What happed to all the Hummers?

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Does seem to be a tradeoff in safety.

But [...]

A car? you slide a bit, recover, continue on your way with your pulse rate elevated.

SUV? Slide, grab traction, barrel roll while everything not firmly attached to the inside of the car slams into your head and body. If you are foolish enough to drive without your seat belt you are ejected and the behemoth rolls over on top of you.

So for every situation where the SUV is safer, it seems that there is an equal and opposite situation that will kill the SUV driver and passengers.


Yup, excellent graphic description! And considering all of those situations as they actually happen in the real world in 2006-08 cars and SUVs:

1. IF AN ACCIDENT CAN BE AVOIDED:

a) Considering both the demographics of car/suv drivers and the active safety features of 2006-08 cars/suvs, cars have no overall advantage when it comes to avoiding collisions, on average, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars. This is due to some combination of (possibly) safer drivers in SUVs vs. cars, and active safety features present in both cars and SUVs. Because we don't know precisely how much "safer drivers" factor in to this 13% difference vs. "vehicle active safety", we can say that:

i) The average driver in a 2006-08 car has no overall statistical advantage when it comes to avoiding a collision compared to the average driver of a 2006-08 SUV.

ii) Whatever role active safety plays in avoiding collisions in 2006-08 cars and SUVs, it doesn't appear to give cars an overall advantage over SUVs, on average, when it comes to avoiding collisions in the real world.


2. IF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE AVOIDED:

a) 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.

b) 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.

c) 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.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Does seem to be a tradeoff in safety.

But [...]

A car? you slide a bit, recover, continue on your way with your pulse rate elevated.

SUV? Slide, grab traction, barrel roll while everything not firmly attached to the inside of the car slams into your head and body. If you are foolish enough to drive without your seat belt you are ejected and the behemoth rolls over on top of you.

So for every situation where the SUV is safer, it seems that there is an equal and opposite situation that will kill the SUV driver and passengers.


Yup, excellent graphic description! And considering all of those situations as they actually happen in the real world in 2006-08 cars and SUVs:

1. IF AN ACCIDENT CAN BE AVOIDED:

a) Considering both the demographics of car/suv drivers and the active safety features of 2006-08 cars/suvs, cars have no overall advantage when it comes to avoiding collisions, on average, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars. This is due to some combination of (possibly) safer drivers in SUVs vs. cars, and active safety features present in both cars and SUVs. Because we don't know precisely how much "safer drivers" factor in to this 13% difference vs. "vehicle active safety", we can say that:

i) The average driver in a 2006-08 car has no overall statistical advantage when it comes to avoiding a collision compared to the average driver of a 2006-08 SUV.

ii) Whatever role active safety plays in avoiding collisions in 2006-08 cars and SUVs, it doesn't appear to give cars an overall advantage over SUVs, on average, when it comes to avoiding collisions in the real world.


2. IF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE AVOIDED:

a) 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.

b) 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.

c) 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.


Sorry. If I yank the wheel real hard to either side at 60 mph to dodge a duct taped recliner that just fell out of the heavily loaded Ford Courier on it's way to a new weekly rent "motel", my car is just darting across to the other side of the freeway at 88fps. Do the same in a Tahoe? You'd better pray the electronic nannies save you.

And everytime the bridges ice, virtually all the vehicles that end up upside down are SUVs. Lots of vehicles end up crashed but it's typically the SUVs that hit the ice, slide, and high side at the good traction after the bridge.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Sorry. If I yank the wheel real hard and [...](edit: well-written, if repetitive, fiction describing SUV destruction follows)


Spazdog- sorry, but all your awesomely descriptive hypothetical situations and anecdotal stories, while quite entertaining, simply do not describe reality-- that is to say, what's actually happening in the real world. The collision claim and fatality numbers aren't hypothetical- they describe what's actually happened- much more in line with reality than anecdotal stories and hypothetical situations.

But "A" for effort and "A" for creativity- you and Audi Junkie both make up such great stories about SUVs crashing, burning, and otherwise destroying their occupants- and all with such great flair! Ever looked into writing fiction?

And so I think my words to him apply to you, as well:

Originally Posted By: moving2
I think I see where you're coming from- posting these random, anecdotal, and otherwise meaningless (hypothetical "stories") is WAY more fun than discussing those annoying "IIHS/NHTSA/NCAP crash tests", or those meaningless "IIHS statistics and statements" aren't they? Not to mention posting random (stories) is much easier on the brain vs. having one of those crazy "rational discussions" with those annoying "facts and numbers".

Now I get it: random (stories you make up off the top of your head) make you feel safe when IIHS crash tests, data, statements, and statistics do not. I hear ya!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Sorry. If I yank the wheel real hard to either side at 60 mph to dodge a duct taped recliner that just fell out of the heavily loaded Ford Courier on it's way to a new weekly rent "motel", my car is just darting across to the other side of the freeway at 88fps. Do the same in a Tahoe? You'd better pray the electronic nannies save you.

