Anyone that says SUV's are unsafe are full of BS..

GM STATEMENT - THE SAFETY OF SUVs .... The following is a statement from GM in response to remarks by the NHTSA Administration regarding the safety of sport utility vehicles. The statement can be attributed to Jay Cooney, GM Director of Safety Communications:

"According to the NHTSA's own factual data, SUVs are among the safest vehicles on the road and have contributed to the dramatic decline in the nation's fatality rate over the last decade.

"According to real world government crash data, compiled by the NHTSA, SUVs are two to three times more protective of their occupants in frontal, rear and side-impact crashes that make up 97.5 percent (ninety-seven-point-five-percent) of all crashes. The major reason for fatalities in rollovers, which represent only 2.5 percent of all crashes, is due to a lack of seat belt use. According to NHTSA, 72 percent of those killed in fatal rollover crashes were not using safety belts. Again, according to the NHTSA of the 9,882 people killed in rollovers in the year 2000, 75 percent or 7,412 people perished not because of the vehicle, but because they were unbelted and ejected from the vehicle. This is exactly why GM has been diligently working with Dr. Runge and the NHTSA on increasing seat belt usage in this country.

"Since Americans began buying SUVs in record numbers in the 1980s, sales of these versatile vehicles skyrocketed more than 600 percent. During this sales boom, the nation's fatality rate (fatality rate based on vehicle miles of travel) on America's roads dropped by more than 50 percent to an all time low.

"To assert otherwise, is not only contrary to the facts gathered by his own agency over the last decade, but unfair to the thousands of men and women who have spent their professional lives making vehicles safer, and to America's automakers who spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on improving safety in their vehicles."

And don't tell me this is GM's opinion, it is FACT as demonstrated by NHTSA's own statistics. The whole "SUV's fund terrorists" arguement is a bunch of bullshit too.

If you check you'll notice I haven't really commented much on the whole topic. I'm not interested in arguing (either side of) the point. I will instead simply point out that this statement tells you of the safety of the SUV occupants in an accident, and not of people in any other vehicles involved. I have no data to draw any conclusion which can be broad enough to be meaningful; Instead I will only point out that when I'm in an accident I really have no desire to kill anyone.

And don't tell me this is GM's opinion, it is FACT as demonstrated by NHTSA's own statistics

That's your opinion. I suspect however that GM aren't complete impartial on this issue. I'm sure NHTSA publish an awful lot of statistics and no doubt both sides of the argument can play with them selectively to make their chosen case.

I haven't read the statistics, so I can't say whether GM's opinion on them has a 100% bearing on reality.

It also only states ``facts'' about death. What about injuries, from minor to major?

It also makes large mental leaps:

Again, according to the NHTSA of the 9,882 people killed in rollovers in the year 2000, 75 percent or 7,412 people perished not because of the vehicle, but because they were unbelted and ejected from the vehicle.

So the people that were ejected from the vehicle did not perish "because of the vehicle". However I suspect that had said vehicle remained upright they would have been much less likely to be ejected from the vehicle in the first place.

The whole "SUV's fund terrorists" arguement is a bunch of bullshit too.

That I can wholeheartedly agree with however.

Using clever statistics, I can make the numbers show anything I want. Since that statement came from GM, its just about worthless.

It also is very careful not to state the total number of road casualties anywhere. If it did those roll-over number look at bit different.

From http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm we can see that the number of road deaths in the US in 1999 (the year before, but close enough) was 41,345. This means that the 9,000 people killed when their car rolled over accounted for 25% of road deaths.

So if you were trying to take the other extreme of the argument you could say 1 in 4 of the people killed on the road were killed because their car rolled over.

Statistics say what you want them to say...

And don't tell me this is GM's opinion, it is FACT as demonstrated by NHTSA's own statistics.

SUVs crept into the automotive landscape as trucks, thus allowing manufacturers to avoid many of the safety and fuel economy regulations (and costs) applied to cars. They told the government "they're trucks!".

They told us: "Leather seats! Big! Safe!" We bought 'em -- millions of 'em -- and installed the family in these "trucks".

On a net dollar profit-per-pound-of-vehicle weight basis, SUVs are the big winners for all manufacturers. Ladder frames, unsophisticated, old-fashioned technology and old-fashioned assembly techniques in big, roomy sheet metal. Cash cow, cash cow, cash cow.

