Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:03:30 -0400 From: "sd" <sd3232nopsamail.com> Subject: Re: Caveat on death rates as an indicator of safety
I understand the point you're trying to make here. It goes back to the fact that I read (several years ago) that while the Corvette has the shortest braking distances, highest lateral acceleration figures, and generally handles better than any other Chevrolet, why does it have the highest rollover rate of any Chevrolet? Because of the people driving them, of course. The point remains at the opposite extreme, however, that you can make all sorts of arguments that you cannot compare the overall statistics of a car because there are many distinctions that can be made between the driving population. In the case of the Neon, in previous years, there were "sport" models with bigger brakes and engines, different body styles, drivers of different ages, etc. You can even make the case that it isn't fair to compare accident/death rates between northern and southern cars, because drivers in the north have their accident rates artificially inflated by having to drive in winter weather. While I'm taking the devil's advocate position here, it is mainly to point out that while there can be many statistical confounders in a study like that, the best information about how safe a car is remains the accident reports which come in off the streets. They should not be taken as the gospel, i.e. "Well, the Saab 900 got the best safety rating from the X agency, so I can drive however I want without fear of getting killed in a crash," but are better than the, "I love my Honda and it's the best car in the world," yarns which contain little factual information at all. ---------- In article <37163b3fnopsam3.us.ibm.net>, "Matthew DeBell" <mdnopsamnet> wrote: >People are citing the low frequency of injury claims for Saabs as evidence >that they are safe cars. Saabs do seem to be relatively safe cars, but I >wish to offer a caveat. > >These insurance data are a reflection of the kinds of drivers who operate >the cars as much as they are a reflection of the safety engineering. Low >driver death rates do not prove that cars to well in accidents; they may >indicate that the drivers are more cautious and/or better able to avoid >accidents. As an example, consider the claims results from two essentially >identical vehicles, the Dodge Neon and the Plymouth Neon. The Dodge has an >overall death rate of 187% of average while the Plymouth has a rate only >119% of average. It looks like the Dodge is a lot more dangerous to drive >than the Plymouth, but that makes no sense because, again, these are the >same model under different badges. The difference has to be the drivers who >buy the various brands, or chance. (The sample sizes are not large enough >to offer much confidence that the Dodge would still be higher than the >Plymouth in a much larger sample.) Since we know the driver is a >tremendously important variable in accident rates, insurance loss reports >cannot be taken at face value as an indicator of auto safety. > >The numbers I cite above come from a pamphlet put out by the Insurance >Institute for Highway Safety. You can find them on their web site too: >www.hwysafety.org is their home page, and the data are on >http://www.hwysafety.org/crash/crashimg/ddrchart.pdf > >-- >Matthew DeBell mdnopsamnet > >
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |