Is the Car Unsafe, or the Driver?
03-15-05, 06:18 AM
#1
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Is the Car Unsafe, or the Driver?
By DANNY HAKIM
Published: March 15, 2005
DETROIT, March 14 - One way of reading the new report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is that the Mercedes E-Class sedan has the safest design of any car or truck and the two-door Chevrolet Blazer the worst.
Another way to read the report, to be released Tuesday, is that E-Class drivers tend to drive more carefully than Blazer drivers.
The report, which analyzed the driver death rates of 199 vehicle models, gave an uncommon level of specificity for a crash study. Such studies tend to focus on the death rates in different classes of vehicles, like small sport utility vehicles or midsize cars, as opposed to giving data for specific models in each class. But the study found that in almost every vehicle class "the death rate for the worst vehicle was at least twice as high as the rate for the best."
For instance, among four-door midsize cars, the Volkswagen Passat performed best, with an average of 16 driver deaths per million registered vehicles annually. At the other end of the spectrum, the Chrysler Sebring had 126 driver deaths. Among midsize S.U.V.'s with four-wheel drive, the Toyota 4Runner had 12 deaths per million registered vehicles annually, compared with 134 for the two-door Ford Explorer.
The analysis by the insurance institute, a research group financed by car insurers, found that many of the best-performing vehicles were expensive luxury models with the latest safety technology, while many of the worst were cheaper models with older designs. Over all, luxury sedans, as well as midsize and large minivans and station wagons, tended to have the lowest fatality rates.
The report examined how 1999 to 2002 model cars and trucks performed on the road from 2000 to 2003. Only relatively popular models were studied and one critical demographic adjustment was made. Because female drivers aged 25 to 64 are less likely to be involved in crashes than male drivers, the study considered women of those ages in equal proportions to men, no matter the vehicle. That way, if one kind of vehicle attracted more women buyers than another did, the prevalence of women did not skew the results.
But other personality factors could not be adjusted for, for instance, minivans and stations wagons having low fatality rates both because of their size, which makes for larger crash-absorbing crumple zones, and because of who drives them.
"They tend to be driven by soccer moms and dads," said Adrian Lund, the chief operating officer of the institute. "They tend to be conveying their families and are careful when they are doing that."
Automakers expressed a range of concerns about the report.
Alan Adler, manager of safety communications at General Motors, said, "It is impossible in looking at these statistics to know what role driver behavior, such as drunk driving and driving without a safety belt, played in these deaths."
Studies by model are also rare, because they sometimes involve relatively modest amounts of crash data. Researchers from one major automaker, which declined to be named, said the limited amounts of data for some of the vehicles gave them pause, and they also found the age range of 25 to 64 used in adjusting for women to be arbitrary.
Russ Rader, a spokesman for the institute, said women who were younger than 25 or older than 64 tended to have higher death rates than women in the middle, making an adjustment less germane.
So how should a safety-minded consumer weigh the report?
Mr. Lund said his group's study of actual traffic fatalities should be considered alongside the results of its crash tests, as well as those conducted by the government. The government's test results are available at www.safercars.gov, and the insurance group's tests, which are intended to complement those of the government, and the full report, are available at www.iihs.org.
Another limitation of the report is that it does not include models that have had their debuts in recent years, and some existing models have been recently redesigned.
"What you want to do is look at crash test results of vehicles as well and pick vehicles that have good frontal crash ratings, good side-impact ratings, good head restraints, and check these results and see if that model has had a good record in the past," Mr. Lund said.
The average model in the study had 87 deaths per million registered vehicles annually.
The two-door Chevy Blazer had 308 deaths per million registered vehicles annually, the most of any vehicle in the study.
"The two-door Blazer is an old design, so it doesn't have the latest crashworthiness features built into it," Mr. Lund said. Further, two-door S.U.V.'s tend to be less stable than four-door versions. On the other hand, "two-wheel-drive S.U.V.'s are cheaper vehicles and they tend to get driven by younger males."
Young males are the highest risk group of drivers, Mr. Lund said. They tend not to wear their seat belts as much as other drivers, they are more likely to drink and drive and more often are speeding.
But the Blazer - not to be confused with the more recently designed Chevrolet Trailblazer - has also not performed well on crash tests, where driver behavior is not a factor. The S.U.V. received the lowest of four ratings in the institute's frontal crash test and only one out of five stars from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in its most recent rollover test.
