How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for? • Hacker News Board

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#71

Post by kube-system » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #11

laegooose wrote: post #5

The whole car safety topic is very confusing. Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1]. Probably less in Europe but still one of the leading ones. I was thinking about how I can make myself safer. Which car brand/model is better? Which seat is better for passenger? How much riskier it is to drive during the night? In the rain? How dangerous is it to overtake on road with 1 lane…

The most relevant research on car brands and models is probably the IIHS driver death rate data. It's not perfect since the populations are self selecting (cars aren't assigned to drivers at random) but within a particular vehicle class if you see a huge difference in death rates then that's probably meaningful. https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...

I have been watching this chart for as long as it has been on the internet -- it's great for finding vehicles which are cheap on insurance.

That being said, I see obvious self-selection issues show up in that chart all the time. Looking at the extremes usually points it out -- 'old man' sports cars usually have very low accident rates. Vehicles sold with deep discounts or aggressive financing deals usually have high accident rates. These are likely bought by very different buyers with very different life circumstances who use their cars very differently.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#72

Post by ghaff » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #56

ghaff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's hard to generalize that living in Manhattan without a car is safer and healthier than living in, say, Vermont with one--especially if you rent cars for weekend and other vacations. Depends of course on location, lifestyle, commute, etc.

Yes you’re right, and a big factor I didn’t think of is pollution. The car accident death rate may be low enough that it’s really not worth mitigating against. But also, I don’t mean Manhattan specifically. When I say “city” maybe you are thinking high rises. A neighborhood with predominately 2-4 story buildings can be incredibly walkable. You just have to stop designing everything to accommodate cars ahead of all el…

Manhattan is certainly an extreme case. Though I'd argue that, in the US, there are a small number of cities where you can live carless without any real compromises. Of course, my definition of compromise may be different from yours; if I lived in the Bay Area I'd be regularly going to mountains/ocean/etc. on weekends. Even a couple I know who live in SF without a car are regularly doing short-term and long-term car rentals in addition to walking, Muni, and Uber. I'm not sure they really are in a car less than they would be if they owned one.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#73

Post by UI_at_80x24 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

mohaine wrote: post #46

bcrosby95 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving is already incredibly safe. Yes, it's the leading cause of death in those age categories, but there are 3-4 trillion miles driven each year in the USA. That comes out to 1 death every 100 million miles.

This. If driving was the only cause of death, and we did nothing but drive from birth we would expect to live to ~250 years old on average.

I enjoyed your message, and it reminded me of a completely unrelated fallacy.

If 1 women can produce a baby in 9 months, then 9 women can produce a baby in 1 month.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#74

Post by frosted-flakes » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

dangus wrote: post #21

blakesterz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just took a quick look at Consumer Reports for Vovlo's reliability and they're not great. A couple were even bad. If my memory is right, this has been the case for a while. It looks like maybe Volvos are safe, but not super reliable I guess?

On the other hand, all car makes have become much more reliable than they were in the past. Mostly, what you're looking out for is cost of parts and difficulty of labor. For example, a lot of Audi/Volkswagen products suffer from simple repairs being made more complicated by the need to pull things apart for the mechanic to reach them.

In some cases, absolutely. Having to completely disassemble the door to repair a failing lock module is seriously annoying, as is making it impossible to remove the engine mount while the engine is in the car (seriously complicates timing belt changes on VW mk4 cars, because the belt loops around the engine mount).

But on the GTI (2009 in my case), they did something rather ingenious: instead of welding the outer door skin on, they bolted it on with about 25 short bolts. Taking those off takes about one minute with an impact driver, and you have full access to the door lock module and window regulator, as well as making rust or dent repairs almost trivial. Why can't everything be like that?

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#75

Post by natch » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

This is the most confusing article I've seen from danluu. What data was used?

The glaring incongruity for me arose from the details on Tesla.

"For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) "

Note the words "above poor." But in the bullet points danluu uses a different scale that doesn't match this prose, and slots Tesla into "poor."

