but in the US, people presume safety by beffing surrounded by metal in something big, heavy and tall.  Look at the types of vehicles driven in Europe compared ot the US, yet their accident rates are not higher.

You are generalizing again without any facts.

 

Are the death rates per accident lower on US Intersates or the Autobahn? I believe the autobahn logs a much higher death rate per accident (I have no data here).

Yes, of course the 525 is a better designed vehicle with more safety features than my neighbor's Tahoe. It is still the driver that makes the difference. the driver turns the ignition, the driver decides ' I'm in a 525, I can pass in this no pAssing zone easily - beacause I'm more intelligent and better equipped than these other scmucks on the road'. Ooh - if I head on someone on this blind hill while pAssing, my crumple zones and airbags will perform mahhhhvelously. How's that for a generalization?

BTW

What's the difference between a BMW and a Porcupine?

On a Porcupine the prick is on the outside.

A link to the National enter for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/

For those interested in factual studies about SUV's:

Statistics regarding younger drivers and SUV's:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NC...vers/index.html

revelation - the more inexperienced the driver, the more likely a rollover.

Statistics regarding child pedestrian fatality rates by vehicle body type:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NC...-640/index.html

Oops, no anti-SUV mandate here. Child pedestrian fatalities down while number of available SUV's skyrockets in the US.

2002 - number of occupants killed in 2002 in single vehicle rollover crashes:

passenger Car: 4,055

Van: 512

SUV: 1,959

Pickup: 2,236

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/2002annual_as...desc_fig_13.htm

The trend is definitely getting worse for SUV's here.

I'm sold. SUV Gestapo please save us.

Hi Costello:

___Did you know that almost 50% of new automobiles sold in the US today are SUV’s and only ~ 20% are passenger Cars? How does that fit into NHTSA’s number of deaths in passenger cars to number of deaths in SUV’s? Also, take a look at online impressions of the general populace in regards to how American’s view all automobiles online in comparison … http://www.adrelevance.com/intelligence/intel_snapshot.jsp

___You may also want to view this page as linked: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA465.html:

In the 97.5 percent of accidents that are not rollovers, SUVs are safer to be in than the typical passenger car. In side, frontal and rear-end collisions, for example, the typical 4,500-lb. SUV offers as much as two to three times more protection against impact forces than a 3,000-lb. compact/mid-sized sedan. Also, an SUV with four wheel drive is less likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, or suffer loss of control in certain conditions, such as heavy rain or snow. And 59 percent of those killed in SUV rollover accidents, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, likely would have survived had they been wearing seatbelts.

___Notice the source?

 

___I am glad my wife drives one of the safest SUV’s on the road?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

i support what the UN wants to do. The UN's prime goal is for peace, not oil or any other bulls**t like that. When the UN says no, then mankind says no. 80% of australians opposed the war purely on this basis. at least Kim Jong Il has weapons of mass destructions, turns out saddam didn't have any .

based on that data i would not be surprised that most of those rollovers in passenger cars involved speeding - in fact according to NHTSA 75% of all rollovers involve speeding. yes speeding is a problem, and that can be a threat removed. i am not saying that regulation of SUVs should be the prime concern of road safety authorities. But NHTSA also says that

'All types of vehicles can rollover. However, taller, narrower vehicles such as SUVs, pickups, and vans have higher centers of gravity, and thus are more susceptible to rollover if involved in a single-vehicle crash. '

what i am saying is not an overall sense because probably drivers of SUVs are more careful when conering (80% of speeding accidents are on bends). but if these careful drivers were in cars, (that is in modelling the crash the only variable is the vehicle, and the variables speed, driver reactions etc. kept constant) there would be a further improvement in road safety. a simple weekend course to remind people not only of rollover safety but also inform them of additional costs and impact on other drivers their choice could have. if you remind them of the dangers and the cons (pros all come from ads), those who 'want' an SUV will be filtered out from those who 'need' an SUV.

perhaps the better visibility can help suv drivers see pedestrians or something. but that does not detract from the fact that in australia in multiple accidents 64% of fatalities are in the passenger car that is hit, or hit the SUV.

i notice noone came up with other US stats on involvement of SUVs in multiple vehicle accidents. It is true, the accident rate between Europe and the US is not that different, i beleive Europe is slightly safer.