And everytime the bridges ice, virtually all the vehicles that end up upside down are SUVs. Lots of vehicles end up crashed but it's typically the SUVs that hit the ice, slide, and high side at the good traction after the bridge.


I've probably done more 60+Mph SUV "drifting" in my old Explorer and current Expedition than you've done in your cars.

Finding the limits of my vehicles and how they handle at those limits is something I always familiarize myself with. Otherwise, you have no idea how the vehicle IS going to handle in that sort of situation where you are depending on your skills and knowledge of the vehicle's capabilities, or the lack thereof. It is an owner's responsibility to know the limits of their vehicle, and more importantly, their own driving skills.

I blew a rear tire at 130Km/h on the 401 in my old Explorer. Knowing how the vehicle "drove", I was able to safely move across 4 lanes of traffic, get on an off-ramp and get it into a gas station to change that tire without any drama whatsoever.

AND, I've evaded a tire carcass at 120Km/h on a major highway in the Expedition without having to pray that an electronic nanny was going to save me because I know how to drive the bloody truck. And I think this is a major issue. People blame SUV's for their inability to safely avoid these sorts of obstacles, when often the real obstacle to the SUV avoiding something is what lies behind the wheel.

 

[Spazdog]

Statistics are like a drunk with a lamp post: used more for support than illumination.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Statistics are like a drunk with a lamp post: used more for support than illumination.


Translation: when you can no longer hold a rational discussion or construct an argument using logic, facts, or data, then try ridiculing the data, or spin a good yarn, or post Youtube videos instead; just hope that people don't notice what you're NOT making your argument with.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I think slalom tests would replicate the accident avoidance manouver pretty well. I'd love to see the slalom shootout between the Hummer and Scion for d-bag driver of the year. I suspect the Scion would win unless they initiated a head-on collision at the end of the test.

Funny too, when it snows I see far more SUVs gone off the road than cars. Luckily, that's what they are made for, just like falling asleep at the wheel.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Funny too, when it snows I see far more SUVs gone off the road than cars. Luckily, that's what [SUVs] are made for, just like falling asleep at the wheel.


Audi Junkie- wait, according to your videos, I thought SUVs were made for leading cops on a high speed chase, driving like a maniac, rolling over while unbelted, and then complaining about SUV safety? I guess I can add "falling asleep at the wheel" and "getting stuck in snowbanks" to your story if you think it needs it, but I think your existing story is ridiculous enough as it is.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Statistics are like a drunk with a lamp post: used more for support than illumination.


Translation: when you can no longer hold a rational discussion or construct an argument using logic, facts, or data, then try ridiculing the data, or spin a good yarn, or post Youtube videos instead; just hope that people don't notice what you're NOT making your argument with.

Actual translation: Your statistics made up by some unknown party funded by auto insurers may be useful for propping up your arguement, but they are not going to change what I've experienced. I don't even know that those statistics are based on anything factual.

I just don't feel like arguing with somone else's statistics anymore.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Actual translation: Your statistics made up by some unknown party funded by auto insurers may be useful for propping up your arguement, but they are not going to change what I've experienced. I don't even know that those statistics are based on anything factual.

I just don't feel like arguing with somone else's statistics anymore.

Spaz- that's funny. Hilarious, actually. Because I never once heard you complain about the origins or validity of facts, data, and statistics when you made this post:

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

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.


Not even a single caveat from you about all that data you posted when you believed the data supported your side of the argument. This only goes to show: when you can no longer hold a rational discussion or construct an argument using logic, facts, or data, then try ridiculing the data, or spin a good yarn, or post Youtube videos instead; just hope that people don't notice what you're NOT making your argument with.

Thanks for inadvertently proving my statement above true. You've tried posting stories, now you've tried ridiculing the data (the same type of data you once used to support your own argument), so what's next? Youtube videos?

 

[Audi Junkie]

Bigger vehicles are clearly safer...













"Unsinkable", like the Titanic

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie


Funny too, when it snows I see far more SUVs gone off the road than cars. .


that's funny, I don't.

maybe they're two wheel drive?

 

[Audi Junkie]

I don't see how that would matter.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
(edit: deleted more Youtube videos)


Well, I can see we're once again moving away from a rational discussion and into anecdotal arguments, hypothetical situations, amazing stories, attacking the same type of data once used by the person attacking, and Youtube videos.

As I've said several times now:

Originally Posted By: moving2

Translation: when you can no longer hold a rational discussion or construct an argument using logic, facts, or data, then try ridiculing the data, or spin a good yarn, or post Youtube videos instead; just hope that people don't notice what you're NOT making your argument with.

Indylan- thanks for some good additional discussion after my first exit.

Spaz/Audi- have fun with your stories and videos, they are truly entertaining.

I believe this discussion has once again reached a logical conclusion. As I said, the quality of discussion has been reduced to anecdotal arguments, hypothetical situations, amazing stories, attacking the same type of data once used by the person attacking, and Youtube videos.

