Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
accidents only cause property damage. Lots of accidents that would
have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
on the road in days.

These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
exception.

Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
are dramatically more effective and reliable. Drunk driving laws have
grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
simply drive more agressively. They follow closer, drive faster in
worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
that make the accident more survivable.

As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology should
make them _cheaper_.

Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
rates are up in real dollars.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote
Serious accident rates (IB) are down...minor accident rates are up.

What's the difference between serious and minor? Serious accidents
are those that result in fatalities and hospitalizations; minor
accidents only cause property damage.

Fender benders (ie, less than $xxx in damages) versus ones requireing
medical attention

Lots of accidents that would
have been serious 50 years ago are now minor, because 50 years ago
frames were rigid and transmitted impact directly to the occupants,
seat belts were rarely used, and airbags didn't exist. Getting
impaled on a steering column in a low speed collision was common.
Quite often, accidents were fatal yet the cars were repaired and back
on the road in days.


These days, nobody will design a steering system that will impale you
on the column, seat belt use is common, airbags are near-universal,
crumple zones are the norm, and in general the car is dramatically
safer. These days if you are killed in an accident, you can be
certain nobody will ever drive your car again. Having the car
totalled with no injuries to the occupants is more the norm than the
exception.

Quite so. A few years back I was "kooked" (the tap to the rear fender like
cops use in chases), hit the barrier wall at over 50MPH on a 45 degree
angle, rolled three time and ended up on the roof. The car didn't even look
like a car anymore, but I rolled down the window, unhooked the seat belt and
climbed out. Got worse injuries (cuts) on the glass from the window. Some
kid came running up asking if I was okay; I said "That was a hell of a
ride". When the Fire Department rolled up they immediately brought out the
"jaws of life", but I was sitting on barrier and talking on my cell phone.
Of course, the next day my back told me I'd aged 40 years.



Other improvements have been made as well. Today's cars handle
dramatically better, which should allow people to steer around
accidents, stay on the road in wetter conditions, etc. Brake systems
are dramatically more effective and reliable.

Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything more
than hitting the brakes.

Drunk driving laws have
grown teeth. We should be having fewer accidents. We're not. People
simply drive more agressively.

Fun Question: In your opinion, which is worse: aggressive driving, or
careless driving?

They follow closer, drive faster in
worse weather, stay at the party later and drive home fatigued (but
legally sober), and in every possible way circumvent all the safety
regulations. The only things that work to improve safety are measures
that make the accident more survivable.

More survivable and the vehicles make them more avoidable. Think of the
marshmallow suspensions of days gone by and imagine trying to make some of
the moves we don't think tiwce about today in the world of wishbone
suspensions, MacPherson struts, rack and pinion steering, radial tires...


As well as several others factors outside of technology. Technology
should
make them _cheaper_.

Only if they had the same capability. All the mandated safety
improvements have inevitably raised the costs. The crumple zones
haven't helped - not only do they cost money to put in, but they cause
expensive damage in even low-speed collisions. Collision insurance
rates are up in real dollars.

Good post!

No-Fault insurance was supposed to reduce the rates, but haven't either.
States in the Southwest, even with better year round driving conditions are
having soaring accident rates due to the influx of transients.

I wonder if we'll ever see action to improve drivers attention spans, given
the proliferation of distractions such as CD's, cell phones, kids in rear
car seats...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything more
than hitting the brakes.

I doubt it would ever happen, but wouldn't it be a nice idea to have a
higher speeding limit for drivers who passed a high-speed driver safety
course or some equivalent of driver recurrent training.

If it is safe for the police to exceed the speed limit, why cannot the
public do this as safely if they take appropriate training?

More importantly, is it really plausible that the same speed limit applies
to all drivers regardless of skill?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
Yet no one I know, outside of schools like Bondurant, teach anything
more
than hitting the brakes.

I doubt it would ever happen, but wouldn't it be a nice idea to have a
higher speeding limit for drivers who passed a high-speed driver safety
course or some equivalent of driver recurrent training.

If it is safe for the police to exceed the speed limit, why cannot the
public do this as safely if they take appropriate training?

More importantly, is it really plausible that the same speed limit applies
to all drivers regardless of skill?

And naturally the rules are written for the lowest common denominator (i.e.,
your 81 year old grandfather).