I kinda worded it that way on purpose. She obviously isn't thinking she's increasing the risk of harm to other people, but she is.

Everyone comes to their own answer when trying to balance their own good versus the good of others. Where you place your flag defines your morality.

Here's an analogy. Lets say I hate walking on crowded city streets. So I buy a pitbull to protect me. Hey, I'm just doing what it takes to protect me and my family from some undefined dangers! So what if my pitbull attacks other people? That's their tough luck, they should also buy pitbulls to protect themselves.

 

Picked the wrong topic to bring up with me: "Pitbulls". I owned for 13 wonderful years a dog most would call a "Pitbull". He was an American Staffishire Terrier, a verified show breed registered with the American Kennel Club. They are an awesome breed, with the first of which being the original Petey from the Little Rascals, who are extremely loyal and who are very fond of children. Now this dog never hurt anyone who didn't try to attack him, only one other dog (a Chow) tried and my dog was only 6 months old and note he did not kill it. What you see is a weapon capable of tearing a mans arm off or clamping on a bulls throat and killing it within minutes. Yes this is all true my dog COULD do all that but he didn't. A dog isn't a weapon just like a vehicle isn't a weapon unless it is used like one.

[rant]
I get sick and tired of people blaming a dog attack on a "Pittbull." German Shepards, and other large powerful dogs, are responsible for just as many dog bites as "Pittbulls" are and you don't hear those making national coverage, but as soon as you say "Pitbull" people start to spread the word.
[/rant]

P.S. -My dogs neck was 22" around and his head where his biting muscles were was 24" around and he stood 23.5" at the shoulders. The worst would he ever gave me was when his fat but sat on my leg to get his necked rubbed. I will always remember that dog he was like another brother to me (goodbye El Diablo Hombre).

 

So... deaths per million miles is a small statistic.

I'll make a note.


You're more likely to survive an accident in a Cadillac DeVille than you are a Volkswagon Passat or a Nissan passenger car.... ask yourself "why"? Starting to see the point? Mass and crush space are tied for #2 in the "most important safety feature" department after seat belts.



1) You can't provide data.

2) The suitability of a vehicle to protect occupants in an accident is in no way dependant on driving habits. It is a purely technical issue.


Wrong. Crush space is the #1 issue in hitting a rigid body. Were you paying attention?



Ummmm... you're talking hypotheses, I'm talking theory. There's a difference.

Second, you attempted to claim the moral high ground by stating that folks who drove large and heavy vehicles were irresponsibly endangering those around them.

I happen to believe that folks who drive small vehicles are irresponsibly endangering themselves and their loved ones/passengers and aren't too bright since the physics is easy to understand. "Self-evident" might be a better word.


This is no pissing war, you're unarmed.

All you have behind your point is the hysterical blatherings of media mouthpieces and semi-retarded car magazine writers coupled with a flawed understanding of the physical model of vehicle impact dynamics. You've chosen to have a technical argument with a degreed engineer with 12 years of experience in safety systems in various parts of literally millions of automobiles, and then... to top it off... you attempted to make it an issue of MORALITY.

Now, I can keep this as civil as the next guy, but let's drop the morality argument right now.


If the fact that me strapping my children into a +4000lbs. vehicle offends you... well, I was going to apologize... but that doesn't make any sense.

IF the size of my vehicle protects my children and happens to kill someone who wasn't smart enough to buy a safe (i.e. BIG) car, so be it.


Thankfully, ours has not. You are your responsibility. Not mine.



I have no desire to have an exceptionally expensive private engineering college named after me.

A night school would be nice... but I don't see it happening.


So, when did you aquire the ability to divine people's intentions? Did the thought ever occur to you that her reasoning may simply be that the vehicle makes her and her own safer?

When did you become the arbiter of morality? Why is it somehow morally less desireable to buy the safest vehicle possible to protect those who you are responsible for?


Right. You're just saying it is morally reprehensible to buy a large vehicle to protect your family.

