Date:         Sat, 29 May 2004 20:20:52 -0400
Reply-To:     Alex Towner <altowner@COMCAST.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Alex Towner <altowner@COMCAST.NET>
Subject:      safe speeds, underpowered engines, Vanagon diesel mortality (LVC,
              some Friday content)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Chris,

noticed your post on the list:

I'd perhaps give more credence to the question about dangerously underpowered
vehicles if our own vanagons didn't disprove the notion that underpowered =
more dangerous. In addition to having surprisingly strong frames and
crashworthiness, vanagons had the LOWEST fatality rates of any passenger vans in the US
during their years of production and the second lowest fatality rates of any
vehicle on the  road. Now where the normally aspirated diesel is concerned, I
might have to agree to an extent. I drove a Golf years ago with the same engine
and it was incredibly underpowered. I can't imagine that motor in a van. You
might well get run down by a semi.
Dixon

My take:

You make a good point about the Vanagon having a positive safety record. It's not quite following what I was talking about however. I was referring to DRIVING at speeds well below average and how doing so creates a higher likelihood of an accident. Vanagon diesel owners have no choice but to drive slowly. This isn't really the case with most regular Vanagons. It is possible in most situations for a Waterboxer person to cruise with average traffic. I even drove a Golf diesel for many years (the example given above) and was generally able to avoid slowing down other road users.

Your point is a different one and is best illustrated by an example I remember from over 10 years ago. It was reported at that time that Corvette drivers had the highest fatality rate of any car and that Volvo 240 drivers had the lowest. Yes, the Corvette is a much faster car, and speeding under unreasonable conditions probably led to many crashes. But in many ways, the Corvette was a much safer car, particularly in terms of active safety. The Corvette could stop in a much shorter distance for example, not to mention corner more capably. It also had an airbag and ABS, just like the Volvo.

The reason for the fatality discrepancy was due in part to the differences in power between the cars, in agreement with your point about the Vanagon. But the biggest reason for the discrepancy was due to the type of person likely to be driving the car. Volvo drivers are people who often consider safety a primary reason for the purchase of a car. These people are not risk takers, but they aren't necessarily going to drive slower than average either. The Volvo wasn't slower than most cars - just average. Also, there are far more women drivers of the Volvo than of the Corvette. I think we can agree that the average woman is less likely to drive aggressively than the average man. The Corvette driver is likely macho, with something to prove, and wants to impress people with the capabilities of his car. This is a person who will drive aggressively and take risks. It's no surprise who will crash more - the Corvette drivers. Yes, they have faster cars, but more importantly, they have drivers more prone to error. Driver error is a much more important determinant of safety than the speed potential of a vehicle. For your point to be true, the Volvo would need to have been the slowest vehicle on the road and Corvette the fastest, but this wasn't the case.

The type of person who drives a particular vehicle makes more of a difference than the type (or speed) of car. Vanagon drivers are not likely to be aggressive and are likely to be level headed. This is the primary reason why they are safer than most. It is not because they are slower than most.

-Alex