GM STATEMENT - THE SAFETY OF SUVs .... The following is a statement from GM in response to remarks by the NHTSA Administration regarding the safety of sport utility vehicles. The statement can be attributed to Jay Cooney, GM Director of Safety Communications:

"According to the NHTSA's own factual data, SUVs are among the safest vehicles on the road and have contributed to the dramatic decline in the nation's fatality rate over the last decade.

"According to real world government crash data, compiled by the NHTSA, SUVs are two to three times more protective of their occupants in frontal, rear and side-impact crashes that make up 97.5 percent (ninety-seven-point-five-percent) of all crashes. The major reason for fatalities in rollovers, which represent only 2.5 percent of all crashes, is due to a lack of seat belt use. According to NHTSA, 72 percent of those killed in fatal rollover crashes were not using safety belts. Again, according to the NHTSA of the 9,882 people killed in rollovers in the year 2000, 75 percent or 7,412 people perished not because of the vehicle, but because they were unbelted and ejected from the vehicle. This is exactly why GM has been diligently working with Dr. Runge and the NHTSA on increasing seat belt usage in this country.

"Since Americans began buying SUVs in record numbers in the 1980s, sales of these versatile vehicles skyrocketed more than 600 percent. During this sales boom, the nation's fatality rate (fatality rate based on vehicle miles of travel) on America's roads dropped by more than 50 percent to an all time low.

"To assert otherwise, is not only contrary to the facts gathered by his own agency over the last decade, but unfair to the thousands of men and women who have spent their professional lives making vehicles safer, and to America's automakers who spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on improving safety in their vehicles."

And don't tell me this is GM's opinion, it is FACT as demonstrated by NHTSA's own statistics. The whole "SUV's fund terrorists" arguement is a bunch of bullshit too.

If you check you'll notice I haven't really commented much on the whole topic. I'm not interested in arguing (either side of) the point. I will instead simply point out that this statement tells you of the safety of the SUV occupants in an accident, and not of people in any other vehicles involved. I have no data to draw any conclusion which can be broad enough to be meaningful; Instead I will only point out that when I'm in an accident I really have no desire to kill anyone.

And don't tell me this is GM's opinion, it is FACT as demonstrated by NHTSA's own statistics

That's your opinion. I suspect however that GM aren't complete impartial on this issue. I'm sure NHTSA publish an awful lot of statistics and no doubt both sides of the argument can play with them selectively to make their chosen case.

I haven't read the statistics, so I can't say whether GM's opinion on them has a 100% bearing on reality.

It also only states ``facts'' about death. What about injuries, from minor to major?

It also makes large mental leaps:

Again, according to the NHTSA of the 9,882 people killed in rollovers in the year 2000, 75 percent or 7,412 people perished not because of the vehicle, but because they were unbelted and ejected from the vehicle.

So the people that were ejected from the vehicle did not perish "because of the vehicle". However I suspect that had said vehicle remained upright they would have been much less likely to be ejected from the vehicle in the first place.

The whole "SUV's fund terrorists" arguement is a bunch of bullshit too.

That I can wholeheartedly agree with however.

Using clever statistics, I can make the numbers show anything I want. Since that statement came from GM, its just about worthless.

It also is very careful not to state the total number of road casualties anywhere. If it did those roll-over number look at bit different.

From http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1200.htm we can see that the number of road deaths in the US in 1999 (the year before, but close enough) was 41,345. This means that the 9,000 people killed when their car rolled over accounted for 25% of road deaths.

So if you were trying to take the other extreme of the argument you could say 1 in 4 of the people killed on the road were killed because their car rolled over.

Statistics say what you want them to say...

And don't tell me this is GM's opinion, it is FACT as demonstrated by NHTSA's own statistics.

SUVs crept into the automotive landscape as trucks, thus allowing manufacturers to avoid many of the safety and fuel economy regulations (and costs) applied to cars. They told the government "they're trucks!".

They told us: "Leather seats! Big! Safe!" We bought 'em -- millions of 'em -- and installed the family in these "trucks".

On a net dollar profit-per-pound-of-vehicle weight basis, SUVs are the big winners for all manufacturers. Ladder frames, unsophisticated, old-fashioned technology and old-fashioned assembly techniques in big, roomy sheet metal. Cash cow, cash cow, cash cow.

NHTSA's Runge is a former ER physician and maybe makes $100-$150K in his government job.

What do you suppose is his agenda?

GM makes lots and lots of SUVs and makes billions from them.

What do you suppose is their agenda?

What do you suppose is their agenda?

Without getting into all these SUV arguments I just want to point out that just because someone has an agenda does not mean that their statements about it are incorrect. I am sure all the empeg guys would say that the empeg is the best in car mp3 player. Just because they designed it and work for the company that made it does not make them automatically incorrect.

-Mike

I just want to point out that just because someone has an agenda does not mean that their statements about it are incorrect.

That's very true. In the world of claims and counter-claims and the sometimes-depraved use of statistics, though, it can be hard to divine "The Truth" (tm) at first or second glance. It's hard (at least for a few of us on this BBS!) to become a knowledgeable expert in every controversial field and to dig back through all of the original data and perform our own statistical analyses.

So, for efficiency's sake, when I see something like that announcement from GM, I lean both sides' arguments up against the wall, step back a few paces, and try to apply that "agenda" test. Likewise, when anybody starts talking about FACTS coming from industrial concerns with billion dollar interests and biased track records, I will invite them to apply the same test.

Yeah but they still drive like poo and use too much fuel

You can tell the really good flamewars because they generate their own little colonies of miniflamewars to every side. Northern Ireland, Iraq, religion, communism, globalisation etc are clearly all of minor importance in the world (or at least on this BBS) compared to sport-utility vehicles.