NHTSA's Runge is a former ER physician and maybe makes $100-$150K in his government job.

What do you suppose is his agenda?

GM makes lots and lots of SUVs and makes billions from them.

What do you suppose is their agenda?

What do you suppose is their agenda?

Without getting into all these SUV arguments I just want to point out that just because someone has an agenda does not mean that their statements about it are incorrect. I am sure all the empeg guys would say that the empeg is the best in car mp3 player. Just because they designed it and work for the company that made it does not make them automatically incorrect.

-Mike

I just want to point out that just because someone has an agenda does not mean that their statements about it are incorrect.

That's very true. In the world of claims and counter-claims and the sometimes-depraved use of statistics, though, it can be hard to divine "The Truth" (tm) at first or second glance. It's hard (at least for a few of us on this BBS!) to become a knowledgeable expert in every controversial field and to dig back through all of the original data and perform our own statistical analyses.

So, for efficiency's sake, when I see something like that announcement from GM, I lean both sides' arguments up against the wall, step back a few paces, and try to apply that "agenda" test. Likewise, when anybody starts talking about FACTS coming from industrial concerns with billion dollar interests and biased track records, I will invite them to apply the same test.

Yeah but they still drive like poo and use too much fuel

You can tell the really good flamewars because they generate their own little colonies of miniflamewars to every side. Northern Ireland, Iraq, religion, communism, globalisation etc are clearly all of minor importance in the world (or at least on this BBS) compared to sport-utility vehicles.

Peter

In a related story, The NHTSA states that the number of accidents occurring directly behind SUVs has gone up fifty-fold.

Ah, but SUVs affect us every day. I only know one person who's ever been directly affected by the IRA (of course, statistics probably differ for those of you closer to the British Isles); AFAIK, Iraq's never done anything to me; etc.

What about the statisics on the level of injuries sustained by people in the other car in an SUV crash?

"Yeah but they still drive like poo and use too much fuel"

If my vehicle drives like poo, I have to deal with it (actually, I like how it drives). If it uses too much gas, I pay extra. If I pollute or simply do not know how to drive, then you can become concerned.

My life is mine, not yours. You should only become involved when my actions actually affect you personally. I'm sure you would get just as upset if I started berating you on your life.

I keep my SUV well-tuned. I know how to drive. I do not drive it when it is possible to walk or take alternative transportation. The main reason I own my vehicle is because it makes more sense for me to possess than other vehicles.

That said, the debate at hand is about how safe these vehicles are. I am inclined to take heed of the statistics on collisions. I really doubt SUVs are more dangerous for their occupants. As far as rollovers, I have known numerous people who have died in car accidents. I have never seen a vehicle that has rolled over or HEARD of anybody who has ever had that happen to them, with the exception of one incident. In that case, a group of college guys were doing a prank and drove off of pavement onto a gravel road at 80 miles per hour. The guy who didn't have his seatbelt on (because he was tied up and blindfolded in the trunk) was killed. The others were not seriously hurt.

-Biscuits

In reply to:

---

You can tell the really good flamewars because they generate their own little colonies of miniflamewars to every side. Northern Ireland, Iraq, religion, communism, globalisation etc are clearly all of minor importance in the world (or at least on this BBS) compared to sport-utility vehicles.

---

I wouldn't say we have any flamewars here - we have resonable argument and counter argument and no-one is calling the other names.[well not on my patch anyway].

Yeah maybe SUV's are a hot button for a few folks right now - and I think that says a lot about how that DetroitProject is actually working and getting people to think and say about SUVs.

And maybe, just maybe, some folks might not buy another SUV for a while, and that might be a bad thing in the long term if Detroit gets the message.

I recall in the 60's that guy who set fire to his new Ford? car outside a Ford factory because it was such a lemon and he was so annoyed about it and the fact that Detroit didn't care - that got quite lot of press and TV coverage at the time and caused Detroit to change its build quality and customer relations (for a while/decade at least).

And maybe its time for another campaign to wake Detroit out of its comfort zone again to get some action on SUVs - because while a lot of folks like their SUVs, a lot of other folks don't - for all sorts of reasons and their reasons and opinions as to why they dislike SUVs are no less valid than the opinions of the folks who like their SUVs.

