A big vehicle feels safe. It does. When I’m in a giant landwagon it’s as if nothing could stop me. That’s not exactly how physics works. In my head, it’s a simple equation: force = mass x acceleration and the more mass the more force. You’d think that’s a good thing if you’re behind the wheel careening towards a solid barrier.
A new test from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety shows that intuition that bigger is better might be unhelpful in crashes with heavy solid objects. The independent testing body looked at two popular full-sized SUVs, the Chevy Tahoe and Ford Expedition, and also the Jeep Wagoneer. It looks like we found the one thing the Jeep Wagoneer is better at than the Tahoe and Expedition.
Switching topics, for all of our talk about PHEVs being great, they are a bit of a political football at the moment, especially because the revised EPA regulations are a bit tilted toward them. And while we’re on the top of regulations, it sounds like EU regs on Chinese cars will come soon.
What’s not coming soon? Congestion pricing in New York. Oh boy, am I going to touch that landmine in today’s Morning Dump? Yes, yes I am. I’m a wild man.
The Most Popular Big SUVs Didn’t Do So Well On New Crash Tests
The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety is not a government agency, and it has a specific agenda, which is to encourage automakers to build safer cars (thus saving lives and insurance companies money). Its tests are hard and are increasingly getting harder.
This is a net good thing. It does add some costs to vehicles, but I was with David talking to an employee of an automaker about a specific engineering decision that was made and he admitted it was to pass an IIHS test (and to be safer, which is a given). So these tests are a big deal.
It’s not like the tests are impossible. Since 2021, about 90% of new models have “sailed through this evaluation with good ratings” according to the IIHS. Welp, 90% of the big, truck-based full-sized SUVs didn’t quite sail through.
Credit Jeep, as the Wagoneer may not be the best-selling truck in the Canyonero class, but it is the only one to get a Top Safety Pick award, earning Good marks on most tests. The IIHS shows both the original moderate overlap test and the new, revised test, which includes a new focus on 2nd-row passengers and chest impacts. The Wagoneer did Good on the original test and got a Moderate score on the revised test.
The Tahoe and Expedition were more of a mixed bag:
In the driver-side test, the acceptable-rated Tahoe maintained adequate survival space for the driver, and the airbags and restraints worked well. However, there was enough intrusion into the footwell that injury measures taken from the driver dummy showed a substantial risk of lower leg injuries. Performance was worse in the passenger-side test. Extensive intrusion into the footwell contributed to a high risk of injury to the right foot and moderate risk of injury to the left leg of the passenger.
The structure of the marginal-rated Expedition did not hold up in the tests of either side. In the driver-side test, the steering column partially detached from the instrument panel, and in both tests the A-pillar separated from the rocker panel. Excessive intrusion into the footwell contributed to a high risk of injury to the driver’s right leg and moderate risk to the left. Footwell intrusion was also seen in the passenger-side test to a lesser extent.
As opposed to unibody vehicles that are expected to perform lighter-duty jobs, all of these vehicles are based on their automakers’ respective traditional ladder-frame truck chassis. While these big SUVs probably spend most of their lives ferrying around people, they also need to be able to tow a boat or perform other truck-like jobs, which adds weight.
“These discouraging results show that some popular vehicles still lag behind in meeting the most advanced safety standards,” said Raul Arbelaez, vice president of the Institute’s Vehicle Research Center. “The good news is that the top performer in this class proves that automakers can readily address these problems.”
In spite of this performance, all of these trucks are way safer than the ones that came before them, featuring advanced driver aids and a million airbags.
[Editor’s Note: I’d like to address one thing: Even though some of these large vehicles didn’t do amazingly in IIHS testing, it only demonstrates that large vehicles aren’t necessarily safer in crashes with barriers; in crashes with smaller vehicles, the bigger ones tend to be safer. I’ll let the IIHS explain:
Larger vehicles have a longer distance from the front of the vehicle to the occupant compartment. The longer that distance, the more the frame of the vehicle can be crushed before it crushes the people inside. Long front ends only provide more protection in frontal crashes, but these crashes account for more than half of passenger vehicle occupant deaths.
