Slashdot Mirror

The Department of Transportation also said, however, that rear-end crashes have risen by 20 percent and total crashes are up by 0.9 percent at intersections where cameras have operated for at least a year.

That isn't surprising. The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.

Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth..wants the cameras removed.

That would be an extremely bad idea. "In the immediately aftermath of the [red light camera] law's expiration, the risk of someone running a red light at an intersection was three times higher than it had been when cameras were on."

If safety is the goal, they should keep the red light cameras and lengthen the yellow light duration. "An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, evaluated effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing by about a second and then introducing red light cameras. While the longer yellow reduced red light violations by 36 percent, adding camera enforcement further cut red light running by another 96 percent."

And you may want to also refer to this publication by the IIHS: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4404.pdf

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-9944458-48.html You seem to be wrong.

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr051408.html# ohh look the actual report.

OR are you using the Romney type of "facts"

Yet the Smart Four Two is the SAFEST car on the US roads with a 5 star crash rating for frontal and Side impact. It doesn't stop the uneducated from screaming it's "unsafe".

Not only is the Smart not the safest car on the US roads, it isn't even the safest car in its category.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=120

Citation needed. Crash tests I've seen for Smarts show that they are quite survivable.

Correct. Crash tests against fixed barriers (the standard test quoted by manufacturers), indicate good survivability.

However, crash tests against even mid-sized sedans indicate very poor results for a smart car:
  http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html

Keep in mind that cars are typically manufactured to specifically perform well on the standardized barrier crash-test. It's similar to how CPU's are designed to specifically perform well on standardized benchmarks.

Damnit, I just used a computer analogy in a story about cars....somehow, that just...feels....wrong.....

I'm not sure why so many people are up in arms about helmet laws when there are no laws in the USA which require adults to wear helmets. Seeing as how there is strong statistical evidence that helmets greatly reduce the risk of death in the event of bicycle-vehicle collisions, is it such a bad thing to enforce the usage among children? How many parents would still be smoking in their cars while driving the kids to school if it were not illegal?
http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=Bicycles&year=2010
Aside from these factors, people will choose to ride or not ride for a variety of reasons. For those who would choose not to ride because they think they have to wear a helmet, we're probably better off without them on a bicycle and giving the rest of us informed cyclists a bad name.

I'm not sure why so many people are up in arms about helmet laws when there are no laws in the USA which require adults to wear helmets. Seeing as how there is strong statistical evidence that helmets greatly reduce the risk of death in the event of bicycle-vehicle collisions, is it such a bad thing to enforce the usage among children? How many parents would still be smoking in their cars while driving the kids to school if it were not illegal?
http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=Bicycles&year=2010
Aside from these factors, people will choose to ride or not ride for a variety of reasons. For those who would choose not to ride because they think they have to wear a helmet, we're probably better off without them on a bicycle and giving the rest of us informed cyclists a bad name.

This is like saying that fewer people drown in the desert than in the ocean. The roadway system in the Netherlands is completely different than the one in the US, and that's why there are no helmet laws. If the majority of people in the US travelled by bike, it'd be safer to travel by bike in the US as well.

Roads that are crammed with unfocussed, inattentive drivers doing 40MPH in a Hummer are not the same as roads in the Netherlands where bike traffic outstretches that of cars 2:1.

Add to that the fact that the vast majority of Dutch cities have bike lanes, and you might as well be comparing the safety of Iraqi roads in areas with large insurgent populations with those of Main st Anytown USA.

In the US, where cycling is SIGNIFICANTLY less popular, you're looking at ~1,000 deaths a year, 90%+ of them with people without helmets.

Do you also advocate not wearing a seatbelt? Not looking both ways while crossing the road? Driving with your eyes closed? Driving drunk?

The issue isn't that most of the time you'll be fine without a helmet, totally true.

But there is NEVER a time where you'll be ok without a helmet, but wouldn't be ok if you had been wearing one.

