What happed to all the Hummers?

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7

[...]
Your chance of surviving in a large car is better than in any size Pickup and just as good as any size SUV.

Which puts the truth in the statement: there are lies, [censored] lies, and statistics.

-Spyder



Spyder- first of all, the discussion here was about the H2, so that would be a large SUV and not a pickup truck or anything else. I extended my argument to cars. vs. SUVs in general because it is true. Comparing large SUVs (like the H2 in question) to cars only works to strengthen my argument, even when it comes to large cars, which brings me to my second point:

It's funny you leave out the obvious question when you bring up fatality rates in large cars vs. SUVs. If you were in a multi-vehicle accident between a large car and a large SUV (say a GMC Suburban vs. a Ford Taurus), which vehicle would you rather be in? Looking at that graph above and considering F=MA + height differential and I'd take the large SUV any day of the week, thank you very much. And yourself?

 

[SteveSRT8]

No question that the larger vehicle occupant fares better in a vehicle-vehicle collision. That's simple physics.

In almost ANY other type of crash the larger vehicle is not as 'simply' superior.

Note that the small/nimble vehicle proponents here forget that it's not always YOUR driving that's in question. Some accidents simply cannot be avoided due to someone else making a bad decision.

 

[moving2]

Spyder- if you want to break it downn by size, let's do that and see what else we can say.

According to the same IIHS data:

1. Small, midsize, AND LARGE cars all have an overall death rate HIGHER than even SMALL SUVs, not to mention midsize, large, and very large SUVs.

2. Small, midsize, AND LARGE cars have an overall death rate that is about TWICE that of even MIDSIZE SUVs, not to mention large and very large SUVs.

3. ONLY "Very Large" cars have an overall death rate comparable to SUVs- and that rate is matched or beaten by midsize, large, and very large SUVs.

Now what were you saying about large cars again, sir?

 

[jcwit]

Lets just all drive tanks and be done with it.

Stupid argument!

 

[saberz]

There are more SUV and Truck related accident's because people drive them both like cars expecting to manuever through traffic at 80+mph and take E-brake turns into corners at 65+mph. Different vehicles for different purposes.

 

[grampi]

I get a good laugh every time I see one because the people driving them think they're so cool, when in reality they just look stupid driving around in a big box....

 

[Audi Junkie]

The pickup truck stats look pretty poor, especially in terms of single-vehicle crashes, and I see no reason to distinguish them from SUVs. The single-vehicle crash is telling in terms of road-worthiness.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
The pickup truck stats look pretty poor, especially in terms of single-vehicle crashes, and I see no reason to distinguish them from SUVs. The single-vehicle crash is telling in terms of road-worthiness.


They are different because most SUV's aren't built on a pick-up chassis anymore.

-The Excursion (no longer in production) was based on the F-250

-The Explorer was built on the Ranger until 2003

-The Expedition was built on the F-150 until 2003. Even then, it had completely different rear suspension than the F-150.

I do believe the same sort of changes have occurred with other manufacturers. For example the Durango used to be based on the Dakota. It now dwarfs it.

Trucks have live axles and many of them have leaf springs in the rear. Dare I say most of the SUV's that were based on those trucks had the same live axle/leaf spring setup. Look at the Jimmy/Blazer, Explorer, Suburban...etc.

Most modern SUV's have 4-wheel independent suspension. Dramatically setting their suspension setup apart from pick-up trucks.

So while your point may have held water through the 80's and 90's, it does not today. The distinction between the two types of vehicles is such that it demands separate classes.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
The pickup truck stats look pretty poor, especially in terms of single-vehicle crashes, and I see no reason to distinguish them from SUVs.


Audie Junkie- how's this for a good reason (see how IIHS separated pickups vs. SUVs?):

Odd thing is- you've already seen this figure and attempted to responded to it in your last post, but you seem to have forgotten it in your response.


Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
The single-vehicle crash is telling in terms of road-worthiness.


See my posts above. Would you rather be in a car or an SUV in single-vehicle crashes after looking at this data:

It's obvious you've either not read my posts directed at you above, or you've stopped trying after your initial implication about single-vehicle crash likelihood was shown to be unsupported by the data you posted, and your other point about "I'd rather stop than hit something" is also unsupported by data.

I think we've reached a logical conclusion, so I'll stop here and simply refer you to my posts above. Again, thanks, your brakes are quite impressive I'm sure, but I prefer life.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I'm not sure about the whole "per registered vehicle" format either. Per mile seems like a better basis, and no, the subject doesn't interest me greatly.

