Poor people die more often in car incidents

[280Z Turbo]

Car crashes could start bringing people back from the dead...

All the more reason to implement driver aids and safety systems. We can't have car accidents summoning zombies.

[GoCougs]

When trending towards zero, isn't an asymptotic relationship to be expected?

That was my point - if these safety innovation were all that there probably wouldn't be an asymptotic trend just as the aforementioned safety features proliferated (say from 2000 onward).

I should also say deaths are but one stat - reducing crashes and injury is also very important but my hunch is the stats don't exist all that far back since such stats would've been hard/impossible to collect and normalize.

Looking at various stats, 100% seat belt use would decrease traffic fatalities and serious injury by ~50%.

[AutobahnSHO]

Looking at various stats, 100% seat belt use would decrease traffic fatalities and serious injury by ~50%.

??!!    How many people do you think still don't wear seatbelts? It's nothing like it used to be.

[Soup DeVille]

??!!    How many people do you think still don't wear seatbelts? It's nothing like it used to be.

Its not how many people wear them; its how many people die in an accident wearing them.

[AutobahnSHO]

Its not how many people wear them; its how many people die in an accident wearing them.

Cougs is implying that not everyone wears seatbelts.

[Rupert]

Well, given that people die in accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelts...

[AutobahnSHO]

Well, given that people die in accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelts...

So what's the percentage that don't wear seatbelts?

[Morris Minor]

Being poor involves engaging in poverty-inducing behaviors. I'm guessing one of those is not wearing seat belts, and so risking expensive injuries and death.

[565]

Your OJT experiences are studies and anecdotes, not data.

Google the stats on airbags - estimated to have saved ~30,000 in the ~30 years since the start of adoption. That's an average of 3 lives/day against the backdrop of an average population of 200,000,000 driving 250,000,000,000 (billion) miles a year. Sure, better than nothing but that's mega light years from being a game changer.

Since 1990 and the adoption of major safety features - airbags, ABS, stability control, CAD-designed unit-body chassis, there are no step functions or major changes in improvement. In fact the stats look to be asymptotically approaching a decidedly non-zero minimum:



Increasing seat belt use and decreasing DUI is where the vast majority of improvement in traffic stats has come from. Everything else is secondary or tertiary; vehicle safety features, better road design, education, quicker emergency response, health care advances.

If you call studies with 185,000 patients just anecdotes...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21720604
184,992 patients between 1988 and 2004

Compared to people not wearing seat belts and without airbags:

the seat-belt-plus-air-bag group had a 67% reduction in mortality
the seatbelt-only group had a 51% mortality reduction
air-bag-only group had a 32% mortality reduction

Airbags with seat belts save lives.  It's not even a discussion.  This is just one of many articles in trauma and orthopedic trauma journals that prove it.  Back when there was a good mix of cars on the road with and without airbags (like during this 1988-2004 time period), one of the most important things that the EMTs report to the trauma bay when bringing in a patient was whether the patient was wearing a seat belt, whether the car had airbags, and whether the airbags deployed.  Now because almost all cars on the road have airbags, that part about whether the car has airbags has been omitted, they report whether the patient was wearing seatbelts, and whether the airbags deployed.

This is because airbag deployment in a belted passenger changes the treatment algorithm.  And this isn't based on random whim.  It's based on studies like this involving hundreds of thousands of trauma patients, because people's lives are on the line.

[GoCougs]

If you call studies with 185,000 patients just anecdotes...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21720604
184,992 patients between 1988 and 2004

Compared to people not wearing seat belts and without airbags:

the seat-belt-plus-air-bag group had a 67% reduction in mortality
the seatbelt-only group had a 51% mortality reduction
air-bag-only group had a 32% mortality reduction

Airbags with seat belts save lives.  It's not even a discussion.  This is just one of many articles in trauma and orthopedic trauma journals that prove it.  Back when there was a good mix of cars on the road with and without airbags (like during this 1988-2004 time period), one of the most important things that the EMTs report to the trauma bay when bringing in a patient was whether the patient was wearing a seat belt, whether the car had airbags, and whether the airbags deployed.  Now because almost all cars on the road have airbags, that part about whether the car has airbags has been omitted, they report whether the patient was wearing seatbelts, and whether the airbags deployed.

