Notices
ScoobyNet General General Subaru Discussion

How safe is your car?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13 October 2006 | 02:45 PM
  #1  
Legal Eagle's Avatar
Legal Eagle
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Default How safe is your car?

According to the D for T, in the medium sized car category, the car which is the least safest in respect of risk of injury to drivers involved in a two-car accident is...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...the pre-1999 Subaru Impreza with a score of 8% (of drivers fatally or seriously injured 2000 - 2004) compared to 2% for the Jaguar X-Type.

The overall safest is the Toyota Land Cruiser (1%) and at the other end is the pre-2000 Rover Mini with a score of 14%. Apparently, driver behaviour is not taken into account, just the results of their accidents.

Discuss

Last edited by Legal Eagle; 14 October 2006 at 01:13 AM.
Old 13 October 2006 | 02:48 PM
  #2  
wrxseeker's Avatar
wrxseeker
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: Welcome to the Phoenix Club !
Default

Are you sure you mean pre 1991 Impreza's ???
Old 13 October 2006 | 03:09 PM
  #3  
Legal Eagle's Avatar
Legal Eagle
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Default

My very abbreviated precis is from today's edition of The Times. It quotes information taken, it says, from the Dept for Transport. I presume they mean the pre-1999 model as that's what they say.

I simply can't copy-type!

Last edited by Legal Eagle; 14 October 2006 at 01:14 AM.
Old 13 October 2006 | 03:13 PM
  #4  
stevebennett's Avatar
stevebennett
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Legal Eagle
According to the D for T, in the medium sized car catagory, the car which is the least safest in respect of risk of injury to drivers involved in a two-car accident is...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...the pre-1991 Subaru Impreza with a score of 8% (of drivers fatally or seriously injured 2000 - 2004) compared to 2% for the Jaguar X-Type.

The overall safest is the Toyota Land Cruiser (1%) and at the other end is the pre-2000 Rover Mini with a score of 14%. Apparently, driver behaviour is not taken into account, just the results of their accidents.

Discuss
doesnt mean f.uck all with out them stating there assumptions and the way that they have calculated this..

are these figures quoted been factoed down to a base level? i.e number of accidents per 1000?? or have they taken into acount the total numbers of these vehicles on the road.

as usual the DfT have publish ambiguous statistis that muppets of parliment can spin which ever way they want to.
Old 13 October 2006 | 03:16 PM
  #5  
stevebennett's Avatar
stevebennett
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Default

Also need to be more precise if this is a single vehicle accident or a multi vehicle accident, age bands, type of roads (M-Way, A, B, Rural unclassified Road) etc.

Single vehicle accidents are usually loss of control and hit something hard such as a tree etc.
Old 13 October 2006 | 03:38 PM
  #6  
wrxseeker's Avatar
wrxseeker
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
From: Welcome to the Phoenix Club !
Default

Most probably pre 2001 - ie Classic
Old 13 October 2006 | 10:52 PM
  #7  
s70rjw's Avatar
s70rjw
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,013
Likes: 0
Default

97.342% of statistics are made up anyway
Old 13 October 2006 | 10:56 PM
  #8  
F1 CJE UK's Avatar
F1 CJE UK
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,931
Likes: 0
From: MK
Default

Apart from that one
Old 14 October 2006 | 03:11 AM
  #9  
Sweepickit's Avatar
Sweepickit
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: Bournemouth
Default

Originally Posted by stevebennett
Also need to be more precise if this is a single vehicle accident or a multi vehicle accident, age bands, type of roads (M-Way, A, B, Rural unclassified Road) etc.

Single vehicle accidents are usually loss of control and hit something hard such as a tree etc.
I think there is a clue in the bit that says two vehicle accident!
As my 95 classic has no ABS, no airbags and is pushing close to 300 bhp, and the fact that the front is a very weak crumple zone I can imagine not coming off too well in a high speed collision with another vehicle. Drive within the limits of your own capabilities, avoid all the other tossers out there on the road, and if you must crash, don't hit a Volvo.
Old 14 October 2006 | 12:38 PM
  #10  
ricardo's Avatar
ricardo
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Default

Since these are two-vehicle accidents there are two main types where you tend to die - a head-on during overtaking, and a side-on at a junction. I'd hazard a guess that the Scoob is used in overtaking a bit more than some cars, so the impact speed will tend to be higher if it all goes pear-shaped.

IMHO all it shows is that the people in Scoobs were travelling faster when they had their accident. The Classics being more and more in the hands of younger drivers doesn't help (flame suit at the ready).

As for the old Mini, well that's just lethal anyway, especially if it gets hit by a Land Cruiser...
Old 14 October 2006 | 01:24 PM
  #11  
Brit_in_Japan's Avatar
Brit_in_Japan
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
From: No longer Japan !
Default

Statistics needs to be handled with care. If all accidents were at identical speeds and collided with identical objects, then yes it would be significant. But it's not beyond the realms of reason to think that Imprezas are driven faster than average, and hence when an accident does occur, for whatever reason, more energy is involved and hence risk of injury is greater. For a like-for-like test, I would expect Imprezas of that vintage to be safer than average due to the strength of the shell.

Over the years you can also find stats which point to the XJ Jag being the safest (heavy and long bonnets) with SUV's being less safe than average due to poorer primary safety (high centre of gravity leading to poorer road holding, more likelyhood of rolling).

Statistics - Handle with care !
Old 14 October 2006 | 02:17 PM
  #12  
PaulC72's Avatar
PaulC72
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
From: RIP Tam.
Default

Things like this need to be taken with a pince of salt.

Although
Originally Posted by Sweepickit
if you must crash, don't hit a Volvo.
makes a valid point that and artics
Old 14 October 2006 | 02:23 PM
  #13  
scoobfan's Avatar
scoobfan
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,327
Likes: 0
From: In a V6 Mercedes
Default

If I'm gunna die, I'll die in me scoob !!

Rob
Old 14 October 2006 | 02:24 PM
  #14  
scoobfan's Avatar
scoobfan
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,327
Likes: 0
From: In a V6 Mercedes
Default

Originally Posted by PaulC72
Things like this need to be taken with a pince of salt.

Although

makes a valid point that and artics
Oh, and that's a pinch of salt !

Rob
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Iqy7861
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
22
12 October 2015 10:21 AM
charlesr
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
7
26 September 2015 11:46 AM
ossett2k2
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
15
23 September 2015 10:11 AM
ossett2k2
General Technical
9
13 September 2015 10:35 AM
alcazar
Other Marques
9
09 September 2015 06:42 PM




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 AM.