Slashdot Mirror

I think you'll find This study (PDF) interesting as well.
It's the risk of dying in any given vehicle, and they're broken up by class.
For example, the Infiniti G20's rate is 46 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years. The Chevy Cavalier? 162 deaths.
The vehicle with the absolute highest death rate of all? The 2door Chevy Blazer..with an amazing rate of 308 deaths per million registered vehicle years. (274 of 308 deaths are attributed to rollovers..)

Sadly, that doesn't look significantly worse than the results from the 1997-2003 Ford F-150 or the 1997-2004 Pontiac Transport/Olds Silhouette/Chevy Venture triplets.

Sadly, that doesn't look significantly worse than the results from the 1997-2003 Ford F-150 or the 1997-2004 Pontiac Transport/Olds Silhouette/Chevy Venture triplets.

There is no mention of cost in the star ratings that I'm aware of.
The determination is risk of injury.
My favourite is the offset crash test.
http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/default.aspx

The standard five star rating is explained here.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/index.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/pages/CrashTestRatings.htm

That new Accord brakes better, shields the occupants more safely in a crash, has less emissions, faster performance, and better fuel economy than the Volvo. (Volvo made the world's safest cars in the decades past. If you check crash ratings at the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration here or at the National Insurance Institute here, in modern times many other automakers have models that are just as safe.)

You want a modern car with modern amenities that lasts a million miles with almost no work? It's cheaper to make a Ferrari.

PS GM's reliability has improved tremendously recently. Currently, according to Consumer Reports research your average 2004 Chevy will last longer than your average 2004 Volvo - although neither will last as long as an '04 Toyota.

Somehow, compared to the 32,480 deaths in MVAs (car/SUV/truck crashes), 55 shark attacks just doesn't seem very significant (source). The fact is, compared to the driving we do every day, Sharks aren't particularly dangerous.

Well, I found the thread pretty interesting. Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree that having standard crash tests at higher speeds would be an excellent idea. Some tests are now done at 64kmh/40mph. Even if the government won't run them, I would like to see some manufacturers take the initiative and publish tests for 60MPH crashes.

I agree it would be good to see more non-painted bumpers to make low speed bumps cheaper. I was noticing on the way to work this morning how much more common they were on older cars. I suppose this is a kind of consumer fashion thing. According to the IIHS report there used to be a federal standard requiring no damage at 5mph; it's a shame that is not still required.

if an airbag isn't enough to keep your ribs from being crushed, I can't imagine the tiny benefit from crumple zones changing anything

It may not seem intuitive but I think having extra distance to decelerate makes an enormous difference. Crumpling the hood probably gives you at least a meter, whereas the seatbelt and airbag allow less than a meter of deceleration.

Assuming a linear deceleration, doubling the cushioning distance will halve the deceleration force on the passengers. Chance of injury increases super-linearly with force. Having a hood that crumples is likely to more than halve the chance of serious injury.

I think the point of a rigid passenger cell is to prevent intrusion of impacting objects or car parts. It doesn't absorb energy. The most a rigid cell can do is turn the impact from falling onto a spike into falling onto a flat surface. At 30m/s, even the flat surface is going to hurt.

I'm sure there is lots of room for improvement. I just don't think more rigid == better by definition.

Then came "integrated bumpers" and "bumperless cars". Those things can be totalled at very low speeds. Damages in minor collisions soared.

Here's the Institute for Highway Safety on the "$3000 light replacement" issue. They write: "The Institute's continuing series of 5 mph bumper tests show that today's flimsy bumpers can result in substantial and expensive damage to vehicle lighting systems. For example, in March of this year the Institute released results of front-into-angle-barrier tests of several new models. In the tests, the housings for the headlights on both the Acura RL and Infiniti Q45 broke and had to be replaced. Largely because of the cost of the headlamp assembly, the damage to the Q45 in the angle-barrier impact totaled $2,661." That's probably the source of the "$3000" figure.

The lack of a tough bumper standard coupled with the crashworthyness requirement means that the car's crumple zones crumple in minor collisions. Hence the big repair bills.

You do know that most SUV deaths are passengers of SUVs, not the people they hit.

Running a quick check on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (HTML version here) shows that in multiple-vehicle accidents, cars had a 0.047% fatality rate, versus 0.021% (less than half!) for SUVs. Unfortunately the report doesn't track the class of the "other" cars in any given collision, but I suspect that in SUV-vs.-passenger car collisions, the statistics get even worse for the cars.

