Thread: 4WD myths, facts and stats

Following up the roads improvement - while there's always room for further improvement, 20 years ago the Toowoomba-Brisbane road was 1 lane either way for 80% of the distance, with no overtaking lanes and some rather ordinary sections (though no gravel!) Toowoomba's population has increased by about 50% since then, but now there is dual carriageway 100% of the distance with huge improvements in grades, width, curves etc.

I DO think car design has made a lot of difference, both ways. 80's Falcons and Commodores were notorious in medical circles for their roof crushing causing paraplegia when they didn't kill. Earlier and later cars have better rollover protection inbuilt. The trouble was using crush-zone steel for the entire monocoque. Earlier cars result in more head injuries, leg injuries etc with head-on crashes.

One example I had experience of - head on between 1996 Magna and early 80's Falcon. 2 dead in Falcon, 1 critical in Magna (died of complications later), 1 (a child in the front seat) walked away with a broken collarbone.

Originally Posted by scrambler

Following up the roads improvement - while there's always room for further improvement, 20 years ago the Toowoomba-Brisbane road was 1 lane either way for 80% of the distance, with no overtaking lanes and some rather ordinary sections (though no gravel!) Toowoomba's population has increased by about 50% since then, but now there is dual carriageway 100% of the distance with huge improvements in grades, width, curves etc.

I DO think car design has made a lot of difference, both ways. 80's Falcons and Commodores were notorious in medical circles for their roof crushing causing paraplegia when they didn't kill. Earlier and later cars have better rollover protection inbuilt. The trouble was using crush-zone steel for the entire monocoque. Earlier cars result in more head injuries, leg injuries etc with head-on crashes.

One example I had experience of - head on between 1996 Magna and early 80's Falcon. 2 dead in Falcon, 1 critical in Magna (died of complications later), 1 (a child in the front seat) walked away with a broken collarbone.

The telltale figures as to where the improvements have come from are if you look at accident statistics compared to the type of road. Freeways and other multi-lane divided roads are so far ahead of other roads that it is not funny. I remember several years ago a report on improvements to the Pacific Highway - these were the duplication of a significant length of road, and resulted in something like a thirty percent drop in both fatal and all accidents, despite a big increase in the average speed limit (lot more 100/110 and a lot less 80 or less) and a significant increase in traffic. No change in car design except seat belts has done anything like that.

Sure, each little bit helps, better crashworthiness, airbags, dual circuit brakes, ABS, stability control, (although these last two are a bit suspect), better tyres and so on, but I suspect that any advantage from these is overwhelmed by the steady increase in typical power/weight ratio, which means that cars can reach much higher speeds much more quickly than ever before - as a good example, and relevant to this forum, in 1970 the Rangrover was considered to be a high performance car with 100kw - today with twice that power, the lowest power option (TDV8) is considered so low in power that it is necessary to offer a Sport version with 300kw.
But look at the bottom end of the market - in 1970, an entry level car such as a Corolla had around 50kw (in some cases a lot less) - today it has around the same power as the Rangerover of that era did, and weighs far less than the Rangerover did, even if it has put on weight.

John

No doubt that there has been a decrease in crashes causing fatality across the country over the last 50 years but what are the statistics weighted against as this is what defines the outcome of a study on the matter.

Things such as:

Seat belts wearing
Road and condition of roads
Weather conditions
Driving Experience
Condition of vehical/s involved
Age of vehical/s involved
Single car or multi car accident
Age of driver/s
Medical conditions of driver/s

All these and more reasons can weigh the outcome of a study to say one thing or another so statistics dont really mean anything unless you have a base line that in the road accident studies, they rarely make public just the findings.

There could be as much as 100 perameters that have to be studied to make an acurate study of something like this where most of these scare tactic groups including RTA and Vicroads use maybe 5 to 10 perameters so that they can weigh an out come to what ever they want.

Yes it's true that some car manufacturers have come leaps and bounds in car safety with safety cells and the like but the car has to end up destroyed before any of this comes into effect.

Airbags are fine for 10yrs but after that you must have them checked and charges replaced for them to be relied upon.

There has been huge improovements in seatbelt technology with inertia type reels as well as buckle improovments and adjustable hight belts.

Another thing to throw in is things like break away steering colum and side intrusion protection.

There's nearly an endless list of varialbles to consider so I normaly try to take statistics with a grain of salt as most of the time they arent worth a second look or thought.

