12 of 15 midsize cars fail new side-impact test (with a pickup or SUV)

USA Today ^ | 4/18/2004

[eggman]

...and the auto industry, under pressure, has agreed to design changes for pickups and SUVs that should make them less lethal in crashes with cars by 2008.

So, the evil SUVs and pickups must be modified because they are dangerous to innocent little cars.

The driver death rate in side crashes had declined 24% in 20 years, but the rate in front crashes has dropped more: 52%, IIHS says.

So, 20 years ago the evil SUVs and pickups must have been even more lethal, no?

They are building all vehicles safer than before but that is not good enough for the SUVs are evil crowd. There are a lot more SUVs and pickups on the road than there were 20 years ago yet fewer drivers are being killed in crashes. So, why do they need to be modified to make them less lethal?

[roadcat]

They are building all vehicles safer than before but that is not good enough for the SUVs are evil crowd.

Maybe they're building safer vehicles, but they're licensing more dangerous drivers.And the unlicensed ones (aka illegal immigrants) is an open question. Some may drive slow and safe to avoid getting checked, but others may be reckless because they can cut and run with nothing to lose.

[chainsaw]

This article is as objective as SUVs impacted by a semi-truck...

I would suspect that a side impact with any car going 30 miles per hour would result in a failed test.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes I know. It's true. These people can take out a few other cars or cause one of you guys to take out a dozen. I worry about both.

[TexasRepublic]

The Environazi's influence the government to mandate greater fuel efficiency. The auto manufacturers respond in part by cutting weight, producing a flimsier vehicle. The number of potential passenger deaths resulting from such engineering is certainly a variable of this cynical equation.