Regarding gun ownership, as a non-owner I would feel uneasy being in an area with a high concentration of guns in private (non-professional) hands. This has nothing to do with statistics, I was simply illustrating how this personal uneasiness may also be applied to vehicles. I know two families who bought SUVs simply because they were afraid of SUVs/pickups hitting their cars. And this had nothing to do with 18-wheelers; 90% of their driving is done in the city.

All I’m advocating is improved driver training, improved safety through design, and greater driver awareness. For ALL vehicles.

People are free to have their opinions and express them. The problem comes in when they begin to advocate policies or regulations designed to limit others’ choices.

p00ch: Similar to living in a neighbourhood where there is a gun in every home except yours.

There has never been any proof that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens (or even the liberal issuance of concealed-carry permits) has caused crime to increase, or made a neighborhood less safe.

p00ch: The unfortunate consequence is, some people end up buying huge SUVs not because they need or want them, but because they feel threatened by all the other Tahoes and Navigators.

Do these people really exist anywhere outside of message boards? Some people may buy them for the perceived safety, but that is because they are concerned about tractor trailers and other heavy trucks, not other big SUVs. Those tractor trailers aren’t going to go away (unlike SUVs, whose sales are already dropping fast) even if the cost of fuel continues its steady climb.

There’s no denying that if my car was hit by an SUV, my odds would be worse than if I was hit by another car. Combined with the increased number of SUVs on the road, my perception of safety is therefore affected. Similar to living in a neighbourhood where there is a gun in every home except yours.

The unfortunate consequence is, some people end up buying huge SUVs not because they need or want them, but because they feel threatened by all the other Tahoes and Navigators.

The honest thing to say is that today’s roads are safer than ever, the supposed threat from SUVs to their occupants and other drivers is not supported by reliable traffic safety stastistics, and therefore, while people can exercise their right of free speech to criticize them, better-informed drivers with a more sophisticated understanding of the issue are under no obligation to listen to them.

frizzlefry: But no one would say that. That would expose them as self-absorbed, inconsiderate and reckless. Its much easier for that person to try and dismiss traffic safety reports from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Frizzlefry, last time I checked you were claiming that SUVs rollovers were killing 10,000 people annually. When you (finally) admitted that you were wrong – after several attempts to explain this to you – you then tried to dismiss it by saying that you don’t care about rollovers. Nice try, but no…

Sorry, but you’ll have to show a much stronger grasp of traffic safety issues, not to mention trends in automotive safety and buying patterns over the past 30 years, to have the better-informed posters take you seriously.

Incidentally, name-calling and the hurling of accusations get old fast, and are often an attempt to deflect a lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

Pop can? The report was not based on SUV vs Smart car. It covered SUV vs cars. From the Malibu to Volvo to Audi to BMW. Including some of the most safe vehicles made. So it not that people are choosing to by Smart cars and whine about how unsafe they are. Personally, no way would I buy a Smart car. And those are not the types of vehicles the NHTSA was looking at.

If someone chose to buy an A4 and you T-Bone them because you could not stop your 6000 pound beast in time (because you need 20 feet more than a car to stop) and they die….its THEIR fault? Because they did not get a super-ute too? Why even bother arguing the NHTSA findings if thats how you feel?

Why not just be honest and say that “yes, I am more likely to kill someone in an accident due to the laws of physics and as reported by the NHTSA. Also, my vehicle has less agility to avoid that accident in an emergency situation. But I simply don’t care because my want is more important than the safety of my fellow citizens. And if push comes to shove, I will hide behind my freedom to do what I want when there are no more logical arguments for me owning my SUV”.

But no one would say that. That would expose them as self-absorbed, inconsiderate and reckless. Its much easier for that person to try and dismiss traffic safety reports from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

You’re having a hard time with these statistics… Just because SUV’s accounted for 37% of the registrations for that year, does NOT necessarily mean that they account for only 37% of the vehicles on the road. What are they calling “registrations”? New vehicle registrations? I doubt that’s an accurate reflection of ALL vehicles on the road. Furthermore, IF, according to the report, people in cars are FAR more likely to die in an accident, AND SUV’s account for only 37% of the vehicles on the road, HOW can SUV’s account for more deaths than cars?