Weight is important when two vehicles collide. The heavier vehicle will push the lighter one backward during the impact. That puts less force on the people inside the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle.
IIHS demonstrated the role of size and weight in a series of crash tests in 2019, pairing a midsize SUV and small car made by Kia and a large car and minicar made by Toyota in collisions with each other. Both smaller vehicles, the 2018 Kia Forte and 2018 Toyota Yaris iA, had good ratings in the five IIHS tests relevant to driver protection, but they performed poorly in collisions with the larger vehicles.
It’s also worth noting that these tests just keep getting harder and harder, so just because a car today doesn’t get a Top Safety Pick, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have, say, five or ten years ago. The average car on the road is about 12-13 years, so a car without a Top Safety Pick in 2024 could still be safer than most vehicles. -DT].
A Ford spokesperson also told us that:
Expedition is carefully designed to provide excellent protection for its own occupants and protection of occupants in other vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents, which were not replicated by the IIHS small overlap rigid barrier test. Designing SUVs in Expedition’s weight category to perform better in the small overlap rigid barrier test could potentially increase injury to occupants in lighter-weight vehicles involved in a crash
This is the challenge of designing for various tests, and Ford points out that the Expedition is the only truck in the class to get a five-star overall rating from NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program.
The Plug-In Loophole
I think I’ve made it clear I am excited about the Ram Ramcharger, which is the kind of range-extended plug-in hybrid I think America needs more of these days. We are a pro-PHEV site, and regularly counter the anti-PHEV crowd.
All that being said, the current crop of PHEVs is a little bit of a mixed bag. How many people really are plugging in Wrangler 4xe PHEVs?
Initially, the revised EPA regulations were going to readjust its estimate for total pollution based on the expectation that PHEVs weren’t constantly being charged up. That didn’t happen, and so there are questions of how much of a loophole this has become.
The EPA’s outdated plug-in-hybrid formula gives automakers outsized credit for pollution reductions because it assumes drivers charge daily and rarely burn gas.
“Unfortunately, none of those things appear to be true in the real world,” said Aaron Isenstadt, a senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation. The EPA formula gives Stellantis a reduction of about 40% in estimated pollution for a plug-in Wrangler, compared to its emissions while using gasoline. The allowance is based on its electric-only range.
A Reuters review of online Jeep forums found some owners touting the 4xe’s efficiency but others saying they don’t regularly charge it because they bought it for other reasons. One Reddit user this year reported charging twice a week and driving longer than the electric range daily: “Really it’s the torque and speed I love my 4xe for.”
Here is the problem: “One Reddit user” is not a great measure of what owners really do. Because charging mostly happens in private, at home, it’s harder to track. I think before anyone declares PHEVs a failure we need to see more data. [Ed Note: And also, 100% of users don’t have to plug in for it to make a difference. Remember, if half of 4Xe users drive electric each day instead of guzzling 20 MPG, that’s a huge win. Even a third is a win. PHEVs as a concept are good; it’s not refutable, as I make clear here. -DT].
A Decision On European Tariffs Is ‘Imminent’
A grand bargain on Chinese electric cars might be coming in Europe, and I’m anxious to see what ends up happening. Will the Germans strong-arm the European Union into allowing more Chinese EVs to be sold domestically so it can sell more 5-series sedans in Shanghai? Will the French revolt, cognac sales be damned?
The wait isn’t going to be much longer according to Mercedes-Benz CEO Ola Kaellenius.
“A decision is imminent,” the German luxury carmaker’s chief executive told the CAR Symposium 2024.
The decision was initially due this week but was postponed until after next week’s election in the bloc.
Grab your popcorn. Or schnitzel. Or cognac. Or whatever.
