<VV> The four "deadliest" cars of all time...Now minus one

[Dave Keillor]

The collision data cited is LOSS data (as in dollars), not RATE (or
frequency) data.  Huge difference!

Dave Keillor
 
-----Original Message-----
From: virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org
[mailto:virtualvairs-bounces at corvair.org] On Behalf Of Secular
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:41 AM
To: Sethracer at aol.com; virtualvairs at corvair.org
Subject: Re: <VV> The four "deadliest" cars of all time...Now minus one


  It's always a pleasure to read your posts. you stated:

  >> Part of the reason for the drop in Corvette fatalities is likely 
  >> the quick jump in prices for the Corvette 

  However, this quick jump has done little to reduce the rate of 
  collision for Corvette, which has steadily increased 
  in the past few years. 

  In various IIHS reports (loss by make and model) 

  http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_intro.html

  Under the collision category, the Chevrolet Corvette, 
  and the Ford Mustang have the following ratings:

  (1999-01 Corvette) = 61     same year for --- > (Mustang GT = 112)
  (2001-03 Corvette) = 103   --- >                     (Mustang GT =
144)
  (2002-04 Corvette) = 113   --- >                     (Mustang GT =
156)
  (2003-05 Corvette) = 138   --- >                     (Mustang GT =
136)
  (2004-06 Corvette) = 148   --->                      (Mustang GT =
134)

  [All losses are stated in relative terms, with 100 representing the
average 
  collision, i.e. a result of 122 is 22 percent worse than average]

  I dare not predict the next year's numbers for Corvette - I guess one 
  conclusion could be that the rate of "fatal accidents" are reducing
but 
  the rate of collisions are certainly not... 

  With the exception of a few defective/explosive vehicles and some
pilot errors, 
  collisions are a prerequisite for car related fatalities, which brings
me to 
  my main point: 

  ummm...I want your Corvette :))

  Regards,


  Tony Irani