What happed to all the Hummers?

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: moving2


Originally Posted By: moving2
2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported."

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie


Audi Junkie- thanks again for posting this and making my point for me!

Originally Posted By: moving2
2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area."

 

[moving2]

I wonder how a car would've done in this accident. Now I just need to find a big-rig vs. smushed car video and then I'll have "Audi-Junkie-proof" that SUVs are safer than cars!

 

[Spyder7]

The driver of the SUV was airlifted to a local hospital with serious injuries; the trucker was unhurt.

I think the solution obvious: we simply need to all upgrade our daily drivers to transport trucks (and it only took 13 pages to figure this out).

-Spyder

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7

I think the solution obvious: we simply need to all upgrade our daily drivers to transport trucks (and it only took 13 pages to figure this out).
-Spyder


Spyder- I think you're onto something here! Checking bigrigtrader right now...

 

[Audi Junkie]

Thanks Mooving2, great informational video for those who plan to fall asleep at the wheel. Accident avoidance isn't part of your game plan, is it?


This what we all need for 125km/hr

Obviously...

 

[Spyder7]

That lead vehicle has end times, urban warfare written all over it. Looks like something I'd expect to find in the world of Fallout 3. I know if it turned up in my neighborhood, I'd wonder what impending catastrophe I had missed on the news.

-Spyder

 

[Ursae_Majoris]

Soutn African OMC APV?

 

[Audi Junkie]

It's Canadian!

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
It's Canadian!

Hopefully it doesn't turn up in my neighborhood then. SUVs are mildly popular here, but emphasis on the "mild." They are greatly outnumbered, on both ends, by cars of various sizes on one end, and by pickups (some light, but mainly full-size) on the other. They have about the same size market share here as minivans.

The majority of cars are compact to midsize; mostly 4 cylinder but a few 6 cyclinders as well.

I think gas prices play a big role: gas here is regulated, and heavily taxed. Each Wednesday we are notified of the expected change that will go into effect at midnight. This week its about a $1.12/L for 87. It will continue to slowly increase until Spring, when it'll fall (eventually) to about a $1/L.

Anything that isn't reasonably fuel efficient is a tough sell to most, given fuel costs. I know it is to me.

-Spyder

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Thanks Mooving2, great informational video for those who plan to fall asleep at the wheel. Accident avoidance isn't part of your game plan, is it?


Thanks, Audi Junkie! I'm just following your lead in posting these Youtube videos, as the video you posted with the SUV rollover is an excellent informational video for those who plan to:

1. Lead police on a high-speed chase
2. Drive like a maniac
3. NOT wear seatbelts while performing (1) and (2)

Reality isn't in your game plan, is it?

Although I plan to do neither, I think the average person has a better chance of (falling asleep at the wheel) than (leading police on a high-speed chase and driving like a maniac while not wearing seatbelts), but then I guess context only matters in the videos I post, not the videos you post. I get it now- thanks for clarifying!

 

[Audi Junkie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_safety


Active and passive safety

The terms "active" and "passive" are simple but important terms in the world of automotive safety. "Active safety" is used to refer to technology assisting in the prevention of a crash and "passive safety" to components of the vehicle (primarily airbags, seatbelts and the physical structure of the vehicle) that help to protect occupants during a crash .[4][5]
[edit] Crash avoidance

Crash avoidance systems and devices help the driver — and, increasingly, help the vehicle itself — to avoid a collision. This category includes:

* The vehicle's headlamps, reflectors, and other lights and signals
* The vehicle's mirrors
* The vehicle's brakes, steering, and suspension systems

Driver assistance

A subset of crash avoidance is driver assistance systems, which help the driver to detect ordinarily-hidden obstacles and to control the vehicle. Driver assistance systems include:

* Automatic Braking systems to prevent or reduce the severity of collision.
* Infrared night vision systems to increase seeing distance beyond headlamp range
* Adaptive highbeam which automatically and continuously adapts the headlamp range to the distance of vehicles ahead or which are oncoming
* Adaptive headlamps swivels headlamps around corners
* Reverse backup sensors, which alert drivers to difficult-to-see objects in their path when reversing
* Backup camera
* Adaptive cruise control which maintains a safe distance from the vehicle in front
* Lane departure warning systems to alert the driver of an unintended departure from the intended lane of travel
* Tire pressure monitoring systems or Deflation Detection Systems
* Traction control systems which restore traction if driven wheels begin to spin
* Electronic Stability Control, which intervenes to avert an impending loss of control
* Anti-lock braking systems
* Electronic brakeforce distribution systems
* Emergency brake assist systems
* Cornering Brake Control systems
* Precrash system
* Automated parking system

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_safety
Active and passive safety

The terms "active" and "passive" are simple but important terms in the world of automotive safety. "Active safety" is used to refer to technology assisting in the prevention of a crash and "passive safety" to components of the vehicle (primarily airbags, seatbelts and the physical structure of the vehicle) that help to protect occupants during a crash .[4][5]


Audi Junkie- OK, let's examine your "common sense approach" regarding active vs. passive safety. Let's see if the "superior" active safety provided by cars stack up with the "inferior" active safety features of SUVs. But this time I'm not going to let you dodge the question by claiming you don't understand the numbers since these numbers couldn't be any simpler, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. At each point in this post, I've asked: "Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away", and I mean this- ask and I will be more than happy to explain. There's no abstract theory here- let's just see how your "common sense approach" stacks up in the real world.