The study reinforced some well-known traffic trends and also suggested that good design can trump them. Pound for pound, cars are safer than S.U.V.'s because S.U.V.'s ride higher off the ground and have a greater tendency to roll over than cars. Rollovers are particularly deadly, leading to one of every three deaths in motor vehicle crashes.
Large cars, and particularly luxury cars, have lower than average fatality rates. The Mercedes E-Class sedan, the best performer over all with 10 deaths per million registered vehicles annually, was one of the first vehicles to have electronic stability control as a standard feature. Stability control is a technology growing in popularity that helps drivers regain control of their cars when they swerve or spin.
"We feel we're on the forefront of safety technology, and this test, because it uses real world data, underscores our leadership," said Rob Moran, a spokesman for Mercedes.
Pickup trucks tend to have higher than average death rates. Among other factors, pickups are a challenge to design because their beds are sometimes loaded with cargo and sometimes empty.
Smaller cars and smaller S.U.V.'s tend to have higher fatality rates than medium-size and large models. Large S.U.V.'s tend to perform well because of their girth, though other studies have shown that that also makes them particularly lethal to the occupants of vehicles they strike.
But the Ford Excursion, one of the largest S.U.V.'s made, had 107 driver deaths per million registered vehicles annually, significantly above average. By contrast, the Toyota RAV4 was among the best performers, with only 18 deaths per million vehicles annually, even though small S.U.V.'s are a vehicle type that typically does not perform well in crash studies.
"We think this reflects changes in how these vehicles are being made," said Mr. Lund. "And we're seeing changes in driver demographics, with more women and fewer young males, who used to dominate small S.U.V.'s."
source : nytimes.com
Published: March 15, 2005
DETROIT, March 14 - One way of reading the new report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is that the Mercedes E-Class sedan has the safest design of any car or truck and the two-door Chevrolet Blazer the worst.
Another way to read the report, to be released Tuesday, is that E-Class drivers tend to drive more carefully than Blazer drivers.
The report, which analyzed the driver death rates of 199 vehicle models, gave an uncommon level of specificity for a crash study. Such studies tend to focus on the death rates in different classes of vehicles, like small sport utility vehicles or midsize cars, as opposed to giving data for specific models in each class. But the study found that in almost every vehicle class "the death rate for the worst vehicle was at least twice as high as the rate for the best."
For instance, among four-door midsize cars, the Volkswagen Passat performed best, with an average of 16 driver deaths per million registered vehicles annually. At the other end of the spectrum, the Chrysler Sebring had 126 driver deaths. Among midsize S.U.V.'s with four-wheel drive, the Toyota 4Runner had 12 deaths per million registered vehicles annually, compared with 134 for the two-door Ford Explorer.
The analysis by the insurance institute, a research group financed by car insurers, found that many of the best-performing vehicles were expensive luxury models with the latest safety technology, while many of the worst were cheaper models with older designs. Over all, luxury sedans, as well as midsize and large minivans and station wagons, tended to have the lowest fatality rates.
The report examined how 1999 to 2002 model cars and trucks performed on the road from 2000 to 2003. Only relatively popular models were studied and one critical demographic adjustment was made. Because female drivers aged 25 to 64 are less likely to be involved in crashes than male drivers, the study considered women of those ages in equal proportions to men, no matter the vehicle. That way, if one kind of vehicle attracted more women buyers than another did, the prevalence of women did not skew the results.
But other personality factors could not be adjusted for, for instance, minivans and stations wagons having low fatality rates both because of their size, which makes for larger crash-absorbing crumple zones, and because of who drives them.
"They tend to be driven by soccer moms and dads," said Adrian Lund, the chief operating officer of the institute. "They tend to be conveying their families and are careful when they are doing that."
Automakers expressed a range of concerns about the report.
Alan Adler, manager of safety communications at General Motors, said, "It is impossible in looking at these statistics to know what role driver behavior, such as drunk driving and driving without a safety belt, played in these deaths."
Studies by model are also rare, because they sometimes involve relatively modest amounts of crash data. Researchers from one major automaker, which declined to be named, said the limited amounts of data for some of the vehicles gave them pause, and they also found the age range of 25 to 64 used in adjusting for women to be arbitrary.
Russ Rader, a spokesman for the institute, said women who were younger than 25 or older than 64 tended to have higher death rates than women in the middle, making an adjustment less germane.
So how should a safety-minded consumer weigh the report?
Mr. Lund said his group's study of actual traffic fatalities should be considered alongside the results of its crash tests, as well as those conducted by the government. The government's test results are available at www.safercars.gov, and the insurance group's tests, which are intended to complement those of the government, and the full report, are available at www.iihs.org.
