H**E
发帖数: 620 | 1 I am confused here... a few IDs on this board were saying SUV is safer
than Minivan. but that's not what I found. look at the article below:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/are-suvs-more-danger
Children are less likely to be killed or injured in a crash if they are
riding in a minivan than an S.U.V., according to new safety research.
In a study first published in the journal Injury Prevention, researchers
from the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan and the
Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia, looked at fatal and injury-producing crashes between 2000 and
2006, involving 1998 to 2007 model vehicles. The S.U.V.’s included classic
body-on-frame models, as well as crossovers, which use car-type construction.
When it came to crashes that caused injuries but not deaths, Dr. Dennis
Durbin of the Center for Injury Research and Prevention said children in
minivans were 35 percent less likely to be hurt than children in S.U.V.’s.
Dr. Durbin, who drives a minivan, isn’t sure what is behind that, but he
had a couple of theories. One was that the structure of the minivan may
absorb energy better than a body-on-frame S.U.V. The other was that there
seemed to be more room inside minivans, he said. “There is a lot of space
for them to move around in without hitting each other or some component of
the vehicle.”
Looking at fatal crashes, there was a 24 percent greater chance of a child
being killed in an S.U.V. than a minivan, the researchers found. Dr. Durbin
said the reason for that was clear: S.U.V.’s had more rollover crashes. The
study found that 66 percent of the S.U.V. fatalities involved a rollover,
compared with 37 percent for minivans.
When vehicles with such high centers of gravity are sliding sideways, they
are most vulnerable to being tripped by a curb or deep snow, causing them to
roll over. Electronic stability control features try to automatically
correct for a vehicle that is sliding. “If you could mitigate the rollover
you would mitigate a huge proportion of the fatality risk for the kids in
the S.U.V.,” Dr. Durbin said. “Once you account for the tendency of the
vehicle to roll over, the effect of the vehicle isn’t there anymore.”
There was one issue for which the researchers could not compensate: driver
behavior. Dr. Durbin hypothesizes that drivers of minivans are more cautious
. S.U.V. drivers, he said, may “tend to drive a little more aggressively.”
“They may adopt the risk compensation model,” he said. “They figure, ‘I
am in a tank — I can be a little more aggressive on the road,’ and the
fact is you can’t be.”
For parents, Dr. Durbin said the study’s message was that if they need an S
.U.V. instead of a minivan they should get one with electronic stability
control. It should also be one that has done well on the rollover-resistance
tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and
available here.
Dr. Durbin acknowledged that the researchers had a complex problem when they
compared the safety of the two vehicle types. The issue was, real-world
crashes are incredibly complicated and varied events.
Dr. Durbin said one thing was more important than the type of vehicle:
having the child in the proper kind of safety restraint. “That is a more
powerful protector of risk of injury or death than the type of vehicle you
drive.” |
l*******g
发帖数: 27064 | 2 底盘高的碰撞占优势
以前suv因为顶棚不够结实，翻车几率又大，所以被妖魔化了
自从iihs加测顶棚，各厂家用了最新的稳定系统以后，suv翻车几率大大减小，死亡率
降低更多
iihs 有研究结果，minivan只比compact suv好，连midsize suv都不如
minivan一死一车人的车祸例子不少
Note: Passenger versions of vans often referred to as minivans are
classified as cars.
Passenger vehicle occupant deaths by vehicle type, 1975-2010
and
classic
【在 H**E 的大作中提到】
: I am confused here... a few IDs on this board were saying SUV is safer
: than Minivan. but that's not what I found. look at the article below:
: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/are-suvs-more-danger
: Children are less likely to be killed or injured in a crash if they are
: riding in a minivan than an S.U.V., according to new safety research.
: In a study first published in the journal Injury Prevention, researchers
: from the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan and the
: Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children’s Hospital of
: Philadelphia, looked at fatal and injury-producing crashes between 2000 and
: 2006, involving 1998 to 2007 model vehicles. The S.U.V.’s included classic
|
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | 3 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/10/19/11447681-sun.html
It's a kind-of outdated study (just look at the publication date and the
model years in the investigation), when SUVs are highly subject to rolling
over.
Most of the folks here refer to ground clearance safety, where SUVs are
advantageous than minivans. Thus, SUVs are safer than minivans for small
accidents.
For bigger collisions, I think minivan should be equally safe given that
there's more room.
