Esuvee Safety Commercial

[RakuraiTenjin]

I thought it was pretty funny. Big buffalo type mangy dog thing representing that you need to know how to handle it.

Effective commercial.

http://www.esuvee.com Click view the ad.

 

[johnmedz]

I thought it was pretty funny. Big buffalo type mangy dog thing representing that you need to know how to handle it.

Effective commercial.

http://www.esuvee.com Click view the ad.

wow, i never realized it was for SUV safety. I just never took the time to visit the webpage :dozey: i always really liked the commercial for the graphics mainly. it was pretty funny when it debuted during the super bowl.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I was going to link to this site because the graphics are pretty neat

 

[johnmedz]

ya, also the message is really important.
a freind of mine got hit by an SUV last week and he was in a miata. the truck nailed him at 45 mph. It hit on the passenger side and he didnt have a seat belt on. He still lived but if it hit him on the other side, he wouldve died.
I read a study that if you are hit on the driver side by an SUV at 45 mph and you dont have side airbags and your not in a giant SUV yourself, your are 100% guarunteed to be killed.
A car is a weapon as much as a gun is and is probably more deadly.

I think this sight could teach people a lot!
so visit it already

 

[OCybrManO]

Honestly, it's just another CYA (and I don't mean "Chantilly Youth Association") campaign to keep SUV makers in the clear from legal action and tighter government regulation. When you tell your buyers the product's potential dangers are you at fault if they still buy them and misuse them? The government could have instead stepped in and said things need to be done about it... but they didn't... because they don't actually want a change. They would lose funding from SUV manufacturers because SUVs have a higher profit margin than a lot of vehicles and they are popular.

You know those Truth "anti-smoking" ads? They get funding from the tobacco industry. Isn't that strange? They are funding ads that say bad things about their products and the tobacco industry as a whole... but why? It's another CYA policy. The tobacco industry was getting a lot of lawsuits and public/political attention. Tobacco could have been made illegal. Instead of telling the tobacco industry that they couldn't make cigarettes anymore they just said their customers couldn't smoke in certain places. Let's see... there is a bad product that is legal and kills lots of people every year... if you are the government what do you do about it? By looking at history I have concluded that the proper course of action is to blame the consumers and let the companies keep making it.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Honestly, it's just another CYA (and I don't mean "Chantilly Youth Association") campaign to keep SUV makers in the clear from legal action and tighter government regulation. When you tell your buyers the product's potential dangers are you at fault if they still buy them and misuse them? The government could have instead stepped in and said things need to be done about it... but they didn't... because they don't actually want a change.

You know those Truth "anti-smoking" ads? They get funding from the tobacco industry. Isn't that strange? They are funding ads that say bad things about their products and the tobacco industry as a whole... but why? It's another CYA policy. The tobacco industry was getting a lot of lawsuits and public/political attention. Tobacco could have been made illegal. Instead of telling the tobacco industry that they couldn't make cigarettes anymore they just said their customers couldn't smoke in certain places. Let's see... there is a bad product that is legal and kills lots of people every year... if you are the government what do you do about it? By looking at history I have concluded that the proper course of action is to blame the consumers and let the companies keep making it.

If anyone would be in trouble for rollovers, it'd be the tire companies, and that's only a tiny part of the thing listed on this site.

Aside from tire problems (which with the Firestone incident they were massively recalled, etc, and taken care of) the roll overs are in large majority the fault of the driver.

 

[johnmedz]

They would lose funding from SUV manufacturers because SUVs have a higher profit margin than a lot of vehicles and they are popular.

I think i will kill myself if i see another "W the president" stickers on the back of an SUV. those are the type of people destroying the environment. let me give an example of something i see all the time, SUV missuse.

i see one person in an SUV driving about 30 miles to and from work each day at 9-12 mpg. Thats 23.33 gallons a week for work alone, at around the national average, about $1.85, thats $43.17 a week for work alone

now take an SUV that has say 5 people carpooling to work together. They have to drive a little bit further to pick everybody up so well say they go 50 miles to and from work each day. Thats 35 gallons a week for work at $64.75 split five ways. each person only spends 12.95 a week to go to work this way instead of all of them taking their SUVs individually, each spending $43.17. It really adds up too.

just keep this in mind before u buy one or before you talk to someone who drives one. :E

 

[OCybrManO]

There are several design flaws with SUVs that aren't caused by bad tires. In fact, in some cases, good tires (ones that keep traction very well) can actually help you roll your car in a sharp turn by having a stronger force on the tires in the opposite direction of the way the top of the car is moving... whereas if you had lost traction the SUV might spin rather than roll. The Firestone problem was with tire failure (breaking) and would cause problems in all types of vehicles.

* They have poor gas mileage (meaning they also put out more pollution). With the amount of stuff most people haul around in their SUVs (usually not even enough to fill a normal car's trunk and not enough people to fill a normal car's seats) it would actually be cheaper to buy a car for everyday use and rent another vehicle if you need to move something that it can't hold.

* When you are about to get in an accident you can't make sudden, sharp movements to avoid the other driver. You have a choice. You either ram into the other vehicle or you risk rolling over due to your vehicle's high center of gravity. Which brings me to the next point...

* A lot of people claim they buy SUVs for the safety of their family. This shows the common "I'm more important than you" mentality many Americans have. If they are involved in an accident with a car they are much more likely to kill the people in the car than if the car were to hit another car... and since they are less manueverable they are more likely to hit the car in the first place. Their response when asked about this? It's often something like "They should be driving an SUV too." Well, what will you buy for safety if everyone already has SUVs? A tank?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

There are several design flaws with SUVs that aren't caused by bad tires.

