nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Limit

katipo · May 20, 2005

>>The length of the Mass Pike at 50-55 is a long ride.<<

Try driving the length of Nebraska or Kansas at 55 mph!!!! I've had the "pleasure"...

Yuri.

Or from Orange Tx to El Paso Tx, 889 miles...makes for a two day trip in one state yet

spanky1 · May 20, 2005

Just like to add a couple of comments.

1)I'm continually amazed when live in a society that will complain about $2.50/gallon gasoline, but will pay $1 for a bottle of water to drink, when we have an excellent clean water supply in this country.

2)SUV's. I don't own one, but I don't oppose anyone for wanting to own one, even if it is that single female driving to Starbucks(as someone mentioned). I saw where someone even had the nerve to post about how she should be driving a mini-cooper instead of her Expedition(or whatever it was). Many women drive these becasue they can see the road better, and because they are almost always safer in a big suv than in a little car. If I had a choice to be t-boned in a Ford Expedition or in a mini-cooper, I'll take the SUV every time.

I'm not trying to be an apologetic for SUV owners, but I think they can drive what they want if they are willing to pay the cost.

DrStink · May 20, 2005

... and because they are almost always safer in a big suv than in a little car. If I had a choice to be t-boned in a Ford Expedition or in a mini-cooper, I'll take the SUV every time.

SUVs are not safer. They just feel safer.

spanky1 · May 20, 2005

You need to read my post a little closer. I specifically mentioned being t-boned in a cooper versus being t-boned in an expedition. You can find statistics all day long that will back me up in car versus light-truck or car versus suv crash results.

I didn't refer to single car crashes because those are generally driver fault crashes. Let me state again, if you, me or anyone on this board are setting at a stop light and are getting ready to get whacked, most us us would rather be sitting high in the suv, rather that sitting low in our passenger sedan. I've also found that the anti-suv crowd will post dubious stats regarding pound-to-pound death rates, and several other misleading twisting of the facts.

Also, please site your source when posting statistics. Remember the adage about the 3 increasing degrees of lying:

lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Mike_M · May 21, 2005

I specifically mentioned being t-boned in a cooper versus being t-boned in an expedition. You can find statistics all day long that will back me up in car versus light-truck or car versus suv crash results.

Yes, and since most people seem to follow the same logic and BUY SUV's for that very reason, what has ended up happening is that driving an SUV is no safety guarantee, since the SUV that hits you will be just as big.

SUVs hitting SUVs and Coopers hitting Coopers will have approximately the same rate of serious injury and death.

What's next? Everybody rushes out to buy Bradleys because SUVs can't hurt them in an accident? Perhaps an M1A1 Abrams?

Mike

DrStink · May 21, 2005

You need to read my post a little closer.

Actually, I did read it closely. I believe your exact words were "Many women drive these becasue they can see the road better, and because they are almost always safer in a big suv than in a little car. " (emphasis mine) I then posted data that refutes this statement.

I didn't refer to single car crashes because those are generally driver fault crashes.

So what? That does not change the reality that your risk dying while driving a Tahoe is no better than while a Jetta. Feel free to check the graph if you don't believe.

And even if I accept your logic that 'good drivers' are safer in SUVs because they don't get into single car accidents, (which I don't), let me turn the question around. If you can I both accept that Mrs. Jones down the street is a horrible driver, would you rather be t-boned by Mrs. Jones in her Suburban or Mrs. Jones in her Camry?

Let me state again, if you, me or anyone on this board are setting at a stop light and are getting ready to get whacked, most us us would rather be sitting high in the suv, rather that sitting low in our passenger sedan.

Nope. I'd rather be in a unibody sedan with crumple zones and side curtain airbags over a rigid body on frame SUV. But hey, I drive also drive a diesel and use a PowerBook, so I'm clearly out of touch with American pop culture groupthink, so what do I know?

I've also found that the anti-suv crowd will post dubious stats regarding pound-to-pound death rates, and several other misleading twisting of the facts.

Also, please site your source when posting statistics.

Fair enough. The graph, without additional commentary, comes from:

An Analysis of Traffic Deaths by Vehicle Type and Model
Marc Ross, University of Michigan, Physics Department
Tom Wenzel, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
March 2002
Report Number T021

Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Energy under LBL Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098. Report Number LBNL-49675.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I can say it in five. SUVs are not inherently safer.

Remember the adage about the 3 increasing degrees of lying:

lies, damn lies, and statistics.

You know, if you're gonna imply I'm a liar, the least you could do is give Benjamin Disraeli his proper credit for that aphorism.

booty · May 22, 2005

The 55mph limit ranks among the worst laws that congress ever turned out. We still have some roads in Alaska with the 55 just because of the cost of changing the signs. Leave the speed limits to the state and local governments where maybe a little more common sense will prevail.

Now if we could only get rid a the insane clock switching daylight savings time.....

Frank M · May 22, 2005

The 55mph limit ranks among the worst laws that congress ever turned out. We still have some roads in Alaska with the 55 just because of the cost of changing the signs. Leave the speed limits to the state and local governments where maybe a little more common sense will prevail.

Now if we could only get rid a the insane clock switching daylight savings time.....

Fairbanks, Alaska is my favorite place...

I usually go 60mph on the road from Anchorage to Fairbanks when it is snow covered

... and 65-68mph when it isn't..

Mike_M · May 22, 2005

The 55mph limit ranks among the worst laws that congress ever turned out. We still have some roads in Alaska with the 55 just because of the cost of changing the signs. Leave the speed limits to the state and local governments where maybe a little more common sense will prevail.

Or, after 15 years, they may still have not changed the signs, due to cost.

Now if we could only get rid a the insane clock switching daylight savings time.....

Amen, brother. One of the things I've always found to be stupid. The concept that you can "create" time by fooling yourself into getting up earlier and just calling it a later time...*rude noise* Just freaking get up earlier.

