Slashdot Mirror

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.

I'd take you seriously, except for the fact that the brand I work for currently has Top Safety Pick awards for every vehicle in its product lineup. There's atleast one other major manufacturer in the same situation. Sorry, but as safety standards advance so must manufacturers.

And this has exactly what to do with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety?

I'm not sure I follow. The IIHS perform vehicular crash tests and determine the likelihood of serious injury based on a specified test criteria for each model. I'm not sure how it doesn't have to do with the IIHS...?

What do you have to back anything up with?

You say:
"I'd take a totaled car over massive internal injuries."

I say:
I'd prefer a cheaply replaced, ruined bumper to a totaled car.

Small collisions that do not harm people (regardless of what type of car they are in) cause massive damage to "modern" cars, and little damage to older cars.

Go look at vehicle repair costs.
Here's a source for you, INS Institute:

The Institute reported the results of its most recent round of low-speed crash tests designed to measure how much damage is done by common low-speed impacts. The IIHS assessed 20 small car models and concluded that car makers are still not doing enough to reduce the repair costs from what should be minor fender benders. The Institute blames the car makers for not making adequate front and rear bumpers to protect the vehicle from damage.

Google cache can get you through the subscription.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:t1BKEbNneS8J:www.collisionweek.com/cw/news/2008/0905-ins.asp+low+speed+collision+test&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

(Bonus: My car is at the top!)

Again here: http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2008/09/About-That-Hybrid-LowSpeed-Impacts-Cost-Plenty.aspx

Again here for minivans:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr122007.html

Low speed collisions should protect people with seat belts. Mid speed collisions should throw in the air bags. High speed collisions should throw in crumple zones.

But what we get is bumpers falling apart and not working as bumpers in a fucking 3 MPH test.
We get crumple zones completely collapsing in low-mid speed collisions.

http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.94b0130be143aeb342252f0835a67789/?vgnextoid=68adf2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD
4/4/5/4 stars in US government crash tests.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=328
Good rating in the front offset crash test by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), which has harsher crash tests than the US government. Poor in the IIHS side midsize SUV crash test when tested without side curtain airbags (but every small car gets a Poor rating in that test when side curtain airbags are absent).

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&sort=name&sz=2
Slightly better than average medical losses and liability coverage for small cars in the US from model year 2004-2006.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
Considering the fact that the Focus got an update for model year 2008 and that between the Focus' 2000 introduction and now Ford has introduced 9 vehicles with the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety "Best Safety Pick" rating (15 if you count platform sharing and rebadges), it's possible the new Focus fares even better.

Do you have any facts to justify your assertion that's a deathtrap, other than the fact that smaller vehicles are inherently less safe due to the laws of Physics?

http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.94b0130be143aeb342252f0835a67789/?vgnextoid=68adf2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD
4/4/5/4 stars in US government crash tests.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=328
Good rating in the front offset crash test by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), which has harsher crash tests than the US government. Poor in the IIHS side midsize SUV crash test when tested without side curtain airbags (but every small car gets a Poor rating in that test when side curtain airbags are absent).

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&sort=name&sz=2
Slightly better than average medical losses and liability coverage for small cars in the US from model year 2004-2006.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
Considering the fact that the Focus got an update for model year 2008 and that between the Focus' 2000 introduction and now Ford has introduced 9 vehicles with the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety "Best Safety Pick" rating (15 if you count platform sharing and rebadges), it's possible the new Focus fares even better.

Do you have any facts to justify your assertion that's a deathtrap, other than the fact that smaller vehicles are inherently less safe due to the laws of Physics?

http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.94b0130be143aeb342252f0835a67789/?vgnextoid=68adf2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD
4/4/5/4 stars in US government crash tests.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=328
Good rating in the front offset crash test by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), which has harsher crash tests than the US government. Poor in the IIHS side midsize SUV crash test when tested without side curtain airbags (but every small car gets a Poor rating in that test when side curtain airbags are absent).

