Low Speed Crashes Cost Insurers Big Bucks

As to the SCCA/regular driver study, it is only one study. I agree that long distance truckers are a reasonable comparison, as they must demonstrate an ability to drive large, heavily loaded vehicles before they are permitted a license to do the same. The analogy of professional pilots vs non-professionals is also worthwhile; professionals, who have better training, are safer and more effective pilots. I doubt that ex-F16 jocks are as a group more dangerous than the average civil aviation pilot, despite their similarity to professional racing drivers. Confused: As to bumper heights, I was incorrect to suggest that all trucks and SUV's be required to sit at normal car heights; adjustable suspensions would allow those who need the clearance for off-road or work to gain the advantage when necessary yet lower the truck for those times when it was simply operating as a passenger conveyance on the highway or in the city. This would have the added advantage of improving fuel mileage for most people when driving a truck or SUV on the road. And while many trucks and SUV's do actually work for a living, the numbers suggest that the majority are used as mini-vans and never see any time off-road or on a construction site. The design of vehicles to meet crash standards suggests that we would all be better off with (mostly) matching bumper heights. And back to the original article about a new IIHS "safety bleat", it is worth remembering that the real push for stricter DUI laws came from a heartbroken mother and not from the IIHS. As I recall, the IIHS also joined Ralph Nader in predicting a huge increase in carnage when 55 ceased to be the national speed limit.

210delray - You appear to have an answer for virtually anything related to auto safety and the IIHS, suggesting that perhaps you work for the IIHS or the insurance industry. As one who considers the braking and handling of a vehicle to be a primary safety factor (it can thus avoid being a statistic if it never has the accident) I took the time to look through IIHS press releases back to 1996. There was one article related to expected improvements from "stability control" systems, suggesting that in the event the driver has difficulty maintaining stability, perhaps an automatic (but more skilled) device could improve accident statistics. It's worth a look for those who feel that driving skill is unrelated to accident performance, since it suggests that automatic systems can help to avoid the accident in the first place: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr061306.html Despite the importance of braking systems in accident avoidance, I found only a single press release, from 1996, which discussed brakes. It cited statistics which said that ABS-equipped cars were actually in more accidents than non-ABS equipped cars. One might draw the conclusion that non-ABS-equipped cars were actually then safer. Yet this is not borne out by the 2005 study which rates cars by risk of death to the driver. And I found no further reference to the incredible statistic that drivers of Chevrolet Blazers were 17 times more likely to die than those in a Lexus RX-300. As I recall, the Lexus is equipped with ABS. This is not to suggest that there are not other factors, such as demographics, which enter into the real safety arena. But it does point out that data alone does not tell the whole story. If the IIHS is truly interested in vehicle safety, surely more study about the extraordinary differentials in death rates between vehicles is warranted. Why is the death rate 10 times higher in a Ford Explorer than a Toyota 4-Runner? Why is there a variance of 5 times in ordinary mid-size passenger cars? Is it possible that the driver has some factor in it? Do more drunks drive Explorers than 4-Runners? Another factor notably absent from IIHS press releases has to do with specific road design issues or conditions of the roads, yet studies and accident reconstruction frequently cite flaws in road design or surface issues as contributory factors in many automobile accidents. I'm not anti-IIHS, but simply wonder if research on the cost of bumper repair is a more pressing issue than basic research on how to avoid deaths and injuries, which are far more important as a public health matter. Surely the industry members of the IIHS spend far more money on injured people than on injured vehicles. Finally, it is worth noting that the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, another industry group, has sponsored a three-year study to understand if better training leads to fewer motorcycle accidents. It might be enlightening to find that education actually decreases the likelihood of accidents.