Weighted for safety on the road
By Barry Powell
I love my truck, and I’ll tell you why.
Many years ago, I owned a small import (the make is not important) and was driving along Interstate 40 in Tennessee when an accident occurred ahead, and I got involved. The car I hit was an older model, American-made car. He had to buy a new bumper (his was all metal, and sturdy). I had to buy a new car (mine was totaled).
I learned a valuable lesson that day. Driving is dangerous and the stronger the vehicle, the better your chance of survival in an accident.
Powell lives in Roanoke County.
May 15, 2012 - 8:05 AM
Man I hate this kind of ignorance. Personally I suspect a big truck is compensation for certain….inadequacies. The safety aspect is simply a rationalization used to justify owning one.
If you look at the statistics however, you find as cars have gotten smaller AND their numbers have increased traffic fatalities have come down. Admittedly this probably has more to do with seat belt use and lower rates of drinking and driving, plus air bags, etc.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html
Scott, you’re not alone in your frustration. The writer is speaking purely on anecdotal evidence of his experiences, and is ignoring the facts…or is purposefully distorting them. In any case, reality does not verify the point of what was written.
Here are the facts…traffic deaths peaked in the early 1970′s (1972 to be exact) in terms of the total number of people killed (54,589) in traffic crashes in the US, before fuel efficiency/conservation became an issue of concern for automakers, the government, or consumers…which started coming about in the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act…which established the nationwide 55 MPH speed limit maximum. Traffic deaths plummeted after that was passed, dropping nearly 20% within 2 years.
Traffic deaths crept upward by the late 70′s, peaking at just over 51,000 in 1979, before again dropping significantly. They spiked toward the late 80′s, and then dropped during the Gulf War. The past several years have also seen a substantial decline in traffic deaths, to the lowest levels seen since 1962.
Now, just looking at that, one may incorrectly assume that cars were safer when they were big, steel, gas guzzling behemoths…but they would be wrong. Americans drive 4 times more in terms of miles driven per year than we did in the 1960′s, meaning the actual rate of traffic fatalities is just 25% of what it was then. In fact, driving a car has never been safer…traffic deaths per miles driven are at their lowest level ever at just 1.25 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles driven (VMT)…as of 2008 anyway (the site I used was not fully up-to-date with the latest data…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year).
Also, in terms of deaths on the road in terms of the US total population, we’re at our lowest rate essentially since the automobile took over as the mode of choice for personal transportation…going back to 1921.
Cars today, of all sizes, are being made far safer than cars of the 60′s, 70′s, and evem from just the 90′s and early 2000′s. Small cars have some superior engineering for crumple zones and reinforces passenger cabins, and a wealth of airbags and other safety devices. Seat belt use is up. Larger vehicles are designed to reduce the potential for deaths to passengers in lower, smaller, lighter vehicles. Those big vehicles are also being made safer for their occupants too, with the same safety enhancements found in other vehicles.
As an example, my new 2012 Focus has traction control, braking assist, anti-lock brakes, and 6 airbags for the front driver and passenger…3 each. And mine is the base model!
Another study (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_19.html) broke down the number of vehicular deaths by vehicle type. The numbers also dispel the notion of bigger is better. For ‘small’ cars…compact and sub-compact, vehicle deaths in 2009 totaled 5673, while vehicle deaths in light trucks (i.e. pick-ups and SUV’s) totaled 10,287…almost the entire combined total for all car types, which was 13,095…and nearly double the fatalities of small cars.
In terms of trends, deaths in cars have steadily fallen since the mid 70′s, to a low in 2009 that was well less than half the high in the 70′s (compacts and subcompacts have also shown a steady decline in fatalities for passengers for the past 15-20 years). For light trucks, the numbers show that total deaths increased until 2005, plateaued, then dropped in 2008 and 2009.
The one trend that did seem clear from the data was that when the economy is good, people drive more and more deaths on the road occur, and when the economy tanks, road deaths drop…probably as a result of less driving. But, beyond that, the general trend has still been that cars today are safer than ever, and simply claiming ‘bigger is better’ is quite simply, false.
To #2 (Other John): You present some excellent research there. Nicely done.
I too have difficulty with the “bigger is better” mantra for vehicle safety. If taken to it’s logical extreme, everyone ends up driving around in a Sherman tank, and we have to sell our souls to the Saudis to keep the gas tanks filled.
Additionally, while Barry Powell may try to protect his family by purchasing a larger vehicle, he’s actually endangering other people on the road. In his efforts to make sure he “wins” his next automobile collision, he’s made it more likely that the other person will “lose”.
Other John, you really should submit that to the newspaper as an opinion piece! Well thought out. Evidence, etc. It’s all there!
Do it! Do it! Do it!!!……
Other John, I concur with Scott M. Please submit your comment to the newspaper as an opinion piece!
I own a Honda Element (4 cylinder, AWD) and a Toyota Tacoma (V6, 4WD). We both, thankfully, have not been involved in any automobile accidents, although we have had close calls several time due to drivers not paying attention or swerving into the lane with so little warning.
