Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > SUV backover deaths: What can be done?

SUV backover deaths: What can be done? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
RAzaRazor
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 01:13 PM
 
"The Bye-Bye Syndrome". Heh. That's cute!
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 01:23 PM
 
Hmmm... I just googled for "Bye Bye Syndrome" 'coz I didn't know what it was and guess what...

...all the stories found involved mini-vans, not SUVs. I guess that anti-SUV argument is out of the window then.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
CMYKid
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 01:43 PM
 
seriously kids, these are two totally separate issues.

take the amount of kids that get run over by ANY vehicle in a year, it doesnt have a thing to do with SUVs, people just tie it to that for added emotional impact.

aside from being less than common sensically inclined, kids are SHORT for gods sake. Whether I'm in an H2 or driving my two-seater if they're standin right behind the car their heads barely gonna reach the top of the rear deck, if at all.

Lets make em wear these:

     
CMYKid
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dayton, OH
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 01:45 PM
 
oops. dp.
     
macroy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
It's not the same deal. SUV's are significantly, demonstrably, and indisputably more dangerous to others on the road. My mac is not more dangerous to anyone than a PC.
Ah.. I see - being dangerious is ok... but being MORE dangerious isn't? Last I checked, all automobiles are dangerious if operated incorrectly (and the key concept here is correct operations under real conditions).

But why stop there? Do we really need the other types of cars as well... Why don't we just force EVERYONE to drive little honda civics. Since the majority of folks won't need anymore than that.

That article is obvioulsy from some anti-SUV whiner - as those accidents aren't unique to SUVs. Its been happening way before the big truck craze. The real issues here are the unattentive, idiot parents.
.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by macroy
Do we really need the other types of cars as well... Why don't we just force EVERYONE to drive little honda civics. Since the majority of folks won't need anymore than that.
If you're proposing that people buy the size vehicles they need, and no bigger, I'm all for it! Where do I sign?
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
It's not the same deal. SUV's are significantly, demonstrably, and indisputably more dangerous to others on the road. My mac is not more dangerous to anyone than a PC.
Minivans and pickup trucks are significantly, demonstrably, and indisputably more dangerous to others on the road. Some models are even more dangerous than SUVs. Yet few if any people complain about these.

Why? Because these vehicles are only more dangerous if the driver isn't competent. Conversely, they can be safer than other caes, but only if the driver knows how to handle them. The safety claims that SUV-lovers make are all true, but fail to take ignore the possibility of an incompetent driver. The safety claims that SUV-haters make ignore the possibility of a competent driver. End result: everyone's ignorant.

I would be all for a special "large-car license" required to drive SUV-size vehicles, possibly with the same written test as for smaller cars but with a different in-car test. Show that you can handle a big car before you're allowed to drive one. But I cannot in good conscience restrict freedom of choice based on arguments which boil down to aesthetics.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Minivans and pickup trucks are significantly, demonstrably, and indisputably more dangerous to others on the road. Some models are even more dangerous than SUVs. Yet few if any people complain about these.

Why? Because these vehicles are only more dangerous if the driver isn't competent. Conversely, they can be safer than other caes, but only if the driver knows how to handle them. The safety claims that SUV-lovers make are all true, but fail to take ignore the possibility of an incompetent driver. The safety claims that SUV-haters make ignore the possibility of a competent driver. End result: everyone's ignorant.

I would be all for a special "large-car license" required to drive SUV-size vehicles, possibly with the same written test as for smaller cars but with a different in-car test. Show that you can handle a big car before you're allowed to drive one. But I cannot in good conscience restrict freedom of choice based on arguments which boil down to aesthetics.
This post should really end any arguements about such things. Why? Because it's the truth not filled with FUD.

Thanks for posting it.
     
Azzgunther
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 05:58 PM
 
^agree with previous two posts^

SUVs are heavy and dangerous, and the people who drive them should have to prove their competence before being allowed onto public streets.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Azzgunther
^agree with previous two posts^
No you didn't...
SUVs are heavy and dangerous, and the people who drive them should have to prove their competence before being allowed onto public streets.
That isn't what he said. He said SUVs are only dangerous when they have incompetent people behind the wheel.

