Size Does Matter

[seriouseats]

All this Safety Talk,then most of the Know it All Posters boast about their Motorbikes in the back of ununstable workmans Truck. Seems to me dumping those Scooters they call Motorbikes might save your life.

This is a topic many people like and the information that goes with it.

I would hardly call a Vigo 4x4 auto with VSC a workmans truck and a Kawasaki 650 ain't a scooter.

Go take some Eno's.

Yep, think Eno, as a newbie, should read a lot more here before making daft comments eh.

PS. The know it all here have helped many.

Thanks for the support guys :jap:

Name calling just peels off, and says more about poster than me.

Every workman and farmer in Europe will soon have VSC/ESP as its been decided to make it mandatory for every vehicle below 3,5 ton. its been found, in the US and in Europe, to be the single most important safety equipment to save lives, more important than airbags and ABS.

Some workmen will still have to manage without cream leatherseats and cruisecontrol, and some scoots are still not for the masses :lol:

Please concentrate on the important updates. WILL THEY HAVE MANDATORY 4X4 STICKERS?.

[katabeachbum]

Guess its time for Forum rules

all CAPITAL is considered shouting, in addition bold and underscore> is not accepted, unless its a link.

As a newbie you get away with it this time. Please read up on Forum rules

[Lite Beer]

An inflammatory post and the reply to it deleted.

[Kwasaki]

An inflammatory post and the reply to it deleted.

I guess s s is in the s then, been there got the ' T ' shirt so to speak.

[wandrinstar]

All these gadgets must be paid for,perhaps the Farmer / Tradesman wasnts one to Earn, not Ponce about in. Basic Trucks here are good value.

[Histavia]

Does size really matter?

There are many people around who love their cars and driving and even take care of them, but still have little or no knowledge of the physics or vehicle construction. They are easily misled by reports like this even though the report itself may be quite accurate, it is the erroneous conclusions that others draw that are so unfortunate.

I wouldn't get excited by this report as it only applies to a limited range of up-market vehicles that are not commonly available in Thailand. ...and does it actually cite size as the reason?

American car culture and its aficionados are nothing it has to be said if not phallocentric. The choice of the expression "size DOES matter" is not without its own significance given the largely US based cultural subtext and envy that is commonly associated with this expression.

This dread of rejection (by women and thus/or society) has been exploited by the US motor industry and catered for by the production of ever larger automobiles for decades. The male's - in particular the White Anglo-Saxon American - perpetual feelings of inadequacy in this area are pandered to by the US motor industry with these huge SUVs capable of carrying a family but also butch enough not to be a symbol of emasculation as is the case with the MPV. So sales of the large SUV are assured so long as legislation allows. The "large" or "very large" SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicle - a misnomer if ever there was one) are the result of the American belief that "big is best" and the never ending craving for ever larger vehicles. The costs of producing a large vehicle are little different from producing a small one, but the profit margins per unit can be much larger, so even if produced in small numbers the industry likes them ..... and any report that suggests they might be a "good thing"

Legislation in the last few decades has ensured that the average family sedan has conformed to a plethora of federal safety and fuel economy standards, restricted engine and body size etc., which has squeezed profitability especially for US manufacturers who are basically ill-equipped to design or produce such vehicles. - however these regulations were deemed unsuitable for commercial or work vehicles and were not applied to SUVs. So as a result of this "loophole" the SUV market has grown exponentially as the manufacturers exploited this omission to pander to the public's craving for enormous machines with which they do little more than go shopping in.

There have been safety concerns with these vehicles right from the start and basically the manufacturers, under threat of legislation that would have killed the market, have had to pull their socks up and do something.

It seems to me that the inference being drawn here by many people including the OP is that the bigger your vehicle is, the "safer" you are - this IMO is not so straightforward at all and not really what this report is saying. It's a flawed conclusion especially when set in the context of driving in Thailand.

The OP has unfortunately appears to have made some elementary mistakes in the inferences he/she draws from this report; it looks as if he has chosen this report because he thinks it backs a commonly held misconception that "bigger is safer"in fact the report's conclusions are not so simplistic.

My first observation is concerning the choice of title and subtitle of this thread, which I think declares the OP's (and others) basic misinterpretation of the report.

" Size Does Matter"

"Less fatalities in larger vehicles"

The implication appears to be that the bigger your vehicle the safer it is - this is not how I would interpret the report.

"Size does matter" - He seems to be implying that the bigger the vehicle is the less likely you are to die - this is not actually born out by the report.

The premise "Less fatalities in larger vehicles" is false (in the remit of this report). - his conclusion, doesn't follow on from the first and they aren't actually connected or substantiated to any great extent by the report.

"Real World" - - real USA in the case of the report - the trouble with the real world is that there are so many variables that it is often impossible to get a vague trend let alone definitive answer. Even the IIHS admits in this report that they are not comparing apples with apples here as they have changed the criteria/parameters of the research from previous

At present this is the ONLY report of many that are the result of constant research all over the world that is putting forward this theory. - a first? a voice in the wilderness?..or just an attempt to reduce premiums on their "favorite" vehicle?

2 issues emerge: -

Firstly - are these figures and conclusions worth anything at all? It could be argued that this report has been loaded in favour of prolonging the production of large SUVs in the States. - however I think it is fair to assume that the figure taken as they stand on their own without inference are accurate...... but lets look at them for what they are -

They are concerned with DRIVER death rate only.

Other issues such as passengers and "collateral" damage are not addressed.

Secondly - if given the benefit of the doubt we can assume that at least they represent a real change in death rates in large SUVs - what inferences can realistically be drawn?

I think it is relevant also to consider that this report is actually only citing a handful of models that are mostly not available throughout the world. In particular it does NOT include models commonly available in Thailand either SUV or pickups and the figures are not draw from any of these models - in fact the figures would suggest the opposite for similar US vehicles in those classes.

So does size really matter??? - there is an inconsistency in the report and some of the statements included in it - The earlier versions of the vehicles that are referred to in the report (pre 2005) were FAR less safe, yet they were as heavy or even heavier - so to conclude that size is hugely important seems a little strong as it clearly wasn't with the earlier models. Driver deaths in large SUVs USED to to Higher than sedans (by IIHA's own reports) - although the death figures have changed, one factor that remains pretty much constant is the weight, so claims about size have to be suspect. It has to be said that the statements about the size and weight of the vehicle appear to be not so much drawn from the figures presented as they are from pure assumption.

Although the report suggests that size may be a factor in new model SUVs it also points out that there are other factors too and that cars of a similar weight seem to have a higher death rate - so again the evidence on size alone is simply not constant.

The design of SUVs is of course improving - but can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

In fact it is not size or weight that the report devotes most of its time on at all but suggests that the real cause of this change is in fact the near universal introduction of ESC on these models.

What about Kinetic Energy?

I haven't done the calculations myself I"m told - "A 3 tonne utility or large SUV travelling at 100 kph has the same kinetic energy as a 1 tonne small car travelling at 173 kph."

