Technology saving lives in SUV's

[LS2JSTS]

According to the latest IIHS data it appears that the anti roll over tech has provided substantial gains in lives saved in SUV's. Interesting stuff.....


"Sport utility vehicles are now safer than cars of the same weight, thanks to anti-rollover technology.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said in a report issued today SUVs in the 2006-09 model years had a driver fatality rate half that of cars."

"The rollover risk in SUVs used to outweigh their size/weight advantage, but that's no longer the case," thanks to electronic stability control, said Anne McCartt, the institute's senior vice president for research. "Pound for pound, SUVs have lower death rates."

In assessing risk, the study counts the number of years that each model has been on the road and multiplies that by the number of that model's vehicles. SUV driver deaths totaled 28 per million registered vehicle years, compared to 52 for trucks and 56 for cars.

Among all vehicles, minivans again had the lowest driver fatality rate: 25 per million registered vehicle years, according to the new report."


Newer SUV's safer than cars of similar weight

 

[JHZR2]

Proves that a nanny type oversight is necessary because the bulk of the population is too dumb to respect physics. Sad.

And now there is an excuse to go for the beheamouth... In the name of safety... Just in time for fuel to hit $5.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
In 2007, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration required all vehicles to be equipped with electronic stability control, or ESC, by the 2012 model year.

By the 2008 model year, ESC already was standard on 65 percent of cars, 96 percent of SUVs and 11 percent of pickups.

Quote:
"As automakers, safety and innovation are two of our most important values, and our actions back that up: Automakers were introducing ESC before the government rulemaking on it," alliance spokesman Wade Newton said.

Yeah, that nanny state stuff for all of the "too dumb" population worked really well!!

Quote:
Researchers say minivans tend to have the lowest fatality rates in part because drivers are more likely to be carrying young children and are more careful.

So lets have the nanny state mandate that we all drive mini-vans to make us all smarter and more careful...

 

[LS2JSTS]

First, weight is only an "advantage" in the sense of the relationship of weight between the two vehicles involved in a potential wreck. Energy transfer between larger vs smaller will almost always favor the larger vehicle. OTOH, weight can be a huge disadvantage in a single vehicle accident.

As in all discussions of safety and vehicle crash dynamic, there are far too many variables to claim weight is an advantage or disadvantage without knowing the complete scenario involved.

As far as the EPA standards for Ford engines, I'm not sure I follow you. I don't know of any engine platform that doesn't share tech across model lines. They all have to meet the same EPA regs.

Who do you think is spinning here, the IIHS? I find them to be a pretty well organized and well run independent voice in the area of vehicle safety and crash dynamics. The numbers they compile pretty much speak for themselves don't they? Are you implying that the IIHS has fudged these numbers in some way...for what gain?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
If weight is such a big safety advantage for a vehicle, why are all the engineers in Detroit going to great lengths to take the weight out of vehicles? We should just make all the parts out of cast iron!

CAFE, which has been shown to cost lives. Small cars are death traps in collisions.

 

[javacontour]

Or that SUVs got the things like stability control first and it's progressing down to cars.

 

[rpn453]

I'm thinking that the occupants of cars are simply losing in collisions with SUVs even of the same weight because of the SUV's additional height, especially in side impacts. The mass of the SUV goes right over the strongest part of the car.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Small cars are death traps in collisions.


I just can't agree with that statement.

Yes, if a Toyota Yaris gets hit in the side or head on by a dually Ford F-350, at highway speeds, then the Yaris occupants are in a world of hurt.

But what if two Yarii smack into each other at 25 mph?
What if you compare that to a pair of F-350's going head on at the same speed?

I would much rather be in a Yaris and get hit head on by another Yaris than be in a F-350 and get hit head on by another F-350. More mass into a collision like that means more forces being put into my body as it decelerates and changes direction.

Then lets look at a different type of small car, like a Porsche Boxster or Cayman. Those things are built like tanks, and way safer if you have an accident than similar physical size cars.

Sure, a lifted F-150 with huge tires will drive right over top of the Boxster, but he's probably going to flip after doing so.

I don't feel nervous at all driving smaller cars.
Just the fact that SUV's needed to have driver aids added to the vehicle to keep the typical bad drivers on the roads from flipping them over says volumes.

BC.

 

[hhu168]

Quote:
Sport utility vehicles are now safer than cars of the same weight, thanks to anti-rollover technology.


I think this implies that weight is neither an advantage, nor a disadvantage.

Quote:

By the 2008 model year, ESC already was standard on 65 percent of cars, 96 percent of SUVs and 11 percent of pickups.


This is probably one of the main reasons for SUVs being safer than cars.

