If I Own an SUV for the safety of my children.

[charliebrown]

I have an SUV cause I drive my children around and I like the safety afforded by an SUV. I can't really afford it cause of this bushit administration, but, I do like the safety it affords my kids.

I like the facts that its stable and able to take a hit.

[eridani]

1. More likely to roll over, though n/t

[Djinn]

2. don't know about in US

but studies here have proved time and time again that it's a false security - not to mention it increases your likelihood of killing someone's elses kid

[devilgrrl]

3. Trade it in for a Volvo wagon.

They're safe.

[SW FL Dem]

13. I've driven Volvo wagons for years

great cars! I'm still driving my 97 850 since it was the last version built in Sweden.

[Blue Wally]

34. Thanksa lot from the rust belt

The union brothers of the United Auto Workers thank you very much for your choice.

[Bandit]

82. Amazing isn't it that everyone is mentioning foreign cars as being

more safe. Not one american car has been mentioned as safe. If Americans can't make safe vehicles why should we support them? Is it all about money? Americans want to feel safe and it seems other countries "get it".

[SidDithers]

84. "Volvos - they're boxy, but they're safe"...

can't remember the movie that was in, something about mental patients and advertising execs. Michael Keaton, maybe?

Sid

Edit: Nope, was Dudley Moore, in Crazy People.

[Tafiti]

171. Seems to me that American manufacturers...

...exploit people who buy American-made products out of loyalty, patriotism, what-have-you, and are not of the highest quality. We obviously have the same technology as foreign manufacturers, but it's probably more expensive, so we churn out these cars that don't last and aren't as safe. Like Chris Rock says, "you mean to tell me they can make a space shuttle that withstands 10,000-degree temperatures, but they can't make a cadillac with a bumper that don't (sic) fall off?!" Companies are making their money on the "come-back".

[Isere]

108. Volvo is owned by Ford Motor Company,

so doesn't that make it an American car?

[noiretextatique]

127. i only drive the pre-ford volvos

i'm partial to volvos made in the late 80s.

[Blue Wally]

158. Where is it made??

And are the factory workers represented by United Auto Workers??

You scream about outsourcing then buy offshore.

[noiretextatique]

165. which american car is as safe as the pre-ford volvo?

or as well-made as the 240, 740, 850 models. if you tell me that, perhaps i will buy american.

[yankeedem]

203. Then tell the Detroit engineers

To design a safe car where the transmission doesn't fall out every 50k miles and we will talk.

I think I speak for many when I say that I have no problem with outsourcing- as long as it is not done purely for cost reasons. In fact, Volvo workers are paid more than US auto workers.

[anarchy1999]

4. Time for you to do more research. "Safety of your family"? You've got

to be kidding me. "Stable and able to take a hit"? You've got lots of research to do, my friend.

[Eloriel]

22. Exactly -- worst of the rollovers.

LOTTA deaths due to rollovers.

[InfoMinister]

59. My Parents Have A Expedition - 2 Wrecks and No Rollovers

They claimed they did the research and said that Explorers and cars similar to that model rollover but they said that the Expedition had fewer rollovers. Don't know where they heard this. They could have just been lucky.

[kysrsoze]

105. SUVs have been found to be much more dangerous than cars...

both to the occupants and other cars. Many are truck-based and are not subject to the same safety standards as cars - particularly in side impacts. They're also typically deficient in crumple zones.

I own an Infiniti sedan which has 6 airbags, active head restraints, stability control, traction control, anti-lock brakes, brake assist, crumple zones, etc. I'm sure there are many other cars out there with most of the same features. You don't need an SUV if you want to keep your kids safe.

[AverageJoe]

5. A friend of mine was killed in a single vehicle SUV wreck

He was buckled up, but reclined and sleeping. She swerved to miss an animal and hit the rail. The SUV flipped and he went out the window. She was okay and so was their baby, who was strapped into his seat in the rear, thank God.

I'm not so sure that SUVs are safe.

[Bunny]

32. That's not exactly a fair comparison.

Reclining in ANY car increases your chances of being ejected during a crash. Seat belts cannot adequately protect you if you're lying down.

[AP]

96. cars are much less likely to flip than SUVs. If he had been sleeping in

a car, the same accident might not have flipped the car and he'd be alive. It's a fair comparison.

[AverageJoe]

109. Take it for what it is. It's just the truth.

And he's dead.

[noiretextatique]

129. my friend and her daughter survived an SUV rollover

the daughter sustained a serious injury to her arm, but the mother was fine...physically, at least. she bought a BMW sedan after the accident.

[GoneOffShore]

6. Or trade it for a Saab

They are extremely safe, and they're fun to drive as well.
And if you can't afford a Saab, get a mini van, lower center of gravity, and well engineered.

[TexasSissy]

7. Subaru Forester is not a real SUV, gets good gas mileage, & has

been shown to be safer than most SUVs (in small to mid size). Because it's not a "real" SUV, it doesn't have the roll-over defect. So if safety is what you're looking for, there were better choices.

Come on, now. Be honest. Safety was probably one of the factors, but that wasn't the ONLY factor, now was it?

SUVs would be okay in gas mileage respect, if we could get the govt to require increased MPG on them. But they are still too tall and big for the road or to fit into parking spaces without causing problems. I don't like them as everyday vehicles.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Any hit that could cause real damage would damage that SUV

just as badly as anything else. SUVs are way too big for practical use, after all, they are just big pickup trucks with a compartment. SUVs were a fad I-need-one-too thing that were carefully marketed to the US public.

[ilovenicepeople]

192. Stupid Unsafe Vehicle

:puke:

[baldguy]

9. SUVs aren't any safer than standard passenger cars.

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/suvreport/safety.asp

"SUVs give a false impression of safety. With their height and comparatively narrow tire-track width, SUVs handle and maneuver much less effectively than cars. Emergency swerves to avoid a crash can themselves lead to rollover accidents in SUVs, which are four times more likely to roll over in an accident. Rollovers account for 62 percent of SUV deaths but only 22 percent in cars. Yet automakers continue to fight new standards that would protect occupants in rollover accidents.

Because SUVs are built on high, stiff frames, their bumpers ride above the occupant-protecting frame of cars. When an SUV and a car collide, this height difference, combined with the stiff battering-ram frame and greater mass, create a lethal weapon.

According to a government study, in 1996 "at least 2,000 car occupants would not have been killed, had their cars collided with other cars instead of trucks of the same weight." And SUVs are also more deadly to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists than cars, in part because existing braking standards for SUVs are weaker than for cars."

..........
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/fatal25_20030425.htm

"Too many motorists are driving SUVs and pickups like they're cars, despite their higher center of gravity. And a fair number aren't wearing seat belts, even though some light trucks have a greater tendency to roll over.

And that's why some observers weren't surprised by the latest accident statistics from the federal government. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said this week that U.S. fatal vehicle accidents rose to their highest level in more than a decade last year as alcohol abuse and a lack of seat-belt use contributed to more than 42,000 deaths.

Rollover deaths involving SUVs and pickups also accounted for 53 percent of the increase in fatalities from 2001 to 2002. Deaths on U.S. roads totaled 42,850 last year, up from 42,116 in 2001."

..........

http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/faq/main/27/event=read

"SUVs are involved in many more accidents because of poor handling, and are much more likely to tip over than a sedan. SUVs have poor side and rear visibility. Because of this they get involved in more accidents with vehicles because they are lost in blind spots.

This is compounded by people driving these trucks as if they were passenger sedans, coupes or sports cars. This is the same with pickup trucks. Because they are work vehicles they do not need to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. They are also meant to be driven with heavy loads in them and at much slower speeds than we drive our passenger cars. The drivers of them make them more dangerous.

While it is the case that SUV drivers will fare better in a crash, the people they hit do not. This means high insurance rates, more injuries and deaths, making these vehicles more costly choices. It may seem like a good idea to fare better in a crash than whomever you hit, or hits you. But if you take into account that SUV drivers get in more accidents the drivers of them may be exposed to more dangerous situations than drivers of passenger sedans."

........

Do a Google search for "SUV safety"

[kestrel91316]

10. You are NO safer in an SUV......................

but you are a helluva lot more likely to KILL SOMEBODY ELSE with one if you get in an accident than if you had a sedan.

[AP]

17. Actually, you are less save in an SUV. See below.

[Burma Jones]

11. Toyota Sienna had the best safety ratings, crash test results....n/t

[jdj]

12. thank you for sharing.

???????????

[Columbia]

14. And what about the safety of my children?

When your SUV destroys my car?

[anarchy1999]

15. charliebrown seems to have disappeared. Hmmm?

Maybe he/she is doing some homework about how really safe for the family that SUV is.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anarchy1999]

24. Whoa. "An idiot like you feels A responce has to be..."

"I have a life outside of here and I am sorry you dont anarchy1999. I think anarchy needs to take a joke if he can't take a ?"

charliebrown, good luck.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

16. SUVs are less safe than passenger vehicles.

Overall, automobile fatality rates have held steady over the last 15 years. Passenger cars are dramatically safer. The only reason overall fatality rates haven't decreased is because SUVs are so dangerous.

The biggest changes in fatality rates for automobiles are these:

(1) Fatalities from rear-end collisions in non-SUV autos have dropped dramatically. Why? Anti-lock breaks. ALB doesn't shorten stopping distances, but they let you maintain control of your vehicle so that you can manouver around the vehicle stopped in front of you.

(2) Fatalities from going off the road have increased dramatically. Guess what? They're almost all in SUVs. Now why's that? Because SUV's have longer stopping distances than the cars the roads were designed to handle. The cars got bigger, but the aprons on highways have stayed the same. It's much more likely that you'll get two wheels off the road in an SUV, and once that happens, you're more likely to roll. And you're more likely to die.

