Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No. You're being obtuse. Of course they can offset. But on balance, it's a negative for SUVs, counted in either of two ways.
First, because of the increased riskof rollover, SUV drivers are, on balance, no safer than if they were in a car.
link here
Second, because of their increased mass, SUVs in two-car crashes cause more harm to the other car. The increase in harm to the other car is not fully offset by a decrease in harm (that is, risk of injury or death) to the SUV driver. While the SUV is better off, the overall benefit to society is negative. This is not a suprise because you have more mass of car, with people no more capable of resisting injuries from metal hitting them.
|
I understand the first, although the linked story focuses mainly on children and rollovers, and what I asked for was a pure comparison (but I guess a pure comparison is hard to find/compile).
Re the second point, I don't understand. If I'm in my truck, and a car slams into me, and I survive and crash in which I'd have otherwise died because of the increased mass of my truck, how is my survival not a pure offset against the death of the person in the car who hit me (assuming he died because he hit an SUV as opposed to hitting a car). There appears to be a flawed assumption built into your argument that the SUV driver is always the one doing the striking/cauing the accident. Am I wrong on that observation?