That could be said about ANY car.

So what the Anti-SUV zealots should be putting their "anger" towards are people who are incompetent drivers. Not SUVs.
( Last edited by Kevin; Nov 7, 2005 at 06:47 PM. )
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness
Oh God, they're bringing GUNS into this.
That's the way argument works. I give an example that, while extreme, has similarities to the issue at hand, in order to make a point. Engineers sometimes call it a "limiting case."
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
Not if driven correctly. I'm *far* less dangerous to other people on the roads when I'm driving my SUV than the silly little dweeb down the road in his ricemobile is.
I'm sure you are. I don't think I like dweebs in ricemobiles any more than you do.

In some hypothetical universe, you might be right, but in this universe, (according to the NHTSA) auto accidents are the leading cause of death for people 3-33 years old. I agree with you that driver education is a good idea, but many people in this country don't even wear seat belts - good luck trying to implement some massive re-education program for drivers.

If automobile accident death statistics dropped by a big margin, I would happily retract my remarks about SUV's being unsafe. They still would be - proportionally - but if no one crashed it wouldn't matter. But until then, SUV's are just like throwing kerosene on the fire.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
OSX Abuser
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Silicon Valley
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 07:47 PM
 
This is an old list ripped from some website for your reading pleasure.

There are so many interesting ways to die in America, that we felt it was just wrong to limit it to the most frequent causes, which are all boring diseases and infections and stuff. (Except in Alaska, where suicide generally makes it into the top ten.) You want to hear about the terrible calamities, the tragic consequences of an error in judgment or a general lack of coordination. Do we ever disappoint?

10. Machinery
Deaths per year: 350

We can thank the farmers of America for the inclusion of this particular misfortune as a cause of death. Between corn-huskers and wheat-threshers, is it a wonder? The reason it is last on the list is that there just aren't enough people in farming these days. Ironically, they have all been replaced by machines. Hmm… accident, or deliberate act by wanton machinery? We may never know.


9. Medical & Surgical Complications and Misadventures
Deaths per year: 500

While we are incredibly insensitive people, we did not coin the term "medical misadventure"- the National Safety Council did. How is death by surgeon a "misadventure?" While we're not sure, we suspect that this number refers to elective surgeries that people undertake, such as liposuction. After all, the removal of a brain tumor is not usually considered to be an "adventure."


8. Poisoning by gases
Deaths per year: 700

There's nothing like the smell of napalm in the morning … In this category, you mostly have deaths by carbon monoxide poisoning due to faulty operation of a heating or cooking appliance, or a standing automobile. We assume, however, that the noxious gasses emitted by Uncle Albert qualify too.

7. Firearms
Deaths per year: 1,500

We can thank our second amendment rights for all 1500 of these deaths; call it the "right to die" amendment. You probably don't want to know how many countries in the world do not even have "accidental death by firearms" on their top ten, or their top twenty. Suffice it to say that it's most of them. Of the 1500, you're looking at about 75% young males between the age of 14 and 25 (and getting younger every year), who unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else. For more information on the place of guns in society, click over to our pros and cons section.


6. Suffocation
Deaths per year: 3,300

Call this one the "Heimlich" section, as these deaths mostly resulted from blockages of the respiratory system by food or other objects.


5. Fires and burns
Deaths per year: 3,700

This would include deaths resulting from fires, such as smoke inhalation, falling beams, and sitting through Backdraft. Ironic that cancer is number two on the total deaths list, and a by-product of smoking is responsible for one of the top causes of accidental deaths. Are we getting the picture that this is a dangerous pastime? What kind of warnings do we have to put on these boxes, anyway?

4. Drowning
Deaths per year: 4,000

This includes all sorts of drownings in boat accidents and those resulting from swimming, playing in the water, falling in, or even having a bath. The human body is what, 70% water? And we begin our lives in a watery environment, there's lots of oxygen in water… what's the deal? Something for the scientists to work on.