So get yourself a Volvo sedan. Take your kids out of the deathmobile SUV.

[proud patriot]

18. I like my Volvo Station Wagon It's an 87 got it last year

my first volvo :-)

[devinsgram]

62. Volvo's are way for safer than SUV's

SUV's are very likely to overturn. Get rid of it and get a VoLvo.

[Fleshdancer]

19. I want to get rid of my SUV for the safety of my child.

I've never liked the damn top heavy gas guzzler, but I sort of "inherited" it more or less and it's now completely paid for. This isn't the best economic time period to go out and add a car payement to the monthly budget so, for now, I'm stuck with it. I drive the speed limit and gradually slow down on turns. The turnover rates scare the crap out of me.

[radwriter0555]

69. I GOT RID of my SUV for the safety of my kid, and for many OTHER reasons..

It's seat belts that save lives, not the pile of tin that's around you.

[progressivebydesign]

20. You're also more likely to kill someone ELSE'S children with it!

That's the bitch about those SUVs! They are dangerous to the people that are in the OTHER car! There are more fatalities in SUV related crashes, because they just crush other cars... Sad for everyone else's family, I guess.

Get a Volvo, if you're concerned about that. They are uber safe, and won't kill everyone else around you.. (oh, and the planet, too).

[Kanary]

25. I don't get the impression the poster is too concerned about anyone else..

kids or adults. :(

Kinda like a lot of society.

:shrug:

Kanary, who has always wondered if Volvos really are safer, or they are appealing to people who drive more safely..... :)

[minkyboodle]

56. Volvos are indeed safe

well at least in my experience. When I was a kid my mother got into a wreck on the DC Beltway and ended up totaling the Volvo. The whole front of the car completely crumpled like an accordion but she didn't have a scratch on her (this was before airbags etc). The only downside was that, at least back in the day, Volvos were more likely to have greater damage in a front impact because of that feature. I sure was glad she was driving a Volvo back in 1983!!! :)

[minkyboodle]

54. exactly

its wonderful when others decide that the way to make themselves more safe is to choose a car more likely to kill the other guy and his/her kids. Car safety in this country has been replaced with some kind of perverted ego driven arms race. That will teach me to buy a compact that gets good mileage!!!

[andino]

21. What we should be doing is pressuring the auto industry

to make better and safer cars. One example is making side impact air bags mandatory in all vehicles.

[RamboLiberal]

27. Bush appointee tried to speak out about SUV's being unsafe

till McCain and Repugs smacked him down.

Runge created a stir in January when he came to Dearborn and warned that some SUVs are unsafe because of their tendency to roll over. He said that consumers should use caution when purchasing the vehicles and that he wouldn't let his own child drive some of them.

Among the statistics Runge presented last month: SUV occupants are three times more likely to die as a result of a rollover than occupants in a car.

For Runge, a former emergency room doctor, addressing SUV safety is a top priority. His agency has set up teams to evaluate issues such as rollovers and how damaging it is for an SUV or other light truck to hit a passenger car. Both problems have become major safety issues as SUV sales have boomed in recent years.

http://www.auto.com/industry/runge27_20030227.htm

I think SUV's offer a false sense of security.

[Rjnerd]

28. Not stable, and "take a hit" isn't what you want.

In order to get their towing capacity, "traditional" SUV's are body on rigid frame. Very sturdy, but not what you want in a collision.

In a severe collision, there are three impacts. The first is the vehicle striking the other object. The second is the occupant striking the vehicle interior. The third impact is the internal organs striking the skeleton. Its the last one that does the real damage.

The best thing to do in a collision, is to increase the energy absorbed in the first two impacts, and to decrease peak de-acceleration, by making the first impact take longer.

Modern unit body sedans are designed with very rigid passenger compartments, to prevent the outside world getting at the passengers, surrounded by structures that are designed to crumple. The energy of the collision goes into folding up metal and since this takes time, the peak forces are lower. Yup, folds up like an accordion. This is good for the humans, even if the auto isn't likely to be repairable.

Contrast this with the rigid frame. Once the bumper support crumples, all the energy hits the frame. It will deform, but its very strong, so it won't deform much. The car comes to a stop "NOW" and you hit the interior that much harder. The car might be salvageable, but spare parts for the occupants are much harder to come by.

Think of it like the difference between dropping a glass on a carpeted floor versus dropping one on a concrete patio. They hit with the same force, but they don't "stop" at the same rate.

Onto stability, and while I am at it, the myth of four wheel drive.
SUV's are tippy. They are tall, have as much as possible of their metal above the axles (for ground clearance) and many are at a good hight for a standard guard rail to make a nice pivot. These all add up to easy to roll over, and if you involve said guard rail, think "trip wire".

Ten years ago Sue went back to school to bag yet another sheepskin. (She already had a PhD). Wound up living 90 miles away for two years. It was the only time we didn't get the "low mileage" insurance discount. One time, it was my turn to drive out (she usually came home weekends, as the cat was unwilling to travel). It was also the weekend of a significant snowstorm.

Anyhow, I drive out, in my little Honda. I keep my speed down to a sane one, my following distances long, and just relax. About 60 miles from home (when we got to the really rural stretch) someone in a 4wd decided I wasn't going fast enough, and would try attaching to my back bumper to let me know it. Well he didn't take the hint (flashers, I know better than to hit the brakes...) I pulled into the gas/convenience store, to get a drink, and call in a progress report.

I get underway, and not two miles later just past the crest of a hill, I find the 4wd on its roof, off the side of the road, driver standing next to it. Since it is about 10F, and snowing, I pull over, call the state police, and invite him into the car to thaw.

After the usual "you OK" and introductions, we talked about our trips, the road conditions, etc. He had come from the next town over (10 miles) and had 3 more to go. I told him I was at 60 out of 90. He was dubious about my having attempted the trip without benefit of 4wd, among other things "too slow". I pointed out that I had always found that the real limit of driving in snow was turning and stopping. FWD had always been enough to get me fast enough to get into trouble, 4wd was not going to help me stop, or turn (FWD over only RWD will help turn in snow, but 4wd isn't any better than fwd).

As far as I am concerned, if you are going to stay on pavement, and not push a plow, all 4wd does is make it easier to get yourself up to unreasonable speeds. He thought I was nuts. I pointed out, that we were sitting in my ordinary auto, on the road, while his fancy machine was upside-down and on the wrong side of the guard rail. That I was very likely to get to my destination, admittedly a bit later than usual, while he was going to get a ride in a tow truck, an expensive repair bill, and wasn't going to get home for hours.

He was still unconvinced when the cop arrived. I wished him luck and made him the officers problem.

So the SUV craze is a problem of perception over reality. People are convinced that they are safer, and that 4WD is a desirable feature in snow country. Instead they invite behavior that makes it more likely for you to get into a collision.

My real problem with them is that as "trucks", they don't have to meet the much more stringent automotive emissions requirements, they aren't counted toward "CAFE" fuel economy averages, and don't even have to meet a lot of the safety requirements. (ex: they were exempt from side impact requirements, bumper height rules, etc. They weren't even required to have head restraints).

Yes, they should still exist. For what they were originally designed to do (haul heavy objects from place to place) they are still needed. No way could I tow a 7,000 lb trailer with our Prius. When I have to move a machine, I happily rent one. But as primary transportation, they are overkill. They shouldn't be the majority of vehicles sold.

The automakers like to build them because they can make a lot more money on them. Not having to worry about fuel economy, or meet strict emissions, saves them money that isn't reflected in a lower sticker price. (unless you qualify for the fleet price schedule). Since they can put a big engine in them, people like the power, while avoiding the gas guzzler penalty that the same engine in a sedan would command...

[SidDithers]

76. Very Good Post...nt

Sid

[RedEarth]

79. Excellent post....very informative....

[Skittles]

29. I don't know where you're getting your information

but it is not correct

[Carolab]

30. SUVs are the LEAST safe

vehicles you can own. Better to have a minivan. MUCH better. Read up.

[RivetJoint]

41. Only if you

don't know how to drive. A properly driven SUV is much safer than a tiny Geo Metro or similar car.

[AP]

44. That's not saying much. Look at statistics. Among biggest jumps in

auto fatalities is SUVs going off the road. Their stopping distances are longer and are less stable, a problem which is magnified once you go off road.

If only all those people who went off the road knew how to drive their off-road vehicles so they wouldn't have gone off road!

[RivetJoint]

45. You prove my point

SUV's aren't inherently unsafe; poor drivers are.

[AP]

46. Cars go off road less frequently and don't kill you as often when the do.

Is that the drivers fault or the fault of longer stopping distances, aprons that didn't get wider as the number of vehilcles on the road needing wider aprons got larger, speed limits that didn't get lower for SUVs, and higher centers of gravity?

It's the latter not the former.

You can drive an SUV in exactly the places allowed by the law (highways) and at exactly the speed proscribed by the law and you will have an increased chance of dying and it's not your fault at all.

[RivetJoint]

48. If you operate your SUV in a SAFE

manner (e.g., allow for longer stopping distances, slow down in bad wx, take corners at the proper speeds) you won't HAVE accidents. We ignore the MAIN cause of accidents in this country: we have too many idiot drivers out there. ANY moron can get a license and is then free to operate his/her vehicle in an unsafe manner. That's the problem, not well-driven SUVs.

[AP]

50. Aprons need to be wider or speed limits lower for SUVs. Without those

changes to the roads and to the laws you can operate your SUV exactly as proscribed by the law and it's much more dangerous.

