Beagel, we’re not really taljking about CRV SUVs here, are we? I’ve been under the impression that this has been an attack on the larger asian and American SUVs. You raise very good points though.
Without researching for the next year I’ll tell you what I know.
Chevy- almost 100% same platform between the 1/2 ton trucks and the SUVs. Avalanche is probably the 'Burban platform, which is also that same platform as the Cadillac Escalade and whatever their Avalanche-like model is called.
AM General H2- Chevy Suburban/Tahoe platform
AM General H1- Completely different platform
Ford- Shared truck platform at one time, but I think is different now. I think the Excursion shares the F250-350 platform.
Jeep Cherokee- Shares Durango platform now.
Dodge Durango- See above. Not sure whether it’s the Dakota platform or not.
That’s what I know.
The car-like SUVs seem to me to be the safer of the bunch. Less power, less size. The ones above are all more truck-like, more powerful, much larger.
On your list, the one that really annoys me are the Hummers, and not because I am a pacifist. It’s the loophole, weight, and REALLY EXCEPTIONALLY bad stopping distances from high speeds that scare me. If an H2 is in your rearview, get out of the way to save your life.
Just off the top of my head, because it stuck from another thread long ago.
70-0 stopping H2: 244 ft.
70-0 stopping G35 Cpe: 160ish ft. (admittedly quite good)
That much of a disparity should mandate a warning on the visor or something.
BTW, I’m carefully trying to rip on playfully, but not really condemn SUVs because if I lived elsewhere I might get one. Probably a car-based midsize one, but it would be useful when things like “approach angle” become something other than “flat as always.” I really like the FX series from Infiniti because they stop and handle better than many sports cars. I don’t sell them, and have never driven one. I have seen them when my wife goes for service on her car.
I just read the numbers in Car and Driver. The FXs will pull about .9 on the skidpad. That’s better than some high end sports cars. Their emergency lane change is good, and they stop pretty well also. The 3.5 is not a gas hog.
Aren’t they all just station wagons that work out, some moreso than others?
You seem to be presenting this as ‘SUV’s are more dangerous in all crashes’.
These tests are performed against a solid object. Sometimes this happens. I believe most crashes happen between two vehicles.
You can’t use these ratings when you compare vehicle to vehicle crashes unless the vehicles are near the same weight.
That’s physics.
I don’t advocate buying an SUV for safety. I buy what I need. The biggest safety component in any vehicle sits behind a seat-belt on the left side. Training may get rid of a few bad drivers, I think its lack of paying attention and aggressiveness is the problem. With all bad drivers. Hard to spot that during a test.
From Beagle -
You have been run completely off the road. O.K.
OFTEN?
Your words. You must be a nervous… ummm …wreck.
Does anyone else get run completely off the road, OFTEN
Statements like this, and statements about how bad SUV drivers are, are hard to swallow. It’s grasping at straws. To me, it suggests bias.
Well, I guess twice a year for as little as I drive seems pretty often. It’s just a classic case of phone-to-the-ear-can’t-use-mirrors fuckheads. Why is this even difficult to imagine? When I learned how to drive…
Anyway. I am a two hands, phone-off-in-the-console-box driver. If someone runs me off the road I usually just coast along in the truck retread lane for a while and express my displeasure. Or, if someone is in the breakdown lane, I’ll do some fancy footwork and avoid them.
Paying attention, leaving space to manuver when possible, knowing the edges of the particular road you are on, keeping an eye on traffic, so many more things, are so much more important than strapping bulk on your vehicle.
I guess I could have held my ground and blamed the accident on them. That’ll show em. Oops, was that a pit manuver?!
I agree. I remember back with the old Fatherjohn SUV debates (SCORE!!!), and how he constantly brought in (unproveable) anecdotal evidence of how he saw eighteen million people get run over by a single SUV one time on his way to work, or somesuch. After that, I started paying VERY close attention to the driving habits of everyone around me.
In my opinion and observation, it’s been the smaller, sportier cars that have driven most dangerously. I drive up a good ten-mile stretch of Victory Blvd. ever morning, and I’ve seen dozens of accidents… very few of which involved SUV’s. Sure, there’ve been some - and I’ve even seen some people drive their Explorer like it was a Miata - but I must be a statistical aberration to not see these hordes of Killer SUV Drivers all over the place.
Fer God’s sake! I too am one of those “selfish” SUV drivers. I drive a ‘97 Ford Explorer. My husband drives a big ol’ F250 pick-up truck. I am sick and tired of self-righteous people blaming me and other SUV drivers for the world’s ecological problems! Pollution and global warming existed BEFORE SUVs came into being. Fossil fuels being hogged by the US (in particular) came into being BEFORE SUVs became popular.
