Prius fatal accident rate

[bwilson4web]

All of the details are here:

Prius Fatalities 2001-2007

The Prius fatality rate of 0.64 per 100 million miles is less than half of the NHTSA 1.37-1.51 fatalities per 100 million miles for the years 2001-2007. This is based upon the annual Prius sales from 2000-2007 minus an overly high estimate of 3% Prius lost per year; an annual usage of 15,000 miles per Prius per year; and 75 prorated deaths of the 124 fatalities from 111 fatal accidents including Prius and non-Prius vehicles. A more conservative accounting of Prius contributions, a count of Prius participation by accident, gives an even lower rate, 0.55 Prius fatalities per 100 million miles.
. . .

If a Prius and another car are engaged in a two-car accident, the Prius gets 50% of the credit. So initially, I just calculated the ratio of all Prius and non-Prius vehicles in accidents to prorate the deaths. This gave a prorated, 74 deaths due to the existence of the Prius in the accident. But then I noticed some accidents were just single car, Prius accidents.

I went back and recalculated the deaths per accident prorated by the Prius percentage. Much to my surprise, it came even lower, 0.55 Prius fatalities per 100 million miles.

The web page lists all Prius involved, fatal accidents from 2001-2007. It also shows how I calculated the number of Prius on the road from the annual Prius sales minus a worst case, 3% loss per year, and accounting for only half of the miles for a car sold in the first year of service. Thus our Prius skeptics have a problem, the facts and data are unkind to them.

Bob Wilson

[orange4boy]

Prius fatalities per 100 million miles is less than half of the national average!

That's good news. That should be in the title or tags somehow. Google likes Ecomodder. Would help spread the news

Nice work, Bob.

I popped over to your page on the subject. Excellent analysis. The kind of sloppy work done by "Quality Planning" and their ilk is just all too common. "Journalists" rarely have the sense to check these kinds of "studies" out or have them checked out by an expert before sending them out into the TVs of the vast unquestioning herds. By the time the errors are found it's too late.

There's a new "study" out by Tim Hortons claiming that drive throughs are less polluting than park and serve restaurants. Another sloppy bit of work that is very misleading. Have you seen it?

Thread here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...alk-11400.html

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by orange4boy

. . .
There's a new "study" out by Tim Hortons claiming that drive throughs are less polluting than park and serve restaurants. Another sloppy bit of work that is very misleading. Have you seen it?

Thread here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...alk-11400.html

Thanks! I took a quick read and have a suggestion for an NHW11 experiment you might want to replicate while the engine is still warming up:

• stop in "D" - monitor 30 seconds of idle fuel burn
• stop in "N" - monitor 30 second of idle fuel burn
• stop, turn off engine, restart 30 seconds - monitor fuel burn

Before I started cutting through my neighborhood to let the ICE warm up to 70 C, I had a shorter distance, less than 0.5 km, to a traffic light. That was where I learned sitting in "N" while waiting for a light change minimized fuel burn. I tried stopping the engine and waiting but the 'manual' engine startup was pretty wasteful of gas. If the car is in hybrid mode (Stage-4,) the engine start is 'free' but manually startup seems to invoke different control laws and burns more fuel than I think it should.

As for ordinary gas cars, all bets are off. We only have one on our driveway and ... I need to make sure it still runs one of these days.

Bob Wilson

[rgathright]

This is certainly good news for Toyota Prius fans!

Can you believe that there are already this many Toyota Prius cars on the road now?

Someone needs to publish documentation on Prius oil life/brake pad wear. The engines have to be making a difference in these areas as well.

[thatguitarguy]

Good news, but I wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that some people wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius.

[rgathright]

Originally Posted by thatguitarguy

Good news, but I wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that some people wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius.

Nah, that's the SmartCar.

[dcb]

dude, you know that isn't a smart, don't you?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by rgathright

Nah, that's the SmartCar.

I'm sorry.. the next time someone posts this picture, or one of a similar nature, I'm requesting a ban.

Seriously. SMARTS HAVE 3 LUGNUTS.

EDIT: I'm not sorry, actually. I don't care what anyone else thinks, these "news bits" are ridiculous, at best. They serve to perpetuate a rumor started by people who drive SUV's and insist that the laws of physics somehow stand in their favor during an accident, without ever looking at the big picture of how an SUV reacts in different situations compared to smaller cars, which, in many cases, are safer.

[superchow]

This is the actual car: VW Crossfox (sold in Brazil)



Below the link to more pics of the accident photo above: WARNING - PHOTOS ARE NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART

Volkswagen CrossFox VS Truck | The Cars FAIL Blog

[rgathright]

Originally Posted by Christ

I'm sorry.. the next time someone posts this picture, or one of a similar nature, I'm requesting a ban.

Seriously. SMARTS HAVE 3 LUGNUTS.

...

It was a joke meant to be funny.

One of the biggest problems with forums is moderators who feel they must state that they can ban users.

I am too old (on the net since 1989) to read another techno junkie state they can ban members.

Honestly, grow up and state something different next time.

===============

In respect to the car, I think the thread got hijacked with the Prius wreck comment. I got lost in the moment and forgot that I made a constructive comment.