Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)

Page 4 of 6  


The OP chart showed that minivans were safest, but is it because they have better drivers, inadequate engine size, better crumple zones, or higher driver sitting height?

A large portion of the fatal accidents don't involve another vehicle. IIRC, the larger vehicles have a lower probability of a death in such an accident.
One criticism of trucks and SUVs is rollover accidents. What factors are important in reducing the chance of a rollover?
-- Ron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In the real world, the safest car is the one that avoids the crash entirely. Many SUV/pickup drivers/passengers are killed in single vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the F150 that flipped over or the Smart Car that drove by the accident?
It is clear from the web site posted by the OP:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety-newWin.html
that in the real world, many small cars are as safe or safer than SUVs and pickups. The Accord and Camry had lower driver death rates than Suburbans and Tahoes. Civics and Corollas were safer than any of the "Big Three" pickups. The most dangerous vehicle on the chart, the Chevy S-10 is hardly the lightest. While the safest vehicles were minivans, the Camry was close behind as were Accord and Avalon. Interestingly, the Camry was slightly safer than the Avalon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The point is dummy if you ARE involved in an accident you want to be in the one that is offers the greatest protection to properly belted passengers, in the third collision.
Many small and midget car drivers/passengers are killed in single vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the Camry that drove by the accident or the Smart Car that was run over by a Camry? LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

er, listen "dummy", your so-called "third crash" is predicated by the deceleration rate. deceleration rate is determined by energy absorption. energy absorption is predicated by deformation. thus you want a car which bends, not some hunking great lump of detroit crap that remains rigidly undeformed. duh.

not as many as big heavy suv's and trucks!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes. Great logic.
Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to prevent people like you from killing the planet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dgk wrote:

Hell, let's face it. Cars are *way* too dangerous. All the other drivers are hopeless inept.
The only safe thing to do is stay away from all cars. OK, maybe a converted Sherman tank *might* be safe, until you get some nut case who figures out how to fix the main gun so that it can fire live rounds again.
In the meantime, pretty much forced to get around, I'll drive something that is fun and fuel-efficient. (And keep a sharp eye out for old Shermans.)
--
Darryl

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In other words, you are saying you can not afford to buy and operate one of the larger safer vehicles right? LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think big cars are helping to destroy the planet. I certainly could afford to buy and operate one, but I choose to keep my 1991 Accord because it works well, gets me where I need to go, and because I think that people who buy big cars are nasty, pushy, obnoxious, and inconsiderate of everyone else. I think it's likely that you fit in all four categories. You might occupy two slots in nasty.
Also, I realize that my 1991 Accord is not particularly fuel efficient. However, I don't drive very much and all in all it would have a greater impact on the environment to junk it and buy a new car than just keep this one running.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I see. Ridicule instead of argue the point. Let's try again for the stupid. If everyone keeps getting bigger cars because they're safer, where does it stop? If your safer car kills me where does it stop? If your safer car burns our oil faster and endangers our economy and forces us to work with dictators, where does it stop?
What part of that needs a foil hat? And I believe the helmet wars should be confined to the bicycle newsgroups anyway.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change in management in DC.
And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gordon McGrew wrote:

bankruptcy is not liquidation.
but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life support. they have all the tools they need - including a full lineup of cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe - to get back and survive if we stop giving them handouts.
only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning and go bash metal for 8 hours a day.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)

GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't going to help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in the US,employing US workers,who would then have money to buy new cars. No job,no new car,or many other purchases.
At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in the US,using(paying) US workers.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but practitioners don't use the words interchangeably.

that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money to redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

damned right.
yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to learn our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much better return on investment. politicians have significant culpability in this debacle - as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and lobbying pays back about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer expense] - we'll never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare teat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.
See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300 of 700 stores inventories. (TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)

It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line. stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.

I don't disagree with this. (*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)
IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's part of free speech.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

the legal difference for a company is that with a liquidation means the company shuts down and all assets are sold. bankruptcy, chapter 11, means relief from debt and intention to continue in some modified form.

yes, but they've had two years already - they've simply FAILED to make a freakin' decision! and again, they do NOT have to design and test - they already have all the patterns ready to roll.

yeah, any person should be able to show up and make their point. but when money changes hands, that's a fundamental perversion of the point. i know - i've been in on stuff like this. you show up, a "contribution" is made, and you get what you want. freakin' ridiculously easy. and a fantastic system for those with money. but it's freakin' sucky system for those with only principles.
example: elsewhere in the world, auditors have unlimited personal liability for accounts they certify. here, auditors have limited liability. so, at the end of the day, wtf do they care if the accounts they sign and on which shareholders, pension funds, etc., are bullshit? the result is that company accounts are unreliable and opaque. that hurts the nation as we're seeing right now. but have you seen any accountants, apart from madoff's, finding themselves in the spotlight for presiding over what is effectively massive fraud? no, and the reason is that they show up in d.c., hand over a few more dollars, host a few more parties, and quietly lobby for what they want - immunity from having the buck stop on their desk. it's absolute bullshit and we all pay for it. reality is, they are the only people with the expertise to do that job - which is theoretically why auditors exist in the first place - they are very well compensated for it, and the principle is that someone outside a corporation can certify whether accounts are accurate. without that being reliable, corporations may as well certify their own accounts and let's all stop the charade. right now, the charade is that accountant audit is reliable. it isn't because they have no skin in the game. that needs to end. and the politicians that accept auditor dollars for enabling that charade need to be fired too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

insert: "rely"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dgk wrote:

This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the Republican party self-destructed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

People have different needs, so how would you write the regulations? What would be the purpose of those regulations?
-- Ron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ron Peterson wrote:

For one thing, change the method of registration fees. I know when I was growing up in Florida, they charged the fees based on the vehicle weight not value. Not sure if it's still done this way, but in California the fees are based on value. They need to change this so there's more of an incentive to buy smaller cars. I.e. as of now, the VLF in my county is 0.65% of the value (and the value goes down each year). What they should do is to change the formula so that vehicles under a certain weight get a reduction for every pound under that weight, while vehicles over a certain weight get an increase.
For example, charge an extra $1 per pound per year for every pound in excess of 3500, and refund an extra $0.50 per pound for every pound under 3500. So a Ford Crown Victoria with a curb weight of 4127 pounds, would pay an extra $627 per year in fees, while a 2723 pound Toyota Corolla would get a reduction of $388.50 (actually getting a refund). A Toyota Camry at 3263 pounds get a reduction of $118.50. A Ford Explorer at 4460 pounds would pay an extra $960 per year. 3500 pounds is just an example, maybe it should be set at 3250, which is around what the most popular mid-size cars weigh. It's got to be a significant penalty to get people to change their behavior, not just $100-200.
Or instead of basing it on weight, base it on MPG, i.e. for every mpg under 25 mpg city charge an extra $50/year, and for every mpg under 30 highway charge an extra $50 per year. So , a Crown Victoria at 26/18 would pay an extra $550 per year. A Toyota Camry I4 at 31/21 would pay an extra $150 per year, while a Camry Hybrid at 34/33 would get a $600 credit, and a Prius Hybrid at 45/48 would get a $1900 per year credit.

To make it financially advantageous to purchase smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.