Now, do I NEED my SUV? Do I NEED to justify my vehicle choice? I probably don’t truly need my SUV, but we are a family of four with two pets. I haul everybody around in my SUV. I make numerous COSTCO runs and fill up the back of my rig with my purchases. I also purchase many large items from Home Depot or Lowes on a regular basis and having my SUV sure makes hauling those items easier. We also go camping, which requires us to travel “roads” that are certainly not on a level with a nice suburban street. I am not trying to JUSTIFY my vehicle choice, I happen to LOVE my SUV and when this one gives out, will probably get another one. Neener, neener!
As far as safety issues go…yes a higher center of gravity make a vehicle more likely to roll. I, on the other hand, am not likely to take a corner at 50 friggin’ miles per hour. I understand my vehicle’s limitations and I know my driving skills limitations. In fact, it seems people who drive CARS seem to have problems spotting my “HUGE, FUEL HOGGING SUV”, as I have been hit twice by drivers in CARS who apparently have vision and driving problems!
As has been already pointed out in numerous posts, ASSHOLE drivers exist everywhere and those drivers are NOT limited to SUVs. There are bad drivers who drive ALL vehicle types.
So, quit your friggin’ whining you tree-hugging, birkenstock wearing, types. I don’t begrude you your choices, quit bitching about mine. Quit acting all high and mighty about how your life-style, vehicle choices, etc don’t affect others. Every morsel you eat, every step you take in the woods, affects something or somebody.
Ahhhhh…I feel so much better now. The rational arguments can continue now. I just had to vent.
Check out dinoboy’s links, bigger isn’t necessarily better when it comes to car vs. solid object. Toss a cat out of a second story window, it’ll walk away unhurt. Try that with an elephant, guaranteed the result is different.
Just so you know, I’m not really all that against SUVs, I just find the arguments in favor kind of lacking.
Damn, looking at those links, car safety seems to be getting a LOT better.
I drive through Schaumburg and the greater Woodfield area every day, twice a day, and have done so for the past 14 years. And I have witnessed all of the dangerous driving you have mentioned: cellphone use, cutting in and out of traffic, tailgating, as well as people shaving, applying make-up, reading, eating food with both hands, etc. Just yesterday I drove behind some woman for a good ten minutes who used both hands to fix her hair the entire time. Not once did she put either hand on the steering wheel.
But they weren’t all driving SUV’s. In fact, most of them were not. I agree with CanvasShoes that being an asshole driver does not depend on what vehicle you are driving. If we, as a society, are going to target unsafe driving, a worthy cause to be sure, let’s do it more rationally, say by better law enforcement, better driver’s education, etc., for everybody, not just SUV drivers.
I know. Solid objects is the key. I addressed that.
And I said that I don’t advocate buying a bigger car for safety.
When people suggest different vehicles for those that use SUV’s, it becomes obvious that they just don’t understand how anyone could possibly have a different lifestyle than they do.
I agree. Great. But I won’t buy a car based on the perceived safety of others. I buy a car to do what I need it to do.
Assholish drivers? I value big, overwrought SUVs like I value Corvettes and big, black, foreign sports sedans–I can recognize an aggressive, assholish driver from quite a great distance away. I may not always be right but the odds seem to favor me.
I would be willing to bet that the percentage of bad, unskilled, and/or aggressive drivers who drive SUV’s isn’t significantly higher than any other category of vehicles. Just that when those drivers make that final mistake or run out of luck, because of weight and design, they are much more likely to cause more devastation to other drivers than any other class of vehicles. To me, since you really can’t get rid of bad, unskilled, and/or aggressive drivers, any more than you can get rid of stupidity in the world (though it’s a noble goal), you should fix the vehicles so they compensate for their negatives. If there weren’t so many of them on the road today, it wouldn’t be a problem, but for sheer volume a person driving a smaller vehicle today is much more to get the short end of the stick against an SUV than they were 10 years ago.
Except that, since SUVs are classified as light trucks, they are assumed to be driven a great deal less than other vehicles (i.e. not as a primary vehicle for most drivers, but only used to haul or tow stuff on occasion), and therefore are not designed to be as safe or effecient as other vehicles are. If they truly were driven that way, there would be no problem, but because the vast majority of SUV owners do not, and instead drive them as primary commuters, there is.
Right now, because of SUVs, the average fuel efficiency for american vehicles is lower than it was in the 70’s. (Cite and Cite). The larger ones are also held to different emissions standards than cars (Cite and Cite).
And as has already been mentioned, all rollovers (most in fact, Cite and Cite) do not occur because you take a turn at high speed, but instead are the result of a) a collision, b) an attempt to avoid collision, c) a tire blowout and subsequent loss of control, or d) some other loss of control or skid. Just because you don’t consider yourself marianne andretti, doesn’t mean you aren’t in danger of a rollover.