While I agree with you regarding the 5% of all bike rides end in accident, something that I can't disagree with is that helmets save lives. If you disagree with that, you're not paying attention and are more up in arms about some perceived threat to your rights and freedoms than you are worried about your child's safety.
  90+% of fatal bicycle accidents involve people that were not wearing helmets.

http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

This very morning I listened as NPR recited one email after another from angry listeners complaining that NPR had given air to Stanford University research (funded exclusively by the University) showing `organic' food provided no health benefits over conventionally produced food. Enraged foodies are letting it be known that they won't tolerate `anti-organic' research.

Other Stanford research shows no correlation “between the dollars spent by districts or schools and the outcomes of their students" and that reforms must precede new spending if there is to be any benefit. The same warmist educrats that would have Al Gore's AGW propaganda playing on a loop in classrooms (but for parents) don't hesitate to reject those results.

Closer to home we have slashdot readers expressing no small amount of skepticism about CDC research on rates of autism. Another way to induce irrational anti-science behavior around here is by pointing out the correlation between vehicle size and safety; warmists indulge a lot of magical thinking trying to deal with that one.

People resist results they don't like.

TFA is about a scientific experiment having to do with the dangers of driving with distracting technology in the way, so they test this theory by hooking up a bunch of distracting technology to people while they drive around in their cars and conclude that the same people who are distracted by technology are also distracted by technology. They also tested them by taking away their "hand held drug" and were amazed that they acted more agreesively.

By the way. This study was conducted by MIT in the Boston area, where there is no ban on handheld talking on the phone while driving according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

AC you responded to speaking. Here's an example source for you: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr092810.html

You think safety equipment increases the overall costs of transportation? The medical bills, liability lawsuits, and lost productivity of vehicle injuries are incredibly expensive. And pro-safety measures of all sorts have been extremely effective.

My commuter van does 15 adults w/ work gear @ 13.2 MPG (and doesn't change much depending on load, lights, A/C, or traffic speed; probably unlike the CX-5). That works out to 192 person-miles per gallon (0.005 gallons per person-mile) at full person load. It's also much closer to passenger capacity than any SUV (or hybrid, electric, or alternate fuel vehicle) than I see on the road during commute or non-commuter times.

35 MPG is pretty awesome for a SUV, but the simple fact is that most purchases of this vehicle type are a mistake if you base the decision on actual vehicle usage (even a typical person's winter driving would be better done in a Subaru hatchback, sedan, or wagon; and wagons and minivans do better MPG and cargo). The main advantage of SUV's are their clearance - even the mass is only a tradeoff between the kinetic advantage in a two car and the high center leading to single car accidents. Now SUV's are awesome for their niche, but they are almost exclusively used outside of that niche when another vehicle would have been a better choice. If someone wants to make an environmentally influenced vehicle decision they should shoot for the lightest mass, most fuel efficient, vehicle which provides for their year round driving needs that does not have a massive battery and has been produced in a zero-landfill facility.

If safety is a concern, one should look at the probability of accident type for their driving environment (single car, rear ending, etc...) and make sure to pick the higher ratings from the crash testing, while not forgetting that those ratings are for in-class vehicles. For the most part adding mass is the number one safety feature (in the US auto-demographic) and is directly in conflict with environmental considerations.

It will become very hard to avoid.

Unless you move to a state that doesn't treat its citizens like toddlers, such as New Hampshire where you are not required to have insurance of any kind, much less wear seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or bicycle helmets.

Unsafe

Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110

Turns out it's better to avoid a crash than to get in one. Try this: http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

Already brought the Ikea dining room set home in my compact sedan, thanks. 8 person table with 6 chairs. Need more room? Buy a minivan.

Unsafe

Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110

Turns out it's better to avoid a crash than to get in one. Try this: http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

Already brought the Ikea dining room set home in my compact sedan, thanks. 8 person table with 6 chairs. Need more room? Buy a minivan.

Unsafe

Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110

Turns out it's better to avoid a crash than to get in one. Try this: http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

Already brought the Ikea dining room set home in my compact sedan, thanks. 8 person table with 6 chairs. Need more room? Buy a minivan.