I also think it pays to be a defensive driver. When I first got my car, a Hyundai Elantra, my grandfather gave me a valuable tip, always anticipate where other drivers are going to go. Ironically, my first auto accident was in the Elantra because I became distracted by a mobile home-turned-bank. Since then, I have not had any, and I don’t intend to start.
I have to admit, I love flying down on the interstate at 70 mph (ok, 75), but I do have to note there have been a spike in traffic accidents since the speed limit was upped, and I would be ok if they change it back to 65 or 60 mph.
Safety should always be a priority, even if it may take a bit to get to the next destination.
I may have to consider that, Scott and Dave. I”d have to edit my response a bit, but it would be doable if I can find the time for it.
Trevor, absolutely…paying attention to the road and drivers around you works. I always try to think of the most idiotic thing a driver may do and be in a position to be defensive should it happen…I’ve avoided dozens of potential crashes by doing so. I learned by taking several defensive driving classes through the years, required by employers (used to hold a CDL).
As for posted speed limits, I have been opposed to the increase of 81 to 70 MPH where it has been done. High speeds, and speed differentials, are top contributors to the severity of crashes when they occur, and are somtimes the cause of the crash. As a traffic engineer, one of my tasks has been to review crash reports as a part of conducting safety studies, so I’ve seen the gorey details of what high speeds can do. I generally favor limits in the 60-65 range, except maybe the Plains states where the terrain is wide, flat, and open.
Scott M.—I do indeed have many inadequacies, a quite possibly the one you’re thinking about…..BUT, I need my big truck to haul big loads of constuction equipment…..really.
It comes down, as it always does in a free society, to choice. The author has reasons for wanting a bigger vehicle, and it’s pretty arrogant to accuse him of compensating for shortcomings.
Like all of us, he considers a number of things: price, the piece of mind and security that comes with a larger vehicle, the utility and need for a larger vehicle (as Phil noted), fuel economy, performance, child-safety features and issues…all those (and doubtless other considerations) go into buying a vehicle.
My mother, when she drove, wanted a lot of heavy metal around her and a big engine, especially as she got older; the security she felt was worth the additional price and fuel economy to her. Who is anyone else to tell her she’s wrong? Without actually being her we have no idea of all the considerations and emphases that go into the choices she makes (well, made…she doesn’t drive anymore).
While some of us may place greater value on, say, fuel economy and child safety (as I do), others may stress hauling/carrying capacity when they make their choices. Or something else. For any of us to say one or the other is wrong, or to minimize the choices others make, is pretty presumptive.
Thankfully, a free market can respond to the desires and requirements of all of us.
Yes Lord, we would not want to be presumptive. To each their own is a big part of our problem IMO. The sentiment is a lot lovelier than the results.
@8 Phil, thanks for the laugh.
@9 89Hoo, certainly if someone needs a bigger vehicle I have no problem with that. You’re not going to do a reasonable job hauling a backhoe down the highway with a small car.
And your mom may have made a perfectly adequate decision but you’ll have to admit, some people (not all) drive way more vehicle than they need. That has to be compensation for something even if it’s a way to tell the environmentalists you don’t care what they think.
If people need the bigger vehicles or trucks, I’ve got no problems with that. Many times I find myself needing a truck again, and wish I had one. But, we work around it as best we can, and getting a small utility trailer this summer will resolve the last of the issues of not having one around to drive. I don’t like the thought of deciding what is or is not a ‘need’ though…I may not ‘need’ my firearms, but I certainly don’t want someone else deciding I don’t need them, and therefore can’t have them.
I do not wish to stifle choice in the matter, people do and should have the freedom to pick what they want to and can afford to drive. I personally prefer to think bigger picture than what I park in my driveway though, and look toward the larger impacts…hence why I am reluctant to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle at this time, given both the out-of-pocket cost for the purchase, and the rarely-mentioned environmental impacts of mining for rare-earth elements needed to support the technology used. I try to buy the most fuel-efficient, cost-effective vehicle I can reasonably afford, so I both reduce my impact on the environment as much as I can, without creating a financial bind for myself.
I think some of what needs to hit the minds of the public is that the notion of ‘bigger is better and/or safer’ is really just not true. That misinformation helps contribute to people buying vehicles much larger than they need, and sometimes can afford, with greater environmental impacts and larger safety implications for other road users as a result. It also boosts the profits of automakers, who have greater margins on trucks and SUV’s than cars. They’re also more costly to insure, fuel, and maintain…so there’s not a lot of market/corporate reasoning to discourage the purchase of them because it would reduce revenues for a host of industries…we the consumers must educate ourselves on such matters, then spread the word.
One thing to remember about a lot of the buyers of trucks and SUV’s, and even larger crossovers, they rarely, if ever, utilize even a fraction of the towing, hauling, or off-road capability of those vehicles. Most people could easily meet their realistic needs in a smaller vehicle within the same class (I.E. a Ford Escape vs a Ford Expedition), and still have all the functionality and utility they’d ever need, without any measurable decrease in real-world safety for themselves and their passengers (if anything, the data indicates they could be safer in smaller vehicles, especially newer ones).