- in a collision or single vehicle incident it is the ability to ABSORB kinetic energy that counts. When a vehicle comes to an abrupt halt, the occupants keep moving - how they fare then is not up to them at all, it depends on the cars safety features - seat-belts, air-bags etc. Even then it is not over for the occupants as their internal organs then continue to move - in particular the brain. It would appear that the US industry has spent a lot of time bolstering up the internal safety of these vehicles too. They appear to be leaving the old - very old - chassis based vehicles for unibody or monocoque construction which is similar to a sedan"s - this improves handling and also the absorption of energy. It also helps the passenger compartment to stay in one piece in a crash. - The Thai pickups have none of this - as yet I don't think ANY model is fitted with ESC in Thailand.

ESC or not there is no way that a chassis built vehicle (an archaic way to build a car anyway) can be built to absorb energy in the same way as a monocoque construction.

The downside of the large SUVs - Collateral Damage: -

With a body on frame design, "A pig in a silk waistcoat is still a pig,"

If a drunk driver runs into another road user he is usually held to blame - one of the criticisms is that in the wrong hands a car is a deadly weapon - so why allow these deadliest of all weapons the SUV on the road at all?

Basically the large SUVs are just too big - they aren't safe they are downright dangerous - unless of course we ALL drive one. They are in essence just antisocial - they are more likely to kill kids, pedestrians and other motorists - do you really want to share the road with these vehicles?

Don't be fooled into believing you are "safer" in your Vigo or Fortuner - they are no way as sophisticated as the much larger US vehicles.

So is bigger safer? This is by no means proven - The report notes it may be "safer" for a small group of drivers of new model very large vehicles, but even then only gives weight part of the credit devoting most of its pages to extolling the virtues of those fitted with the latest active and passive safety features-

However for the rest of us it is not good news.

Anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of these leviathans is likely to receive injuries that would otherwise be avoided with other smaller vehicles, and as for other road users, children and pedestrians etc - watch out - they are top killers.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Histavia

[katabeachbum]

The Swedish Insurance company Folksam has published reports for 3 decades based on real world crashes. The larger car the less impact and damages to occupants. In Sweden the larger cars ARE 80% Volvo and Saab, the smaller cars consist of an Internatinal brand blend including smaller Volvos and Saabs

BTW Topic title was stolen from another publication, and as I highlight in OP, Izu DMax/Chev Colorado is at the bottom of the list. So not only size.

There are small/medium cars like VW Golf protecting its occupants on par with larger cars,

There are large cars protecting its occupants poorly.

But in general, in real world crashes, chance of survival depends on car size. Larger deformation zones, stronger passenger cage

Size does matter

[wandrinstar]

Does size really matter?

There are many people around who love their cars and driving and even take care of them, but still have little or no knowledge of the physics or vehicle construction. They are easily misled by reports like this even though the report itself may be quite accurate, it is the erroneous conclusions that others draw that are so unfortunate.

I wouldn't get excited by this report as it only applies to a limited range of up-market vehicles that are not commonly available in Thailand. ...and does it actually cite size as the reason?

American car culture and its aficionados are nothing it has to be said if not phallocentric. The choice of the expression "size DOES matter" is not without its own significance given the largely US based cultural subtext and envy that is commonly associated with this expression.

This dread of rejection (by women and thus/or society) has been exploited by the US motor industry and catered for by the production of ever larger automobiles for decades. The male's - in particular the White Anglo-Saxon American - perpetual feelings of inadequacy in this area are pandered to by the US motor industry with these huge SUVs capable of carrying a family but also butch enough not to be a symbol of emasculation as is the case with the MPV. So sales of the large SUV are assured so long as legislation allows. The "large" or "very large" SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicle - a misnomer if ever there was one) are the result of the American belief that "big is best" and the never ending craving for ever larger vehicles. The costs of producing a large vehicle are little different from producing a small one, but the profit margins per unit can be much larger, so even if produced in small numbers the industry likes them ..... and any report that suggests they might be a "good thing"

Legislation in the last few decades has ensured that the average family sedan has conformed to a plethora of federal safety and fuel economy standards, restricted engine and body size etc., which has squeezed profitability especially for US manufacturers who are basically ill-equipped to design or produce such vehicles. - however these regulations were deemed unsuitable for commercial or work vehicles and were not applied to SUVs. So as a result of this "loophole" the SUV market has grown exponentially as the manufacturers exploited this omission to pander to the public's craving for enormous machines with which they do little more than go shopping in.

There have been safety concerns with these vehicles right from the start and basically the manufacturers, under threat of legislation that would have killed the market, have had to pull their socks up and do something.

It seems to me that the inference being drawn here by many people including the OP is that the bigger your vehicle is, the "safer" you are - this IMO is not so straightforward at all and not really what this report is saying. It's a flawed conclusion especially when set in the context of driving in Thailand.

The OP has unfortunately appears to have made some elementary mistakes in the inferences he/she draws from this report; it looks as if he has chosen this report because he thinks it backs a commonly held misconception that "bigger is safer"in fact the report's conclusions are not so simplistic.

My first observation is concerning the choice of title and subtitle of this thread, which I think declares the OP's (and others) basic misinterpretation of the report.

" Size Does Matter"

"Less fatalities in larger vehicles"

The implication appears to be that the bigger your vehicle the safer it is - this is not how I would interpret the report.

"Size does matter" - He seems to be implying that the bigger the vehicle is the less likely you are to die - this is not actually born out by the report.

The premise "Less fatalities in larger vehicles" is false (in the remit of this report). - his conclusion, doesn't follow on from the first and they aren't actually connected or substantiated to any great extent by the report.

"Real World" - - real USA in the case of the report - the trouble with the real world is that there are so many variables that it is often impossible to get a vague trend let alone definitive answer. Even the IIHS admits in this report that they are not comparing apples with apples here as they have changed the criteria/parameters of the research from previous

At present this is the ONLY report of many that are the result of constant research all over the world that is putting forward this theory. - a first? a voice in the wilderness?..or just an attempt to reduce premiums on their "favorite" vehicle?

2 issues emerge: -

Firstly - are these figures and conclusions worth anything at all? It could be argued that this report has been loaded in favour of prolonging the production of large SUVs in the States. - however I think it is fair to assume that the figure taken as they stand on their own without inference are accurate...... but lets look at them for what they are -

They are concerned with DRIVER death rate only.

Other issues such as passengers and "collateral" damage are not addressed.

Secondly - if given the benefit of the doubt we can assume that at least they represent a real change in death rates in large SUVs - what inferences can realistically be drawn?

I think it is relevant also to consider that this report is actually only citing a handful of models that are mostly not available throughout the world. In particular it does NOT include models commonly available in Thailand either SUV or pickups and the figures are not draw from any of these models - in fact the figures would suggest the opposite for similar US vehicles in those classes.

