-
Midsize and Large Cars. The safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, Camry, and Accord)
are as safe as the safest SUV (Suburban); average midsize and large cars are just as safe
as the average SUV. However, SUVs impose a greater risk on drivers of other vehicles
than do all types of cars. The combined risk of the average SUV (129) is about 30%
higher than that for the average large car (100) and 25% higher than that for the average
midsize car (105), while the safest SUV (Suburban, 111) has at least a 40% higher
combined risk than the three safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, 63; Camry, 72; and
Accord, 79).Subcompact and Compact Cars. The safest subcompact (Civic and Jetta) and compact
(626 and Altima) car models are as safe to their drivers as the average SUV (see Figures
2 and 3, and Table A5 in the appendix). When one considers the combined risk, including
those killed in the other vehicle in two-vehicle crashes, then the safest subcompact and
compact models are actually safer than the average SUV. Moreover, the combined risk
for the average subcompact or compact car (147 and 136, respectively) is only slightly
higher than that for the average SUV (129).
A critical aspect of the dispute regarding whether light or small cars are relatively
dangerous for their occupants is the very large range in the risk to drivers of subcompact
cars (see Figure 2). At one end are the low-risk Jetta and Civic models, as just mentioned,
but at roughly twice their risk are the Cavalier, Escort, and Neon models (and their
twins). Those three very popular models are responsible for increasing the average risk to
drivers of subcompact cars. Does the safety record of those three models prove that light
cars are unsafe? We present evidence that there is no such simple rule. Might it instead
suggest that relatively inexpensive cars tend to be unsafe? Perhaps. In any event, the
argument that the low weight of cars with high fuel economy has resulted in many excess
deaths is unfounded; that by paying careful attention to safety in vehicle design, smaller
cars can be, and indeed have been, made as safe as larger ones.Minivans. Of all major vehicle types, minivans have the lowest risk and the lowest
combined risk. This is probably due in part to the fact that minivans tend to be driven
with special care, often being used for transporting a family’s children. Relatively few
minivan drivers are found to be young males (see appendix, Table A3). But the relatively
low risk in minivans is probably not all due to driver behavior. The popular minivans are
built on car rather than pickup truck platforms, which may reduce the risk to their drivers
and certainly reduces the risk to other drivers (Gabler and Hollowell 1998; Hollowell and
Gabler 1996; Joksch 1998, 2000). An example of this is that the car-based body of the
Grand Cherokee has about 20% lower risk to its drivers than the truck-based Cherokee, a
suggestive though statistically marginal result.Pickup Trucks. Pickup trucks, as driven, are riskier than any other major type of vehicle.
The risk to drivers of the average pickup is higher than that for minivans, SUVs, and
large and midsize cars, although it is not significantly different from that for the average
compact and subcompact car. The combined risk is much higher than that for other
vehicle types. This high risk is partly due to pickup trucks being driven more in rural
areas. It is well established that risk is high in rural driving due to factors such as higher
speeds, more miles traveled, and poor road design and conditions.
Light trucks, especially pickups and to a lesser extent SUVs, are responsible for the
deaths of many people in other vehicles, as shown by the vertical scale in Figures 2 andThis result supports earlier findings by Joksch (2000, pp. 9–10), who examined the
outcomes of two-vehicle crashes reported by the police. He found that there are twice as
many deaths in car-to-pickup crashes as in car-to-car crashes and 1.8 as many deaths in
SUV-to-car crashes as in car-to-car crashes. The pattern in car-to-truck crashes is that
people die in the truck somewhat less often than in car-to-car crashes, while people die in
the car much more often. Nevertheless, trucks are not safer than cars: SUV and pickup
users are at unusually high risk of death in one-vehicle crashes, such that drivers of
average SUVs face the same risk as drivers of average midsize and large cars while
drivers of average pickups face the same risk as drivers of average compact and
subcompact cars. A substantial part of the risks light trucks impose on other drivers is
associated with the design of trucks (Gabler and Hollowell 1998; Hollowell and Gabler
1996; Joksch 1998, 2000).Import Luxury and Sports Cars. Import luxury cars have the lowest combined risk, while
sports cars have the highest combined risk, of all vehicle types studied. The relatively
high fraction of young males driving sports cars suggests that much, but not all, of their
high risk is associated with aggressive driving.
