Yeah, this should help gas prices!
- Thread starter lg_mouth
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
I'm not really seeing the connection between the two widely separated portions of my post you chose to quote. It's almost as if you're trying to twist my words into something I did not say.
Oh, wait...it's exactly like that.
As far as getting screwed if you live in California or Illinois, I'd say as long as the state governments are following the Constitution (both the state and federal variety) then yeah, that's just something you kind of have to deal with. Of course, there are more than a few examples I can think of where those states aren't following the US Constitution, which is something that needs to change (and now). I was just referring to the tendency of some states, in general, to allow state issues to be driven heavily by one or two metro areas while the rest of the state gets the shaft. Happens everywhere to some extent, some states are just worse than others.
But at the same time, often local (like city) governments are poorly equipped or qualified to handle larger issues (for a variety of reasons), so there are many issues that are best handled at a slightly higher level...you know, like the state.
Playboypenguin said:
Of the 37 vehicles on the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's "Top Safety Pick" list, 24 are SUVs, pickups and minivans.
The 20 SUVs (54%) dominate the list. The 3 minivans are built on modern SUV/X-over chassis. The lone pickup is a large body-on-frame design.
There is exactly one (1) small car.
The IIHS considers both passive safety (impact absorbance) and active safety (collision avoidance).
You are not "somehow" safer in a modern SUV/X-over, you are conclusively safer.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Sorry, that is not the case. Those ratings are based on collision tests and structural safety. They are not based on long term vehicle accident reports because such data is not readily available for newer model SUV's. Active safety numbers are based on turn radius, suspension handling, etc during trials by trained drivers...not real time scenerios or crash data. Consumer Reports even tells you that.
You have to be able to look past numbers and see what they mean. I can tell you men are 400% more likely to be struck by lightening than women. That does not mean if you stick 20 women and 20 men on a mountain top during an electrical storm that the women are four times safer than the men.
If you are two times as likely to survive a two car accident unijured in an SUV but three times more likely to be injured in a roll over accident are you really safer?
You also can not just look at crash numbers over all. If there are only two SUV's on the road for ever twenty small-medium cars then the numbers are skewed if that is not reflected. When I was deciding on which vehicle to buy I easily found credible evidence that SUV's were 3-4 times more likely to be involved in single vehicle accidents per capita and even 1.25 times as likely to be involved in minor two car accidents per capita.
First of all, the "Top Safety Picks" are separated by categories. Second, many of those vehicles on the "SUV" list are unibody crossovers, not body-on-frame truck based SUVs which are the subject of contention (in fact, truck-based SUVs are a notable minority). Third, minivans don't count as SUVs because they are not body-on-frame. Fourth, the safest vehicle in the pick is the Volvo S80. Fifth, electronic stability control is required so many small, cheaper cars that don't have that option but are equally as safe in crash test results are automatically disqualified.
Now all that being said, this is for recent models. SUVs and trucks today are far safer than they were just a few years ago. The majority of trucks and SUVs on the road were designed and built long before any of these changes were made, changes that were made specifically because trucks and SUVs were notoriously unsafe. So while a unibody 2008 Acura RDX is a very safe vehicle that doesn't mean that a body-on-frame 1996 Chevy Suburban is anywhere near as safe.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Gas mileage restrictions and arguments for and against them are valid in the case against oil companies They depend a lot on people buying gas for their cars and raising or lowering standards, and reasons for and against doing so, directly affect them.
Playboypenguin said:
IIHS vehicle accident reports. The red is substantially worse.
Small, mid-size, large cars (4 door):
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&sort=name&sz=2
http://http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&sort=name&sz=4
Small, mid-size, large SUVs:
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=8&sort=name&sz=2
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=8&sort=name&sz=3
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=8&sort=name&sz=4
Loss data clearly shows "worse than average" and "substantially worse than average" much higher among cars than SUVs, and much higher among small, fuel efficient cars.
This is relevant because safety and fuel economy are inextricably linked.
The reason smaller cars tend to have more damage costs than trucks and SUVs is because they are designed to absorb more energy from the impact as opposed to sending that energy into the softest, most pliable thing in the vehicle. Y'know...the occupants.
edit: well, one of the reasons. lot of factors go into crashes, especially when those smaller cars are going up against SUVs which may be responsible for causing more of those accidents since they're harder to control...hmm
They're linked but not inextricably.
edit: well, one of the reasons. lot of factors go into crashes, especially when those smaller cars are going up against SUVs which may be responsible for causing more of those accidents since they're harder to control...hmm
eeh, not exactly
They're linked but not inextricably.
