Maxy

Found an interesting site:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/queryR...id=0&year=2002

It's a searchable database of all fatal automobile accidents in the US.

It would appear that there have been a total of ten accidents with driver and/or passenger fatalities involving 996's from 1999 - 2002 (i.e. model year 1999-2002 911's).

Of the ten, six appear fairly readily explainable: one at speeds >97 MPH, three involving EtOH, one with four sixteen year olds in the car (& at speeds > 97, all died), and one with a twenty and seventeen year old in the car. There are just four that do not appear to involve either teenage drivers, alcohol, or extremely high speeds.

Granted the denominator of vehicles is low and the numbers probably too small to reflect statistical significance, but this speaks well, I think, for the safety of the vehicle.

(Still thinking about purchasing one. Safety matters to me. Given the small production numbers, there are less data and no crash tests to go on.)

sly

Granted the denominator of vehicles is low and the numbers probably too small to reflect statistical significance, but this speaks well, I think, for the safety of the vehicle. (Still thinking about purchasing one. Safety matters to me. Given the small production numbers, there are less data and no crash tests to go on.)

There are only a tiny number of Porsches in the US compared to GM, Ford or Chrysler products. In addition a large number of Porsches are recreational vehicles and therefore they normally are neither driven for many miles nor driven during the morning or evening rush hours. When you put that all together you get the tiny sample that you reference.

Although there have been no crash tests performed on Porsches, I'd bet that they would hold up well if they were tested. In addition I have to believe that Porsches are among the best in the world in a very critical category: crash avoidance.

teflon_jones

i think morning and evening rush hours are one of the best times to drive in terms of safety. in general there's more traffic, so everybody is moving slower. also, you have drivers on the road that are frequent drivers used to driving the vehicle they're in, i.e. used to its handling/braking/etc. lastly, they're familiar with the roads/routes they drive. weekends are a much more dangerous time to drive.

oilchanger

Hey teflon,

Not sure if I agree with your assessment on the safest time to drive. If you use your car for commuting to and from work, some insurance companies will charge you more than if the car is just for recreational use. They must have some stats that indicate commuting with all those other cars is more dangerous than tooling (or blasting) around country roads.

I remember hearing awhile ago that statistically the greatest number of accidents occur in the week just following the end of daylight savings time. This is when afternoon commuters are (all of a sudden) not used to the darkness when they leave work. They're tired (aren't we all), and get into fender benders.

Just my .02

01 C4 Cab NYC

The reason they charge less for a recreationaly vehicle is simply that it is used less frequently, which therefore assumes a car that is not in use is less likely to result in a claim.

Keyvan

Every car in the U.S & Europe has to be crash tested before being released , unless it's a McLaren F1 or similar car then it's registered as a collectible.

teflon_jones

yup, you're right. every car that's imported must submit 4 examples of it to the US DOT for crash testing. that's why the 959 was never available for sale in the US as a street car, and why it's still not street legal. porsche wouldn't turn over 4 of them to the US gov't for crash testing! even lambos, ferraris, and porsche GT2s have to undergo this testing.

that does leave me with a question though: are you sure cars like the F1, enzo, and carrera GT are registered as collectibles? i don't think you can legally drive them on US roads then or get reguler plates, and i've seen pics of them with regular old plates.

regardless, people still put these cars on the road. i drove for over 2 hours once with a 959 in western mass when i saw him on the mass pike, and he had regular old mass plates on it. of course those plates could have belonged to a different car and he just stuck them on the 959, but then again how does the DMV know whether a car is street legal or not? in mass you can't get a registration without insurance, and i doubt that the 959 is listed in the insurance company's database. maybe they can just type it in though since i bet a lot of small-production cars aren't in their databases.

sorry to get a little OT...

teflon_jones

it's just more expensive to insure a commuter car since it gets more mileage on it than if you just used it as a weekend pleasure cruiser. that's why insurance companies ask for annual mileage when they give you a quote.

in general there are many less FATAL accidents per car/driver during commuting hours. the overall accident rate per car is also lower.

i think you're right about the daylight savings time thing, i've heard that before too.

Maxy

That's the beauty of this site. You don't have to speculate. The data's there. You can chart it or export it to Excel. Actually a nice use of tax dollars, IMHO. Worst day in 2002 was Aug. 31 (Sat.) with 176 fatal crashes. Best day was Feb. 25 (Mon.) with 56.

Weekends were worse than weekdays:

Day of Week Total
Sunday 6,104
Monday 4,666
Tuesday 4,728
Wednesday 4,838
Thursday 4,908
Friday 6,063
Saturday 6,992
Unknown 10
Total 38,309

There have been efforts to 'federalize' the 959, BTW:
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=09282484

oilchanger

You're right! The stats don't lie. I just remember years ago when my old insurance company (Liberty Mutual) would ask every year if the car was used for commuting - rather than how many annual miles it was driven.

sly

i think morning and evening rush hours are one of the best times to drive in terms of safety. in general there's more traffic, so everybody is moving slower.

I can agree with your statement only if you equate safety with fatality avoidance. The chances of any of us dying from an auto accident are relatively small, but the chances of any of us avoiding an automobile accident are quite remote. If you drive enough you'll be involved in an accident unless you are extraordinarily lucky. And the more you drive, the greater your chances of having an accident. That's why one of the first questions that your Insurance Carrier asks is: "What is your anticipated yearly mileage? " Another question that is always asked is: "Is this car being driven to your work location?"

Again, I do agree with your fatality obseravation. You have to really work hard getting killed in an auto accident during most rush hours since there is virtual grid lock on almost any highway near any city in the US.

teflon_jones

excellent article, never seen that before! thanks for posting it!

teflon_jones

yup, i'm equating safety with fatality avoidance!

grid lock? what grid lock? are you referring to the fact that i live less than 5 miles from downtown boston, but it takes me over an hour to drive here in the morning?