salesman who sold his parents the car by slamming on the brakes with his hands off of the wheel and you could feel the ABS working and you could see the steering wheel go slightly left and right as the ABS adjusted.

ABS seems like cool technology. Being a geek, I like the engineering behind them, but they don't do too much in the real world.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Alioth]

But how many people ARE taught how to properly brake? Probably only a tiny fraction of drivers. For the rest, ABS will get them stopped much quicker. There's also the question of recurrency - even if you *are* taught to brake properly, how often do you practise it so to have a level of proficiency where you'd be better off without ABS? How many drivers are taken to skid pans?

Unfortunately, politicians are too timid to actually do anything about road safety and training issues; if I were king there'd be a biennial driving review (just like pilots have a biennial flight review) where the driver must demonstrate competence, including emergency manuevers (i.e. taken to a skid pan, emergency braking checked etc.) Those who don't make the grade don't get their license renewed until they do.

Builders wagon

[Anonymous Coward]

funny how driving a builders wagon became fashionable, perhaps milk floats are next, or even a dustcart !, we can only live in hope

Re:Builders wagon

[welshie]

Boy Racers like milk floats: http://www.speedace.info/milk_float_record.htm

Re:Builders wagon

[TapeCutter]

What about bulldozers, with a modern roll cage nobody gets hurt, you can always create your own paking spot, strong enought to drag home the spoils of shopping... The benifits are endless, it could even have saved New Orleans!

I don't know about the USA but over here in Australia builder's wagons are everywhere, they have these huge chunks of armour on the front called "bull bars". The purpose of this armour is to pulverise large animals without scratching the duco. I can see the need for a bull bar in the outback but most of these morons never leave the suburbs, photographers "NEEEED" one to drive themselves to weddings!

If the bulldozer idea doesn't take off then perhaps we could secretly get parking spaces reduced by an inch or two each time they are painted. Over time it will become impractical to use anything bigger than a hatchback to get the shopping or drop the kids at school.

Re:Builders wagon

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Burns, is that you?

Re:Builders wagon

[Rob the Bold]

If the bulldozer idea doesn't take off then perhaps we could secretly get parking spaces reduced by an inch or two each time they are painted. Over time it will become impractical to use anything bigger than a hatchback to get the shopping or drop the kids at school.

I like the idea, but sadly, it won't work here. Where I live, the jackasses in the giant suvs with "W" stickers just take as many parking spaces as they need. That is, when they're not driving around yelling unintelligible epithets at bicyclists.

Re:Builders wagon

[dptalia]

Trucks and SUVs became popular thanks to the CAFE standards, which practicly made station wagons illegal. People still wanted the cargo and passenger capacity of wagons so SUVs were created. Since they qualify as light trucks, the relevant CAFE standards don't apply.

Now on an interesting note, every time the CAFE standards go up the number of highway deaths go up too.

Re:Builders wagon

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, got that shift key problem fixed now. Thanks!

- AC

Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[danamania]

I'm reminded of an accident I almost saw several years ago. It was at an intersection where the east/west road had right of way, and the north/south road had a Stop sign. I was in a friend's shop at the time, and we heard a V8 accelerating hard, then a sudden very loud *thud*.

Running outside, we saw from the accident that a 1970s V8 Statesman with a P Plate (here, drivers get P plates to tack on their car for the first few years they're driving on their own) had obviously gone through the stop sign and hit the driver's side of a Prelude driven by an elderly driver. The young guy in the statesman was taken off to hospital, but a rescue team was needed to pull the driver out of the Prelude. Later that night the news had a piece about the accident, saying that the p-plater had caused an accident that killed the elderly guy. Even witnesses at the scene said they heard the V8 go through the intersection far too fast, and hit the prelude.

Then the next night, video shot from inside a building nearby showed the accident - the P-plater had actually stopped at a pedestrian crossing, let the people walk across, then accelerated quickly & noisily... but he was actually moving along the east/west road with right of way. It was the driver in the prelude that had gone through the stop sign at high speed, and the young fellow was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and hit the driver's side of the prelude hard - both cars went spinning around in an impossible looking way, ending up in a position that looked for all the world like the young fellow had gone through the stop sign, even though in this case the only thing he'd done 'wrong' was make a big ol' noise in first gear. My "obvious" guess at who was in the wrong was completely off.

There's a massive amount of energy in a car collision, more than most people would expect given how much we take moving a tonne or two of steel from one place to another daily.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[scolbe]

There's a massive amount of energy in a car collision, more than most people would expect given how much we take moving a tonne or two of steel from one place to another daily.

well the best way to drive home just how much energy it takes to move a car is mandantary push starts(and pushing it downhill is cheating).

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

So basically what you've got here, is two incompetants that cannot drive properly. One couldn't bring the car into motion competantly, and the other was unable to obey one of the most basic rules of the road.

I see these guys that lurch their cars into motion and heave them around corners at unreasonable speeds. I've also seen feckless individuals with complete disregard for stop signs, right of way and even indicators. Both irritate me no end. Quite frankly it secretly delights me when I see these stereotypes involved in collisions with one another, because I know that after that "accident", everyone around me is now actually safer in their cars.

Of course they had lives, families, etc, etc. But look. I'm not their babysitter. They knew exactly what they were doing, took a risk that they would be involved in a crash, and got involved in a crash. My sympathy for them only extends so far.

Of course when other, completely innocent people get slammed into by one of these incompetants, I'm not so much sympathetic as I am completely enraged. Usually these guys will have the nerve to blame in on the otehr driver, for not being quick enogh to get out of the way. I would throttle them, but that woul make _me_ the bad guy.

Of course, most of these incompetants are male, and since I am male, this only adds insult to injury as my car insurance soars to levels at which I simply cannot afford to drive at all. This despite the fact that I've make considerable efforts to drive considerately and safely. I really can't help how I was born, but these guys can help the way they drive. Nevertheless, because most of these incompetants will break their bank to start dangerously driving before I do, by the time I begin to drive in earnest, their insurance will be lower than mine. thus I end up subsidising their bad habits.

I for one, sincerly hope that their are more victimless accidents like the one you describe. In fact, there should be a new law that states anyone can run a red light or a stop sign in they simply remove their side impact safety systems. I think that would work out just fine.

Yes this post is sarcastic, but bitterly so.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Gordonjcp]

I've seen pictures of a crash involving a Renault Megane, and a Hummer H2. The H2 ran through a red light and got cokebottled by the Megane. So - SUV versus small European MPV. Sounds like no contest, right?

Damn Straight.

The Megane was very severely damaged, with the driver and front passenger sustaining some injuries, mainly limited to cuts from glass and severe bruising. The passenger hit her head on a bent bit of A-pillar.

The H2 was *destroyed*. The impact knocked it on its side, and pushed the gearbox and transfer box through the floor and out through the roof. The chassis was split in two from about the middle up to the front crossmember.
I suppose I don't need to draw any pictures of what this did to the four occupants.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jacksonj04]

I'm learning to drive, and people who treat indicators as an optional extra are nothing more than life threatening. It's difficult enough for me to try keep tabs on everything I should be doing, what other people are doing, and what the road markings tell me to do without some asshole merging lanes without indicating.

As for the mostly males involved in crashes, it's the same statistical nonsense as mostly red cars are involved in crashes. It's simply because there are more males on the road to be driving dangerously. Insurance for me (18yo Male, learning to drive) is phenominal even on a low power car. Fortunately I plan to do a Pass Plus (An extra test for additional road skills) so it should drop, but your comment about subsidising the idiots still holds true even then.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Zephiria]

I guess.. That this is what happens when you have EU based Saftey regulations for car design... maybe you guys in the states shoudl strap some body onto a renalt and ship them off in place of some of the hummers ? (i joke i joke :) i know you guys in the military recive much better vehicles then the civilian versions )

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simply because there are more males on the road to be driving dangerously.

It's not simply. Nothing is ever simply because of one reason, and anyone trying to tell you there's one reason for *anything* is trying to push a political point or sell you something. Males are injured at a phenomenally high rate in cars, and in Australian statistics they are the cause of (and are involved in) around 80 to 85% of all car accidents.

Yet they only drive 54% of the miles driven. There's more to it than just more males on the road.

It's a little like the often-quoted "young people don't drive worse, it's just that there are more young drivers on the road than older drivers so we're involved in more accidents". It's an illogical excuse made up by young drivers who ignore the fact that the stats don't say "more young drivers cause road accidents" but "young drivers have a higher risk of causing road accidents"

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out some things about older cars. I hope this doesn't disrupt your glee in their injuries too much. I have a 72 Mach 1 Mustang with a 429 in it. Big ol heavy loud car. Older cars like that often don't come off the line like the modern plasticy cars. There have been times where a thin sheet of ice on the road causes me to fishtail a little starting at an intersection...by letting off the brake. No accel and I am already fishtailing a little. It generally does not take a whole lot of pressure to get cars like that to jump a little and make alot of noise, even without being considered reckless. Further the parent said the video showed him stopping at a crosswalk, which leads me even more to believe his driving is more likely to be a case of physics rather than irresponsibility. As for the elderly person, I certainly don't think they should have been on the road, but some states have never ending licenses, and others just require you to sign the dotted line to keep one. But to rant about him disobeying signs is innane and childish. He honestly probably missed it and it cost him his life. I know in unfamiliar parts of town I have missed various signs because they have been placed in odd positions or near other obstructions. I highly doubt you have NEVER missed a sign or anything else on the road EVER, so gleefully ranting about how you are glad is pathetic. Maybe your story will change when you miss something, get hit, hit some black ice and go into a tree, or some other purely accidental (gee I wonder why its called a...) accident, and lose a family member, or even your own life. Grow up.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[danamania]

That's another expression of the weirdness in car accidents. Sometimes the strongest part of what looks to be the weaker car will collide with the exact weakest part of the big car, and *bang*, You have impossible looking situations that are just the product of engineering, as much as a straight head-on collision that most of us have seen.

Another curious one was an accident where my mother went through an intersection in her 1971 Falcon, and a smaller (much newer) Nissan went through the red light to her left. The cars hit, and the damage to them was kinda expected - both cars written off, the Falcon just crumpled at the front and the Nissan station wagon being driven by a pregnant woman, with a male passenger and three kids in the back seat was ripped open from one end to the other, with the whole right side of it tossed across the intersection with people spilled out on the ground.

And nobody had anything more than minor cuts & bruising. Luck hey!

I'm sure paramedics could recount many stories like that, and the opposite too, where tiny innocuous looking accidents result in multiple deaths.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Kadin2048]

I find that hard to believe, but even if it's true, it's hardly representative of most SUV vs. passenger car crashes. It's just not. Perhaps the H2 is just poorly constructed in terms of side-impact protection or something, I can't say since I'm not familiar with it, but imagine that same collision occurring head-on. It barely matters what equipment each car has, because the H2, having much more mass, is going to decelerate much less violently. It's just not going to experience as serious a collision as the smaller car will.

There are many studies which support this (besides TFA), and I've personally seen (as an EMT) some really hideous SUV/Car collisions, and can tell you: the SUV usually wins. Sometimes there are mitigating factors, like the SUV will roll over and throw out and crush anyone that's not seat-belted, while the car will basically stay in one place, but if you have the choice between being in a Honda Civic and a GMC Suburban with similar safety equipment when they run into each other, you'd be insane not to pick the Suburban. Plus, the increased size of the car makes it likely that you'll get extricated from the vehicle a lot faster (again, assuming no rollover).

The biggest problem with SUVs, traditionally and still, is that they tend to roll over during hard panic maneuvers, or when hit from the side. Where I used to live, the biggest risk was people driving them too fast for conditions (no, your SUV does not mean you can drive on ice) and laying them over -- generally nonfatal though. But in a straightforward front-end or rear-end collision, there's something to be said for surrounding yourself with several thousand extra pounds of steel. Granted, you get that advantage at the expense of the person in the smaller car, and you have to be more careful taking it around a corner, but it's there nonetheless.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Tim Browse]

I would throttle them, but that would make _me_ the bad guy.

Ha. That made this pop into my head:

"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election. And yet, if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you."

Mr Burns, of course :-)

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Harg- I remember turning 25 and having my auto ins. drop a bunch. There was a recent study that showed the majority of people who drive while on the cell phone are women, so I am sure someday this will be reflected in the actuarial tables.
On a somewhat related note, i never understood how gay people who want to get married, but can't here in the US (most states) haven't sued the insurance companies. Married men pay a lower rate than unmarried men, but gays don't have this opportunity. Seems like a great way for some lawyer to make money...

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[the_bard17]

The biggest problem with SUVs, traditionally and still, is that they tend to roll over

Not from my point of view... their problem is this: the SUV usually wins. From my meager time in life, I've seen plenty of reckless drivers. Not all of them were teenagers... I've seen my share of reckless soccer moms, businessmen, and delivery drivers. Quite a few of these drive heavier vehicles. I suppose it makes them feel safer, being in a heavier vehicle (which they probably are).

They continue their reckless driving habits, however, now becoming that much more of a threat to the general populace driving smaller cars. They may be more likely to survive, but they're decreasing the chance of survival for everybody else.

Until everybody "wises up", goes out and buys an heavier vehicle... at which point we're right back at square one, with worse gas mileage.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Octorian]

I wish "failing to signal" was treated more seriously as a road offense, or at least noticed more often. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone lane-shift without signalling, I'd be rich.

Around here (central Florida), I've observed the following common road habits:
1) Turn signals are optional, and often not used when lane-shifting. When they are used, half the time its some nimwit tourist on I-4 who forgot to turn off the signal when originally getting onto the highway.
2) When a light first turns from Yellow to Red, 2 more cars are allowed through. (at least there's enough of a delay before on-coming traffic starts, that I havn't seen a side-smash personally)

Of course a few months ago I was rear-ended (totalling my car, which was probably due for replacement anyways) while in a LEFT TURN LANE sitting at a FULL STOP. Thankfully I was just *about* to turn, and thus the on-coming lanes were clear, and I thus wasn't side-smashed after the rear-ending.

I think the most important thing to remember is that while you should follow the rules, you can never expect anyone else to. So always be on the look-out, and start to figure out common behaviors of other drivers where you live so you can predict them better.

Of course speed limits are another interesting thing... (which you should follow *officially* and while taking driving tests, but are governed by different rules in reality)
It seems like a speed limit is determined by the following process:
1) Do a traffic study of the road, and figure out what speed everyone should be driving.
2) Subtract 5-10 MPH from that number
3) Post signs
As such, everyone always drives 5-10MPH over the limit (seems like I see 10MPH much more often for *good* drivers, and even more for reckless ones), and you don't realize it is "speeding".

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[barzok]

A Hummer H2 has no relation to the military Hummer, except name and styling cues. The Hummer H2 is just a glorified Chevy Tahoe SUV on a 3/4 ton chassis. The H1 "Alpha" is based on the actual military Hummer and while not as robust as a military-spec model, it's still a serious piece of hardware.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[arivanov]

Meganne safety rating is off the scale. The occupant safety level is so good that they are having to redesign the tests because of it. At 35 mph collision of any type (front, side flat, back and side pillar) there is no damage to the occupants. At all. The test result is all green with a possible minor spot of yellow (which corresponds to a bruise). Just look at the EUROncap safety tests http://www.euroncap.com/. Same for every Renault made in the last 3 years.

At the same time the Hummer is not even on the list. In fact if it was, it would have pulled a 2-2.5 star rating at best. Same as a suicidal box like Fiat Ceicento. I have seen a crashed Hummer so this unscientific opinion is based on seeing what happens when it smashes. If you are driving this POS you have a death wish.

Essentially even being in a something microscopic by American standards (like Modus http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=201) is safer then being in a Hummer.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jacekm]

Why Chevy Tahoe is not a "serious" piece of hardware ? BTW, H2 is based of the 1/2 ton Tahoe. There is no 3/4 ton Tahoe. There is 3/4 Suburban only. JM

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I suppose that since they aren't legally married the insurance companies have no legal obligation to recognize their relationship. It would hardly be fair for the insurance company to be forced to recognize a relationship that the government (in most states) doesn't.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[AndroidCat]

The H2 "Hummer" is just a big ugly fuel-sucking SUV to cash in on the name. Here's a site by someone who really doesn't like them.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Zog The Undeniable]

The insurance companies aren't screwing you (or at least, no more than anyone else). They use actuarial tables which show the average younger driver, or any driver with no clean driving history, is several times more likely to have an accident.

Now I was never a particularly aggressive driver (and the only accident I ever caused was when I reversed into a concrete pillar) but I can safely say that in 19 years of driving I leave a lot more space in front and anticipate other drivers' bad behaviour better than I used to. Hell, when I was 25 in a little 988cc car I used to drive a section of country lane in about half the time that I would risk it now - in a car with 2.5x the power. It's all about testosterone and perceived invincibility.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

You really seem to be a very angry individual. It worries me a little that you react like this when someone tells you that being happy that people get injured or die in an accident. There are plenty of accidents that aren't caused by blatant irresponsibility, and you are certainly making broad blanket statements about accidents that do happen. Parts fail and people die too, and ironically you mention bad engineering like it was a problem with my car. I don't remember seeing any history about recalls on my car due to cheap parts, bad design, defective safety items, yet it happens on plenty newer cars that arent "outdated".
I fail to see how I am idolizing my "outdated rig that should have been decommissioned". There are alot of people that like classic cars for various reasons, and this is hardly my daily driver. There are plenty of new and old cars that are fine, and plenty of new and old cars that most certainly are not road worthy. The car lurching has nothing to do with defects, large heavy vehicles tend to do these sorts of things given they often have larger engines to get them moving. You also quote my post and then put "ridiculously placed" like I was the one that said it (You know, because city designers cut down every bush and tree that might obscure signs, and replace old corner stop lights with modern over the street ones with lightning speed when they find them, and they NEVER change a stop sign, to a yield sign, and then back to a stop sign, and then ending once again at a yield sign in the period of 6 months.) You continue to rant about my driving, and my car like you know anything about the car or me. Grow up please. I am saying people make mistakes and sometimes bad things do happen out of anyones control. I mention missing a sign and suddently you go on a tyraid about how I hotrod through town, jumping off the line, bitching about how I dont have my own road. Then you go on to say you have missed signs, but somehow that doesn't make you the same idiot hotrodder you are telling me I obviously must be. Incidentally the car stops just fine, when it does have mechanical problems it comes off the road until the required repairs are done, just like any other responsible person with any other vehicle.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[CaptainFork]

There's a massive amount of energy in a car collision, more than most people would expect given how much we take moving a tonne or two of steel from one place to another daily.

Well, I reakon there's about 100-200kJ when town driving, going up to 500-1000kJ on the freeway (or motorway as we call them in the UK). 1000kJ will power a 100 watt light bulb for about 3 hours.

What is really impressive is the power levels. If you can accelerate to 1000kJ in 10 seconds you're averaging 100kW of mechanical output power from your engine. And if it takes 50ms for your vehicle to decelerate when you then hit a huge block of granite, your vehicle's kinetic energy is being converted to other forms of energy at a rate of 20 megawatts, enough to power a village (for 50ms). If you forgot to wear your seatbelt, the dashboard may absorb the kinetic energy in your body (about 50-100kJ) in 5ms, which is once again 10-20 megawatts. Your body wasn't designed to transfer mechanical energy at this rate so...

...belt up!!!

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[DarkSarin]

I'll agree with you on many points, but there is one glaring mistake that cannot be left alone:
Lurching heedlessly through professionally placed signs
This is blatantly false. Often times stop signs are placed just over rises (at the end of a down-hill slope), or in the bushes, or in some other location that makes them difficult to see. In the first case (over-the-rise), there should be a "stop ahead" sign, but these are often missing, never placed or obscured (again, bushes and trees).

These types of situations are inevitable because the DMV doesn't have the funds to properly maintain street signs in most cities and towns, let alone on lonely country roads.

Professionally placed? Perhaps, but generally the signs are merely placed.

Traffic lights are no better--most are now oriented vertically (good), with red on top, but in some cities, the lights are oriented horizontally (BAD IDEA), with varying conventions regarding left or right placement of the red-light. Sun glare on east or west-facing lights can completely obscure the ability to see the current state of a light, thus creating a serious road hazard (and many drivers are foolish enough to continue to drive straight through--a fact you can never be sure of when approaching the light). Some cities use lines and hang their lights (causing problems when the wind picks up), while others use poles. Poles can vary from center hanging to side hanging. Center-hanging poles place the light where most individuals expect to see the light, but side-hanging poles place to light off the main area of attention, thus making the light much more difficult to see--especially for drivers unused to such placement.

Saying that lights and signs are always optimally placed (which seems to be the implication in your "professionally placed" statement) is deceiving. I will agree that most people (myself included) need to be more careful in how they drive, but sometimes (especially at night) the fault lies more with the city planners and road workers.

Personally, I think that everyone needs to be aware of both problems--that of sign placement and other drivers. Occasionally there are constraints placed on drivers that are simply impossible to comply with if you don't have prior knowledge of the situation. The first time you approach some signs and lights, you have no way to know that there is going to be a problem. This won't be a problem the next time, but this time it is.

Sorry, just my little rant. No one drives perfectly--it isn't possible.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your sane reply. This exactly is what I was getting at. I mentioned the Mach 1 because I personally know how alot of older cars tend to drive. Knowing how your vehicle handles and adjusting appropriately is the drivers responsibility. This does not mean all *type of car* is bad or all drivers of *type of car* are morons, idiots, or "incompetants".

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[skaffen42]

Too true... unfortunately it seems that SUV drivers believe the hype that they are invincible. I'm "trail-rated" so I can go anywhere at any speed!

I saw the result of this last Saturday when there was some freezing rain early in the morning. Driving down Route 80 I counted 14 accidents in the space of about 20 miles. The majority of the vehicles involved were SUVs, and when a car was involved it was usually because an idiot in an SUV had rear-ended them. Worst accident was some large SUV that looked liked it had rolled end-over-end. Couldn't have been more squashed if it had been hit by a train.

The combination of vehicle weight and perceived driver invincibility seems to make SUVs deathtraps in anything other than perfect driving conditions. Ironic, when you think about it.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Lars T.]

Suddenly the sales of Renault Meganes go up in Iraq...

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[killjoe]

"Quite a few of these drive heavier vehicles. I suppose it makes them feel safer, being in a heavier vehicle (which they probably are)."

They probably are safer in their huge SUV. Too bad they are not thinking about the people they will murder though. If they were driving a lighter car which would more effectively crumple and absorb impact the people in the other could maybe survive.

I guess it re-inforces the stereotype of the SUV driver as the guy who doesn't give a shit about anybody else except themselves. Don't care about the environment, don't care about foreign oil dependency, don't care about the survival of the other guys in the crash.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[kabocox]

The H2 was *destroyed*. The impact knocked it on its side, and pushed the gearbox and transfer box through the floor and out through the roof. The chassis was split in two from about the middle up to the front crossmember.
I suppose I don't need to draw any pictures of what this did to the four occupants.

Um, yes you do. Most vechiles are designed to come apart in a manner that leaves the folks on the inside alive. You didn't mention speed differences though. I don't care if you are in a tank if some one is traveling in motorcycle fast enough it could destroy the tank. Not enough info in your story. If it was an impact under 30 mph, I'd be very surprised that much damage was done to the Hummer.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[OdieWan]

Has there been any serious consideration of how the design of the vehicle effects your likeliness to be in a crash? It seems to me that SUV's, by blocking the ability of anyone around them to see in traffic (especially since they always seem to have the darkest of the dark tinted windows), might concievably cause accidents just by being on the road, regardless of how they are driven. (The same argument could be used for some small cars with horrible blind spots; anyone ever driven a Paseo, so I'm somewhat unfairly picking on SUV's here.)

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Gordonjcp]

Wait until you're 30. My insurance for my 1991 Citroën XM V6-24 is about £180 per year (32, five years NCB, clean licence). My girlfriend (24, passed test two months ago) just plain cannot be insured on it. *One* company will add her to my insurance for an additional premium of £900 per year.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jcnnghm]

The first thing you need to learn is that blinkers/indicators/turn-signals are worthless. You can't rely on them even if someone is using them. As soon as you do, you get yourself into trouble.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[odie_q]

SUV's are usually much more rigid, so while most modern cars are designed to crumple in a way as to minimize the decelerating force on the passengers, the entire SUV and its occupants will decelerate at essentially the same rate. While someone travelling in an ordinary car is 3-4 times more likely to die from crashing into a SUV than from crashing into another car, the SUV driver is also at a greater risk than a car driver. This is mostly because SUV's often have poor safety systems, eg no whiplash protection, bad handling, no anti-skid systems and so on.

A majority of all traffic deaths are from single vehicle accidents, and here the SUV's are much more dangerous than ordinary cars. Again because of rigidity, but also as an effect of their greater mass.

So, to sum it up, the SUV drivers are the much safer party in SUV-car collisions, as they increase the risk of other drivers more than the risk to themselves, but all in all run a greater risk of dying in a car wreck.

(The numbers in this post come from the Swedish insurance agency Folksam, http://www.folksam.se/. Not a promotion, simply a source reference)

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[HairyCanary]

I do not believe people are going to wise up anytime soon, without some impetus. Historically, money has been a good influencing factor on purchasing decisions.

What I propose is that all vehicles that are not commercially owned (that is a separate issue) be grouped together. No distinction between the fuel consumption and crash standards for cars versus pickups & SUV's. Rate them all on the same scale, provide the same penalties to anyone who violates the accepted standards. If we applied the same standards to pickups that we do to cars, most would cost a couple thousand dollars more from the gas guzzler tax. And that is how it should be, no special priviliges to anyone.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[itscolduphere]

Has there been any serious consideration of how the design of the vehicle effects your likeliness to be in a crash? It seems to me that SUV's, by blocking the ability of anyone around them to see in traffic (especially since they always seem to have the darkest of the dark tinted windows), might concievably cause accidents just by being on the road, regardless of how they are driven. (The same argument could be used for some small cars with horrible blind spots; anyone ever driven a Paseo, so I'm somewhat unfairly picking on SUV's here.)

No, you are NOT unfairly picking on SUV's on this point...because while other cars may have blind spots, they don't generally give those blind spots _to_others_. Trying to drive in a small car surrounded by SUV's (and to a small extent heavier trucks, since even their beds sit high enough to block vision in traffic sometimes) can feel like driving blind. All you can see are the cars immediately surrounding you.

And don't get me started about SUV's parralel parked on corners. This should be illegal. I've pulled through many (2-way) stop signs "on faith" before, because in order to be able to see if any traffic was coming, I was going to have to pull halfway out into the street anyway. I suppose putting it in park, getting out, and walking out to check the traffic might be an option...except that conditions would change in the time it took me to get back in my car. I swear there is a corner in my college town where you are crossing over a one-way street, and there is _always_ some Durango or Suburban with limo-tint parked on the corner in the direction traffic comes from.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ktappe]

But to rant about him disobeying signs is innane and childish. He honestly probably missed it and it cost him his life. I know in unfamiliar parts of town I have missed various signs because they have been placed in odd positions or near other obstructions.

So I shouldn't complain when you blunder, wild eyed, through unfamiliar territory? Lurching heedlessly through professionally placed signs and markings

"Professionally" placed markings are not necessarily properly placed markings. I won a traffic court case a few years ago due to them only placing "No U-Turn" signs on one side of the roadway; the side where you'd be least likely looking as you were planning a safe U-turn. The law specifically required the signs be on both sides of the road, something that the sign placers apparently didn't know.

More recently, they placed pedestrian safety signs on my street--at a height of 10 feet where no pedestrian will ever see them. Sign-placers are very much capable of improperly performing their duties.

-Kurt

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Undertaker43017]

"all vehicles that are not commercially owned "

I'm curious what your solution would be for commerically owned vehicles, because first of all it is ridculously simple to setup a business in the US and second, many of the largest SUVs were purchased through a tax loophole (since been closed) to businesses and hence those SUVs are business owned, commerical vehicles.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[freeweed]

As for the mostly males involved in crashes, it's the same statistical nonsense as mostly red cars are involved in crashes. It's simply because there are more males on the road to be driving dangerously.

You know, the insurance industry isn't run by complete morons. They actually have thought of this amazing fact. For an equal number of males and females on the road, the males tend to cause more injuries and/or deaths. It's exacerbated by the fact that more males drive (in most countries), but you haven't stumbled upon some unknown secret.

Interestingly, females tend to be involved in more low-speed accidents. They cause slightly more property damage, but the men more than make up for it in injury claims. In no-fault jurisdictions, the differing rates for male and female drivers often disappears.

Of course, this pales in comparison to the accident rates of the 16-24 crowd. Younger drives are several times more likely to crash their car, and it's not just a "new driver" issue: people getting their licence for the first time at say 25 or 30 tend to be pretty safe drivers compared to their teenage counterparts.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Pxtl]

Then we should take it a step further and make cars that do everything possible to ensure the safety of the driver at the expense of those around them. That will sell, and will put a stop to the slippery slope. How about reactive armour? or some sort of long spikes that will launch out of a rolling vehicle to grab nearby cars and use them to stabilise?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[WuphonsReach]

Yep yep yep.

18 or 19 years driving here too. I'd rather get there late and alive.

Always signal, even in parking lots. Leave yourself an out. Anticipate what other cars might do (and expect them to be idiots about it).

Ignore the cell phone if it rings if you're at all uncertain about driving conditions. If it's important, they'll call you back.

I also run with my headlamps on, even in full daylight. It has the one advantage that I won't forget to turn my lamps on when conditions get worse.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Tim Doran]

Did you RTFA? How could you find that hard to believe?

The Renault experienced a head-on collision, for which it had clearly been well-designed. There was lots of steel in front of the passenger compartment to crumple and absorb the energy of the crash.

The H2 took the collision on its side. Not only is there very little steel (and space) to absorb energy, it sounds like the impact was absorbed by a rigid frame. The only way the vehicle could dissapate energy was to roll away from the collision.

You're right that a head-on collision would be different, but not because the H2 is heavier. Rather, the problem is incompatibility between a high body-on-rigid-frame SUV and a lower unibody car. The SUV would make it difficult for the Renault to crumple in a head-on collision because it would probably impact much higher than the Renault's bumper and the SUV would not crumple itself.

It's no picnic for the SUV occupants either - that rigid frame exposes forces the whole vehicle (and its occupants) to decellerate at extremely rapid rates by not absorbing energy. If you take away the incompatibility (ie. car vs car or SUV vs SUV), you're much, much safer in a car.

Read the article. You're right to say that vehicle size is a major determining factor in survivability, but the article argues that is because there's more room for intrusions into the cab (including the Jaws of Life, great point). It's not about *mass* at all... in fact, the article found a closer correlation between blue book value of the vehicle and survivability.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Spock the Baptist]

ObsessiveMathsFreak...

A classic example of why you never send a mathematician to do a physicist's job.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[2short]

"I suppose it makes them feel safer, being in a heavier vehicle (which they probably are)."

"They may be more likely to survive"

But they are not. Study after study, including TFA, shows that while SUVs are much more dangerous to the other guy, they aren't any safer for the occupants. Using an SUV when a car would do is not just selfish, it's stupid too.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

No I think you are being an assanine child taking pleasure in watching people get hurt. You clearly have little understanding or respect (though you claim to) for the machines in question. Fisher Price transmission, how very cute and educated. However I must apologize, I did reread your original post and notice you speak of not exactly being an experienced driver, and how when you DO start driving more you are upset that you will have to pay higher rates. Guess what, when you have a proven driving record your rates go down, when you get older you get better rates, being married gets you better rates, and various other indicators of being a responsible adjusted adult. Well I'm sorry you feel so threatend and wish to respond in such a childish manner. My point is without knowing anything about the situation about the wreck in the parent post your immediate response is about how incompetant they both are. I don't think its a harsh viewpoint. I don't feel the least bit bad for someone driving at 100mph down a dirt road and wrapping themselves around a tree, they were being stupid and irresponsible. But you seem to assume that everyone but you is an incompetant driver. You know nothing about me, my driving, or my vehicles but you create this fantasy world where I am some hotrodding kid. I'm not making excuses for bad driving, I am saying that you are arrogant and ignorant going on about how everyone in a wreck must be incompetant, driving bad, and trying to get everyone on the road killed.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[mjake]

"They probably are safer in their huge SUV. Too bad they are not thinking about the people they will murder though. If they were driving a lighter car which would more effectively crumple and absorb impact the people in the other could maybe survive."

I believe the term you meant was manslaughter, not murder (there is a big difference). However, in your ham-handed attempt to deamonize people who think differently than yourself, I guess "murder" has more impact.

You are also forgetting that most people consider themselves good drivers, and would guess that in a two car collision they would most likely not be at fault. If you are assuming that some other reckless (and possibly drunk) driver is probably going to be the cause any two car accident you are in, then why would you feel morally obligated to trade off your safety for theirs by driving a small vehicle? Especially if they might be driving a large one?

Not to mention, you are also trading off the safety of your passengers (possibly your children).

I have always owned/driven a small car, even now that I have a wife and two kids, being willing to risk my own safety. I think differently when I travel with my family, and rarely use my small car for that. I guess in your mind I that makes me equivalent to a murderer.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Karma Farmer]

I suppose I don't need to draw any pictures of what this did to the four occupants.

This is how we know you're lying -- no H2 has ever had four passengers at the same time.

Unless you mean the driver and three bags of groceries.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[barzok]

Then it's a shortened 3/4 ton Suburban chassis (and since a Suburban is just a long Tahoe, they're basically the same).

My "serious" comment was that while the H1 Alpha isn't up to military spec, it's the same platform and a hell of a lot more substantial than an H2 and there's really no comparing the two. H2s break in mild off-road use. A lot.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[vortigern00]

Your observation is quiet correct, but it is one that I've always found odd.

I own two full size pickups in addition to the car I use for running around. The pickups are always full of something I'm hauling from one place to another, so they are not the "car replacements" the article talks about.

An interesting thing happenned when I first drove a full size pickup. I felt an unexpected sense of responsibility. Whereas I'd been an idiot teenager in a sports car when I was younger, I started really paying attention in the truck and driving as much for the other people on the road as I do for myself. I feel the three tons (more with a load) I am pushing around the road, and I take it seriously, without even consciously deciding to.

So why is it these soccer moms and kids don't have the same reaction? I'm not better, smarter or more caring than anyone else; in fact I have a touch of misanthropy to deal with. So why are there so many idiots driving like idiots in their large vehicles?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Pxtl]

So, what's the statistical likely hood of blacks being involved in accidents vs. whites? What about jews? Why stop with gender and age?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ipfwadm]

As for the mostly males involved in crashes, it's the same statistical nonsense as mostly red cars are involved in crashes. It's simply because there are more males on the road to be driving dangerously. Insurance for me (18yo Male, learning to drive) is phenominal even on a low power car.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. If it were true that males are involved in more crashes only because there are more males driving, then there would be no difference in insurance rates between males and females because the extra number of males paying into the pool would make up for the additional number of crashes. Since auto insurance is a competitive industry, I find it hard to believe that all insurers are charging males more just as a dirty trick.

In reality, the crashes females are involved in tend to be fender-benders. The crashes males are involved in are more likely to be catastrophic high-speed collisions caused by driving like an idiot. As they get older and more mature, males tend to drive less like idiots, but some people never grow out of it (When I was in college the 50-year-old father of one of my friends managed to kill himself by driving his Corvette down a country road at 100+mph and hitting not one but two telephone poles after the car went airborne).

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[frank_adrian314159]

... it's hardly representative of most SUV vs. passenger car crashes.

OK, let's look at an accident I had earlier this year.

I was driving on a four lane city street. An SUV was coming towards me in his left lane and I was stopped in my left hand lane waiting to make a left hand turn. The SUV was in traffic and so was going at a fairly small speed (My findings - the safety arguments for SUVs have been promoted by fools who want to justify their waste of resources and the manufacturers who make better margins off these vehicles.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[mpe]

I suppose it makes them feel safer, being in a heavier vehicle (which they probably are).