3. Poisoning by solids and liquids
Deaths per year: 8,600

These would be all your commonly recognized poisons, as well as such items as mushrooms, shellfish, drug overdoses, and problems with medicines-which is a wide category, and why it is so high on the list. What they leave out is things like food poisoning or salmonella, which they classify as "disease deaths" and place on another list.


2. Falls
Deaths per year: 14,900

Then we come to the America's Funniest Home Videos category of accidental death, including falls from ladders, down stairs, over curbs, off buses, into manholes, and through plate glass windows.

1. Motor vehicle crashes
Deaths per year: 43,200

The winner, by a ridiculously huge (and ever-increasing) margin is: death by car wreck. Head on collision, sideswipe, single-vehicle smash-up, full car rollover, pedestrian takedown, choking on own carsick vomit, spontaneous combustion-the fun never stops for car owners. Try air travel instead; it's much safer. Do you see it anywhere on this list?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
If automobile accident death statistics dropped by a big margin, I would happily retract my remarks about SUV's being unsafe. They still would be - proportionally - but if no one crashed it wouldn't matter. But until then, SUV's are just like throwing kerosene on the fire.
You mean incompetent drivers are not safe. The thing is, alot of incompetent drivers are using SUVs because they think they are safe. Therefore one thinks SUVs are therefore dangerous.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Minivans and pickup trucks are significantly, demonstrably, and indisputably more dangerous to others on the road. Some models are even more dangerous than SUVs. Yet few if any people complain about these.
You are correct on all counts. Here is why I complain about SUV's more than about other vehicles:

In my view, SUV's are the best example of advertising compelling people to make irrational decisions about the products they buy. Automakers have spent countless millions of dollars cultivating the "rugged outdoors-man" image for SUV's. Seriously, look at the next SUV commercial you see on TV and ask yourself how many people you think actually use their SUV's the way they're being shown. The last commercial I saw showed two white guys taking African tribesmen for joy-rides through the jungle in their SUV. If anyone reading this has ever taken African tribesmen for joy-rides through the jungle in their SUV, tell me and I'll shut up.

If it were some harmless product, like sunglasses or something, I would laugh it off as an academic exercise in people's herd mentality, vulnerability to advertising, and sensitivity to image. But there are many reasons I don't want SUV's on the road. Fuel consumption (and the associated pollution), for me, is #1. Safety to others is #2. There are other reasons, too, but they are less important. If every SUV driver in America traded their SUV in for a car, the US would cut its oil imports from the middle east by 50%. It might even make a difference to the Iraq situation.

Pickup trucks are about equally bad, except they have more the "blue-collar hard-working construction worker" image, which doesn't appeal as much to the white-collar suburban-dwelling upper-middle-class, hence fewer people buy pickup trucks just for their image. I dislike the cars as much, but they are necessary in many businesses and the image thing doesn't irk me as much.

Very few, if any, people buy minivans for their image. I'm not too sure why, but the "married-with-kids soccer mom" image just doesn't seem to send minivans flying out of the showroom. In reality, minivans are generally lighter than SUV's, have smaller engines, have lower frames (that don't ride up over cars in crashes), have huge amounts of person- and cargo-capacity, and many can actually tow a sizable trailer (3000+ pounds). They are great alternatives for SUV's.

Of course, if you don't need a minivan either, all the same arguments that apply to SUV's apply here as well, except not as strongly. In that case, you should be buying a car. But considering that minivans don't have the whole image thing that pisses me off, and the fact that in most cases they are a great replacement for an SUV's, you don't hear me complaining about them very often.

Why? Because these vehicles are only more dangerous if the driver isn't competent. Conversely, they can be safer than other caes, but only if the driver knows how to handle them. The safety claims that SUV-lovers make are all true, but fail to take ignore the possibility of an incompetent driver. The safety claims that SUV-haters make ignore the possibility of a competent driver. End result: everyone's ignorant.
I'll say it again. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death for people 3-33 years old. The general rule in motorsports is that 99 out of 100 accidents are caused by driver error. I'd imagine the figure is even higher for street driving. So, most of those people killed every year are due to incompetent drivers. If we could fix the real problem of incompetent drivers, one of the two major arguments I have against SUV's would go away. But until that happens, I say let's take away some of the needlessly-dangerous vehicles on the road. Did I mention it will save you money, too?