JuanCarlos
New member
True. The last three columns, however, track losses for personal injury, medical payment, and bodily injury liability. I'm not positive exactly which are which and what exactly they cover, but I believe the first two relate to medical expenses related to occupants of the insured vehicle, and the third is for medical expenses and bodily injury incurred by others.
So lower numbers in those last three columns are a good thing from a safety standpoint.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
73 Jock
You are missing the point. Safety ratings have little to do with the actually numbers of accidents. The numbers on the cars (which you posted) are not based on actual real time traffic reports. They are calculations based on information obtained from testing. Ever hear of an actuary? One of my best friends is one for State Farm. They do not go and collect actual traffic reports. They use intitial information to base future projected numbers upon. If they had to wait for real time numbers they would not be able to insure any new models until they had been on the road for a few years. Real data is jus now catching up with SUV's and the rates on them are rising.
Just do a quick google search on your likelihood to be involved in a roll-over or single vehicle accident in an SUV.
You might also want to do a google search on whether children are actually safer in an SUV. I think you will be surprised.
You are missing the point. Safety ratings have little to do with the actually numbers of accidents. The numbers on the cars (which you posted) are not based on actual real time traffic reports. They are calculations based on information obtained from testing. Ever hear of an actuary? One of my best friends is one for State Farm. They do not go and collect actual traffic reports. They use intitial information to base future projected numbers upon. If they had to wait for real time numbers they would not be able to insure any new models until they had been on the road for a few years. Real data is jus now catching up with SUV's and the rates on them are rising.
Just do a quick google search on your likelihood to be involved in a roll-over or single vehicle accident in an SUV.
You might also want to do a google search on whether children are actually safer in an SUV. I think you will be surprised.
Playboypenguin said:
That is why I provided the Insurance Losses by Make and Model from the Highway Loss Data Institute. The IIHS has it covered at both ends; testing and statistical history.
Even a quick review of the loss data (color coded for your convenience) reveals that actual losses are much higher for small cars and all cars than for any size SUV. Just look at the personal, medical and bodily injury losses for small 4 door cars -- its a sea of red. (But perhaps their fuel savings balanced the medical costs and personal tragedy.)
Perhaps like someone else here, you would conveniently prefer to identify SUVs by categories of your personal design, regarding body-on-frame construction, and disregarding the IIHS studies. If that is the case, then we're wasting time. This would apply equally to having a friend in the business.
It's perfectly acceptable to me to consider the IIHS categories of SUV which include modern unit-body construction. Certainly, traditional design SUVs such as Jeep Commander and Dodge Durango do not fare well, thus supporting your (limited) contention.
But, modern X-over SUVs such as Acura, Lexus and Volvo are demonstratedly among the safest vehicles on the road. Not only is their loss data "average" or "substantially better", but they meet the newest, stringent impact and roll-over standards. There are 20 to choose from as "Top Safety Picks".
Perhaps you would like to identify the small, fuel efficient car -- that you would like to put your children in -- from the "Top Safety" list. You've got one to choose from, and the All-Wheel-Drive Impreza is not a fuel conservationists dream.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I haven't had a chance to read the loss charts yet. Can you tell me quickly if they are done just by model over-all or are they listed by % of vehicles on the road or by comparable over-all miles? I will try to read it tomorrow. I am on the road tonight and those charts are a pan to read on an iTouch.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Oh, so if there are 100 civics on the road for every 3 Tahoes the Civics would still show a greater loss rate since there are more of them to be paying out on. So this chart just deals with dollars spent, not with percentages of accidents or likelihoods of damage...just in the actual amounts there were spent to repair that particular model and treat people that were in them.
Wow, this topic is all over the place. So far only one person has really hit the nail on the head for the reason behind rising oil prices (buzz_knos I believe). China and India have economies that are now going all out and they are sucking up resources of every type. Oil is huge on that list. Free market economy means that these nations are competing directly with us in the world market, and since we dont live in a bubble, domestic oil prices are of course going to keep up with that race. So yes, the oil companies are reaping the rewards, but dont forget that not only were oil prices $23/barrel not too long ago, they were $12/barrel in 1998. Think about how much our domestic oil companies were hemmoraging at that point. This is the cycle swinging the other way.