Peter

In a related story, The NHTSA states that the number of accidents occurring directly behind SUVs has gone up fifty-fold.

Ah, but SUVs affect us every day. I only know one person who's ever been directly affected by the IRA (of course, statistics probably differ for those of you closer to the British Isles); AFAIK, Iraq's never done anything to me; etc.

What about the statisics on the level of injuries sustained by people in the other car in an SUV crash?

"Yeah but they still drive like poo and use too much fuel"

If my vehicle drives like poo, I have to deal with it (actually, I like how it drives). If it uses too much gas, I pay extra. If I pollute or simply do not know how to drive, then you can become concerned.

My life is mine, not yours. You should only become involved when my actions actually affect you personally. I'm sure you would get just as upset if I started berating you on your life.

I keep my SUV well-tuned. I know how to drive. I do not drive it when it is possible to walk or take alternative transportation. The main reason I own my vehicle is because it makes more sense for me to possess than other vehicles.

That said, the debate at hand is about how safe these vehicles are. I am inclined to take heed of the statistics on collisions. I really doubt SUVs are more dangerous for their occupants. As far as rollovers, I have known numerous people who have died in car accidents. I have never seen a vehicle that has rolled over or HEARD of anybody who has ever had that happen to them, with the exception of one incident. In that case, a group of college guys were doing a prank and drove off of pavement onto a gravel road at 80 miles per hour. The guy who didn't have his seatbelt on (because he was tied up and blindfolded in the trunk) was killed. The others were not seriously hurt.

-Biscuits

In reply to:

---

You can tell the really good flamewars because they generate their own little colonies of miniflamewars to every side. Northern Ireland, Iraq, religion, communism, globalisation etc are clearly all of minor importance in the world (or at least on this BBS) compared to sport-utility vehicles.

---

I wouldn't say we have any flamewars here - we have resonable argument and counter argument and no-one is calling the other names.[well not on my patch anyway].

Yeah maybe SUV's are a hot button for a few folks right now - and I think that says a lot about how that DetroitProject is actually working and getting people to think and say about SUVs.

And maybe, just maybe, some folks might not buy another SUV for a while, and that might be a bad thing in the long term if Detroit gets the message.

I recall in the 60's that guy who set fire to his new Ford? car outside a Ford factory because it was such a lemon and he was so annoyed about it and the fact that Detroit didn't care - that got quite lot of press and TV coverage at the time and caused Detroit to change its build quality and customer relations (for a while/decade at least).

And maybe its time for another campaign to wake Detroit out of its comfort zone again to get some action on SUVs - because while a lot of folks like their SUVs, a lot of other folks don't - for all sorts of reasons and their reasons and opinions as to why they dislike SUVs are no less valid than the opinions of the folks who like their SUVs.

Is it not true that the rising number of SUV's and trucks creates a higher demand for gasoline, which forces prices up for every driver? I also love how my neighbor on one side thinks her kids are safer now if they get in an accident in their Expedition, but another neighbor is concerned that if her Elantra gets in a wreck with one she is now less safe.

I don't hate SUV's. I just hate people who own one with no need to own one. They don't haul car parts or lumber for home projects. They don't go off road. They don't have a family of 5 or more. They just drive to work and the grocery store, and think they look cool doing it. And put those obnoxiously loud mufferless straight pipes on it to announce themselves.

I know my Eclipse doesn't get the best milage either, especially how I drive it. And I go home to a 3 bedroom house that only I live in, which I keep at 75 degrees all winter (in Minnesota) so I don't get cold. And while I don't hunt since I don't like killing animals, I do enjoy the occasional burger just to let you know how seriously I take the whole thing.

Is it not true that SUV drivers pay more gasoline tax, which pushes down the gasoline taxes for every other driver?

You have tax on gas in the States ?

The rumours aren't true then...

my gas taxes everyone's patience

Talking of US fuel taxes, how much is a gallon of petrol over there ATM?

In the UK we're not allowed gallons of petrol any longer but for comparison it works out something like this:

1 liter = $1.19USD (£0.74GBP)
1 US Gallon = 3.78l = $4.50USD (£2.80GBP)

Incidentally, does anyone know the reason for having two different gallon capacities (US & Imperial)?

Depends on the state. In Georgia, we have the lowest gas taxes in the country. I haven't bought gas for 2-3 weeks, but I believe it is about $1.50 a gallon here. Most other states are generally 20-30 cents a gallon more expensive, and California is, no doubt, over $3 a gallon.

California is, no doubt, over $3 a gallon.

Wow, I must have got a great deal when I payed $1.79 in the CA bay area this morning then ;-)

There are usually 3 grades in NC. 87, 89, and 93 octane ratings, I believe. Right now, it's about $1.40, $1.50, and $1.60 a gallon, IIRC, give or take (they change on a daily basis).

over here in southern louisiana, it's been ranging from $1.30 - $1.40. And according to the little stickers that the gas companies put on the pumps, about 40 cents of that goes to state and federal taxes.

A couple of years ago, when I went to California, gasoline prices were $0.80 a gallon in Georgia and $2.50 in California.

In reply to:

---

Incidentally, does anyone know the reason for having two different gallon capacities (US & Imperial)?

---

Its got something to do with the weight of a barrel of water (or oil), which held "44 gallons".

the weight of a 44 gallon barrel is lower in the US, and this is factored backwards to produce a gallon with less than the Imperial gallon.

Probably goes right back to Rockerfellers time, and he or his ilk probably used the lighter barrels to sell less oil in the same "size" container as his competitors, thus inflating his profits.

I think about $1.34/gallon here in SC.