Unsafe

Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110 Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

Unsafe

Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110 Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

Unsafe

Citation needed. In fact, how about I will just post one to the contrary: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=50 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55 http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=110 Now as to practicality - you fit 5 family members, 3 tents, inflatable boat, cooler and 3 days worth of food and water for a camping trip, or bring an Ikea dining room set from the store in your sedan, I dare you.

I'm not sure I agree with you. I think a lot of the regulations came slow... a good example in my opinion is the creation of seat belts laws and the enforcement of them. http://www.iihs.org/laws/SafetyBeltUse.aspx Example: New Jersey passed the law in '85 and it took effect in '00. Some states passed the law and it was needed immediately, but that was on new car purchases only. If the car didn't have safety belts when sold it is grandfathered in.

Talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving: confirmed

And yet, a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that states with cellphone bans have seen no real decrease in accident rates.

Hmm, who to believe, a well vetted institute dedicated to real driving safety statistics, or a television program dedicated to sensational entertainment... ?

They're called Daytime Running Lights and they're mandatory (by law) on all cars sold in Canada since 1990. They're also standard equipment on many cars in the US, including all GMs since the late 90's. They have been shown by numerous studies to improve safety.

What people need and what people want are two different things. They need oxygen, shelter, water, and food. Their wants are unlimited. Nimey seems to think that "people will drive smaller cars less often if gas is expensive" is bullshit, based on the fact that he sees SUVs barreling down the highway. It's obviously not bullshit; look at Europe. Yet people apparently attach a really high value to being able to drive large, comfortable vehicles.

That 1987 Corolla could not be sold with modern safety standards, FWIW, and unless the dog is quite small or the children fairly grown you're going to have a hell of time putting them all in the back seat.

However, as other posters have pointed out, there are several kinds of intersection, each with their own factors that must be accounted for, (traffic volume, etc.) and it is unclear if the studies have taken into account the differing characteristics of the intersections that were replaced.

Additionally, the IIHS, for one, considers roundabouts distinct from rotaries. Since many others do not make this distinction, it is difficult to tell what kind of traffic circles were studied, and what kind of traffic circles are being installed in the US's "roundabout revolution."

Either way, the knee-jerk reaction of "rotaries are dangerous" at the least needs a conditional and at best is quite false.

My first experience with roundabouts was during a vacation to Australia (Brisbane). They are absolutely everywhere and once I'd gotten used to the etiquette in play, I fell in love with them. I drove from Brisbane all the way north to a little resort where we were catching a chart to snorkle the Reef. Traffic never really stops, folks on the roundabout have the right-of-way, but the pace is deliberately slow so that merges on and off and controlled and traffic continues to flow.

You *cannot* run a red light or miss a traffic signal as the intersection usually has a garden or statue *right in the middle of traffic*. If you are somehow so inattentive or drunk entering the intersection that you miss the big wall in front of you, folks on the roundabout have plenty of time to recognize that you aren't going to stop as you *are* in their field of vision as they travel on the circle. They can either stop or take evasive action as you smash into the concrete barricade. Drivers are empowered and required to remain attentive, even when they have the right-of-way. As you need to make a tight circle while on the traffic circle, you *must* drop speed or you'll never make the turn. Accidents on a traffic circle tend to be low-speed with minor or no injuries.

A standard traffic light abdicates all responsibility to a device. Vehicles traveling in a straight line through an intersection tend to do so at or above the speed limit - so pedestrian and driver error is frequently catastrophic or fatal. I don't know about others, but I'll take an increase in fender-benders to avoid head-on or t-bone accidents.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/roundabouts.html has some excellent information about roundabouts. Note in point 5:
      "5 What are the common types of crashes at roundabouts? What can be done to prevent them?

