Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2003EARelease.pdf
Given 32,165 persons killed
RESTRAINED 13,648 42%
UNRESTRAINED 18,528 58%
Clearly I personally would like to put all the odds in my favor as I can by wearing a seat belt almost 99.9% of the time. But I dare say there are 42% or 13,648 who obviously and tragically were not saved by its use per se. On the UN restrained side,the other statistic as morbid as it might sound would be how many folks would have died anyway even if they were restrained?
And even though it's a mess, all occupants should have easily survived with little injury, unless they were unrestrained. And that's their fault.
Glad that a fullsize truck was hit, not some small passenger car! Ouch!
But you are using the NHTSA statistics, which are answering a different question that one must ask. The question to be asked is how many lives were saved by seatbelt use? The question which is more irrelevant is how many lives were lost by people wearing seatbelts. This question is irrelevant because it says nothing about safety or the use of seatbelts.
The first question: "How many lives were saved?", is almost impossible to answer because the NHTSA does not track non-fatality accidents, which is a big problem in trying to answer a lot questions that have popped up on this forum. To answer that question you have to go back and look at every crash where the occupants lived and make an assessment of whether the seatbelt use was effective in preventing loss of life. In other words, in those crashes had seatbelts not been used, would it have resulted in loss of life? This is along the same lines as trying to understand if other safety measures, ABS, DRLs are effective.
Are we sure that there wasn't another vehicle involved in the accident? Sure two are shown in the picture but what other vehicles, if any, are out of shot? For all we know is that the Hummer rear ended a semi which is right behind the person taking the picture.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't know how you can conclude that. Sure the Hummer looks all crumpled but probably the occupants all walked, whereas possibly the Dodge simply transferred the blow to its occupants...
On the inconsiderate driver topic...how about inconsiderate looking drivers? Like the ones who slouch over to one side with one hand weirdly placed on the wheel in a failed attempt to look cool. Or the ones who keep their seat reclined at a nearly horizontal angle in another failed attempt to look cool. Or the ones who keep their arm draped over the wheel in a very strange way, like their wrist is on the top of the wheel, with their hand hanging off. Stupid.
I was simply pointing out that research done by respected organizations like NHTSA, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University, the National Academy of Sciences, and other such organizations in the US and around the world have identified measures, that if implemented by state legislators and governors, have the potential to save lives and reduce injuries on the highways. There aren't any silver bullets, but incremental improvements are possible.
I cited stronger seat belt laws and drunk driving laws as noncontroversial examples, at least among Edmunds enthusiasts, without bring up more contentious issues such as speed limits, red light cameras, police checkpoints, etc.
We don't have to wait for all cars to have side airbags and electronic stability control. Unfortunately, too many legislators are too spineless, fearful, or beholden to interest groups (like those bonehead motorcyclists with their mantra, "let those who ride decide!") to enact these safety measures, so we continue to lose 40,000+ American lives each year.
OTOH, as has been pointed out, it's good that both vehicle were large. If either one had hit a smaller car, the outcome for the smaller car occupants wouldn't have been very pretty, seat belts or not.
Spot on. This hypothetical scenario would have been recorded in the records of the NHTSA and then the stats would have beeen misinterperted. The seatbelt/airbag combo is supposed to keep you from contacting the windshield and flying around the vehicle and sustaining serious traumatic injury. As 210delray pointed out a head on collision between a Hummer and small vehicle would most likely be deadly to the occupants of the smaller vehicle. Seatbelt and airbags would have simply been ineffective against the crushing force of the Hummer. So therefore one can look at the aforementioned hypothetical crash and simply say the seatbelts were ineffective and therefore they don't work. Or they are of dubious value.
I concur with 210delray. Across all 50 states seatbelt/helmet use should be mandated, every car should come with ABS and possibly side airbags for front passengers. DRL use should be mandated. Drunk driving should be treated the same way criminally across all 50 states. States that don't want to, of course, are free not to, but take away the Federal highway money.
Whether one believes statistically these measure help, common sense should prevail.
Because of the height of the bumper and wheels on the Hummer the smaller vehicle would have been overrun with the front bumper through the windshield of the normal car.
>Drunk driving should be treated the same way criminally across all 50 states.
Having watched the special treatment of many "important" people who drive drunk, it should be handled same as any other drug bust. The auto should be confiscated and sold at auction for the public good the same as the police departments gleefully do to vehicles and property involved with drugs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The newest target of safety experts may be people who chow down while driving.
They don't expect to stop you, they just want to help you do it safely.
