Check out the link of death rates in various specific models by IIHS above. It doesn’t appear pickups are less safe than cars, though each category spans a fairly wide and often overlapping range among particular models.
The most obvious factors are size and luxury. In ‘mini 4 dr car’ category all are in a range of 80-100 deaths per million vehicle years throwing out one low outlier. In large 4 door cars it’s more spread out 18-45 throwing out one high outlier. In large pickups 17-70, 17-55 throwing out one high outlier, 17-39 lowest 14 out of 16 models. Large luxury cars 0-20, large luxury SUV’s only three models but highest is 9. The overall average is 30. Again the lower rates on luxury cars are presumably partly the clientele not only the vehicles, and that’s probably somewhat of a factor in large v small. There just doesn’t seem to be a systematic difference by type as in sedan, SUV, pickup.
As was mentioned though, larger vehicles being part of the cause of higher death rates in smaller vehicles can’t be excluded. From a personal vehicle buying perspective that isn’t so relevant though. This is where it sometimes gets contentious I know in some internet debates I’ve seen, but I want to make sure all family members are driving vehicles that weigh at least 3500#'s or so.
I suspect the answer there is distracted driving. The iPhone came out in 07 and smartphone ownership has skyrocketed since then. More kids are getting cell phones as well leading to built in distractions for people who weren’t great at paying attention to the road in the first place.
The truth is in almost every measurable way modern cars are better then older cars. Performance wise supercars of the 80s match normal cars today. Safety wise the cars are better built to higher standards with far more time and engineering put into making them safe. Economy wise the cars are more fuel efficient, use less materials and last far longer without regular maintenance. I can’t think of a single way that old cars are better then new cars.
a) almost never have one and when I do its by their choice; just not that much into kidnapping as a recreational pastime
b) if I do its my wife and she knows and accepts the risks just like when she climbs on the back of the Road Kow
Any other problems in the universe I can solve while I’m at it?
But again, its a choice much like preferring a motorcycle; which I do as well. Heck I could avoid the whole issue and never leave the house and in certain conditions I will pick that. But considering the total number of miles I have in 1972 and earlier cars combined with the number of miles in newer (and really new) cars without a catastrophic accident I feel OK about it all.
As others mentioned, I wouldn’t be surprised if smart phones drove up accident rates in the last decade, negating some of the safety benefits.
Also the average car is ten years old, so a car accident in 2018 probably involves a 2008 car. Due to that I’d assume the safety and death statistics lag by a decade or more. If I buy a brand new 2018 car with tons of safety features that didn’t exist in 2008 and then I go out and get in an accident, the other car I hit will probably be closer to an 08 than an 18 model. It seems like improvements from 89 to 99 fatality rates show that the 1989 cars are an improvement over the 1979 cars. So we won’t know how well 2018 safety features work in general until 2030 or so.
Seriously, for more up-to-date stats, check out the insurance institute for highway safety, and its sister organization, the highway loss data institute. Here is the kind of work they do:
Subaru Eyesight decreases pedestrian hits by ~35% compared to comparable Subaru’s without that feature:
file:///C:/Users/N0069556/Downloads/hldi_bulletin_34.39.pdf
General Motors collision avoidance features reduce frequency of claims
file:///C:/Users/N0069556/Downloads/hldi_bulletin_34.06.pdf
they found reductions in claim frequency for vehicles equipped with several GM safety packages, including
Early results for Honda Collision Avoidance Features are promising
file:///C:/Users/N0069556/Downloads/hldi_bulletin_31.2.pdf
There’s no empirical evidence linking phone use to increased accidents. Cell phone and texting bans do not produce any decline in crashes. Obviously, there are any number of accidents or deaths associated with phone-related distraction, but overall, the IIHS speculates that cell phone use simply replaces other distractions. Interestingly, the article at my second link mentions that while dialing the phone is associated with a slightly higher risk of bad events, talking on a cell phone is associated with a slightly lower risk. Neither effect was statistically significant, though.