* They have poor gas mileage (meaning they also put out more pollution). With the amount of stuff most people haul around in their SUVs (usually not even enough to fill a normal car's trunk and not enough people to fill a normal car's seats) it would actually be cheaper to buy a car for everyday use and rent another vehicle if you need to move something that it can't hold.

That has nothing to do with this website and any fear of prosecution for a non-existant crime, though. People spending their own money is their own business. If they can't afford it they won't buy it (or won't be allowed to, generally assuming the credit of a type of person who buys things they can't afford)

* When you are about to get in an accident you can't make sudden, sharp movements to avoid the other driver. You have a choice. You either ram into the other vehicle or you risk rolling over due to your vehicle's high center of gravity. Which brings me to the next point...

Avoiding situations like these are the responsibility of the driver. I'd rather hit another car at a moderate (not really high) speed than roll over.

* A lot of people claim they buy SUVs for the safety of their family. This shows the common "I'm more important than you" mentality many Americans have. If they are involved in an accident with a car they are much more likely to kill the people in the car than if the car were to hit another car... and since they are less manueverable they are more likely to hit the car in the first place. Their response when asked about this? It's often something like "They should be driving an SUV too." Well, what will you buy for safety if everyone already has SUVs? A tank?

I would rather hit another car than roll over, like I said. I am going to make a priority decision of my children's safety above all else. Most situations with car on car collisions besides T-boning, in which if you are T-Boned, you'd better hope you ARE in an SUV or something bigger, and rear ending, which if it's going to happen it would in a car anyhow. If you follow the speed limit the damage to you would be minimal and to the car who stopped in front of you minimized.


/Edit: The SUV Gas Guzzler stereotype is a bit outdated, too. Many of the older SUV's were, but today they are starting to match with cars. I drive a Chevy Trailblazer, Gas mileage: 15-20 miles a gallon, varying with driving conditions

 

[CREMATOR666]

Very nice webpage, but I am too distracted by the buffalo to actually understand what they are trying to say

 

[OCybrManO]

That has nothing to do with this website and any fear of prosecution for a non-existant crime, though. People spending their own money is their own business. If they can't afford it they won't buy it (or won't be allowed to, generally assuming the credit of a type of person who buys things they can't afford)

It pertains to pollution (and dependence on oil, specifically from foreign suppliers), which is an aspect of vehicles that should be more tightly regulated.

Avoiding situations like these are the responsibility of the driver.

By driving an SUV you are less likely to be able to escape a dangerous traffic condition without harm (to yourself, your property, or both) because they are not as manueverable. If both drivers are equally skilled the driver in the car is less likely to get in an accident if they both follow the rules. SUVs cause more trouble for other people even in the hands of equally-skilled drivers.

I would rather hit another car than roll over, like I said. I am going to make a priority decision of my children's safety above all else. Most situations with car on car collisions besides T-boning, in which if you are T-Boned, you'd better hope you ARE in an SUV or something bigger, and rear ending, which if it's going to happen it would in a car anyhow. If you follow the speed limit the damage to you would be minimal and to the car who stopped in front of you minimized.

Again, should I suffer because SUV drivers couldn't avoid an accident? Should I be killed for their safety? Also, cars are less likely to rear end another vehicle because they have shorter braking distances... so, no, "it's going to happen it would in a car anyhow" isn't necessarily true. The higher bumper on an SUV also bypasses the bumper (designed better to take the impact) of the car and hits the parts more prone to structural damage. I know this from experience. My mother rear ended someone in her SUV and got a barely visible scratch on her bumper while it left a huge dent in the trunk of the car. Car safety was fine (under the speed limit) after the inventions of crumple zones, air bags, etc... then along comes a wave of bigger, heavier vehicles. There's only so much energy that those safety devices can absorb.

Edit: The SUV Gas Guzzler stereotype is a bit outdated, too. Many of the older SUV's were, but today they are starting to match with cars. I drive a Chevy Trailblazer, Gas mileage: 15-20 miles a gallon, varying with driving conditions

The heavier vehicle using the same technology will always get worse gas mileage. It's physics. Can they get upwards of 40 mpg like some of the newer cars? Hybrid SUVs are on par with (maybe a bit better than) normal cars... but they are not comparable to hybrid cars (I've seen one able to get over 80 mpg).

 

[Razor]

Honestly, it's just another CYA (and I don't mean "Chantilly Youth Association") campaign to keep SUV makers in the clear from legal action and tighter government regulation. When you tell your buyers the product's potential dangers are you at fault if they still buy them and misuse them? The government could have instead stepped in and said things need to be done about it... but they didn't... because they don't actually want a change. They would lose funding from SUV manufacturers because SUVs have a higher profit margin than a lot of vehicles and they are popular.

You know those Truth "anti-smoking" ads? They get funding from the tobacco industry. Isn't that strange? They are funding ads that say bad things about their products and the tobacco industry as a whole... but why? It's another CYA policy. The tobacco industry was getting a lot of lawsuits and public/political attention. Tobacco could have been made illegal. Instead of telling the tobacco industry that they couldn't make cigarettes anymore they just said their customers couldn't smoke in certain places. Let's see... there is a bad product that is legal and kills lots of people every year... if you are the government what do you do about it? By looking at history I have concluded that the proper course of action is to blame the consumers and let the companies keep making it.

It isn't the SUV manufacturers fault if they do everything in their power to make their suvs safe but some maniac who drinks and goes as fast as he/she can down the motorway and then tries to turn like a rally car.

 

[Crushenator 500]

That SUV/ buffalo is pretty cool, but I think that I prefer that forklift truck safety video to this