New York Governor Delays Congestion Pricing At The Last Minute
Ohhhhhh boy. For what feels like 10 million years, a coalition of groups in New York City has been fighting to get congestion pricing (a toll on driving deep into the city). There have been countless meetings, studies, et cetera.
Those folks finally got their way and the plan was about to go into effect and then… it’s delayed.
Here’s Governor Hochul explaining why:
Circumstances have changed and we must respond to the facts on the ground — not from the rhetoric from five years ago. So, after careful consideration, I have come to the difficult decision that implementing the planned congestion pricing system risks too many unintended consequences for New Yorkers at this time. For that reason, I have directed the MTA to indefinitely pause the program.
“Let’s be real: a $15 charge may not mean a lot to someone who has the means, but it can break the budget of a working- or middle-class household. It puts the squeeze on the very people who make this City go: the teachers, first responders, small business workers, bodega owners. And given these financial pressures, I cannot add another burden to working- and middle-class New Yorkers – or create another obstacle to continued recovery.”
It’s a quirk of New York, the state, that 45% of its population lives in one jurisdiction (New York City), surrounded by a few other jurisdictions (Westchester, Long Island counties) that also contain a big chunk of the population. Because the Metropolitan Transit Authority covers not just the city but also the surrounding areas, the Governor of New York gets their say.
In my experience of living in New York this political arrangement never tends to work out for people in the city.
Reversing course this so close to the implementation of the $15 charge to access Manhattan’s central business district is absolutely whacky and the argument that it has anything to do with protecting “bodega owners” driving from, like, Scarsdale to 14th Street and 7th Avenue is laughable. This feels like it’s a political decision.
Here’s an interesting bit from the New York Times:
In the days before her announcement, the governor notified the White House and the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, of her plans, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
They disputed reports that Mr. Jeffries had directed Ms. Hochul to delay the plan, saying that he had remained neutral on the issue.
Ok, but:
Just two weeks ago, the governor told attendees at the Global Economic Summit in Ireland that implementing congestion pricing was critical to “making cities more livable.”
This plan is not popular with most people, because of course it isn’t, even if you think it’s a good thing. I live outside of the city and I don’t love it, either, but I also recognize that it’s much better for everyone if I take one of the very convenient trains into the city. If I don’t want to take a train I should have to pay a little more. Cars in a dense city are not fun to drive and are not fun to be around as a pedestrian.
I guess others are not as enlightened as me because there are a bunch of swing districts around the New York City area that Democrats want to win in November and delaying these plans in an election year probably helps a bit.
People who supported the plan are stunned and furious:
“You know what it is that’s making it hard for Democrats in this country? It is their lack of conviction. Republicans very clearly know who they are and what they want. And we don’t. We cower at any pressure when we have good ideas, great policies that would actually excite progressive base. The young people,” Antonio Reynoso, Brooklyn Borough President, said.
If you don’t live here I can’t quite explain how close this was to going into effect. E-ZPass was already sending out emails on how it would work and the city already put up all the expensive cameras necessary to carry out the program. What happens to them?
What a disaster.
What I’m Listening To This Morning While Writing TMD
Here’s as poppy a pop song as you’ll ever hear, but it has a pool car, which is pretty great. Sabrina Carpenter’s first album was a little boring, but I’m enjoying this Italo-disco twist.
The Big Question
Is your daily driver safe?
So if the congestion pricing was a political liability to the point it had to be delayed…doesn’t that mean it was deeply unpopular?
I realize there’s a strong authoritarian streak among the New Urbanism/StrongTowns/etc set, but generally politicians are supposed to *represent* their constituents not tell them they know better what they need.
Sure, there have been cases in history where the majority was wrong and oppressing a minority, but we’ve been able to leverage the Constitution and the courts in most of those cases. “Promoting public transit” in Manhattan doesn’t even come close to that level.
Also I hope the proponents of this are ready for more disappointment, because this is exactly what’s going to happen to the EV mandates in the next few years.
“generally politicians are supposed to *represent* their constituents not tell them they know better what they need.”