As for the stats on 4WD involvement in fatal crashes in OZ, it is based on km's travelled by that vehicle group in total. thus, if i drove for equal distance in an SUV i am 20% more likely to be involved in a fatal vehicle accident than in a normal car. truckies are licenced 'above and beyond', bikers are licsenced 'above and beyond' why not SUV owners. not even a special stigmatised licence (thats what it seems how people see it), merely a one weekend course and a licence endorsement.

Not sure where you're goign wiht this....

my point is if someone is willing to be careful enough and drive an SUV without rolling the **** over, imagine how safe they would be if they chose a bmw over a suburban if the suburban is not needed. we'd have practically no deaths on the roads

Statistics regarding child pedestrian fatality rates by vehicle body type:http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NC...-640/index.html

 

Oops, no anti-SUV mandate here. Child pedestrian fatalities down while number of available SUV's skyrockets in the US.

Ctually if you look closely, the statistics are normalized by showing the value as a rate per million of registered miles-years. That equals the playing field and shows clearly that passenger cars have reduced child pedestrian fatality rates at a much faster pace than SUV's.

 

My guess is that factors such as better tires, brakes, ABS, softer bumpers & sheetmetal have dramtically reduced pedestrian fatailites in all vehicles... yet SUV's continue to have rigid bumpers, top poorly and cannot avoid the accident despite being taller (better visibility) and more prominant to a pedestrian... which have caused a slower decrease.

as for rollovers... the statistics do not conclusively show that SUV's are more prone to rollover. My theory.... Most all SUV"s are equipped with ABS whcih may help to prevent rollovers. to explain.... A rollover occurs when a vehicle looses control and slides sieways, loading the suspension on that side. if that vehicle then comes in contact with a curb, or soft gr****/dirt, it will have a tendency to rollover. IN a SUV, the drive will immediately panic stop, and simply run inot the object. Being in such a large vehicle, they may be more afraid of swerving to avoid than hitting the object since they feel so safe... while a driver of a car will attempt to avoid the accident first. Also the less grippy tires found on SUV's may also reduce rollovers.

have dramtically reduced pedestrian fatailites in all vehicles...

yes indeed, in europe pedestrian ratings are used. The previous generation of nissans, peugeots etc. generally have a pedestrian rating of 1 star where the next generation is 2 stars. some like the honda civic score 3 stars. the most advanced large SUVs in the world cannot get past 1 star. the smaller SUVs are a bit worse than passenger cars. honda crv got 3 stars, nissan X-Trail got 2 stars but everything else was a one. on average passenger cars are better. check it out -

pedestrain test results

in that NHSTA report, the relative risk of an SUV hitting a child is 40% greater than a car. there was a decline, but costello failed to point out - perhaps conveintinetly - that the decline in pedestrian deaths is doubled in pAssenegr cars. If 80% of those SUVs were passenger cars then many lives would have been saved. but, everyone has the right to choose an SUV, don't we? we can choose to kill less children and say NO! to the uneccessary use of SUVs.

The decline is more pronounced in cars because cars are actually engineered properly, most SUVs are and continue to be road registered tanks.

in that summary which is supposed to be in defence of SUVs:

Sport utility vehicles, pickups, and vans fatally injured pedestrians at a higher rate than passenger cars during the period 1997-2001, with the greatest difference seen among children under 8 years old. This trend may be attributable to the greater size of sport utility vehicles, pickups, and vans, and/or the frontal configuration of these vehicles which does not allow smaller pedestrians who are being struck to roll up onto the vehicle. The drivers of higher elevated vehicles with a larger frontal configuration also may be more likely to have their view of smaller child pedestrians obstructed.

need i say more?

i found some other interesting things on the NHTSA site. The following is fatality rates per 100,000 registered vehicles. (no need to explain cherry 128, i'm here to help......)

2002

passenger Cars: 3.67032

SUVs: 10.1237

Pickups: 7.14377

Vans: 3.82155

seeNHTSA data

This tripled risk of rollover correlates with my previous data. Now, based on excel's data the use of 110.5 million cars created 4055 rollover deaths. the use of 19.35 million SUVs created 1960 rollover deaths. now lets trim that number by 80 %, lets have hypothetically 16 million SUVs off the road - 1620 lives saved. now those 16 million get into cars - 587 lives taken. overall 1033 lives are saved (!!). Now suppose each of these poeple have a family of another 2 people, and say 6 close friends. That is a total of 8000 Americans who do not need to suffer the loss of a loved one due to rollovers because someone wanted to buy an SUV coz they had a right to and it made them look cool. not to mention the 2 jumbo jets full of people who need not die due to underutilisation of SUVs, in rollovers.

