More are killed in alcohol-related crashes and rollovers as national rate drops.

By Jeff Plungis / Detroit News Washington Bureau

By the Numbers

2003 2004
(estimate)
Highway deaths: 42,263 42,800
Death rate*: 1.48 1.46
Motorcycle deaths: 3,661 3,927
SUV deaths: 4,446 4,666
Alcohol-related deaths: 17,013 16,654

*number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


WASHINGTON -- The number of people killed in SUVs and in rollovers rose last year, even as the nation's overall highway fatality rate -- deaths per miles traveled -- fell to its lowest point ever, the government said Thursday.

In its preliminary projections of fatality statistics for 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said 42,800 people were killed on U.S. highways, up from 42,643 in 2003.

Michigan bucked the national trend with a 10 percent drop in fatalities. There were 1,159 highway deaths in Michigan in 2004, down from 1,283 in 2003, said Nikki Klemmer, spokeswoman for the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning.

"We are in the midst of a national epidemic," U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said. "If this many people were to die from any one disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine. We already have the best vaccine available to reduce the death toll on our highways -- safety belts."

Nationally, the key measure of the death rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled fell to 1.46 from 1.48. It's the lowest level since NHTSA began tracking data nearly four decades ago.

Seat-belt use reached an all-time high - 80 percent - last year. But 56 percent of the people killed in vehicles last year were not wearing seat belts.

Safety officials pointed to a few factors to explain the increase in fatalities. While fewer people were killed in cars and pickups, the number of SUV deaths rose from 4,446 to 4,666. SUV rollover deaths shot up 6.9 percent, and SUV driver deaths related to alcohol use increased 8.5 percent.

Auto industry officials said the increase in SUV fatalities was occurring at about the same rate as increased SUV sales. Eron Shosteck, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in Washington, said SUV sales went up about 4 percent last year.

"Automakers are heartened that the overall fatality rate is declining," Shosteck said. "But we would like it to decline further. Safety technology is having an impact. But even with all of the new technologies, the most important piece of equipment remains the safety belt."

Consumer advocates say additional safety requirements under consideration are justified since the overall number of deaths has remained steady for a decade. The Senate Commerce Committee approved several safety mandates -- including those designed to protect occupants in rollover crashes -- in a highway spending bill it passed last week.

"The cold, hard reality is we are stuck in neutral," said Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a Washington consumer group.

source : detnews

 

Gee.....Surprise, Surprise. You can't drive high-center-of-gravity trucks and SUV's like sports cars.

Some things, of course, are not related to aggressive driving either, like having to swerve to avoid a deer, an object, or a child. That, of course, is also risky in an SUV.

 

Yeah, I am really not surprised either. It is benificial to have the raw statistics though.

Has anybody heard whether the educational ad campaign esuvee has had any sort of success in educating the public? I am sure it is hard to measure that success, or lack thereof.

 

Well considering SUVs are now sold more than cars, technically, won't the SUV deaths go up in proportion to the sales?

 

Yea beat me to it Sick! There is a snippet in the article stating that.

I love it when ppl bend numbers...numbers do not lie..ppl do!

 

The concept of center-of-gravity is taught in 5th or 6th grade science. I understood it before I entered the 7th grade......some 4 or 5 years before I started driving.

If public schools today are not teaching it today, no wonder they have such a low reputation.

 

I agree with you too. And with SUVs becoming more and more car-like and the SUV marketing trying to make people believe some of these things are Ferraris on stilts and add to the fact many of these owners have owned cars they;re whole life, thus, they drive the SUV like a car.

Maybe a different license test should be made for SUVs?

 

I concur. But does a consumer need to have learned the physics behind the center of gravity before they apply those principles with an SUV on public streets? (Do public schools still teach the principles of center of gravity? I don't know.) However, I do see what you're getting at. Some people just don't have the 'street smarts' or common sense to be behind the wheel of an SUV.

 

Maybe if car companies such as Porsche, MB-AMG and Range Rover would stop trying to sell their SUVs as performance based trucks. Unlike, Lexus has taken a very conservative approach to marketing their SUVs as exactly that..a nonperformance SUV.

As long as car companies are willing to portray that image, then yes the uniniated will drive them thinking that. Just my 2 cents.

 

ppl just need to learn how to drive.

for some reason it seems that most of the cars i see driving the fastest on the freeway are either the really small cars like kia or really large ones like trucks and suvs... both of which should not be going that fast

 

The Porsche Cayenne and the BMW X3-X5 are in a totally different class, performance and stability-wise, than big, tall, full-framed, truck-based domestic SUV's like the Tahoe and Suburban. They are car-based, have performance suspensions and steering systems, stability control, and, in some cases like the Volvo XC-90, even yaw-stability control, to help with good handling despite a high center of gravity. However, even THEY cannot be driven completely like sports cars....all other things equal, a high center of gravity will ALWAYS have at least SOME added risk of a roll-over no matter what kind of underpinnings you have. In the end, though, you cannot get around the ultimate laws of physics....the higher the CG, the more inherent instability you are going to have, electronics or not.

In some cases, wide, grippy, performance tires can even aggravate the tendency for SUV's to roll over. They grip the road so well (on a dry surface) that they allow the SUV's body to lean farther over in turns before they lose their grip and slide sideways.....and sometimes this body lean can reach dangerous levels.

 

Hopefully these high gas prices will force SUV drivers to drive a little slower to conserve gas, thereby reducing the risk of rollover and the seriousness of a collision due to reduced force (mass x speed = force).

MMarshall- I've heard that insurance companies might start charging higher rates for SUVs because of the excessive damage they cause in accidents. Is this true?

 

The answer is probably both yes and no. Basically it depends on the frame and bumper heights. Tall, truck-based SUV's sometimes cause catastrophic damage to small and low-riding cars because their truck-style ladder frames and bumpers tend to penetrate small vehicles about at the driver and windshield level......this combined with the 2-3 ton weights of these vehicles....even more in some cases. The consequences of this are obvious.......I don't have to explain in detail.
On newer SUV's however......those that have been designed in the last 5 years or so.....the engineers have taken this into consideration. More careful attention is now being given to standardizing SUV bumper heights, especially on the larger and taller ones, so that when they hit small vehicles, their bumpers do not penetrate the passenger compartments so readily. Fortunately, engineers have often found ways to both lower the bumper heights AND still guarantee the off-road ground clearance these vehicles need for slogging it out in the rough. Federal Safety Standards are eventually going to dictate even more stringent procedures here in the future.
As far as how the insurance compaines treat this, I guess it depends on the experiences that each company has been through....how much it has had to pay out for claims and expenses arising from these types of accidents. You will probably more likely to see rates go up for older SUV's with truck-type frames like the full-size GM's, older Ford Expeditions, Explorers, and Excursions, and Dodge Dakotas that do not have the benefit of state-of-the-art design. While still possible on newer SUV's, rate increases IMO will probably be less likely.

flipside909 might have some more info on this....insurance is his buisness.

 

Thanks for the response. I don't like SUVs and any news that will make them less desirable is good news to me. Apparently the increased risk of death doesn't deter SUV ownership, maybe being hit in the pocketbook will.

 

I just got a Toyota Sequoia. It handles pretty well. There is almost no body roll in the corners and sticks to the ground like glue. It gives the illusion of being able to handle tight corners at speed. I know better though and keep the cornering speed low. If this is typical of SUV's on the market I can understand why people get a false sense of security and believe their SUV can perform more like a car. If everyone realized this, we'd have far fewer rollovers. Just keep the speed down and we can all make it home alive.