BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  Biodiesel Safety    Inconsistencies
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Inconsistencies
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
I do not wish to become embroiled in your safety discussion, however I feel I need to respond to this inaccuracy.
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Every year auto manufacturers make vehicles 'safer' yet vehicle injuries and fatalities continue to increase.
A totally incorrect statement. Seat belt use has risen steadily since NOPUS began collecting data in 1994, and this has been accompanied by a steady decline in passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per mile travelled.
The United States National Highway Safety Administration reports that 3 out of every 5 people killed in vehicle accidents in the US would have survived their injuries had they been strapped in.

quote:
Most are not caused by failure of safety equipment but rather by driver inattention/distraction, drugs, alcohol, speeding, failure to wear seatbelts, etc. Biodiesel equipment is no different.
Most what? Seat belts and airbags are passive devices and are not designed to play a part in helping to avoid the accident. They definitely save lives and help prevent serious injury when an accident does occur.
 
Registered: June 27, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
vehicle injuries and fatalities continue to increase. Most are not caused by failure of safety equipment but rather by driver inattention/distraction, drugs, alcohol, speeding, failure to wear seatbelts, etc.

I guess I wasn't clear that most injuries and fatalities happen to the passengers not the vehicles.

A 1985 study by K. Rumar, using British and American crash reports as data, found that 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors

The recent increases are attributed to more driver inattention due to distractions from electronic devices, like cell phones, GPS systems, music and video players, etc



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
quote:
vehicle injuries and fatalities continue to increase. Most are not caused by failure of safety equipment but rather by driver inattention/distraction, drugs, alcohol, speeding, failure to wear seatbelts, etc.
The recent increases are attributed to increased driver inattention due to distractions from electronic devices, like cell phones, GPS systems, music and video players, etc
Ok... Let's get some REAL STATISTICS...
Sorry... data from the USA and not the Great White North.

Traffic Moralities in the USA
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
2008 - 34,017
2007 - 37,435
2006 - 38,648
2005 - 39,252
2004 - 38,444
2003 - 38,477
2002 - 38,491
2001 - 37,862
2000 - 37,526
1999 - 37,140
1998 - 37,107
1997 - 37,324
1996 - 37,494
1995 - 37,241
1994 - 36,254

So at first glance, one should conclude that the moralities really haven't been changing much over the last decade and a half.

But... that is only half the picture.

Between 1994 and 2008, the US Population has increased from about 260 Million to 304 million, and the miles driven have increased from about 2.4 Trillion miles to 3.0 Trillion miles.

If you look at the stats per capita, per mile driven, per registered vehicle, and per licensed driver, the mortality rates have been steadily declining over the last decade and a half. See link above. And the overall decline has been very spectacular.

For example, Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled:
2008 - 1.25
2007 - 1.36
2006 - 1.42
2005 - 1.46
2004 - 1.44
2003 - 1.48
2002 - 1.51
2001 - 1.51
2000 - 1.53
1999 - 1.55
1998 - 1.58
1997 - 1.64
1996 - 1.69
1995 - 1.73
1994 - 1.73

I'd venture to guess the cell phone ownership and cell phone use has increased steadily over those years, with only a small blip in "hands-free" usage in the last few years, as well as new (perhaps unfounded) legislation to limit cell phone usage in vehicles.

Not to repeat data posted elsewhere... Here are some films I tracked down earlier.

http://www.fiat500club.org.uk/...topic.php?f=1&t=7453

In particular, look at the 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu.

http://www.youtube.com/v/joMK1WZjP7g

What is obvious from all the carnage is that the little cars of today do much better than the little cars of yester-year, although they still have problems overcoming the shear momentum of large vehicles.

But, if you look at the Bel Air (solid steel????) does against the new Chevy... what is immediately obvious is how far the Malibu encroaches into the Bel Air passenger compartment... while the Malibu's passenger compartment remains virtually intact. Which driver would you rather be?

You are right... all the safety in the world doesn't prevent stupidity.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
Like keelec, I went searching through the stats available on the Internet. What I found was stats on traffic fatalities, not traffic accidents.

The stats available show that traffic fatalities per mile traveled have gone down, probably due to improved design safety.

There is a lack of data on 'traffic crashes' with and without fatalities. The question becomes, do safety improvements in vehicle designs reduce the number of crashes, or do the safety improvements reduce the severity of injury?

In processor design, as in safety management in general, we can emphasize a reduction in frequency of incidents, or we can reduce the severity of the incidents, but there are very few design modifications that can do both.

Past discussions on biodiesel equipment safety have in general avoided the concept of frequency vs severity. The Safety Management Industry uses a combination of both frequency and severity to determine incident priority. Sorry but a paper cut a day does not carry the same urgency or priority as a death each decade.

