Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:49:44 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:



Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement. Most do
not pull trailers. Most do not have 4-wheel drive and I quite often pass
them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon. The
safety aspect is suspect.

Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would be
much safer if it were not for SUVs.

In otherwords, driving an SUV addresses the safety problem created by
those that drive SUVs. Go figure...

Greg

("Greg Copeland" wrote)
Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would be
much safer if it were not for SUVs.


Check the accident stats. Many fatalities are single car accidents. Now we
need to figure out if SUV's are more, or less, safe than "smaller" cars in
this category?

Single vehicle deaths is a healthy percentage of the pie.


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Greg Copeland" wrote)
Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would
be
much safer if it were not for SUVs.


Check the accident stats. Many fatalities are single car accidents. Now we
need to figure out if SUV's are more, or less, safe than "smaller" cars in
this category?

Single vehicle deaths is a healthy percentage of the pie.


Montblack

A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..
A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.

Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
statistical data gathering.

However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in this
newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first of all
they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more importantly when
most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because they and everyone else
on the road refuse to drive safely in the first place.

I'm not pointing fingers here. For all I know, every single person
commenting on SUVs here is in the top 1% of safe drivers. I doubt that's
even close to the truth, but the real question is drivers in general. On
the whole, they are terrible. If they approached driving with any real
sense of responsibility and care, then maybe it wouldn't matter so much
which vehicle was "safer".

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.


Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
statistical data gathering.

However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in this
newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first of all
they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more importantly when
most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because they and everyone else
on the road refuse to drive safely in the first place.

Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."


Matt

Stirling Moss was commentating at the Watkins Glen GP years ago. He
described being pulled over the day before by a NY State Trooper while
"enthusiastically" motoring along the winding upstate NY roads in a borrowed
Mini Cooper S (the original one). The cop walked up the window and asked,
"Who the hell do you think YOU are, Stirling Moss?" After a bit of humorous
confusion over his driver's license, the cop was pretty nice until they got
into a heated debate about the relative safety of the Mini versus the cop's
Police Cruiser. The incident ended with Moss getting a ticket. True story.

Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those than
any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first place is
always better than just surviving one.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.


Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
statistical data gathering.

However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in
this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first of
all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more importantly
when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because they and
everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first place.

Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."


Matt

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in

Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those than
any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first place is
always better than just surviving one.

I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter stopping
distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a pretty tough
challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small cares, and
certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

moo




--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.


Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
statistical data gathering.

However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in
this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first
of all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more
importantly when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because
they and everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first
place.

Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."


Matt

On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."

It's the Volvo driver effect. In this country, Volvo drivers have a poor
reputation (mainly amongst motorcyclists) for being dangerous drivers.

What happens is a bad driver tends to gravitate towards Volvo cars
because Volvo are always pimping their safety features (and Volvo cars
do have very good passive safety features). Instead of correcting the
driving errors that caused their last crash, they just buy a Volvo so
they have a better chance of walking away from the next crash they
cause.

I think in the US, this forms part of the SUV buying mentality from the
people who would be perfectly well served by a mid size car.

Governments don't help either - they just bring out initiatives to make
it look as if they are doing something (lowering speed limits, speed
cameras, traffic aggravationg^W calming measures etc.) which are quick,
simple, popular and cheap - instead of addressing the real cause of poor
road safety (which would be very unpopular - I think there should be a
BDR - Biennial Driving Review, and the mandatory driving instruction and
tests should be much tougher - and include emergency training, such as
skid pan training, plus eye and reaction tests as a simple medical).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in
On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."

It's the Volvo driver effect. In this country, Volvo drivers have a poor
reputation (mainly amongst motorcyclists) for being dangerous drivers.

What happens is a bad driver tends to gravitate towards Volvo cars
because

You imagine they do? I just find Volvo drivers to be a bit weird. And they
all seem to wear hats. Ever noticed that?

moo

And just to add an international flavor to this conversation about SUVs.

I heard a story on NPRs Morning Eddition today. Sales of SUVs has increased
5 fold in the last few years. The number one reason given is to protect
themselves from "aggressive French drivers."


The French want to by USAians so bad they can taste it.