U-Haul bans Ford Explorer

Let me point out that in many cases the "fellow citizens" are not given all the facts. Judges routinely prohibit some facts from even being brought up in these cases. For example, the driver may have been a drug user and may have been driving for 12 hours prior to an accident. BUt the judge may rule that those facts are immaterial to the case an prohibit the defense from introducing them.

Why don't you tell me what it "proves". I see nothing in it but standard attempts by both sides to improve their profit position. None of the letter has anything to do with tire performance.

ANyone who makes such blanket statements is a troll.

because

Most excellent comment on lawyers !!!!

What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish ?

One is a cold-blooded, bottom-feeding, garbage-eating, slimy-skinned scavenger

The other is a fish.

Why have they started using lawyers for bio-lab experiments?

Because unlike rats, the researchers never get attached to them.

++++++++++++++++ Sorry but, I was just trying to make a statement about a large percentage of the people that buy SUV's.

Interesting... I'd never considered the Ex as "big" or "heavy" and I realize that these would be subjective terms. The Excursion... now we're talking big and heavy....

Even in it's present, somewhat bloated form (compared to the early ones) the Ex is still a small vehicle.

As far a bulk helping in a wreck, no matter what our choice of rides is, there will always be something more formidable heading towards us. The goal shouldn't be to make cars safer, it should focus on making drivers safer.

Box score.... two MVAs per day on our local highway for the last two weeks..... we're getting tired of scraping folks up of the road.

Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

I agree. Look at all the soccer moms on cell phones while doing their hair or makeup while driving on of those behemoths. Just like everything else, the few that make the bad impression make it bad for the rest. We've all seen good and bad drivers in everything on the road. I just hope that when I'm getting the short end of the stick in a 'situation', I'll make it through so I can give proper pennance to the offender...

and, there are some things that even rats won't do............

You still just *don't* seem to be able to understand something very simple:

There are more Explorers on the road than any other SUV.

Percentage-wise, there were actually FEWER Explorer rollovers than many other SUVs. The difference is the sheer NUMBER of Explorers on the road---something like 7,000.000. SEVEN MILLION. I believe the numbers were about 195 deaths, right? And the majority of the deaths were also attributed to unbelted occupants.

Um, 195 out of 7,000,000 is around .00279 percent. You're going to sit there and tell me that the Explorer is a rolling death trap?

And your argument about the Ranger makes even less sense, since the Ranger shared many of the Explorer's suspension components. Again, the reason you don't HEAR of Ranger rollovers is simply that there aren't as many on the road. On top of all of that, the Explorer's front suspension was completely redesigned in 1995, with totally different geometry.

The "rollover" media scare seems to have gone away now that the Firestones have, haven't they?

And you just don't seem to place any importance on Car And Driver's tests, which clearly indicate that EVERY time a tire failed, the driver was able to bring an Explorer to a straight, uneventful stop.

Why is this difficult for you to understand? More of nameplate on the road=more rollovers per nameplate, and panicky, unattentive DRIVERS are really the problem. Cars NEVER roll over on their own.

On the one hand, you say "It is not my argument that new found improvements condemn an earlier model." Then you say the above.

Who says they "got it wrong"? Not the NHTSA. Not any other investigative body. Maybe you don't understand the process of keeping engineers under control. Giving the engineers full rein means the product would never reach the market, as there are always improvements that can be made. At some point, "Enough!" must be called, and the product produced.

My assertion is that the NHTSA, as well as other organizations with the authority to do so, have found the Explorer to be very safe concerning rollovers in their class. Your memo does not counter that at all.

The Firestone tires in question were faulty. Firestone has admitted that. Maybe it's time for you to admit that, too. It seems that you are having a hard time dealing with reality. Do you own Bridgestone stock, by any chance?

Which ones? The ones that claim the FS tires were not junk? The ones that claim that the Explorer has some mystical quality that makes it roll over more, when no one else can find this quailty?

And, because there are some things rats refuse to do.

I've seen several programs on auto safety (or the lack thereof) from Britain, and the gist of the thing is that they (we) have to put our efforts into safer cars, roads and laws, because making the drivers safer just isn't practical. Attempting to actually do this would remove many drivers from the roads, which is political suicide. The public (of which we are a small part) is willing to accept the carnage, as long as "something is being done." They will pay the price in money for the extra safety items, and in continued crashes and casualties, as long as they can continue to drive.

It is well understood that the problem is the drivers, but very few individual drivers are willing to admit that *they* are included in the count of drivers who need to improve.

I can speak from experience (and I'm sure most here can, too) about people I know who have multiple driving offence convictions (including DUI), have astronomical insurance costs, and even license revocations/suspensions, who insist that they are not at fault. It's "the other drivers." It's always "the other guy."

Perhaps you should stop thinking. It's obvious that you're not very good at it. Dave

============================== You *think* I'm wrong? Look at all the SUVs on the highway next time your out. It's usually 1 adult in there and sometimes 1 child with them. Why are they driving that big, over-priced, gus guzzling truck? Because it's cool! Thats why. As far as safety, you don't think they use "safety" to justify wasting there money on that thing? Maybe they do think its safe, some probably do I guess. What really cracks me up is all the 4x4 versions on the highway that will never need it here in sunny CA, they will never leave the asfault. Bottom line, if it is safe in a collision, its not safe for the other car's occupants and visa versa. Hey, I'm no tree hugger or anything, this is America and you can buy whatever you want when you want. But if you are pulling the safe card to justify your purchase you are either fooling yourself or full of it, not to mention sucking huge somes of gas(driving the price up), taking up too much parking room, driving the price up on a truck that some people would like to buy because they really need it......ect. I understand that I am generalizing but I'm talking about a large percentage out there I'm sure....What do you think?

Check this out... I was taking the wife to work yesterday. Just after I got back on the road, an 'older' model Explorer turned out of a side street. The vehicle had a lean toward the left front corner. Why? The tire had

*MAYBE* 10 psi in it! Driving on a rolling flat tire! That's the level of concern with too many folks nowadays. Get in, turn the key... If it starts, it must be good!

======================= yep, I had the pleasure of getting to play with a car mounted FLIR nightvision unit. It was amazing how many vehicles you would see with one tire alot hotter than the rest rolling down the freeway.

Re: U-Haul bans Ford Explorer Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2004, 10:46am From: snipped-for-privacy@localnetnospam.com (JonnyCab=AE)

And you just don't seem to place any importance on Car And Driver's tests, which clearly indicate that EVERY time a tire failed, the driver was able to bring an Explorer to a straight, uneventful stop.