I don’t know why I bother telling you this, I don’t have a problem with you wanting, owning, or driving an SUV. In fact, due to the convenience of taking wife and her dogs camping, hauling horse trailers, and large trips to costco etc, it’s on my list of things to get. I only have a problem with the fact that they are being held to laxer standards when they shouldn’t be, and that they are being reported as being safer than cars, which they aren’t. And everytime someone mentions it some SUV driver goes off about how someone is a Hippy.
Currently, SUVs are held to an average of 20.5, while passenger vehicles are held to 27.5MPG. It’s not a huge difference.
And According to your first cite, fuel economy isn’t “lower than the 70’s”. The article specifically says: "The average for all vehicles was 24 mpg in 2000, about what it was 22 years ago. "
I think the gasoline engine is played out. We hit a plateau sometime when that fuel economy average maxed out in the early 80’s.
Current alternatives aren’t sufficient to put into play in something like a light truck or SUV. To make an SUV get the same 36mpg average that a honda gets would be to make it the same size of a Honda and incorporate the same technologies. Unfortunately, people like me either don’t fit into them, nor can we see ourselves driving little tiny sedans.
I never stated such; My argument was about KE, as I concluded:
Its all about the force the vehicle creates in the collision, simply put: A larger vehicle creates a larger force going the same speed as a smaller one. This energy has to go somewhere, either into the original vehicle (SUV) or through another vehicle.
As a matter of fact, according to NHTSA you are right, but just barely:
(Warning: PDF file) Here (go down to page 10: Cars, light truks and vans) is info which states that close to half of all traffic fatalities are split between single-vehicle crashes and their rollovers (of which most are SUVs, but that is another argument).
As for the hammer or the nail? Are you really not aware that they both are exposed to the same forces? (Though, because of its point, I think the nail is much better at diverting a force upon it, such as going into a wall; where a hammer, with its flat head, will need to use much more force to go through the same wall - but this is really off topic.)
Keep in mind, I am not against the SUV drivers, (this often grows into a personal issue for many, no really, just read these posts) I am for safety and SUVs simply are not as safe (regardless of how safe one ‘feels’ in it) as standard sedans. If there is a way to level the safety curve for all vehicles (as auto manufacturers seem to be doing, albeit slowly) I’m all for it. Until then, SUVs will continue to have a significant, negative effect on traffic safety (for all drivers, not just small car drivers).
Bolding mine. I interprete this as “You seem to be presenting this as ‘SUV’s are more dangerous in all crashes’”. For the SUV’s occupants that is. I think it’s pretty easy to interprete that way. You seem to have changed your position, or the original wording was not what you meant.
In your other post, you started of with a rather condesending “For those who did not pay much attention in physics class:” When it actually looks like you are the one that didn’t pay attention.
Until, you followed up with -
This is true, but you never did bring it up in the other post.
It’s all about acceleration or de-celeration if you will. The ‘nail’ will be put through much greater acceleration than the hammer. And if you where an occupant in that nail, you would go through those same forces. In this case, the hammer would be much ‘safer’.
From Some_User_Name –
This is kind of interesting, although not a real fun read.
Re: the ‘physics’ involved: doesn’t it assume that the smaller car has the same strength ‘frame’ as the SUV? Don’t most sub-compact death-traps have that ‘universal frame’ instead of a real one?
You don’t consider a 34% increase in effeciency for 24% of our new vehicle fleet signifigant? With the millions of miles of pavement we as a nation put our car through annually, that’s a lot of gas to save.
You are correct. I meant to say, as low as it was in the 70’s, which I realize is still incorrect, since my brain refuses to grasp the 70’s wasn’t 22 years ago. I was about to post a correction when I saw your reply.
I would tend to agree, and wish they would replace the woefully dirty and inneficient internal combustion engine with something new and better. But as a realist, I have to accept the fact that that will likely take 10-15 years (to replace gas stations, refurbish manufacturing plants, come up with new ideas in the first place, et cetera). In the interim decade or two, it would be nice to get that 34% jump in efficiency for a quarter of the vehicles we as a nation buy. (Cite for vehicle sales statistics for 2002)
And just for the record. I don’t want or expect every SUV to get the same 34 MPG that a Honda Civic gets (and certainly not the 45 my Sentra does). It would be unreasonable and likely impossible to do so. I do expect that the standards that are held to commuter (moderate to heavy use) vehicles be the same accross the board. And do not thing it unreasonable for them to make modifications to design and build of SUVs to reach those standards.
I also do not find it unreasonable, because of the volume of them on the road, for them to make all SUV’s ‘crash-compatible’ with other vehicles (meaning to lower the bumpers and supports to more closely match those of cars, to add crumple zones and the like the way cars are now required to have, to increase the strength of the roof to reduce the number of crushing deaths and injuries to drivers in a rollover, and lower the centers of gravity to decrease the risks of rollover). Some SUV’s especially the sportier ones, already are built this way without detracting heavily from the cabin space and other uses of the vehicle. More of them (though not all) should be designed with these features in mind.