Gotcha.


How about I just buy a K3500 because I want it? WHY I want to buy it, or the purpose in owning it, is quite simply none of your darned business, so take you holier-than-thou judgementalism elsewhere.

YOU will NOT dictate what vehicle I choose to buy, for WHATEVER reason I choose to buy it. IF I want to buy it because I simply like massive vehicles, that's my entirely personal choice - and neither you or Arianna Huffington are going to stop me.


1) The reasoning is NOT flawed, the data backs it up. Fork over data.

2) Your view of ethics is the only thing I see that is questionable here.

 

all i have to say is....NO DUH!!!!! why do you think them rich folk drive all dim 6000lb suv's?

 

i'd say moms in minivans are more dangerous.
you ever see one of them behind the wheel?!

 

This is exactly why I hope market forces eventually make it painful to own an SUV. I don't think this kind of selfish attitude is going to go away.

I really don't feel like I should have to buy a 7,000lb SUV and waste all the extra nonrenewable resources associated with manufacturing it, owning it, and retiring it at the end of it's life. I would also like to reduce dependance on mid-east oil and decrease the odds that my children will have to fight in a war there.

Sure, I care about safety for my family, but I'd rather do it with non-selfish safety enhancements that don't come at the expense of others. Some that help me: Airbags, Side Airbags, Door Beams, Reinforced Roofs, Antilock brakes Traction Control and other things. and some that help both me and others: Like Stability Control.

Forget about small cars. I'd like to feel safe in a 3500lb car.

 

I think we should all drive M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It's nine seat capacity is very handy for carpoolers and soccer moms. And safety is it's middle name...with it's welded aluminum and composite armor. An applique supplemental armored tile system is optional.

Sure..at 25 tons it's abit hefty, but it's 600 horse turbo-diesel moves it out pretty smartly.

At any rate...no sense taking chances....just clear a swath through traffic with 200 rounds per minute of high explosive or armor piercing rounds from the turret mounted 25 mm "Bushmaster" chain gun . Two, ready to fire, TOW missiles (not including reloads) are also provided for those real jerkwads. I just wish it came in more colors, other than just olive drab and desert sand though.


Why would anyone want to bother with those puney, wimpy, fullsized SUV's?

 

Ditto that. I'm beginning to find the "I gotsta gets me mine" attitude quite loathsome. I'm not suggesting that we sit in a circle, roll a fat one, and sing Kumbaya, but a little courtesy for your fellow man now and then would be great.

But, the best defense is a great offense, right?

 

Just a quick question....Are you a sadistic person?

I think R377 is looking at it this way, why should the rest of the world be forced into buying big trucks/SUVs to protect themselves (...and their families) just because 100 million soccer moms think their big truck is safer while unintentionally endangering the lives of everyone around them?

Its much like the situation w/ guns. You have a weapon that can kill fairly easily but is suppose to protect you. If these fall into the wrong hands, then we have a problem.

I'm sure Mrs. Jones is only getting her SUV for good intentions, but shes putting others around her in a hell of a lot more danger than she would have if she just bought a full-size car. At least thats what the facts of statistics tells us....

 

I read an article about this..and at the end, it made a good point.. This study didn't take in consderation about safety designs..


I guess if I had baby, my favorite gut pick for safety would be to put the child right in the middle of a Suburban or HD crew cab truck.. But also, I'd make sure that I'd drive it appriately for its size and weight, and not get myself distracted..

It irks me when I see parents take their eyes off the road to take care of their baby in the back seat...


Personally, my 2nd vehicle choice will either be a truck or a mid to full sized car.. 2500HD if I plan to use it to occasionally haul my future toys around (but would be a pain to drive around)... or a 94-96 Impala SS (always wanted one).. or a Sub Legacy Sedan with turbo (assuming it comes to the US, and its roomy enough).. or whatever other mid-full sized sedan that goes for $25k..