What vehicles are actually safer?

[StorminN]

- Cut & pasted here from the SEVA email list -


On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:24 AM, John Windberg wrote:

Yup.

What I would like to do is encourage less responsible drivers, who
don't really understand how to properly control a larger vehicle, and
are thus less safe in then, to buy Camrys or similar. It would be
safer for them, and for others on the road.

It does seem there are more of them out there every day.

In the mean time, I drive a little biddy car with almost no blind
spots, and I feel much safer in it then I do driving my truck.

I read a similar story about the design of the PT cruiser. They were
contemplating a great big rear window instead of the little round
portal window it came with. They let people drive cars with both
versions. Most people said they "felt safer" in the one with the small
window, probably as no one could look in. In reality the big window is
safer as it drastically reduces the blind spot.

I want real safety, not perceived safety even if it increases sales.

-j




On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Ken Hunt <kenmhunt@gmail.com> wrote:
Nice email John!

I didn't read every word but skimmed each of the articles you presented. One
day I'd like to look into this in more detail. The basic thing I get from
this is that SUVs are not safer, but they are not more dangerous either -
the rollover risk cancels out the higher safety rating of regular crashes.

Just like folks that try to say flying is safer than driving...there is a
bit of trickery in the numbers. If you got in a plane and took a little trip
1000 times every year for 25 years, I think you'd crash at least once...er
only once. You almost never crash, but if you do...forget it, your dead. I'm
not saying that SUVs are like this, I'm saying that the numbers are always
displayed to support a specific point of view, with an intended reaction
from their audience.

I think part of it is you have to take each person and put them in the
different situation. For example, many of the accidents and rollovers cited
in the links below are related to bad weather driving / snow / ice etc.
People that get cocky and overdrive their Broncos & Blazers (yes, these were
quoted in the article by a tow truck driver, not imports), and end up in the
ditch and or turned upside down. Stay with me here. I have an SUV, and I
have driven it A lot (for these parts anyhow) in the snow & ice, and I've
had scary moments, but NEVER came close to any rollover situation. Not even
close. I don't overdrive it, I realize I have a lot to stop, and it is
harder to stop....it means I go slower, and have a larger (extremely)
following distance, and I always have a way out. When driving in snow I am
always ready to veer to the side of the road to get more traction (from snow
as opposed to compact ice) or prepared to take it off road to avoid
colliding with another car etc. Some times I decide the down hill is too
steep and I won't go that route. You have to make these kind of decisions.

A couple years ago we had a storm hit right at rush hour...I was with my
kids in Maltby...It took me 5 hours to get home to Redmond. I passed
probably 500 cars on the sides of the roads, including abandoned cars on 405
etc. The roads that day went almost to ice immediately. I had to go up union
hill road, which if you know of it, it is steep, windy, poor site distance,
etc. I was one of the minority that made it. People were sliding back down
the hill running into other cars, some parts of the hill was so littered
with cars (and SUVS of course) I could barely squeeze through. I didn't have
chains, but I took each hill, each corner, each mile as serious. I knew I
could get stranded with my kids several miles from home in the cold....I'm
not saying I'm a great driver, I'm saying that a lot of other folks just
seem to do things that after they do it, they say...why did I do that?

I'm not saying that I will never be in a rollover accident in an SUV, but I
am saying that I am aware of the dangers, and my driving takes into
consideration these things. I feel safer in and SUV than in a low slung car,
and I honestly feel that I am safer. It will take a lot more data than the
marginal numbers in these studies to change my mind. If you are a careless
driver, then you will do less damage in a collision if you are in a smaller
car. So if the folks that drive SUVs because they "drive like a car" but are
up higher to be safe...then maybe they should drive a car. But until they
do, I will increase my seeing distance, put more metal around me, and be
safer in my SUV.

Remember the insurance commercial...cars don't cause accidents, people do. I
could go on and on (yes, even more), but I have other things to do today

I may do some research in the comming weeks though for a different
perspective of the numbers

Ken

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:34 AM, John Windberg <jwindberg@gmail.com> wrote:

Yup, I hear the argument all the time.