Nothing you can do can stop someone else from changing lanes unexpectedly forcing you into an evasive manouver. Nothing you can do can stop an animal or child from running out in front of you or something falling off the back of the truck in front of you. Nothing you can do can stop someone else's car from leaking oil. Nothing you can do can stop a pipe from bursting on a cold day, leaving an ice patch where you least expect it.

It is absurd to say that this is all the fault of drivers. The government and the automobile industry needs to take a little responsibility.

If people are getting killed from SUVs just because they get two wheels off the apron, then someone should do something other than say that drivers are to blame. Even if they were partly to blame, do you think death or serious bodily injury is a just punishment for their poor driving skills? Don't you think we should do something to reduce the misery?

[RivetJoint]

53. Fine make the aprons wider

But I don't agree with your reasoning at all. Roads are wide enough; bad drivers are what cause accidents, NOT the vehicle one drives.

[AP]

55. Uh, half the vehicles on the road got twice as heavy, with longer stopping

distances, yet the roads and the aprons haven't changed at all, and you WANTED to blame drivers. At least now you admit in your subject line that it isn't ALL the drivers fault.

But you won't admit anything's wrong with anything but the driver in the body of your message?

Come on. Make a decision.

You know, when they first designed roads and speed limits they were taking into consideration vehicle weight and stopping distances. Well, cars got better for a while, so the roads didn't need to change. Hell, we even increased speed limits. Now cars are getting worse, thanks to SUVs and the roads and speed limits haven't changed.

That's drivers' fault?

And again, how is it the fault of the driver who dies in the SUV that something fell off the back of the truck in front of you, or that someone else changes lanes without seeing you, or that someone else's dog jumps into their lap and they swerve? There are many many situation where you can be doing nothing wrong except driving an SUV where it's legal to drive it and at legal speeds and by no fault of your own you get two wheels off the apron and you're dead.

[RivetJoint]

58. Nothing says you HAVE to drive

65. IF the conditions call for you driving 50, then do it. Maintain proper spacing, and you are less likely to have an acident. That's the driver's responsibility.

Sorry, the VAST VAST majority of accidents are caused by poor, innatentive, or just plain stupid drivers. Accidents are not caused by vehicles.

[AP]

61. There is a minimum speed on the highway, and SUVs are much less

safe at that speed.

Regardless of how accidents are caused, if you have two chocies of vehicles and one type of vehicle magnifies your chance of serious bodily injury or death from operating it in almost identical circumstances, don't you think something should be done?

Seriously, people are dying from SUVs going off road, and the only thing people propose is "drivers should be better." That's absurd when there are very obvious reasons for the huge difference in fatality rates: longer stopping distances, aprons that haven't chaged, higher center of gravity.

SUVs should have to meet safety guidelines for stability and stopping distance and until they do, they should have lower speed limits and the roads should be wider (but I'm not sure the taxpayer should be funding road construction just because the auto industry can't build safer cars).

[RivetJoint]

64. Why do the roads need to be wider?

The roads are PLENTY wide to accomodate SUV's--my wife and I own one and we have zero problems staying on the road. SUVs are safe at the minimum speed on the highway. If you have any evidence that SUV's are unsafe at 45-50 miles an hour (min highway speed), please provide it.

You are missing the point. Are you saying that drivers CANNOT compensate for longer stopping distances (truck drivers do it all the time), CANNOT stay in their lanes (again, truck drivers seem to have no problems doing this), and can't slow down during turns to compensate for their higher center of gravity (again, those pesky truck drivers have found a way to do this)?

[AP]

68. Oh well if you and your wife are doing fine... Look, fatalities from...

...vehicles going off the road have increased in the last fifteen years and have offset the 50% (IIRC) decline in fatalities from rear end collisions so that overall highway fatalities have remained the same.

Where those fatalities coming from? SUVs going off the road. Why are they going off the road? Because of longer stopping distances on roads with aprons that have not gotten any wider. And why are they more deadly? Because SUVs are twice (IIRC) more likely to roll over once they're off the road.

As for trucks, I'm not sure that's the analogy you want to use. Trucks have lower speed limits and can't drive in the far left lane. But trucks are also very dangerous. Many accidents are caused by trucks. Trucks don't compensate for longer stopping distances so much as they suffer from them. Truck driving is heavily regulated too.

Granted there's a big difference between an SUV and a truck. However, unlike the dramatically different rules and regulations between trucks and SUVs, there are NO differences between the way cars and SUVs are treated by the law, and therein lies a big problem that can't be solved merely by encouraging SUV drivers to be better. (We don't tell truck drivers, "just try harder." We have separate licensing procedures and strict rules and regulations.)

It wouldn't be a problem if SUVs weren't causing so many deaths and injuries, but they are, and it is a problem.

[RivetJoint]

71. Again

Your statement "It wouldn't be a problem if SUVs weren't causing so many deaths and injuries, but they are, and it is a problem." is just plain silly.

When was the last time an SUV started itself up, got out onto a highway, and started an accident?

The problem is NOT SUVs. The problem is drivers.

[AP]

73. Remember when cars had those bullets in the middle of the steering wheels

didn't have ABS, had no padding at all in the interiors, didn't have three-point seatbelts, had 0 mph bumpers, had engines that got pushed into the driver in accidents? Were those things the driver's fault? Nope. They were the fault of the car design and off a lack of vision, inspiration and creativity. The cars might as well have started up themselves and run you over like Christine.

Hello. Cars have changed over the decades. Roads have changed. if we can make cars safer we can reduce the tremendous social and personal costs of lives ruined by death or bodily injury.

The world isn't static. You can always make things better. You see the problem and you fix it.

I'm telling you the problem but you don't want to fix it.

OK. Let's do it your way. Let's just blame the drivers. Know what? People will still die.

Let's try it my way. SUV's need bigger, better breaks and lower centers of gravity. They have a 5mph lower speed limit if they exceed a specified weight and can't drive in the far left lane during rush hour. Guess what? People live.

[NashVegas]

114. On Second Thought

If SUVs are better at killing SUV drivers & riders than they are at killing non-SUVers, who are we to try to change things?

[EOTE]

103. Ahh yes.

Lemme guess. SUVs don't kill people, people kill people? I guess SUVs are just a far more effective way for people to kill people.

[RivetJoint]

124. Well then

tell me when an SUV went out and killed someone, give me ONE example.

[IrateCitizen]

138. As soon as you give me an example that a bazooka went out...

... and killed someone on its own.

Yet, society has found it necessary to regulate what kinds of firearms and projectile weapons people can and cannot buy in order to promote PUBLIC SAFETY. No projectile weapon has ever killed someone on its own, yet we regulate those.

Interesting concept, eh?

[RivetJoint]

144. Nice strawman there

Keep it up that was a good one.

[IrateCitizen]

156. I know you are but what am I?

[AP]

160. You have no idea what a strawman argument is, do you?

[IrateCitizen]

97. Those pesky truck drivers HAVE to do those things to get a CDL!

Mrs. Jane Public who goes from driving a sedan to driving a V8 Ford Expedition does NOT have to prove her ability to do those things.

As for the question of widening the roads, where I live (Westchester Co., NY) there are an excessive number of SUV's on the roads -- and the vast majority of them don't see "offroad" unless they accidentally back over the flower bed while pulling out of the garage. We have several "Parkways" through the region that are open to passenger vehicles only. If you have commercial plates -- which many pickup trucks do -- you cannot drive on them. However, if you drive an oversized Lincoln Navigator, you CAN drive on the parkways.

The parkways can get pretty damned narrow in spots, especially for a 4-lane divided roadway designed for 55 mph traffic. I can't tell you how many times I've had one of these oversized SUV's creeping across the dashed line, threatening to put me into the guardrail, usually while the driver was yakking away on their cell phone.

If they want to buy an SUV, that's fine. Since they're exempt from car fuel efficiency standards, make them get commercial plates and ban them from the parkways. Just keep them from making me and everyone else who drives a normal-sized car less safe.

[RivetJoint]

111. You make my point perfectly

BETTER drivers would lead to fewer accidents.

[IrateCitizen]

116. I guess you failed to read this, then...

NHTSA Summary Report Number DOT HS 808 569 April 1997
Relationship of Vehicle Weight to Fatality and Injury Risk in Model Year 1985-93 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Large vehicles have historically been more stable and provided more protection for their own occupants than small ones, but they presented a greater hazard to other road users. Between 1985 and 1993, the population of light trucks - pickups, sport utility vehicles (SUV) and vans - increased by 50 percent in the United States. Since the major downsizing of passenger cars during 1975-82, light trucks have had a substantial and growing weight advantage over cars. By 1992, the number of fatalities in collisions between cars and light trucks exceeded the number in car-to-car collisions. In car-light truck collisions, 80 percent of the fatalities are occupants of the cars. That raises the question whether the growth in the number and weight of light trucks is having an adverse impact on the safety of passenger car occupants and other road users, possibly exceeding any safety benefits of the vehicle-weight increases for the occupants of the trucks.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808569.html

I posted this twice on this thread and noticed that you failed to address it, even while demanding "proof" from other posters about dangers posed by SUV's.

Coupled with my previous post on CDL licenses, I don't think you have much ground to stand on in trying to promote your highly misguided argument. When you kept this to your own personal experience, you were OK. When you tried to then take that a step further and actually challenge the reality out there on SUV's, then that's when you're being proven wrong.

[RivetJoint]

120. The DANGER

is not to the SUV driver, correct?

The woman who started this thread said she drove the SUV for the safety of her kids. Seems like she made a good call. At least that's what you data shows.

[IrateCitizen]

126. So then you're endorsing "I Got Mine, Fuck You"?

If you had actually been READING many of the protests against SUV's throughout this thread, you would see that many people were against them because they increased the likelihood that drivers and occupants of OTHER CARS would be killed in a crash.

It's a little thing that some people here practice called considering the effects of their choices on others.

