Big vehicles kill

[FIRE47]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/larger-vehicles-may-make-canadians-feel-safe-on-the-road-but-heavier-cars-are-proven-to-cause-more-fatal-collisions

The article is based on Canada but I'm sure it's 100% applicable world wide.

This article really makes you think - not only is a bigger vehicle harder on the environment but it is extremely dangerous to other people.

The most startling statistic to me was that for every person in your own vehicle you choose to statistically save by getting a bigger taller vehicle you are statistically speaking killing over 4 other commuters pedestrians and cyclists.

What do you guys think?

Perhaps regulation particularly regarding lifts and after market changes - you want to go off-road that's fine but if you want a monster truck keep it off the road.

Maybe restrictions on vehicle weight and size unless there is a demonstrated need?

To me this is a public health issue and not something that can be left to an arms race of selfishness but that's just my opinion what's yours?

[BlueMR2]

As a strong advocate for personal rights and freedoms I really hate to see restrictions placed.  However, people seem so set on buying/building such dangerous vehicles often with the intent on causing damage/harm to others.  I've heard so many times comments about how people have bought big trucks/SUVs so that if they get in an accident that they will hurt the other person or at least damage the other vehicle more.  Maybe it's time that we consider the totality of person's lifestyle in accident investigations.  If you kill someone on the road with an SUV, but never use it to haul anything, the charges escalate (murder vs. simple manslaughter)?

[human]

I saw that article as a wake up call regarding distracted driving. The kid fell asleep at the wheel and killed someone, why is he driving again? The rest of the article has convinced me that my next vehicle will be the latest cv90.

[Bikefreak]

I have a stock f150 and i feel safer in a world where most people are disctracted with cellphones while driving. I think there should be no modification allowed to make a vehicle higher there are some crazy high truck here in quebec. 2 guys where i work have 12  inches lifted f250 this seems verry unsafe for everyone else.

Having that said, i bike to work all summer and dont use my truck verry often, i feel that i will get run over sometime soon thx to the technologies and all those cellphone addicts. And those right turn on red lights... what a dangerous idea for bicycles

[RetiredAt63]

Plus truck bumpers go right over car bumpers, and truck headlights are higher - meeting one at night is like meeting a car with its high beams on.  I don't remember many personal use trucks (not business trucks, they have always been around) in urban and suburban areas when I was a kid, and SUVs were not yet invented, so it was a more even playing field.  Does anyone have any stats on relative numbers (high versus normal height vehicles - i e. cars versus trucks/SUVs/whatever else is higher)now versus, say 2000, 1980, 1960?

Driver error - we have all but the worst drunks off the road (they drive happily without a license and cause more than their fair share of accidents) but the campaign against distracted driving has really only just started.  The thing I liked best about my last Mazda was the radio mute button on the steering wheel - if traffic/road conditions got bad I could kill the radio without moving my hand off the steering wheel.  Do people have the sense to hang up on a hands-free device if things get busy?  And do passengers have the sense to shut up, or at least keep conversation light, if the driver is dealing with difficult situations?  Difficult situations include residential areas with small children who don't understand cars yet, as well as heavy traffic, bad driving conditions due to weather, etc.  Driver error may be something the media could play up more - x accidents yesterday, driver error was . . . . . .  Of course everyone thinks they live in Lake Wobegon and are better than average drivers.

[ender]

It always annoys me when charts show "deaths per million vehicles" instead of "deaths per million vehicle miles driven." Especially when their charts is a horrible picking of cars (where is the Ford truck that killed her on that list?).

I don't care if a Kia Rio results in 149 deaths per million vehicles vs 79 for a Chevy Silverado if the cars are driven 2x as much. In fact, if Rios are driven 2x as many miles as the Silverado they are actually safer statistically.

Bad statistics pollute an article like that and make me not consider it worthwhile.

[Roland of Gilead]

Going out for a drive these days is like going to war.   You want the biggest vehicle possible to counter the texting and drinking terrorists, not to mention the moms and dads taking pictures of their kids doing cute things in the back seat.

Mass wins. 

[Syonyk]

Mass helps, but good crumple zones trump mass for any reasonable meeting of vehicles on the road.

And mass doesn't always do you much good.  Older pickups (of which I own one) didn't really have to meet crash test requirements, so tended to lob the engine block into the driver's lap on most offset front impacts.

*shrug*  I don't drive it that much, so I don't really worry about it.

[Roland of Gilead]

Significant mass wins I should say.   The other object can't be a tree or wall either.

12000 pounds meets 2500 pounds, guess which one is going to have high deceleration and fatal g-force?

Cement truck drivers always walk away from a crash against a Ford Focus.

[JLee]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/larger-vehicles-may-make-canadians-feel-safe-on-the-road-but-heavier-cars-are-proven-to-cause-more-fatal-collisions

The article is based on Canada but I'm sure it's 100% applicable world wide.

This article really makes you think - not only is a bigger vehicle harder on the environment but it is extremely dangerous to other people.

The most startling statistic to me was that for every person in your own vehicle you choose to statistically save by getting a bigger taller vehicle you are statistically speaking killing over 4 other commuters pedestrians and cyclists.

What do you guys think?

Perhaps regulation particularly regarding lifts and after market changes - you want to go off-road that's fine but if you want a monster truck keep it off the road.

Maybe restrictions on vehicle weight and size unless there is a demonstrated need?

To me this is a public health issue and not something that can be left to an arms race of selfishness but that's just my opinion what's yours?