One problem is if drivers feel safer they are likely to drive more dangerously.

They continue their reckless driving habits, however, now becoming that much more of a threat to the general populace driving smaller cars.

Cars don't just hit other cars...

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Gordonjcp]

Ok, then. From the description of the accident - I wasn't there but I did study the collected evidence (was working on a modelling project at the time) - it appears that the Megane was braking from 40mph and probably hit the H2 at about 30mph, with the H2 travelling across the front at some speed that I don't recall (probably 30-40mph).

As I said, the main problem was that the SUV rolled, and the other vehicle pushed the chassis and drivetrain out through the roof. The seats were flattened against the roof. What was left of the passengers was probably barely worth scraping off the road.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would ANYONE, let alone a 24 year old woman, want insurance on an XM? Push it off a cliff and make a nice artificial reef so at least something benefits from its manufacture.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear there is a corner in my college town where you are crossing over a one-way street, and there is _always_ some Durango or Suburban with limo-tint parked on the corner in the direction traffic comes from.

That's what a supersoaker full of brake fluid is good for. Once their car gets hit by me a few times and they lose their pretty paint job they learn to park somewhere else.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Gordonjcp]

I don't know, I kind of like having something that doesn't look *that* unusual but will outrun and outhandle a lot of expensive sportscars, while costing less than one replacement tyre for the aforementioned sportscar.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[squiggleslash]

Or we could ignore classification completely, including the "commercially owned" nonsense which has always been a loophole, not something rational. While, yes, heavy lifting vehicles used in industry will use higher amounts of fuel, the average B2B salesperson doesn't need an SUV any more than the average commuter.

Businesses that require industrial vehicles will be within a particular percentage of vehicles sold over the next few years, so it's relatively easy to factor them in in a call to generally reduce average gas usage figures.

There's no reason to target consumers as if most vehicles sold to businesses would never need gas usage reductions, or consumers would never (as has been proven wrong) buy a truck or SUV.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Analog Squirrel]

I sure wish a lot of other people would adopt these habits (I live in the Phoenix, AZ area). My "turn on the headlights" habit is so ingrained in me that I have to make a large conscious effort to *not* turn them on if I don't need it... and even then sometimes I still turn them on...

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Steampunk]

Of course they had lives, families, etc, etc. But look. I'm not their babysitter. They knew exactly what they were doing, took a risk that they would be involved in a crash, and got involved in a crash. My sympathy for them only extends so far.

I feel exactly the same way. Growing up, I lived 5 miles outside of town on a twisty forest road. There was another kid known for driving his hotrod well over 55 mph and taking corners with 1/2 his car in the opposing lane.

Did I mention it was a forest road? We had a large number of logging trucks and even a few dump trucks (building roads). He met one while he was in their lane. Head on. I think his nurse is still required to spoon-feed him ten years later.

His sister was saying something about how upset she was, which caused me to comment that at least he met a large truck. She was furious. "What do you mean?" I explained that his driving put others at risk and at least he met an object that he couldn't hurt, like another passenger car or truck. Needless to say, she didn't see the logic in that.

Ah, Darwin, you are a friend of mine.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[wilburdg]

Growing up in the mountains of Colorado I can't tell you how amazingly consistent it is:

Snow = SUV's (often with Texas plates) upside down on the side of the road. Every storm.

SUV's provide the lethal combination of a high center of gravity and a false sense of security.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Temkin]

I'm curious why you think this isn't happening already, and why the government should receive the additional revenue rather than the oil company shareholders. This is a dangerous combination of social engineering and coveting other people's money. Personally I think your $your_favorite_modern_convenience should be taxed to fund $my_favorite_government_pork_project.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[John Courtland]

You have to mean the pickup-truck framed H2 and not a normal Hummer. A normal Hummer would more than likely "win" any accident with any vehicle short of a bus. That's if it didn't drive right over it instead.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

No I think you are being an assanine child taking pleasure in watching people get hurt.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not quite sure why you consider me some kind of sick voyuer sadist. Let's take a look at the relevent quote.

Quite frankly it secretly delights me when I see these stereotypes involved in collisions with one another, because I know that after that "accident", everyone around me is now actually safer in their cars.

Now, I felt my meaning here was quite clear, if delivered with less tact than some might say was required. It's not the collision itself, or the direct injuries or deaths resultant from it that "delights" me so. It's the fact that two dangerous, life threatening people have temporarily or permenantly, stopped being a threat to other innocent people around them. I think everyone should be relieved when this happens. It's like two maniacs knifing one another to death in a barfight. Messy, disturbing, perhaps even tragic for friends and loved ones, but at least they won't kill anyone else. It's a good analogy, because like manaiacs, bad drivers kill and main people every day.

You have somehow taken this to mean that I take sadistic pleasure in all accidents. I don't. But when two grown adults, who have made a decision to put their lives and the lives of those around them in mortal danger for no good reason, end up killing or otherwise injuring only themselves, I'm afraid I'll have to say it couldn't have happened to a nicer pair.

Which is absolutely not to say that I would be happier if they died horribly; screaming in agony as the exposed marrow of their shattered bones slowly froze in the morning mist, or if their last breaths were of stagnant ditch water, as they lay trapped, contorted in a slowly sinking car. I certainly would not. What would make me happiest of all is if these two bozos simply totalled their respective death mobiles and walked away blinking without a scratch. That would be perfect. But if they die or are severly injured, to be honest, there's only so much sympathy I can have.

Fisher Price transmission, how very cute and educated.

I felt it was relatively witty. And I'll stand by it. I've heard lots of people tell me that automatic transmission is safer than manual, and that it enables the driver to pay more attention to the road. Yet the only people I know who have automatic transmissions are boy racers.

Now that is a personal observation. But it is the case that in the UK, where manual transmission pervades, per capita road deaths in 2003 were 5.81 per 100,000, while in the same year in the US, where automatic is the trasmission of choice, roads deaths were 14.75 per 100,000. [Source] Now that's just comparing two countries, but it would be interesting to compare stick vs shift on similar data.

Guess what, when you have a proven driving record your rates go down, when you get older you get better rates, being married gets you better rates, and various other indicators of being a responsible adjusted adult. Well I'm sorry you feel so threatend and wish to respond in such a childish manner.

You need to read my first post again. My main point there was that due to poor drivers, I have been in effect priced off the road, despite the fact that I am not one of these sterotypical reckless drivers. Consequent of this, and because of teh way insurance works, as you say, once I do start driving, i will be paying more insurance that these individuals. thus in effect, I am subsidising their behaviour. I do not feel threatened by this. I feel robbed.

My point is without knowing anything about the situation about the wreck in the parent post your immediate response is about how incompetant they both are.

Actually the original poster decribed the situation rather well. The first driver was reported

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Kitsune78]

I really wish they would sell the Meganne over here in the states.. Renault got a bad reputation here in the 80s, but on a recent trip to France I got to drive one and I liked it. It would be perfect for my commute here in the Boston area. I think its mostly styling I like though, that rear window glass is just neat looking. The other thing that annoys me about US/Euro car differences is that Europe always seems to get more features at a comparable price, and newer/better technology more quickly than the US will deploy it. The Toyota Carolla I drove in France (definately not a Corolla from the US) had all the features that come in our "Lexus" brand. At the very least the US could adopt fender mounted turn signals.. it is such an obvious concept that I don't understand why we don't mandate it here.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Oldsmobile]

The XM is a sort of engineers car, atleast in that it is totally over engineered. Unfortunately those engineers happened to be French.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[tehcrazybob]

Actually, as I understand it the formula for determining the speed limit is as follows:

1) Determine average speed on road if it were unrestricted
2) Multiply average by 0.85
3) Make signs

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[non-poster]

What percentage of vehicles driven when it snows are SUVs?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Reapy]

Same here in NJ when it snows. I remember a few days leaving work early in the rush down the parkway. People in suvs doing things that they wouldnt even contemplate doing when it was sunny out, now they do it in a blizzard with half a foot of snow on the ground already.

SUV's tailgating constantly. SUV's passing in the left break down lane?!?! SUV's plowing through the snow across the friggen local/express median!!?!? I couldn't believe this crap. It was amazing.

People suck at driving, is what it comes down to, I guess.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[wilburdg]

The ratio of SUV's to cars found upside down in the ditch is much greater than the ratio of SUV's to cars on the road.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[budgenator]

You have to drive insanely fast to make up any significant time, going 60 MPH for an hour gets you 1 hr of travel time, to save 10 minutes you have to go 72MPH. I've found my average speed is more like 45MPH when I travel 70 on the expressway, which makes it even worse, going 90 on the expressway usualy only gets 5-10 minutes back.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[kabocox]

As I said, the main problem was that the SUV rolled, and the other vehicle pushed the chassis and drivetrain out through the roof. The seats were flattened against the roof. What was left of the passengers was probably barely worth scraping off the road.

Ok. They just needed that machine gun mounted up top of the hummer and having it manned so incoming threats are eliminated before things like this happen. ;) I doubt some machine gun bullets would have stopped the car from ramming them though. It would have made them feel better though to be doing something.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[budgenator]

Ahmen brother,
1. the lame H2 doesn't even have room for a 18 in rackmount over the transmission tunnel!
2. jump in a H2 with a rucksack on your back and the seatbelt will not even reach arround!
3. the H2 is too high, good way to get your head blown off, a real Hmmv is only about 2/3 the height of a H2 and has more ground clearence!
4. the H2 doesn't come with a roof turret, where are you going to mount a guided missile launcher, grenade launcher or even a decent machine gun?
If you need a hummer, you need it bad and one of those castrated things like the H2 ain't going to get it done!

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[bigg_nate]

The gender-based discrimination really bothers me. I have a strong suspicion that if women were statistically more expensive to insure than men, their rates would be the same. But since it's men that are more expensive, they are charged a higher rate. It's PC to discriminate against men, but not against women.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Gordonjcp]

I doubt some machine gun bullets would have stopped the car from ramming them though

Stopping at the red traffic light might have, though.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[davevr]

You are kidding, right? What do you base this on?

The Hummer H2 is not listed on the site because it is technically a truck, not a passenger vehicle, just like the Chevy Suburban. Not being listed has nothing to do with safety.

If you look at the other similar vehicles that are listed (such as the Land Rover or the Jeep Grand Cherokee) they score very well. The H2 is also equipped with standard safety features such as airbags and traction control.

The main reason to avoid and H2 is that it has bad gas mileage and is difficult to park. The visibility is also not so great, which may increase your chances of getting in an accident.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[budgenator]

How about just requiring body-on-frame vehicles needing a CDL and commercial insurance to operate? A real business is likely to carry more liability coverage than an individual anyways. Body-on-Frame vehicles are more likely to cause disporportiate injuries to other vehicles and occupants, so upping their liability requirements makes sense.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Cobblepop]

The insurance companies aren't screwing you

The insurance companies are screwing you; if they aren't, then why is it asians don't pay higher rates?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[fbg111]

Doesn't surprise me, the H2 is just a GM Suburban gussied up to look like the H1. The H1 is the original military spec truck, and probably a bit tougher.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jafac]

Defensive driving is the BEST countermeasure you can take against an accident.

Defensive driving is much more difficult to accomplish in an SUV, than in a more nimble car.

Then again, with the lackluster suspensions we're seeing on sedans these days, most are no better off.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[boingo82]

We also drive with the headlights on all of the time. No matter what.
It's all anecdotal, but I've found I almost never get cut off anymore. And I never *forget* to turn them on at dusk because they're already on.
The other poster's comment about speed is good as well.
I stopped speeding on my 60 mile commute when I realized that even *if* I managed to maintain 15 mph over the speedlimit, managed not to get stuck behind any semis-passing-upgrade, managed not to get ticketed ($300 at that speed), managed not to wreck (with massively increased risk of bodily harm), I'd only save a whopping 8 minutes. Not worth it. At all.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ross.w]

Notice how there aren't as many Volvos around anymore? Those people now drive SUVs, and for much the same reason.

Scary thought.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[tompaulco]

Insurance for me (18yo Male, learning to drive) is phenominal even on a low power car.
Don't worry, it will get worse. I used to complain about what I had to pay for insurance back when I was an 18yo Male, but at no point has it ever been lower than when I was 18, not when I turned 25, not when I got married.
I now pay about 4 times as much per vehicle as when I was 18, and I have a multivehicle discount, good credit record (yes, that counts) and no accidents or tickets. Of course, my wife is on the policy, but she has had no accidents or tickets either. And we have no kids of driving age.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[morgan_greywolf]

I find that hard to believe, but even if it's true, it's hardly representative of most SUV vs. passenger car crashes. It's just not. Perhaps the H2 is just poorly constructed in terms of side-impact protection or something, I can't say since I'm not familiar with it, but imagine that same collision occurring head-on. It barely matters what equipment each car has, because the H2, having much more mass, is going to decelerate much less violently. It's just not going to experience as serious a collision as the smaller car will.

Actually, what you might be interested out that the H2 is very, very typical in terms of SUV construction. The H2 is built on GM's GMT800 platform, making roughly similar to GM's Yukon/Denali SUVs, with the main differences being in the interior and the design of the body panels. (Disclaimer: I worked at GM at the time the H2 was being designed).

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[budgenator]

I doubt it, for example I was riding with my now former-boss, an obsesive-conpulsive phone talker, who was yacking and writing notes on his cell phone while he was driving. The car up a head was stopping, and as I'm starting to have a heart siezure, he sees the stopped car and jams on his brakes and barely misses rear-ending the car ahead, while the cars behind us starts a 3 car chain-reaction. We and the car in front of us are untouched. Now I know the asshole caused a 3 car accident, but technically we were not even involved.
If you hit another car because a SUV or a truck blocked your view, you didn't have an assured clear distance ahead, your fault. You hit a car that has been driving in your blind spot for twenty miles, your fault.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Undertaker43017]

That will never fly. You do realize that body on frame vehicles are the only correct way to tow large boats and RV trailers, right? While I don't disagree that CDL's should be required (in most states they are not hard to get and in some states, are required for class a motorhomes), requiring commerical insurance so that a family can take a vacation seems a bit extreme.

So if we follow that logic should motorcyclists pay the least insurance, since from a damage to life and property motorcyclists face the greatest danager in any collison. Or you could flip it around and since motorcycles are lighter and in collisons they (or the riders) tend to become dangerous flying objects, perhaps we charge them more?

Also I won't argue that body on frame vehicles cause more damage to other vehicle(s), but you have to base libility premiums on whose at fault more often, and I have to think, based on the rates, that body on frame vehicles are at fault less often. Of the five vehicles I insure, two are body on frame, I pay more in libility for the unibody vehicles than the body on frame, which tells me that some statistics must show that unibody vehicles are at fault more often.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[boingo82]

Actually, the H2 is not on the list because its weight exempts it from nearly all government safety tests.
It did not have to pass minimum braking, roof crush, steering-column-intrusion, and other standards. It was never tested by the NHTSA, it's exempt from that too.
It may be safe, but the point is that without these tests, how do we know?
You may be interested to know that it does *not* have many basic safety features as stated.
It does not have ANY available side airbags, nor does the 2nd-row center seat have a shoulder belt - something that was standard on most cars back in 1999.
It does not have stability control, either.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[iamlucky13]

I understand people feeling safer in a bigger vehicle because it's like adding armor around yourself, but I've always felt better in smaller vehicles. I guess it's because I tend to think more about avoiding accidents in the first place than using bulk to win out should I suffer one. Smaller vehicles with better handling and less mass to accelerate in cornering or braking can respond better to most situations.

I always liked driving my dad's diesal 3/4 ton Dodge Ram, but that was because it climbed hills like they were level ground and it could yawn at towing 6 tons of hay. Around traffic, I was always conscious of how much lane it took up, how high the CG was, how it cornered, and how it braked. Driving larger vehicles takes an extra level of attention most drivers don't seem to be willing to commit.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Fizzog]

You forgot:

4) Profit

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[luvrugby]

I had a Toyota Camry hit the back end of my Dodge Ram, damm thing scratched my tow hitch!

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[davevr]

All true, except for the miscategorizations of my post.

Its weight is what qualifies it as a truck vs. a passenger vehicle, so that is the same point.

I didn't say it had side air bags, but it does have driver and passenger airbags. I didn't say it has stability control, but it does have traction control as I stated.

Note that I am not arguing that the H2 is super safe. I would rather be in a car with crumple zones any day! Of course, I also wouldn't want to be in the other car when the H2 drives over it in a collision.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Sarisar]

For people having issues with car insurance, I know someone that was going to buy an old banger and insured it 3rd party* only and then after a few years and several years of no-claims could then insure the car he really wanted to, which his mother had insured for him in her name in the mean time.

But his mother knew someone at the insurance company and they issued him a note saying he had had insurance for the last 5 years to get the no claims bonus anyway so he didn't. He seemed to think it would work out cheaper. This is the same guy that always buys diesel cars as last I heard he was living on a farm and could use their cheaper diesel to drive around with. Yes both of these things are illegal!

* In the UK you have 3rd party fire & theft and fully comprehensive. 3rd party means if you hit someone THEY are covered but your car is not, but if it's stolen or burnt then it is. Fully comp is well.. fully comp and MOST companies allow you to drive other peoples cars on your insurance, but normally only 3rd party on it.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[budgenator]

I belive CDLs are uniform in all states or at least reasonable uniform.
I'm not argueing that increased liability coverage is "right" or necessary, but it's logical; if item A used negligently causes more damage than item B used equally negligently, item A should be required to carry more liability coverage. The cost of the coverage is a matter for acuarial analysis. As it stands now Body-on-Frame by your statement gets the same liability coverage for less expense, increasing liability coverage to at least cover the cost differencial would be removing a subsidy helping to finance a class of vehicle ill regarded for its fuel consumption, enviromental impact world-wide and is involved in a third more injury accidents.
Does it make sense that a van with glass all round is a car and a van with sheet metal on the sides instaed of windows is a truck? I rather suspect that motorcycles pay less for liability and more for medical

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[DrCode]

The trouble is that half the SUV commercials show someone zooming down a snow-covered road.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jandrese]

The original Hummer is a real beast though. It's all 1960s parts in there and lots of modern safety features like crumple zones and whatnot are not in there. I don't think they even have anti-lock breaks. They also get horrendous gas milage. I'm not sure you'd be much safer in one of those than in an H2, especially in a side impact collision where you often only have the thin factory doors protecting you. Half of the time the guys take those doors off too.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jacksonj04]

"I find it hard to believe that all insurers are charging males more just as a dirty trick."

In the UK there is a having female only (Yes, female only) insurance company. If that isn't breaking a discrimination law I don't know what is.

At the end of the day you can make statistics say what you want. To quote Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". We could be arguing all night over this one.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Undertaker43017]

At least in Ohio, CDLs have different classes based on your needs. For instance "air brakes" is an additional qualification that not all CDL holders need nor get. Also as I mentioned some states do require class A motorhome operators to have a CDL, but judging by how most are driven (and by whom), unfortunately most do not. :(

In 20+ years of driving I have been involved in 3 accidents, all rear-enders, all the other drivers fault. In 2 of the 3 their cars were totaled, in the third it might as well have been, my vehicle suffered minor dents, scratches and one bent receiver hitch (which I left stuck in their radiator). While I agree that my vehicle caused greater damage to their vehicles, THEY caused the accident, so why should my libility insurance be more?

As the power to weight ratio on bikes has gone through the roof, the liability premiums have as well, not unlike the muscle cars of the 60-70's, if gas prices hadn't killed them, the insurance companies would have.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[toddestan]

On a somewhat related note, i never understood how gay people who want to get married, but can't here in the US (most states) haven't sued the insurance companies.

They wouldn't win. The insurance companies already get away with blatant sexism and age discrimination in their pricing structures. Why wouldn't they be able to get away with discriminating against gays too?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[typical]

At 35 mph collision of any type (front, side flat, back and side pillar) there is no damage to the occupants. At all.

How about *top*? Betcha didn't think of that. What if the H2 *fell* on the car?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[typical]

The other thing that annoys me about US/Euro car differences is that Europe always seems to get more features at a comparable price, and newer/better technology more quickly than the US will deploy it.

Automatic transmission?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[typical]

They probably are safer in their huge SUV. Too bad they are not thinking about the people they will murder though.

Kill, not murder.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[egburr]

I also run with my headlamps on, even in full daylight.

I don't understand this. Are you blind? I hate people who drive with headlights on during the day, especially sunny days when the sun is within a few hours of the horizon. Those headlights add a lot of extra glare to the road, making it hard to see the car as anything more than yet another spot of light. A car with headlights off is easily idnetifiable as a car.

Driving in the city with regular street lighting, I can usually see cars with headlights off at night better than ones with headlights on during the day.

And what is the deal with people thinking that high-beams are fine during the day? The way they're focused right at eye level, they appear brighter than the sun.

Of course, it seems most SUVs come with some super-bright sun-strength headlights. My headlights are plenty bright enough for driving around at night, even without street lighting. Why do these vehicles need lights so bright that when they pull up behind me, my car casts a shadow in its own headlights?

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to install active armour on my small runabout.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ipfwadm]

Actually I don't think sex discrimination laws often cover things like this. Generally companies are allowed to do business with whoever they want to. That notwithstanding, I fail to see how a company not insuring males is supposed to prove that companies are overcharging males. If anything it proves the opposite -- that males are too much of a risk to do business with.

And you're right, statistics can often be twisted in any way desired. But here's some anecdotal evidence to show that young males are more of a risk. When I was in high school, I was in a car when the driver (male) ran somebody off the road by blowing through a stop sign that he damned well knew was there. I (male) used to drive 75mph even when the road was covered with snow. I've been in cars with guys from college going 120mph. I was in a car when a guy tried taking a left turn at 60mph and nearly flipped the car. But I've never been in a situation that comes anywhere CLOSE to these (and others I haven't mentioned) when I've been in the car with a girl driving. Don't get me wrong, I've ridden with a lot of shitty drivers that were female -- but none of them were reckless. And that's the difference.

But if males are no more of a risk, as you assert, then all the insurance companies must be in on a big conspiracy to overcharge males. Do you honestly believe that one insurance company wouldn't break from the conspiracy and start to charge males less, thus suddenly getting the business of every male on the planet?

I know it's easy to look at your expensive insurance and think you're getting screwed, because you are getting screwed. But at some point, you'll realize that you're getting screwed because there are a lot of young (and not-so-young) guys out there that drive as if they're invincible, and not because the entire insurance industry is out to get you.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ipfwadm]

The insurance companies (who have presumably researched the probability of a crash with and without daytime running lights) disagree with you that cars with lights on are harder to see, or else they wouldn't give discounts for said lights. Though I agree, people that drive with high beams on at any time of day when other cars are around need to be shot.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[AK Marc]

The biggest problem with SUVs, traditionally and still, is that they tend to roll over during hard panic maneuvers, or when hit from the side.

No, the problem is that they are generally less safe. If you hit an immobile object (relatively rare) or a vehicle of the same size (increasing in probability), then you are less safe than being in a similarly priced car hitting a wall or same-size vehicle. As there are an increasing number of trucks on the road, the trucks are less and less safe, as are the cars. Every time someone buys a truck, they are making everyone else less safe (including their own family, even if in a different truck).

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Phronesis]

In a crash, the SUV generally wins. What gets omitted from this analysis is that SUVs are much less maneuverable than most cars, so most cars are better able to avoid the crash in the first place.

A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that several compact and mid-size models, such as the Volkswagen Jetta or the Toyota Camry, have significantly lower rates of driver death than almost any SUV. For several SUVs, such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the Ford Expedition, the GMC Jimmy, and the Toyota 4-Runner, the driver risk is more than 50% greater than for the Camry.

In a separate study, Tom Wenzel at LBL found that there was very poor correlation between vehicle weight and driver safety.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[tehcrazybob]

No, I was actually serious. I think there's a government regulation that states that a speed limit should be 85% of the unregulated flow of traffic. I'm looking around now and can't find anything to support myself, so if someone has a source to prove I'm not crazy, I'd appreciate it.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jawtheshark]

It might be "newer and better" technology (never mind that one of the leaders in automatic transmission is a German car company - they make an automatic transmission that does not impact mileage in the same way as typical automatic transmission does), but most Europeans do not *want* automatic transmission. At least, that is my impression as a European.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[at_18]

Automatic transmission?

Most European cars don't have automatic transmission because most Europeans don't want an automatic, they want a manual. You have way more control over the car.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Alomex]

They probably aren't. They have increased risk of rollover and require substantially longer distances to break. I've seen video of a competent driver in a small sports car swerve around a pedestrian that runs into the road. The same test on a SUV leads to (a) the pedestrian being hit and (b) the SUV rolling over 270, then sliding on it side and hitting a telephone pole across the street.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ErixTr]

I don't understand this. Are you blind?

"daytime running lights" are not about "to see" but "to be seen".

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ceoyoyo]

Ah yes, everybody else on the road is in mortal danger, but I'M safer! Not to mention that it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Just like the "I have 4x4, ice is no problem" crowd.

Let's have a vehicle mass arms race! I'm going to be the first one to get a ram on the front of my super-truck!

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ceoyoyo]

4x4 helps you get moving. Nothing else. For braking and steering you're in the same boat with everyone else -- four wheels, two of which steer, all of which have brakes. Personally, when it's icy getting moving is a very distant third in line behind my concern for being able to stop and being able to steer. Not to mention I've seen LOTS of 4x4 drivers hit the gas and spin their tires until they've melted themselves into a problem. Then my friend (we both grew up where it's winter about ten months of the year) took her ten year old Nissan Sentra over the same track aided by the intuitive knowledge that the coefficient of static friction is much higher than sliding friction.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ceoyoyo]

Exemptions are provided to vehicles allowed to burn purple gas (farm vehicles) and construction vehicles. Construction vehicles can be distinguished using similar regulations as farm vehicles. Panel trucks and such can be exempted because it's unlikely people would buy them to drive their kids to soccer.

What we really need are regulations that set a standard for vehicles playing nice in a crash. They don't just have to protect their occupants but also pedestrians, bikers and the occupants of other cars.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ceoyoyo]

Hey, they should have to add a section to those stickers on the car windows that give you the price and fuel economy:

Risk of driver death: xxx
Risk of driver dismemberment: xxx

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ceoyoyo]

I bet your pickup doesn't have one of those hard bed lids, a spoiler and racing stripes either. The idiots who drive like idiots in their vehicles are the ones who really want a car, but want something big enough to crush the opposition.

You, on the other hand, want a truck to act like a truck.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[ceoyoyo]

Hey, sounds like me driving when I was 17. After all, I KNEW how dumb the idiots in the other cars got whenever they were near anything with an engine. That'll make you drive defensively. Of course, I grew up in a house with a big picture window looking out at the high school, which was located on a hill. We used to sit and watch on icy days when school got out. Pickup Icecapades!

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Fnkmaster]

As a serious driver, I agree 100%. However, when I was commuting in my M3 over an hour each day here in NYC, every time traffic got heavy or a road was shut down, I'd be in the car 4-5 hours in a day for a whole week straight until they sorted out whatever was screwed with the roads. By the 3rd or 4th day of this, your clutch foot ankle and shin ache massively and you are ready to shoot the first person that looks at you funny.

I don't love driving automatics, but only because these days I just drive on weekends, trips, and for fun. Commuting in heavy traffic day after day makes a manual incredibly impractical.

I can only assume Europeans don't have the same level of commuter traffic that we experience.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[egburr]

Isn't that what running lights (not headlihts) are for? You know, the setting on the headlight switch between "totally" off and "headlights on". They turn on the tail lights and some small amber lights on the front. Every car I have ever been in has this setting. I very rarely see anyone uing it.

"off" is for daylight conditions. "running lights" is for questionable conditions where you are having no trouble seeing but are afraid others may. "on" is for night when you need the light to see.

As for your comment about using headights "to be seen", I repeat my previous comment: "I can usually see cars with headlights off at night better than ones with headlights on during the day."

I find it easier to see there is a car and what it is doing when it is not projecting a focused beam of light directly at me. With the light, I can tell there is something there but often can not tell much more than that. Without the headlights, it is easier to see what is near the car, how the car is behaving (going straight, weaving around), see if the driver has a phone to his ear, etc. Sometimes when the road is just a little curvy, I can't even tell which lane the headlights are in, and that would be easy to see if I could se the car itself.

Headlights are a necessary evil at night. They are unnecesarily dangerous during the day. If your goal is just "to be seen", that's what normal running lights are for, not headlights.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since you're going to provide your insights and suggest they're representative, which they may well be in spite of them being anecdotal, here's mine:

one of my friends (female) drives. Her driving is fucking awful. Her driving is so bad that on a summer night, she managed to do accidentally cause her car to spin through 360 degrees twice within 100 meters. The second time, she was trying to avoid it, too!

She was later driving some friends around another town about 600km north of here. (That town was Christchurch, for those from New Zealand.) She was driving along, doing more than 90km/h in a 50 zone. As she was screaming along the street, a passenger, one of my friends, noticed that she looked down at her radio. Looking up again, she had time to utter a single curse before she plowed into the back of a parked car. Then, she climbed out of the wreck and started screaming at the driver of the car which was parked in the middle of the road. Something along the lines of "What the fuck are you doing parked in the middle of the road? Look at my car!"

The female had walked out behind the wrecked cars. My friend pulled her out of the way of an oncoming car, also doing nearly 90, which rammed the wrecks.

It was about this time that the red light the first car was waiting for changed to green, and the traffic in the other lane moved along.

She didn't go to jail, because the officer on the scene couldn't be bothered with the paperwork. I know that I would have felt a bit safer if she had.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Grishnakh]

Are you serious?

European car security

[sucker_muts]

The newest european cars nowadays come with an extra protection agains collisions with pedestrians: The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.

The powertrain generally takes up considerable space in the engine compartment, leaving little room between the engine and the bonnet.
To remedy this, the C6 comes with an active bonnet system as standard that automatically raises the bonnet in the event of pedestrian impact. Thanks to an impact sensor and pyrotechnic mechanism, the bonnet rises 65 mm in 40 milliseconds. A second mechanism maintains the bonnet in its raised position despite the impact and thus absorbs the deformation energy.

Example from Citroen.

Re:European car security

[Don_dumb]

Unfortunately for me (usually a pedestrian), cars wont get sold on the safety of the car for pedestrians. People might buy a car because it makes them safer, I dont think many people are going to buy a car because it makes others safer.

Re:European car security

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal of this safety feature isn't to influence where the pedestrian hits the car but how. By the time the pedestrian hits the hood, it must already be lifted. Then it provides an extra few inches of collapsible zone before the weight of the pedestrian meets the innards of the engine compartment, thereby tremendously reducing the maximum force of impact and risk of injury to the pedestrian.

Re:European car security

[smchris]

Me too (usually a pedestrian). There are significantly more pedestrian deaths in the U.S. _every_year_ than the World Trade Center deaths but I don't see people getting all weepy over it. (http://www.carwrecks.com/info8.html)

Being a long-term survivor of pedestrianism is one of the best ways to become a cynic of the human condition. It annoys me that my local media have to make a point that "alcohol and drugs were not involved" -- to which I always think, "Great, a clean kill." Running over a pedestrian is the safest way to experience the thrill of murder. Unlikely you'll even get the workhouse if you aren't too blatent about it. But be warned that if you only wing your pedestrian you could be paying off the multi-million dollar lawsuit for the rest of your life under the new bankrupcy rules. So in the end it's smarter not to run over pedestrians, ok?

[Aside from personal experience, I tend to be even more cynical because working in various places and talking about walking to work I have met _three_ secretaries who each had their father killed at a stop sign or stop light pedestrian walk.]

Re:European car security

[timbos]

The newest european cars nowadays come with an extra protection agains collisions with pedestrians: The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.

Actually, the bonnet lifts to increase the space between the bonnet and the engine underneath. Because of the current fad of sleek cars with big engines, the top of the engine case is very close to the underside of the bonnet. A pedestrian hitting the bonnet will just smash directly into the engine.
Lifting the bonnet up a bit increases the distance that the deformable material has to move meaning the the pedestrian is moving more slowly when they meet the engine, reducing the severity of their injuries.

Re:European car security

[dave_mcmillen]

[Aside from personal experience, I tend to be even more cynical because working in various places and talking about walking to work I have met _three_ secretaries who each had their father killed at a stop sign or stop light pedestrian walk.]

I initially read that as "I have met three secretaries who each had killed their father at a stop sign," and thought, "Man, those are some long odds."

Re:European car security

[Krach42]

I was actually witness to a person getting run over in a pedestrian walk way.

This was near/on the New Mexico State University campus (University Blvd), and I was crossing the street illegally in the middle of the road. I heard the audible crosswalk signal (for the deaf) that indicated that the nearest crosswalk was allowing pedestrians to cross. This is a good cue to a jay-walker that traffic is likely not coming from that direction.

After a quick glance to ensure that no traffic was coming, I began crossing, and heard a "thump" noise. I figured someone had had a tire go flat, and looking over someone who had made a right-hand turn was pulling to the side of the road. Then I got to the center of the road, and I heard a wimpering. And I thought, "Oh shit".

Later a few other people got hit in pedestrian walk ways, and the University got on a big "jay-walking bad" rant (if you've been to College, you know how Unis can do this. They get some topic, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon, and argues for/against some stupid thing that happened months ago) And I could hardly understand how people getting hit in cross-walks related to jay-walking. I mean, if anything, it indicated that jay-walking was SAFER, because there were far fewer jay-walker strikes than cross-walk strikes.

Re:European car security

[rundgren]

Citroens are lovely, wish I could afford a C6 (about $100000 incl. taxes here in Norway..) But for some strange reason Citroens are absolutely impossible to sell in the U.S.A, so they haven't even been imported officially since the 70s or something.

Re:European car security

[Anonymous Codger]

"Running over a pedestrian is the safest way to experience the thrill of murder."

No, the safest way is to run over a bicyclist. I've heard many stories of cyclists getting killed around the country, and the drivers are seldom charged, even if they were responsible for the collision. I've been hit twice by cars. Both times I had right of way, both times the driver failed to yield, and in neither case was the driver charged.

Many cyclists believe that police regard us as a nuisance and are glad to have us taken off the road, and that's why they don't bother charging the driver. True or not, it sometimes feels that way.

Re:European car security

[enbody]

I was crossing a crosswalk on a bike with a "walk" signal. A car hit me with the front of the car knocking me to the road. I fell to the side and the car continued on (making a legal right-turn on red). My bike was totaled, but I was fine -- a helmet helped as did the slow speed of both me and the car. The driver hesitated, but didn't stop. People asked if I got the license plate, but I was too busy falling. On reflection, it has always amazed me that a driver could hit someone in broad daylight and simply drive on. Since I was hit by the front of the car and fell on the driver's side, the driver could not have missed seeing that they hit me. It was a sad statement on humanity.

Re:European car security

[Farscry]

This and the pedestrian incidents are just another example vindicating my argument that we as a civilization still haven't progressed beyond our stone age mentalities. Heck, back then, human communities actually took BETTER care of each other than we do now.

Ripley said it best in "Aliens": "I don't know which species is worse. You don't see THEM fucking each other over for a percentage!"

