Oil close to $90 a barrel

[p99shooter]

I got the fu:;

Vehicle Mismatch: A Critical New Safety Defect Issue

Read through the report. It places blame on both sides: not enough protection in the car and safety design flaws for the trucks / SUV. People have known for years that the high profile of trucks makes them a safety concern. The graph near the bottom report is deceiving. It shows the mortality rate of mismatch crashes trending up, but it also shows the mortality rate of truck-on-track crashes increasing at nearly the same rate. This indicates, to me, that the increasing rates are simply a matter of there being more trucks on the road.

[Chriss Grube]

p99,

I've been doing crashes for 18 years 7 of those as a fulltime reconstructionist. When you have investigated a fatal crashes we'll talk.......Maybe then you'll actually have a clue what you are talking about not what somebody wrote in an article in tree hugger monthly.

[GentlemanJim]

Pretty simple

Large mass and energy vs low mass and energy

Been in WAY too many wrecking yards to even consider a small car safe.

Jim

[racerba]

If bigger vehicles were in any way safer, on average, than smaller ones, it would be cheaper to insure them.

Car Insurance for bigger vehicles are more expensive because cost of parts for them are also expensive. They are car insurances, not life insurances.

Read through the report. It places blame on both sides: not enough protection in the car and safety design flaws for the trucks / SUV. People have known for years that the high profile of trucks makes them a safety concern. The graph near the bottom report is deceiving. It shows the mortality rate of mismatch crashes trending up, but it also shows the mortality rate of truck-on-track crashes increasing at nearly the same rate. This indicates, to me, that the increasing rates are simply a matter of there being more trucks on the road.

So you agree that the people in the smaller vehicles are more likely to die than the people in the larger vehicles - thus making bigger vehicles safer.

Edited October 24, 2007 by racerba

[raz-0]

Now my experience of going to MVAs is about 20 years old, and I'm sure Chriss has been to 1 or 2 more than I have, and things could have changed in the last 20 years --- but when I was driving 20K miles annually for the paper, it was only in large cars, for the extra insurance they provide....

Things have most definitely changed in the last 20 years. Computer modeling for crash simulations, and more aggressive campaigning by IIHS for better than government spec crash testing have improved safety dramatically. Side impact airbags are also a HUGE benefit in both surviving a car accident and avoiding severe head trauma. They are worth every penny.

For one example, look at subarus. They have some very heavy duty engineering put into their b-pillars that greatly improve survivability in a side impact and rollover as they work VERY well for maintaining passenger compartment integrity. So well, in fact that cutting straight through the b-pillar at window level with the jaws of life isn't a real good extraction plan on them as it usually does not work.

Also of note, the IIHS side impact sled stats and shape use the current ford f-250 as their inspiration. It's not like the bean counters and engineers ahven't noticed there are a lot of trucks on the road.

Compare a 2008 camry and a 1988 camry and you are talking a VAST, and that's an understatement, difference in survivability.

Even a 1988 camry vs a 2008 corolla, which is a fairer comparison based on similarity of the vehicles, and you are still talking a huge difference in survivability.

You still have to shop around though. I would NOT want to get t-boned in a 2006 scion xB without side impact airbags. That would be bad. However the same accident in a 2006 Forester would be much less deadly, even if the net result were two totaled vehicles, the injury incurred would likely be much different.

If bigger vehicles were in any way safer, on average, than smaller ones, it would be cheaper to insure them.

Car Insurance for bigger vehicles are more expensive because cost of parts for them are also expensive. They are car insurances, not life insurances.

Auto insurance considers a lot of things.

Location - Does the car live ina high theft rate area.

desirability - is the car a high theft frequency vehicle (honda civic, toyota corolla, accord, camry, s-10 pickup are WAY up there)

model history - cost of repairs to vehicle, liklihood of crashes for said model, power to weight ratio, etc.

price - parts and new/used vehicle price for the model.

the list goes on.

For example, AWD is largely a push in a car. More safety on bad surfaces but more expsive and another part to damage. 4 wheel drive in a truck gets you apremium becuase it is extra cost and another part to break, but also because unlike an AWD car, people are willing to try MUCH more stupid things in their trucks apparantly. At least when I was getting quotes for trucks and cars last, on both, powering all 4 wheels was about a $3000-4000 premium, but the trucks paid a LOT more for it with insurance.