Your rhetorical gymnastics on this issue are quite amazing. Perhaps you should go back to the previous post you made and ask the OP if she has had extensive driving lessons, since a moment before you asserted that bad drivers were the primary cause of accidents (while ignoring the likelihood of serious injury in those accidents based on automobile type).

[RivetJoint]

130. No

The fact is I own a small SUV. I am a safe driver , as is my wife; we are safer from idiot drivers BECAUSE we drive a very safe vehicle, and we have NEVER caused an accident. DRIVERS cause accidents NOT cars.

[IrateCitizen]

137. Actually, cars CAN cause accidents...

I think that's a primary reason that states insist on yearly vehicle inspections.

So long as you promote your own safety while so cavalierly dismissing the safety of others, you're playing the "IGMFU" game.

[RivetJoint]

139. Guess what?

My safety and the safety of my family IS more inmportant to me than is your safety. Thats doesn't mean I am out to hurt you, I would HATE to endanger anyone, but it's a fact of life, deal with it.

I'll drive what I want, you drive what you want. As long as America is a free country, I have that right.

[AP]

168. You don't have the right to drive an 18 wheeler. Hell, you don't even have

the right to drive a car. It's a privilege. You have to follow some rules. And your car (and every part of it) has to be DOT approved.

[RivetJoint]

141. Once again, the car

just gets up, and drives away, causing an accident?

[CAcyclist]

182. Wider isn't safer

Widening the road doesn't make it safer. Adding more lanes just lets people drive faster. Speeding is the main cause of injury incidents.

Having a strict liability law would start to make things safer and increasing fines for traffic infractions, as well as serious jail time for vehicular murder. Other industrialized countries are much harsher on offenders.

[BiggJawn]

66. And just WHAT do a large percenatge of those "stupid drivers" drive?

Oh, I don't know...Maybe...could be...Possibly....
SUV'S??????
Yeah, "I don't have to pay attention to traffic, I'm in a 'TANK' and like Gloria Gaynor, 'I will SURVIVE'...Too bad about the other fucks..."

[RivetJoint]

67. Again, it's easy

to cast aspersions. I happen to notice a large percentage of stupid drivers driving regular cars, mini-vans, and trucks as well as SUVs. I'm sure you have scientific evidence to claim that MORE stuipd drivers drivve SUVs than any other type of vehicle, right?

[AP]

72. Stupidity is an equal opportunity affliction. At the very least, the gov't

shouldn't be turning a blind eye to the fact that stupidity in an SUV can have much much more dire consequences than stupidity in a regular car with a normal breaking distance and a lower center of gravity.

[BiggJawn]

161. Back at you.

Bing up YOUR "Scientific evidence" first.
Try this one. SUV owners are at best, gullible, because they believe all the bullshit about "going ANYWHERE" and the safety thing.

" I happen to notice a large percentage of stupid drivers driving regular cars, mini-vans, and trucks as well as SUVs."

Oh, I get it...Dueling Anecdotes!

You sure are defending the SUV really hard. Whatsamatta? Don't like being made fun of over your vehicle?

[noiretextatique]

145. indeed...people seem emboldened

by the size of their tanks.

[immoderate]

176. Rivetjoint, why is it that the bad drivers seem to buy SUVs?

--IMM

[NashVegas]

113. And Who Is Going to Pay for the Wider Aprons?

That's one of the many things that get my goat. How many of these rugged individualists complain about taxes?

[AP]

166. Exactly. They need to be wider for SUVs, but why should taxpayers

subsidize these SUVs so there owners don't die when the manufacturers won't make them safer, governments won't require them to be safer, and when owners won't pay the price for them to be safer?

Taxpayers shouldn't have to underwrite the profitability and safety of SUVs. Granted, we socialize some of the costs of the trucking industry -- we accept a few deaths every year so that we can have a relatively greasy skid on which goods pass from manufacturers to retailers. But what social benefits do we get from SUVs?

[Bridget Burke]

57. Yes, but our OP doesn't sound like a safe driver....

She/he wants an SUV because it can "take a hit". In other words, accidents are expected. Pretend the SUV is a bumper car--drive like a fool & trust in the mass of steel for protection.

Too many SUV's are driven by airheads who'd rather chat on their cell phones than pay attention to the road. Here in Houston, we finally have a light rail line. Far too little & too late, but it's useful in its way. A record number of collisions have happened--usually SUV's making illegal left turns in front of oncoming trains.

[RivetJoint]

60. Any stats

to back that silly ass assertion up?

"A record number of collisions have happened--usually SUV's making illegal left turns in front of oncoming trains."

[Bridget Burke]

83. No. I live here & I pay attention to the news.

Where are the stats on the safety of SUV's?

[AP]

95. His stat is that he and his wife haven't rolled their SUV yet. SUVs...

...are 0 for 2 so far in his house, so drivers are entirely to blame.

[RivetJoint]

110. Like I said

show me when an SUV started itself up and went out and caused an accident...

[AP]

117. Some products are safer than others. Just because Pintos didn't blow them-

selves up doesn't mean everything was hunky-dory. And it doesn't mean the government and industry is entitled to turn a blind eye to obvious causes of misery.

Duh.

[RivetJoint]

122. You fail to find fault with the real culprit

poorly trained, inatentive, BAD drivers.

[IrateCitizen]

128. And you fail to acknowledge how driving an SUV...

... can AMPLIFY the chances that this poorly, trained, inattentive, bad driver could kill someone else in a collision.

[RivetJoint]

132. So let's

punish everyone for the actions of a few? I LIKE your idea of life in America...

Maybe we just need to not give driver's licenses to every idiot who wants one. Maybe the STANDARDS need to be higher, rather than you telling me what car I can or cannot drive.

[IrateCitizen]

143. Holy shit, now you're actually making sense!

Please point out to me one instance in which I said that SUV's should be outlawed. I don't think you'll find it.

I'm all for regulating them. I'd start with subjecting any models with luxury features to the same CAFE standards that cars are held to. Then, I'd look to vastly increase CAFE standards across the board.

There should also be "impact height" restrictions as well -- to insure that when an SUV rear-ends a car that its bumper doesn't hit higher than the car's bumper.

Lastly, at least where I live (in NY), I'd make larger SUV's be classified as "commercial" -- same as pickup trucks -- which would prevent them from being driven on the narrow parkways.

[RivetJoint]

146. The standards for DRIVER's

you know the ones who actually BEAR the responsibility.

[IrateCitizen]

154. The DRIVERS cause pollution? That's a new one!

I thought that automobile pollution was caused by exhaust, which comes from the burning of gasoline in the engine. I guess I was wrong!

Thanks for setting me straight that it's the DRIVERS causing all those emissions! Now we just have to outlaw beans, because obviously they've all been eating too many!

:spank:

[AP]

159. No matter how many times you say that, it doesn't become true.

Defective products are defective products. Look around here. Some people suffer from the delusion that they're safer in an SUV, so we're so far beyond people even being adequately warned that SUVs are unsafe, which is about the only way you could remotely pass any degree of responsibility on to drivers for these accidents.

Your argument is totally unfounded in any form of logic. Our legal system almost NEVER puts consumers in the position of being totally responsible for defective products. And nothing you've argued remotely puts driving SUVs in any category which would traditionally be accepted as one in which responsbility would shift.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

174. But we CANNOT regulate the driver.

The driver is a human being.
The SUV is a vehicle. A static thing we can weld, mold, paint, and roll off the line.
Your argument is extremely weak, and you're not looking at the real FIXABLE problem.
We already have traffic schools. We already have driver's licenses, which you have to be tested to obtain. There's little else we can do! Blaming the driver is a weak way out of this argument.

[AP]

178. This was basically Keyes's argument in the Obama debate last night:

Good catch, DemXGI.

Obama was saying that there are problems in society that we can fix because it IS the role of the government to act as a referee between competing interests, and because the government has the capacity to make people's lives better, whether it means they have to get out of their private lives or they have to step up and defend the rights of citizens when some members of society are trampling on them.

Keyes said that the government can play no role in people's lives at all and that people need to fix themselves by acting morally.

Now which of those arguments is the liberal argument and which is the right wing argument?

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

181. Ooh! Ooh! I know this!

Um...the one Keyes said?
*ducks*
:evilgrin:

What Keyes said pretty much is as effective as jumping out of a ten story window with a bedsheet in hand and wishing for the sheet to act as a parachute.
Simply assigning the blame for unsafe SUVs on bad drivers is a cheap way out of the arugment, and solves nothing. Definitely a Keyes-kind of answser.
Thanks.
:hi:

[humanbeing]

199. RivetJoint's argument is basically the right-wing pro-gun argument

that 'SUV's don't drive themselves out and kill people -- it's the DRIVER'S .'

So where does that leave us? "SUVs don't kill people, people kill people"? Hello, NRA!

Obviously RivetJoint's passionate (and repetitive) defense of his SUV is fueled by his trying to avoid looking like he was misinformed on an issue. But the argument, as others have stated, is that the government has and uses the legislative power to MINIMIZE HARM TO OUR PEOPLE, as long as the costs for such minimization are agreed to be acceptable. And since SUVs are clearly proven to be more dangerous for their drivers and passengers as well as other people on the road, the government has the responsibility to effect changes to minimize that danger. It's THAT SIMPLE. You have no inherent 'right' to drive anything you want. Not tanks, not armored elephants: no, you only have the right to drive licensed cars that meet safety standards. And many who have looked into this think the safety standards are too low, because of special interests of the automotive industry.

My advice, RivetJoin: swallow your pride and just admit you weren't as well informed as you thought you were, because when you start making libertarian/right-wing arguments, you KNOW you've strayed from reason.