If that were true the roads would be full of fully armed 2 GPM WW2 era battle tanks spewing unburned leaded gasoline hydrocarbons out of straight piped exhausts.
You know, I don’t agree. I don’t think the majority actually wants that. I think the average person is fine with gradual, reasonable regulations on that kind of thing.
Generally, cars have improved and most aren’t more expensive after adjusting for inflation and increased safety/utility. Once you get away from that and force people to pay more to get less, they get mad.
Counterpoint: It only takes a few bad apples for that to not work for the average person. See gun *reasons* for gun ownership and speeding.
I reallllyyyy don’t want to make this thread about non-car stuff, but the whole 2nd amendment thing significantly complicates that debate. There is no such constitutional complication when it comes to congestion pricing in Manhattan
NYC does impose its own rules on gun ownership 2nd amendment or no:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#New_York_City
If anything congestion pricing is I think a lot less restrictive than permitting only certain types of firearms under limited conditions and banning others outright.
Congestion pricing is unpopular in the suburbs that want to drive into the city.
It is very popular among the residents of the city, but the state doesn’t care about them.
The NYC mayor gets all the blame for whatever stupidity the MTA does, but the state controls the MTA.
This is correct, but to a significant extent, the FRA (federal) has a lot of say and pull into how the trains are run, and to who gets paid what. The whole thing is a hugely convoluted clusterfuck.
A handful of those suburbs in the Tri-State area make up a bunch of US House districts the national Democrats want to flip. Governor Hochul is being a team player for that effort. The districts in NYC, aside from Staten Island, are going to vote in a Democrat anyhow so they get taken for granted.
From 10,000 ft, it sure seems like the residents who pay the taxes should get to choose.
But if you’re taking a more holistic view… So many people want to live in Manhattan that real estate costs $1500/sq ft. Do they really NEED a tax to protect the locals’ quality of life and further punish the people who can’t afford to live there?
Not as many people want to live there as you might think, anymore.
Bullshit.
A handful of people have left, sure. When real estate prices fall into line with the rest of the country, I’ll start the believe the alt-right circlejerk fantasy that the liberal cities are failing and people are fleeing because they’ve become hellscapes.
I just took 3 minutes to check Zillow and found 900 sq ft apartments going for $300k… PLUS an HOA fee to the tune of double my all-in monthly mortgage+escrow payment for 3000 sq ft and 4 cars of garage space on a full acre in the exurbs.
Ummm, wow.
You looked at zillow? That settles it, then. I guess I’ll just discount all the convos with my brother and many friends that actually live and work there.
Thanks for setting me straight.
How much have their homes declined in value?
Dude, eat a snickers or something. sheesh.
Fair enough, I could probably use an attitude adjustment and there’s no cause for me to be rude, so I apologize. I stand by my points, though. Dying cities look like the rust belt, not NYC, and for the local government to put further burden on people who can’t afford to live there is a bit like the government of San Francisco restricting housing supply.
No worries. Now that is out of the way. Here is where you are looking at this wrong. It’s not affecting those people that live in Westchester/Putnam/Jersey/LI or around Central Park that drive into the zone. Those folks can EASILY afford to live there without a second thought, and often pay waaaaaay more to live where they do now. In fact, they often have lived there in the past, but choose not to anymore, for a multitude of reasons.
The congestion prices hurt those that ALREADY live there and the small (or even large) businesses they rely on, as those costs will just get passed on to them.
The people that can’t afford to live in Manhattan, by and large, do not work in Manhattan, or they are already taking the train/bus if they do. So, this doesn’t really affect them, unless the business cost (if their employer deals in the zone) of whomever they do work for hurts them somehow. i.e. fewer hours, reduced staffing to compensate for profit loss, something like that.
Either way, none of it has to do with the residential property values from Midtown south to Battery Park.
That all makes enough sense, but my point about the property values was that they wouldn’t be so high if “Not as many people want[ed] to live there as you might think, anymore”. Places that people don’t want to live have blight.
