Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Unfortuantely, bigger is usually better, when it comes to crash safety. A lot peak oilers use that to justify buying Explorers and Expeditions.
If you're worried about safety, I think the idea is that one should do everything they can to avoid getting into an accident. I suspect that driving a smaller, nimbler vehicle may have some gains in this area over a big, heavy SUV.
Also... What about SUV-SUV collisions? And I've seen more than one large SUV squished by an 18-wheeler. A Ford Excursion flattened vertically between a truck trailer and a concrete wall was an eye-opener. It seems that semis and busses don't enter into the mental safety equation for many people.
Car safety is a very complicated question. No easy answers.
-best,
Wolf
Oh, I agree. People are not rational when it comes to safety. They worry about their cars being crushed by an SUV, or about pesticides on apples. Then they drive to McDonalds without wearing a seatbelt, while smoking a cigarette.
That said...if the issue is 18-wheelers, you're probably in even more danger in a Corolla or Prius than you are in an Expedition. It's the difference between the weights of the vehicle that counts.
Maybe there is an advantage to a "nimbler" vehicle, but face, it, any "green" car is not going to be nimble. Nimble = high power per weight, which is the opposite of efficient.
Having survived a double collision with an 18 wheeler at highway speeds in a VW Scirocco (wt. ~2,000 lbs), I disagree.
What saved me was the stiffness to weight ratio.
Trucker fell asleep @ the wheel and "merged" into my front door. The car bounced and he hit it again (rear) and then I went into a wild spin.
My injuries were from the seat belt (internal bleeding) and a concussion from the sudden acceleration (explains some of my current behavior :-) And some light scratches from flying glass.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Sounds like what saved you is that it was a sideswipe, not head-on collision.
The second collision collapsed the rear bumper & hatchback.
The VW bounced both times rather than a major structural collapse. More weight, less stiffness = no bounce; just collapse.
I would have died in a Hummer.
Best Hopes,
Alan
And may have been designed that way. "Crumples zones" are part of passenger vehicle design.
That is one thing people don't consider about SUVs and minivans. Since they are considered light trucks, they are not required to meet the same safety standards that cars are. Also, roads are not designed for them. A high vehicle like an SUV or minivan will vault right over guardrail designed for cars.
However, both SUVs and roads have become a lot safer, simply because they are so popular. Guardrail has been redesigned with SUVs in mind, and SUVs and minivans are increasingly being held to car safety standards.
But if you're driving an older SUV, or on a road that hasn't been rehabbed recently, you are facing hazards car drivers are not.
Simpsons episode "Screaming Yellow Honkers"
Marge: Good Lord. How am I supposed to get in this beast?
[opens the door. A mechanized stepladder unfolds from
the doorsill] Hmm. Well, that's a nice feature. [gets
in]
Not much headroom, though. [the sunroof opens, allowing
her hair to spring out] Ooh! Well, I guess I can drive
it for a little while.
[the patter of little feet is heard, and then the kids
jump into the back seat]
Lisa: But mom, I read that sport-utility vehicles are more
likely to be in fatal accidents.
Bart: Fatal to the people in the other car. Let's roll.
LOL!
It's twue, it's twue!
SUVs did have a higher rate of fatalities because they were prone to rollovers, with their high center of gravity. But once that became an issue, the manufacturers fixed it.
Fatal to the people in the other car is also true. Particularly "t-bone" collisions. The SUV is so high it comes in over the side-door reinforcement of a car. People get killed even when they are wearing their seatbelts in fairly mild collisions.
They are trying to fix that by changing the design of car doors, but of course, that doesn't do anything for all the older cars on the road.
SUVs did have a higher rate of fatalities because they were prone to rollovers, with their high center of gravity. But once that became an issue, the manufacturers fixed it.
You can't fix physics ;) Active rollover control uses the braking system to attempt to reign in a vehicle that's out of control, but it ain't magic. The types of circumstance where SUVs tend to rollover are where they lose traction and then suddenly regain it while traveling sideways.
