Driver death rates remain high among small cars

[Blumlein 88]

You are equivocating ordinary Americans with terrorists. That's awful. Let he who is free from guilt throw the first stone.

Maybe the American consumer is compensating for not being a terrorist.

 

[ta240]

Yes, outside of Taliban/ISIS/Boko Haram/al-Shahab, compensating Americans are the only group of people who find such vehicles appealing for daily (noncommercial) use.

I thought they all used smaller Toyota trucks.

 

[jhaider]

Lovely company you've put me in.

I actually need a truck for my work,

My apologies - I forgot an important word: "noncommercial." See edited version. A work vehicle used appropriately is quite different than a larded up work vehicle bought as a compensatory eyesore to drive to the office parking deck.

OTOH, to say only people 'compensating' for something are buying them is very head in the sand. As it is near 60% of buyers that idea simply cannot make much sense.

The second sentence hardly disproves the first. However, I'll grant you that I'm being slightly unfair. Plenty of people buy them primarily because they see lots of other people buying them. It's a self-destructive cycle. Regardless, you can't deny the marketing for these things is over-the-top compensation. Clearly that marketing is influencing purchase decisions.

Big and bigger is what most Americans want. It is what sales and small doesn't. I don't guess the idea of such huge vehicles is popular in Europe. It appears to be popular among the growing Chinese middle and upper class.

These monster trucks are a product of public policy failures. In the US there are four offenders: safety regulations, fuel economy regulations, protectionism, and tax policy. The first three are self explanatory. Tax policy favors the brutes (and the larding up of such brutes) because XXL sized (6000lb+) vehicles get favorable tax treatment if they are "business" vehicles. Many small business owners ram through that loophole. (Some blow through it with Tesla Model X minivans, which also meet the criteria.)

Countries with more sensible public policy are not overrun with such eyesores in non-commercial use.

So what are 60% of the automobile lite truck market compensating for in the USA?

There are a number of possibilities. One less loaded one to consider is a general feeling of powerlessness.

You left out all of Latin America and Australians.

Admittedly, I did not know the archetypal terrorist "technical" (Toyota Hilux) was the most popular passenger vehicle in Australia until a few minutes ago. I knew they had their native "Utes," (like the old Subaru Baja here) but did not know that.[/QUOTE]

 

[SIY]

Countries with more sensible public policy are not overrun with such eyesores in non-commercial use.

"Sensible" meaning "in accord with my personal preference."

I have a hard time getting worked up about what other people choose to drive. The parking lot where I work is dominated by large pickups, SUVs, and Jeeps. These are useful for getting around here in AZ.

 

[kn0ppers]

"Sensible" meaning "in accord with my personal preference."

Or the environment, or common-sense. Just saying. The carbon footprint of the average american citizen is amongst the highest of OECD countries and your road safety is amongst the worst. I know the America of today has some trouble coping with facts, but those are the facts.

 

[Trouble Maker]

One thing to keep in mind is that IIHS is funded by the insurance companies.

 

[Blumlein 88]

My apologies - I forgot an important word: "noncommercial." See edited version. A work vehicle used appropriately is quite different than a larded up work vehicle bought as a compensatory eyesore to drive to the office parking deck.



The second sentence hardly disproves the first. However, I'll grant you that I'm being slightly unfair. Plenty of people buy them primarily because they see lots of other people buying them. It's a self-destructive cycle. Regardless, you can't deny the marketing for these things is over-the-top compensation. Clearly that marketing is influencing purchase decisions.



These monster trucks are a product of public policy failures. In the US there are four offenders: safety regulations, fuel economy regulations, protectionism, and tax policy. The first three are self explanatory. Tax policy favors the brutes (and the larding up of such brutes) because XXL sized (6000lb+) vehicles get favorable tax treatment if they are "business" vehicles. Many small business owners ram through that loophole. (Some blow through it with Tesla Model X minivans, which also meet the criteria.)

Countries with more sensible public policy are not overrun with such eyesores in non-commercial use.



There are a number of possibilities. One less loaded one to consider is a general feeling of powerlessness.



Admittedly, I did not know the archetypal terrorist "technical" (Toyota Hilux) was the most popular passenger vehicle in Australia until a few minutes ago. I knew they had their native "Utes," (like the old Subaru Baja here) but did not know that.

[/QUOTE]

"The second sentence hardly disproves the first. However, I'll grant you that I'm being slightly unfair. Plenty of people buy them primarily because they see lots of other people buying them. It's a self-destructive cycle. Regardless, you can't deny the marketing for these things is over-the-top compensation. Clearly that marketing is influencing purchase decisions."