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&sort=name&sz=2
Slightly better than average medical losses and liability coverage for small cars in the US from model year 2004-2006.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
Considering the fact that the Focus got an update for model year 2008 and that between the Focus' 2000 introduction and now Ford has introduced 9 vehicles with the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety "Best Safety Pick" rating (15 if you count platform sharing and rebadges), it's possible the new Focus fares even better.

Do you have any facts to justify your assertion that's a deathtrap, other than the fact that smaller vehicles are inherently less safe due to the laws of Physics?

If we are talking about the united states, this website seems to think that most states have a maximum over 65. http://www.iihs.org/laws/speedlimits.aspx

As of today, 32 states have raised speed limits to 70 mph or higher on some portion of their roadway systems.

Texas.

There are some states with 75 mph limits, too. With the way many rural speed limits are set, I'd guess 50% of traffic is not in compliance with the limit, so it looks like Ford is giving you a few MPH over to keep up with traffic and pass at a reasonable pace.

Oddly enough, ABS doesn't actually seem to be reducing crashes on US roads according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

True... maybe. There is of course, the big "what if the fatality counts refer to the number of fatalities caused by someone of that age range?"

In which case, your statement is only correct if a high number of fatalities caused by older drivers are of older people... as opposed to an older driver hitting a younger person, surviving, but killing the younger person.

Well, according to the IIHS

8 | Do older drivers constitute a substantial hazard to other road users?
In terms of fatalities, older drivers are a danger mostly to themselves and their passengers, who also typically are older and thus more vulnerable to injuries. One study found that per licensed driver, drivers 75 and older kill fewer pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and occupants in other vehicles compared with drivers ages 30-59. In the fatal crashes of drivers 75 and older, the drivers and their senior passengers were much more likely to be killed than were occupants in other vehicles. However, drivers 70 and older have higher insurance liability claims for damage to other vehicles per insured vehicle year than drivers ages 35-69.

So it does look like older people are the fatalities in question.

Which is why I also pointed out the IIHS study - which debunks the often claimed "younger drivers cause more accidents than older ones" stuff that circulates every time new legislation is proposed to re-test older drivers on a regular basis.

Couldn't find the exact quote about crash rates for elderly drivers being as high as those for teenagers on the IIHS website. But they do say that (item 4 at the above link) ...the elevated crash rates for older drivers when measured per mile traveled may be somewhat inflated due to the type of driving they do...

Again, it's difficult to get the whole picture from a few stats.

You know, I think that SUVs suck. They're hard to park, they make it difficult for other drivers to see, they increase the risks to people driving smaller vehicles, and, of course, they get terrible fuel economy.

But as for SUVs being "death traps", you're just plain wrong.

Take a look at the IIHS ratings:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Of the 38 vehicles that are "Top Safety Picks" (the highest rating), 20 are SUVs. That's more than half. Meanwhile, there's exactly one small car that recieves the saem result, and the IIHS notes that larger vehicles do better, assuming that the ratings are equal.

Most SUVs don't use body-on-frame construction, and are instead based on car platforms.

So, yeah, maybe I'm a "sucker" for relying on crash test data and fatality statistics.

Pretending that every person who drives an SUV is somehow deluded or evil probably isn't going to get us anywhere. Making up bullshit certainly isn't.

Actually look at the study. It actually correlates even more strongly with manufactures than it does with vehicle type. With GM and KIA being the death machines.
(newer study: http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4003.pdf)

Mini four door cars are poor. But they only have 3 cars in the study 2 poor Kia/Huyndais and 1 Toyota Echo. The echo does very well.

The most deadly vehicle in the study is the GM blazer. 4 times as many death as a the tiny toyota echo.

If you want to use this as any kind of basis it would have to be model vs specific model, not generalizations based on body type. You would somehow need to move driver disposition from it as well. Sports cars don't kill their drivers, it is some of the idiot that buys a sports car that gets themselves/others killed.

"Small car safety: While small cars are safer now than before, so are large cars. In every category of passenger vehicle (car, SUV, or pickup truck), the risk death is higher in crashes of smaller, lighter models. For vehicles 1-3 years old during 2006, minicars experienced 106 driver deaths per million registered vehicles compared with 69 driver deaths in large cars.

