Subaru STi deadly accident, driven by teens - CLOSED

[hmmrdwn]

I think it's all the tires fault. He didn't have good quality tires and they caused the accident.

[hmmrdwn]

That's what I have been trying to say.

 

You are no safer in a slow car than a fast one.

 

However the insurance industry would disagree with that statement...through their statistical analysis. You would have a tough debate with a team of underwriters and actuaries.

[BAC5.2]

However the insurance industry would disagree with that statement...through their statistical analysis. You would have a tough debate with a team of underwriters and actuaries.

 

I believe insurance companies would suggest an increased likelihood of accident in a high-power car, not a lower degree of safety in said high-power car. The difference is fundamental.

 

Every article posted, and likely ever written on the topic, will suggest that it is the driver and not the car who is responsible for the accident. Those articles suggest that the type of people who buy these cars are the type of people who are more likely going to drive fast/aggressively anyway. Correlation, not causation. That is an important concept to understand before you go off trying to discuss statistics.

 

The 2012 Impreza 2.0i received top marks in IIHS crash tests. The 2012 STI scored exactly the same. From a safety standpoint, the cars are identical. So if we want to discuss causation, the only cause of a decrease in apparent safety is the driver.

 

Someone with a driving record pock-marked with speeding tickets, at-fault accidents, and DUI arrests isn't going to be viewed as a low liability client when they attempt to insure their new Corolla.

 

High-power cars are expensive to insure for a lot more reasons than frequency of accident or apparent danger. There are fewer F430's on the road than Camrys. Therefore the percentage involved in accidents is much higher, through no fault of anyone really. They cost more to repair, and are more likely to suffer a high degree of damage even in minor accidents.

 

So, no, I don't think you would find an insurance company willing to say that high-power cars are "less safe" than low-power ones. The response to you asking would probably be "it depends on who is driving".

[hmmrdwn]

If the cars are equally safe....will you pay the same premium for the base model as the performance model? No. You will pay more even if you are a "safe" driver with no accident or traffic violation history.

 

Saying something is safe goes beyond the passenger cell intrusion or head injuries on some IIHS test at 35 mph from frontal or side impact. There is an immeasurable inherent and intrinsic safety level for a vehicle. That is why every driver will pay more for sports cars than a plebian sedan.

[hmmrdwn]

You also are mentioning that exotic cars are more expensive to insure because of their rarity is true...for property damage and comprehensive. They are also more expensive for liability insurance because of their horse power.

 

Essentially what you are saying is that it's not the amount of dynamite that is dangerous...it's the person using it. I agree that is partially true...but the amount does have something to do with the risk.

[hmmrdwn]

I believe insurance companies would suggest an increased likelihood of accident in a high-power car.......".

 

That statement goes to the heart of the accident involving the kids in the article. Doesn't this statement contradict other things you have posted?

[BAC5.2]

The amount of dynamite only poses a greater risk in the hands of someone incapable of understanding how much to use for a given task. It all falls on the operator.

 

Lots of people drive high-power cars with no incident. 70mph in a Veyron is little different than the same speed in any other car. Shunting it at 70mph is shunting it at 70mph.

 

Ignorance of limitations and poor judgement is no fault of the car. Thinking you, or someone else, is going to be safer in a slower vehicle is simply kidding yourself.

[hmmrdwn]

The amount of dynamite only poses a greater risk in the hands of someone incapable of understanding how much to use for a given task. It all falls on the operator.

 

Lots of people drive high-power cars with no incident. 70mph in a Veyron is little different than the same speed in any other car. Shunting it at 70mph is shunting it at 70mph.

 

Ignorance of limitations and poor judgement is no fault of the car. Thinking you, or someone else, is going to be safer in a slower vehicle is simply kidding yourself.

 

You are right. Old decaying people would be safe in a fast car because their glaucoma keeps them from exploring the limits and they are afraid something bad might happen. I'm sure when you get to be 60-70 years old the insurance industry doesn't care if you drive an STI or base Impreza.

