James Joyner points out some problems with a Reuters (who else?) article about highway deaths. He asks some good questions, but I have a few bones of my own to pick with the story. 

While the article cites the fact that the number of automobile deaths has been going up in absolute terms for the last 13 years, it notes that the rate (the number that tells you what’s really going on) is unchanged at 1.5 per million miles driven. Has it stayed the same the last 13 years, or just the last year? 

And if it’s been staying the same, does this mean that overall, airbags and anti-lock brakes haven’t affected auto fatalities? They’ve become standard in that time. Are there competing factors at work – have the gains in vehicle safety from safer design, construction, and safety devices such as airbags been balanced by the increasing driver distraction from such things as cell phones and ever more sophisticated audio-visual equipment unboard (yes, the Murphy Van has one of those fancy DVD players with remote headphones)? 

What are the factors that really contribute to fatal accidents? The article notes that more than half the people killed in auto accidents were not wearing seatbelts and 40% involved alcohol. So it would seem that rather than bash SUVs, we ought to concentrate on persuading people to buckle up and not drink and drive. Without knowing the overlap between these two, I’m still going to confidently say that most people are killed by stupidity — since driving drunk and/or not wearing a seatbelt is just plain stupid.

The article notes that over 2/3s fo the SUV fatalities were not wearing their seat belts. So is the real problem with SUVs that people feel too secure? As vehicles become more intrinsically safe, have drivers compensated with riskier behavior to keep fairly constant accident and fatality rates? And has there been a change in accident rates – are accidents becoming safer, less safe, or about the same?

What about better training or more stringent licensing requirements for drivers? I know that Illinois increased their requirements for people to get a license for the first time — has Illinois seen an improvement in their accident and fatality rates as a result?

Wouldn’t my headline — Stupidity Still Kills — be more accurate than “Highway Deaths Hit 13-Year High in 2003”?

I expect that the traffic safety people are thinking along these lines, but I despair that our wonderful press does, or can report accurately without sensationalism or distortion.

Tags: SUV

I saw Malcom Gladwell’s take on SUVs the other day and was impressed. And I’m not the only one. But there is one glaring problem with it – the table that purports to show that SUVs aren’t safe has some problems. I’m reproducing it here:

Looks pretty authoritative, doesn’t it?

First off, the other deaths and therefore total death column is meaningless. What it measures is how often somebody besides the driver is riding. Automobiles are not made safe only for the driver, and what with the steering wheel like a blunt spear pointed right at the driver, you could argue that the driver sits in the most dangerous seat in any vehicle. So you should ignore that other death column, and concentrate only on driver deaths. It’s the only way to get an apples to apples comparison. Now the SUVs don’t look as bad.

Secondly, this table doesn’t take into account the driver. Young and old drivers are bad drivers. The Pontiac Sunfire may have such a poor record in part because it’s mainly driven by young hot rodders. The Lincoln Towncar may be less safe than the Ford Explorer in part because the drivers tend to be doddering oldsters who shouldn’t be on the road any more, not because the car is less crashworthy – and it might deliberately have lousy handling so as to give grandpa the feeling he hasn’t left his living room, which could affect its safety. And anyone only casually acquainted with America realizes that a different car models have different demographics – even with similar age ranges. It’s not only that a different age group drives mini-vans that drive subcompacts, but youths who want sporty (and thus drive more daringly) on a budget may prefer Sunfires to Sentras. 

Thirdly, the chart is per million cars, not million car-miles. So it doesn’t cover milage or how cars are driven (which sort of goes along with demographics). When I take my son to one of his activities, I’m often the only car in a sea of mini-vans and SUVs. Somehow, I don’t think there are all that many mini-vans on the road after the bars close on a Saturday night, the most dangerous time to be on the road.

Lastly, it lumps different models together, even though newer models may be much safer (or even less safe) than older ones.

Now I don’t think my objections mean SUVs are as safe as mini-vans (I own a mini-van and a subcompact), but I don’t think that the chart is conclusive, at best it’s suggestive.

I think you’re much better off looking at crash test results to get a handle on relative safety between vehicles. 

Tags: SUV