While I agree with you the marketing is over the top, name one other vehicle for which that isn't true.

Also, I would note this was a long time coming to the truck/suv age. People starting moving toward those long before they were heavily marketed that way. Of course once the trend was noticed makers moved in that direction to increase the appeal. Which again is simply like any other product. And while I see the damage to the environment etc., I don't see the nefarious motivation or compensation or whatever is now hurled at the majority of the USA car buyers.

 

[SIY]

Or the environment, or common-sense. Just saying. The carbon footprint of the average american citizen is amongst the highest of OECD countries and your road safety is amongst the worst. I know the America of today has some trouble coping with facts, but those are the facts.

"Facts." Deaths per vehicle mile in the US falls well below Mexico, South Korea, and Czech, and is about equal to Belgium, New Zealand, and Slovenia. Per capita carbon emissions fall below Australia and are about equal to Canada. If you normalize to GDP, the US falls way down the list.

 

[whazzup]

I must apologise, for a split second I thought this was some weird study on speaker drivers spoiling quicker in small cars.

 

[Ron Texas]

My apologies - I forgot an important word: "noncommercial." See edited version. A work vehicle used appropriately is quite different than a larded up work vehicle bought as a compensatory eyesore to drive to the office parking deck.



The second sentence hardly disproves the first. However, I'll grant you that I'm being slightly unfair. Plenty of people buy them primarily because they see lots of other people buying them. It's a self-destructive cycle. Regardless, you can't deny the marketing for these things is over-the-top compensation. Clearly that marketing is influencing purchase decisions.



These monster trucks are a product of public policy failures. In the US there are four offenders: safety regulations, fuel economy regulations, protectionism, and tax policy. The first three are self explanatory. Tax policy favors the brutes (and the larding up of such brutes) because XXL sized (6000lb+) vehicles get favorable tax treatment if they are "business" vehicles. Many small business owners ram through that loophole. (Some blow through it with Tesla Model X minivans, which also meet the criteria.)

Countries with more sensible public policy are not overrun with such eyesores in non-commercial use.



There are a number of possibilities. One less loaded one to consider is a general feeling of powerlessness.



Admittedly, I did not know the archetypal terrorist "technical" (Toyota Hilux) was the most popular passenger vehicle in Australia until a few minutes ago. I knew they had their native "Utes," (like the old Subaru Baja here) but did not know that.

What in heaven's name are you thinking or smoking. Policy failures? How about consumer preference? What I see here looks like climate politics. I suppose you want people to be forced to buy what your idea of good policy is, and not what they want.

 

[jhaider]

Vehicle size for US fuel economy purposes is measured by footprint, not overall dimensions. Footprint is wheelbase x track. This may account for some classification oddities where the wheels are stuck out as far to the corners of the car as they can be.

The better explanation here is typo in vehicle name or size class. IIHS classifies Lexus CT200h as a "small" car on their main website for that model.

I have a hard time getting worked up about what other people choose to drive. The parking lot where I work is dominated by large pickups, SUVs, and Jeeps. These are useful for getting around here in AZ.

You’re a Ravens fan, so consider Todd Heap. More specifically, consider his late daughter. You can’t see a three year-old playing in front of your vehicle when its hood is flat and five feet off the ground. If he had been in a car he might have seen his little girl in front of his vehicle.

"Sensible" meaning "in accord with my personal preference."

Yes, my "personal preference" is for sightlines to be preserved in parking lots and intersections, and for the roads my tax dollars fund to not to be prematurely torn up by yahoos in excessively heavy vehicles riding on tires designed for surfaces other than asphalt, and so on.

The genesis of SUVs (the same tropes apply to modern luxo-trucks) as mainstream passenger/commuter vehicles in the US is really interesting. There was a spate of literature on these things when they first started infesting our streets in locust-like numbers. Keith Bradsher's book High and Mighty is probably the best known. The short of it is, the Detroit automakers could make them cheaply, and used the "reptilian brain" theories of marketing by a would-be de Tocqueville named Clotaire Rapaille to market the hell out of them. (Malcolm Gladwell covered him as well, because of course he did.) Dr. Rapaille was consulting for all of them. Those theories spawned these vehicles.

Speaking of Rapaille, take a look at his consultancy's client list. Do you see anything out of place for a company whose core advice for clients is, per his website, "the reptilian brain always wins?" Maybe look closely at the bottom row?

It’s clear the OP was a troll to push a political agenda justifying terrible vehicles. Stupid me, I took the bait. I will stop now with one last thought: one cannot help but note how selfish the framing of the list is: number of people who died while themselves in vehicle X.”

There is no column for “people killed in crashes with vehicle X.”