People often choose very light cars for fuel economy, but "you don't have buy the smallest, lightest car to get one that's easy on fuel consumption," Lund points out. "The Toyota Prius, for example, earns good front and side crash test ratings. It gets better fuel economy than a microcar, but it's bigger and weighs more so we would expect it would be more protective in serious crashes.""

The SUV safety myth was created by marketing pure and simple.

Unfortunately it's not a myth, and it wasn't created by marketing.

The crash compatibility topic (big car vs. small car) was first brought up by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in a 1998 news release that stated:

The basic findings reinforce whatâ(TM)s long been known about vehicle size and occupant death rates. As vehicle weight decreases, the number of occupants killed in crashes increases.

and

Lighter vehicles have higher occupant death rates in two-vehicle crashes, and within each weight class, cars and pickups have similar occupant death rates.

Here is the link http://www.iihs.org/news/1998/iihs_news_021098.pdf

Sorry, wrong: http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/ictl_pdf/ictl_0906.pdf

That PDF is insurance research on injury levels by make and model in the US from 2003-2005, listing 100 as average injury level per number of drivers per model sold. Lower numbers are better, higher numbers are worse. The factors the PDF does not account for are miles driven or average driver demographics per model.

The sad, undeniable truth is that people driving larger vehicles do better. Check the numbers in the PDF: the fucking monster Hummer H2, the Chevy Suburban, the Ford Expedition all have notably lower injury rates then all compact vehicles and all but 5 or 10 of the best sedans.

Actually max speed limit in CA is 70 mph on highways or rural areas Speed Limit Laws, so 10 mph difference _legally_ (I-15 to Vegas is 70 mph). But we all know if there is no traffic (hardly ever in So Cal), every one goes 80-90 mph and if there is you can barely get over 5 mph. 91 E on any given day between I-55 and I-15 (~20 miles) you have anywhere from 1-2 hours of stop and go and I heard it is the worst freeway in the nation. I don't even think a driver-less car will help in heavy traffic, although, if they allow it, you may be able to get your happy hour started early without getting a DUI. Might be a bette way to pass the time.

Actually, it hasn't (question #4).

The federal speed limit was set to 55 mpg as a result of the energy embargo of 1973. That's the same embargo that drove gas prices up by more than 70 cents per gallon.

Speed limit laws (1901-1973) were the responsibility of the individual states. Rural interstates had speed limits ranging from 65-75 mph (imagine that in a giant 1972 gas-guzzler...).

After the energy embargo, it was 20 years before that federal control of speed limits was repealed. As of December 2006, 31 states had raised speed limits to 70 mph or higher on some portion of their roadway systems.

Facts from http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.ht ml, list of max speed limits available at http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/speed_limit_la ws.html.

The federal speed limit was set to 55 mpg as a result of the energy embargo of 1973. That's the same embargo that drove gas prices up by more than 70 cents per gallon.

Speed limit laws (1901-1973) were the responsibility of the individual states. Rural interstates had speed limits ranging from 65-75 mph (imagine that in a giant 1972 gas-guzzler...).

After the energy embargo, it was 20 years before that federal control of speed limits was repealed. As of December 2006, 31 states had raised speed limits to 70 mph or higher on some portion of their roadway systems.

Facts from http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.ht ml, list of max speed limits available at http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/speed_limit_la ws.html.

Wrong, Source: http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/sfsc.pdf

"CRASH WORTHINESS The first crashworthiness attributes to consider are vehicle size and weight. Small, light vehicles generally offer less protection than larger, heavier ones. There's less structure to absorb crash energy, so deaths and injuries are more likely to occur in both single- and multiple-vehicle crashes. So if safety is one of your major considerations PASS UP VERY SMALL, LIGHT VEHICLES.

This doesn't mean you have to buy the heaviest vehicle you can find. It wouldn't necessarily be safer because those weighing morethan about 4,500 pounds afford only small injury risk reductions. Meanwhile they increase the injury risks for people in the other vehicles with which they collide. While the risk of death generally is higher in lighter cars, SUVs, and pickups than in heavier ones, size and weight don't tell the whole story. Some light car models, for example, are safer than others. Some midweight SUVs are safer than others. And so on. This is because some models have more crashworthy designs.