1. One way we can examine this is by looking at the frequency of insurance collision coverage claims among different vehicle sizes/types (frequency of claims, not dollar amount of claims). I found data from the IIHS for 2006-08 vehicles, which does a good job of reflecting current active and passive safety features in cars and SUVs. If the active safety features of cars prevent them from getting into accidents better than the active safety features of SUVs, then one would expect this to show up in the real world in terms of the frequency of collisions of each vehicle type, and hence the frequency of insurance collision coverage claims of each vehicle type, right? Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away.

2. That is, since SUVs have "inferior active safety" relative to cars, SUVs will get into more collisions than cars because cars will be able to AVOID more collisions, right? This means that SUV drivers should be filing more collision claims than car drivers, who are busy driving their better-braking, better-handling cars instead of doing accident/insurance paperwork. No statistics yet, just a way to see if your claim holds up. Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away.

3. Remember, I already presented some of this for mini vs. midsize cars in an earlier post you dodged:

Originally Posted By: moving2

From the IIHS summary:

8. "Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place."

...you listening here, Audi Junkie?

"...Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones."


4. Now let's see if this holds up when it comes to all sizes of cars vs. all sizes of SUVs, not just mini car vs. midsize car. Instead of looking at every size within each vehicle class separately, I'll average the results within each vehicle class so that:
a) we can directly compare cars vs. SUVs, averaging across all vehicle size
b) we can account for the wide range of demographics within each vehicle class

We're looking at the latest and greatest in safety since these are 2006-08 models. Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away.

5. Results:
Relative collision claim frequency (claims per 100 insured vehicles per year, averaged across all vehicle sizes within each IIHS-identified class):

2 DOOR CARS: 96.25 / 100
4 DOOR CARS: 108.2 / 100
SPORTS CARS: 95.0 / 100
LUXURY CARS: 106.3 /100
SUVS: 82.75 / 100
LUXURY SUVS: 93.0 / 100

Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away.

6. Now let's further average these numbers into simply "CARS" vs. "SUVs", and we get:

CARS: 101.4375
SUVs: 87.875

Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away.

7. Conclusion: SUVs have, on average, a 13.3% lower frequency of insurance collision coverage claims vs. cars. This does not support your argument that the "superior" active safety features of cars provide a significant advantage in avoiding collisions in the real world vs. SUVs.


Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away.

8. Again, this is pretty basic data here, Audi Junkie- insurance collision claim frequency for different types of vehicles. These numbers should reflect the better active safety features of "nimble, safer, better braking" cars, which avoid more accidents, and hence file less collision claims, than "lumbering, worse braking, rolling death trap" SUVs, right?

But it appears to me that your "common sense approach" just doesn't play out in the real world. Again, please don't feign ignorance. These are simple numbers presented here. If you have questions, just ask, don't run/ignore/dodge. What is your response?

Here's mine: I'm sure your brakes are nice and everything, Audi Junkie, but I prefer life.

 

[IndyIan]

Are any of these numbers weighted for who is driving each type of vehicle?
Either by sex, age, driving experience, income level?

I think alot of the IIHS numbers just tell you the driving habits of the average driver of that type of vehicle.

By comparing different vehicle classes to each other you are assuming they all have the same drivers, but they don't.

When they used to publish numbers for specific vehicles, Mazda Miata's had the same numbers as much "safer" vehicles, I believe due to who was driving them, not the safety features or lack of them.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Are any of these numbers weighted for who is driving each type of vehicle?
Either by sex, age, driving experience, income level?

I think alot of the IIHS numbers just tell you the driving habits of the average driver of that type of vehicle.

By comparing different vehicle classes to each other you are assuming they all have the same drivers, but they don't.

When they used to publish numbers for specific vehicles, Mazda Miata's had the same numbers as much "safer" vehicles, I believe due to who was driving them, not the safety features or lack of them.



Originally Posted By: moving2


Do you disagree or need clarification on anything so far? If so, please explain/ask away.

I'm sure your brakes are nice and everything, Audi Junkie, but I prefer life.


Yes. In addition to reiterating the above post, which dramatizes the so far overlooked demographic and per-mile component, I'd like clarification of who is actually reporting and recording the accidents that never happen, the "close-calls" and such. What is the reference material on that again???

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Are any of these numbers weighted for who is driving each type of vehicle?
Either by sex, age, driving experience, income level?

I think alot of the IIHS numbers just tell you the driving habits of the average driver of that type of vehicle.


IndyIan- good point. While averaging across all vehicle sizes within each class accounts for the range of demographics within each vehicle class, the study data does not account for demographic differences between the drivers of cars vs. SUVs. However, I think it would be going out on a limb to say that the data says more about the driver than about the vehicle.

