November 10, 2006
SUV Jumps Curb, Hits People, Crashes Into Window
A Lexus SUV jumped a curb and crashed into a store window at Broadway between 32nd and 33rd Streets. From WNBC:
A woman who works across the street from the crash scene told NewsChannel 4 that she saw the SUV run down a potted plant and swerve into the storefront. The woman said she saw one woman and one man who were unconscious, as well as someone with bandages on his head.Three pedestrians were injured, one critically, plus the store employee who was hit by the window's glass, according to the AP. The driver, reported to be a male, was also taken to the hospital. Why do all the out of control car stories seem to be SUV-related lately?
In 2002, a NJ man drove into Herald Square pedestrians on two occasions, hitting a 19 people one day and then 7 people a few days later, during a crazy four day crime spree. Ronald Popadich pleaded guilty last year, getting another 25 years added to a murder sentence (he killed an ex-girlfriend).
Photograph of today's midtown accident by Seth Taylor - thanks
|
Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Could it be that SUVs, based as they are upon the shittiest of automotive design principles, are nigh-impossible to control? I see people jumping curbs every day in Austin, and our streets are much wider than yours. I can't believe people try to drive those abortions in NYC.
Or Could it just be that people need to learn take automobiles seriously?
Sounds like the Driver had a lead foot.
"Why do all the out of control car stories seem to be SUV-related lately?"
because suv drivers have the biggest (but least justified) sense of entitlement of all drivers so they drive like the big assholes they are. plus suv drivers think they are so damn safe in them while the reality is that everyone outside their car is in more danger. these are just two out of many reasons to ban suv's!!!!
"Why do all the out of control car stories seem to be SUV-related lately?"
Maybe it's because people go from driving closer to the ground to higher about the ground without bothering to acknowledge the difference in handling, all they think about is, "Wow! I have an SUV! I'm important now!" or some backward-thinking shit like that.
I think this important driver had someplace to go where he needed to swerve/change lanes when he/she was behind a bus. the driver had a million dollar deal to attend to.
Yeah, there certainly haven't been any cars hitting pedestrians in New York.
no matter what i'm positive that the physical cause is directly tied to my feelings about this class of automobile!
Let's see if the Democrats have the balls to close the fuel efficiency loophole that created these Death Wagons in the first place.
No kidding, it's time to ween off godzilla's tit.
"fuel efficiency loophole that created these Death Wagons in the first place."?
What is that exactly??
"fuel efficiency loophole that created these Death Wagons in the first place."?
What is that exactly??
Although I'm not sure one can make a case that this *created* the damned things, the fact is that vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 5,000 lbs. or over (I believe) are not counted in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to which the auto manufacturers are supposed to adhere for fleet fuel economy. The latest CAFE standard, I believe, is something on the order of 25-ish MPG (if not even 27-ish) MPG, which means that the average fuel economy for a manufacturer's cars sold should equal that figure.
So, for example, for each car Ford sells which only gets 20 MPG, it should need to sell another which gets 30 MPG to equal the 25 MPG average (or whatever the number is). If it sells a lot of cars which get below the number, it needs to sell as many which get above that number to raise the average to the target figure. Nearly impossible, you would say, if, as recent history showed, they were selling tons of fuel-hogging SUV's with ratings in the 15-ish range, without far many more correpsonding Focuses (or whatever the hell else) which would get 30+ MPG to offset that. And that's exactly what "Concerned Citizen" is talking about: the mildly disguised "trucks" were exempted from the CAFE calculations, which meant they could sell all they wanted without worrying about selling enough of the more miserly models.
It seems kind of difficult to mandate the fleet average for the manufacturer when the price of gas is going to affect the mix of car models sold. When the price of oil fell in the 1990s SUVs became more attractive. What was Ford or GM supposed to do? Not sell SUVs? Try to cram more Focuses down our throats to counter balance the SUVs? How are they supposed to do balance this? It would make more sense to jack the gas tax but even then I suspect the wealthy aren't going to notice much. It's hard to get perfect results through indirect rules like this.
The important fact in this, to me, is that the driver admitted SWERVING. I guess no one else who posted here drives for a living, but that is one thing you NEVER, EVER do. BRAKE, don't swerve. I know it's easier to just react but you must train yourself not to brake because chances are you're just going to cause a serious accident by swerving.I believe lack of impulse control is a culprit as well.
All the other claptrap about getting rid of SUVs belongs on the Sierra Club's website. This is America, if people could they would all drive Hummvees and ram each other off the road. Come to think of it, that sounds like The Bronx on the weekend.
Market Forces (#13),
Agreed, it is difficult not necessarily to mandate, but to *meet* the fleet average under changing external conditions as you describe. During the 1990's, though, I think Ford technically *was* supposed to be jamming Foci out upon us to get the balance right, as Depeche Mode once said and said well. On paper, the idea suggests that some federal agency cares enough to ask the manufacturers to meet a calculated minimum figure. I don't know what the penalty is for non-compliance, or if one even exists.
Jacking the gas tax would disproportionately impact the lower income car owners for whom any increase in a "staple" (gasoline) would cause great difficulty, yet have little impact upon the wealthy as you say. Sales of the "pure" (read: large, fuel inefficient) SUV would take a permanent hit, but vehicles with similar interior capacities would eventually appear, designed along more efficient lines, as is happening with many of the "cross-over" type vehicles which have only recently begun to make it to the US. Interestingly, this very result would make it more like Europe, or Canada, where highly-taxed gasoline leads to higher sales of much more fuel-efficient cars and/or higher use of mass transit systems.
Some look at the idea of sharply higher gas taxes, the resulting "penalty" at the pumps, and the likely resulting shift to smaller cars as anathema, as an insult to our "liberty". I've always wondered how much different we think we are from, for instance, the British or the French, with whom we share a basically similar "western" culture, but who pay through the ass for gasoline and yet don't seem to mind having had to adjust to smaller and/or more adaptable automobiles to address their motoring needs. You don't see giant SUV's on the streets in London or Paris with quite the frequency that you do here, and it's always a shocker to see that even Audi, BMW and Mercedes offer their larger, typically more luxurious models with much smaller (or diesel) engines in the European markets compared to here. Why are they mostly OK with it, but we're not?