[Shotimes] Now (OT), was 16x7 or 16x7.5 ?

[Arjun Khosla]

SUVs are definitely not safer than other cars on the road-- it starts 
off with them being classified as "light trucks".  Legislation says that 
because they're not passenger cars, they don't have to meet the same 
passenger-safety criteria.  Because they're built truck-tough, their 
frames won't crumple as easily in collisions, which means more force is 
tranferred to the SUV's occupants in a crash than if they were driving 
in a car.  Because they've got high centers of gravity, they're more 
likely to rollover in a crash.  Because they apparently aren't 
passenger-carriers, most don't have much side-impact protection.  The 
driver death rates in SUVs are comparable to those of small cars. 
 Mid-size (eg, SHO) and large cars have lower driver death rates.  If an 
SUV hits a car, its occupants are at least 4 times more likely to die 
than those in an SUV (27 times more likely in the event of an SUV 
side-impacting a car), and chances are those people would survive if 
they were hit by a car rather than an SUV.  The NHTSA says that 
occupants of a struck car are twice as likely to die if they're struck 
by an SUV than by another car (even if the SUV weighs the same as the car).

So if you choose an SUV based on safety, you're just as likely to die at 
the wheel than if you were driving a Mazda Protege, for example (note: 
giant SUVs like the Excursion are actually safer-than average for their 
drivers because of their ability to smash through anything).  You'd 
personally be safer driving a mid-size or large sedan.  You're also 
twice as likely to kill somebody else if you crash into them.

SUVs are not safer.  Not for their occupants, not for the occupants of 
other cars.

Some links:
https://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/
http://www.suv.org/safety.html
http://www.insweb.com/learningcenter/special-reports/suv/risks.htm

I'll ignore the SUV's poor gas mileage and the fact that only 5% of them 
are ever taken off-road...

Regards,
    -Arjun


Ron Porter wrote:

>No, I don't, as there is no such thing as a "gas guzzling" ANYTHING.......
>
>As you may have noticed, I have made this an OT topic. If anyone wants to
>respond, do it to me privately, as this is a definite OT topic.
>
>Whenever I see "gas guzzling" or "urban sprawl", etc, in anything I read, it
>is a liberal, socialist, middle-class-values-hating, ignorant comment.
>
>OK, as my friends do, they haul 6 passengers to soccer practice with gear.
>What "guzzles gas" more? One Explorer hauling these 7 people (6 kids +
>driver) & gear getting 15 mpg, or three Honda Civics hauling these 6 people
>plus three drivers getting 30 mpg each hauling the same stuff??  Sorry, this
>40-50 mpg BS is only highway miles, not around-town reality. 
>
>SUVS are useful vehicles, plus are safer than other cars. "Gas Guzzling" is
>fightin' words for those of us with any sensibility, unlike "pie in the sky"
>liberals.
>
>Sorry, you obvious touched one of my "hot buttons".
>
>Ron Porter (RNC Member since the '80s, and damn proud of it!!)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carl Prochilo [mailto:gr8sho@prochilo.myserver.org] 
>Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:09 PM
>To: Ron Porter; shotimes@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: [Shotimes] 16x7 or 16x7.5 ?
>
>Do you have the same problem up there
>seeing all these ugly gas guzzling SUVs with 30" wheels with the spinning
>centers?
>_______________________________________________
>Shotimes mailing list
>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes