Friends don't let stupid friends drive SUVs

[RACastanet]

More.... Note the comment on the top of the table which i have italicized.

Since 1978, driver and occupant deaths per registered vehicle have declined in all kinds of passenger vehicles. Declines have been largest among SUV occupants.
Occupant deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 1978-2003


Year -2003
Drivers:
Cars-81
Pickups 116
SUVs 70
All passenger vehicles 84

All Occupants:
Cars 121
Pickups 153
SUVs 113
All passenger vehicles 125

SUVs beat cars and the average per million registered vehicle for drivers and occupants. Is this data incorrect? In which way?

As I understand it, a smaller # is better.

Rich

[MikeK]

Just got a call from another relative that's coming over this evening... They asked if I was plowed out... NO... Then they got upset because they didn't want to mess up their HUGE Toyota Titan 4X4 by having to put it in 4WD! (What's up with THAT?) Told them they didn't have to... they could stay home!

Panther, the flip side to that was a woman who complained that her SUV didn't handle or brake as well as her friends. Turned out she had ordered a special off road package and the tires while good for off the road were terrible on a rainy suburban street.

[Bill Glasheen]

Rich

Yes, deaths are dropping on SUVs. The plots at NHTSA show it. But they still are high.

And part of that drop is happening because of the emergence of things classified as SUVs that are not SUVs. For example the Chrysler Pacifica calls itself an SUV to avoid the stigma of what it really is - a station wagon (a.k.a. a "car").



Go figure. And it has the lowest rollover risk of any "SUV." Go figure. Same for similar "SUVs" like the Audi Allroad.



Station wagon (a "car"). But don't call it that, or folks won't buy it.

The plot I showed you is easy to convert to total deaths, Rich. Rollovers account for 61% of all fatalties.

Are they wrong?

Obviously the data disagree.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

"Yes, deaths are dropping on SUVs. The plots at NHTSA show it. But they still are high."

According to the Insurance Institute, cars are higher.... 121 per million vehicles versus 113 for SUVs in 2003.

Data does show rollover deaths disproportionately high, however overall the rate for all occupants is lower than cars and the average for all vehicles.

Not all accidents are rollovers! If you roll over and are unrestrained you will likely die. I agree. However, most SUV accidents are not rollovers.

SUVs really shine in multivehicle crashes. In front, rear, side and oblique crashes they are very good. Only in rollovers are they bad. Fortunately, about two thirds of the accidents are not rollovers! The insurance website has rollovers at about 35% of all accidents.

" Go figure. Same for similar "SUVs" like the Audi Allroad. Station wagon (a "car"). But don't call it that, or folks won't buy it."

We also do not know if this type of vehicle is classified as a car or SUV by the institute.

Look at the overall stats. If you are in an SUV you are less likely to die! That is a good thing. I will happily buy more gas to increase the safety of the occupants.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

Another thing to consider, Rich, is that SUVs more and more are being driven by PEOPLE (mothers) who get in fewer accidents because of the nature of their driving. This is also a contributing factor to the per vehicle drop in fatalities by SUVs. But they still ****** when you get into high-velocity crashes.

What matters here is what would happen in the randomized design.

The insurance website has rollovers at about 35% of all accidents.

Most accidents have absolutely zero potential of being fatal. These would include fender benders. They would include someone I know running over the neighbor's mailbox while putting a CD in the stereo. It also includes someone I know dinging the side of the garage while backing out with a vehicle door open. I happen to know that those last two "accidents" made it into the insurance institute statistics...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

He owns a 98 Tahoe with all the bells and whistles. (I have a Yukon...) After he lost it in the driveway, I had to go get him "unstuck"! And I'd plowed out!

Say it ain't so, Panther!

- Bill

[IJ]

People aren't making a rational decision about SUVs and deciding to buy them for safety.

--113 vs 121 is no big deal
--factor in that some of those cars are tin cans on wheels!
--and some of the suvs were cars!
--can we compare reasonable cars to SUVs?

What about the cigarettes i see tossed out of all cars, including SUVs? Were those purchased for safety? What about the people weaving in and out of traffic at 90 today? Two of em--often BMW as noted above but today both SUVs. The safety mindset doesn't vibe with the way most americans and suv drivers live.

It's look and perception not fact.

[RACastanet]

Here is a really good site to get injury and loss info for many vehicles. Check you personal or dream vehicle out...


http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Frati ... l/ictl.htm

Rich

[MikeK]

My Prix is above average! Boy did this thread take a hard turn early on.

[benzocaine]

I drive an X Terra and amhappy with it. Compared to the Silverado I drove before it .. well ..it sips gas. It's wonderful off road.. and who the heck doesn't know vehicles with a higher center of gravity are more prone to flip overs? A few years back F.O.R.D. (accronym ) had a big problem with blowouts..and not blowout prices BTW.. and their SUV's gained a rep for rolling. Firestones fixed that problem as far as I know.

[RACastanet]

Ian said: "--113 vs 121 is no big deal"

Well, would the data at least indicate that SUVs are not death traps?

The sample size is huge since it includes all vehicles 1 to 3 years old. The sample size is likely 40 to 50 million vehicles so statistical aberrations are unlikely.

From the same study:

"CRASH TYPES
Frontal impacts accounted for 49 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2003. Side impacts accounted for another 31 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths. "

That leaves 20% for rollovers and all other, whatever that is (rear end or oblique?) Following the 80-20 rule, I'll take my chances in the SUV every time.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

CRASH TYPES
Frontal impacts accounted for 49 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2003. Side impacts accounted for another 31 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths. "

That leaves 20% for rollovers and all other, whatever that is (rear end or oblique?) Following the 80-20 rule, I'll take my chances in the SUV every time.