 

[rpn453]

The other thing is the weight classes used. I doubt they have weight classes in reasonable increments for useful pound-for-pound comparison. Even a 10% weight difference is too much to be considered equal in a pound-for-pound comparison. If the cars tend to fall in the lower end of the weight class while the SUVs reside in the upper end, then they still hold a major advantage in a collision.

 

[LS2JSTS]

The attached IIHS study makes no attempt at all to compare SUV's and cars against each other model for model or even what the numbers would reflect for accidents between SUV's and cars.

What it does compare are the cumulative numbers of deaths for the entire class, SUV vs Cars and so forth.

The lower incidence of death in an SUV as a whole class vs cars as a whole class is a significant change in the numbers. Especially when one considers that only 2% of all accidents are rollovers yet thay account for nearly 40% of deaths. This indicates to me that the newer tech added to the SUV class of vehicles has had a significant effect on the reality of the situation.

 

[needsducktape]

I think we are all missing an important part of the equation

- its PER MILLION

The Nissan 350z convertible was rated the worst at 143 per million and actually one of their trucks was rated "bad" as well.

But here is my point - THIS IS PER MILLION -

As in, drive what ever you want as the chances are still pretty low. Cars and trucks over all are much safer than they used to be.

So many people will simply use the excuse of SUVs are safer meanwhile they will be lighting up their Camel lights without a second thought.

You are more likely to be killed by your smoking than your 350z or SUV or anything else on the road.

If you want an SUV -buy one- but don't sit there and feed me the "Safer" babel (It's all marketing and sales and fear) - You want one because you like the way it looks or drives. We all rationalize what we want too much...

Me, I will drive what I want. As I am safe driver and life is too short not to enjoy a 350z, a mini cooper or whatever. If it tickles my fancy I will drive it knowing that a car built today is much more safe than cars from my father's and grand father's generation.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Small cars are death traps in collisions.


I just can't agree with that statement.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1979130

 

[LS2JSTS]

There really is no way to get around the laws of physics. In most situations and scenarios and other things such as safety features being equal....Larger trumps smaller.

This IIHS video demonstrates and explains this FACT as best I've ever found.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GySSKPz3oR8


Can you cherry pick a scenario or situation where added weight is a disadvantage or doesn't protect...of course you can, but in general it doesn't change the facts involved. now, I guess its about time for someone to post the 1959 BelAir video...lol.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
There really is no way to get around the laws of physics. In most situations and scenarios and other things such as safety features being equal....Larger trumps smaller.

This IIHS video demonstrates and explains this FACT as best I've ever found.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GySSKPz3oR8


Can you cherry pick a scenario or situation where added weight is a disadvantage or doesn't protect...of course you can, but in general it doesn't change the facts involved. now, I guess its about time for someone to post the 1959 BelAir video...lol.


The way the Smart goes absolutely FLYING off the bumper of the larger car would be hilarious, if it wasn't so frightening.

Oh, and if someone does post the '59 Impala video again, I'll debunk it.... again.

 

[MonumentOiler]

One thing the IIHS study does not take into account is driver demographics which get to be really important in a "deaths per model mile" figure.

My guess is SUV drivers (and especially Minivan) drivers trend older, more experienced and safer. The same is even more true for certain models like a Lexus SUV or Mercedes.

 

[mechanicx]

I'm just waiting for someone to post the cherry picked crash test of a '59 Chevy in an offset-frontal collison with an '09 Malibu that "proves" a "larger" car is not safer than a "smaller" car.

Anyway, is the media in effect promoting large SUV or just reporting the facts? Are we going to see more demand for SUV which use more gas and higher gas prices.

This all proves what some of us have been saying, without driver error a larger heavier vehicle is safer in a crash against smaller lighter vehicles.

 

[Cutehumor]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Proves that a nanny type oversight is necessary because the bulk of the population is too dumb to respect physics. Sad.

And now there is an excuse to go for the beheamouth... In the name of safety... Just in time for fuel to hit $5.


now, it's totally safe to drive a behemoth SUV and when I wreck into an econobox he'll go flying into next week.

 

[wander2039]

They're forgetting the lawyer equation..yeah you survived but you'd better not at fault for the wreck.. after the lawyers gets playing pongo on your hindquarters they'd probably wish they were dead.

 

[tom slick]

Quote:
Sport utility vehicles are now safer than cars of the same weight, thanks to anti-rollover technology


Everyone seems to assume the article is blessing large SUVs but the medium-sized (for an SUV) Expedition weighs in at 5600 lbs which is not close to GM and Ford's largest cars at 4000 lbs. To compare apples to apples (weight) then you need to compare an Flex to a Taurus, Escape or Explorer to a Fusion. Comparing these pairs they get similar gas mileage and I wouldn't' consider any of these SUVs significantly larger than other cars on the road.