Here are some hard facts to debunk Harry's claim that SUVs are safe: Quotes from www.stats.org (Statistical Assessment Service):
<<The trouble is that, taking all crash test statistics into account, cars are often safer designs than SUVs. The reason is that most of the best selling SUVs still use ladder frames designed for pick-up trucks, which are not designed to absorb collision impacts. In crash tests run by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), mid-size sedans outperformed mid-size SUVs comfortably. In fact, the IIHS commented, "In single-vehicle crashes, heavy vehicles with stiff frames (most SUVs) might actually do more to harm the vehicle's occupants because there is little give, or energy absorption engineering, to dissipate the force of running into an immovable object." It also stated that weight is no advantage in single-vehicle crashes, meaning that size gives no particular benefit when it comes to colliding with bridges, lampposts or trees.>> <<In 1998, there were 130 million passenger cars registered in the U.S., and 16 million SUVs. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were 119,000 car rollovers and 36,000 SUV rollovers that year. That means that for every 100,000 vehicles, 91 cars rolled over, and 225 SUVs -- a figure two and one half times as high. When it comes to deaths, the disparity is even greater; for every 100,000 vehicles there are 3.4 deaths in car rollovers, but 10.1 in SUV rollovers (a figure over three times as high). For comparison, the homicide rate in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 people. "But rollovers are a rare form of accident" is a reasonable response, "Aren't SUVs safer in general?" That is a valid question, so once again we must look at NHTSA figures. For the 130 million cars, there were 29,000 fatal accidents in 1998 -- a death rate of 22 per 100,000 vehicles. For the 16 million SUVs, there were 4,500 fatalities, which means a death rate of 28 per 100,000. Given the size of the sample, the difference of over 25 percent must be statistically significant. There's no two ways about it. SUVs are more dangerous than cars -- for everybody.>> This lack of safety is not really surprising, because US safety standards for light trucks (including SUVs) are lower than for cars, as are the crash test requirements. Also, brakes of SUVs are inferior to those of cars -- combined with SUVs' excessive weight, that means much longer stopping distances. The higher weight and center of gravity also makes it much harder to dodge obstacles to avoid collisions. Finally, re. traffic in US towns: > Public transit operates most > efficiently and economically when connecting high population densities. Los > Angeles and other American cities have a dense center surrounded by umpteen > square miles of relative emptiness. > > If public transit runs out there, people get out, climb into their cars and > drive home - maybe 20-30 miles away. So, they usually feel that they might > as well stay in their cars into the city. If enough people use it, public transit can be effective in such settings too. (Unfortunately, General Motors prevented this from happening in the US.) But even with private vehicles, it's not necessary to use gas-guzzlers: The distances you mention can easily be covered using economic small cars or a hybrid solar/human-powered vehicle like the Swiss Twike (twike.com) that gets 80 "mpg" (in renewable energy!). That would even cause less congestion (on roads and in people ;-} ) and there would be less obesity in the US. Would be a real win-win, except for the car&oil industry... Chris