BleachedBora · May 23, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Hmm--we still have 55 MPH here in Oregon...drives me crazy.

jvc · May 29, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Why on earth do we provide significant tax incentive's to small businesses to purchase very large SUV's (8500 gvw).

The tax write off's for the purchase of heavy suv gas guzzler's far outweighs the $2000 rebates for the hybrids.

John

Genesis · May 30, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Because those trucks are used to produce tax revenue (small business provides most of the jobs, and without a job, you don't pay any taxes)

Its pretty simple really. The tax incentive is FAR less than the taxes returned by the incentivized behavior.

Thunderstruck · May 30, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

The tax write off has been changed, it's much less than it used to be. I believe it was originally intended for farmers and such who need heavy vehicles to conduct their operations, not for soccer moms to drive alone down to Starbucks.

Guttboy · May 30, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Well, I feel safer when I am driving my SUV's....

Sure statistics can say just about anything. I am not disputing the Physics Professors stats. I can only speak for MY situation....having driven large vehicles before the term SUV became popular I do think they are safer, when it comes to collisions, but it depends on the DRIVER. You have to know the limitations of an SUV. Lord knows that if you try to swerve an 88 Bronco at 60 mph....you have a much higher chance of rolling the puppy than a Nissan Sentra or other low to the ground vehicle.

I was raised in MA and folks live in ME now. I have been hit several times while driving an "SUV"...you know what the worst damage to me was perhaps a bruised shoulder from the seat belt. The other vehicles (at fault) did not fare as well.

ANY VEHICLE that is purchased because it is "safer" can be a destructive weapon if placed in the hands of someone that is not trained to use it. Bottom Line.

BTW....I got rid of my 2000 Lincoln Navigator yesterday for a brand spanking new MkV Jetta TDI Pk2 Manual tranny!

Another note...if you want to drive something that gets 10 MPG in the city go for it. I did for many years.

Regards!

DrStink · May 31, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Well, I feel safer when I am driving my SUV's....

Sure statistics can say just about anything. I am not disputing the Physics Professors stats. I can only speak for MY situation....having driven large vehicles before the term SUV became popular I do think they are safer

And that, my friend, is why science is based on data and formal hypothesis testing, not perception.

You could formally test your idea that "better" drivers are safer in SUVs, although I don't known how'd you assess that, as driver self-assessment won't work. (Almost everyone thinks they are a 'good driver'.) But until you bother to test it, your speculation is just that, speculation, and nothing more.

In fact, the report you refer to (AN ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC DEATHS
BY VEHICLE TYPE AND MODEL) does attempt to address the issue of risky driver behavior. Admittedly, driver behavior may not be a very good proxy for driver skill, which is your supposition. However, it's a place to start.

Ignoring driver behavior for a moment, the author's concluded that"

the combined risk of the average SUV (129) is 30%
higher than that for the average large car (100) and 25% higher than that for the average
midsize car (105). Differences in either measure of risk that are less than 10% between the
major vehicle types are not statistically significant.

Regarding driver behavior, the authors state:

It is extremely difficult to determine the inherent safety of a vehicle type or model
because of the difficulty in separating the contribution of driver characteristics and behavior
from the contribution of vehicle design.
{snip}
For example, some car models may attract
relatively aggressive drivers, who increase the fatalities in the model, independent of its
design. {snip}
In that connection we have studied driver age and sex (see the appendix). The proportion
of driver fatalities in a vehicle that are young males may be a good surrogate for driver
aggressiveness.

After they do this, they find that:

In summary, we have found no evidence that driver age and sex overstates the
risk in the average SUV or understates the risk in the average midsize car or particular
smaller car models.

So while, it doesn't directly answer your question, it starts to dance around the edges. Nor does it change the fundamental conclusion, which is that SUVs are NOT safer.

BTW....I got rid of my 2000 Lincoln Navigator yesterday for a brand spanking new MkV Jetta TDI Pk2 Manual tranny!

Congrats! Welcome to the family!

Another note...if you want to drive something that gets 10 MPG in the city go for it. I did for many years.

If your vehicle choice didn't influence my cost of living or national security, then the libertarian in me would agree with you, but as it does, I can't agree with you.

Still, I will agree that total usage matters as well. My friend Dave drives a gasoline powered Excursion, but he also lives less than 3 miles from work, so frankly I don't really care. Whereas my wife's brother in law that bought a second Expedition for his 90 mile (roundtrip) commute is another story...

nicklockard · May 31, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Oh, someone's largely personal use Hummer H2 produces taxable income, eh?

How's that?

I used to own a small business; I know as well as you how to claim "business use" by passing my business card to the cutie at the McDonald's drive-through

...business use; my ass!

Frank M · May 31, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Oh, someone's largely personal use Hummer H2 produces taxable income, eh?

How's that?

I used to own a small business; I know as well as you how to claim "business use" by passing my business card to the cutie at the McDonald's drive-through

...business use; my ass!

that does not make it legal..
what happen to your business? why don't you own it any more? tell us.....

do I detect some resentment...

Guttboy · May 31, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Well, I feel safer when I am driving my SUV's....

Sure statistics can say just about anything. I am not disputing the Physics Professors stats. I can only speak for MY situation....having driven large vehicles before the term SUV became popular I do think they are safer

Click to expand...

And that, my friend, is why science is based on data and formal hypothesis testing, not perception.

You could formally test your idea that "better" drivers are safer in SUVs, although I don't known how'd you assess that, as driver self-assessment won't work. (Almost everyone thinks they are a 'good driver'.) But until you bother to test it, your speculation is just that, speculation, and nothing more.

In fact, the report you refer to (AN ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC DEATHS
BY VEHICLE TYPE AND MODEL) does attempt to address the issue of risky driver behavior. Admittedly, driver behavior may not be a very good proxy for driver skill, which is your supposition. However, it's a place to start.

Ignoring driver behavior for a moment, the author's concluded that"

the combined risk of the average SUV (129) is 30%
higher than that for the average large car (100) and 25% higher than that for the average
midsize car (105). Differences in either measure of risk that are less than 10% between the
major vehicle types are not statistically significant.