So does size really matter??? - there is an inconsistency in the report and some of the statements included in it - The earlier versions of the vehicles that are referred to in the report (pre 2005) were FAR less safe, yet they were as heavy or even heavier - so to conclude that size is hugely important seems a little strong as it clearly wasn't with the earlier models. Driver deaths in large SUVs USED to to Higher than sedans (by IIHA's own reports) - although the death figures have changed, one factor that remains pretty much constant is the weight, so claims about size have to be suspect. It has to be said that the statements about the size and weight of the vehicle appear to be not so much drawn from the figures presented as they are from pure assumption.

Although the report suggests that size may be a factor in new model SUVs it also points out that there are other factors too and that cars of a similar weight seem to have a higher death rate - so again the evidence on size alone is simply not constant.

The design of SUVs is of course improving - but can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

In fact it is not size or weight that the report devotes most of its time on at all but suggests that the real cause of this change is in fact the near universal introduction of ESC on these models.

What about Kinetic Energy?

I haven't done the calculations myself I"m told - "A 3 tonne utility or large SUV travelling at 100 kph has the same kinetic energy as a 1 tonne small car travelling at 173 kph."

- in a collision or single vehicle incident it is the ability to ABSORB kinetic energy that counts. When a vehicle comes to an abrupt halt, the occupants keep moving - how they fare then is not up to them at all, it depends on the cars safety features - seat-belts, air-bags etc. Even then it is not over for the occupants as their internal organs then continue to move - in particular the brain. It would appear that the US industry has spent a lot of time bolstering up the internal safety of these vehicles too. They appear to be leaving the old - very old - chassis based vehicles for unibody or monocoque construction which is similar to a sedan"s - this improves handling and also the absorption of energy. It also helps the passenger compartment to stay in one piece in a crash. - The Thai pickups have none of this - as yet I don't think ANY model is fitted with ESC in Thailand.

ESC or not there is no way that a chassis built vehicle (an archaic way to build a car anyway) can be built to absorb energy in the same way as a monocoque construction.

The downside of the large SUVs - Collateral Damage: -

With a body on frame design, "A pig in a silk waistcoat is still a pig,"

If a drunk driver runs into another road user he is usually held to blame - one of the criticisms is that in the wrong hands a car is a deadly weapon - so why allow these deadliest of all weapons the SUV on the road at all?

Basically the large SUVs are just too big - they aren't safe they are downright dangerous - unless of course we ALL drive one. They are in essence just antisocial - they are more likely to kill kids, pedestrians and other motorists - do you really want to share the road with these vehicles?

Don't be fooled into believing you are "safer" in your Vigo or Fortuner - they are no way as sophisticated as the much larger US vehicles.

So is bigger safer? This is by no means proven - The report notes it may be "safer" for a small group of drivers of new model very large vehicles, but even then only gives weight part of the credit devoting most of its pages to extolling the virtues of those fitted with the latest active and passive safety features-

However for the rest of us it is not good news.

Anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of these leviathans is likely to receive injuries that would otherwise be avoided with other smaller vehicles, and as for other road users, children and pedestrians etc - watch out - they are top killers.

[wandrinstar]

Does size really matter?

There are many people around who love their cars and driving and even take care of them, but still have little or no knowledge of the physics or vehicle construction. They are easily misled by reports like this even though the report itself may be quite accurate, it is the erroneous conclusions that others draw that are so unfortunate.

I wouldn't get excited by this report as it only applies to a limited range of up-market vehicles that are not commonly available in Thailand. ...and does it actually cite size as the reason?

American car culture and its aficionados are nothing it has to be said if not phallocentric. The choice of the expression "size DOES matter" is not without its own significance given the largely US based cultural subtext and envy that is commonly associated with this expression.

This dread of rejection (by women and thus/or society) has been exploited by the US motor industry and catered for by the production of ever larger automobiles for decades. The male's - in particular the White Anglo-Saxon American - perpetual feelings of inadequacy in this area are pandered to by the US motor industry with these huge SUVs capable of carrying a family but also butch enough not to be a symbol of emasculation as is the case with the MPV. So sales of the large SUV are assured so long as legislation allows. The "large" or "very large" SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicle - a misnomer if ever there was one) are the result of the American belief that "big is best" and the never ending craving for ever larger vehicles. The costs of producing a large vehicle are little different from producing a small one, but the profit margins per unit can be much larger, so even if produced in small numbers the industry likes them ..... and any report that suggests they might be a "good thing"

Legislation in the last few decades has ensured that the average family sedan has conformed to a plethora of federal safety and fuel economy standards, restricted engine and body size etc., which has squeezed profitability especially for US manufacturers who are basically ill-equipped to design or produce such vehicles. - however these regulations were deemed unsuitable for commercial or work vehicles and were not applied to SUVs. So as a result of this "loophole" the SUV market has grown exponentially as the manufacturers exploited this omission to pander to the public's craving for enormous machines with which they do little more than go shopping in.

There have been safety concerns with these vehicles right from the start and basically the manufacturers, under threat of legislation that would have killed the market, have had to pull their socks up and do something.

It seems to me that the inference being drawn here by many people including the OP is that the bigger your vehicle is, the "safer" you are - this IMO is not so straightforward at all and not really what this report is saying. It's a flawed conclusion especially when set in the context of driving in Thailand.

The OP has unfortunately appears to have made some elementary mistakes in the inferences he/she draws from this report; it looks as if he has chosen this report because he thinks it backs a commonly held misconception that "bigger is safer"in fact the report's conclusions are not so simplistic.

My first observation is concerning the choice of title and subtitle of this thread, which I think declares the OP's (and others) basic misinterpretation of the report.

" Size Does Matter"

"Less fatalities in larger vehicles"

The implication appears to be that the bigger your vehicle the safer it is - this is not how I would interpret the report.

"Size does matter" - He seems to be implying that the bigger the vehicle is the less likely you are to die - this is not actually born out by the report.

The premise "Less fatalities in larger vehicles" is false (in the remit of this report). - his conclusion, doesn't follow on from the first and they aren't actually connected or substantiated to any great extent by the report.

"Real World" - - real USA in the case of the report - the trouble with the real world is that there are so many variables that it is often impossible to get a vague trend let alone definitive answer. Even the IIHS admits in this report that they are not comparing apples with apples here as they have changed the criteria/parameters of the research from previous

At present this is the ONLY report of many that are the result of constant research all over the world that is putting forward this theory. - a first? a voice in the wilderness?..or just an attempt to reduce premiums on their "favorite" vehicle?

2 issues emerge: -

Firstly - are these figures and conclusions worth anything at all? It could be argued that this report has been loaded in favour of prolonging the production of large SUVs in the States. - however I think it is fair to assume that the figure taken as they stand on their own without inference are accurate...... but lets look at them for what they are -

They are concerned with DRIVER death rate only.

Other issues such as passengers and "collateral" damage are not addressed.

Secondly - if given the benefit of the doubt we can assume that at least they represent a real change in death rates in large SUVs - what inferences can realistically be drawn?

I think it is relevant also to consider that this report is actually only citing a handful of models that are mostly not available throughout the world. In particular it does NOT include models commonly available in Thailand either SUV or pickups and the figures are not draw from any of these models - in fact the figures would suggest the opposite for similar US vehicles in those classes.

