Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75, 76-90, 91-105, 106-117
<< Once again we are comparing an Accord to an SUV. Sadly yes there were fatalities with that Accord, but chances are you would not have been better off in any other midsize car of the time save for the Taurus. I have extended family who have died in crashes with their Silverado and one with their Yukon flipping over.>>
Yup, funny how a high center of gravity, limited safety features, oversized tires, and the rest result in an unsafe vehicle.
But just ignore all that plus the government warnings on every SUV about how it handles "differently" than a car, and you've got a strong case that SUVs are superior in crashes.
The comment about SUV drivers doesn't say ELDERLY. It says MATURE. My 16-year-old nephew is more MATURE than many 50 year old drivers (and he, incidentally, drives a large GM SUV). It is a fact that the majority of SUV drivers are not at fault in accidents involving cars and SUV's.
<<The comment about SUV drivers doesn't say ELDERLY. It says MATURE. My 16-year-old nephew is more MATURE than many 50 year old drivers (and he, incidentally, drives a large GM SUV). It is a fact that the majority of SUV drivers are not at fault in accidents involving cars and SUV's.>>
Care to back up that statement, because you cannot.
And I don't care how "mature" your 16 year old nephew is, he is NOT qualified to drive such a vehicle.
In Germany he couldn't even get on the autobahn until he was 18 AND had two years worth of driving experience.
This poster just proves why American SUV drivers cause more accidents and death than any other drivers.
People who drive SUV's are generally more mature and responsible people who drive much more carefully. There is not a SHRED of evidence that SUV drivers cause even a 10th of the fatalities on the road. Every accident I've ever heard of involving an SUV and a car was caused by the (usually young and irresponsible) driver of the car breaking the law. SUV's are by far the safest vehicles on the road due to their size, weight and safety features. If I had a 16-year-old son, that is what I'd MAKE him drive. And yes, there ARE very mature and responsible 16-year-olds out there. My next door neighbor's son is one, and he also drives a large GM SUV.
In regard to comment 12:51, I have yet to see even ONE SUV (even poorly made Japanese ones) that had "limited safety features". ALL SUV's have air bags and seat belts, and given the size and weight of domestic SUV's it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get seriously hurt (let alone killed) in one of these vehicles if you wear your seat belts. I know of several people who have been killed in truck and SUV roll overs, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DID NOT WEAR THEIR SEAT BELTS. Don't blame the SUV's for the stupidity of their drivers and passengers. If you're buckled up you may get tossed around, but you're not going to get hurt. Unlike small cars, SUV's don't collapse in on their occupants in crashes.
I have to agree that SUV's do pose a serious threat to smaller vehicles, as well as draining our country of much-needed oil reserves. However, until such time as our government sees fit to outlaw them (as I think it should), I will continue to keep my family in one for their own protection.
Even many of our friends are now insisting that their teenage children drive SUV's in order to be safer in the event of an accident. Having seen several SUV/car crashes we've never seen one in which an SUV occupant was even slightly injured. In most cases the cars they hit were almost unrecognizable as cars and in several cases the car drivers and passengers had serious injuries. In one case involving a friend of ours a small import went out of control and crossed a median, hitting our friend's Chevy Tahoe head on. The Tahoe had hardly a dent and our friend was only shaken up, but the driver of the small car nearly died and was in the hospital for a long time in spite of the fact that she had her seat belts on and her car had air bags.
Large vehicles just protect their occupants better. Anyone who argues otherwise has obviously never seen one involved in an accident with a car. Small Japanese cars are especially vulnerable due to the thinner gauge metal and weaker body structures.
<<Large vehicles just protect their occupants better. Anyone who argues otherwise has obviously never seen one involved in an accident with a car. Small Japanese cars are especially vulnerable due to the thinner gauge metal and weaker body structures.>>
100% fallacy and you are simply deluding yourself and putting your family in severe danger.
SUVs have substantially weaker body structures (safety cell, what's that?) since they are made to conform to LESS stringent safety standards thanks to lobbying by the automakers.
Don't believe me? Check out all the statistics on SUV accidents vs. those with cars. SUVs are deathtraps and always have been.
<<In regard to comment 12:51, I have yet to see even ONE SUV (even poorly made Japanese ones) that had "limited safety features". ALL SUV's have air bags and seat belts, and given the size and weight of domestic SUV's it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get seriously hurt (let alone killed) in one of these vehicles if you wear your seat belts. >>
More myths. Guess you'll have to explain to us how the SUV is so safe with seatbelts when it rolls over and its roof caves in killing its belted passengers.