Click to expand...

Regarding driver behavior, the authors state:

It is extremely difficult to determine the inherent safety of a vehicle type or model
because of the difficulty in separating the contribution of driver characteristics and behavior
from the contribution of vehicle design.
{snip}
For example, some car models may attract
relatively aggressive drivers, who increase the fatalities in the model, independent of its
design. {snip}
In that connection we have studied driver age and sex (see the appendix). The proportion
of driver fatalities in a vehicle that are young males may be a good surrogate for driver
aggressiveness.

Click to expand...

After they do this, they find that:

In summary, we have found no evidence that driver age and sex overstates the
risk in the average SUV or understates the risk in the average midsize car or particular
smaller car models.

Click to expand...

So while, it doesn't directly answer your question, it starts to dance around the edges. Nor does it change the fundamental conclusion, which is that SUVs are NOT safer.

BTW....I got rid of my 2000 Lincoln Navigator yesterday for a brand spanking new MkV Jetta TDI Pk2 Manual tranny!

Click to expand...

Congrats! Welcome to the family!

Another note...if you want to drive something that gets 10 MPG in the city go for it. I did for many years.

Click to expand...

If your vehicle choice didn't influence my cost of living or national security, then the libertarian in me would agree with you, but as it does, I can't agree with you.

Still, I will agree that total usage matters as well. My friend Dave drives a gasoline powered Excursion, but he also lives less than 3 miles from work, so frankly I don't really care. Whereas my wife's brother in law that bought a second Expedition for his 90 mile (roundtrip) commute is another story...

With regards to quoting...please bear with my limited attempts at it....LOL.

I do agree with you that "And that, my friend, is why science is based on data and formal hypothesis testing, not perception."

In MY situation...I have been hit several times...had I been in a small Miata I KNOW from where I was hit, that I would have been injured. How you may ask...let me dig up some of the pictures and try to scan them in. So from MY "observation" call it a data point...that is where I make my conclusion.

"In fact, the report you refer to (AN ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC DEATHS
BY VEHICLE TYPE AND MODEL) does attempt to address the issue of risky driver behavior."

Again, having a pretty scientific mind myself...That study is an ATTEMPT to adress the situation but in and of itself does NOT eliminate the risky driver factor.

"Ignoring driver behavior for a moment, the author's concluded that"
the combined risk of the average SUV (129) is 30%
higher than that for the average large car (100) and 25% higher than that for the average
midsize car (105). Differences in either measure of risk that are less than 10% between the
major vehicle types are not statistically significant.

Regarding driver behavior, the authors state:

It is extremely difficult to determine the inherent safety of a vehicle type or model
because of the difficulty in separating the contribution of driver characteristics and behavior
from the contribution of vehicle design.
For example, some car models may attract
relatively aggressive drivers, who increase the fatalities in the model, independent of its
design. In that connection we have studied driver age and sex (see the appendix). The proportion
of driver fatalities in a vehicle that are young males may be a good surrogate for driver
aggressiveness
After they do this, they find that:
In summary, we have found no evidence that driver age and sex overstates the
risk in the average SUV or understates the risk in the average midsize car or particular
smaller car models
So while, it doesn't directly answer your question, it starts to dance around the edges. Nor does it change the fundamental conclusion, which is that SUVs are NOT safer."

And after all of that statistical study it does not prove or disprove a thing. It does lead one to believe, however, that according to that individual's study "statistically" SUV's are not safer.

But again it all comes down to the situation and the circumstances involved. Personally, I was safer in my SUV....my collisions (no fault of mine) probably would have injured me in a small vehicle.

This subject can (and will) be debated to the end of time...LOL. I will agree to disagree with the statistical analysis of the Professor.

BTW....I do love the Jetta!!!!!

Regards,

Mike

Mike_M · Jun 1, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

In MY situation...I have been hit several times...had I been in a small Miata I KNOW from where I was hit, that I would have been injured.

Actually, you don't know that. In the Miata, or anything else smaller and more nimble, there's a likelihood that you would have been able to avoid the accident. There's also a likelihood that the car would have provoked different driving habits from you, and possibly the person who hit you, and changed your positions such that no accident would have occurred. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not speculating that there was anything wrong with the way you were driving...but the "different cars beg to be driven different ways" thing is true.)

How you may ask...let me dig up some of the pictures and try to scan them in. So from MY "observation" call it a data point...that is where I make my conclusion.

But that observation is making the invalid assumption that the speed, position, driving behavior, and every other factor except vehicle were 100% identical, and you would have been hit anyway. That's not necessarily the case in any accident.

And after all of that statistical study it does not prove or disprove a thing. It does lead one to believe, however, that according to that individual's study "statistically" SUV's are not safer.

If indeed SUVs are not at fault in and of themselves, but they attract aggressive drivers with a high degree of correlation, then putting those aggressive drivers back into something smaller would likely lessen the amount of damage they could do in most cases, would it not?

Either way, they're less safe...either because they're not required to meet car safety standards, and in fact would fail in their current form if they were required to, or because maniacs drive them.

But again it all comes down to the situation and the circumstances involved. Personally, I was safer in my SUV....my collisions (no fault of mine) probably would have injured me in a small vehicle.

Well, that's fine. If you have an accident and end up killing someone through no fault of your own due to the sheer size and weight of the SUV, I'm sure the fact that you felt safer will be of immense importance to their family.

This subject can (and will) be debated to the end of time...LOL. I will agree to disagree with the statistical analysis of the Professor.

And you're sure it doesn't have anything to do with all the luxurious space and your personal liking for SUVs? Not even a tiny bit?

BTW....I do love the Jetta!!!!!

Hear hear...I hope most of us can agree on that.