So does size really matter??? - there is an inconsistency in the report and some of the statements included in it - The earlier versions of the vehicles that are referred to in the report (pre 2005) were FAR less safe, yet they were as heavy or even heavier - so to conclude that size is hugely important seems a little strong as it clearly wasn't with the earlier models. Driver deaths in large SUVs USED to to Higher than sedans (by IIHA's own reports) - although the death figures have changed, one factor that remains pretty much constant is the weight, so claims about size have to be suspect. It has to be said that the statements about the size and weight of the vehicle appear to be not so much drawn from the figures presented as they are from pure assumption.

Although the report suggests that size may be a factor in new model SUVs it also points out that there are other factors too and that cars of a similar weight seem to have a higher death rate - so again the evidence on size alone is simply not constant.

The design of SUVs is of course improving - but can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

In fact it is not size or weight that the report devotes most of its time on at all but suggests that the real cause of this change is in fact the near universal introduction of ESC on these models.

What about Kinetic Energy?

I haven't done the calculations myself I"m told - "A 3 tonne utility or large SUV travelling at 100 kph has the same kinetic energy as a 1 tonne small car travelling at 173 kph."

- in a collision or single vehicle incident it is the ability to ABSORB kinetic energy that counts. When a vehicle comes to an abrupt halt, the occupants keep moving - how they fare then is not up to them at all, it depends on the cars safety features - seat-belts, air-bags etc. Even then it is not over for the occupants as their internal organs then continue to move - in particular the brain. It would appear that the US industry has spent a lot of time bolstering up the internal safety of these vehicles too. They appear to be leaving the old - very old - chassis based vehicles for unibody or monocoque construction which is similar to a sedan"s - this improves handling and also the absorption of energy. It also helps the passenger compartment to stay in one piece in a crash. - The Thai pickups have none of this - as yet I don't think ANY model is fitted with ESC in Thailand.

ESC or not there is no way that a chassis built vehicle (an archaic way to build a car anyway) can be built to absorb energy in the same way as a monocoque construction.

The downside of the large SUVs - Collateral Damage: -

With a body on frame design, "A pig in a silk waistcoat is still a pig,"

If a drunk driver runs into another road user he is usually held to blame - one of the criticisms is that in the wrong hands a car is a deadly weapon - so why allow these deadliest of all weapons the SUV on the road at all?

Basically the large SUVs are just too big - they aren't safe they are downright dangerous - unless of course we ALL drive one. They are in essence just antisocial - they are more likely to kill kids, pedestrians and other motorists - do you really want to share the road with these vehicles?

Don't be fooled into believing you are "safer" in your Vigo or Fortuner - they are no way as sophisticated as the much larger US vehicles.

So is bigger safer? This is by no means proven - The report notes it may be "safer" for a small group of drivers of new model very large vehicles, but even then only gives weight part of the credit devoting most of its pages to extolling the virtues of those fitted with the latest active and passive safety features-

However for the rest of us it is not good news.

Anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of these leviathans is likely to receive injuries that would otherwise be avoided with other smaller vehicles, and as for other road users, children and pedestrians etc - watch out - they are top killers.

Thank You, i enjoyed your Post. A Most reasoned Observation.

[katabeachbum]

Does size really matter?

There are many people around who love their cars and driving and even take care of them, but still have little or no knowledge of the physics or vehicle construction. They are easily misled by reports like this even though the report itself may be quite accurate, it is the erroneous conclusions that others draw that are so unfortunate.

I wouldn't get excited by this report as it only applies to a limited range of up-market vehicles that are not commonly available in Thailand. ...and does it actually cite size as the reason?

American car culture and its aficionados are nothing it has to be said if not phallocentric. The choice of the expression "size DOES matter" is not without its own significance given the largely US based cultural subtext and envy that is commonly associated with this expression.

This dread of rejection (by women and thus/or society) has been exploited by the US motor industry and catered for by the production of ever larger automobiles for decades. The male's - in particular the White Anglo-Saxon American - perpetual feelings of inadequacy in this area are pandered to by the US motor industry with these huge SUVs capable of carrying a family but also butch enough not to be a symbol of emasculation as is the case with the MPV. So sales of the large SUV are assured so long as legislation allows. The "large" or "very large" SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicle - a misnomer if ever there was one) are the result of the American belief that "big is best" and the never ending craving for ever larger vehicles. The costs of producing a large vehicle are little different from producing a small one, but the profit margins per unit can be much larger, so even if produced in small numbers the industry likes them ..... and any report that suggests they might be a "good thing"

Legislation in the last few decades has ensured that the average family sedan has conformed to a plethora of federal safety and fuel economy standards, restricted engine and body size etc., which has squeezed profitability especially for US manufacturers who are basically ill-equipped to design or produce such vehicles. - however these regulations were deemed unsuitable for commercial or work vehicles and were not applied to SUVs. So as a result of this "loophole" the SUV market has grown exponentially as the manufacturers exploited this omission to pander to the public's craving for enormous machines with which they do little more than go shopping in.

There have been safety concerns with these vehicles right from the start and basically the manufacturers, under threat of legislation that would have killed the market, have had to pull their socks up and do something.

It seems to me that the inference being drawn here by many people including the OP is that the bigger your vehicle is, the "safer" you are - this IMO is not so straightforward at all and not really what this report is saying. It's a flawed conclusion especially when set in the context of driving in Thailand.

The OP has unfortunately appears to have made some elementary mistakes in the inferences he/she draws from this report; it looks as if he has chosen this report because he thinks it backs a commonly held misconception that "bigger is safer"in fact the report's conclusions are not so simplistic.

My first observation is concerning the choice of title and subtitle of this thread, which I think declares the OP's (and others) basic misinterpretation of the report.

" Size Does Matter"

"Less fatalities in larger vehicles"

The implication appears to be that the bigger your vehicle the safer it is - this is not how I would interpret the report.

"Size does matter" - He seems to be implying that the bigger the vehicle is the less likely you are to die - this is not actually born out by the report.

The premise "Less fatalities in larger vehicles" is false (in the remit of this report). - his conclusion, doesn't follow on from the first and they aren't actually connected or substantiated to any great extent by the report.

"Real World" - - real USA in the case of the report - the trouble with the real world is that there are so many variables that it is often impossible to get a vague trend let alone definitive answer. Even the IIHS admits in this report that they are not comparing apples with apples here as they have changed the criteria/parameters of the research from previous

At present this is the ONLY report of many that are the result of constant research all over the world that is putting forward this theory. - a first? a voice in the wilderness?..or just an attempt to reduce premiums on their "favorite" vehicle?

2 issues emerge: -

Firstly - are these figures and conclusions worth anything at all? It could be argued that this report has been loaded in favour of prolonging the production of large SUVs in the States. - however I think it is fair to assume that the figure taken as they stand on their own without inference are accurate...... but lets look at them for what they are -

They are concerned with DRIVER death rate only.

Other issues such as passengers and "collateral" damage are not addressed.

