Actually, The SUV-Defeating Rock Is Good

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

As I sourced, SUVs are objectively more dangerous for pedestrians. 

But you didn’t show how operation of SUVs to be meaningfully different from cars. What stricter standards could you impose that would reflect that driving either is virtually the same?

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Pickup for life. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

IIHS data objectively shows that small cars are significantly more dangerous than larger SUVs and Pickups for their drivers.  Since vehicle occupants represent ~70% of the fatalities -- that makes SUVs & Pickups safer as a whole.

[CitizenVectron]

18 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

IIHS data objectively shows that small cars are significantly more dangerous than larger SUVs and Pickups for their drivers.  Since vehicle occupants represent ~70% of the fatalities -- that makes SUVs & Pickups safer as a whole.

 

I guess that makes prostitutes more dangerous than murderers, since the former are more often killed than the latter in interactions between the two.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I guess that makes prostitutes more dangerous than murderers, since the former are more often killed than the latter in interactions between the two.

I’m sure this made more sense in your head

 

If you are a passenger in an auto accident would you rather be in an SUV/Truck or a sedan?

[AbsolutSurgen]

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I guess that makes prostitutes more dangerous than murderers, since the former are more often killed than the latter in interactions between the two.

Not sure I understand your point.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

29 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

IIHS data objectively shows that small cars are significantly more dangerous than larger SUVs and Pickups for their drivers.  Since vehicle occupants represent ~70% of the fatalities -- that makes SUVs & Pickups safer as a whole.

Smaller cars are more dangerous than SUVs when in an accident against an SUV

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-safer-than-cars-in-front-crashes-but-there-is-more-to-the-story/index.htm

Quote

While the laws of physics dictate that in a crash between mismatched vehicles, the lighter one takes the brunt of the impact, this study shows just how unequal the contest is.
In car vs. SUV head-on crashes, the study found that the odds of death were 7.6 times higher for the car driver than the SUV driver. In crashes where the car had a better front crash-test rating than the SUV did, the car's driver fared a bit better but was still four and a half times more likely to die than the SUV driver

We. Need. Fewer. SUVs.

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Not sure I understand your point.

 

Vehicles at-fault for an accident should bear 100% of the liability burden for deaths in accidents. It is not that small vehicles are unsafe in collisions, it is that larger vehicles are designed in a way that makes them dangerous to other vehicles (and people)

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

SUVs are more dangerous to drivers of smaller cars on the road, they're more dangerous to pedestrians, they pollute more, they emit more greenhouse gases, they need to go.

[Ghost_MH]

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Not sure I understand your point.

 

Safety measures are put in place to help prevent deaths by vehicle occupants. What safety measures should be put in place to protect people from the occupants of vehicles? If we can't put airbags on the outside of trucks and cushion every sidewalk in the nation, then we should probably try to limit vehicles that are more dangerous to pedestrians. It doesn't matter than pedestrians are a small part of all vehicle deaths.

[Dodger]

Glad I got a truck, great for me, shitty for you!

[Spork3245]

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

they pollute more, they emit more greenhouse gases

 

This part is a bit outdated. Modern 5-passenger SUVs get similar or better mpg to sedans now. It’s partly why they had such a resurgence over the past decade despite gas going up. Then there are models like the Jaguar E-Pace, hybrid Explorer and and many others.

[Firewithin]

hero rock showing the people who dont know how to drive.

[Chris-]

4 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

This part is a bit outdated. Modern 5-passenger SUVs get similar or better mpg to sedans now. It’s partly why they had such a resurgence over the past decade despite gas going up. Then there are models like the Jaguar E-Pace, hybrid Explorer and and many others.

My dad’s 2017 Forester gets the same MPG as my 2014 Impreza. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

21 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Vehicles at-fault for an accident should bear 100% of the liability burden for deaths in accidents. It is not that small vehicles are unsafe in collisions, it is that larger vehicles are designed in a way that makes them dangerous to other vehicles (and people)

The majority of fatalities in accidents occur with only one vehicle involved. Only 38% of fatal accidents involve multiple vehicles.  The fatality rates of small cars can be multiples of those of larger vehicles.  

Improvements to SUVs over the past 4-5 years have dramatically reduced the difference in fatality rates on smaller cars.

 

19 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Safety measures are put in place to help prevent deaths by vehicle occupants. What safety measures should be put in place to protect people from the occupants of vehicles? If we can't put airbags on the outside of trucks and cushion every sidewalk in the nation, then we should probably try to limit vehicles that are more dangerous to pedestrians. It doesn't matter than pedestrians are a small part of all vehicle deaths.