One other minor quibble:

Lower bumper, which makes rollovers less likely since it will hit the bumper of the other car, not go over the other car.

The Guardian comes with a unibody steel frame, a stronger, crumple-resistant roof, seat belts that cinch automatically in a rollover, lower bumpers to protect other drivers in a crash, and a seat-belt reminder that emits a noise until all passengers are belted.

5) I drive a large (Dodge Ram 1500) truck specifically because I'd prefer to be the stronger car in an accident. I don't wanna die unless I have to. so sue me :)

Please, please, read the statistics, you're more than twice as likely to die in a Dodge Ram 1500 as in a safe 4-door sedan. The safety record on pickups is simply atrocious.

5) I drive a large (Dodge Ram 1500) truck specifically because I'd prefer to be the stronger car in an accident. I don't wanna die unless I have to. so sue me :)

Please, please, read the statistics, you're more than twice as likely to die in a Dodge Ram 1500 as in a safe 4-door sedan. The safety record on pickups is simply atrocious.

It's true.

Some people they're smart because they once read a book on middle-school level physics. They write things like "More mass = more kinetic energy = more damage. More mass higher = higher center of gravity = more likely to flip." and thus, think they've settled the issue. But when you actually look at data instead of gesticulating madly, you find the issue is a lot more complicated. You find there are other issues than science you half-remembered from school.

SUVs roll over. Haven't you noticed? You're more likely to get into an accident with one.

On the contrary, the statistics show that the smaller cars are far more likely to kill you. But I'm sure you won't let facts sway you.

I take it that you've ignored the reports on the rollover problems that plague SUVs.

No, I've ignored the hysteria and idiotic reporting that has come with them.

According to actual science, you're more likely to die if you get into an accident in a small, fuel-efficient car.

Deaths per million drivers:

Ford Expedition: 39
Chevy Suburban: 53

Honda Civic Coupe: 68
Hyundai Accent coupe: 177
Toyota Corolla: 86
Nissan Sentra: 100

Less than 3% of crashes involve rollovers. I'm more worried about the other 97%.

And yet, your car has anti-lock brakes, three-point harnesses, and airbags...

Each of which brings new problems - people who aren't trained in the appropriate use of anti-lock brakes (in fact, it seems ABS doesn't make you any safer), people injured by ill-fitting seatbelts (and the personal freedom issues raised by seatbelt laws), people killed by airbags...

These techno-fixes are slightly helpful, but are at best band-aids. A real solution would at a minimum involve stronger education requirements for drivers and stronger enforcement of safety laws. (The real safety laws, not revenue-generating speeding tickets.) Deeper thought would have us asking why we're playing so much automobile roulette in the first place, and would have us making increased use of safer and more efficient rail transport.

When those same people regularly bring things that are proven to be dangerous into their homes and they are often ambivalent or even supportive, to say the least, about products which have been statistically shown to lower life expectancy. They will rise up against the laws requiring safe operation of a product and cry "They are taking my liberties away!" Why should (l)users behave any differently when it comes to software? (And for that matter, is it fair to hold software companies to some higher standard of conduct, when other clearly defective products get special legal protection?)

I agree, the script kiddies and software authors are both culpable - but the idiot users aren't exactly innocent. People use Outlook for the same reason virus writers do - because it's easy, and to hell with the consequences.

When properly used airbags indeed save lives. You have to sit properly in the seat, and use the seatbelt properly. An airbag is more likely to bruise you that kill you. This will give you some statistics about airbags on both sides (safety and injury/death). From that, and many other sources, it is quite obvious that airbags help more than hurt. Same thing with seatbelts. Sure, there are instances when they are likely to cause more injury or death; however, they are proven to save more lives than they take. Many, many, more. As a survivor of 4 accidents myself, I often wonder where I would be without seatbelts and/or airbags. (I should note, I was a passenger in all of the accidents, and no one was seriously injured in any of them.)

That was a lame joke. Oh well.

Then why are speed limits still kept artificially low. Interstate highways were designed for safe driving at 75 mph. Do you know any areas where the speed limit is such?

US states with a rural interstate speed limit of 75 mph:

• Arizona
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Montana (yes Virginia, Montana has a speed limit)
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma
• South Dakota
• Wyoming

US states with a rural interstate speed limit of 70 mph:

• Alabama
• Arkansas
• California
• Florida
• Georgia
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Washington
• West Virginia

Speed limits in urban areas tend to be lower, due to heavier traffic and more frequent lane changes.

(Data is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Highway Loss Data Institute, and claims to be current as of June 2001.)