Are we blaming the SUV’s for the people killed in cars? Let’s think about that logic for a moment… A person bought a pop can on wheels, (apparently because they were too ignorant to realize it’s a coffin in auto drag) and then when it crushes them in an accident… it’s the fault of the person that DIDN’T buy a pop can on wheels? Now how does that work? It’s the intelligent persons fault that the ignorant person killed themselves by their choice of vehicle? I haven’t heard of anyone forcing anyone to buy pop cans on wheels. Last I knew, what vehicle a person buys is that persons FREE CHOICE.

frizzlefry : Obviously, SUVs are a safety issue to other cars on the road. Hence the NHTSA report stating that a person in a car is 340 percent more likely to die if hit by an SUV as opposed to a car. I did not make that up. Thats right in the NHTSA’s report! That whole report is about vehicle compatibility and how they can reduce fatalities caused by SUVs. There are pages and pages of facts and numbers that they use to state that LTVs/SUVs are a safety concern.

Safety concern? It seems to me that the NHTSA is doing their level best to let you know you are 340 percent SAFER in an SUV! Obviously you’ve read the report, What part of this are you just not getting? IF YOU CHOOSE to drive a pop can on wheels, your odds of dying in an accident are SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than if you CHOOSE to drive an SUV. THE CHOICE IS YOURS!!! I’d suggest you choose wisely, but, it’s up to you…

Yes the NHTSA change numbers all the time. For overall deaths, number of vehicles etc. But the situations in the crashes they studied do not change. They are what they are. So the 340% greater chance of death when hit by an SUV is a valid number.

And yes the NHTSA release figures that show declining numbers. But as they say at the end of the report, “This increase in passenger car (vs SUV) fatalities has occurred even while the overall fatalities for the U.S. fleet has stabilized or decreased over the past several years” I can understand your argument against that (SUV sales went up) but still, there should not be 2000 more SUV related fatalities than car related fatalities when there are significantly more cars than SUVs on the road.

Again, the most telling thing is what they determined when viewing the accidents themselves. In T-Bone crashes, the ratio is 1:22 risk of car driver fatality if hit by an SUV, if hit by a car its 1:8.

I understand that people are skeptical of numbers and facts and that people bend them to suit their own argument etc etc. But the NHTSA determined vehicle incompatibility to be a concern. Enough of a concern to research it, and ask for government funds to try and fix it. If the NHTSA does not hav a sound opinion on the SUV safety issue I don’t who could.

And how much more are SUVs driven in relation to other cars, given that they are family vehicles more likely to be used as the primary vehicle? Do you think that families load up the Focus or Civic with the kids and assorted gear to travel across country when they have a 4Runner or Explorer?

frizzlefry: But what do they know, they are only the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I’m sure you are the expert, not them.

Every year the experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration release figures that show steadily declining fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven, despite the dramatic increase – in both raw numbers and the percentage of the vehicular fleet – of SUVs during the last 18 years.

Obviously, SUVs are a safety issue to other cars on the road. Hence the NHTSA report stating that a person in a car is 340 percent more likely to die if hit by an SUV as opposed to a car. I did not make that up. Thats right in the NHTSA’s report! That whole report is about vehicle compatibility and how they can reduce fatalities caused by SUVs. There are pages and pages of facts and numbers that they use to state that LTVs/SUVs are a safety concern.

But what do they know, they are only the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I’m sure you are the expert, not them.

And I admit, I read the wrong thing into the rollover number of 10,000. You are right that cars roll to. But, rollovers are not my concern. Unless they are rolling over me, the only people they are killing are themselves. What happens to me because some guy had to buy a Super-Ute is my concern.

“Rollover crashes are among the most violent events on America’s highways, and although they constitute a relatively small number of overall crashes, they account for a disproportionate number of deaths—approximately 10,000 a year,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

There may be 10,000 vehicular rollover fatalities, but that is different from 10,000 SUV rollover fatalities. SUVs aren’t the only vehicles that roll over in an accident.

