1st Feb 2007, 08:47
100% illogical since large cars existed before SUVs roamed the highways.
And those deaths were mainly attributed to OCCUPANTS of the SUVs, not the other cars.
Stop spreading disinformation.
1st Feb 2007, 18:44
Yes, I suppose there are people who would argue that ramming a golf cart with a Sherman tank would do more damage to the tank. Some people will never have a grasp of mass and action/reaction. Physics should be required in all classes above 6th grade.
1st Feb 2007, 22:08
A grossly oversimplified assumption. The other commenter is right. The argument was always that SUV's POSED the danger to other cars, rather than to the SUV occupants themselves. SUV's are safer to their driver, but less safe for someone hit by them. Hence, the regulations that required SUV and pickup bumpers to be lowered to a level that would allow small cars to absorb the shock, rather than simply be driven over. This oversimplified argument based on statistics merely represents a correlation between two variables, but it doesn't tell us which vehicle, if any, was at fault. Rather than relying on simple linear regression, they need to explore multivariate regression to make any argument about vehicle and driver safety.
2nd Feb 2007, 09:01
Wrong again. Suggest you check the research that CLEARLY shows that you are MORE likely (like 40+% more likely) to die or be injured being IN an SUV than a car.
One would think the government warnings on the visor about how the SUV does NOT handle like a normal car would be proof enough.
2nd Feb 2007, 15:36
I took a course some years ago called "Lying with Statistics" that taught how companies and the government twist and distort statistical data to "prove" whatever they want to prove. The current misconception that SUV's are not as safe as smaller, lighter and less rigidly built cars (foreign or domestic) is a prime example of how this sort of myth is perpetrated on the public by Japanese car companies. Comment 22:08 says it very articulately. It is sad that this very prevalent misconception could likely cause people to buy small imports that may very well kill them.
2nd Feb 2007, 17:25
I see, then what is your explanation for SUV occupants being 40%+ more likely to die or be injured? I mean, you're saying this is all somehow distorted by the government with an agenda, right? And the fact that highway deaths went up after SUVs became popular is just fiction?
Care to provide your "facts" to PROVE that SUVs are, indeed, safer? All I've read is how they LOOK safer and somebody's cousin twice removed survived a crash in one. Well, proves nothing. Show me the evidence that they are safer.
It's amazing the amount of denial people are will to go through to defend the indefensible.
But, then again, America has a long history of this from cigarettes to asbestos to global warming and so on.
3rd Feb 2007, 12:51
Actually, asbestos is a PERFECT example of the sort of myth that is perpetrated by less-than-accurate information. History has now shown that a FAR GREATER threat to health was involved in all the hysterical removing of asbestos than in just leaving it in the walls where it could not get blown into the air. Likewise the myth that larger, heavier, and more massive vehicles are LESS safe than light, flimsy and poorly made small cars is a myth based on inaccurate and often distorted information. I'm sure the same people who make up these "statistics" could likewise prove that an egg can smash a bowling ball.
3rd Feb 2007, 14:03
Gee, now I'm confused by your highly informative argument. I had thought that the government warning was there to remind people that SUV's do not handle like cars in extreme, high speed driving conditions, and that they should not be driven as such. So, are you saying that including such warning labels is a bad thing? Are you suggesting that no such warning label should be included? When is your lawsuit coming out against auto manufacturers for willfully selling a defective product, as was attempted with the makers of handguns? It would appear that your only wish is the removal of all SUVs and trucks from the roads, which sounds like an AGENDA rather than an unbiased portrayal of the facts. It seems like you would say anything that's convenient to further your personal belief that a certain segment of vehicles should be removed. Was your dog run over by an SUV? Everybody is on to you, so you may as well give it up.
3rd Feb 2007, 15:45
100% false. Any knowledgeable person understands that asbestos is only a threat if it is taken into the lungs, not if it is dormant in walls or wherever.
Why you people continue to deny the obvious about SUVs is beyond me. To say such a thing you would have to disprove physics (high center of gravity, off road tires, unstable handling) among other things.
Once again, if size was the determining factor in crash survival why did highway deaths go DOWN after safety devices were instituted in cars? I mean, cars were very large and as heavy as SUVs, yet highway deaths kept increasing until safety devices became widespread.
3rd Feb 2007, 15:49
No, but anyone who has taken high school physics knows that the egg's design is superior as far as holding weight placed on it.
Funny how the proper design can far outweigh preconceived notions about what something small can do.
4th Feb 2007, 12:13
Oh, now let's try to get it straight which argument you're trying to pursue. First your argument is that SUVs are dangerous to everybody else; then you switch gears to say how compact cars are so much safer than SUVs, and that SUVs are a danger to their own occupants, thereby contradicting yourself. When you are proved wrong on those arguments, you switch tactics and start talking about safety devices. You have lost all credibility because it's obvious that you would say anything...ANYTHING... to make SUVs and even American cars in general look bad.
4th Feb 2007, 13:21
You just defeated your own argument. You people claim SUVs are safer than cars, yet cars do not have such warnings. And the warnings do not apply to "extreme, high speed" driving conditions as the Frontline report on SUVs proved conclusively.
So tell me. If a car can handle emergency situations better than an SUV, how is an SUV safer? Makes zero sense, but none of the pro-SUV arguments do.
4th Feb 2007, 13:22
Gosh, to think someone would want unsafe, gas guzzling vehicles that pollute four times greater than the average car removed from the roads.
4th Feb 2007, 15:00
Please explain how any of these topics contradict each other. SUVs are unsafe. Small cars are safer. Not switching tactics.
You're just using disinformation to cloud the reality of the situation.
5th Feb 2007, 17:02
I would be ecstatically HAPPY if all gas-guzzling, view-blocking and TOTALLY impractical SUV's were melted down and used for something more productive. The idea that a 90 pound woman who only goes shopping and to the hair dresser needs a 3-ton, 8 foot high vehicle is ludicrous. The "utility" part is also ludicrous. The idea put forward is that the SUV has the versatility of a truck and a car. Well, for the price of one, you can do exactly what I did: Buy a compact car AND a compact truck!! Each gets TWICE the mileage of an SUV and they can be interchanged as needed. Now, with all that said, I have to AGREE with those arguing that SUV's are safer. Just because I choose to drive a small car does not make me lose my powers of reasoning and common sense. I am very savvy in physics and I just about died laughing at the comment stating that an egg COULD smash a bowling ball (comment 15:49). I'm also from a family of medical professionals and I'm aware of entirely too many people in small cars who were maimed or killed by large SUV's while the SUV driver and occupants didn't get a scratch. No small, light vehicle can protect you in a collision with a large, heavy, rigid vehicle. To argue otherwise is not rational, regardless of WHAT those silly Civic commercials say. Until the SUV fad dies out (SOON, I hope) drivers of small cars need to be aware that if you tangle with a Hummer, Suburban or even an Explorer, you WILL get hurt, usually severely. I'm aware of DOZENS of collisions between SUV's and cars in our area over the past few years and NOT ONE SUV occupant was hurt, while in virtually EVERY case the driver or occupants of the cars received at the very least broken arms or legs and in some cases were killed. Size DOES MATTER.
31st Jan 2007, 19:50
No, the argument, I think, is that the death rate went up when SUV's became popular because SUV's were hitting and killing more people in small, unsafe imports.