Now ot be fair.... although I think the stats point clearly towards my point, but the only uncontrolled vairable is the "type" of driver that is behind the wheel of most SUV's compared to passenger cars. I believe that the average age of SUV drivers may be lower and those causing these accidents are primarily younger males. Now put these same dirivers into a passenger and I do believe you will see a decline, but not as great as what's shown.

But consider this. The calculations in the post above show that 1000 lives could be saved by redesigning or restricting SUV size, weight, etc. Lets assume that number in reality is only 500. Yet there was a major and highly publisized recall on Firestone tires for less than half the number of deaths over a wider range of years. IN the '80's a couple people die from Tylenol tampering, and the drug industry to date in response has spent billions of dollars in response ot stricter regulations due to this incident.... yet no action is taken against producing unsafe vehicles. Where is Ralph Nader when you need him.

I have no problem with SUV's themselves, only the way in which they are designed. This would increase the cost of SUV's... but why is this a problem. People are already willing o pay a premium for safe prescription drugs, blood, hospital care, etc. why not pay a premium to reduce vehicular deaths.

....costello failed to point out - perhaps conveintinetly .....

................overall 1033 lives are saved .................

I posted the links for discussion, not to make or refute a point. Sorry I did not spoon feed it to you. I'm not the one arguing that the government should single out SUV's. You still have a weak case IMO. 1033 lives by your theoretical math. Wonderful.

 

We had 17000 traffic fatalities related to drunk driving. I still maintain that the driver, not the vehicle, is the significant factor. However, I realize that the concept of individual responsibility is a difficult one for a leftist (your word, not mine).

The logic you employ is what enabled the semi-auto gun bans that are now in place in Australia. If one life is saved it is worth it. These laws made many formerly law abiding citizens who legally owned these guns criminals with the stroke of a pen. Those weapons were submitted for destruction by the thousands. Now that's what you propose for SUV's? Destroy them?

BTW - how are the murder and violent crime rates in Australia these days? Must be nearly utopian. And - No doubt children will be able to play in the street once SUV's are banned.

I commute in a Corolla, and use my truck to work the farm and tow the boat with camping gear for fishing trips to the lake. Some families like to be able to load up everyone and their gear for a comfortable trip on occasion. If that somehow makes me an evil slob American in relation to our refined cultured European cousins, so be it.

I'm amazed at the generalizations being hurled in here. I always thought we Corolla owners were a sophisticated bunch.

Me too...Corolla to work...4runner to play...and this is America, if you don't like it...well you know

 

 

The logic you employ is what enabled the semi-auto gun bans that are now in place in Australia. If one life is saved it is worth it. These laws made many formerly law abiding citizens who legally owned these guns criminals with the stroke of a pen. Those weapons were submitted for destruction by the thousands. Now that's what you propose for SUV's? Destroy them?

no, no, no that was merely a hypothetical situation. no government can have a 'buy back' of 4WDs it'd cost too much. but for every 100,000 SUVs that are not bought in the future (pAssenegr vehicles that are bought instead), 8 lives are saved - simply due to rollovers. SUVs should never be 'illegal', there should be measures in place to ensure that only the people who even remotely need them end up choosing them ('4runner for play'......well bugger me that sounds like a reason). i have no problem if you go hunting, camping, off roading etc. andd need to get one. but using it merely as a passenger car substitute is not on as far as i am concerned.

true, SUVs may be bought by younger people but then again some SUVs may be driven more gently because some poeple out there actually know what they are driving and know that it is more dangerous.

However, I realize that the concept of individual responsibility is a difficult one for a leftist (your word, not mine).

yes drink driving is a problem. but as my data points out both australian and US data shows that SUVs ARE more difficult to handle, and that a passenger car is 3 times as likely to survive a situation where a SUV goes arse over tit and kills the occupants inside. Yes road safety is everyone's problem, but due to the differences of construction, performance and handling all potential SUV buyers should be subject to a defensive driving course followed by a licence endorsement. now if that ain't individual responsibility, nothing is. truckies are singalled out, bikers are singalled out, they don't whinge about it. you have a right to buy an SUV but you have the individual responsibility to ensure you can drive it properly (like, doing the course, and from the data many need to do such a course) and indeed to choose it only if you remotely need it.

as for crime stats in OZ we have always had gun restrictions in place - must have licence, must be part of shooting club or need it for work, no pistols of any type etc. but since we have introduced semi-automatic laws there have been no more massacres. supply of illegal handguns has dried up because crime gangs are now robbing security firms and police stationsalso us australians enjoy a murder rate that is a quarter of the US, for i beleive in the US there are as many guns as people. in OZ only farmers, vets, professional sports shooters and rednecks have guns.

hmm...those gun laws we have here kinda sound like my SUV proposal.......and look at the lives we have saved in OZ. in fact with this proposal you could save as many lives as if you has sensible gun laws in the US.

in fact with this proposal you could save as many lives as if you has sensible gun laws in the US.

