92merc Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/death-proof-cars--study-finds-nine-models-with-zero-driver-fatalities-190624666.html "The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the research arm of the nation's auto insurance companies, studied driver deaths between 2009 and 2012 for mass-market vehicles." Ford Crown Victoria, Ford Expidition 4WD, Ford Flex 2WD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 That is an astounding figure for the Honda Odyssey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Interesting. Hard to say whether the vehicles were responsible or the drivers or other factors. What would be more interesting is to see the fatality rate compared to the number of accidents compared to million miles driven. Still impressive either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Given the significant role that driver actions play in most fatalities, I'd say that Odyssey drivers may be inferred to be safer drivers (which seems intuitive). Still, that is a popular vehicle that logged billions of vehicle miles over that 4 year period... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Driver actions factor very heavily in this type of study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The CV is near the top but the Grand Marquis is near the bottom. Also, the 4wd GMC Yukon is near the top, but the 2wd Suburban is near the bottom. That seems to support the driver being more important than the vehicle theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Have to figure the CV numbers are swayed by extensive police use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Have to figure the CV numbers are swayed by extensive police use. I would have thought that would have swayed the numbers in the other direction. Maybe the high GM fatality rate is skewed by their high number of geriatric drivers passing of natural causes while driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Maybe the high GM fatality rate is skewed by their high number of geriatric drivers passing of natural causes while driving. FTFY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I would have thought that would have swayed the numbers in the other direction. Maybe the high GM fatality rate is skewed by their high number of geriatric drivers passing of natural causes while driving. You don't often hear of cops dying in collisions, rollovers, etc. And they drive *a lot*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I would have thought that would have swayed the numbers in the other direction. Maybe the high GM fatality rate is skewed by their high number of geriatric drivers passing of natural causes while driving. I'm sure that has everything to do with it. Unfortunately elderly people's body can't handle high G forces even in a crash that the passenger compartment had no intrusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 personally I would rate min-van drivers as among the absolute WORST. Kid distractions maybe?...but the number of times Ive been behind a swerving, fast slow, fast slow, hit the brakes OMG theres a corner Minivan, is FAR too regular to not become a stereotype.....they SUCK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Have to figure the CV numbers are swayed by extensive police use. Exactly. A healthy 30 year old cop can take an impact a lot better than a 70 year old even assuming the cop was driving twice as fast. So this expensive study proved nothing about vehicle safety since we know the CV and GM were the same vehicle yet placed at opposite ends of the chart. But it's from the IIHS and I read it on the internet so it must be true...bonjour. edit: "The rates in the IIHS study are corrected for demographics" and "We are closer than we thought to cars that could prevent all their drivers from dying in a wreck. The bad news? There's still decades of work ahead." Translation: More expensive pointless studies needed. Edited February 1, 2015 by F250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I've already gone to town on the IIHS's use of the fatality bogeyman to reduce overall claims costs, which allows companies to lower premium costs. :hysterical: :hysterical: Nah. Seriously. They're spending the money on incredibly annoying TV commercials (seriously--is there a business sector with more thoroughly irritating commercials than insurance?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I've already gone to town on the IIHS's use of the fatality bogeyman to reduce overall claims costs, which allows companies to lower premium costs. :hysterical: :hysterical: Nah. Seriously. They're spending the money on incredibly annoying TV commercials (seriously--is there a business sector with more thoroughly irritating commercials than insurance?) Wayfair.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yeah. But that's just one company. If you're not watching an irritating Farmer's commercial, it's an irritating Nationwide commercial. Or an irritating Allstate commercial. Or an incredibly irritating Progressive commercial. Or an irritating State Farm commercial. Or an irritating GEICO commercial. Of them, only esurance commercials are almost, but not quite, not irritating. It's like an entire industry conspired to set your teeth on edge in the mistaken belief that making your gorge rise is a good way to land you as a customer. Oh, and by the way, there's very little churn in auto insurance, so they're basically wasting all that money they're saving, and making us miserable in the process!! In 2012, only 9% of auto insurance customers switched, according to a McKinsey report: According to the McKinsey research, annualized shopping and switching rates have declined to their lowest levels since 2008. Twenty-seven percent of consumers shopped for a new carrier in the prior 12 months (down from 33 percent in 2011), representing $45 billion in direct written premiums (DWP); one-third of the shoppers (9 percent) ultimately switched (down from 13 percent in 2011), representing $13 billion in premium movement. http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/client_service/Financial%20Services/Latest%20thinking/Insurance/Winning_share_and_customer_loyalty_in_auto_insurance.ashx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I'm almost ashamed to admit I've been with Allstate since I was 18. Same account number for 24 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I like the Allstate commercials with Dennis Haysbert. Then again The Unit was one of my all time favorite tv shows. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Interesting. Hard to say whether the vehicles were responsible or the drivers or other factors. What would be more interesting is to see the fatality rate compared to the number of accidents compared to million miles driven. Still impressive either way. Not sure how useful the information is without considering passenger fatalities. I can acknowledge the unreliability of the information (according to the article), but I still think it might be an important metric, since I'd more heavily weigh the safety of my kids over myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Not sure how useful the information is without considering passenger fatalities. I can acknowledge the unreliability of the information (according to the article), but I still think it might be an important metric, since I'd more heavily weigh the safety of my kids over myself. I think if it's a direct impact on the side then there wouldn't be much difference between vehicles. Doors are doors. Get side impact airbags and hope for the best. For frontal crashes I don't think the passengers would be any more likely to die than the driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I had a a rental with a "sinkhole" issue, where it was tied up with attorneys for 2 years because Statefarm didn't want to pay out. Finally we got a payout when an independent evaluator said "Hmm YEAH you have a sinkhole under that house". During this time Statefarm went around to the 17 other rentals and starting jacking up the rate 30-40%, YET I open the newspaper and read insurance was dropping statewide. Guess whos sueing for breach of contract and bad faith now. So switched out of Statefarm and did save, but obviously I have Statefarm boycotted now. I just roll my eyes when I have to hear those commercials of how much they want to take care of u and all that. YES, to collect your money but when You have a claim, some are worse than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I think if it's a direct impact on the side then there wouldn't be much difference between vehicles. Doors are doors. Get side impact airbags and hope for the best. For frontal crashes I don't think the passengers would be any more likely to die than the driver. While I can agree with some of what you've said, I think a headline like "Death-Proof Cars" is misleading at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 No argument there. Reporting the statistics is one thing but trying to reach unfounded conclusions in the name of click-bait is just wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.