26 ms·
How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?
- czzr 6y agoOptimizing for a test is an issue if the test is not well correlated with the desired outcome. By and large that doesn’t seem to be a big issue for crash tests.
- michaelt 6y agoIn this case, it's an argument that crash testing should be more expansive and thorough. For example, if engineers are going to position the driver and passenger airbags for optimal crash test performance, we probably shouldn't just be testing with a male dummy in the driver's seat and a female dummy in the passenger's seat, as in the modern age women often drive. If engineers are strictly designing to the test, there should be a suite of repeats, putting dummies that are male, female, fat, thin, tall and short in every seat.
- DerpyBaby123 6y ago>By and large that doesn’t seem to be a big issue for crash tests. Source? The article provides data as a counterpoint: >Check to see if crash tests are being gamed with hyper-specific optimization looking at what happens when new tests are added since that lets us see a crash test result that manufacturers weren't optimizing for just to get a good score
- preinheimer 6y agoThe problem is that they're optimizing for a very specific crash tests. Optimizing for those alone may involve trade offs for other tests. Doing super well for an offset head on collision at 30mph may involve adding weight and supports that make things worse for a collision at an angle.
- bigtasty 6y agoThis was a very interesting article. I’m curious if auto makers knew about the new tests being added, and if so, how far in advance? It certainly seems that if they did know about the new tests, it was far too long into the vehicle development to make changes.
- gorgoiler 6y agoVolvo was always marketed as a safety product years ago. Seatbelts, seatbelt warning lights, airbags, and daytime lights — a requirement in Sweden — all spring to mind. I had assumed that Volvo lost that edge this century so it’s good to see them at the top of the list.
- blakesterz 6y agoI just took a quick look at Consumer Reports for Vovlo's reliability and they're not great. A couple were even bad. If my memory is right, this has been the case for a while. It looks like maybe Volvos are safe, but not super reliable I guess?
- dangus 6y agoOn the other hand, all car makes have become much more reliable than they were in the past. Mostly, what you're looking out for is cost of parts and difficulty of labor. For example, a lot of Audi/Volkswagen products suffer from simple repairs being made more complicated by the need to pull things apart for the mechanic to reach them.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoLook at the replacement costs of the mirrors. Anything over $300 is excessive.
- frosted-flakes 6y agoIn some cases, absolutely. Having to completely disassemble the door to repair a failing lock module is seriously annoying, as is making it impossible to remove the engine mount while the engine is in the car (seriously complicates timing belt changes on VW mk4 cars, because the belt loops around the engine mount). But on the GTI (2009 in my case), they did something rather ingenious: instead of welding the outer door skin on, they bolted it on with about 25 short bolts. Taking those off takes about one minute with an impact driver, and you have full access to the door lock module and window regulator, as well as making rust or dent repairs almost trivial. Why can't everything be like that?
- laegooose 6y agoThe whole car safety topic is very confusing. Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1]. Probably less in Europe but still one of the leading ones. I was thinking about how I can make myself safer. Which car brand/model is better? Which seat is better for passenger? How much riskier it is to drive during the night? In the rain? How dangerous is it to overtake on road with 1 lane in each direction? What is most dangerous: crossroad with no traffic lights? Turns? City? Highways or smaller roads? I was not able to find any meaningful research. There are ratings by different government agencies (US, UK, Australia etc), but basically all cars have highest rating which I find hard to believe.
- jbkiv 6y agoYou are so right. Too much confusing and scattered information in the US. Do some reading on UPS training for their UPS drivers, No turn left, optimization,...
- amelius 6y agoSome tips: Dress like a motor-cyclist. Wear a helmet and airbag suit. This is probably also useful when traveling by airplane. I have no data on the effectiveness, however.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoPeople who feel safer can take greater risks, thus safety equipment can create negative returns.
- amelius 6y agoHow about F1 cars?
- andrewzah 6y agoHas there ever been a full or partial head-on collision with an f1 car?
- Someone 6y agoMy guess would be one car spinning 180 degrees and another one hitting it must have happened, even with the spinned car at rest and the other one at high speed, but two cars moving at speed in reverse directions? Unlikely.