Guttboy · Jun 1, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Actually, you don't know that. In the Miata, or anything else smaller and more nimble, there's a likelihood that you would have been able to avoid the accident. There's also a likelihood that the car would have provoked different driving habits from you, and possibly the person who hit you, and changed your positions such that no accident would have occurred. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not speculating that there was anything wrong with the way you were driving...but the "different cars beg to be driven different ways" thing is true.)

YOU ARE 100% correct and illustrate the point I am trying to make here....These "statistical" studies are just that...statistics...there are assumptions being made in each study that is done.

You are right I do not know that if in the Miata for example, that I would have been safer or worse off. What I do know is that when you are parked at an intersection awaiting the light to turn green...some 17 year old gal in a Hyundai Elantra, while chatting on her phone..decides to drive straight into the car behind me...which then in turn hits me....HMMMM Really cant avoid that one. And yes, based upon the sheer amt of steel compared to where the 2nd vehicle hit me...Ill continue to believe I was safer in the SUV...

But that observation is making the invalid assumption that the speed, position, driving behavior, and every other factor except vehicle were 100% identical, and you would have been hit anyway. That's not necessarily the case in any accident.

Agreed the conditions in ANY accident are not 100% the same...however in THIS case it would make no difference what vehicle I was in...I was stopped...I got hit...visibility etc...

Take the logic you mentioned above and apply that SAME logic to the physics professors study...you can argue from both sides of the fence stating that in each of those cases since the "datapoints (accidents)" could never be duplicated 100% you could never really know now could you?

If indeed SUVs are not at fault in and of themselves, but they attract aggressive drivers with a high degree of correlation, then putting those aggressive drivers back into something smaller would likely lessen the amount of damage they could do in most cases, would it not?

Again you are basing this study on assumptions and correlations that are gleaned from this sampling of data. To go down the path of the assumptions/correlations route you are assuming that since an SUV with an "agressive" driver hits something it will do MORE damage due to the simple F=M x A equation right? Again like you mentioned before...

But that observation is making the invalid assumption that the speed, position, driving behavior, and every other factor except vehicle were 100% identical, and you would have been hit anyway. That's not necessarily the case in any accident.

And where do you arrive at this conclusion quoted below????

Either way, they're less safe...either because they're not required to meet car safety standards, and in fact would fail in their current form if they were required to, or because maniacs drive them.

mainiacs....

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This subject can (and will) be debated to the end of time...LOL. I will agree to disagree with the statistical analysis of the Professor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you're sure it doesn't have anything to do with all the luxurious space and your personal liking for SUVs? Not even a tiny bit?

Not at all Mike....I do not own the Luxury Deathbox

any longer. And I don't have to justify my use of it to anyone except ME!

All I am saying is that the statistics can be manipulated and studied from many different angles....plain and simple...no hidden bias or up front bias on this end.

YES I do love my Jetta! NO I do not own the LUXURY DEATHBOX any longer...NOT because it was unsafe or would kill people. It was time for a change...so I went to the Jetta!!!

Now what will I use to tow my Rock Crawling Beast Jeep????

PS if any of you would like to help me on the "quoting function" on the forum Id love help...I still dont have it quite right so I will caveat the above post may not sound 100% correct...LOL

TornadoRed · Jun 1, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Either way, they're less safe...either because they're not required to meet car safety standards, and in fact would fail in their current form if they were required to, or because maniacs drive them.

Click to expand...

mainiacs....

I believe the locals refer to themselves as Mainers.
"Mainers gather to salute veterans"
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/050531holidayparad.shtml

But they are Mainiacs and they drive like Mainiacs, i.e., they will come to a complete stop on a two-lane blacktop, without warning, without signaling, then make a left turn.

Guttboy · Jun 2, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

You would be correct in the term Mainers. My parents live in Maine. My youngest brother lives in Maine. HOWEVER there is a KC135 unit that refers to themselves as the "Mainiacs". Their stickers are posted in airports all over the globe.

DrStink · Jun 2, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Take the logic you mentioned above and apply that SAME logic to the physics professors study...you can argue from both sides of the fence stating that in each of those cases since the "datapoints (accidents)" could never be duplicated 100% you could never really know now could you?

Actually, no. You make a very common logically fallacy here out of ignorance. I say that not to pick on you, but because it is so common among people that don't understand statistics. And with this misunderstanding comes misapplication, which leads to the believe that statistics are some sort of black magic that can be manipulated to say whatever the author wants.

The mistake you make is one of attempting to generalize to the individual from the population. This is NOT what statistics are intended or designed to do.

Statistics speaks to patterns in the population when individual cases may absolutely violate these patterns, without invalidating these patterns one bit. For example, a specific 80 year old 3 pack a day smoker may never get cancer, but that doesn't change the fact that smoking 3 packs a day greatly increases the likelihood to getting lung cnacer.

The problem occurs when we misapply statistics. The epidemiologists that tell us to quit smoking don't actually care about us as individuals; they are trying to reduce lung cancer in the population. Unfortunately, it's only human nature to try to apply these numbers directly to our own lives. Worse yet, process is only encouraged and reinforced when our primary care providers tell us to exercise, eat more veggies and eat less fat based on these studies.

All I am saying is that the statistics can be manipulated

Not really, assuming the work is scholarly, because then the assumptions and methods will have been clearly outlined.

Statistics are NOT a black box.

and studied from many different angles...

Certainly. Which is why science is self correcting. When different people use different methods, models and data, and reach the same conclusion, that cigarettes cause lung cancer, or humans are causing climate change, or SUVs are not safer, then it gets pretty hard to claim the findings are just the result spin or bias.

Still, the doesn't stop those with vested interests, be they emotional or economic, from claiming otherwise.

...no hidden bias or up front bias on this end.

Fair enough. I think we might have been talking past each other.

I never meant to imply that in your prior accident, being in a larger vehicle might not have helped. I was just trying to point out that logically, your individual experience does not support the generalized claim that SUVs are safer. (Think about the 80 y.o smoker example above.)

