Re: Is Bigger Better? - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

07-09-2003, 08:41 PM

"Dave Simpson" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.0307091711.1de43618@posting.google.c om...
> Ian St. John wrote:
>
> > It should be noted that despite their greater mass, the increased
rollover
> > and vision blockiing risks of SUVs etc make them equally dangerous to
their
> > drivers as cars. Mostly in one vehicle collisions or rollover. The
> > simplicity of their safety systems ( cheap manufacture, counting on mass
to
> > improve safety rating ) tends to balance out any advantage they might
have
> > in other collisions.
>
> There is no balancing out or overall negative outcome. Larger
> vehicles remain safer than smaller vehicles.

False. One of the other costly consequences of SUV dangers is the higher
cost of insurance.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

> The smallest automobiles are the least safe.

An a-priori argument. You have to SHOW that they are safer in actual driving
conditions including backing up, rollover, single car/immovable object and
two car collisions. You make dumb sweeping statements pulled wet and
steaming from your anus.

> Safety is defined as relative risk to the
> vehicles' own occupants.

Which is higher in SUVs due to the higher risk of single car collison or
rollover being more dangeroust than the relative safety of two car
collisions.

Rest of Simpletons statements deleted as they hold no value.

07-11-2003, 11:25 AM

Ian St. John wrote:

> You are exposed for an ignorant ******* with no argument but to repeat
> ideology that you learned from an industry ad.

(* sigh *) Describing other as like you, and lying about people, fail.

Dave Simpson