Crossing the "Red Line"

[Ms Tree]

I call BS on this one. I am quite sure you can back up your claim that "deaths have increased as structural sacrifice using plastics and aluminum and other means"...

Of course deaths have increased. So has the amount of cars on the road and people driving.

I am sure your implication was that vehicles are less safe now. Your inference is that before the technology improvements and use of high strength polymers and lighter weight metals, that vehicles were somehow safer. That is of course inaccurate and all the data proves it (as others on this thread have shown).

Of course it's BS. I saw this video that explains the car technology quite well. With all the high strength steel and crash zones the new smaller cars are far safer than the older larger cars that everyone thought were safe (which they were for the time). Here is a crash test video of a Volvo 940 and a Renault Lotus in a 40 MPH (80 MPH combined) head on collision. Most would think the Volvo would come out better. They would be wrong.

guess there are still idiots out there who cannot figure it out.

 

[KCFlyer]

So from your post Dell, we should start putting leather interiors and back seats into Peterbilts to insure the safest possible environment for moms on and kids on their way to soccer practice.

 

[Ms Tree]

Data can be manipulated from here till kingdom come but the bottom line is that per mile driven death have dropped to their lowest rate in history. Will a Kenworth win out over a VW Bug, yes, it will also win out over a SUV as well. As the video above points out, size doe snot always win.

 

[Ifly2]

More data?

Using that logic we should all go back to our caves, go,outside onlymwhen necessary, and walk. Preferably wearing armor.

The fatality rate drops from 7.3 to 1.4, and some genius thinks that cars have gotten less safe.

Perfectly safe?

No

As safe as it could be?

No

Safer in each succeeding decade than in the previous one?

Definitely

And you don't need statistics, figures or liars to know the new ones are safer, you just have to open your eyes-and join the 21st century.

So simple... Even a caveman...

 

[delldude]

Sorry, didn't mean to piss in your Wheaties....

Just the facts......

 

[Artemus]

Of course it's BS. I saw this video that explains the car technology quite well. With all the high strength steel and crash zones the new smaller cars are far safer than the older larger cars that everyone thought were safe (which they were for the time). Here is a crash test video of a Volvo 940 and a Renault Lotus in a 40 MPH (80 MPH combined) head on collision. Most would think the Volvo would come out better. They would be wrong.

guess there are still idiots out there who cannot figure it out.

Idiots like the kind that can't post you tube?

 

[Ifly2]

Those weren't facts.

Those were hypothetical statistics someone came up with in an academic study. It is certainly true that a bug loses a headon with a semi, or that the new Fiat loses in a collision with an old, or new, caddy.

It is just as certainly, and obviously, true that people in similiar sized modern vehicles are safer, even in a collision, than passengers in two similiar sized old cars, like say two of my old Fury's.

That is not to mention that with today's handling and safety improvements, they are dramatically less likely to be involved in the collision, or a single car accident, than ever before.

The facts are that the accident and fatality rates have decreased, dramatically, with the introduction of new technology.

The other facts, germane to the thread, are that the CAFE standards have had a significant positive effect on reducing our collective dependence on OPEC. Xcpt those that insist they need an Escalade to make it to the corner grocery, alone.

Said dependence is our only parochial interest in the middle east, and thus the prime source of this continual question of whether to support the bad guys, or the bad guys.

 

[Ms Tree]

Dam it, it's our right to drive what ever gas guzzler we want so long as someone else's kid goes off to fight and die to protect the oil. Stop trying to rain on our parade.

 

[delldude]

Those weren't facts.

Those were hypothetical statistics someone came up with in an academic study. It is certainly true that a bug loses a headon with a semi, or that the new Fiat loses in a collision with an old, or new, caddy.

It is just as certainly, and obviously, true that people in similiar sized modern vehicles are safer, even in a collision, than passengers in two similiar sized old cars, like say two of my old Fury's.

That is not to mention that with today's handling and safety improvements, they are dramatically less likely to be involved in the collision, or a single car accident, than ever before.

The facts are that the accident and fatality rates have decreased, dramatically, with the introduction of new technology.

The other facts, germane to the thread, are that the CAFE standards have had a significant positive effect on reducing our collective dependence on OPEC. Xcpt those that insist they need an Escalade to make it to the corner grocery, alone.

Said dependence is our only parochial interest in the middle east, and thus the prime source of this continual question of whether to support the bad guys, or the bad guys.

I'll give you leeway with safety and engineering improvements .....from 1975 until those improvements were instituted, CAFE did cause more deaths until those safety improvements were the standard.

And the spinoff with CAFE....we can joy ride more often now....

 

[Ifly2]

NHTSA data do not support your claim re CAFE "causing" deaths

 

[delldude]

NHTSA data do not support your claim re CAFE "causing" deaths

You don't know what you are talking about.

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the fatal results of mileage regulations, starting in 1989 with the Brookings Institution (in collaboration with the Harvard School of Public Health), followed by USA Today in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences in 2001, and at last the federal government's own National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration in 2003. This formidable lineup of organizations all came to the same conclusion: Fuel standards kill.