You can't tell this by looking at the vehicles. You need crash test results to make comparisons.

BIGGER GENERALLY IS SAFER"

My 2001 Jimmy "gas guzzling SUV" is substantially lighter

Note that the 2001-2004 Jimmy/Blazer has the worst rollover fatality rate of any vehicle of that era. Be careful in that thing, OK?

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf

When I referred to a national law, I was describing Federal pressure on each state to enact such a law or face the loss of Federally funded highways. This pressure is similar to the 18yr drinking age situation described above.

Most states caved in immediately, but the Colorado legislature retracted the law shortly after passing it.

For more information check out:
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html #3

PS-- I believe that Wisconsin /does/ have a motorcycle law, but it only applies to drivers and riders under 18.

Also, it's advantageous to have a car that does crumple in a very specific way during a collision. In the 50's and 60's they didn't understand this and made cars as rigid as they could. Now, they make the cars specifically to deform in certain places to absorb the energy of impact, but to maintain the structural safety cage so the occupants won't be crushed.

The reason to be mad at SUVs is that they're so good at killing people while providing no benefits whatsoever.

I'm not "progressive" enough to want to legislate them away (controlling people is for more "enlightened" political ideologies), but they piss me off. I wouldn't argue on the fuel aspects because I happen to like high-horsepower cars. Of course, the # of fatalities involving speeding porsches is quite low.

Everyone should visit http://iihs.org/ and look at the "technical data" Section for the car(s) in question. One of the tests they do is a 31mph side-impact collision with an SUV-sized deformable barrier (it simulates getting t-boned by a Ford Eliminator or whatever they're called now). One of the standard measures is the # of centimeters BEYOND the vertical centerline of the drivers front seat the B pillar (the peice of metal that stretches from floor to roof that makes up the back edge of the drivers front door, and the front edge of drivers side rear door on a 4 door car) comes to rest inside the vehicle cabin. As in, more than half of the drivers body had better not be where it was at the start of the collision, because there is a lot of crushed car there afterwards... Some of the best cars have _negative_ values, i.e. you don't have a complete displacement/crushing of the left half of the drivers body.

cars have gotten better at offset frontal collisions, so the # of fatal 2 car accidents has swayed increasingly towawrds SUVS or trucks t-boning other cars. If you have a small framed wife or teenage child, this is especially onerous, as those body sizes get especially torn up - lots of brain in the grill of the oncoming Dodge Ram (lovely name).

A significant improvement to safety from getting your shit ruined by some inattentive truck/SUV driver is side-curtain airbags.. which primarily do 3 things

- prevent your head from doing part of the job of slowing down the truck
- prevent your head from doing the work of slowing down all that broken glass
- prevent your head from hitting the roof / A pillar of your own car.

Crashes with no head hit are apparently much more survivable. If i were shopping for a newish car I wouldn't consider one with no side curtain airbags.. and I am anti-safety nazis and generally not a fan of exploding balloons in my car. The data suggests too strongly hwoever, that side curtain bags make a real difference in side impacts, which are now more often fatal than frontal offsets.

Dodge Neon (note the side impact rating): http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i d=382

POOR! In fact, it's death rates are 2-4x worse than say a VW Golf or a Honda CVCC which are about the same size. Cherokees, as it happens, are relatively well-built with about the same fatality rates as the Golf and CVCC. If you research the issue, you'll see the truth in what I've said above, the overall death rates in single car accidents for SUVs and pickups are generally higher than well-built smaller cars. 32 deaths / million for a Cherokee vice 16/million for a Golf. I can't say if this is because of the physics, poor car design, because SUV drivers don't wear seatbelts or maybe they drive faster. That said, I drive a VW bus which is safer in the sense that it has trouble going faster than 50mph to begin with:)

How do crashes involving older drivers differ from those of other drivers? Compared with younger drivers, senior drivers are overinvolved in certain types of collisions -- angle crashes, overtaking or merging crashes, and especially intersection crashes. The most common error made by seniors is failure to yield the right-of-way. Seniors are cited for this error more often than younger drivers.15

Teenagers, on the other hand, tend to get in single-vehicle, higher-speed collisions. They're more susceptible to distractions, such as passengers and cell phones.