Ok, one more round at this. Manhattan has been and most likely always will be one of the most expensive places to live in the world. Just like Monaco, Singapore, Hong Kong etc. there is a finite amount of land, and it is all built up real pricey-like.
A factor to consider here is, “Why there are a lot of people who do not want to live in Manhattan, but are trapped there, taking up valuable space?” Whether it is due to rent-controlled apartments, public housing (NYCHA) “communities”, or a few other situations, there is a large contingent of people that absolutely cannot afford to leave such an expensive place. As counterintuitive as it sounds, it is very much true, regardless of whatever the retail residential market is doing independently.
As far as blight goes? Oh, it exists there. It just doesn’t really make it on camera at 30 Rock for GMA window shots or whatever. But, there are very dense areas of blight and abandonment. Areas where the criminals watch out for worse criminals. This is not new, nor the sole indicator of the desirability of Manhattan.
There are other quality of life issues that are better indicators of desirability, and in those areas there have been losses. But, we are now getting into territory that’s best left to another time and place, as all the variables involved are too broad to fully address here.
edited because I used the phrase “very much” one too many times, lol.
I’m sorry, new urbanists are authoritarian? they’re not pleasant and I disagree with their ideals (put me at the edge of town thaaanks!) but the only faction with a significant armed contingent trying to intimidate voters isn’t on their side, lol.
I’m talking about authoritarian ideals, that is, thinking you know what the needs of the area are regardless of the wishes of the populace. It’s the other end of the spectrum from fully democratic. That is, you want to enforce your ideas top-down.
Guns aren’t required, though I suppose the hardcore-libertarian take is that every action by the state is implicitly backed up by the threat of violence. I don’t subscribe to that view.
Sometimes something can be popular with constituents in an area but unpopular with the city that surrounds it.
For example: In my neighborhood, there’s a strong push to go to a 30km/h limit throughout the area. People who live here support the motion – it is a place with heavy pedestrian traffic and narrow streets. There have also been a lot of car-pedestrian accidents – tragically, some fatal.
Everyone in this neighborhood – including myself – supports this move. If you live here, you would understand why. But it’s constantly getting delayed by city council because it’s considered politically treacherous because people outside the neighborhood want to keep using it as a link to downtown, and they don’t want to have to slow to 30km/h. Actual residents want the lower speed limit, and so does the council member representing our district, but council members who represent other districts do not.
Likely someone in a high place told someone else in a slightly less high place that the show has run its course and to axe the “Congestion Pricing”. The important people in the show have gotten paid, so its all good and normal for NYC.
Years ( < 10) ago when they built tollways around where I live, they put in these nice toll booths complete with all the amenities and in some places cool tunnel system to get to the booths. Touted all the sustainable toll booth jobs. Less than 6 months in, there wasn’t a single manned toll booth. Now the issue is that they have to block off the lanes with booths because they have people stopping at the booths and getting creamed by people flying through the lanes because they know no one is there and the whole system is cashless automated. The cost of leveling the toll booths is too expensive compared to some cones, barrels and portable “Road Closed” barriers.
Likely someone in a high place told someone else in a slightly less high place that the show has run its course and to axe the “Congestion Pricing”. The important people in the show have gotten paid, so its all good and normal for NYC.
Years ( < 10) ago when they built tollways around where I live, they put in these nice toll booths complete with all the amenities and in some places cool tunnel system to get to the booths. Touted all the sustainable toll booth jobs. Less than 6 months in, there wasn’t a single manned toll booth. Now the issue is that they have to block off the lanes with booths because they have people stopping at the booths and getting creamed by people flying through the lanes because they know no one is there and the whole system is cashless automated. The cost of leveling the toll booths is too expensive compared to some cones, barrels and portable “Road Closed” barriers.
I’ve been saying that about big vehicles for years—in VTV collisions, they outsource their safety to the lighter vehicle. It’s like jumping off a roof to land on some unsuspecting pedestrian who breaks your fall, crushing them in the process, then getting up and talking about how hardcore you are because you survived a jump without being hurt. And, of course, in a collision with something that doesn’t give (which their mass makes them more likely to hit than avoid), they’re less safe, but people are f’n stupid and, for many, feelings are facts and they feel safer.