Thanks for the tip, I'll not be writing my congressman. We do have sensible gun laws. Background checks. Also, murder is illegal here. Gun crime is a felony.

 

I applaud your lower murder rate, sir, but you also have no Bronx, South central Los Angeles, South west Atlanta, North Baltimore, etc.

Glad to hear that the criminals are now raiding the police and security agencies for guns. At least your law enforcement should have a good start on tracking them down.

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME

1997; 1998; TREND

Murder

321; 284; -11.5%

Attempted Murder

318; 382; +20.1%

Manslaughter

39; 49; +25.6%

assault

124,500; 132,967; +6.8%

Sexual assault

14,353; 14,568; +1.5%

Kidnaping/abduction

562; 662 ; +17.8%

Armed Robbery

9,054; 10,850; +19.8%

Unarmed Robbery

12,251; 12,928; +5.5%

TOTAL

161,398; 172,690; +7.0%

The fact is, your violent crime rates trended downward significantly for three years (not shown) before the Port Arthur massacre and increased in the two years after following the gun bans. I do not have year to date info (could be up or down for all I know).

Rather than acknowledge the actions of a lone madman, all gun owning citizens were taken to task. See a pattern of thinking? Rather than admit driver responsibility - the SUV's are evil.

I am glad you have not had another insane person murder a large number of people. It was done here recently with a few passenger airliners. 3 airliners, one day, over 3000 killed.

BTW:

c2105026 -

I've enjoyed discussing these issues. I apologize for going 'off topic' on the gun issue. I hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. I doubt we'd ever agree except maybe we can have a good laugh in the process. I'm happy to offer you the last word on these issues. G'day mate, I'd buy you a frosty if you were here (the following discussion would be worth the price )

Peace Out

Costello

When SUV's are banned, only Americans will have SUV's.

I applaud your lower murder rate, sir, but you also have no Bronx, South central Los Angeles, South west Atlanta, North Baltimore, etc.

indeed but we do have redfern (aborigines), lakemba (lebanese), cabramatta (vetnamese/chinese triads).

indeed, all police and security guns are registered and easily traceable. has led to a few sydney crime gangs being busted in the last month.

yes anti-gun laws don't stop using a boeing 757 as a weapon, and has not contributed to a decreased crime rate in australia. but hopefully such horrid massacres are prevented in the future - a bolt action rifle can still kill someone, as can a knife, length of rope. but its harder to kill a huge amount in a public space than if you had a machine gun (strathfield mall massacre, 1991, 7 killed 10 injured). true, if some crazy guy wants a machine gun he will get it. however, it is individual responsibility to strongly consider if you need a gun, and if you decide to have a gun you have the obligation to store it in a responsible manner and comply with ALL laws. thats the situation in OZ. If we had laxer laws on guns in australia the kill rate would only go up because apart from home invasion situations i do not see how a gun in any household will make it safer. just like apart from slippery conditions, i do not see how an SUV can be safer in an overall sense than a normal car. it may protect you in a collision but you will only hurt the people in the other car more.

i know we will never agree. that is why democracy exists. but it is now up to owners of semi-automatic guns and SUV owners to ensure that they don't go on killing sprees or take the extra care necessary to prevent their suburban from rolling and killing their family.

BTW, i'd prefer red wine or spirits, or heinekken

When SUV's are banned, only Americans will have SUV's. 

 

but it is individual responsibility to strongly consider if they need a gun, and if they decide to have a gun to store it in a responsible manner. just like SUVs - if someone feels as though they need an SUV they then have the responsibility of driving it in a safe manner.

Here we agree 100%

 

And there should be adequate training provided (required) for both.

Hi C2105026:

i do not see how an SUV can be safer in an overall sense than a normal car. it may protect you in a collision but you will only hurt the people in the other car more.

i know we will never agree. that is why democracy exists. but it is now up to owners of semi-automatic guns and SUV owners to ensure that they don't go on killing sprees or take the extra care necessary to prevent their suburban from rolling and killing their family.

