Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
The heavy steel in cars from the 50's,60's, 70's would hold up very well if wrecked into a car from todays thin metal and accordian like frames. The problem being the cars from 50's &60's were running into each other...with the occupant bearing a lot of the force from the collision.
Keeping with the topic at hand though....a SUV would be much safer in a collision with a minivan....though not as safe in a collision against a stationary object i.e tree, brick wall...moving train.
...a SUV would be much safer in a collision with a minivan....though not as safe in a collision against a stationary object i.e tree, brick wall...moving train.
Correct on both counts. Of course, the notion of gaining safety by stealing the crumple zones of your potential collision partner leaves a bit to be desired on the ethical front, but hey, ethics have lost their cachet in the USA of late :=)
a SUV would be much safer in a collision with a minivan....though not as safe in a collision against a stationary object i.e tree, brick wall...moving train.
Statistics of insurance carriers (the only version of truth that we have, the rest is pure speculation and hand waving) disagrees. Both in 2 car and single car collisions, you are more likely to die in an SUV, and least likely to die in a minivan.
Though that does not take into an account that in a better handling vehicle you are less likely to get into collision in the first place. But I will take that as a bonus.
I understand G.M.'s next generation of minivans are going to have that SUV look about them. I guess that's to give them a macho look so more men will buy them.
Well..it's this(2005's) generation of GM minivans that have the SUV look. I think they look pretty cool. Others think its the same ole G.M minivan(platform, drivetrain etc)with just the look of an SUV. I often hear "they're(GM) not fooling anybody" when talking of their "new" minivans. Don't really know how there sales are going so far.
"My point was that when SUV collides with minivan...the bigger heavier SUV wins...that comes from the Statistics of Scientific Inquieres."
It depends on the nature of the collision. A while back, I saw a small car (Corolla, i believe) T-boned a Tahoe or Suburban at an intersection and the large SUV flipped over!! High CG was obviously the reason.
It was very comical scene to see "David slay Goliath"
GM is trying to fool the general minivan buying public by repackaging the previous Venture/Montana/ Sihouette to look like a SUV/Crossover vehicle. No major changes were done, not even the magic disappearing 3rd row seats that all others ave now. GM and Ford are the two laggards of the minivan manufacturers and have basically conceded defeat to the others.
And now they are so desperate to move vehicles that they are offerring employee discounts to the general public. No wonder.
yikes...I hope you are a nicer person than that statement seems to portray ....
most people buy what they want or need.....but I do not see how that evolves into being easily manipulated morons....(even if half serious)
Why buy the bavarian station wagon ? why ? why not a good old american car that will let the money stay in the US and work in the US ? Could it be the need to get the bavarian name plate ?
You would not caught me dead in an SUV.
If I caught you dead in an SUV, I would report you to the police, then wonder why you would be manipulated into bavarian cars instead of SUVs... ?
The heavy steel in cars from the 50's,60's, 70's would hold up very well if wrecked into a car from todays thin metal and accordian like frames. The problem being the cars from 50's &60's were running into each other...with the occupant bearing a lot of the force from the collision.
correct on both accounts...that is why many SUVs today have crumple zones and seat belts and airbags and traction control and stability control...etc...
they would stand up better in collision, in general, compared to many other cars....
Keeping with the topic at hand though....a SUV would be much safer in a collision with a minivan....though not as safe in a collision against a stationary object i.e tree, brick wall...moving train
hmm...you could be right , or wrong.....depending on the dynamics...but I think in general, I would rather be in a SUV , rather than many of the other vehicles out there, when being hit by another car, moving train, or hitting a brick wall...
Of course, the notion of gaining safety by stealing the crumple zones of your potential collision partner leaves a bit to be desired on the ethical front, but hey, ethics have lost their cachet in the USA of late :=)
It has been pointed out to this poster , that the US, Dept of Transportation, NHTSA, IIHS, Geico , American Automobile Association, etc, that buying a larger vehicle is in general, safer than buying a smaller one. All the traffic scientists from these agencies give these recommendations.
