Killer Cars!
Actually the headline in USAToday read: ‘New Study Reveals 10 Cars Most Likely to Kill You’
The “study” is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety – the same organization whose research is cited by insurance companies that choose not to offer discounts for advanced safety systems such as lane departure warning and blindspot detection. The study looked at large sales volume vehicles from the 2008-2011 model years and concluded that smaller cars such as Kia’s Rio, Nissan’s Versa and Hyundai’s Accent were more or less death-traps with the highest rates of driver deaths per 1 million registered vehicles.
In a separate seemingly contradictory finding from the same research, IIHS concluded: ‘Saving Lives: Improved Vehicle Designs Bring Down Death Rates.’ IIHS says “Among 2011 models, there were 28 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years through the 2012 calendar year, down from 48 for 2008 models through 2009.
IIHS attributes the apparent reduction in fatalities to the widespread adoption of safety systems although the economy may have been a factor as well. The only problem with IIHS’s finding is that the single safety system identified by the organization as contributing to the decline in fatalities is electronic stability control (ESC).
IIHS goes on to cite changing driver behavior along with “lower speed limits, stronger safety belt laws and wider use of automated enforcement” as examples of public policies that have contributed to reducing highway fatalities. IIHS then pats itself on the back with the claim that its own safety ratings have spurred the adoption of safety system technologies by car makers but fails to name anything other than electronic stability control.
“Manufacturers responded (to our crash test ratings) by making improvements, and this process has accelerated in recent years, thanks to short design cycles,” according to IIHS president Adrian Lund. A generous interpretation here would suggest that analysis of crash test results and resulting recommendations may have contributed to life-saving adjustments in vehicle design.
Size matters
First of all, IIHS blames the small size of the Rio, Versa and Accent for their high fatality rates. While the organization acknowledges that these vehicles are typically driven by younger less experienced drivers, the study makes no allowance for miles driven.
I am going to take a wild speculative leap here and suggest that the owners of these cars may have acquired them because they are less expensive to operate, particularly in connection with a long gas-guzzling commute. Without the mileage data we are left to assume that you are simply and disproportionately taking your life in your hands with a smaller car.
Zero fatalities
IIHS further touts the increase in the number of vehicles with zero deaths, many of which are luxury cars and SUVs. The organization attributes the decline in SUV fatalities almost entirely to the implementation of ESC, without noting that surrounding the driver with a lot of extra metal and weight goes a long way to mitigating fatalities.
As for luxury vehicles with zero fatalities, there are fewer of these cars on the road, hence fewer miles, and they tend to be driven by older, more experienced and more mature drivers. So zero fatalities here is hardly a striking conclusion.
The IIHS report does a disservice to the auto industry by failing to take mileage into account. But it further twists the truth by emphasizing the importance of vehicle size and a single safety technology – ESC – without any consideration for the myriad of safety systems that IIHS chooses not to recognize or acknowledge as life savers including adaptive cruise control, blindspot detection, lane departure warning and automatic emergency braking.
Proving a negative
In the midst of a decade focused on collision avoidance and the technologies required to make it happen, IIHS is increasingly looking lost. The organization was founded almost exclusively around the idea of surviving collisions. It is for this reason that IIHS emphasizes the importance of a vehicle’s structure for surviving crashes and the use of airbags.
What is missing from IIHS is a vision for the testing of safety systems that prevent and avoid collisions. It is the challenge of proving the negative – that something did NOT happen because a mitigating technology was present.
IIHS is actually interested in this kind of speculation. The organization asserts that, by its estimates, there would have been more than 7,700 more deaths in 2012 had vehicles remained the same since 1985.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the U.S., has been making its own claims regarding ESC saving thousands of lives and the wider range of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards regulations saving more than 600,000 lives since 1960. But NHTSA points to the priority it intends to give lane departure warning, forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking as potentially life-saving technologies. IIHS is silent as to the potential impact of these technologies, at least in this latest report.
The broader context cannot be ignored. The U.S. shines as a beacon of failure in mitigating highway fatalities. The highway fatality rate in the UK, for example, is one third the rate in the U.S. and this comparison holds across all of Northern Europe.
The U.S. is a laughing stock in the world of automotive safety with annual highway death totals comparable to emerging markets such as Brazil, which lack the extensive safety infrastructure of standards and testing and accurate reporting and countermeasures. We’re clearly doing something wrong here in the U.S. and yet IIHS and NHTSA congratulate themselves for saving lives.
And, as the final insult, IIHS blames small cars for being small and thereby killing people. I suggest that financially disadvantaged people including the young and the old, with unfortunate commutes and limited driving experience account for a disproportionate amount of the drivers of these smaller cars.
Financial and demographic circumstances are playing a greater role in these fatalities. But this is not the most important point. We have a challenge in spurring the adoption of automotive safety systems. In the recent past our greatest advance was the adoption of a back-up camera mandate that is expected to save approximately 200 lives out of an annual tally of 32K+.
The U.S. is the only country on the planet with a back-up camera mandate. It’s time we looked forward NOT backward – and avoid accidents not merely survive them.
NHTSA Report: https://tinyurl.com/p5gp4z9
USAToday Report: https://tinyurl.com/p46k9e8
IIHS Report: https://tinyurl.com/ltcqgfv
Please Read & Review Jimi & Isaac books for kids. Solves problems. Invents Stuff.
9 年Well, OK. But... In Mexico last year there was a big kerfuffle because the auto makers were "dumping" cars into Mexico that didn't have advanced safety features (traction control, for instance). The articles were plausible until you took a few deep breaths and realized that Mexico has neither snowy roads nor money to pay for traction control etc. The trend of safe cars that simply crumple when struck is good (and we just bought one), but the tradeoff is that the new generation of cars is much, much more expensive and possibly too expensive for many people, who then end up driving old junk for longer than they otherwise would. The same dynamic is pervasive in our economy. Those who 'have' are much better off, those who 'don't have' are worse off. Wealth doesn't flow all the way to the bottom if cars are discarded before their useful life is complete because the frame is un-straightenable or the airbags have deployed. No, I don't have a solution.
Vice President of Digital Connected Solutions at KPIT
9 年Increase speed limits, make it illegal to pass on the right/ticket left lane campers first off. Then fix the terrible user interfaces in the car. That still does not stop people from texting, shaving, putting on makeup, lighting cigarets, and various other activities.
Master's Degreed Product Manager with 10+ years of experience in Product Development, Roadmapping, Requirements Definition, Leading Product Teams, Delivering High-Impact Products and Agile Methodologies
9 年The differences between US and EU fatality rates are more likely a function of different average commute distances. However, is it a reflection upon the statistically challenged that we have focused on things like backup cameras as mandate items? I would assume that this mandate was far more palatable than many others as the cost of backup camera systems is very low, adding little to the sticker price of the vehicle. While life is indeed precious, manufacturers and consumers both have shown limited appetite for anything that raises the cost. I believe that creative minds will find more solutions requiring less complexity and lower cost impacts.
Software Product Strategy Leader
9 年Yes, avoid not just survive. On that note, as a high volume driver who recently started driving a car with ESC, my perception of the added safety is that the difference is profound. More of this tech, asking with past improvements like ABS, gives normal drivers super powers.