BTW, this study refutes the assertion that "SUVs are safer", as it pertains to children.
WaterBoy | Email | Homepage | 01.03.06 - 3:56 pm |
Anytime I see an article headlined about the evils of SUV's I know it is a good opportunity to show my daughters how journalists, "scientists", and commie-rat-bastards will lie in sneaky ways to affect your opinion on a matter.
First : The Headline
Study: SUVs no safer for kidsRight away this fails the common sense test; So, if I run my suburban with my younguns in it into a camry with your younguns in it mine will get hurt and yours won't? Hmmm.
Second: this statement;
rollover crashes occurred twice as frequently in SUVs as in passenger cars and children were three times more likely to be injured in a rollover crash than in a non-rollover accident
Let's give 'em the higher frequency of rollovers and look at the sneaky way the part about children being three times more likely to be injured got slid in there. Children probably ARE three times more likely to be injured in a rollover, but that does not address rollovers specifically in a SUV. A cute bit of slight of hand reminiscent of the clinton era.
Here are the questions to ask :
What percentage of crashes are rollovers? Sorta like the vitamin that decreases your risk of "X" disease by three times when you only had a 1 in 10,000,000 chance of gettin' it in the first place.
Are rollovers more often reported as opposed to idiots running into inanimate objects or high energy fender benders? The "study" looked at crashes reported to StateFarm so obviously somebody had to have full coverage, or be liable for someone else's damage, it had to be reported to the insurance company, and they must have insurance (With StateFarm) for it to make the sample. If you don't see a lot of trouble in those sample qualifications, I can't help you. Go away.
Third:
"The study looked at crashes reported to State Farm involving 3,933 child occupants"
How often are crashes reported with information concerning child occupants where the child did
NOT get hurt, or where noone got hurt in the SUV? I'd wager: none or close to it. We've all been involved in a traffic accident; did the cop want to know who was in the car that
wasn't injured?
There is a disclaimer of sorts at the end of the article:
heavier vehicles are generally safer than lighter vehicles within their own class. That is, a big car is safer than a small car and a large SUV is safer than a smaller one.
Data, and common sense has also shown that large SUV's are safer than large and small cars, and minivans/small trucks, and damn near everything is safer than a small (that means REALLY small like the kia sportage or the little suzuki) SUV or a mitsubishi montero (
? - I don't know what the story is with this mitsubishi but it's there in the "Deaths per Million Produced")
That's enough to give you the idea, keep lookin' at it and you'll see a lot more in there. The point is the average Waterboy will read the headline and maybe a little of the first paragraph and come to the conclusion that "they" say SUV's are dangerous.
WB, I know I hung you out to dry here, but I suspect you only threw that link up 'cause Bill was hard on ya' about rear wheel drive versus front wheel drive. If so, it was a good tactic but poor strategy, at least here in JACIII's House of Large Cars.