        Despite the demonstrated safety benefits of roundabouts, some crashes still occur. Fewer crashes are typically seen at single-lane roundabouts compared with multilane roundabouts.5

        An Institute study of crashes at 38 roundabouts in Maryland found that four crash types (run-off-road, rear-end, sideswipe, and entering-circulating) accounted for almost all crashes. A common crash type at both single-lane and double-lane roundabouts involved vehicles colliding with the central island. These crashes, which often involved unsafe speeds, accounted for almost half of all single-vehicle run-off-road crashes. Collisions occurred more frequently at entrances to roundabouts rather than within the circulatory roadway or at exits. About three-quarters of the crashes involved property damage. There were no right-angle or head-on collisions, potentially severe crash types that commonly occur at traditional intersections.6

        In the Maryland study, Institute researchers concluded that unsafe speeds were an important crash factor. Some drivers may not have seen the roundabout in time. Measures to alert drivers of the need to reduce speeds (e.g., speed limit signs well in advance of roundabouts) and increase the conspicuity of roundabouts (e.g., larger roundabout ahead signs and YIELD signs, enhanced landscaping of center islands, pavement with reflector markings) may help to reduce crashes at roundabouts. Certain design features such as adequate curvature of approach roads also may aid in reducing speeds."

Size has nothing to do with safety. The Smart Car earned the top safety rating from the IIHS.

That is misleading, size has everything to do with safety. The safety standard of a 40mph offset collision with a wall is equivalent to an offset collision with a vehicle of equal mass at that velocity. Consider that a collision with a vehicle of twice the mass (any SUV) will result in approximately twice the acceleration in the smaller vehicle, so your 40 mph collision now is now equivalent to the kinetic energy of a 50 mph impact with a similarly sized vehicle (square root of 3/2 * 40mph), while the acceleration experienced by the vehicle by conservation of momentum will be twice that of the SUV.

So while you may be protected by airbags, energy dissipation devices, you're still working over a physical handicap.

Size has nothing to do with safety. The Smart Car earned the top safety rating from the IIHS.

That is misleading, size has everything to do with safety. The safety standard of a 40mph offset collision with a wall is equivalent to an offset collision with a vehicle of equal mass at that velocity. Consider that a collision with a vehicle of twice the mass (any SUV) will result in approximately twice the acceleration in the smaller vehicle, so your 40 mph collision now is now equivalent to the kinetic energy of a 50 mph impact with a similarly sized vehicle (square root of 3/2 * 40mph), while the acceleration experienced by the vehicle by conservation of momentum will be twice that of the SUV.

So while you may be protected by airbags, energy dissipation devices, you're still working over a physical handicap.

Size has nothing to do with safety. The Smart Car earned the top safety rating from the IIHS. It uses a very sophisticated airbag system to protect the occupants.

That being said, I wish the U.S. would relax the safety regulations on cars. Motorcycles have essentially no safety while cars have so many requirements that it is nearly impossible to build a truly efficient car. I have wished we would do the same thing they do in Germany and other European countries, which is to allow ATVs to be converted and licensed for street use. This would at least be a good place to start.

Actually I was talking about the SUV models that the IIHS specifically cited in their 5 mph rear collision test with a light pole.

The results were:

Between 1999 and 2003, out of the 10 most expensive SUVs to fix from that same crash test (that we could find records on) as tested by the IIHS, 7 of them had the spare tire hanging on the end gate. Those vehicles (and the damage they sustained) included the Isuzu Trooper ($3,317), Mitsubishi Montero ($2,961), Toyota RAV4 ($2,719), Honda CR-V (2.727), Land Rover Freelander ($2,096), Suzuki Grand Vitara XL-7 ($2,175) and the Jeep Liberty ($1,627). Brian O’Neill of the IIHS probably said it best: “SUVs may be advertised as rugged. Manufacturers tell potential buyers they can drive these vehicles anywhere adventure leads them. But consumers can expect big repair bills if they're unlucky enough to bump these so-called rugged vehicles into something at slow speeds."

As for your particular case, the IIHS actually spoke out about the lack of bumpers or mismatched bumpers on those SUVs.

Christina Heller. 'These cameras remove our fundamental right in this country to confront our accuser. And they do not do anything to improve safety.'"

Bzzt!!! Wrong. It is common practice that each ticket is signed by a real person who has reviewed the evidence gathered by the camera. That person may be called to the stand. The staff that maintain the cameras may be called to the stand to discuss how they are maintained. Experts can be brought to the stand to discuss how the cameras work. Each camera has a video camera that may be brought forth into evidence. There are MORE people and evidence that can be brought to the stand with a red light camera than when a cop just gives you a ticket. Cameras do not issue tickets, they collect evidence. Just as a radar gun in a police car does. In fact, they collect MORE evidence that is well documented and provides even better opportunities for those truly innocent to fight a ticket. That also means the guilty have fewer capabilities to fight the tickets also. Seems like a win-win to me.