- bryanmgreen 6y agoThey’ve been T-Boned in modern times and although not exactly a head on collision with another vehicle, they do crash at high 100+ MPH straight into barriers with very limited injuries.
- crottypeter 6y agoYes, in Abu Dhabi in 2010, Michael Schumacher spun 180 and Vitantonio Liuzzi then hit him head on. It was at relatively low speed (for F1) but Schumacher's head was very nearly hit as the other car rode over his.
- sjwright 6y agoColliding with a rigid stationary object is generally just as bad as a head on collision with a similar vehicle. The shortest short hand for why this is so is because each car brings its own momentum and it’s own crumple zone.
- octagonal 6y agoThe only safe way to drive an F1 car is with remote control.
- sjwright 6y ago
- wscott 6y agoThe article reminds me of a story from a friend that was an engineer at a major water heater company. Modern electric water heaters are already fairly efficient, but every model gets tested by the government to be given an efficiency rating. The test consists of replacing the anode with a rod that has a series of temperature probes to measure the water at different levels in the water heater. Since water would form layers of different temperatures you needed measure at multiple locations to know the overall energy in the water. Then a series of water draws are performed with pauses between them and the total energy used is compared to the energy delivered. Our engineer realized that if he could put the temperature layers at just the right locations then the calculations with the limited number of probes could be skewed. And this can be done by tweaking the height of the 2 heating elements. Just moving them a few inches. The first time he tried this, an internal test came back at 101% efficiency. At little more tweaking and the test returns a consistent 99.x% that was respectable.
- ryanianian 6y agoIsn't this a symptom of the exact testing procedure being a white box that rarely changes? Many students would score 100% on the ACT if the entire question and answer set were widely published. Also that seems like a silly test. Couldn't you just measure the differential after mixing? TFA also mentions it, but noise is also a factor. For the water-heater example, the limited number of probes introduces a known amount of potential variance. Rather than a straight % efficiency, a more useful number to report would include the confidence interval - Its 99% ± 3%. Consumers can't do stats but at least it's more honest. TFA touches on this but doesn't draw any conclusions other than "we need to look at the source data and do our own analysis".
- chickenpotpie 6y agoAlso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- bananamerica 6y agoHow did I know this linked to some kind of general principle with a cool short name even before reading or opening the link?
- DavidPeiffer 6y agoDoes anyone know of a way to objectively compare safety ratings between different eras of cars? The standards for safety ratings change periodically, and great strides have been made in safety. I'm curious how much risk I'd remove by upgrading from a 2010 to a 2015 or 2018. Driver death data [1] mentioned below may be the best source, just curious if there are any others. Also, [2] is a really interesting crash test between a 1998 Corolla and a 2015 Auris (rebranded Corolla). [1] https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-... [2] https://youtu.be/IVEjsvip8kc https://youtu.be/IVEjsvip8kc
- kube-system 6y agoCars from 2010-2018 would have been subject to many of the same tests anyway that could be compared directly. Just don't compare aggregates based on tests that only the later models were subject to.
- dehrmann 6y ago> https://youtu.be/IVEjsvip8kc https://youtu.be/IVEjsvip8kc Starting at 1:30, there's a 1998 vs 2015 Corolla. Manufacturers only started taking the small overlap frontal test seriously in 2015 (it was introduced in 2012). If you can afford not to, you really don't want to be driving a car older than that. The safety improvements that have been made in the last 10 years alone make a new car worth it.
- elihu 6y agoIt seemed weird the airbag didn't deploy on the 1998 Corolla. Googling "1998 corolla airbag" brought me to an article about the same video. Apparently, the Australian-model 1998 Corolla they used in the test wasn't equipped with an airbag. https://jalopnik.com/this-crash-between-a-2015-and-a-1998-toyota-corolla-sho-1795220332 https://jalopnik.com/this-crash-between-a-2015-and-a-1998-to...