To say that all these agencies are unethical is disingenuous....and advising people against buying for safety ...is in and of itself probably unethical and most likely wrong also.
someone: "Though that does not take into an account that in a better handling vehicle you are less likely to get into collision in the first place. "
That may be offset by the drivers of better handling vehicles taking greater chances!
correct....better handling vehicles normally have higher insurance rates...and its not because of the value of the car, but the potential for damage...
""My point was that when SUV collides with minivan...the bigger heavier SUV wins...that comes from the Statistics of Scientific Inquieres." "
It depends on the nature of the collision. A while back, I saw a small car (Corolla, i believe) T-boned a Tahoe or Suburban at an intersection and the large SUV flipped over!! High CG was obviously the reason.
I witnessed one where a camry hit a blazer on the side, and it flipped over...
but those instances are rarer , ...in most situations , the heavier , more sturdy vehicle will win. With the newer SUVs.....the safety should improve even more.
It was very comical scene to see "David slay Goliath"
No....it was sad to see an accident. I got out and helped both parties. The lady in the Camry had to be taken to the hospital, but the flipped over blazer driver just climbed out and was fine....no hospital visit. I stayed and gave my observations to the police. The blazer had to be flipped up right, but was driveable.....the camry had to be towed....
Rear ending a semi truck is not advisable for smaller sedans. I have read many accounts of this happening and the sedan going under the rear trailer and the driver being decapitated. Didn't this use to happen with the larger SUV with the high front ends? On head on collisions the smaller sedans would pretty much get rolled over. Now the front and rear bumpers on SUVs are set lower. :sick:
...that is why many SUVs today have crumple zones and seat belts and airbags and traction control and stability control...etc...
You miss the point. SUV crumple zones are less effective, system-wise, than car-based vehicles. They are much closer to those old vehicles (stiff framed).
...they would stand up better in collision...
Only because they steal the crumple zones of car-based vehicles, which is their most likely collision partner. To the severe detriment of the car occupants.
...the US, Dept of Transportation, NHTSA, IIHS, Geico , American Automobile Association, etc, that buying a larger vehicle is in general, safer than buying a smaller one.
Anyone considering the stats would have to concur, but this has nothing to do with my claim that seeking safety via truck-wrapping is unethical. None of those sources were considering ethics. You know this, of course, since we have covered this ground before, but you choose (once again) to ignore it.
To say that all these agencies are unethical is disingenuous...
Correct, so don't repeat this misrepresentation of my POV.
Why buy the bavarian station wagon ? why ? why not a good old american car that will let the money stay in the US and work in the US ? Could it be the need to get the bavarian name plate ?
hi Highender, how are you doing?
How's that Porche Cayenne of yours doing? *snicker, snicker*
Do you live by the motto "do as I say, not as I do" ?
Time for a minivan soon, eh? (listen to your wife, lol).
ah, flippety floppity floo! I don't like hosts that lurk. :-)
I still think a minivan is overkill for a family of three. My wife is worried about the size of a minivan and her friends are telling her to get one....but all of her friends have 2-3 kids each so I'm taking their advice with a grain of salt. She also refuses to get an SUV because of the size (I'm not arguing with her on that one)
There seems to be a void between the car lengths of 170 inches and 200 inches....not much to choose from, if any, in that size.
I'm waiting and watching to see if the Ford Freestyle will implode or not. I really like it's versatility but am wary of the CVT.
lol, we see all and know all. And hey, a MV has worked great for my family of two for the last 15 years. As you know, the Ford Freestyle fans are pretty enthusiastic about their rides.
Do you live by the motto "do as I say, not as I do" ?
Scooby dooby doo...more flashbacks :=)
Hey, a dad, huh? Congrats!
As for the MV thing, as a fellow RSX owner, (I assume it's still your ride), I remind you that a hatchback is just a mini MV (M2V?) So get another one for your better half!