I don't think minivan has any structural advantage over SUVs' body-on-frame
design in terms of safety. A few years back, I saw the following article,
where a minivan was cut in half - this kind of structure is really not very
good. I personally never heard of a SUV got split into halves - please let
me know if there's any.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/10/19/11447681-sun.html
and
classic
【在 H**E 的大作中提到】
: I am confused here... a few IDs on this board were saying SUV is safer
: than Minivan. but that's not what I found. look at the article below:
: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/are-suvs-more-danger
: Children are less likely to be killed or injured in a crash if they are
: riding in a minivan than an S.U.V., according to new safety research.
: In a study first published in the journal Injury Prevention, researchers
: from the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan and the
: Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children’s Hospital of
: Philadelphia, looked at fatal and injury-producing crashes between 2000 and
: 2006, involving 1998 to 2007 model vehicles. The S.U.V.’s included classic
|
N********n
发帖数: 13236 | |
i****x
发帖数: 17565 | 5 帮你贴点婊子数据
http://iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf
【在 l*******g 的大作中提到】
: 底盘高的碰撞占优势
: 以前suv因为顶棚不够结实，翻车几率又大，所以被妖魔化了
: 自从iihs加测顶棚，各厂家用了最新的稳定系统以后，suv翻车几率大大减小，死亡率
: 降低更多
: iihs 有研究结果，minivan只比compact suv好，连midsize suv都不如
: minivan一死一车人的车祸例子不少
: Note: Passenger versions of vans often referred to as minivans are
: classified as cars.
: Passenger vehicle occupant deaths by vehicle type, 1975-2010
:
|
B*Z
发帖数: 7062 | 6 你不是说死亡率统计没有用么？死亡率只和开车的人脾气有关。所以Sienna死亡率比Gr
and Charokee 低，所以Grand Cherokee死亡率比Grand Caravan低。这个逻辑我到现在
还没有搞明白。
【在 l*******g 的大作中提到】
: 底盘高的碰撞占优势
: 以前suv因为顶棚不够结实，翻车几率又大，所以被妖魔化了
: 自从iihs加测顶棚，各厂家用了最新的稳定系统以后，suv翻车几率大大减小，死亡率
: 降低更多
: iihs 有研究结果，minivan只比compact suv好，连midsize suv都不如
: minivan一死一车人的车祸例子不少
: Note: Passenger versions of vans often referred to as minivans are
: classified as cars.
: Passenger vehicle occupant deaths by vehicle type, 1975-2010
:
|
l*******g
发帖数: 27064 | 7 死亡率当然有用，但是只统计1年或者2、3年，司机的死亡率那绝对是屁用没有
我给的死亡率是长时间大范围数据，不光是司机
Gr
【在 B*Z 的大作中提到】
: 你不是说死亡率统计没有用么？死亡率只和开车的人脾气有关。所以Sienna死亡率比Gr
: and Charokee 低，所以Grand Cherokee死亡率比Grand Caravan低。这个逻辑我到现在
: 还没有搞明白。
|
B*Z
发帖数: 7062 | 8 你这里面根本就没有Minivan数据，哪里来的结论。你意思minivan和yaris一样安全么？
【在 l*******g 的大作中提到】
: 底盘高的碰撞占优势
: 以前suv因为顶棚不够结实，翻车几率又大，所以被妖魔化了
: 自从iihs加测顶棚，各厂家用了最新的稳定系统以后，suv翻车几率大大减小，死亡率
: 降低更多
: iihs 有研究结果，minivan只比compact suv好，连midsize suv都不如
: minivan一死一车人的车祸例子不少
: Note: Passenger versions of vans often referred to as minivans are
: classified as cars.
: Passenger vehicle occupant deaths by vehicle type, 1975-2010
:
|
P*C
发帖数: 6109 | 9 选suv不选minivan的有几个是因为安全因素的 外观是主因吧 |
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | |
|
|
P*C
发帖数: 6109 | |
l*******g
发帖数: 27064 | 12 minivan算在very large sedan里面
么？
【在 B*Z 的大作中提到】
: 你这里面根本就没有Minivan数据，哪里来的结论。你意思minivan和yaris一样安全么？
|
f*********r
发帖数: 7485 | 13 你說這種高速的車身中間的衝擊，如果換成SUV會好些嗎？
純討論
我覺得也夠嗆 這個衝擊太變態了
【在 P*C 的大作中提到】
:
: 太狠了，不过你要小心开minivan的弟兄开骂阿
|
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | 14 What's wrong with you? It's an isolated event that actually happened and
documented.
