Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

This is confusing libertarianism with irresponsibility, and a few other ideas IMHO.

But enjoy if you must.

But it'd be my irresponsibility, not yours

I don't mind the labeling idea, at least give people some tools to make an informed decision.

I'd actually be more interested in being able to order ac/radio/power stuff deletes and the like.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

To start things off I should point out, the references you made to the IIHS presentation is good. But its a presentation not a technical paper, so we don't know if those "per 1 million registered vehicles" is one million vehicles distributed among the different types, or 1 million of each type.

From where I sit .. you asked for data .. I pointed it out to you 3 times before you bothered to read the highlights ... what better evidence do you counter with ?

Originally Posted by ksa8907

If you still believe you are correct, please show me REAL DATA from a PEER REVIEWED STUDY/TECHNICAL PAPER.

I've shown you real data .. what better evidence is your counter ?

I am completely open to the possibility of being wrong .. but .. opinion vs data won't sell it to me.

As for what I believe .. just for a bit of clarification .. I am personally of the opinion that the situation and context actually play a large enough factor that , that is what ends up dominating ... in some cases lighter is safer , in other cases heavier is safer .. but statistically over all to everyone (not just those inside of the vehicle) lighter is over all statistically safer for everyone involved.

Originally Posted by ksa8907

Also, taken directly from the summary of the presentation: "• Smaller and lighter vehicles will always have some disadvantage"
I really don't know how to chalk that one up in favor of smaller and lighter vehicles.

Of course they have some disadvantages .. there is no free lunch .. there is no one option is always better in every possible context.

As for how .. Go back and re-read post #33 ... I already explained it.

1 death in 1,500 vehicles is less safe than 1 death 3,333 vehicles.

Originally Posted by ksa8907

As far as our disagreeing, I'll drive my larger and heavier vehicle and you can drive your smaller and lighter vehicle. For your sake, I hope we never wind up in an accident together.

And for everyone around you that you make less safe with the heavier vehicle .. there are numerous studies I can show for that as well if you like ... and for you and everyone you take with you inside of the heavier vehicle .. I hope you and they all beat the odds ... I invoke your previous 'safety of loved ones speech against your heavy (less safe) vehicle'.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jcp123

But it'd be my irresponsibility, not yours

Yes, and we would know you are irresponsible so we could judge you from now on.

Originally Posted by jcp123

I don't mind the labeling idea, at least give people some tools to make an informed decision.

Google

It helps with spelling too.

[jcp123]

My, did we strike a nerve?

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by IamIan

From where I sit .. you asked for data .. I pointed it out to you 3 times before you bothered to read the highlights ... what better evidence do you counter with ?



I've shown you real data .. what better evidence is your counter ?

I am completely open to the possibility of being wrong .. but .. opinion vs data won't sell it to me.

As for what I believe .. just for a bit of clarification .. I am personally of the opinion that the situation and context actually play a large enough factor that , that is what ends up dominating ... in some cases lighter is safer , in other cases heavier is safer .. but statistically over all to everyone (not just those inside of the vehicle) lighter is over all statistically safer for everyone involved.



Of course they have some disadvantages .. there is no free lunch .. there is no one option is always better in every possible context.

As for how .. Go back and re-read post #33 ... I already explained it.

1 death in 1,500 vehicles is less safe than 1 death 3,333 vehicles.



And for everyone around you that you make less safe with the heavier vehicle .. there are numerous studies I can show for that as well if you like ... and for you and everyone you take with you inside of the heavier vehicle .. I hope you and they all beat the odds ... I invoke your previous 'safety of loved ones speech against your heavy (less safe) vehicle'.

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

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.

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.

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.

[user removed]

Walk through a salvage yard or an auction where wrecked cars are sold. I remember just outside a bodyshop I worked in around 1970. There was a Plymouth Road Runner that had been stolen off the new car lot. It was crossing the James River Bridge at a very high speed (two lanes) and hit another car head on at an impact speed of at least 100 MPH.

The stench would drive any normal persons puke reflex to uncontrollable. The inside of the car was covered with shredded parts of human beings. Nothing would have prevented the death of every person involved. It was ghastly, the tailpipes were driven 3-4 feet out past the rear bumper.

Are safety devices really necessary? I don't know how many people died in that crash, probably about 6, but that's just a guess. Only the driver of the stolen Road Runner was at fault.

In any human interaction there are resonable expectations of consideration on the part of the parties involved. Few stituations can have such devastating and permanent consequencesas car accidents. I'm am far from what I would consider liberal in my political beliefs, but when it comes to auto accidents jsut consider my most recent insurance premium for the bike. Just over $100 of which $80 of that annual premium is for uninsured motorists. That is in a state where you are required by law to carry insurance.

The safety devices in modern cars have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, in the US alone.

Do we really need all of that safety stuff? Based on the percentage of the bike premium I would have to conclude that they are essential.

2 million have died on US highways in my lifetime, the peak fatality rate reached close to 55k per year, now it is close to half that, even though the total miles travelled has vastly increased.

That is just deaths to say nothing about serious permanent injuries.

regards
mech

[Baltothewolf]

I would rather take a 10% mpg hit over not being able to walk/ride atv's, or live my life due to not having enough safety equipment. Is this really even a debate, and why are we having it? If I would of only had a waist belt when I got hit, I probably would have broken my back. Anyone who thinks that all this safety equipment is unnecessary for the sake of a couple mpg is just plain foolish. Is it really worth losing your lively hood over saving 1-2$ per fillup. Someone said 'did we strike a nerve' in a previous post. **** Yea a nerve has been struck. Right in my neck. And I'm thankful for the restraint gear that kept it from being anything more.

[Cd]

I live near a highway. Without fail, there is an ambulance running off to some accident, 356 days a year.
It got me to wondering if there has ever been a single day - one single day - when there were no accidents in this city.

I really, really look forward to automated cars.

[jcp123]

Mm, I like driving too much to want automated cars...I actually think I might start to be interested in curvy roads nowadays...I didn't care about cornering that much when I had an abundance of supreme driving roads, now that I have none, I kind of miss it.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Baltothewolf

I would rather take a 10% mpg hit over not being able to walk/ride atv's, or live my life due to not having enough safety equipment. Is this really even a debate, and why are we having it?

We're having the discussion because nothing in this world is off-limits for being questioned. It's the things we take for granted that should probably be re-examined and scrutinized.

There are many safety items that would make sense to do without if we could avoid a 10% reduction in MPG. We should be looking at the cost of various safety equipment and not only determine their impact to fuel economy, but in the total cost to produce, equip, and maintain on a vehicle. It could be that some safety equipment has a very low return and a very high price. Do headlights really need washers and wipers? Can their cost be justified?

This discussion is good because it shows how we have different perceptions of risk. For instance, cRiPpLe_rOoStEr said they would prefer to do without airbags and a shoulder belt, but finds great value in anti-lock brakes. My perception is that the shoulder belt has the most safety benefit and the least cost among those 3 things. It was the first thing to be included as standard safety equipment, so I would think that is the low-hanging fruit of increasing safety. Further advancements incrementally improve safety but increase in complexity. For my driving ability, I find anti-lock brakes to be of least importance. I'm practiced in feathering the brakes, and usually decide to either brake or steer, but rarely do both in an emergency. If I could choose 1 safety feature to omit, it would be ABS.

Eventually technology will improve safety so much that it will be cheaper to implement automatic driving functions than to continue to build cars with the expectation that error-prone humans will crash them.