___How many examples of the MDX do you need to see before you get off your “All SUV’s are killing machines” kick? Driving the 1,800 + # Insight amongst 2,500 + # Corolla’s, Sentra’s, Focus’, and Civic’s is also a risk but it is what I decided to buy and drive, not what someone like yourself legislated me to drive and/or purchase. The same can be said with both of our 2,500 # Corolla’s in comparison to a 4,400 # MDX. The MDX is safer plain and simple.

 

___If you want to mandate safety because of bumper height (I already told you about the MDX’s solution to bumper height) and such, raise the sub-compact and compact bumpers instead? Why not mandate Vehicle Stability Assist, Side, Side curtain, and Interior headliner air-bags in all vehicles? Most sub-compacts and compacts are not available with these options but this size of automobile would be far safer if they included these options as standard equipment. Tough luck if you cannot afford the car after your mandates!

___On a similar note, why not ban cell-phones? We all know they have been a cause of many a fatality on the road. Why not remove all motorcycles from the road while you are at it? It doesn’t matter how many more hours of training a motorcycle driver receives. Guess who wins when a Corolla driver runs into the highly trained motorcycle driver? Ban all Guns because they have been known to be involved with murder? Ban all cows from England, Canada and the US because some have been found to have Mad Cow? Ban travel to and from both Toronto, Canada and all of China because some of their citizens have SARS?

___It is a matter of choice and if you want to legislate, first consider the person that stares back at you in the mirror before you dictate what and who should and shouldn’t be allowed on the road. In other words, consider purchasing a safer automobile if you really think 50% of the vehicles around you are killing machines. I already know our MDX is safer then our Corolla and Insight. I had the choice to choose these vehicles as I saw fit and I did so knowing the facts before I signed my name to the sales contract(s).

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

I would be happy if they at least banned SUV's, Conversion Vans, and all that other junk from Parkways. It is only for passenger vehicles and i don't consider SUV's passenger vehicles. Aside from that, also ban them from using the left lane, similarly to trucks. And obviously, regular licences would not be enough. A larger vehicle licence would be appropriate here.

please tell me, what is a parkway?? is that some sort of road? banning SUVs from using certain bits of road may be going too far. all road users should have equal rights, and all have responsibility of controlling their vehicle at all times. but some extra training is required for certain vehicles because of the slightly more hazardous nature of certain vehicles, eg. in motorcycle licence it is compulsory to do defensive riding course in OZ, i think. SUVs are more of a handful to control in certain emergency situations, thus require extra training. In fact, possibly pickups and vans too.

due to different construction eg. jacked up suspension, ladder chAssis i feel as though they qualify as a different type of vehicle. i guess a special licence could indeed help. people in this thread have talked about personal responsibility. this afternnon i was at the cinema watching 'welcome to the jungle' (thus i had heaps of time to think ), and i realised ever since the SUV has been around (c. 1970s) we have had personal responsibility to drive safely. but, due to the rollover figures some people can't obviously drive these things. which i think is mandate enough for specific defensive driving and anti-rollover training and licence endorsement for prospective SUV buyers. Your right to buy one is still there, i don't understand what the fuss over this idea is. I mean, i have to have a pilot licence to fly a plane, i need a truck licence to drive a truck, why not get an SUV licence to drive an SUV? i mean in OZ you need a gun licence to have a gun, a boat licence to drive a boat, all these vehicles or objects have particular safety issues. also, because it isn't wholly dangerous, just a few aspects, an SUV licence should also be easy to get if you know your stuff.

in fact cars outnumber SUVs 5.5 : 1, and only 5% of all fatal accidents are caused by mobiles. i think all vehicles should come standard with full complement of safety features, not all accidents involve SUVs, even i admit that. But fitment of sability control to SUVs, vans and pickups could reduced the rollover road toll.

would YOU buy a jacked up corvette?? didn't think so.......

A parkway is an expressway where Trucks and commercial vehicles are not allowed on it. Usually do to the low bridges. When people talk about Personal responsibility, that doesnt work. At least here in NY, if people aren't forced to do things, they dont. Here people do everything bad on the road and not only that, but show no respect for anyone else on the road. Sunday i saw a Sanitation worker driving a snow plow around a corner. He was too busy talking on his phone and hit the corner of a parked car, of course he kept driving and did not stop. Needless to say i took his information down and reported him to the owner. NOt only should SUV's have a special licence, but licences should be tougher to aquire. Here they practically give them away.