"There are things you just cannot avoid."

I counter that with the actual studies and statistics out there.

If you increase the number of times you actually can avoid an accident
by driving a smaller car you will statistically reduce your potential
for injuries.

If you research the statistics, larger vehicles result in more injuries.

Certainly, larger vehicles result in fewer injuries per collision, but
I would much rather not have the collisions in the first place, and
I'd go with the actual statistics of what is really safer.

Sure, wearing a bullet proof vest is safer, if you are going to get
shot, but not getting shot in the first place is even safer.

Driving a great big SUV increases your potential for getting in a
multi car collision, thus increasing your potential for injury.

The Myth of SUV Safety Superiority
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3032

SUV safety myth: children just as safe in cars
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/suv-safety-myth

The myth of SUV safety
http://www.southphillyreview.com/view_article.php?id=136

Children No Safer in SUVs Than in Passenger Cars
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2006/SUVs-No-Safer3jan06.htm

Is Bigger Safer? It Ain't Necessarily So
http://enews.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety.html
http://enews.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety-newWin.html

SUV's safer than cars? Now you can throw that myth out the window

http://www.autospies.com/news/SUV-s-safer-than-cars-Now-you-can-throw-that-myth-out-the-window-4814/

I'm finding studies from Pennsylvania to Australia, some done by
safety organizations, others by governments, others by auto
organizations. Every one of them says the same thing, statistically,
larger vehicles are no safer.

Even the US department of transportation lists the Toyota Camry at the
safest vehicle out there. You want to be safe, drive a Camry.

I put the statement, "Larger vehicles are safer" in the same list as
other "common sense" phrases as:

Alternative power could never power the base grid.
Batteries will never get good enough to power cars.
The earth is flat.
Objects of different weight fall at different speeds, proportionately
to their weight.

I use my common sense to make a supposition, but I don't even believe
my common sense until I find actual proof, and one incident is not
enough.



On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Ken Hunt <kenmhunt@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, John - I'd much rather not be in a collision in the first place.
But as
I stated before, there are just so many bad drivers out there. The first
(and only major collision) I was in was when I was 20 years ago when I
was
driving down Broadway in Everett, and someone punched it at a red light
and
hit my car as I was going through the intersection. There was no way for
me
to avoid it...I've driven through thousands of green lights, there is
only
so much you can do before you have to trust that people are not going to
do
stupid things. The lady who hit my car, which sent me up on the sidewalk
and
into a store (it was closed, and no one was hurt), was drunk, and just a
block from her house...It's a good thing me and my passengers were
wearing
seatbelts...it was pretty scary though - the alarm went off on the store
(very loud), and the big glass window to the showroom shattered all over
the
sidewalk...if anyone was on the sidewalk, they would have not
survived...

So avoidance is the preferred route, but there is a fair amount out of
my
control. The truth is, it can happen to anyone.

Ken

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:54 AM, John Windberg <jwindberg@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sure, when two cards collide, I'd rather be in the safer one, but
wouldn't you much rather not be in a collision in the first place?



On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ken Hunt <kenmhunt@gmail.com> wrote:
So many things to say...too bad this wasn't all on the forum! Ok, off
the
soap box...

So I agree with Dan on this one...I don't care what you say about how
safe a
small car is, when a metro meets a yukon, I'd rather be in the 7
seater...