I don't like hosts that lurk
lol. Isn't that like not liking politicians that make promises?
steve: I keep telling myself that the extra space of the minivan would be great for my home projects, but all the minvans are so darn big!....well, compared to an Impreza and RSX that is. They all seem to get poor gas mileage and I can't justify that size vehicle for one little guy (baby nitromax) I was eyeing that new mazda Mazda5 minvan (smaller than most minivans, a manual shift auto so I coul dstill play a little when not in the RSX) but it seems to have a mediocre engine for that size vehicle (2.4 litre 4 cyl)
Sailor: The RSX is staying in the family. (silent woo hoo) The wife needs something bigger than her current Impreza. My list includes the Mazda6 wagon, Volvo V50, Ford Freestyle, and Toyota Sienna (I hear the handling of the Sienna is close to RSX like... :-)...ok, NOT...but better than the other bigguns)
Of course you are right; mine were/are shorter wheelbase flavors and not too wide either. It's still a tight fit into the garage. The wagon just isn't as versatile though.
You miss the point. SUV crumple zones are less effective, system-wise, than car-based vehicles.
Nope...they are effective, cause they do their job...protecting the occupants inside. Crumpling more will make it more likely for the intrusion to injure the occupants. See my real life example about the camry hitting the blazer...
Only because they steal the crumple zones of car-based vehicles, which is their most likely collision partner.
LOL.......it was also pointed out to you that cars and SUVs and people did not do any "stealing " when an accident occurs. THe weaker vehicle will suffer more in a collision, pure and simple. If you choose to ride your bike, and our good friend harle wants to be in his Hyundai (because he says he is done with downsizing, and wants some protection), and harle hits you, is he stealing your safety ??? No...it is your own lack of safety, that caused you to be more injured than he would be ..... Of course, I still ride...but do try to ride in the rightmost side of the right lanes....
that is why the agencies below suggested car wrapping with more weight......the US, Dept of Transportation, NHTSA, IIHS, Geico , American Automobile Association, etc, that buying a larger vehicle is in general, safer than buying a smaller one.
Anyone considering the stats would have to concur,
glad you finally see this.....
but this has nothing to do with my claim that seeking safety via truck-wrapping is unethical.
oops....guess not. YOU are responsible for your own choices....not others. You can make all the claims you want, but they are not supported by common sense, reality, nor any practical measures. I can see that maybe adding battering rams and machine guns and offensively eliminating any vehicles that come too close to you may be considered unethical.... ....but not driving a larger vehicle for safety.
None of those sources were considering ethics.
are you seriously suggesting that all those people, scientists, managers, project engineers, etc....All those thousands of people, were not considering ethics when they made those recommendations ? are you serious ? I would think they got together, looked at the evidence, and saw that they had a duty to inform the driving public, and the communities at large, what would be the best way to purchase a safer vehicle. ( hey, that is what they did......) And along with seat belts, traction control, etc...they felt compelled to add the need to consider extra weight and size....for safety's sake......... They may have left it out if it were ambiguous, but they may have had families, and thought it thier moral duty to include it ....which they did. (they did leave out the sporty driving part.)..
You know this, of course, since we have covered this ground before, but you choose (once again) to ignore it.
Yes....you know this, of course...and you can verify it by asking any trooper in your state......but once again, you may choose to ignore this and continue to advise people to buy smaller vehicles, when the opposite is true.
me: To say that all these agencies are unethical is disengenuous
you: Correct, so don't repeat this misrepresentation of my POV.
me: SO you agree that calling the agencies unethical is disengenuous....good ! I think they took fully into account size....and made the recommendations. Of course, it may not be politically correct, due to the Iraq war, and gas prices...but it is still the truth. I did not intend to misrepresent your POV, and if I did, I apologize.....
Your POV is : " It is unethical for people to gain safety by buying larger , heavier vehicles"
All of the above agencies,( who are composed of people who have families of their own , I bet), made those recommendations....which is entirely opposite of yours. Now if even one family on edmunds listens to your recommendation, and buys a smaller car , and gets family members injured, then would that be ethical ?
