[kloker]

And here it comes: there is literally no limit to the numbers of ways government statistics are skewed to show whatever they want to show. The entire government is and always has been notorious for this. Here's an example: Locally, there is a big investigation going on involving hospital statistics that has revealed that they used a loophole in the reporting rules to purposely not report up to 90% of fatalities of mothers in childbirth in local hospitals, and it has been going on for decades, and was designed to falsely show that maternity wards were much safer than they actually are. If that's true in your local hospital, imagine applying the myriad possibilities to the data presented in that linked "snapshot."

Want another example? Texas DPS recently got exposed for ordering all troopers to list traffic stops using specific biases dictated by the head office, and that has also been going on for many years. Heads are rolling. More? TxDOT is in hot water for having purposely misreported statistics by massive amounts to hide missing funds. I could go on, but you get the idea. So, my question is - how much exactly do you like the taste of snake oil?

Think about it. Large government agencies on all levels use those statistics to show how important and great a job they are doing, while law enforcement and first responder services constantly complain of being underfunded, shorthanded, and short supplied due to what is actually happening out there. Makes me wonder what's wrong with that picture. You can drink the Kool-Aid, but I'll pass. Incidentally, I see they don't include any charts showing that 80% of collisions are caused by distracted or impaired driving, or that in Texas at least one third of all accidents involve unlicensed non-citizens, or the growing category of road rage and aggressiveness. Even insurance companies don't report these things, yet a big chunk of the increase in your auto insurance bill in recent years is due to required uninsured motorist coverage.

So you can defend the statistics all you want, the whole thing just doesn't wash. Have there been safety improvements? Yes. Have they really helped? Only on paper. "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." Yeah, right.

 

[Mark001]

Klocker, your observations would be more likely to be considered by other people if they were backed up by other data. In my profession, a scientist who publishes his observations without other evidence to back it up would be heavily criticized and ultimately ignored, especially if their data conflicts with all other existing data and observations from other scientists.

 

[kloker]

Well, as backup I can only say this: Go ask a state trooper, an EMT, a wrecker driver, or another older experienced truck driver. Any of them can back up my data, because they have seen with their own eyes the reality of it. And, as I said, most of the data in this area is fake anyway, wildly inaccurate because of its source. Even large percentages of scientific data is no good, because its sources are tainted by being filtered through narrow traditional academic bias or politics or financial influence. Not all data is that way, but much of it is. Combine that with an almost unlimited lack of common sense and there you have it. These days it's about as reliable as the six o'clock news. And about as believable.

 

[mrtn]

kloker, this is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Mike728]

Well, as backup I can only say this: Go ask a state trooper, an EMT, a wrecker driver, or another older experienced truck driver. Any of them can back up my data, because they have seen with their own eyes the reality of it. And, as I said, most of the data in this area is fake anyway, wildly inaccurate because of its source. Even large percentages of scientific data is no good, because its sources are tainted by being filtered through narrow traditional academic bias or politics or financial influence. Not all data is that way, but much of it is. Combine that with an almost unlimited lack of common sense and there you have it. These days it's about as reliable as the six o'clock news. And about as believable.

A good friend of mine is a recently retired Parametric/Firefighter. While he agrees that drivers now are far more distracted than in the past, the vehicles are far more protective of the occupants. Back when we purchased our CR-V, he told us it was a good choice, for safety reasons. He had seen a few bad accidents involving them where people walked away unscathed. He also said it was rare for him to see an airbag cause a serious injury, or death. Usually, it was due to the person not wearing their seat-belt. He did, however, say they hate the hybrid and full electric vehicles. But, that's a different thing.

You are the ONLY one disputing the FACT that vehicles are safer now than they were back 20+ years ago. You're not going to convince anyone to change their minds. We have actual data to back this up, which you choose to brushoff as "fake news". Facts don't lie. Also, I will take my friends actual firsthand experience in the field. over that of a retired truck driver that I only know of on an internet forum.

 

[kloker]

Y'all are hilarious! You will twist and turn and flip and flop like a fish trying to avoid a skillet. Conspiracy theory? Hey. Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you. You cannot alter reality or overcome actual experience with internet statistics. What is a parametric? Is that someone who rescues numbers? Sorry. It was there, I just couldn't resist. Your friend is right, which means he agrees with me, though you don't seem to see that. But your filters cannot bring you to a place where my exponentially larger experience is less accurate than yours.

I do not dispute that vehicles are safer today, I dispute that you are safer. I dispute that your so-called facts are accurate, that your actual data is actually actual. And I am not alone in my beliefs, just here in this thread. The fact that you are not alone in this thread does not make you right and me wrong. Everything always looks better on paper than in practical application, which is why real progress is as slow as it is. The transportation world is nowhere near as rosy as the industry and the government would have you believe. But they have everything to gain by making you believe it is. The only road out of that box is experience. So, while you can certainly not like what I say when it disputes what you have learned, I have exponentially more experience, and neither you nor they can disprove that. We all base our beliefs on experience, which explains why we don't agree, and I don't expect you'll change yours based on mine, because you will never have as much as I have. Only those who do will be on my side. The real world definition of wisdom is knowledge gained through pain. So I trust that, given enough time, your views will change. Until that happens, all I can do is share, and pray for your safety.