Is it not true that the rising number of SUV's and trucks creates a higher demand for gasoline, which forces prices up for every driver? I also love how my neighbor on one side thinks her kids are safer now if they get in an accident in their Expedition, but another neighbor is concerned that if her Elantra gets in a wreck with one she is now less safe.

I don't hate SUV's. I just hate people who own one with no need to own one. They don't haul car parts or lumber for home projects. They don't go off road. They don't have a family of 5 or more. They just drive to work and the grocery store, and think they look cool doing it. And put those obnoxiously loud mufferless straight pipes on it to announce themselves.

I know my Eclipse doesn't get the best milage either, especially how I drive it. And I go home to a 3 bedroom house that only I live in, which I keep at 75 degrees all winter (in Minnesota) so I don't get cold. And while I don't hunt since I don't like killing animals, I do enjoy the occasional burger just to let you know how seriously I take the whole thing.

Is it not true that SUV drivers pay more gasoline tax, which pushes down the gasoline taxes for every other driver?

You have tax on gas in the States ?

The rumours aren't true then...

my gas taxes everyone's patience

Talking of US fuel taxes, how much is a gallon of petrol over there ATM?

In the UK we're not allowed gallons of petrol any longer but for comparison it works out something like this:

1 liter = $1.19USD (£0.74GBP)
1 US Gallon = 3.78l = $4.50USD (£2.80GBP)

Incidentally, does anyone know the reason for having two different gallon capacities (US & Imperial)?

Depends on the state. In Georgia, we have the lowest gas taxes in the country. I haven't bought gas for 2-3 weeks, but I believe it is about $1.50 a gallon here. Most other states are generally 20-30 cents a gallon more expensive, and California is, no doubt, over $3 a gallon.

California is, no doubt, over $3 a gallon.

Wow, I must have got a great deal when I payed $1.79 in the CA bay area this morning then ;-)

There are usually 3 grades in NC. 87, 89, and 93 octane ratings, I believe. Right now, it's about $1.40, $1.50, and $1.60 a gallon, IIRC, give or take (they change on a daily basis).

over here in southern louisiana, it's been ranging from $1.30 - $1.40. And according to the little stickers that the gas companies put on the pumps, about 40 cents of that goes to state and federal taxes.

A couple of years ago, when I went to California, gasoline prices were $0.80 a gallon in Georgia and $2.50 in California.

In reply to:

---

Incidentally, does anyone know the reason for having two different gallon capacities (US & Imperial)?

---

Its got something to do with the weight of a barrel of water (or oil), which held "44 gallons".

the weight of a 44 gallon barrel is lower in the US, and this is factored backwards to produce a gallon with less than the Imperial gallon.

Probably goes right back to Rockerfellers time, and he or his ilk probably used the lighter barrels to sell less oil in the same "size" container as his competitors, thus inflating his profits.

I think about $1.34/gallon here in SC.

1 liter = $1.19USD (£0.74GBP)

I paid £0.717 last week* - my cousin mentioned his local Jet garage had a "sale" one weekend and sold so much fuel they are doing it fairly regularly. I suspect the manager/owner is either going for some sales target to win a TV or something.

Gareth
* Handy when you have two cars that do 15-20mpg each, and everyone else complains they "only" get 35.

I can see why you Brits are so much more concerned about gas milage then...you're paying 3 times what I am for gasoline.

Is it not true that the rising number of SUV's and trucks creates a higher demand for gasoline, which forces prices up for every driver?

Is it not true that when someone buys a whole bunch of candy canes, that it creates a higher demand for candy canes which drives prices up for everyone? Yet I don't see anyone complaining about candy-cane-eating fat people? And fat people are also hard to see around when you're behind them on the sidewalk. They can also have a tendency to give out more than average air pollution after eating mexican. Yet why isn't anyone fighting for CO2 emission standards for fat people? I'm sure if a fat guy and a little guy have a collision then the little guy is gonna be a lot more hurt than the big guy. But nobody cares.

And you were doing so well for a while.

LMAO @ d33zY

horrid, but funny.

haha.

He goes through phases I have noticed.

local Jet garage had a "sale" one weekend and sold so much fuel they are doing it fairly regularly.

