Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (48793)	10/2/2002 1:26:55 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Way OT (sorry all), but the notion that SUVs are safer is a complete myth. A few reasons why are here: poseur.4x4.org An SUV will come out on top in a collision with a smaller car. On the other hand, it is far easier to roll and has a vastly inferior braking distance. The extra weight, especially at speed, gives momentum which makes loss of control easier, especially on slick surfaces. Most important, almost all SUVs have rigid frames, based on pickup truck designs, that are much more likely to cause injury to occupants in a single-vehicle crash (hitting a tree, post, etc.) than made-to-crumple car frames. Worth looking at this as well: The rollover phenomenon is not new. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, along with the Center for Auto Safety and the Safety First Coalition, first reported serious rollover concerns with a small SUV model, the Suzuki Samurai, in 1988. In 1997, Consumers Union reported that the Isuzu Trooper, Acura SLX, Suzuki Samurai and Ford Bronco II had "shown a significant tendency to tip." Since 1988, Consumers Union has tried to get the government safety agency, NHTSA, to investigate certain SUV models and issue rollover standards for cars and SUVs. NHTSA began to do so, but abandoned efforts to make a universal rollover standard in 1994 concluding that such a standard would require a redesign of nearly all SUVs, vans and pick-up trucks. NHTSA reasoned that the cost for this redesign would be too high. (4) Technical Services, a forensic engineering firm based in Portland Oregon and Chicago Illinois, has published a short case study of the Ford Bronco II's rollover problems on its website. Technical Services writes: "The Bronco II has a 'handling' problem like many other of the small sport utility vehicles. It does friction rollovers on the highway. A friction rollover occurs when the cornering forces - tire friction forces - generated by the driver's steering input becomes high enough to cause the vehicle to rotate around its longitudinal axis and lift the tires off the ground. Most passenger vehicles cannot rollover in this way, although they can rollover as a result of wheel trip when the sliding wheel is blocked by a curb or some other impediment." (5) In other words, if the driver steers to hard, the SUV can tip over. SUVs do not have to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. The double standard exists due to arcane federal rules classifying SUVs as light trucks. Less rigid rules mean occupants of SUVs are not protected by the side-impact crash safety standards or strength requirements for bumpers required on standard passenger cars. According to The Truck, Van and 4x4 book, 1998 by Jack Gillis, the "newly adopted roof strength standard does not go far enough to effectively protect occupants in a rollover situation."(6) The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization for the insurance industry, has conducted crash tests of SUVs. The results have been mixed, at best. In a test designed to show how well vehicles protect the driver and passengers in a crash, midsized SUVs were given a rating of "good", "acceptable", "marginal" or "poor". None of the 13 SUVs tested was rated "good." Five were rated as "acceptable," three as "marginal," and five as "poor." Popular models including the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Nissan Pathfinder earned "marginal" ratings. "Poor" ratings went to models such as the Chevy Blazer, GMC Jimmy and the Isuzu Rodeo. The tests measured how well head restraints and bumpers performed and damage to the vehicle's structure. In addition, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety looked at driver death rates. The largest SUVs had fewer driver deaths than average. However mid-sized and smaller SUVs - like the Nissan Pathfinder, Suzuki Sidekick, and Jeep Wrangler - had driver death rates substantially higher than average. In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars.(7) The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has recently examined head restraint designs for cars and SUVs. Proper head restraints can lower the severity of whiplash injuries in an accident. In a May 1999 study, the Institute found only two models of SUVs - the Mitsubishi Montero and certain models of the Chevy Blazer - had head restraints that merited a "good" rating. Most were listed as "marginal" or "poor." (8)