 

Like you say, the insurance industry would see..."an increased likelihood of accident in a high-power car." I totally agree with your statement. There is an increased likelihood of an accident in a highpower car over the same car with less power.

[BAC5.2]

That statement goes to the heart of the accident involving the kids in the article. Doesn't this statement contradict other things you have posted?

 

Not at all. An increased likelihood of accident falls, again, on the driver. Not the car. The kid in this article didn't kill his friends because he was in an STi. He killed his friends because he was ignorant.

 

My argument with FJ1200 has been regarding safety. He seems to think that fatal accidents in slow cars cannot happen. Had those kids who smashed the M5 into a tree been in a 2.5L Forester instead, it "won't happen." That's an absurd notion.

 

NSFW said it best:

There seems to be an assumption floating around here that if the same kid was in a less powerful car, he would have driven that car completely within its limits. Personally, I don't think that horsepower killed those people - bad judgement did. That's all it takes, and a person can exercise bad judgement in any car.... Reduced horsepower doesn't magically turn into to improved judgement.

[Scotty]

The 5th Circuit of Appeals, in a recent ruling, ruled that people under the age of 21 are irresponsible and shouldn't be trusted with certain things.

[hmmrdwn]

Not at all. An increased likelihood of accident falls, again, on the driver. Not the car. The kid in this article didn't kill his friends because he was in an STi. He killed his friends because he was ignorant.

 

My argument with FJ1200 has been regarding safety. He seems to think that fatal accidents in slow cars cannot happen. Had those kids who smashed the M5 into a tree been in a 2.5L Forester instead, it "won't happen." That's an absurd notion.

 

NSFW said it best:

 

You are missing the point and don't understand insurance. Yeah the driver plays a role in rating/underwriting...but it's the "tool" to use your term, or risk too. Otherwise, insurance companies wouldn't charge you more for your liability insurance on an STI versus a base Impreza. So the "tool" does matter. Granted they are insuring "you", but it's based on your "tool". Why do you think they ask for the VIN?

 

I understand what you are saying and agree that it's the driver...but a factor is the tool. If anything, someone could argue that an STI is SAFER than a base Impreza because the STI has all the crash worthiness and added passive safety; such as better braking, better handling, quicker response, etc. If anything, an STI could be considered SAFER than a base STI. Yet you pay MORE....because race car.

[BAC5.2]

You are right. Old decaying people would be safe in a fast car because their glaucoma keeps them from exploring the limits and they are afraid something bad might happen. I'm sure when you get to be 60-70 years old the insurance industry doesn't care if you drive an STI or base Impreza.

 

So if someone handed you the keys to something like a Dodge Viper or Veyron for free with no strings, you'd wrap it around a tree and kill yourself and anyone else in the car? That the car would do that to you? I'm giving you the benefit of judgement here, and saying that you wouldn't. In fact, you'd likely not even approach the cars limits. You probably wouldn't even approach your own limits, and you'd probably be more likely to drive faster in riskier settings in your Legacy than you would in something with 6x more power.

 

In the hands of someone with some level of responsibility, a Veyron is no more dangerous than a 2.5i. Remove that component of responsibility and replace it with ignorance, and the danger exists regardless of the vehicle. Shunting at 70mph in a Veyron is no different than shunting at 70mph in a 2.5i. Just because the Veyron is capable of significantly more than a 2.5i doesn't make you any less dead when you fly off the road and split the car in half with a tree.

 

Like you say, the insurance industry would see..."an increased likelihood of accident in a high-power car." I totally agree with your statement. There is an increased likelihood of an accident in a highpower car over the same car with less power.

 

You are greatly missing the point by ignoring the rest of what I said. Lower horsepower cars are not any safer than higher horsepower cars, and that is the point I'm making (and have been making). It's the driver, not the car, that makes high-power cars more likely to be involved in accidents.

[hmmrdwn]

The 5th Circuit of Appeals, in a recent ruling, ruled that people under the age of 21 are irresponsible and shouldn't be trusted with certain things.