Re:European car security

[jacekm]

You are right about the design but wrong about the resons for the design. The newest safety requirement demands from the vehicle manufacturers in Europe to design cars with an empty space between soft hood exterior surface and rigid components underneath, such as engine block, in order to provide crush zone for the pedestrian head. If this zone cannot be achieved by the static clearances of the design, the law allows for use of the pyrotechnic or other type devices to temporarily raise the hood above the rigid components in the compartment within prescribes time during the crash. Since European compact cars tend to be small econoboxes with the engine packaged tightly against the vehicle hood (especially with the optional, bigger engines) the active pyrotechnic solution tend to be used more often there. But equally good is the solution with enough static clearance that does not require any active devices to raise the hood during the crash. Many US made vehicles designed recnetly such as upcoming restyled Chevy Trailblazer are being designed with this law in mind despite fact that it is not required in the US at this time. The reason for this is obvious. If you don't do this now, you cannot export the vehilce later and it is very expensive to redesign it in the middle of the production cycle. In most US cars or trucks this law can be met without any special devices simply because of the larger space under the hood that already provides required clearance. The same law also describes required envelope of the front bumper and front end of the vehicle to prevent pedestrian from being toppled forward and being run over by the vehicle. This second section of the law has nothing to do with raising the hood. To prevent pedestrian from being run over, the bumper of the vehicle must hit him below certain height and must have proper shape to then cause the persons body to fall onto the vehicle hood instead of being dragged under the vehicle. This part of the law is also considered by the US manufacturers for the same reason to be able to export their new upcoming models across the world in the future. JM

Re:European car security

[M-G]

Unfortunately for me (usually a pedestrian), cars wont get sold on the safety of the car for pedestrians. People might buy a car because it makes them safer, I dont think many people are going to buy a car because it makes others safer.

That's why is a regulation for new cars in Europe, not a choice to be made when purchasing.

Re:European car security

[hackstraw]

It annoys me that my local media have to make a point that "alcohol and drugs were not involved" -- to which I always think, "Great, a clean kill." Running over a pedestrian is the safest way to experience the thrill of murder. Unlikely you'll even get the workhouse if you aren't too blatent about it. But be warned that if you only wing your pedestrian you could be paying off the multi-million dollar lawsuit for the rest of your life under the new bankrupcy rules. So in the end it's smarter not to run over pedestrians, ok?

I find it annoying as well. Keep in mind that from the age of about 16 to 50 your most likely death situation is going to be while you are sober in a car.

Oh, and the bankruptcy stuff, its probably better to kill the pedestrian than to just hurt them. Killing them will get you a manslaughter case that you can get out of provided you didn't have 100 eye witnesses see you accelerate on purpose and swerve to hit the pedestrian. After getting off of the criminal case, the surviving family will loose their confidence in winning a civil one. Also, by killing the person, you eliminate the most likely person that will file a civil suit.

Re:European car security

[hb253]

French cars stopped selling in the US because they had simply awful build quality, rusted quickly, and broke down often. Maybe things have changed. I always wanted a 1970's Citroen SM myself.

Re:European car security

[saskboy]

"extra protection agains collisions with pedestrians:"
How can it tell the difference between a person and an animal though? I don't want a deer going over the hood if I hit it.

Re:European car security

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been hit twice by cars. Both times I had right of way, both times the driver failed to yield, and in neither case was the driver charged.

And today's lesson is: "when you drive a bicycle, assume that every car is actively trying to kill you if you give any chance".

It's no use to exercise your right of way if you die in process.

Re:European car security

[Anonymous Coward]

Bankruptcy does not get you of the hook for legal judgements against you, nor does it drop federal student loans for that matter. Never did.

Re:European car security

[grassy_knoll]

Running over a pedestrian is the safest way to experience the thrill of murder. Unlikely you'll even get the workhouse if you aren't too blatent about it. But be warned that if you only wing your pedestrian you could be paying off the multi-million dollar lawsuit for the rest of your life under the new bankrupcy rules.

So, what, you're saying I should get the SUV then?

[badum-ching]

Re:European car security

[Just Some Guy]

Being a long-term survivor of pedestrianism is one of the best ways to become a cynic of the human condition.

Being a long-term driver around a bunch of idiot pedestrians is another one of the best ways. When I was commuting to my college campus every day, I'd lose track of the number of toolsheds who'd blithely step out in front of cars without bothering to turn their heads. Similarly, there were certain crosswalks where you could absolutely count on a gaggle of walkers jumping out the instant the stoplight above it turned red. While that's legally acceptable, it's still pretty stupid to bet your life that no one's going to run the red light - especially in poor weather conditions. Right, wrong... who cares. Dead is dead.

Now, not all pedestrians are this clueless. But it was constantly amazing how many supposedly intelligent people fail to recognize the fact that multi-ton steel boxes can't outmaneuver a person on foot, and that the price of miscalculation is painful death.

Re:European car security

[Don_dumb]

I guess that is good news. Do you know if the regulation covers white vans and 4x4s?

Re:European car security

[Chaset]

I would point out that in some (most?) U.S. jurisdictions, using a crosswalk ON a bike is not legal, as the cyclist has the same status as a vehicle, and a vehicle is not allowed to use a crosswalk. If a cyclist wants to use a crosswalk, he is supposed to get off and walk the bike, thus making him a pedestrian. That in no way diminishes the idiocy of the hit and run driver, however.

Re:European car security

[Chris Burke]

And I could hardly understand how people getting hit in cross-walks related to jay-walking.

It doesn't. This is perfectly normal, though. After 9/11, they started checking IDs at the security checkpoint, even though all the hijakers had legitimate ID and did not use an alias. But it was easier to do that and appear to be tackling the problem than to address the underlying issues of terrorism. Same thing with pedestrian injuries and the university.

Re:European car security

[tompaulco]

WHy reserve that rule just for bicyclists? As a car driver, I always make the assumption that everyone else is going to attempt to hit me, and that has kept me accident free for most of my life (except once when I let my guard down and a lady successfully hit me).

Re:European car security

[tompaulco]

Shoot, bankruptcy doesn't even get you out of paying UNSECURED debt anymore. Even if you become permanently disabled and lose your job, don't have any money, nor any means of getting any, you still have to pay back your debts.
I personally, will never carry a credit card again in my life. I really didn't want to have a car payment either, but I didn't have the money to buy one outright that would last me for any length of time.

Re:European car security

[tompaulco]

In college towns and big cities, pedestrians tend to ignore the rules which apply to them, as they represent the majority. Unfortuately, people in cars often get ticketed and/or sued for running into or being run into by someone disobeying the law. The same happens on the open roadways, where cars are the majority and tend to ignore the rules and the rights of pedestrians and cyclists.
Cars, cyclists and pedestrians all need to obey the rules to remain safe, and not take any stance on who is the majority or who is the heaviest or whatever.

Re:European car security

[DigitalReverend]

...I heard the audible crosswalk signal (for the deaf)...

I am pretty sure those are for the blind.

Re:European car security

[DigitalReverend]

If you don't have to pay highway taxes, vehicle registration, licensing permits, emissions testing, or anything else, then stay off the highways.

Re:European car security

[rjshields]

If you don't have to pay highway taxes, vehicle registration, licensing permits, emissions testing, or anything else, then stay off the highways.

Agreed that cycling on highways is a bad idea, but on other roads... A few counter arguments - many cyclists also own cars (I do) and so pay the aforementioned taxes. Not sure about the US but here in the UK "road tax" doesn't actually pay for roads, which are usually maintained by local authorities, at their expense. Emissions testing a bicicyle? Is farting considered hazardous to the environment now? Licensing and registration don't really apply to bicycles. As a cyclist, I've heard these arguments before, but really there are many good reasons to cycle such as health, congestion, pollution, etc.

Re:European car security

[typical]

Many cyclists believe that police regard us as a nuisance and are glad to have us taken off the road, and that's why they don't bother charging the driver. True or not, it sometimes feels that way.

If you lived in a location with bike cops, things might be different...

Re:European car security

[typical]

After having two people I was living with get hit by hit-and-run drivers while on bicycles, I decided not to take up biking. There are too many assholes with cars.

Re:European car security

[Krach42]

I am pretty sure those are for the blind.

God damn it... *smacks his forehead* why didn't I think of that?

Thanks, the stupid things we miss sometimes...

Re:European car security

[evilviper]

There are significantly more pedestrian deaths in the U.S. _every_year_ than the World Trade Center deaths but I don't see people getting all weepy over it.

I can understand your cynicism, but personally, I'm amazed there aren't more deaths. I have seen so many idiots on foot, wearing all-black clothing, running across roads, ignoring the crosswalk just a few feet away, crossing against a "Do Not Walk" as cars slam on their breaks in-front of a green light to avoid the brainless moron on-foot, etc.

Re:European car security

[Anonymous Codger]

" If you don't have to pay highway taxes, vehicle registration, licensing permits, emissions testing, or anything else, then stay off the highways."

I suppose this is just feeding the troll, but...

If you are spewing pollutants into the atmosphere and driving around in a two-ton heap of metal, endangering everyone around you by operating a death machine that you probably aren't skilled enough to handle properly in an emergency, instead of using a bicycle, your legs, or public transportation, stay off the highways.

Oh, and I do pay highway taxes, vehicle registration, and get emissions testing (my Honda just passed testing last month).

Re:European car security

[M-G]

No, only black vans... ;-)

Not certain about that. Probably not, as the problem with most autos is that they have a very low nose, which creates serious leg injuries. Vans and such typically have a taller, flatter nose, which doesn't produce the same kind of injury.

See the changes in the Jaguar XK and newer BMWs to see how the regs are forcing new designs.

Well, that settles it then...

[shmlco]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars..."

Well, that settles it then. It's obvious we need to outlaw passenger cars. Not only will that remove millions of unsafe cars from the road, it will give a much needed economic boost to the SUV manufacturers.

Besides, if a car is unsafe around a light body truck, it must be a death trap around a standard truck or a semi-tractor trailer rig...

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[blueturffan]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars..."

Strangely, a body-on-frame light truck has been safely coexisting with a (subcompact) passenger car in my garage for the past two years. Amazingly, they both go out and coexist with all other vehicles on the roadway, ranging from bicycles to 18 wheelers, without incident.

I find it amusing when the vehicle is blamed rather than the operator.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like saying "Why blame C? It's the programmer who writes programs with buffer overflows!" Accidents happen. No amount of trying to avoid them will change that. Then you want the vehicle to be designed with safety in mind.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Oldsmobile]

"I find it amusing when the vehicle is blamed rather than the operator.

I agree. Seatbelts ought to be BANNED and a large spike pointing at the drivers chest should be fitted on the steering column. Not only would it make people drive really safely, it would cut down on motoring.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[lysergic.acid]

Well, certain vehicle designs lend themselves to more harmful accidents. You can't prevent accidents completely--that's why they're called accidents. But atleast you can design vehicles to minimize the risks in the case of a collision. By your argument, we shouldn't have seatbelts, and there's nothing wrong with a car that explodes when involved in a side-collision. I mean, don't blame the car, blame the driver right?

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[10Ghz]

At least Chrysler is doing something.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[M-G]

You can't prevent accidents completely--that's why they're called accidents.

Actually, that's something that many are working to change. Most law enforcement agencies have started using the term crash. Accident implies something that you had little or no control over. Even when the other party is the one doing something that caused the crash, paying close attention on your part can help you avoid the crunching of metal.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[M-G]

Besides, if a car is unsafe around a light body truck, it must be a death trap around a standard truck or a semi-tractor trailer rig...

And the trucking industry constantly lobbies for greater weights for their trucks. Which cause lots of wear and tear on the roads if nothing else. But now they can't stop as quickly, and they can't get out of their own way on a hill, resulting in mini traffic jams and high speed differentials, which are a dangerous situation.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Uninvited Guest]

Funny you should say that. Over a year ago, when a similar safety study broke, a car magazine editor noted that (in the U.S.A.) slightly more trucks are sold than cars, and she quipped that maybe we should just ban cars.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Spectre]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars..."

Well, that settles it then. It's obvious we need to outlaw passenger cars.

This is more accurate than funny.

Cars USED to be constructed using body-on-frame techniques similar to current light trucks.

Their bumpers heights also were similar to light trucks. The "problem" didn't exist then (1970s and earlier).

The "problem" came about because car construction was shifted to unibody (less costly and lighter) and car front ends were lowered (better aerodynamics and "style").

Driving a typical car is sacrificing safety, durability, and vehicle capability to save a few bucks.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[blueturffan]

I certainly not opposed to seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones or anything else to keep passengers (and drivers) as safe as possible in the event of an accident.

However, I have seen countless news reports ("SUV crashes into schoolchildren") that imply that the vehicle caused the accident/collision/etc. of its own volition. On the other hand, when it is a subcompact or sedan, the report generally correctly places the culpability on the the responsible driver.

If I understood your message correctly, you believe that the very existence of SUV's/light trucks on the same road as any other vehicle is a safety hazard on the same scale as the removal of seatbelts and the installation of "impaling spikes". On the other hand, my opinion is that an unsafe driver is a safety hazard to self and others regardless of the vehicle driven. (Although certainly more damage can be done with a vehicle of greater mass.)

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[joib]

The "problem" didn't exist then (1970s and earlier)


No, since car safety standards were largely absent then, so any crash at higher than walking speed resulted in a crumpled piece of metal and corpses. ;-)

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Tim Doran]

Did you RTFA? Unibody cars are much, much safer than body-on-frame cars because the unibody construction permits the car to deform and absorb the force of the collision where a rigid frame exposes occupants to the full force of the collision.

The "problem" is not cars moving to unibody - the improved safety and fuel economy drove that - the problem is millions of drivers using "light" trucks as their day-to-day vehicles, with no requirement that these trucks be designed with passenger car collisions in mind.

The good old days weren't as good as you say - body-on-frame collisions (such as the one I experienced in my dad's '74 Buick Centurion) were horrible compared to unibody-to-unibody collisions (such as the collision my wife experienced last month in her Hyundai Elantra.)

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what driving in the 70's was like before the invention of the collapsible steering column. Most people just didn't realize it.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[fireklar]

I agree. Seatbelts ought to be BANNED and a large spike pointing at the drivers chest should be fitted on the steering column. Not only would it make people drive really safely, it would cut down on motoring.

This is mentioned in the book Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg, which is probably where you got it from. Also mentioned is that while seatbelts increased accidents, they decreased deaths (at least for drivers, probably not for pedestrians, maybe check the book).

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[OldManAndTheC]

Hmm, this has real possibilities! What other safety features can be turned into amusing accident deterrents?

• Airbags: fill them with rusty nails and broken glass. On impact they burst open into the passenger compartment.
• Windshield: made of Peril-Sensitive(tm) glass, it turns opaque in the crucial few seconds before a crash, making recovery next to impossible. Even more amusing, the windows roll down automatically so the driver has a chance to lean his head out the window, increasing his visibility, but also his risk of decapitation.
• Seatbelts: are now neckbelts (thanks to the Onion for this one)
• OnStar button: replaced by a thin membrane covering the 12V outlet. Pushing it breaks through the membrane and gives the driver a nasty shock.
• Crumple zones: in this car, zones crumple YOU!

Re:get some priorities!

[radja]

ok then. let's have a party.

Tolls = Death + Injury

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Australia, in Sydney, they are converting highway to parking spaces, and do things to cause forseeable death and public injury's so as to discourage toll-avoiders.

When you narrow roads from 3 lanes to one lane - and you have a SUV in front of you, visiblity turns to shit, people do unwise things.

Rather than tax vehicles on weight, they should tax on overall vehicles on 1/2 MV^2.

Canyonero!

[Life700MB]

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

(Entire lyrics here)


--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

You're both wrong. or right.

[tabrisnet]

KE = (m/2)*v^2

or the more common form: KE = 1/2mv^2

This incidentally does make it in the same class as E=m*c^2 (due to magnitude/exponentiation) but that's more or less irrelevant.

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be even more pedantic, KE = (gamma - 1)*mc^2, where gamma = 1/(1-(v/c)^2)^0.5

When v is far less than c, it is roughly the same as KE = 0.5*mv^2

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[eatmadust]

When v is far less than c, it is roughly the same as KE = 0.5*mv^2

sadly, cars are usually far slower than c. Otherwise I doubt it would matter how the car is built, you're toast anyway!

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[Anonymous Coward]

If v 1 thus:- gamma = 1

Giving:-

KE = (1-1)*mc^2

i.e KE = 0

Apart from mathematical ability, what am I missing?

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[jacekm]

It is actually exactly E=mc^2. Rememeber that according to Einstein m grows with speed (relativistic mass). For speeds significantly lower than the speed of light expression (m/2)*v^2 with constant mass is simply a very good approximation of mc^2 where m is relativistic. JM

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[frankthechicken]

I'm guessing you're missing HTML ability as well.

Perhaps you meant:-

(v/c)^2 tends to 0 as c is far greater than v.

However, if we use binomial theorem to expand the square root expression, we get:-

(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) = 1 + 1/2*(v^2/c^2) + -(1/2*-3/2*v^4)/(2!*c^4)

Then substituting back into the initial equation we get the required non-relativistic equation for v far less than c.

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[odie_q]

Letting v=1 does not make gamma=1:

gamma = ( sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2 ) )^-1

so:

gamma=1 v=0

Which means that the kinetic energy is zero when the velocity is zero.

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[odie_q]

I should have used preview, slashdot mangled that a bit. Second try.

Letting v=1 does not make gamma=1:

gamma = ( sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2 ) )^-1

so:

gamma=1 <=> v=0

Which means that the kinetic energy is zero when the velocity is zero.

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[odie_q]

"This incidentally does make it in the same class as E=m*c^2 (due to magnitude/exponentiation) [...]"

No, it doesn't work that way, as c is a constant. E=mc^2 scales linearly with mass and does not include speed, as it deals with the energy of mass at rest. E=½mv^2 scales linearly with mass and squarely with speed.

(What is the rationale behind slashcode removing &#178; - or &sup2; - from posts?)

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or total energy is gamma * m * c^2. If you expand this in a power series you will find for the low velocity limit both the rest mass m * c^2 and the (classical) kinetic energy (1/2)*m*v^2. Which is kinda neat :)

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[Alef]

Or to quote math professor I once had:

"If cars drove in the speed of light there would be no accidents, because they would stay in the traffic such a short time." ;-)

He was really talking about how one can use extremes to understand a problem, though.

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[ross.w]

Only because the speed of light is a constant, but it is still velocity, and has the units m/s.

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[odie_q]

Yes, the unit is the same (obviously, as they are both expressions for energy), but I interpreted the grandparent (or whatever it is) as drawing more far-reaching conclusions from the similarity of the two expressions. Rereading it now I'm not sure what he was trying to say.

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[CTachyon]

Actually, "relativistic mass" (mass that changes with velocity) is just a mathematical fudge that makes most (but not all) of Newton's equations come out right at relativistic speeds. Unlike length contraction or time dilation, relativistic mass isn't a physical effect. The fully expanded form of E = mc^2 is E^2 = m0^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where m0 is rest mass and p is relativistic momentum (p = [gamma]m0v).

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[CTachyon]

Hate replying to myself, but I forgot to add a link explaining why relativistic mass is just a (pretty but bad) idea.

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

-- Albert Einstein

Re:You're both wrong. or right.

[steeler359]

FWIW,

I started to understand what people were trying to achieve with calculus when I also discovered that the differential of the momentum of a moving body (mv) is its kinteic energy at any given moment (1/2mv^2). Also (offtopically, you might say), differentiate the formula for the area of a circle (pi.r^2) and you get the volume of the sphere (4/3.pi.r^3).

Neat huh?

Chinese SUV

[lovebyte]

I don't know for the USA, but a chinese SUV is being imported into Europe and it received a 0 rating for safety.
So be careful! If you see one on the road, stay well clear.

Re:Chinese SUV

[bobdotorg]

Overheard at a cafe in Stockholm:

Volvo Engineer: But your SUV is so dangerous - it has no crumple zones.

Chinese Car Salesman: Silly Swede. You Volvo my crumple zone.

Re:Chinese SUV

[0123456]

""This car seems to belong in the 1990s in terms of engineering,""

As someone who drives a 1990s car, which replaced a 1980s car which was designed in the 1970s, that doesn't sound too bad to me...

Of course if it's anything like the asian 4x4 I rented one time when my car was being fixed (asked for a smaller car but that was all they had left when I got there to pick it up), they won't be able to go fast enough to do much damage in a crash without rolling the thing.

Re:Chinese SUV

[Zephiria]

Did you ever consider, that this might have been a selling point to the chinese goverment when the company went to them ? Think about it.. Stylish.. modern, american looking, AND it helps reduce the population!

Re:Chinese SUV

[DZign]

Seems they import now an 'improved' version which should be as safe as an Opel Frontera.
Exactly how safe the Frontera is, is not said :-)

Re:Chinese SUV

[Zephiria]

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=9&id2=125 thats the link for the NCAP tests, basically for those lazy or waiting to load, 3 stars for passengers and 1 for the pedestrians :( Test Scores: Front 5 (31%) Side 16 (89%) Overall 21 (62%) Pedestrian 2 (6%) still.. better then before but no way i would get in one.. That said might be better then walking near one...

Re:Chinese SUV

[10Ghz]

Actually, looking at the videos and pictures of the Landwind crash-test, it becomes quite obvious that the whole car is one big crumple-zone. The car seems to simply disintegrate.

See for yourself

Re:Chinese SUV

[SpaghettiPattern]

So be careful! If you see one on the road, stay well clear.
The added safety risk lies in the fact that the JiangLing Landwind is likely to even kill the people inside it in an accident.

Accidents with all SUVs have increased risk levels for innocent bystanders so your line should be: "If you see any SUV on the road, stay well clear." Any which way you put it, the line is more an emotion than anything else.

Re:Chinese SUV

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't kidding... reminds me of those foil cars growing up as a kid. Wrap the little die-cast car up in aluminum foil, remove the die-cast car, then crash the aluminum foil cast against something. Used to be all kinds of fun...

Now whenever I see foil cars crashing, I'm going to think of this SUV... *cringe*

Re:Chinese SUV

[AtomicBomb]

How bad? Probably as bad as a similar vehicle the 1990s... And, it is probably the sort of vehicle most driver are with if they are in the budget sector. Check the link below for a comparison between different SUVs + the Landwind. The Volkswagen survive well, the Landwind fails miserably. But, the 2003 Ford Explorer and the Isuzu Rodeo are not much better off. Based on truck design, the protection of a lot of SUV are jsut not up to it. Before laughing out loud, most of us should realise that we are sitting on similarly dangerous vehicle day in and day out. It is an area money can solve the problem.

Re:Chinese SUV

[boingo82]

Sadly, that doesn't look significantly worse than the results from the 1997-2003 Ford F-150 or the 1997-2004 Pontiac Transport/Olds Silhouette/Chevy Venture triplets.

Re:Chinese SUV

[10Ghz]

Well, it seems that those two models were designed close to 10 years ago (although they were sold as new quite recently). The Landwind is supposed to be a modern car with modern safety-features.

Re:Chinese SUV

[Russ Moerland]

FYI, there are no pictures on that site of a Ford Explorer, that is a F-150 pickup truck. The F-150 rides on a traditional truck lader frame whereas the Explorer 'chassis' is a car-like unibody construction.

Re:Chinese SUV

[guardiangod]

Holy...look at that test dummy and his posture.

I feel for him.

Re:Chinese SUV

[Anonymous Coward]

It has Armor Class 0? Sweet!

PDF warnings

[simpsone]

Hows about a warning of some sort about the pdf lurking behind the first link there? Maybe a little something in parentheses would do.

Re:PDF warnings

[porlw]

I recommend the TargetAlert extension.

Re:PDF warnings

[beef3k]

Warning! A PDF is lurking behind the first link there!

Re:PDF warnings

[heson]

Oh my! Think of the children.

Re:PDF warnings

[superbam]

I second this request. PDF links suck!

And Mazda Miatas

[Zog The Undeniable]

can't safely coexist with anything, but I still love mine.

Re:And Mazda Miatas

[Anonymous Coward]

Think you're Mazda is unsafe? I've got a Ninja. Although, being able to still drive while the rest of the freeway is a parking lot more than makes up for it.

Re:And Mazda Miatas

[dknight]

I have to strongly disagree.
I have a miata, and have been hit by a semi (rear wheels went all the way along the drivers side of my car)

I was fine, and even the car was fairly cheap to fix ($1300 total).

The miata, while small, is MUCH safer than folks give it credit for.

Re:And Mazda Miatas

[avenj]

Eh.. I disagree. Safety isn't just about what happens when you get railed, a safe vehicle also needs to be able to manuever out of a bad situation very quickly.

You're out for a drive, come around a corner, a drunk driver is barreling towards you in your lane. You have seconds to make a decision and execute it. You're in a big honkin' SUV. Better start bracing and praying, because you're either going through the drunk or rolling. I'll take the Miata...

Re:And Mazda Miatas

[engagebot]

Agreed. I ride a kawasaki ninja to work everyday.

Re:And Mazda Miatas

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

And Mazda Miatas can't safely coexist with anything,...

That's because the miata is a chick car, you should be driving a more manly convertible.

Re:And Mazda Miatas

[b0s0z0ku]

actually, Miatas score pretty well on crash tests, or at least the old ones did. Plus, they're nimble enough to actually be able to get out of the way of that big honkin' SUV that's coming to get them.

This reminds me of when I was rear ended by an Acura in my (late) Fiat Spider. Total damage to Fiat, $100 (broken taillight and slightle dented rear). Damage to Acura: both pop-up headlights broken and nose smashed in by big 80s-style bumper of Fiat. Probably at least $500 to $1000.

-b.

People will always buy an auto they feel safe in

[fantomas]

People are always going to consider their own selfish personal safety as a purchasing factor when choosing a road vehicle; for many people this is a very significant issue, and is played upon by advertising for autos.

We need to focus on methods of ensuring safety that don't threaten other road users: win-win situations rather than soccer moms driving trucks and declaring "I know I will win in a collision" (vaguely remembered quote from a National Geographic article on SUVs). This can only lead to a sort of arms war where we all end up driving 38 tonne truck rigs....I was particularly scared by the picture of the SUV built on what is effectively a couple of forward facing railroad rails - that's going to hurt if you're hit side on in a little compact by one of those.

The annoying thing is I am sure most of the safety issues can be solved with little cost and by improving social as well as technological aspects of road use, e.g. severely enforcing low speed limits round residential areas. As long as its cool to drive like a bastard people will.

I always like the story about how there were a lot of fatal accidents in early autos because of the bolt protruding in the middle of early steering wheels, head on crashes meant drivers suffering lots of chest damage; while this was then changed to make life safer, it's been pointed out that if there was a big spike compulsorily welded onto the middle of all steering wheels pointing at drivers then everybody would drive a whole lot more carefully and there would be a lot less accidents.....

hehe

[Danzigism]

i always disliked seeing little tiny white women driving Ford Excursions, while talking on their cell phone, probably to a man that she's having an affair with, as I stare at the little soccer ball sticker on the back windshield.. lemme tell ya.. i feel really safe with these bastards on the road.. people are so god damn caught up with the "social status" factor of vehicles.. i certainly don't give a fuck about what kinda car you drive.. but i will give a fuck if you sit there and waste my gas, kill my environment and other people driving on the roads just because of your social status complex..

Re:hehe

[Gruneun]

but i will give a fuck if you sit there and waste my gas

Yours?

Re:hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

White?

What does race have to do with driving a SUV?

Re:hehe

[Danzigism]

its all of our gas, so yes, I can say "my" gas.. and when we all take from the same pot, its wrong when other people take more than what's practical.. driving an SUV serves NO purpose unless you're towing boats on a daily basis or you're a off-road fanatic.. little white women, are not using these for anything practical, and therefore they deserve to be made fun of..

Re:hehe

[Danzigism]

because little white women that drive SUVs fucking piss me off.. what do you think the purpose of my comment was?? do you think its practical for them to drive such things?? i know this is a free country and all, but damn.. i have just as much freedom to bitch about stupid white women driving SUVs, as the white women do in having the freedom to drive SUVs in the first place.. and yes, its typical/extremely common to see little white women driving SUVs.. open your fucking eyes you anonymous coward.. inductive reasoning anybody??

Re:hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I think the same thing when I see black guys with their Cadillac Escalades.

Re:hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than babble like an idiot, why not just admit that you made a racist remark? Go on ... show that you're better than the KKK or Nation of Islam.

Re:hehe

[Danzigism]

sorry, but i'm probably the whitest bastard there is.. but i'll admit unlike yourself, that the white race is probably the worst and has the most shameful past.. regardless, why do you defend little white women that drive SUVs?? are you a little white woman that is the epitome of america?

Re:hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah! A flamebait rascict troll!

You know, if you really want to do it right you need to mention either Hitler or the GNAA.

Re:hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

You have anger issues...wealthier people tend to drive SUV, independent of race. Attributing it to race is just racist.

I drive a SUV for towing a camper, but I commute in a sedan with my wife everyday to work. Just remember, do not assume everyone driving a SUV is just using to get from point A to point B. Some use them for their functionality. I tow but I also put less than 5000 miles/year on it.

I think people who don't carpool or use the mass transit are just as stupid....Remember that the next time you sit alone in your car scouling at drivers in their SUV.

I bet I use less gas/year in my SUV than most people use in their enconomy cars/year...

Re:hehe

[engagebot]

Yes, they may be free to drive that thing, but they're also obligated to watch the road.

If you ever find out that I'm dead and my motorcycle is thrashed, you can blame a woman on a cell phone.

Re:hehe

[Danzigism]

well see, you have a special case.. and if you would of correctly read my previous posts, than you would see that I have nothing against people that use the vehicles practically.. I really think you under-estimate the amount of people that use SUVs on a daily basis.. even for their stupid commutes to and from work.. there are a lot more people that use SUVs for stupid purposes, than people who use them for practical purposes.. you can obviously see that when you see a fucking spotless hummer driving down the highway.. its what america wants.. pull your head out of your ass whitey

Re:hehe

[Dread_ed]

"the white race is probably the worst and has the most shameful past.."

I see this opinion alot and it never fails to amuse me. I don't care if you are white, black, brown, or something in between. If you look at your ancestry you will find the same type of activities that you condemn the "white man" for.

Some of the worst atrocities imaginable were comitted by people of other races. Ever heard of the "Rape of NanKing"? About the same number of people were killed in Nanking as were killed by both the nuclear weapons that the US used in WW2. However dosen't even mention the atrocities (rape, dismemberment, torture, etc.) visited on those people before they were killed.

To this day there are places on earth where women are treated as property. They are mutilated as a social convention and controlled like livestock. However, none of these places are controlled by "white" people.

Slavery? It has been practiced all over the world at different times. It is still being practiced today as a matter of fact, just not in any "white" countries.

If you objectively look at history you will find that every race of people acts just like every other race of people at some time or another. No race is pure; no people are free from the stains of their previous generations iniquity.

However, rascist categorization, as you have done, is an expression of the same motivations that encouraged the most horrendous past examples of persecution. The fact that you cannot see it is the greatest irony.

Enjoy your self hate, misplaced as it may be. Just realize that you, as a white man, are alone in this mental fallacy. The other peoples of this world will gladly indulge you in this opinion, all the while plotting atrocities against you, the evil of which you think are only worthy of your own race.

Maybe you will feel they are as justified as they do the next time something attrocious happens to "white people."

This Is Genius!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.

Wow! That's great! Now instead of plebs getting messily caught in my undercarraige, they'll just hit the bonnet and windshield and bounce right off! I can just turn on the sprinklers and wash the blood right off while I sip on my latte! This is genius!

The only downside I can think of is that they may be inconsiderately be wearing metallic objects that might scratch my paintjob. That's a serious issue with this system. Perhaps it would be better if they were bumped to the side instead, preferably to the sidewalk, as that way they wouldn't fly into any oncoming drivers, thus exacerabting the problem.

Re:This Is Genius!

[10Ghz]

The idea is pretty simple. When the bonnet raises, there's more room to absorb the impact-energy. Earlier, the only things absorbing the energy were the metal on the bonnet and engine, and the bones in the pedestrian. With this system, the bonnet can absorb more of the impact-energy, sparing the pedestrian.

Here is the EURO-NCAP test-report for Citroen C6. As it happens, it's the first car to achieve the maximum score for pedestrian safety.

Re:This Is Genius!

[advocate_one]

so, what you really want is a whacking great big cow-catcher to shove them to one side or the other...

Re:This Is Genius!

[Rick.C]

For a demonstration video, Google for "FinalBir.mpg".

(It's the Sportka vs. pigeon commercial that was making the rounds last year.)

Re:This Is Genius!

[nyri]

The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.

Wow! That's great! Now instead of plebs getting messily caught in my undercarraige, they'll just hit the bonnet and windshield and bounce right off! I can just turn on the sprinklers and wash the blood right off while I sip on my latte! This is genius!

I understand that the reasoning behind the lifting hood is not apparent. But it's still a good thing. Worst traumas from the car crasing to a pedestiran are because the first thing to hit the car after the initial collision is usually the head. Or was. The new design with this lifting hood increases the propability that pedestrian will land on some other bodypart. As the head traumas are the worst thing that can happen this is generally regarded as a good thing.

Re:This Is Genius!

[dr_dank]

No, what they need to do is strengthen the windshield wiper motors. Damn near burned mine out trying to wipe off the little bits of crossing guard from yesterday.

Re:This Is Genius!

[halltk1983]

school kids are still too fast, eh?

Re:This Is Genius!

[EnglishDude]

I think it's mainly to do with when you hit the bonnet, the bonnet deforms - it's only a thin sheet of metal after all, and your body then comes in contact with the engine/suspension turrets/etc and get really deformed. This lifting bonnet thing gives more room for the body to slow down before hitting the parts inside the engine bay.

While that is mostly true

[Chuck Chunder]

Increases in that sort of safety may decrease insurance premiums which may make people consider them more. It probably won't be a major consideration though but such features do tend to become more standard over time.

Re:While that is mostly true

[FireFury03]

Increases in that sort of safety may decrease insurance premiums

Or it may increase them. More survivors of road accidents == more people alive to claim long term personal injury payments. (No, I'm not advocating killing people to cut insurance, but it _is_ a fact that in some cases it's cheaper for an insurance company to pay out a large sum to the familly of someone who was killed rather than paying out for life long treatment of an injury).

On SUV safety

[Oldsmobile]

Funny thing anout SUV's. They really are a hazard. Not only is the center of gravity higher, but they usually have misdesigned suspension (Ford Exploder, Mitsubishi Montero) that actually encourages rolling over, SUV's have higher bumpers, so cars running into them slide under, killing the occupants in the lower car. SUV's use more gas and cause more pollution. A very big problem is roof crush. SUV roofs are notorious for being frail and crushing in a roll over accident, squishing the people inside.

I for one don't like the idea of dying by having my spinal column driven into my skull.

Many of these things of course could be mitigated. There could be a standard lane change test to determine suspension quality, there could be rules on the center of gravity, there could be rules on bumper height (like on regular cars) and there could be rules on pollution, perheps making all SUV's except the kind with frugal modern common rail diesel engines (with particle filters) financially impposible to own/buy.

But this is not the case. Infact, with GM and to some extent Ford in financial trouble (and with all their profits coming from SUV's) the current US administration wil do nothing about the laws, that infact make SUV's above the law.

Right now, SUV's are excempt from current fuel efficiency laws (that are not very good in the first place, mind you), they are excempt from bumper laws (making SUV's lousy and expensive to fix in even the smallest parking lot accident) and there are no laws governing roll-overs (only tests).

With all these problems, I don't see why they even allow these on the road.

The funny thing is, I really like the idea of sitting up high in my car and being able to see further. That is probably the only reason SUV's are so popular. Looks like they could accomplish that in a macho looking vehicle without these problems.

Cross-over anyone?

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps now there is ample evidence that an SUV makes an accident worse, if you get hit by one you can sue for punitive damages as the driver made a decision to drive a proven dangerous vehicle.

Might backfire on drivers of older cars, though.

Re:On SUV safety

[91degrees]

The funny thing is, I really like the idea of sitting up high in my car and being able to see further. That is probably the only reason SUV's are so popular. Looks like they could accomplish that in a macho looking vehicle without these problems.

I'm not sure. A minivan has a higher driving position than most cars, and most of the benefits of an SUV, but is usually chaper, safer and has lower running costs. The only downside seems to be image, which is an important factor for most people.

