From: doug.bryce{at}sympatico.ca (Doug Bryce)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:14:47 -0400, "Gary Wiltshire"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:10:48 GMT, Doug Bryce 
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:35:31 -0400, "Steve Ewing"

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:55:05 -0400, Geo.  wrote:
>>>
>>>> These are all enhanced capabilities of the vehicle. If the
price of gas
>>>> goes up slowly you will see enhanced milage as well
instead of a full
>>>> out migration to a sardine can.
>>>
>>> There's some personal preference involved here-- I myself prefer a car
>>> to
>>> a truck, but tastes differ.
>>>
>>> My objection to SUVs is not so much the vehicles themselves as to their
>>> safety issues, which are being resolved-- the
"runner"-type frame, where
>>> when a Navigator broadsides, say, me, it rides up over my car's frame
>>> and
>>> neatly spears me.  Sure, the guy in the *SUV* is safer-- same as if he
>>> had
>>> a nice ram sticking out the front, or some Ben-Hur wheel spikes.
>>
>> This raises a question to which I've never been able to find an
>> answer.  There is all the talk about how you're safer in an SUV in the
>> event of a collision.  I've always assumed that this refers to a
>> SUV/car collision.  Anybody know of a pointer to SUV/SUV stats?
>>
>> doug
>
>Someone posted an article here a few months ago that would indicated that
>minivans are a lot safer in a collision than SUVs (for the people in the
>vehicle, not what they hit) because minivans are built like cars.

I can certainly believe minivans are safer.  That would seem to imply that
an SUV/SUV collision could be very nasty for the vehicle occupants.

doug

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5