The explanation given to me by my agent for the high cost of insuraning a truck was that a truck is more likely to be in a high dollar cost accident, usually involving damage inflicted to the property of others, and 4x4s are more likley to add to that with higher dollar cost damage to themselves for the same accident vs a 2wd truck.

Trucks often roll over, cars seldom roll over. Roll-overs almost always total a vehicle. For an accident that might involve no more than a single vehicle and an icey road, that is a huge liability, and drives up insurance costs for collision.

Slow speed fender benders, the more mass you have involved, the more money involved. Two cars at 15mph might only ruin a fender and hood and bumber of each other. A truck and a small car, you not only have more square feet of sheet metal involved, but you might have used a crumple zone up in the small car. MUCH more expensive.

Guy with a 2wd truck tries to be an idiot in the snow, jumps in, gases it, and starts spinning wheels or otherwise gets a warning that he is pushing it too far earlier on. 4x4 guy does the same and his warnign might be trying to slam on the brakes on a poorly plowed highway at 40mph and realizing 4WD doesn't help you stop one bit.

Just a few examples of where trucks get higher premiums from.

[p99shooter]

First off, I have an Master's in Physics, so I have a clue about how collisions work. Believe me that there is a lot more to it than just mass and speed.

Second, since when is it required that someone be personally or professionally involved in something to have an opinion on it?

Thirdly, I am by no stretch of the imagination a tree hugger. Would I be on this board if I was?

Lastly, the statistics from the report show that fatilities are trending upward for for small car vs. truck fatalities AND truck vs. truck fatalities. If larger vehicles were indeed *safer* FOR THEIR OCCUPANTS, wouldn't the truck vs. truck fatalities stay the same over time?

Trucks are not safer vehicles for their OCCUPANTS, they are MORE DANGEROUS for other people on the road, and auto manufacturers know it. Is that morally defensible? What if I modified a passenger sedan so that it made it more likely to kill the occupants of another vehicle that I crashed into. Is that a morally defensible position?

Edited October 24, 2007 by p99shooter

[racerba]

Trucks are not safer vehicles for their OCCUPANTS, they are MORE DANGEROUS for other people on the road, and auto manufacturers know it. Is that morally defensible? What if I modified a passenger sedan so that it made it more likely to kill the occupants of another vehicle that I crashed into. Is that a morally defensible position?

How can you justify that trucks are not safer? OK, you say that trucks are more dangerous for other people on the road, wouldn't they be safer to be in the larger vehicles (trucks) than the other vehicles. The increasing statistic may show that there are more trucks on the road, therefore, the increased mortality for T vs C is at a higher rate than T vs T. Showing that it is more dangerous to be in a car than in a truck.

Take a look at it this way. If you were to be in an accident and you have your choice as to which vehicle you could be in, would you pick the car or the truck?

Auto insurance considers a lot of things.

Location - Does the car live ina high theft rate area.

desirability - is the car a high theft frequency vehicle (honda civic, toyota corolla, accord, camry, s-10 pickup are WAY up there)

model history - cost of repairs to vehicle, liklihood of crashes for said model, power to weight ratio, etc.

price - parts and new/used vehicle price for the model.

the list goes on.

Yes, all of which equates to the cost of replacing the vehicle, not the occupants. Hence my point that higher cost for insurance on trucks does not equates to trucks being less safe than cars - a point p99shooter was trying to show.

Edited October 24, 2007 by racerba

[Chriss Grube]

Ok you have a masters degree in Physics great for you but that doesn't mean you know jack about real world crashes. I had a product engineer for toasters show up to give expert testimony in a crash case that didn't work very well for him either. Nothing beats experience and hands on work. I've seen more dead people that I care to

and learned a few things along the way.

Personally I don't give 2 shits about morally defending anything other than me and my family surviving a crash. I pick the best vehicle for my families protection which happen to be large vehicles. Do you load your self defense gun with rubber bullets so it doesn't really hurt the bad guy???? You can have the moral high ground, I choose to survive by any means needed.