[Forkboy]

200. Not his first right wing sounding argument

[RapidCreek]

31. No, you can't afford it because it is a poorly engineered, inefficient

piece of shit...at least for what you claim you are using it for.

I drive an SUV because I pull a two ton trailer around and I live in an area where it snows like hell and the roads aren't plowed...My SUV isn't as stable as a passenger car and no more able to take a hit.

You drive an SUV because everyone else on your block does. You drive an SUV because you are taking part in a status driven fad. You drive an SUV because you are ill-informed and easily convinced to piss your money away on nothing more an effort to keep up with the Jonses.

RC

[RivetJoint]

42. Good thing you

know everything about her.

[RapidCreek]

101. I know what she said.....and that says it all

For what other reasons than those I've listed would someone who doesn't need four wheel drive, high clearance and pulling capacity subject themselves to a demonstrably unsafe, expensive, inefficiant vehicle which get's under 20 miles per gallon?

Do please enlighten me.

If you're going to tell me SUV's are more safe than passenger cars, provide some facts and figures to back up your assertions. Explain how they are more safe for those driving them as well as those who get hit by one. Good luck.

RC

[JSJ]

33. you got yours and fuck the world, right?

[wishlist]

35. Vans have better safety records plus get better mileage than SUV's

Several of the vans now have side airbags. Vans and station wagons are preferable alternatives to SUV's both in safety and affordability in my opinion. Whenever we get hit with snow during the middle of the day and roads turn unexpectedly slippery on my drive home from work, SUV's and Jeeps can be seen scattered all around off the sides of the roads from skidding and in some cases rolling over.

[Lexingtonian]

36. another unkillable stupid myth

Go find yourself a copy of "Axle of Evil" by Greg Easterbrook, in The New Republic a while back. Everything that you 'believe' or 'know' to be true about SUVs being safe is a meme generated and carefully nursed along and reinforced by marketers. Yes, the profit margins are that good.

SUVs are badly built because they have to meet some weight which makes them exempt from a lot of regulations. Safety regulations, fuel economy regulations, emissions regulations, you get the picture. About 6000 lbs of iron/steel has to be put somewhere, and the only easy place to do it is in the floor parts of the structure. That puts the center of gravity about where another car (guess: SUV) would hit it, creating a long lever arm to the far wheelse which converts the direct hit too efficiently from linear momentum into an inordinate amount of torque, which in turn easily flips the SUV.

Most SUV fatalities are single car accidents, involve high speeds and poor driving and slipping off the road or losing control, and the people inside them die from having their necks snapped during the rollover. The rates are higher than with just about any other kind of car with exception of Jeeps iirc.

The reason people buy SUVs is that they seem large (large is necessary if you can't afford or understand good quality), even though their interior is small because all the extra material to make them meet weight has to go somewhere, and because driving a car where you sit so high off the ground is kind of fun and status-implying (read/see: high horse). Of course, the companies know this. But getting the driver's seat high off the ground can't be done without making the car either roll-over prone or giving it a really wide wheel base (read: make it into a pickup truck). People won't buy an SUV that isn't strongly distinguishable from a pickup truck because their egos consider it a decline in class/status declaration. So the companies simply do everything possible to conceal the unavoidable roll-over problems from the drivers in obscure statistics and the typical SUV buyer doesn't even want to hear of them in the first place. It's a conspiracy of idiots.

Oh, you should look at the marketing study cited by Easterbrook. They know SUV buyers to be on average shallow and vain people who tend to be bad drivers and socially irresponsible, and are underendowed as males (OK, I inferred that last part myself). And that their openly insecure and confused wives drive them the other half of the time. Unfortunately, these people have SUCKER written all over them, as salespeople see it, and aren't mentally qualified to like the kind of cars sane and intelligent people prefer to drive.

Tires are always going to be a problem for SUVs going at high speeds for extended periods of time. And the predicted central repair pathology of SUVs has always been the automatic transmissions. The companies don't want to make them as large and slow to respond as befits an automobile of its weight class because the owners want nasty amounts of acceleration. This means lots of trannie leaks and burnouts and gasket breaks. Not cheap or much fun.

[Bridget Burke]

37. So, have you come up with any sources to support your statement?

Apparently, SUV's are not stable & not able to take a hit. Your children are not safer. And you're a risk to everybody else.

Of course, perhaps you can prove everybody else wrong.

[RivetJoint]

47. Why is she a risk to anyone else?

Suvs ARE stable. Maybe NOT as stable as a Porsche, but they are NOT inherently unstable. And where do you come up with they are "not able to take a hit?" I'll rank my wife's SUV up there for safety with any car you have. It handles well, has a good CG so risk of rollover is minimized, has side and front airbags, anti-lock brakes AND it's being driven by a VERY safe, well-trained driver (her father is a former race car driver). I am VERY secure in my wife driving that vehicle through the streets and on the highways of N. VA and Washington DC, especially with all the IDIOT drivers we have here.

[IrateCitizen]

74. She's a risk to others because many studies have shown...

... that when a normal-sized car is in a crash with an SUV, the driver/passengers in the car are much more likely to sustain serious/fatal injuries than the driver in the SUV. Knowing this and driving an SUV is the equivalent of saying, "My safety is more important than yours."

Relationship of Vehicle Weight to Fatality and Injury Risk in Model Year 1985-93 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Large vehicles have historically been more stable and provided more protection for their own occupants than small ones, but they presented a greater hazard to other road users. Between 1985 and 1993, the population of light trucks - pickups, sport utility vehicles (SUV) and vans - increased by 50 percent in the United States. Since the major downsizing of passenger cars during 1975-82, light trucks have had a substantial and growing weight advantage over cars. By 1992, the number of fatalities in collisions between cars and light trucks exceeded the number in car-to-car collisions. In car-light truck collisions, 80 percent of the fatalities are occupants of the cars. That raises the question whether the growth in the number and weight of light trucks is having an adverse impact on the safety of passenger car occupants and other road users, possibly exceeding any safety benefits of the vehicle-weight increases for the occupants of the trucks.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808569.html

[Is It Fascism Yet]

38. i think we deserve safe and some luxury

but we don't need anybody's dirty oil to enjoy big safe luxury vehicles, we can move over to a hydrogen based economy anytime Shrub finishes price gouging his oil.

[kiki]

39. A slightly alarming thought:

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Austrian, invented the concept of the civilian Humvee.

Adolf Hitler: Austrian, invented the concept of the Volkswagen.

Somebody once said about Thatcher that she was a fascist who couldn't even make the trains run on time. We'll have to wait and see how Aronld turns out, but on a similar note: at least the Volkswagen is a decent car!

[WoodrowFan]

40. Minivans are safer

Minivans are safer than SUVs. The safty aspect of an SUV is a myth. here is some more info..

http://www.suvsafety.info/

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/

and my favorite

According to the Department of Transportation, SUV occupants are nearly 11% more likely to die in a crash than are folks in passenger cars.

https://subs.timeinc.net/TD/td_sideways.jhtml;jsessionid=D4Y1XKCUMLWBSQAMG4TBHOQ?zone=TD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fmagazine%2Farticle%2F0%2C9171%2C1101040830-686065%2C00.html&experience_id=69879&source_id=9&_requestid=47433

[Riptide]

51. Agreed. a mini van is safer...

I drive an Odyssey, and it has front and side curtain air bags. It also has the highest crash test result out there. Many of the mini-vans have comparable safety features.

I think many people don't want to drive a van because they are not "cool", but if it is really the safety of our children that concerns us, then the coolness factor should be irrelevant.

[ProfessorGAC]

43. You Are Fooling Yourself

Look up the NHTSA statistics. The probability of dying in a crash of an SUV is statistically identical to that of a normal car, no matter what the other vehicle is. AND, that does NOT include the rollover potential.

It's not as stable as you think, and they can't take a hit any better than a car, because the force absorbing and redirecting crumple zones aren't there.

The "safety" of an SUV vs. a car is a markeing myth and the data doesn't support it.
The Professor

[slappypan]

49. Do you need it to haul your baseball team and your dog Snoopy?

Just admit you bought the damn thing as a fashion statement, not for safety. 5 cents please.

[TrogL]

134. I have a typical minivan - a Ford Windstar

and I use it to haul the soccer team.

It's got stock suspension, front wheel drive, 3 litre six-banger, all-season tires with some wear.

I'm also using it to move. Last night I had it loaded down with boxes of books. You can probably work out the weight yourself. I figure each box was about 45 lbs, maybe heavier. I had 23 boxes in the back, two heavier boxes on the middle seat (I yanked the back seat and it's sitting in my garage) and two passengers belted in with boxes in their laps). The suspension was literally groaning. I've got a larger cargo capacity than an SUV of similar size because I don't have 4WD and all the associated crap.

I was driving on glare ice and had no problems whatsoever. The ABS kicked in twice and I had no control problems...

...because...

I know how to drive the damn thing on ice.

A long time ago I had a four-wheel drive Ramcharger. It's a light-utility SUV. I went on a hunting trip with some guys with big Ford 4x4's and laughed my ass off the entire time because they were contantly getting stuck and I'd have to tow them out.

[seabeyond]

52. my take, having these things all around me

and me driving a car. because you want safety for your children you put all the other children in cars at risk. dont take personally cause my husband has a trooper all my friends and family have suv, but,.........i chose car because i dont feel i have the right to be so selfish because i can afford one to put all others at risk. it is dangerous and makes me mad when i cant see the lite. if it is green red or yellow cause i am sittin so low and have an suv in front. i have to approach the lite at almost a stop until i have the view of the lite. so as you keep your children safe (and i can argue this also) and use up the oil, you put all the rest of us at risk

again your right to own, i understand the draw, and all my family have them and i love them. just another view for you to see as you feel comfortable that your children are safe.

and i hope you think about pulling up to an intersection and allowing a car the ability to see around you if they need to take a right hand turn

[BiggJawn]

63. Boy, they sure sold YOU a "bill of goods"..

Is that your SUV that was featured in the "Peak Oil" issue of NAtional Geographic? the one who's owner was quoted as saying "...Besides, anything I bump into, I WIN!"

