When we were shopping for a car for my daughter, and she wanted a New Beetle, I was very skeptical.
So I looked them up on the IIHS site, and found "Excellent" crash test ratings and occupant protection. I looked up my Ford Aerostar - much bigger, taller, heavier. It had only marginal ratings, including the likelihood of serious leg injuries from side impacts by "normal" sized vehicles. Re: minivans - few people knew that when they first came out (e.g. early Dodge Caravan / Plymouth Voyager), they were *exempt* from the protections normal cars had to meet (roof rollover strength, door side impact beams, etc.) - even though they were sold as "people carriers" they were legislated as small trucks. What a crock. -Ben > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/30/02 05:50PM >>> > >>For example, most SUV owners you ask will say they are safer. > Statistics >absolutely prove this is wrong. I don't even have an airbag. > > >I think you might want to reexamine those statistics. I'll find some for > >you, but common sense tells me when I look at a SUV and if it hits a > >Dodge Neon, who is going to win? > > > It depends, of course > > It depends on angle of impact between the cars. It depends on whether the car > has an airbag or not. > > But in general, if you look at the Car and Driver and the Insurance Institute > statistics, there are more cars that score acceptable or better than there are > SUVs. And this has been true for a long time. Can you say Firestone? Can you say > rollover? > > And in a head-on with a Neon, I'd be paste on the dashboard. They might live. > > And I'd rather be in a Volvo or Dodge Minivan than a Rodeo in a side impact > crash. > > I was just pointing out that many of the reasons people drive SUVs are really > >marketing hype from car manufacturers. In many cases the SUVs are actually the > worst example of whatever they are touting. But they sure blow the smoke > beautifically. > > Jerry Johnson > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/30/02 05:11PM >>> > > I own a Jeep, but I own a bike and a pair of shoes. > > > > I try to use all of them in their proper time and place. > > Note that I have no problem with SUVs - they are useful vehicles. My > beef is > with the Proud and Wasteful consumers. > > > As for the "typical American" attitude towards the environment, I > think > that is almost as much due to the messenger as the message. > > LOL, Jerry, one of your fellow Americans (and mine) just said that More > is > the American Way, proudly, so its not just me that thinks so. > > > I think there is a knee-jerk response to most attempts to force > environmental concerns down people's throats. > > The point is that folks should care without having them forced down > their > throats. > > > As soon as environmentally friendly products are as useful and as > cheap as > their "dirty" counterparts, people will switch in droves. > > Not really - the vehicle trend now is towards ridiculously large. How > many > people need all the room a suburban has? > > > Asking people to give up their way of living for "the greater good" I > feel > is not taking basic human nature into account. > > I think then, we need to overcome our basic human nature and teach our > kids > to care about each other and the planet. > > > And we need to start selling environmentally friendly products as > PRODUCTS, and not tacking on a politically-correct "green" tax. > > What specifically are you speaking to here? > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
