Why I'm going to buy an SUV

I'm going to buy an SUV so that its running boards can protect the
body from dings caused my neigboring cars' doors. My first choice
is an 2004 Acura TL, but I'm going to get a Toyota Sequoia to avoid
the weekly dings that I'm currently getting on my 10-year-old car.

Andrew

 

That's a great reason to buy a gas guzzling, road hogging SUV... idiot.

 

Why don't you also get a 10-year-old SUV while you're at it, so that when it
does get dinged occassionally, it won't hurt you as much, because the
vehicle is old anyway.

Seriously though, to me, getting an SUV would be too much sacrifice in
handling and gas consumption, to offset the lower risk of getting dinged.
That said, I feel your pain and know how many careless people are out there,
not paying attention to the damage they cause to other cars when getting
in/out.

Cheers,

Pete

 

My SUV has dings on it. Must be other SUVs ;-)
3 doors on my 2002 CR-V were repainted:
1 - a sign felt on it blown by the wind
2 - vandalism on 2 doors

ehhh

 

get a 10" lift kit- thatll help too.

 

SUVs are generally larger and wider than the average car. They fill
more of the parking space and are more likely to get hit by the car
doors next to them. Running boards are not going to be high enough to
stop dings from other SUVs squeezed in next to you either.

 

What usually get ya is the dog leg on the other guys back door.
Nothing stops that, sorry.



mike hunt

 

I think that when there's more space, people are more careless and
the swinging door has more momentum. I found that when I claimed a
spot at work that had a two-foot-wide vacant strip next to it to
accomodate a light pole, the dings on that side were the worst.

Andrew

 

SUV is far far dangerous than driving a sedan. The purpose of driving SUV
is about crusing rather than driving. I don't recommend a SUV. It has no
advantage whatsoever. it consumes gas more than any sedan.

 

How can that be? The NHTSA says injuries and deaths among school
age children has been dropping dramatically over the past fire
years. They attribute it to the fact more of children are riding
in larger safer SUV's. Some SUV's get over 30 MPG while some
sedans only get 20 MPG, according to the EPA gas mileage guide..




nike hunt

 

No, they attribute it to the fact that kids are riding in properly
installed child safety seats. The rising danger is the increasing
number of child fatalities that occur when they are crushed under the
wheels of a SUV backing out of a driveway. The *other* rollover
problem.

Is the 30 mpg SUV safer than the 20 mpg car? Is it safer than a 30
mpg car?

Check it out here:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss

 

What SUV gets 30MPG? The only one I can think of is the RAV4, and that's
only the 2wd 5-speed version. Hardly a "larger safer" vehicle.

I'd love to see the cite for the NHTSA statement regarding SUVs.

George

 

Hmmm... still spouting ridiculous claims ("some SUV's get over 30 MPG",
"They attribute (lowering deaths among children) to the fact more of
children are riding in larger safer SUV's") without providing any cites,
then simply saying "go do some research" when anyone challenges your claims?

Statements without facts are merely opinions.

You've been doing this so long, always hiding behind these ridiculous
nicknames and of course claiming to be some 70-something year old.
Whatever.

Grow up or go away.


- Kevin

 

Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?

 

According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition


mike hunt

 

And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
vehicle and rollover accidents.

BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.

 

Sure. Also by using numerous vulgar nicknames. Very mature.

Of course I read that. Hence my point. It is not the responsibility
of people you are having a discussion with for *them* to do the work
to prove *your* point.

Again, a statement without facts is merely an opinion. And a
opinion's credibility is often linked with that individual's
reputation. And your reputation around here is not very good.

First, dealerships are not known to be a trustworthy source of
information (mostly spoken, but I wouldn't necessarily trust anything
in writing either). There is a reason they are among the
least-trusted professions. Secondly, see comment #2 above.

Likewise.


- Kevin

 

Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers. In
the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
accidents. The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
anti-SUV crowd wanted. Drive what you want, need, and can
afford but one can not beat the laws of physics. The fact
remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.
That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
vehicles


mike hunt

 

Which would affect the driver fatality rate... how?

For the record, the Expedition *passenger* fatality rate is 62 per
million registration years. The 4-door Civic rate is 34. You can
easily calculate that from this data:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm

(See Mike, that is how one supports one's assertions.)

Maybe a small percentage of accidents but they account for 23% of all
driver fatalities.

I suspect that you are confusing unsupported assertions from paid
lobbyists with research but it is pretty hard to tell when you don't
provide a link to this supposed statement.

The law of physics dictate that SUVs handle poorly and are prone to
rollover. Actual experience with millions of vehicles tells us that
in practice they are overall no safer and often more dangerous for
their occupants than the cars they replace. They are always more
dangerous to other vehicles. In the end, every SUV sold increases the
highway fatality rate a statistical increment.

Depends on make and model. No SUV or pickup truck has a lower driver
death rate than a Camry. You can argue theory all you want, but the
actual body count is the final arbiter.

Actually, many charge higher rates for these vehicles and the ones
that don't are using car owners to subsidize SUV rates (State Farm.)
Most of your insurance is for liability for injuries to others. If
you roll your SUV and break your neck, your car insurance only pays to
repair the SUV.

 

My thinking would say that the Expedition is safer in a wreck if it hits
a Civic or such. If it hits another Expedition than the weight
advantage is lost and the damage should be about equal to both
vehicles.

I also think I can turn more suddenly and stop more quickly in my little
car, which seems like an advantage to me in accident avoidance.