"Safety"?...They're top-heavy, prone to tip over, yada, yada, yada...And you feel "Safe" in it?
Madison Avenue LOVES you! "We say this shit and they just EAT IT UP, JayBee!"

Don't take this the wrong way (OK, take it any way you like) but, you must be a pretty piss-poor driver if you have to rely on the fact that you have the biggest box in the pile instead of "Concious Driving" to get your bacon out of the fire.

Didn't they teach you "Defensive Driving" in Driver's Ed?

"My kids are safer" is the most STOOOOPID (and sadly, common) excuse for having an Urban Assault Vehicle there is. More honest to just admit you have Genitalia Issues.

[Forkboy]

65. seems like flamebait folks

[SidDithers]

77. You think?...

Gotta love the hit-and-run posters. Ironic in a thread about auto safety :)

Sid

[nonconformist]

70. I'll put on my flame-retardant suit to say this

That's one of the reasons I have an SUV. Bear with me.

I know the studies. Believe me, I know. I do plan on trading this vehicle in (2001 Jimmy) within the next year or so and getting either a hybrid SUV or a minivan. I know it's not *really* safer.

But dammit if I don't FEEL safer in it.

About 11 years ago, a woman directly pulled into the path of my '84 Sunbird. It totaled the car and left me with minor injuries. Her excuse was "I didn't see her coming".

4 years ago, I was on my way home from picking up my then 5 yr old at Kindergarten. He sat behind the driver's seat in a booster. My 2 yr old, normally with me on this trip and in his car seat on the passenger side, was home with his dad who was off work that day. A woman pulled off a side street and smashed into the passenger side of my '95 Neon, whipping the car completely around, and then sped away. She was caught shortly after, however... she fled because she was driving on a suspended license and it was the 2nd time she was caught for that. Both my son and I sustained minor injuries and the car was, again, totaled. The officers on the scene, when seeing the shape of the empty car seat that would have been holding my toddler, told other officers over the radio that the accident could have very easily been a "fatal one" had anyone been on the passenger side. Her excuse for the accident was "I didn't see her coming".

I actually replaced that car with a '98 Malibu, which I LOVED.

Then we moved up on the side of a mountain. We had a 4x4 truck, an S-10, which had served us well for many years. We had to retire it a couple of years ago when it died in a massive way and repair costs FAR exceeded it's value. This left us with a conundrum. Do we buy another truck, since a 4x4 is necessary for us in the winter, or do we *gulp* buy an SUV? We actually went without for many months while we decided what to do. About that time, the Malibu started giving us problems and we decided it was a prime time to trade it in to limit the amount of money we were losing on it. Meanwhile, I'm getting ran off the road weekly it seems by SUV's on these narrow country roads... and truth be known I still had some residual PTSD from the last accident (that's a long story in itself). I felt like I was STEALTH VEHICLE and I was tired as hell of it. So we needed a family vehicle, and my husband already had a clunker Escort for his work commute. We went with a used SUV - for the space, for the necessary 4x4, and - yes - my frame of mind.

I will however point out that it's not used to commute. It's used when it's needed for weather-related things and for short drives. Sometimes I can get away with filling it up once a month if that tells you how often it's driven. And yes dammit, I do feel safer. I may very well not be, technically, but I'll tell you that I have not been run off the road since. I am a cautious and kind driver as well, I don't run people off the road, cut them off in traffic (usually, but I do have a fun Bush bumper sticker story along those lines) and I'm always careful not to block people's line of sight in a turn lane - because that still happens to me by larger SUV's, minivans and large trucks so I'm very aware of that.

So, yes - I'm a born and raised democrat and a proud liberal and I drive an SUV that I love, sporting a stylish yet practical Kerry bumper sticker. Flame away?
:scared:

[SidDithers]

78. Not a flame...

but sounds to me that both your cars worked as designed. They crumpled and absorbed the energy of the crash while protecting the occupants in the passenger compartment. In the case of the second accident, many cars newer than a 95 Neon have strengthened side impact beams and side air bags, again designed to absorb the energy and protect the occupants in the passenger compartment.

One of the posters earlier in the thread pointed out that many SUV's have much more rigid body frames, which allow more energy into the passenger compartment.

I'm glad that everything worked out, that you weren't badly injured, and that your kids remain safe :)

I'm also assuming that the woman who hit you and fled wasn't driving an SUV.

Sid

[nonconformist]

80. I totally agree with you

Like I said, it's more of a subconscious thing that deals with my PTSD and the constant bully-driving I was dealing with from SUV's.

In the first accident, the lady was driving a 70's model Oldsmobile - picture a boat with wheels basically. In the second accident, the lady was driving a mid-size sedan of some sort - much larger than the Neon but a car nonetheless.

I do know you're right. I felt like I became everything I hate when we bought it. I don't feel invisible anymore though, and while I feel guilty for owning one I have to admit I love it. Nicest vehicle I've ever owned... but I'll trade it in happily when we're able to.

[AP]

98. And if people are pulling into traffic without looking, it doesn't matter

how big your car is. They're not looking, they're not going to see you.

If the poster had been driving an SUV she might have killed the inattentive driver.

[Bridget Burke]

86. You've told us your real-life experience, not the OP's ....

hit & run platitudes.

There are uses for SUV's. Here in Houston, mountains & blizzards are not problems. Most of the SUV's you see on the streets are too pristine to have been used for hauling anything. And the drivers usually have no passengers, so they must assuage their loneliness by chatting on their cell phones. Definitely, the kind of thing that gives SUV's a bad reputation.

[nonconformist]

87. Oh definitely, I don't presume to defend the OP at all

They can do that for themselves, if they even desire to. They may have just been posting flame bait anyway. It just gave me an opening to tell my story. :)

[Red State Rebel]

89. I understand - our SUV saved our lives...

We were driving under an overpass and a Volvo station wagon came off the road above and landed on us. I had my 3 daughters with me and we all walked away with minor injuries. The police said, and there is no doubt in my mind that if we had been in a regular passenger vehicle we would have been severely injured or killed.

[gpandas]

112. one of those "safe" volvos? n/t

[Strelnikov_]

91. Daytime Running Lights May Have Prevented The First Two Accidents

I remember hearing of a study from Europe that indicated an 80% reduction in these types of accidents by use of daytime running lights (headlights on during daylight hours).

[nonconformist]

93. I actually had my lights on in the 2nd accident

Honestly though, I think the only way either of those accidents could have been avoided is if the other driver's had just paid a smidgen of attention. Both of them darted out into heavy traffic, and if they wouldn't have hit me they might have hit someone else. Not to mention in the 2nd accident that chick had no business being on the road in the first place.

[Rjnerd]

102. Just remember

Be very wary of the "feel safer" - to some extent it is another thing keeping the auto fatality rate higher than the improvements to cars should indicate. People feel safer, and do more dumb things. The usual reason that a disproportinate number of supposedly off road vehicles get stuck in snow, is attributable to the mistaken idea of greater ability. Either they go out in conditions that they would have avoided without it, or the use the increased traction to go faster, forgetting that they have the same steering and brakes as all the other vehicles on the road (buldozers, and tanks excepted).

You can get 4WD in many minivans, station wagons, and even sedans. And a minivan should be at least as visible as the SUV is. If you want to help to be seen, turn on the headlights in the daytime, especially when driving with the sun directly behind you.

Personally I find that front wheel drive sufficient to get me up all but unplowed roads. The engine weight is over the drive wheels, and the ones that control direction. I have gotten stuck once in snow since I bought a FWD car, and that was when I was too lazy to dig out the plowed ridge at the end of the driveway, and tried a running start to get thru it. I got about halfway. Low ground clearance is not a desirable attribute of a snowplow.

I am very glad to hear that nobody was injured in the collisions. No, we shouldn't call them accidents. That implies that they were an act of god, not the result of human incompetence. "I didn't see you" should be treated as an admission of guilt, its not an excuse.

Oh yea: On dry pavement, the limit on braking is actually human reaction time, not brake performance. The difference between the best and the worst (legal) brakes is dwarfed by the distance you travel in the time between when you see the unexpected obstacle, and when you actually get your foot off the gas and onto the brake pedal. (the stopping distances you read about are measuring the distance starting when the brakes are actually applied, and doesn't include reaction time)

In fact, most speed limits are based on what traffic engineers call "design speed". This is based mostly on sight distance, and not road holding. If you build a road for highway speeds, there are strict rules on how tight the turns can be, and how sharply the road can crest a hill. After all the limiting factor (the nut holding the wheel) hasn't had any significant design improvements in thousands of years. And we haven't been able to do anything to get light to turn a corner.

If like your back country roads, they have sharp crests, and hard turns, the sight distance is short, and the speed limits should be set fairly low. However humans are creatures of habit, and they will drive based on what they expect to happen. They get too close to the car in front of them, and drive too fast. When something out of the ordinary happens, they don't have a "margin for error" and they are involved in a collision. Unfortunately society calls it an "accident", and unless alchohol was involved, considers it unavoidable.


Airbags are inflated by what amounts to a small explosive charge. At least one wag has suggested that driving would improve if, on the drivers side, the actual bag part was replaced with some shrapnel.


My suggestion is a bit different. Take a cue from the FAA, which is very agressive about safety. Pilots have to go on a "check ride" every other year. They take an instructor up, they fly for an hour, and the instructor issues a written report when its over. This is for as long as they have their license, and is in addition to the regular medical exams.

