MIKE Hunter's smaller car thesis??

"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per million
registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That figure drops to 108
fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For large sedans, that number
drops to 61 per million. For small SUVs, the figure was 75 deaths per
million as compared with 62 for large SUVs. For pickups, totals increased to
124 per million for small trucks and 102 per million for large."


Technically Mike is right, but the numbers are still so low that even a half
a percent change is not very much.

Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars.

Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a gas
hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car?

So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to accomidate him
because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15 thousand dollar gas saver,
you should buy a 30 thousand dollar SUV (this difference is what Mike calls
"Saving a few bucks vs safety")

This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car with
his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe!

 

But the statistics are for fatalities/vehicles. OTOH I want to know
how the numbers compare, once the number of miles and ages and incomes
of the drivers are considered.

 

But the statistics are for fatalities/vehicles. OTOH I want to know
how the numbers compare, once the number of miles and ages and incomes
of the drivers are considered.

 

I don't think anyone has done the study that accounts for demographic
factors.

Jeff

 

I don't think anyone has done the study that accounts for demographic
factors.

Jeff

 

I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved,
especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers.

 

I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved,
especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers.

 

I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved,

====================================
There was a campaign in the US to get get the good ol boys in pickup
trucks to use their seatbelts. Maybe they thought their personal
liberty was being encroached on by the intrusive governmant
regulations, but they were dying in disproportionate numbers by flying
out during crashes.

 

I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved,

====================================
There was a campaign in the US to get get the good ol boys in pickup
trucks to use their seatbelts. Maybe they thought their personal
liberty was being encroached on by the intrusive governmant
regulations, but they were dying in disproportionate numbers by flying
out during crashes.

 

IIHS really tries to bury the details of Driver Fatalities Statistics.
If you don't believe me, go to:

http://www.iihs.org/

and try to find them. This is as close as I could get:

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html#sec3

It is a an aggregate list by vehicle type rather than individual makes
and models. I have seen these results in the past and the interesting
thing is how much variability there is. Some small cars have lower
driver fatality rates than some very large SUVs.

Go here to see lists of vehicles with the highest and lowest driver
fatality rates:

http://tinyurl.com/2od58m

There are surprises, some of which demonstrate the weakness of real
world surveys. Are Chevy Astros really that safe, or is flower
delivery just an inherently low risk occupation? Harder to explain
away is why the Chevy Blazer death rate is 21 times higher than an
Infiniti G35.

As others have pointed out, this is not really a factor, at least not
in the manner you imply. But read on.

Very true, and you also have to consider the opposite. Is the monster
SUV's fatality rate low because it most often collides with something
smaller? What if everyone were driving monster SUVs?

The way the data is presented is a distorted view of public safety. It
looks at the vehicle in the vacuum of "does it protect the occupants"
rather than "does it pose unnecessary risk to everyone else." Why are
there no statistics on the likelihood of Model X causing the driver of
the other vehicle to die? And how about pedestrians? Why do we have
a side-impact test which determines the ability of a car to resist a
tall SUV bumper instead of a law requiring all passenger vehicles
(i.e. SUVs) to have a uniform bumper height? According to the IIHS
reasoning, a vehicle that killed someone else every time you drive it
but only killed the driver six times in every million vehicle years
would be the safest vehicle on the road.

This attitude reflects a popular political/economic argument which
conveniently justifies greedy, self-centered lifestyles. Some call
this "the law of the jungle," but the truth is that behavior like this
will get you kicked out of the ape tribe PDQ.

If Mike was really concerned with safety, he would be better off with
a Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna which have lower driver fatality
rates than any "full size" SUV

 

IIHS really tries to bury the details of Driver Fatalities Statistics.
If you don't believe me, go to:

http://www.iihs.org/

and try to find them. This is as close as I could get:

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html#sec3

It is a an aggregate list by vehicle type rather than individual makes
and models. I have seen these results in the past and the interesting
thing is how much variability there is. Some small cars have lower
driver fatality rates than some very large SUVs.

Go here to see lists of vehicles with the highest and lowest driver
fatality rates:

http://tinyurl.com/2od58m

There are surprises, some of which demonstrate the weakness of real
world surveys. Are Chevy Astros really that safe, or is flower
delivery just an inherently low risk occupation? Harder to explain
away is why the Chevy Blazer death rate is 21 times higher than an
Infiniti G35.

As others have pointed out, this is not really a factor, at least not
in the manner you imply. But read on.

Very true, and you also have to consider the opposite. Is the monster
SUV's fatality rate low because it most often collides with something
smaller? What if everyone were driving monster SUVs?