Funny you mention Jet. Our local Jet garage (we thought) was always the cheapest, especially if you re-fuelled at weekends, they always run offers then. Last weekend we were driving back home from a well known Sunday market near you and saw a supermarket was selling for (I think) £0.71p/l, our local jet was £0.725/l. Ok, this is penny pinching but I resent our fuel prices and I was passing anyhow

Handy when you have two cars that do 15-20mpg each, and everyone else complains they "only" get 35

My old 1.6l petrol car does 35mpg urban, her (old) 1.6 diesel 50mpg, exactly the same car but different fuel type. Sorry, I hate my mpg and my next car will be a turbo diesel I don't know what car you drive at 15-20mpg but I'm guessing I'd enjoy it's performance (in between petrol station stops that is)

If your gas taxes are the lowest, that's sad. I paid $1.44/gallon for 87 octane today at a place which I know not to be even close to "cheapest"

I haven't bought gas in a few weeks, and when I did, it was near the Tennessee border. I don't remember exactly what it cost.

The main reason I own my vehicle is because it makes more sense for me to possess than other vehicles.

Good. I will agree SUVs can serve a purpose. Most people though simply buy them to keep up with their neighboors. One of my aunts is this way, and they have owned the "popular" vehicle every year now for a while. Of course this decision also led to an expensive lawsuit when their underage son took the SUV on a druken joy ride and seriously injured some guy in an accident. I have no pitty for them and this incident.

Having recently driven a minivan, I can't believe how much people are willing to deal with gas consumption. The minivan got less then half what my Saturn SL2 does for gas milage. Sure, a minivan might be great for the big families, but 80% of the time I see one, only one or two people are in them, and no cargo. And of course, SUVs get even worse milage.

(Edited to clarift the minivan gas compairson part)

Since we're on the subject of gas prices, I figured people would find this site pretty interesting. It even has a break-down of taxes per state in the US.

According to that site, gas taxes average 29% of the total cost in the US and 76% in the UK. Gas is taxed at $0.075 a gallon in Georgia (state tax), which is the lowest tax rate in the country (they range up to 29 cents a gallon). This is in addition to federal taxes of $0.184 a gallon. I don't know if there are any city or county taxes (direct on the gas or indirect in steeper costs for the stations).


On a trip last year, I forgot to fill up on gasoline before I left to drive for home. Gas in Athens, GA was $1.35 a gallon. As I drove down hwy 316, I saw signs for gas for $1.20. I finally was about to run out of gas in Atlanta, so I stopped and got just a few gallons for $1.50 ea. I finally filled up later that night out near Kennesaw, GA for $1.13.

All of those prices are for regular unleaded gasoline in the same state on the same day.

-Biscuits

Sure, a minivan might be great for the big families, but 80% of the time I see one, only one or two people are in them, and no cargo.

In my case, it was $2000 for one which was at the time 8 years old when I needed to buy something quickly, and then I didn't have money for another car, or the desire to be a 2 car family, until this past March. In the 5 years since then I guess we've put something like 130000 miles on it.

When we got to the point where a second vehicle got to be interesting, I made sure we got a car (for $2000 ). Most of the time we don't use the minivan, now. The gas mileage isn't nearly as good as I'd like, but it's still useful to have something which I can move a railroad interlocking machine, more than 4 people, or space for myself to sleep in certain circumstances, and it still works, so...

federal taxes of $0.184 a gallon

Hang on a minute... federal taxes? Taxes paid to the United States Government? Gosh, it looks like SUVs do directly support state-sponsored terrorism then...

Peter

Using a telephone supports terrorism too..

In this day and age, even masturbation supports terrorism.

expensive lawsuit when their underage son took the SUV on a druken joy ride and seriously injured some guy in an accident. I have no pitty for them and this incident.

because it was an SUV?

Of course this decision also led to an expensive lawsuit when their underage son took the SUV on a druken joy ride and seriously injured some guy in an accident. I have no pitty for them and this incident.


I'm not sure I understand how the decision to buy an SUV caused their idiot son to get drunk and go for a joyride??
I think I'm missing something here.

I'm not sure I understand how the decision to buy an SUV caused their idiot son to get drunk and go for a joyride??
I think I'm missing something here.

