Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:28:04 GMT, "GO Mavs" > wrote:
>
>> "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."
>
> 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/fatalit...ants.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.
>
>> 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.
>
> As others have pointed out, this is not really a factor, at least not
> in the manner you imply. But read on.
>
>> Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a gas
>> hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car?
>
> 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.

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 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!
>
> 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