I don't advocate all people to buy SUV or minivans....but just to consider size of vehicle when making a purchase, since that willl have an effect on safety.
good to spar with you again, sails.....hope you do keep up biking....
Why buy the bavarian station wagon ? why ? why not a good old american car that will let the money stay in the US and work in the US ? Could it be the need to get the bavarian name plate ?
Mostly, because it is a better car and I can afford it.
Partially, because it is more patriotic for me, given where I am from.
You missed the sarcasm on the manipulated morons part. It was more then a half of it.
I am getting ready to move ...have been using both suburban and cay to move all the stuff we have. We used to have to drive the kids to the new school , which is about 20 miles away.,,, but with traffic its more like 35 minutes....round trip twice a day ...and it adds up. Moving this FRI, 10th.....got the movers, 5 guys, and our own vehicles....so our new house is only 0.2 miles away, and walking its only 15 min.....so saves lots of gas and time.
I never said they weren't effective in some context. I pointed out the context in which they weren't...which you ignored.
...people did not do any "stealing "...
Well, if you say so, of course! Who is the car's crumple zone protecting...the one that owns it? Or the SUV owner that doesn't? Sounds like stealing to me!
YOU are responsible for your own choices...
Exactly, and the SUV owner is responsible for his/her choice and the consequences. If not legally, then ethically.
I'm going to stop here, since a) this isn't really on topic and b) you aren't really interested in an objective discussion.
MVs, the ethical choice for those that need more room, but don't really need an SUV. Save gas, reduce emissions and save some lives.
I never said they weren't effective in some context. I pointed out the context in which they weren't...which you ignored.
sure, in some contexts , the crumple zones of cars are too much for other cars, or too much for mopeds, or .....you choose not to see it...huh ?
There are many cars with strong crumple zones....even stronger ones than many SUVs......
Well, if you say so, of course! Who is the car's crumple zone protecting...the one that owns it? Or the SUV owner that doesn't? Sounds like stealing to me!
the cars with the stronger , more protective structures will protect their own occupants more. It is really elementary.
Exactly, and the SUV owner is responsible for his/her choice and the consequences. If not legally, then ethically.
exactly...SUV owners are happy with thier vehicles...it is you who are not happy with your own choice, or other people's choices. If the SUV owner does something illegal, then they will have to pay the price. Likewise car owners. Ethically speaking, the teen racers with many tickets should not even be on the roads.... And it is unethical to advise car buyers to not consider size or type of vehicle, where safety is concerned.
I'm going to stop here, since a) this isn't really on topic
FIne .....as long as know that what you are suggesting to others can be construed as unethical, since you know that size of vehicle does impact on safety. This is supported by stats and by your own admission.
and b) you aren't really interested in an objective discussion.
actually, I am really interested in being objective. I do try to rein in extremist , kneejerk views of others , which do not stand up to scrutiny, with counterpoints. Calling people who buy vehicles for safety 'unethical ' is one such extreme. I have spoken face to face with numerous people from all walks of life, and none .....NOT one, agrees with your chant. ( OK...maybe a few who congregate here do.... )
MVs, the ethical choice for those that need more room, but don't really need an SUV.
not really....All people can do some downsizing, if they really want to. Some people just say they need to room...but can do with a moped..... MV are great and versatile...but in my opinion, they are not as versatile as SUVs...for those who need them. The ethical thing to do is to drive safely, defensively, smartly.
Save gas, reduce emissions and save some lives.
You can save gas by driving less, driving slowly., driving defensively. If you are really interested in saving gas...get a PRIUS....
IT is not the vehicle , but the driver who cannot control the vehicle. Try to be objective about that....
i always loved the assumption that any suv/'other' collision was the fault of the suv.
Apparently, you've forgotten the infamous and now defunct "I don't like SUVs, why do you?" discussion where it was a given that SUVers could do no wrong!