 

It is the driver and judgment, but like you say...there are times it's the object.

 

Bacs admits that high powered cars have an increased likelihood...and that drivers tend to drive those cars faster...so the tool can't be excluded from the equation. That is an implicit acknowledgement that the tool is a factor.

[BAC5.2]

You are missing the point and don't understand insurance. Yeah the driver plays a role in rating/underwriting...but it's the "tool" to use your term, or risk too. Otherwise, insurance companies wouldn't charge you more for your liability insurance on an STI versus a base Impreza. So the "tool" does matter. Granted they are insuring "you", but it's based on your "tool". Why do you think they ask for the VIN?

 

I understand what you are saying and agree that it's the driver...but a factor is the tool. If anything, someone could argue that an STI is SAFER than a base Impreza because it has all the crash worthiness and added passive safety; such as better braking, better handling, quicker response, etc. If anything, an STI could be considered SAFER than a base STI. Yet you pay MORE....because race car.

 

I'm not really missing the point, and I understand insurance pretty well. Again, I'll quote NSFW who said it best:

 

Insurance is high on turbo Imprezas because turbo Imprezas are particularly appealing to people with bad judgement. Subtracting horsepower doesn't automagically bless those people with better judgement.

 

Two drivers in the exact STi. The one with the sparkling driving record is going to pay a LOT less than the one who has 3 DUI's and 4 at-fault accidents due to negligence.

 

It's a case of bad-apples ruining the bunch. For all of the responsible drivers out there who play within the rules, they get the sour effects of the irresponsible drivers who drive up rates through their poor judgement.

 

So if you, with your clear record, wanted to buy an STi. You are paying more because others less responsible have forced that hand. It has more to do with other drivers than the vehicle itself.

 

As for insurance rates, keep in mind that STi's are more expensive to repair than a base Impreza. One front Brembo retails out for almost $700, 10x the cost of a standard caliper. A single STi wheel costs substantially more to repair than a steelie. The production numbers of STi's are dwarfed by base Imprezas, and that means parts are more expensive on a per-part basis, and also less frequently found LKQ (which drives the cost of those parts up). The transmission in an STi costs more than double the 5MT in a base Impreza. The aluminum suspension components also more than double their stamped steel counterparts. Those costs definitely add up. Accidents cost more in an STi than they do in a base Impreza. So while they have passive safety improvements, they still cost more to repair regardless of accident fault. That drives rates up as well.

[hmmrdwn]

So if someone handed you the keys to something like a Dodge Viper or Veyron for free with no strings, you'd wrap it around a tree and kill yourself and anyone else in the car? That the car would do that to you? I'm giving you the benefit of judgement here, and saying that you wouldn't. In fact, you'd likely not even approach the cars limits. You probably wouldn't even approach your own limits, and you'd probably be more likely to drive faster in riskier settings in your Legacy than you would in something with 6x more power.

 

In the hands of someone with some level of responsibility, a Veyron is no more dangerous than a 2.5i. Remove that component of responsibility and replace it with ignorance, and the danger exists regardless of the vehicle. Shunting at 70mph in a Veyron is no different than shunting at 70mph in a 2.5i. Just because the Veyron is capable of significantly more than a 2.5i doesn't make you any less dead when you fly off the road and split the car in half with a tree.

 

 

 

You are greatly missing the point by ignoring the rest of what I said. Lower horsepower cars are not any safer than higher horsepower cars, and that is the point I'm making (and have been making). It's the driver, not the car, that makes high-power cars more likely to be involved in accidents.

 

I'm not missing your point, I'm just expanding on your analysis. Yeah, we can babble on about self governance, freewill, culling the herd, etc., but the fact is that you nailed it on the head. Higher powered cars increase the likelihood of an accident. That is proven through actuarial studies and an accepted axiom of insurance underwriting.

 

Yeah it's the driver making the choices, but because race car....the tool is a factor. You said it yourself. Higher powered cars have an increased likelihood of an accident. Even though they are SAFER.