The number one way of protecting pedestrians, is to avoid them being hit by cars:

1)  Mandate vehicle safety systems such as AEB and front parking sensors

2)  Get people to stop crossing the road drunk -- a significant amount of pedestrian deaths occur with folks who have a BAC >.08% (I'm to lazy to try and go back and find the source, but I believe it is close to 35%)

3)  Stop jaywalking -- vast majority of pedestrian deaths do not occur at intersections/crosswalks

4)  Pedestrians are significantly more likely to die at night (with 3AM to 6AM being the most dangerous time)

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

The number one way of protecting pedestrians, is to avoid them being hit by cars:

1)  Mandate vehicle safety systems such as AEB and front parking sensors

2)  Get people to stop crossing the road drunk -- a significant amount of pedestrian deaths occur with folks who have a BAC >.08% (I'm to lazy to try and go back and find the source, but I believe it is close to 35%)

3)  Stop jaywalking -- vast majority of pedestrian deaths do not occur at intersections/crosswalks

4)  Pedestrians are significantly more likely to die at night (with 3AM to 6AM being the most dangerous time)

 

So basically "criminalize walking". @b_m_b_m_b_m

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

So basically "criminalize walking". @b_m_b_m_b_m

How did you get that from what I wrote?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

This part is a bit outdated. Modern 5-passenger SUVs get similar or better mpg to sedans now. It’s partly why they had such a resurgence over the past decade despite gas going up. Then there are models like the Jaguar E-Pace, hybrid Explorer and and many others.

They do emit more ghgs than sedans on average

https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report#Highlight3

Quote

All five vehicle types are at or near record low CO2 emissions and record high fuel economy and have steadily improved in recent years. However, the market shift towards SUVs and away from sedan/wagons has offset some of the fleetwide benefits that otherwise would have been achieved from the increased fuel economy within each vehicle type.

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

 

39 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

SUVs are more dangerous to drivers of smaller cars on the road, they're more dangerous to pedestrians, they pollute more, they emit more greenhouse gases, they need to go.

If the issue's about safety and all unsafe vehicles need to go, just ban all 'American' brand cars.

 

Ford, GM, Chrysler, Chevrolet...they are all less safe, more inefficient, more pollution-producing than the Hyundai's, Kia's and Honda's of the world.  If that's our criteria for termination, then 'they need to go.'

 

All sports cars and luxury cars, too.

 

In fact, pedal-cabs need to be the only vehicle that's legal to drive.

[Firewithin]

13 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

So basically "criminalize walking". @b_m_b_m_b_m

 

we just need a WALL-E system when we are taken around by our robotic overlords

 

[Joe]

Vision Zero in NYC seems to be working. Maybe we need to roll that shit out to more cities.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Jose said:

Vision Zero in NYC seems to be working. Maybe we need to roll that shit out to more cities.

It seems as though it has reduced fatalities, but increased accidents overall. I’m guessing it’s because people take time to adjust to changes like traffic light patterns being altered.

[Ghost_MH]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It seems as though it has reduced fatalities, but increased accidents overall. I’m guessing it’s because people take time to adjust to changes like traffic light patterns being altered.

 

That's still a net positive. I'd take more low speed accidents if it means fewer casualties.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That's still a net positive. I'd take more low speed accidents if it means fewer casualties.

Yeah, I meant that I assume that the minor accidents will come down in time as everybody adjusts to some of these changes that eventually become programmed into our brains. It already is better in the worst situations (fatalities) and will just take some time to improve on the minor end of the spectrum. Cool stuff!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

24 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

 

If the issue's about safety and all unsafe vehicles need to go, just ban all 'American' brand cars.

 

Ford, GM, Chrysler, Chevrolet...they are all less safe, more inefficient, more pollution-producing than the Hyundai's, Kia's and Honda's of the world.  If that's our criteria for termination, then 'they need to go.'

 

All sports cars and luxury cars, too.

 

In fact, pedal-cabs need to be the only vehicle that's legal to drive.

If you're expecting me to disagree I dunno what to tell you. But it all isn't the fault of auto makers. The system in which they exist is also problematic

[Spork3245]

13 minutes ago, Chris- said:

My dad’s 2017 Forester gets the same MPG as my 2014 Impreza. 

 

Yea, it’s pretty crazy how far engines have come in such a short time in both performance and gas mileage. My 2019 V8 Mustang averages only about 4-5 mpg less than my fathers 4 cylinder 2018 Acura sedan, and about 1-2 mpg more than my fiancé’s previous 2008 V6 Infiniti G sedan.

 

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

They do emit more ghgs than sedans on average

https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report#Highlight3

 

 

How much was it offset by, though? The most popular compact SUV vs the most popular compact sedan has a 3mpg (avg combined) difference between them: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40844&id=40853

 

For the record, I’m not a fan of SUVs, btw. My only point is that the gas mileage thing is kinda minimal nowadays. 10+ years ago it was like a 27-30 mpg avg for non-performance sedans and 16-18 for most SUVs, which was huge.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If you're expecting me to disagree I dunno what to tell you. But it all isn't the fault of auto makers. The system in which they exist is also problematic

But they contribute to the system. My understanding is that they love selling SUVs and trucks because the margins are much higher than sedans.