If memory serves me correctly, Highender himself led the charge!
I think you should take the IDLSWDY discussion and turn it into a book. It would make a good read.....drama, humor, bravado, and even a little (ok a lot) of censorship. :-)
...a little bit of pruning going on to make it more palatable for the masses.
Hmmm, methinks revisionism is winking at us! First, what masses?!??? After being banned from eligibility from the top ten, the "mass" was minimal :=) And as for motivation, well....nice weather we're having, isn't it?
Oh well, I have so much more time for other things now.
Comments
I tried to have the one in my wife's Honda Civic disconnected
And some people say that Darwin's laws are not well proven.
Keeping with the topic at hand though....a SUV would be much safer in a collision with a minivan....though not as safe in a collision against a stationary object i.e tree, brick wall...moving train.
Correct on both counts. Of course, the notion of gaining safety by stealing the crumple zones of your potential collision partner leaves a bit to be desired on the ethical front, but hey, ethics have lost their cachet in the USA of late :=)
Just thought I'd give some folks flashbacks ;-)
Hey look Moe, a flock of toitles!
nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
:-)
tidester, host
Statistics of insurance carriers (the only version of truth that we have, the rest is pure speculation and hand waving) disagrees. Both in 2 car and single car collisions, you are more likely to die in an SUV, and least likely to die in a minivan.
Though that does not take into an account that in a better handling vehicle you are less likely to get into collision in the first place. But I will take that as a bonus.
That may be offset by the drivers of better handling vehicles taking greater chances!
tidester, host
My point was that when SUV collides with minivan...the bigger heavier SUV wins...that comes from the Statistics of Scientific Inquieres.
Statistics don't always tell the whole story.
Haven't even seen one. Or if I did, I must have thought it an SUV
It depends on the nature of the collision. A while back, I saw a small car (Corolla, i believe) T-boned a Tahoe or Suburban at an intersection and the large SUV flipped over!! High CG was obviously the reason.
It was very comical scene to see "David slay Goliath"
And now they are so desperate to move vehicles that they are offerring employee discounts to the general public. No wonder.
yikes...I hope you are a nicer person than that statement seems to portray ....
most people buy what they want or need.....but I do not see how that evolves into being easily manipulated morons....(even if half serious)
Why buy the bavarian station wagon ? why ? why not a good old american car that will let the money stay in the US and work in the US ? Could it be the need to get the bavarian name plate ?
You would not caught me dead in an SUV.
If I caught you dead in an SUV, I would report you to the police, then wonder why you would be manipulated into bavarian cars instead of SUVs... ?
correct on both accounts...that is why many SUVs today have crumple zones and seat belts and airbags and traction control and stability control...etc...
they would stand up better in collision, in general, compared to many other cars....
Keeping with the topic at hand though....a SUV would be much safer in a collision with a minivan....though not as safe in a collision against a stationary object i.e tree, brick wall...moving train
hmm...you could be right , or wrong.....depending on the dynamics...but I think in general, I would rather be in a SUV , rather than many of the other vehicles out there, when being hit by another car, moving train, or hitting a brick wall...
It has been pointed out to this poster , that the US, Dept of Transportation, NHTSA, IIHS, Geico , American Automobile Association, etc, that buying a larger vehicle is in general, safer than buying a smaller one.
All the traffic scientists from these agencies give these recommendations.
To say that all these agencies are unethical is disingenuous....and advising people against buying for safety ...is in and of itself probably unethical and most likely wrong also.
HEY...we are back...
That may be offset by the drivers of better handling vehicles taking greater chances!
correct....better handling vehicles normally have higher insurance rates...and its not because of the value of the car, but the potential for damage...
It depends on the nature of the collision. A while back, I saw a small car (Corolla, i believe) T-boned a Tahoe or Suburban at an intersection and the large SUV flipped over!! High CG was obviously the reason.