Many experts agree, it would be futile to ban such activities as eating, drinking, smoking and changing a CD while driving, because people are going to do it anyway, even if it is dangerous.
A recent study by the IIHS said drivers using cell phones are four times as likely to be in a serious accident...
I was simply pointing out that research done by respected organizations like NHTSA, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University, the National Academy of Sciences, and other such organizations in the US and around the world have identified measures, that if implemented by state legislators and governors, have the potential to save lives and reduce injuries on the highways. There aren't any silver bullets, but incremental improvements are possible.
"I cited stronger seat belt laws and drunk driving laws as noncontroversial examples, at least among Edmunds enthusiasts, without bring up more contentious issues such as speed limits, red light cameras, police checkpoints, etc.
We don't have to wait for all cars to have side airbags and electronic stability control. Unfortunately, too many legislators are too spineless, fearful, or beholden to interest groups (like those bonehead motorcyclists with their mantra, "let those who ride decide!") to enact these safety measures, so we continue to lose 40,000+ American lives each year. "
If not for the nexus of "HIGHWAY SAFETY," why would "inconsiderate drivers" even be a concern? Motherhood and apple pie might be the warm political fuzzies where every body thumps their chests and gives lip service. Yet the stuff they have enacted might seem logical and even anectodal, are not valididated on a longititudinal level. I think you might be starting to see that often times they get things "WRONG" even though they think they right and correct. Yet REAL validation might show them to be WRONG.
Now in the vehicle transportation area there are a lot of examples.
" "*Article excerpt from today's paper*
The newest target of safety experts may be people who chow down while driving.
They don't expect to stop you, they just want to help you do it safely.
Many experts agree, it would be futile to ban such activities as eating, drinking, smoking and changing a CD while driving, because people are going to do it anyway, even if it is dangerous.
A recent study by the IIHS said drivers using cell phones are four times as likely to be in a serious accident... "
KShapiro and I often disagree or often takes the opposite or contray point of view, but in his above post, if I understand his ethos, I would agree this is a good example.
It is well documented that most "accidents" are due to distractions. Among the leading distractions both in volume and % wise is food and beverage issues. So as you have indicated why would so called
..." too many legislators are too spineless, fearful, or beholden to interest groups (like those bonehead motorcyclists with their mantra, "let those who ride decide!") to enact these safety measures, so we continue to lose 40,000+ American lives each year. "...?
So it has been longitudinally found that driving while distracted with the leading one being food and beverage issues but why is it not banned???? Using your references would it be those special interest groups such as those BONEHEAD American DRIVERS/voters????
This weekend the outer loop portion of the Wilson Bridge of the Capitol Beltway (I95/I495) was scheduled to have 2 of 3 lanes shut down for the entire weekend as they construct the "new" Wilson Bridge. To that end there were many advisories to take alternate routes around the contruction zone. One of these alternative routes was Rt 301 which traverses down through southern MD into the Northern Neck region of Virginia via the Harry W. Nice Bridge. Well late Saturday afternoon a distressed driver was observed by other drivers, stopping her/his car at the highest point of the bridge and jumping. Resulting backups on Rt 301 north on the VA side were 5-7 miles (I live about 3.5 miles from the bridge and our development entrance is on Rt 301. According to the local paper, a car was indeed found at the top of the bridge sans driver. The authorities searched the Potomac River (2 miles wide at this point) but did not find the body.
I mean, really, couldn't this person have found a better place to commit suicide??? (Heavy sarcasm here). :confuse: My prayers do go out to this family.
I can imagine how traffic was tied up, as that bridge is only 2 lanes wide (one lane in each direction).
I'm all for educating drivers about distractions, for I do believe, we believe we are immune to distractions as we tool down the road. It would seem to make sense a fair number of accidents are due to distractions or driving styles that are aggressive.
But having said that, if you or I find ourselves in a situation, my fault or not, I would welcome the alphabet soup of safety features, which when taken in the aggregate can potentially reduce the number of collisions. Even when there is no hard statistical evidence to support their effectiveness.
But there are plenty of states where solid research is ignored. One such example is motorcycle helmet laws. Every well-conducted study has reached the same conclusion, that wearing helmets saves lives, and mandatory use laws result in nearly 100% compliance. Yet, only about 20 states have such laws for all riders. The majority allow those 18 and up to "decide."
"Common sense" doesn't necessarily work in highway safety. A good recent example is ABS. It works great on the test track, and everyone thought it would make a difference on the road. But it didn't, and we still don't really know why. So mandating ABS, which effectively would have to be done at the federal level, wouldn't have been wise, and in fact, no such mandate from Congress or NHTSA was put into place.
