Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
weight. See:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
numbers are:
Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
(pounds) per billion miles
Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
even worse.
The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
passengers.
Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
disadvantages of the SUV design.
If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
car.
Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
(such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
other vehicles on the asphalt.
Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
weight. See:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
numbers are:
Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
(pounds) per billion miles
Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
even worse.
The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
passengers.
Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
disadvantages of the SUV design.
If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
car.
Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
(such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
other vehicles on the asphalt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> lighter passenger cars.
Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less.
Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
> These are amazing numbers.
Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars
The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
> which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier
> vehicles around.
Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
> Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
> Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers.
Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.
Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy
....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars
This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
> then we all would drive safer,
This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less money on cars,
Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less on gas,
Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win
> proposition.
CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
> Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty
> off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically
> limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt.
There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.
DS
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> lighter passenger cars.
Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less.
Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
> These are amazing numbers.
Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars
The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
> which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier
> vehicles around.
Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
> Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
> Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers.
Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.
Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy
....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars
This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
> then we all would drive safer,
This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less money on cars,
Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less on gas,
Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win
> proposition.
CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
> Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty
> off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically
> limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt.
There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> lighter passenger cars.
Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less.
Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
> These are amazing numbers.
Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars
The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
> which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier
> vehicles around.
Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
> Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
> Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers.
Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.
Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy
....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars
This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
> then we all would drive safer,
This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less money on cars,
Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less on gas,
Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win
> proposition.
CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
> Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty
> off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically
> limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt.
There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.
DS
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> lighter passenger cars.
Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less.
Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
> These are amazing numbers.
Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars
The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
> which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier
> vehicles around.
Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
> Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
> Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers.
Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.
Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy
....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars
This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
> then we all would drive safer,
This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less money on cars,
Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less on gas,
Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win
> proposition.
CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
> Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty
> off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically
> limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt.
There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> lighter passenger cars.
Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less.
Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
> These are amazing numbers.
Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars
The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
> which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier
> vehicles around.
Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
> Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
> Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers.
Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.
Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy
....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars
This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
> then we all would drive safer,
This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less money on cars,
Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less on gas,
Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win
> proposition.
CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
> Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty
> off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically
> limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt.
There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.
DS
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> lighter passenger cars.
Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less.
Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
> These are amazing numbers.
Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars
The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
> which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier
> vehicles around.
Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
> Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
> Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers.
Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.
Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy
....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars
This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
> then we all would drive safer,
This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less money on cars,
Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less on gas,
Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win
> proposition.
CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
> Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty
> off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically
> limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt.
There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.
DS