Avoiding the unexpected deer

[Ford Man]

I hit two deer in about a months time last winter with my '88 Escort. The first one was hit at about 35 MPH and the second one I saw come out of the woods so I was able to brake down from about 50 MPH to approximately 20-25 MPH before impact. I killed the first one and the second one ran off, but the only damage my car received was knocking the front bumper out of alignment by about 1". Got to love those good old steel bumpers!!!

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mcrews

Now dad could drive the 10-20 miles home in a larger car. AND park it at his job site.

I guess I'm still not making my point. Sure, dad COULD drive a larger car, and those Europeans COULD have driven larger cars if they'd wanted to badly enough. The question is, why did dad WANT to drive a larger car? What sold dad on the idea that a bigger car, with automatic transmission and soft handles-like-a-waterbed suspension, was a desireable thing to have?

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I guess I'm still not making my point. Sure, dad COULD drive a larger car, and those Europeans COULD have driven larger cars if they'd wanted to badly enough.

It was not a question of wanting to, it was one of being able to afford it.
Most Europeans simply couldn't afford to buy and run the huge American cars of the late 40s and 50s.

[Thymeclock]

I wasn't really going off on a tangent.

Look at the statistics for European deer territorry : Sweden, Norway, Finland.
http://www.etsc.eu/map-of-europe/

They don't need to drive huge tanks to survive the deer.

I couldn't find any statistics in your link pertaining to deer collisions. Your suggestion that the Northern countries are "deer territory" doesn't prove anything, as there are also deer in France, Germany, etc.. It's like assuming you are more likely to hit a deer in Maine than in Pennsylvania: it ain't necessarily so. Does the person who collides with a deer in Pennsylvania say "I'm glad I don't live in Maine, because it would be worse"? I don't think so.

Causality and correlation are not the same thing. You are drawing conclusions from statistics, but there is no direct connection.

And yes, this thread is about deer collisions, so the other talking points are tangential.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by euromodder

It was not a question of wanting to, it was one of being able to afford it.
Most Europeans simply couldn't afford to buy and run the huge American cars of the late 40s and 50s.

American cars of the '40s and early '50s weren't all that huge. See for instance the links to Chevys from 1950-1959: the car nearly doubled in size in that decade. Same for Ford, etc.

And you're STILL evading the question I've been asking, which is why on earth did so many Americans want (or accept, at least) those large cars? And why did & do the US automakers go on building them, when the invasion of the VW Beetle (1959, if I'm not mistaken), followed by the Japanese, demonstrated that there were a sizeable fraction of Americans who do want smaller cars?

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And you're STILL evading the question I've been asking, which is why on earth did so many Americans want (or accept, at least) those large cars?

Why should I know ?

With thankfully few exceptions, we still don't want to buy oversized American cars or trucks in Europe.
Part of that is due to taxation on engine size and fuel, but even people who can afford it, will rarely buy US cars.
A notable exception was the Chrysler Voyager, but their market share was wiped out in favour of smaller MPVs.

I've once spent 15 minutes trying to get a Grand Voyager out of a Euro-sized parking spot in a Euro-sized parking lot in the UK without dinging the cars around it. Not really my idea of fun.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

I couldn't find any statistics in your link pertaining to deer collisions.

I've yet to see any statistic from you or anyone else that proves one needs a big car to survive deer or other big game (i.e. moose) collisions.
You accepted that theory gladly ...

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

American cars of the '40s and early '50s weren't all that huge. See for instance the links to Chevys from 1950-1959: the car nearly doubled in size in that decade. Same for Ford, etc.

And you're STILL evading the question I've been asking, which is why on earth did so many Americans want (or accept, at least) those large cars? And why did & do the US automakers go on building them, when the invasion of the VW Beetle (1959, if I'm not mistaken), followed by the Japanese, demonstrated that there were a sizeable fraction of Americans who do want smaller cars?

I'll attempt to answer the question. Americans accepted the bigger, "better" cars and lifestyle because they had precious little choice other than to do so. The mentality is one of making progress or being progressive by 'going with the flow'. If there were no small cars made or available to the market, you didn't have the option of buying a small car as a consumer choice. And the few small cars that were available were usually poorly made.

"Bigger & better" as touted or suggested as being progressive and/or patriotic by the government and big business (read: car manufacturers) in the absence of any other choices, amounts to compulsive consumption touted and encouraged by a hyper-stimulated economy, sponsored by government policy. In the past decade, American politicians have relied upon the advice of their economic advisers to increase both their personal and political power: we can run or rule the world via the American economy, through advancing the idea that one's life will always be ever increasingly better by constantly buying (consuming) more. It works up to a point, especially following a dearth or lack of widespread material abundance. Eventually, once things reach the opposite extreme, material glut ensues. It's like realizing on the day after, that an abundance of presents does not a satisfying Christmas make.