Likewise, I don't want to speak for Mike M, but I think he raised a valid point too. You can't really speculate about your injury potential as enough of the situation would have been different. For example, similar bumper height (known as vehicle compatibility) might have resulted in more of force being transferred through, rather than into, your SUV.

And as final thought, not to pick on you, but as a comment in general, "agreeing to disagree" is a intellectually weak cop out. In our culture, yes, we have a right to an opinion, but others also have the right to tell so how and why our reasoning is flawed.

In the words of advisorjim We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts!"

Guttboy · Jun 2, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Take the logic you (this quote you cite is with regards to Mike's post not the chart) mentioned above and apply that SAME logic to the physics professors study...you can argue from both sides of the fence stating that in each of those cases since the "datapoints (accidents)" could never be duplicated 100% you could never really know now could you?

Click to expand...

Actually, no. You make a very common logically fallacy here out of ignorance. (Negative...quotation is directed at Mike's logic stating that since any factor could have contributed my experience may have been different and thus invalid...this is not as directed at the root of the professor's study ) I say that not to pick on you, (Picking on me would assume that you were in a position to do so...

) but because it is so common among people that don't understand statistics. (I do understand statistics...or perhaps I "snowed" the professors when my graduate research project was finalized?

) And with this misunderstanding comes misapplication, which leads to the believe that statistics are some sort of black magic that can be manipulated to say whatever the author wants.

 (Dr Stink, it is by no means out of ignorance trust me. A simple chart was placed on the website and a very emotional statement was provided at the bottom. Statistics do not have emotions, however that statement does. Without seeing how the study and data was collected there is no way to verify the results of that chart. In addition that study was done with assumptions that the professor CHOSE to use. That was his choice. I am not saying that his statistical analysis of the sample was done incorrectly but I am also not agreeing with it because I cannot see the data.) 

The mistake you make is one of attempting to generalize to the individual from the population. This is NOT what statistics are intended or designed to do.

 (Dr Stink....you are ASSUMING that I made a mistake. I did not. I never stated in my post that SUV's were safer did I? NO. I simply stated that I felt safer in MY SUV in MY particular situation. My response was purely from an observation of MY situation...no more/no less) 

Statistics speaks to patterns in the population when individual cases may absolutely violate these patterns, without invalidating these patterns one bit. For example, a specific 80 year old 3 pack a day smoker may never get cancer, but that doesn't change the fact that smoking 3 packs a day greatly increases the likelihood to getting lung cnacer.
 (Agreed...I am not debating that point whatsoever. )
The problem occurs when we misapply statistics. The epidemiologists that tell us to quit smoking don't actually care about us as individuals; they are trying to reduce lung cancer in the population. Unfortunately, it's only human nature to try to apply these numbers directly to our own lives. Worse yet, process is only encouraged and reinforced when our primary care providers tell us to exercise, eat more veggies and eat less fat based on these studies.

All I am saying is that the statistics can be manipulated

Click to expand...

Not really, assuming the work is scholarly, because then the assumptions and methods will have been clearly outlined.
 (I agree with you about work being scholarly it must be or it has no meaning...without knowing the research methodology that was used, only snipets that were attached, one could believe that it was done in a non-"scholarly" fashion (By the way, I have not stated the study was in error, just the fact that there is no other data except for the emotional statements attached at the bottom of the graph) )
Statistics are NOT a black box.

and studied from many different angles...

Click to expand...

Certainly. Which is why science is self correcting. When different people use different methods, models and data, and reach the same conclusion, that cigarettes cause lung cancer, or humans are causing climate change, or SUVs are not safer, then it gets pretty hard to claim the findings are just the result spin or bias.

Still, the doesn't stop those with vested interests, be they emotional or economic, from claiming otherwise.

...no hidden bias or up front bias on this end.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think we might have been talking past each other.

I never meant to imply that in your prior accident, being in a larger vehicle might not have helped. I was just trying to point out that logically, your individual experience does not support the generalized claim that SUVs are safer. (Think about the 80 y.o smoker example above.)
 (And again Dr Stink I never stated that SUV's were safer...NOR was I attempting to support the generalized claim that SUV's are safer was I?

....I stated that this was my situation, my experience, and my thoughts on it)
Likewise, I don't want to speak for Mike M, but I think he raised a valid point too. You can't really speculate about your injury potential as enough of the situation would have been different. (Hmmmm...yet Mike can?

) For example, similar bumper height (known as vehicle compatibility) might have resulted in more of force being transferred through, rather than into, your SUV.
 (Sure...bumper height may have had a play in this...ANYTHING could have....but in MY situation a Miata would not have been safer than the SUV...again this is MY situation....MY 80 y.o smoker condition

.... )
And as final thought, not to pick on you, but as a comment in general, "agreeing to disagree" is a intellectually weak cop out. ( So your comment was made in what context then?

) In our culture, yes, we have a right to an opinion, but others also have the right to tell so how and why our reasoning is flawed. (You are are correct right on that example, provided the reasoning is flawed in the first place

).

I choose another example that I will leave to you.....2 intelligent scholarly individuals both look at a container. This container has an interior volume of exactly 1 liter. This container is filled with exactly 500ml of blue colored water...like my typing

...One scholar states that it is half empty....the other scholar states that it is half full. They will continue to disagree. 

In the words of advisorjim We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts!"

Regards.....

Mike_M · Jun 4, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

YOU ARE 100% correct and illustrate the point I am trying to make here....These "statistical" studies are just that...statistics...there are assumptions being made in each study that is done.

Granted. I don't argue with any facet of that whatsoever.

What I do know is that when you are parked at an intersection awaiting the light to turn green...some 17 year old gal in a Hyundai Elantra, while chatting on her phone..decides to drive straight into the car behind me...which then in turn hits me....HMMMM Really cant avoid that one.

Again, you can't know that. The Miata might have allowed you a better view thru the windows of the car behind you, to see the car coming. It would certainly have been more capable of a quick acceleration and perhaps a 90-degree turn to either inhabit an unoccupied section of the crosswalk, or the sidewalk, or someplace else that was safer and out of the line of fire.