-
Except it's wrong. You can't compare different models of cars with bikes.
None of the bikes are burning fuel and I'm pretty sure the number of people killed by a bike are FAR less than cars.
Of course you can compare them, you're saying that a city car will do the job for driving around London, as will a hybrid.
Though you still see people going around London in supercars and ridiculously expensive bikes that are over the top for driving/cycling around the city.
Supercars cause less casualties than non-supercars (proportionally speaking of course) so I don't see your point there.
-
Is anyone else really wishing this conversation goes on and it turns out Ratan Tata has the middle name "Nata"...
class.
I am jealous of the money, however I would dispose of my wealth in a far more elegant manner.....if I were to be so fortunate.
Me too... I'd blow it all on coke and hookers in a 2 year whirlwind tour of the USA before coming back to london and living on social security benefits.
sigh
I'd drive a totally fucked El Camino too, for what its worth.
Just like that, but fucked up.
-
Midsize and Large Cars. The safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, Camry, and Accord)
are as safe as the safest SUV (Suburban); average midsize and large cars are just as safe
as the average SUV. However, SUVs impose a greater risk on drivers of other vehicles
than do all types of cars. The combined risk of the average SUV (129) is about 30%
higher than that for the average large car (100) and 25% higher than that for the average
midsize car (105), while the safest SUV (Suburban, 111) has at least a 40% higher
combined risk than the three safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, 63; Camry, 72; and
Accord, 79).Subcompact and Compact Cars. The safest subcompact (Civic and Jetta) and compact
(626 and Altima) car models are as safe to their drivers as the average SUV (see Figures
2 and 3, and Table A5 in the appendix). When one considers the combined risk, including
those killed in the other vehicle in two-vehicle crashes, then the safest subcompact and
compact models are actually safer than the average SUV. Moreover, the combined risk
for the average subcompact or compact car (147 and 136, respectively) is only slightly
higher than that for the average SUV (129).
A critical aspect of the dispute regarding whether light or small cars are relatively
dangerous for their occupants is the very large range in the risk to drivers of subcompact
cars (see Figure 2). At one end are the low-risk Jetta and Civic models, as just mentioned,
but at roughly twice their risk are the Cavalier, Escort, and Neon models (and their
twins). Those three very popular models are responsible for increasing the average risk to
drivers of subcompact cars. Does the safety record of those three models prove that light
cars are unsafe? We present evidence that there is no such simple rule. Might it instead
suggest that relatively inexpensive cars tend to be unsafe? Perhaps. In any event, the
argument that the low weight of cars with high fuel economy has resulted in many excess
deaths is unfounded; that by paying careful attention to safety in vehicle design, smaller
cars can be, and indeed have been, made as safe as larger ones.Minivans. Of all major vehicle types, minivans have the lowest risk and the lowest
combined risk. This is probably due in part to the fact that minivans tend to be driven
with special care, often being used for transporting a family’s children. Relatively few
minivan drivers are found to be young males (see appendix, Table A3). But the relatively
low risk in minivans is probably not all due to driver behavior. The popular minivans are
built on car rather than pickup truck platforms, which may reduce the risk to their drivers
and certainly reduces the risk to other drivers (Gabler and Hollowell 1998; Hollowell and
Gabler 1996; Joksch 1998, 2000). An example of this is that the car-based body of the
Grand Cherokee has about 20% lower risk to its drivers than the truck-based Cherokee, a
suggestive though statistically marginal result.Pickup Trucks. Pickup trucks, as driven, are riskier than any other major type of vehicle.
