interesting newsbit

[Sludgy]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Some time ago Saturn ran a TV commercial where some breeders had just bought a Saturn coupe but when the stork visited they took it back and got the SUV instead. Dodge had a similar campaign targeting breeders for their minivans but I put the details of that one out of my memory.

The thing I'm wondering is, are kids that much bigger than they used to be? Fatter, yes, but still... this big galoot was always in the back seats of old Beetles, Squarebacks, Vegas, Rabbits, and etc. 'til I flew the coop. Do babies demand 4x4 and tons of hauling capacity?

There are few words that make my teeth grind as much as "breeder". Because nobody leaves this Earth alive, children are our sole future. And children are only brought into the world by "breeders", i.e. moms and dads. Show a little respect to those who perpetuate the human race instead of living hedonistic lifestyles.

As for parents' choices in vehicles, who is anyone to say that they shouldn't ensconce their precious cargo within two tons of steel, with front and side airbags, and 4x4 drives?

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Still- babies aren't clamoring for 4x4 and towing capacity.

Well... maybe they are? I haven't been around one for quite a while.

Our son actually likes to ride in "papa's" car...because he can ride up front due to the lack of a passenger airbag. It lets him watch papa shifting gears and look out the front windows. The downside is that that car has no trunk space once a stroller is put in it. :-)

Otherwise, our family car is the Taurus wagon...it is comfy, large enough to be safe, large enough to carry our *typical* loads, and gets better FE than a minivan. There was a large push by the dealers to get us in a large SUV (Expedition) and my wife would have felt much safer in one, until I demonstrated the body lean between the two vehicles...then she voted for the Taurus. ;-)

[rh77]

Originally Posted by Sludgy

As for parents' choices in vehicles, who is anyone to say that they shouldn't ensconce their precious cargo within two tons of steel, with front and side airbags, and 4x4 drives?

No disrespect Sludgy, but the size of the vehicle generally has the opposite effect in many types of crash tests. I think that it's an older notion of thinking, from back when this was true. My Dad was insistent on having a car with a full-frame for years, until the last Caprice rolled off the line, for example (I know you can buy a Crown-Vic, but he's always been a GM guy).

Browse the Insurance Institue for Highway Safety or the NHTSA for info on injury/death rates, crash test results, and best/worst lists. The IIHS has a great archive of photos, videos, and results.

Bear in mind that it's the also the "Crashworthiness" of a vehicle -- how well it was designed in that area -- in how well it protects its occupants.

Best FE,

RH77

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Some time ago Saturn ran a TV commercial where some breeders had just bought a Saturn coupe but when the stork visited they took it back and got the SUV instead. Dodge had a similar campaign targeting breeders for their minivans but I put the details of that one out of my memory.

The thing I'm wondering is, are kids that much bigger than they used to be? Fatter, yes, but still... this big galoot was always in the back seats of old Beetles, Squarebacks, Vegas, Rabbits, and etc. 'til I flew the coop. Do babies demand 4x4 and tons of hauling capacity?

I know the feeling...I remember as a little kid in the 70's, sitting in the back of my dad's old beetles, my mom's Plymouth Fury, later her Ford Pinto (which was rear-ended with us in it...no fire, thankfully), and my grandparents 1970 Chrysler New Yorker land yatch...all without sitting in a car seat, or using the seat belts.

Nowadays, our 2 year old is sitting high in his car seat and not crawling around in the car on long trips. In some ways, I feel sorry for him not having those memories...and then I think about some of the accidents I have been in, and am glad he is safer. Times change...

Be glad *your* parents were "breeders"...

[tulsa_97sr5]

Originally Posted by rvanengen

Kids may be a bit bigger, but until they are over 5 years old, you are stuck putting them in an approved car seat...and those take quite a bit more room than the child would occupy otherwise. We have one child and another on the way, and it amazes me how much "stuff" tends to go with the child. :-)

Never having had kids of my own I didn't really get how big a deal car seats are till some friends visited last summer. I thought our Scion xb had some pretty amazing room for being a fairly small car, but 1 car seat in the back made it really tight to have two more adults sit back there. Still plenty of legroom, but too narrow to do that all the time. Had one of the adults sitting in the back been over 200lbs it wouldn't have worked at all.

