Honda Car Forum

I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of other
vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle
models.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html

For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others
pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though.

What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla,
according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual
airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different),
or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger
people buying Prizms?

By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date study?
I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the data
given per mile traveled.

fft1976@gmail.com wrote:

> What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla,
> according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual
> airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different),
> or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger
> people buying Prizms?

Yes. The same group that would be buying the other cars that do poorly
in that study.

> By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date study?
> I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the data
> given per mile traveled.

Interesting, but as with all these studies, the extenuating factors
greatly affect the results.

Camrys and Accords are bought mainly by more educated, more affluent
consumers toting along children. You'd expect them to have lower
accident rates.

fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of other
> vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle
> models.
>
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html
>
> For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others
> pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though.
>
> What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla,
> according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual
> airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different),
> or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger
> people buying Prizms?
>
> By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date study?
> I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the data
> given per mile traveled.

In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did the
best when you look at both ratings.

On Apr 1, 8:47*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of other
> > vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle
> > models.
>
> >http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html
>
> > For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others
> > pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though.
>
> > What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla,
> > according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual
> > airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different),
> > or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger
> > people buying Prizms?
>
> > By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date study?
> > I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the data
> > given per mile traveled.
>
> In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
> NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did the
> best when you look at both ratings.

Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.

If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a concrete
wall.

Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...is_7_pics.html

fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of other
>>> vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle
>>> models.
>>> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html
>>> For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others
>>> pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though.
>>> What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla,
>>> according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual
>>> airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different),
>>> or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger
>>> people buying Prizms?
>>> By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date study?
>>> I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the data
>>> given per mile traveled.
>> In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
>> NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did the
>> best when you look at both ratings.
>
> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.

really? have you seen this?
http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/

crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to
absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.


>
> If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
> more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a concrete
> wall.
>
> Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
> http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...is_7_pics.html

exactly as above.

oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to
stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road
hazard, not decrease it.

are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE
vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
fuel consumption.

On Apr 1, 5:59*pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
> > driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. All things being equal, heavier
will be safer for you (less safe to others).

>
> really? *have you seen this?http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/

But have they tried crashing Cooper into F150 head on at the same
speed?

> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance?

Are you serious?

>*oilcos have a HUGE
> vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
> fuel consumption.

I bet, but what does this have to do with issue?

fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 5:59�pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>>> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>
> Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. All things being equal, heavier
> will be safer for you (less safe to others).

except for the fact that you're more likely to crash in the first place.
heavier vehicles are harder to stop. they tend to roll more easily too.


>
>> really? �have you seen this?http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> But have they tried crashing Cooper into F150 head on at the same
> speed?

why would they? can you not see the difference?


>
>> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance?
>
> Are you serious?

yes indeed i am.


>
>> �oilcos have a HUGE
>> vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
>> fuel consumption.
>
> I bet, but what does this have to do with issue?

you're advocating heavy vehicles. that's very uninformed because just
weight doesn't enhance survivability, it's passenger cell design and
energy absorption that do that.

otoh, increased vehicle weight increases gas consumption. if you were
to, er, "encourage" incorporation of "safety features" that added
400-600lbs weight to every vehicle in the nation, which we are, you're
talking very significant additional gasoline consumption. [and of
course increasing crash propensity for the reasons above.]

/your/ only winner seems to be the oilco.

On Apr 1, 8:10*pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 5:59 pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
> >>> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>
> > Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. All things being equal, heavier
> > will be safer for you (less safe to others).
>
> except for the fact that you're more likely to crash in the first place.
> * heavier vehicles are harder to stop. *

What makes you think that? Some grade school physics:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive.../t-194158.html

> they tend to roll more easily too.

Not if "all other things are equal", like the center of mass.

> >> really? have you seen this?http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> > But have they tried crashing Cooper into F150 head on at the same
> > speed?
>
> why would they? *can you not see the difference?

They were crashed into a cement wall at THE SAME SPEED, presumably.
But if they were crashed into each other, the effective speed would be
lower for F150.

effective speed == speed relative to the center of mass of two
vehicles

On Apr 1, 8:35*pm, "fft1...@gmail.com" <fft1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:10*pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > why would they? *can you not see the difference?
>
> They were crashed into a cement wall at THE SAME SPEED, presumably.
> But if they were crashed into each other, the effective speed would be
> lower for F150.
>
> effective speed == speed relative to the center of mass of two
> vehicles

I'll try to explain this in layman's terms:

If you have a 3000 lb Civic crashing into a 6000 lb Ford Pickup head-
on, each traveling at 30 mph, then 0.1 seconds after the crash, their
combined mess will continue going where the Ford was going, but now at
10 mph (preservation of momentum). Therefore, Civic decelerated 40 mph
in the collision, and Ford only 20 mph.

fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:35�pm, "fft1...@gmail.com" <fft1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 8:10�pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> why would they? �can you not see the difference?
>> They were crashed into a cement wall at THE SAME SPEED, presumably.
>> But if they were crashed into each other, the effective speed would be
>> lower for F150.
>>
>> effective speed == speed relative to the center of mass of two
>> vehicles
>
> I'll try to explain this in layman's terms:
>
> If you have a 3000 lb Civic crashing into a 6000 lb Ford Pickup head-
> on, each traveling at 30 mph, then 0.1 seconds after the crash, their
> combined mess will continue going where the Ford was going, but now at
> 10 mph (preservation of momentum). Therefore, Civic decelerated 40 mph
> in the collision, and Ford only 20 mph.

give me a break!!! what matters is what happens to the occupants
acceleration vectors [deceleration] and whether the passenger cell
intrudes into their space. occupant reactions are not simple m1v1 = m2v2.