*However, it is not clear at this point that laws limiting drivers’ cellphone use are having the same beneficial effects. A review of the research on the effects of driver cellphone and texting bans found mixed results. As discussed throughout the review, there is considerable unsettled evidence with regard to the patterns of drivers’ phone use or the effects of use on crash risk. Without this information, it is difficult to develop reasonable hypotheses about the expected effects of cellphone bans on crashes, or to choose appropriate crash outcome measures. Evaluations of cellphone and texting bans also must grapple with substantial methodological and data-related challenges that many of the reviewed studies were unable to overcome.
One of the strongest studies found no reductions in collision claim rates associated with all-driver hand-held bans in four states [Trempel et al., 2011], despite evidence of reduced hand-held cellphone use in three of the states [McCartt et al., 2010]. A study of texting bans using an analogous approach found modest but significant increases in collision claim rates in three states and no change in a fourth state [HLDI, 2010]. Other studies that appeared to have important limitations found reductions from bans [e.g., Abouk, Adams, 2013; Kolko, 2009; Nikolaev et al., 2010]. The findings of studies without appropriate crash measures and controls cannot be relied on.
Thus, even as states increasingly are enacting laws limiting drivers’ phone use, it is unclear the laws will have the desired effect on crashes.*
So studies are mixed, but mostly, show some reduction.
However, and this is very important, the studies compare how effective* Laws* are that ban Cell Phones and texting.
Here is CA, we do have such laws, but they are flouted constantly. So, I guess you can say that such laws have a mixed and minor effect on reducing accidents.
I heard, perhaps on NPR, that anti texting laws actually backfire because when texting was legal, people would hold their phone up at eye level and text. But now that its illegal, people hide their phones near their lap to text so a cop won’t see them, which means their eyes are off the road.
The “car seat” we had hooked over the front seat, which still went all the way across. Until we could hold our heads up, we used a car bed which was basically a bassinet used to keep the baby in one place if the only adult was driving. I remember my dad driving, and my mom having my brother or sister on her lap. :eek:
I cringe at the very thought! But that’s how things were done back then.
Interesting. I was surprised that cell phone use was not considered responsible for the increase in accidents. But I suppose they have been around long enough so that everyone who feels they have to yak on a phone has been doing it for ages.
Just to be a contrarian :D: Consider a 1990 Honda Civic. Chrysler made a leBaron convertible that was a very large car. The laws of physics would suggest that the Civic would not fare well in a collision with the leBaron.
We were in the Civic. The leBaron hit us head on.
We walked away.
To be fair, so did the young men in the leBaron… though to this day i get the shakes when I recall what the passenger said: “I hadn’t been buckled in… then we got to a curvy stretch of road and something told me I ought to fasten that seatbelt”. :eek::eek::eek:
That Civic even lived to fight another day - the 4-car pileup 5 years later was just too much for it! We found an interesting design feature though: my husband was hit from behind - twice - and found himself basically lying flat on his back in the driver’s seat: the seatback had fallen backward almost completely flat. Supposedly that was a design feature to help protect the passenger ( the car did not have airbags). In any case, he walked away from THAT one as well - an accident that totalled 3 out of the 4 cars involved.
I was speaking of the recent spike. Cellphone usage definitely leads to lots of accidents, but it seems that the recent spike is due to more people on the road. Unemployed people drive less. I’m retired, and I sure drive a lot less than I used to, and so am safer.
I still see idiots nearly every day holding their cell phones up and out about a foot and a half in front of their face, yakking at it in speaker mode, while they drive.
Why they can’t actually set it down and drive normally, I don’t know.
Crumple zones have been around for more than 20 years. Ditto Airbags, ABS, etc. They have of course all improved since then and cars are certainly safer, but I would have no fears getting into a 20 year old car with these features.
The safety features of late seem to center around inattentive idiot/cellphone using drivers. Which is fine I guess, but breeds poor drivers imho.