And yes, for a smallish car, the amazing legroom means not much space behind the rears seats.

[GasSavers_roadrunner]

"The thing I'm wondering is, are kids that much bigger than they used to be? Fatter, yes, but still... this big galoot was always in the back seats of old Beetles, Squarebacks, Vegas, Rabbits, and etc. 'til I flew the coop. Do babies demand 4x4 and tons of hauling capacity? "
Way too may HUGE SUVs on the road today IMO. The USA keeps using more and more fuel to go more and more miles. Where will it end?

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by rh77

No disrespect Sludgy, but the size of the vehicle generally has the opposite effect in many types of crash tests. I think that it's an older notion of thinking, from back when this was true. My Dad was insistent on having a car with a full-frame for years, until the last Caprice rolled off the line, for example (I know you can buy a Crown-Vic, but he's always been a GM guy).

Browse the Insurance Institue for Highway Safety or the NHTSA for info on injury/death rates, crash test results, and best/worst lists. The IIHS has a great archive of photos, videos, and results.

Bear in mind that it's the also the "Crashworthiness" of a vehicle -- how well it was designed in that area -- in how well it protects its occupants.

Best FE,

RH77

I think the other thing to keep in mind is the other car that may be in the accident.

Driving an SUV to protect your children and whiping out the family in the Civic isn't very cool. Sure, your children may be important, but is it fair to say they are more important than anyone else on the road? The safest vehicle, I believe, is the one that harms the least people TOTAL and not the least people in the chosen vehicle and screw the rest.

[rh77]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I think the other thing to keep in mind is the other car that may be in the accident.

Driving an SUV to protect your children and whiping out the family in the Civic isn't very cool. Sure, your children may be important, but is it fair to say they are more important than anyone else on the road? The safest vehicle, I believe, is the one that harms the least people TOTAL and not the least people in the chosen vehicle and screw the rest.

Excellent point...

[Sludgy]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I think the other thing to keep in mind is the other car that may be in the accident.

Driving an SUV to protect your children and whiping out the family in the Civic isn't very cool. Sure, your children may be important, but is it fair to say they are more important than anyone else on the road? The safest vehicle, I believe, is the one that harms the least people TOTAL and not the least people in the chosen vehicle and screw the rest.

By your logic (vehicle mass being the bogeyman), then that Greyhound tour bus should be banned. It's occupant death toll would be enormous in an accident.

That semi-trailer hauling "usesless" crap like party favors and dog food to WalMart should be banned because of the danger to Civic drivers.

And that concrete truck hauling ready-mix to the next Trump Casino should be banned from the highway due to the danger it imposes on Suburban drivers.

Hell, motorcycles should be banned because the vehicle mass to death ratio.

The fact is that all vehicles can kill people. The only sure way to not be killed on the highway is to be on the highway.

Big cars and trucks are statistically safer than econoboxes. But if a driver chooses to haul his family in a Civic instead of a Suburban, that's just Darwinism at work.

[R.I.D.E.]

Been driving since 1966, only person injured in an accident while I was in the car was me.

Drove cars that weighed as little as 1200 pounds. Current car weighs 2084.
Compared to some of the large vehicle drivers here lets compare fuel costs.

I have driven over 800,000 miles. At 10 MPG thats 80,000 gallons of fuel, or $320,000 at todays prices. Same distance in my VX would cost $54,000.
Thats $246,000 in the bank with interest over 40 years, or about $500,000 in cash in your pocket. Of course depending on where your invested the money it could easily be over a million dollars.

Smaller cars have kept me out of accidents, some of which could have been deadly. The most recent was when an idiot pulled out into my lane 100 feet in front of me on the Interstate. No way I could have avoided that one in anything with a high center of gravity.

That's the kind of "Darwinism" that means my house and everything else is paid for, which compounds the savings exponentially.

regards
gary