I would be all for a special "large-car license" required to drive SUV-size vehicles, possibly with the same written test as for smaller cars but with a different in-car test. Show that you can handle a big car before you're allowed to drive one. But I cannot in good conscience restrict freedom of choice based on arguments which boil down to aesthetics.
The argument is about more than aesthetics. What gave you the impression that I dislike SUV's because of the way they look? I dislike them because of what they do to other people in crashes, what they do to the environment, what they do to the global economy, etc.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
You mean incompetent drivers are not safe. The thing is, alot of incompetent drivers are using SUVs because they think they are safe. Therefore one thinks SUVs are therefore dangerous.
You may be right about SUV owners being lulled into a false sense of safety (for themselves).

But, one cannot dispute the fact that SUV's are inherently more dangerous in a crash. I have a degree in automotive engineering - this, I'm sure about. The higher ride height of SUV's mean they tend to ride up over the bumpers and side impact protection of normal-sized cars, hitting them in the windows and windshields, where they're more vulnerable. The stiff frames are also worse on the car. Thankfully, standard crash test ratings are being updated to take into account hits from taller vehicles, and car makers are redesigning their safety systems accordingly. Slowly, but steadily, this danger is becoming less important. But, it's still an added danger, and many have already died.

The fact that SUV's are simply heavier makes them more dangerous too. Momentum and kinetic energy are both proportional to mass. When an SUV crashes into a car, the car is at a huge inherent disadvantage, and the car (and occupants) will almost always take much more damage.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:11 PM
 
:yawn:
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:16 PM
 
Fyre your argument could be held about ALOT of cars out on the road today. Not just the SUV.

So this is nothing new.

What is happening is, the anti-SUV zealots are finding hard to release the grip of their zealous feeling about the SUV, and have to continue to harp about it regardless.

No one really cares. SUVs will continue to sell. The world will still go round.

Pick your battles.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
:yawn:
Well, it looks like not much has changed in the lounge over the last few months. Fyre4ce, making long, well-written, carefully-reasoned anti-SUV posts that probably go mostly unread. Doofy, throwing in inane remarks here and there.

Around and around we go...
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Fyre your argument could be held about ALOT of cars out on the road today. Not just the SUV.

So this is nothing new.

What is happening is, the anti-SUV zealots are finding hard to release the grip of their zealous feeling about the SUV, and have to continue to harp about it regardless.

No one really cares. SUVs will continue to sell. The world will still go round.

Pick your battles.
Please realize that I'm not just some wacko yelling out anti-SUV sentiments from the corner of the room. It's something I feel strongly about because it's something I know a lot about. Click and Clack (the car guys) both share my sentiments. They have mechanical engineering degrees from MIT. Don't believe me? Check it out:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/suv/

You're probably right that SUV's will continue to sell. Just don't let yourself get caught using it to justify to yourself that it's a good thing. That gets back to what I said about the herd mentality.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:44 PM
 
Like I said, there are MANY cars that can be said to be dangerous for various reasons. Many much more than the SUV.

It gets singled out however because of "herd mentality"
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Like I said, there are MANY cars that can be said to be dangerous for various reasons. Many much more than the SUV.
Really? Like what?
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:53 PM
 
Take a Dodge Viper.

Give that car to a inexperienced driver and it usually means certain death.

Or Vans for that matter.

If SUVs are dangerous, Vans have to be more so.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 09:55 PM
 
About 20 years ago, I had the misfortune to find out first hand why big vehicles are a problem. I was driving a company van, and backed into one of those concrete-filled steel pipe bollards they use in parking lots to keep folks from driving over things.

I had plenty of room to avoid the flag pole or whatever the bollard was protecting, but I COULD NOT SEE THE BOLLARD BECAUSE IT WAS SO MUCH SHORTER THAN MY BACK WINDOWS. That is the crux of the problem: large vehicles-SUVs, full-sized vans, large trucks, etc., do not provide the rearward visibility the driver needs to see a three-foot tall kid behind the vehicle. That is 100% of the vehicle part of the backover deaths problem. But the problem has TWO parts.