 

[Mike728]

...
I do not dispute that vehicles are safer today, I dispute that you are safer. I dispute that your so-called facts are accurate, that your actual data is actually actual.

...

Please provide something tangible that backs up what you keep claiming. "Because I said so" may get you somewhere with your small child, but just makes you look foolish in a debate.

 

[kloker]

Please provide something tangible that backs up what you keep claiming. "Because I said so" may get you somewhere with your small child, but just makes you look foolish in a debate.

Sigh. You've become tedious. This is not a debate, and I am not claiming anything. Nor do I owe you anything further. I've already said all that's necessary. And it's not me looking foolish here. There's nothing more tangible than cold hard experience, and if there was, it certainly wouldn't be unprovable and notoriously corrupt government data off the internet. There are no government experts except soldiers. You can choose to believe what you wish, but you will never prove what I'm saying is wrong, because it is not wrong. If you choose to maintain your false sense of security after this, then that's on you now. You were warned.

 

[williamsji]

This is not a debate, and I am not claiming anything.

Setting aside your snarky response directed at another forum member, which I refuse to quote back into the forum .... If you actually believe what you are stating here... then maybe next time take the "agree to disagree" approach rather then insisting on doubling down every time someone posts actual sourced data that contradicts your anecdote driven opinion on the matter.

In my view, it is you that turned this whole thread into a protracted debate.... and I'm sorry.. but you ARE making claims. Your fundamental claim is that cars are not safer today, by design, than they were in past decades. It is in fact your claims and statements, not backed up by anything other then your opinion, that have protracted this discussion topic beyond necessity. There is a nuance to what you are trying to state I believe ---> that it's dangerous out on the road, and that danger continues even in the modern era of vechicles, and people die in some very gruesome accidents .... but it's lost with all your rebuttals of credibly sourced and presented independent safety data about the steadily declining fatality rates where vehicles are concerned. You insist on using anecdotes to try to undermine actual carefully researched and reported safety data, and for most objective readers.. that simply does not wash.

Most of the responses in this thread are in my opinion.. NOT directed at you to try to change your mind. Mine certainly are not. The reasons most of the posted responses are here now is because in a public discussion forum it is important that narratives such as yours, that are not backed by science and published facts, not be left unchallenged... lest future readers take your comments and other forum members silence as ratification of your statements. FACTS DO MATTER.

Can we agree to disagree? I certainly can. Can you?

 

[Mike728]

Sigh. You've become tedious. This is not a debate, and I am not claiming anything. Nor do I owe you anything further. I've already said all that's necessary. And it's not me looking foolish here. There's nothing more tangible than cold hard experience, and if there was, it certainly wouldn't be unprovable and notoriously corrupt government data off the internet. There are no government experts except soldiers. You can choose to believe what you wish, but you will never prove what I'm saying is wrong, because it is not wrong. If you choose to maintain your false sense of security after this, then that's on you now. You were warned.

LOL, Larry. Your posts are pretty revealing. I'll leave it at that.

Have a great day!

 

[bearcrkrd]

Studies show that people who don't take care of their teeth are less healthy. So I am supposed to brush and see a dentist twice yearly and they will keep me healthy. Hmmmm...
Maybe people who don't take care of their teeth don't take care of the rest of themselves? Not just the mouth.
It's not corruption, a government cover up, on and on. You have to use some common sense. Read between the lines, but not to the extent it makes you (me) a fool.

 

[kloker]

Studies show that people who don't take care of their teeth are less healthy. So I am supposed to brush and see a dentist twice yearly and they will keep me healthy. Hmmmm...
Maybe people who don't take care of their teeth don't take care of the rest of themselves? Not just the mouth.
It's not corruption, a government cover up, on and on. You have to use some common sense. Read between the lines, but not to the extent it makes you (me) a fool.

True. Studies can be made to show whatever is desired, regardless of their practical application to reality. Example: your mentioned studies fail to mention that no amount of dental care will protect those who keep smoking that crack.

 

[kloker]

LOL, Larry. Your posts are pretty revealing. I'll leave it at that.

Have a great day!

Yours are fully transparent as well. Be safe out there.

 

[kloker]

Setting aside your snarky response directed at another forum member, which I refuse to quote back into the forum .... If you actually believe what you are stating here... then maybe next time take the "agree to disagree" approach rather then insisting on doubling down every time someone posts actual sourced data that contradicts your anecdote driven opinion on the matter.

In my view, it is you that turned this whole thread into a protracted debate.... and I'm sorry.. but you ARE making claims. Your fundamental claim is that cars are not safer today, by design, than they were in past decades. It is in fact your claims and statements, not backed up by anything other then your opinion, that have protracted this discussion topic beyond necessity. There is a nuance to what you are trying to state I believe ---> that it's dangerous out on the road, and that danger continues even in the modern era of vechicles, and people die in some very gruesome accidents .... but it's lost with all your rebuttals of credibly sourced and presented independent safety data about the steadily declining fatality rates where vehicles are concerned. You insist on using anecdotes to try to undermine actual carefully researched and reported safety data, and for most objective readers.. that simply does not wash.

