RF:

As you say the data could be spun any way the media wish.

The NHSTA and IIHS data failed to record important data such as deaths from single vehicle crashes, rollovers, etc. And of course the data may have been manipulated.

Of course the heavier car will almost always prevail in a head-to-head crash. However, that constitutes only about a third of all fatalities…about a third are also due to rollovers, to which SUV’s are extremely prone.

I don’t really like to trust the NHSTA or IIHS by themselves because there is a tremendous amount of variability and question marks inherent in their tests.

The most trustworthy site, IMO, is http://www.informedforlife.org/, which takes NHSTA and IIHS ratings, weight, and stability control into account in its ratings, providing an overall rating applicable to all types of car.

They use a sh4tload of data to correlate the ratings to real-life data on fatalities. As you can see on their ranking charts, for the most part cars win out vs. SUV’s. But some CUV’s like the Honda Pilot and Ford Edge do extremely well, too.

Sure, there are some inconsistencies and bugs in the ratings, but for the most part I think Informed for Life does a great job.

You should have a look for yourself….

Spanish guy: Well, according to those CASR australian safety researchers you did the right thing. They suggest to wear just that, a bicycle helmet. Seems that´s enough to make a difference in case of crash.

ME: I found the CASR project very interesting. Would love to be able to get such a device (it would look more discrete than a bicycle helmet)

SG: I wonder if side head airbags and/or curtain airbags make the helmet stunt superfluous.

ME: Probably superfluous. Maybe even dangerous. If you want to discuss this further, you can email me at dcholzman@aol.com

“The concep is called “risk homeostasis”. It is a disputed concept.”

It may be disputed, but there is evidence that it happens.
People will buy what they perceive to be a safer product, a vehicle that maximizes their personal utility. It is up to the driver to drive safely. There have been many other studies that show for example here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm
car drivers are less safe (leave less room between vehicles) when passing folks on bicycles that are wearing have helmets. These car/suv drivers believe the cycler “knows what he/she is doing” and thus the driver is slightly less worried about the ability of the cyclist, (the driver perceives the cyclist is competent) allowing slightly less space between the vehicles. This leads to less margin for error, and thus errors are more likely.
Life is a series of risks and rewards. People have different levels of risk that they are willing to assume. When trading from a car (perceived less safe) to an SUV (perceived more safe) They have lowered their risk level to below what they are comfortable with. The new lower risk level allows the driver to take slightly more chances, as “danms6:
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
points out..”During a snowstorm this winter outside of Columbus, I saw 4 cars that had driven off the side of the highway in turns within a 5 mile stretch. All 4 were SUVs equipped with 4WD (Grand Cherokee, Yukon, etc). Obviously it wasn’t the vehicles’ fault since they are easily capable of driving through a little snow.”
Notice that there were no 2WD/RWD cars he saw in the ditch. These drivers felt/perceived that they were “safer” in their 4WD vehicles and thus drove slightly faster/or slightly more recklessly than the conditions allowed.

The real question should be what percentage of fatalities are related to “driver error” vs. “equipment failure”?

The concep is called “risk homeostasis”. It is a disputed concept.

Just a googling http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22risk+homeostasis%22&spell=1

Re RF’s take:
environmental campaigners, most of whom favor government intervention to “persuade” Americans drivers to exchange their SUV’s for small, frugal and more dangerous vehicles.

The above wack-jobs drove a university staff acquaintance (who normally wouldn’t have considered an SUV) into buying a year old Explorer. She has 4 kids – and noticed the same control freaks who disparage large families are also SUV haters.

This example makes an interesting point (no pun intended ;-) about safety – that there may be different perspectives involved. In the case of vehicle safety, we may care about the safety of the driver (and passengers) or the overall safety of other cars, pedestrians, etc. So seat belts, for example, provide safety to the driver but may actually make the rest of the driving environment less safe because it makes the driver too comfortable. In the case of the spike, it makes the driver obviously less safe, but presumably would result in extremely cautious driving to the betterment of the driving environment.

In security, there is an old analogy about how security is like brakes in the car. Folks often think of brakes as slowing down the car, but ultimately they provide the comfort to the driver to allow him/her to go even faster. Consider how fast you might drive without brakes – not very. Of course, this may not be good for safety, but it provides an interesting perspective on how security can be used to enable business by providing brakes that allow us to go faster.

