Pity the numbers are skewed to seem like the cars are at fault. Totally unfair!

C.

The biggest problem is not the car but the nut behind the wheel Any car can be dangerous if you don't drive right and act like an idiot thinking your all bad, but bottom line is if you are careful and drive the way you should will reduce the likelihood of an accident

You're referencing an article that was written 24 years ago:

February 06, 1990|


My guess that 85-87 was used was because 85-87 probably did have a higher accident rate than the 88-89's, if data for 88 and 89 was available in 1990 when the article was written. The 88-89 had better brakes and tires. If you've never owned both a 16" Gatorback tire car, and a 88-up at the same time, (I have) you would not be aware of how superior the 88-up is in adhesion and braking. The 85-87 was a powerful car, and while the braking and adhesion were certainly good, it wasn't as good as the 88-up. but I suspect it's really that later year data wasn't available.

Also keep in mind there were only 106,000 85-87's built. This is a small sample size compared to other car models in the study. This could skew the data in that the Corvette driver could be more likely to over exceed his or the cars capabilities than the mini-van driver.

Using their numbers, the 85-87 Corvette killed 54 people. The Mustang, GUESSING that 150,000 per year were built (wiki doesn't list production for 85-87) killed 1,540.

It looks like the "conclusion" the study was after was that small cars are dangerous when hit by big cars, and therefore big cars should be outlawed. This was a popular position by libtards and safety fanatics in the 90's. And there's no bigger libtard newspaper than the Los Angeles Times. It doesn't surprise me that LA Times fudged and cherry-picked data to support the desired conclusion. They do it every day.

The data regarding Corvette deaths was to support the 'sensational' article header that got you to read the piece in the first place. 






|UPDATED|2/13/2014 10:16:03 AM (AZT)|/UPDATED|

The media drive me crazy.  As Dave points out, anytime there are "stats" and ratios thrown about, who knows how they've been skewed?  Raw data is a better way to go, but doesn't usually make for sensational headlines.  Anymore, I pay little mind to any "study" conclusions. Seems there's almost always an agenda, and usually money, determining these conclusions.

______________

Dave, I know that the report is ancient history, but it points out that those cars have higher death rates for every 10,000 registered models on the road than anything else back then.....With the number of Corvettes built at around 1.6 to 1.7 million now and through "attrition", we have lost how many in 60 years?.....I don't think that the production numbers have caught up to the ones that aren't on the road anymore for whatever reason to maintain that sort of death rate.

The reason I brought this whole thing up was that you see more foreign cars and smaller cars in accidents more than you see a 'vette on the side of the road somewhere, so wouldn't it stand to reason that a Toyota or Kia or any other compact vehicle would have a higher death rate that a 'vette or a 'stang?



______________
Remember, there's no place like ~ ;)

http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

______________

Insurance Institute '89 Report

______________

Or Diesel. I have an F250 SuperDuty diesel. It is not my "Daily Driver" but it is my favorite vehicle to drive. It's a brute, and if an ass-hat screws up and I hit him, who's gonna win?. It weighs almost 8,000 pounds. No substitute for tonnage. It got over 19MPG almost 20 on a highway trip last weekend. The C4 gets 22 at best.  I drove the SD 9,400 miles last year.

I don't drive my C4 much at all. 241 miles last year on its wheels, 2,700 miles in its trailer. Has nothing to do with my personal safety, but everything to do with the car's safety. If it stays in the garage, or the trailer, some ass-hat can't damage it by working his thumbs on FacePlant instead of watching out the window.

I didn't understand what you are saying here bro. Don't mince words (LOL). Just kidding. I agree with you actually. I agree with other posts here about the media. I ignore most of it. If I am interested I do research on the net or library and work the numbers myself. I have an '88 vette. I have never felt unsafe in it (although I have ran it on a 5 mile straight away to see it top speed and several (ahem) handling tests) (grin). I have owned )as most here I imagine) all kinds of cars and trucks. They are all as safe as their driver (me). I am sure as someone pointed out that the improved braking and handling of the newer c4's helped a lot.

BTW when rebuilding my vette the 2nd thing I did to it was upgrade the brakes and shocks. (The first was fixing the MAF) where it would run without ignorance.
The vette is just as safe as everything else. Drive safely and there are no issues.

Perry




|UPDATED|3/1/2014 9:43:19 AM (AZT)|/UPDATED|


______________

I think you nailed it Joel!

I've been involved with building and driving Hot Rods both on the street and on the track all my life. One thing a lot of drivers forget is that each car drives a bit different from the last. The Corvette is much like any other sports car in that the steering is usually quicker, the power is greater and more responsive. Each time you get in a different car for the first time one needs to think "what's different here"? Statistics in this case are built by the drivers not the cars!!

Taps




|UPDATED|12/6/2014 1:18:29 AM (AZT)|/UPDATED|


______________

If you look close at any number study, you can make the numbers say anything you wish. Depends on what you're getting paid for. WAY back in my college days, one of my thesis papers was the "proof" that toilet paper is deadly. I proved with the use of numbers and general restricted subjects that the use of toilet paper will kill you. So take any statistical study with a grain of salt.