According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993." The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle's weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999.

 

[xUT]

Dam it, it's our right to drive what ever gas guzzler we want so long as someone else's kid goes off to fight and die to protect the oil. Stop trying to rain on our parade.

I am not going again (they won't take me... )
Only 'oil' I wanted was a little LSA and MIL-C372. Good stuff!
B) ...

 

[Ifly2]

Sunday 16 %
Death Rate By Year (Fatalities Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled)
2010 1.1
2000 1.6
1990 2.1
1980 3.4
1970 4.7
1960 5.0
1952 7.2
State With The Highest Death Rate – Montana 2.0
State With The Lowest Death Rate – Massachusetts

 

[Ifly2]

The fourth column is the fatality rate per 100 m vtm

A small uptick in 79/80

Otherwise, constant decline, even post CAFE


1963 41,723 805.25 5.18 189,241,798 22.047 5.51%
1964 45,645 846.30 5.39 191,888,791 23.787 7.89%
1965 47,089 887.81 5.30 194,302,963 24.235 1.88%
1966 50,894 925.90 5.50 196,560,338 25.892 6.84%
1967 50,724 964.01 5.26 198,712,056 25.526 -1.41%
1968 52,725 1,015.87 5.19 200,706,052 26.270 2.91%
1969 53,543 1,061.79 5.04 202,676,946 26.418 0.56%
1970 52,627 1,109.72 4.74 205,052,174 25.665 -2.85%
1971 52,542 1,178.81 4.46 207,660,677 25.302 -1.42%
1972 54,589 1,259.79 4.33 209,896,021 26.008 2.79%
1973 54,052 1,313.11 4.12 211,908,788 25.507 -1.92%
1974 45,196 1,280.54 3.53 213,853,928 21.134 -17.14%
1975 44,525 1,327.66 3.35 215,973,199 20.616 -2.45%
1976 45,523 1,402.38 3.25 218,035,164 20.879 1.27%
1977 47,878 1,467.03 3.26 220,239,425 21.739 4.12%
1978 50,331 1,544.70 3.26 222,584,545 22.612 4.02%
1979 51,093 1,529.13 3.34 225,055,487 22.702 0.40%
1980 51,091 1,527.30 3.35 227,224,681 22.485 -0.96%
1981 49,301 1,552.80 3.18 229,465,714 21.485 -4.45%
1982 43,945 1,595.01 2.76 231,664,458 18.969 -11.71%
1983 42,589 1,652.79 2.58 233,791,994 18.217 -3.97%
1984 44,257 1,720.27 2.57 235,824,902 18.767 3.02%
1985 43,825 1,774.18 2.47 237,923,795 18.420 -1.85%
1986 46,087 1,834.87 2.51 240,132,887 19.192 4.19%
1987 46,390 1,921.20 2.42 242,288,918 19.147 -0.24%
1988 47,087 2,025.96 2.32 244,498,982 19.259 0.58%
1989 45,582 2,096.46 2.17 246,819,230 18.468 -4.11%
1990 44,599 2,144.36 2.08 249,464,396 17.878 -3.19%
1991 41,508 2,172.05 1.91 252,153,092 16.461 -7.92%
1992 39,250 2,247.15 1.75 255,029,699 15.390 -6.51%
1993 40,150 2,296.38 1.75 257,782,608 15.575 1.20%
1994 40,716 2,358 1.73 260,327,021 15.6403 0.42%
1995 41,817 2,423 1.73 262,803,276 15.9119 1.74%
1996 42,065 2,486 1.69 265,228,572 15.8599 -0.33%
1997 42,013 2,562 1.64 267,783,607 15.6892 -1.08%
1998 41,501 2,632 1.58 270,248,003 15.3566 -2.12%
1999 41,717 2,691 1.55 272,690,813 15.2983 -0.38%
2000 41,945 2,747 1.53 282,216,952 14.8627 -2.85%
2001[1] 42,196 2,797 1.51 285,226,284 14.81 -0.46%
2002 43,005 2,856 1.51 288,125,973 14.95 0.89%
2003 42,884 2,890 1.48 290,796,023 14.78 -1.75%
2004 42,836 2,965 1.44 293,638,158 14.63 -0.52%
2005 43,510 2,989 1.46 296,507,061 14.72 0.44%
2006 42,708 3,014 1.42 299,398,484 14.31 -2.79%
2007 41,259 3,031 1.36 301,139,947 13.70 -3.85%
2008 37,423 2,977 1.26 303,824,640 12.31 -11.0%
2009 33,883 2,957 1.15 306,700,000 11.05 -9.7%
2010 [1] 32,885 2,967 1.11 308,745,538 10.6511 -3.8%
2011 [3][4] 32,367 2,930 1.10 311,591,917 10.3876 -2.5%
2012 (9 mo)[4] 25,580 1.16 314,395,013[5] 10.8483
(pro-rated over 12 mo.) +4.4%
(pro-rated over 12 mo.)

 

[xUT]

What was the topic again?