 

Not disagreeing, just looking at the whole picture.

[BAC5.2]

Bacs admits that high powered cars have an increased likelihood...and that drivers tend to drive those cars faster...so the tool can't be excluded from the equation. That is an implicit acknowledgement that the tool is a factor.

 

First, stop spelling my handle incorrectly.

 

Second, I am not implicitly acknowledging that the tool is the cause of the accident. It's the driver, time and time again. Just like tires. It's not the tires that cause an accident, it's the drivers inability to remain within the limits of those tires. "They should have gripped" is not a valid excuse, and an officer isn't going to write a ticket to your tires for fault-assignment in an accident.

[hmmrdwn]

bacs5.2....maybe you can find me an insurance company that doesn't rate the auto liability portion based on the type of car you own? Then I will say that the car doesn't matter at all. Until you do...I will believe your statement that higher powered cars increase the likelihood of an accident (like the one involving the STI).

[BAC5.2]

I'm not missing your point, I'm just expanding on your analysis. Yeah, we can babble on about self governance, freewill, culling the herd, etc., but the fact is that you nailed it on the head. Higher powered cars increase the likelihood of an accident. That is proven through actuarial studies and an accepted axiom of insurance underwriting.

 

Yeah it's the driver making the choices, but because race car....the tool is a factor. You said it yourself. Higher powered cars have an increased likelihood of an accident. Even though they are SAFER.

 

Not disagreeing, just looking at the whole picture.

 

I said that there is an "increased likelihood of accident in a high-power car." I did NOT say "Higher powered cars increase the likelihood of an accident".

 

There is a difference, and that difference sits behind the wheel.

[BAC5.2]

bacs5.2....maybe you can find me an insurance company that doesn't rate the auto liability portion based on the type of car you own? Then I will say that the car doesn't matter at all. Until you do...I will believe your statement that higher powered cars increase the likelihood of an accident (like the one involving the STI).

 

humms.... If you can't read, I can't help you.

 

/involvement in this thread.

[hmmrdwn]

I'm not really missing the point, and I understand insurance pretty well. Again, I'll quote NSFW who said it best:

 

 

 

Two drivers in the exact STi. The one with the sparkling driving record is going to pay a LOT less than the one who has 3 DUI's and 4 at-fault accidents due to negligence.

 

It's a case of bad-apples ruining the bunch. For all of the responsible drivers out there who play within the rules, they get the sour effects of the irresponsible drivers who drive up rates through their poor judgement.

 

So if you, with your clear record, wanted to buy an STi. You are paying more because others less responsible have forced that hand. It has more to do with other drivers than the vehicle itself.

 

As for insurance rates, keep in mind that STi's are more expensive to repair than a base Impreza. One front Brembo retails out for almost $700, 10x the cost of a standard caliper. A single STi wheel costs substantially more to repair than a steelie. The production numbers of STi's are dwarfed by base Imprezas, and that means parts are more expensive on a per-part basis, and also less frequently found LKQ (which drives the cost of those parts up). The transmission in an STi costs more than double the 5MT in a base Impreza. The aluminum suspension components also more than double their stamped steel counterparts. Those costs definitely add up. Accidents cost more in an STi than they do in a base Impreza. So while they have passive safety improvements, they still cost more to repair regardless of accident fault. That drives rates up as well.

 

You keep talking about car parts exclusivity. I'm talking liability coverage...not comprehensive or collision. Then you compare a driver with a record versus someone with a clean record. Apples to oranges. Doesn't apply to what we are discussing....although in each example a person buying an STI would pay more.

 

Like you said, the insurance industry foresees a higher likelihood that higher powered cars will be in an accident. You seem to have it. Granted it's the driver....and his car that combine to create a risk.

 

I agree totally that it's the driver who gets in the accident and their lack of judgment...but the car plays a role. So we agree that it is ultimately the driver who is responsible. We all know you can't blame an inanimate object. That is preposterous. The object does play a role however.