Here's the bigger part of the problem: SUVs are not cars. You cannot see ANYTHING from such a large vehicle the way you can in a car. You cannot use typical car manuvers, you cannot use typical car reactions, and you cannot use typical car planning to drive such a large vehicle. Now if we could find every person who wants to buy an SUV and who thinks it's just like a car and just send them to remedial driving school (which they must pass or not be able to buy their cherished big vehicle), then things would be much easier on everyone.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
About 20 years ago, I had the misfortune to find out first hand why big vehicles are a problem. I was driving a company van, and backed into one of those concrete-filled steel pipe bollards they use in parking lots to keep folks from driving over things.

I had plenty of room to avoid the flag pole or whatever the bollard was protecting, but I COULD NOT SEE THE BOLLARD BECAUSE IT WAS SO MUCH SHORTER THAN MY BACK WINDOWS. That is the crux of the problem: large vehicles-SUVs, full-sized vans, large trucks, etc., do not provide the rearward visibility the driver needs to see a three-foot tall kid behind the vehicle. That is 100% of the vehicle part of the backover deaths problem. But the problem has TWO parts.

Here's the bigger part of the problem: SUVs are not cars. You cannot see ANYTHING from such a large vehicle the way you can in a car. You cannot use typical car manuvers, you cannot use typical car reactions, and you cannot use typical car planning to drive such a large vehicle. Now if we could find every person who wants to buy an SUV and who thinks it's just like a car and just send them to remedial driving school (which they must pass or not be able to buy their cherished big vehicle), then things would be much easier on everyone.
Bingo! Some people think that just because they have a drivers license they can drive whatever their local dealer sells. As a semi driver, I can assure you that is not the case. Different vehicles require different skill sets, and vastly different degrees of distance perception, turning capabilites, backing capabilities, and stopping capabilities, among other skills. Having said that, the vast majority of non commercial drivers haven't got a clue as to what they're really doing on the roads, and we're very fortunate that more people don't get killed than already do.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Azzgunther
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Take a Dodge Viper.

Give that car to a inexperienced driver and it usually means certain death.

Or Vans for that matter.

If SUVs are dangerous, Vans have to be more so.

You aren't comprehending. I don't give a s**t about what a driver does to them-self behind the wheel of a theoretical car that you've assigned them. I, and others, care about what that idiot is going to do to US in all their overconfident carelessness. If idiot is in a 3000 pound car, his t-boning me as he runs a red light will be bad but probably not fatal. If idiot is in a 6000 pound SUV, different story.

So, make idiot get a liscence to show that they still have adequate driving skills and more importantly that they can handle all that weight responsibly. You're going to argue against that?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 7, 2005, 10:47 PM
 
What about VANS? They are heavier. Where are the angsty van comments sheep?!?

     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
What about VANS? They are heavier. Where are the angsty van comments sheep?!?

Van sales are down tremendously; they have been replaced by SUVs. They should also be tested differently, IMO.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
What about VANS? They are heavier. Where are the angsty van comments sheep?!?

Let's not be ridiculous. Vans are heavy but they lack some of the other more dangerous features of SUV's like an off-road suspension and a stiff frame. But most importantly, people buy vans based on need (what a concept!) instead of [/i]image[/i]. You don't see the freeways packed with big vans, each driven by one person on their way to some white-collar job. The vans you do see are being used for the purpose for which they were designed - efficiently moving a group of people.

From an environmental perspective, vans are great. They don't get good gas mileage but they carry a lot of people, so per person they blow away even the best hybrids.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 12:34 AM
 
You guys crack me up.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 12:34 AM
 
You guys crack me up.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
About 20 years ago, I had the misfortune to find out first hand why big vehicles are a problem. I was driving a company van, and backed into one of those concrete-filled steel pipe bollards they use in parking lots to keep folks from driving over things.