There are already restrictions in place in different states.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/suspension-brakes/131-1101-lift-laws-you-need-to-know/

It's frustrating to see discussion about regulation without any understanding about what regulation is already in place...and as someone who's owned three lifted trucks/SUVs (welcome to my hobby) and hasn't crashed any of them, a unilateral "banned unless you need it" law would make this particular passion of mine incredibly frustrating.

I would focus on driver training and a graduated licensing system instead of deciding that, since you have no use for a lifted truck, nobody else should either. A single-tier license that lets an 18yo who just passed their test drive a Honda Fit or a 1000whp supercar or an F-350 with a trailer is more ridiculous than me driving a lifted 4wd truck down to Baja.

Now...given that, I commute in a Mazda. :)

[tobitonic]

http://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/2016/02/why-should-everyone-small-cars-it-makes-all-drivers-safer.html/

On some of the numerous benefits of driving small vehicles.

http://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/2016/01/small-car-safety-the-safest-are-safer-than-large-suvs.html/

On small vehicles with lower driver death rates than larger ones.

[tobitonic]

It's also worth pointing out that the drivers who are most likely to be involved in fatal crashes per mile driven are generally males under 30. It's not texting teenagers, distracted parents, or passed out seniors. It's men.

http://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/2015/07/most-dangerous-drivers-us-16-29-year-old-men.html/
http://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/2016/01/how-dangerous-senior-drivers-compared-teenagers.html/

[FIRE47]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/larger-vehicles-may-make-canadians-feel-safe-on-the-road-but-heavier-cars-are-proven-to-cause-more-fatal-collisions

The article is based on Canada but I'm sure it's 100% applicable world wide.

This article really makes you think - not only is a bigger vehicle harder on the environment but it is extremely dangerous to other people.

The most startling statistic to me was that for every person in your own vehicle you choose to statistically save by getting a bigger taller vehicle you are statistically speaking killing over 4 other commuters pedestrians and cyclists.

What do you guys think?

Perhaps regulation particularly regarding lifts and after market changes - you want to go off-road that's fine but if you want a monster truck keep it off the road.

Maybe restrictions on vehicle weight and size unless there is a demonstrated need?

To me this is a public health issue and not something that can be left to an arms race of selfishness but that's just my opinion what's yours?

There are already restrictions in place in different states.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/suspension-brakes/131-1101-lift-laws-you-need-to-know/

It's frustrating to see discussion about regulation without any understanding about what regulation is already in place...and as someone who's owned three lifted trucks/SUVs (welcome to my hobby) and hasn't crashed any of them, a unilateral "banned unless you need it" law would make this particular passion of mine incredibly frustrating.

I would focus on driver training and a graduated licensing system instead of deciding that, since you have no use for a lifted truck, nobody else should either. A single-tier license that lets an 18yo who just passed their test drive a Honda Fit or a 1000whp supercar or an F-350 with a trailer is more ridiculous than me driving a lifted 4wd truck down to Baja.

Now...given that, I commute in a Mazda. :)

Fair enough it is a discussion after all and I was asking for opinions I fully expected there would be opposing views it is a forum after all.

I have to take a 2 day course and provide character references and a mental health check and rcmp check as well as have numerous restrictions upon the types of equipment and location of where I can undertake my hobby (firearms) in Canada. Should there not be a similar restriction or separate license on owning a vehicle that can mow down a family of 4 in a split second by overriding all the safety features built in to most other vehicles?

Most people are likely at far more risk of being killed in a car crash then by a firearm and are forced to interact with these vehicles every day on our roads whereas here anyways people can go their whole lives without seeing a gun.
I fail to see how this is much different in both cases most people feel certain restrictions have to be placed on personal liberty and what amounts to a hobby for societal good. I know in the states firearms are more than a hobby legally speaking however here their is no recognition of their primary use being self defence so the analogy fits.

I don't want to start another argument about gun laws btw this is just an analogy.

[JLee]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/larger-vehicles-may-make-canadians-feel-safe-on-the-road-but-heavier-cars-are-proven-to-cause-more-fatal-collisions

The article is based on Canada but I'm sure it's 100% applicable world wide.

This article really makes you think - not only is a bigger vehicle harder on the environment but it is extremely dangerous to other people.

The most startling statistic to me was that for every person in your own vehicle you choose to statistically save by getting a bigger taller vehicle you are statistically speaking killing over 4 other commuters pedestrians and cyclists.

What do you guys think?

Perhaps regulation particularly regarding lifts and after market changes - you want to go off-road that's fine but if you want a monster truck keep it off the road.

Maybe restrictions on vehicle weight and size unless there is a demonstrated need?

To me this is a public health issue and not something that can be left to an arms race of selfishness but that's just my opinion what's yours?

There are already restrictions in place in different states.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/suspension-brakes/131-1101-lift-laws-you-need-to-know/

It's frustrating to see discussion about regulation without any understanding about what regulation is already in place...and as someone who's owned three lifted trucks/SUVs (welcome to my hobby) and hasn't crashed any of them, a unilateral "banned unless you need it" law would make this particular passion of mine incredibly frustrating.

I would focus on driver training and a graduated licensing system instead of deciding that, since you have no use for a lifted truck, nobody else should either. A single-tier license that lets an 18yo who just passed their test drive a Honda Fit or a 1000whp supercar or an F-350 with a trailer is more ridiculous than me driving a lifted 4wd truck down to Baja.

Now...given that, I commute in a Mazda. :)

Fair enough it is a discussion after all and I was asking for opinions I fully expected there would be opposing views it is a forum after all.