Sorry but that quote does not prove that there are 10,000 SUV rollover fatalities.

I’ve already shown that SUV fatalities in ALL types of crashes for 2004 numbered 4,666.

How, then, can SUV rollover fatalities account for MORE fatalities than the total number of SUV fatalities in all types of accidents?

The total number of vehicular-related fatalities per year has hovered around 40,000 annually. That includes, incidentally, pedestrian and motorcyle fatalities.

What you are saying is that one-quarter of ALL fatalities are in SUV rollover accidents.

Sorry, but the facts do not support that, as I’ve shown.

frizzlefry: SUV vs car fatalities have gone way up since 1992.

Well, yes, because there are a lot more of them on the highway since 1992. If you have more of a vehicle, you will get more of that vehicle being involved in accidents, including fatal ones. That is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.

frizzlefry: I hope its now very obvious that SUVs negatively the safety of others on the road.

When it negatively impacts the fatalities per 100 million vehicles miles driven, then it will be obvious.

frizzlefry: And that, Geeber, is why I worry about what my neighbor is driving because I am more than 4 times more likely to die if he hits me with his super-ute. So its very much my business.

I live near a major airport, and I’m sure that I am very likely to die if an airplane crashes into our house or lands in the yard while I’m doing yardwork. Except that, it never happens…but we should still ban commercial jets!

Before you make your neighbor’s choice of vehicle your business (let alone my choice – I don’t listen to people who don’t know as much as I do about the subject matter at hand), you need to make a much stronger case, and taking accident statistics out of context and quoting ones that are completely incorrect aren’t exactly helping it.

Here is a quote regarding the 10,000 rollover death figure:

“Rollover crashes are among the most violent events on America’s highways, and although they constitute a relatively small number of overall crashes, they account for a disproportionate number of deaths—approximately 10,000 a year,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters.

Thats from an NHTSA press release, Jan. 24th 2008.

Also, the NHTSA did a report on SUV vs Car accidents. The report shows that:
In a car vs car side impact collision, the person being hit is 8 times more likely to die. If the car is T-Boned by an SUV, the occupant of the car is 22 times more likely to die. The report also shows that in a head to head collision, the car occupant is 4 times more likely to die if hit by an SUV as opposed to car. The report determined that the overall fatality ratio is 340 percent higher if a car is hit by an SUV.
Here is the link to the report:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Studies%20&%20Reports/Associated%20Files/http___www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.pdf

The reports conclusion is “Recent sales and
registrations of LTVs have steadily increased as a percentage of the passenger vehicle fleet, with
LTVs representing 50 percent of new vehicle sales in 2001 and 37 percent of vehicle registrations. Consequently, this has led to an increased number of fatalities to car occupants who are struck by LTVs. This increase in passenger car fatalities has occurred even while the overall
fatalities for the U.S. fleet has stabilized or decreased over the past several years.”

If you look at figure 2 in that doc, you will see that car vs car fatalities have gone way down since 1992. Likey due to safety improvements. SUV vs car fatalities have gone way up since 1992. So if it were not for SUVs, traffic fatalities WOULD have gone down due to all the safety improvements. Looks like p00ch was right.

It was kinda hard to find. I guess the NHTSA is the only group that thought to research and record stats for something that is so PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.

I hope its now very obvious that SUVs negatively the safety of others on the road. And that, Geeber, is why I worry about what my neighbor is driving because I am more than 4 times more likely to die if he hits me with his super-ute. So its very much my business.

The figure is incorrect. There were not 10,000 people killed annually in SUV rollover crashes.

There were 10,657 passenger vehicles involved in fatal rollover crashes. (emphasis added)

Note that the reference is to PASSENGER VEHICLES, which encompasses cars, pickups, minivans, SUVs, etc.

Clicking on this figure in the article I read, incidentally, takes the reader to a law firm that handles…SUV rollover cases. Hardly an impartial source of data.

The law firm’s webpage goes on to say this:

Crashes in which a vehicle rolled over accounted for more than half of all single-vehicle crash deaths. (NHTSA)

Note that the firm is again talking about ALL passenger vehicles, not just SUVs. But the firm’s webpage makes sure that the distinction is blurred.