- nxc18 6y agoAlso worth considering is that anything after 2018 likely has intelligent crash prevention features. In addition to modern cars being much safer in a crash, the benefits of avoiding collisions altogether have to be worth it. I’ve been driving a car with the pre collision warnings, lane departure warnings, etc since 2017 and it has saved me at least once. There’s a concern about moral hazard with the new technologies, but my rule is to drive as if the car has no safety features, and if they activate, then that is a bonus. It’s hard to compare the collision prevention systems over time since they’re so new, but just going off the narrative reporting from IIHS, and comparing the test standard in 2017 vs 2020, leads me to believe they’ve made great strides in the last few years.
- x87678r 6y agoThere must be stats for injuries or deaths by car. Is it public?
- kube-system 6y agohttps://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...
- ohples 6y agoThose are just driver deaths.
- kube-system 6y agoThe request was vague, but insurance industry figures are going to be the best breakdown by vehicle you can get in the US. NHTSA stats are usually broken down by category of vehicle.
- x87678r 6y agoThanks, that is a good resource.
- csours 6y agoMust there be? One would imagine that there should be, but comparing over time and from different jurisdictions is quite difficult. What is the baseline? Many car accidents never get reported to any official body (single car accidents, fender benders). How do you classify an injury? I was involved in an incident that looked quite horrifying if you looked at the cars, but no injuries were reported at the time.
- x87678r 6y agoYeah its a problem too that not all cars are driven the same. Sports cars will have more accidents than family cars as they're driven more agressively. Cars with 4WD in the snow probably crash more often than 2WD ones in the sun belt, but you can't say they're more dangerous.
- arnaudsm 6y agoReminds me of the modern web that is more optimized for SEO than for the users.
- netman21 6y agoWhen I designed car seats we optimized them for the federal tests. The biggest load on a seat back was represented by a large 95% man leaning back to get at his wallet. We were ready for production when the car had it's first sled test. Basically mimic what happens to the occupants when hitting a solid barrier at 30 MPH. The front seat occupants flew forward, bounced back, and completely broke the seat backs, crushing the legs of the rear occupants.
- bruckie 6y agoWhat's a 95% man?
- kube-system 6y ago95th percentile in size
- jacquesm 6y agoAnd more importantly: mass.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- brewdad 6y ago95% man, 5% Coors.
- jandrese 6y agoThat sounds like it was straight up underdesigned. The amount of force in an accident is way higher than a human can normally exert, so designing only for what a human can exert means you were doomed to fail in the accident scenario. The designer forgot to consider the edge cases.
- Merrill 6y ago>For a long time, adult NHSTA and IIHS tests used a 1970s 50%-ile male dummy, which is 5'9" and 171lbs. ... >For reference, in 2019, the average weight of a U.S. adult male was 198 lbs and the average weight of a U.S. adult female was 171 lbs. So the average mass of the American male has increased 15% in 50 years! No data on whether he is taller, but I'd bet the BMI has gone up.
- hpkuarg 6y agoOver 70% of adult Americans are overweight or obese, according to BMI. Of course, BMI is an imperfect measure, but you're quite right to bet on the average American male having gotten fatter, not taller.
- sterwill 6y agoAt 5'9" and 171 lb, the old 1970s dummy has a BMI of 25.2 and is already "overweight" (probably because of the heavy steel they have to build it around). My main takeaway from Dan's article is that we have a lot of blind spots in our view of car crash safety, mostly for lack of samples, and also because the American consumer just doesn't care enough about safety during the buying process to demand better information.
- itpwang 6y agoReferencing the same line, I remember seeing another article on HN somewhat recently about the downside to taking averages of a human to fit specs since the "average"(mathematical mean of measurements) human never existed in reality. Something about fitting pilots to a cockpit?
- strict9 6y agoWhenever metrics are instrumented that measure productivity, safety, quality, or efficiency, the metrics and metrics alone are what matter, not the over arching goal. Whether it's car crashes, fuel efficiency, lines of code, completed tickets, OKRs, or anything else, players in the system adjust to optimize output for the evaluated metric. A tale as old as time.
- spott 6y agoUnfortunately, there isn't really a solution to this problem. Metrics are the only way to measure some things reliably and consistently across users, testers and subjects. The goal is to have performance on the metric be as close as possible to the desired characteristic. This isn't always possible (and gets really hard when people are involved), but there isn't really any other solution.