As for the 4x4s in the snow...it's sort of like the stock market has
become.
So many newbies have gotten in to day trading, having to invest in
401k
plans,&nbsp; walked into stock options etc, that the markets instability
is
so
often based on knee jerk reactions that are not even based on
logic...but if
you are going to invest, that is what you have to deal with. So many
younger
folks who have never driven a stick - never driven that old car with
bad
breaks, thinks all cars have computer controlled traction control
systems (I
can't hardly break my wifes 4runners tires from the road - even in
the
rain)...and of course they think they can out maneuver anybody b/c
the
big
tires & 4WD. Well, yes, they get over confident, and over drive their
vehicles...and end up in the ditch. SUVS used to known as Sport
Utility
Vehciles, and like JEEPs, were for the adventurous outdoorsy type.
Now
every
Tom Dick & Harriet has one...and they are big & heavy, and take a
LONG
time
to stop in snow / ice. I am just fortunate that I actually can drive
in
snow
around here...because I learned to drive in a cheap small car, and
drove
lots of cheap pick ups / cars in bad weather...Somewhere down the
line
people forgot that driving is actually a very serious responsibility,
and
you need to pay attention, be careful, and of course know your
vehicles
limitations and never lose control of it.

My 2 cents.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Dan Bentler
<dan.bentler48@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I dont care too much about getting in an accident
BUT I do care about survivability and being able to walk away
.
To paraphrase from sailboating experience "TONNAGE HAS RIGHT OF WAY"
in other words in a collision a freighter will survive but a 30'
sailboat
has big problems.

Collision between low slung sportscar and high slung SUV or 4 x 4 I
wanna
be in the high slung rig.
SUV vs Kenworth with 50' trailer and GVW of 55 ton put me in the KW
please.
KW vs 250 ton bridge well I would rather be on the bridge.

The problem with lots of 4 x 4 drivers is YES they go better in the
snow
etc etc.
BUT they have exactly the same braking characteristics as a 2 wheel
drive.
Yes I laugh at the 4 x 4s in the ditch when it snows also especially
if
they just passed me doin 50.

Dan Bentler

----- Original Message ----
From: John Windberg <jwindberg@gmail.com>
To: seva@seattleeva.org
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:52:18 PM
Subject: Re: [seva] Utilities say grid can handle rechargeable cars

And here is one of the largest myths about large vehicles, that they
are
safer.

Check the statistics, smaller cars are much safer, primarily because
they get in accidents far less as they are much easier to control.

Try driving from SF to Tahoe sometime, all the vehicles off the road
in the ditches are SUV's, small cars drive right past them.

Most large SUVs are also only held to truck safety standards, actual
cars have higher standards to live up to.

-j

[StorminN]

John, I have to say I'm sorry, I agree with Dan that tonnage rules.

Don't believe me? You get in your "little bitty car"... Camry, whatever, and I'll get in my '82 diesel 2WD Suburban and we'll meet head-on at 100mph (50mph each), just like so many of the accidents I see out here on Hwy 101 on the Olympic Peninsula. I'd MUCH rather be in the Suburban.

I witnessed a fatal accident on Hwy 20 on Whidbey Island a few years ago... blue sky day, dry pavement, two nearly identical Plymouth Horizons met head-on at about 50mph each... one driver was dead on the scene, the other was in bad shape. It all happened because one driver crossed the center line. Believe me, seeing something like that, seeing people trapped and crushed in cars makes you think about the car you drive.

(PS) I do believe my Suburban would out-brake and out-accelerate a Camry on dry pavement. It has oversized brakes and a 6.5L turbo diesel that yanks it around like a go-kart. It's a 2WD drive version, so it's low and wide and not prone to rolling like the majority of SUV's out there. I also grew up in New England, home of defensive driving and winter-long sheet ice conditions, so I know how to drive it... I think this is the most important thing. We grew up practicing controlled slides in the snow in parking lots, etc.

Of course, I don't drive the Suburban anymore. It's got a 3-speed automatic tranny and gets 16mpg on a good day. Biodiesel is $5.20 a gallon now, even when I buy in bulk... so I'm driving a (relatively) little bitty Subaru wagon that gets 27mpg on a good day and can switch into 4WD when I need it. I'm hoping to do an EV conversion in the next six months or so, probably a Nissan pickup or a Honda Civic... but do I feel safer now than in the Suburban? Will I feel safer in either of those EV's? No, not at all.

-Norm.

[ev-supply]

I think safety always has a lot more to do with the driver than the vehicle.

