Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark
well according to this, which is based on deaths per vehicle registered ( which would nullify any arguments that smaller cars have an advantage of avoiding an accident )
|
I see some very different things in that study of yours.
#1> The death rate is not the rate of accidents ... as such it's rate does not nullify the accident claim... and death or accidents are not the rate of avoided accidents , which are not reported... no one call the police to file a report about the accidents that didn't happen... not that the police would waste their time anyway.
#2> Take a closer look at the data ... the graphs from the study you posted do not make as strong of a case for heavier = safer as you or the study's comments might suggest.
The Graph on page 5 shows that in 1988 the year of the blue line of your graph from page 11 that vehicles 3,500 lbs and over accounted for less than 15% of the total vehicles registered ... yet the graph on page 11 shows for that weight a 100 death rate per million vehicles registered ... for that 15% of the vehicles on the road ... out of every 1 million vehicles on the road ~150,000 of them were those 3,500+ lbs ... and those 150,000 vehicles had 100 deaths.... 150,000/100 = 1,500 vehicles per death.
Compared to the 2,500 pound or less vehicles which showed a 150 death rate per million vehicles registered the same year ... which back on page 5 shows were over 50% of the vehicles on the road at that time ... out of every 1 Million registered vehicles 500,000 of them were 2,500 lbs or less ... and those 500,000 vehicles had a total of 150 deaths ... 500,000/150 = 3,333 vehicles per death.
Not that rate of death is directly related to rate of accidents.... especially avoided accidents which are not reported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnClark
4) (page 24) We will be ok if we let data on what works –not wishful thinking- guide our strategies.
|
Yes ... looking carefully at that data for what it is actually showing ... and not trying to make it things it is not ... see above.