I have to take a 2 day course and provide character references and a mental health check and rcmp check as well as have numerous restrictions upon the types of equipment and location of where I can undertake my hobby (firearms) in Canada. Should there not be a similar restriction or separate license on owning a vehicle that can mow down a family of 4 in a split second by overriding all the safety features built in to most other vehicles?

Most people are likely at far more risk of being killed in a car crash then by a firearm and are forced to interact with these vehicles every day on our roads whereas here anyways people can go their whole lives without seeing a gun.
I fail to see how this is much different in both cases most people feel certain restrictions have to be placed on personal liberty and what amounts to a hobby for societal good. I know in the states firearms are more than a hobby legally speaking however here their is no recognition of their primary use being self defence so the analogy fits.

I don't want to start another argument about gun laws btw this is just an analogy.

I would focus on driver training and a graduated licensing system

Like that? :P

[Giro]

This is why I don't put my family in a compact car.  You just don't stand a chance against a distracted driver in a 10,000 pound suv.

[Paul | pdgessler]

This is why I don't put my family in a compact car.  You just don't stand a chance against a distracted driver in a 10,000 pound suv.

This (among other sentiments in the thread) is the very definition of a generalized "arms race".

More generically, the term "arms race" is used to describe any competition where there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other competitors in rank or knowledge. An arms race may also imply futility as the competitors spend a great deal of time and money, yet end up in the same situation as if they had never started the arms race.

As people continue to think this way, our vehicles will just continue to get bigger and bigger, and more and more wasteful.

[Beridian]

I remember once long ago when my wife and I had dinner with another couple (friends of hers).   During the conversation the man started bragging about his 4-wheel drive Dodge Ram Charger, how it was jacked up an additional six inches, how he thought it could easily roll over a Corvette, and that he planned on coming out the winner should he have an auto accident.  This guy lived in the city and used the truck mainly for commuting and city driving.

I pointed out to him that the higher center of gravity of his vehicle actually made the vehicle less safe, it was more likely to roll over or skid, and that the 4 wheel drive while improving traction, does nothing to enhance braking and stopping.  I also pointed out that the height of his bumpers fell roughly at the window level of most normal sedans and should he  crash into a normal car, his bumpers were likely to cause serious harm to the other motorists.   He did not appreciate my thoughts and felt that survival of the fittest was a good policy.  The discussion devolved from there. I ultimately told him that I thought he was a selfish ass and that he should be more concerned with the safety of others.

Needless to say our friendship with this couple did not flourish.  My now ex-wife is still pissed at me over the incident.  Sorry but I call them like I see them, perhaps this is a fault of mine.  Twenty years later I still think the guy was an ass hole. 

I don't have a problem with people who have a legitimate need for large vehicles (tradesmen, large families, etc.,).   I own a large cargo van that I use as a camper and for occasional hauling.  It has normal height bumpers and I wouldn't think of driving it as a daily commuter.    I think that most of the people I see driving Hummers and heavy 4WD pickups around the city as commuting vehicles are stupid and selfish.  I think that things like bumper height, braking, and vehicle stability should be carefully regulated and not tampered with by owners.   And I agree that we all have an obligation to look out for the safety of the other guy as much as is reasonably possible.

[Chris22]

This is why I don't put my family in a compact car.  You just don't stand a chance against a distracted driver in a 10,000 pound suv.

10k lb SUV?  Citation needed.

[Syonyk]

This is why I don't put my family in a compact car.  You just don't stand a chance against a distracted driver in a 10,000 pound suv.

10k lb SUV?  Citation needed.

Seriously.  The Excursion with a diesel is only 7200 lbs.  My F350 barely cracks 8000 lbs, and it's one of the heaviest generations.

[daverobev]

Terrifying. It should be law that bumpers align... the truck going up the hood of the car is the problem. What's the point of crumple zones and such if they don't come in contact in a collision?

[RetiredAt63]

When I moved from Quebec to Ontario my license restrictions went with me. I can legally drive a motorcycle here - no course, no nothing.  Why? Because Quebec lumps them, so that is what my license showed.  Ontario splits them into two categories, and I have the higher (inclusive) one.  Not that I plan to drive a motorcycle without any training, but if I were young and thought I was smart enough to do so?  Not a good outcome.  One nice thing, Ontario puts a star on your license if you are an experienced driver with a good record - it means you can be the supervising passenger for someone with a learner's permit.  No star, you can't go with the learner.

Bumpers - of course they should be the same height, why are the allowed to not be?  An SUV backed into me in a parking lot (didn't realize my frantic horn blowing meant something) - my car was fine because I turned the front wheels towards the SUV, and the SUV bumper hit my wheel, not my car.  I had another car behind me, couldn't go forward without the side of my car getting hit, couldn't go back, not a good situation.

[sol]

Some of those links that tobitonic provided are pretty interesting.  Apparently a Prius is safer than a Ford F-150, if you look at the actual fatality statistics.

Not in the sense of "which of these cars would I rather be driving, in a head on collision between them."  In that case the F-150 is safer.  But the Prius is safer in terms of "how likely are you to die if you drive one of these vehicles for a year."

They attribute part of the discrepancy to the drivers, not the cars.  Teenagers rarely go hotrodding in Prius.  Male drivers are much more likely to die in car crashes, in any vehicle, and men are likely to drive bigger vehicles, and that probably skews the fatality rates for larger vehicles.  It's hard to disentangle those effects to know for sure.  They do note that the vehicle-vehicle fatalities are roughly the same, while it's the single-vehicle crashes that are more likely to be deadly if you're in a bigger car.

