Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#891
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
thousandths of one percent.
Big deal.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
yours..
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
:
: I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.
thousandths of one percent.
Big deal.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
yours..
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
:
: I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#892
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
thousandths of one percent.
Big deal.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
yours..
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
:
: I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.
thousandths of one percent.
Big deal.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
yours..
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
:
: I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#893
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
sorry, 5 thousanths of one percent.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net...
: We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: thousandths of one percent.
: Big deal.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: yours..
: : >
: : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: : >
: :
: : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: : --
: : ____________________
: : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
:
:
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net...
: We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: thousandths of one percent.
: Big deal.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: yours..
: : >
: : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: : >
: :
: : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: : --
: : ____________________
: : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
:
:
#894
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
sorry, 5 thousanths of one percent.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net...
: We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: thousandths of one percent.
: Big deal.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: yours..
: : >
: : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: : >
: :
: : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: : --
: : ____________________
: : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
:
:
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net...
: We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: thousandths of one percent.
: Big deal.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: yours..
: : >
: : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: : >
: :
: : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: : --
: : ____________________
: : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
:
:
#895
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
sorry, 5 thousanths of one percent.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net...
: We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: thousandths of one percent.
: Big deal.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: yours..
: : >
: : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: : >
: :
: : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: : --
: : ____________________
: : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
:
:
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net...
: We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: thousandths of one percent.
: Big deal.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: yours..
: : >
: : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: : >
: :
: : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But then
: : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: : --
: : ____________________
: : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
:
:
#896
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
> says...
>
>>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
>>>dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
>>>read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>>>
>>> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
>>>Very small 4-door cars 11.56
>>>Small 4-door cars 7.85
>>>Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
>>>Large 4-door cars 3.30
>>>Compact pickup trucks 6.82
>>>Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
>>>Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
>>>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
>>>Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
>>>Minivans 2.76
>>>
>>>The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
>>>drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
>>>large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>>>
>>>Look who's on top.
>>
>>Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
>>vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
>>class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
>>between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
>>average in any event.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>
> Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
> I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
> support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
> press the send button without reading I guess.
The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
Matt
> In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
> says...
>
>>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
>>>dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
>>>read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>>>
>>> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
>>>Very small 4-door cars 11.56
>>>Small 4-door cars 7.85
>>>Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
>>>Large 4-door cars 3.30
>>>Compact pickup trucks 6.82
>>>Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
>>>Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
>>>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
>>>Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
>>>Minivans 2.76
>>>
>>>The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
>>>drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
>>>large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>>>
>>>Look who's on top.
>>
>>Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
>>vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
>>class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
>>between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
>>average in any event.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>
> Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
> I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
> support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
> press the send button without reading I guess.
The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
Matt
#897
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
> says...
>
>>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
>>>dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
>>>read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>>>
>>> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
>>>Very small 4-door cars 11.56
>>>Small 4-door cars 7.85
>>>Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
>>>Large 4-door cars 3.30
>>>Compact pickup trucks 6.82
>>>Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
>>>Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
>>>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
>>>Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
>>>Minivans 2.76
>>>
>>>The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
>>>drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
>>>large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>>>
>>>Look who's on top.
>>
>>Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
>>vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
>>class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
>>between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
>>average in any event.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>
> Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
> I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
> support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
> press the send button without reading I guess.
The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
Matt
> In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
> says...
>
>>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
>>>dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
>>>read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>>>
>>> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
>>>Very small 4-door cars 11.56
>>>Small 4-door cars 7.85
>>>Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
>>>Large 4-door cars 3.30
>>>Compact pickup trucks 6.82
>>>Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
>>>Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
>>>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
>>>Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
>>>Minivans 2.76
>>>
>>>The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
>>>drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
>>>large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>>>
>>>Look who's on top.
>>
>>Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
>>vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
>>class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
>>between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
>>average in any event.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>
> Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
> I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
> support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
> press the send button without reading I guess.
The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
Matt
#898
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
> says...
>
>>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
>>>dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
>>>read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>>>
>>> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
>>>Very small 4-door cars 11.56
>>>Small 4-door cars 7.85
>>>Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
>>>Large 4-door cars 3.30
>>>Compact pickup trucks 6.82
>>>Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
>>>Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
>>>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
>>>Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
>>>Minivans 2.76
>>>
>>>The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
>>>drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
>>>large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>>>
>>>Look who's on top.
>>
>>Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
>>vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
>>class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
>>between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
>>average in any event.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>
> Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
> I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
> support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
> press the send button without reading I guess.
The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
Matt
> In article <3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
> says...
>
>>Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
>>>dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
>>>read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>>>
>>> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
>>>Very small 4-door cars 11.56
>>>Small 4-door cars 7.85
>>>Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
>>>Large 4-door cars 3.30
>>>Compact pickup trucks 6.82
>>>Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
>>>Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
>>>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
>>>Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
>>>Minivans 2.76
>>>
>>>The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
>>>drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
>>>large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>>>
>>>Look who's on top.
>>
>>Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
>>vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
>>class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
>>between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
>>average in any event.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>
> Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
> I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
> support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
> press the send button without reading I guess.
The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
Matt
#899
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
> "A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
> popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
> truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
> that they are "safe."
Sorry, but that can mean a whole lot more than crash safety. It can
mean that the vehicle is harder for a carjacker to gain access to than
is a car. It can mean the security of getting through the blizzard as
compared to a car. It can mean many other things as well. Security
does not equal crash safety.
I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
are running.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
> "A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
> popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
> truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
> that they are "safe."
Sorry, but that can mean a whole lot more than crash safety. It can
mean that the vehicle is harder for a carjacker to gain access to than
is a car. It can mean the security of getting through the blizzard as
compared to a car. It can mean many other things as well. Security
does not equal crash safety.
I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
are running.
Matt
#900
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
> "A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
> popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
> truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
> that they are "safe."
Sorry, but that can mean a whole lot more than crash safety. It can
mean that the vehicle is harder for a carjacker to gain access to than
is a car. It can mean the security of getting through the blizzard as
compared to a car. It can mean many other things as well. Security
does not equal crash safety.
I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
are running.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
> "A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
> popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
> truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
> that they are "safe."
Sorry, but that can mean a whole lot more than crash safety. It can
mean that the vehicle is harder for a carjacker to gain access to than
is a car. It can mean the security of getting through the blizzard as
compared to a car. It can mean many other things as well. Security
does not equal crash safety.
I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
are running.
Matt