[p99shooter]

Take a look at it this way. If you were to be in an accident and you have your choice as to which vehicle you could be in, would you pick the car or the truck?

I'd rather be in the vehicle that could avoid the crash by having better braking and steering ability

Chris, my home defense weapon is loaded with JHP, but there's a difference between one's home and the road. I have a right to defend myself against an aggressor in my home. We have the PRIVELEDGE (not right) to drive on the road, and to share that priveledge responsibly and safely with others. I'm sure that everyone wants their family to be safe, but to increase your safety at the cost of others (by driving a vehicle that is more likely to kill someone else). . . What if everyone felt the same way? Where does it lead?

[Jim Norman]

The mindset that driving (read personal mobility and freedom to go when and where you want to) is a PRIVILAGE and not a RIGHT is one of my pet peeves.

Driving is a necessity and as such must be defined as a right. Now, I suppose if you live in a city and your job does not entail traveling to and from various outlying locations while carrying a tool box, computer, laser level and some spare parts and your personal life, including all of your shopping can be accomplished by walking, or riding a bus or subway, you can consider driving a privilage, In my life it is a 100% necessity and I claimit as my RIGHT.

I don't need some governmental type telling me I have to be at my office at a certain time since the bus only comes by every hour, or that if I want to see a client, I have to take 4 hours to travel 20 miles since the buses and trains don't go from here to there. And by the way, you can't bring that tool box, laser case, and box of parts with you, not to mention that step ladder.

Nope, in my neck of the woods, in my life, driving is a RIGHT and I drive a Suburban. I will go so far as to admit, i don't need everything I carry everyday, but What should I do, have tow or three different vehicles and when I get to a client and don't have what I need, make a second trip? That is real efficient.

As for Truck to Truck injuries increasing. If there are more Trucks on the road, there are likely to be more Truck on Truck accidents. Given vehicles of equal survivability, there will still be an increase of some magnitude in injuries sustained by the passengers and drivers involved. There is by the stats you posted a definate benifit to the occupants of the larger vehicle in a crash. I as does Chriss, choose to place my butt in the larger vehicle.

Jim

[ima45dv8]

Been gone all day so I missed the sparks until now. This sure has steered away from the price of gas, huh?

In all fairness to Mark (P99), I wasn't not advocating a pile-on session, though it looks like we've gone there. Sorry, Mark.

I accept P99's assertion that if we all drove vehicles of the same size and structure, with proper crash-survivability engineering built in, crash fatalities might diminish (I hope I captured your thought pattern correctly -- if not, I apologize in advance). But that also supposes that all will drive with the same level of awareness and attention to detail which, sadly, is not so. Too many people drive in a cranially-inverted position and would need their bellybuttons Windexed to see what the heck is going on around them. They are a danger to everyone on the road regardless of what size vehicle they drive. The nice lady I saw today driving with her head craned over to hold a cellphone to her ear, with a half-eaten Egg-McMuffin in her right hand and a soda in her left was (hopefully) steering with her knees.

People have options available for the vehicles they pilot, and I choose to arm myself with the largest one I can afford at any given time to have a fighting chance against the goofballs I see every day in traffic. If we meet unexpectedly and they die and I survive, I won't lose any sleep over the disparity in our vehicles.

[Nik Habicht]

I'd rather be in the vehicle that could avoid the crash by having better braking and steering ability

That actually cracks me up --- but only because the last two crashes I narrowly avoided had people going the other way, making an improper left turn through my lane of travel. In anything I owned before the Tahoe, I know how these incidents would have ended: In a squealing brake, skidding tire crash. In the Tahoe --- when the other people woke up to the fact that a large truck was coming right toward them, causing them to freeze in place (Yeah, that's a good plan --- stop in the path of the oncoming vehicle) --- I managed to simultaneously apply maximum brake effort, buying me a little more time to steer around them....

ABS is a wonderful thing. I was truly amazed both times that I managed to pull it off....

[p99shooter]

Been gone all day so I missed the sparks until now. This sure has steered away from the price of gas, huh?