[SilentWorld]

18 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

They do emit more ghgs than sedans on average

https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report#Highlight3

 

Of course sedans are going to get better mileage and produce less CO2 than crossovers/SUV's. I always find it funny when people try to act like this isn't the case. Invariably they are either comparing a much older sedan to a new SUV/crossover or they're comparing a sedan driven by someone with a lead foot to an SUV/crossover driven with fuel economy in mind. SUV's have a higher seat height which creates poorer aerodynamics, this plus the increased drag caused by higher weight and AWD are two factors that you can't really get around. I mean you can try to minimize the losses, but an SUV is never going to get better gas mileage than a comparable sedan. 

[Spork3245]

30 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

Of course sedans are going to get better mileage and produce less CO2 than crossovers/SUV's. I always find it funny when people try to act like this isn't the case. Invariably they are either comparing a much older sedan to a new SUV/crossover or they're comparing a sedan driven by someone with a lead foot to an SUV/crossover driven with fuel economy in mind. SUV's have a higher seat height which creates poorer aerodynamics, this plus the increased drag caused by higher weight and AWD are two factors that you can't really get around. I mean you can try to minimize the losses, but an SUV is never going to get better gas mileage than a comparable sedan. 

 

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40844&id=40853

*cough*

Crossovers have similar ride heights and weight to sedans. Also, not all SUVs use awd systems, many are fwd.

The difference in mpg with modern popular SUVs vs their car equivalent is minimal. Also, hybrid SUVs are becoming increasingly common and affordable, not to mention the push to electric.

[AbsolutSurgen]

People buy vehicles to meet their needs (real or perceived) -- it isn't realistic to expect that if someone wasn't able to buy their Suburban, they would go out and buy a Civic.  There are many reasons people buy larger vehicles -- 1) they could have a large family to cart around (i.e. they have 5 kids), 2) they use it for work (i.e. they are a contractor or landscaper and need to carry or tow around supplies), 3) they need it to tow (i.e. a camping trailer, ATVs, boats, etc.), 4) It is used for commercial purposes (police, etc.)

 

50 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40844&id=40853

*cough*

Crossovers have similar ride heights and weight to sedans. Also, not all SUVs use awd systems, many are fwd.

The difference in mpg with modern popular SUVs vs their car equivalent is minimal. Also, hybrid SUVs are becoming increasingly common and affordable, not to mention the push to electric.

You're absolutely right.

People like to compare average SUV to average car -- and cars skew very much smaller.  But crossovers built on the same size platform as their car equivalent have minimal fuel economy degradation for an identical powertrain -- yes the SUV is typically somewhat worse due to the aereodynamic/weight differences -- but sometimes it is only 1 or 2 MPG (or can even be hidden in the rounding).

[CitizenVectron]

I think it's pretty obvious (in terms of fuel-efficiency/emissions):

 

Cars>>>Crossovers>>>SUVs>>>Trucks

 

Yes crossovers are close to cars, but they are still slightly worse. Better than SUVs, of course. But there are still a lot of big SUVs being driven. 

 

[Spork3245]

12 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I think it's pretty obvious (in terms of fuel-efficiency/emissions):

 

Cars>>>Crossovers>>>SUVs>>>Trucks

 

Yes crossovers are close to cars, but they are still slightly worse. Better than SUVs, of course. But there are still a lot of big SUVs being driven. 

 

 

There’s also a lot of luxury sedans and performance cars that get 20mpg that are being driven. However, the new F150 gets 28mpg avg combined.  

[AbsolutSurgen]

24 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I think it's pretty obvious (in terms of fuel-efficiency/emissions):

 

Cars>>>Crossovers>>>SUVs>>>Trucks

 

Yes crossovers are close to cars, but they are still slightly worse. Better than SUVs, of course. But there are still a lot of big SUVs being driven. 

 

20 years ago I could tell you which vehicles were “SUVs” and which were “CUVs”. Today the difference is largely marketing. 

[Ghost_MH]

14 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

20 years ago I could tell you which vehicles were “SUVs” and which were “CUVs”. Today the difference is largely marketing. 

 

A large part of that is because stationwagons don't sell, but a crossover that is totally a stationwagon in everything but name? Yeah, people will buy those right up.

[SilentWorld]

3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40844&id=40853

*cough*

Crossovers have similar ride heights and weight to sedans. Also, not all SUVs use awd systems, many are fwd.

The difference in mpg with modern popular SUVs vs their car equivalent is minimal. Also, hybrid SUVs are becoming increasingly common and affordable, not to mention the push to electric.

 

There's a difference, granted it's small but the CUV compared to an equivalent sedan is always going to be worse. And granted, you can often get CUV's without AWD so I can see your point in comparing to a FWD vehicle CRV but I wonder how many people truly buy the FWD CRV? 

 

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

There’s also a lot of luxury sedans and performance cars that get 20mpg that are being driven. However, the new F150 gets 28mpg avg combined.  

That's with the diesel in 2wd that very, very few people are going to buy. The diesel in 4wd that will get a few more sales (but still probably not a lot) will be around 25 combined I think. Most trucks that are sold are likely going to have one of the turbo V6's and 4wd, a combination that I believe nets a combined gas mileage around 20.