Great mileage, bad wrecks

August 28, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Small, fuel-efficient cars are in and big, thirsty vehicles are out. But as consumers try to save money on gas, their odds of getting hurt increase, the Insurance Research Council warned today.

The Pennsylvania organization, which researches the property and casualty business, says its analysis of 9,140 claims involving personal injury show that people in big vehicles fare better in crashes.

People hurt in the lightest 25 percent of vehicles were hospitalized more often and lost more time at work than people riding in the heaviest 25 percent of vehicles. Lighter vehicles cost more to fix, too.

Whatâ??s light? The smallest 25 percent weighed 2,771 pounds or less. The big vehicles weighed at least 3,726 pounds.

And the council didnâ??t include people who died or suffered permanent total disabilities because the affect of those few claims would have distorted the averages.

So, how do you feel about driving small vehicles? Are they worth the risk?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • The press release mentioned here is no substitute for real research.

    http://www.ircweb.org/News/IRCGasPrices082608.pdf

    There is a growing body of scientific evidence that vehicle safety is directly related to vehicle design. Take a read of a serious study:

    http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mhross/files/physicstoday_jan2006.pdf

    Light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions.The problem becomes particularly urgent as more and more light trucks are used simply as car substitutes.

    In response to the possibility that fuel-economy regulations might be strengthened, safety experts of major US manufacturers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, and a 2001 study at the National Research Council have concluded that light vehicles are fundamentally less safe
    than heavy vehicles. The conclusion was based on statistical analyses in which mass was the primary vehicle characteristic considered. However, attributing the safety records of
    today’s vehicles primarily to their masses is misleading.

    Figure 6 shows how a driver’s risk of death in a typical passenger car depends on the type of vehicle whose front hits his left side. The risk doesn’t change much from subcompact cars to large cars, even though large cars are about 1.6 times
    as heavy as subcompacts. But being hit by a sport utility vehicle (SUV) more than doubles the struck driver’s risk. Compact and full-size pickup trucks are even more deadly projectiles.
  • This is just simple physics and nothing new for us baby-boomers!

    I wouldn't be surprised if the injury death statistics for those light weight vehicles aren't too far away from motorcycle statistics. People who own these small cars best be as careful as a motorcycle rider. I certainly won't be buying one of the SMART cars for this reason -- there's still going to be plenty of Hummers, SUVs, and, of course, big rigs all over the place.

    Interesting how these small cars aren't labeled 'economy cars' anymore like they were back in the late 70s and 80s when the first big change-over occurred due to high fuel prices.
  • My car weighs 3,700 lbs. and does well in crash tests. That's what I'm comfortable with. It gets 30 mph on the highway and 20-23 in town, mainly because the engine is too small. I hate riding in tin cans.
  • While I agree with the premise that larger vehicles are marginally safer than smaller ones, the study needs to combine the types of vehicles with the types of drivers who drive them (age, male/female etc) to be accurate. This is because families are much more likely to drive larger vehicles (and they have a much safer track record) while younger single people are more likely to drive smaller cars.

    Bottom line: drive what's practical for you. You could make the argument that a semi is the safest vehicle on the road but its not practical. With $4+ gas prices the practicality of a large SUV falls off a cliff.
  • Joyce--your car gets 20-23 mpg in town because it must accelerate the mass of your vehicle to speed and it must sit at idle and burn gas while it provides no forward momentum. A larger engine would use even more fuel in the city.

    But on size vs. safety, it's physics and math. The smaller vehicle cannot be as safe because there is less crush distance--and no steel beam in the door is going to stop a 3500# or even 2500# car from denting the side of your vehicle past the door if you are T-boned at 30 mph or more.

    These injuries are going to get worse over time, not better. The cost to repair will continue to rise as more technology is stuffed in cars. Just wait until your 10 year old car with those nice headlights includes a $1000 repair bill just for the headlights for that low speed accident, and the car is totaled, but you don't get paid full value. Where was the economy in that transaction?
  • Jeff, I wasn't complaining about the mileage. Actually, it's better than it might be because the engine is smaller.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT