Quick Energy Fix -- Bring Back the 55 MPH Law?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Again I'll post this:

http://www.iihs.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdf

Midsize cars - Passat, Camry, Accord do better than just about any other class of vehicle on the road besides Minivans.

And of the deaths in the "multi vehicle" stat, I'd *REALLY* like to know what number of them were at the hands of full size SUVs and trucks.

Large heavy vehicles don't fare better at avoiding death. They just deal it out better.

I concede the small/compact class. But most of that is just brought down by sh!tty saftey ratings of domestic vehicles. Overall the import midsize cars fair better than just about any other class out there.

There's your facts.

p\|\|n3d!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Amused
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/business/01oil.html?

http://www.bugmenot.com/

The gist is, (after a bunch of typical NYTimes hand wringing and praising of Europe's gas tax raping of their citizens), that the US should reimpose the 55MPH max speed on all highways to save gas.

Your thoughts?

Also, for a related thread and article on the opposing side, see this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1575980&enterthread=y

The study that was used for the basis of the 55mph fuel savings was done in the 70's and statistically inaccurate because it hypothesized data outside the limit of the evaluation. Modern cars share almost nothing technologywise with the cars from the 70's and an accurate mpg study done today would reveal that faster speeds result in higher mpg IMO. Those advocating the reduction in speed limit won't want a new study, because those advocating it aren't doing it for fuel saving reasons.

 

[jammur21]

Use

dealmac
dealmac

to get inside NYTimes

used to be a member there.

 

[OS]

Most recently I've owned a 2000 corolla and 2003 accord and the gas mileage on these cars were great even when driving around at high speeds.

In my corolla, I made a trip between SF/LA, averaging nearly 100 mph and I got something like 35 mpg.

Accord, I used to do a 50 mile commute and even with driving in the 85-90 range, I still got 27-28 mpg. The worst mileage I've ever gotten in this car is actually all city driving, me mashing the gas from every stop light. I got like 17 mpg once doing that.

Both those cars are supposed to be very aerodynamic. Accord has a 5 speed auto transmission, engine is running 3K rpms while going 90 so it's barely working even at high speeds.

Vehicle type has just a big, if not more, effect on mileage. I had a 2005 F150 as a rental for a week and I got about 20 mpg or less mixed babying it around everywhere.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Again I'll post this:

http://www.iihs.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdf

Midsize cars - Passat, Camry, Accord do better than just about any other class of vehicle on the road besides Minivans.

And of the deaths in the "multi vehicle" stat, I'd *REALLY* like to know what number of them were at the hands of full size SUVs and trucks.

Large heavy vehicles don't fare better at avoiding death. They just deal it out better.

I concede the small/compact class. But most of that is just brought down by sh!tty saftey ratings of domestic vehicles. Overall the import midsize cars fair better than just about any other class out there.

There's your facts.

p\|\|n3d!

Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted in far fewer fatalities: 1,225. - Text


Report says vehicle safety ratings confusing to consumers
From the Journal Sentinel

• "Many consumers likely believe a 4-star compact car protects them in a crash to a similar degree as a 4-star van or (sports) utility (vehicle), when in fact they are significantly more likely to be injured in a crash when occupying the smaller vehicle," wrote author Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group."

Status of Injury and Crashworthiness Consumer Information
TranSafety, Inc

• "Large, heavy cars generally offer more protection to their occupants, with fatalities in lighter vehicles averaging two to three times the fatalities in heavier vehicles. Because of their additional size, larger vehicles allow more "crush space" to absorb impact."

The Issue: Do real-life safety statistics warrant an insurance discount for larger vehicles?

• "State Farm Insurance, the nation's largest underwriter, will begin offering discounts to drivers of safer automobiles. Critics charge that the plan will "legitimize" larger vehicles that pose a danger to smaller cars. But the new policy actually reflects sound risk management."

When Heavy Meets Light

• "...So the statistics show. In 1996, 41,207 people died in traffic accidents, 35,579 of them within their vehicles. Crashes between LTVs and cars resulted in 5,259 fatalities. Of these, 81 percent, or 4,260 fatalities, occurred in the cars. Clearly, the passengers in the larger vehicles came out ahead. But that doesn?t make the LTVs the villains of the piece. Because it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

SHOPPING FOR A SAFER CAR

• Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars have more than twice as many occupant deaths each year as large cars.
  
  Size and weight are closely related. Large vehicles typically are heavy, and small ones are light. But these two characteristics don't influence crashworthiness the same way. Vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crush zones, which help prevent damage to the safety cage and lower the crash forces inside it.
  
  Vehicle weight protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backwards, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions but may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes.

Consider Weight

• When vehicles are equipped with the same safety features, a heavier vehicle will generally better protect you in a crash. This is particularly the case in two-vehicle crashes.

Lighter vehicles have higher occupant death rates in two-vehicle crashes, and within each weight class, cars and pickups have similar occupant death rates.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Triumph

So what real benefit would rationing have for you? Sure it would promote alternative forms of transportation, but people would also sell their SUV's and buy that little Toyota or Hyundai.

It would be a far better alternative to CAFE standards. People would still have the opportunity to buy decent sized vehicles.

IF the real goal is to cut gasoline usage, this is the only truly fair way to accomplish that goal.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Only one problem, most modern cars weigh in at well over 3,000 pounds. Accords and Maximas are creeping into the 3,500+ pound range. Cars today do not have significantly less mass than cars from the 1960's and 1970's.