I witnessed one where a camry hit a blazer on the side, and it flipped over...
but those instances are rarer , ...in most situations , the heavier , more sturdy vehicle will win. With the newer SUVs.....the safety should improve even more.
It was very comical scene to see "David slay Goliath"
No....it was sad to see an accident. I got out and helped both parties. The lady in the Camry had to be taken to the hospital, but the flipped over blazer driver just climbed out and was fine....no hospital visit. I stayed and gave my observations to the police. The blazer had to be flipped up right, but was driveable.....the camry had to be towed....
You miss the point. SUV crumple zones are less effective, system-wise, than car-based vehicles. They are much closer to those old vehicles (stiff framed).
...they would stand up better in collision...
Only because they steal the crumple zones of car-based vehicles, which is their most likely collision partner. To the severe detriment of the car occupants.
...the US, Dept of Transportation, NHTSA, IIHS, Geico , American Automobile Association, etc, that buying a larger vehicle is in general, safer than buying a smaller one.
Anyone considering the stats would have to concur, but this has nothing to do with my claim that seeking safety via truck-wrapping is unethical. None of those sources were considering ethics. You know this, of course, since we have covered this ground before, but you choose (once again) to ignore it.
To say that all these agencies are unethical is disingenuous...
Correct, so don't repeat this misrepresentation of my POV.
hi Highender, how are you doing?
How's that Porche Cayenne of yours doing?
*snicker, snicker*
Do you live by the motto "do as I say, not as I do" ?
:-)
Congrats on the new kiddo.
Time for a minivan soon, eh? (listen to your wife, lol).
Steve, Host
Time for a minivan soon, eh? (listen to your wife, lol).
ah, flippety floppity floo!
I don't like hosts that lurk.
:-)
I still think a minivan is overkill for a family of three. My wife is worried about the size of a minivan and her friends are telling her to get one....but all of her friends have 2-3 kids each so I'm taking their advice with a grain of salt.
She also refuses to get an SUV because of the size (I'm not arguing with her on that one)
There seems to be a void between the car lengths of 170 inches and 200 inches....not much to choose from, if any, in that size.
I'm waiting and watching to see if the Ford Freestyle will implode or not. I really like it's versatility but am wary of the CVT.
lol, we see all and know all. And hey, a MV has worked great for my family of two for the last 15 years. As you know, the Ford Freestyle fans are pretty enthusiastic about their rides.
Steve, Host
Scooby dooby doo...more flashbacks :=)
Hey, a dad, huh? Congrats!
As for the MV thing, as a fellow RSX owner, (I assume it's still your ride), I remind you that a hatchback is just a mini MV (M2V?) So get another one for your better half!
I don't like hosts that lurk
lol. Isn't that like not liking politicians that make promises?
I keep telling myself that the extra space of the minivan would be great for my home projects, but all the minvans are so darn big!....well, compared to an Impreza and RSX that is. They all seem to get poor gas mileage and I can't justify that size vehicle for one little guy (baby nitromax)
I was eyeing that new mazda Mazda5 minvan (smaller than most minivans, a manual shift auto so I coul dstill play a little when not in the RSX) but it seems to have a mediocre engine for that size vehicle (2.4 litre 4 cyl)
Sailor:
The RSX is staying in the family. (silent woo hoo)
The wife needs something bigger than her current Impreza. My list includes the Mazda6 wagon, Volvo V50, Ford Freestyle, and Toyota Sienna (I hear the handling of the Sienna is close to RSX like... :-)...ok, NOT...but better than the other bigguns)
Of course you are right; mine were/are shorter wheelbase flavors and not too wide either. It's still a tight fit into the garage. The wagon just isn't as versatile though.
Steve, Host
By definition, lurkers make no promises and post no messages!
tidester, host
My point exactly...snicker
just pointing out the funny way the guy called others morons, but also follows in his own way... ...
I live by the motto : practice what you preach....and live and let live.... ( but you already know me .....)
therefore the SUV, and MV, and others.... :P
take care, and talk to you soon....