Re:On SUV safety

[jawtheshark]

Minivan? :-) You don't even need a minivan! Okay, personally, I drive a car that has my ass pretty close to the asphalte, but my wife drives a Mercedes A-Class and my dad drives an Audi A2. In both of those cars you sit pretty damn high, at least compared to the sedan car that I owned. So, no, you don't need a minivan to sit high. (Of, course, Audi stopped making the A2. Sad, I'd have loved to have A2 TDI because the gas prices are insane these days).

Of course, a minivan is bigger and if you have a family, it's probably the better choice (at least compared to a SUV)

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if the SUV=dangerous issue is an American mentality thing or not, but in Japan, where SUV's seem to be just as popular, I don't see anyone up in arms like they are in the U.S. (I'm American, btw.) Of course, you don't see many American SUVs over here either... And like the U.S., most people don't really have a good justifiable reason to drive one. But they're cool, I admit.

I own and drive a British Range Rover, and I'm not sure if it's more or less safe than an American SUV (although I can certainly testify that it's craftsmanship is as shitty as any other British car), but I do know one thing for sure. I don't drive it like a 4 door sedan. It's not a 4 door sedan, you don't drive it like one. Whether you like it or not, it's essentially a truck, and needs to be driven like one. Like any other truck, it has a higher center of gravity, the suspension isn't as stable as a sedan (although the air suspension on the RR is quite nice), and it's big. And heavy. Why Americans (yes yes, I'm generalizing and ignoring a lot of Americans that don't fit the bill) can't drive responsibly in SUVs is really beyond me. I suspect that the fact that it's easier to get a drivers license may have something to do with it. And that penalties aren't as stiff as they are over here in Japan. (On the other hand, American insurance costs seem to be a penalty imposed on EVERYONE, including those that drive responsibly!)

When I hear people whining about SUVs, it sort of peeves me. Want a cool car? Buy one! Can't afford it? That isn't MY problem! But on the other hand, I do see some justifiable reasons to the whining when a larger percentage of SUV drivers seem to be sheer idiots, endangering more than their own lives.

But back to the main article... this article is full of shit. Remove SUVs from the roads, and you still have full size trucks, construction vehicles and what not. They're just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than SUVs. There's just a lot less of them, and the DRIVERS tend to be just a weeeeee bit more responsible.

Back when the first motor coaches were invented and sold, a lot of areas in the U.S. outlawed them from the roads. They were too dangerous and couldn't co-exist with horse carriages. Bah.

(PS: For those that want to complain about how my RR is a gas guzzler, well, you have a point. It is. However, I buy my gas in Japan. I pay approx. $4/gallon for unleaded premium. I pay the price for what I drive...)

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the 2001 Montero Limited is the Montero in question that consumer reports released its wrath on. The limited edition, which is a different animal than the rest of the monteros, probably about only 3 percent of them sold. The rest are the sport line.

The limited is more like a minivan on steroids, and has a very different body style than the rest.

Also Mitsu fixed the problem with a redesign. And there is still much debate on whether the CU test was valid.

So you cannot blanket all Monteros into this.

I own a Sport, have for 5 years. And am safe driver. I also know my vehicle well, and have performed maneuvers over 50 miles an hour in the interstate and did not come anywhere near to rolling.

The only time I felt extreme lean is when a tanker trank went sideways in front of me and I had to go off road at about 75 from concreted to dirt. Which I doubt I would have survived in a car.

I did a lot of research into SUVs when I bought mine, and drove them all.

My other car is a TDI Jetta which I commute in and do most of my driving.

The montero is there to haul equipment and people.

I have been hit twice from behind with minimal damage to occupants and car. And the repairs were not expensive.

Puto

Re:On SUV safety

[Oldsmobile]

Well, yes, I suppose what you are getting at is, that to operate an SUV, one would be required a commercial drivers licence?

I guess that would be one way to organize things and would in effect make SUV's much more expensive and require more trouble for the owner to get one.

What you said about gas is true as well. Alot of the problems with traffic in the USA would be resolved simply by making gas twice as expensive. That way, a gas guzzler would become the owners problem.

In the end, I guess fuel prices will kill the SUV -for the simple fact, that more mass requires more energy to move.

Re:On SUV safety

[GoatMonkey2112]

If we just make gas $10 a gallon things will work themselves out, and SUVs will be gone.

Re:On SUV safety

[Zog The Undeniable]

I have two words for you: "arms race". When everyone's driving SUVs, no-one will be any safer (in fact, probably less so, since many accidents don't involve another vehicle). And I'm sorry, a man in an SUV always makes me think of the rednecks in "Bob's Country Bunker".

Re:On SUV safety

[dunkelfalke]

i despised the a2 everytime i had to sit in it. audi a3 is a much better car - for an audi.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

SUV = Sport Utility Vehicle

Sport = off road
Utility = Carrying or towing capacity

Off road use requires a higher center of gravity to allow clearance over hazards, the ability to cross over ridge crests without scraping the undercarriage, etc.

Carrying capacity and towing capacity requires both additional cubic cargo space, weight and power. SUVs are used for towing boats, trailers, campers, etc., and need these additional characteristics to be successful.

All of this is expensive. A typical SUV starts out at the dealership at over $25K, with most coming in at over $35K once you add the additional towing packages, etc. Many come in at over $45K!

If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity. But at that expense, many people can't afford both an SUV and a regular car. So they buy just the SUV, or they can afford just one additonal car, so Hubby drives the lower gas milage car to the more distant workplace, and Soccer Mom drives the SUV around town cause thats all the cars they can afford.

At least in the US, the government doesn't have so much power that they can just ban a particular vehicle without political consequences. Not when it's as popular as the SUV. The recreational lobbies would eat them alive.

It's only a very small minority of folks that just buy an SUV as a status symbol.

Re:On SUV safety

[Matts]

I for one don't like the idea of dying by having my spinal column driven into my skull.

Actually of all the various ways of dying this is probably right up there with the best of them. Quick, mostly pain free, and you get to make a big red mark on the seat.

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't see what's cool about an SUV. They're incredibly bulky and ugly and it's difficult geting a parking space for them. Not wanting to own an SUV has nothing to do with being able to pay it. I'd take a nice Audi over an SUV any day.

I buy my gas in Japan. I pay approx. $4/gallon for unleaded premium. I pay the price for what I drive

That would be considered quite a bargain in most of Europe. In fact, it is even substantially below the price of diesel here.

Re:On SUV safety

[Forbman]

In the US? You can go buy a motorcoach the size of a passenger bus (hey, it IS a passenger bus...made by Van Hool, Prevost, MCI), but because it's a "recreational vehicle", you don't need any special license endorsements like a regular bus driver needs.

Re:On SUV safety

[Mr Krinkle]

I really disagree with the "small minority" comment there.
Look at Jeep wranglers, probably the SUV that has the least practicality of any of them.
The LARGE majority are bought for it being a cool car, you can take the top and doors off, it's a blast.
Look at the underside of most of them, there isn't even dust under there.
Mine, ermm, well, somewhere under the dents from rocks and mud and who knows what else is an undercarriage. I know my Jeep is unsafe in some ways, short wheelbase, high center of gravity.
I also try to avoid situations where it's shortcomings would be shown, I follow further behind, I take exits slower, etc.
That said, I have taken turns overly fast, and don't feel in danger of flipping. (unless I have the sway bars disconnected for off roading, woot, then the back inside tire comes right off the ground)
But most of the sport ut's out there, struggle to drive out on a beach, much less an actual off road trail. They work as people haulers, or stuff haulers, occasionaly acceptable for towing. But I would almost say 90% of the SUV's maybe even higher never get used off road.

Re:On SUV safety

[nharmon]

My Jeep Grand Cherokee does not meet any the criteria that parent listed in the first paragraph. In fact, it isn't even a body-on-frame construction. It has more in common with an AWD car than a truck. Everyone who has driven it has commented that it drives more like a car than a truck.

I think Americans who whine about SUVs need to get it through their heads that American culture is all about big cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. This was true 20 years ago, and still true today. I'm not saying its right, or that it will always be this way. But it just is.

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard a great description once of the difference between American and European drivers. The European says "give me a vehicle that can handle well enough to dodge an accident or obstacle". The American says "give me a vehicle that wraps me in enough metal so I can plow right through an accident or obstacle". American drivers don't want the responsibility of having to drive. They want to be passive participants, not active participants in the driving experience.

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity.

I call BS. I know a *lot* of people who do all those things without ever having been inside an SUV. I really don't see why one would even want to have such a bulky car.

By the way, those 'expensive' SUV's you just mentioned are about the price of an average European family car.

Re:On SUV safety

[RosenSama]

Many of these things of course could be mitigated. There could be a standard lane change test to determine suspension quality, there could be rules on the center of gravity, there could be rules on bumper height (like on regular cars) and there could be rules on pollution, perheps making all SUV's except the kind with frugal modern common rail diesel engines (with particle filters) financially impposible to own/buy.

The car buying market in the US is pretty democratic. People buy what they want. We don't need more rules here to tell people what they "should" buy any more than we need more rules about televisions telling people what they "should" watch. The reason the SUV-is-a-truck-not-a-car loophole that excludes them from bumper height and fuel economy exists in the first place is because of short-sighted rules. We don't need further rules that just leave new loopholes with age. Eventually the car manufacturing regulations would be like the tax code.

Re:On SUV safety

[jawtheshark]

The A3 is an entirely different car. You can't really compare the two. I found the A2 to be fun to drive, but that is of course my own opinion.

for an audi.

From that sentence I take you don't like Audis in the first place, so why even bother despising the A2?

Re:On SUV safety

[hal2814]

Don't forget about towing. I have yet to see a minivan that is good at towing. That's a pretty significant downside. The GMC Safari is good, but it's not exactly "mini." The only American vehicle that is reasonable for towing and relatively small is the now-defunct Jeep Cherokee (NOT Grand Cherokee, which is quite a bit larger). It weighs about 3500 lbs and can tow 5000 lbs. It's basically a raised station wagon. I've towed up to 4000 in one pretty comfortably but I have an OLD Explorer I keep around for most towing duties.

And I realize that there are people in Europe who tow all the time with small cars but there's two big differences:
1. European trailers tend to have brakes on them a lot more often. Tow ratings in America tend to be lower because most mid-sized American trailers don't have brakes.
2. If you tow over the specified tow ratings in America and you get into an accident, you are in for a whole world of problems since your insurance company might not pay for any damages.

Personally, I'd love to get a minivan but until they do something about towing capacity, I'll use my Explorer.

Re:On SUV safety

[Neoprofin]

1. You can tow a boat of any reasonable size, or a Uhaul trailer, or an ATV trailer with a 4 cylinder Honda Civic, I see it on a daily basis(not during the winter ofcourse) on the interstate of all places. Anyone who says they would have bought a car but they needed the towing capcity for their boat either lives in the mountain, only drives with a boat attached (in which case it probably would be better) or didn't put much thought into their actual needs.

2) The government can't regulate one form of vehicles out of existance, but they can make those vehicles accountable to the same standards of emissions and safety that all others are. If I take a car chassis and put some goofy 24 inch wheels on it and a biger cab, what do I have? Not a car of ofcourse, I have a truck, not even a light heavily regulated consumer truck, I have a practically emissions law free mini-freight truck.

3)Why are most SUVs based on car chassis? Because they provide a smoother ride and better handing. They also have terrible ground clearance and a soft suspension to make them more confortable. These are hardly improvements to its off road performance.

If 90% of SUV owners truly need an offroad towing vehicle, why aren't SUVs designed to be offroad towing vehicles? Why are they designed more like really big cars? Why do the ones I see always have an unblemished paint job but a nonexistant trailer hitch? Maybe where you live it's a differnt story, but in Wisconsin SUVs are for the wealthy, sportsmen drive pickups.

Re:On SUV safety

[Oldsmobile]

"All of this is expensive. A typical SUV starts out at the dealership at over $25K, with most coming in at over $35K once you add the additional towing packages, etc. Many come in at over $45K!

Actually, SUV's might be expensive at the dealership, but they are very cheap to produce, hence the extreme profitability.

Re:On SUV safety

[M-G]

Right now, SUV's are excempt from current fuel efficiency laws (that are not very good in the first place, mind you), they are excempt from bumper laws (making SUV's lousy and expensive to fix in even the smallest parking lot accident) and there are no laws governing roll-overs (only tests).

No, they aren't exempt from fuel efficiency laws. Rather, they tend to fall into the truck category for CAFE standards.

As for bumpers, have you seen the various reports that the insurance companies put out regarding bumper repair costs from low-speed crashes? Most car designs are very poor in this respect, as not only do you need to replace a bumper cover, but many other pieces of the car body aren't really protected.

Do you really want a law governing roll-overs? Federal regs have a funny way of doing unexpected things. Remember the truck CAFE standards I mentioned above? Because of the way the regs are, Chrysler gets to claim the PT Cruiser as part of its truck fleet. (The PT Cruiser convertible, OTOH, is part of the car fleet because of the reduction in cargo space.) Besides, the rollover ratings currently provided by NHTSA don't tell you much about real world situations. And one of the cars deemed least likely to rollover actually has one of the highest rollover fatality rates: the Corvette.

Re:On SUV safety

[Politburo]

No, they aren't exempt from fuel efficiency laws. Rather, they tend to fall into the truck category for CAFE standards.

Right. I believe only the H2 is heavy enough to push it out of the 'light truck' class, where there are indeed no efficiency standards.. the H2 doesn't even have the mileage on the window sticker. It's also not required to do the collision tests.

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. We should have the right to modify our engines so that oil is spraid direclty on the exhaust manifold. Now thats what I call democratic pollution!

Re:On SUV safety

[Politburo]

If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity.

That's bullshit. My family went camping and boating dozens of times and has never owned an SUV. The SUV wasn't mainstream until the 90s.. you think people didn't camp and go boating before then?

Re:On SUV safety

[gbutler69]

I want to die like my Grandpa, peacefully, in his sleep. Not screaming in terror like his passengers!

Re:On SUV safety

[WinterSolstice]

I agree entirely. My family camped and hiked for ages before SUVs.

Of course, what we had were Jeeps, International Scouts, and Pickup Trucks :)

-WS

Re:On SUV safety

[dunkelfalke]

because it was the shittiest car i have ever drived.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

And in the meantime, the weight and size of boats, etc., people are using may be larger than what your family used!

If you own a toyota and want to haul a 5000 lb boat, go ahead, but don't complain when the transmission goes out, or you pull your bumper off cause you're using a class one or two trailer hitch to pull too much weight!

My comments were not meant to be all inclusive. I know that many people don't use SUVs for that purpose - I've seen a lot of boat ramps, and I've pulled into a lot of uHaul lots, too. If you've got a small 12 - 15 foot boat, you're wasting your money buying an SUV to pull it, I know. But a lot of folks buy SUVs to pull heavier things, too. That's what my comments were meant to point out.

The issue is, that those reasons are why SUVs are designed the way they are!

FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION!

Take your BS comments and get a life.

Re:On SUV safety

[midknight32]

I agree entirely. My family camped and hiked for ages before SUVs.

Of course, what we had were Jeeps, International Scouts, and Pickup Trucks :)

And Station Wagons!

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

And today, most SUVs are built on either light or heavy truck chassis, depending on the model. So if your family used a pickup truck, they were using the SUV of their day...the body was different, but they were using a vehicle with a heavier body, and a bigger engine, most likely. The main difference is that pickups weren't built as off-road vehciles, so the center of gravity was lower. A lot of pickups today ARE built as off-roaders - and puts them in the same class with SUVs regarding bumper height, engine efficiency, and body weight.

Should we outlaw pickups, too?

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

---and the expense at the dealership is the point. My payments aren't based upon the manufacturer's cost, but what the dealer charges me to buy the vehicle!

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Hmmm, if you own a boat or camper that weighs more than a standard passenger car can handle, you might want a vehicle that CAN pull it.

Notice I said "often". I didn't say "always".

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, SUV's are excempt from current fuel efficiency laws (that are not very good in the first place, mind you)

Could you spread the FUD any thicker? SUVs are regulated via CAFE just like any other car or light truck. There are exemptions, but I believe that starts at 8000lbs GVW.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

1 - define "reasonable". An SUV can pull a substantially heavier trailer or boat than a passenger car can. That's why people with BIG campers or trailers or boats buy SUVs. Some people do their homework and buy an SUV cause it meets their needs - others just buy em cause they're cool. Take yer pick.

2 - You can't take a car chassis and make it capable of pulling what a heavy vehicle can. You can put another type body on it and make it into a minivan, tho. But the gov't CAN change the emissions regulations, tho, maybe they should.

3 - Most SUVs are NOT based on car chassis - they're based upon light or heavy truck chassis. That's why they can accommodate the heavier engines and cargo capacities they are noted for.

And most SUVs ARE made to be off road towing vehicles - you just have to be willing to put out the extra money to put the towing and off road packages on them! It's called "customer choice"!

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Oh, I didn't know that the average European's salary was that much higher than in the US! I guess that I should move to Europe if I want to afford an expensive car, then.

Look, most of these comments are about SUVs in the US. Most SUVs are bought here, so this is where my comments are directed - towards the US market, and those are the people I'm talking about.

Many Europeans don't even own cars - in the cities at least. Gas is too expensive, and public transportation is too pervasive to make them needed. Not to mention the cost of just housing a car in a typical European city. So why compare that cost? Your last commment is a red herring to my arguments.

Re:On SUV safety

[Politburo]

But a lot of folks buy SUVs to pull heavier things, too. That's what my comments were meant to point out.

Then why didn't you say that in the first place? What you said was "If a family camps, boats... an SUV is often a necessity." That statement is a simply false, and no amount of explanation and caveats is going to help.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

I DID use the word "often". That means the comment was not all inclusive. You just chose to interpret it that way.

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Most cars are rated for about 1000 pounds trailer thanks to unibody design. 1000lbs gets you a small aluminum fishing boat with an out board trailer. Add things like seats or a platform and you exceed the rating.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Don't forget - those ratings include things like the weight of the passengers in the vehicle, too, as well as the weight of the trailer, not just the boat!

People that pull more than their vehicle is rated for risk accidents, and insurance companies not paying for damages due to you not obeying the law. Read your insurance policy!

The point here is - SUVs are made for pulling large objects, and carrying more people or cargo than the average passenger car. But because they look cool, and look as though they'll survive an accident with a smaller car better than the small one will, people often buy them that don't need the capabilities they offer.

Sometimes those people don't understand the driving characteristics of the SUV, and therefor have accidents because of it.

Don't blame the SUV for the idiots that drive them irresponsibly - blame the idiot. If you have a problem with the gas milage for them, lobby your Congressman.

Auto manufacturers are responding to their market - if people want SUVs, they'll keep offering them. When customers demand better gas milage, they'll eventually provide that, too.

States bear some responsibility - they can pass laws regarding licensing, safety, etc. Again, lobby your state Congressman. If enough of us do that, these issues can be dealt with.

Re:On SUV safety

[Oldsmobile]

Yes, yes, but regular cars nowadays have very advanced equipment. Lightweight aluminum all independent multi-arm suspension, all round ventilated disk brakes, advanced rigid unibody design and very advanced engines.

SUV's on the other hand have flexy body on frame chassis, stiff rear (and sometimes front) axels, drum brakes on the rear and old fashioned pushrod v8 engines.

This of course makes them very rugged for towing or hauling, but not very good cars.

You always get more and newer stuff when you spend money on a car.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Not true in all cases. Not all SUVs are the huge monsters like the Suburban. Quite a few of the foreign manufacturers have much more modern equipment on their SUVs.

But that's beside my point.

What I said was that the cost (and it IS expensive!) of an SUV often forces families to use them as family cars, even though it can be argued that they weren't meant to be such. Whether you get more and better equipment does not diminish my argument. (nor does the cost of cars in Europe!)

Re:On SUV safety

[dakirw]

The funny thing is, I really like the idea of sitting up high in my car and being able to see further. That is probably the only reason SUV's are so popular. Looks like they could accomplish that in a macho looking vehicle without these problems.

Image and possibily towing capacity are probably the only reasons that minivans aren't more popular. They can carry the same (or more) people more comfortably than most SUVs, have higher seating (and provide greater visiblity) than most cars, and have plenty of cargo capacity as well. Minivans are generally safer to neighboring cars as well.

Re:On SUV safety

[jawtheshark]

That would be "driven"... ;-)

It drives exactly the same as a Mercedes A-Class. Of course it handles differently than an A3, A4 and anything beyond.

Re:On SUV safety

[ross.w]

1. Rent an SUV for that once a year camping holiday to Fraser Island.

2. Have a regular car for the rest of the year.

3. ...

you know the rest.

Re:On SUV safety

[tompaulco]

Yeah, most minivans suck at towing. Most of them come with a pathetic 4 cyclinder which makes it barely able to maintain highway speeds without a load. Also, most of them are too narrow to fit a 4X8 sheet of plywood in. I have a Safari myself, and it is much more powerful than a typical minivan, and it is still BARELY adequate at towing. I towed 5000 pounds from Chicago to Oklahoma, and it still slowed way down on the hills. Most people who have a minivan would have just as much room and just as much functionality in a sedan. It's a shame what happened to the station wagon, because that is what most people who have an SUV or minivan really need.

Re:On SUV safety

[tompaulco]

Hmmm, if you own a boat or camper that weighs more than a standard passenger car can handle, you might want a vehicle that CAN pull it.
So sell the SUV, and buy a decent pickup truck. Problem solved.
My main issue with the SUVs are that they are neither S nor U. But at least they are V.

Re:On SUV safety

[triffid_98]

Full sized trucks are designed to carry rednecks and sheet rock. If you design a vehicle to be balanced with 1500lbs of cargo it sure as hell won't be balanced with a driver named Cletus and a case of MGD.

SUV's are a mild improvement over this, since they are designed as cleverly disguised station wagons, and therefore have a more balanced (but still quite top heavy) design.

Performance cars are fun, they might help you avoid an accident if the pavement is dry, but many are really worse than the SUV's in the wet. Not so much because their handling is worse, but that your handling expectations are so much more wrong.

Can we all just drive what we want to drive now?

Re:On SUV safety

[Anonymous Coward]

""TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", Lazarus Long, in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by R. Heinlein"

Um, Lazarus Long wasn't that book...

Re:On SUV safety

[91degrees]

But doing a lot of towing of heavy loads is a legitimate reason to have a light truck with a fairly powerful engine. Most people with these things don't even fill the passenger seat, let alone the rest of the space, and certainly don't need a trailer.

Re:On SUV safety

[DrCode]

I agree. The right thing to do is to have us pay the true cost of gasoline; ie, take the cost of all our Middle East military operations and raise the gas tax to cover them.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Now that comment makes no sense.

If you already have the SUV, you don't need to sell it to pull the trailer or boat.

What you mean by the rest of your comment, only you and the good Lord know for sure...

Re:On SUV safety

[tompaulco]

Well, most SUVs are not really rated to pull any larger of a trailer than a large sedan. Also, it is kind of dangerous to pull a trailer with a SUV, as the center of gravity is too high. Obviously, the better vehicle for pulling trailers or boats is a pickup. The exceptions to this would be the Suburban, which has a decent Center of Gravity and a long wheelbase, and a strong engine. Ironically, it offers the most Utility of the SUVs, but is definitely one of the least cool factor. It is about the only SUV I would consider owning.
As for the rest of the comment, well an SUV is not sporty. It's acceleration is not all that great. They don't handle very well. And they are not a utility vehicle, as their interior storage space is not any greater than a station wagon, and far less than a pickup or a minivan. So an SUV is not S or U, but is only V.

Re:On SUV safety

[WinterSolstice]

There were certainly issues with body weight (or at least distribution)- we frequently had to put cement bags or gravel in the bed to make it up the icy/snowy hills leading to our ranch at the time. The rear wheels simply wouldn't hold otherwise.

-WS

Re:On SUV safety

[dunkelfalke]

ah, thanks
hm, no, imho a-klasse feels different, a bit easier. but that is also because i am a shitty driver myself so i can feel better if a car handles strange.

Re:On SUV safety

[dimension6]

In Japan, minivans have a much better image (just as hatchbacks have a better image in Europe) than in the US. It helps that the Japanese have some pretty cool minivans that we don't.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Well, having owned a pickup myself, I know that's a common issue with them, at least with the two wheel drives, since they're rear wheel drive. Unless the bed is loaded, the rear is always light.

Of course, SUVs don't usually have that issue, plus, off road configurations are usually 4WD. But, naturally, a 4WD pickup has the same advantage...

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Sorry, wrong again!

Since most SUVs are built on truck bodies, NOT sedan bodies, and have larger engines (thus the lower gas milage!), they ARE rated for more towing capacity. My Xterra is just a small SUV, and its rated at 5000 lbs. Most autos are rated at 1000 - 1500 lbs., some even lower. Check the websites!

Not dangerous at all, if you pay attention to the rules. I recently pulled a Chrysler New Yorker (3200 lbs) from Washington DC to Tampa Fl. on a tow dolly (front wheels on the dolly, rear on the road), and had NO trouble. It was rock solid, even though it rained partway. Just under 5000 lbs loaded. 0-60 in under 10 seconds. Top speed about 60 - not because of lack of power - I could have gone MUCH faster - but because the rated speed of the dolly was only 45, so I took it easy, kinda...And it'll do 0-60 in 6 seconds without a tow! It's got a 4 liter v6, and I think its pretty 'sporty" myself.

Sporty is a subjective moniker, and NOT what the S in SUV stands for! That's really for "Sport", meaning Sport activities, such as camping, boating, and other off-road activities. So, yes, it is an S!

As for U, or Utility, some SUVs DO have more room than a station wagon (by the way who makes those anymore, anyway?), and many sport tie down systems to secure cargo. They will certainly carry more weight than a station wagon! Of course, it won't rival the storage space of a pickup, but they weren't meant to do that!

It handles very well, has a tight turning radius, and handles like a dream on the freeway.

Maybe ya oughta own one or at least check the stats before spouting off!

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Hmmm, now that ya mention it, that character WAS named something else, wasn't he?

I'll hafta do something about that...like look it up!

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Temporarily fixed - thanks!

Re:On SUV safety

[R3d M3rcury]

"You can tow a boat of any reasonable size, or a Uhaul trailer, or an ATV trailer with a 4 cylinder Honda Civic, I see it on a daily basis(not during the winter ofcourse) on the interstate of all places."

Yes. I see it, too. I'm even occasionally behind those people when they try to go uphill. Let's just say that it isn't pretty.

I have no problem with people who have things to tow buying an SUV. I have no problem with people who go off-roading or live in places where they need an SUV. Buy one and enjoy it. More power to you.

Where I have a problem is the people who buy an SUV as a "Macho Minivan." The "Oh, we have a kid, so we need a vehicle that can seat eight" attitude.

I was incensed a few years ago by this attitude. A person I know was lamenting the impending loss of his Audi TT. His wife was pregnant and they were not going to try to deal with a child seat in the back of a little sports car. The wife wanted him to trade in the TT for an SUV because they were safer. I called her over and explained why SUVs were not safer and how she'd be better off with a four-door sedan. The best defense, after explaining the roll-over issue was this: "As you drive around over the next few months, look at the accidents that you see, either live or on TV. Look at the ones with SUVs. Compare the number of SUVs you see sitting on their side or upside down with the number of passenger-cars you see in the same state." She thought about that for a moment and said, "You've got a point." I continued, "Also, consider the fact that SUVs are more prone to roll-over but less protected against roll-overs than passenger cars." That surprised her. I also remarked that SUVs are wonderful if you hit something smaller than you--like a passenger car--but how much protection do they offer if you hit something bigger than you. She brought up buying a "big SUV" and I said, "How about a bridge abutment? Or a big tree? Or a building? Who do you think will win that battle?"

They traded the TT for an A6 sedan.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Not a bad thought - but not everybody agrees! Hence this issue is a big controversy.

Re:On SUV safety

[R3d M3rcury]

"Rent an SUV for that once a year camping holiday to Fraser Island."

A few years ago, I had some money burning a hole in my pocket and was debating renting a Humvee (the consumer/military version, not the "Macho Minivan" you see today) while my Jeep was in the shop. I was looking forward to taking it off-road and checking out how it compared with the Jeep. I was informed that I was not allowed to take it off-road and I would be responsible for any damage that occurred to the vehicle while taking it off-road. The agreement essentially required that it be driven on roads. I asked the guy, "Why the hell would I want to rent such a behemoth to drive on the road?!" He didn't really have an answer...

I agree, though. My roomate tried to use that excuse once. I said, "For the three times a year when you need the passenger space, call Enterprise. You'll save more money by renting a Ford Excursion for 6 days a year and driving your normal fuel efficient car the other 359 than you will buying and driving a Ford Excursion 365 days a year."

When gasoline was over $3.00 a gallon, she said she was glad I talked her out of it...

Re:On SUV safety

[R3d M3rcury]

"And one of the cars deemed least likely to rollover actually has one of the highest rollover fatality rates: the Corvette."

Read what you wrote.

We have a sampling of accidents where there was only one person in the car.

There are 1000 Corvette accidents in our sample. 1 rolled-over. That person died. Rollover fatality rate: 100%.
There are 1000 SUV accidents in our sample. 250 rolled-over. 125 people died. Rollover fatality rate: 50%.

You have take the number of roll-overs into account when consider the fatality rate. If your vehicle is more likely to roll-over, it should be better protected against roll-over accidents. That isn't the case--in fact, cars are more protected in roll-over accidents than SUVs even though they are less likely to roll over.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

You make some good points.

SUVs are expensive. They cost a lot, and have high insurance bills. Especially if you load em up to have all the bells and whistles you might find on a luxury car. That's a lot if you just want a cool car.

If you're looking for safety, too, then you're right - a sedan is safer, and you'll get more bells and whistles with a sedan, too.

Re:On SUV safety

[toddestan]

SUV = Sport Utility Vehicle

Sport = off road
Utility = Carrying or towing capacity

Of course, there are a whole lot of SUVs nowadays that score pretty poorly in both of those categories. As a matter of fact, the only current SUV that I can really think of off the top of my head that is anything like the SUVs of 20 years ago is the Jeep Wrangler. The rest of them are just station wagons and minivans on steriods.

Re:On SUV safety

[jawtheshark]

Many Europeans don't even own cars - in the cities at least. Gas is too expensive, and public transportation is too pervasive to make them needed.

Wow.... Sources, please? The only European I know that does not own a car is my grandma and (of course) those people that don't have an income. Also don't believe too much about the public transportation myth. Might be true in Paris (and even then: many Parisians own cars too!) and in very big cities, but there are many many smaller cities where the advantage of taking public transportation is quite restrained. I live in a small European city (which is also the capital of a Euopean country), and most people still take the car to work. The government wants to change that, but I don't see why I'd take the bus and and take 2 hours a day of commute compared to (less than) 1 hour with the car.

Sometimes I think that US citizens think of Europe as "one big city".

Personally I have a 25MPG gas guzzler. I thought it was a cool choice 6 years ago, today I cringe every time I have to fill her up.

Re:On SUV safety

[M-G]

OK...I screwed up on that. It's merely the rollover rate, not rollover fatality rate.

The fact of the matter is that most rollovers are single-vehicle crashes. It's largely driver behavior that determines whether a particular vehicle will actually roll. The risk of rollover can be actively mitigated by the driver, much like the risk of injury is mitigated by wearing a seat belt and putting the kids in a child seat.

Re:On SUV safety

[ross.w]

Usually off-road use along narrow unmade fire trails gives much greater risk (almost certainty) of panel damage from projecting tree branches. Would you put your A$45,000+ vehicle at risk of this, 4WD or not? Fraser Island (the example I used) is a popular tourist destination here in Australia. It is made almost entirely of sand. The beach is the main highway, as a British tourist found out after he got run over while sleeping on the beach.

You can take a rented 4WD there AFAIK because driving on beaches/sand requires off-road ability but there is less risk of roll-overs or panel damage from passing bushes and trees (don't make sudden turns at high speed though!)

At the very least, it will tow your boat/caravan, which is all most people use them for anyway.

Re:On SUV safety

[MrResistor]

Off road use requires a higher center of gravity to allow clearance over hazards, the ability to cross over ridge crests without scraping the undercarriage, etc.

Actually, this is a bunch of crap. I lived "offroad" for most of my life. Literally, when the pavement ended you were almost exactly halfway to my house, and when people in the area wanted to have some "offroad fun", they came out and tore up my road (which pissed me off, because that road was maintained by me and a shovel, and that's it).

You know what the absolute best vehicle I owned while living there was? An '83 Honda Civic. The fact is, in 99% of "offroad" situations clearance is totally irrelevant if you understand the basic concepts of wheel placement. What does matter is a tight turning radius, low weight, low profile (unless you're in an area with no trees), powered front wheels, and a low center of gravity. The vast majority of people who claim they need an SUV for "offroading" would do better with the smallest front wheel drive car they can get their hands on.

If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity. ...
It's only a very small minority of folks that just buy an SUV as a status symbol.

I know a lot of people who own SUVs, mostly the big truck based ones, and not one of them uses their SUV for towing. Not one. In fact, the few that ever do any towing at all have trucks for that. Come to think of it, the only time any of them took their SUVs "offroad" was to visit me.

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

Hmmm, just because you lived at the end of a dirt road does not make you an expert on "off-road" sports. Auto manufacturers do not spend millions of dollars designing and building off road vehicles with high centers of gravity , nor spend more millions touting their high clearace just to make status symbols! wheel placement won't help you after you've broken an axel on a rock that happened to be just a bit too high. Sure, a tight turning radius is helpful, as is 4WD - that's why off road vehicles are equipped with such features. And just because 99% (got any sources?) of off roading doesn't require that high center of gravity doesn't mean it's not needed. It's built that way for a reason.

And just because YOU don't know anyone that uses large SUV's for towing doesn't mean it's not done.

My point, if you'd read my posts, is that these vehicles are built the way they are for specific reasons, and a lot of people buy them for just those reasons. Just because you see a "soccer mom" driving a monster SUV to the store for a small bag of groceries doesn't mean that she (or hubby) never uses it for other, heavier loads.

Of course, people buy them cause they think they're cool, or can seat 8, or they can carry balloons for Susie's party in just one load! People do all sorts of things for dumb reasons just cause they've the money to burn.

But don't paint all SUV owners with the same bad brush. Sit by a freeway that goes to a major lake or other off road destination (sports, not your end of the dirt road backyard!) and see the numbers of SUVs that ARE being used for just that reason.

Look at accident stats involving trailers, and I'll bet (tho I don't really know) that a bunch of them involve idiots with small cars pulling loads they weren't designed for. Maybe that's why instructions that come with trailers (rented by uHaul) come with warnings to use the correct class hitch and ball size for different size trailers, depending on the trailer's weight limits!

Living at the end of a dirt road doesn't make you an off road expert! Especially making pronouncements about off roading that SHOW you really don't know your stuff!

Re:On SUV safety

[Grishnakh]

If your vehicle is more likely to roll-over, it should be better protected against roll-over accidents.

I disagree.

That isn't the case--in fact, cars are more protected in roll-over accidents than SUVs even though they are less likely to roll over.

True, but I think this is the way it should be. In fact, SUVs should be made with less rollover protection, and this should be advertised. Then, anyone who buys an SUV and dies in a rollover can get an automatic Darwin award. Honestly, all the info is publicly available about how dangerous SUVs are, how they don't meet car safety standards, etc., but people keep buying them. Why not make them even less safe (thus increasing the automakers' profits), and if anyone dies, it'll be their own fault? Or they could make different models: some that are very unsafe (but still big and "safe-looking"), and some that are genuinely safe by current standards, but cost $10k more. Then we'll see how much consumers really value safety over just looking safe.

Gee, thanks asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

I really needed a reminder that I smashed up my car the other day.

