SUV safety? Maybe for them but not for you

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 25, 2003, 2:52 pm

Just wanted to show some studies on SUV's and safety since there have been other discussions here before on them:

The Miami Herald August 23, 2003, Saturday

Copyright 2003 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

The Miami Herald

August 23, 2003, Saturday
SECTION: BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS

KR-ACC-NO: K5401

LENGTH: 258 words

SUVs safer for their own, worse for those in cars

BYLINE: By Fred Tasker

BODY:
Are SUVs safer than cars? Yes, for their own occupants. But they achieve that safety at the expense of people in cars, federal studies say.

A November 2002 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety measured occupant deaths per million vehicles. Cars had 124; SUVs 115.
But a June 2003 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that while deaths in collisions between cars and other cars dropped from about 6,500 in 1980 to 3,000 in 2001, deaths in collisions between cars and "LTVs" (SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans) soared from about 3,800 to 5,100.

It cited these reasons: If an SUV and a car hit head-on, there are 4.5 fatalities in the car to every one in the SUV; and if an SUV hits a car in the side, there are 22 deaths in the car for every one in the SUV.

SUVs weigh more than cars, giving them an inertial advantage in crashes; their bumpers and frames are set higher, letting them penetrate cars' passenger compartments.

SUVs have their own dangers, one of the studies found:

_The rollover rate for SUVs is three times the rate for cars.

_Rollover crashes account for 22 percent of car deaths and 61 percent of SUV deaths.

Attempts are under way to make vehicles safer. The NHTSA created a "rollover rating" for vehicles, rating them from one star (most dangerous) to five stars (safest).

And automakers have put electronic anti-rollover systems on some SUVs.

___

(c) 2003, The Miami Herald.

Visit The Miami Herald Web edition on the World Wide Web at http://www.herald.com/

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 25, 2003, 2:58 pm

http://www.ktvu.com/news/2425186/detail.html

This really fucked up my commute on friday morning.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » August 25, 2003, 4:12 pm

ROFL

...vandalized by anti-pollution graffiti...

"There's a lot more pollutants from the fire than the vehicles would pollute during their lifetime," he said. "There's hundreds of tons of pollutants that were spilled off."

Only people impacted were the dealership and the insurance companies. This will not stop people from buying SUVs.

Fucking eco-idiots...

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 25, 2003, 4:21 pm

This isn't news.

I'm not getting rid of my SUV any time soon either.

-=Lohrno

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 25, 2003, 4:23 pm

I don't really think burning off and SUV is going to create more pollutants than it would generate in it's lifetime of usage.

I'm not defending the actions of the vandals, but that's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 25, 2003, 5:10 pm

I'm no expert, but when you consider the materials used to build an automobile, it's not totally off the wall to say destroying one releases more pollutants than operating one.

If these eco-nuts wanted to cut pollution, they would be mounting campaigns to encourage drivers to keep their cars longer. Anything else is chasing mosquitos while a 1000lb bear is repeatedly kicking you in the ass.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 25, 2003, 5:53 pm

Funny you should mention that. In Norway we are actually trying to get rid of old cars because they are so dangerous to drive.. think Norway has one of the oldest average car ages in the western world.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 25, 2003, 5:57 pm

yeah I have no idea what the logic behind keeping your cars longer to control pollution is. after SUVs and trucks the major polluters are cars from the 80s and earlier.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 25, 2003, 5:59 pm

Hrmm.

When you consider the tons of steel, plastics and rubber that go into a modern vehicle, I find it very hard to believe that a new vehicle is going to mean less pollution than anything this side of the Model T being kept on the road.

I've never seen a formal study though. Anyone have more objective data?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 25, 2003, 6:11 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Hrmm.

When you consider the tons of steel, plastics and rubber that go into a modern vehicle, I find it very hard to believe that a new vehicle is going to mean less pollution than anything this side of the Model T being kept on the road.

I've never seen a formal study though. Anyone have more objective data?

Vintage cars contribute VERY little to the smog problem. For they are cars that usually are not driven much, and very few of them are left. It's the POS '81 Ford LTD's or the tired old '87 Berreta's, and the like, that are out there in huge numbers, and belch smog badly.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 25, 2003, 6:14 pm

I agree Skogen.

Now, the question is, are we better off quarrying another two tons of ore to build a newer vehicle (along with all the other crap making a car requires) or running that POS another five years?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 25, 2003, 6:19 pm

Dunno if I can find the research but I know some was done some years ago back home. In Norway there is a reward (was 1000 NKR then) if you bring your old car in to a dumping place. Since we had so many old cars and they claimed they polluted a lot and were dangerous to drive, they upped the reward to 10 000 NKR for about a year.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 25, 2003, 7:45 pm

Fallanthas wrote:I agree Skogen.

Now, the question is, are we better off quarrying another two tons of ore to build a newer vehicle (along with all the other crap making a car requires) or running that POS another five years?

what? that's not even logical. if you're looking for an excuse to keep that '82 LeSabre up on blocks in your front yard, you should probably just take it down to the scrap yard.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 25, 2003, 10:15 pm

guessing the polution responses are in regards to the link after my quote. Unfortunately, I waited for that story to pop up forever before giving up at work.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 26, 2003, 10:19 am

Why is that not logical, Kyou? Obviously, the quarrying of ore, the manufacture of high-grade rubber, the manufacture and application of paint and platings all produces poluution.