He drove the SUV in the first place due to the precieved image of "cool". The lawsuit came from a number of factors, including the damage the SUV caused to the other party involved, both to the car, and to the health of the driver.

Had he simply chosen to be a bit less cool and taken a car, the lawsuit probably wouldn't have happened as the guy involved would have been fine. Of course, the son probably wouldn't have gone on a drunken joyride in the first place if he was acting with any sort of intellegance.

My problems with SUVs come from the laws that protect them (The entire light truck crap), the fact that they are typicially driven by people unaware of the differences, and the fact that most have never been off road, hauled 7 people, or towed something large. The arguments I have seen here seem to indicate SUV owners here have valid reasons to own them.

As far as the fuel argument, remember that MPG does somewhat equate to the polutuon a vehicle will put out. As some of our European friends have pointed out, our US engines are absolutly horrid on efficiency and polution.

I'm going to trade my SUV in for a sports car.. I hear they're not cool anymore, and get much better MPG..

As for light truck.. If everyone drove pickups instead of SUV's, would you still have the same argument? Same mass, same handling, same emissions, same chance to not get hurt when you run into a compact car. It seems like your entire dissagreement with an SUV is that it's a useful form of pickup, which amazingly has become poplular. Heck, as most people who drive an SUV only drive themselves, it's almost as if they bought a truck anyway, so what's the difference?

If everyone drove pickups instead of SUV's, would you still have the same argument?

Yes.

Any of you own your own business? You might want to think about buying a Hummer....

http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/104601.asp?0cv=CB20

F'ing loopholes... I got a measly $2000 deduction for my Honda Insight.

-Jeff

In the mid-1980s, he said, Congress tightened rules about how much money can be written off on luxury automobiles used for business -- but excluded vehicles with a gross weight of 6,000 pounds or more, partly an attempt to help farmers afford tractors, large trucks and other heavy equipment.

This is the sort of half-assed lawmaking that pisses me off. If they wanted to give farmers a break for buying tractors, et al., then why wasn't the law written that way?

Yeah, I pointed out the tax loophole thing in the other thread.

I *love* this bit in the article:

In reply to:

---

Other vehicles besides the H2 that qualify for the tax break include the Mercedes-Benz M-Class SUV and Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe, and some pickup trucks and cargo vans, according to Pierman. (the CPA who is quoted in the article)
He lamented the attention to the tax incentive.
"I think it's actually bad because Congress may close the loophole," he said. "If they see something that the public sees as 'too good of a thing.' You know, subsidizing gas hogs."

---

We wouldn't want the great unwashed to find out about our little secret - and now the toys might be removed because of it.

- bummer, dude.

In reply to:

---

There are also complaints about the H2's fuel economy, about 10 miles per gallon.

---

Thats bad - I think the tractors farmers were intended to buy under the legislation probably get better MPG that the H2.

In reply to:

---

Bellevue resident Karen Santa, 46, is aware of that sentiment. Since she switched from driving a Mercedes-Benz and bought her H2 in December, activists have left a note and a bumper sticker on the vehicle.
....

Still, Santa is pleased with the vehicle's handling, appearance and her global positioning satellite system.
She's already taken her H2 off road in the snow and has used it to pull her son in a sled on Crystal Mountain.
"It's a fabulous vehicle. You just push a button and say call home and it calls home," she said of the telephone feature.

---

And you need a H2 to do these things!?

In reply to:

---

This is the sort of half-assed lawmaking that pisses me off. If they wanted to give farmers a break for buying tractors, et al., then why wasn't the law written that way?

---

I guess if the law had been written that way [i.e. "tractors" only - whatever the legal definition of a tractor is - the ones I've seen lately are basically SUVs on farm tyres - except they run on diesel, and cost more] , the new H2 would have been reclassified as a tractor by Marketing and Legal long before it was released.

Hmm, I can see it now, that mighty H2 pulling the farm implements over the ground and doing a fine job at 10MPG or less at it does so - bit of a problem at the ends of the fields where it has to turn, but its really, really good on the straight lines.

I don't know what car you drive at 15-20mpg but I'm guessing I'd enjoy it's performance

Well, one performance ('85 Camaro) and one is more for fun (Caprice cop car, on the left if you have pix turned on)

I was intending to get a more economical car to do long journeys with, but I think I've painted myself into a corner now!

Gareth