I'm sensing an agenda. But I'd rather keep an open mind, and look at the raw data myself.

The other odd thing is that the article mentions both 2012 and 2018 data, but doesn't provide a specific link to the data that was used. What raw data was used?

A clue lies in the other prose about Tesla in the article, which refers to a 2017 article about Tesla's pushing back. (The points about this being predictable as a PR move seem valid. However what's more interesting is the timeline.) 2017 is prior to 2018. Which points to the data being relied on here being the 2012 data, not the 2018 data.

The problem with using very old data is that the cars have evolved significantly since 2012. I mean, 2012 was the very first production year for Model 2. We're talking almost a hand crafted (though semi robotic) assembly line back at that point. And yet the article talks about this as though the data represents Tesla in general. We are eight years along into the future now — almost a decade — with that many years of improvements and two (correction, three) new models, if you don't even count the vast updates to the Model S. This should be disclosed in a way that is glaringly clear, not glossed over or minimized.

In short, I would take everything here with a grain of salt. The research question, though, seems like a very good one. I would look forward to hearing an update where the data is provided, the sources are examined, the funding for the lab tests is disclosed, and current car models are covered.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#76

Post by baxtr » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

shoes_for_thee wrote: post #43

baxtr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what happens if you compare driving to other activities, by stretching them out to the 3-4 trillion miles - but in time and then compare death rates. E.g. taking swimming 2hrs per day (maybe equivalent to the 2-3 hrs spent in cars daily). Higher or lower death rates?

This might have some useful info for you... https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html death rates per million hours of activity

Thanks! That’s really a great source. I am so glad I asked. Highlights:

- Fishing seems to be quite dangerous!!??

- Swimming is less dangerous than living (all other causes)!

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#77

Post by jbay808 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:29 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #23

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drive the largest vehicle you can. When in a collision the momentum is converted to crushing force, you want to be in the less-crushable vehicle. Hey this may be an unpopular choice, but it is the one with the biggest safety impact! And that was the question.

Presumably downvoted because people don't like it. But it's the truth.

It's the "let's defect in a prisoner's dilemma" strategy that works great until others use it too.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#78

Post by pstrateman » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #41

bcrosby95 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving is already incredibly safe. Yes, it's the leading cause of death in those age categories, but there are 3-4 trillion miles driven each year in the USA. That comes out to 1 death every 100 million miles.

I'm not sure that this is a helpful way to look at things. Cars are much safer than they could be and the risk per mile is low, but driving is still one of our big sources of risk, precisely because we do it so much. Similarly, I estimate ~2 deaths per million cigarettes smoked (~1000 cigarettes/year/person >= age 15, 480k deaths/year), and while driving a hundred miles in a day is unremarkable, smoking 100 cigarette…

Driving is still the biggest source of risk because the risk from everything else is now basically zero.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#79

Post by ghaff » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #76

shoes_for_thee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might have some useful info for you... https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html death rates per million hours of activity

Thanks! That’s really a great source. I am so glad I asked. Highlights: - Fishing seems to be quite dangerous!!?? - Swimming is less dangerous than living (all other causes)!

That the rate (not time based) for fishing is so high does seem a bit odd. I wonder a bit what all is being lumped in there. I assume it's because it's an activity that can involve water, boats, and sometimes alcohol.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#80

Post by renewiltord » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #28

bcrosby95 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving is already incredibly safe. Yes, it's the leading cause of death in those age categories, but there are 3-4 trillion miles driven each year in the USA. That comes out to 1 death every 100 million miles.

I wonder what happens if you compare driving to other activities, by stretching them out to the 3-4 trillion miles - but in time and then compare death rates. E.g. taking swimming 2hrs per day (maybe equivalent to the 2-3 hrs spent in cars daily). Higher or lower death rates?

Searching for keyword micromort may also help. It's the concept of deaths/unit time spent on something.