Citation

Wenzel TP, Ross M. Am. Sci. 2008; 96(3): 179.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Sigma Xi, the Scientist Research Society)

DOI

10.1511/2008.71.3604

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Of course Dr. Evans is correct in stating that driver behavior influences crash risk. In our article we made clear that our estimates of risk include how well a vehicle/driver combination avoids a crash, as well as how crashworthy a vehicle (and robust a driver) is once a crash occurs. We also analyzed two variables that can account for driver behavior: the fraction of all driver fatalities that are young men, and a "bad driver" rating that combines information about the current crash (drug or alcohol involvement, driving without a license, or reckless driving) as well as the operator's driving record for the previous three years. For example, the high risks of sports cars, and the low risks of minivans, are clearly influenced by who drives these types of vehicles (36 percent young males and 0.77 bad driver rating for sports cars, vs. 4 percent and 0.21 for minivans; the average values for all types of cars are 20 percent and 0.50). On the other hand, we were surprised to find that the imported luxury cars, with the lowest risks, have only average drivers (21 percent young males, 0.57 bad driver rating). That is the basis for our conclusion that the design of imported luxury vehicles, or at least specific safety features on them, overcome risky behavior taken by their drivers.

The safety of vehicles has greatly improved over the years. In our studies we have found several examples of models that greatly reduced their risks over time; for example, the Ford Focus has a much better risk to its drivers (118) than the Ford Escort it replaced (148). Our data indicate that more young males drive the Focus (21 percent) than the Escort (15 percent), and that Focus drivers are perhaps slightly more risky (0.50 vs. 0.44 bad driver rating). Clearly vehicle design does not play as small a role in vehicle safety as Dr. Evans suggests.

Dr. Evans asserts that we ignore single-vehicle crashes and that simple physics dictates that vehicle mass provides safety in single-vehicle crashes. By itself, additional vehicle mass does provide some protection from rapid deceleration in crashes with a movable object, particularly for an unbelted occupant. However, when it comes to vehicle safety, our research by vehicle model indicates that there is essentially no relationship between car mass and risk, even in frontal crashes. In his own papers, Dr. Evans appears to admit that it is not clear whether mass, or size (specifically crush space) is inherent to vehicle safety.

Additional research indicates that it is not size per se that protects in two-vehicle crashes, but how well the stiff structures on the vehicles are aligned. The auto manufacturing industry has voluntarily made design changes to their pickup trucks to increase the likelihood that truck and car bumpers will interact in a frontal crash, reducing the aggressivity of pickup trucks in recent years.

Regarding the differences in experiences between the U.S. and other countries, it is important to keep in mind that the U.S. vehicle fleet is fairly unique; about half of U.S. vehicles are light duty trucks (pickups, SUVs and minivans), which many studies have shown are dangerous to other road users.