These stats don't jive with those from NHTSA, Rich. So whose data are bad?


Passenger Vehicle Occupants Killed in Single Vehicle Crashes,
by Percent Rollover and Type of Vehicle

...................................................... 2001 ................................................................ 2002
Persons Killed ... Rollover Occurred... No Rollover ... Total ... Rollover Occurred ... No Rollover ... Total
Passenger Car ................... 45% ....................... 55% ........... 8,725 .................. 45% ....................... 55% ........... 8,958
Van ..................................... 61% ....................... 39% .............. 904 .................. 54% ....................... 46% .............. 940
SUV ................................... 76% ....................... 24% ........... 2,279 .................. 75% ....................... 25% ........... 2,604
Pickup Truck ..................... 60% ....................... 40% ........... 3,605 .................. 61% ...................... 39% ............ 3,651

Source: FARS


Here's the issue, Rich.

SUVs SHOULD be safer - in collisions - by simple principles of Newtonian physics. When two objects collide, the decelleration that occurs in one of those objects is indirectly proportional to its mass. So larger mass vehicles should experience the lesser trauma, and - hence - fatalities. The smaller vehicles suffer the most consequences. One is the windshield; the other is the bug.

But what we have here is stupid-minded people thinking they are safe with their vehicles and bodies way up in the air. The SUV "clearance" is for offroading, and not for mom's "feeling" safe or guys compensating for their anatomical inadequacies. If there is no need to be high in the air, then the vehicle should not be high in the air.

All this does is create a danger for both driver and those whom the SUV driver runs into. This is inexcuseable.

Sadly if people don't get that message, and assume all is well because everyone else suffers the consequences, then perhaps the only message they WILL get is getting their butts thrown in jail for involuntary manslaughter. People make choices. They are responsible for those choices. If they hurt others because of those choices, they deserve consequences. If our society is going to get so hung up on speeds over 65 as being "bad" and worthy of criminal prosecution, then SUV selfishness and/or stupidity is game in my book. Fair is fair.

As for all those BMWs you like to gripe about, Rich, well.. If you drove a real car, you too could drive safer at higher speeds... Don't knock what you haven't tried. Don't impose stupid U.S. traffic law mindset on the world. If you got rid of your German car predjudice and took the time to learn about BMW body design, you'd see why Consumer Reports loves them (5- series car of the year a few years ago) and companies like Nissan and Daimler Chrysler are now trying to copy them. And you'd see why these vehicles put yours and others to shame in the Motor Trend vehicle tests.

That article Mike posted is typical of this stupid mindset. Cameras on the back of SUVs? Puuleeeezzzeee!

Vehicles like yours indeed should not be driven at Autobann speeds. One is not capable of a simple emergency avoidance maneuver even at legal U.S. Interstate speeds. "Safety" in your mind is all about surviving a crash. That is wrong-minded IMO. Why get into a collision in the first place?

- Bill

[2Green]

At the risk of putting words in another's mouth (hope I'm not), I'm with Bill Glasheen on the station-wagon thing, and also on the European -vs.- American driving attitude thing.
Did you know that for years folks wondered why the heck BMW's didn't come with a simple cupholder? How primitive!
Answer: In Germany, it is against the law to drink ANYTHING while driving, and other drivers would actually REPORT people they saw doing this!
Different attitude.

For me the AWD station wagon rocks -- Audi, Subaru, Volvo, etc. They are truly a utility vehicle and some are real sexy too -- and they handle WAY better than an SUV.

NM

[Bill Glasheen]

One other thing worth noting...

One needs to be very careful trying to make sense of accident statistics data.

I live in the world of healthcare data. If I was responsible for software that created reports like the kind Rich sent us to, I would be out of business. Physicians are no fools. The first response when you send them a report is "But my patients are sicker!!" Sometimes they are right, and sometimes not. But if you don't do the risk adjustment, then you might as well be sending them random numbers. They don't belive your data, and they shouldn't.

In a perfect world... The way to assign risk to a vehicle is to randomly assign people to cars and then let the data fall as they may. But it isn't the case. We get a selection bias of young, risk-taking drivers getting into a Subaru WRX, and overly-cautious soccer moms going around in vans and large SUVs. Thus the typical driving habits of a demographic have a LOT more to do with the ultimate risk of a vehicle than do raw numbers.

Insurance companies know this. Their risk models reflect it.

Did you know, Rich, that your insurance rates have only a little to do with the time of your last accident, only a little to do with the vehicle you drive, etc? By now you know that you are screwed if you are a young, unmarried male.

And want to know what has a LOT to do with your insurance rates? Credit history. Auto insurance people are not stupid. Their statistical models tell the truth.

As for causality, well that's for the tea-leave-readers to ponder over.

- Bill

[IJ]

Rich, I don't think SUVs are death traps. But that doesn't meet my minimum criteria for these freaking pickup truck monsters and 12 seater battleships on wheels becoming the most common vehicle on the road! They're a bad choice overall for the US. Even if we just look at 113 and 121 since some cars are tin cans we can reason that the SUVs are comparable to reasonably sized cars which pose less of a threat to others via impact, gas prices, or terrorist attack or chance of their son getting sent to Iraq to stabilize a strategically important area.

People do not buy hummers for comfort or because they're safe; they buy them because its easier to drive one than to carry a big sign that said "I had an extra 60 thou and couldn't find the right charity and it looks cool too."