I daily a GR86 for no small reason because it didn’t come with active safety nannies. I would also gladly buy a car with less rollover protection (I don’t drive high cg vehicles that drove such regulation changes to have a higher roof crush test, anyway) if it meant thinner pillars I could better see around. I’ve been in crashes, avoided countless ones, seen some pretty cool ones, but I’d rather enjoy the daily driving I need to do than sacrifice it for a miserable driving experience for the remote chance that, not only do I get into a massive crash, but that the extra protection would matter. Plus, potentially dying in a car crash (at least I’d hope I would die instead of just some kind of terrible injury) is a hell of a lot more preferable than other ways I’ve seen people go.
I’ve been saying that about big vehicles for years—in VTV collisions, they outsource their safety to the lighter vehicle. It’s like jumping off a roof to land on some unsuspecting pedestrian who breaks your fall, crushing them in the process, then getting up and talking about how hardcore you are because you survived a jump without being hurt. And, of course, in a collision with something that doesn’t give (which their mass makes them more likely to hit than avoid), they’re less safe, but people are f’n stupid and, for many, feelings are facts and they feel safer.
I daily a GR86 for no small reason because it didn’t come with active safety nannies. I would also gladly buy a car with less rollover protection (I don’t drive high cg vehicles that drove such regulation changes to have a higher roof crush test, anyway) if it meant thinner pillars I could better see around. I’ve been in crashes, avoided countless ones, seen some pretty cool ones, but I’d rather enjoy the daily driving I need to do than sacrifice it for a miserable driving experience for the remote chance that, not only do I get into a massive crash, but that the extra protection would matter. Plus, potentially dying in a car crash (at least I’d hope I would die instead of just some kind of terrible injury) is a hell of a lot more preferable than other ways I’ve seen people go.
The oldest of my two vehicles is 5 years old, so they’re presumably safe, though that wasn’t a consideration for either of them.
Backpedaling on congestion pricing in New York seems like a political move. Either way, it won’t affect me, but I wonder if it has had the intended effect in places like London.
I wonder this too, has it actually worked elsewhere, and if so then maybe give it a shot. If not then maybe most people willing to drive in downtown NYC traffic instead of taking the substantial mass transit options really do need to drive in downtown NYC traffic. When we lived in CT and would go into NYC for the auto show or whatever we’d actually park in Stamford and ride in on the train, was super easy compared to actually driving into the city.
It’s been a stunning success in London. It helps that London has a set of main roads in the right place for a sensible zone with a ring road around it; only people who have to drive into the zone do. Also, there are discounts for people who live near or inside the zone; shop deliveries and so-on are done outside the active hours, which is how it’s supposed to work.
Thanks, that’s good to know.
I love cars and driving, but super-dense cities are not the place, and a couple visits to Singapore proved it for me. They had congestion pricing for the city center when I visited more than twenty years ago, along with other things that took a long time to reach the US, like crosswalk countdown timers. It worked so well that it was hard to believe. Transit was plentiful and reliable and clean, traffic was rarely heavy, taxis were cheap and easy to get, and neither drivers nor pedestrians needed to get pushy at crosswalks.
The oldest of my two vehicles is 5 years old, so they’re presumably safe, though that wasn’t a consideration for either of them.
Backpedaling on congestion pricing in New York seems like a political move. Either way, it won’t affect me, but I wonder if it has had the intended effect in places like London.
I wonder this too, has it actually worked elsewhere, and if so then maybe give it a shot. If not then maybe most people willing to drive in downtown NYC traffic instead of taking the substantial mass transit options really do need to drive in downtown NYC traffic. When we lived in CT and would go into NYC for the auto show or whatever we’d actually park in Stamford and ride in on the train, was super easy compared to actually driving into the city.