Secondly - if given the benefit of the doubt we can assume that at least they represent a real change in death rates in large SUVs - what inferences can realistically be drawn?

I think it is relevant also to consider that this report is actually only citing a handful of models that are mostly not available throughout the world. In particular it does NOT include models commonly available in Thailand either SUV or pickups and the figures are not draw from any of these models - in fact the figures would suggest the opposite for similar US vehicles in those classes.

So does size really matter??? - there is an inconsistency in the report and some of the statements included in it - The earlier versions of the vehicles that are referred to in the report (pre 2005) were FAR less safe, yet they were as heavy or even heavier - so to conclude that size is hugely important seems a little strong as it clearly wasn't with the earlier models. Driver deaths in large SUVs USED to to Higher than sedans (by IIHA's own reports) - although the death figures have changed, one factor that remains pretty much constant is the weight, so claims about size have to be suspect. It has to be said that the statements about the size and weight of the vehicle appear to be not so much drawn from the figures presented as they are from pure assumption.

Although the report suggests that size may be a factor in new model SUVs it also points out that there are other factors too and that cars of a similar weight seem to have a higher death rate - so again the evidence on size alone is simply not constant.

The design of SUVs is of course improving - but can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

In fact it is not size or weight that the report devotes most of its time on at all but suggests that the real cause of this change is in fact the near universal introduction of ESC on these models.

What about Kinetic Energy?

I haven't done the calculations myself I"m told - "A 3 tonne utility or large SUV travelling at 100 kph has the same kinetic energy as a 1 tonne small car travelling at 173 kph."

- in a collision or single vehicle incident it is the ability to ABSORB kinetic energy that counts. When a vehicle comes to an abrupt halt, the occupants keep moving - how they fare then is not up to them at all, it depends on the cars safety features - seat-belts, air-bags etc. Even then it is not over for the occupants as their internal organs then continue to move - in particular the brain. It would appear that the US industry has spent a lot of time bolstering up the internal safety of these vehicles too. They appear to be leaving the old - very old - chassis based vehicles for unibody or monocoque construction which is similar to a sedan"s - this improves handling and also the absorption of energy. It also helps the passenger compartment to stay in one piece in a crash. - The Thai pickups have none of this - as yet I don't think ANY model is fitted with ESC in Thailand.

ESC or not there is no way that a chassis built vehicle (an archaic way to build a car anyway) can be built to absorb energy in the same way as a monocoque construction.

The downside of the large SUVs - Collateral Damage: -

With a body on frame design, "A pig in a silk waistcoat is still a pig,"

If a drunk driver runs into another road user he is usually held to blame - one of the criticisms is that in the wrong hands a car is a deadly weapon - so why allow these deadliest of all weapons the SUV on the road at all?

Basically the large SUVs are just too big - they aren't safe they are downright dangerous - unless of course we ALL drive one. They are in essence just antisocial - they are more likely to kill kids, pedestrians and other motorists - do you really want to share the road with these vehicles?

Don't be fooled into believing you are "safer" in your Vigo or Fortuner - they are no way as sophisticated as the much larger US vehicles.

So is bigger safer? This is by no means proven - The report notes it may be "safer" for a small group of drivers of new model very large vehicles, but even then only gives weight part of the credit devoting most of its pages to extolling the virtues of those fitted with the latest active and passive safety features-

However for the rest of us it is not good news.

Anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of these leviathans is likely to receive injuries that would otherwise be avoided with other smaller vehicles, and as for other road users, children and pedestrians etc - watch out - they are top killers.

Thank You, i enjoyed your Post. A Most reasoned Observation.

but so many assumptions are wrong

1. talking about "very large vehicles not commonly available in TH" is so wrong when one of the winners is MB E, made in TH and TH best seller in segment, a medium size sedan

2. MB e scores 5 of 5 stars in pedestrian protection

3. non of the Thai pickups/suv availabe with ESC (electronic stability control) also called VSC (vehicle stability control) and by inventor Bosch called ESP (electronic stability program)

Wrong, stock on Fortuner and top models Vigo since 2008. they are just as sophisticated as the US vehicles

dont have time to pick it all apart, but to many assumptions presented are simply not correct

[transam]

Does size really matter?

There are many people around who love their cars and driving and even take care of them, but still have little or no knowledge of the physics or vehicle construction. They are easily misled by reports like this even though the report itself may be quite accurate, it is the erroneous conclusions that others draw that are so unfortunate.

I wouldn't get excited by this report as it only applies to a limited range of up-market vehicles that are not commonly available in Thailand. ...and does it actually cite size as the reason?

American car culture and its aficionados are nothing it has to be said if not phallocentric. The choice of the expression "size DOES matter" is not without its own significance given the largely US based cultural subtext and envy that is commonly associated with this expression.

This dread of rejection (by women and thus/or society) has been exploited by the US motor industry and catered for by the production of ever larger automobiles for decades. The male's - in particular the White Anglo-Saxon American - perpetual feelings of inadequacy in this area are pandered to by the US motor industry with these huge SUVs capable of carrying a family but also butch enough not to be a symbol of emasculation as is the case with the MPV. So sales of the large SUV are assured so long as legislation allows. The "large" or "very large" SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicle - a misnomer if ever there was one) are the result of the American belief that "big is best" and the never ending craving for ever larger vehicles. The costs of producing a large vehicle are little different from producing a small one, but the profit margins per unit can be much larger, so even if produced in small numbers the industry likes them ..... and any report that suggests they might be a "good thing"

Legislation in the last few decades has ensured that the average family sedan has conformed to a plethora of federal safety and fuel economy standards, restricted engine and body size etc., which has squeezed profitability especially for US manufacturers who are basically ill-equipped to design or produce such vehicles. - however these regulations were deemed unsuitable for commercial or work vehicles and were not applied to SUVs. So as a result of this "loophole" the SUV market has grown exponentially as the manufacturers exploited this omission to pander to the public's craving for enormous machines with which they do little more than go shopping in.

There have been safety concerns with these vehicles right from the start and basically the manufacturers, under threat of legislation that would have killed the market, have had to pull their socks up and do something.

It seems to me that the inference being drawn here by many people including the OP is that the bigger your vehicle is, the "safer" you are - this IMO is not so straightforward at all and not really what this report is saying. It's a flawed conclusion especially when set in the context of driving in Thailand.

The OP has unfortunately appears to have made some elementary mistakes in the inferences he/she draws from this report; it looks as if he has chosen this report because he thinks it backs a commonly held misconception that "bigger is safer"in fact the report's conclusions are not so simplistic.

My first observation is concerning the choice of title and subtitle of this thread, which I think declares the OP's (and others) basic misinterpretation of the report.

" Size Does Matter"

"Less fatalities in larger vehicles"

The implication appears to be that the bigger your vehicle the safer it is - this is not how I would interpret the report.

"Size does matter" - He seems to be implying that the bigger the vehicle is the less likely you are to die - this is not actually born out by the report.