They also point out that "big vehicles are safer" is a mostly myth for passenger vehicles, which are ALL tiny compared to a garbage truck or a bus or an 18 wheeler, or a telephone pole.  Your private vehicle's size is only a factor if you're crashing into another private vehicle.  Anything commercial or stationary, and size is basically irrelevant.  Crumple zones and airbags are the key, and those are harder to build into heaver vehicles.

As a last exclamation point, they point out that smaller vehicles typically have much better visibility than larger ones.  You never hear about some poor parent backing over their toddler while reversing out of their driveway in a Ford Fiesta.  It's always SUVs that obscures those close-in low-to-the-ground sight lines that are involved in those tragedies.

[Syonyk]

Some of those links that tobitonic provided are pretty interesting.  Apparently a Prius is safer than a Ford F-150, if you look at the actual fatality statistics.

Which years?  The older F150s had *awful* crash performance ratings - I think before the mid-2000s, they would basically crumple the whole truck into the passenger compartment during any significant crash.

They attribute part of the discrepancy to the drivers, not the cars.  Teenagers rarely go hotrodding in Prius.  Male drivers are much more likely to die in car crashes, in any vehicle, and men are likely to drive bigger vehicles, and that probably skews the fatality rates for larger vehicles.  It's hard to disentangle those effects to know for sure.  They do note that the vehicle-vehicle fatalities are roughly the same, while it's the single-vehicle crashes that are more likely to be deadly if you're in a bigger car.

I've wondered about this as well in the context of "Look how unsafe these older vehicles are!" - older, cheaper vehicles are generally driven by younger drivers who can't afford newer cars, and newer, more expensive cars are driven by older drivers who have a lot more experience.  It would be interesting to see the fatality rate of a vehicle over the years - as it went from a newer, mid-range vehicle to an older, cheaper car.

As a last exclamation point, they point out that smaller vehicles typically have much better visibility than larger ones.  You never hear about some poor parent backing over their toddler while reversing out of their driveway in a Ford Fiesta.  It's always SUVs that obscures those close-in low-to-the-ground sight lines that are involved in those tragedies.

Yeah, but we've got mandatory reverse cameras in everything now! :D  *brushes hands* Problem solved!

I'm actually not a fan at all of the rising beltlines in cars.  I miss the cars from the 80s with a ton of window glass going halfway down the body.  I know the crash safety standards are one of the reasons the windows keep getting higher, but I miss the "fishbowl" visibility that a Geo Metro or old Subaru had.

[Beridian]

[/quote]

There are already restrictions in place in different states.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/suspension-brakes/131-1101-lift-laws-you-need-to-know/

It's frustrating to see discussion about regulation without any understanding about what regulation is already in place...and as someone who's owned three lifted trucks/SUVs (welcome to my hobby) and hasn't crashed any of them, a unilateral "banned unless you need it" law would make this particular passion of mine incredibly frustrating.

I would focus on driver training and a graduated licensing system instead of deciding that, since you have no use for a lifted truck, nobody else should either. A single-tier license that lets an 18yo who just passed their test drive a Honda Fit or a 1000whp supercar or an F-350 with a trailer is more ridiculous than me driving a lifted 4wd truck down to Baja.

Now...given that, I commute in a Mazda. :)
[/quote]


Might I respectfully suggest that you keep your lifted vehicle off of public roads where the rest of us drive?  Also accidents can happen even to the best experienced driver, I like the idea of more granular driver's licenses but a tragic accident can happen to the best of us.   It doesn't seem fair that you should be able to operate a vehicle (especially as a hobby) that poses a great risk to other motorists.  Isn't it possible to have a truck that can handle off road use while still maintaining reasonable bumper height and a reasonable center of gravity?   What about some sort of pneumatic lift mechanism that can lower the vehicle for highway use and raise it for off road use?

[Syonyk]

Might I respectfully suggest that you keep your lifted vehicle off of public roads where the rest of us drive?  Also accidents can happen even to the best experienced driver, I like the idea of more granular driver's licenses but a tragic accident can happen to the best of us.   It doesn't seem fair that you should be able to operate a vehicle (especially as a hobby) that poses a great risk to other motorists.  Isn't it possible to have a truck that can handle off road use while still maintaining reasonable bumper height and a reasonable center of gravity?   What about some sort of pneumatic lift mechanism that can lower the vehicle for highway use and raise it for off road use?

Can you provide a citation that lifted vehicles are actually responsible for more injuries/deaths and are "a great risk to other motorists", or are you just arguing by "I think this makes sense so we should act on it"?

And pnuematic stuff is expensive, unreliable, and weak compared to what you need for proper offroad use - and it wouldn't be helpful.  The problem is generally that one wants to fit larger tires than can clear the bodywork (to increase clearance to the axles/differentials), and you can't just lower the truck onto those - it'll rub.

[Beridian]

Might I respectfully suggest that you keep your lifted vehicle off of public roads where the rest of us drive?  Also accidents can happen even to the best experienced driver, I like the idea of more granular driver's licenses but a tragic accident can happen to the best of us.   It doesn't seem fair that you should be able to operate a vehicle (especially as a hobby) that poses a great risk to other motorists.  Isn't it possible to have a truck that can handle off road use while still maintaining reasonable bumper height and a reasonable center of gravity?   What about some sort of pneumatic lift mechanism that can lower the vehicle for highway use and raise it for off road use?

[/i]

Can you provide a citation that lifted vehicles are actually responsible for more injuries/deaths and are "a great risk to other motorists", or are you just arguing by "I think this makes sense so we should act on it"?