And yes, based upon the sheer amt of steel compared to where the 2nd vehicle hit me...Ill continue to believe I was safer in the SUV...

You can continue to believe what you like, and I'll make no bones about your right to believe that. However, that does not mean that what you believe is correct.

I'm not saying you're incorrect to believe that, because I wasn't there. I am, however, pointing out the error of your applying a one-time performance in an accident to overall safety of an entire class of vehicle. And if you're not doing that, my apologies.

Agreed the conditions in ANY accident are not 100% the same...however in THIS case it would make no difference what vehicle I was in...I was stopped...I got hit...visibility etc...

See my blind analysis of that above.

Take the logic you mentioned above and apply that SAME logic to the physics professors study...you can argue from both sides of the fence stating that in each of those cases since the "datapoints (accidents)" could never be duplicated 100% you could never really know now could you?

I'm not speaking to the professor's study, so I can't address that. I'm not sure that it can apply in the same way, though.

Again you are basing this study on assumptions and correlations that are gleaned from this sampling of data.

No, I'm saying that since the SUV numbers are higher, ASSUMING they are correct (okay, one assumption, merely for illustration), then the SUV numbers are higher either because the vehicles are more unsafe, or because the drivers that are attracted to them are driving in a more unsafe manner. I was not making any other implications or judgments. Just a simple point of logic.

To go down the path of the assumptions/correlations route you are assuming that since an SUV with an "agressive" driver hits something it will do MORE damage due to the simple F=M x A equation right?

Why not? You're making the assumption that the greater mass of the SUV is what protected you in the accident you've mentioned. If assumption( greater mass = greater protection) is true, then assumption( greater mass = greater infliction (if that's a word)) is also true.

mainiacs....

Hee hee!

Not at all Mike....I do not own the Luxury Deathbox

any longer. And I don't have to justify my use of it to anyone except ME!

I never said you did. But if one values the environment, the health of our energy-price-driven economy, and the lives of others whom you may or may not collide with in future accidents, that bar should be set a bit high, should it not?

All I am saying is that the statistics can be manipulated and studied from many different angles....plain and simple...no hidden bias or up front bias on this end.

Yes. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I understand. However, I still dispute the "no bias" part, judging from the subjective nature of your "belief" that your SUV was safer.

YES I do love my Jetta! NO I do not own the LUXURY DEATHBOX any longer...NOT because it was unsafe or would kill people. It was time for a change...so I went to the Jetta!!!

Glad to hear it!

Now what will I use to tow my Rock Crawling Beast Jeep????

How about a Liberty CRD? 29mpg ain't too shabby.

PS if any of you would like to help me on the "quoting function" on the forum Id love help...I still dont have it quite right so I will caveat the above post may not sound 100% correct...LOL

I'd be glad to. Replace all occurrences of "{" and "}" in this message with the square bracket ("[" and "]").

Note how when you hit "quote" on a post, there's a {quote} up front before the whole thing, and there's a {/quote} tag at the end. These are embeddable and recursive. Using a {quote} starts a "deeper" level of quoting, and a {/quote} "closes" that quote and returns to the previous level.

When quoting a message, if you wish to reply point-by-point like I just did, yes, that means you must manually add {quote} and {/quote} tags to each paragraph. Pain in the butt, but it's worth it when the message is done.

Anyway, if you did this:
{quote}
Blah
{quote}
Blah Blah
{/quote}
Blah Blah Blah
{quote}
Blah Blah Blah Blah
{quote}
Snarf.
{/quote}
{/quote}
Blah
{/quote}

It would look like this:

Blah

Blah Blah

Click to expand...

Blah Blah Blah

Blah Blah Blah Blah

Snarf.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Blah

Does that help?

Mike

William J Toensing · Jun 5, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

I hated the Nixon 55 MPH speed limit with a passion! It made law violators out of over 90% of the drivers & spured the use of CB radios to watch out for "smoky". Why should drivers of fuel efficient vehicles be penalized? Instead, how about a .50 cent or $1.00 a gallon tax on gas earmarked as a subsidy to lower the prices of any car that gets over 40 MPG, or maybe 50 MPG. Did you know there is an extra federal gas tax on diesel than on gas? This is another example of the STUPID American way of doing things. It should be the other way around, like Europe. Another is a $2,000 tax deduction on hybrids but up to a $100,000 tax deduction on vehicles weighing over 6,000 pounds.

Guttboy · Jun 5, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Mike,

First off...thanks for the quoting help! Now for my feeble attempt at it.

Again, you can't know that. The Miata might have allowed you a better view thru the windows of the car behind you, to see the car coming. It would certainly have been more capable of a quick acceleration and perhaps a 90-degree turn to either inhabit an unoccupied section of the crosswalk, or the sidewalk, or someplace else that was safer and out of the line of fire.

Mike....read carefully what I wrote and understand the point I am trying to make here. I was at a complete stop. There was NO chance of accelleration or evasive action in this situaton. NONE. The same result would have ocurred had I been in a Sherman tank....LOL....or a horse drawn carriage (although a horse might have been odd on a 4 lane blacktop...LOL

).

While I agree that there are situations where a smaller nimble vehicle could perhaps evade....I am not implying that SUV's are safer overall. You are not paying attention to my original post. IN MY SITUATION they have been safer.

You can continue to believe what you like, and I'll make no bones about your right to believe that. However, that does not mean that what you believe is correct.

I'm not saying you're incorrect to believe that, because I wasn't there. I am, however, pointing out the error of your applying a one-time performance in an accident to overall safety of an entire class of vehicle. And if you're not doing that, my apologies.

