Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
We all should already know that SUVs are not the safest of vehicles under any circumstances, but in case you weren't sure the Daily News take a moment today to hammer the point home: Though they comprise fewer than 15% of passenger vehicles in the city they were responsible for 26% of pedestrian deaths from passenger vehicles.
Much of the problem can be traced to the design of SUVs, experts say. Cars tend to hit pedestrians in the legs, throwing them onto the hoods but not causing as many head injuries. SUVs, however, tend to hit pedestrians higher, in their chests and heads, and throw them forward, causing more serious injuries. So a person struck by a car has a 5% chance of dying - but that jumps to 11% for someone struck by an SUV, a national study of fatalities showed.Lessons learned from the article: look both ways before crossing the street, if you drive an SUV you should sell it or be extra vigilant while driving, and if you are going to be hit by an SUV it is probably better to be on the taller side. But wait, couldn't we solve a bunch of this problem by charging a congestion tax just for SUVs?
Graphic from ROoLUT.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The article makes the same points I do. First, you really can't see things and people on the street as well from an SUV because so much of your view is blocked by a huge hood. And SUV drivers tend to be arrogant SOBs who think they're the kings and queens of the road. I can't count how many times I've been nearly run over by oblivious jerkwads in SUVs, almost always with cellphone firmly clenched in one hand.
Forget congestion pricing and commuter tax. Raise the gas tax in NYC to European levels, making gas $5-6 a gallon. That should hit the Stupid Urban Vehicle owners where it hurts.
Simple solution for the SUV "problem".... although I am typically against legislating problems away.. is to require a CDL (commercial driver's license) to operate them.
The SUV is actually a great vehicle, when used as DESIGNED... such as hauling heavy loads, off-roading, traversing heavy snow/mud conditions, etc.
But somehow, a few years ago, it became a bizzarre status symbol... good for the ego's of financially well off men, deficient in the "manhood" area, and at the same time, the new "station wagon" for soccer moms, doing grocery runs and picking up rug rats.
Meanwhile, these are the same people who would never want anything to do with the kind of people (typically hard workig blue collar types) who have always owned trucks.
Oh, one last thing, on the CDL requirement.. many of you professional truck drivers already know this: even "off-duty", or driving a small car, your liabilities are still the same (ie. BAC legal limit is HALF of regular license holders.. .04.)
Knowing this, and the city's vehicle seizure laws.. you can virtually eliminate "pleasure" bar-hopping in SUV's. Only one stiff drink will jeopardize the ownership of your pricey vehicle.. if you were required to hold a CDL.
I think the CDL idea is a good one, and these trucks should also get a special registration and license plate class with extra fees, too. And make the plates ones that can't drive on parkways, too.
I was thinking that because you ride higher with an SUV you can see better-because that's actually the truth. Just like the fact that in general SUV hoods aren't bigger than the hoods of other vehicles.
I like the idea of raising the gas tax in NYC though-because it's already over priced in NY State-where the government picks up an average of $.63 oer gallon sold, in Jersey it's far lower. That's where I buy when I can, so if all the gas stations in NY went under-many of us wouldn't care. And they would go under.
The funniest thing about the article is how it argues that the higher hood line of the SUVs is part of what makes them a terror. In Europe they've legislated that most cars must ride higher and have higher hoods! Why? Because it's actually statistically safer for the hoods to be higher-the suvs already fit this standard.
This article is yellow, fear mongering journalism-it ignores the facts, like how SUV owners are statistically safer-being in a bigger, heavier vehicle (Russ Rader Insurance Institute, LA Times Feb-9, 2005) or that more people are killed in single vehicle accidents-like hitting a tree, pole or rock-than colliding with an SUV (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety-1999). but it's no surprise that people buy into this fear mongering in New York.
As for CDLs for drivers-well shoud a little RAV4 or Wrangler require a CDL-but a giant, lumbering Avalon not require one!??! That's absolutely silly.
As for jerks driving SUVs-well jerks drive all sorts of cars-just like idiots get to "report" news these days. I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to buy into a Daily News article anyway, you folks at Gothamist oughta be ashamed of yourselves.
Oh- by the way-Joan Claybrook the source for alot of the "Facts" in the News article is the same women who argued that air bags couldn't do anything but good. It took a lot of deaths before people realized that air bags might need "on/off" switches. Claybrook did fire anyone at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who argued this first though.
Why do I get the feeling "max" owns an SUV? BTW, "max," your reading comprehension is abysmal. Claybrook contributed nothing but one quote in the article. Most of the attribution was for R.L Polk, a Virginia Tech researcher, NHTSA, Edmunds and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Figures with your preconceptions, you'd see the name Claybrook once at the end and instantly assume it was all her doing.
Hogger, you're right about the status symbol thing, but there's no need to make unnecessary insults about their "manhood." The essential truth is that they're actually deficient in the self esteem department. Even sillier as a status symbol are the giant, "bling" rims and superlow profile tires that are often mounted on these things. That's one good thing about potholes in the city. One decent pothole can trash these rims nicely.