What's the stopping distance of a H2 anyway?

 

[Spazdog]

I still see them pretty frequently.

When gas hit $4+ per gallon, I suspect a lot of them were traded in and ended up at auction. There they were picked up by "2nd chance credit" type lots. I saw a lot of Escalades, Navigators, and Hummers at those lots. I remember thinking it ironic that the people with marginal or bad credit would be buying conspicuous consumption vehicles at that time...hmmmm...wonder how they got themselves in that situation?

The people that purchase there don't always maintain their vehicles so well. And when you put 22"s on it, replacement tires are $400 apiece. So payments are missed and the truck gets even further neglected.

 

[moving2]

Getting back to the OP's topic, I used to see several Hummer H2s everyday on my way to and from work in the South Bay area of LA- over half of them blinged out with rims, and the rest stock. These days, that number is drastically reduced- I may see one in my whole round-trip. I guess the poser-Hummers are no longer the trendy fashion accessory they once were to affluent beach city soccer moms.

 

[Spyder7]

I can concede that in many types of accidents (excluding rollover where I still think a car in any niche will fare better than a pickup or SUV in the same niche) the prognosis for the SUV is better.

You have to concede that as those death rates are based on numbers per million vehicles, we are talking about a statistically small variable in the buying equation, as no matter which vehicle type you look at, the death rates are incredibly low based on the sample size. I take this as proof that improvements in safety - those that help in avoiding the accident as well as those that increase survivability when one does happen - may account for the numbers being what they are.

Safety was a consideration in my car choice. As a single male with no dependents and a white color job, a small subcompact hatchback would serve me just as while; yet I do I feel safer in something a little bigger, which also adds some more versatility when I need it, and also gets the kind of gas mileage that was a prerequisite for this type of daily driver. Aesthetics play a role too, which is a very subjective thing.

The most common accident here leading to fatality is vehicle rollover on the highway involving weather conditions as the most often cited variable involved.

The 2nd most common are collisions with moose on the parts of the highway they wander across. In a head on collision with a moose, I don't stand much chance, but my driving habits (living within the city rather than commuting to it and through those areas) put me at very low risk; were my driving pattern to involve commuting into the city and crossing through those areas, the risk of that type collision would play a role in my choice of my commuter and I would likely desire something with a higher profile to improve my odds.

Your argument is supported by the facts, but context is important too. I'll concede your point is valid and fact based and leave it at that.

-Spyder

 

[Audi Junkie]

Spyder's observation that we are talking about fractions of percents difference is right on point.

 

[CBR.worm]

To the OP! I think gravity has pulled them all down here to South
Florida and turned them into mommy-wagons.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7

You have to concede that as those death rates are based on numbers per million vehicles, we are talking about a statistically small variable in the buying equation, as no matter which vehicle type you look at, the death rates are incredibly low based on the sample size. I take this as proof that improvements in safety - those that help in avoiding the accident as well as those that increase survivability when one does happen - may account for the numbers being what they are.
-Spyder


Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Spyder's observation that we are talking about fractions of percents difference is right on point.


Spyder and Audi Junkie- I'm not sure I understand the references to "statistically small variable", "improvements in safety" (Spyder) and "fractions of percents difference" (Audi Junkie). If it's a "statistically small variable", and if we're talking "fractions of a percent" difference, then the "improvements in safety" must not mean much to you. Go ahead and look all the way back to the beginning of the IIHS study data (1978) and you'll see that, even then, car fatalities were about 155 / 1,000,000. While this is about 2.5x greater than the 2008 number, it is still 0.0155% of all registered cars vs. 0.0065% of all registered cars in 2008. If it is just a "fractions of a percent" difference that you see in this data, you might as well go back to a 1978 vehicle since the difference is "insignificant". And here's where your implications don't hold up- this isn't the percentage of all accidents involving a vehicle type that are fatal, it is the percentage of the total number of registered vehicles that are in accidents involving fatalities. As a percentage of all the vehicles registered, I'd expect the portion of vehicles involved in accidents to be small, and the portion of fatalities to be much smaller. This doesn't mean the small percentages are insignificant, however- I could see your point if the numbers were expressed as a percentage of all accidents, but not when they are expressed as a percentage of all registered vehicles- of course the percentages will appear small this way.

The point I'm trying to make is that it would be erroneous to use these small percentages to say that, in a car accident in modern vehicles, there is a tiny chance of there being a fatality, and further erroneous to then say the difference between cars vs. SUVs is insignificant. That's because, again, this data is not expressing the fatality percentage as a portion of all accidents, so the tiny percentages do not imply that the difference is insignificant.