This is because airbag deployment in a belted passenger changes the treatment algorithm.  And this isn't based on random whim.  It's based on studies like this involving hundreds of thousands of trauma patients, because people's lives are on the line.

Please do not change the premise. I did not enter into a "discussion" that airbags didn't save lives.

Again, studies and anecdotes are not data; this is data (or summary of it): Lives Saved in 2012 by Restraint Use.

In 2012 airbag use saved 2,213 lives versus 33,561 traffic deaths (= 6.2%).

In 2012 seat belt use saved 12,174 plus 3,031 (estimated that would have been saved) for a total of 15,205 lives versus 33,561 traffic deaths (= 41.6%).

6.2% is good but it is nowhere near a game changer. 41.6% is a game changer. Also as I had previously stated the only other game changer is reducing DUI as it is a factor in ~40% of all traffic fatalities.

To resummarize, traffic fatalities is primarily about seat belt use and DUI. Safety features - airbags, stability control, ABS, etc. - help but data tell us none are game changers.

[565]

Please do not change the premise. I did not enter into a "discussion" that airbags didn't save lives.

Again, studies and anecdotes are not data; this is data (or summary of it): Lives Saved in 2012 by Restraint Use.

In 2012 airbag use saved 2,213 lives versus 33,561 traffic deaths (= 6.2%).

In 2012 seat belt use saved 12,174 plus 3,031 (estimated that would have been saved) for a total of 15,205 lives versus 33,561 traffic deaths (= 41.6%).

6.2% is good but it is nowhere near a game changer. 41.6% is a game changer. Also as I had previously stated the only other game changer is reducing DUI as it is a factor in ~40% of all traffic fatalities.

To resummarize, traffic fatalities is primarily about seat belt use and DUI. Safety features - airbags, stability control, ABS, etc. - help but data tell us none are game changers.

LOL, did you just quote the NHTSA Lives Saved in 2012 by Restraint Use propaganda?

Everyone in the trauma business knows that it's not real data, but rather NHTSA safety campaign to increase seat belt wear.  The lives saved are not actual counted lives saved, but rather calculated estimates based on perceived effectiveness that they pretty much arbitrary assign.  That's why they are sololy published by the NHTSA and never in any peer reviewed articles.

They've published like 70 page articles filled with non-sense trying to explain how these estimations are calculated and they've changed the complicated formula several times (look at the linked articles on the one you posted)

The problem is that the only way to determine lives saved by airbags is to compare deaths in cars with airbags and cars without.  For seat belts, it is simple, because people either wear or don't wear seat belts.  The trouble is that in 2012 nearly every car has airbags, and they are very reliable.  The way the NHTSA has proposed to estimate lived saved is to assign some effectiveness factor to airbags based on a ton of assumptions and guesses.

Unless the NHTSA went out and disabled about half of the airbags on the road and compared them now, it's just not useful at all, and all the people that are in trauma know it.

The NHTSA goes through this trouble to basically justify large campaigns for buckle up laws and such.

They even freely admit their agenda in their 70 page explanation on their calculation methods.
"These estimates are published annually by NHTSA, and are cited in reports and speeches to substantiate the benefits of occupant protection devices and to underscore the importance of raising seat belt use as quickly as possible."

The only real data is to look at actual patients not estimated and extrapolated guesses.  To get real data on real patients you have to do that from the hospital side of things.  The study I posted included vehicles from a time when the roads were a good mix between cars with and without airbags and comparison was possible.  And instead of estimates based on perceived effectiveness, this is actual data.  They compared the percentage who died in cars not using seat belts and no airbags, those who died in cars using seat belts and no airbags, those who died in cars not using seat belts and have airbags, and those who died in cars using seat belts and with air bags.  No guesses, no 70 page calculated estimates, real experience based on real people that lived and died.

[Rupert]

I still trying to figure out which is data, discussion, anecdotes, and studies...

[565]

I still trying to figure out which is data, discussion, anecdotes, and studies...

I'll make it simple,  you should listen to the guy who's actual job it is to treat trauma, and actually sees first hand the survivability of today's cars with modern safety devices on a daily basis, compared to someone who's read an online pamphlet.