Also, Alan is correct above. Race cars are the perfect example of this in that you can have ~1200lb machines (indy, irl, F1) hitting walls at 180mph and the driver steps out with only minor injuries. Similar situation for nascar, ~3000lb machines, with wall and car on car action that would pancake and kill anyone in any 3000lb road car. The biggest problems with road cars are weak restraints and "cabin intrusion." Weak restraints allow you to flop around in the car and bash your head and body on stuff. "Cabin intrusion" is what everyone's always worried about - that is, hitting something, and the car smushing and coming into the passenger compartment. If people were really concerned about safety they'd wear helmets, it would cut deaths in half if not more.
The way to fix it is to force the SUVs to have bumpers at the same height as everything else. If this means they have to have disproportionately low bumpers and people don't like the look, so much the better.
OK folks, what's this constant attack on SUVs? Surely the major problem preventing our investment in energy alternatives is the low price of oil, and surely SUV drivers are doing us all a favor by burning through the stuff faster, and thus bringing us to the point where it will be economical to invest in alternatives sooner.
Now, you want to say that we need all the time that we can get? But as long as the price is low, do you really believe that private investors or the governments will move toward alternatives?
So, while I bike to work every day, let's all praise the SUVs which are burning through the fuel, and thus through the illusions, that lie a the base of our current economy, and hastening the arrival of economic realities that will make more forward looking investments and policies possible.
Also, from a climate change perspective, we need high fuel prices sooner... not later, so again, let's all praise SUV owners, and in fact let's require all cars to be constructed with heavy armor plating for passenger protection of course... but more importantly to decrease gas mileage and hasten the end of the oil age.
You think I'm kidding?
I'm not sure. I might not be.
What the 'Homo-Americus' branch of the human race is evolving to?
Get a volvo then. They will beat large chunks of metal in the safety stakes.
Or just mandate that all trucks need an iron bar at the back, somewhere around head height for an SUV (but normal cars would go under). Active safety selection.
"Active safety selection."
LOL!
A recent study by State Farm Insurance showed that children are 50% more likely to be injured in a SUV than in a smaller vehicle.
There's also been a steep rise in children being smushed from backing SUVs, due to the poorer rearward visability.
SUVs have lots of issues and I agree with the view that these are genuine problems. But a "steep rise in children being smushed from backing SUVs"? Cites please. I find that hard to believe. And no, I won't accept any "common sense" argument. As we all have seen, what someone thinks is "common sense" is often defied by the real statistical distribution of events so I'd want real data for this one.
And no, I do not drive an SUV.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
No, this is true. It's not just SUVs. It's also pickup trucks, which have become insanely popular in the U.S. over the past couple of decades.
People don't realize how bloody huge the blind spot is for some of these vehicles. They did a story on it on CNN, with a row of trucks and SUVs, and a traffic cone behind each one, representing how long the blind spot was. Some of them were just incredible.
Drivers unaware of rear blindspots accidentally backing over more small children, experts say
Some of the trucks and SUVs had blind spots that extended almost 50 feet (15m) from their rear bumpers. Most drivers have no clue that the blind spot is so large.
So where is the statistical data supporting the assertion? How many more children are dying than from cars?
I simply want to see the statistics but somehow I don't think you or anyone else have any real data here, just an assertion based on an observation.
P.S. You might be surprised at how poor rear visibility is in sedans with raised/larger than normal trunk space but I don't see people calling for action against those sedans.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Study: More Children Dying In Trucks' Blind Spots
And so far as I know, the only "action" being called for with SUVs is technology to reduce the blind spot. Cameras, mirrors, obstacle detection systems, etc.
One think to note is that the Prius sedan with its raised trunk has a wide-angle TV camera that comes on when the car is put into reverse. The driver watches it on the screen that normally tells you how many MPG you are getting.
IMO people play the odds, no one really cares about the car as much as they care about the cost of personal injuries. If you consider the number of illegals and people in general that drive with no insurance or woefully underinsured it isn't hard to see why people will try to hang on to their tanks as long as possible.
I have no problem riding the bike, but I rather see my daughters in a large vehicle.
As the economy gets worse this condition gets worse and worse, things will have to collapse to quite some degree before they start getting better.
Or you can put a very stiff tax on fuel, this would fix the problem on several levels at the same time.
This is one more reason to have a lot more internal immigration enforcement; just getting rid of all the drunk, uninsured, etc. illegal alien drivers would help fix the perception of SUV's as being necessary for safety.