In followup to introduction of this SUV safety topic, I want to say a couple of things.
1. I'm pretty sure that the European anthropologist, or whatever he was, mentioned in the article as being a super-important consultant to Detroit on consumer vehicle demand, himself has been said to drive a Porsche, pretty much fo the active avoidance reasons mentioned. So, maybe that's how they came to choose a Porsche in the Consumer test-grounds choices. 2. I do think we are in some danger of over-simplifying if we just take this one article and don't comment. Are there other SUV's that would handle better than the one chosen for illustration? Probably. Is a Porsche way off the scale, as far as being expensive and probably better-handling than almost any other car? Yes. So, while the article did a very excellent job of bringing home this apposition, for purposes of illustration, I also think we can develop a fuller picture. 3. Another point that will be challenged is understanding SUV safety and un-Safety. If some SUVs are designed better than others, then, driven in a careful fashion, I think a part of the problem is not so much increased danger to the internal occupants (though this is definitely an issue) but danger to others. That is, the perception that a heavier vehicle, in an accident, will - ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL -- afford some protection, may be true. I don't know. I am not going to go calling people "stupid" because they have some perception of this. I am just going to keep the debate open for myself. In an SUV, all other things are not equal, because you're higher off the ground and for other reasons. 4. The author does not open a chapter that I think is a big deal in this debate, which is the role of the insurance industry, the years-and-decades slow role they seem to play, in influencing these matters. There is this assumption out there amongst over-simplifiers of political philosophy, that if something is more costly, then this cost will almost instantly (within months or a few years) be fully refected in a capitalistic transparent process, whereby the costs go up (payoffs on accidents for example) and the insurance companies being profit-oriented and not wanting to get caught sleeping, will research these matters and start passing on these massively increased costs to consumers. So then, when you go to buy a vehicle that may cause dramatically increased likelihood of costly damage to the lives and property of the others around you, as well as perhaps your own life and property, the costs to insure that vehicle will, in theory go way way up. I have not gained knowledge of this matter except to say that it does not appear, yet, despite years and decades of these vehicles being sold, that their alleged increased costs-to-society are being fully reflected in the insurance costs charged to owners. So, either they are not doing as much damage to occupants and others as is alleged, or some other explanation(s) are in order (I am much more inclined toward the latter, but am just listing everything possible to be meticulous and orderly in examining what I believe to be not only an important question, but a conspicuously under-discussed question). Other explanations might include a sort of botched-up courts process where payments for this or that, following an accident, take on a muddied-water lack of transparency making it difficult to assess the real costs to all involved, versus the finally-recorded costs. They may include a refusal to pay all or part of many legitimate insurance claims, and (as some will insist, sometimes rightly) an accession to paying claims that are not legitimate or partly illegitimate. There may be state and federal regulations governing how actuaries and others are allowed to assess this or that issue when determining insurance rates. There may be, and probably are, a variety of other influences that I haven't thought of or named on the process of how insurance rates change over time to reflect this or that technological evolution. On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:33 -0000, you wrote: >I, too, thought this was a great article. I am grateful to the >person who posted it here. Gives a good source for some information >that I knew was out there somewhere, as well as more to ponder. > >Thanks to all who make this list a great place to be. I'm glad that >I stumbled in. > >Brian > >--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I thought that was a good one, thx. >> >> MM >> >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:39:59 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html >> > >> > >> >AP > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
