[IamIan]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

Our interactions are starting to get a little negative, i do appologize. If i am wrong i have no problem admitting it, but like you, i need to see the data. Unfortunately, i don't think it exists.

I'm sorry you got a 'negative' direction impression .. I didn't get that myself.
... From my PoV , It seemed like a very positive civil exchange .. one where two people happen to just not have the same PoV / opinion / conclusion.

I did not intend any 'negative' .. 'mean' .. etc .. kind of implication , or insinuation ... I apologize if I somehow did give that impression .. It was not intended.

- - - - - -

Originally Posted by ksa8907

I must have missed the data, mind posting it again? All i saw was some graphs in a presentation and some extrapolations you made.

yes .. like many things ... It's a chain ... each builds on the work of others.

1. The data itself that I used (for my analysis that yielded : the 1 in 1,500 vs 1 in 3,3333) came from those graphs (ie those were my sources)
2. The data source of the graphs themselves (where they came from) was sited...
   Incidentally , that sited source didn't make the same analysis I did .. for example:
   1. They looked at the overall trend of vehicles getting heavier over time
   2. They looked at the overall trend of deaths going down over time
   3. They also made the point about the different relative (to each other) rate of reported claims by size and class of vehicle .. (see attached bellow)
   4. They also made the point that vehicle size and weight are separate statistical risk factors .. For example .. there are vehicles with the same (or smaller) volume of size than my 2000 Honda Insight , but who still weigh more than the ~1,847 lbs my gen1 Honda Insight weighs... there are many vehicles that can't brake from 60-0 in ~120 feet like I can.. etc.
      • Although a larger vehicle gives available additional space to allow for improved design (more crumple zone inches, etc.) .. However , it is possible (science and engineering) can produce (and there are real world examples that it has) a smaller size vehicle that has better and/or more crumple zone protection than an OEM happen to choose to put into a larger size vehicle ... ie the safety features installed are what give the safety benefit .. not the capacity to have been able to put them in (but the OEM might have chosen not to) .. this is important distinction , because some consumers just 'assume' the OEM of the larger size vehicle has employed just as much effort and cost$ per square inch of vehicle volume as was done in a smaller size vehicle .. that assumption is not necessarily valid... it will vary from make , model, year, etc.
3. That data (that sited source used) to create the graphs came from studies (unfortunately they didn't site that source (from the NHTSA) in the power point that the graphs themselves came from) .. But I felt the graphs were an easier visualization of that data (that's why I still used them).
4. If traced back to the NHTSA published data that was used by them in that power point to create those graphs .. that data will then reference back to other data collected by various groups (insurance, public records, etc.) to know the number of deaths , weights, etc.
5. Each of those reference others ... etc ... etc.

Originally Posted by ksa8907

Also, i forget who linked it, but one study even mentioned how miles driven would be a much more accurate way to calculate risk. I would love to see a study with that in mind.

I don't know about 'more' .. both would be equally accurate & valid PoVs .. AFAIK.

They would be different aspects of a related issue ... like how I pointed previously about the vastly different results that happen when you compare travel risk by mile vs per trip ... per mile makes air travel look very safe ... per trip it is far less safe ... they are both equally accurate and valid PoVs (AFAIK) about the relative safety / risk of those forms of travel.

Like trying to get more MPG from a car ... aerodynamics matters .. but so does rolling resistance .. but so does engine efficiency ... but so does weather conditions ... but so does driving method .. etc ... they are all equally valid / accurate PoVs about the 'emergent' / 'agregate' / 'net' MPG that one achieves from all those contributing factors... just like total 'net' / 'emergent' safety.

Originally Posted by ksa8907

Also, the whole 1 in1500 or 1 in 3333 is not using accurate data. When the graphs listed "per 1million registered vehicles, it means of each type. You then assumed it meant that those were the results given 1 million random vehicles being selected.

I assumed it was what it said it was , as written ... It doesn't say 'each type' .. just like it doesn't say 'made by a guy named Fred' .. etc ... I took what it claimed literally as written without inserting any additional pieces or assumptions of any additional typos .. like 'each type' you assert here.

Also .. I don't see how 'each type' would be a valid assumption to make ... other data doesn't seem to agree with that leap to assume they made that typo.

If you make that assumption that they made that typo and wrote the graph label incorrectly ... and it should have been 'each type' ... than yes .. I can see where it would seem to re-establish the common 'misconception' about big/heavy = safer (to those inside of it).

Although it does not affect the other data that shows the bigger/heavier vehicle is statistically more dangerous (less safe) to everyone else (pedestrians, etc.) .. call me silly , but AFAIK from my PoV .. 'safety of loved ones' .. still applies to my loved ones when they are bicycling , walking , etc.

But there is an issue that also pops up making the assumption that they made a typo and should have written 'each type' ... an issue that seems to suggest they did not make a typo and actually did write it correctly .. and it is NOT 'each type' ... which means it is still 1 per 1500 for 3500+ (less safe) than 1 per 3,333 for 2500- ... Short version = the math (from other data we know) doesn't line up nearly as well .. It lines up much better when we don't make that typo assumption of ... they meant 'each type'.

Long Version -- you were warned ---
150 from each 1million @ 2500- ... when 50% of all vehicles were 2500- would mean that for the ~230mill registered vehicles ... there would have been ~17.25k deaths from 2500- alone ... 100 from each 1 million @ 3500+ when those accounted for 15% of the ~230mil reg veh .. or ~3.45k deaths from the 3500+ alone ... We still have the other remaining deaths for the vehicles in the middle (35%) more than 2500 but less than 3500 ... but the outer 2500- and 3500+ combined ~65% (By weight) have us at about ~20.7k deaths ... we already know from other data (see attached) that about ~80% only drove 50 miles per day .. x365 days a year is ~18.25k miles for the year per vehicle .. from ~80% of that ~230mil reg veh .. or ~184 Mil veh x ~18.25k miles each = ~3,358 Billion Miles .. when that year we only had ~20 deaths per billion miles driven (see previously attached in post #33) ... that would be ~67k deaths (from the 80% who drove ~50 miles or less) ... but the 'each type' assumption has us at only ~20.7k deaths from ~65% (by weight) of the 230mil ... the numbers (67k and 20.7k) don't line up ... at least not as well as , If instead it is correctly written (no such 'each type' typo) ... than the numbers line up much better and we don't have this problem pop up ... because without the 'each type' we get 150 (2500-) + 100 (3500+) = 250 deaths per million reg veh (not the much lower 250 per 2 mil caused by the assumption of the 'each type' typo) ... not assuming the 'each type' typo increases the total deaths of that ~65% (lighter 2500- and heavier 3500+) by double ... or up to ~41.4k deaths (for that ~65% by weight) ... this seems to line up much better with the ~67k (from 80% who drive under 50 miles).... Therefore ... the data I have in front of me .. does not seem to support the assumption of an 'each type' typo ... and AFAIK it was correctly written as written .. and my analysis method (post#33) remains (AFAIK) the valid interpretation of that data ... which still yields the 1 in 1500 @ 3500+ , and the (light=safer) 1 in 3,333 @ 2500-.

Of course as pointed out above ... this is not to say that there can't be 'other' factors that can also contribute .. txting while driving , more air bangs , etc... this is just the safety vs weight statistics PoV... and despite popular misconception ... lighter = safer (overall).