Most of the responses in this thread are in my opinion.. NOT directed at you to try to change your mind. Mine certainly are not. The reasons most of the posted responses are here now is because in a public discussion forum it is important that narratives such as yours, that are not backed by science and published facts, not be left unchallenged... lest future readers take your comments and other forum members silence as ratification of your statements. FACTS DO MATTER.

Can we agree to disagree? I certainly can. Can you?

First, I consider my responses to be sparky, not snarky. My remarks are meant to illustrate the difference between heavily slanted propaganda and actual reality. I choose not to agree to disagree, but to actively provide a view that more closely reflects what actually is, as opposed to the misleading picture presented by government and industry that is solely designed to promote and perpetuate the entities churning it out. The success of their effort is illustrated by its acceptance. I can't argue with that. Facts do matter. Cars are safer, to a degree and in certain ways. My argument is simply that cars have been made flimsier and cheaper enough to offset those improvements overall. In some instances those safety improvements do save lives. In others they are just not enough to make the difference the carefully manipulated data, with its gaping holes, claims. And yes, poor driver skills and a bunch of other factors are involved, but those factors are not included in the data. My whole point is that if they were, the numbers would be way, way different. So, while facts do matter, reality includes them all, but the data does not, which is what makes up the difference between what you see in the data and what I've seen on the road. So, who is right? I don't agree to disagree. The fact that I cannot show you does not discount my evidence. It just means that, with nothing more than your data to go on, you are at a disadvantage. You can certainly choose to ignore that, but it won't make you and your family one iota safer. All I can do is try to help with that, and hope and pray that all of you never have to learn the hard way. Unfortunately, many of the voices who would agree with me, who've seen what I have, are now silenced. So please consider that. It could only help.

 

[Mike728]

How in the world does this guy ^ become a Moderator? This is sad...

 

[mrtn]

How in the world does this guy ^ become a Moderator? This is sad...

Wait, WHAT?

 

[ondarvr]

Back to the original topic.

The insurance industry has tracked vehicle safety from the crash end of it for decades.

What it shows is that size matters.

The highest injury and death rates correspond to vehicle size, from small cars at the high end of the death rate, to large vehicles at the low end.

Within a certain size range some vehicles do better than others, but move up a size range and they beat the smaller vehicle almost every time.

I did a report on this for a company I worked for that wanted to significantly downsize the vehicles in the leased fleet.

A bean had counter put up a spreadsheet that showed if the company went to the smallest car possible they could save $XXX.xx amount every year.

What my report showed was that overall the added risk wasn’t worth the somewhat limited reduction in the actual cost of the fleet.

When a Civic and a suburban collide, the suburban wins....easily.

 

[kloker]

Back to the original topic.

The insurance industry has tracked vehicle safety from the crash end of it for decades.

What it shows is that size matters.

The highest injury and death rates correspond to vehicle size, from small cars at the high end of the death rate, to large vehicles at the low end.

Within a certain size range some vehicles do better than others, but move up a size range and they beat the smaller vehicle almost every time.

I did a report on this for a company I worked for that wanted to significantly downsize the vehicles in the leased fleet.

A bean had counter put up a spreadsheet that showed if the company went to the smallest car possible they could save $XXX.xx amount every year.

What my report showed was that overall the added risk wasn’t worth the somewhat limited reduction in the actual cost of the fleet.

When a Civic and a suburban collide, the suburban wins....easily.

Absolutely agreed! It lists the vehicles (in the size category) most commonly involved in fatality "accidents," but none of the other major factors that affect those numbers, inferring that size, and safety ratings/features are responsible for the entire picture. While size is obviously a major factor, safety ratings/features is not above many other factors not considered here. Like how many of each vehicle are on the road, or the drivers’ ages, experience or skill level, or seat belt use, or how many of the events cited in the study involved alcohol, drug, or cell phone use, or inattentiveness and sleepiness, or speed and aggression, even though these are also major factors in the difference between fatal and non-fatal events.

Of course, (and I know you guys are just going to love this) I have my own definition of an accident, which is why I call them events. An accident is an event that is non-preventable. All other events are not accidents. I didn't invent that. It's the legal definition.

It's hard to fathom the purpose of publishing the study with such a narrow focus, when it means that it basically takes the numbers out of context, because the focus is far too limited, and the end result is distorted because it is only a partial one. It may be a part of the picture, so the numbers may be real, but it's not the whole picture, without which they cannot be put into a context that gives them relative scale. So, interesting, maybe. But taken alone, not worth a lot.

 

[ondarvr]

It does take into account the number of each type of vehicle on the road. It lists them as the number of deaths per XXXXX number of wrecks.

 

[kloker]

I think that only covers the number in fatalities out of the number that have been crashed, not the total number on the road, doesn't it?