In all fairness to Mark (P99), I wasn't not advocating a pile-on session, though it looks like we've gone there. Sorry, Mark.

No worries; I'm a grown-up, most of the time.

I accept P99's assertion that if we all drove vehicles of the same size and structure, with proper crash-survivability engineering built in, crash fatalities might diminish (I hope I captured your thought pattern correctly -- if not, I apologize in advance).

You've got it.

But that also supposes that all will drive with the same level of awareness and attention to detail which, sadly, is not so.

I agree.

That actually cracks me up ---

Glad I made somebody laugh!

[Chriss Grube]

p99,

Dead is dead, in your home or on the road. I plan on living a long life.....there are so many people in the world that I haven't pissed off yet.....YET is the key word!

Edited October 25, 2007 by Chriss Grube

[racerba]

Take a look at it this way. If you were to be in an accident and you have your choice as to which vehicle you could be in, would you pick the car or the truck?

I'd rather be in the vehicle that could avoid the crash by having better braking and steering ability

Please read the question again.

You are going to be in an accident...

A motorcycle can brake faster and is more maneuverable than any car. So in an accident, you'd rather be on a motorcycle?

I accept P99's assertion that if we all drove vehicles of the same size and structure, with proper crash-survivability engineering built in, crash fatalities might diminish...

I agree with that premise, but he is also asserting that survivability in a truck is not more than in a car. I dispute his claim with his own statement and his own article. I don't mean to jump in the pile-on, but what he claims, he cannot support.

Edited October 25, 2007 by racerba

[p99shooter]

I feel perfectly safe driving my xB (or my X-Box, as I like to call it) or my Toyota Camry Hybrid. Both cars are very safe. If I getT-boned by a Suburban going 70 MPG, I don't think it will matter much what I am driving.

Safety is clearly a relative issue. A motorcycle is not safe in relation to crashing into a passenger car. A passenger car is less safe in relation to a side-impact with an SUV. An SUV would be less safe in relation to a crash with a M1 Abrahms tank. Should everyone drive M1s to work to be safe?

My point is this: cars today are very safe. The problem with increasing fatailities is not an intrinsic LACK of safety features in passenger vehicles. This is shown by the downward trending in the passenger vs. passenger crashes in the earlier document. The problem is a lack of consideration / safety defect in light trucks and SUVs caused by vehicle mismatches. In other words, trucks are inherently more dangerous to other people on the road, including other trucks (hence the upward trending in truck vs. truck fatalities). Yes, I will agree that trucks provide better protection against injury in truck vs. car crashes, but their general lack of safety features (such as crumple zones) makes them less safe in truck vs. truck accidents). So I guess it's OK if there's a lot of blood in the streets, as long as it's not yours.

Consider if tomorrow, there were 50,000 M1 tanks driving on America's roads. There would probably be some accidents involving passenger cards where there are fatalities. Who do we blame? Is it an safety defect of a passenger car when it gets crushed by the M1?

I'll leave off with this, from the NTSB:

A 1998 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) overview report on vehicle compatibility and light truck (light trucks and vans [LTV]8) issues stated that the number of LTVs has grown dramatically since the early 1980s. A 2003 study of vehicle mismatch and injury indicated that motor vehicle registrations for the year 2000 showed 77.8 million light trucks in the United States, a 63.8 percent increase since 1990; LTVs now account for 40 percent of all registered motor vehicles. During the same 10-year period, the number of registered passenger vehicles increased by 1 percent.9 In addition to the increase in LTVs, the number of registered large trucks increased by 30 percent between 1993 and 2003, and miles traveled by large trucks increased 35 percent.10 If these trends continue, LTVs and large trucks will soon constitute the majority of vehicles on the road, resulting in even greater occurrences of vehicle incompatibility in accidents.