Rick
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The important point that relates to this discussion is that 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors and 2% solely to vehicle factors . Whether the number of crashes is rising, falling or staying the same is immaterial. Those are inconsequential details not germane to the point that people cause accidents much more often than technical failure. Making biodiesel is no different.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
The important point that relates to this discussion is that 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors and 2% solely to vehicle factors . Whether the number of crashes is rising, falling or staying the same is immaterial. Those are inconsequential details not germane to the point that people cause accidents much more often than technical failure. Making biodiesel is no different.
Exactly the reason that Car makers were forced to make their cars safer.
You should read Ralph Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile"
This forced move to safer Automobile design has resulted in people now routinely walking away from accidents which 25 years ago would have resulted in death.
In Europe, where Car Safety regulations are not as controlled by the large Auto Manufacturers as in the USA, automotive fatalities have dropped drastically. For instance, in the UK there were 6,352 road fatalities in 1979 while in 2007 this had dropped to 2,943.
In Germany, road fatalities have dropped from slightly over 15,000 in 1980 to slightly under 5,000 in 2007

About 25% of road fatalities in the USA involved one of the drivers using a cell phone.
As of 2008 16% of people do not wear seat belts. 63% of people killed in car accidents are not wearing seat belts.
 
Registered: June 27, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Two things have occurred...

Cars are able to protect the driver better in the case of an accident (air bags, less fuel spilling, crumple zones and prevention of whatever is hit from entering the passenger compartment. Also better guard rails would fall into this category.

The other thing is engineering so less accidents actually occur.

This would include better roads. More attention to corners and banking. Better traffic signals. Center reflectors & rumble strips. Attention to the effects of headlights on opposing traffic, etc.

And, also better attention to visibility inside of the cars. ABS, perhaps those curved mirrors on the passenger side, Cyclops Brake Lights, etc. Some of the new cars actually have automatic capabilities to prevent rear-ending the car in front, or detecting rumble strips and weaving. Even backup cameras. Steering Wheel Radio Controls.

My belief is that mildly split concentration is not bad. For example, a radio may help a driver keep awake, and thus decrease the chance of an accident.

I am impressed by the European statistics. Although, perhaps the USA has had more stringent safety standards earlier than most of Europe. But, still those stats are very impressive.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
quote:
The other thing is engineering so less accidents actually occur.

Not sure I can agree with that without solid stats. They should be available somewhere.


So just how are traffic accidents related to biodiesel? I didn't see a category saying how many people died in traffic accidents due to biodiesel.
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
So just how are traffic accidents related to biodiesel?


The important point that relates to this discussion is that 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors and 2% solely to vehicle factors . People cause accidents much more often than technical failure. Making biodiesel is no different.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yeah...
Sorry... we did jump away from biodiesel.

The connection, I think, was that we could design the best space-age systems. But, there is still a need for common sense and a competent user.

I suppose another thing that has been on the back of my mind for a while is that due to the wonders of the US Government, I find myself driving a "mini-pickup" that is not available with crumple zones, air bags, and etc.

Certainly there is controversy about things like ABS.
There was a NYC study about the Cyclops lights before the extra light was common which apparently showed a benefit. I don't know if it has ever been repeated after over 90% of the cars now have the Cyclops.

Ok, here is a summary of studies on the CHMSL (Cyclops) lights.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/prob...pment/CHMSLCHP1.html
Early studies had indicated about a 30% reduction in rear impact crashes, but later studies apparently reduced that to about a 5% reduction (which is still significant, but not what the early studies had predicted).

Some of the troublesome intersections around here have been revised, and I know that there have been massive interstate highway projects for improving safety. Of course, there is a danger inherit with increasing population and driving, and perhaps there is too much "band-aid" approach to highway safety. Although, I would hope the billion dollar band-aids are at least partly effective.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RickDaTech:
So just how are traffic accidents related to biodiesel?
You'll have to ask John Galt. He is the one who brought it up by posting blatantly phony statistics about car accidents to support what he was saying.
 
Registered: July 26, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
quote:
I would hope the billion dollar band-aids are at least partly effective.

I have really strong opinions about that, but it's a topic for another forum.

The connection, I think, was that we could design the best space-age systems. But, there is still a need for common sense and a competent user.

People cause accidents much more often than technical failure. Making biodiesel is no different.


That's basically what I have in the warning that appears on every page of www.make-biodiesel.org

I would hope that we are all well beyond that basic idea. However, it appears that some newbies with a history, apparently aren't up to speed yet.

Rick
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RickDaTech:
People cause accidents much more often than technical failure. Making biodiesel is no different.
That's basically what I have in the warning that appears on every page of www.make-biodiesel
Rick
If only the auto makers had thought of that 25 years ago. Just prominently display a warning about people causing accidents and they could have saved themselves a fortune by not bothering to design safe cars.
And John Galt's Bogus safety statistics would have been correct.
 
Registered: July 26, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  Biodiesel Safety    Inconsistencies

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014