The premise "Less fatalities in larger vehicles" is false (in the remit of this report). - his conclusion, doesn't follow on from the first and they aren't actually connected or substantiated to any great extent by the report.

"Real World" - - real USA in the case of the report - the trouble with the real world is that there are so many variables that it is often impossible to get a vague trend let alone definitive answer. Even the IIHS admits in this report that they are not comparing apples with apples here as they have changed the criteria/parameters of the research from previous

At present this is the ONLY report of many that are the result of constant research all over the world that is putting forward this theory. - a first? a voice in the wilderness?..or just an attempt to reduce premiums on their "favorite" vehicle?

2 issues emerge: -

Firstly - are these figures and conclusions worth anything at all? It could be argued that this report has been loaded in favour of prolonging the production of large SUVs in the States. - however I think it is fair to assume that the figure taken as they stand on their own without inference are accurate...... but lets look at them for what they are -

They are concerned with DRIVER death rate only.

Other issues such as passengers and "collateral" damage are not addressed.

Secondly - if given the benefit of the doubt we can assume that at least they represent a real change in death rates in large SUVs - what inferences can realistically be drawn?

I think it is relevant also to consider that this report is actually only citing a handful of models that are mostly not available throughout the world. In particular it does NOT include models commonly available in Thailand either SUV or pickups and the figures are not draw from any of these models - in fact the figures would suggest the opposite for similar US vehicles in those classes.

So does size really matter??? - there is an inconsistency in the report and some of the statements included in it - The earlier versions of the vehicles that are referred to in the report (pre 2005) were FAR less safe, yet they were as heavy or even heavier - so to conclude that size is hugely important seems a little strong as it clearly wasn't with the earlier models. Driver deaths in large SUVs USED to to Higher than sedans (by IIHA's own reports) - although the death figures have changed, one factor that remains pretty much constant is the weight, so claims about size have to be suspect. It has to be said that the statements about the size and weight of the vehicle appear to be not so much drawn from the figures presented as they are from pure assumption.

Although the report suggests that size may be a factor in new model SUVs it also points out that there are other factors too and that cars of a similar weight seem to have a higher death rate - so again the evidence on size alone is simply not constant.

The design of SUVs is of course improving - but can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

In fact it is not size or weight that the report devotes most of its time on at all but suggests that the real cause of this change is in fact the near universal introduction of ESC on these models.

What about Kinetic Energy?

I haven't done the calculations myself I"m told - "A 3 tonne utility or large SUV travelling at 100 kph has the same kinetic energy as a 1 tonne small car travelling at 173 kph."

- in a collision or single vehicle incident it is the ability to ABSORB kinetic energy that counts. When a vehicle comes to an abrupt halt, the occupants keep moving - how they fare then is not up to them at all, it depends on the cars safety features - seat-belts, air-bags etc. Even then it is not over for the occupants as their internal organs then continue to move - in particular the brain. It would appear that the US industry has spent a lot of time bolstering up the internal safety of these vehicles too. They appear to be leaving the old - very old - chassis based vehicles for unibody or monocoque construction which is similar to a sedan"s - this improves handling and also the absorption of energy. It also helps the passenger compartment to stay in one piece in a crash. - The Thai pickups have none of this - as yet I don't think ANY model is fitted with ESC in Thailand.

ESC or not there is no way that a chassis built vehicle (an archaic way to build a car anyway) can be built to absorb energy in the same way as a monocoque construction.

The downside of the large SUVs - Collateral Damage: -

With a body on frame design, "A pig in a silk waistcoat is still a pig,"

If a drunk driver runs into another road user he is usually held to blame - one of the criticisms is that in the wrong hands a car is a deadly weapon - so why allow these deadliest of all weapons the SUV on the road at all?

Basically the large SUVs are just too big - they aren't safe they are downright dangerous - unless of course we ALL drive one. They are in essence just antisocial - they are more likely to kill kids, pedestrians and other motorists - do you really want to share the road with these vehicles?

Don't be fooled into believing you are "safer" in your Vigo or Fortuner - they are no way as sophisticated as the much larger US vehicles.

So is bigger safer? This is by no means proven - The report notes it may be "safer" for a small group of drivers of new model very large vehicles, but even then only gives weight part of the credit devoting most of its pages to extolling the virtues of those fitted with the latest active and passive safety features-

However for the rest of us it is not good news.

Anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of these leviathans is likely to receive injuries that would otherwise be avoided with other smaller vehicles, and as for other road users, children and pedestrians etc - watch out - they are top killers.

Thank You, i enjoyed your Post. A Most reasoned Observation.

but so many assumptions are wrong

1. talking about "very large vehicles not commonly available in TH" is so wrong when one of the winners is MB E, made in TH and TH best seller in segment, a medium size sedan

2. MB e scores 5 of 5 stars in pedestrian protection

3. non of the Thai pickups/suv availabe with ESC (electronic stability control) also called VSC (vehicle stability control) and by inventor Bosch called ESP (electronic stability program)

Wrong, stock on Fortuner and top models Vigo since 2008. they are just as sophisticated as the US vehicles

dont have time to pick it all apart, but to many assumptions presented are simply not correct

I must agree with you. It all boils down to LOS. Think about it. Head on with a Nissan March and a 4x4 Vigo , I know which ride l would want to be in.

[seriouseats]

So basically sane people agree that larger vehicles are safer and people stuck with a march are in denial?

Sounds to me like cars and penises are really the same thing for men.

[katabeachbum]

So basically sane people agree that larger vehicles are safer and people stuck with a march are in denial?

Sounds to me like cars and penises are really the same thing for men.

Ford calls it duratech

Time for lasagne and wine deng

[transam]

So basically sane people agree that larger vehicles are safer and people stuck with a march are in denial?

Sounds to me like cars and penises are really the same thing for men.

Not really. My chum has a March, great wee ride BUT l thought, whilst driving it, hope a Vigo 4x4 doesn't broadside it. ME DEAD.

[transam]

So basically sane people agree that larger vehicles are safer and people stuck with a march are in denial?

Sounds to me like cars and penises are really the same thing for men.

Ford calls it duratech

Time for lasagne and wine deng

Forget the Lasagne but the vino (Rosso) sounds cool to me.

[Kwasaki]

So basically sane people agree that larger vehicles are safer and people stuck with a march are in denial?

Sounds to me like cars and penises are really the same thing for men.

Not really. My chum has a March, great wee ride BUT l thought, whilst driving it, hope a Vigo 4x4 doesn't broadside it. ME DEAD.

Or you wouldn't want to be in a Vigo if you was hit by one of these.

That's what you can call a truck.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Kwasaki

[BSJ]

Give me the bigger vehicle anytime. Running costs aren't that much different* if you are only doing 15k-20k klicks a year.

* Discounting special edition, modified, exotic rides.

[Histavia]

There seems to be a lot of people on this thread from the post hoc ergo propter hoc school of reasoning.

I’ll just make another observation, albeit a rather facile one.

THe US report has made comments in favor of the larger US models. The Swedish report has made comments in favor of Swedish large cars....can we spot a trend here?