Also, the safety of a bigger vehicle is in the weight differential; if everyone drove a big SUV, there wouldn't be a 'safer' vehicle.  The only way to get above the 50 percentile would be to buy an even bigger SUV (hence the Hummer).  This isn't even taking into account all of the delivery trucks and haulers that are way heavier still. 

I think that the focus should be on driver education.  The periodic defensive driving class can help anyone, even those who think that they don't need it.

[StorminN]

ev-supply, I agree.

One could go a step further and say that anyone that drives over a 5,000 vehicle must past a certain test... or anyone that drives a vehicle with a CG above a certain point (those more likely to roll). Commercial drivers have to do it...

Me, I feel lucky I grew up in the snow & ice, I think it certainly helps.

-Norm.

[leitmotif]

Based on my 20 years in industrial safety
A good operator can make a piece of junk work and produce
A bad operator will tear up the best made piece of equipment and maybe himself

You can make it foolproof but then some fool will prove you wrong

I think one of the major causes of vehicle accidents is
THE LOOSE NUT BEHIND THE STEERING WHEEL.

Driver education including refreshers is probably the cheapest investment with best long term payoff.

If size is more survivable (true) but also more involved in accidents then the heavy truck would stand out as leader.  I believe you will find the reverse is true for trucking -- they probably have the lowest accident rate however you want to measure it per vehicle driver mile whatever.

Dan Bentler

[Paul]

John, I have to say I'm sorry, I agree with Dan that tonnage rules.

Don't believe me? You get in your "little bitty car"... Camry, whatever, and I'll get in my '82 diesel 2WD Suburban and we'll meet head-on at 100mph (50mph each), just like so many of the accidents I see out here on Hwy 101 on the Olympic Peninsula. I'd MUCH rather be in the Suburban.

I attached an .gif with some vehicle safety numbers (but I'm not sure how to do it correctly - this is a test.) Its insurance company collected data as they are very concerned about how likely a vehicle is kill somebody in it or somebody in another vehicle.

The Suburban is the safest of the SUVs. The Camry is still a lower risk. The problem is the vehicle that looks the best after an accident is not clearly the safer vehicle. The rigid frame of the trucks and SUVs helps keep the vehicle intact in an accident but it transfers a lot of force of the accident to the occupants. Combine that with the compromised handing caused by a high center of gravity and the worse braking performance that goes with it and you have in increased risk in SUVs compared to many cars and minivans.

I'd much rather be in the Camry. In the event of impact I'm likely safer but I can also choose to leave the road at the last second with little risk of a roll over.

[leitmotif]

I dont think you are interpreting the chart correctly.  I read it as risk to me in my vehicle as opposed to risk to you in yours.
The chart to me says If I have tonnage and you dont you are gonna get hurt more than I
Of course they dont define risk very well.

An extreme example
1995 Boeing had a company car on display at Plant II which had collided with a forklift.  Both were doing posted speed.  The car was demolished and driver went to hospital.  Forklift and driver went back to work.  NO the forklift did not stab the driver -- I believe he had the forks close to the ground and they went under the car.

Who is gonna win in an accident the train or a vehicle.  The train every time.

Study your physics especially elastic and inelastic collisions.

Dan Bentler

[Paul]

No, you are reading the chart incorrectly. Across the bottom is the risk to the driver. The further to the right the greater the risk. Up the chart is the risk to the driver of the other vehicle. Higher represents a greater risk to other drivers. The Camry clearly offers a lower chance of death compared to the Suburban (though the Suburban is the safest SUV.)

A forklift is a completely different case. Its more like an accident with a train. The train wins no matter if you are in a Suburban or Geo Metro. (in fact, the results aren't much different)

"Study your physics" - the response of the person without an answer. You might want to study automobile crumple zones, deceleration distances, and the effects of the resulting force on the human body.

If you run 2 Suburbans head on into each other, each going 50 mph, the likely hood of death is much greater than if you run 2 Camrys head on into each other at 50 mph. The Camrys handle and break better too, providing the drivers with a little more time to avoid the collision. This whole "bigger is safer" mentality is something driven into many peoples heads by auto company advertising. Repetition does not make something correct.