- nitrogen 6y agoHidden metrics help, but it is pretty frustrating as an individual to be evaluated based on hidden criteria.
- spott 6y agoYea, and no metric stays hidden forever if there is enough money in it getting unhidden. Statistical metrics have some of the benefits of hidden metrics while staying "hidden" forever, but they also can be much more time consuming to do right and are even more frustrating to be evaluated by.
- csours 6y agoThe more direct control people have of a metric, the more likely it is to be gamed. Some metrics are almost guaranteed to be meaningless and unproductive: bug counts (open/closed), lines of code, closed tickets. Other metrics are informative, but game-able: fuel efficiency, crash tests. Other metrics are expensive and potentially confusing: customer satisfaction, number of automotive deaths, CO2 levels, pollution levels. If you are measuring a game-able metric, you should probably also measure a higher level metric and make sure that they are both heading in the same direction. Obviously this is expensive and complicated to figure out.
- m12k 6y agoIn my university physics course, we did a project where we made our own physics models of car crashes and compared with crash tests and statistical data about real-life crashes. Our conclusion at the time was that crash test results matched our models of collisions with identical vehicles of opposite velocity (i.e. a head-on collision - the most complex case we could solve analytically), which, if you work it out, should come out the same as the normal force when hitting something stationary like a concrete pillar. In this case crumple zones are the most important factor, as they allow you to decelerate over a longer distance. The real life data crash reports though matched the result we got from simulations (which is what we resorted to when the models got to complex to solve analytically), in which case by far the most important factor was the weight of the cars involved in a given crash. Whoever is in the heaviest car will tend to win the game of conservation of momentum. Kind of a sobering conclusion tbh.
- gok 6y agoOne thing I appreciate in supervised machine learning is that it's widely acknowledged that one should not test on training/tuning data. For both computer benchmarks and car crash tests, this is not the case. Both fields routinely work to optimize for a test, which leads to dramatic overfitting. This would be like passing out a standardized test years before students take it. This seems solvable. For benchmarks, there should be held out tests that don't get distributed to (say) compiler authors until after the results are published. For crash tests, parameters like overlap and speed should be randomized each year so that manufacturers are forced to optimize for a range of possible crash scenarios.
- ghaff 6y ago>For benchmarks, there should be held out tests that don't get distributed to (say) compiler authors until after the results are published. The way you really "solve" the problem is to have a third-party test organization run the benchmark and only provide the final result--and you only get one shot for a given generation of hardware/software. (This is sort of how standardized tests work.) The problem is that you're now benchmarking with a totally opaque test that you have to trust is reasonably representative of the type of workload it claims to represent as well as trust that the benchmark isn't favoring specific vendors or design decisions that are irrelevant to real world workloads. I assume there have been benchmarks at various times that were similar to this. Certainly, I'm pretty sure source code for benchmark suites hasn't always been available.
- natch 6y agoThis is the most confusing article I've seen from danluu. What data was used? The glaring incongruity for me arose from the details on Tesla. "For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) " Note the words "above poor." But in the bullet points danluu uses a different scale that doesn't match this prose, and slots Tesla into "poor." I'm sensing an agenda. But I'd rather keep an open mind, and look at the raw data myself. The other odd thing is that the article mentions both 2012 and 2018 data, but doesn't provide a specific link to the data that was used. What raw data was used? A clue lies in the other prose about Tesla in the article, which refers to a 2017 article about Tesla's pushing back. (The points about this being predictable as a PR move seem valid. However what's more interesting is the timeline.) 2017 is prior to 2018. Which points to the data being relied on here being the 2012 data, not the 2018 data. The problem with using very old data is that the cars have evolved significantly since 2012. I mean, 2012 was the very first production year for Model 2. We're talking almost a hand crafted (though semi robotic) assembly line back at that point. And yet the article talks about this as though the data represents Tesla in general. We are eight years along into the future now — almost a decade — with that many years of improvements and two (correction, three) new models, if you don't even count the vast updates to the Model S. This should be disclosed in a way that is glaringly clear, not glossed over or minimized. In short, I would take everything here with a grain of salt. The research question, though, seems like a very good one. I would look forward to hearing an update where the data is provided, the sources are examined, the funding for the lab tests is disclosed, and current car models are covered.
