All Hank, all the time.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The more you talk about how reasonable it is, the worse it sounds.

And as for statistics:

Timothy McVeigh
John Walker Lindh
John Reed

John Walker Lindh and John Reid looked exactly like the types you would be profiling.

McVeigh didn't get on a plane.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
John Walker Lindh and John Reid looked exactly like the types you would be profiling.

How so? Facial hair and clothing? Is that part of the "racial" profile too?

If so, a shave and a change of clothes wouldn't be so hard.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yeah, like any of us are ever going to fall into that trap with you again.

dammit.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
John Walker Lindh and John Reid looked exactly like the types you would be profiling.

McVeigh didn't get on a plane.

Oh. So we ain't just rousting A-rabs; we's rousting anybody what looks like a A-rab. Much better.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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?

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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?

Let's put it this way. The more energy in a collision the more destructive it will be. Because of their greater mass, collisions that involve SUVs will have more energy and thus be more destructive.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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?

What I'm saying has nothing to do with fault.

Compare two cars crashing into each other with a car crashing into an SUV. Say head-on, but that doesn't matter to illustrate the point.

In the car vs. car scenario there is, say a 25% chance that each occupant dies. In car v. SUV, there's a 50% chance the car passenger dies, but a 20% change the SUV driver dies. So, the SUV driver is better off, himself, because he's reduced his chance of dying in a crash. But, overall, the chances of death (or the overall death rate of crashes) has gone up from 25% to 35%. So, society is worse off.

Introducing fault into the issue gets you nowhere. I'm pretty sure you'll have a tough time finding any studies suggesting at-fault drivers are more (or less) likely to suffer injury or be killed in a crash. (I'd gues they're more likely to be killed, because they aren't around to tell their side of the story, so the blame gets pinned on them).

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Oh. So we ain't just rousting A-rabs; we's rousting anybody what looks like a A-rab. Much better.

Fuck 'em

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What I'm saying has nothing to do with fault.

Compare two cars crashing into each other with a car crashing into an SUV. Say head-on, but that doesn't matter to illustrate the point.

In the car vs. car scenario there is, say a 25% chance that each occupant dies. In car v. SUV, there's a 50% chance the car passenger dies, but a 20% change the SUV driver dies. So, the SUV driver is better off, himself, because he's reduced his chance of dying in a crash. But, overall, the chances of death (or the overall death rate of crashes) has gone up from 25% to 35%. So, society is worse off.

Introducing fault into the issue gets you nowhere. I'm pretty sure you'll have a tough time finding any studies suggesting at-fault drivers are more (or less) likely to suffer injury or be killed in a crash. (I'd gues they're more likely to be killed, because they aren't around to tell their side of the story, so the blame gets pinned on them).

So an SUV is safer in a collision... and that's why it's bad. Were SUVs suddently banned, your argument could be applied in favor of banning larger cars, since a Cadillac Driver is more likely to kill someone in a collision than a subcompact driver (particularly where those two vehicles are the ones colliding). Are you suggesting people not be allowed to improve their own chances of surviving a collision by purchasing a bigger vehicle? What about heavier cars?

If I follow your logic, the marketplace ought to be geared so that people would all drive the same sized car. Doesn't your position necessarily invoke the argument that people should all have the exact same chance of walking away from an accident?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Let's put it this way. The more energy in a collision the more destructive it will be. Because of their greater mass, collisions that involve SUVs will have more energy and thus be more destructive.

So me being in a large truck when someone broadsides me causes me and my car and the other car more damage/injury than if I'd been in a small car? If I were in a smaller car, wouldn't I suffer greater injury from a braodside hit? If that's not true, can you explain why? I'm not a science guy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So an SUV is safer in a collision... and that's why it's bad. Were SUVs suddently banned, your argument could be applied in favor of banning larger cars, since a Cadillac Driver is more likely to kill someone in a collision than a subcompact driver (particularly where those two vehicles are the ones colliding). Are you suggesting people not be allowed to improve their own chances of surviving a collision by purchasing a bigger vehicle? What about heavier cars?

If I follow your logic, the marketplace ought to be geared so that people would all drive the same sized car. Doesn't your position necessarily invoke the argument that people should all have the exact same chance of walking away from an accident?

Nope-- I gave you my reasons why I dislike SUVs. They shift the risk of harm from an accident from them to me.

BTW, studies show that large cars, pound for pound, do not create the same risks as SUVs for other cars.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What I'm saying has nothing to do with fault.

Compare two cars crashing into each other with a car crashing into an SUV. Say head-on, but that doesn't matter to illustrate the point.

In the car vs. car scenario there is, say a 25% chance that each occupant dies. In car v. SUV, there's a 50% chance the car passenger dies, but a 20% change the SUV driver dies. So, the SUV driver is better off, himself, because he's reduced his chance of dying in a crash. But, overall, the chances of death (or the overall death rate of crashes) has gone up from 25% to 35%. So, society is worse off.

Introducing fault into the issue gets you nowhere. I'm pretty sure you'll have a tough time finding any studies suggesting at-fault drivers are more (or less) likely to suffer injury or be killed in a crash. (I'd gues they're more likely to be killed, because they aren't around to tell their side of the story, so the blame gets pinned on them).

Bruger,

If your position is that all drivers should have the same chance of walking away from a collision, and therefore, an SUV buyer should not be allowed to improve his chances by purchasing an SUV, why wouldn't we apply similar logic to health insurance, ownership of guns, etc...? You could take the "even playing field" argument into any arena. Also, I don't think driving's a right. It's a privilege granted by the state. You choose to avial yourself of it with all its risks, inclusing those occasioned by your selection of a smaller vehicle. Or is it a right? I honestly don't know...

Best,
SD

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Nope-- I gave you my reasons why I dislike SUVs. They shift the risk of harm from an accident from them to me.

BTW, studies show that large cars, pound for pound, do not create the same risks as SUVs for other cars.

Well, you're always free to buy one yourself, and even the playing field.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well, you're always free to buy one yourself, and even the playing field.

Like the gun argument? Just get one yourself for protection? Or nuclear weapons?

Are you saying the world is a better place for the escalation of the arms race, or the heavy cars race? I'm saying it's not.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Also, I don't think driving's a right. It's a privilege granted by the state.

Your argument would be better if it were a right. As a privilege, there's no basis for objecting to any and all limits imposed on those who avail themselves of that privilege.