ZV

I don't consider that a problem, but people like Anubis do. They're the ones who want to saddle us all with stricter CAFE standards.

 

[Busie23]

It's all BS. From my experience speed has nothing to do with gas milage. I have a device in my car that monitors my gas and gives me my average mpg. It only flucuates when I'm giving it gas or letting off. If I'm holding steady at 20 or 85 I'm still getting the same mpg.
And one time a few years back I had my cruise control set at a very high speed for over 150 miles and my mpg was actually the highest it ever was.

 

[vi edit]

I'd like the take the time to reply line by line to all of those links, but it isn't worth the time and nothing short of a jackhammer will get it through your head.

BIGGER DOES NOT EQUAL SAFER.

In three different types of crashes, monstrous vehicles ONLY come out ahead in multi vehicle crashes. And even then, some of the better built midsize cars come close. And of the deaths, I'd hedge my next paycheck that it was because of the high bumper or double curb weight of some enourmous landbarge that smashed into it.

You keep yammering on and on about heavier. But yet I haven't really seen anything that says what exactly constitutes heavier. It's a war of attrition and we'll all lose if you just keep increasing curb weights. There's going to be somebody bigger and heavier than you and you'll lose the gamble.

Ultimately, the safest thing in a car is what's behind the wheel. Not the vehicle.

If it is the car, then why are the full size Grand Marquis and Crown Vic you constantly toot the horn of LESS SAFE than the top several mid size cars in the list above?

Why does a Ford Expedition or Explorer (2WD) have more single vehicle crashes than the top several midsize vehicles?

Why do the Silverado, F150 and Dodge Ram have worse single vehicle rates than the midsize?

And they just get even uglier when you toss in single vehicle and rollovers.

 

[Ornery]

Your beef isn't with me, it's with:

• jsonline.com
• usroads.com
• statefarm.com
• aei.org
• highwaysafety.org
• nhtsa.dot.gov (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
If it is the car, then why are the full size Grand Marquis and Crown Vic you constantly toot the horn of LESS SAFE than the top several mid size cars in the list above?

By what measure are you obtaining your rating? Government tests? Insurance Institute tests? Do you know the basis of those tests and the assumptions made?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: vi_edit
If it is the car, then why are the full size Grand Marquis and Crown Vic you constantly toot the horn of LESS SAFE than the top several mid size cars in the list above?

By what measure are you obtaining your rating? Government tests? Insurance Institute tests? Do you know the basis of those tests and the assumptions made?

I'm going by the IIHS numbers I linked to above. They aren't tests. They are actual death rates based upon vehicle make.

 

[alkemyst]

New Yorkers are just p!ssed they are lucky to hit 35 in an evening rush, they want to punish others for being able to cruise home.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: vi_edit
If it is the car, then why are the full size Grand Marquis and Crown Vic you constantly toot the horn of LESS SAFE than the top several mid size cars in the list above?

By what measure are you obtaining your rating? Government tests? Insurance Institute tests? Do you know the basis of those tests and the assumptions made?

I'm going by the IIHS numbers I linked to above. They aren't tests. They are actual death rates based upon vehicle make.

And what was the qualification they made in regard to SUV's in the study of fatalities?

 

[ribbon13]

Bullet trains... lots and lots of bullet trains

 

[Ornery]

Large cars and minivans dominate among vehicle models with very low death rates.

Vehicle body style, size, and fatality risk:

• Important characteristics of vehicles that influence their driver death rates are type, body style, size, and weight. Within virtually every group of vehicles, the smaller and lighter models have the higher rates...
  
  The vehicle group with the lowest driver death rate was large luxury cars with 37 deaths per million vehicle years.

Vehicle weight and the risk of death:

• Because vehicle size and weight are so closely related, it shouldn?t be surprising that their effects on driver death rates are similar. In each group (cars, SUVs, pickups) the heavier vehicles, like bigger ones, generally had lower death rates (see table, p. 7). The rate in the lightest SUVs, for example, was more than twice as high as in the heaviest SUVs...

And what was the qualification they made in regard to SUV's in the study of fatalities?

How the death rates were computed:

• Rates of driver death in all crashes plus rates in multiple-vehicle, single-vehicle, and single-vehicle rollover crashes were computed for 199 passenger vehicle models (1999-2002) with at least 120,000 registered vehicle years or 20 driver deaths during the study years.
  
  Each model?s rate represents the reported number of driver deaths divided by the model?s number of registered years. Data are from the federal government?s Fatality Analysis Reporting System and registration counts from The Polk Company.
  
  Among the vehicles, exposure varies considerably. For example, the number of registered vehicle years for midsize two-door cars is nearly 3 million. This compares with fewer than 300,000 registered years for large two-door cars. Because of this variability, 95 percent confidence intervals were computed with upper and lower bounds indicating the precision of the computed rates for all crash types. The rates reflect primarily the influence of a vehicle?s design and patterns of use. Because driver demographics can be a major influence, the death rate for each vehicle was adjusted according to the proportion of deaths of women 25-64 years old. These drivers are involved in fewer fatal crashes per licensed driver. For most vehicles the rates were adjusted by less than 20 percent. ?This is the first year we?ve adjusted the rates to account for some driver characteristics,? Lund says. ?The adjustment takes away some of the differences among vehicles caused by differences in driver gender. Other demographic factors still influence the death rates, but more of the differences in the rates reflect the vehicles.?