However using your motorcycle example, I think you have just glossed over the point that YOU made about legislative folks not making legislation about distracted driving which effects/affects a LARGER public population vs a smaller minority such as motorcycle drivers.
Helmet laws or "choice" BOTH makes a certain amount of sense. For example if a motorcyclist causes an accident it does not necessarily kill the innocent CAR victim. More likely than not, a motorcyclist caused accident results in injury and death to the motorcycle drive and passenger. Motorcyclists are also very aware of the fact that app 75% of accidents between motorcycle and passenger vehicle are caused by the passenger vehicle. So if I was a motorcycle driver, I would wear the full protection. I am however NOT a motorcycle driver and do suport their right to chose.
So you must support the "choice" to wear seatbelts as well?
For this very reason, I don't feel that legislators should forbid eating, drinking, smoking, changing CDs, or even using cellphones while driving, because there is no existing research to show such measures would be effective. In fact, research already shows that New York's 4-year-old hand-held cellphone ban has NOT been effective.
I do NOT however, support motorcyclist's "right to choose," anymore than I would support car occupants choosing whether or not to wear seat belts. Seat belt use was absolutely dismal for the 20 years preceding mandatory laws (1965-85), despite all the educational campaigns and ads. It was the threat of getting ticketed that finally persuaded most people to buckle up.
What these laws do is give police some extra maneuverability when it comes to penalities that accrue when an accident is caused by a specific driving behavior.
"In fact, research already shows that New York's 4-year-old hand-held cellphone ban has NOT been effective."
What to do in this situation. Jaywalking is also illegal, yet in certain large cities people jaywalk by the droves. There is no easy answer.
Choice in CA means you will be subject to being stopped and issued a violation. Chances of being stopped for that reason? Not very good.
To me the NY CP ban was predictable and deducible. It would be interesting to know how much money and government time was wasted for all that lack of results.
Essentially you have answered your own point. And distractions continue to be the majority of reasons for accidents, injuries and fatalities.! : (
The reason cell phone usage is being picked on, is the insidiousness of it. It looks so innocent, just answer a little call. But study after study equates cell phone usage with about the worst of the worst in terms of extended distractions.
I knew that states were free to change speed limits, because the repeal of the national speed limit turned this power back to the states. Perhaps I didn't make that clear in my posts.
Except for the statewide change in West Virginia, most of the changes have been narrow in scope. And as someone who regularly drives on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I can assure you that changes in the speed limit on certain sections had little, if no, effect on the "real world" speed of vehicles.
210delray: And no one's addressed my earlier comment -- how valid are the number of miles driven? Do you report your annual mileage to any government entity? So how do we really know the precise number? We don't -- it's an estimate, make that a guesstimate.
There's an old saying: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
Are there problems with using fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven as the standard gauge of highway safety? Of course. Has anyone - on this thread, or anywhere else - come up with anything better? Not at this point.
210delray: So even though the death rate has been declining (if you believe the reported miles driven are accurate), it's been a very slow decline through the 90s and into the '00s. And counterbalancing the increase in motorcycle deaths has been a decrease in pedestrian deaths, so the death rate for vehicle occupants hasn't changed much.
Later improvements are always the hardest. The low-hanging fruit is picked first, because it's easiest and brings about the greatest immediate reward.
It's the same phenomenon encountered in everything from reducing tailpipe emissions to firming up a waistline. The final improvements will be harder to come by, and smaller in absolute numbers.
Just ahead of me was a green Plymouth Sundance Duster. A silver Ford Ranger pulls up beside the Sundance and turns on the signal to merge. The Sundance driver wasn't having it, so she kept right on the bumper of the car in front of her. The Ranger driver forced his way into line, with the Sundance's horn blaring.
I guess the Ranger driver wasn't worried about his truck - but then, considering that the Ranger has been in production in its present form for over a decade, maybe he figured that replacement fenders and doors are quite plentiful.
That move would get you shot in certain parts of the country.
Do you have evidence to back up this statement? Crashes are also caused by poor judgment, risk-taking, fatigue, impairment (alcohol or other drugs), poor visibility (fog, whiteouts), impatience, anger/rage, lack of skill (such as what to do when a tire drops off the edge of the road), poor road design (blind intersections), weather conditions like black ice, and (rarely) mechanical failure, among other things. I don't know of any source that can authoritatively state that distractions are the #1 cause, except that anecdotally, people are fed up when the proverbial "other guy" is driving with a cellphone glued to his ear.