I am always flabergasted with the number of people (both car and SUV drivers) who have empty bike rakcs, lowered pick-up tailgates, plywood sticking out of the hatch, and so on. So many variations on the concept of ram, at just the right level to take your fellow driver’s head off.

In the end, even though I’m pro-car, and a quite a bit anti-SUV, I believe it’s simply the fact that we do not really care about our fellow human being that led to those changes, as in “I’m nice and safe in my vehicle, why should I care in the slightest bit about others?”. Driving an SUV purely for safety reasons also means that you consciously put your life above (!) that of small car drivers. But every vehicle can be a danger to others, in the wrong hands, not only SUVs.

Reputable? probably.

Independent? Not so much, given that they are dependant on the pocketbooks of the the big personal lines insurance carriers.

I’m not saying I don’t trust their data, but I do question their motivation, which is more focused on reducing loss ratios for insurers than helping consumers.

Well, according to those CASR australian safety researchers you did the right thing. They suggest to wear just that, a bicycle helmet. Seems that´s enough to make a difference in case of crash.

I wonder if side head airbags and/or curtain airbags make the helmet stunt superfluous.

Years ago, when I was driving a 1900-some lb ‘77 Toyota Corolla, I did this. I wore a bicycle helmet.

That´s not the idea: The idea is to go back in time to the good old bench seats, mounted on long range rails. If the driver drives alone in the car, he/she would be able to move to the center of the car, specially if the car is joystick commanded.

Good location means improved safety in case of crash. I always wonder why I have to sit in a corner of my car with a dangerous contraption (the steering wheel) in front of me.

“Hey, honey, now may I have that McLaren F1 I always wanted?”

The Crown Vic has 45 deaths vs. 75 for the twin Mercury. The cars are identical.

All this is a moot point. People will continue to buy the big gas guzzling SUVs simply due to the fact that their super-sized arses can’t fit into anything smaller.

It’s just a matter of physics…

There are two (technically) simple ways to do it:

*Wear a helmet. I know a extremely cautious guy who actually drives his car helmeted, in the street. He wears a 500 grams Sky helmet. Well, he´s right about his reasons, but you need to be a rugged individualist to actually do that. Just Google “CASR headband” for references.

*5 point harness. The three point seat belt is crap.

Less simple ways to increase safety in a small car:

* Remove the steering wheel. Saab built a Saab 9000 commanded by a joystick in the mid 80´s. The steering wheel is a dangerous atavism.

* Move the driver to the center of the car.

That said:
SUV on SUV crashes will involve far greater forces than car on car – due to the size of the vehicles. Try to avoid those.

SUV on CAR crashes. What the stat’s don’t capture is crashes that didn’t happen because the smaller car is easier to maneuver around a potential crash. It stops faster, can be handled snappier, and can even out accelerate the impact point of a crash. The classic SUV accident is when a driver tries to avoid a crash and rolls over instead.

Robert writes: And along comes a scientific study from a reputable independent organization that concludes that YOU’RE safer in an SUV than a passenger car.

What needs to be confronted is who YOU is. Because if you’re in the car that just met an SUV, YOU’RE not safer. Which means the study misses the point — it should explore the distinction between the common good and self interest, which is what this dichotomy is all about.

Any ideas why the VW Passat is such an outlier? Did it get side airbags as standard earlier than other cars or something?

First the is a trend for very small cars to be more dangerous. But is bigger better?

Say you have two kids and want a family hauler. The Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sieena minivans have total driver death rates of 19 and 32 respectively. Suburban 1/2 ton and Expedition about 50. So the extra steel and gas consumption and high purchase prices just give you less safety.

And lots more death for others. As pointed out these are death rates for the driver – for other drivers the “big iron” much, much more dangerous.

Honda Civic is 67, safer than all the large pickups tested! Again, not to mention much,much safer for others. Also safer than many “very large” pickups. Of course in a head-on the giant pickup is safer, but the roll-over death rate for some pickups is higher than the Civic total (!).

Stability control will allow Americans to drive huge, un-necessarily high-CG vehicles more and more safely, all whilst endangering others. That is the “good news”.

Driver behaviour plays a very significant role. With IIHS data, the Prius scores better than MB E-class (in terms of injury claims). Let’s not forget E-class drivers are the conservative type to start with.

Unless we give hundreds of cars to people that we random choose (instead of letting people choose their cars) and conduct a long term study, we just don’t know the safety of these cars. We may know the death rate, injury claims or crashworthiness scores. But just not safety.