As for safety, a recent study by the Institute for Highway Safety found that fatal crashes and the number of injured went down significantly in the 14 largest cities that installed red light cameras. In Chandler, Arizona, the number of fatalities dropped 79%. Arizona has three of cities where red light running is most common. Yes, there are more fender benders. I'll trade less fatal crashes for more fender benders anyday. *AND* the reason there are more fender benders is because the guy behind the car that stopped was following too closely or was trying to get through the light. So he deserves a ticket and increased insurance costs also.

The IHS has also noted that other measures can be done to reduce crashes at red lights, such as a period when all lights are red and longer yellow periods.

Christina Heller. 'These cameras remove our fundamental right in this country to confront our accuser. And they do not do anything to improve safety.'"

Bzzt!!! Wrong. It is common practice that each ticket is signed by a real person who has reviewed the evidence gathered by the camera. That person may be called to the stand. The staff that maintain the cameras may be called to the stand to discuss how they are maintained. Experts can be brought to the stand to discuss how the cameras work. Each camera has a video camera that may be brought forth into evidence. There are MORE people and evidence that can be brought to the stand with a red light camera than when a cop just gives you a ticket. Cameras do not issue tickets, they collect evidence. Just as a radar gun in a police car does. In fact, they collect MORE evidence that is well documented and provides even better opportunities for those truly innocent to fight a ticket. That also means the guilty have fewer capabilities to fight the tickets also. Seems like a win-win to me.

As for safety, a recent study by the Institute for Highway Safety found that fatal crashes and the number of injured went down significantly in the 14 largest cities that installed red light cameras. In Chandler, Arizona, the number of fatalities dropped 79%. Arizona has three of cities where red light running is most common. Yes, there are more fender benders. I'll trade less fatal crashes for more fender benders anyday. *AND* the reason there are more fender benders is because the guy behind the car that stopped was following too closely or was trying to get through the light. So he deserves a ticket and increased insurance costs also.

The IHS has also noted that other measures can be done to reduce crashes at red lights, such as a period when all lights are red and longer yellow periods.

Speeding increases the crash energy by the square of the speeds. For example, when impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent! IIHS

Plus, if you set the speed limit to 85, how fast do you think people would be driving then?

In Atlanta people already drive like idiots. I've never seen so many people speeding through apartment/mall parking lots! It's insane. At any moment a kid could run out from a car and just get crushed! In Pittsburgh, where I spent most of my early adulthood, the speed limits were a lot lower, and I certainly felt safer (walking, driving, biking...doing anything near a road)

Actually, that's not true. The big SUVs are in fact safer than most other cars: http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?y=2007-2009&cls=2&sz=2&sort=name

I see adults cross the street without looking while on the phone and not even notice me beeping at them.

Well its entirely possible they thought they had as much right to walk across that street as you did to drive down it.

There are starting to be a rather vocal and militant group that insist the North American traffic laws are simply wrong headed when it comes residential streets and shopping areas, and one citizen's right to cross a street should not be subordinate to another citizens right to drive down that street. There is a perception (somewhat based in law) that the pedestrian always has the right of way.

Clearly this is a recipe for traffic gridlock.

But it has been brought on by total disregard for pedestrian deaths over the years. In 2008, 69,000 pedestrians were injured in motor vehicle crashes in the United States, and 4,378 pedestrians were killed. Pedestrians comprise about 12 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths each year.

The accident rate is actually falling in recent years.

Not wanting to start a flame war here, this is not necessarily my viewpoint, just reporting one possible reason people don't automatically yield to motor vehicles.

No, it's one of the safest if it hits an immobile obstacle or a similarly sized car. Since oddly enough every car on the road won't leave when a ForTwo shows up that's a questionable benchmark.

