Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement?

Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
five years in the US.


mike hunt




DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
>
> Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
> motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers. They are the ones causing the
> mayhem!
>
> They need an SUV endorsement!
>
> Let's listen to what this man got to say...
>
> "There are no unsafe vehicles. Only unsafe drivers."
>
> Well, that's stretching it a bit, but I think you catch my drift.
>
> I'm fanatical about safety. Been to 12 driving schools, and have
> certain
> habits I think all SUV owners should develop.
>
> 1. Of course, seatbelts. Not only for your own protection, but for
> everyone else's. An SUV can throw you far enough to be nowhere near
> the
> controls while still being *in* the vehicle.
>
> 2. I always ride the right edge of the lane I'm in, since most folks
> can't
> see around me. And if someone's trying to get a look around me for
> passing
> on a two-lane, I put the right side onto the shoulder so they can see.
>
> 3. This one's my favorite, and I was a strong advocate of it for
> motorcycles, to no avail: Tiered Licensing.
>
> Basically, require a special license for driving certain vehicles, and
> make
> the test tough, including emergency handling, safe following distance,
> ultra-conservative passing practices, etc.
>
> And give tickets for SUV's not riding the right edge of the lane. And
> suspend the license's SUV endorsement for especially dangerous
> activities
> like speeding (speed doesn't kill -- differences in speeds kill. 90mph
> isn't dangerous unless you're passing someone doing 70 or there's
> oncoming
> traffic) and tailgating. And like I think we should do with all
> vehicles;
> mandatory long jail time for DUI (attempted manslaughter, in my book).
>
> 4. Tack more onto the price of these things to discourage some of the
> pretenders. And use that money to fund 3rd-party attempts at making
> them
> more efficient and safe.
>
> 5. Mandatory impact heights. The technology exists (for a price -- oh
> well) to let these things ride at a nice low level while still allowing
> for
> increased clearance when needed. Their mass is still a problem, but if
> they don't ride up over the passengers of other cars, the people in
> those
> other cars have a much better chance of survival if they're belted in.
> Perhaps a "cow-catcher" type of arrangement that deploys only under
> heavy
> braking.
>
> Personally, the people who buy these things just for looks tick me off
> enough that it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if we had to demonstrate
> a
> need for one of these vehicles before being allowed to buy them.
>
> And, as tired as I am of dirty looks and occasionally being flipped off
> when mine's loaded full of lumber and hauling an equally-loaded
> trailer,
> I'm even more tempted to flip off the guys and gals talking on their
> cell
> phones while blasting past my mud-encrusted Sub in their
> never-seen-dirt
> versions while tailgating Metros at high speed.
>
> The people are the problem; not the vehicles.
>
> And if knowing that they're paying $50k for a $30k vehicle doesn't
> discourage them, there need to be other ways to deal with the problem.
>
> The automakers have a right to a profit, and they owe it to their
> shareholders to make as much as they can. I have a right to buy as
> much
> vehicle as I need. However, others have a right to not be in danger of
> my
> killing them with my monster ute.
>
> I don't think all of these rights are mutually exclusive if enough
> thought
> is put into the problem.
>
> I'm very much a tree-hugger myself ("Mother Earth News", "Home Power",
> 40
> acres, most of which is very actively managed as wildlife habitat,
> etc),
> but the rights of the more radical of my ilk aren't more important than
> my
> rights and mine aren't more important than theirs.
>
> Enough tiradin' for me. Would be interested in your thoughts.
>
> http://www.mihalis.net/public/reasonable_SUV.html
> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

wrote:
> Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
> small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
> in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
> passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
> chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
> children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
> sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
> five years in the US.

Are we in smallish vehicles going to end up like this?

"Why do we owners of smallish vehicles have to dig through local
landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to
up-armor our vehicles?"

wrote:
> Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
> small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
> in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
> passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
> chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
> children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
> sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
> five years in the US.

Are we in smallish vehicles going to end up like this?

"Why do we owners of smallish vehicles have to dig through local
landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to
up-armor our vehicles?"

Because you light weight transport vehicle was not designed with
'armor.' That is why they make the
'tanks' which are much safer in which to ride. If
you want the extra safety of the larger vehicle buy
one, WBMA


mike hunt



DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
> > small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
> > in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
> > passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
> > chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
> > children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
> > sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
> > five years in the US.
>
> Are we in smallish vehicles going to end up like this?
>
> "Why do we owners of smallish vehicles have to dig through local
> landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to
> up-armor our vehicles?"

Because you light weight transport vehicle was not designed with
'armor.' That is why they make the
'tanks' which are much safer in which to ride. If
you want the extra safety of the larger vehicle buy
one, WBMA


mike hunt



DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
> > small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
> > in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
> > passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
> > chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
> > children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
> > sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
> > five years in the US.
>
> Are we in smallish vehicles going to end up like this?
>
> "Why do we owners of smallish vehicles have to dig through local
> landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to
> up-armor our vehicles?"

wrote:
> Because you light weight transport vehicle was not designed with
> 'armor.' That is why they make the
> 'tanks' which are much safer in which to ride. If
> you want the extra safety of the larger vehicle buy
> one, WBMA

OK, after assessing the general risk on the roads, I've concluded that
small vehicles are at big disadvantaged and that we need some
government attention to our plight.
We feel we should not drive a Hummer to be safe from a Hummer.

wrote:
> Because you light weight transport vehicle was not designed with
> 'armor.' That is why they make the
> 'tanks' which are much safer in which to ride. If
> you want the extra safety of the larger vehicle buy
> one, WBMA

OK, after assessing the general risk on the roads, I've concluded that
small vehicles are at big disadvantaged and that we need some
government attention to our plight.
We feel we should not drive a Hummer to be safe from a Hummer.

wrote:
>
> Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
> small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
> in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
> passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
> chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
> children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
> sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
> five years in the US.

Bumper height isn't the only problem.

A while back, I took my camera out, crouched down to bumper height and
snapped a picture of my Toyota Landcruiser, Mazda RX-7 and Porsche 928.
The bumpers all line up perfectly (within an inch).

What is different about all three vehicles is that this 'standard bumper
height' falls on different points of each occupant's body. In the sports
cars, bumper height is about mid-torso. So, no matter what I get hit
with (another car or an SUV), its going to hit be right in the middle of
my body. On the other hand, 'standard bumper height' in my Landcruiser
is down below my feet. So if I get hit while sitting in that, most of
the damage is going to miss me.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.

wrote:
>
> Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
> small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
> in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
> passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
> chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
> children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
> sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
> five years in the US.

Bumper height isn't the only problem.

A while back, I took my camera out, crouched down to bumper height and
snapped a picture of my Toyota Landcruiser, Mazda RX-7 and Porsche 928.
The bumpers all line up perfectly (within an inch).

What is different about all three vehicles is that this 'standard bumper
height' falls on different points of each occupant's body. In the sports
cars, bumper height is about mid-torso. So, no matter what I get hit
with (another car or an SUV), its going to hit be right in the middle of
my body. On the other hand, 'standard bumper height' in my Landcruiser
is down below my feet. So if I get hit while sitting in that, most of
the damage is going to miss me.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.

[snipped most of the groups, followups to rec.autos.driving]

DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:

> Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
> motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers. They are the ones causing the
> mayhem!

A recent LiveJournal community post used the phrase "Penile Compensator
Unit" in reference to a certain model of SUV/truck. That sums up a lot.

I agree with your proposal in principle. Those without the driving skill to
safely drive and park an SUV should not be allowed to.

--
Shawn K. Quinn