And pnuematic stuff is expensive, unreliable, and weak compared to what you need for proper offroad use - and it wouldn't be helpful.  The problem is generally that one wants to fit larger tires than can clear the bodywork (to increase clearance to the axles/differentials), and you can't just lower the truck onto those - it'll rub.

I could not find any data on a cursory google search, other than the original linked article which mentioned several studies.  Perhaps there has yet to be a study done on how dangerous modified/lifted vehicles are (maybe one will be coming soon).  A little common sense is called for.  I don't know what your lifted truck looks like but I have seen a few that were insanely high and clearly a menace to normal cars.

Out of curiosity does your insurance carrier know that your vehicle is modified?  Have you read the fine print in your policy?   The guy I mentioned earlier with the lifted Dodge Ram Charger, he was off-roading on some sand dunes and rolled the vehicle several times, totaling the vehicle and injuring a passenger.  He found out that his insurance carrier did not cover the truck off of approved roads.  The truck was a total loss and I am told that be paid considerably out of pocket to settle the injury law suit.

I don't mean to be a hard ass, I actually would like to do some off-roading myself in the future.  I just think that it is reasonable to keep your vehicle close to the way it was designed to operate.  The engineers who design cars and trucks actually know what they are doing and have a great deal of data backing up their designs.   If you want something that is outrageous just keep it off of the public roads.

[JLee]

There are already restrictions in place in different states.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/suspension-brakes/131-1101-lift-laws-you-need-to-know/

It's frustrating to see discussion about regulation without any understanding about what regulation is already in place...and as someone who's owned three lifted trucks/SUVs (welcome to my hobby) and hasn't crashed any of them, a unilateral "banned unless you need it" law would make this particular passion of mine incredibly frustrating.

I would focus on driver training and a graduated licensing system instead of deciding that, since you have no use for a lifted truck, nobody else should either. A single-tier license that lets an 18yo who just passed their test drive a Honda Fit or a 1000whp supercar or an F-350 with a trailer is more ridiculous than me driving a lifted 4wd truck down to Baja.

Now...given that, I commute in a Mazda. :)

Might I respectfully suggest that you keep your lifted vehicle off of public roads where the rest of us drive?  Also accidents can happen even to the best experienced driver, I like the idea of more granular driver's licenses but a tragic accident can happen to the best of us.   It doesn't seem fair that you should be able to operate a vehicle (especially as a hobby) that poses a great risk to other motorists.  Isn't it possible to have a truck that can handle off road use while still maintaining reasonable bumper height and a reasonable center of gravity?   What about some sort of pneumatic lift mechanism that can lower the vehicle for highway use and raise it for off road use?

I've already sold that vehicle (my current one is not lifted, and there's a trail in Arizona that I love that I now cannot complete without incurring body damage), and you're welcome to suggest anything you like - but that doesn't mean my choices will be influenced even slightly.

Syonyk answered your question from a technical perspective.  If it makes you any more comfortable, I have emergency vehicle driver's training (~5 years police, including post-academy training that exceeds state training requirements) as well as wheel to wheel racing experience.  The chances of me injuring you or anyone else on the road are extremely close to zero.

The guy I mentioned earlier with the lifted Dodge Ram Charger, he was off-roading on some sand dunes and rolled the vehicle several times, totaling the vehicle and injuring a passenger.  He found out that his insurance carrier did not cover the truck off of approved roads. The truck was a total loss and I am told that be paid considerably out of pocket to settle the injury law suit.

That has nothing to do with vehicle modification.

[Shane]

Rather than attempting to force people to drive smaller vehicles through regulation, higher fuel taxes might effectively achieve the same goal. If gas/diesel cost $10/gallon, there would be fewer ridiculous vehicles on our public roads. Maybe to limit the negative impact on businesses that legitimately need to operate large vehicles, we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

[Metric Mouse]

Rather than attempting to force people to drive smaller vehicles through regulation, higher fuel taxes might effectively achieve the same goal. If gas/diesel cost $10/gallon, there would be fewer ridiculous vehicles on our public roads. Maybe to limit the negative impact on businesses that legitimately need to operate large vehicles, we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

Interesting thoughts... perhaps we could also sue any manufacturer that makes a large, heavy vehicle that causes a fatality? 

[sol]

we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

This has always been the thinking behind the carbon tax.  Reduce income taxes, and then tax people for their carbon burning instead.  The government would have no net change in revenue, but we'd be charging people for consuming rather than for working.  Anyone who wants to drive a Hummer can,  without any additional regulations or restrictions.  People who want to game their taxes would find a way to burn less.

I think this is one of those ideas that makes sense to virtually everyone, except the oil and gas industry we've been subsidizing with federal tax breaks for over a century.  They hate the idea of a cleaner, more efficient world.

Interesting thoughts... perhaps we could also sue any manufacturer that makes a large, heavy vehicle that causes a fatality? 

Your heavy-handed sarcasm is neither humorous nor insightful.  Governments can justly regulate things that cause public harm; they do it all the time without anyone complaining.  We don't sue gun manufacturers for gun murders, so by logical analogy I'm pretty sure the auto manufacturers would be safe.  We DO, however, hold people accountable for firearm deaths, even unintentional ones, in a way that we don't for automobiles.  We also require universal registration of all automobiles and users in a way that we don't for firearms, which is either a step in the right direction for cars or a gross oversight for guns, depending on your point of view. 