If it gets hit by an actual car, say a mid-size, then things turn out much uglier:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html

Physics at work. Please stop spreading false information.

And if you actually watch the video uploaded by the "random Italian group," it becomes clear that... the video was made by the IIHS, the group that you trust.

In fact, here's the article that the IIHS wrote about that: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html

The IIHS numbers that you're referring to are for hitting a stationary object. So, when you run into a parked car at 45 MPH (IIRC, that's the speed,) the ForTwo does pretty well. Just like most modern cars.

When you run into a car that's bigger than a ForTwo at 45 MPH, and it's also coming at you at 45 MPH, it's not pretty for you. Basic physics in action.

Of course, it's my opinion that safety is overrated, #1 because quite a lot of people are driving old "deathtraps" and somehow aren't dying, #2 because the world's overpopulated, #3 because safety encourages bad driving, #4 because excessive safety means excessive weight, which means everyone else needs to make their cars bigger to survive in a crash against everyone else, which means that everyone's using a LOT more fuel, which will trigger World War III. And, you get cars that are heavier and can't avoid the accident in the first place nearly as well.

The fact that modern vehicles often are in much worst shape after minor accidents is a trade off for the driver in them being in much better shape after major accidents. Many people with new vehicles will have full coverage and would rather their car be totaled in a fender bender than themselves be killed in a major accident.
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and 2009 Chevrolet Malibu in 40 mph frontal offset crash test
Video
1959 Bel Air after crash
2009 Malibu after same crash

I realize that is a greater difference in years, and safety features, than you were specifically talking about, but the principle still stands.

Trading deadly side-impact collisions for rear-end collisions sounds pretty good to me.

Since you're not reading what I'm saying, perhaps you'd like to see the statistics yourself. The fatality rates for side and frontal impacts are in the second paragraph. Note that frontal impacts are now safer than side impacts.

When idiots drive poorly, crashes happen. Since outright killing off the idiots isn't a valid option, we can at least try to stop them from causing unnecessary harm.

Do you actually have any sources for your statements regarding shortening yellow lights for profit? How about statements from the people who actually make/approve the changes? Or is this just more propaganda from the aforementioned "I want to speed wherever I go" set?

Here's a link to the actual (very readable) report: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr092810.html

And the original article, I think: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/Bans-on-texting-while-driving-don-t-reduce-crashes-study-says

Ugh. A slashdot article linking to some dude's blog post linking to the Christian Science Monitor's discussion. Can't *someone* link to the original study by the Highway Loss Data Institute?

Here's the HLDI's summary, with graphs:

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr092810.html

Links to more details on that page. It's actually a pretty interesting analysis, if you go beyond the lede.

Federal safety standards are pitiful compared to insurance company standards....Federal standards mandate airbags, but only for the driver, not the passenger or side airbags they've been putting in. All of that is coming from the insurance industry

Wrong. They've been required for both driver and passenger since 1999.

What a Bunch Of FUD....

If you're going to throw crap out there, you might want to trying providing links that back up your claims.

It was the same with airbags. Aside from unbelted passengers, airbags didn't improve safety. But Ralph Nader, knowing this, got up in front of Congress and lied in order to get airbags passed that would kill infants, while also working to prevent warning labels on them initially so that people wouldn't be scared of them. So we've had presidential candidates who worked very hard to pass regulations that killed babies by ejecting their heads out of the back of car windows while their bodies were still strapped into their car seats. Safety doesn't matter nearly as much as the appearance of safety. .

Study after Study after Study have shown quite the opposite. In fact, there have even been papers that conclude that the media have skewed their reporting on the subject to basically fall in line with what you were spouting about above.

The point of an airbag is to cushion and slow the upper torso and head from striking hard objects that cause rapid deceleration of the body and head in collisions (super high G forces) which leads to injury and death. While the initial airbags had their faults, and have caused deaths when used both properly and improperly, they have saved far more lives than they have claimed.

I agree that specialization in fraud investigation is a good thing.

However, why do you conclude that this must be undertaken by government actors? You posit that NGO fraud detectors exist and are a good thing, but conclude that free-riders make government answers preferable.