In 2003, approximately 457,000 large trucks (GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds) were involved in traffic accidents and accounted for 8 percent of vehicles involved in fatal accidents. These traffic accidents resulted in 4,669 fatalities and 122,000 injuries; 85 percent of those killed and 78 percent of those injured were the occupants of other vehicles (passenger cars and LTVs), pedestrians, or bicyclists.11 The initial point of impact for 62.8 percent of the fatal accidents involved the front of the truck.12 In accidents involving a large truck during 2004, some 4,006 occupants of passenger cars and LTVs were killed, and 85,000 such occupants were injured.13 According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), its goal is to reduce highway fatality rates from 1.46 persons per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2004 to 1 person per 100 million VMT by 2008. An objective of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is to reduce commercial motor vehicle-related fatalities from 2.3 per 100 million commercial motor VMT in 2004 to 1.65 per 100 million commercial motor VMT by 2008.14 Achieving these ambitious goals will clearly require a large reduction in fatalities resulting from accidents between large trucks and passenger vehicles. The Safety Board concludes that although NHTSA has acknowledged the seriousness of the vehicle incompatibility problem in contributing to the severity of traffic accidents, it has not allocated adequate resources to that issue as it affects heavy trucks, a major cause of death for occupants in both passenger cars and LTVs.

[JD45]

It went over $90 today.

You might want to read some of this: http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=commodities...rticle=22929273

But pay no attention to that, high prices are mainly because of China and the big SUV you drive.

[racerba]

1 - My point is this: cars today are very safe...

2 - Yes, I will agree that trucks provide better protection against injury in truck vs. car crashes,

1 - I never said cars are not safe.

2 - That's the point you disagree with earlier.

[Front Man]

The mindset that driving (read personal mobility and freedom to go when and where you want to) is a PRIVILAGE and not a RIGHT is one of my pet peeves.

Driving is a necessity and as such must be defined as a right. Now, I suppose if you live in a city and your job does not entail traveling to and from various outlying locations while carrying a tool box, computer, laser level and some spare parts and your personal life, including all of your shopping can be accomplished by walking, or riding a bus or subway, you can consider driving a privilage, In my life it is a 100% necessity and I claimit as my RIGHT.

I don't need some governmental type telling me I have to be at my office at a certain time since the bus only comes by every hour, or that if I want to see a client, I have to take 4 hours to travel 20 miles since the buses and trains don't go from here to there. And by the way, you can't bring that tool box, laser case, and box of parts with you, not to mention that step ladder.

Nope, in my neck of the woods, in my life, driving is a RIGHT and I drive a Suburban. I will go so far as to admit, i don't need everything I carry everyday, but What should I do, have tow or three different vehicles and when I get to a client and don't have what I need, make a second trip? That is real efficient.

As for Truck to Truck injuries increasing. If there are more Trucks on the road, there are likely to be more Truck on Truck accidents. Given vehicles of equal survivability, there will still be an increase of some magnitude in injuries sustained by the passengers and drivers involved. There is by the stats you posted a definate benifit to the occupants of the larger vehicle in a crash. I as does Chriss, choose to place my butt in the larger vehicle.

Jim

There was to much money to be made in turning it from a right to a privilege.

The right to travel was been infringed on long before the 1934 NFA.

FM

[Miranda]

the right to travel....

well I think y'all know the rights given in the U.S. Constitution.

I note that some rights are not listed

the right to breathe eat and drink and all that follows are examples

perhaps some rights are so basic that they

go without saying.

I suspect the right to travel is among the most basic rights

there may be a need to define the mode of travel.

as to right or not.

miranda

[SiG Lady]

By the way, that's "PRIVILEGE" for those of you without spellcheck.

I drive one of those little subcompact sedans and though it's economical it's one of the smaller things on the road and I don't feel safe at all. I try to drive at times of day with the lowest traffic volume, I stay yards and yards away from every other vehicle, and I don't exceed speed limits. It's just not safe and I feel distinctly limited in my travels and in the protection of my person. I might've acquired a much larger vehicle in the first place (ostensibly for my greater personal protection) but I simply couldn't afford it. And neither can a lot of other people, from what I can tell. So, many of us, then, are 'stuck with' much higher highway risk due to personal economics. I hate to live 'on the defensive' all the time, but, again, I have no choice. Pretty hard on the ego, though, I'll tell ya.

And the price of petrol is pretty hard on the lifestyle... where even a trip to the grocery store or some other domestic errand is now viewed as a huge travel expense.