I will now save this thread locally to have the facts in one place, and then exit the thread permanently so as not to get sucked back in like I did last time. I have wasted far too much time on this.

In the end, I believe the facts and data in this thread speak for themselves.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: moving2
As I said, the quality of discussion has been reduced to... hypothetical situations...



What could be more hypothetical than statistics?

 

[Scienceman]

Guys, pull your panties up...it is not important!

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Sorry. If I yank the wheel real hard to either side at 60 mph to dodge a duct taped recliner that just fell out of the heavily loaded Ford Courier on it's way to a new weekly rent "motel", my car is just darting across to the other side of the freeway at 88fps. Do the same in a Tahoe? You'd better pray the electronic nannies save you.

And everytime the bridges ice, virtually all the vehicles that end up upside down are SUVs. Lots of vehicles end up crashed but it's typically the SUVs that hit the ice, slide, and high side at the good traction after the bridge.


I've probably done more 60+Mph SUV "drifting" in my old Explorer and current Expedition than you've done in your cars.

Finding the limits of my vehicles and how they handle at those limits is something I always familiarize myself with. Otherwise, you have no idea how the vehicle IS going to handle in that sort of situation where you are depending on your skills and knowledge of the vehicle's capabilities, or the lack thereof. It is an owner's responsibility to know the limits of their vehicle, and more importantly, their own driving skills.

I blew a rear tire at 130Km/h on the 401 in my old Explorer. Knowing how the vehicle "drove", I was able to safely move across 4 lanes of traffic, get on an off-ramp and get it into a gas station to change that tire without any drama whatsoever.

AND, I've evaded a tire carcass at 120Km/h on a major highway in the Expedition without having to pray that an electronic nanny was going to save me because I know how to drive the bloody truck. And I think this is a major issue. People blame SUV's for their inability to safely avoid these sorts of obstacles, when often the real obstacle to the SUV avoiding something is what lies behind the wheel.

But you'd agree that your Mustang or my Neon is better for extreme avoidance maneuvers, right? Big vehicles can be hustled around with practice and skill but given equal drivers, less mass, lower CG, is what makes a Lotus Elise or Corvette, in an extreme example, handle well.
Tires help of course but if you could fit Explorer tires on a corvette, it would still spank the Explorer in every way for maneuverability.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Sorry. If I yank the wheel real hard to either side at 60 mph to dodge a duct taped recliner that just fell out of the heavily loaded Ford Courier on it's way to a new weekly rent "motel", my car is just darting across to the other side of the freeway at 88fps. Do the same in a Tahoe? You'd better pray the electronic nannies save you.

And everytime the bridges ice, virtually all the vehicles that end up upside down are SUVs. Lots of vehicles end up crashed but it's typically the SUVs that hit the ice, slide, and high side at the good traction after the bridge.


I've probably done more 60+Mph SUV "drifting" in my old Explorer and current Expedition than you've done in your cars.

Finding the limits of my vehicles and how they handle at those limits is something I always familiarize myself with. Otherwise, you have no idea how the vehicle IS going to handle in that sort of situation where you are depending on your skills and knowledge of the vehicle's capabilities, or the lack thereof. It is an owner's responsibility to know the limits of their vehicle, and more importantly, their own driving skills.

I blew a rear tire at 130Km/h on the 401 in my old Explorer. Knowing how the vehicle "drove", I was able to safely move across 4 lanes of traffic, get on an off-ramp and get it into a gas station to change that tire without any drama whatsoever.

AND, I've evaded a tire carcass at 120Km/h on a major highway in the Expedition without having to pray that an electronic nanny was going to save me because I know how to drive the bloody truck. And I think this is a major issue. People blame SUV's for their inability to safely avoid these sorts of obstacles, when often the real obstacle to the SUV avoiding something is what lies behind the wheel.

But you'd agree that your Mustang or my Neon is better for extreme avoidance maneuvers, right? Big vehicles can be hustled around with practice and skill but given equal drivers, less mass, lower CG, is what makes a Lotus Elise or Corvette, in an extreme example, handle well.
Tires help of course but if you could fit Explorer tires on a corvette, it would still spank the Explorer in every way for maneuverability.


Oh yes, for sure. My wife's Focus, my Lincoln and the Mustang easily will out-handle the Expedition. But my point was more about knowing the limits of what you drive so that it can be driven in a manner appropriate to those capabilities.

BTW, my Rancho's arrived today

That being said, I can slap the Expy in 4-high and go places my other cars wouldn't even THINK about trying to go. So there are always trade-offs. It can also tow over 8,000lbs. It is all relative.

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I don't see how that would matter.


I find 4wd is much safer as far as staying on the road in winter.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Really, you supposed to disengage 4WD over 20 miles an hour. Locked diffs induce slip in turns at any speed. Maybe you are thinking of all-wheel drive.