When comparing government vs. non-government actors, the government connotation means just a few things:
- the government acts coercively
- the government tends to forbid competiting actors in that space
- the government has few or dubious performance metrics and oversight processes

Private regulatory agencies are quite successful, except as they are replaced by government actors. UL, Good Housekeeping, Consumer Reports, etc are all Non-government ratings agencies that have provided tremendous value to folks over their histories.

A great personal example of this is IIHS.org. The government has been doing crash testing for a long time, but I never even bother looking at it, because IIHS does _Better_ testing and publishes the raw data of those tests, including photographs.

This page: http://www.iihs.org/about.html explains how and why IIHS is funded.

It's exactly what you'd expect market actors to do: figure out how to do something that helps their bottom line. For every car company with an incentive to skimp on engineering to make more profit on a car, there is someone at the IIHS with an incentive to see that nobody is buying cars that hurt people.

If you spend time trawling through the IIHS data, the survivability of new cars is amazing vs. designs of just 5 years ago. As you move out to the 10 year timeframe its startling how much better new cars are in terms of safety cage deformation and dummy kinetic loads. There is no law that requires BMW to build a stiffer, more survivable car than Dodge. But BMW does, and BMW's customers pay more for a better product.

Unlike a law saying "cars must be built like this", and the simplistic "stars" rating of the government tests, consumers can look at the IIHS technical data and see just HOW MUCH MORE of their left shoulder is going to get crushed in a side-impact hit in a 5 series vs. a Neon. They can then make a cost vs. risk decision that fits their situation appropriately.

I never put much stock in car-saftey talk until I looked at the photos and the numbers. The "centimeters past drivers centerline" number in side impacts is most illuminating.

Introducing bigger cars into the market is a zero sum game for car safety, and a net safety loss for pedestrians.
This car would be safe enough without all those SUV's.

A common but somehow very persistent myth. More than half of fatalities are of the form car + tree/guardrail/wall/... -- we can't make those things less massive. It's a fairly basic result of conservation of momentum that when objects collide, the lighter one get the most energy.

The highest death rates and lowest fuel consumption are for the lightest
vehicles. Heavier vehicles have lower death rates and consume more fuel
per mile, but the safety benefits of the added weight diminish as vehicles
get heavier and heavier (meanwhile fuel consumption continues to increase).
The optimum fleet mix to enhance safety would include fewer of the heaviest
vehicles as well as the lightest ones.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4102.pdf [pdf]

Yeah, like these people.

There's always a differing study...

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html

No, no they don't. The IIHS does not perform crash tests or anything like that. If you clicked the link "About the IIHS" you'd see that they do policy... not crash testing.

You mean this link that says (Emphasis mine);

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by auto insurers. For over 30 years the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has been a leader in finding out what works and doesn't work to prevent motor vehicle crashes in the first place and reduce injuries in the crashes that still occur. The Institute's research focuses on countermeasures aimed at all three factors in motor vehicle crashes (human, vehicular, and environmental) and on interventions that can occur before, during, and after crashes to reduce losses. In 1992 the Vehicle Research Center (VRC) was opened. This center, which includes a state-of-the-art crash test facility, is the focus of most of the Institute's vehicle-related research. The Institute's affiliate organization, the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), gathers, processes, and publishes data on the ways in which insurance losses vary among different kinds of vehicles."

If you follow the link to the Vehicle Research Centre you'll find the following (Emphasis mine);

Crashing cars to test them for safety is the main work conducted at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Vehicle Research Center (VRC) . The violence of the crash tests give them an undeniable wow! factor, but the more serious side of this work is its contribution to the Institute's mission of preventing harm from crashes by improving driver behavior and roadway design as well as vehicle crashworthiness. It's important to improve all three, so the Institute's research program is balanced.

Seriously, I don't understand how there could possibly be any confusion in this matter.

Sorry chap, but I'm in the automotive industry and the crash test results from the IIHS, along with the NHTSA are widely researched and understood. But by all means if you'd like to continue your tirade against an organization that raises the bar for vehicular safety and injury prevention, please do so in private so you won't spread more misinformation amongst the public.