[tobitonic]

Rather than attempting to force people to drive smaller vehicles through regulation, higher fuel taxes might effectively achieve the same goal. If gas/diesel cost $10/gallon, there would be fewer ridiculous vehicles on our public roads. Maybe to limit the negative impact on businesses that legitimately need to operate large vehicles, we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

We don't have to choose; there are many wealthy countries where car choices, sizes, and use are regulated through both fuel and weight taxes, as well as through fuel economy taxes. All would be wonderful ideas, though frankly, I see higher fuel prices as the only factor that will lead to a wealth of sustainable practices in the US related to transportation, including smaller vehicles, less driving, and greater modal shares for public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians. Oh, and people-centric (as opposed to car-centric) infrastructure. All of these things come with reducing the size and scope of cars on the road.

[Metric Mouse]

we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

This has always been the thinking behind the carbon tax.  Reduce income taxes, and then tax people for their carbon burning instead.  The government would have no net change in revenue, but we'd be charging people for consuming rather than for working.  Anyone who wants to drive a Hummer can,  without any additional regulations or restrictions.  People who want to game their taxes would find a way to burn less.

I think this is one of those ideas that makes sense to virtually everyone, except the oil and gas industry we've been subsidizing with federal tax breaks for over a century.  They hate the idea of a cleaner, more efficient world.

Interesting thoughts... perhaps we could also sue any manufacturer that makes a large, heavy vehicle that causes a fatality? 

Your heavy-handed sarcasm is neither humorous nor insightful.  Governments can justly regulate things that cause public harm; they do it all the time without anyone complaining.  We don't sue gun manufacturers for gun murders, so by logical analogy I'm pretty sure the auto manufacturers would be safe.  We DO, however, hold people accountable for firearm deaths, even unintentional ones, in a way that we don't for automobiles.  We also require universal registration of all automobiles and users in a way that we don't for firearms, which is either a step in the right direction for cars or a gross oversight for guns, depending on your point of view. 

It was a policy suggestion, at least as fair or effective as taxing gas at $10 a gallon. Don't get your panties in a twist, Sol.  Your off-topic ranting about oil and gas industry (which in no way relates to driving deaths) is a weak attempt to derail a perfectly interesting thread with mindless political talking points.

[sol]

It was a policy suggestion, at least as fair or effective as taxing gas at $10 a gallon. Don't get your panties in a twist, Sol.

How would you feel about taxing gas at $10/gallon if we gave every US citizen an income tax rebate exactly equal to the average per capita revenue from the new gas tax?

I use less gas than average, so that kind of policy would financially benefit me.  It might even incentivize me to burn less.  I think it would also incentivize people who waste a ton of gas for no reason to consider how  much they are really willing to pay for that privilege.

[Metric Mouse]

It was a policy suggestion, at least as fair or effective as taxing gas at $10 a gallon. Don't get your panties in a twist, Sol.

How would you feel about taxing gas at $10/gallon if we gave every US citizen an income tax rebate exactly equal to the average per capita revenue from the new gas tax?

I use less gas than average, so that kind of policy would financially benefit me.  It might even incentivize me to burn less.  I think it would also incentivize people who waste a ton of gas for no reason to consider how  much they are really willing to pay for that privilege.

How would this save lives from vehicle collisions?

[tobitonic]

Some of those links that tobitonic provided are pretty interesting.  Apparently a Prius is safer than a Ford F-150, if you look at the actual fatality statistics.

Not in the sense of "which of these cars would I rather be driving, in a head on collision between them."  In that case the F-150 is safer.  But the Prius is safer in terms of "how likely are you to die if you drive one of these vehicles for a year."

They attribute part of the discrepancy to the drivers, not the cars.  Teenagers rarely go hotrodding in Prius.  Male drivers are much more likely to die in car crashes, in any vehicle, and men are likely to drive bigger vehicles, and that probably skews the fatality rates for larger vehicles.  It's hard to disentangle those effects to know for sure.  They do note that the vehicle-vehicle fatalities are roughly the same, while it's the single-vehicle crashes that are more likely to be deadly if you're in a bigger car.

They also point out that "big vehicles are safer" is a mostly myth for passenger vehicles, which are ALL tiny compared to a garbage truck or a bus or an 18 wheeler, or a telephone pole.  Your private vehicle's size is only a factor if you're crashing into another private vehicle.  Anything commercial or stationary, and size is basically irrelevant.  Crumple zones and airbags are the key, and those are harder to build into heaver vehicles.

As a last exclamation point, they point out that smaller vehicles typically have much better visibility than larger ones.  You never hear about some poor parent backing over their toddler while reversing out of their driveway in a Ford Fiesta.  It's always SUVs that obscures those close-in low-to-the-ground sight lines that are involved in those tragedies.

Thank you. And yes, the information is fascinating.

Syonyk, the F-150 years compared are in this article; they're newer models ('09-'11) with good frontal and side crash scores, ESC, side airbags, etc.

[alsoknownasDean]

One thing I have noticed when driving along is the higher headlights of oncoming traffic in bigger (or lifted) vehicles. At times it'll slightly dazzle me while driving.

Food for thought, would anyone have an issue with vehicles above a certain size/weight being subjected to a lower speed limit?

[Primm]

It was a policy suggestion, at least as fair or effective as taxing gas at $10 a gallon. Don't get your panties in a twist, Sol.

How would you feel about taxing gas at $10/gallon if we gave every US citizen an income tax rebate exactly equal to the average per capita revenue from the new gas tax?

I use less gas than average, so that kind of policy would financially benefit me.  It might even incentivize me to burn less.  I think it would also incentivize people who waste a ton of gas for no reason to consider how  much they are really willing to pay for that privilege.

How would this save lives from vehicle collisions?