EA could learn a thing or two with this

[ThePengwin]

EA could learn a thing or two with this :P

in every Need for speed game you can crash straight into a wall. car dosent get scratched :P
Hit a light poll and the car just automatically goes form 100 to 0
i wish real cars were like that :P

Re:EA could learn a thing or two with this

[Jason Straight]

Unless you are talking about Battlefield 2, in which cars simply explode when wet.

Re:EA could learn a thing or two with this

[ThePengwin]

rainy days would be hell :) I wonder why EA has never really put much emphasis on creaistic crashes :P people love desctruction :) and it would make games way funer :P

Re:EA could learn a thing or two with this

[wheany]

I think you would like the Burnout series of games. I've only played Burnout 3, but I hear 4 is good too. Made by EA, by the way...

Re:EA could learn a thing or two with this

[Anonymous Coward]

i wish real cars were like that
No, you don't. You'd be dead in an instant, with internal organs torn and strangled (maybe sliced) by seatbelt.

Re:EA could learn a thing or two with this

[Tobias42]

I have heard that Sony did not include realistic crashes in Grand Turismo because the car manufacturers did not want to see their cars demolished. The Need for Speed series might have the same issues as they are also using real cars there.

Re:EA could learn a thing or two with this

[ThePengwin]

Well actually EA bought the company that made them

They were origionally from Criterion :P

And Burnout 3 was just too wierd. you have to crash to win? dosent sound soo logical.....

Re:EA could learn a thing or two with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Real cars ARE like this... it's the person going from 0 to 100 inside the vehicle that's the problem.

Insurance costs could fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

My insurance company charges more for cars whose occupants are likely to be injured. I would propose the opposite approach. They should charge more for vehicles who are likely to injure the occupants of other vehicles. The driver of the giant pickup truck would be penalized for putting my life at greater risk. That would get a lot of those vehicles off the road. If you need something to boost your ego, you could drive a luxury import; it's actually the safest thing you can drive.

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[0123456]

"They should charge more for vehicles who are likely to injure the occupants of other vehicles."

If you choose to drive a death-trap where you're likely to die in a crash, why should other people be penalised for your poor decisions?

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[Sysanalyst]

Of course, that would further hinder the poor - who almost always own older cars/trucks, which are in general heavier and more likely to cause mass injuries in an accident. This is particularly an issue in the US; many poor families own an old pickup truck, which is also used as a work truck.

As a general aside, SUVs and trucks have full length rails in order to support a more capable payload and suspension capability. Without the full length rail, the capacity would be limited. Cars used to have this as well, except that it became too expensive...

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they choose to drive a killingmachine...... And a big unefficient one at that.

I saw a study a while back, wish I could find it now, that showed SUV-drivers are less confident in their driving skills, and so get bigger cars to compensate. That's like giving a handgun to shaky old grandma and making her shoot targets right next to you.

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[draciron]

Yes they could. Drivers of flimsy cars should pay the higher premiums. I personally am tired of all the SUV bashing going on. I drive a smaller SUV that gets better MPG than many passenger cars. I drive a standard instead of automatic which makes a noticable difference there. I drive an SUV for many reasons. One being I need the room. In fact my only regret is not getting a bigger SUV. I play in a band and need to haul my gear on frequent occaisons. I do handyman work at home, so I need the cargo space to haul supplies and tools on many occasions. I have friends and ex-inlaws that live on dirt roads which are inaccessable to most cars during parts of the year. I like to go camping and when I camp it's not at some campground. That's not camping, thats just a hotel without room service or clean sheets. That means driving off road periodically. I live in an area which sees very heavy rain at least two or three times a year, often more. I am able to get places and to ferry friends and family through high water on those occasions. If I want to jump a curb I can. For me SUV's reprsent freedom. They give me the ability to do things. To not be stopped by much. Personally I feel ALL cars of any type should be required to have a roll over bar. Roll overs are one of the biggest killers of any kind of vehicle. I've seen just as many sports cars flat up on their roof as I have seen SUVs. Vans are the most suceptable to roll overs. They are also generally worse at fuel efficiency than any other commonly used car except really high end sports cars and the dreadnaught SUVs. However they are not the evil SUV so nobody cares about the fuel efficiency of a sports car or a van. Even pickups which are almost identical to SUV's, often having the same frame, same engine, same fuel efficiency, height and safety records escape the SUV witchhunt. But lets talk safety for a minute. SUVs ARE different and need to be driven differently than a sports car. Most people drive a car like a car reguardless of what they are driving and the weather conditions. Vans are prone to high wind, are not real good at cornering and have a tendancy to get out of control at high speed if you have a cross wind. Vans also have a high roll over rate. Pickups have light rear ends and are prone to fishtailing if there is nothing in the bed of the truck. They also do not corner like a sedan. SUVs share the same high center of balence pickups and vans do. SUVs drivers should take curves slower and be more aware of the wind than sedan drivers. Sports cars generally corner extremely well but are normally have very low centers to give that cornering abilty. This means while driving a sports care you are almost blind in traffic and invisble to many cars. Sport's car's low clearence make them more vulnerable to road debris and more prone to lose control when hitting debris, huge potholes and other obstackes. They are poor off road vehicles. High water is death to a sports car. The same design that allows them to go fast makes them light enough that high winds can become just as dangerous to a sports car as to a van. Typcially traction in adverse weather is poorer with sports cars than heavier makes of vehicles. Sports cars shed size to gain speed and fuel economy. This makes them more vulnerable in crashes. Light economy cars are the most dangerous in my opinion. They are typically light enough that wind will be a problem, espeically on bridges or when there is snow, ice or heavy rain on the road. They sacrafice weight for fuel economy which makes them more prone to damage in accidents. Often economy cars with thier small size are difficult to see by many other drivers. Unlike faster sports cars and SUVs economy cars tend to be underpowered so they cannot get out of the way as easily. Economy cars are often hazards when entering busy freeways. Unable to get up to highway speed on the on ramp, especially uphill onramps they enter freeways at unsafe speeds. They are as vulnerable to road debris as sports cars but do not have the cornering ability of a sports car. I see as ma

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[hackstraw]

Dude, on the right side of your keyboard there is an enter/return key. Pressing it every now and then between thoughts makes reading what you have written much easier.

To some degree, especially on slashdot, I think the anti SUV thing is a little bit much, but it is not without merit either.

I miss having my SUV for camping and snow. However, with the money difference that I spend in gas (17-20MPG with SUV vs 30-39MPG with sedan), I can rent an SUV or whatever for camping, and I don't have to clean it afterwards.

SUVs are a trend like bell bottoms and belly button piercing. The trend will lessen, but will never go away. Proof of this being a trend is to watch suburban senior citizens or single older women without kids that drive one. There is no reason for them to have an SUV except for the trend and styling. Another proof that SUVs are just a styling trend is that you can buy them without 4x4. What is the difference between a station wagon and a minivan vs a non 4x4 SUV functionally? The SUV just seems cooler than the others.

Regarding the utility of an SUV, for on road city-type hauling and transportation, I find them to be about the same as a station wagon except SUVs are slightly taller and have less room in the back. Right now, minivans and regular vans are the best for something like a band to move instruments around. The seats in these vehicles are (re)moveable and the ceiling clearance is good. My friends that tour use a full size bus. Think greyhound or one of those travel busses that older people take. The compartment bays at the bottom are easily accessible, flat, smooth metal. I highly recommend one of those :)

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[sugar and acid]

"As a general aside, SUVs and trucks have full length rails in order to support a more capable payload and suspension capability. Without the full length rail, the capacity would be limited. Cars used to have this as well, except that it became too expensive..."

Car manufactures adopted unibody construction (majority of car makers converted around the 50's and 60's) because it makes better cars (as in transports for passengers with shopping/luggage). This is through weight reductions, lower center of gravity and increased rigidity and load bearing capabilities of the body as a whole. All these aspects increasing the handling and safety of cars, and are the aspects that work against the safety and handling of body on chassis trucks and SUV's. Weight reduction: the chassis on body has a heavy chassis to take most of the loads of the vehicle and keep the body rigid with bolted on body work which is fairly passive in this respect, while unibody and monocoque designs use the body as part of the chassis and spread the loads over a far greater percentage of the steel in the car. Center of gravity: the chassis on body designs usually have the passengers and cargo and often the engine above the chassis and wheels as it is very hard to design otherwise, which is OK for high wheel clearance vehicles like 4x4 but the trade off is a higher center of gravity than a unibody car.

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[AngelofDeath-02]

well - the only thing you said that I have an issue with is sports cars...
Yes, they are unneccessary, but you're wrong on every other count
1) handling is important, so they have structural rigidity that is helpful in accidents - my 88 prelude was a lot safer when it wrecked than say, a cavalir

2) crosswinds are not important to a sports car /because/ of that low center of gravity, not to mention aerodynamics... There's also the tendancy for higher grip tires.

Also you're totaly missing the point. You might use the suv properly, you might drive it safely, you could be the best driver in the /world/
Simply put, most people don't, don't, and aren't.

Besides, insurance rates are adjusting - as in if you have a safe record, your rates are substantially lower. And not every small car is a death trap, or unsafe, but it is totaly unfair and unreasonable to compare a honda civic to an suv when the bumper on that suv goes well above the bumper of that civic - which cannot place its bumper any higher.

This isn't an suv on budget car we're talking about. At least if you drove a crown vic I'd stand a chance of /using/ my bumper. (I drive a Mazda3 now btw)

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

You do have an enter key, but slashdot uses HTML.

Yes they could. Drivers of flimsy cars should pay the higher premiums. I personally am tired of all the SUV bashing going on. I drive a smaller SUV that gets better MPG than many passenger cars. I drive a standard instead of automatic which makes a noticable difference there. I drive an SUV for many reasons. One being I need the room. In fact my only regret is not getting a bigger SUV. I play in a band and need to haul my gear on frequent occaisons. I do handyman work at home, so I need the cargo space to haul supplies and tools on many occasions. I have friends and ex-inlaws that live on dirt roads which are inaccessable to most cars during parts of the year. I like to go camping and when I camp it's not at some campground. That's not camping, thats just a hotel without room service or clean sheets. That means driving off road periodically. I live in an area which sees very heavy rain at least two or three times a year, often more. I am able to get places and to ferry friends and family through high water on those occasions. If I want to jump a curb I can. For me SUV's reprsent freedom. They give me the ability to do things. To not be stopped by much.

Personally I feel ALL cars of any type should be required to have a roll over bar. Roll overs are one of the biggest killers of any kind of vehicle. I've seen just as many sports cars flat up on their roof as I have seen SUVs. Vans are the most suceptable to roll overs. They are also generally worse at fuel efficiency than any other commonly used car except really high end sports cars and the dreadnaught SUVs. However they are not the evil SUV so nobody cares about the fuel efficiency of a sports car or a van. Even pickups which are almost identical to SUV's, often having the same frame, same engine, same fuel efficiency, height and safety records escape the SUV witchhunt.

But lets talk safety for a minute. SUVs ARE different and need to be driven differently than a sports car. Most people drive a car like a car reguardless of what they are driving and the weather conditions. Vans are prone to high wind, are not real good at cornering and have a tendancy to get out of control at high speed if you have a cross wind. Vans also have a high roll over rate. Pickups have light rear ends and are prone to fishtailing if there is nothing in the bed of the truck. They also do not corner like a sedan. SUVs share the same high center of balence pickups and vans do. SUVs drivers should take curves slower and be more aware of the wind than sedan drivers.

Sports cars generally corner extremely well but are normally have very low centers to give that cornering abilty. This means while driving a sports care you are almost blind in traffic and invisble to many cars. Sport's car's low clearence make them more vulnerable to road debris and more prone to lose control when hitting debris, huge potholes and other obstackes. They are poor off road vehicles. High water is death to a sports car. The same design that allows them to go fast makes them light enough that high winds can become just as dangerous to a sports car as to a van. Typcially traction in adverse weather is poorer with sports cars than heavier makes of vehicles. Sports cars shed size to gain speed and fuel economy. This makes them more vulnerable in crashes.

Light economy cars are the most dangerous in my opinion. They are typically light enough that wind will be a problem, espeically on bridges or when there is snow, ice or heavy rain on the road. They sacrafice weight for fuel economy which makes them more prone to damage in accidents. Often economy cars with thier small size are difficult to see by many other drivers. Unlike faster sports cars and SUVs economy cars tend to be underpowered so they cannot get out of the way as easily. Economy cars are often hazards when entering busy freeways. Unable to get up to highway speed on the on ramp, especially uphill onramps they enter freeways at unsafe speeds. They are as vulnerabl

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[kraut]

So it's fine for me to drive an Army tank over your puny SUV then?

vehicle mass

[PacoFuentes]

Lets look at the mass equation:
heavy suv = 2.4 tons
small car = 0.8 tons
the mass involved in a crash is 3.2 tons. The suv, having 3/4 of the total crash-mass gets only a small part of the crash acceleration. The small car gets a hughe acceleration in the crash, and what kills is the acceleration.
Since here in switzerland we have lots of 18 year old albanian-muslim drivers which got a bwm318 for racing on public roads i do have bought a 2.4 ton suv.

Re:vehicle mass

[Zog The Undeniable]

There ain't many cars of only 0.8 tons these days. Most superminis are a ton now, and an average European family car is getting on for 1.5 tons (why is EVERY new model bigger than its predecessor?). Fsck knows what the average mass of an average "American" family car (Toyota Camry?) is, but it's got to be well over 1.5 tons.

Isn't it beautiful, incidentally, how 1 metric tonne is almost exactly the same as an Imperial ton?

Re:vehicle mass

[nuggz]

Lets look at the mass equation:
heavy suv = 2.4 tons
small car = 0.8 tons

Put SUV on roof, it collapses killing the occupant.
Put small car on roof, it scuffs paint.

There is an excellent video clip around of a Smart & S class crash test. If you watch that video you might see some evidence that it isn't all vehicle weight.

There was an interesting study on US traffic fatalities. Minivans did best, Cheap sports cars worst. (Crown vic really did worst mostly due to police & other fleet usage)
Mid/large SUV's All cars were surprisingly similar.
Pickup trucks and small SUVs were significantly more dangerous.

Re:vehicle mass

[Anonymous Coward]

Each new car is heavier than the previous model because safety and emissions equipment keeps getting added. If you look at an original Mini, you'll see that it has none of that. Things like crumple zones, side-impact beams, airbags, and catalytic converters all add weight.

dom

bull bar safety

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read TFA, but I thought this might be important to notice as well.
Besides the fact that SUVs can cause more harm in accidents due to their obvious bigger size and weight, some SUVs also come with bull bars (the big metalic frames in front). That stuff is a weapon. In Belgium, manufacters aren't allowed to put them on SUVs anymore. The point is that it's too dangerous and it serves no meaningfull purpose (unless you're a cowboy).

Moonbuggy....

[In Fraudem Legis]

I'm happy with my moonbuggy, the safest vehicle out there. http://moonbuggy.msfc.nasa.gov/images/mbmid.gif

Re:Moonbuggy....

[AndroidCat]

Sure, until you get in an accident with one of the other two Lunar Rovers on the Moon. Then try calling the AAA for a tow!

Re:Moonbuggy....

[tompaulco]

Sure, until you get in an accident with one of the other two Lunar Rovers on the Moon. Then try calling the AAA for a tow!
Not a problem if you paid for the premium upgrade. No mileage limit.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Vellmont]

And when the drunk moron is driving an SUV and hits you in the side, you and your family will be dead. Had he not had all the "armor" you and your family might have lived

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Anonymous Coward]

What about protection against some drunk moron, with the potential of wiping out your family, who is driving an even bigger SUV? Or - even worse - protection around some moron in a huge overladen light truck, who drives even more aggressively as they believe they are still safe?

The solution is not to get bigger vehicles. It is to get an intelligent government who understands the importance of safety (banning unsafe vehicles from the road, as mentioned above) and educating the populace.

(Ha! Like that would happen in the States.)

Bigger cars to suffer more parking damage

[leenoble_uk]

The UK has seen an explosion in the numbers of people driving around in ridiculously proportioned vehicles. America has lived with them for decades so your cities are built around them. The UK is not. Parking spaces are a lot smaller.

I was waiting outside a supermarket the other week, in a parking slot, and one of these tossers shows up and stops in front of me to let out his passengers before moving into a space. The reason was obvious. His car was too damned big to get the doors open properly when it was between two other cars. As far as I'm concerned he should expect to have his bodywork smacked up by the car doors on either side of him.

I also always make a point of thanking people for waiting on narrow roads where parked cars make it impossible for two cars to pass eachother, unless they're driving something like a VW Touraeg. If it is possible for two normal cars to pass each other and your stupid truck sized car is making it impossible then it's your own fault and you'll get no thanks from me. If you drove a normal car you'd have had no reason to stop.

Re:Bigger cars to suffer more parking damage

[G4Z]

You are right on the money there mate, I also live in the UK and I agree 100% that our road are just too small for SUV's. There is some justification for them in the US with miles of wide open roads but here the urban areas are to congested and the rural areas the roads tend to be even smaller. There is an argument for country people to drive SUV's especialy in winter, but I have to say I disagree with anybody driving these things around the towns and cities there is simply not enough space. I also find that this phenomenon really does tend to adhere to the sterotype, I used to live in one of the suburbs around Newcastle, every morning when I went to work I would have to drive down the same strech of road that had 2 private schools on it. Without fail, every single day (apart from school holiday's) there would be a queue of large SUV's in the entrance and car park areas that would block the road as mum dropped little Jimmy off. This for somebody usualy late for work was infuriating. I would like to see road tax increased substantialy on these things, maybe in London they could double the congestion charge for SUV's?

Re:Bigger cars to suffer more parking damage

[goober1473]

There is a simple explination though, the cars with greater than 1 ton load capacity are not subject to the same car tax rules as they are classed as commercial vehicles, a lot of people at my last company changed to the huge trucks that are littering the UK now as their company car tax was pretty much eradicated as a result.

I think the rules change in 2007 so there is no incentive to have them then, given how unsafe, poulluting and poor to drive they are I can't wait to see them go away when the tax loophole is closed.

Re:Bigger cars to suffer more parking damage

[DerekLyons]

The UK has seen an explosion in the numbers of people driving around in ridiculously proportioned vehicles. America has lived with them for decades so your cities are built around them. The UK is not. Parking spaces are a lot smaller.

Um - No. SUV's and super sized pickup trucks are pretty much a late 90's phenomenon - and they routinely cause problems in the parking lots of America too.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Jason Straight]

Well, really though when considering a loaded truck the point of the armor factor of the vehicle itself is moot, as you need to factor in the armor.

But no matter what the case I'm better off with something with a beefier frame. What's next? Make walls softer so when you lose control of your vehicle on ice and hit one it will be more forgiving?

Two points of safety.

[ItsIllak]

1/ I consider myself to be a safe, knowledgeable and alert driver. Therefore I'd prefer to be the one on top if someone who was less so hit me.

2/ "Top Gear" in the UK ran a piece about how SUVs run over other cars, thereby causing lots of damage. The pointed out that in most collisions, one car will run over the other anyway, even identical models with different tyre pressures or suspension wear.

Re:Two points of safety.

[FireFury03]

5th Gear did a test a while back on 4x4's in near-miss conditions. They took a couple of normal cars, drove them along at motorway speeds and simulated a motorway incident with the front car slamming on it's brakes and the back car having to swerve to avoid it. Nomatter what they did they could only make the car spin, not roll over. They then re-ran the test but this time at only 40mph and with a 4x4 as the second car - it rolled right over as soon as the driver swerved to avoid the stopped car. Certainly very eye opening - the driver of the 4x4 would definately not be in very good shape if he wasn't wearing a racing harness, etc.

Re:Two points of safety.

[Anonymous Coward]

95 % of all drivers consider themselves better than average. What you and most american idiots are doing results in an arms race with ever heavier and larger cars. That is anti-social. Highly anti-social.

Re:Two points of safety.

[prockcore]

Certainly very eye opening - the driver of the 4x4 would definately not be in very good shape if he wasn't wearing a racing harness, etc.

Even if he was, most SUVs and pickups don't have roll bars (and the ones that do aren't actually rated for the weight of the vehicle)

Re:Two points of safety.

[Wolfbaine]

Not only was the test driver wearing a racing harness - the 4x4 had also been fitted with a complete roll cage, and this is the only thing that stopped the driver being crushed. I've often wondered why a truck license isn't required for commercial vehicles, since they fall under the same section of legislation for vehicle safety.

Re:Two points of safety.

[FireFury03]

I've often wondered why a truck license isn't required for commercial vehicles, since they fall under the same section of legislation for vehicle safety.

Well anyone (here in the UK) who got their driving licence before some time around 1997 (me included) is allowed to drive light trucks anyway... (up to 7.5 Tons ISTR)

what is the definition of "safely" ?

[tjic]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars "

The author of the study is making the mistake that safety is a boolean, and that things are either safe or unsafe.

In fact, everything is unsafe, to varying degrees. ("Life", in the words of Warren Zevon, "is gonna killa you").

The important thing, when contemplating questions of public policy, is to COMPARE one risk to the next, and make sure that we're making reasonable decisions and tradeoffs.

For example, over the last 10-15 years, a lot of states have dropped the DUI (driving under the influnce) BAC cutoff (blood alcohol content) from 0.1% to 0.08%. Lower is better, right?

Well, as it turns out, having a BAC in the 0.08 - 0.10% range has the same effect on driving ability as (a) having a cold; (b) getting a poor night's sleep; (c) being over the age of 50.

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?

The answer is that one behavior gets a penalty because it sounds good, makes politicians look like They're Doing Something(tm) and has moralistic overtones ("get those damn drunks off the road!").

To say that "light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars " is purest nonsense. We've had light trucks coexisting with passenger cars for 70 years, and the fatality rate drops every single year. Sure, if you could snap your fingers and get every pickup truck, minivan, delivery van, and SUV off the road, things would get incrementally safer for the average driver of a passenger car. ...but how much safer?

I don't know off the top of my head, but is it a level of safety comparable to every passenger car driver making sure that their tires are fully inflated before each trip? Or more, or less?

Absolutist boolean statements like "X can not safety coexist with Y" do not answer questions like this. These statements are public-policy-by-press-release and deserve to be condemned.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[giorgiofr]

As much as I dislike SUVs, I have to agree with your point. Well said.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there's a chart in TFA which shows that in the U.S. mortality is relatively flat and very high compared to other countries so in a practical, i.e., measurable way, safety is not improving year after year. At least not here in Canyonero-land.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[bookhappy]

Guys, guys. Listen to grandma. Did no one read the study? (The somewhat flawed study btw). Part of the reason children are harmed in SUV roll-overs is that 41% of the children in them, during accidents, were NOT restrained (read in their seatbelts)! Now call me old-fashioned, buy REALLY how stupid can you get. Apparently parents who can earn enough money to buy the bohemoths are not smart enough to tie their kids down. Or perhaps they are just to busy and caught up in the effort to afford gasoline to take the minutes out of their hectic schedules to ensure everyone's safety.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have thought that an extremely low limit of alcohol in your blood is a good way of saying "Don't drink and drive you braindead idiot!"

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[dunkelfalke]

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51? no. because noone forces you to drink alcohol. it is your choice to drink so when you drink alcohol you deliberately make yourself unsafe for driving. you could have avoided it with just not drinking but you have chosen not to. now if you don't want to become older than 50 you have to commit suicide or to get yourself killed.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[markandrew]

you just fell victim to your own argument - alcohol blood levels are no more boolean than is safety levels: one person with the same amount of alcohol in their system as another person will not be affected in the same way as the other person - one could be practically unaffected, the other almost totally drunk.

drink-driving limits are largely arbitrary because the effect of alcohol on people's driving ability is not a linear equation, and thus almost impossible to define/predict. that being so, choosing a very low limit (which will stop some people drinking unnecessarily but save lives) as opposed to a high level (which will let people with a high tolerance for alcohol drink more, but let anyone else drive while drunk and thus cause a lot of deaths) would seem to be the only sensible option.

as for the other factors like having a cold, or sleeping poorly - how would you suggest testing for those? or are you saying that if other factors exist which have a similar negative effect, but that those factors are currently not legislated against, then drunk-driving should also be exempt from legislation? please tell me that is not your argument.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[mrtrumbe]

Your logic makes no sense.

Presumably, if the average 51 year old drives as poorly as a person with a BAL of 0.08-0.10, then the average 71 year old would drive comparably to a person with an even higher BAL. If an elderly person has the same driving capabilities as a person with a BAL of 0.15 should the be allowed on the road because they don't have a choice? In fact, they DO have a choice: they could choose not to drive.

Similarly, a person who has slept 1 hour in the last 48 hours is likely to be a terrible driver, comparable to a person with a high BAL. Doesn't this person have a choice to not get behind the wheel of a car? How about a terribly sick individual?

From hearing people in this country talk, you would think driving was a necessity akin to eating, clothing and shelter. Because we treat it as such, we are more afraid of the consequences of taking away drivers licenses than of having dangerous drivers on the road. How many chances does the average DUI offender get before their license is permenantly revoked? How many accidents does an elderly driver have to have before their license is revoked? Too many, if you ask me.

What is the difference between a drunken driver and a driver who is impaired in other ways? Nothing. They are all shitty drivers and they all have a choice: the choice not to get behind the wheel of a car.

Taft

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[hackstraw]

Well, as it turns out, having a BAC in the 0.08 - 0.10% range has the same effect on driving ability as (a) having a cold; (b) getting a poor night's sleep; (c) being over the age of 50.

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?

Being convicted of a DUI is a crime in most states. In mine, you get 3 years in prison after the third one. Here is an account of such an unfortunate person:

I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segragation though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I've requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things . . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or thinking to hard on all this . . . . I've laid down without physical fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing. Though in not fighting, it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.

-A letter to Human Rights Watch

Although I thought that the US was bad about their BAC limits, they are about the same if not more lenient than many other countries. Some have legal limit of 0.0.

I always get landblasted when I say that this is a feminine thing, but historically women are more against alcohol than men are. Examples are the prohibition phase in the 20s and MADD.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[hackstraw]

it is your choice to drink so when you drink alcohol you deliberately make yourself unsafe for driving

I'm glad I don't drink with you or anybody you know. I drink alcohol for relaxation, enjoyment, and social interaction. I have never heard of a person that drank to deliberately make themselves unsafe for driving or as dangerous as someone who is tired, over 50, or has a cold. Oh, and living over 50 is a choice too. To think that they daily deliberately make themselves be alive and be as unsafe as an intoxicated person... That should be illegal.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[sowellfan]

The only thing that the authors did to prove their point was to show that drivers in passenger cars were much more likely to be injured/killed if they were struck in the side by an SUV, than if they were hit by a lighter vehicle. They obviously think that this is enough to prove their statement about cars and SUVs not being able to co-exist, but they haven't done that at all.

What they've got to look at is, "How many lives are saved because people are driving SUVs rather than lighter vehicles vs. How many lives are lost because people are struck by an SUVs rather than lighter vehicles". All they've quantified at this point is a small part of that equation, namely that people are, in fact, more likely to die if they're struck by an SUV rather than a lighter vehicle. If even *more* lives are saved on the part of the people in SUV's, then cars and SUVs can safely co-exist - less lives will be lost on balance. It's not necessarily fair, since people in SUVs will be safer, and people in cars will be less safe, but the overall level of safety will be higher. In all the articles that I've seen about this issue that trumpet the fact that car occupants are more likely to die than SUV occupants in crashes, I've never seen one analysis of the statistical likelihood of death, for car and SUV occupants combined, to see if the total # of deaths goes down or up.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not related. Through AA I know many, many people who got DUIs. And thank God they did. Nothing else could have kept them off the road. Drunk driving is very, very dangerous. It kills people. So what are we going to do about? Tell people to be careful? Someone with three DUIs is without question an alchoholic. You don't want them on the road. Is three years excessive? I think so. Probably revoking their license for ten years and mandating treatment would be better. But saying that prison conditions are bad is a red herring. Its not the same issue. DUI laws should be enforced, and strictly, because no one want these people driving.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[dunkelfalke]

well, if you don't drink you won't die. big difference, hm?

anyway, if you need alcohol to relax, enjoy yourself and interact with others i pity you. your life must suck.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[NickFortune]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars "

The author of the study is making the mistake that safety is a boolean, and that things are either safe or unsafe.

I can sympathise with the complaint about people miscasting relative values as absolutes, mainly because I'm use to seeing it in the form:

"Granted, Microsoft Internet Explorer has problems with the recent exploits allowing arbitary execution of code from malicious websites. However, Mozilla Firefox also has exploits allowing malicious websites to crash the borwser. Since Firefox has an exploit, it is not secure, which means in turn that Firefox is no better than IE, so there is no benefit to be gained from switching browsers".

The fallacy here lies in using a false absolute to hide a very real discrepancy in the level of threat posed.

In TFA However, I'm having difficulty seeing any comparison, and so I'm not convinced of any logical fallacy. His point would appear to be that SUVs pose a disproportionate danger to conventional vehicles in the event of a collision, not least be cause where most cars have crumple zones, these things have a great rigid battering ram of a steel frame, inconveniently high.

And really, the fact that DUI poses a danger to others does nothing to diminish his point.

To say that "light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars " is purest nonsense. We've had light trucks coexisting with passenger cars for 70 years

I believe the vehicles under discussion are "body-on-frame light trucks". The idea being that the frame is the part that does the damage. As I understand it, these are a relatively recent design, so your statistic probably isn't much help here.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Phurd Phlegm]

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?

First a note: you meant "0.081%." I've often said that it would be more realistic to implement a performance standard for drivers. "If your reaction time is slower than X, you can't drive; if you can't demonstrate good judgement in a yearly driving safety quiz, you can't drive; if you can't demonstrate a knowlege of basic physics you can't drive, etc." However, you will never see this done, because 2/3 of the drivers on the road would have to quit driving. Likewise, the 35,000 US traffic deaths every year could be reduced to less than a thousand by implementing and enforcing a universal ten mile per hour speed limit. Heck, even fifteen MPH would be pretty damned safe.

It is much easier to sell an ineffective--but "fair"--solution to the voters, especially when there are a bunch of emotional pressure groups (e.g., "MADD moms") that are practiced in applying the stupid peoples' syllogism ("We must do something. X is something. Therefore, we must do X.") watching.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[robertjw]

I believe the vehicles under discussion are "body-on-frame light trucks". The idea being that the frame is the part that does the damage. As I understand it, these are a relatively recent design, so your statistic probably isn't much help here.

"Body-on-frame" has been the standard design of of the automobile since their inception. The "unibody" construction where the frame is incorporated into the body has been common on many cars since at least 1970. Cars and light trucks have co-existed on the US roads for much longer than 70 years and "Body-on-frame" designed vehicles have coexisted with "unibody" vehicles for the last 35.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[robertjw]

From hearing people in this country talk, you would think driving was a necessity akin to eating, clothing and shelter.

Ah, but it is akin to eating, clothing, etc... We have evolved into a culture that requires transportation to be employed and to socialize. In the VAST majority of the US it's very difficult if not impossible to acquire food, clothing and shelter without a driver's license. Most non-metropolitan areas don't have good public transportation, and many cities don't either. Sure, the problem would be solved if we all moved to a major city where everything was in walking distance, but that's not practical either.

I think the whole attitude that 'driving is a priviledge' is half of our problem. If safe transportation was viewed as a requirement for modern life some of these decisions could be made more intelligently.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Lars T.]

"Body-on-frame" hasn't been the standard design of of the automobiles for decades - and for some damn good reasons. And cars and light trucks have co-existed on the US roads for much longer than 70 years because there were few light trucks compared to cars.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[stienman]

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?

No. Typically people do not have much choice over whether they're sick or over 50. They do have a choice over their drug/alcohol intake. The sleep one is a bit harder, but they can occasionally be prosecuted under driving while impaired type laws depending on the circumstances. Since BAC is much easier to measure with certianty, and is an active choice the driver makes, then it makes sense to restrict it and prosecute it.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to the study that shows a cold, poor nights sleep, or 50+ age have the same effects as 0.08% BAC.

-Adam

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often said that it would be more realistic to implement a performance standard for drivers. "If your reaction time is slower than X, you can't drive; if you can't demonstrate good judgement in a yearly driving safety quiz, you can't drive; if you can't demonstrate a knowlege of basic physics you can't drive, etc." However, you will never see this done, because 2/3 of the drivers on the road would have to quit driving. Likewise, the 35,000 US traffic deaths every year could be reduced to less than a thousand by implementing and enforcing a universal ten mile per hour speed limit. Heck, even fifteen MPH would be pretty damned safe.

Regulate operating a motor vehicle like we regulate operation of aircraft. Yearly physicals, check rides, better initial training and a requirement to have vehicles regularly inspected. Modifications of vehicles not performed by licensed mechanics convert your vehicle and make it unavailable for insurance (or at least place the cost of that insurance out of reach of mere mortals). Our economy might crater, but at least we could drive to the funeral in safety ;)

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Lars T.]

Your unrelated rant about DUI canna change the laws of physics.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[amper]

Actually, the chart doesn't show any such thing. You either need to learn how to read, get your eyes checked, or study a bit more about statistics.

What the chart actually shows is that beginning sometime in the early 1990's, US traffic deaths per mile began to decrease at a slower rate than the rest of the world, but they are, in fact, still decreasing. The upper line in that chart refers to the fact that total annual traffic deaths are increasing, but this, in itself, is not a significant datum.

Now, I will admit that this slowing of the rate of decrease is probably due to the increased popularity of light trucks beginning around the same period, but it is still important to note that despite this fact, traffic deaths per passenger mile are *still decreasing*, despite the increased lethality of light trucks.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[amper]

It's pretty well documented that light trucks are significantly more lethal, even to their occupants, than other types of passenger vehicles. This is primarily due to a light truck's lesser capacity for avoiding accidents in the first place, and secondarily related to the inability of a body-on-frame design to dissipate the energies of impact, resulting in much higher forces on the occupants of light trucks in a crash.

I own a Jeep Wrangler (not ever going to be confused with a safer vehicle), a Ford F-150 (with the 4x4 Off Road package, making it relatively high), a turbo VW Jetta, and a VW Passat. The cars are much safer than either of the trucks. This is why I don't drive the trucks the same way I drive the cars. You have to be much more careful in a truck.

Most of the trouble with light trucks stems from people who do not understand these simple facts, which is to say, the vast number of people in the US who traded in their cars for trucks in the last 15 years for no good reason.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[RailRide]

I think the whole attitude that 'driving is a priviledge' is half of our problem. If safe transportation was viewed as a requirement for modern life some of these decisions could be made more intelligently.

I would think that much of the problem stems from driving being seen as an entitlement. Something percieved as a privilege is usually treated more carefully (as it can be revoked through misuse) than something you believe you have a right to, irregardless of what you do with it, no?

---PCJ

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[G00F]

SUV is safer? ha! Granted, they have become safer since the 90's, mostly a modified minivan now days. But most of them are still top heavy gas hogs that even other SUV's can not see around.

While I would rather be in an SUV when an SUV plows into me, this is not because it is safer, it is because the frame of the SUB sits higher and would plow into my upper chest/head (read windows) rather than my bumper or door frame.

Also, the road in general would be safer if all the cars were lighter, and had a bumper of some sort in the same range of other cars. The SUV/Truck craze has done the opposite. There have always been them, but not in the numbers we have today. I know a lot of people with SUV's and tucks that don't tow/or haul things as it will ruin their vehicles, that was much less the case 10-15 years ago.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[sowellfan]

Perhaps you could provide a link to some of this documentation.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[stinerman]

While no person should be subjected to such torture, no matter their crime, I would hope that you agree someone who is caught driving with a BAL of ~0.10 three times should be kept away from the rest of us.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who gets 3 DUIs should be forbidden from consuming alcohol for the rest of their lives. These people have abused their freedom to use alcohol and cannot be trusted to use it ever again. For all I care, they can get sloshed all they want on private property, but the moment they appear on the road behind a wheel, they become everyone's problem.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[GlassHeart]

Sure, if you could snap your fingers and get every pickup truck, minivan, delivery van, and SUV off the road, things would get incrementally safer for the average driver of a passenger car. ...but how much safer?