The risk to drivers of the average pickup is higher than that for minivans, SUVs, and
large and midsize cars, although it is not significantly different from that for the average
compact and subcompact car. The combined risk is much higher than that for other
vehicle types. This high risk is partly due to pickup trucks being driven more in rural
areas. It is well established that risk is high in rural driving due to factors such as higher
speeds, more miles traveled, and poor road design and conditions.
Light trucks, especially pickups and to a lesser extent SUVs, are responsible for the
deaths of many people in other vehicles, as shown by the vertical scale in Figures 2 andThis result supports earlier findings by Joksch (2000, pp. 9–10), who examined the
outcomes of two-vehicle crashes reported by the police. He found that there are twice as
many deaths in car-to-pickup crashes as in car-to-car crashes and 1.8 as many deaths in
SUV-to-car crashes as in car-to-car crashes. The pattern in car-to-truck crashes is that
people die in the truck somewhat less often than in car-to-car crashes, while people die in
the car much more often. Nevertheless, trucks are not safer than cars: SUV and pickup
users are at unusually high risk of death in one-vehicle crashes, such that drivers of
average SUVs face the same risk as drivers of average midsize and large cars while
drivers of average pickups face the same risk as drivers of average compact and
subcompact cars. A substantial part of the risks light trucks impose on other drivers is
associated with the design of trucks (Gabler and Hollowell 1998; Hollowell and Gabler
1996; Joksch 1998, 2000).Import Luxury and Sports Cars. Import luxury cars have the lowest combined risk, while
sports cars have the highest combined risk, of all vehicle types studied. The relatively
high fraction of young males driving sports cars suggests that much, but not all, of their
high risk is associated with aggressive driving.
Ah yes, because supercars are usually driven by young males.
Wait, what?
I mostly see young males driving like idiots in Corsas/Golfs/Polos/Fiestas etc.
I've never seen a young male behind the wheel of a Ferrari.
-
Of course you can compare them, you're saying that a city car will do the job for driving around London, as will a hybrid.
Though you still see people going around London in supercars and ridiculously expensive bikes that are over the top for driving/cycling around the city.
Supercars cause less casualties than non-supercars (proportionally speaking of course) so I don't see your point there.No, you cannot compare them.
Why is an expensive bike wrong for riding around the city?
It doesn't produce more pollution and would in fact be more efficient hence requiring the rider to need as much food.
Bike vs. Car comparison is null and void.
-
Of course you can compare them, you're saying that a city car will do the job for driving around London, as will a hybrid.
Though you still see people going around London in supercars and ridiculously expensive bikes that are over the top for driving/cycling around the city.
Supercars cause less casualties than non-supercars (proportionally speaking of course) so I don't see your point there.
"sports cars have the highest combined risk, of all vehicle types studied."
-
No, you cannot compare them.
Why is an expensive bike wrong for riding around the city?
It doesn't produce more pollution and would in fact be more efficient hence requiring the rider to need as much food.
Bike vs. Car comparison is null and void.
Because you look like a cock for wasting money. Something along those lines wasn't it?
-
Because you look like a cock for wasting money. Something along those lines wasn't it?
Except you don't. How many newspaper articles have you read where a person was pushed off their bike because it was a BMC and not a Brompton?
And as I said.. they are more efficient ergo save time and energy.
The price difference is also VASTLY smaller between a cheap and expensive bike... and still cost less than a ferrari mirror.
-
Except you don't. How many newspaper articles have you read where a person was pushed off their bike because it was a BMC and not a Brompton?
And as I said.. they are more efficient ergo save time and energy.
The price difference is also VASTLY smaller between a cheap and expensive bike... and still cost less than a ferrari mirror.
But non-supercars also get vandelised on a daily basis, so I don't see the point of the first point.
Fair enough on the second point, it's a pretty small difference though, for example on my beach cruiser it takes 5 minutes more to travel 8 miles than my fixed, despite the fact that it's exactly twice the weight and has tyres that are 3 times wider.
31trum
Olly398
mmccarthy
hippy
Balki
deleted
VeeVee-
Post a reply
About
Just crashed into a Lamborghini!
Posted by
@mikec
.