And it does not mean that I am incorrect either! For my situation and from MY experiences my SUVs have been much safer that smaller vehicles...but that is from MY experience as a driver. Plain and simple. I am not saying that SUVs in the general population are safer than any other vehicle, SUV's in many situations are LESS safe! Take for instance someone swerving to avoid an obstacle....a Porsche Boxster S would probably (if someone says this is incorrect I am just certifiable) would ride the road (considering it was a paved road) like it was on rails without tipping...the SUV would have a higher CG (center of gravity) and a similar wheel base to most other vehicles on the road (not talking extremes here) that would make it have a tendency to roll, all other factors equal. You will not get a debate on that from me!

You do not have to apologize for misreading my situation/opinion...sometimes the written word just does not get the point adequately across....I am sorry if I was not clear.

See my blind analysis of that above.

Again, I think that your analysis of my situation is inaccurate based on my statements.

No, I'm saying that since the SUV numbers are higher, ASSUMING they are correct (okay, one assumption, merely for illustration), then the SUV numbers are higher either because the vehicles are more unsafe, or because the drivers that are attracted to them are driving in a more unsafe manner. I was not making any other implications or judgments. Just a simple point of logic.

There are many other ASSUMPTIONS that are not considered. I am not stating that SUV's are inherently safer in all conditions however, you list two assumptions...I am saying that there are other factors that could be looked at as well. Not debating your point just thowing out some other food for thought anyone else.

Why not? You're making the assumption that the greater mass of the SUV is what protected you in the accident you've mentioned. If assumption( greater mass = greater protection) is true, then assumption( greater mass = greater infliction (if that's a word)) is also true.

I agree with your analysis here...I just wanted to know what your thoughts on that issue were. So if we were to take that into consideration...there are times when SUVs are safer and there are times when they are more destructive. You will get no debate on that from me....we agree. A 6000lb mass hitting something (looking at purely the equation) it will have more force hitting something than lets say a 2000lb mass.

But if one values the environment, the health of our energy-price-driven economy, and the lives of others whom you may or may not collide with in future accidents, that bar should be set a bit high, should it not?

Everything is not black and white. While I agree that high fuel prices, reliance on non-renewable sources of energy, increased pollutants, etc etc etc are all things that most folks would consider "not good" things....there is more to this equation.

I am not sure what "bar" you are talking about...if you are suggesting that SUVs/UVs should be eliminated (I am not sure what you are getting at so please dont take offense to this answer but...)......

For someone who has participated in many rescues, service related work, back country searches....I would NEVER consider anything else except a properly equipped/designed vehicle! In these cases an SUV/UV is the only option.

Another point I have is that in the US people have the ability to purchase, operate, own, etc vehicles of their own choosing that abide by certain standards, whether they be local, state, or federal. If these standards are "wrong" then something should be done to fix them. I am NOT stating that these standards are incorrect so don't read into them...nor am I saying that they are correct. There are many factors that I wont even get into (economic, social, political) that govern how we arrive at what we have today.

On the environmental issue....I am sorry but there are many individuals that use vehicles that are not the most fuel efficient or they produce pollutants that have GREAT concerns for the environment. The large portion of individuals that I have met that proclaim they are all about "the environment" haven't set foot out of their cubicle, home, hybrid car, etc. I can go on and on with this....but I wont because this is a topic about 55 mph speed limit and we are WAY past that now...LOL

However, I still dispute the "no bias" part, judging from the subjective nature of your "belief" that your SUV was safer.

You can debate that all you wish...its a free country. However I have no reason to mislead you. That, my friend, you will have to take for what it is worth. In my situation my SUV was safer...you dont know all the details of the one example but I cant explain it any better here...my apologies for that.

How about a Liberty CRD? 29mpg ain't too shabby.

Not too shabby at all but it aint gonna cut the mustard for my applications!

Mike....thanks for responding to my post! It has been a good debate! I do want to say that I love your city! My wife and I go there twice a year for vacation for a few days...although now that we live in TX it will be harder for us to swing that! If only Albuquerque would take a hint from Phoenix and do something about its appearance and infrastructure!

Take Care....time to take the pooches up to the river!

Mike_M · Jun 5, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

First off...thanks for the quoting help! Now for my feeble attempt at it.

Your attempt was far from feeble...worked out quite nicely, in fact.

Mike....read carefully what I wrote and understand the point I am trying to make here. I was at a complete stop. There was NO chance of accelleration or evasive action in this situaton.

I was ASSUMING (just to bring that word up again) from your post that you were completely stopped. What I was saying is that IF a lower angle of attack would have given you a view of the car rushing up behind the person who was behind you, and IF you happened to glance back or catch the motion out of the corner of your eye before he actually impacted, and IF there was a crosswalk in front of you OR an uninhabited sidewalk OR someplace else you could arrange to be, that there is an HIGHER PROBABILITY that a Miata could have arranged to be there more quickly then an SUV, and could have avoided being hit. That's all I was saying, and it was a direct challenge to your "the SUV was safer in that situation because it was bigger" assumption. Avoiding the accident would, in my opinion, be safer than simply weathering it due to superior mass.

Again, I wasn't there, so that is, as I put it earlier, a "blind" analysis.

And it does not mean that I am incorrect either!

No argument there.

There are many other ASSUMPTIONS that are not considered. I am not stating that SUV's are inherently safer in all conditions however, you list two assumptions...I am saying that there are other factors that could be looked at as well. Not debating your point just thowing out some other food for thought anyone else.

Very cool...that's the kind of debate I like. Get as much info on the table as possible.

But if one values the environment, the health of our energy-price-driven economy, and the lives of others whom you may or may not collide with in future accidents, that bar should be set a bit high, should it not?

Click to expand...

Everything is not black and white. While I agree that high fuel prices, reliance on non-renewable sources of energy, increased pollutants, etc etc etc are all things that most folks would consider "not good" things....there is more to this equation.

True.

I am not sure what "bar" you are talking about...if you are suggesting that SUVs/UVs should be eliminated (I am not sure what you are getting at so please dont take offense to this answer but...)......

No way! Not even close. SUVs have their legitimate place in the market, just like nearly any other vehicle. I could go into a diatribe about how we don't need "luxury SUVs", "near-luxury SUVs", "large crossovers", "small crossovers", small, mid-size, large, and huge SUVs, as well as about 8 other market segments, but SUVs in general are useful and I would be insane to argue against their existence.