How do crashes involving teenagers differ from those of other drivers? Teenagers have higher crash rates than older drivers, and their crashes differ. Analyses of fatal crash data indicate that teenage drivers are more likely to be at fault in their crashes. Teenagers' crashes and violations are more likely to involve speeding than those of older drivers, and teenagers are more likely than drivers of other ages to be in single-vehicle fatal crashes. Plus teenagers do more of their driving in small and older cars3 and at night, compared with adults. In 2004, 18 percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred between 9 pm and midnight, and 22 percent occurred between midnight and 6 am. Fifty-four percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. For 16 year-olds, all these problems are heightened. The combination of inexperience behind the wheel and immaturity produces a pattern of fatal crashes among 16 year-olds that includes the highest percentage of crashes involving speeding, the highest percentage of single-vehicle crashes, and the highest percentage of crashes with driver error.

How do crashes involving older drivers differ from those of other drivers? Compared with younger drivers, senior drivers are overinvolved in certain types of collisions -- angle crashes, overtaking or merging crashes, and especially intersection crashes. The most common error made by seniors is failure to yield the right-of-way. Seniors are cited for this error more often than younger drivers.15

Teenagers, on the other hand, tend to get in single-vehicle, higher-speed collisions. They're more susceptible to distractions, such as passengers and cell phones.

How do crashes involving teenagers differ from those of other drivers? Teenagers have higher crash rates than older drivers, and their crashes differ. Analyses of fatal crash data indicate that teenage drivers are more likely to be at fault in their crashes. Teenagers' crashes and violations are more likely to involve speeding than those of older drivers, and teenagers are more likely than drivers of other ages to be in single-vehicle fatal crashes. Plus teenagers do more of their driving in small and older cars3 and at night, compared with adults. In 2004, 18 percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred between 9 pm and midnight, and 22 percent occurred between midnight and 6 am. Fifty-four percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. For 16 year-olds, all these problems are heightened. The combination of inexperience behind the wheel and immaturity produces a pattern of fatal crashes among 16 year-olds that includes the highest percentage of crashes involving speeding, the highest percentage of single-vehicle crashes, and the highest percentage of crashes with driver error.

I couldn't find much, but I did find this: http://www.iihs.org/research/advisories/iihs_advis ory_17.pdf.

I was wrong, ABS doesn't seem to reduce the accident rate much over all. It does reduce particular kinds of accidents though. The three studies mentioned in the article noted a 13-25% decreased chance of multiple vehicle collisions on wet roads. More impressively, they showed a 27-34% decrease in pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Most of the increase in fatalities that offsets this seems to correspond to rollovers. It would be very interesting to see what the numbers were for JUST cars with ABS and no ABS. If the rollover increase is mostly confined to SUVs I'm not really all that sympathetic. ABS protects little Timmy while he's crossing the street. If the cost is that the dork on his phone who wasn't watching and had to swerve to miss little Timmy has a rollover in his badly designed vehicle....

So ABS makes you less likely to kill someone else and about the same likelihood to die yourself (the followup study from 1996-2000 by the same organization showed that drivers with ABS were no longer involved in more fatal accidents).

Marketing ABS as a braking miracle was dumb -- there's a lot of speculation that the reason ABS doesn't perform better statistically is because drivers believe it's magic).

Well this site indicates ABS isn't helping to reduce the number of accidents, even in wet weather. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

Oddly enough, this writeup, referencing an IIHS study, mentions that cars with ABS actually have a higher fatality rate in single-vehicle collisions. The AAA Foundation for Highway Safety sheds more light on this issue.

Here is the NHTSA study. I'm too tired to look any more, but from what I've seen, I'm just as well off without ABS.