[leitmotif]

All I know is from digging people out of wrecks and doing fatality investigations.  Smaller the car the worse the injuries.  Same for what I see in the body shops. 
Two surburbans I agree.  Two camrys I agree.  Suburban vs camry or other small car head on at 50 oh please let me be in the suburban
All I really care about is survivability.

Yes I understand crumple zones and all.
Why I even understand the concept of momentum.

Tell you what just to get me out of this and to keep you happy -- you are right I am wrong.
Dan Bentler

[tomsax]

You can make all of the physics arguments you want, but the stats show that the big vehicles tend toward the right side of the chart, meaning they carry a higher risk of death for their owners.

Not all car accidents are head-on collisions between two vehicles. The large vehicles that are on the right side of the chart are presumably there because they are subject to less stringent safety standards and carry a higher chance of rolling in extreme driving circumstances.

I'd rather be in a Honda Insight that manages to keep the greasy side down than a Suburban that rolls off the road.

[StorminN]

You can make all of the physics arguments you want, but the stats show that the big vehicles tend toward the right side of the chart, meaning they carry a higher risk of death for their owners.

Not all car accidents are head-on collisions between two vehicles. The large vehicles that are on the right side of the chart are presumably there because they are subject to less stringent safety standards and carry a higher chance of rolling in extreme driving circumstances.

I'd rather be in a Honda Insight that manages to keep the greasy side down than a Suburban that rolls off the road.

With all due respect, are we looking at the same chart?

On the far right side of the chart, I see Chevy Prizm, Cavalier/Sunfire, Escort/Tracer, Neons, and the Chevy S10. All but the S10 are "subcompact cars", not "large vehicles". The S10 is even considered a "midsize car", according to the chart. I assume the S10 is at the far right of the chart because of its tendency to roll. I wouldn't drive one.

I DO see large vehicles at the top of the chart... meaning they are a risk to the people they hit. Yes... if I was in a Neon, I would NOT want to be hit by a Dodge Ram... the "crumple zone" of a Neon, Prism, Escort, etc. is simply not big enough.

If we're to take this chart to heart, we should all be driving minivans (safest for the drivers). Of course, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"... this chart does not tell us the source of this data... first of all, what are we seeing? What do the numbers actually reference? Is this a chart of injuries, or deaths? Also, what is the risk to passengers (are we assume it's the same as the risk to drivers? Probably not true in vehicles without passenger air bags, etc.) and does the source of the data account for the different numbers of each vehicle on the road? (ie. there are MILLIONS of F-250's on the roads... and if we're strictly going by statistics, a Rolls Royce limo might be the safest car on the road because of the way that they are driven and the fact that there are so few of them)

And just because... according to Car & Driver tests, here's some data to contemplate (files attached also)...

Stopping distance, 70-0:
2007 Camry LE - 174ft
2007 Suburban LT2 - 190ft
2000 Honda Insight - 197ft

Roadholding skidpad test -
2000 Honda Insight - 0.78g
2007 Camry LE - 0.78g
2007 Suburban LT2 - 0.71g

Acceleration, 5-60mph -
2007 Suburban LT2 - 7.8 secs
2007 Camry LE - 8.9 secs
2000 Honda Insight - 12.0 secs

-Norm.

[StorminN]

If you run 2 Suburbans head on into each other, each going 50 mph, the likely hood of death is much greater than if you run 2 Camrys head on into each other at 50 mph.

Paul, what brings you to this conclusion of a hypothetical situation? Why do you feel the likely hood of death is "much greater"? The chart that you posted before gives us numbers, but what do those numbers mean? I agree that the Camry handling and braking numbers are slightly better, but in a Suburban - Camry accident, I still strongly disagree... I'd much rather be in the Suburban... and yes, I understand crumple zones, deceleration distances, etc.