There's nothing involving with anybody's feelings or personal opinions. It's
just a factual matter. What the hell is wrong with you?
I just hate this kind of activity by people with some kind of 3rd-party tone
to promote conflict in this board. If there's similar things happened to a
SUV, I'd like to hear that too - just collecting different sides of the
story.
【在 P*C 的大作中提到】
:
: 太狠了，不过你要小心开minivan的弟兄开骂阿
|
P*C
发帖数: 6109 | 15
不懂 不敢乱说
【在 f*********r 的大作中提到】
: 你說這種高速的車身中間的衝擊，如果換成SUV會好些嗎？
: 純討論
: 我覺得也夠嗆 這個衝擊太變態了
|
P*C
发帖数: 6109 | 16
's
tone
a
你脑子不好吗，首先你从哪看到我要挑起矛盾了，让你小心就是挑起矛盾?
另外你自己发个minivan被撞两节的帖子 哪个是挑起矛盾
【在 h**********r 的大作中提到】
: What's wrong with you? It's an isolated event that actually happened and
: documented.
: There's nothing involving with anybody's feelings or personal opinions. It's
: just a factual matter. What the hell is wrong with you?
: I just hate this kind of activity by people with some kind of 3rd-party tone
: to promote conflict in this board. If there's similar things happened to a
: SUV, I'd like to hear that too - just collecting different sides of the
: story.
|
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | 17 You don't know what you're talking about.
【在 P*C 的大作中提到】
:
: 's
: tone
: a
: 你脑子不好吗，首先你从哪看到我要挑起矛盾了，让你小心就是挑起矛盾?
: 另外你自己发个minivan被撞两节的帖子 哪个是挑起矛盾
|
m********s
发帖数: 55301 | 18 一辆以55迈速度行驶的卡罗拉，撞击停止的车的驾驶员正门，哪些车可以使坐在被撞击
车里的驾驶员不受很大的伤害？
家美丽？
怕塞特？
西耶纳？
T&C？
mini?
F150？
途锐？
MDX？
GL550？
阿可低压？
18轮？
消防车？
【在 f*********r 的大作中提到】
: 你說這種高速的車身中間的衝擊，如果換成SUV會好些嗎？
: 純討論
: 我覺得也夠嗆 這個衝擊太變態了
|
P*C
发帖数: 6109 | 19
你懂 行了吧 我服了你了 大哥
【在 h**********r 的大作中提到】
: You don't know what you're talking about.
|
m********s
发帖数: 55301 | 20 怎么没人回答这个这么有意义的问题？
【在 m********s 的大作中提到】
: 一辆以55迈速度行驶的卡罗拉，撞击停止的车的驾驶员正门，哪些车可以使坐在被撞击
: 车里的驾驶员不受很大的伤害？
: 家美丽？
: 怕塞特？
: 西耶纳？
: T&C？
: mini?
: F150？
: 途锐？
: MDX？
|
|
|
c*********l
发帖数: 2893 | 21 这是轮椅传奇版，不让你坐上轮椅就白混了.
and
classic
【在 H**E 的大作中提到】
: I am confused here... a few IDs on this board were saying SUV is safer
: than Minivan. but that's not what I found. look at the article below:
: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/are-suvs-more-danger
: Children are less likely to be killed or injured in a crash if they are
: riding in a minivan than an S.U.V., according to new safety research.
: In a study first published in the journal Injury Prevention, researchers
: from the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan and the
: Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children’s Hospital of
: Philadelphia, looked at fatal and injury-producing crashes between 2000 and
: 2006, involving 1998 to 2007 model vehicles. The S.U.V.’s included classic
|
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | 22 /sign.
What I meant was that it's easy to stir a hectic discussion in this board.
So I've developed high sensitivity to some comment (even not intended) that
may result in personal attacks...
well, on the other hand, it's also kind of fun. It's not kind of fun to
debate based on subjective matters, but no fun at all discussing over facts.
:-)
【在 P*C 的大作中提到】
:
: 你懂 行了吧 我服了你了 大哥
|
e******g
发帖数: 5344 | 23 哥，你这么多语法错误为神马不用中文呢？
that
facts.