- natch 6y ago>very first production year for Model 2. Too late to edit but that should have said "Model S."
- 43920 6y agoMost of this is based on the IIHS data; 2012 is the last time a new type of test was added (small overlap), so it's what's being used to make this comparison. Almost all the cars mentioned in the article have likely improved since then, but the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. What the test results indicate is that rather than actually designing for safety, manufacturers are designing to meet a very specific set of benchmarks; there isn't much reason to believe that has changed since then. The most obvious example of this (which the article briefly mentions) is the difference between driver-side and passenger-side performance: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/small-overlap-gap-vehicles-with-good-driver-protection-may-leave-passengers-at-risk https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/small-overlap-gap-vehicles-...
- mumblemumble 6y agoSomewhat related anecdote, related to me by an acquaintance who works at a major US crash testing facility: I don't know about now, but, once upon a time, not too long ago, US safety standards included crash tests where the dummies were not wearing seat belts. This naturally leads to cars sold in the US having air bags that are tuned slightly differently, so that they are less likely to cause injuries to people not wearing seat belts. Unfortunately, doing this decreases their ability to protect the vast majority (nowadays) of people who do use their seat belts.
- csours 6y agoAs far as I know, this is still the case. A significant minority of people in the US do not wear seat belts; thus the timing on airbags has to accommodate this, or the airbags themselves would cause injury.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y agoI feel naked without my seat belt. Occasionally, I'll get into my wife's car to simply move it into the street so I have room in my driveway to wash mine, and even though I'm driving less than 50 feet, I still feel awkward not putting on the seat belt.
- Karstographer 6y agoOEMs in the US market still absolutely have to meet unbelted crash performance requirements. Fortunately modern airbags can be a bit more advanced than just having one "tune" for all situations. Depending on whether an occupant is buckled or not, the airbag control unit can elect to provide different amounts of restraint by controlling the timing of dual-staged inflators, and also cushion vents can be opened or closed either passively or electronically based on what cushion stiffness characteristic is needed. I've heard that people buy seat-belt extenders or plug in a seat-belt behind their back in order to make the seat-belt reminder chime deactivate (and these chimes are only getting more aggressive) but it's worth noting that in any of the vehicles with this kind of conditional deployment logic they're exposing themselves to an even higher likelihood of being injured. Not to mention the people who straight just cut the wires to their seat-belt sensor. I'm sure many people would love if the unbelted requirements could just go away, but until unbelted occupants stop accounting for such a large share of injuries/fatalities I don't think they will.
- ummonk 6y agoIs passenger side small overlap really a common form of collision? I would imagine since everyone drives on the right side of the road, most higher speed small overlap collisions would be on the driver side. Perhaps car manufacturers were right not to optimize for passenger side small overlap collisions? Frankly though, this is an area where I don’t think it is all that harmful for the metric to become the target, since the metric itself can be modified to reflect common crash conditions, and signal to car manufacturers what kinds of collisions should be optimized for to improve real world safety. One big feature missing from the current suite of crash testing though is small vehicles colliding with larger vehicles. Walls only simulate colliding with the same vehicle, but small vehicles are especially vulnerable in collisions with larger vehicles.
- hinkley 6y agoPassenger side small overlap seems like something that would happen when someone tries to pull into your lane. As you say, the average delta-V for that collision is going to be much lower than the driver's side collisions (passing on the right, or crossing the center line)
- throwaway0a5e 6y agooverlap crashes tend to happen when the driver attempts to avoid an obstacle but there is not sufficient space to fully do so.
- ohples 6y agoAlso, don't forget. Crash tests (in the US atleast) don't measure safety for non-occupants, ie pedestrians, other car users.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y agoFor those who find this website's edge to edge text maddening to read on large displays, I highly recommend Sakura (https://github.com/oxalorg/sakura https://github.com/oxalorg/sakura) for a one-click fix for badly formatted websites.
- mixmastamyk 6y agoReader mode is another option on most browsers. However, it can also be said that a full-screen browser on a landscape widescreen monitor is "doing it wrong."