I would guess that the logical conclusion (in my non-researched opinion) would be that incentivising to burn less fuel (i.e. drive less miles) = less vehicles on the roads = a statistically lower chance of colliding with another vehicle.

[FIRE47]

It was a policy suggestion, at least as fair or effective as taxing gas at $10 a gallon. Don't get your panties in a twist, Sol.

How would you feel about taxing gas at $10/gallon if we gave every US citizen an income tax rebate exactly equal to the average per capita revenue from the new gas tax?

I use less gas than average, so that kind of policy would financially benefit me.  It might even incentivize me to burn less.  I think it would also incentivize people who waste a ton of gas for no reason to consider how  much they are really willing to pay for that privilege.

How would this save lives from vehicle collisions?r

Well if you combine the premise of the article I posted(large vehicles are more likely to kill other commuter pedestrians and cyclists) with the facts that sol presented that small vehicles are safer in most accidents other than collisions with larger vehicles incentivizing all people to drive smaller vehicles could in fact make everyone safer.

At least that was my take on where he was going, feel free to correct me Sol.

[big_owl]

In other top news, Dog Bites Bone.

[2Birds1Stone]

This makes me want to go out and buy a pickup truck.....

[GuitarStv]

It was a policy suggestion, at least as fair or effective as taxing gas at $10 a gallon. Don't get your panties in a twist, Sol.

How would you feel about taxing gas at $10/gallon if we gave every US citizen an income tax rebate exactly equal to the average per capita revenue from the new gas tax?

I use less gas than average, so that kind of policy would financially benefit me.  It might even incentivize me to burn less.  I think it would also incentivize people who waste a ton of gas for no reason to consider how  much they are really willing to pay for that privilege.

How would this save lives from vehicle collisions?r

Well if you combine the premise of the article I posted(large vehicles are more likely to kill other commuter pedestrians and cyclists) with the facts that sol presented that small vehicles are safer in most accidents other than collisions with larger vehicles incentivizing all people to drive smaller vehicles could in fact make everyone safer.

At least that was my take on where he was going, feel free to correct me Sol.

Besides the reduction of cars on the road and the reduction of large vehicles, it's also more expensive to drive like an asshole.  Slamming on the gas/brakes all the time would cost you more at the pump by raising the price of fuel.  People will often modify behavior when it makes significant financial difference to do so.

[JLee]

Rather than attempting to force people to drive smaller vehicles through regulation, higher fuel taxes might effectively achieve the same goal. If gas/diesel cost $10/gallon, there would be fewer ridiculous vehicles on our public roads. Maybe to limit the negative impact on businesses that legitimately need to operate large vehicles, we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

We don't have to choose; there are many wealthy countries where car choices, sizes, and use are regulated through both fuel and weight taxes, as well as through fuel economy taxes. All would be wonderful ideas, though frankly, I see higher fuel prices as the only factor that will lead to a wealth of sustainable practices in the US related to transportation, including smaller vehicles, less driving, and greater modal shares for public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians. Oh, and people-centric (as opposed to car-centric) infrastructure. All of these things come with reducing the size and scope of cars on the road.

In other words, screwing over everyone outside of a major metropolitan area?

[Chris22]

Maybe restrictions on vehicle weight and size unless there is a demonstrated need?

To me this is a public health issue and not something that can be left to an arms race of selfishness but that's just my opinion what's yours?

Two thoughts:

First, "demonstration of need" is and always will be a bullshit concept.  In America, we don't need to demonstrate a need to do or own things, people who want to limit us need to demonstrate a need for limits. 

Second, the whole "arms race" theory on truck/SUV size basically never panned out.  That's been an argument since before the first Hummer H2 roamed the earth and now the H2 has essentially died out.  SUVs have gotten smallerish and more efficient in general, few people buy Suburbans and other truck-based vehicles to haul families anymore, they buy car-based things like Transverses and the car-based Explorer.

[GuitarStv]

Rather than attempting to force people to drive smaller vehicles through regulation, higher fuel taxes might effectively achieve the same goal. If gas/diesel cost $10/gallon, there would be fewer ridiculous vehicles on our public roads. Maybe to limit the negative impact on businesses that legitimately need to operate large vehicles, we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

We don't have to choose; there are many wealthy countries where car choices, sizes, and use are regulated through both fuel and weight taxes, as well as through fuel economy taxes. All would be wonderful ideas, though frankly, I see higher fuel prices as the only factor that will lead to a wealth of sustainable practices in the US related to transportation, including smaller vehicles, less driving, and greater modal shares for public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians. Oh, and people-centric (as opposed to car-centric) infrastructure. All of these things come with reducing the size and scope of cars on the road.

In other words, screwing over everyone outside of a major metropolitan area?

It would make you more responsible for the costs associated with your lifestyle choice . . . costs that are currently paid by everyone else.

[JLee]

Rather than attempting to force people to drive smaller vehicles through regulation, higher fuel taxes might effectively achieve the same goal. If gas/diesel cost $10/gallon, there would be fewer ridiculous vehicles on our public roads. Maybe to limit the negative impact on businesses that legitimately need to operate large vehicles, we could offer a tax credit, so they could get some of their money back at the end of the year?

We don't have to choose; there are many wealthy countries where car choices, sizes, and use are regulated through both fuel and weight taxes, as well as through fuel economy taxes. All would be wonderful ideas, though frankly, I see higher fuel prices as the only factor that will lead to a wealth of sustainable practices in the US related to transportation, including smaller vehicles, less driving, and greater modal shares for public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians. Oh, and people-centric (as opposed to car-centric) infrastructure. All of these things come with reducing the size and scope of cars on the road.

