raeanna74

Well the logical thing to me seems to be to drive a minivan considering their kill percentage seems the lowest. We own a midsize car - I wouldn't buy a compact. I also have friends who drive SUV's. I do agree - it does seem to me that the people in SUV's tend to be a little more pushy on the roads - I think because they feel less afraid about what will happen to themselves. I've even seen my friends in their SUV's driving a little less defensively and more pushy because they know they can. We all need to be more careful on the road. Maybe if cars didn't feel as safe we'd drive more carefully to protect ourselves and others??

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Prince

Thanks, Alvin -- I used it just as an abbreviation of "Japanese"; I didn't know it had such unpleasant connotations, otherwise I certainly would not have been so lazy in my typing. I'm far from racist, myself, and am glad you pointed this out so I know better than to throw that word (Jap) around..

__________________
Who is John Galt?

rgr22j

I agree completely. One thing that would have been helpful is if they plotted the data for only two-car collisions, separated by weight and by vehicle class. If weight were the dominating factor, we would see a nice, fairly linear correlation between fatality rate and weight. If it were linear enough, class of vehicle would not even be necessary.

Obviously there is some correlation between class of vehicle and weight. However, if we posit that a large sized car weight approximately as much as a mid-size SUV, we can already see that the correlation between weight and "safety" (as determined by number of fatalities) is not a strong one. In fact, as I remember, all things considered one is 6% more likely to die in an SUV than in a car. The unsettling conclusion is that this number will probably rise, as SUVs as a whole are generally newer (and held to higher safety standards) than the aggregate of cars. Worse, according to driver statistics SUVs are primarily driven by the safest drivers: married, male, and middle-aged.

As an aside, one of the most dangerous drivers is not necessarily a single, female, college-aged driver (though from personal experience it may seem like it), but actually young male drivers. Youth trumps all it seems. But the really interesting data point is that for young male drivers, the lighter the car (to a point), the lower the accident rate. It seems that young males driving Metros are more aware of the relative danger they face and adjust driving behavior accordingly, moreso than young males driving SUVs or sports cars.

But, in good fun, if you'd like to tweak your local campus feminist, one last interesting piece of data is that if you hold miles driven constant (males drive most of the miles in the USA), women are 33% more likely to be in a two-car traffic accident and 17% more likely to be involved in damage to property. However, as a disclaimer, I do not hold any responsibility to damage done to your person (even if, amusingly, done by automobile) if you use this fact. As a secondary disclaimer, in general, the safest female drivers (married, middle-aged, with children) drive a far smaller percentage of total miles driven by women than the safest male drives do of men. Statistically, if populations were held constant, I have a strong feeling that women are just as safe drivers as men. It's just that more of the dangerous women drivers are out there compared to men. As a final disclaimer, in general, you are still more likely to be hit by a man (or have your property damaged by a male driver), because in general men drive much more of the miles in the States than do women. Whew. I hope I've sufficiently put out enough disclaimers to disprove any accusations of chauvinism! I don't think women are worse drivers than men, but I have to admit that quite a bit of fun can be had occasionally tweaking the radical campus feminist.

It's not only safer in collisions with other vehicles, but collisions with stationary objects. Having a 7700 pound Escalade is probably overdoing it if you're worried about hitting a tree or guardrail at a reasonable speed, but I, for one, would hesitate in buying a 2000 pound Metro, even if everyone else were. I am not an arrogant enough driver to assume that I will never hit anything on my own accord, no matter the circumstances. Thankfully I have not hit anything yet, but I wouldn't lay any money out saying I won't. If I were a betting man, I would bet on the next woman I see over me on who is the better driver.

We have to remember that the amount of energy imparted from the offending car into yours is proportional to mass (which is proportional to weight), and proportional to the square of velocity. So a car traveling twice as fast and weighing the same will contribute twice as much energy into the collision as an SUV traveling the same speed but weighing twice as much.

This does not mean that, in an imminent collision, speed up, to swing the equation further in your favor (as that simply adds more energy into the mix). Instead, if you assume you are not the one at fault, the speed and mass of the other vehicle is beyond your control. More, if you are the one being hit, most likely you don't have much time to reduce your speed. Thus the only variable in your control is the weight of the vehicle: roughly speaking, the more mass to absorb the energy between you and the leading edge of the force being projected into your vehicle, the safer you will be. It works for both sides: we can replace metal relatively cheaply; lives are irreplaceable.

The problem is that, being higher, an SUV crashing into your vehicle is less likely to hit something big and energy-absorbing, like your engine. A bumper isn't necessarily going to be enough to do the job. The fundamental problem is crash incompatability.

-- Alvin

PS: Prince: I'm positive you meant it as an abbreviation; it was completely obvious while reading your post. You mentioned you moved here from Europe, so I didn't think you were aware. Just didn't want you to be accused of being a racist when clearly you are not!

gabshu

My only problem with SUV's is the way people use them. NO ONE, NO ONE in a big metropolis (such as DC where I live) needs an SUV. I grew up in a place where you actually had to have an SUV to go to some places and I think that makes sense, but in DC there are really narrow streets and parking is really difficult, and still you see a bunch of SUVs. I probably will have a farm some day and drive a truck, because you need a truck if you have a farm, but 4 wheelin in big cities is just funny

__________________
Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/

Peryn

The whole point in most modern new SUVs is not to go offroading in them. In fact i would hope a lot of them dont try it (thought watching it break could be fun). Where else but an SUV can you fit a lot of people (carpool) comfortably, with a smooth ride, plenty of power, Room and capability to haul stuff if you want, off road capability, and even decent gas mileage?

Most poeple , especially in DC, will only get a vehicle that meets their needs and desires. IF you want your vehicle to be able to do all of the above, i cant think of many small vehicles that will accomplish that...

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

mb99usa

I bought mine mainly because of the winter weather we get here in Pennsylvania. I use mine as my daily driver so I really can't take the risk in driving it off-road. I would love to though.

It works well as a family vehicle too. 2 car seats fit in the backseat nicely and I have plenty of room for carrying all the gear that goes with 2 young children.

__________________
So, what's your point?

It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.

Cycler

I like my truck and sometime soon I hop to buy a 1997 Toyota Landcruiser. You drive what you need, space to haul gear, ground clearance to go places, and four doors that is why I see the reasoning behind SUVs. My .02.

__________________
"I'm not even supposed to be here today."

"I assure you we're open."

Soggybagel

Despite some ideas such as that...I own an SUV, which I did by used. I'm a poor guy so I'm driving a 92 explorer in Minnesota. I realize that you can't speed your ass through places in snowy weather. Also, I do have real world off road applications I've used before as well. Secondly, I'm what I feel a coservative driver and that is what it really comes down too. If you drive like an asshole in an SUV or a compact, its all the same....trouble.

Also, I can mount a speedbump pretty damn fast

Cubby

I don't hate SUVs (and will possibly get one in the future) but this story is bogus. As has been stated in many other posts, the larger SUVs are causing (at least partially) the fatalities in the smaller, lighter cars. Collision between a Tacoma and a Sprint...I know who's coming out of that accident.

__________________
Don't be irreplaceable - if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted!

mb99usa

So why should the Tacoma be at fault just because it is bigger? We all have to share the roads and there are pros and cons to both vehicles. There was a choice made to purchase one or the other.

__________________
So, what's your point?

It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.