As for the guy who “knows” which vehicle he’s rather be in in a head on - well no two incidents are the same - many don’t incur another vehicle at all. Direct head-ons are pretty rare but in speeds above 80 km in al likelihood you’d simply be choosing where you want to die. I’d suggest you read up a bit about absorption of energy by vehicles in a collision.

In most cases it’s how the vehicle behaves AFTER the initial collision or roll that matters.

I’m not sure either that some readers actually realise how slowly these vehicles are travelling in test crashes and that few are head-on these days.

they also might want to consider this formula for calculating the respective kinetic energy for vehicles a various wrights and speeds. This is not a definite figure only a “good approximation” i mathematical terms.

“Formally, the kinetic energy (K) of a mass (m) moving with speed (v) is defined as K=1/2 mv2.

Kinetic energy depends more on speed than on mass. That is because doubling the mass of an object doubles the kinetic energy, but doubling the speed quadruples the kinetic energy. A 4,000-kg tractor trailer [or SUV] traveling at 30 m/s has the same kinetic energy as a 1,000-kg car traveling at 60 m/s.”

If you compare the weight of a pickup in Thailand with a family saloon the difference is much less and the high centre of gravity of the pickup puts it at further disadvantage.

[Histavia]

"With a bike there is usually an opening to avoid a crash" - -if there is an opening it is usually to a grave

All this Safety Talk,then most of the Know it All Posters boast about their Motorbikes in the back of ununstable workmans Truck. Seems to me dumping those Scooters they call Motorbikes might save your life.

Dont know how much you know about riding and scoots, but this scooter goes 0-100kmh in 3,x seconds, brakes from 100-0kmh in one third distance of an excellent car, and its 200kg allows it to handle to avoid most dangers on the road. With a bike there is usually an opening to avoid a crash. In addition, riding scooter I am extremely alert and pumped up on adrenaline. My GF rides the same model scooter, and her strong believe in Buddha on occasions makes her faster than me.

However these wokmans/farmer trucks, seating 5 and carrying stuff/bikes/dogs, going long distance covering 700-1000km/day, usually not cruising above 160kmh, there is often no way to avoid a crash due to its size, handling and brakes. Takes 43 meter to stop from 100kmh, and need a 1,8 meter hole to escape accident.

I have found the escape hole on numerous occasions, on snow and ice, on Thai Highways, on German Autobanh, but one day the hole will be to small, and then

Size Does matter

Edited June 30, 2011 by Histavia

[katabeachbum]

There seems to be a lot of people on this thread from the post hoc ergo propter hoc school of reasoning.

I'll just make another observation, albeit a rather facile one.

THe US report has made comments in favor of the larger US models. The Swedish report has made comments in favor of Swedish large cars....can we spot a trend here?

As for the guy who "knows" which vehicle he's rather be in in a head on - well no two incidents are the same - many don't incur another vehicle at all. Direct head-ons are pretty rare but in speeds above 80 km in al likelihood you'd simply be choosing where you want to die. I'd suggest you read up a bit about absorption of energy by vehicles in a collision.

In most cases it's how the vehicle behaves AFTER the initial collision or roll that matters.

I'm not sure either that some readers actually realise how slowly these vehicles are travelling in test crashes and that few are head-on these days.

they also might want to consider this formula for calculating the respective kinetic energy for vehicles a various wrights and speeds. This is not a definite figure only a "good approximation" i mathematical terms.

"Formally, the kinetic energy (K) of a mass (m) moving with speed (v) is defined as K=1/2 mv2.

Kinetic energy depends more on speed than on mass. That is because doubling the mass of an object doubles the kinetic energy, but doubling the speed quadruples the kinetic energy. A 4,000-kg tractor trailer [or SUV] traveling at 30 m/s has the same kinetic energy as a 1,000-kg car traveling at 60 m/s."

If you compare the weight of a pickup in Thailand with a family saloon the difference is much less and the high centre of gravity of the pickup puts it at further disadvantage.

Suggest you read again

an amercian institute has rated german and uk cars as winners. a swedish insurance company has less claim payments for occupants in larger cars, domestics and imports. What was the trend again?

this rating is for TH even more important, as small and medium cars do not come with airbags at all, unless top spec models are purchased. In america they all do come with airbags. So do all the cars achiving any stars in any studio crash test.

The only way to make a slight grade of safety in a small car, IOW to compensate for its lack of mass, deformation sones and passenger cage, is to use airbags

[katabeachbum]

"With a bike there is usually an opening to avoid a crash" - -if there is an opening it is usually to a grave

I guess you are glad bikes and cars have been split up to separate forums, or you would have been in a grave by now :lol:

I have been a biker for 35 years. Find an opening every week, but have been down twice. Both time found an opening to avoid head on with +2 ton, both times opening was a ditch small enough for a bike, to large for a Yaris. Peeled some skin off, damaged my helmet.

In a Corolla Altis with 10 airbags I would have been dead on these two occasions

Your above post says all about you

[transam]

There seems to be a lot of people on this thread from the post hoc ergo propter hoc school of reasoning.

I'll just make another observation, albeit a rather facile one.

THe US report has made comments in favor of the larger US models. The Swedish report has made comments in favor of Swedish large cars....can we spot a trend here?

As for the guy who "knows" which vehicle he's rather be in in a head on - well no two incidents are the same - many don't incur another vehicle at all. Direct head-ons are pretty rare but in speeds above 80 km in al likelihood you'd simply be choosing where you want to die. I'd suggest you read up a bit about absorption of energy by vehicles in a collision.

In most cases it's how the vehicle behaves AFTER the initial collision or roll that matters.

I'm not sure either that some readers actually realise how slowly these vehicles are travelling in test crashes and that few are head-on these days.

they also might want to consider this formula for calculating the respective kinetic energy for vehicles a various wrights and speeds. This is not a definite figure only a "good approximation" i mathematical terms.

"Formally, the kinetic energy (K) of a mass (m) moving with speed (v) is defined as K=1/2 mv2.

Kinetic energy depends more on speed than on mass. That is because doubling the mass of an object doubles the kinetic energy, but doubling the speed quadruples the kinetic energy. A 4,000-kg tractor trailer [or SUV] traveling at 30 m/s has the same kinetic energy as a 1,000-kg car traveling at 60 m/s."

If you compare the weight of a pickup in Thailand with a family saloon the difference is much less and the high centre of gravity of the pickup puts it at further disadvantage.

If you are referring to me l said "broadside'', as in,

''Master Bater, splice the mainbrace, raise the top sail, come about you scurvy rabble, cannon at the ready, aaaaaaaaaare'',

"aye aye Captain"

Edited July 1, 2011 by transam

[WebBangkok]

Ofcourse size matters......

Take a road train for example, it has been designed without safety really been thought through with it.