Nope...they are effective, cause they do their job...protecting the occupants inside. Crumpling more will make it more likely for the intrusion to injure the occupants. See my real life example about the camry hitting the blazer...
Only because they steal the crumple zones of car-based vehicles, which is their most likely collision partner.
LOL.......it was also pointed out to you that cars and SUVs and people did not do any "stealing " when an accident occurs. THe weaker vehicle will suffer more in a collision, pure and simple. If you choose to ride your bike, and our good friend harle wants to be in his Hyundai (because he says he is done with downsizing, and wants some protection), and harle hits you, is he stealing your safety ???
No...it is your own lack of safety, that caused you to be more injured than he would be ..... Of course, I still ride...but do try to ride in the rightmost side of the right lanes....
that is why the agencies below suggested car wrapping with more weight......the US, Dept of Transportation, NHTSA, IIHS, Geico , American Automobile Association, etc, that buying a larger vehicle is in general, safer than buying a smaller one.
Anyone considering the stats would have to concur,
glad you finally see this.....
but this has nothing to do with my claim that seeking safety via truck-wrapping is unethical.
oops....guess not. YOU are responsible for your own choices....not others. You can make all the claims you want, but they are not supported by common sense, reality, nor any practical measures. I can see that maybe adding battering rams and machine guns and offensively eliminating any vehicles that come too close to you may be considered unethical....
None of those sources were considering ethics.
are you seriously suggesting that all those people, scientists, managers, project engineers, etc....All those thousands of people, were not considering ethics when they made those recommendations ? are you serious ? I would think they got together, looked at the evidence, and saw that they had a duty to inform the driving public, and the communities at large, what would be the best way to purchase a safer vehicle. ( hey, that is what they did......) And along with seat belts, traction control, etc...they felt compelled to add the need to consider extra weight and size....for safety's sake......... They may have left it out if it were ambiguous, but they may have had families, and thought it thier moral duty to include it ....which they did. (they did leave out the sporty driving part.)..
You know this, of course, since we have covered this ground before, but you choose (once again) to ignore it.
Yes....you know this, of course...and you can verify it by asking any trooper in your state......but once again, you may choose to ignore this and continue to advise people to buy smaller vehicles, when the opposite is true.
me: To say that all these agencies are unethical is disengenuous
you: Correct, so don't repeat this misrepresentation of my POV.
me: SO you agree that calling the agencies unethical is disengenuous....good !
I think they took fully into account size....and made the recommendations. Of course, it may not be politically correct, due to the Iraq war, and gas prices...but it is still the truth. I did not intend to misrepresent your POV, and if I did, I apologize.....
Your POV is : " It is unethical for people to gain safety by buying larger , heavier vehicles"
All of the above agencies,( who are composed of people who have families of their own , I bet), made those recommendations....which is entirely opposite of yours. Now if even one family on edmunds listens to your recommendation, and buys a smaller car , and gets family members injured, then would that be ethical ?
I don't advocate all people to buy SUV or minivans....but just to consider size of vehicle when making a purchase, since that willl have an effect on safety.
good to spar with you again, sails.....hope you do keep up biking....
We'll have to hide those archives - it appears some people are copying and pasting from them!
tidester, host
Mostly, because it is a better car and I can afford it.
Partially, because it is more patriotic for me, given where I am from.
You missed the sarcasm on the manipulated morons part. It was more then a half of it.
got it....just injecting a little diff point of view.
I have cars from diff countries too.
Even Liepzig.....
How goes it ? Hope all is well.
I am getting ready to move ...have been using both suburban and cay to move all the stuff we have. We used to have to drive the kids to the new school , which is about 20 miles away.,,, but with traffic its more like 35 minutes....round trip twice a day ...and it adds up. Moving this FRI, 10th.....got the movers, 5 guys, and our own vehicles....so our new house is only 0.2 miles away, and walking its only 15 min.....so saves lots of gas and time.
Have fun with what you are driving...