【在 h**********r 的大作中提到】
: /sign.
: What I meant was that it's easy to stir a hectic discussion in this board.
: So I've developed high sensitivity to some comment (even not intended) that
: may result in personal attacks...
: well, on the other hand, it's also kind of fun. It's not kind of fun to
: debate based on subjective matters, but no fun at all discussing over facts.
: :-)
|
P*C
发帖数: 6109 | 24
that
facts.
你敏不敏感不管我事 没事别朝别人喷 显素质
【在 h**********r 的大作中提到】
: /sign.
: What I meant was that it's easy to stir a hectic discussion in this board.
: So I've developed high sensitivity to some comment (even not intended) that
: may result in personal attacks...
: well, on the other hand, it's also kind of fun. It's not kind of fun to
: debate based on subjective matters, but no fun at all discussing over facts.
: :-)
|
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | 25 Since your response is inappropriate and I just point it out to you.
It is different to decry you.
【在 P*C 的大作中提到】
:
: that
: facts.
: 你敏不敏感不管我事 没事别朝别人喷 显素质
|
H*****u
发帖数: 1766 | 26 拿某个车祸来得出的结论都不值一提，正式研究要做严格细致的统计，即便如此作者也
经常对自己的结论有所保留。不过这个车祸如果换成同年份的SUV，被宝马侧撞可能会
有更好的结果。虽然IIHS侧撞实验撞击能量相同，可以跨类比较，也就是某个侧撞Good
的Car比某个侧撞Poor的SUV更能承受侧撞，前提是实际车祸的受力面与IIHS小车侧撞时
受力面一致，包括撞击高度和前后位置，尤其是撞击高度。但同时有另外一个关键问题
，IIHS侧撞小车是刚性的，被撞车吸收绝大部分能量；而被宝马5系侧撞时，宝马5系会
吸收部分能量，具体有多少能量分配到被撞车上，会影响到实际受损，而被撞车底盘高
度和侧面吸能区位置会影响到能量分配。
实际车祸中SUV/Pickup和Car/Minivan相撞时，因为前者energy absorption zone更高
，导致撞击能量/损失主要有后者承担，而SUV/Pickup就成了占便宜的一方。BOF SUV吸
能区更高，有些人所说的Body On Frame SUV更结实，根据就在这里，这些人认为BOF底
盘更高，Frame更结实；但实际统计结果恰恰相反，BOF明显不如同年份的Unibody SUV
安全，前面我贴过统计数字和解释。Unibody是SUV的发展方向，如果N年前car经历过的
一样。
大概2003年左右，汽车商专门搞过协议，自愿降低SUV/Pickup的energy absorption
zone高度，我记得要求他们的吸能区至少50%要与Car/Minivan的吸能区重合。实际上
SUV做了很多改进（尤其是Unibody SUV），Pickup改进很少，统计证明这个自愿协议只
有一定的帮助。除非政府机构搞强制标准，否则SUV/Pickup占便宜的现象还会继续存在。
所以要拿出最重要的结论的话，被动安全方面，最近几年生产的SUV/Pickup比Car/
Minivan更安全，这个不是主观说法，是客观事实证明的结论。
PCC说的很好，“不懂 不敢乱说”。乱说也没啥，娱乐版没多少认真的；但真要想搞清
楚的话，就多google看看，大部分人都是业余爱好，没人总是对的，我个人的看法也在
改变。
虽然SUV被动安全性更好，但实际的死亡率数字与Minivan相当，说明安全意识和驾驶习
惯对实际死亡率有非常大的影响。同样一个人坐在full size SUV/pickup座椅上可能会
感觉自己是刀枪不入的超人，坐在Minivan上可能总担心别的车撞了自家老小。对穷人
来说，考虑到SUV巨大的利润和较小的空间，还是Minivan更实惠，SUV平均利润大概在
5000到10000刀之间。
【在 f*********r 的大作中提到】
: 你說這種高速的車身中間的衝擊，如果換成SUV會好些嗎？
: 純討論
: 我覺得也夠嗆 這個衝擊太變態了
|
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | 27 Study your English first. And I'll try to do better.
More importantly, focus on the subject pls.
【在 e******g 的大作中提到】
: 哥，你这么多语法错误为神马不用中文呢？
:
: that
: facts.
|