Here is what I found from an April 2005 article on the state of highway safety:

While fewer people were killed in cars and pickups, the number of SUV deaths rose from 4,446 to 4,666.

If the number of SUV deaths in ALL crashes was 4,666 for 2004, then there cannot have been 10,000 SUV rollover deaths during that year. And I seriously doubt that the number of fatalities from SUV rollovers has doubled since 2004.

frizzlefry: From 2001 – 2003, 7475 children were involved in backup accidents (being hit by a vehicle reversing). Of those accidents, the large majority involved SUVs.

When I grew up in the 1970s, there were children being hit by reversing vehicles, too. Back then, the majority involved passenger cars. Does that prove that passenger cars are more inherently more dangerous than SUVs?

No, it just proves that most families with children were more likely to a. drive a passenger car, and b. suffer this type of accident.

In fact, if we could get the breakdown by vehicle type, I’d bet that station wagons were more likely to be involved in this type of tragedy than other vehicles.

Now we have more SUVs, and parents with children (particularly small children, from what I’ve seen) are more likely to drive SUVs than, say Buick Lucernes, Ford Mustangs or Mitsubishi EVOs.

As for the University of Michigan study, I note that it never refutes that today’s roads are safer than ever before, even with the larger number of SUVs.

SUV rollovers have caused 10,000 deaths per year, even though they account for 3% of all accidents.

From 2001 – 2003, 7475 children were involved in backup accidents (being hit by a vehicle reversing). Of those accidents, the large majority involved SUVs.

And…from a University of Michigan Study:

“We study the dependence of risk on vehicle type and especially on vehicle model. Here, risk is measured by the number of driver fatalities per year per million vehicles registered. We analyze both the risk to the drivers of each vehicle model and the risk the vehicle model imposes on drivers of other vehicles with which it crashes. The “combined risk” associated with each vehicle model is simply the sum of the risk-to-drivers in all kinds of crashes and the risk-to-drivers-of-other-vehicles in two-vehicle crashes. We find that most car models are as safe to their drivers as most sport utility vehicles (SUVs); the increased risk of a rollover in a SUV roughly balances the higher risk for cars that collide with SUVs and pickup trucks. We find that SUVs and to a greater extent pickup trucks, impose much greater risks than cars on drivers of other vehicles; and these risks increase with increasing pickup size. The higher aggressivity of SUVs and pickups makes their combined risk higher than that of almost all cars.”

Despite all of the hysteria, there is no proof that our roads are less safe because of the increasing number of SUVs. Physics problems may be fun, but I’m more concerned about what is happening in the real world, and reputable statistics show that our roads are safer than ever.

And, for the record, I don’t own an SUV, and have no intention of buying one. But I don’t waste my time fretting about largely non-existant threats, or worrying about what my neighbors are driving.

You could compare a bad driver driving an SUV instead of a car to a toddler wielding a metal baseball bat as opposed to a plastic bat. The kid learned how to play ball with a nurf baseball set and got pretty good at controlling the plastic bat. Then he got a full size metal baseball bat. Its bigger, heavier, he has a harder time controlling it compared to the plastic bat he learned with and it does more damage to whatever it hits. And you cannot just take it away from him because its his right to have it.

I’m all for driver education and improving it but there are no requirements for SUV drivers to take an SUV training course to learn how to drive these vehicles that handle very differently compared to the car they took their drivers test in. And I don’t see the government doing that anytime soon. And for that reason I am very glad that it is becoming increasingly more expensive to own SUVs.

Since 1978, the death rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has been more than halved. Meanwhile, light trucks’ percentage of total vehicles on the road has doubled.

p00ch: So, with all the advancements in vehicle design and safety features we should theoretically see a drop in deaths, right?

If SUVs were even half as dangerous to other vehicles (not to metion their own drivers and passengers) as people claim that they are, they would overwhelm any effect from improved safety features.

p00ch: Then why is the good news limited to “… no increase in deaths per 100 million miles driven“? I’m not saying SUVs are the culprit but deaths-per-miles statistics don’t paint a full picture.