It’s been a stunning success in London. It helps that London has a set of main roads in the right place for a sensible zone with a ring road around it; only people who have to drive into the zone do. Also, there are discounts for people who live near or inside the zone; shop deliveries and so-on are done outside the active hours, which is how it’s supposed to work.
Thanks, that’s good to know.
I love cars and driving, but super-dense cities are not the place, and a couple visits to Singapore proved it for me. They had congestion pricing for the city center when I visited more than twenty years ago, along with other things that took a long time to reach the US, like crosswalk countdown timers. It worked so well that it was hard to believe. Transit was plentiful and reliable and clean, traffic was rarely heavy, taxis were cheap and easy to get, and neither drivers nor pedestrians needed to get pushy at crosswalks.
I’d be interested to see more data on how often plug in drivers are plugging in. I recall reading an article a while back (not sure where, sorry) but it detailed how this was becoming a problem in Europe. Companies were encouraged to provide plug in hybrids as company cars as a part of thier policies. This would have worked fine but the companies were also providing gas cards the employees could charge to the company when they needed to fill up. So looking at the company paying for their gas vs having to pay for the electricity to charge at home very few were ever being plugged in and were effectively just normal hybrids at that point.
I’d be interested to see more data on how often plug in drivers are plugging in. I recall reading an article a while back (not sure where, sorry) but it detailed how this was becoming a problem in Europe. Companies were encouraged to provide plug in hybrids as company cars as a part of thier policies. This would have worked fine but the companies were also providing gas cards the employees could charge to the company when they needed to fill up. So looking at the company paying for their gas vs having to pay for the electricity to charge at home very few were ever being plugged in and were effectively just normal hybrids at that point.
Safe?? With me behind the wheel, probably not.
Safe?? With me behind the wheel, probably not.
We try so hard to teach kids physics and yet they retain so little of it if all that matters is concern that theirs is not bigger than the next guys.
We try so hard to teach kids physics and yet they retain so little of it if all that matters is concern that theirs is not bigger than the next guys.
In response to the big question, yes it was a big consideration when buying the latest daily. Nothing can be more important that protecting the littlest family member. And a similar reason why we went for an EV, we have to protect the planet for him too.
In response to the big question, yes it was a big consideration when buying the latest daily. Nothing can be more important that protecting the littlest family member. And a similar reason why we went for an EV, we have to protect the planet for him too.
The whole point of buying a large SUV isn’t so you’ll be unharmed in a collision, it’s so the other person is hurt worse.
The whole point of buying a large SUV isn’t so you’ll be unharmed in a collision, it’s so the other person is hurt worse.
Big heavy vehicles do poorly in crash tests, got it. I am working on buying a Miata as we speak!
Also, current daily is safe yes, probably. I honestly don’t know but it’s a 2013 so I am guessing it’s relatively safe, but it will be for sale soon and I will be back into a crazy unsafe shitbox. The family vehicle is safe though and that is a big factor for the car that ferries the kids around.
Big heavy vehicles do poorly in crash tests, got it. I am working on buying a Miata as we speak!
Also, current daily is safe yes, probably. I honestly don’t know but it’s a 2013 so I am guessing it’s relatively safe, but it will be for sale soon and I will be back into a crazy unsafe shitbox. The family vehicle is safe though and that is a big factor for the car that ferries the kids around.
So the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety rediscovered kinetic energy?
No shit something heavier than an alternative, hitting an ‘immovable’ object, will be less safe, that kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and if you crashing into X thing doesn’t move X thing then you’re taking all that energy.
So the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety rediscovered kinetic energy?
No shit something heavier than an alternative, hitting an ‘immovable’ object, will be less safe, that kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and if you crashing into X thing doesn’t move X thing then you’re taking all that energy.
Something I’ve never understood about the congestion charge as a non New Yorker: isn’t every bridge and tunnel into Manhattan already tolled heavily? What is the purpose of another charge administered in a different way? If there’s still too many cars coming in, why not just raise the tolls to get onto the island?