- hinkley 6y agoOne of the more morbid yet profound aphorisms that I know is: Safety regulations are written in blood. FAA regulations are often based on finding a new way to break an airplane that they hadn't diagnosed before. Safety ratchets up as new failure modes are discovered. If cars keep showing up pancaked it a particular way, then guidelines change. Until those failure modes are regulatory capture, at least. In the 90's the collective wisdom said you could shock people into doing the right thing, and on several occasions they preserved a badly t-boned vehicle to illustrate why drunk driving was such a bad thing. These days the pillars are huge and well-connected. I'm not sure you can crush a car that badly without a commercial vehicle. They test for that stuff.
- chrisbigelow 6y ago"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
- wolfgke 6y ago"I think it would be surprising if other car makers had a large suite of crash tests they ran that aren't being run by testing agencies, but it's theoretically possible that they do and just didn't include a passenger side small overlap test)." The fact that Mercedes and BMW are in the category "poor without modifications; good with modifications" (i.e. with some modifications, the cars get from "bad" to "good") rather shows to me that these two car manufacturers do have such test facilities where they do such tests to be prepared for the situation when such test become included.
- jariel 6y agoOn page 3 of [1] from the article which shows most number of deaths, it seems like there's almost a perfect correlation between 'size' and 'deaths'. I remember thinking about getting a mini Cooper, literally while driving in my family's quite large SUV, and my father indicating how they are unsafe due to size. I couldn't help thinking of the odd kind of 'race to size-safety' factor severely limiting people's ability to drive smaller, more efficient cars. I want to drive a small car for a variety of reasons. But the moment I have children ... 'safety' might be my #1 concern (along with the convenience of a large utility vehicle). It could very well be that this 'safety arms race' is harmful. [1] https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/52/3 https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf...
- WickedFlick 6y agoThis was an excellent article, car safety is something I think most people don't take very seriously when buying a new car. However, the author mentions the 1959 Bel-Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu crash test as a dramatic example of the progress of car safety. It is indeed a spectacular video, but there's a good case to be made that the 1959 Bel-Air was likely specifically chosen to exaggerate the progression of car safety, as it had a particularly terrible X-frame design that crumples like tissue paper in a crash. Other, more traditionally designed cars from that era would almost certainly fair significantly better in that test. Take note of the comment below a Jalopnik article on this crash test: >"Fast_Nel in the last story about this crash-off posted a video showing the deficiency of the X-Frame design of this car and it was an excellent video. If the IIHS would have chosen a car with a ladder frame, like say a 65 Impala or another car of the same year with a standard ladder frame, the results would probably been much better for the older car. I am sure IIHS purposefully used this particular style vehicle with the knowledge that it would fail spectacularly in order to toot its own horn. So yes there was something seriously wrong with the video. One might ask, "Why GM would use a frame like this?" My guess is that GM attempted to be innovative with the X-Frame concept and they failed, because all the ramifications had not been considered." Source: https://jalopnik.com/yes-the-iihs-crashed-59-chevy-had-an-engine-5364071 https://jalopnik.com/yes-the-iihs-crashed-59-chevy-had-an-en... That's not to say that newer cars aren't safer in general, they very likely are. But that test in particular is not a good example.
- himaraya 6y agoThe "Using real life crash data" section is just wrong. The IIHS confidence interval describes an empirical death rate, not an "expected fatality rate." Therefore, an interval including 0 deaths per million registered vehicle years arises due to very few deaths over a very large dataset, not from some "informative prior" bounding the interval at 0. As an empirical description, the IIHS figures should have high statistical power, after adjusting for confounding variables. Time and location could be interesting factors to consider. For Dan's suggestions, the IIHS already breaks down death rates per 10 billion miles by vehicle class and individual vehicles, and the latter supports the original ordering by registered vehicle years. Also, incorporating data from models under the same make doesn't make sense. Since the IIHS already accounts for different vehicle platforms, any believed correlation in death rates between a manufacturer's models must derive from the original dataset, creating a meaningless statistic. Updated IIHS doc here: https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf/55/2 https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/status-report/pdf...