Another limitation of the report is that it does not include models that have had their debuts in recent years, and some existing models have been recently redesigned.
"What you want to do is look at crash test results of vehicles as well and pick vehicles that have good frontal crash ratings, good side-impact ratings, good head restraints, and check these results and see if that model has had a good record in the past," Mr. Lund said.
The average model in the study had 87 deaths per million registered vehicles annually.
The two-door Chevy Blazer had 308 deaths per million registered vehicles annually, the most of any vehicle in the study.
"The two-door Blazer is an old design, so it doesn't have the latest crashworthiness features built into it," Mr. Lund said. Further, two-door S.U.V.'s tend to be less stable than four-door versions. On the other hand, "two-wheel-drive S.U.V.'s are cheaper vehicles and they tend to get driven by younger males."
Young males are the highest risk group of drivers, Mr. Lund said. They tend not to wear their seat belts as much as other drivers, they are more likely to drink and drive and more often are speeding.
But the Blazer - not to be confused with the more recently designed Chevrolet Trailblazer - has also not performed well on crash tests, where driver behavior is not a factor. The S.U.V. received the lowest of four ratings in the institute's frontal crash test and only one out of five stars from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in its most recent rollover test.
The study reinforced some well-known traffic trends and also suggested that good design can trump them. Pound for pound, cars are safer than S.U.V.'s because S.U.V.'s ride higher off the ground and have a greater tendency to roll over than cars. Rollovers are particularly deadly, leading to one of every three deaths in motor vehicle crashes.
Large cars, and particularly luxury cars, have lower than average fatality rates. The Mercedes E-Class sedan, the best performer over all with 10 deaths per million registered vehicles annually, was one of the first vehicles to have electronic stability control as a standard feature. Stability control is a technology growing in popularity that helps drivers regain control of their cars when they swerve or spin.
"We feel we're on the forefront of safety technology, and this test, because it uses real world data, underscores our leadership," said Rob Moran, a spokesman for Mercedes.
Pickup trucks tend to have higher than average death rates. Among other factors, pickups are a challenge to design because their beds are sometimes loaded with cargo and sometimes empty.
Smaller cars and smaller S.U.V.'s tend to have higher fatality rates than medium-size and large models. Large S.U.V.'s tend to perform well because of their girth, though other studies have shown that that also makes them particularly lethal to the occupants of vehicles they strike.
But the Ford Excursion, one of the largest S.U.V.'s made, had 107 driver deaths per million registered vehicles annually, significantly above average. By contrast, the Toyota RAV4 was among the best performers, with only 18 deaths per million vehicles annually, even though small S.U.V.'s are a vehicle type that typically does not perform well in crash studies.
"We think this reflects changes in how these vehicles are being made," said Mr. Lund. "And we're seeing changes in driver demographics, with more women and fewer young males, who used to dominate small S.U.V.'s."
source : nytimes.com
03-15-05, 09:39 AM
#2
Well, I say both.
A wreckless driver will kill innocent people regardless of what the idiot drives.
A careful driver can get killed in a vehicle without proper safety features by the wreckless driver.
But then with the safety features, improperly used can lead to injuries. I don't think most people know/remember the proper distance to keep between the seat and the steering wheel to allow the airbag to deploy. .................mmarshal or anyone can chime in regarding this issue?
I've personally told mothers who put the baby seats (with the baby) in the front seat facing the seat, that their baby WILL die when the airbags deploy. Do you know what comes out of their mouth? "...well, I don't want my baby to cry (with a mean look on their faces)"
I have not had one mother quickly moved the baby seat to the back. No sense of arguing here.......
Pregnant women need to know to put their seatbelt BELOW the stomach region. The list goes on. At least pregnant women are more receptive, thank goodness.
Kind of stretching here, but it's like saying "Guns don't kill people"
A wreckless driver will kill innocent people regardless of what the idiot drives.
A careful driver can get killed in a vehicle without proper safety features by the wreckless driver.
But then with the safety features, improperly used can lead to injuries. I don't think most people know/remember the proper distance to keep between the seat and the steering wheel to allow the airbag to deploy. .................mmarshal or anyone can chime in regarding this issue?
I've personally told mothers who put the baby seats (with the baby) in the front seat facing the seat, that their baby WILL die when the airbags deploy. Do you know what comes out of their mouth? "...well, I don't want my baby to cry (with a mean look on their faces)"
I have not had one mother quickly moved the baby seat to the back. No sense of arguing here.......Pregnant women need to know to put their seatbelt BELOW the stomach region. The list goes on. At least pregnant women are more receptive, thank goodness.