Deaths per 100 million miles driven is recognized as the most accurate way to measure highway safety. It accounts for more vehicles and the increasing amount of miles those vehicles are driven. That is why it is superior to raw numbers when measuring the true state of highway safety.

For example, there are countries that have fewer automotive fatalities in raw numbers than the United States (or Western European countries).

Yet, there are also far fewer vehicles in those countries, and they are driven less than they are in the U.S. or Western Europe. A raw number of fatalities will not compensate for that difference.

If we measure fatalities per 100 million miles driven, we get a true picture of the state of highway safety.

They were talking about global cooling, too, in the 1970s.

No one denies that global warming is happening. As I said, it has happened throughout history. The earth and warmed and cooled several times, all before the first internal-combustion engine. The question is whether the warming trend is driven by manmade factors.

When I raised this point the first time, you attempted to dismiss it by saying that I supported it with the paragraph that spoke about how the political process works. Nice try, but no.

Steven Lang: The level of ozone in the atmosphere at that point had indeed experienced a substantial decline over the last several decades and this fact, along with an escalation in the world’s average temperature, lead to a very long list of bipartisan legislation being passed including the banning of certain CFC’s and the establishment of Clean Air Acts. The first of which was passed by a Republican president.

Your knowledge of the history of various pieces of environmental legislaition, and what motivated their enactment, could charitably be described as limited.

CFCs were banned was because their increasing concentrations were hurting the upper ozone layer. Their ban had nothing to do with global warming.

The original Clean Air Act was passed long before there was any talk of global warming, and the amendments adopted in the 1960s that called for drastic reductions in emissions from vehicular and stationary sources were designed to improve ambient air quality by reducing levels of the specificed pollutants.

They were not adopted to combat global warming.

Note that carbon dioxide emissions are NOT explicitly regulated in the Clean Air Act. Nor were carbon dioxide emissions curbed in the 1990 amendments signed into law by the first President George Bush.

Steven Lang: Second, global warming is a scientific theory as are evolution, gravity, and relativity. The foundation for all these theories are primarily based on data that’s collected and analyzed by researchers and academics throughout the world.

Gravity and evolution and the theory of relativity have all been proven, while there is still debate on whether this spell of global warming is being driven by manmade factors.

Steven Lang: Out of all the theories that have been espoused over the last 25 years, there isn’t a single one that has been more thoroughly studied, critiqued, and overwhelmingly supported by the world scientific community than global warming.

As I said, there is no question that the earth has warmed and cooled over the centuries. The question is whether this spell of warming is driven by manmade factors, and there is still debate on that question.

At least, for those of us who have done more research than reading articles in National Geographic.

Steven Lang: It would also obviously not have been extensively studied within the US at a time when a Republican administration and the corporate world are the supreme forces in pushing legislation through Congress. We’ve pursued it because this particular theory explains a lot of the nasty things that are taking place throughout the world.

A little (more) education here – the Democrats controlled Congress until January 1995, and the White House was occupied by a Democrat from January 20, 1993 until January 20, 2001. Then the Democrats captured control of Congress in the fall 2006 elections.

Al Gore, the force behind An Inconvenient Truth, was vice president from 1993-2001.

Yet, during the 1990s, we heard comparatively little about global warming, and neither President Clinton, nor Vice President Al Gore, pushed for ratification of the the Kyoto Treaty by the Senate, because all 50 senators were against it.

Note that if all 50 senators were against it, then both Democrats and Republicans were in opposition.

One would think that if global warming were that dire, both President Clinton and Vice President Gore, would be out stumping for approval of the treaty as much as possible. And environmental advocacy groups and Hollywood activists would be holding their feet to the fire until it was passed.

Yet, remarkably, we heard comparatively little in the mainstream media or even from the usual advocacy groups. I largely heard the sound of…crickets chirping.

I realize that blaming everthing on corporations is a popular tactic, especially when there is either a distinct disinterest in seeing the entire issue, or a lack of understanding of what goes into making a law, and why certain laws aren’t passed.