Let me start by sharing your criticism of the study, but having said that...

I have driven for several years in the Philippines, and there you learn to just dread 18-wheeler trucks. I have also driven for many years in the United States, where 18-wheelers are some of the most predictable and courteous users of the road. When people oppose SUVs, a large part of what they're opposing is an SUV "culture", not just the machine itself.

Indeed, we've had trucks on the roads for decades, but there were fewer of them (which means I'm less likely to be hit by one), and they were more necessary. For many opponents, myself included, most SUVs on the road represent unnecessary risk to other drivers. Aside from SUVs, I also dislike the larger and larger pick-up trucks that have shinier paint jobs than my car and never seem to carry anything in the back. Again, that represents an unnecessary additional risk of death and injury to me.

In other words, there is an objective (SUVs are a real danger to cars in collisions) and a subjective (SUVs are unnecessary and SUV drivers are reckless) aspect to this. (Before that ticks off anybody, the parts in parentheses in the previous sentence are just examples of value judgements.) Personally, if I could snap my fingers and get rid of the "vanity" SUVs and trucks, I'd do it as long as it actually helps, no matter how little.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[hackstraw]

I'm of the opinion that anyone who gets 3 DUIs should be forbidden from consuming alcohol for the rest of their lives. These people have abused their freedom to use alcohol and cannot be trusted to use it ever again. For all I care, they can get sloshed all they want on private property, but the moment they appear on the road behind a wheel, they become everyone's problem.

True. The problem is drinking and driving, so why not take away their license? Rape doesn't seem like a more civil means of dealing with the problem.

I used to run DUI classes, and one guy in my class had _7_ and was under 30 years old, AND still had a license. This was years ago, so he is probably in prison now.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[GrievousMistake]

A person who has slept 1 hour in the last 48 hours is clearly unfit for driving, and any country with sensible driving laws will prohibit driving if you are in any way in unfit condition, like being sleep-depraved, drunk, dangerously short-sighted, etc. From hearing you talk, you'd think driving drunk was a necessity akin to eating, clothing and shelter.
A problem with the people who drink and drive is that their own estimate on how influenced they are are wildly off. The idea should be to establish a non-tolerance in combining alcohol and driving. Saying that "a little is okay" misses the point, and makes people try to sense "have I drunk too much to drive?" when they should be thinking "have I been drinking?" Never make a drugged person estimate his own fitness!
And what about combinations? What if a sleepy 50-year old person drives with what he estimates to be "only" 0.1 BAL? Should guys in their twentys, one of the most lethal traffic element know to man (In fact only surpassed by people influenced by alcohol.) be allowed to drive after drinking, while 50 year olds should not?
It would be a slippery slope... If the answers weren't so blindingly obvious.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[TheNumberless]

While I generally agree with your points, I take issue with your views on drinking and driving. While it may be true that driving with BAC 0.8-1.0 is as safe as driving with the sniffles, there is a difference of intent.

Do you trust yourself to judge, after you've been drinking, whether you're fit to drive? Do you trust other people? Do you know with certainty your own BAC at any given time after you've been drinking? Lower legal limits are designed to discourage people from taking a chance regarding their fitness to drive, and their BAC. It's erring on the side of caution, with legal enforcement.

I understand if you still think lower legal limits are unnecessary, of course. I just don't think your particular argument against it is valid.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[stinerman]

The problem is drinking and driving, so why not take away their license?

More concisely, the problem is driving while under the influence. Take away their license and they'll probably just drive w/o a license. Take away their alcohol and they'll probably drive w/o drinking. Of course, anyone with 3+ DUIs is likely an alcoholic and needs professional counseling before the fact. To keep them from alcohol, make it a misdemeanor to sell or give alcohol to anyone who was found to have a problem with DUIs.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[amper]

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupa nts.html

Pay particular attention to the table, "Occupant deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 1978-2004". What is obvious from this table is that ladder frame vehicles, particularly pickup trucks (to which I would add any SUV based on a body-on-frame pickup platform, as opposed to SUV's based on a unibody car platform), and older/larger SUV's (which are more likely to be body-on-frame), result in more occupant deaths compared to normal cars. It doesn't take Issac Newton to see the correlation between lack of crash energy dissipation structures/lower maneuverability on trucks and higher fatality rates.

The trend for lower SUV occupant fatalities coincides with the improvements in safety offered by newer SUV's, particularly those with car-based designs. However, as can be seen from the pickup statistics, these types of vehicles are still significantly *less safe to their occupants*. Unfortunately, it is difficult to characterize the "SUV" statistics more accurately because the IIHS makes no distinction between a Subaru Forester SUV and a Ford Excursion when designating an SUV an "SUV".

When you combine the fatality rates for pickups and SUV together, you begin to see the real picture. Even in 2004, with the advantages of better safety and better design in many SUV's, pickups and SUV's together produced a death rate for their occupants significantly higher than cars.

The reader is free to investigate other sources that more directly answer the question.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[ross.w]

The biggest problem is that many people who drive SUVs have unrealistic expectations of them.

When a professional driver is driving a truck or minibus, he or she drives it in accordance with its limitations (usually).

A lot of people who drive SUVs expect them to handle like the car they just got out of, only bigger, when most are much more like trucks in their dynamics.

An example:

In a previous job, we were offered "driver awareness" training, which consisted of braking and manouevering exercises performeds under controlled conditions. The premise was to give drivers a feel for what their car can and cannot do under emergency conditions, because its too late to find out when the circumstances arise.

On this occasion, the only vehicle I could get from the car pool was a long wheelbase Nissan Patrol.

This behemoth was OK with the straight braking exercises, but try as I might, I could not make it swerve and brake at the same time - it would either not slow down enough, or go plowing through the witches hats in a straight line (this was before ABS was widespread)

I had previously done the exercises OK i a regular car, so I knew it wasn't me.

The instructer suggested doing the exercise 10 km/hr (6 MPH) slower than the other cars, and lo and behold, it worked.

It is truly amazing how much difference 10 km/h makes to your ability to escape from a situation. It is also remarkable how much LESS effective at doing so an SUV is.

I would support a 10 km/h lower speed limit and/or different licence for any vehicle over 2.5 tonnes on the basis of what I experienced on that day, but watch the howls of protest from the SUV/former Volvo driver brigade.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

...so why don't you call a cab? Or get a designated driver?

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[doombob]

Well, as it turns out, having a BAC in the 0.08 - 0.10% range has the same effect on driving ability as (a) having a cold; (b) getting a poor night's sleep; (c) being over the age of 50.

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?

The problem with your thinking in this situation is that many people cannot avoid having a cold. Some people also cannot avoid having a poor night's rest. And as far as I can tell, not a single person has been able to avoid getting older and not go past 50. However, anybody can avoid drinking an alcoholic beverage and getting behind the wheel. It is an intentional impairment. And if they can't avoid it, they have bigger problems.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[tompaulco]

I also dislike the larger and larger pick-up trucks that have shinier paint jobs than my car and never seem to carry anything in the back.
You obviously don't live near me, because all of the pickups I see have kids and a dog in the back. Either that, or a bunch of lawn equipment and some Mexicans.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[robertjw]

Something percieved as a privilege is usually treated more carefully (as it can be revoked through misuse) than something you believe you have a right to, irregardless of what you do with it, no?

No, not at all. There are plenty of constitutional rights that are subject to conditions or that can be revoked due to poor behaviour. Felons can't vote, people only have the right to assemble in a public place with a permit, Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater, etc...

I'm not advocating that driving should be a right, entitlement or a privilege. I'm just saying it's a necessity for anyone in the US that doesn't live in a few select major cities. The prevailing thought is that it's a privilege, but it's not. It's a requirement for modern living. Most people that I have known over the years that lost their driver's license drove anyway. Why? They had to get to work. No way around it. Our lawmakers face the fact that people need to be able to move around their communities and make changes to guarantee that ability to everyone regardless of their ability to operate a motor vehicle. Revoking a driver's license has little impact on the number of unsafe, incompetent drivers on the road.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[RailRide]

What I was referring to actually, is the seeming abundance of people who drive as if their driving privileges could not be revoked by irresponsible handling of their vehicles (IOW, idiot drivers).

Yes, I'm well aware that in most places, driving is a necessity (I visited California once--almost felt "officially handicapped" not having a license at the time). I live in NYC (which is one of those places where one can get away with not driving), and out-of-towners still can't believe I've managed to go so long without finding it absolutely necessary to have a license, let alone a car of my own.

---PCJ

Have you seen their most recent ad?

[jawtheshark]

I thought it was hilarious: Renault TV . Sorry, it's a Flash application: click on the sausage on the lower-left part. They don't destroy a hamburger (or hotdog) though ;-) On that site they claim that it's a viral ad. Hmmm, don't think so: I saw it on (German) TV.

Re:Have you seen their most recent ad?

[Derling Whirvish]

I don't get it. The sausage is for German cars, the sushi is for Japanese cars, and the baguette is for French cars. I would think American cars would be one of the ones mentioned -- a hamburger perhaps. Or maybe British, Italian, or Korean even. So what's the rectangle thing supposed to be? A Kit-Kat bar? I don't get it.

Re:Have you seen their most recent ad?

[jawtheshark]

A swedish cracker. It's a reference to nordic cars: think Saab, Volvo.

Re:Have you seen their most recent ad?

[Derling Whirvish]

Ahh, OK. Thanks. I'll have to eat at Ikea more I guess. I didn't get the connection.

SUVs block the roads

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a real pain. Whereas normal cars co-exist with motorcycles, allowing them to freely travel within the cracks. SUVs, due to their width, simply block the roads to both cars and motorcycles. A real problem in crowded cities like London. Very anti-social vehicles.

Re:SUVs block the roads

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing says "asshole who needs to be decapitated in a collision" like a guy on a motocycle who makes his own lanes between car lanes.

Re:get some priorities!

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's what old people do, they die."

SUVs'??

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst misuse of the apostrophe ever.. and you manage to do it twice for consistency!

Very biased

[giorgiofr]

From TFA: The study, which Durbin called the first on SUVs and child safety, was sponsored by Partners for Child Passenger Safety. So much for objectivity.

Re:Very biased

[Billosaur]

Of course there's bias. But physics is physics and those laws are absolutes (until someone comes up with better theories). SUVs tend to be more massive and have a higher center of gravity than a passenger car. If an SUV outweighs a typical passenger car by say 20-30%, it packs a more significant wallop at highway speeds. Given that they sit higher off the ground, so their bumper height is significantly greater, they are effectively mobile battering rams.

The journal "Pediatrics" just came out with a study stating that SUVs are no safer then passenger cars, based mainly on their tendency to roll over in crashes, a problem which is well documented and which the government has done nothing about. Now you might want to claim they're biased too, but the preponderance of evidence and common sense indicates that SUVs are in fact dangerous. Frankly, I'd trust the scientists over the auto industry any day.

Re:Very biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Would finding that SUVs are just as safe or safer than cars for children somehow be contrary to their apparent concern for child passenger safety? If it had been sponsored by the National Council for SUV Haters then you might be on to something.

Re:Very biased

[Mab_Mass]

You're right. A place calling itself the "Parners for Child Passenger Safety" is going to be very biased, but biased towards keeping children safe.

Is there any reason to think that they would be biased either for or against SUVs? I can't think of any reason. If you see one, please explain.

Perhaps you own an SUV and don't like the implications?

Re:Very biased

[NeutronCowboy]

Would it make you feel better if the study was sponsored by Partners for Unbiased Assessments of Road Safety? Maybe you should petition the current group to change their name. I'm sure all their studies will be a lot more objective.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[BenjyD]

So basically, screw everyone else in normal cars, I want to protect my family. Nice.

Oh dear

[i_am_not_a_bomba]

Man, i feel for ya, did you forget what website you're on?

Prepare to cop 300 flaming hot nerdo replies for that little outpouring.

Re:Oh dear

[Jason Straight]

Hehe, no kidding. It was early - what was I thinking? Wait till they see my last post and realize I also carry a gun! :D Woohoo!

Honestly I don't drive my suburban very often, I drive a Grand Am or a Jeep Cherokee. The suburban is only used when weather is really bad (it's a snow tank), or for work - transporting tools and what not.

As always...

[cowboy76Spain]

... the trouble is "the others", because you (or one of your kids to which you let use the car) are never going to overspeed, be distracted when driving, get at the wheel with "just a little" alcohol... And well, if something like that happens and you kill someone else, it is not your family so why should you care?

Re:As always...

[Jason Straight]

1. I don't drink, I never really like alcohol, plus I carry a handgun, which makes taking nyquil illegal for me to carry because my BAC would be too high.

2. I've never been in an accident except the one time I got rear ended by a brand new full sized pickup truck in front of a hospital where attractive nurses were picketing and distracted the guy behind me. I have a trailer hitch on my suburban which was the only point the rear ender made contact with. It pushed his front bumper up in a V, messed up his radiator and hood. Not a scratch on my truck.

3. I don't get distracted while driving easily, I'm one of the few people who realize that driving a vehicle is the most dangerous thing I'll do that day [yes this coming from someone who carry's a loaded .45], and I sure don't want to be at fault for an accident. Plus I live for combat flight sims, which I think has trained by brain to be more aware of the things going on around me. I like the vantage point having a large truck gives me because I can look through the windows of the car in front of me and see what the car or cars in front of him are doing. So If I see car #1 hit the brakes hard I know the guy in front of me will be soon, and I usually brake before they do.

And yes, I don't care what situation anyone puts themselves in - it's your family over the others, if you think it's not then it's because you don't have a family of your own or you don't have the proper means to protect them and think it's unfair someone else does.

Re:As always...

[Anonymous Coward]

I carry a handgun... a loaded .45... I live for combat flight sims

Is anybody else just a little bit scared by this?

Re:As always...

[Jason Straight]

Hahah, I knew that would raise the nerd alert.

Funny.

If you slam your drunk ass into my SUV and I live through it you should be! :D

Re:As always...

[Forbman]

3. I don't get distracted while driving easily, I'm one of the few people who realize that driving a vehicle is the most dangerous thing I'll do that day [yes this coming from someone who carry's a loaded .45], and I sure don't want to be at fault for an accident. Plus I live for combat flight sims, which I think has trained by brain to be more aware of the things going on around me. I like the vantage point having a large truck gives me because I can look through the windows of the car in front of me and see what the car or cars in front of him are doing. So If I see car #1 hit the brakes hard I know the guy in front of me will be soon, and I usually brake before they do.

Funny thing is, I do the same thing driving my stupid Saturn SW2 (yes, a station wagon), and did in my MR2 before that. It's really an *illusion* in a truck/SUV. I do not see appreciably more ahead in my F250 truck than I do in my Saturn or Honda Odyssey. I take advantage of whatever siteline I can. I guess I'm used to it now after almost 20 years of driving I don't think about it anymore. The main ingredient for this to work is not driving too close to the car in front of you, fancy that. And the worst vehicles to be driving behind? Not semitrucks. Not cars. But SUVs (Subs, Escalades, H1/H2, etc) and 4wd Pickup trucks. Why not semitrucks? Well, most semitruck drivers really do not want to slam on their brakes, so they're a lot more anticipatory and defensive drivers, so it doesn't take as much attention to drive behind a semi.

I'll take driving in SoCal any day now over driving in the Phoenix, AZ metro area. At least in SoCal, everyone is driving 80mph. In AZ, there is just too much speed differential between the fastest drivers (80+mph) and the rest of the drivers.

And yes, I don't care what situation anyone puts themselves in - it's your family over the others, if you think it's not then it's because you don't have a family of your own or you don't have the proper means to protect them and think it's unfair someone else does.

Just because it may be my right to walk down some of the side streets of North Chicago/Waukegan, IL doesn't necessarily mean it's the RIGHT thing to do. No amount of carrying a sidearm, etc. will really make it any more a right thing to do, perhaps even if I were getting paid to do it (i.e., I was a cop). In other words, if the situation is going to be bad, then why put myself into it willingly?

To me, the biggest factor in surviving an accident is not getting in one. Willingly choosing a vehicle that is far less capable of avoiding an accident than other choices (car, minivan), with little to no advantage in utility, well...

Re:As always...

[Jason Straight]

To me, the biggest factor in surviving an accident is not getting in one. Willingly choosing a vehicle that is far less capable of avoiding an accident than other choices (car, minivan), with little to no advantage in utility, well...

Exactly, which is why I think it's pointless, unless you are going to become communist and say all vehicles on the road have to be the exact same - where does it stop? I figure that my defensive driving makes up for the protectiveness I lack by not having a bigger vehicle. I try to stay aware of all the other vehicles around me and have some options for escape routes by using superior maneuverability. But take away the safe "armor" of an SUV and you leave it w/o being well protected or able to get away, unless you are also going to magically make it able to perform like a car.

I agree with your line of sight, and that's where having a truck/suv comes in handy - to see through other trucks/suv's. It's just impossible in a small car to see ahead w/o hugging the centerline.

Re:As always...

[NeutronCowboy]

I see. You are probably part of the 90% of the population who considers themselves better drivers than the other 90% of the population. Congratulations.

And Combat Flight Sims make you more aware of your surroundings? Sure they do. And my Mario skills have trained my brain for rescuing princesses and evading green turtles.

I think your jock strap is pulled a little too tight. Might wanna losen it up before it does permanent damage.

Re:As always...

[Jason Straight]

Of course I do, I see the way other people drive, you're probably one of them. That is if indeed you are old enough to drive, Mario.

Sure they do, why do you think the military uses sims before they let pilots fly? I'm used to watching and knowing were all the obstacles are on the road because I do it all the time when flying the sims, especially in the helos. You have to take mental pictures of them all and know your orientation to everything so you don't crash when you are dogfighting another helo or evading SAM's. Not to mention in a helo the first thing you train yourself to do is not jerk the controls.

The difference between games like Mario and SIM's is that there are games, and there are simulations. I'm sure playing mario has probably helped train your reflexes which has in part even made you a better driver. What I'm saying I've gained from the sims is environmental awareness and self control - so you don't torque the wheel in a bad situation.

Case in point: The other day while driving my Jeep I was going around a curve which happened to be the only icy spot on the whole 40 min trip. The Jeep started to slide off the road, I actually thought it was a sure thing I was ditching it with my wife and kids in the car, my heart nearly stopped, but rather than trying to swerve back onto the road or even turn into the sideways slide, to stop the slide, I turned just enough into the slide to keep going somewhat forward until I got to the edge of the road where I could get traction. My body paniced, adrenaline, heart rate, etc... but my reflex was to go with the slide until it stopped rather than try to fight it and overcorrect. Like the first time flying a helo sim, try it you'll overcorrect and flip your helo, everyone does.

Now this wasn't your typical slide, I've slid before. And every time other than this one I usually say, "Whee!" and just bring it back on track, having driven trucks most of my life you learn fast how to recover a fishtail slide or you don't drive one. This was a 4 wheel slide, nothing I was going to do was going to take back control of the vehicle, the best thing I could do was keep it from getting out of hand and wait for it to allow me to give back control.

Maybe the SIM's have also helped hone my memory so I remember the things around me, and know where my safe exits are more easily.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "drunk moron" with "insurgent with RPG" and "family" with "crew of mercenaries" and it sort of makes sense. No amount of "armor" will help you when someone crashes a car into your SUV. Specially, if that someone is also driving a big SUV.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[dkleinsc]

The SUV craze is actually the same phenomenon as the crowded theater phenomenon (where someone stands up to get a better view, so soon everyone is standing to see at all, and no one sees any better than when they were sitting). The idea is "If my vehicle is heavier than the other guy's, then in an accident I'll be in better shape than him." End result: Everyone will go out and get a bigger vehicle, because it appears that will make them better off, and as a result no one is safer.

Of course, the heavier vehicles always create a false sense of security. Trucks and large vehicles are more prone to rollovers, can't stop or swerve easily to avoid trouble, and hit stationary objects with more momentum. But like Homeland Security or MS Windows, it makes you feel safe, so people choose to go with it even if the facts are completely against them.

Really your best defense while driving is to actually use everything you learned in Driver's Ed, or if you don't remember than find books or classes on safe driving. And if there are any teenagers reading this, remember that Driver's Ed is the one class most likely to determine at some point whether you survive a situation. You know, driving at reasonable speeds (somewhere around the speed limit is usually good), slowing down before you take corners, being aware of the drivers around you, good signalling so other drivers are aware of you, etc.

Mini vans vs SUV's

[pease1]

I've always been struck (pun intended) how the day I grew up and traded my SUV in for a mini-van that is about the same weight and gets about the same miles per gallon, I suddenly became more policitically correct, safer and less of a risk to everyone one else on the road.

And they say there is no free lunch.

Funny thing is, other then the "coolness factor," I do everything I used to do in the SUV with the van, and the van is actually better at it since it carries more. This likely includes more off road travel then most SUV's ever see.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been struck (pun intended) how the day I grew up and traded my SUV in for a mini-van that is about the same weight and gets about the same miles per gallon, I suddenly became more policitically correct, safer and less of a risk to everyone one else on the road.

I think this has to do with the perception that very few minivans are purchased because they look cool but rather because the owner actually needs the extra passenger/cargo capacity. While there are certainly a large number SUV owners who require the same or other capabilities, there are also a significant number who purchased such a large vehicle simply to be "cool" and those owners are the ones who tend to garner the disdain.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[fruity_pebbles]

Your mini-van is probably built a lot differently than your SUV, and is probably safer for other vehicles if you are ever involved in a collision. See TFA's diagram of the frame design differences between a Honda Odyssey mini-van and Dodge pickup. (A lot of SUV's are built on the same frame as pickups.)

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[hal2814]

You could also do the same by buying a pickup truck. I remember a Biology class (taught by an Ecology professor) I took in college where I called out my professor for not mentioning pickups when he asked who in the classes owned SUVs and tried to convince them that they shouldn't.

What's funny is that he started asking what the students needed their SUVs for and then quickly stopped when three of the first four students he asked actually needed their SUV for summer jobs (towing a large landscaping trailer, carrying tools and saw horses for decking, and carpooling six people to an internship an hour away). It was priceless because you could tell he was going to use anecdotal evidence to blast their choice of vehicle until he realized that their vehicle choices weren't too bad given their situation.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[boingo82]

The difference is that if you and I wreck, your bumper hits at the level of my bumper, or frame, where my vehicle is best able to absorb and distribute the force of the impact safely. In an SUV, your bumper hits above mine, meaning that my frame is left totally unable to protect me. If it's a side impact, you come right through my door, and the front of your car hits me straight in the head.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[stienman]

The main difference is the body style and bumper height. The bumpers for minivans are close to or at the height required for passenger vehicles. This results in crashes that are much different than an SUV crash. Further, the center of gravity is lower on a minivan than an SUV, though not a lot.

Of course, one can always mine the data oneself. The query function is fairly easy to use.

-Adam

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[Solandri]

The govt classifies minivans as cars, so they have to meet all the safety and fuel efficiency requirements of cars.

SUVs are classified as light trucks, which have practically no safety or fuel efficiency requirements. This has been changing recently, but slowly.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[Chris Burke]

What's funny is that he started asking what the students needed their SUVs for and then quickly stopped when three of the first four students he asked actually needed their SUV for summer jobs (towing a large landscaping trailer, carrying tools and saw horses for decking, and carpooling six people to an internship an hour away).

His problem was that he was surprised that some people needed their SUV (or a vehicle like it; for hauling jobs a pickup truck is likely to be superior so there probably was some non-practical aspect to the choice). If he had been aware that some people need the cars like I am, he could have made his rant into an even more devastating case of duck-duck-goose. As you said, three of the first four had a reason, so that 4th person could have easily had an example made of them.

Duck - "You drive an SUV because you need it. Good for you." Duck - "Oh, you need yours to haul a trailer, that's nice." Goose! "What?! All you do is drive to school and back?! What do you need an SUV for, other than helping yourself be killed in a rollover accident?! Do you like wasting gas just so people might mistake you for these other guys that need such a vehicle?" And so on.

To me, it's like semis. Do truckers need to drive semi-trucks? Yes, nothing else will do the job. Would anyone else driving a semi-truck be the biggest retard imagineable? Yes. Such a person would have ridicule heaped upon them at every turn, and they would be scorned by members of the opposite sex.

I believe this is the solution to the SUV problem. Those who buy them without having any practical use for them should be humiliated and outed as the posers they are.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[evilviper]

traded my SUV in for a mini-van that is about the same weight and gets about the same miles per gallon

While that may have been your situation, it's simply rarely the case. Mivivans are almost always lighter than SUVs or trucks (for good reason), and usually have smaller more fuel effecient engines (also for good reason). The fact that generalizations aren't always correct, doesn't mean they're not valid to begin with.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[hal2814]

"for hauling jobs a pickup truck is likely to be superior so there probably was some non-practical aspect to the choice"

The typical body-on-frame SUV is just a truck with a back seat. For towing (which I realize is only half of hauling), there is really no difference compared to a similar sized truck. It may seem different because an SUV usually looks bigger than it's truck counterpart. For example, the Explorer looks the size of an F150 but it's really on an extended bed Ranger frame (at least until 2000).

Now I don't know if this was the case with those students, but I am assuming college students with summer jobs have used vehicles. An SUV might've been the best value they could find in the used market. Pickup trucks hold their value very well. SUVs do not.

Chemistry...

[KevinColyer]

I thought it was chemisty behind many car crashes:

probability of crash = direct proportion to alcohol drunk

Re:Chemistry...

[crabpeople]

no ive found its actually two peaks with a valley in the middle. unfortunately i cant draw it here but it kinda looks like a small hill comming up to around 3 drinks, then it starts to drop of (you can drive better with more alcohol) between 4 and 6 drinks. this is why its actually better to be more drunk sometimes than less. if your just a little drunk your all paranoid and hesitate with decisions. if your in the sweet spot, you drive normally unless som,ething really unexpected happens. after like 6 drinks it starts to climb very fast to the "i shouldnt be driving" area and your confidence in the ability to drive goes down. If your a bit drunk, your confidence is also lowered. you really just have to aim for the sweet spot if you must drive drunk.

of corse YMMV

Re:Chemistry...

[KevinColyer]

You sound like you speak from experience!!! I try not to speak from experience in this area. However everything you are saying is very subjective. All the empirical evidence I have seen, heard and read is that alcohol reduces the ability to drive well through a mixture of dimishished judgment, over confidence, decreased reaction times etc.

On a lighter note, I live in Belgium and with beer at 11% if find my peaks are between the 15th and 17th sips!

crashes vs. global warming

[digitaldc]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions."

If you want to look at it another way, "The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with the atmosphere under existing conditions."

Time to up the fuel economy standards as well as the safety standards.

Chinese SUV: Bought study

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite possible the study was bought by European SUV manufactures who do not want cheaper competition (or any additional competition for that matter).

It happened in the past and it will happen again.

Re:Chinese SUV: Bought study

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. First of all, there are no European SUV manufacturers (well, except for DaimlerChrysler, but they don't sell them in Europe), secondly ADAC and TÜV both have a spotless reputation and finally the EuroNCAP norms are well-documented and regulated general safety standards.

Wrong conclusion on collisions with diff vehicles!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know from experience that the conclusions of collisions between vehicles of
different size to be in error. They must not have checked all vehicles
on the market.

I had a head on collision with a semi-truck (about 60 degrees) and walked out of
the vehicle with little injury. The only very troubling part of the accident
was a witness who turned out to be fundy and told me that I must not have been
a good christian to be in such an accident.

The car was a Ford Focus and much of it was destroyed except the passenger cage
which was relatively intact on the inside. I had between $15k to $20k of
electronic equipment on the backseat wich was not damaged at all. The engine
had been expelled several hundred feet and the trunk was completely destroyed.
The left front door was a bit hard to open but the right front door opened
with no problem. I just walked out of the car when I woke up, almost gave a
heart attack to the fundy who was staring at me thru the window.

A few months later an accident in the same area between a japanese car (I think
it was a Honda) and a semi truck resulted in the death of the driver on impact.
The car looked a bit like the one in the article.

Ford will feature me in their document at the auto show for those interested.

I bought two ford cars after the accident ...

Death to pickup drivers

[ananamouse]

The top of a typical small car is about mid throat level to most full size pickup truck drivers. Take a flat plate of steel and file the sides to a knife edge, then attach to the top of the small car with break away bolts so that when the pick up konks the little car the car flys away and the plate goes through the windshield of the pickup taking out its driver. At least then you would have a fair fight!

Obligatory Simpsons quote

[ning]

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero!

Support your local lyrics site!

Re:Obligatory Simpsons quote

[poot_rootbeer]

Support your local lyrics site!

Boycott your local songwriter!

They don't deserve money for their work anyway, we enjoy it therefore it should be free.

That's assuming...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right in a generic sense, but the fact that cars don't have elastic collisions changes things.

Also, its important to consider deformation fo the passenger "cage" to be almost as important. A lot of light trucks/suv tend to have signficant instrusion into the footwell and "A" pillar in offset front collisions making them less safe than they first appear.

On the other hand, if you have a 5000 pound SUV hitting a 2000 pound minicompact, I don't have to be Newton to figure out the result.

But in reality, most new cars weight closer to 3500 pounds, and most SUV's are probably around 4000, so despite looks, there's less of a difference than it appears. Combine that with the fact that many cars have more sophisticated crash zones than SUVs and far less tendency to roll over, and you get that a car can be far safer than an SUV.

Personally, I'll take my changes in my BMW rather than a Ford Explorer.

Re:That's assuming...

[Temkin]

There's also individual component issues to consider. A Honda CR-V might have a engine/transmisison combination that weighs in at maybe 300 - 350 Kg total. The now out-of-production Ford Excursion with the 7.3l diesel engine has a rigid engine/transmission combination that is up around 1000 Kg (and a total vehicle mass over 3600 Kg!) . A 1000 Kg cast iron engine/transmission is not going to behave in any meaningful elastic way in a collision with a 350 Kg aluminum engine/transmission, and both these masses are right up front. You can almost ignore the Excursion's engineered chassis crumple zones once the radiators have crushed and the engine blocks make contact.

The amusing premise here is that the wording suggests we can somehow reduce the number of large body on frame vehicles on the road. This isn't going to happen in any meaningful way any time soon. The world operates with pickup trucks that can tow 5,500 Kg, and class 8 semis that can tow 30,000 Kg. I am unaware of any unibody vehicles that are capable of exceeding 50% of mass cargo capacities, or 2 to 8 times their mass towing capacities. This isn't to say its impossible, but they do not exist at this time. Even if they did, you'd still have a massive non-elastic engine and transmission to contend with, because moving these cargo masses takes a lot of power. The wording seems carefully chosen to place blame with the body on frame vehicles that run our economy rather than the flimsily constructed light unibody vehicles. Light unibody vehicles have been known killers for a long time. Technology has made them quite a bit safer over the last couple decades, but tech costs $$. There's obviously an agenda at work here...

Study should include analysis of C2H5OH

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a strong correlation between extensive testing of human effects of C2H5OH and the instability of automotive control systems. A principal effect is the decreased response time of control systems including steering and brake systems. More effective automotive control systems that can compensate for C2H5OH should have a high probabilty of significant improvement in the overall reliabilty and the reduction of MTBF of vehicles. This should improve overall human safety, regardless of other crash and crash-related technologies as described by the physics of impact studies.

The physics of impact studies should include:

1. physics of human or robotic control system including levels of principal chemicals to include C2H5OH, ()-(6aR,10aR)-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6a,7,8,10a- tetrahydro-
   6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol, and hydraulic fluids.
   
2. analysis of the time/space effects including time dilation and increase in mass due to excessive speed as per general relativity.
   

By your logic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I should drive a Sherman tank. Very safe and good for the environment too. Everyone should carry machine guns and the losers who don't wear armor; well too bad for them.

If you do something that endangers other people's lives and then you blame the victims, you deserve to go to jail.

We have a couple of giant trucks in the parking lot. These are luxury vehicles and I'm pretty sure they have never carried anything bigger than the weekly groceries. As far as I can tell, they are a waste of steel and gas.

Re:Wrong conclusion on collisions with diff vehicl

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only very troubling part of the accident was a witness who turned out to be fundy and told me that I must not have been a good christian to be in such an accident."

That's a really wierd thing for a christian to say. I would have thought something more allong the lines that the lord must have been looking out for you.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[Eivind]

Certainly. Sure, you're safer than the guys in the 1ton cars if you're the only one driving a 2ton car. In a potential crash, their smaller car will suffer twice the deceleration that yours will. (simple physics: the force is identical on both cars, half weigth thus gives twice the deceleration) So you can say you've bougth a "safe car"

But the safety is on the cost of the others, the day everyone has a 2ton car you're not much safer than with everyone driving a 1ton car. (I say "not much" because the increased *size* does help, without hurting the others like weigth do, because more size means a longer deceleration)

Luckily most safety-features don't hurt others. The others on the road are no less safe (infact more, because you're less likely to crash with them) if your car has ABS, Active stability-control, Anti-spin, load-limiting and pre-tensioned seatbelts, airbags, crash-safe fueltank, emergency-door-unlock system, electric and fuel cut at the source in the event of a crash, heated mirrors, tracking curve-ligths, child-seat-directly-fastened-to-frame, high brake-ligth, washers on the backwindow and the ligths, fogligths, and around a gazillion other dogadgets.

The interesting thing is that 10-15 years ago you couldn't get a car equipped like that for *any* price. Today ? I'm actually listing features of my $14000 Skoda Fabia. Not exactly a top-of-the-line car.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[markandrew]

What if the drunk is driving the same (or bigger) SUV than you are? Still happy?

Nice line ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me again when I drive over your lousy SUV with my tank..
You really should pick a better class of vehicle.

My experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in Montgomery County MD, we've had a rash of pedestrian deaths in the past few years.

However, I'll put some of the blame on pedestrians. We have a lot of immigrants who tend to cross at night in the middle of roads. They're killing themselves.

If that sounds crass and uncaring, its not meant to be. However, driving down a dark road at 45 MPH and someone runs in front of you... let me tell you, impossible to see the person until the last minute. An older person driving would probably just run them down.

Nobody *wants* to hit a pedestrian, but I'm not so sure the pedestrians are understanding the danger of crossing a busy road (not at the crosswalk) after dark.

Re:My experience...

[Anonymous Codger]

Also living in Montgomery County, MD, and being a frequent pedestrian, I concede that there are a lot of pedestrian hits on jaywalkers. But I can also tell you that drivers here seem to regard crosswalks as targeting zones. I'm looking right now at an intersection that I can see from my office window, and (waiting for it ... There!) some driver just drove through the crosswalk while a pedestrian was in it, missing her by only a couple of feet.

I do see a lot of jaywalkers, but they usually (not always) seem to be aware of their environment. The drivers are not aware or are in too big a hurry to pay attention to ped safety.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Jason Straight]

At least with the imbalance I have the opportunity to be on higher ground that him/her. But weakening the SUV only means you ensure the drunk will have opportunity to do massive damage rather than possibly.

Why?

[tkrotchko]

"But they're cool, I admit."

What makes them so cool?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes them so cool?

Higher view point, simply being big, and being able to handle rough terrain. (And yes, I do that once in a while too.) Other than that, there's the mystical appeal that for some reason many men see in it. Why? Dunno. It's just cool. Nothing wrong with that now, is there?

Ontop of that, my Range Rover is a semi luxury car, so that adds to it. I needed a car that could take the rough terrain, but also wanted luxury, so that was my choice. A Mercedes G class would have been fine too, but it wasn't "cool" enough for me. If I only wanted the cool and luxurious, I'd have gone with a BMW 750i. If I didn't need the space, I'd be driving a Lotus Elise. ;-)

As a side note, living in Tokyo means I use mass transit most of them time, and only drive on the weekends to go to the store, or to go snowboarding, camping, what not. That's why I can afford the gas. :-P

.8?