More idiots on the road. You are probably the type that doesn't use turn signals, crosses all the solid lines on the road and does 50mph on the left lane. What does that have to do with Communism you idiot? Is it communism because people are thrown in jail because they cant behave on the street? So why should people that don't know proper driving regulations be allowed to run around the road? Since the typical idiotic American way is, " i do as what I want, blah, blah, blah" It just shows how stupid you can be. Most people unless told what to do, don't have COMMON SENSE.

BTW, Communism in theory is supposed to be a Utopian way of life. Where we all share. What has been called Communism across the world, has not actually been communism, but instead dictatorships. So don't knock communism. If people could actually have common sense and not worry as much about themselves as they could about society. We would all live in a happier place. The problem is that everyone wants, what the others have.

I agree... living in society is about compromise. Comunism works very well in some places and situations. It's big drawback is that that it results in ineffecientcies, because like labor unions, managment loses the abiity to impose resonable penalties for poor work performance. Aside from that, it creates widespread control for the good of the people.

Our governement isn't a true democracy either. The will of the people is actually filtered through lobyists and whichever party is in power, their group of lobby decide what laws ot create. Now is a poor time ofr SUV restriction because the Big 3 are heavy contributors ot the Republicans. OTOH, drug price reduction and limitations of malpractice lawsuits will both fill the pockets of the insurance companies... did you listen to the State of the Union address. Remember - trial lawyers = Democrats; Insurance companies = Republicans.

As for the comment abotu motorcycles. Yes they require additional lisencing, but I pAssed that test 3 days after I bought my first bike, but I wasn't truely ready to hit the road. And bicyclists face the same problems. However, I drive and ride with a strong offense.

1) keep yourself out of bad situations by staying 1 step ahead of the problem. (don't get boxed in, follow the flow of traffic, merge AT the speed of traffic.. etc.)

2) Look for danger, yet be agressive in avoiding it. exmple - if you leave a big gap in front of you, someone will cut you off or pull out in front of you, close the gap so it's too smal for someone to do that yet big enough for safe reaction time. Look behind you when you slam on the brakes, but keep the car in front in you periphrial vision. Stop as slowly and smoothly as posible.

in summary, you have ot drive FOR the other person, predict what they are goign ot do and put yourself in a offensive, not defensive position avoid it. Defensive driveing as taught in diriving classes, often limits you modes of escape and makes you less visible.

On a motorcycle the #1 rule is to remain visible... make drivers notice you. Drive faster than the traffic around you, and never just cruise in the slow lane. Always be ready for a car to pull out in front of you. Your brakes are the LAST resort, not the first. Once you hit the brake, you've eliminated most of your abilityot manuver.

1) Predict

2) Avoid (accelerate if needed)

3) Brakes as a LAST resort

Hi Cherry128:

___In regards to motorcycles, I too have a DM license. The last time I was on a bike (a CBR600F w/ 5,500 miles) was when I was hit at an intersection by a 14 yr. old girl in her boyfriends parents car … She ran a red but it didn’t matter, the bike was totaled and I was extremely fortunate to have a HQ full face Arai helmet, full leathers, gloves, and boots. I hit the pavement after flying over the C-Pillar of the car quite a distance. A few days of rest and I was Ok but still bruised. I was simply lucky. Bikes have no chance whatsoever against a car no matter if it is the size of an Insight or the size of a Hummer. Dead is dead … You can drive as defensive as you want but that does not avoid the off-chance of an accident and the resulting injuries.

___Even after all that, I wouldn’t dare ask that bike riders be banned nor their choices limited or even more restrictions on their rights. On top of this, have you ever looked up the emissions of a 2-stroke motorcycle? Ouch …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.

___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

In australia, we live under 'more insane regulations and laws', and out road toll rate is 33% lower and violent crime rate is much, much lower than the states, armed robbery and murder is about 80% less. An example of an 'insane' law, once you are over 18 you are required to enroll as a voter, and if you are enrolled you MUST vote. Thus terror groups like the KKK have no effect. Another 'Insane' law is that since about 1973 front and back passengers must wear seat belts. i beleive there are some states that this isn't legal because you have the right to decide to wear a belt. I also understand australian drink drive laws are much more stringent.

Another example is our speed laws. Up until 1979 in a derestricted zone people could go as fast as they like. Thing is in Australia, the fatality rate peaked in 1978, thus a 100kmh limit was issued where there were derestricted zones.

Sometimes allowing people to do what they like is good, but if they can't do what they like in a safe manner then someone has to tell them what to do.