The reality is that the reasons are considerably more complex, and neither Democrats or Republicans are going to vote for legislation that forces people make drastic adjustments in their lifestyle, or brings about a dramatic reduction in standards of living for the lower-middle and middle classes (the upper classes can better absorb these costs).

Steven Lang: Unlike the current myopic minds in the White House, this theory isn’t espoused and supported by pseudo-intellectuals who get $33 degrees from Liberty University and find themselves in the Attorney General’s office.

You’ll have more credibility if you don’t hurl gratitious insults. You’ll also have more credibility if you show knowledge of the subject matter being discussed.

First, the White House has said that it believes in the manmade theory of global warming.

Second, it pushed an increase in the CAFE requirements, which is what enviromentalists have been advocating for years. Those tougher requirements were recently enacted.

I think that someone isn’t reading the daily newspaper…

Incidentally, given your mistakes regarding why various pieces of legislation were passed and which party has been in control over which branch of the U.S. government since 1990, as well as the inability to distinguish between anecdotes and data (when discussing SUV safety), you need to refrain from hurling stones at the intellectual acumen of Liberty University graduates or anyone else.

Steven Lang: Your ‘political’ world consists of so-called think tanks that are created to espouse whatever proverbial B.S. is coming through the Beltway Pipeline courtesy of the latest Dick.

Any response to the global warming will have to be passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The drafting and passing of any legislation is DEFINITELY part of the political process, and if you think that scientists and environmentalists aren’t going to be heavily involved in the passage of said legislation, and will not slant and distort facts to make their case, you are kidding yourself.

Like many who believe in an issue, you are upset because some people have the gall to oppose you. Hence, the attempt to link them to corporations, or allege that any failure to act is George W. Bush’s fault (see above), or casting aspersions on their intellectual capabilities.

Steven Lang: When I worked with the Canadian Consulate I dealt with them on one side of the ‘political’ aisle. Later on when I had the chance to opportunity work with an American conservative thinktank, I saw the artificiality of the other side of the fence.

And if you don’t think that liberal and environmental advocacy groups don’t engage in “artificiality” to push their agenda…

Steven Lang: Contrary to your ‘political world’, the folks that are espousing this theory today are not relegated by the scientific ignorance of a few political figures (or special interest groups). They have the freedom, the wisdom, and the tools to make objective conclusions and they have done so regardless of the men in the Oval Offica.

Oh boy…

Steven Lang: The question really is whether we’re willing to change the way we live. I believe the answer to that is an emphatic ‘yes’.”

If everybody is willing and able to make those changes, then why the need for legislation mandating that said changes be made?

Legislation ultimately involves coercion to achieve its goal (something must be banned or limited, and violaters must be punished). Otherwise, it has no teeth. If people are really for doing sometthing, they don’t need coerced into doing it (or bribed, with incentives or handouts).

Now, we’re not establishing scientific fact here. That’s already been done by actual scientists. We’re in a debate, and you can’t make an argument out of not adequately doing your homework.

In real science, the data, the calculations, and the method(s) of analysis used are always provided to back up a theory. But unfortunately, global warmers can’t provide the most basic data needed to support their dogma.

Instead they have to resort to meaningless statements like… the abstract is quite clear that the temperatures are going up.

The only thing clear is the abstract part…

CAFE regs prohibit the car companies from building cars people want so people buy cars they don’t need.

Trust me: in a matter of days, SUVS would virtually disappear from the face of the earth. Other than the tiniest sliver of buyers who actually go off-road, the average buyer would run in terror from such monstrosities.

It never ceases to amaze me just how awful the overwhelming majority of these things are on terrain that only facetiously can be called “off-road.”

And yet people think the government can solve global warming.

Of course, you can’t actually see the data without paying them, but a good library membership should yield access to similar articles, and besides, the abstract is quite clear that the temperatures are going up.

But honestly, since when did “skeptic” mean “sits on his ass demanding proof and expects people to walk him through it”? Where I come from it means “does his own research”. If the scientific community says something and you’re saying you disagree, you’re kind of expected to actually take a look at what you’re disagreeing with. This isn’t scientific debate. This is analogous to coming to a seminar on quantum physics and demanding proof of the Uncertainty Principle.