🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott Aleckson <aleckson@alaska.net> wrote in <3A5BF2B8.86F48EB9
@alaska.net>:

>> SUVs are rollover risks...
>
>Only if you drive like a complete moron.  After 10 years in the
>fire/rescue/ems biz, I can personally say that I've seen many times more
>rollovers involving cars than those involving SUVs.  The fact is, *ANY*
>vehicle can roll over if it is not driven properly.  When people drive
>appropriate to the vehicle and road conditions, then *NO* vehicle has a
>measurable risk of either rollover or being prone to fatal accidents.  And
>that is indisputable.  If you anti-SUV folks would put as much effort into
>getting proper driver's education back into the schools we might get
>somewhere.
>
>[Sorry for feeding the troll- it was a moment of weakness]


Thanks for playing,

your personal experience aside, after the whole Explorer/Firestone 
excitement, all the data that anyone from either the gov. or independant 
sources could find clearly shows that SUV's are substantially more likely 
to be involved in a rollovers than cars.

Since the majority of vehicle fatalities are resulting from rollovers, I 
think I'll stick with a car.

It's pretty asanine to claim that "car" drivers are inherently worse than 
"truck/SUV" drivers.  I don't think many people would argue that it takes 
more skill to drive a truck or SUV "well" compared to driving a car "well", 
especially in the area of accident avoidence.  

A recent study pointed out that the worst drivers on average are driving 
Volvos.  This is because Volvo has the reputation for being the safest car 
in an accident... so if you are a shitty driver you buy one to make sure 
that YOU are ok when you fuck up and get in an accident.  I suspect that 
there is a similar mentality among many, many of the people who are 
purchasing large SUV's and trucks for their "safety" factor.

-DJ