Kind of stretching here, but it's like saying "Guns don't kill people"
Last edited by GS3Tek; 03-15-05 at 09:42 AM.
03-15-05, 10:06 AM
#3
Originally Posted by GS3Tek
But then with the safety features, improperly used can lead to injuries. I don't think most people know/remember the proper distance to keep between the seat and the steering wheel to allow the airbag to deploy. .................mmarshal or anyone can chime in regarding this issue?
03-15-05, 10:18 AM
#5
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by GS3Tek
Thanks, I kinda thought it would be around 12" or so for the proper distance 
03-15-05, 10:22 AM
#6
Originally Posted by AmethySC
People with a big bulging tummy may have a problem
For the people who are short/petite or who likes to sit reeeeal close to the steering wheel, then it can be scary.
03-15-05, 12:08 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Originally Posted by GS3Tek
I've personally told mothers who put the baby seats (with the baby) in the front seat facing the seat, that their baby WILL die when the airbags deploy. Do you know what comes out of their mouth? "...well, I don't want my baby to cry (with a mean look on their faces)" I have not had one mother quickly moved the baby seat to the back. No sense of arguing here.......
I have not had one mother quickly moved the baby seat to the back. No sense of arguing here.......You are also correct that using a rearward-facing infant seat in front is just asking for a tragedy....even worse than a front-facing one.
Trending Topics
03-15-05, 02:28 PM
#9
Originally Posted by mmarshall
Fortunately, some vehicles....especially 2-seater sports cars and pickups....have a key-operated lock for the right-side airbag that will deactivate it when children or infants are in the right front seat. I agree with you though that that is no excuse for not putting an infant in back if possible.
And there are the older cars that can not be turned off with the key.
03-15-05, 05:37 PM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Originally Posted by GS3Tek
I think that the driver (mother/father) still has to KNOW to turn it off manually. I don't think that if someone who sat there is under 60lb that it knows to deactivate automatically???
And there are the older cars that can not be turned off with the key.
And there are the older cars that can not be turned off with the key.
All new cars, by the way, have depowered bags that took effect with a Federal safety standard in 1998.......the old jaw-crushers are gone.
10-28-06, 01:10 AM
#11
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
New thread for this? Naw, this will be fine!
Has anyone else seen this?
After seeing what happened to my ex in an accident where airbags deployed, I was totally unimpressed with their ability to reduce injury severity. Now, I see why.
Airbags associated with increased probability of death in automobile accidents, according to new UGA study
Writer: Philip Lee Williams, 706/542-8501, phil@franklin.uga.edu
Contact: Mary Meyer, 706/542-5232, mmeyer@stat.uga.edu
Jun 1, 2005, 10:58
Athens, Ga. – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that airbags installed in automobiles have saved some 10,000 lives as of January 2004. A just-released study by a statistician at the University of Georgia, however, casts doubt on that assertion.
In fact, said UGA statistics professor Mary C. Meyer, a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents.
“NHTSA recorded 238 deaths due to airbags between 1990 and 2002, according to information about these deaths on their Web site,” said Meyer. “They all occurred at very low speeds, with injuries that could not have been caused by anything else. But is it reasonable to conclude that airbags cause death only at very low speeds? It seems more likely that they also cause deaths at high speeds, but these are attributed to the crash.
“For any given crash at high speed, we can’t know what would have happened if there had been no airbag; however, statistical models allow us to look at patterns in the data, and compare risks in populations, in a variety of situations.”
The study was published this week in the magazine Chance.
The new analysis directly contradicts earlier studies about the effectiveness of airbags, which have been required for drivers and front-seat passengers in all cars since the 1998 model year in the United States.
While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four times higher with an airbag than without.
It has been known for some time that airbags pose special risks to children and small women. Auto manuals routinely say young children, especially those in car seats, should not be put in front seats where they might be injured or killed by an inflating airbag.
The reason earlier studies have found that airbags save lives is that they used only a special subset of the available data, said Meyer. The Fatality Analysis and Reporting System (FARS) is a high-quality compilation of information about every highway accident for which a death occurred. The Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) is another high-quality dataset, containing random samples of all accidents. The previous studies used FARS, and Meyer’s study used CDS.
