Because SUV’s aren’t just killing the planet, they have a hate on for your children, too.
In the first report of its kind, University researchers found children are 2.4 times more likely to be struck by a van and 53 percent more likely to be hit by a truck than by a car. The study, conducted by the U’s Intermountain Injury Control Center, also found children hit by high-profile vehicles, such as trucks, SUVs or minivans, are more likely to require hospitalization, surgery, and treatment in an intensive care unit than children backed over by cars.
Previous reports have suggested high-profile vehicles produce a large blind spot behind them, but no studies in the United States have attempted to document the rate of injury by type of vehicle.
In the July 2006 issue: “In collisions with speeding locomotives, passengers cars fare poorly”..
You really do hate knowledge, don’t you.
When you make your joke that passenger cars fare poorly in collisions with speeding locomotives, you assume that there’s nothing that can be done about that. There’s a lot of things we can do to make the world a safer place, and they’re all worth striving for.
The pessimist’s view:
Just when you see light at the end of the tunnel you find out it is another train!
Those pesky laws of physics always fouling things up.
Of course the solution is to get the damn car out of the rail crossing in a timely manner.
Ummmm…RobertMcClelland…
Any chance that the sheer number of vans/SUVs/ etc might have an impact on the study could skew the results of the survey???
Or this as close to the chance that your IQ could be anything more than single digits???
The truth is that the gas guzzlers make it more expensive for the conservers.
Does everyone forget what conservative means.
“There’s a lot of things we can do to make the world a safer place, and they’re all worth striving for.”
Yes! Let’s pass laws. That always works. It is the purpose of the government to come to our homes and hide the sharp cuttlery.
I’d write more, but my attorney needs me to go and balance a hot cup of coffee on my crotch in a McDonald’s drive-thru. Now where did I put my lucky motorcycling Speedo?
That’s why children in Third World countries have such better prospects for fuller and more rewarding lives:
The absence of any prosperity means the absence of any vehicles.
(Oh yeah, I guess they still have to dodge all the UN and NGO SUVs.)
rg, well said! You summed it up pithily.
(Of course, if we do decide to continue augmenting the writ of the Nanny State, we could just pass a law forbidding car manufacturers from putting a Reverse gear in car transmissions.)
The stats actually makes sense to me as a mother and driver of a van. Go to any school at dismissal time and look at the long line of vans around the small kids. There’s a pretty remote chance of being hit by a Ford Mustang or Miata, just because you don’t see those cars around schools.
Were teens more likely to be hit by older cars? At our rural high school during dismissal time, older cars outnumber vans by at least 4:1. At 5:00 p.m. the ratio flips back as parents pick up their kids from after school activities (late school buses were cut years ago) and the kids who have their own cars have left for the day.
Anyway, I’d like all factors to be studied and accounted for before I’ll believe vans are more dangerous. My PT Cruiser has huge blind spots compared to my Odyssey.
And for those into conservation, the PT is 9.3 litres/100km and the van was 9.1 (last week’s check.) So the obvious gut reaction of taking the 4 cylinder small car vs the huge van is wrong from both a sight-line and gas mileage stand point.
I wonder what the stats are regarding collision fatalities and injuries between minivans and cars – say the little Smart Cars? I would suggest a law, much like bicycle helmets and seat belts, that children do not ride in Smart Cars or perhaps children only ride in minivans?
In the August 2006 issue:
The University English Department researchers release their report: “Comprehension of sarcasm declines as demonstrated intelligence declines”.
“Scientist’s say Overeating may cause weight gain- additional funding and studies required”
Jack Layton speech: Opposes Law of Gravity as discriminatory towards obese people; proposes science books with Isaac Newton’s physics laws be removed from public schools as hate speech.
Holy cow.
Research into “the blatantly obvious”. I thought that was a pretty fat clue as to why I was ridiculing the “findings” (even for simps like McClelland).
“You really do hate knowledge, don’t you.”
Join Kate Werk in the latest Bond Assignment:
“Rodentia Privatus” versus Dr. Nowledge (Robert McLelland).