I think that such a "check ride" should be part of regular driver licensing. You take a state licensed driving instructor, and go for a ride for at least an hour. Not a state employee, like your driving test, but a private non-uniformed person. Doesn't increase the state payroll, provides extra employment, much like the "bad driver" classes do, and by making the exam take a full hour, people will forget that they are on test, and revert to their "natural" style. (which a ten minute test, at age 17 with a uniformed official won't allow)

Oh yea, went to town hall, and did the absentee ballot thing. So I will be free to do GOTV all day on Nov 2. (Mass doesn't have "offical" early voting, but they have a no-questions absentee policy)

[IrateCitizen]

An SUV is more likely to kill others in a crash with a car

NHTSA Summary Report Number DOT HS 808 569 April 1997

Relationship of Vehicle Weight to Fatality and Injury Risk in Model Year 1985-93 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
Large vehicles have historically been more stable and provided more protection for their own occupants than small ones, but they presented a greater hazard to other road users. Between 1985 and 1993, the population of light trucks - pickups, sport utility vehicles (SUV) and vans - increased by 50 percent in the United States. Since the major downsizing of passenger cars during 1975-82, light trucks have had a substantial and growing weight advantage over cars. By 1992, the number of fatalities in collisions between cars and light trucks exceeded the number in car-to-car collisions. In car-light truck collisions, 80 percent of the fatalities are occupants of the cars. That raises the question whether the growth in the number and weight of light trucks is having an adverse impact on the safety of passenger car occupants and other road users, possibly exceeding any safety benefits of the vehicle-weight increases for the occupants of the trucks.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808569.html

So, I guess your overriding attitude is that it's all good for you and your kids to be safe, even if it puts the lives of other people and their kids at risk. Not to mention all the problems your kids will have in the future with dirtier air due to the excess pollution.

... and the horse you rode in on.

[Redleg]

196. Who cares about other people? I only care about myself.

<sarcasm alert>

[IrateCitizen]

75. Multiple post -- DELETE

[Gemini Cat]

81. Oh PUHLEASE!

What a tired old excuse.

People who live in areas where weather conditions may from time to time warrant driving a SUV, I have no problem with. However, most SUV drivers don't live in such areas and therefore have no need for them.

[jeffrey_X]

99. You mean there is no need for a Hummer in downtown Chicago????

:o

[kermujin]

100. i drive a subaru wagon...

with push button 4WD. presto; i can deal with severe weather conditions, but i get the gas efficiency of a small car. and it won't flip.
i drive a subaru wagon for the safety of *my* kid...

i have to say, though, for most of the year, where i live, any SUVs or trucks you see are pretty bashed up and dirty. it's just when the summer people come in their cut-waxed explorers and so on that it gets frustrating. also, cell phones don't work here, so that's a comfort... ;)

[DeadManInc]

85. SUV

I am reading a lot about of you posting about Saab, Volvo, Subaru, Volkswagen etc. Part of our problem with losing jobs here is people not buying American made products. I will spend more money to buy something made in the USA than foreign made products. I am in no way financially wealthy, but if we want to keep jobs here, we have to support American made!

[IrateCitizen]

88. Ummm... where do you think those cars are made???

All of the car companies you listed above maintain manufacturing facilities here in the United States. In fact, I would guess that a lot of foreign-based auto manufacturers actually have more operations here in the US than GM or Ford. Toyota, which already has a significant US manufacturing presence, recently announced that they are looking to start manufacturing hybrids here because of the demand. No foreign automaker is going to ship their products to the US in large numbers because it's just so much more cost-effective to make their products in the market in which they will be selling them.

After all, wasn't it GM that left Flint, Michigan high-and-dry? If you think that GM and Ford have any loyalty whatsoever to the American worker, you're deluding yourself.

[nonconformist]

92. Flint is still a ghost town

I live in Kentucky now, but I was born and raised in Michigan. For 3 years before we moved down here we lived in a suburb of Flint. GM destroyed Flint.

I do feel a loyalty to GM though (if you can tell by my post above that lists several vehicles I've owned). I have family that are long-time GM employees and I was raised in a strong union-supporting family - I've walked in many a picket line. I'm not happy with a lot of things GM does, however... and my husband has been itching for a Toyota truck for years and I finally gave him my blessing awhile back if he ever decides to buy one. I think for some people it's one of those things that was hammered into your head as a kid and it's hard to let go.

[Bridget Burke]

90. Then US manufacturers need to make cars we want to buy.

If they bothered to combine safety, fuel economy & a bit of style--people would buy the result. Besides, many of the foreign brands are made here anyway.

[Pithlet]

198. My Subaru was made in Indiana n/t

[tom_paine]

94. More likely to turn a minor accident into vehicular manslaughter

for the people you hit.

Don't run any stop signs.

[htuttle]

104. I drive a scooter for the safety of my children and grandchildren

My kids are grown, so I don't drive them around anymore.

However, I feel it's my responsibility to spew as little pollution into the air and use the smallest amount of non-renewable resources as possible for the sake of my children and grandkids.

I've had plenty of time on this earth to drive big, fast cars, and I feel it's my duty to do everything I can to pass on a good planet to those I'm responsible for.

[JCMach1]

106. Most are not safer... that' s the trouble

[tilsammans]

107. Why would you want your family in a vehicle that can flip so easily?

Once your vehicle starts to roll, there is NOTHING you as the driver can do. You have LOST CONTROL.

Every loose object in the car becomes a projectile. And you and your children? I shudder at the thought. Even if you're all buckled in.

Please read the information posted here and consider it thoughtfully for the sake of your loved ones.

:grouphug:

[TrogL]

115. Learn how to drive

Then you won't need a tank.

Most accidents can be avoided by defensive driving. Basically never, ever, ever, ever, ever trust the other driver. Assume he's drunk, insane or on drugs. If he signals, assume he's signalling a space alien. If he slows down, assume he's lining up to ram you. If he speeds up at an intersection, assume he's about to test his brakes.

[RetroLounge]

118. Put on your flame-retardent suit, here come the greenies..

It's funny, no topic makes an otherwise intelligent progressive lose their mind like mentioning an SUV. Pro-choice and then mention SUV, and they want to take your choice away and make you drive some little shit-box car.

Half these posters can't even define what an SUV is. A Jeep Liberty or one of these stupid Lexus things is rediculous if you think it's actually that much safer, I agree, but more power to whomever drives them. It's called CHOICE.

No statistics are quoted, or only ones from their point-of-view.

Well, I have a 1993 GMC Suburban, and make no apologies for it, and could give a shit what others think. It is not 4wheel drive. It is not unsafe. It is not prone to rollovers. It's not even a fucking SUV, it's a truck. And GMC has been making it since the late 1930's. It was popular then, it is popular now.

And I bought it before I had kids. I bought it to haul large items in. and it works great. and I still use it for such purposes.

Would I rather be in an accident in my GMC Suburban, or in my previous car, a ford escort? Duh...

Get a life, take your freaking birkenstocks and greenie bullshit and drive your little hybrids.

RL

[Forkboy]

121. Here come the people that give a shit about the environment

the bastards!

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

133. Damn....try some decaf

:eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

135. But what about when your "choice" affects my air quality...

... along with the likelihood that I (or others) might be sent to the Middle East to secure cheap oil supplies for your "choice"?

If SUV's could be made so that they did not do the following, I would not have a problem with them:
- Use excessive amounts of fuel
- Produce excessive pollution
- Increase the risk of killing other vehicle occupants in a crash
- Make it so damned difficult to see while driving a normal-sized car

But so long as they do these things, I don't really appreciate scores of people around me who don't need them, driving them. If you need them to haul stuff around, that's one thing. Don't tell me that you need a Lincoln Navigator to run to the Starbucks and take your one 3-yr old to Gymboree.

And when I get a new automobile, I'll be very happy to drive my hybrid, because I'll be spending far less money on fuel and also producing much less pollution. And I don't know what to tell you about Birkenstocks -- I wear Tevas. But I will hang on to my "Greenie bullshit", because the time for ignorance over the effects of my personal choices is long, long gone.

[RivetJoint]

140. Fine Irate

STOP driving your car. Stop doing ANYTHING that requires you to use oil. If you don't, you are a hypcrite.

[IrateCitizen]

152. Yeah. I should just wear animal skins and live in a cave.

:eyes:

Or, I could seek ways in which I could make the most responsible, informed decision that I can.

BTW -- your mental contortions on this issue have been quite entertaining. Thanks for the laughs. :D

[RetroLounge]

147. Fine, I'll say it again, with Decaf

GTO = Bigger engine than my truck
Chrysler 300 = Bigger engine than my truck
CadilLac SVT = Bigger engine than my truck
Dodge Magnum = Bigger engine than my truck
and many more...

Are you against those too? Why not?

and how does my truck with catalytic converter, new exhaust, well tuned up, and driven safely, affect your air quality more than these with bigger engines?

waiting...

RL

[IrateCitizen]

150. If they're causing excessive pollution, then I am against them.

Also, I wouldn't be as much against your truck if it met the criteria I listed earlier. I'm sure we're not going to find agreement on this issue, but at least I would hope that you can see that although I don't much like your choice of automobile, I'm not attempting to ban it or anything like that. Rather, I'd look to promote federal guidelines that reduce the drawbacks of SUV's while not adversely affecting their legitimate uses.

And with regards to the other vehicles you posted, I'd support similar measures toward them.