[tkrotchko]

What car sold today only weighs 1600 pounds?

I suggest adding another 1000 pounds for a more realistic view of today's cars. They're gotten a lot heavier in the past 10-15 years.

Re:.8?

[stupid_is]

One of these

(yes, I know, not a common sight, but they're damn fun to drive)

Re:.8?

[Anonymous Coward]

or even one of these

Re:get some priorities!

[Anonymous Coward]

As important as that is, I hardly think that there's much anyone on slashdot can do for him right now. And while I totally agree that Sharon is important news, the fact that slashdot is talking about car crashes is hardly some grave insult - the world rarely ever stops entirely for one person or event, nor should it be expected to, particularily when there's not a whole lot that can be done about it. Besides...that's sort of a case of the pot calling the kettle black there...you're on slashdot too, so get off your high horse.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Forbman]

Well, that's what they're doing in NASCAR at some of the race tracks... That's what they do when they cut trees down that are too close to the highway. That's why highway engineers like to have wide shoulders on at least one side of the highway.

This article is biased by the anti-SUV crowd.

[jacekm]

The article is biased and written by the anti-SUV people. Besides obvious findings, that heavier, bigger vehicles tend to be significantly safer, it then concludes, that heavier, bigger vehicles should be eliminated from the road because of their perceived unfairness. This is ridiculous argument. By the same logic all large passenger cars are dangerous to the owners of the compact and subcompact cars, subcompact cars are dangerous to the bicyclists and bicyclists are dangerous to the pedestrians. If he same logic is applied, than we should eliminate all vehicles including bicycles. It actually lies about the "stiff" frames. All light trucks have frames with dedicated, designed into the frmae crush zones as required by law. Otherwise they would not pass goverment crash test. Exactly the same logic is used with the body on frame design (sometimes called unibody design) which has soft and rigid zones designed on purpose into the structure. The difference between one and the other is that the cheaper econoboxes are built with the frame simply welded solid to the vehicle body and more expensive vehicles have unique frame structure isolated from the body by the rubber mounts. Almost all luxury vehicles such as more expensive models of BMW, Lexus or Mercedes Benz have front and rear frames (called cradles), softly isolated from the vehicle body. In trucks those cradles are simply connected together into one unit. The comment: "The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions." is a proof of an agenda of the authors of this article. How about 18 wheelers or any other commercial trucks ? Those are not required by law to have any crush zones, or any crash compatibility requirements similar to light trucks. JM

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[Forbman]

(remembering pictures from the 80's of cars from Eastern Europe)... You *bought* a Skoda? Hey, I'll trade it for my Yugo!

*:)

Yes, I know Skodas have come a LONG ways since then...

Truck designation

[B5_geek]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions. That problem is critical because so many light trucks are used nowadays as car substitutes."

This might have something to do with the way that the government allows trucks to be classified.

A truck is a utility/cargo vehicle, not a passenger vehicle.
Trucks are required by law to have a 5 mile/h bumper, cars 10~15mile/hour.
Fuel effiency/emmisions standards are not as stringent on cargo/utility vehicles.
Mini-vans are also classified as utility/cargo vehicles.

The only reason that there is an appearance of improved saftey is the higher kinetic energy + higher sitting position that these monsters have over a standard family-sedan.

I thought all Americans were immigrants?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok I know I am sort of trolling but can you substantiate the statistics of pedestrian deaths by country of birth? It sounds unsubstantiated racism rather than useful figures... but happy for you to prove me wrong! Is it 90% non-US born? 50%? or is this just a slashdot opinion ("I've seen 3 asian people crossing the road not at pedestrian crossings therefore all road deaths are immigrants crossing busy roads in the wrong places"). Interested to know...

Wrong.

[mjrmjr]

0.8 tons? Example please. Carpoint(yes, I know that MS is evil)is a good reference. You can lookup the weight of any car. I don't think Lotus even makes a car that weighs 0.8 tons. Your BMW 318 probably clocks in at at least 1.5 tons. A Mazda Miata weighs at least a ton. Sorry to be a nitpicker, but when you put out an "equation" you ought to get the math right.

Re:Wrong.

[SuiteSisterMary]

If he's from Europe, he's talking Metric tons, or 1000 KG. 1 metric ton is around 2200 pounds.

Re:Wrong.

[kraut]

actually, a lotus elise weighs 860kg empty. Mind you, that's "with no options", so by the time you've added the few creature comforts you can get into an Elise, it's probably up to 900.

http://www.grouplotus.com/car/car_tech_specs.php?i d=1

Not THE Lee Noble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on...you're not the Lee Noble who designs & sells cars for a living?

Re:Not THE Lee Noble?

[leenoble_uk]

Surprisingly I'm not THAT Lee Noble, no. If I was I'd be driving a much bigger car than I am currently ;)

Don't forget...

[Gordonjcp]

... American cars aren't built to the same standards as European cars. A good example that I'd almost forgotten until now was what happened to one of my first ever cars, a Volvo 340, their (relatively) small hatchback from the 1980s. An imported Ford Explorer pickup rolled away down a car park and ran into the back of the Volvo. The Volvo had a badly bent tailgate and both rear lights were smashed. I replaced them with a spare and drove the Volvo home. The Explorer looked undamaged, but on closer inspection the *front chassis legs were bent* - the engine was no longer correctly lined up. All the panels along both sides were very slightly bent, and the doors no longer opened and shut properly because the A-pillars had kinked right at the point where the top of the inner wing joins.

So lots of visible damage to the Volvo, hardly any damage to the Ford, but the Ford was basically a cat. C write-off.

Re:Don't forget...

[sgtrock]

Yep, that's about the time that American vehicles started copying Japanese frame and body designs (with some innovations of their own). All passenger vehicles since that time are designed to absorb an impact while protecting the cab itself. The accident that you describe sounds like that's what happened.

And that is why....

[Anonymous Coward]

...old people shouldn't drive.

Cadence Braking

[SkiifGeek]

How many drivers are taught cadence braking these days?

I know I was taught cadence braking, although I have never seen that term used before now. My instruction in the technique was only 10 years ago, and it was a simple case of the instructor telling me what to do, and setting me loose on a dirt / loose gravel road and telling me I would fail if I locked the wheels. Putting the car into a skid on the dirt road, when compared to the cadence method really showed the difference for braking.

As to whether ABS does or doesn't save lives, that is a separate argument. I know that I have been in a number of life threatening situations where ABS would have been the difference between safety and death, but in the wrong direction, in both front and rear wheel drive vehicles both below and above 1,000kg weight class. There have even been times when ABS would have no benefit whatsoever (in fact it would be more dangerous as it is more likely that the driver would not have the experience to handle a suddenly skidding / sliding car at speed over undulating terrain). In all the situations, the only thing that probably would have been of any benefit would be a balanced four/all wheel drive system (such as Subaru make), giving the greatest opportunity to retain some traction/ability to retain control.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[markandrew]

the point is that what's good for your family (bigger SUV) is not necessarily good for society in general (more deaths from bigger SUV collisions). and what's bad for society in general is also bad for you and your family (your big heavy SUV may not be so big and heavy once everyone else is driving bigger and heavier SUVs - which is made more likely by you driving one).

sounds like...

[zogger]

...an opportunity for an enterprising person with a video camera to shoot a lot of the offending instances of crosswalk violations then see if the local news channel might carry some of the footage. Getting license plate closeups might be a plus + 1 bonus. Often, local governments won't act on anything until they are embarrassed into it.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[ljw1004]

Risk homeostasis. If there is a spike welded to steering wheels, people will adjust their behavior to the overall same level of risk.

Net result: same number of car injuries and fatalities, but with lower speeds overall.

Personally I enjoy high speeds! So I'll embrace safety features, because they let me drive faster while keeping the same level of risk.

Re:get some priorities!

[aug24]

Such a pity the OP idiot was anonymous and will prolly never read your comment.

Still, cracked me up ;-)

J.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Neoprofin]

Other people have all brought up that other SUVs will tear right through your misguided armor but it's far more simple than that.

I used to drive down a long striaght road by the airport every day where speeds typically reach 50-60mph which is thankfully offset by a mile of visibility in every direction. There are still SUV drivers who decide to pull out of the one parkinglot driveway on this road, accross traffic, without considering traffic coming in either direction.

I may be driving an '89 Camaro that will undoubtably slide right under most SUVs, but it also weighs 3000lbs and at 50mphs I bet it would really ruin the day of anyone who pulled out in frount of it. Infact, I bet any SUV T-boned at highway speeds, esepcially due to their propencity to roll over, wouldn't be in the best circumstances.

THe moral of the story? Drunk drivers drive fast, and when you're not intersted in your own safety the safety of others is much easier to endanger. Driving an SUV wont protect you from anything that being a responcible driver wouldn't have.

Re:get some priorities!

[hairykrishna]

Made me giggle. I wish I had some mod points

Inquiring minds want to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Who crashed the Physics Behind Car?

Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[CFD339]

As a firefighter and first responder I can state that there's a big problem with the safety crash test ratings most consumers see. These 4 star and 5 star ratings don't tell the real story at all.

These tests emphasise not just the human safety but also the cost of repair. To some extent, the cost of human repair is the factor added to the vehicle repair to make the rating. Interesting data, but not what most of us care about, and it results in very poor decision making information.

Example: I have seen personally how effective "crumple zones" combined with airbags and safety brackets on hoods which prevent the hood from sliding directly back into the windshield in the case of a head on collision can work. I see completely destroyed cars all the time where the occupants are well protected and suffer only minor injuries. That's because much of the force of impact is used up in the act of crumpling the car. These crumple zones are amazingly effective.

The problem for insurrance companies is that crumple zones and the like TRADE vehicle damage for human damage. The low-speed destruction of bumpers, fenders, hoods, and entire engine compartments mean that these cars are a "total loss" much more frequently.

If you REALLY want to promote SAFETY -- and like me, you could care less about the damage to the vehicle if the humans are better protected -- than we need a safety rating system which ignores all things other than damage to the occupants of the vehicles.

AP

Re:Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[nuggz]

There is no mention of cost in the star ratings that I'm aware of.
The determination is risk of injury.
My favourite is the offset crash test.
http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/default.aspx

The standard five star rating is explained here.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/index.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/pages/CrashTestRatings.htm

Re:Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[poot_rootbeer]

we need a safety rating system which ignores all things other than damage to the occupants of the vehicles.

As a primary consideration, yes.

If two vehicles are equally adept at preventing human damage, I don't oppose comparing the repair/replace costs of the vehicles as a tie-breaker.

Re:Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you compared recent medical bills to auto repair costs? A single $100,000 claim for soft tissue damage could easily buy 200 bumpers at $500 each! Of course this doesn't bode well for those of us with high deductibles, but most major injuries cost more than a car to repair, so it's worth while in the end.

dom

Re:Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[ipfwadm]

The problem for insurrance companies is that crumple zones and the like TRADE vehicle damage for human damage. The low-speed destruction of bumpers, fenders, hoods, and entire engine compartments mean that these cars are a "total loss" much more frequently.

Do you have something to back up the assertion that insurance companies would trade human damage for vehicle damage? Otherwise, I call BS. Medical costs are FAR more expensive than vehicle damage. A totalled car will cost what, a maximum of a couple tens of thousands of dollars to replace. An injured person's medical costs could easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And there could potentially be multiple people in the car. For instance, my car was worth $15,000 new. My bodily injury limits go up to $300,000 per accident. Which do you think the insurance company would rather pay?

As much as people villainize the insurance industry, they are generally very good at promoting things that improve automobile safety.

Re:Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[ross.w]

Firstly, the NCAP results ONLY factor potential injury as others have pointed out.

Secondly, for a minor fender bender, the difference in smash repair costs is usually a factor of the quality of the design and the cost of the parts involved. A broken headlight can cost $600 or more for some cars.

Plus in Australia, since seatbelt wearing is pretty widespread because our constitution doesn't prevent it being compulsory, unlike some countries I could mention ( ;) ) airbags in most cars are set to go off at a higher level of impact, which means that a minor carpark bingle doesn't cost you a new airbag.

Some built for the US market have airbags that will go off even in a minor collision, unnecessarily if seatbelts are in use. This adds dollars also.

Some (usually smaller, lighter and cheaper) cars are built so that major structural damage is sustained in minor collisions. Other do some of the initial impact absorption using removable parts like the front fender. Sometimes the one that suffers structural damage in the minor collision also performs worse in the major one.

The NRMA has done tests of various cars repair costs after minor collisions. (see www.nrma.com.au) Look for the one for the Nissan Micra (if it's still there - otherwise most of the Korean cars), and compare it with the NCAP result for the same car.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[swillden]

People are always going to consider their own selfish personal safety as a purchasing factor when choosing a road vehicle

It should also be kept in mind that this is not the only reason people buy SUVs, and that some of the reasons actually make sense. My '04 Durango has a 5-star crash rating (unlike most SUVs, actually -- they're big but they're not all that safe), but the reason I bought it is because it's the only sort of vehicle on the market that will:

1. Transport my whole family in comfort (there are six of us, and we occasionally have a friend or cousin along).
2. Function well on rough, rocky and often snowy or muddy mountain roads. We spend a lot of time in the mountains, where high-clearance 4WD vehicles are a necessity.
3. Tow several thousand pounds of camp trailer or boat. I actually need that big V8.

It's true that most SUVs on the road never leave the pavement, and never make any use of those big, powerful engines, but SUVs actually do make sense for the people who really use them.

Of course, my SUV spends more time on city and highway roads than in the mountains, because it is the family car. Not using it as the family car would mean buying a minivan as well. Luckily, the Durango gets reasonably good gas mileage (~18mpg in town and ~23mpg on the highway). That's not as good as a minivan but it's not that much worse, and it's certainly close enough that the fuel cost difference wouldn't pay for another vehicle.

One word: FlatOut

[Anonymous Coward]

Dreadful things happen in this game when you crash - you and the other driver get ejected, parts fly, etc etc.

'Course, you just hit the reset and motor on your way, which is where any similarity to reality ends...

OT: Man, .pdf's suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloated, inappropriate, proprietary methodologies are evil.

PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Jason Straight]

Yeah, but that isn't putting anyone else at more danger.

If I lived at the end of a T in the road, in such a place where my house was at the end of the road and the person missing the turn or stop sign could crash into my house, but I had a row of oak trees in front of my house, and someone came along telling me I should cut them down because it would greaten the chances of survival for the guy who blows the stop sign, yet would mean my kids playing in the front yard were sitting ducks - I'd tell them where to go.

[And that concludes this episode of "run-on sentances"]

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe

[pyrotic]

Actually, I think tanks are the way forward. Who needs one of those dangerous hummers, weighing only 7,800 lbs. They don't even protect you against small arms fire. The military model, at 7,264 lbs, is better, though offers no NBC capability (nuclear chemical and biological), and the armour is no good against anything bigger than a pea-shooter. So realistically, for your safetly, you need something more like the Warrior, a mere 24 tons. They look very nice in pink.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[Eivind]

Sure I did. Show me another car with those specs, with an engine, transmission and carriage produced by VW (which owns Skoda) for anything less than say $17000. This car cost $14000. It's great value for money.

Okay, so I've only driven 10K miles with it until now, if it's really great value I can only say in a number of years. But I consider it rather likely it'll run problem-free atleast 100K miles, perhaps 150K.

Well....

[argStyopa]

Since the whole "I drive an SUV because it's safer" thing is pretty much just a conscious or subconscious rationalization of some people's desperate need to display their wealth/power/potency, I guess I'm not surprised.

What's next, are we going to have a study that proves living in a capacious 15,000 sq ft house really isn't any more comfortable than a typical smaller home?

Re:Well....

[Gruneun]

Since the whole "I drive an SUV because it's safer" thing is pretty much just a conscious or subconscious rationalization of some people's desperate need to display their wealth/power/potency, I guess I'm not surprised.

Since the whole "I post sweeping generalizations because it's witty" thing is pretty much just a conscious or subconscious rationalization of some people's desperate need to compensate for their lack of wealth/power/potency, I guess I'm not surprised.

So, honestly, what was your immediate reaction?
A: "Hey, this guy might have a strong argument and I would like to discuss this topic with him further"
B: "What a dick."

Re:Well....

[onkelonkel]

Lets see, people drive big SUVs to compensate for their "shortcomings" in other areas. Clearly the reverse must be true and since I drive a 1.5l Mazda Protege, I must be packin a hose like Ron Jeremy.

If only.....

Re: Parking

[DocSavage64109]

A lot of SUVs are actually easier to park than the average american car. My Dodge Stratus is a typical mid-size car and I see plenty of mid-size SUVs that are shorter and have a better turning circle. I'll agree with your statement as far as the full-sized SUVs go.

Re:Cadence Braking ... is dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

...when used with ABS, because it doesn't allow the ABS to work. A lot of cops were killed when ABS was introduced because they started pumping the brakes, which not only doesn't work with ABS, but dramatically increases stopping distances.

H2-It only looks tough

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.micom.net/oops/H2%20looks%20tough.jpg

Re:H2-It only looks tough

[Gordonjcp]

You might also want to look at "fast bike slow car" - they don't allow direct links

Re:H2-It only looks tough

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sandstorming.com/index.php/2005/08/250- kmh-crash-pictures

http://www.dn.se/content/1/c6/15/89/97/upplandsbro bil463.jpg

Yep, it's the same crash...the secund url is a picture right from the scene, the first url is a more detailed look from a traffic fair...

It's _not_ a good idea to park your motorcycle inside a Volkswagen...

Re:Wrong conclusion on collisions with diff vehicl

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a really wierd thing for a christian to say. I would have thought something more allong the lines that the lord must have been looking out for you.

You obviously haven't met very many real fundies. These are the same people who say God sent the hurricane to New Orleans, or the tsunami last year, or even that He let the terrorists hit the WTC. What's even more frightening is that when something bad happens to one of them, they assume they are being punished for not being righteous enough, and then they go beat up gay people or bomb abortion clinics. Lovely folks, those fundies.

cannot access PDF, cannot RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'm not the only one that can't view this PDF. I went to www.physicstoday.org/ and it turns out the articles are for paying subscribers only.

how are we supposed to read TFA, and why has no one else noticed this?

Re:cannot access PDF, cannot RTFA

[rts008]

RTFA on /.? you're new here, aren't you? :)

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[cryptoguy]

The answer is to hold the driver of the SUV accountable for the higher risk he imposes on other drivers. That means substantially higher insurance rates, and a separate drivers' license which is harder to acquire and easier to lose.

That will eventually lead to safer SUV's, or fewer of them. Either outcome would be an improvement.

Re:Wrong conclusion on collisions with diff vehicl

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Ford will feature me in their document at the auto show for those interested.

I bought two ford cars after the accident ...

These facts are completely unrelated.

low quality vehicals

[plopez]

Remember that one of the main reasons that SUVs were sold was that they exploit loop holes in pollution, safety and fuel efficiency standards. They are by their very nature low quality vehicals.

Minivans were the same way until too many people were killed and the rules tightened. If you take a close look at modern minivans they are essentially reinventing the station wagon.

Instead of exploiting loops holes, non-US manufacturers developed hybrids and high efficiency vehicals. SO now while US car companies are in trouble, foreign car companies are gathering up more market share. Just another sign that US business leadership is screwed. No vision, no intelligence, no ability or concern that we have known that world oil productuion would peak about 2005 (we have known this for about 30+ years). Just business as usual, play golf, out source and go for the short term.

Re:low quality vehicals

[b0s0z0ku]

Remember that one of the main reasons that SUVs were sold was that they exploit loop holes in pollution, safety and fuel efficiency standards. They are by their very nature low quality vehicals.

Then again, it's possible to have a station wagon meet those loopholes. Look at the Subaru Outback wagon or Dodge Magnum. Neither is really tall (although the Outback does have a high suspension and actually does better off road than many taller SUVs), but both are classified as light trucks, at least for fuel economy purposes.

-b.
(who's quite happy with his 30 mpg decently-safe Volvo 240 wagon)

Re:low quality vehicals

[evilviper]

Instead of exploiting loops holes, non-US manufacturers developed hybrids and high efficiency vehicals. SO now while US car companies are in trouble, foreign car companies are gathering up more market share. Just another sign that US business leadership is screwed.

I hate to ruin your anti-American company rant here, but Ford happens to be one of the biggest innovators in hybrid technologies. Their hybrid tech is even licensed even by these amazingly wonderful foreign car companies you speak of.

Also, hybrids are getting a hell of a lot of hype, but there's no substance to it. You can get better fuel effeciency from a conventional engine, without the electronics, if people were willing to accept the same poor acceleration from lower priced conventional cars.

Hybrids have a greatly increased purchase price, much higher cost of maintenance, etc., which largely eliminates their fuel advantage. Right now, it seems to be the type of car to buy to make a political statement, and nothing more.

I'm not trying to bash hybrids (though I won't ever be buying one) but simply trying to make the point that it may very well turn out that the hybrid makers are going for the real short-term profits, and perhaps the US car companies may have the more tenable long-term position.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[jcnnghm]

The theatre phenomenon is a good comparison to the SUV phenomenon. If there were many people in a crowded theatre, and everyone stood up to get a better view, there would be people that could see better, tall people (especially long legs). I'm 6'1", and whenever the crowd rises at a baseball game, my ability to see the game usually improves dramatically, unless of course there happens to be a really tall guy in front of me. I'd say I have about a 85% chance of a better view than seated though.

Likewise, not everyone can afford heavier cars, trucks, and SUVs, and environmentalist types wouldn't buy them even if they could. Some people also have their hearts set on cars. SUVs have been on the market for years, and not everyone has gone out and gotten bigger vehicles. Your comparison is good, but not for the intended reasons.

Not everyone buys a car for the environment or for safety reasons. Some people buy cars for utility (holding a lot of stuff or people in an SUV) or because they just plain like them better.

Size is important.

[MaWeiTao]

I personally hate SUVs. I think the fundamental problem in the United States is that drivers licenses are given out too easily and the base license gives a driver access to too many different kinds of vehicles. SUVs should require special licenses with extensive driver education.

The problem comes down to driver ignorance and stupidity. This, however, isn't something unique to SUV drivers. Around where I live there have been countless idiots crashing into various objects in their beat-up, riced-up small Japanese imports. The city can't do anything to beautify the city without one of these morons coming along and destroying it. They sure do a good job of flipping those cars over too.

That said, mass is a huge factor in determining passenger safety. Of course there are situations where people in a smaller car fare better than in the larger car, but that's the exception.

We have all these crash tests which award the same high marks to a small car that they do to a large car. But these tests are performed under controlled conditions in the kinds of impacts people rarely encounter in real life. These tests are also conducted at relatively low speeds. The kinds of speeds drivers on the road are exposed will completely destroy a car regardless of all the safety features car makers install. And a driver in a large car has one simple advantage: there is more of the car to crash before the impact reaches the driver. I've heard from a few sources that a driver in a small car is up to 13 times more likely to die in a small car compared to a large one.

Of course, if you're driving something as poorly built as that Jiangling nothing will help you, but that's another story. I'm surprised that Europe, with all it's regulations even allows the thing to be sold there. Then again, considering some of the things I've seen on the road there, it's not too surprising. The US is fairly strict. The ride height for the new Golf GTI was raised .5 inches to meet US bumper height regulations. And there are countless other vehicles not allowed here because of things like lacking 5mph bumpers. I guess the US government needs to make up for the fact that Americans are generally poor, irresponsible drivers.

Re:Size is important.

[MtViewGuy]

I think an important thing nowadays is that with third party authorities like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the USA and the European New Car Assessment Programme authorities in Europe doing safety testing, even small cars are getting substantially safer than before.

Take for example the very small Renault Modus now on sale in Europe. Because the Modus was subject to EuroNCAP crash test certification, the car is actually quite safe and would probably do well in IIHS crash tests, which include offset frontal crash and side impact crash from an object simulating a SUV or light truck.

I do know that the current Honda Civic sedan has gotten a Gold certification from the IIHS, which would be the equivalent of getting almost all five-star crash ratings test from the EuroNCAP authorities; this is proof that Honda has done its homework in building small cars that does an excellent job in protecting its occupants.

Re:Size is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard from a few sources that a driver in a small car is up to 13 times more likely to die in a small car compared to a large one.

1 in 14 drivers of small cars climbs out of the car and into another to expire? Madness!

Re:Size is important.

[b0s0z0ku]

Of course, if you're driving something as poorly built as that Jiangling nothing will help you, but that's another story. I'm surprised that Europe, with all it's regulations even allows the thing to be sold there. Then again, considering some of the things I've seen on the road there, it's not too surprising. The US is fairly strict. The ride height for the new Golf GTI was raised .5 inches to meet US bumper height regulations. And there are countless other vehicles not allowed here because of things like lacking 5mph bumpers. I guess the US government needs to make up for the fact that Americans are generally poor, irresponsible drivers.

Bumpers are actually 2.5mph now. 5mph bumpers were more of an consumer economic protection regulation than a safety rule - too many people complained about their cars getting expensively damaged in slow collisions. I think the rule was dropped because car makers lobbied for the right to do stupid things like equipping cars with quick-scratch body-color bumpers.

I *wish* the US had laxer safety standards (or at least accepted the results of Euro crash and emissions tests). That way, we could get nifty vehicles that we're missing out on, like the Land Rover Defender 90, Smart Car, and any number of French cars.

-b.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[fremsley471]

Different ratings would be useful. Some sort of legal tariff that distinguishes between reckless drivers of different sized vehicles- you jump a red light in a larger car you are more likely to kill/injure other road users. Let's face it, drivers of SUVs perceive "security"; let this be recognised in the courts.

How about semis? Redesign them too?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about 18-wheeler semi-trailers, then?

Redesign them to be unibody, too? I think not.

So, the lowest common denominator sets the rules? I guess we'll all be driving flimsy 2CVs or Neons.

Buy the biggest, safest car/truck you can afford. Stay alive. Profit.

Re:How about semis? Redesign them too?

[sean.peters]

Buy the biggest, safest car/truck you can afford. Stay alive. Profit.

Except, of course, that bigger != safer. While you're less likely to die in a COLLISION if you're in an SUV, you're MORE likely to die in a rollover. The net result is that you're no safer. And if you'd actually read the article, you'd know that.

Sean

Re:How about semis? Redesign them too?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article actually, bigger == safer. However, heavier != safer. Most people think that because bigger is safer, and bigger is often heavier, that heavier must be safer also.

This is all easily explained. A car with more distance between tires (wider track, longer wheelbase) will be more stable and less likely to get into an accident. A car with more distance between the point of impact and the passenger will make accidents more survivable. Of course a heavier vehicle will be harder to control and the added weight will make it more deadly to those it hits (pedestrians or in other cars) and those it lands on (passengers in the vehicle when it rolls over).

The ideal vehicle would be really wide, really long, fairly short, and extremely light.

So how do you make SUVs safer? The same way you make semis safer: require additional operator training and have stricter penalties for breaking the laws.

dom

What is the definition of "troll" ?

[Inoshiro]

"For example, over the last 10-15 years, a lot of states have dropped the DUI (driving under the influnce) BAC cutoff (blood alcohol content) from 0.1% to 0.08%. Lower is better, right?"

Given that for most people, to get the impairment of 0.08 requires 2 shots in 5 minutes, I'd say that's fair. You want to set rules such that most people who are driving are doing so with due care an attention. Why are speeding tickets so great?

"If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines)"

No need to make 0.81% illegal; that's 0.31 over the LD50 level!

Body-on-frame vs. Unibody construction

[Faeton]

This is an interesting article not because of the SUV vs car crashups, but an overall look at how techniques of making cars can create a disparity between 2 automobile classes.

The last 25+ years, there has been a huge push for increased gas efficiency for cars, due to public consciousness, laws, etc. The easiest way to do this is to move less mass, and thus, the unibody car design is pretty much standard across the board for cars. I believe the Ford Crown Vic was probably the last car to be built using body on frame. But before this period, a vast majority of cars were built using body-on-frame, as it was easy, robust and survived crashes well (think of the boats like a Buick Estate).

Trucks are govern by a different set of rules, and technically speaking, cannot transition to the unibody design that well for practical purposes. The loads they are designed to haul and tow (whether or not they do that in real life is irrelevant) demand that a body-on-frame design be used. There are exceptions like the Honda CRV, the 99-04 Nissan Pathfinder, the new Honda Ridgeline, but in the vast majority of cases, they use body-on-frame.

So, over the last 25 years we've created 2 classes of vehicles. Unibody and Body-on-frame. The article suggests that this class difference cannot be reconciled and needs to be eliminated. But we all know that this won't happen, at least not right away. It seems like Honda is the sole pioneer of this conversion, and it was limited in part by it's lack of experience with the body-on-frame design. We need to encourage more companies to try a different route, and use more of the neat materials that science has given us in the last 25 years to bridge that gap.

Think we're still getting light? Then look at motorcycles and how they've embraced technology far better than any car out there. Ever wonder why the spark plug is so big in the car? Ever wonder why car batteries use 19th century technology and a wimpy voltage? It was because of standards created long ago, where they didn't care about size and weight and didn't have the materials andn technology that we do now. The cost and weight savings are all within grasp. Someone just needs to take the lead.

Right, but I think you're missing the point...

[sean.peters]

There are many studies which support this (besides TFA), and I've personally seen (as an EMT) some really hideous SUV/Car collisions, and can tell you: the SUV usually wins.

Yes, but the point of the article as that not all accidents are SUV/car collisions. Some are SUV rollovers, and as the second linked article points out, the OVERALL risk (including collisions, rollovers, and perhaps other risks) of dying while riding in an SUV is about the same as riding in a car. The increased risk of dying in a rollover cancels out the decreased risk of dying in a collision.

... and laying them [SUVs] over -- generally nonfatal though

As the linked article points out, this isn't true, regardless of your personal experience (insert your favorite "plural of anecdote is not data" quote here). Rollovers ARE, in fact, frequently fatal.

Sean

Re:Right, but I think you're missing the point...

[Tim Doran]

Actually, according to an article by Malcolm Gladwell, SUV's are actually far from the safest vehicles overall when measured in deaths per million vehicles.

Your best choices include the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and VW Jetta. The Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla have better survivability numbers than all but two sport-utes.

Read the article, it's engrossing (Gladwell is a great writer) and a great companion to TFA.

Re:Right, but I think you're missing the point...

[boingo82]

I think you'll find This study (PDF) interesting as well.
It's the risk of dying in any given vehicle, and they're broken up by class.
For example, the Infiniti G20's rate is 46 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The Chevy Cavalier? 162 deaths.
The vehicle with the absolute highest death rate of all? The 2door Chevy Blazer..with an amazing rate of 308 deaths per million registered vehicle years. (274 of 308 deaths are attributed to rollovers..)

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[freeweed]

This is what's commonly referred to as the "Tragedy of the Commons".

And yes, it's why I become more and more cynical about human nature as I age :)

Hey I know! Let's RTFA!

[sean.peters]

The whole point of this article was that your SUV is NOT SAFER for your family than a smaller vehicle, due to the increased risk of rollover in an SUV. And if you'd read the article, you'd have known that.

I know, I know, I must be new here.

Sean

Holy Jeebus, has NO ONE read the article?

[sean.peters]

The whole point of the %$#@ article was that not all accidents are collisions. Sure, you do better in a collision when you're in an SUV. But you're also much more likely to be in a rollover in an SUV, and the OVERALL risk, counting both types of accident, is ABOUT THE SAME for both SUVs and passenger cars.

Sean

Repeat after me:

[sean.peters]

The plural of anecdote is not data. Your individual experience does not indicate that this study is flawed.

Short version: you were lucky.

Sean

Yet another person who didn't RTFA.

[sean.peters]

Besides obvious findings, that heavier, bigger vehicles tend to be significantly safer, it then concludes, that heavier, bigger vehicles should be eliminated from the road because of their perceived unfairness. This is ridiculous argument.

And, of course, it's an argument that the article didn't make. The point of this post was that SUVs are only safer in COLLISIONS. When the risk of rollovers was included, you're no safer in an SUV than in a passenger car. See the second linked article for details.

Nice strawman, though. Sorry if this brief visit to reality interfered with your preconceived notions.

Sean

Who cares?

[infinite9]

Being a long-term survivor of pedestrianism...

Where the hell is pedestria anyway? Let's invade! I hear they have weapons of mass destruction!

Simple Solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep the off-road vehicles off the roads.

Re:Simple Solution...

[beckys32]

www.stopsuvs.org

Cheap to replace crumple zones

[Telepathetic Man]

The trick would be to design these crumple zones with cheaper, yet effective materials. Then in response to the high cost of damages, make the parts/materials cheaper for the consumer to replace/repair. In contrast to the suggestion of changes to testing practices, it seems like cheaper to replace crumple zones would be a better change for both manufacturing and consumers.

Re:Cheap to replace crumple zones

[frinkster]

The trick would be to design these crumple zones with cheaper, yet effective materials. Then in response to the high cost of damages, make the parts/materials cheaper for the consumer to replace/repair. In contrast to the suggestion of changes to testing practices, it seems like cheaper to replace crumple zones would be a better change for both manufacturing and consumers.

Given how competitive the auto industry is, any manufacturer that could figure out how to build any part of the car out of cheaper materials yet give up nothing in safety or performance is going to have a significant advantage over the other manufacturers. I'm sure they've all been working on making this a reality for years.

Regulate^Die: an ultimate option

[ElitistWhiner]

There is such a large discrepancy between the weight of SUV's and passenger cars that no amount of high tech engineering can overcome the Laws of Physics. Forces transfer from the larger vehicle to the smaller vehicle to occupants. The greater the discrepancy in weight the higher number of related fatals.

Lighter weight vehicles reduce forces. Regulate vehicle weights regulates fatals. Legislate vehicular separation distances, travel lanes and routes by weight quantifies risk of fatals. Mandate high tech improvements to 100 year old safety designs in braking, steering, and traction reduces the number of fatals in survivable accidents.

Or Die... for 100 years we have produced bigger, faster, quicker, and more expensive. Options exist rather than continue the mayhem, pollution and profits.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[akahler]

...use everything you learned in Driver's Ed...

Driver's Ed? I thought they stopped offering that back in the 80's!

Bicycling is safe.

[yet another coward]

I want to balance all these bicycle accidents with the fact that bicycling is comparable to walking in safety.

Bicycle safety

Is Cycling Dangerous?

Re:get some priorities!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll unplug his life-support if they'll let me.

The offer's open, anyway...

Re:Wrong conclusion on collisions with diff vehicl

[Anonymous Coward]

I goofed, I have the right and left mixed up here.

Must have been too early in the morning, before coffee time.

Re:vehicle mass (20% is obese wetware)

[Anonymous Coward]

Car Lite = 1600 lbs
1 Human driver = 350 lbs
2 Humans travelers = 700 lbs
4 Very Humaned car = 1400 lbs

Unfortuneately...

[bmajik]

the best way to be a safe driver is situational awareness.

You can choose to optimize for avoiding accidents, or you can choose to optimize for an irrational hope that the ones you do have will be survivable.

By selecting an SUV, you've done the latter.

However, by doing so, you've chosen to have more accidents, more often. SUV's, irrespective of any other factors, have less grip than lighter vehicles merely because of their excessive weight, and because the load/grip ratio on modern tires is non-linear.. there's a fall off as load increases.

Additionally, the excessive girth of most SUVs means that you're fighting significantly more inertia than other vehicles. The horrible twist and non-rigidity in the construction means that any evasive maneuvers are uselessly slow - the body of the truck twists instead of directing the tires to move.

Everything the vehicle does is slow.. numb... subdued.