You should always wear your seat belt, but you better damn believe that car with airbags and good safety rating helps a whole lot.  My MK III Supra has seat belts, but no airbags and modern safety advances.  I don't for a second think it's going to fair well in a crash.  If Cougs believes a car with airbags and not driving drunk is all he needs, I invite him to import one of these as his next car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRyG6UR2A

[GoCougs]

LOL, did you just quote the NHTSA Lives Saved in 2012 by Restraint Use propaganda?

Everyone in the trauma business knows that it's not real data, but rather NHTSA safety campaign to increase seat belt wear.  The lives saved are not actual counted lives saved, but rather calculated estimates based on perceived effectiveness that they pretty much arbitrary assign.  That's why they are sololy published by the NHTSA and never in any peer reviewed articles.

They've published like 70 page articles filled with non-sense trying to explain how these estimations are calculated and they've changed the complicated formula several times (look at the linked articles on the one you posted)

The problem is that the only way to determine lives saved by airbags is to compare deaths in cars with airbags and cars without.  For seat belts, it is simple, because people either wear or don't wear seat belts.  The trouble is that in 2012 nearly every car has airbags, and they are very reliable.  The way the NHTSA has proposed to estimate lived saved is to assign some effectiveness factor to airbags based on a ton of assumptions and guesses.

Unless the NHTSA went out and disabled about half of the airbags on the road and compared them now, it's just not useful at all, and all the people that are in trauma know it.

The NHTSA goes through this trouble to basically justify large campaigns for buckle up laws and such.

They even freely admit their agenda in their 70 page explanation on their calculation methods.
"These estimates are published annually by NHTSA, and are cited in reports and speeches to substantiate the benefits of occupant protection devices and to underscore the importance of raising seat belt use as quickly as possible."

The only real data is to look at actual patients not estimated and extrapolated guesses.  To get real data on real patients you have to do that from the hospital side of things.  The study I posted included vehicles from a time when the roads were a good mix between cars with and without airbags and comparison was possible.  And instead of estimates based on perceived effectiveness, this is actual data.  They compared the percentage who died in cars not using seat belts and no airbags, those who died in cars using seat belts and no airbags, those who died in cars not using seat belts and have airbags, and those who died in cars using seat belts and with air bags.  No guesses, no 70 page calculated estimates, real experience based on real people that lived and died.

Well, in very general terms I can theoretically agree that any government data can be highly suspect for all sorts of reasons. Here however, you'd have to provide material proof of both how and why. That's as far as I can take it - all the rest of that is generally quite wrong on the grounds of invoking pseudo data (anecdotes, OTJ experience, etc.) and hedging on broken premises (doctors aren't vehicle engineers or statisticians).

Data prove airbags help but not a whole lot - they are vastly distant compared to seat belt use and DUI.

[GoCougs]

I'll make it simple,  you should listen to the guy who's actual job it is to treat trauma, and actually sees first hand the survivability of today's cars with modern safety devices on a daily basis, compared to someone who's read an online pamphlet.

You should always wear your seat belt, but you better damn believe that car with airbags and good safety rating helps a whole lot.  My MK III Supra has seat belts, but no airbags and modern safety advances.  I don't for a second think it's going to fair well in a crash.  If Cougs believes a car with airbags and not driving drunk is all he needs, I invite him to import one of these as his next car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRyG6UR2A

Q: So how many cars hit 100% immovable objects? A: Very very very few (an invoked broken premise).

[Rupert]

I'll make it simple,  you should listen to the guy who's actual job it is to treat trauma, and actually sees first hand the survivability of today's cars with modern safety devices on a daily basis, compared to someone who's read an online pamphlet.

You should always wear your seat belt, but you better damn believe that car with airbags and good safety rating helps a whole lot.  My MK III Supra has seat belts, but no airbags and modern safety advances.  I don't for a second think it's going to fair well in a crash.  If Cougs believes a car with airbags and not driving drunk is all he needs, I invite him to import one of these as his next car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRyG6UR2A

LOL, clearly you don't come around here often enough. I was being sarcastic.

[Raza]

I still trying to figure out which is data, discussion, anecdotes, and studies...

If it bolsters your argument, it's anecdotal.