“Pedestrians hit and killed by vehicle X,” which have skyrocketed with the increase in these terrible vehicles, are ignored completely.

Let's pretend externalities foisted on other people don't exist in the name of our own freedumb.

 

[Ron Texas]

It’s clear the OP was a troll to push a political agenda justifying terrible vehicles. Stupid me, I took the bait. I will stop now with one last thought: one cannot help but note how selfish the framing of the list is: number of people who died while themselves in vehicle X.”

That's a pathetic accusation consistent with your previous attacks on me.

 

[Wombat]

The crash ratings are a bit deceiving in that they only apply within the specific vehicle size class. I think this leads a lot of people to think they are driving a car that is safer than it really is. A smaller, lighter car hits the stationary barrier with less force; while in the real world a jacked up F250 will hit the small car with a massive amount of force and won't even come close to having bumpers that line up with the bumpers on the other car.

I've always been amazed that it is, apparently, legal to raise the height of ones vehicle to such an extreme level that their bumpers are at head level for other drivers. It seems like they shouldn't be able to alter a safety feature like that. I knew a guy in high school that had a customized VW Beetle that he'd replaced the front bumper with a decorative chrome thing and he said he'd get pulled over frequently because that wasn't legal.
About every 10th vehicle you see around here is one of these:

The US probably has some of the widest range in sizes of 'personal' vehicles and that really puts the people in the smaller ones at great risk.

The Dodge Ram is appropriately named.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The Dodge Ram is appropriately named.

I saw an extensive video report on side impact ratings of mid-size trucks from 4 years ago. The old Chevy Colorado was given a horrid rating. Tacoma, and Frontier were given high marks. What was the difference? The other two sit about 2 inches higher. The side impact sled (patterned after a Ram truck) had a lower edge that was above the floor pan of the Colorado. So it just sliced thru the sheet metal and intruded deeply into the interior which would have been fatal to the driver. The other two sit higher and the lower edge was just below the floor pans. So the floor pan provided significant support to resist intrusion into the driver's area upon side impact.

Was there a real engineering difference for safety against side impacts? No. Put some aftermarket tall wheels and tires on your Colorado and it would also have gotten high marks in the side impact test. Whether there was any difference in the real world depended upon just what hit you in the side more than anything. I don't consider being tall a significant innovative safety design. Had a Ram with lift kit and big tires hit a Tacoma or Frontier int he real world being taller it too would have sliced right into the drivers compartment fatally.

Now sure such testing has encouraged better crash resistance, but sometimes those simplified ratings are quite deceptive.

Besides the incredible safety benefits of full roll cages are undeniable, but we've not seen a push to make those standard in cars for safety.

 

[BDWoody]

My apologies - I forgot an important word: "noncommercial." See edited version. A work vehicle used appropriately is quite different than a larded up work vehicle bought as a compensatory eyesore to drive to the office parking deck.

Oh, I drive my truck when not absolutely necessary, so I clearly still have much in common with terrorists and murderers...

 

[SIY]

Yes, my "personal preference" is for sightlines to be preserved in parking lots and intersections, and for the roads my tax dollars fund to not to be prematurely torn up by yahoos in excessively heavy vehicles riding on tires designed for surfaces other than asphalt, and so on.

Others' personal preferences might be different, and based on other factors.

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

 

[Certainkindoffool]

This being an audio site, I had a moment of confusion theorizing why the drivers in small car audio systems were failing more often than larger models.

I realize now that I was a fool...and this is a much more serious topic.

 

[Willem]

For me, main car use is long distance driving. For that, comfort and handling at higher speeds are important, and so is low drag (remember, fuel is expensive here). The results is that driving a US style suv/truck would be irrational. I once drove a full size Dodge sedan, so I know about the handling of traditional US cars. There are enough very safe and beautifully handling smallish European cars on our market. Their only safety risk is being hit by a monster truck. It is for that reason, and for the risk posed to cyclists and pedestrians, that there is discussion about banning large SUVs and non commercial use trucks in the Netherlands, certainly in our historic cities that were never designed for them.

 

[SIY]

It is for that reason, and for the risk posed to cyclists and pedestrians, that there is discussion about banning large SUVs and non commercial use trucks in the Netherlands, certainly in our historic cities that were never designed for them.

Flat small countries have different needs than enormous, urbanized countries with terrains ranging from desert to mountains to ocean shores and much newer cities, so people make different choices. Which is totally cool.

 

[Willem]

It would be interesting to see data on the fatalities imposed on the other car involved in the accident, or, in the European conditions, also death rates among cyclists and pedestrians. That might well change the picture: big cars may be safe for their drivers, but are lethal weapons - at least that would be my hypothesis.