But remember this: capitalism does not equal consumerism; it merely ends up giving it a bad name, which benefits the anti-capitalist detractors. Lack of material abundance is depressing, both economically and mentally and in no way beneficial. But lack of choice by design is NOT "free trade" nor freedom of choice - no matter how much our government labels it that.

And this is an interesting tangent - but it has nothing to do with deer.

Oh dear, oh deer.

[Thymeclock]

I've yet to see any statistic from you or anyone else that proves one needs a big car to survive deer or other big game (i.e. moose) collisions.
You accepted that theory gladly ...

Ironically, we do agree. You assumed I would disagree and assumed that I accepted an imagined "theory", yet you never read my actual comments without a presupposed bias. Thus you never considered that I would ultimately be in agreement with you on that singular point.

I do agree, that the manner in which a car is equipped for safety will be more likely to save the occupant's life in a severe crash, regardless of the size of the vehicle. OTOH, in a minor collision it may "total" a small vehicle, whereas it might cause only cause relatively minor damage to a larger one, (meaning the larger vehicle would sustain the damage and still be serviceable).

In the case of an impact from a minor collision where the vehicle becomes "totalled" that benefits the auto industry. In the case of a larger and older vehicle still being serviceable after a collision, despite the body damage, it benefits the person of lesser means who may not easily afford the replacement of it.

[user removed]

Been driving since 1966, never hit a Deer. Almost got nailed by a falling tree once.
Another time by a tire and wheel that bounced off another car and flew up in the air about 60 feet.

Over half a million miles. Maybe the guy who taught me got it right since he had to dodge 88 MM in a 4 engine bomber.

A friend was driving a Chevy Van and hit a Deer. It came through the windshield and they had to open the side door to let it out of the van.

Mom (born 1925) and Pop born 1921 were driving down US 1 in the Florida Keys in 1979, when a drunk in a Cadillac came into their lane. She neatly swerved around the oncoming 5k LB Caddy in their 2k Accord (1977 I rebuilt totalled).

Both are still here and doing well, but they both drive Eldorados that get close to 30 MPG highway. Not a Deer strike by either in their lifetimes.

A Frank said situational awareness is paramount. Also avoiding the hours when Deer are most active, especially during the rut, and their are plenty around here, as evidenced by their carcasses at the side of the road. In many cases I have made route choices based on the probability of a Deer strike, and when I drive on roads that are notorious for Deer strikes, I consider that the greatest danger after drunks.

If I had to hit a Deer I would choose a 95-99 Riviera, probably just jack the Deer into the atmosphere and still hit 30 MPG if driven conservatively. Probably could haul a decent trailer as well.

regards
Mech

[Varn]

Compulsive consumption, imagined "theory", presupposed bias, give me a break, I bet I got my doctorate before some of you were just a twinkle. I spend my working day doing Medical science and math. Farming, motorcycling, bicycling and conservationism (I believe that everyone should provide for themselves) are merely hobbies.

When I was 18 years old I drove a 1500 pound 1100 cc car. It got 30-35 mpg cost was 600 dollars, used. I only had to move myself. My life today involves moving 2 people 7 dogs and cats, farm equipment and practically everything that one can imagine. This week we didn't bring our big trailer which in hind sight we should have.

Most of my driving neighbors drive fairly high vehicles, I can only assume that most who were killed in Missouri were driving compact cars.

Personally I don't want to be a statistic. During the day I can not drive 10 miles without seeing a deer. During the night our eyes don't see nearly as well yet I see them about as often. I see cars and trucks 4x as often but I know that they are being controlled by a thinking human. Deer do not behave like people do. Today we had a guy come out with a dozer. Our dogs were laying around paying some attention to him. Yet one of them became quite unaware until the blade touched him. For the life of me I do not know how the dog forgot that the dozer was there. It had a 150 hp diesel engine. I am glad for him that he went the direction that he did The dozer was doing 1 mph. The dogs were taken into the shop at that point. Deer are cousins to sheep and if there is a dumber mammal than a sheep, I don't know.

If any of you want to test my "theory" come out and drive around after dark on the same roads I travel. I dare you to. You might hit a deer, you might not.

Our gas is about $2.45 a gallon. My 360 mile commute once a week or so doesnt make it that prohibitive. I would like to save some money and for that reason I post on this web site.