Most dangerous states for pickups and SUV's

Just spent several weeks in MT. The two-lane highway speed limit, including 'scenic byways', is 70mph. Hard to look at scenery and keep your truck in your lane, no?

BTW, the scenery was awesome even at 70-75 mph. And I totally avoided Glacier NP.

valhalla360 wrote:

drsteve wrote:

It's the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group. No government grants involved.

OK, quasi-govt agency. They are very much a political organization and have lots of links into govt.

Not quasi-government. Lobbyist. Lots of influence, but not subject to government rules.

mich800 wrote:

drsteve wrote:

mich800 wrote:
Unless they incorporate the percent breakdown of types of vehicles in each state it is not a study. It is just someone using up the government grant money we all pay.

It's the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group. No government grants involved.

You would be surprised how many grants are available to private companies. Maybe not in this case but I wouldn't rule it out either.

The insurance companies pay for this - it's part of their lobbying process. They use the stats collected to justify rules. No grants needed nor wanted.

drsteve wrote:

It's the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group. No government grants involved.

OK, quasi-govt agency. They are very much a political organization and have lots of links into govt.

drsteve wrote:

mich800 wrote:
Unless they incorporate the percent breakdown of types of vehicles in each state it is not a study. It is just someone using up the government grant money we all pay.

It's the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group. No government grants involved.

You would be surprised how many grants are available to private companies. Maybe not in this case but I wouldn't rule it out either.

mich800 wrote:
Unless they incorporate the percent breakdown of types of vehicles in each state it is not a study. It is just someone using up the government grant money we all pay.

It's the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a trade group. No government grants involved.

agesilaus wrote:
That's not necessarily accurate either, because you also have to consider how long they drive overall.
-----------------------------------------
That number would be un-obtanium, how many hours someone drove. You have to make people log into the car computer and have it record hours driven. As for your parents, one data point does not make a curve. For example I drove 80 miles a day back and forth to work, my wife now that she is working drives 5 miles round trip. A much more likely scenario IMO. For most of my working life she was a at-home-mom.

But I will admit that stat could be changing if it was ever correct.

That's the problem, you can't actually obtain accurate statistics on driving habits. Which was really my point - the days of a one car one working parent household are long gone, so what rings true in general for one generation's habits in the past don't ring true for all generations now.

There are far more fewer stay at home moms out there and more stay at home dads also. Too many "givens" have changed to make any generalization on gender driving habits and such. I know many women who drive 80+ mile commutes for work and men who make less than 10 mile commutes. Having a career versus a job is the main factor in commute distance and that is gender neutral nowadays.

That's not necessarily accurate either, because you also have to consider how long they drive overall.
-----------------------------------------
That number would be un-obtanium, how many hours someone drove. You have to make people log into the car computer and have it record hours driven. As for your parents, one data point does not make a curve. For example I drove 80 miles a day back and forth to work, my wife now that she is working drives 5 miles round trip. A much more likely scenario IMO. For most of my working life she was a at-home-mom.

But I will admit that stat could be changing if it was ever correct.

agesilaus wrote:
So true, another often quoted but fake statistic is that women are better/safer drivers than men. However when you rework that to calculate accidents/per mile driven, it turns out men are much safer. In our society women generally pass the driving duties to the men in the group and drive a lot fewer miles total.

That's not necessarily accurate either, because you also have to consider how long they drive overall. And women have traditionally done a lot more local driving which is often greater than the long distance driving mileage. Just looking at my parents: my dad drove to work, lunch, and then home; my mom drove to school, several stores, after school events, errands, etc. She also drove long distances during the day as needed whenever my dad was working - my dad drove "to the city" twice a year for holidays, my mom drove it at least once a month for everyday reasons as well as special trips, assisting family, etc. So, in the end, she drove a greater distance overall even considering that he always drove when they were together.

I also see women passing the duties to men dropping significantly in the last 10-20 years. More men are sitting in the passenger seat than ever before.

The statistics are compiled by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. They are just a chart of numbers with no conclusions made. They are very useful when used correctly and in conjunction to other numbers.

The article writer is the one who made conclusions. I am particularly fond of this paragraph:


"The report shows that in eight states, the percentage of occupant deaths caused by pickup and SUV crashes was greater than the percentage of deaths by cars. Of course, they are the states where pickup truck and SUV ownership is quite high. Here are the eight states where it's safer to drive in cars than in pickups and SUVs followed by the percentage of occupant deaths per vehicle type: "


The author first acknowledges that the numbers aren't an accurate representation and then immediately makes a conclusion using that representation. Poor writing again.