“When we look at the random sample of all accidents, we find that airbags are associated with increased risk of death,” she said, “and this increase is due to more deaths with airbags in low-speed crashes and no seatbelts. However, if we limit the dataset to include only collisions in which a fatality occurred, we get a significantly reduced risk of death due to airbags.”
By way of analogy, the Meyer explained it this way: “If you look at people who have some types of cancer, you will see that those who get radiation treatment have a better chance of surviving than those who don’t. However, radiation is inherently dangerous and could actually cause cancer. If you give everyone radiation treatments, whether they have cancer or not, you will probably find an increased risk of death in the general population.
“Making everyone have airbags and then verifying the effectiveness using only fatal crashes in FARS is like making everyone get radiation and then estimating the lives saved by looking only at people who have cancer. Overall, there will be more deaths if everyone is given radiation, but in the cancer subset, radiation will be effective.”
The new study directly contradicts assertions about airbag safety on the NHTSA Web site, said Meyer. The correct analysis is important to obtain now, because in only a few years, there will be virtually no cars on the road without airbags.
“We are confident that our analyses better reflect the actual effectiveness of airbags in the general population [than earlier studies],” said Meyer. “The evidence shows that airbags do more harm than good.”
Writer: Philip Lee Williams, 706/542-8501, phil@franklin.uga.edu
Contact: Mary Meyer, 706/542-5232, mmeyer@stat.uga.edu
Jun 1, 2005, 10:58
Athens, Ga. – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that airbags installed in automobiles have saved some 10,000 lives as of January 2004. A just-released study by a statistician at the University of Georgia, however, casts doubt on that assertion.
In fact, said UGA statistics professor Mary C. Meyer, a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents.
“NHTSA recorded 238 deaths due to airbags between 1990 and 2002, according to information about these deaths on their Web site,” said Meyer. “They all occurred at very low speeds, with injuries that could not have been caused by anything else. But is it reasonable to conclude that airbags cause death only at very low speeds? It seems more likely that they also cause deaths at high speeds, but these are attributed to the crash.
“For any given crash at high speed, we can’t know what would have happened if there had been no airbag; however, statistical models allow us to look at patterns in the data, and compare risks in populations, in a variety of situations.”
The study was published this week in the magazine Chance.
The new analysis directly contradicts earlier studies about the effectiveness of airbags, which have been required for drivers and front-seat passengers in all cars since the 1998 model year in the United States.
While the value of airbags seems dubious in the new study, the value of seatbelts is not. The analysis found that proper use of a seatbelt reduces the odds of death by 67 percent for any given speed category and airbag availability. Airbags, however, cause no statistical difference in car-crash deaths, except for unseatbelted occupants at low speeds, where the odds of death are estimated to be more than four times higher with an airbag than without.
It has been known for some time that airbags pose special risks to children and small women. Auto manuals routinely say young children, especially those in car seats, should not be put in front seats where they might be injured or killed by an inflating airbag.
The reason earlier studies have found that airbags save lives is that they used only a special subset of the available data, said Meyer. The Fatality Analysis and Reporting System (FARS) is a high-quality compilation of information about every highway accident for which a death occurred. The Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) is another high-quality dataset, containing random samples of all accidents. The previous studies used FARS, and Meyer’s study used CDS.
“When we look at the random sample of all accidents, we find that airbags are associated with increased risk of death,” she said, “and this increase is due to more deaths with airbags in low-speed crashes and no seatbelts. However, if we limit the dataset to include only collisions in which a fatality occurred, we get a significantly reduced risk of death due to airbags.”
By way of analogy, the Meyer explained it this way: “If you look at people who have some types of cancer, you will see that those who get radiation treatment have a better chance of surviving than those who don’t. However, radiation is inherently dangerous and could actually cause cancer. If you give everyone radiation treatments, whether they have cancer or not, you will probably find an increased risk of death in the general population.
“Making everyone have airbags and then verifying the effectiveness using only fatal crashes in FARS is like making everyone get radiation and then estimating the lives saved by looking only at people who have cancer. Overall, there will be more deaths if everyone is given radiation, but in the cancer subset, radiation will be effective.”
The new study directly contradicts assertions about airbag safety on the NHTSA Web site, said Meyer. The correct analysis is important to obtain now, because in only a few years, there will be virtually no cars on the road without airbags.
“We are confident that our analyses better reflect the actual effectiveness of airbags in the general population [than earlier studies],” said Meyer. “The evidence shows that airbags do more harm than good.”
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LexFather
Car Chat
14
06-14-11 10:04 AM
Gojirra99
Car Chat
43
01-28-08 02:13 PM