Unfortunately, Kate bags her quarry in 1 minute flat, leaving 89 minutes of trailer.
The study would have more significance if the number of accidents rather than percentages were stated. Nanny state types are very fond of percentages to push their agenda, but without hard numbers they’re meaningless. If there were 34 incidents of this type and 10 were by a smaller vehicle and 24 were by a larger vehicle, while devestating to the family, on the whole, that is a very small number compared to the numbers of vehicles on the road.
Clearly what is needed is a Task Force to be followed up by a Royal Commission, which will no doubt reach out to the community for impact statements.
Shaken,
What a delightlfully Canadian, I mean Liberal, solution.
Impact statements – I love it.
O/T-Guitte found guilty.
The study has found that because there are more kids under 18 in Utah than any other state, and because families with kids tend to own trucks, more kids get run over by trucks in Utah. That isn’t what the story implies of course, but that’s what they actually found.
Which, according to our darling Lefties (Hiya Rube!) is “knowledge”.
Hence our problems with the Left.
Jack Layton speech: Opposes Law of Gravity as discriminatory towards obese people; proposes science books with Isaac Newton’s physics laws be removed from public schools as hate speech.
Posted by: Dave
HA HA ha, very good dave! You are the best!!!
I am not clear on what is being perceived here as the point of the original article. Is it that we should all be driving smaller cars, and that the writer of the article is trying to inveigle us into that through some specious safety argument?
Congratulations Kate,
You finally confounded maz2…21 posts and not a single 1 by him.
Excellent work!
Lanny – I haven’t seen the stats myself but I’m told the SmartCar is actually very crashworthy, the whole thing being designed as a crash cage similar to the driver’s crash cage in a race car. That surprised me; my first thought was like yours, no way I’m taking that thing out on a Saskatchewan highway.
I hate trucks.
I guess that is because I have spent so much time in them. :0)
I much prefer my nice car.
I once figured that someday I would not buy any more big vehicles but after watching the people of New Orleans try to pack up and get out of the city I realized that one should always own a vehicle that can drive over medians and curbs AND handle the Sask highways.
At the risk of being attacked by ecoterrorists, when being run over by a vehicle is SIZE MATTERS!
All things considered, I’d rather be hit by a Mini cooper than a Mac 18 wheeler.
Sometimes statistics only prove the obvious.
Statistically, if you want the world to be a safer place, you just have to prevent teenage boys from leaving their rooms (never mind driving cars or motorcycles). Or better yet, just prohibit women or children from leaving the marital home.
Starting to sound like a familiar strategy?
“Sometimes statistics only prove the obvious.”
Yeah, and sometimes people refuse to take responsibility for the obvious, citing lack of proof.
Research into “the blatantly obvious”. I thought that was a pretty fat clue as to why I was ridiculing the “findings” (even for simps like McClelland).
Your post was more than clear. You think we should all just accept common wisdom as factual rather than doing the actual research to either validate or invalidate it. Considering common wisdom is wrong as often as it’s right, that’s a pretty shortsighted reason to spit at this research.
Face it Rubert, you fell for another publish-or-perish pile of parrot droppings. As usual.
Y’know, you should consider taking a remedial science course. One where they ‘splain these kindsa things.
Whew! The common wisdom that minivan drivers are dangerous is now validated by research. I feel so good that my mere opinions no longer matter on this topic. I have research to thank for going from common crank driver to scientifically approved awareness. What a difference a day makes.
Continue to expect anything from one of those minivans.
I see the pipsqueek McClellan continues to lurk under the bridge!
Hate knowledge!
What an apt bi-line for the person incapable of separating Reality from Fantasy!
MOONBAT go bang your head on the streetlamp!
OMMAG
I think that the people who drive the high-profile SUV’s and mini-vans are much more likely to be so important that they have to drive and talk on the GD phone at the same time.Put the phone down you pencil neck geek,save a child.Cheers.
all dis hating going on for my ride….man, i know kate would love my pimp SUV. i pull up on to her farm i know that wedding bells be following directly.