Originally Posted by mcrover

No doubt that there has been a decrease in crashes causing fatality across the country over the last 50 years but what are the statistics weighted against as this is what defines the outcome of a study on the matter.

Things such as:

Seat belts wearing
Road and condition of roads
Weather conditions
Driving Experience
Condition of vehical/s involved
Age of vehical/s involved
Single car or multi car accident
Age of driver/s
Medical conditions of driver/s

All these and more reasons can weigh the outcome of a study to say one thing or another so statistics dont really mean anything unless you have a base line that in the road accident studies, they rarely make public just the findings.

There could be as much as 100 perameters that have to be studied to make an acurate study of something like this where most of these scare tactic groups including RTA and Vicroads use maybe 5 to 10 perameters so that they can weigh an out come to what ever they want.

Yes it's true that some car manufacturers have come leaps and bounds in car safety with safety cells and the like but the car has to end up destroyed before any of this comes into effect.

Airbags are fine for 10yrs but after that you must have them checked and charges replaced for them to be relied upon.

There has been huge improovements in seatbelt technology with inertia type reels as well as buckle improovments and adjustable hight belts.

Another thing to throw in is things like break away steering colum and side intrusion protection.

There's nearly an endless list of varialbles to consider so I normaly try to take statistics with a grain of salt as most of the time they arent worth a second look or thought.

What statistics tell us is that the number of fatalities has been decreasing for the last fifty years. What they do not tell us is why they have been decreasing. But there is a very good correlation between seat belts and breath testing and two steep drops in fatalities, which strongly suggests that there is a causal relationship. Apart from these, as you say, there are too many factors to tell what are the rest of the reasons for the decrease. But if you look at the statistics sorted by road condition, as I said above, there is a very strong correlation between road conditions and fatalities.

On the other hand there are a number of factors that do not show a good correlation - one, as I suggested above, is annual inspections. Another one is the use of mobile phones - these have gone from rare to everyone has them in the last ten years, and as I am sure you are aware, despite the law, many people regularly use them while driving; but there has been no noticeable change for the worse in either accident or fatality statistics, suggesting they are not as dangerous as made out. My guess is that drivers who allow themselves to be distracted by using a phone would allow themselves to be distracted by something else if there was no phone, and those who don't allow themselves to be distracted by, for example, changing stations on the radio, don't allow themselves to be distracted by the phone either.

John

I totaly agree with you John but it costs too much if you get caught on the mobi while driving and I have seen mainly young girls driving along talking or texting and weaving all over the road and sometimes hitting gutters and still not getting off it or stopping to check for damage so Im with you, it's more about attitude with things like mobiles.

From some anecdotal evidence there are a lot more minor accidents involving mobile phone use. Problem is most are not reported as being on the phone as it is illegal and will void insurance. Many, many small accidents I have seen have involved mobile phone users who will officially deny it.
I think hands free kits are OK, no real difference to talking to some one in the car.
That will be next it will be illegal to talk or have the radio on in the car.

It the teeny boppers that do the damage texting while they drive. You should lose your licence straight up for this.

Originally Posted by CraigE

From some anecdotal evidence there are a lot more minor accidents involving mobile phone use. Problem is most are not reported as being on the phone as it is illegal and will void insurance. Many, many small accidents I have seen have involved mobile phone users who will officially deny it.
I think hands free kits are OK, no real difference to talking to some one in the car.
That will be next it will be illegal to talk or have the radio on in the car.

It the teeny boppers that do the damage texting while they drive. You should lose your licence straight up for this.

I had pointed out to me some time ago - using a handheld phone while driving is legal in a number of US states, and illegal in others. With the increase in mobile phones from almost nothing to "everyone has one" in the last ten or fifteen years, if they were a significant cause of accidents, you would expect the accident if not fatality rates of those states where it is legal/illegal to diverge in the last ten years. This has not happened, either for fatalities or for accidents. My conclusion is that the people who allow phone use to cause an accident are the same people who allow other things to cause an accident (changing stations/CDs, looking for something in their purse, lighting a cigarette, eating, drinking, shaving (yes I've seen it done!) etc), so that overall there are about the same number of accidents. (Of course I suppose that it is possible that there are just as many people using them where it is illegal, but even in this case, both types of states have seen a decrease in the statistics over the period in question, so there is no support there for them being dangerous either.

John