I would much rather be in the below roadtrain then a car with the heightest safety rating in the world. Image what a little hatchback with 5 star safety rating look like getting smashed head on with this lol

Edited July 1, 2011 by WebBangkok

[Kwasaki]

"With a bike there is usually an opening to avoid a crash" - -if there is an opening it is usually to a grave

I guess you are glad bikes and cars have been split up to separate forums, or you would have been in a grave by now :lol:

I have been a biker for 35 years. Find an opening every week, but have been down twice. Both time found an opening to avoid head on with +2 ton, both times opening was a ditch small enough for a bike, to large for a Yaris. Peeled some skin off, damaged my helmet.

In a Corolla Altis with 10 airbags I would have been dead on these two occasions

Your above post says all about you

This guy must be fun at parties I agree kbb but learning skills are major factor and wearing the right gear, I have been in situations too where, in a car I would of been among the carnage " if there's an opening it is usually to the grave " it's a typical motorbike bashers comment.

My son was on a motorbike when a Fiat Punto went into him, hitting the side of his bike, he crumbled the bonnet, broke the front window screen going through into the car and knocked the driver out, he wrote the Punto off, I suppose my son was thinking at the time of the absorption of energy by vehicles after the initial collision and working out the formula for calculating the respective kinetic energy in mathematical terms and defined it as K=1/2 mv2 in which enable him to survive.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Kwasaki

[wandrinstar]

The Thai Biker is blessed by Tattoos and Amulets, Ye of Little Faith.By volume the Pick Ups i see in the nearby.Police Pound don't seem to fair much better than a Car. Most trucks have rolled as anyone can see,, again by numbers the Little Whizz Boxes are conspicuously absent from the scene.But then they havent been upgraded, but designed to handle well..A Peek over the Wall steadies you up,some Scooters are a foot long after a Head On, a sick sight,a Life gone for F/A i feel.:jap:

[transam]

The Thai Biker is blessed by Tattoos and Amulets, Ye of Little Faith.By volume the Pick Ups i see in the nearby.Police Pound don't seem to fair much better than a Car. Most trucks have rolled as anyone can see,, again by numbers the Little Whizz Boxes are conspicuously absent from the scene.But then they havent been upgraded, but designed to handle well..A Peek over the Wall steadies you up,some Scooters are a foot long after a Head On, a sick sight,a Life gone for F/A i feel.:jap:

Truck on truck incident is pretty grim. Truck on mini car is catastrophic and the remains of a mini car will not be in the police station.

Trucks roll because the Thai drivers have noooooooooo idea. Think they are in a rally car, end of story.

[katabeachbum]

The Thai Biker is blessed by Tattoos and Amulets, Ye of Little Faith.By volume the Pick Ups i see in the nearby.Police Pound don't seem to fair much better than a Car. Most trucks have rolled as anyone can see,, again by numbers the Little Whizz Boxes are conspicuously absent from the scene.But then they havent been upgraded, but designed to handle well..A Peek over the Wall steadies you up,some Scooters are a foot long after a Head On, a sick sight,a Life gone for F/A i feel.:jap:

Truck on truck incident is pretty grim. Truck on mini car is catastrophic and the remains of a mini car will not be in the police station.

Trucks roll because the Thai drivers have noooooooooo idea. Think they are in a rally car, end of story.

as crash tests and stats shows, Dmax and Colorado against other trucks is grim indeed. passenger cage collapses at only 60 kmh. still better than a small car tho, where most is gone against any truck/pickup

on TH Highways +80% are trucks/pickups, so of course they are involved in more accidents and thus more present at Police impound

[Histavia]

KKBum - you amaze me - now I take it that you are questioning the motorcycle fatality figures.

It occurs to me that your posts are revealing too and say quite a lot about yourself. It appears that rather than study the plethora of evidence available both physics and stats, you prefer to resort to personal anecdotal evidence and cherry-picking a few stats that you mistakenly believe support your preconceived ideas (not theories) which have been conceived using partially comprehended schoolboy science coupled with a limited ability for reading comprehension

A few hundred years ago common sense told us the world was flat. ....but with a bit of lateral thinking by a few guys who learned to actually test what we were seeing the march of scientific knowledge began and are understanding of the world around us is based on scientific enquiry and it’s meticulous interpretation. Some people were inevitably left by the wayside and it would appear that some of them are posting here.

You probably don’t realise it,but you have not addressed a single facet of my primary or core arguments and your conclusion is nothing more than simple gainsaying - which really makes discussing it pointless as if I was talking about the price of apples and you’re talking about the color of the sky

[MoonRiverOasis]

KKBum - you amaze me - now I take it that you are questioning the motorcycle fatality figures.

It occurs to me that your posts are revealing too and say quite a lot about yourself. It appears that rather than study the plethora of evidence available both physics and stats, you prefer to resort to personal anecdotal evidence and cherry-picking a few stats that you mistakenly believe support your preconceived ideas (not theories) which have been conceived using partially comprehended schoolboy science coupled with a limited ability for reading comprehension

A few hundred years ago common sense told us the world was flat. ....but with a bit of lateral thinking by a few guys who learned to actually test what we were seeing the march of scientific knowledge began and are understanding of the world around us is based on scientific enquiry and it's meticulous interpretation. Some people were inevitably left by the wayside and it would appear that some of them are posting here.

You probably don't realise it,but you have not addressed a single facet of my primary or core arguments and your conclusion is nothing more than simple gainsaying - which really makes discussing it pointless as if I was talking about the price of apples and you're talking about the color of the sky

The way I see it, I haven't seen you present any real, hard facts or statistics - only your own, slanted, subjective view. That's not to say you didn't put effort into it, but your essay reads much more like preaching (which requires faith), rather than emprical fact.

We've all read essays from the anti-SUV brigade before, and yours like most others appears to based on outdated reasoning and data.

Then you top it off with this last post which is full 3 paragraphs of nothing but name calling.

For all of this, I formally nominate you for troll of the year - congrats!

Edited July 3, 2011 by MoonRiverOasis

[Presto]

KKBum - you amaze me - now I take it that you are questioning the motorcycle fatality figures.

It occurs to me that your posts are revealing too and say quite a lot about yourself. It appears that rather than study the plethora of evidence available both physics and stats, you prefer to resort to personal anecdotal evidence and cherry-picking a few stats that you mistakenly believe support your preconceived ideas (not theories) which have been conceived using partially comprehended schoolboy science coupled with a limited ability for reading comprehension

A few hundred years ago common sense told us the world was flat. ....but with a bit of lateral thinking by a few guys who learned to actually test what we were seeing the march of scientific knowledge began and are understanding of the world around us is based on scientific enquiry and it's meticulous interpretation. Some people were inevitably left by the wayside and it would appear that some of them are posting here.

You probably don't realise it,but you have not addressed a single facet of my primary or core arguments and your conclusion is nothing more than simple gainsaying - which really makes discussing it pointless as if I was talking about the price of apples and you're talking about the color of the sky

In this interesting debate, which seems to boil down to 'big' (pick-up) vs. 'small' (f.i. Nissan March) it seems reasonable to assume a luxury car like Accord, Camry or even Teana would be the best option? Much more safety featuress, better roadhandling, and more mass.