In other words, screwing over everyone outside of a major metropolitan area?

It would make you more responsible for the costs associated with your lifestyle choice . . . costs that are currently paid by everyone else.

My point is that you cannot compare the public transportation infrastructure in countries the size of a postage stamp and expect the same principles to work in the US (or Canada).

I still want to know who the "everyone else" is that's allegedly paying for "my lifestyle choice." That coin has two sides.

[FIRE47]

Maybe restrictions on vehicle weight and size unless there is a demonstrated need?

To me this is a public health issue and not something that can be left to an arms race of selfishness but that's just my opinion what's yours?

Two thoughts:

First, "demonstration of need" is and always will be a bullshit concept.  In America, we don't need to demonstrate a need to do or own things, people who want to limit us need to demonstrate a need for limits. 

Second, the whole "arms race" theory on truck/SUV size basically never panned out.  That's been an argument since before the first Hummer H2 roamed the earth and now the H2 has essentially died out.  SUVs have gotten smallerish and more efficient in general, few people buy Suburbans and other truck-based vehicles to haul families anymore, they buy car-based things like Transverses and the car-based Explorer.

 I suppose there is a difference then as I am not in America - if I want to do something that impacts the rest of society negatively there should be a good reason for it. I need to demonstrate a need to own restricted firearms in Canada namely handguns (need to belong to a range and renew my membership annually or demonstrate a credible threat to my safety).

If you want to drive around in a contraption that spells instant death to others on the road in a collision, and belches twice the emissions for the rest of us to breath I think you should have to have a use for it beyond commuting to work...

I am against unneeded red tape and regulation as much as the next guy and maybe implementing something like this would be practically impossible however I am just talking about in theory.

Have they really gotten smaller?

 The 2011 Ranger is the size of a fullsize truck from the 80s - and the new "Midsize" trucks are bigger than the fullsizes from the 90s and early 2000s. This isnt to mention that they now have luxury type versions of the F250 and even 350 if I'm not mistaken.

These are some of the best selling vehicles in North American and they just keep getting bigger, presumably as it is one of the main appeals of the vehicle to most buyers.

[JLee]

Maybe restrictions on vehicle weight and size unless there is a demonstrated need?

To me this is a public health issue and not something that can be left to an arms race of selfishness but that's just my opinion what's yours?

Two thoughts:

First, "demonstration of need" is and always will be a bullshit concept.  In America, we don't need to demonstrate a need to do or own things, people who want to limit us need to demonstrate a need for limits. 

Second, the whole "arms race" theory on truck/SUV size basically never panned out.  That's been an argument since before the first Hummer H2 roamed the earth and now the H2 has essentially died out.  SUVs have gotten smallerish and more efficient in general, few people buy Suburbans and other truck-based vehicles to haul families anymore, they buy car-based things like Transverses and the car-based Explorer.

 I suppose there is a difference then as I am not in America - if I want to do something that impacts the rest of society negatively there should be a good reason for it. I need to demonstrate a need to own restricted firearms in Canada namely handguns (need to belong to a range and renew my membership annually or demonstrate a credible threat to my safety).

If you want to drive around in a contraption that spells instant death to others on the road in a collision, and belches twice the emissions for the rest of us to breath I think you should have to have a use for it beyond commuting to work...

I am against unneeded red tape and regulation as much as the next guy and maybe implementing something like this would be practically impossible however I am just talking about in theory.

Have they really gotten smaller?

 The 2011 Ranger is the size of a fullsize truck from the 80s - and the new "Midsize" trucks are bigger than the fullsizes from the 90s and early 2000s. This isnt to mention that they now have luxury type versions of the F250 and even 350 if I'm not mistaken.

These are some of the best selling vehicles in North American and they just keep getting bigger, presumably as it is one of the main appeals of the vehicle to most buyers.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html

Clearly, engine displacement plays little part in the concentrations of these pollutants. Consider that the Fiat 500 produced more than double the NOx and more than three times the hydrocarbons of the truck. A close look at the vehicles' underhood emissions labels sheds further light — the Fiat 500 is classed as LEV-II, whereas the Raptor in California trim is ULEV-II. The Raptor's emissions control equipment is simply more capable. It's only in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2) — not yet directly regulated by EPA or CARB — where the Raptor is the higher emitter.

When the Raptor (and the Fiat) was running Phase 2 of its tests on the dyno, it was cleaning the air of hydrocarbons. Yes, there were actually fewer hydrocarbons in the Raptor's exhaust than in the air it — and we — breathed. In the Raptor's case, the ambient air contained 2.821 ppm of total hydrocarbons, and the amount of total hydrocarbons coming out the Raptor's tailpipe measured 2.639 ppm.

FYI.

I think people interested in telling others what they should or shouldn't do would be wise to research the topic before suggesting regulation about topics with which they are unfamiliar...but we can't have everything. ;)

[Chris22]

If you want to drive around in a contraption that spells instant death to others on the road in a collision, and belches twice the emissions for the rest of us to breath

Why is it that hyperbole is strictly forbidden on any other types of risk ("why the fuck can't you ride 50 miles on a bicycle in a blizzard, complainypants?!?") EXCEPT for when it comes to cars/trucks and then all rationality is thrown out the window and we get all hysterical?

[Northwestie]

I've got my eye on a Panzer tank with low miles. 

[Midwest]

I suppose there is a difference then as I am not in America - if I want to do something that impacts the rest of society negatively there should be a good reason for it.

Every action you make impacts society.  If you want to restrict the freedoms of others, you should have good reason for it not the other way around.