I love the idiots who point at people with low-MPG cars and claim they are red-necks. Not everyone can afford to get a car that gets great mileage. My best care ever in terms of price paid vs reliability was a 1985 5th avenue. It rarely got near 20 mpg with city traffic, but its all we could afford in early years of marriage.
Banning all of the gas-guzzling SUVs from the road would do little to reduce gas costs. If someone wants to drive a SUV - let them. Thats like the hunter who fires 20 rounds a year declaring a casual shooter who fires 1000 rounds a year some kind of monster for driving up ammo prices. Limit everyone to single shot pistols and rifles to lower the usage and drive prices down. How about you worry about what you can afford and let everyone else worry about their expenses?
You want to make things better? Remember the 'Space Race' during the Cold War? How we glamorized the idea of children growing up to becomes the engineers and scientists who would put us in first place and on the moon? Subsidize schools to develop newer technologies for both alternate fuels and more economical usage of existing fuels. If the USA creates that technology first - BOOM we are back on top again and we will be churning out jobs that make the Tech Boom look pathetic.
I love the idiots who point at people with low-MPG cars and claim they are red-necks. Not everyone can afford to get a car that gets great mileage. My best care ever in terms of price paid vs reliability was a 1985 5th avenue. It rarely got near 20 mpg with city traffic, but its all we could afford in early years of marriage.
Banning all of the gas-guzzling SUVs from the road would do little to reduce gas costs. If someone wants to drive a SUV - let them. Thats like the hunter who fires 20 rounds a year declaring a casual shooter who fires 1000 rounds a year some kind of monster for driving up ammo prices. Limit everyone to single shot pistols and rifles to lower the usage and drive prices down. How about you worry about what you can afford and let everyone else worry about their expenses?
You want to make things better? Remember the 'Space Race' during the Cold War? How we glamorized the idea of children growing up to becomes the engineers and scientists who would put us in first place and on the moon? Subsidize schools to develop newer technologies for both alternate fuels and more economical usage of existing fuels. If the USA creates that technology first - BOOM we are back on top again and we will be churning out jobs that make the Tech Boom look pathetic.
This page is the IIHS's 2006 fatality data by vehicle type:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/occupants.html
Here are some highlights (bear in mind that IIHS SUV categories include both body-on-frame and unit-body construction):
This reflects both the dramatic improvements in auto safety and the proportionate rise in SUV popularity over 3 decades. (There were no SUVs before 1975.) However, note this:
Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2006
Note the dramatic difference in deaths between small (fuel efficient) cars and large cars. Also note that all SUV deaths are much lower than cars overall, and this is 2006 data, when SUVs account for nearly 50% of vehicles.
More importantly, there is little variation between small SUVs and large ones. This is because -- as Consumer Reports studies also show -- that the ideal automotive weight for collision protection is 4000 lbs. The SUV range starts at about 3600 lbs and tops out at about 6000 lbs, putting the majority right at the ideal weight.
It should come as no surprise that the modern X-over SUVs on the "Top Safety" list all weigh just about 4000 lbs. The Acura RDX, for example, weighs 3950 lbs.
I heartily agree that fuel efficiency must be improved, but not at the expense of death rates of 99% to 106% for small and mini cars, vs 33% to 50% in SUVs.
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/occupants.html
Here are some highlights (bear in mind that IIHS SUV categories include both body-on-frame and unit-body construction):
This reflects both the dramatic improvements in auto safety and the proportionate rise in SUV popularity over 3 decades. (There were no SUVs before 1975.) However, note this:
Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2006
Note the dramatic difference in deaths between small (fuel efficient) cars and large cars. Also note that all SUV deaths are much lower than cars overall, and this is 2006 data, when SUVs account for nearly 50% of vehicles.
More importantly, there is little variation between small SUVs and large ones. This is because -- as Consumer Reports studies also show -- that the ideal automotive weight for collision protection is 4000 lbs. The SUV range starts at about 3600 lbs and tops out at about 6000 lbs, putting the majority right at the ideal weight.
It should come as no surprise that the modern X-over SUVs on the "Top Safety" list all weigh just about 4000 lbs. The Acura RDX, for example, weighs 3950 lbs.
I heartily agree that fuel efficiency must be improved, but not at the expense of death rates of 99% to 106% for small and mini cars, vs 33% to 50% in SUVs.