As for safety, you'll also to explain why SUV makers DELIBERATELY made their vehicle heavier to avoid the regulations that allowed heavier vehicles to avoid strict safety requirements. FACT.
And only recently did SUVs even being offering airbags and rollover protections.
You'll also have to explain why all SUVs have government warnings about how the vehicle does not drive like a normal car and behaves differently. I mean, if everyone is wearing their seatbelts (as is required in states like Mass. and CA) why have the warning? Oh, that's right, SUVs are UNSAFE to begin with.
Also, I recommend you take a basic physics course. It will help you understand such concepts as high center of gravity, the handling characterics of wide off road tires, and other factors that make SUVs rolling deathtraps.
You guys are the ones vulnerable because you work at the factory that builds these gasoholics.
I'd venture to bet that none of those complaining about SUV's being so unsafe would volunteer to sit in their Civics and be rammed at 65mph by a Chevy Suburban to prove your (ridiculous) arguments. No takers... Gee, why am I not surprised!! I keep seeing these ludicrous statements over and over that "SUV's kill more people". Either provide FACTS to back up such silly arguments or stop wasting space on this site with unfounded statements.
As for the "tops caving in", that is absurd. I've seen several SUV rollovers and I have yet to see a deformed roof (OR an injured occupant).
<< Also everyone is so quick to talk about the amount of petrol that SUV's use what about the large executive cars; BMW, Mercedes etc.>>
Sorry, but SUVs represent 60% of the car market and gas guzzling luxury cars (which actually PAY a gas guzzler tax) represent something like 3 - 5% of the market.
If these people can afford to pay for SUVs they can afford to pay their fair share of gas guzzler tax, CO2 emission tax (like in England), higher insurance premiums (to compensate for their inordinate accident claims), and more.
Not even Japanese car companies can defy the laws of physics. A larger, more massive vehicle will always come out better in a crash with a smaller, more poorly constructed vehicle.
The cute commercials showing little animals inside the unibody of a Civic are especially ludicrous. The Civic doesn't even HAVE a frame as such.
Truck based SUV's have MASSIVE, boxed rail frames that are NOT going to crumple AT ALL in collisions with little tin cars. A large (or even mid-sized) truck based SUV that hits a small car at highway speed is going to keep right on going. The smaller vehicle will either be crumpled or violently tossed out of the path of the SUV (usually a combination of both).
In either case, the occupants of the car, if not immediately crushed, are subjected to FAR more G-forces than the occupants of the SUV, which continues to move for several seconds after either demolishing or tossing the car aside.
This is simply physics. Do the math or get someone well versed in physics to do it for you, but don't keep endangering the lives of people who might read these comments and be persuaded (falsely) to regard themselves as safe in a smaller vehicle.
Personally, I HATE SUV's, but as long as they are the most prevalent vehicle on the road, my family is going to be in one. It's a matter of self-defense.
<<Not even Japanese car companies can defy the laws of physics. A larger, more massive vehicle will always come out better in a crash with a smaller, more poorly constructed vehicle.>.
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong and accident statistics over the past five+ years bear that out.
If your theory held any water, accident deaths would go UP when smaller cars were introduced (1960's on), yet they went DOWN due to safety innovations. They have ONLY gone up recently due to SUVs, not cars, as they were on a constant spiral downward until the deathtraps became popular.
SUVs are inherently dangerous as they are not required to have impact crumple zones. Instead the impact or momentum in the event of a crash is absorbed by - you guessed it - the occupant/s of the SUV and the other vehicle.
If it is a normal passenger car it will have crumple zones and so will absorb the energy of the crash which acts like a big cushion to assist the vehicle to slow down gently. Remember it is the sudden "stop"that does the damage!
Paradoxically the car's crumple zone assist the SUV is absorb its kinetic energy and thus help protect its occupants.
I would not be boasting about the rigidity of the SUV body as this is the "feature" which helps to maim or kill anything that gets in it way. I live in Australia where like the US there is much heated debate over the SUV.
Strangely enough SUVs here are cheaper because the government in its wisdom decided to reduce the tariffs on them.. This is hard to fathom given their saftey record plu the fact that they are gas guzzlers and their purchase does nothing to assist local car makers.
The other thing about SUVs is that they are restrict the visibility of those driving around them. Get stuck behind a SUV and it is like driving behing a screen - yep you cannot see the road ahead clearly and thus are less prepared should an emergency situation develop ahead.
I really can't see much to recommend SUVs.
I'm STILL waiting for someone to cite all those "facts" that show more people are killed in SUV's. Of course, I don't expect to see them because there are none.