The high roll center means that more weight is transferred in all accelerative movements.. when turning you move more weight to the outside edge.. when braking you unload the rear tires more.. prior to high-roll-center SUVs being commonplace, rollovers were pretty much unheard of on paved roads. (when you leave the road, that's a different story).

even if you are the most situationally aware driver, when you pilot an SUV, you are motivating a stick of butter across a pan. You're driving a numb, useless instrument instead of a precision machine with proper dynamics.

You will be in more accidents, because you're driving a vehicle more likely to roll, more likely to twist/bend under dynamic conditions, that takes longer to stop, turn, and change direction, and which has lower road-adhesion characteristics for a given tire design than a lighter car would.

Also, your increased mass will tend to cause more damage to others around you.

All of this.. because you think you are better off if someone hits _you_? You've chosen a vehicle that makes it more likely you'll get hit (because it cant evade effectively.. and it's an enormous target). Your vehicle is more likely to roll in a side impact. Your vehicle has a very weak chassis, so unless the collision hits in just the right spot, the amount of body deflection and passenger intrusion will be more severe than in a well made unibody car.

I live in the midwest, so i understand the utility and necessity of large, ladder-frame vehicles perfectly well. But i dont own one, because i am not a farmer, construction foreman, or other blue-collar contractor. Trucks and SUVs have a purpose, but passenger safety for daily driving isn't it.

Congratulations, you've been deluded.

Re:Unfortuneately...

[Jason Straight]

So you've made your case that SUV's are more likely to sustain MORE damage than a typical passenger vehicle. Then why the complaining?

In reality I suppose it all depends on the driver. I don't follow too closely because I know it takes longer to stop it, however if someone pulls out in front of me and I can't stop I know that because of their stupidity it will likely not mean a lengthy hospital or cemetery visit for me.

I know enough not to overcorrect my steering to avoid obstacles or regain control, both from helo sims and driving. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I'm 33 when I said I've never been in an accident other than being rear ended. It's not like I'm a new driver.

And I do think I'm a better driver than most, it's simply apparent because I actually use my turn signal all the time, and I try to be courteous to other drivers and pedestrians. Just because I chose to have a tank doesn't mean I plan to use it like one.

Re:Unfortuneately...

[bmajik]

I made the case that SUV's actually aren't a net safety increase for you. But the horrible vehicle you drive definitely causes aggregately less safe conditions for others - its less controllable, more likely to not do what you want it to, and harder to stop / will do more damage when it does hit something.

So, its not safer for you, and its not safer for anyone else either.

Moving on - Most poeople think they're a better driver than most. That's part of the problem.

Clearly, most people must be wrong.

While I admire you for using your turn signal, what reason do you have to think you are a better driver than other people? Have you had more driver training? Are you vastly more intelligent, with better reflexes, etc ? Without knowing anything about your intelligence, i will bet that there have been professional race drivers both dumber and smarter than you are, and all of them are much better drivers than you. So clearly driving aptitude is not merely an issue of ones intelligence.

So what reason do you have to think you're an above average driver? Has your driving instruction, practice, and knowledge grossly eclipsed that of the average driver? If not, why would you think you're better than average?

Re:Unfortuneately...

[boingo82]

Moving on - Most poeople think they're a better driver than most. That's part of the problem.

As they say...

The one thing that unites everybody, regardless of race, age, religion, gender, country, and socioeconomic status, is that we ALL think we're above-average drivers.

Re:Unfortuneately...

[Chris Burke]

So you've made your case that SUV's are more likely to sustain MORE damage than a typical passenger vehicle. Then why the complaining?

Because even though I think you're foolish for believing SUVs are safer, I don't actually want you to be less safe. Oh, and you do make things more dangerous for others too.

In reality I suppose it all depends on the driver.

In the sense that the #1 method of improving safety is to be more aware and drive safer, yes. This does not mean that superior driving skill can eliminate the safety disadvantage of SUVs, because even with the best driving ever you would still be more safe in a safer car.

Just because I chose to have a tank doesn't mean I plan to use it like one.

Just because you don't drive your tank like a tank that doesn't make it anything other than a tank (with a rollover problem).

Re:Unfortuneately...

[rkanodia]

Didn't you see the post upthread? The man plays FLIGHT SIMULATORS, for godsakes. Why are you even questioning his god-like conditioning and reflexes? Can anyone else on Slashdot claim to have experienced such a unique and powerful method of training?

Re:Unfortuneately...

[Vellmont]

So what reason do you have to think you're an above average driver? Has your driving instruction, practice, and knowledge grossly eclipsed that of the average driver?


Your question wasn't directed at me, but it did make me think. I think I've I'm a better driver than most, but not because I have super-duper reflexes or racecar driver training. I think I'm a better driver because I see many people drive with poor habbits. MANY people follow to closely, which reduces reaction times. I see a lot of people slam on the brakes at stop signs, which is a bad habbit. My eyesight is fine, and I'm under say 60 when reaction times slow down. It doesn't take a lot of skill to be better than MOST people at driving. All you have to do is be better than 50% of the people, and you're better than average (assuming a normal distribution of driving skills).

That's not to say I'm an expert driver either. Simply being better than most people at driving isn't going to save you.

Gentoo ricers

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me wonder how Gentoo ricers drive their SUVs? --teach-me-manual-transmission --enable-v8 --fuck-pedestrians?

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Anonymous Coward]

You should look at http://www.wreckedexotics.com/ (http://www.wreckedexotics.com/corvette/corvette_0 50902_01.shtml) at their camaros and vettes. You should watch who you park behind ;).

I witnessed an accident where a ford fiesta (colt, sprint, whatever) caught the rear of a brand new Grand Cherokee. The Fiesta caught the rear quarter panel just behind the rear tire after running a stop sign. The Fiesta took a good hit to the hood, but kept driving and pulled over a few feet down. The Cherokee hopped (yes hopped) twice, then rolled completely over to the other side.

I drive a Civic. Defensively. I do not like being behind an SUV, or in front, as I can't see around them. I do not let people drive in my blind spot. I do not let people tailgate. I anticipate trafic changes 3-4 carlengths ahead.

I feel a lot safer in my Civic knowing that I can avoid an accident b/c of its size and agility. I can survive accidents b/c of the airbags and crumplezones. I can survive a rollover (as unlikely as that is).

I have driven larger cars. I have driven a 15 passenger van. I will not buy an SUV b/c they are specifically engineered to NOT meet the requirements of my Civic.

lanesplitting works fine in most of the world

[georgeha]

but if a motorcycle slowly going between crawling lanes of traffic bothers you, I suggest therapy, or move someplace where it isn't allowed.

Speed Limits

[Detritus]

How about mandatory speed limits for these overweight monstrosities? You want to drive a Canyonero to work every day? Fine, you're not allowed to drive it faster than 45 mph. The lower speed reduces the chance of a rollover and reduces the potential damage to other vehicles.

Blood on the Highway

[Ranger]

I guess someone has decided that since gas prices are so high that SUV's (aka Urban Assault Vehicles) are evil now. I saw a recent report on SUV blind spots about how a Ford Expedition can back over an entire kindergarten class and not notice. Now the rollover danger rears it's ugly head again.

Don't alarmist news stories about vehicle safety bring on a wave of nostalgia for those driver safety films they showed us in high school? I distinctly remember some gory footage in one film. They opened the driver's car door of a freshly crashed car and the head of the driver lolled back clearly showing that he or she had been nearly decapitated. You can relive the glory of your high school driver's ed class by watching them again in Hell's Highway.

Wouldn't you love a vehicle that has the rollover capability of a Ford Explorer with the explosive combination of a Ford Pinto and a Chevy Truck whose gas tanks are on the outside of the frame and don't forget those special Firestone tires? Am I missing any vehicles?

Play the game "Burnout", you'll get it...

[javaxman]

Meh, why all this chatter about car crash physics and no references to the Burnout video games? Just fire up one of the Crash mode games and you can check out the danger larger rigs pose to small cars... duh, the large car wins all of the time. No car is safe, and any passenger vehicle is a loser when faced with a semi truck.

By the way, since when is the well-known fact that SUVs present an extreme roll over danger news?

Hey, Sean, rollovers *can* be avoided...

[Anonymous Coward]

...by driving at a reasonable speed, and not causing sudden steering inputs.

Collisions sometimes can *not* be avoided.

Thanks, I'll stick w/ my Dodge truck.

Thanks for your concern, though.

Re:Hey, Sean, rollovers *can* be avoided...

[Legion303]

"I'll stick w/ my Dodge truck."

Except the article was about SUVs, not trucks, so you don't really have a point.

Re:Regulate^Die: an ultimate option

[prockcore]

Forces transfer from the larger vehicle to the smaller vehicle to occupants.

This is true.. however, you're looking at it much too simply. The average crash isn't a perfectly straight head-on collision where both vehicles send all their force into one another.

The NHTSA does the off-center collision test because it's the most common fatal accident situation (a car drifting into oncoming traffic and clipping an oncoming car that couldn't veer out of the way quick enough).

In an accident such as the off-center collision, both cars are sent spinning, the *majority* of their force is still pushing them forward, only a fraction of their force went into the other car. The average SUV will roll more than 40% of the time (using NHTSA numbers) in a *moderate* accident because of this very reason.

"I suddenly became more politically correct"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah.... so now you're no longer a threat to the sheeple of the world.

Good, one less independent thinker...

Re:On internet illiteracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is for you, moron, and for your fellow moron samzenpus.

Funny thing anout SUV's

SUV's WHAT??? Finish the sentence!

They suggest some ways in which both cars and SUVs' can be redesigned...

Again, SUVs' WHAT???

An apostrophe is for a possessive or a contraction and nothing else. Ever.

"The SUVs were heavy."

"The SUVs' frames were heavy."

"The SUV's frame was heavy."

"The SUVs were driven by illiterate morons without a clue who think they they're nerds."

You're forgiven, but samzenpus needs a proofreader and a cluebat. Upside his tiny illiterate head. God damn it people, if this is "news for nerds" then write like you made it past the 4th grade and like you didn't go there in a short bus.

MRC="asunder"

Gas prices are the problem

[coding_sheep]

The low gas prices in the US have fueled the SUV craze. Vehicle gas mileage is barely considered for many people when purchasing vehicles since gasoline costs are insignificant. I see many people bashing the US because we love big cars. There's no reason not to love big cars here. There is no penalty for excessive fuel consumption.

Mindset

[t_allardyce]

What goes through the minds of people that buy these things? Do you really want something that's dangerous to other people? Do you always want to be worrying that you're backing over someones child (I guess they just don't think at all). Maybe you think that your family is more important than everyone else's?

Rollover minutes

[dusik]

It's all those stupid folks driving SUVs, yapping on their cell phones, trying to take advantage of their rollover minutes! Jeez...

It's not news that SUVs are easier to roll over. Newton could have told you that (except they were called Sports Utility Chariots back then). It's just news to all the people who use their "common" sense instead of observations and logic.

Destroy everything you touch

[luke923]

Sorry, but I'm listening to Ladytron right now, and the song title seemed to be slightly on-topic.

Mass is the enemy. Less mass makes for better driving cars. Better grip, better control, better handling. More mass, the American Way, just ruins everything. That's just one reason why EVERYONE builds better-driving cars than America does.

That's a half-truth. Mass isn't the enemy - the distribution of mass is. Case in point, if you have ever driven a rear-wheel drive vehicle in the snow, you would know that the safest thing you could do is load up your rear with as much weight as possible just so you could have more traction. This is why sandbags sell like hotcakes just before heavy snowstorms in areas that can be affected by them. This is also why SUVs are so unsafe. The danger behind SUVs does not lie in the fact they are so heavy, but to the fact that most are so highly elevated off the ground. Their weight only acts as a catalyst for rollovers. The early Geo Tracker had this problem despite its relatively low weight.

Re:Destroy everything you touch

[TigerPlish]

We see it from different perspectives. When I say "mass is the enemy" I'm coming from a purely performance (for the muggles: accident avoidance) perspective.

When I say "Mass is the enemy" it means a massive car may not be able to pull a "fast one" to get out of a jam without rolling over, or looping it outright.

I had a RWD '84 Rx-7 in Omaha. Yup, useless when there was more than a dusting on the road, even with "all season" Pirelli 6000s. Now, if I'd put a set of Blizzaks on it, it woulda been a diferent story. But noooo, back then I was still a muggle, so I just tossed 140 pounds with of sandbags in the back. Totally messed up the feel of the car... but dammit, at least I could climb the mild grade to my hovel. =oP Made it feel like a GLC (323), tho... bad bad bad. The rx-7, even in its first incarnation, had an almost 50/50 weight distro. Adding those 2 sandbags shifted the weight aft, making the steering and braking less effective, hence making the thing LESS SAFE.

Do old cars win?

[TubeSteak]

I always wondered if older steel frame cars would win out in a head-on collision with newer cars.

My reasoning is that newer cars have nice cr umple zones, lots of aluminum, etc while your old 1970s era car had a solid steel frame.

One of those cars is going to deform, and the other won't.

yes/no/maybe?

Re:Do old cars win?

[Grishnakh]

Where are these aluminum cars you're talking about? It amazes me when people talk like all newer cars are made of aluminum and magnesium and titanium. If this were true, new cars would all cost $100k+.

News flash: news cars are all made of steel, just like old cars. There's a few exceptions, such as the Acura NSX ($90k+), Honda Insight, some expensive Audi, and various Ferraris, Lotuses, Lamborghinis, etc., but nothing that you'd call a regular car.

Now for your original question: most likely, an older steel frame car would "win" in a head-on collision: the older car would look less damaged than the newer car, and may actually be repairable while the newer car wouldn't (this of course depends on the actual speed of the two cars). However, due to lack of energy-absorbing crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts, etc., the occupants of the older car would be dead, while the occupants of the new car might very well walk away even though their car was totalled.

Which are you more concerned about? Your car surviving a collision, or your body surviving it?

Well guess what!

[flyinwhitey]

"I wish "failing to signal" was treated more seriously as a road offense, or at least noticed more often. If I had a nickel for every time I saw someone lane-shift without signalling, I'd be rich.

Around here (central Florida) I've observed the following common road habits:
1) Turn signals are optional, and often not used when lane-shifting. When they are used, half the time its some nimwit tourist on I-4 who forgot to turn off the signal when originally getting onto the highway."

Well, I'd like to say you should learn the law before you start making judgements about how others drive. Signals really ARE optional here in Central Florida. Yes, it's true, look it up. There was a case involving profiling a few years ago in which the officer claimed he stopped the individual because of an illegal lane change (no signals), but the law requiring the use of signals for lane changes was taken off the books in the 60's.

So, if you were sitting in your car steaming about the idiots who don't signal, that was because of your ignorance of the law, not the other guy's driving habits.

That being said, if your too close to an individual to avoid them, indicators aren't your problem, your tailgaiting is.

Re:Well guess what!

[Octorian]

Regardless, that doesn't mean people should be driving without signaling.
(I think I heard a rumor that it may be illegal again, but not sure there.)

I also hate those people who always warble about your rear, and lane-shift without so much as a second thought at the first indication that you might slow down. While I obviously don't wish anyone else to get hurt on the road, I've often-times wanted a hypothetical situation where one of those a-holes was hovering on my rear, I tapped the breaks just long enough for my brakelight to blink, and they lane-shifted straight into another car or a concrete barrier.

You are a fucking imbecile

[flyinwhitey]

"Too bad they are not thinking about the people they will murder though."

How do you jackasses mod this jackass up, when he's equating driving an SUV with murder?

"I guess it re-inforces the stereotype of the SUV driver as the guy who doesn't give a shit about anybody else except themselves."

Maybe, but your moronic post reinforce the stereotype of the "Green Taliban", don't give a shit about reality, don't give a shit about facts, just throw around words like murder and watch the other ignoramuses mod you up.

Re:You are a fucking imbecile

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you jackasses mod this jackass up, when he's equating driving an SUV with murder?

Well, there are quite a few people (including people who have posted comments to this article) who basically say "Fuck you. Me (and my family) are more important than you, so that's why I drive my SUV. I don't give a crap about who I kill with my urban assault vehicle so long as me and my family are unhurt." While murder may be a strong word, it's not too far out of line, especially for the people in this group that drive like complete idiots.

Mid-size car vs Suburban 2500

[Anonymous Coward]

My uncles 3/4 ton Suburban 2500 was hit directly from the passenger side (my side ) by a car going 55 mph thru an intersection. We were turning (stopped). Their mid-size car was demolished all the way to the windshield. The "solid steel 4" "nerf" side running bars on the Suburban took the hit. They were bent 6 inches in. The car went 6 inches into the bodywork/doors of the Suburban. We walked away with no injuries, the car's occupants all went by ambulance to the hospital. The Suburban was totaled to to the impact forces on the frame and such, but it amazed me that even though we were shook up and slamed around inside our seat belts, we could just walk away. Moral of the story -- Chevy Suburban, Build like a rock! The car did it's job, it crumpled the entire front, blew the air bags and such, but the occupants still went by ambulance to the hospital. The Suburban's frame and nerf bars took the blow, bent absorbed the impact forces, did not roll over, but was totaled due to the rippled metal and torn off axle. I feel that if the mid-size car had hit us head-on where the Suburban could not have been pushed 6 feet sizeways, the mid-size cars occupants would have been killed. We probably would have still walked away. And yes, our replacement vehicle (used for boat towing) is another Chevy Suburban 2500 3/4 ton heavy duty.

Yup

[flyinwhitey]

The single greatest horror of my life was watching an 87 year old man run my mom over while she crossing the street, on a red light, in the crosswalk, in adherence to all legal statutes.

If that wasn't bad enough, the cop tried to write my very seriously injured and recently airlifted mother a ticket for "violating the right of way", apparently for... well I honestly never got a good answer what for.

I have to confess, homicide seemed like a viable option at the time.

And to keep it on topic, my mom died, and the driver got away with it.

You're right, pedestrians don't get the protection they deserve.

Re: weight &nbsp are the big issues here

[The name is Dave. Ja]

My favorite related urban legend:
Young daughter has her own car - a little Neon or something. Poor girl gets into an accident, but comes away relatively unscathed. "It could have been much worse" frets Daddy, who then buys her an SUV.
Thanks, Dad, for making the roads a safer place.

It's not only the news/interviews, it's the commercials as well. Of course, they usually don't come out and say it but there is the same implication of "You are a bad parent if you endanger your kids in any lesser vehicle".

Very sad, I agree.

---
cab neerst
tshonzi pmioxdup ulbiz urvurzy izimith!
* can you figure out these backward ELO lyrics?

Most front impacts are not directly head on

[Chris Burke]

The thing that drives me nuts about the perception of SUV safety is that it's based soley on their mass and the head-on collision testing done in the U.S.

Most collisions between cars traveling in opposite directions are not dead-on center like when they crash an SUV against a wall in testing. Most collisions have the cars slightly offset and at a slightly oblique angle. In this case, the greater momentum of the SUV is actually worse as the impact will tend to make the SUV turn, but its momentum will make it want to continue forward. Then the SUV's high center of gravity makes it tumble. This is why safety tests that try to simulate this situation (I think some European safety testing is done this way, where the impact wall is offset from the front of the vehicle) actually put SUVs below most cars in terms of safety, even in a car-SUV collision.

Honestly, from driving an SUV and being able to feel the instability of the car at highway speeds, I can't see how anyone believes they are safer.

To all soccer moms: If you need a safe and practical kid-mover, buy a mini-van. You'll still have the extra mass that makes you feel safe, you'll have a lower center of gravity so you'll actually be safer, and your kids will have an easier time climbing in and out of a vehicle that isn't three feet off the ground.

To all soccer dads: Your SUV is not cool, and will not compensate for your expanding gut and receding hairline. Buy a mini-van and put flame decals on it if you have to have a practical kid-mover and your mid-life-crisis in the same vehicle.

Few people need SUVs for the things they're actually better than mini-vans at: towing capacity and ground clearance. Safety? Not a chance. SUVs are a ridiculous fad that needs to die. When the only ones driving SUVs are the ones who benefit from one, everything will be fine.

Re:Most front impacts are not directly head on

[ceoyoyo]

I was on a trip with some friends. I was used to driving my thirteen year old Grand Am, but had just bought a new Mazda 3. However, my friend had convinced me to let her drive her VW Golf. Someone else drove up in a Honda CRV. Anyway, we were houseboating and on the way back several people realized they were land-sick, including the CRV driver. So I ended up driving it. Now, I knew very well I didn't stand a chance of keeping up to the Golf. But I figured the CRV should be able to take the mountain corners at the speed limit or so. When we took the first corner I realized just how MUCH SUVs, even the little ones, roll.

ehh...

[engagebot]

Well, i have an SUV because i play in a band. I haul amps, speakers, guitars, and drums on a daily basis. I also rode on the bike team in college, so i got a vehicle that could carry my bike inside if needed.

so what's your point? not everyone drives an SUV for the reasons you guys have stated. (power/wealth/potency)

Besides, a 2-door Explorer is hardly a Humvee. In fact, its the same frame-size as a Ranger pickup or an S-10. So the cargo compartment is *inside* instead of *outside*. An amazing revelation.

An F-150 is the same frame-size as the Expedition. There's plenty of idiots driving full-size pickup trucks that are too afraid of scratching their bedliner to actually haul anything... Amazingly, they've been getting the same ~20mpg for YEARS and nobody has complained.

Re:ehh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I also rode on the bike team in college, so i got a vehicle that could carry my bike inside if needed.

I own a Peugeot 206 , which is not a large car by any measure. It easily fits two adult-sized mountain bikes, backpacks, equipment, spares etc for a full day's riding with the back seat folded down. Amazing what can fit a small hatchback of around half the mass of an SUV and probably 2-3 times better fuel economy ;-)

Re:ehh...

[LackThereof]

Actually, the Explorer and Expedition both use the same frame as the F-150. The Explorer just has the bed section shortened, the rails are the same thickness and just as rigid.

It was the old Bronco-II that used the Ranger frame. Ford has not made an SUV based on the Ranger frame for around 15 years. Seeing as their new small SUV is unibody, they probably never will base one on the Ranger again.

limit the width of vehicles then

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas normal cars co-exist with motorcycles, allowing them to freely travel within the cracks. SUVs, due to their width, simply block the roads to both cars and motorcycles.

This is not a problem at all in the USA, where road widths are quite generous. It would seem a simple solution would be to place a limit on the maximum width of any vehicle that can be registered as a privately owned car. Any vehicle over that limit would not be considered roadworthy - the people of the UK seem willing to accept gross limitations on what they can do with the public roads they paid for, so this would probably go through.

This assumes that you don't mind the occasional commercial vehicle and aren't a nutcase.

Most Americans won't sympathize with you however, because lanesplitting is illegal in most of the USA (except California).

minivans!

[DaveJay]

This is what always aggravates me about people that say "I -need- an SUV, because I need to carry seven people." A minivan carries the same number of people, arguably in more comfort, with better gas mileage and lower cost. Best part though is that it's safer in accidents, both for those in the car (lower center of gravity means fewer rollovers than an SUV, and many now come with ceiling air bags) and those in other cars/pedestrians (lower frame rails and often unibody construction keeps the front end from punching through the side of other cars like SUVs do, and the gentle slope of the hood/windshield combination is much better for pedestrians than a blunt nose with a huge SUV grille).

SUVs are about two things: driving off-road and style. If you must drive off-road, I'll let it slide, but if you're just buying it for style, it speaks volumes about the kind of person you are (aka one I don't want to spend time with generally).

Re:minivans!

[triffid_98]

So does a Buick Roadmaster...oh wait, CAFE standards killed those ( http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html ). Minivans are classed as light trucks meaning that the fuel requirements and safety standards are relaxed by quite a lot...just like they are for SUV's. Oh my what a startling coincidence!

If nothing penetrates the passenger compartment

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Then peak acceleration will be the big concern if you're not harpooned by a frame rail or crushed.

That's why details count in seat belt design.

Suppose your seat belt is a little too loose, and you get hit head on. You fly forward, fast, an inch or two and hit the webbing. Ouch. Good cars have pyrotechnic pretensioners that snap the webbing taut in the first milliseconds of a crash.

Now you're being thrown into high-strength fabric. Too much force could pull the seat belt mounts out of the body. Good cars address this problem with seat belt force limiters that pay out more seat belt length to supply a simulated "give" that holds peak forces down.

All of which is too narrow a perspective. Car safety is like computer security: it's not what you buy that really matters, it's what you do. Keep space between you and the vehicle in front, look as far ahead as possible, and keep your head on a swivel regularly checking the rear and side mirrors. Keep the tires inflated. Remember that speed limits in residential neighborhoods are too high. Practice, someplace safe, skid recovery and accident avoidance maneuvers.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Requiem Aristos]

I would put my money on your Camaro. If the front of the Camaro goes under the side of the SUV you should get a nice upwards boost to go with the side impact. Picture a football player, at speed, putting his shoulder into you from below. I expect the SUV would be flipped rather easily.

Motorcycles

[b0s0z0ku]

Then look at motorcycles and how they've embraced technology far better than any car out there.

Sort of. The ignition systems, engine designs, suspensions, and brakes of bikes are often more advanced and weight-optimized. However, many bikes still use carbs instead of fuel injection since the pollution standards for bikes are laxer and it's expensive to make a fuel injection system that works well at over 10k RPM.

Furthermore, bikes don't normally last as long as cars (100k miles is a long lifetime for a bike) so maybe their weight optimization has some negative consequences.

That being said, I ride. It's fun, my bike gets 60-65 mpg, I get to use carpool lanes alone, and I can squeeze into gaps in traffic... The downside is of course safety, but I'm willing to accept that risk to some extend.

Cheers,
-b.

Re:You are a fucking

[Pryon]

How do you jackasses mod this jackass up, when he's equating driving an SUV with murder?

Not that I agree with the grandparent, but you might want to try reading for content before your knee jerks uncontrollably. He wasn't equating driving an SUV with murder. He was referring to the people that die in accidents with SUVs being driven without care.

And "the Green Taliban"? Now who's throwing around words?

Or

[QMO]

"...then your psyche demands you get a big honking chunk of ill-handling, ill-stopping, ill-steering Detroit Heavy Metal"

Or a fast car
Or a modified car
Or facial hair
Or fancy clothing
Or a lot of alcohol (or other drugs)
Or an expensive television
Or an expensive computer
Or large muscles
Or defined muscles
Or a sharp tongue
Or a low /. ID
Or high political position
Or prestegious profession
Or someone that lets you abuse them
Or an "extreme" hobby
Or a gun ...

Hahahahaha, Dodge Ram

[Gordonjcp]

They're actually illegal to use on the roads in the UK. They cannot be licenced without spending roughly twice the list price on upgrading the lights, brakes, steering and suspension to meet our not-terribly-stringent safety regulations.

Of course, the best way to get an American car up to sensible speeds on motorways in the UK is to put it on a trailer and tow it behind a European car...

Semantics

[DrCode]

That's probably why vehicles like the Saturn Vue are sold as SUV's rather than minivans.

Re:Wrong conclusion on collisions with diff vehicl

[tompaulco]

You're confusing fundamental Christians with wackjob nutcases. A fundamental Christian goes by the Bible, which doesn't say anything like what the wackjob nutcases say.

Teach Drivers Ed through SCCA

[DigiShaman]

Teenagers don't need the lecture of Drivers Ed. What they NEED is to be exposed to SCCA (Sports Car Club of America). There, they can learn real effective driving meathods and have fun doing so. Take a kid out on the track and let him/her loose. Once they understand what a car can and cannot handle, they will be better apt to not push an SUV on public roads.

http://www.scca.org/

In Defense of American Drivers

[queenb**ch]

I have to say that most of the worst drivers I've seen here in the states are from overseas. Having been overseas, I've seen how people drive. Bangkok, Italy, Calcutta, Hong Kong, Mexico City - just to name a few. The problem is that these people learned to drive in these places where driving habits are truly atrocious and the come here, bringing their habits with them. Once they get a license, they drive here just like they did back home. While their habits might not have caused traffic problems back where-ever-they-came-from, they certainly aren't what drivers here expect. The biggest problem is not that they themselves get into wrecks but that they cause them by people trying to avoid them.

Here in the states we don't allow farm animals or draft animals on the road except in the most rural of areas. It's certainly not something you'd see downtown in a major metropolis. Yet even elephants are not all that uncommon in downtown Bangkok. Talk about a traffic snarl. We also tend not to tolerate pedestrians in the road either. We build these things called "sidewalks" and we insist that people use them. Yet most places, pedestrians swarm amongst the traffic. Nor do we tolerate the swerving to avoid such obstacles. You have a lane, stay in it. We also tend to build wide fairly straight roads and to keep them up pretty well, considering how many miles of road we have.

I do agree with you that it is far too easy for people to get a driver's license. While all of the street signs (things like "No right on red") are in english, it's not a requirement that you even be able to read much less read english in order to get a driver's license. How are you supposed to obey the sign if you can't read it? In many states, the exams are given in multiple languages even though all the signage is only in one - English.

2 cents,

Queen B

The psychology of the SUV owner

[typical]

SUVs are about two things: driving off-road and style.

Most SUVs are not very good off-road vehicles, with high centers of mass. SUVs are about one thing -- fleeing the reality of aging.

When the reasonable car for a family to buy was a station wagon, everyone bought it.

But most people just can't deal with the thought of "being old, like their parents", so the kids of those people bought minivans to be different.

Now, their kids can't deal with the thought of "being old, like their parents", so they buy SUVs to be different.

Adults are just as bad at resisting marketing as children are. They aren't any better than children at realizing when they're being influenced, either.

And the great thing about a car choice (from the standpoint of an auto company) is that it's a big investment, and can't be backed out of. So every person who commits to a car winds up defensive as to why it's a good choice, or else is faced with admitting that they made a stupid decision. "This Porsche? Best purchase I ever made." Uh, huh. Same stupid mentality that drives squabbling over which console is better on game forum websites.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[Profound]

Exactly, SUVs are weapons in a sec/newton arms race.

It's wimpy cars that are the problem.

[Deputy Doodah]

Why do so many people assume that the answer to this problem is banning or redesigning trucks and SUVs? How about redesigning cars? How about banning the most fragile and dangerous cars (goodbye Mini Cooper)?

Ya' know what? I drive a pickup. It pulls my boat. It pulls the trailer full of broken concrete I busted out of my basement. I can put a deer in the back and let it bleed and stink (lord how they stink) all over the place without hurting anything. I can fill the bed with firewood and haul it home.


My truck is functional. A little Honda car is built for looks. So which design is the most important?

As for the "problem" of SUvs flipping over: the little ladies and metrosexuals who flip them need to learn to slow down when they turn corners. Maybe they'd be more conscious of their speed if they'd put down their phones and/or not change diapers while driving.....or maybe not.
Hell, I've been driving these types of vehicles my entire life and I've NEVER flipped one, because I don't take curves and corners at speeds which cause them to turn over.

Anyway, my whole point is that the vehicles that are most unsafe are the cars. Strengthen the cars.

The Bible's silliness

[typical]

A fundamental Christian goes by the Bible, which doesn't say anything like what the wackjob nutcases say.

I'd say that the whackjob nutcases are saner than the Bible. Let's look at the Bible:

If your brother kicks the bucket, *you* had damn well better be balling his widow:

Deut. 25:5 "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall now marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her."

Let's say that you said "Well, I'll do my Christian duty, but I'm going to avoid impregnating the woman." No, no. Now you are in serious shit:

Genesis 38:8-10 "8 And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.' 9 And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD; and He slew him also."

Ouch. So now you know -- if you're getting it on with your dead brother's wife (which you had better be doing), you had better *impregnate* the woman. None of this pulling out business. Knock her up.

Quick question: say you're the nice, Christian wife of some guy, and some other drunken sonovabitch decides that he's going to *knife* this your hubby, and you try pulling your Jim or John or whatever out of the way to safety, and, in the excitement, accidently touch his nuts. What's the Christian thing to do? Right, your husband should promptly
cut your hands off!

Deut. 25:11-12 "11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her. "

Let's take a quick look at Lot, considered a righteous man by the Bible, one of the few non-evil men in his city. The man is one of the Bible's examples of good Christians:

"And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after them, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. . . . And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take they wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city" (Genesis 19:5-15). "And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father . . . and the younger arose, and lay with him . . . Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father" (Genesis 19:33-36). "

Prostitution of your daughters (and having sex with them when you aren't pimping them out, for that matter) is peachy with the Bible. Knock 'em up good!

Recently, the United States had a bit of a PR tizzy about some prisoners being humiliated -- having nude pictures taken of them. Let's see what the *Bible* thinks of the sexual treatment of captives:

Deut 21:10-14

"10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and
pare her nails; 13 and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And

same risk to to you maybe but selfish to others

[fantomas]

It's not just about you. It's about everybody else on or near the roads. You may be the perfect driver but if somebody else misinterprets your actions they are going to be a lot worse off if you are travelling at a higher speed. Basic physics and all that. Less time to react, more impact if a collision happens, etc.

You may be just as safe in a 60mph crash as most other people at 25mph because you've paid money for some super safety gadgets that protect you - but I don't think that gives you the right to do that speed. You are only reducing *your* level of risk, not others. Pedestrians hit by you at 60mph are going to be in a lot more trouble than if they are hit by you at 25mph. Other car drivers may not register you in time when they make lane changes because they are judging safe distances based on average traffic speeds lower than your preference. A good example of the latter is Germany - no speed limit two lane autobahns seem to have a 60mph truck lane and a 160mph Porsche lane, the Porsche drivers know what they are doing but their sudden appearance and tailgating can cause accidents from less confident drivers forced into too-rapid decision making while changing lanes.

Take my 4x4 offroad? Are you mad?

[Korvar]

My mother lives on the Isle of Mull, a small island off the West coast of Scotland. Most of it is single-track roads with the occasional widened passing place. But often, if you don't want to spend the the rest of the day staring at each other, one of you will have to drive off the road and let the other pass. She observes that it is *never* the big 4x4 vehicle that gets out of the way. The more the vehicle in question is designed to go off-road, the less they ever do...

They probably already do

[phorm]

From what I've been able to tell, the actual insurance cost is based on a fluxuating scale that some somewhat heavily factors on the overall crash cost of the vehicle. This include of course the cost of replacing/fixing the vehicle itself, crash likelyhood in the district the vehicle is insured, and also the likelyhood of the vehicle to be involved in a crash vs other vehicles, as well as likelyhood of vehicle break-in/theft etc. Insurance companies aren't out there to lose money, my guess if that vehicle-X is costing them more in insurance liability claims from victims, then they are likely upping the rates based on that. Around here it seems they factor in everything.

The problem is, when somebody is paying for a vehicle that costs 2-4x as much in gas, and possibly 2x+ overall, are they really going to worry much about paying more for insurance?

So how unsafe must a car be?

[phorm]

How unsafe does a car have to be before it is outright banned, then? Kinda hypocritical to enforce seatbelt laws yet not ban the sale of completely unsafe vehicles.

License

[phorm]

Semis have a regular purpose that cannot so easily be fulfilled by an ordinary vehicle. In addition, Joe just-drank-a-sixpack cannot just jump in a semi and fly onto the highway, but rather requires a special license and training to operate such a vehicle.

Far different from those that buy SUV's to "look cool" or just be the bigger car in a tussle.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[Alomex]

SUVs are not safer than a smaller car. A smaller car with its better handling and breaking capabilities is a safer car in all but a very limited number of scenarios such as a frontal collision. The big three spun these exceptional scenarios so much that nowadays the average American has come to equate size with safety. Nothing further from the truth.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[pipingguy]

The SUV craze is actually the same phenomenon as the crowded theater phenomenon (where someone stands up to get a better view, so soon everyone is standing to see at all, and no one sees any better than when they were sitting).

Exactly. I agree a lot with this post but good driver's ed is needed.

Just learning how to drive a vehicule at or near the limits doesn't necessarily teach defensive driving.