[Rjnerd]

189. The pollution control on the sedans

Is much more extensive, and they are counted in the fleet average fuel economy. Cars have limits on the total (by weight) of pollutants they can emit per mile (its not a straight percentage out the tailpipe). It means that bigger engines, and heavier cars (that push more total exhaust out the tailpipe) have to run a lot cleaner than smaller engines. (Since the mass of pollution is a pain to measure, it is only done by the EPA and automakers. Instead, when they check things at the shop, they just look at percentages of the common pollutants. It explains why different model cars the same age, have different exhaust specs.)

This means that getting that big truck to run clean enough, costs real money. They pump a lot of exhaust, to get the gm/mile down to the limit, the stuff coming out the pipe would have to be damn near breathable. Instead of making the trucks cost more, they relaxed the rule. Its not eliminated, they do have some emission reduction hardware, just not to the extent they would need to meet the normal vehicle standards. Your big sedan and someone else's small hatchback may emit the same total amount of gunk, to go a given distance, but if either fits the truck standard, the amount goes way up.

Thats the problem I have with them having a weaker standard applied. If the weaker standard only applied to actual commercial vehicles, it wouldn't be so bad. But when a overblown station wagon used for "ordinary" service, gets a pass, I raise my hand...

[RetroLounge]

148. Vote for Nader then

RL

[Forkboy]

149. Saw that coming a mile away

It's as predictable as the sun rising...only not as bright.

[IrateCitizen]

151. Nice ad hominem. However, Kerry has endorsed increasing...

... CAFE standards quite drastically over the next 5-10 years.

[Forkboy]

153. Looks like he better vote for Bush then

:)

[IrateCitizen]

155. Yeah. That's a good one!

"Looks like you'd better vote for Nader then"? Is that really the best that RL has got? :boring:

[RetroLounge]

184. Saw that from a mile away...

Nice retort dear..

RL

[Forkboy]

188. Yeah,it wasn't too bad

:hi:

[RetroLounge]

183. and how will that affect my 11 year old truck?

I'm for CAFE standards, but you wouldn't know that based on your assumptions.

When I buy a new truck, I hope it gets better mileage...

RL

[Redleg]

195. I don't care what you drive. Just don't crash your Suburban into my car.

That's it.

[MS68]

119. I have a mini SUV...

and I'm stuck in a lease for another 2 years. I'd always driven small cars, and I was tired of paying stores $50.00 to deliver a T.V. and such. I do plan on getting something smaller when my lease is up, but I took my husband's car to the gym one day, was surrounded by SUV's and couldn't see to back out. It almost feels like you need one for defensive reasons--to see.

I am tired of being demonized for owning one. The lifestyle choices I have made allow me a 10 minute commute to work on the one day a week I have to go in, and I telecommute the other 4 days, so I don't drive much at all. Also, I'm sure there are a lot of sports cars out there that suck up just as much gas.

But again...I made that choice when I was in a different place 3 years ago and I am somewhat embarrased for having a larger vehicle than I really need.

[DrWeird]

123. That's why I wear an enormous codpiece and bought a Desert Eagle.

You know, for the safety of my children.

[Snivi Yllom]

131. there are much safer cars

SUVs are not safe

[RPM]

136. Shame on you

You put others & their children at risk by driving that monster...

I hope you can sleep at night, putting others' children in dangers' way....

Or pehaps no one should be driving those...

Find a good, safe, solidly build regular car. No reason to have anyone's blood on your hands

[Shakespeare]

142. Don't feed the trolls. This is post-and-run flamebait.

Notice the original poster has not responded to anything in this looooong thread. There's a reason for that, you know.

[BiggJawn]

162. Yeah, but it felt GOOD to whup-up on Penis Extend-o-mobiles!

"See the big YOOOO-ESS in your Fake Penis...."
:evilgrin:

[Technowitch]

157. As others have pointed out...

SUVs give a FALSE sense of security and safety.

Yeah, so you're high above the ground. And you seem to be inside the automotive equivalent of a rolling house.

But that's where it ends. SUVs don't hold the road as well as vehicles closer to the ground. They have a higher center of gravity, and so are far more prone to rolling. People tend to keep all kinds of shit in their SUVs -- and so when there is an accident, this stuff becomes instant missiles. The doors in SUVs have this tendency to pop open during accidents and the people inside ejected.

No, if you want safe for your kids, if that's your overriding concern, get a Volvo station wagon.

[Book Lover]

163. Oh, please. If you were a better driver

you wouldn't feel safer in a vehicle that is weightier and less nimble.

[SemperEadem]

164. a station wagon is just as safe and has a lower center of gravity

less of a chance of accidentally rolling over if you suddenly get cut off on the freeway doing 60mph and are trying to avoid the collision. They have no rollbars in the roof to prevent it caving in and crushing your family. It is a myth that they are safer.

As I heard recently: "Yes, that SUV does make your ass look fat".

[Zhade]

167. I hope you're kidding. SUVs are WAY more dangerous than non-SUVs.

NT!

[MS68]

169. There are a few mean people...

around here. It's a bit disturbing. At one point, my husband convinced me that I needed to get information from more than just my one liberal website, so I started looking at some conservative sites. The hatred and anger and the tone of the people just totally turned me off, and I said "nope, I'm staying right here on my progressive site". It's a little disconcerting that I'm seeing alot of the same kind of language here. I thought we were different.

[Selwynn]

173. It's DAYS until the election CUT EVERYONE SOME SLACK

I have gone a little easy on my moralizing lament posts lately because I think most people who are deeply passionate over the TOTAL FUCKING UP OF OUR COUNTRY IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS are pretty much DOING THE BEST THEY CAN.

[Redleg]

170. SUVs are much more prone to roll over.

I appreciate your concern for your family but if that is your primary consideration, there are better safety options than an SUV. I drive an M1 tank and that is safe- not good on gas- but safe.

[RetroLounge]

185. Tell me again why my Suburban is prone to rollovers?

Waiting...

RL

[Redleg]

193. I don't know about your suburban but I do know about SUV

accident rates in general. SUVs are more likely to roll because the center of gravity is higher than in the typical car. The research is out there. Check it out.

[maxsolomon]

172. i keep a loaded pistol on the nightstand for the safety of my kids

i like that i can shoot at anything that comes into my bedroom unexpectedly in the middle of the night, and if i'm not home the kids can quickly get to the gun in case there's an intruder.

but you have to leave the safety off at all times for it to be really useful.

[anarchy1999]

175. Unbelievable, 175+ posts on a thread about SUV's. Started by a

person since tombstoned. What is going on with everyone? I've not taken the time to read through them all, but why exactly is this kind of attention being paid to SUV's at this moment in time?

[BiggJawn]

187. See post #162...

:evilgrin:

BTW, "Charlie Brown" hasn't gotten 'stoned yet...

[Thtwudbeme]

177. You're a gas hog. So what?

Striving for mediocrity in the US is pretty much the norm these days.

Stephanie

[One_Life_To_Give]

179. More Steel = Longer Extrication

There are several traits of larger vehicals in accidents that don't favor them in accidents. All that extra steel in trucks and SUV's, which is intended to carry a load not protect from crashes, has to be bent back and/or cut out of the way to remove the victims from the vehical. The proabability of you survival goes down dramatically if it takes a long time to get you free of the vehical. Your best chances for survival are when emergency crews can get you to the ER within 40 minutes of the impact/crash.

[CAcyclist]

180. It's not stable - minivans are stable

SUVs are more dangerous because they are more likely to roll over. The safest large vehicle is a minivan.

There was a head-on collision in my hometown a few years ago between an SUV and a hatchback. The SUV overturned and the driver died. The hatchback's driver was ok.

[RetroLounge]

186. Well, that about proves everything...

of course, my truck has been in my family for 11 years now.

Guess it's not too prone to rollovers then, is it.

Please expalin how a 1993 GMC suburban is prone to rollovers.

Then explain why mine has not yet rolled over.

Let me look out the window. Nope. Still sittin there upright. Go figure...

RL

[Redleg]

194. Your Suburban is but one of many.

Just because they are more prone to roll doesn't mean they will all roll. If you drive it slowly enough and don't take corners too sharp or skid on slick pavement you may never roll it.

[leftofthedial]

190. more dangerous than most smaller vehicles

so . . .

"If I Own an SUV for the safety of my children."

I am a fool.

[UdoKier]

191. SUV fatalities are higher than in passenger cars. They are not safer.

nt

[Ron Green]

197. Folks, don't forget that one big issue here is our ground transportation

system. In the US, we have built one which is operated primarily by amateurs and uses fossil fuel at a much higher rate than a proper public system. The other big issue is "freedom," but we have to be careful not to espouse the kind of freedom that Bush talks about. Your right to buy and drive a demonstrably dangerous, inefficient and poorly-designed conveyance is OK for you and your family, perhaps, but not so good for our nation as a whole. This appeal to "freedom" is exactly what the RW does when they conflate freedoms as a citizen with freedoms as a consumer.

[NNadir]

201. Think not only of your children's lungs, but of their future.

An SUV is NOT safe. It is destroying the atmosphere. Every time the key of an SUV is turned it is killing the future.

I absolutely cannot think of a less safe thing to do to children than to destroy the earth's atmosphere irreversibly.

[tkmorris]

202. Wow charliebrown

Not only are you still here after all this time, you've managed to create a flamebait thread with over 200 responses. Not bad!

I've been watching you since you showed up. I alerted the mods within your first ten posts. Somehow you have managed to toe that line all this time however, barely staying under the radar. That takes wits, and stability, and logical thinking.

I have to wonder though. With all those traits how on earth can you still believe as you do? Isn't it about time you stop kidding yourself and truly become one of us? You know you want to. We are the thinkers, the dreamers, the ones who predict and create a better world. Aren't you tired of being the smartest fish in an ever smaller pond? Come join us charliebrown. We will protect you from that little red-headed girl. And Lucy. That witch.