I never said they weren't effective in some context. I pointed out the context in which they weren't...which you ignored.
...people did not do any "stealing "...
Well, if you say so, of course! Who is the car's crumple zone protecting...the one that owns it? Or the SUV owner that doesn't? Sounds like stealing to me!
YOU are responsible for your own choices...
Exactly, and the SUV owner is responsible for his/her choice and the consequences. If not legally, then ethically.
I'm going to stop here, since a) this isn't really on topic and b) you aren't really interested in an objective discussion.
MVs, the ethical choice for those that need more room, but don't really need an SUV. Save gas, reduce emissions and save some lives.
Hmmmm
tidester/highender, IDLSWDY/60565:
H:if a tree falls with no one looking/hearing, does it make a sound ?
T:Precisely how would you know the tree falls?
H:what would you say is the cause of most accidents....
T:Obviously, it's those stealthy trees that no one can see or hear!
tidester, host
*************************
tidester, to me:
Details, details!!
tidester, host
*************************
Say goodnight, Gracie!
But politician lurkers are just taking a rest from promising.
The obtuse meter is redlining :=)
Good night, Gracie!
tidester, host
sure, in some contexts , the crumple zones of cars are too much for other cars, or too much for mopeds, or .....you choose not to see it...huh ?
There are many cars with strong crumple zones....even stronger ones than many SUVs......
Well, if you say so, of course! Who is the car's crumple zone protecting...the one that owns it? Or the SUV owner that doesn't? Sounds like stealing to me!
the cars with the stronger , more protective structures will protect their own occupants more. It is really elementary.
Exactly, and the SUV owner is responsible for his/her choice and the consequences. If not legally, then ethically.
exactly...SUV owners are happy with thier vehicles...it is you who are not happy with your own choice, or other people's choices. If the SUV owner does something illegal, then they will have to pay the price. Likewise car owners. Ethically speaking, the teen racers with many tickets should not even be on the roads.... And it is unethical to advise car buyers to not consider size or type of vehicle, where safety is concerned.
I'm going to stop here, since a) this isn't really on topic
FIne .....as long as know that what you are suggesting to others can be construed as unethical, since you know that size of vehicle does impact on safety. This is supported by stats and by your own admission.
and b) you aren't really interested in an objective discussion.
actually, I am really interested in being objective. I do try to rein in extremist , kneejerk views of others , which do not stand up to scrutiny, with counterpoints. Calling people who buy vehicles for safety 'unethical ' is one such extreme. I have spoken face to face with numerous people from all walks of life, and none .....NOT one, agrees with your chant. ( OK...maybe a few who congregate here do....
MVs, the ethical choice for those that need more room, but don't really need an SUV.
not really....All people can do some downsizing, if they really want to. Some people just say they need to room...but can do with a moped..... MV are great and versatile...but in my opinion, they are not as versatile as SUVs...for those who need them. The ethical thing to do is to drive safely, defensively, smartly.
Save gas, reduce emissions and save some lives.
You can save gas by driving less, driving slowly., driving defensively. If you are really interested in saving gas...get a PRIUS....
IT is not the vehicle , but the driver who cannot control the vehicle. Try to be objective about that....
or do you see a killer in every SUV !!??
Apparently, you've forgotten the infamous and now defunct "I don't like SUVs, why do you?" discussion where it was a given that SUVers could do no wrong!
If memory serves me correctly, Highender himself led the charge!
tidester, host
Not exactly, we have weight limits on the bridges you know.
How's the minivan running High?
(yeah, it's great to see you too and let's all reflect on the topic of this discussion, LOL).
Gosh, I hope that's the case!
tidester, host
:-)
Steve, Host
and don't forget Sadie Hawkins day. LOL
ah, memories
Steve, Host
Hmmm, methinks revisionism is winking at us! First, what masses?!??? After being banned from eligibility from the top ten, the "mass" was minimal :=) And as for motivation, well....nice weather we're having, isn't it?
Oh well, I have so much more time for other things now.
hehe