I had plenty of room to avoid the flag pole or whatever the bollard was protecting, but I COULD NOT SEE THE BOLLARD BECAUSE IT WAS SO MUCH SHORTER THAN MY BACK WINDOWS. That is the crux of the problem: large vehicles-SUVs, full-sized vans, large trucks, etc., do not provide the rearward visibility the driver needs to see a three-foot tall kid behind the vehicle. That is 100% of the vehicle part of the backover deaths problem. But the problem has TWO parts.

Here's the bigger part of the problem: SUVs are not cars. You cannot see ANYTHING from such a large vehicle the way you can in a car. You cannot use typical car manuvers, you cannot use typical car reactions, and you cannot use typical car planning to drive such a large vehicle. Now if we could find every person who wants to buy an SUV and who thinks it's just like a car and just send them to remedial driving school (which they must pass or not be able to buy their cherished big vehicle), then things would be much easier on everyone.
Huh? SUV's are vehicles, just like cars. They both have an engine, drivetrain, four tires, doors, etc etc etc. Some SUV's are built on truck frames, like the Durango and Expedition. Some SUV's are built on car frames, some SUV's have V-8's and some have V-6's and some wanna be SUV's have 4 bangers. So where is the hatred for the Magnum RT with the V-8 Hemi, which is bigger than the Grand Cherokee SUV with a V-6?

And I can see more on the road in my Durango than someone could in there Honda Civic. I can see what's ahead and around me more because it's higher off the ground.

And about the remedial driving school bit. People in general can't drive worth a ****, no matter what they are pushing. Bad drivers are bad drivers period.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
Let's not be ridiculous. Vans are heavy but they lack some of the other more dangerous features of SUV's like an off-road suspension and a stiff frame. But most importantly, people buy vans based on need (what a concept!) instead of [/i]image[/i]. You don't see the freeways packed with big vans, each driven by one person on their way to some white-collar job. The vans you do see are being used for the purpose for which they were designed - efficiently moving a group of people.

From an environmental perspective, vans are great. They don't get good gas mileage but they carry a lot of people, so per person they blow away even the best hybrids.

You don't know **** about cars, dude. An off road suspension and a stiff frame are not dangerous aspects of any vehicle.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 06:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
Let's not be ridiculous.
Hmmm...

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
But most importantly, people buy vans based on need (what a concept!)
Really. Go live in Cuba. When you start requiring people to buy things on need rather than want, you're a communist.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 07:53 AM
 
Naw he just has had a bug up his butt about SUVs for so long, he aint gonna quit no matter how silly it is. That would be admitting wrong doing.

     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness
You don't know **** about cars, dude. An off road suspension and a stiff frame are not dangerous aspects of any vehicle.
Read my previous post about SUV/car crashes.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 08:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
Really. Go live in Cuba. When you start requiring people to buy things on need rather than want, you're a communist.
The government in the US (and in Britain) already regulates thousands of products. Are they communitsts?

Unless you're arguing against regulation itself, the question becomes whether or not SUV's belong on the list or not. In order to argue that, you need to (hint hint) make well-reasoned arguments about the good and bad consequences of regulating SUV's. Unless you're an anarchist or a Libertarian, you can't argue against regulation itself and make any sense.

But forget about regulation, laws, taxes, governments for a moment. Do you think that consumers ought to purchase a vehicle that's appropriately sized for their needs? Would it make the world a better place?
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
Do you think that consumers ought to purchase a vehicle that's appropriately sized for their needs?
I think consumers ought to purchase whatever they want to purchase.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 09:13 AM
 
As a matter of fact. I am going to buy a Winnabego just to drive to the covenient store and back.

That's only a mile away.

5 times a day.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
As a matter of fact. I am going to buy a Winnabego just to drive to the covenient store and back.

That's only a mile away.

5 times a day.
Wow, that's great.

You'd go out of your way, spend thousands of dollars, and pollute the environment, just to spite me.