Looking at the results, one could argue that, on average, SUV drivers may simply be more cautious, careful drivers than car drivers. However, considering the fact that the "car" and "SUV" categories averaged here represent such a broad range of cars and SUVs (e.g., it accounts for the small 4 door "tuner" civic driver and the large 4 door "elderly" crown vic driver; it accounts for the "practical" Chevy Suburban driver and the "fast" Porsche Cayenne Turbo driver), I think it represents a good average cross-section of the driving population driving both cars and SUVs. That is to say, this data includes the "conservative" and "risky" ends of both car and SUV drivers.

In the end, the data presents a broad demographic among a broad range of vehicle types for both cars and SUVs. Because we cannot control for demographic factors, we can only say this is how the frequency of collisions turn out for cars vs. SUVs in the real world. Driver demographics and active safety both play a role in the outcome. But we can say this: whatever role active safety plays in cars vs. SUVs, it doesn't show up as giving the average car/car driver an advantage over the average SUV/SUV driver in avoiding accidents in the real world.

Bottom line:

1. If we say it's all due to demographics, not vehicle safety: SUV drivers are safer drivers than car drivers, getting into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions.

2. If we say it's all due to vehicle safety, not demographics: the active safety features of cars do not give them an advantage over SUVs when it comes to avoiding collisions, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars.

3. And if we say the results are due to a mix of vehicle safety and demographics: considering both the demographics of car/suv drivers and the active safety features of cars/suvs, we can say cars have no advantage over SUVs when it comes to avoiding collisions, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars. This is due to some combination of (possibly) safer drivers in SUVs vs. cars, and active safety features present in both cars and SUVs.


Again, we can say this: whatever role active safety plays in cars vs. SUVs, it doesn't show up as giving the average car/car driver an advantage over the average SUV/SUV driver in avoiding accidents in the real world.

 

[moving2]

1.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie

Yes. In addition to reiterating the above post, which dramatizes the so far overlooked demographic [...] component


See my post above and don't respond if you'd like to be consistent.


2.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie

[...] and per-mile component


Please explain what, specifically, you believe is being overlooked with respect to the "per mile component"


3.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'd like clarification of who is actually reporting and recording the accidents that never happen, the "close-calls" and such. What is the reference material on that again???

Reference material? See the link to the IIHS study. Here's your clarification: the "accidents that never happen" ARE represented. How, you ask? By one less claim filed per accident that doesn't happen, which is directly reflected in the "frequency of claims" number presented in the data above. Lemme know if this is not clear and I will explain it further.

 

[moving2]

So, to summarize so far:

According to REAL-WORLD IIHS accident data and considering demographics and active and passive vehicle safety:


1. IF AN ACCIDENT CAN BE AVOIDED:

a) Considering both the demographics of car/suv drivers and the active safety features of cars/suvs, SUVs have an advantage when it comes to avoiding collisions, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars. This is due to some combination of (possibly) safer drivers in SUVs vs. cars, and active safety features present in both cars and SUVs.

Because we don't know precisely how much "safer drivers" factor in to this 13% difference vs. "vehicle active safety", we can say that:

i) driving the average SUV, and
ii) driving it as safely as the average SUV driver

...puts you at a statistical advantage when it comes to avoiding an accident compared to the average car and its driver.


2. IF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE AVOIDED:

a) Small, midsize, AND LARGE cars all have an overall death rate HIGHER than even SMALL SUVs, not to mention midsize, large, and very large SUVs.

b) Small, midsize, AND LARGE cars have an overall death rate that is about TWICE that of even MIDSIZE SUVs, not to mention large and very large SUVs.

c) ONLY "Very Large" cars have an overall death rate comparable to SUVs- and that rate is matched or beaten by midsize, large, and very large SUVs.


So, whether it's avoiding an accident, or just remaining as safe as possible in the case of an accident, it looks like the average 2006-08 car and its driver on the road today is at a DISADVANTAGE compared to the average 2006-08 SUV and its driver on the road today, according to real-world IIHS collision and fatality rate data.

Audi Junkie- now what were you saying about avoiding an accident again?

 

[Audi Junkie]

Oh, so SUVs are more maneuverable than cars.

I didn't know that.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
I'd rather stop short than hit something, but thanks.


Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Oh, so SUVs are more maneuverable than cars. I didn't know that.


Whatever role active safety plays in avoiding collisions in 2006-08 cars and SUVs, it doesn't appear to give cars an overall advantage over SUVs, on average, when it comes to avoiding collisions in the real world. It's tough when your preconceived notions just don't mesh with reality, isn't it?

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie



Originally Posted By: moving2

I think I see where you're coming from- posting these random, anecdotal, and otherwise meaningless Youtube videos is WAY more fun than discussing those annoying "IIHS/NHTSA/NCAP crash tests", or those meaningless "IIHS statistics" aren't they? Not to mention posting random videos is much easier on the brain vs. having one of those crazy "rational discussions" with those annoying "facts and numbers".

Now I get it: random Youtube videos you know little to nothing about make you feel safe when IIHS crash tests, data, and statistics do not. I hear ya!

So please continue posting these awesome videos and I'll do the same. Lovin' it!