That was part of what drove Ford to vastly overhaul the Explorer and change it from a traditional body-on-frame SUV based on a truck platform, to a uni-body design that makes it more a car-based crossover SUV. It reduced the weight, lowered the center of gravity, increased fuel economy, and led to a safer, more stable design. It also reduced some of the capability like towing capacity, but they found most buyers never utilized the higher levels of the capacity to begin with.
11 – Scott, need is extremely subjective. I have no idea why someone drives a big vehicle…have no idea the thought processes and concerns and other consideration they put into the decision. For someone to make a declarative opinion that someone else is compensating for one thing or another is extremely presumptive and arrogant; almost a projection (if one believes such things) of their own inadequacies being called into question if THEY drove a big ol’ truck. Their concerns are theirs and theirs alone, as long as they don’t back their truck into my car or over my azaleas, it’s not my concern. And it’s not yours either.
A parallel would be Michelle Obama choosing to work to maintain a lifestyle, and Ann Romney choosing to stay at home and raise their kids. Their family decisions are personal, and theirs alone, and not for you or me to judge.
10 – noted, Sandi. I look forward to seeing you cheerfully waiting in line for your government-issued vehicle.
Well of course you do 89Hoo, there is only that extreme in your world.
15 – no, Sandi, in my world we make our choices. You can be as extreme as you wish, or as tempered as you wish. To each their own. It ensures diversity, choice, individual freedom, liberty.
I don’t see that as the problem that you do.
What it “insures” is the outcome when a “tank” meets a Chevette.
17…which is the reason my Mom preferred tank to a Chevette. It was one of her considerations, one of her choices.
What’s your point?
My “point”, which I would think is rather obvious, is that “your” choice also has ramifications for other people. I am not saying it should direct that choice per se, but I don’t think it can always be so easily discounted or considered irrelevant. It is one reason I never liked driving a “tank”. I do not want that responsibility should an accident happen. Which means I am in the equivalent of the Chevette. Also “my choice”. Although, let’s be real, cost is also a factor for most of us.
19 – Sandi, the only ramification my decision to drive a tank (I don’t but for the sake of argument let’s say I do) has on YOU is if I you and I get into an accident.
Obviously, I don’t buy a vehicle with the thought that I may hit someone or cause an accident; no one I know does this. However, it does occur to ME that someone may hit ME, so the more protection I have around me the better off I am. By extension, then, if you and I get into an accident, it will be your fault, and I will really appreciate having that protection around me. Put differently, I trust my own abilities far more than I trust the other guy’s.
(that doesn’t mean, of course, that I could never cause an accident…it means the mindset of someone who buys a car is not “I may hit someone”; if it is, he shouldn’t be driving)
And yes, cost is a factor for most of us, certainly for me, and fuel efficiency.
We have drifted far astream…the point is that everyone has their own criteria and reasons for purchasing the vehicles they do…price, efficiency, safety, security, whatever. To denigrate one for his choice (by saying he drives a big vehicle to ‘compensate’, for example) is presumptive. But thanks to a sort of free market, those choices are available for all, and everyone can choice according to his needs.
Now see, here is where your logic just falls apart 89Hoo.
If no one buys “a vehicle with the thought that I may hit someone or cause an accident” why would anyone want “a lot of heavy metal around her and a big engine, especially as she got older; the security she felt was worth the additional price”? Obviously an accident is a BIG consideration for some folks and they justify their protection because of it. Sure, no one plans on being the heavy, but it is hardly fair to justify the thought then say it is not a thought anyone has.
Any way you want to parse the decision, by saying it is for YOUR protection, still allows for the possibility of an accident and you want to insure you come out on the better end of it. Whether it is your “fault” or not is pretty much beside the point. I cannot imagine anyone decides to cause mayhem with the biggest most destructive vehicle they can find…
I do not “denigrate” anyone’s choice, I just appreciate honesty. And no, in reality, it is not at all true that “thanks to a sort of free market, those choices are available for all” you even admit that with your caveat “everyone can choice according to his needs” but in reality ‘needs’ has much less to do with it than what you can afford. “Choice” is most certainly a relative term.
21 – read carefully, Sandi. And read the entire comment. She’s concerned about people hitting her, not about her hitting someone. There is a difference.
(and to clarify, I know it was not you denigrating folks)
I did read it 89Hoo, and I do understand it is her concern for her safety but that has implications for what or whom ever she (or I) might hit or that hits her too. It is not a one way street…unless of course it is a building instead of another car…I am sure she never had an accident in her life that was her fault, I am not “casting aspersions”, it is just that age old, your fist/my nose conundrum. Unlimited, unmitigated personal choice has ramifications. Always has, always will. It is human nature for anyone to have their (or their family’s) safety, comfort, needs, wants, desires to come first. That does not mean it does not affect the rest of the world.