The way the data is presented is a distorted view of public safety. It
looks at the vehicle in the vacuum of "does it protect the occupants"
rather than "does it pose unnecessary risk to everyone else." Why are
there no statistics on the likelihood of Model X causing the driver of
the other vehicle to die? And how about pedestrians? Why do we have
a side-impact test which determines the ability of a car to resist a
tall SUV bumper instead of a law requiring all passenger vehicles
(i.e. SUVs) to have a uniform bumper height? According to the IIHS
reasoning, a vehicle that killed someone else every time you drive it
but only killed the driver six times in every million vehicle years
would be the safest vehicle on the road.

This attitude reflects a popular political/economic argument which
conveniently justifies greedy, self-centered lifestyles. Some call
this "the law of the jungle," but the truth is that behavior like this
will get you kicked out of the ape tribe PDQ.

If Mike was really concerned with safety, he would be better off with
a Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna which have lower driver fatality
rates than any "full size" SUV

 

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

 

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

 

Yet, this does not take into account the way the vehicles are used,
e.g., people go faster with big SUVs or who is driving them, like teens
vs. mature adults. These other factors (how, where and by whom the
vehicles are used) may affect the death rates more than the vehicle
themselves.

For example, Ford minivans have a different death rates than similar
Mercury vans, presumably because the average driver of each van has
different characteristics.

Likewise, the death rate for Indy cars and NASCAR cars is higher than
the death rate for production cars, even though the Indy and NASCAR cars
are far safer.

Jeff

 

Yet, this does not take into account the way the vehicles are used,
e.g., people go faster with big SUVs or who is driving them, like teens
vs. mature adults. These other factors (how, where and by whom the
vehicles are used) may affect the death rates more than the vehicle
themselves.

For example, Ford minivans have a different death rates than similar
Mercury vans, presumably because the average driver of each van has
different characteristics.

Likewise, the death rate for Indy cars and NASCAR cars is higher than
the death rate for production cars, even though the Indy and NASCAR cars
are far safer.

Jeff

 

The subject should be "Mike Hunter's smaller car conjecture." For it to
be a thesis, he should have a clue.

 

The subject should be "Mike Hunter's smaller car conjecture." For it to
be a thesis, he should have a clue.

 

it's nothing of the sort. it's all about subtle [political] promotion
of big heavy vehicles by the oilcos. big heavy vehicles consume more
gas. most modern "safety" in small cars has resulted in significant
weight increases. like 50% in the last 20 years. think about it. cars
today are touted as spectacularly "economic" of they get 40mpg. yet my
18 year old civic can do 40 no problem. more if i do only 55mph. has
engine technology stood still in that time? no. does it take more gas
to lump a 3400lb vehicle up a grade than a 2200lb one? yes,
significantly. and that's all there is to it! real world gas mileage*
has stayed flat as engine efficiency increases have been negated by
vehicle mass increases. suv's with their total _disregard_ of safety
are pure gas consumption gravy.

clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and
frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no
sense. time to get real and put national security ahead of oilco
security. smaller lighter more fuel efficient vehicles are the way to
go. it won't even cause any pain for detroit since they make vehicles
like this already for the european market.


* epa mileage is measured on a rolling road. from what i gather,
vehicle mass is not taken into account in that testing - the rollers
used have fixed resistance. a heavy vehicle is going to read the same
as a light vehicle if they had the same motor. and that's not real world.

 

it's nothing of the sort. it's all about subtle [political] promotion
of big heavy vehicles by the oilcos. big heavy vehicles consume more
gas. most modern "safety" in small cars has resulted in significant
weight increases. like 50% in the last 20 years. think about it. cars
today are touted as spectacularly "economic" of they get 40mpg. yet my
18 year old civic can do 40 no problem. more if i do only 55mph. has
engine technology stood still in that time? no. does it take more gas
to lump a 3400lb vehicle up a grade than a 2200lb one? yes,
significantly. and that's all there is to it! real world gas mileage*
has stayed flat as engine efficiency increases have been negated by
vehicle mass increases. suv's with their total _disregard_ of safety
are pure gas consumption gravy.

clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and
frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no
sense. time to get real and put national security ahead of oilco
security. smaller lighter more fuel efficient vehicles are the way to
go. it won't even cause any pain for detroit since they make vehicles
like this already for the european market.


* epa mileage is measured on a rolling road. from what i gather,
vehicle mass is not taken into account in that testing - the rollers
used have fixed resistance. a heavy vehicle is going to read the same
as a light vehicle if they had the same motor. and that's not real world.

 

so let them. natural selection.