>I think it should be completely illegal to leave a child on their own in the back seat.
absolutly, you should get a pickup and throw them in the bed at least while driving over 50 they won't be distracting you.
At least in AZ, and 20 some other states thats ok.
http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/cargo_laws.htm l

Read the statistics for yourself. About half-way down is the key chart, "Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2004":

Cars
Mini 117
Small 98
Midsize 68
Large 67
Very large 50

Pickups
Small 118
Large 100
Very large 104

SUVs
Small 68
Midsize 65
Large 56
Very large *

Global warming is more myth than science. Much of it comes from socialist desires to control large corporations -- "why not make cars more fuel efficient?" Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too. "Why not curtail smokestacks?" Because other countries won't, and you'll lose jobs on top of jobs (this is already evident).

It's hard to think of more obvious logical fallacies, but hey. For the first point (ignoring the ad hominim), my Jetta is safe in a collision... and I get 42-45 mpg on the highway. As for the inane second comment regarding smokestacks, I can easily respond with the equally stupid (but no less effective) "If your friends were all jumping off bridges on a bet, would you do so too?"

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupa nts.html

Pay particular attention to the table, "Occupant deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 1978-2004". What is obvious from this table is that ladder frame vehicles, particularly pickup trucks (to which I would add any SUV based on a body-on-frame pickup platform, as opposed to SUV's based on a unibody car platform), and older/larger SUV's (which are more likely to be body-on-frame), result in more occupant deaths compared to normal cars. It doesn't take Issac Newton to see the correlation between lack of crash energy dissipation structures/lower maneuverability on trucks and higher fatality rates.

The trend for lower SUV occupant fatalities coincides with the improvements in safety offered by newer SUV's, particularly those with car-based designs. However, as can be seen from the pickup statistics, these types of vehicles are still significantly *less safe to their occupants*. Unfortunately, it is difficult to characterize the "SUV" statistics more accurately because the IIHS makes no distinction between a Subaru Forester SUV and a Ford Excursion when designating an SUV an "SUV".

When you combine the fatality rates for pickups and SUV together, you begin to see the real picture. Even in 2004, with the advantages of better safety and better design in many SUV's, pickups and SUV's together produced a death rate for their occupants significantly higher than cars.

The reader is free to investigate other sources that more directly answer the question.

http://www.ntu.edu.sg/nbs/sabre/working_papers/05- 98.pdf

http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/drl.htm (cites many sources).

For anecdotal evidence, I find that having lights on helps, because cars which have lights on and are moving are more obvious than cars which do not have lights on and are moving. Much like I notice cars that (while parked) have their lights on, and am prepared to see them pull out into traffic.

I still pay attention to the road otherwise, but this makes it easier for me to differentiate between non-objects (cars off to the side, parked, off), and important objects (cars which are traveling, active, on) on the roadway. Making my job easier is good.

I live in Fairfax, VA and we just had the cameras turned off because of grandstanding about such things. See here for some good info linky

lets see your points:
the vast majority of people "caught" by the red light cameras are simply average people passing safely through the intersection while it is yellow only to be caught at the last second when the light turns red
If they are IN the intersection when it turns red then they are in violation of the law. - and the sensors are actually in the pavement BEHIND the stop line, only triggered if you go over it when the light is ALREADY red.

I doubt they are suddenly going to become faithful servants of the law just because you stick a camera there.
And you attribute the significant drop in t-bone accidents at these intersections to what then? Seems clear cut proof is also in the initial increase of rear-end accidents...those are people who would have otherwise gone through stopping very quickly.

why did they not increase yellow light times in addition to the cameras?
Yellows are timed based on the posted Speed Limit. If people aren't obeying that law (or within say 5mph) then the problem isn't the yellow time, it's the road speed. A *new* traffic feature such as the cameras will take time to get used too.

Oh wait, they decreased the time at some lights... can someone say free money?
Were there less then honest implementations of the cameras? Definitely...contractors making money PER ticket thus inducing all sorts of 'incentive' to do less then ethical/legal things. Does this mean you should ban a PROVEN technology? I say no...You're welcome to not want the cameras, but the stats don't lie, they save lives and money.

