SUV Perception

That video is posted to an H1 fansite. They hate H2s more than we do!

Nate

 

Your line of work ... car salesperson, so yeah I guess the numbers get bent all the time.

I suggest you review the www.safercar.gov site for vehicle rollover stats. I quickly compared a 2004 Toyota Sienna to a 2005 Chevy Suburban and the Sienna had better rollover rating. The Suburban tested has "Stabilitrack" too.

You can look at the offset crash test too, which can be found at www.hwysafety.org. The Suburban is based on the Silvo and Sierra:

http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=4

Contrast to the Siena:

http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=182

I note that the Siena has the same problem with leaking fuel tanks after a crash that Mopar minivans do.

If you want other "facts" than rollover and crash test data, I'm not sure what else I can offer.

 

Overall ANY heavy vehicle with a higher centre of gravity is automatically LESS safe: SUV's (Especially tall narrow ones), full size vans, passenger buses, cube vans, transport trucks, etc. They are remarkably easy to tip over, especially the "tripping" if you let the wheels go off the pavement onto soft shoulder than try to quickly swing back onto pavement.

It's fairly straightforward physics and I'm sure you know as much calculus as I do.

If you take the instance of crashing a large heavy vehicle into a much smaller lighter vehicle, the heavy vehicle wins. Period.

Now crash two large heavy vehicles together, the results are much different. There is much more energy that has to be managed in that crash, and the large heavy vehicles have to absorb much more of that energy.

Now take the instance of a single vehicle crash involving a very massive object, say a concrete wall or sheer granite rock wall. The lighter and smaller vehicle can manage the crash forces fairly well.

The larger and heavier vehicle must be forced to absorb the crash forces as the other object won't, and it does poorly. In an extreme case, say a tractor trailer crashing into a sheer granite rock wall, the results are ugly and messy.

Using your argument, you only "win" if you're the only one driving the large heavy vehicle, and you never rollover or crash into a large immovable object. But with escalation being what it is, soon everybody feels they also have to drive large heavy vehicles to be "safer."

Ironically, they end up decreasing their personal safety and the safety of those around. A good example of tactical and strategic M.A.D. Especially for pedestrians in urban environments, as there are no North American standards for pedestrian protection.

 

FWIW, the "voice" (or tone), writing style of your posts crack me up! :lol:

Yeah, N.S.Sherlock, and when did the terms "rollover" and "SUV" enter the vernacular of the plebes?

:lol: Probably, for I was likely out playing video games as opposed to studying or working while driving around in a car someone else bought me for which I was entitled to. However, unlike some of us, I don't feel the need to gasconade any academic accomplishments on a message board.

Yeah, again, no kidding, and what I've been saying all along is, what is the most common type of accident you're likely to encounter? I highly doubt it's "rollover", more like rear-end collisions and assorted fender benders.

Here, I'll even do something I don't normally do, I'll wet your appetite with this little stat I came across from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

"What are the most common types of urban crashes? A 1995 Institute study of more than 4,500 crashes in four urban areas found that 22 percent involved drivers who ran red lights or other traffic controls such as stop or yield signs.4 Eighteen percent occurred when a vehicle that was stopped or in the process of stopping was struck from the rear. The three other leading types of urban crashes included running off the road and striking an object (14 percent), swerving into another occupied lane (13 percent), and turning left and colliding with an oncoming vehicle (9 percent). These five crash types accounted for three-fourths of all urban crashes included in the Institute's study and 83 percent of crashes involving injuries. "

I'm sure you'll put this into the "correct" perspective for us...

Yes, now what are your real world chances of this, as opposed to more common types of accidents?

Again, what are the chances opposed to accidents you're more likely to encounter? Let's see, I can choose to prepare my house for the upcoming storm by putting boards over the windows, or I can spend $100,000 to build a fall-out bunker 100 feet under my garage...

Which is a faaaar more realistic assumption in REAL world application...

Howabout pedestrian implemented pedestrian protection? :lol:

 

As a consquence, I found this link... Select a vehicle and check out its crash ratings!

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

 

Here's another one for ya...

"Though rollovers are relatively rare events, they are particularly deadly when they do occur. Overall, rollover affects about three percent of passenger vehicles involved in crashes"

- somewhere on NHTSA

 

And of course, the federal government's own site:

www.safercar.gov

Nate

 

From your site:


2005 Ford Explorer Sport Trac = 34% chance of rollover, the highest on that site... :lol:

"DA-YUMN!"
[Broken External Image]:http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/935310/buckwheat.jpg

 

The problem with solar (with the exception of passive solar power that heats water for example) is that you can't produce it without batteries and you can't produce batteries from solar power. Solar power is a great companion power source to oil but it won't replace it. Also, you can't fly airplanes or run heavy machinery, for example, with it. And, if you live in a part of the country, or world, that doesn't get a lot of full sunlight, you'd have to have a lot more solar panels to get what a full sun area can get with just a few. The best thing that we can do is to conserve what we have and to use alternative sources of power where we can.