That really speaks about the low level of intelligence of the people I'm dealing with.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 10:35 AM
 
By the way, if all you really want is to p*** me off, skip the winnebago altogether, go buy 100 gallons of gas from a gas station and pour it into a river somewhere. It'd p*** me off a lot more with a lot less effort on your part.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
acadian
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 10:43 AM
 
Incompetent drivers in inappropriate vehicles regardless of size or capability sounds like Darwinism at it's finest. Hallelujah.
people ruin everything....
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 11:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
Wow, that's great.

You'd go out of your way, spend thousands of dollars, and pollute the environment, just to spite me.

That really speaks about the low level of intelligence of the people I'm dealing with.
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
By the way, if all you really want is to p*** me off, skip the winnebago altogether, go buy 100 gallons of gas from a gas station and pour it into a river somewhere. It'd p*** me off a lot more with a lot less effort on your part.
Like I would actually do either. Chill man...
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
Incompetent drivers in inappropriate vehicles regardless of size or capability sounds like Darwinism at it's finest. Hallelujah.
It's not Darwinism, because when they crash into you and your family in a car, you're the ones who die, not the clown driving the SUV.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
you're the ones who die, not the clown driving the SUV.
SEE THEY ARE SAFE!
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
SEE THEY ARE SAFE!
It is definitely true that if you're crashing into another car, the share of the damage each car takes is inversely proportional to each vehicle's mass. That is, if you have a really heavy car, and you crash into a lighter car, you will demolish the lighter car while taking little damage yourself. But the total severity of the crash will be worse than if both cars were light. In this sense, SUV's are safer, but it necessarily comes at the expense of someone else's safety. In a way, it's like a game - an arms race to drive the heaviest vehicle on the road. How would you feel, though, if you crashed into a car with your SUV and killed a family of four, when you all would have been OK had you been driving a car?

The overall safety of SUV's is questionable though. Their high centers of gravity make them much more prone to roll over in crashes than cars, which causes a substantial number of deaths each year.
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
anim8ing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 12:53 PM
 
The last 3 vehicles I have owned have been SUVs, and not a single ticket or accident. However, you're condeming me because I want a vehicle that will hold my $1500.00 mountain bike, and my $3000.00 road bike? If that's the case, maybe we should get rid of the semi's as well? I will tell you this. . . cab drivers in any major city are MUCH more dangerous than almost ANY SUV driver out there. Just the other day I watched a cabby run a red light, lose control and strike a young lady on the sidewalk. Might as well get rid of those too and we can all walk to our destinations eh?

Here is another bright idea. . . watch your kids when they are waving goodby to grandma and grandpa, and maybe even look behind you when you back up!
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
I think consumers ought to purchase whatever they want to purchase.
Is there any kind of regulation for on-road vehicles that you would support?
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Fyre4ce  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by anim8ing
The last 3 vehicles I have owned have been SUVs, and not a single ticket or accident. However, you're condeming me because I want a vehicle that will hold my $1500.00 mountain bike, and my $3000.00 road bike? If that's the case, maybe we should get rid of the semi's as well? I will tell you this. . . cab drivers in any major city are MUCH more dangerous than almost ANY SUV driver out there. Just the other day I watched a cabby run a red light, lose control and strike a young lady on the sidewalk. Might as well get rid of those too and we can all walk to our destinations eh?

Here is another bright idea. . . watch your kids when they are waving goodby to grandma and grandpa, and maybe even look behind you when you back up!
There are many bike racks available for cars, which is basically my point in this whole thing. Many people who have SUV's don't need them, and are sedeuced into thinking they need them by high-dollar advertising by the automakers. We shouldn't get rid of semis because they are necessary for transporting large cargo. We shouldn't get rid of SUV's either, because some people genuinely need them. But, most don't, which is what bothers me.
( Last edited by Fyre4ce; Nov 8, 2005 at 03:18 PM. )
Fyre4ce

Let it burn.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Nov 8, 2005, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Fyre4ce
Is there any kind of regulation for on-road vehicles that you would support?
Yep.

• Must be roadworthy (i.e. pass similar to UK MOT test).
• Must have had the weapons deactivated if it's an ex-military vehicle.
• Must not have a picture of Ca$h on it. Unless it's a Robin Reliant, in which case it *must* have a picture of Ca$h on it.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,