My understanding is the congestion fee is to go directly to the Mass Transit Authority to make up for lack and funding over decades, and a needed $1 billion in repair and upgrades. Bridge and tunnel tolls pay for bridges and tunnel repair.
There are multiple routes primarily from the Bronx and Yonkers that aren’t tolled.
Tolls only apply to eastbound over the Hudson river (westbound is free). There are bridges that are free to cross into the city. tldr; it’s possible to enter the city for free, if you have the time and knowledge of the routes.
For one thing, there are plenty of people that live above 60th street (including the rapidly gentrifying Harlem and to an extent Washington Heights) who have drivers and such to ferry them around and wouldn’t be caught dead on a train/subway. That’s not gonna get you to the $1 billion in revenue, though.
BMW beat me to the punch by a few seconds here (ha) that there are ways to get on the island without a toll. LOTS of people do that. Those folks have other options to get around, mainly on Metro-North or the subway. EXCEPT that the East side of the Bronx is somewhat a public transit desert (buses excluded) and the MTA needs more money to build out that proposed “solution”. So, the Westchester and East Bronx area would “finally” get taxed (on top of the already existing MTA tax in every paycheck) and those that do cross the tollways would get double-dipped. That, in theory, is how the bread is buttered in this plan. Except…
As someone who used to get direct deposits from the MTA, I can assure you that even if they managed to get $1 bil a year in revenue, it would be used to light cigars. There is no more wasteful agency in America. No one does it “better.”
I forgot to add, that alongside of all that influx of people, there is all the commercial traffic that goes down there for deliveries and such. Land/building leases are much cheaper anywhere north/east/west of the congestion area, and that makes up a large chunk of traffic as well.
Something I’ve never understood about the congestion charge as a non New Yorker: isn’t every bridge and tunnel into Manhattan already tolled heavily? What is the purpose of another charge administered in a different way? If there’s still too many cars coming in, why not just raise the tolls to get onto the island?
My understanding is the congestion fee is to go directly to the Mass Transit Authority to make up for lack and funding over decades, and a needed $1 billion in repair and upgrades. Bridge and tunnel tolls pay for bridges and tunnel repair.
There are multiple routes primarily from the Bronx and Yonkers that aren’t tolled.
Tolls only apply to eastbound over the Hudson river (westbound is free). There are bridges that are free to cross into the city. tldr; it’s possible to enter the city for free, if you have the time and knowledge of the routes.
For one thing, there are plenty of people that live above 60th street (including the rapidly gentrifying Harlem and to an extent Washington Heights) who have drivers and such to ferry them around and wouldn’t be caught dead on a train/subway. That’s not gonna get you to the $1 billion in revenue, though.
BMW beat me to the punch by a few seconds here (ha) that there are ways to get on the island without a toll. LOTS of people do that. Those folks have other options to get around, mainly on Metro-North or the subway. EXCEPT that the East side of the Bronx is somewhat a public transit desert (buses excluded) and the MTA needs more money to build out that proposed “solution”. So, the Westchester and East Bronx area would “finally” get taxed (on top of the already existing MTA tax in every paycheck) and those that do cross the tollways would get double-dipped. That, in theory, is how the bread is buttered in this plan. Except…
As someone who used to get direct deposits from the MTA, I can assure you that even if they managed to get $1 bil a year in revenue, it would be used to light cigars. There is no more wasteful agency in America. No one does it “better.”
I forgot to add, that alongside of all that influx of people, there is all the commercial traffic that goes down there for deliveries and such. Land/building leases are much cheaper anywhere north/east/west of the congestion area, and that makes up a large chunk of traffic as well.
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It’s the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!
Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey
The Federal Highway commission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)
She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She’s a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!
Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)
Drive Canyonero!
Woah Canyonero!
Woah!
Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It’s the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!
Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey
The Federal Highway commission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)
She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She’s a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!
Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)
Drive Canyonero!
Woah Canyonero!
Woah!