A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are you in favor of SUV's



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 23rd 04, 05:42 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents


mike hunt



william lynch wrote:
>
> in article , at
>
wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
>
> > According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
> > US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
> > bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
> > types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
> > biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
> > being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
> > 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
> > that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
> > is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
> > cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
> > trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
> > research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
> > apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
> > opinion

>
> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
> Strange how that works out.

Ads
  #32  
Old December 23rd 04, 06:58 PM
william lynch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in article , at
wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:

> The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
> properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
> injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
> mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
> larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
> injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> william lynch wrote:
>>
>> in article
, at
>>
wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
>>
>>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
>>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
>>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
>>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
>>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
>>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
>>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
>>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
>>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
>>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
>>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
>>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
>>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
>>> opinion

>>
>> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
>> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
>> Strange how that works out.


That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
US after three years plus.

  #33  
Old December 23rd 04, 06:58 PM
william lynch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

in article , at
wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:

> The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
> properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
> injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
> mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
> larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
> injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> william lynch wrote:
>>
>> in article
, at
>>
wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
>>
>>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
>>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
>>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
>>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
>>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
>>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
>>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
>>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
>>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
>>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
>>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
>>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
>>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
>>> opinion

>>
>> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
>> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
>> Strange how that works out.


That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
US after three years plus.

  #34  
Old December 23rd 04, 08:09 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
chooses to jump in. LOL


mike hunt



william lynch wrote:
>
> in article , at
>
wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:
>
> > The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
> > properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
> > injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
> > mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
> > larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
> > injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> > william lynch wrote:
> >>
> >> in article
, at
> >>
wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
> >>
> >>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
> >>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
> >>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
> >>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
> >>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
> >>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
> >>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
> >>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
> >>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
> >>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
> >>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
> >>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
> >>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
> >>> opinion
> >>
> >> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
> >> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
> >> Strange how that works out.

>
> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
> US after three years plus.

  #35  
Old December 23rd 04, 08:09 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
chooses to jump in. LOL


mike hunt



william lynch wrote:
>
> in article , at
>
wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:
>
> > The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
> > properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
> > injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
> > mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
> > larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
> > injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> > william lynch wrote:
> >>
> >> in article
, at
> >>
wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
> >>
> >>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
> >>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
> >>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
> >>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
> >>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
> >>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
> >>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
> >>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
> >>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
> >>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
> >>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
> >>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
> >>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
> >>> opinion
> >>
> >> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
> >> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
> >> Strange how that works out.

>
> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
> US after three years plus.

  #36  
Old December 24th 04, 01:52 AM
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


william lynch wrote:

> >> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
> >> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
> >> Strange how that works out.

>
> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
> US after three years plus.


In the goold old days that would have been "collaboration with the
enemy"...

http://www.onslows.co.uk/Catalogues/co170501/Page11.htm

  #37  
Old December 24th 04, 01:52 AM
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


william lynch wrote:

> >> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
> >> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
> >> Strange how that works out.

>
> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
> US after three years plus.


In the goold old days that would have been "collaboration with the
enemy"...

http://www.onslows.co.uk/Catalogues/co170501/Page11.htm

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for recommendations on entry level SUV's (1990-1993) Chris 4x4 0 July 22nd 04 03:06 PM
gas prices too high or too low? ben 4x4 115 July 3rd 04 04:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.