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2003
Vehicle size Rate
Car -- mini 142
Car -- small 108
Car -- midsize 66
Car -- large 61
Car -- very Large 70
Pickup -- small 124
Pickup -- large 115
Pickup -- very large 102
SUV -- small 75
SUV -- midsize 70
SUV -- large 64
SUV -- very large *

Not when it's as unsafe as the Cavalier! The 1995-2005 Cavalier was one of the few vehicles to get a Poor from the National Institue for Highway Safety in offset crash tests. To be fair the Cobalt gets a Good, but it's also a significantly more expensive vehicle. Small vehicle results can be seen here, and general information is available at the insitutes homepage.

Not when it's as unsafe as the Cavalier! The 1995-2005 Cavalier was one of the few vehicles to get a Poor from the National Institue for Highway Safety in offset crash tests. To be fair the Cobalt gets a Good, but it's also a significantly more expensive vehicle. Small vehicle results can be seen here, and general information is available at the insitutes homepage.

Not in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
In New York, red light camera violations are treated like parking citations, registered vehicle owners are responsible without regard to who was driving at the time of the offense. http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/qanda/rlc.htm

The VW Beetle is the top rated small car for crash safety by the IIHS.

Just my $0.02

- Thomas;

There is one serious reason to prefer newer cars to older ones - crash ratings. Older cars were often heavier, but they weren't designed with good crumple zones. You're shred yourself to bits on the interior in an impact.

But check the National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration and The National Insurance Institute and you'll see many newer cars and SUVs are substantially safer in an impact than any older model, even a Volvo.

Many people don't pay any attention to crash ratings, and maybe you're one of them - but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

You, sir, are an idiot.

As you can see from this link, the baseline for federal tests for preventing injury in automobile crashes is 130 G's-- this is after significant portions of the deceleration have been dampened by restraint systems and portions of the vehicle collapsing. Fighter pilots in pressure suits routinely pull 10Gs without even blacking out.

Maybe this is why Jeff Bezos said "cities would be designed around it" (let's not start an argument about whether Segway is or isn't Ginger). Pedestrians think it's too fast, and drivers think it's too slow. And if that's not enough, every state seems to have their own ideas about where the Segway should be used. We could have them ride in bike lanes I suppose, but those are not very widespread in all areas (and even if they were, you know there are going to be bikers that take offense).

Bezos almost had it right. But instead of cities being built around it because of its popularity, I would imagine that it won't become popular until someone builds a city around it. Catch-22.

From Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Regarding claims that helmets obstruct vision, studies show full-coverage helmets provide only minor restrictions in horizontal peripheral vision -- less than 3 percent from that of an unhelmeted rider. A 1994 study by A. James McKnight analyzed the effects of motorcycle helmet use on seeing and hearing. The study found that wearing helmets "restricts neither the ability to hear horn signals nor the likelihood of visually detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change." To compensate for any restrictions in lateral vision, riders increased their head rotation prior to a lane change. Subjects in the hearing study showed no differences in hearing thresholds under three helmet conditions: no helmet, partial coverage, and full coverage. The noise generated by a motorcycle is such that any reduction in hearing capability that may result from wearing a helmet is inconsequential. Sound loud enough to be heard above the engine can be heard within a helmet, a NHTSA study concluded.

On the other hand, it seems we need to do something. The report indicates that a motorcycle is 18 times more dangerous than a car. Even if we get rid of drunk riders, that still is a very dangerous machine to ride. On the other hand, air bags will only protect the rides in limited circumstances, like a head on collision or running into another vehicle, which is only like 20%, while running off the road, falling down, or having a car smack into the bike is the rest. While air bags will protect the center of the body from trauma, will the effectiveness be high enough to make a difference?

One thing I found interesting on the above link is that deaths were falling until 1998. It looks like deaths have increased like 30% since then. I wonder if this might be due to the increased sales of larger vehicles, and the maniacs that drive them. I wonder if we required a different kind of drivers license for anything bigger than a Ford Escape we might save lives. After all, the car companies convinced congress to give trucks a catalytic converter exemption because they were largely commercial vehicles. Therefore, perhaps we should require commercial licenses for these large vehicles.(we were at 35% trucks in the mid 90's, and about 45-50% now)