NONE.

Best damned parking brake known to mankind.

Just ask the designer...

 

Good point, but would not a larger vehicle have more inherent energy absorption even if the specific crumple zones were not as comparatively large or "crumply"?

For example, a 1 foot long I beam would have a given amt of energy absorption...granted not much, but there is some. A 2 foot beam would have twice as much. Egro, a larger vehicle might not need as much in terms of specific crumple zones to absorb the same amt of energy, or even more energy.

But I suppose the larger vehicle slamming into the highway barrier will deliver more force to the barrier anyway. But the mass of the human body and its rate of deceleration are the same whether you hit the barrier at 60mph in a yugo or in a peterbilt. However, I'd rather be in the Peterbilt. There's just more "stuff" there to absorb impact, even if its not designed as a crumple zone per se.

 

I would tend to agree that the Peterbilt is a better vehicle. I work for them in the Madison, TN assembly plant so go buy a new Pete and keep me employed!

 

The problem is that these bigger vehicles do not have bigger crumple zones. What's on the market is what's on the market, and it'd be reasonable to assume there are more older trucks and SUVs in circulation without the recent precautions than newer, safer models. I would also look for continued improvements in passenger cars.

My source is the Bradsher book in my signature. I do not have it handy at the moment to note his sources.

 

I would compare it to running into a concrete wall with your arm straight out (as in a stiff-arm) versus running into a wall at the same speed with your arm slightly bent. Which is going to hurt more? Does it matter if you're 5'3" 110 or 6'3" 250?

 

'Nuf said.

Rebuttal time:



Some surprisingly clean facts about SUV's

Today's larger vehicles are much cleaner than their older counterparts





Tuesday, January 20, 2004
by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker


Are SUV's and light trucks a bane to Mother Earth and its inhabitants? Well ask your average environmentalist and you'll be told an emphatic "YES" – after which they will go on and on about how these behemoths of the automotive world are doing everything from increasing air pollution, causing injuries to motorists, and guzzling too much gasoline, among other things.

But are such charges against trucks and SUV's driving down the right side of the public interest road?

Well not according to the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, a 40,000 member organization dedicated to preserving consumer choice in automobile selection, which recently compiled a few compelling tidbits of information about trucks and SUV's in its latest report entitled "SUV'S: Allegations and Facts".

According to the report:
Light truck fuel efficiency has increased 55 percent since the 1970s. In fact, in many instances, today's light trucks and SUV's get better gas mileage than compact cars of the 1970s.

A Dodge Caravan minivan, for example, gets significantly better gas mileage than a 1978 VW Beetle. A 2WD Chevy Blazer SUV gets the same gas mileage as a 1995 Chevy Caprice - one of the last large station wagons (20 mpg).

Since the mid-‘70s when we were importing about 35 percent of our oil, the new car fleet average fuel economy has doubled from about 14 mpg to 28 mpg and light trucks have improved by 50 percent. Yet today, we import more than 56 percent of our oil from foreign sources – meaning that increasing the fuel efficiency of SUV's and light trucks has had little to do with U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

By 2004, many SUVs will be 99 percent cleaner than their 1960s counterparts in emissions that form ground level ozone, or smog (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides). By 2009, all SUVs will be 99 percent clean.

If safety is the highest priority for a driver, they should choose the vehicle type with the lowest overall fatality rate. According to The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), that vehicle type is the largest of the SUVs.

So the facts are clear. If you're in the market for a safe and environmentally friendly form of transportation, one good option -- contrary to much of what you hear -- is an SUV.

http://www.cfact.org/site/view_artic...&idarticle=233

 

serious? thats good to know..

 

One reader's evaluation (so as to not dismiss it as anti-SUV extremism):
Lowest overall fatality rate for their own occupants. What about those involved in accidents with them?

The opposite angle also has support [paraphrasing book]: "although seeming to be safer, the SUV has a poorer safety records both for their occupants and for the cars they hit - as recorded by the insurance agencies - than for regular mid sized cars."

But perhaps this recent story speaks loudest:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins.../A01-60827.htm

It appears the public is not as convinced the assumed practicality and safety large SUVs offer is worth the compromises.

 

I don't have to dismiss it as anti-SUV extremeism, it already has been.

Here's a good quote taken right from it describing SUV owners/drivers:

"They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities."

From the Detroit Free Press review of the book:

"That said, Bradsher faces a daunting task to convince the public that SUVs are a huge menace to society, when in fact, the overall rate of U.S. highway deaths has dropped by 50 percent since the mid-1980s, even as sales of SUVs jumped by 600 percent."

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

 

Define "public".... got a squirrel in yer pocket?

Watch the GM numbers go through the roof when the 900 launches.

 

Ah, the perfect misquote. Those were not his words, but that of a study group evaluating SUV buyers.

Your honor?

 

The public, as in those who buy cars.

 

He quotes and uses it in his argument, therefore he has entered it into evidence as his own.

The prosecution still rests.

 

I fail to see how that testifies to the safety of SUVs. Just how many new innovations have there been in cars safey in that time? Standard airbags, abs, traction control systems... That's a great statistic inspite of SUVs, not because of them.

 

Given the fact that the largest SUV manufacturer entered several new models into the market, while the largest SUV's are getting long in the tooth, I'd hold off on counting chickens for a couple of years...