What we can see in the data over time from 1978-2008 is a changing ratio of SUV vs. car fatalities trending in favor of SUVs- with the crossover point at around the year 2000. If anything, would you not expect to see more SUV fatalities, especially in the SUV boom of the late 90s, and early 2000s?

What we can also say is that, without having the fatality number as a percentage of all auto accidents, we can use the relative numbers to say that you have a lesser chance of dying in a small, midsize, large, or very large SUV, overall, than in a small, midsize, or large cars- with midsize and up SUVs having about HALF the fatality rate of the aforementioned cars.

 

[Spazdog]

Also the chart is for vehicles 1-3 years old.

If you go back a little further I'm certain you will find SUVs rolled over 3X more than regular passenger vehicles

Since the disastrous rollover and fatality record of the Ford Explorer, companies have installed electronic nannies to keep SUV drivers in line and upright.

But according to the chart, in spite of the electronic rollover prevention measures, people are still capable of flipping those big goofy road toads.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Also the chart is for vehicles 1-3 years old.

If you go back a little further I'm certain you will find SUVs rolled over 3X more than regular passenger vehicles


And I'm certain if you go back a little further that you will find that regular passenger vehicles made more right turns than SUVs. Good effort finding data there, Spaz. I've made an equal effort with my statement.


Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Since the disastrous rollover and fatality record of the Ford Explorer, companies have installed electronic nannies to keep SUV drivers in line and upright.

But according to the chart, in spite of the electronic rollover prevention measures, people are still capable of flipping those big goofy road toads.


You seem to have so much confidence in these nannies that you imply it should be difficult for people to "flip these big goofy road toads". All the electonic nannies in the world canna' change the laws of physics. As the center of gravity of a vehicle rises, so will its rollover rate. This applies to cars, minivans, pickups, SUVs, you name it.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Pretty simple stuff:

A) Saturn Astra 128ft stop from 60mph

B) Hummer H2 163ft stop from 60mph

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: moving2


And I'm certain if you go back a little further that you will find that regular passenger vehicles made more right turns than SUVs. Good effort finding data there, Spaz. I've made an equal effort with my statement.


Okay.

Quote:
In 2000, SUVs had the highest rollover involvement rate of any vehicle type in fatal crashes -- 36 percent, as compared with 24 percent for pickups, 19 percent for vans and 15 percent for traffic cars. SUVs also had the highest rollover rate for passenger vehicles in injury crashes -- 12 percent, as compared to 7 percent for pickups, 4 percent for vans and 3 percent for passenger cars.
--- PBS Frontline

Quote:
"Everybody is focusing on the tragic deaths involving Firestone tires. But we are ignoring the elephant in the tent, which is the much broader problem created by sport utility vehicles, and not just the Explorer."

-- Keith Bradsher, former Detroit bureau chief
for The New York Times

Quote:
In the 10-year period during which Ford-Firestone related rollovers caused some 300 deaths, more than 12,000 people -- 40 times as many -- died in SUV rollover crashes unrelated to tire failure
NHTSA study

then there's the drivers themselves:
Quote:
SUV safety concerns are affected by a perception among some consumers that SUVs are safer for their drivers than standard cars, and that they need not take basic precautions. According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers, many consumers feel safer in SUVs simply because their ride height makes "[their passengers] higher and dominate and look down (sic). That you can look down [on other people] is psychologically a very powerful notion." This and the height and weight of SUVs may lead to consumers' perception of safety.

Gladwell also noted that the SUV popularity is also a sign that people began to shift automobile safety focus from active to passive, to the point that in the U.S. potential SUV buyers will give up extra 30 ft (9.1 m) of braking distance because they believe they are helpless to avoid a tractor-trailer hit on any vehicle. The four-wheel drive option available to SUVs reinforced the passive safety notion. To support Gladwell's argument, he mentioned that automotive engineer David Champion noted that in his previous driving experience with Range Rover, his vehicle slid across a four-lane road because he did not perceive the slipping that others had experienced. Gladwell concluded that when a driver feels unsafe when driving a vehicle, it makes the vehicle safer. When a driver feels safe when driving, the vehicle becomes less safe.
(Gladwell, The New Yorker, 2004)

So in summary, not only are SUVs more prone to rollovers, they are also tubby Hugo Chavez and OPEC pleasing road toad nightmares with bad drivers.