Let me ask you this, as the vehicle gets bigger, which one would you rather be in?
Camry vs. Suburban
Camry vs. Hummer H1
Camry vs. Dump Truck
Camry vs. Semi Truck
Camry vs. Train

In all cases, I'd rather NOT be in the Camry. Statistical analysis be damned... put me in the larger vehicle, I feel my survival rate will be higher. (But don't put me in a tall, tippy SUV).

My point is, accidents are just that... accidents! Sure, some people maneuver and avoid accidents, but what do tons of people say after they've been through one? "It was over before I even knew what happened", "They came out of nowhere" etc... in other words, they didn't even see the other vehicle, or if the did, they didn't have time to react, etc... they just hit or got hit... in these cases, it doesn't matter how nimble your vehicle is.

-Norm.

[StorminN]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Dan Bentler <dan.bentler48@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont care too much about getting in an accident
BUT I do care about survivability and being able to walk away.
To paraphrase from sailboating experience "TONNAGE HAS RIGHT OF WAY"
in other words in a collision a freighter will survive but a 30' sailboat has big problems.

Collision between low slung sportscar and high slung SUV or 4 x 4 I wanna be in the high slung rig.
SUV vs Kenworth with 50' trailer and GVW of 55 ton put me in the KW please.
KW vs 250 ton bridge well I would rather be on the bridge.

Dan Bentler

Dan, your email reminded me of these two videos:

Sailboat versus ferry (I'd rather be on the ferry):
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/bkqKpnU8sCE&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/bkqKpnU8sCE&rel=0</a>

Ship versus bridge (I'd rather be on the bridge than in that ship's wheelhouse):
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5glx-tKHYu4&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/5glx-tKHYu4&rel=0</a>

-Norm.

[StorminN]

If you run 2 Suburbans head on into each other, each going 50 mph, the likely hood of death is much greater than if you run 2 Camrys head on into each other at 50 mph.

Paul, what brings you to this conclusion of a hypothetical situation? Why do you feel the likelihood of death is "much greater"? I understand the larger amount of kinetic energy involved, but I'm wondering what exactly brings you to this conclusion? The chart that you posted before gives us numbers, but what do those numbers mean? I agree that the Camry handling and braking numbers are slightly better, but in a Suburban - Camry accident, I still strongly disagree... I'd much rather be in the Suburban... and yes, I understand crumple zones, deceleration distances, etc.

Let me ask you this, as the vehicle gets bigger, which one would you rather be in?
Camry vs. Suburban
Camry vs. Hummer H1
Camry vs. Dump Truck
Camry vs. Semi Truck
Camry vs. Train

In all cases, I'd rather NOT be in the Camry. Statistical analysis be damned... put me in the larger vehicle, I feel my survival rate will be higher. (But don't put me in a tall, tippy SUV).

My point is, accidents are just that... accidents! Sure, some people maneuver and avoid accidents, but what do tons of people say after they've been through one? "It was over before I even knew what happened", "They came out of nowhere" etc... in other words, they didn't even see the other vehicle, or if the did, they didn't have time to react, etc... they just hit or got hit... in these cases, it doesn't matter how nimble your vehicle is.

-Norm.

[leitmotif]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Dan Bentler <dan.bentler48@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont care too much about getting in an accident
BUT I do care about survivability and being able to walk away.
To paraphrase from sailboating experience "TONNAGE HAS RIGHT OF WAY"
in other words in a collision a freighter will survive but a 30' sailboat has big problems.

Collision between low slung sportscar and high slung SUV or 4 x 4 I wanna be in the high slung rig.
SUV vs Kenworth with 50' trailer and GVW of 55 ton put me in the KW please.
KW vs 250 ton bridge well I would rather be on the bridge.

Dan Bentler

Dan, your email reminded me of these two videos:

Sailboat versus ferry (I'd rather be on the ferry):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkqKpnU8sCE

Ship versus bridge (I'd rather be on the bridge than in that ship's wheelhouse):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5glx-tKHYu4

-Norm.

Norm
I really liked the one with a US Navy ship -- skipper says "this is US so n so the mightiest whatever and you better give way".
The other guy says -- "well US Navy I am a lighthouse - your call".

Dan