I would like to see a comparison of that pollution to the difference between a 'new' car and a ten year old one as far as the pollution they create just being driven.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 26, 2003, 8:06 pm

Of course you have to factor in recycling etc of the old car vs manufacturing the new car, not just pollution vs pollution. An old, worn down 80 model will use more gas and pollute more than a brand new car (unless you get a gas hog.. you know.. a SUV

)

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 27, 2003, 11:00 am

Of course.

Now, can you prevent enough pollution over, say, a five year life span to justify the materials, energy and pollution produced to make the new car?

Still looking, haven't found any studies in the area yet.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 27, 2003, 3:30 pm

that is because who would study such a stupid fucking thing?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 27, 2003, 3:37 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Of course.

Now, can you prevent enough pollution over, say, a five year life span to justify the materials, energy and pollution produced to make the new car?

Still looking, haven't found any studies in the area yet.

I think it's a moot point, because Ford, Honda, ect. are going to produce new vehicles anyway. Given that, the only comparison you need to worry about is if your '76 Lincoln Land Barge produces more or less pollution and comsumes more or less gasoline than '03_model_X.

Abelard · Post by **Abelard** » August 27, 2003, 5:19 pm

well who says you would have to destroy the vehicles..why not reuse the metal and make new parts for more eco-friendly cars? suv owners could get a bigger discount for turning their suv's in on new cars perhaps?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 27, 2003, 5:44 pm

I think it's a moot point, because Ford, Honda, ect. are going to produce new vehicles anyway.

And sell em to who? People keeping cars longer means fewer new car sales.

Fine Kyou, you aren't interested, go somewhere else. When someone does the math and finds out you are producing five times the pollution buying a new car every two years as someone else keeping theirs for 20, you can feel secure that your head is stuck firmly and cozily in the sand.

Abelard, that would reduce the enviro-cost of a new vehicle, but wouldn't come close to eliminating it. You still have to produce new parts and re-smelt/remanufacture others.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 27, 2003, 7:15 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Fine Kyou, you aren't interested, go somewhere else. When someone does the math and finds out you are producing five times the pollution buying a new car every two years as someone else keeping theirs for 20, you can feel secure that your head is stuck firmly and cozily in the sand.

what?

what is it like on your planet? how did you jump from wishing you had some sort of asinine data on how much pollution building a car from raw materials generates to guaranteeing me that I will rue the day I was preposterous enough to suggest people trade in their black smoke belching beaters for a car with 90% less emmissions?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 28, 2003, 9:24 am

Fallanthas,
I found some numbers on it, they are from the national company (state owned) in Norway that build and maintain roads, so they should be fairly good. Info can be found here, but it is in Norwegian: http://www.vegvesen.no/oslo/luft/luftfor.pdf

Anyway, seems like there are several ways to look at the issue. First of all, if the old car does not have a catalytic converter. They were made obligatory on new cars in Norway in 1989, and any cars without it will clearly pollute more than newer cars with it.

As for old cars post 1989 and new cars, here is the breakdown they did:
Your local pollution would go down dramatically with a new car. New cars release a lot less NOx, PM and VOC. However, they don't release that much less CO2 (although some) so the global pollution wouldn't go down all that much. Numbers are for a 2000 model and a 1988 model with catalytic converter. You can see the graphical display of it at page 40 of the document.

Their conclusion on this is that it is doubtful wether it is worth it globally to buy a new car due to the CO2 pollution and the pollution of making a new car.

However, they also very clearly state that a new car uses less gas, pollute way less locally, and are safer in accidents. They also say that using the AC in a car increases gas useage with 10% and the pollution with a similar number. Of course, having good tires that roll easily etc will also reduce pollution.

I'll look and see if I find some direct numbers on car production, but pretty swamped right now so don't know if I'll have time.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 28, 2003, 9:50 am

They were made obligatory on new cars in Norway in 1989, and any cars without it will clearly pollute more than newer cars with it

Not true especially in a cold country like Norway.
Cats don't operate properly til they reach operating temperature. In a temperate zone like the UK it takes almost an hour of running time to reach that temperature. In Norway it will probably take a little longer.
In the time spent running below operating temperature a car will produce about 10% more pollutants than an unmodified car. Then consider that the vast majority of vehicle journeys take less than an hour and you find that cats aren't as great as they're made out to be.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 28, 2003, 11:03 am

Their conclusion on this is that it is doubtful wether it is worth it globally to buy a new car due to the CO2 pollution and the pollution of making a new car.

Thank you. THat's more or less what I was looking for. Hopefully it's a simple enough sentence that even Kyoukan will understand.

It seems Norways concern was more for the safety of newer cars.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 28, 2003, 6:06 pm

It seems Norways concern was more for the safety of newer cars.

Yes that was a major concern. The average age of cars in Norway is WAY higher than in the US, so quite a few people drive in old POS cars. Of course, they also pollute quite a bit more since a lot of them didn't have catalytic converters.

Not true especially in a cold country like Norway.
Cats don't operate properly til they reach operating temperature. In a temperate zone like the UK it takes almost an hour of running time to reach that temperature. In Norway it will probably take a little longer.

Would be true if it wasn't for enginer warmers, which are standard on cars in Norway. Most people (at least most people I know) use timers that kick in and use electricity to warm the engines. So the engines are in fact warm when you start them up (which is nice since the heaters work right away!). Heated garages etc are also quite common (we know what it means to insulate, some Americans friggin need to learn!).

VeeshanVault

SUV safety? Maybe for them but not for you

SUV safety? Maybe for them but not for you

Uhm...