The "bar" I was referring to was the level at which you can justify to yourself the use of an SUV. You had said that the only one you needed to justify it to was yourself, and I agree with that statement. I was just bringing up things other than the perceived safety (such as environmental concerns, etc.) to consider when attempting that justification to oneself.

I was definitely NOT attempting to declare all SUVs unnecessary.

Another point I have is that in the US people have the ability to purchase, operate, own, etc vehicles of their own choosing that abide by certain standards, whether they be local, state, or federal. If these standards are "wrong" then something should be done to fix them. I am NOT stating that these standards are incorrect so don't read into them...nor am I saying that they are correct. There are many factors that I wont even get into (economic, social, political) that govern how we arrive at what we have today.

Outlawing certain vehicles is not what I had in mind. I'm all for preserving one's rights to purchase whatever vehicle they want. However, just because it's legal doesn't make it right or responsible.

People can (and do) purchase large SUVs purely for status or luxury, then proceed to use them to commute 50 miles each way to work, and they do so without any passengers. This is clearly a misuse, but because this is America, I believe it would be the closest secular thing to sacrilege to even attempt to outlaw that. However, I will still call "sheningans" on those who do it. If you have 8 kids and really need that third seat AND to carry an entire weekend's worth of camping gear, fine. Buy the Excursion. But if you have 2 kids and don't NEED to haul that much, and you just like a lot of "space"...tough. Buy a nice midsized sedan or wagon. I wouldn't think of enforcing that point of view with laws, but I have no problem appealing to one's own morality and ethics to guilt them into realizing their wastefulness.

However, I DO advocate raising CAFE fuel economy standards, and stop exempting larger trucks and SUVs from them, because the fact is that carmakers use that as a loophole to avoid developing more efficient vehicles.

On the environmental issue....I am sorry but there are many individuals that use vehicles that are not the most fuel efficient or they produce pollutants that have GREAT concerns for the environment. The large portion of individuals that I have met that proclaim they are all about "the environment" haven't set foot out of their cubicle, home, hybrid car, etc. I can go on and on with this....but I wont because this is a topic about 55 mph speed limit and we are WAY past that now...LOL

True. And I still maintain that the lower speed limit AND SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT would help overall vehicular fuel consumption.

Mike....thanks for responding to my post! It has been a good debate!

Anytime. I enjoy a good debate where my opponent actually reads, acknowledges, and responds to what I post. I can't say the same for others with whom I debate on a regular basis.

I do want to say that I love your city! My wife and I go there twice a year for vacation for a few days...although now that we live in TX it will be harder for us to swing that! If only Albuquerque would take a hint from Phoenix and do something about its appearance and infrastructure!

Thank you. I'm rather fond of it myself...but of course, I might be biased, having lived here all my life.

And I know what you mean about Albuquerque. *cringe* I've driven through there a few times.

Mike

Mike_M · Jun 5, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

I hated the Nixon 55 MPH speed limit with a passion! It made law violators out of over 90% of the drivers...

Then it was the drivers' fault for continuing to disobey the law. Don't drive fast, you don't get busted. What could be simpler?

... & spured the use of CB radios to watch out for "smoky".

CB radio also developed another way for people to "connect" and provided a great mechanism for finding out about bad road conditions, construction, bad accidents, and as an emergency call mechanism as well. Those are bad things?

Why should drivers of fuel efficient vehicles be penalized?

They're not, because even fuel efficent vehicles like TDIs get better economy at 55 than they do at 75. However, the fact is that not enough people drive fuel-efficient vehicles.

Instead, how about a .50 cent or $1.00 a gallon tax on gas earmarked as a subsidy to lower the prices of any car that gets over 40 MPG, or maybe 50 MPG.

I like that. It would encourage more people to buy and use fuel-efficient vehicles. It would also encourage (via consumer demand) the carmakers to get off their collective butts and develop some more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Did you know there is an extra federal gas tax on diesel than on gas? This is another example of the STUPID American way of doing things.

You mean the STUPID politics in Washington. We, the people, didn't have a chance to vote this up or down. And we can't vote people out of office for every single issue that we don't like. Please don't insult over a quarter of a billion people for the actions of a few thousand.

Also, have you analyzed the effects of an extra diesel tax? It sucks for us (the consumers), but for the most part, because more diesel fuel is used in commercial vehicles than in personal ones, it affects businesses moreso than individual consumers. If that tax wasn't there, other types of taxes would have to go up, and it would probably be in the form of a tax that affects consumers moreso than businesses.

Another is a $2,000 tax deduction on hybrids but up to a $100,000 tax deduction on vehicles weighing over 6,000 pounds.

I agree. This is stupid. However, again, the populace didn't vote for it. One of the realities of our political system is that most politicians (although IMHO Republicans moreso than Democrats) are in the pockets of the oil companies. A good energy policy is something that comes along very rarely, and it's usually a happy accident of voting good people in on other issues and THEN finding out that they don't pander to the oil companies.

However, one of the issues that this law (badly) tried to address was helping small businesses. Unfortunately, people are taking advantage of the law for their own personal gain (so what else is new?).

Mike

Guttboy · Jun 5, 2005

Re: nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Li

Mike thanks for the response! Cya on the debate circuit....LOL....

Yeah in my situation there was absolutely no where to turn...I had a sedan behind me, a median with oncoming traffic on the left. Line of cars in front of me..and a line of parked cars waiting for the light to my right....

It was a BLAM and thats all she wrote. But you do have good points as to how someone could perhaps pull away out of it all.

Now if we could only BAN celphone use for teenagers while driving...and perhaps limit to hands free for others....some may need the phone for some things I suppose....LOL

Take care!

nytimes.com - ...Energy Fix: A 55 MPH Speed Limit

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

BANNED

Veteran Member

Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Torque Dorque

BANNED

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member