SUV Rollover Ratings Improve

Not only are there more new SUVs on the market, but more of them are receiving four-star rollover ratings than ever before. Of the 145 2007 SUVs tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 78  earned a four-star rating, compared to just 48 of the 103 tested from the 2006 model year.

The leap in safer SUVs is tied directly to the addition of standard electronic stability control — 86% of 2007 SUVs have it, compared to 43% in 2005. The system automatically applies brakes to each wheel when the car loses control while skidding or in other avoidance maneuvers.

Rollover accidents account for just 3% of all accidents but result in 33% of all traffic fatalities. The government has mandated that stability control be standard on all vehicles by 2012.

SUVs Show Improvements in Rollover Ratings (USA Today)

Comments

I'd put money on the fact that this comment board will turn into an argument about how SUV's are still dangerous and how people should all drive small 4 cly boxes.

Kyle -

don't forget that 4 cyl boxes get better gas mileage...

Here we go.

This theard should be about SUV's and safty not gas miliage.

Do you hate the planet Kyle C?

Yes I absolutly hate the planet and everything on it. (sarcasm).

Its not that I hate the planet. I hate the people on this board who take every chance they can to complain about SUV's. Stick to the topic on the article. Debate that.

This article is about SUV's and roll over not the environment, not gas miliage, and not about liberals who have to make a stand on a soapbox every chance they get about the environment.

If you want to have a rant fest about the environment and SUV's ruining it, post an article about it. But untill you do so, stay on topic.

Kyle You brought up the subject about 4 cyl boxes! I think you hate the planet.

Kyle - having a bad day?

I was totally joking. Sorry it didn't come out right. I'm testing a ML550 this week. Been getting High teens in congested traffic with air blowing. Not a bad ride.

Just kidding too - and I've never driven a Mercedes.

Not having a bad day.

I'm just sick of the propoganda campain against SUV's. "They fund Terrorism, People that own them hate the environment, they are destorying our world!"

When I had a suburban with a 39 gallon tank I got around 16 mpg. Meaning I got around 624 to the tank, While I was paying more to fill up my tank, I was still going just as far as most small cars. On top of that I was towing a boat around. The Prius has a 10 gallon tank and goes just about as far but it can't tow a boat.

Why I am so passionate about this is because this hatred for suv's soon won't just be against SUV's. Next it will be all large gas guzzling cars. (ex. Dodge Charger with a Hemi). The Mustang GT will visit the gas station more times then a suburban will in a month if they equally drove the same amount of miles because the Mustang GT has a smaller tank. Hence sipping more gas. Eventually the 4 cly defenders would want all cars like these off the road. You can't say SUV's are all bad when their are some cars out there that are just as bad if not worse.

This country has freedom of expression. in other words if people choose to buy an SUV then that is their own preogative. If your argument is to stop all production of SUV's and trucks (and eventually sport and large cars) you are blocking that freedom. The only way to do that is to take democracy out of this country. You would have to stop people from having luxeries and force them to live in your own perfect way. What is right for you and your beliefs is not always right for everyone else.

If SUV owners want to own their SUV let them. They are already paying more to fill up their tank. They are already paying for living that lifestyle.

In this country we have a freedom to choose what we want to do. If people choose to own SUV's thats on them.

If the 4 cly defenders want to change the world how about make it harder for people to own SUV's so that there are not so many on the road instead of out right banning them.

Kyle C:

You really need to go back to school...like University. Hopefully, you're "smart" enough to do so.

(1) You can't do Math (any educated person can tell why your example on SUV gas tank vs small car gas tank on total mileage is...just unbelievably wrong!)
(2) You have NO understanding of "freedom" and "rights." I've said it many times why your statement is not applicable in the case of SUV and emission pollution, and won't said it again. You just are too stubborn to accept the truth!
(3) "I'm sick of this and that"...yup...that's just explain your stubborness.
(4) No wonder you were gonna bet on going off-topic. You started going off-topic on the 1st post, did it on a 2nd post, and still doing it on your last post. Not once have you post anything that talks 'bou the topic!

You are, however, a great example of why education is important.

Now back to topic here. Sure the rollover stat is better, and that's a good thing. However, I wonder how what its effect is in the real world, since many of the SUVs and Trucks out there are used ones or several years old, and aren't equipped with those anti-rollover safety options. Also, there are still many cases when people don't buy them even when they are available on new vehicles (when the option isn't std). Furthermore, there's a much easier way to prevent R.O. - buy a car/wagon/minivan.

Thus, with the anti-rollover safety option not being compulsory before 2012, I can see that this is still a major problem for SUVs...and the fatality rate is unlikely to drop significantly before then.

Yay! 1st post being On Topic.

Good job

Good job

i hate SUV drivers who pretend they need the roominess and drive by themselves to/from work etc almost everyday. at least Mustang GT drivers don't make excuses.

funny how USA Today first writes an article about "deadly" small cars and now how great SUVs are.

i hate SUVs.

HAHAHAHA

Let's use this logic then. US soldiers are giving up their lives in Iraq to protect our freedoms. They say it's to fight terrorism but it's actually over oil. Oil we have to protect because people in the US get 16 mpg. So they are dying in Iraq so the affluant in can drive what they want and get 16 mpg. Enjoy the boat!

3% of all accidents but 33% of fatatlities ...

i can't imagine what kind of media coverage and general anger a hospital would get if only 3% of a city's population was treated there but 33% of deaths occurred there? how can people put up with these death traps?

would you go to hospitals anymore if only 78 out of 145 hospitals tested had good enough ratings to ear 4 stars, while the rest (almost HALF!) put you at risk of an event that would account for 33% of deaths?

Dave T.-
I saw the picture at the top of this article, and all I have to say is, "Stop photographing me when I'm trying to drive!"

Besides, to quote Kyle, "This country has freedom of expression". I'm so sick of these darn government left wing, libtard, feminazi communists telling me I have to have antirollover spyware in my vehicle. Maybe I want to flip over. Maybe that's just how I role. It's not your place to tell me what my vehicle should be like. My impact on your safety and health is unimportant. What IS important, is that I look cool while flipping down the road. Try to do THAT in a 4 cylinder econobox!

uh, many carmakers make an "Off" button for moments when individuals may feel the need to drift, have a little fun, or just roll over like a dog.

making stability control mandatory allows a few individuals incapable of controlling their top-heavy SUVs (or unwilling to roll so readily) a better chance to live a bit longer.

brave right-wing souls may wish to go one step beyond opposing mandating stability control -- why don't we get rid of the seatbelt requirement too? perhaps getting ejected and diving onto dirt or concrete looks quite cool too. i mean, at least they don't require stability control to remain on at all times like many states require seat belts.

and if one can't flip a 4 cylinder econobox, that person won't be skilled enough to make a cool-looking flip ...