As a matter of fact- I do own an suv-not deficient in the self esteem department however-maybe deficient in the "manhood" department, becasue after all I'm Irish.
Claybrook is an ardent "know nothing" and has parroted the bs that the article carries for years. My reading comprehension is a-okay, way ahead or your abysmal knowledge of the issue Brightliner.
So, the other 4 were killed by Sedans?? Should we outlaw Sedans?
IMO: What a marvelous hash of facts and fear mongering that piece was. Love the "gas-guzzling monsters" reference later in the article.
I think the problem lies with the drivers of SUV's/cars/etc more than anything else. If some jackass is barreling down a street and hits someone just stepping off the curb, it's not the car that committed the crime, it's the Driver.
SD, you seem to be reading only what you want to read from the article. It's not a matter of getting hit. It's a matter of what happens when you get hit. Relevant quotes:
If SUVs aren't deadlier vehicle for vehicle, how else do you account for 1/7 of the vehicles being responsible for 1/4 of the deaths? You're right, an awful lot of it does have to do with the incredible selfishness of SUV owners. They think themselves not only better than pedestrians, but better than drivers of mere cars. People like "max" always accuse others of "parroting" facts, when all they do themselves is parrot a different set of "facts." Look at the way he says SUVs are safer. Yeah, unless you run into another SUV in the auto arms race. Then basic physics takes over. For all the shrieking about menacing bike messengers and delivery people, I can't remember the last time somebody hit by a speeding bike died. Meanwhile, you take a look at any railroad accident. Despite being far more massive than any SUV, there is generally a lot of death and destruction.
Brightliner your reading comprehension is abysmal.
I pointed out that cars are becoming more like SUVs because the higher hoods of cars are actually considered safer! The higher visibility is much better too-and that's obvious, it seems that too many people subscribe to the fact that SUVs drivers are less capable or deliberately injuring people when they're simply safer for the suvs driver and passenger.
In fact, it's safer to have your family in an SUV because they're less likely to be hurt in an accident whether they collide with an suv, car, tractor trailer or lamp post-check the IIHS study-
http://www.hwysafety.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html#sec3
Further-if bigger weren't safer-then tanks would look like Kias.
Strangely, Brightliner-NY seems to be on it's own-in US more people in cars are killed when they crash into a bridge abutment, poles and other stationary objects-maybe we should get rid of them first.
Max:
SUV roll over - explain.
SUVs have a higher center of gravity-so they can roll over. However more people are killed in car rollovers than suv rollovers and if people buckled up more-in both-that wouldn't be so.
(Traffic Safety Facts 2001-NHTSA)
The goverment figures that 3/4 of all rollover fatalites are because people didn't buckle in.
(Traffic Safety Facts 2002-NHTSA)
I don't know what actually rolls over more often-from the figures it seems that SUVs are more likely to roll over than cars, but lately they aren't or cars are simply killing more people when they roll.
Of course more people are killed in car rollovers, as there are more cars on the road than WMDs, I mean SUVs. You can prove anything with statistics.
Not really, I just don't like articles like that one. What do you suppose I meant by "IMO"?
IMO, repeat IMO, That article is just designed to get people p/o'ed at the "SUV Menace", nothing more.
Some examples from the article:
"Tragic victims of SUV menace"
Loved this one:
"And the gas-guzzling monsters are killing more pedestrians each year, the Daily News has found."
This one was good, it slightly implies a cover up (Does the NYPD keep statistics like that?):
"The NYPD would not discuss dangers associated with SUVs, and could not tell The News how many pedestrians had been killed by SUVs this year."
BTW: The victims and their Families have my deepest sympathy. I hope the people responsible pay the price under the law.
Though they comprise fewer than 15% of passenger vehicles in the city they were responsible for 26% of pedestrian deaths from passenger vehicles.
This is a misleading statistic. It doesn't state how much road time these cars get (what if SUV owners are on the road more? then they'll cause more accidents proportonally) - nor does it account for SUVs from out of city as far as I can tell. If you look around at the streets, it does indeed look like more than 15% of vehicles on the street, doesn't it?
max, your grasp of common sense is abysmal.
suvs on the road are not only less safe for the occupants, but everyone else. the people on the sidewalk that you don't see and who can't see around you. the car that is turning next to you who has to edge out into an intersection in order to see what's coming. the car behind you whose vision you completely block. everyone who might get hit by your overweight beast. everyone who likes to breath air and drink water.
hijiki?
Did you look at the stats? They say you're wrong.
If not there are plenty of SUVs that people can see easily around-further there are plenty of cars-that block vision and are hard to see out of-how about any convertible with the top up-they've got giant blind spots. You can't even say, "in general cars are easier to see out of than suvs". It's just not true.
Further I love the folks who argue that this is an arms race-are you going to ban buses? Because one hit my Jeep hard-I was fine-I'd be dead if I was in a Corolla. So you'd need to ban all the trucks and buses, why not then put us all in golfcarts then?
Oh-how do you safely see through a car behind you anyway? With occupants-headrests etc. What are you doing looking thru a car behind you? I'm betting the road would be safer without you.