Injuries or fatalities on the other hand result depend on speed of the crash, structural capability of the vehicle, and safety features like seat belts, airbags, energy-absorbing steering columns, and crash padding.
Anticellphone laws are not being enforced. More enforcement would make them effective.
Story:
Evening traffic going home from work time. Stoplight. I'm in left turn lane. No oncoming traffic other than one car sitting facing me at red light. When light turns green, little car doesn't move. I'm not going to turn in front of it. More cars are coming behind the stationary car. Then the driver finally starts across, cellphone glued to her right ear. I had to wait through the cluster of cars behind her. If she had moved I would have turned right behind her. She had no idea the light had been green for 10 seconds--totally engrossed in her conversation.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sort of like the lack of enforcement of the signs that say: Keep Right (left) Except to Pass or Slower Traffic Keep Right?
If by chance one sees me in the camp of: gab all day on the cell phone while driving, one would be dead wrong. I have and am one to advocate driving without distractions.
Well she finally gets out far enough that she is blocking what would be for me oncomming traffic. Well the first oncoming car decides to go around her, keeping her eyes on the offending car and yelling at it at the same time so she does not see me now right infront of me. Of course there is someone behind me so I cannot back up and traffic is passing me on the right so I cannot move to the right out of her way. So I am stuck there with this idiot driving straight for me while trying to get around the other idiot who is blocking traffic.
She never looked ahead until she hit me :mad:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I guess they figure they can get someone to let them in.
Suddenly out of nowhere, an inconsiderate coot in his 60s whips around my wife and squeezes to the right, behind the still-reversing car, and then zips left into an open parking space in front of the chiropractor's office.
He goes into the office, and my wife parks next to his car. She then went into the office and said to him in a calm, but firm voice, "You are the rudest damn idiot I have seen a long time!"
His response, "If you hadn't slammed on your brakes right in front of me, I wouldn't have had to...."
She cut him off, "That's not the way it was!"
The fine for driving "wrong" in the HOV lane just went up from $241 to $341.... where are the cops when you need' em. :mad:
Mark
I've noticed that too about the light-creepers. They are so fixated on making everyone think they are ready to go, that they miss the light change.
WTHI "HOV"?
i.e. vehicle carrying 2+ occupants. The exact required number may vary across regions/states.
I usually do not worry about my speed(as long as it is reasonable by my standards) in the HOV lane as it is not a "fast lane" by any means.
First off, I donated blood today and hence my left arm was gimpy with a bandage at the elbow. It impaired my steering a bit, though still no biggie.
Secondly, a few weeks ago my girlfriend's sister's family came to town visit. We decided to go out to eat; I would leave the way in my car, and they would follow us in their Sable.
One rare quality is the ability to LEAD a car caravan effectively. Basically you simply need to drive slowly and patiently, time your traffic lights very carefully, and always keep your follower in your rearview mirror.
You would think that FOLLOWING is much easier. But not this moron (my girlfriend's sister's husband). All I ask is that you drive just a teeny bit faster than normal to keep up. Instead he does about 10 below the limit on the freeway, and then 10 below the limit on regular streets, keeping about 20 car lengths between us.
I'm putzing along at about 10 under as well, waiting for the idiot to speed up. Cars are starting to easily get in between us, and some of them are pissed at ME for driving so slow. Of course, he got stuck at a red light, and I had to pull over and wait for him.
Is this not common sense?!?! When following, stay close! I wonder if he considers me a driver who drives too fast, and was trying to make a point (though at no point did I drive fast or accelerate quickly).
Well on my way in today it has this real long line of cars that I would guesstimate being way over a block long waiting to make a right turn. Since I go straight at this intersection I am in the left lane carefully passing all these cars when this one car speeds right up on my rear end and tailgates me all the way to the stop sign.
As soon as I stop at the stop sign I hear the air horn of the truck I just passed. The idiot behind me cut in front of the truck at the last minute so he can make the right turn.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
However, every once in a while, (litterally every other day), somebody in the non-ending lane, will decide to move over, and drive on the line to prevent people from driving in the legitimate right lane. I've seen them do this more than a mile before the lane actually ends!
Now before someone calls me rude or arrogant, I had to smile, as the other day, a police officer pulled somebody over, for driving on the line, and blocking a group of cars.
I'm puzzled as to what these people that block me would rather me do. I've seen people come to a complete stop in the right lane, even though there is over a mile of clear road in front of you, and try and get into the middle lane. Is that what I'm supposed to do?
FWIW, I've seen signs in other states before, where after the sign says right lane ends, there will be another sign that says, "Use all lanes until lane actually ends", so I can't be the only one that thinks this way...