r********o
发帖数: 1423 | 1 俺老汉昨天中午lunch break自己做的。最后根据各车系所有sedan model的评分得出各
车系在large, mid 以及small 三种category上面的平均得分。
分数按照IIHS的substantial better, better, average, worse, substantial worse
，依次为2， 1， 0，-1，-2。最后各车系的评分排列大家自己比较。
声明，俺老汉不是做统计的。只是看大家这么各个国家大概的比不如量化了比，没其他
目的。有什么错误遗漏指出烦请指出来。
统计的excel附件在文章末尾。
最后得分为:
German Japan USA Korea
Scores for Large Model 1.64 1.50 0.89 0.00
Scores for Mid Model 0.48 -0.74 -0.82 -1.50
Scores for Small Model 0.33 -1.78 | t*f
发帖数: 7 | 2 "分数按照IIHS的substantial better, better, average, worse, substantial worse
，依次为2， 1， 0，-1，-2。最后各车系的评分排列大家自己比较。"
I am not sure how meaningful this analysis is.
first of all, no one sane person buys a fleet of cars from a given maker. so
"averaging" doesn't make much sense.
2ndly, is "substantially better" twice as good as "better"? consider three
makers who produce two models each. Maker A's two models score "subtantially
better" and "substantially worse"; Maker B's two models "better" and "worse
", | r****y
发帖数: 26819 | 3 这个数据其实也是有商榷余地的。
比如：
Brand Injury Collision Theft
Mazda Tribute 4dr 72 66
Jeep Wrangler 2dr 74 75 109
Subaru Forester 4dr 76 76 12
Mercury Mariner 4dr 76 66
Ford Escape 4dr 78 67 20
BMW X3 4dr 80 80 31
Hyundai Santa Fe 4dr 86 70 26
Saturn VUE 4dr 87 81 27
Land Rover Freelander4dr89 100
Honda CR-V
【在 r********o 的大作中提到】
: 俺老汉昨天中午lunch break自己做的。最后根据各车系所有sedan model的评分得出各
: 车系在large, mid 以及small 三种category上面的平均得分。
: 分数按照IIHS的substantial better, better, average, worse, substantial worse
: ，依次为2， 1， 0，-1，-2。最后各车系的评分排列大家自己比较。
: 声明，俺老汉不是做统计的。只是看大家这么各个国家大概的比不如量化了比，没其他
: 目的。有什么错误遗漏指出烦请指出来。
: 统计的excel附件在文章末尾。
: 最后得分为:
: German Japan USA Korea
: Scores for Large Model 1.64 1.50 0.89 0.00
| r*****g
发帖数: 9999 | 4 There is no strong evidence showing that euro car drivers are better than
jap car drivers. So the difference between driver should not be significant,
if there is any.
In addition, the ability of avoiding an accident should also be counted as
safety features. Airbags, strong frames provide passvie protection, while
ESC, ABS provide active protection. You can't based on your safety argument
on passive safety only.
If you really want to know the frequency of accident, you can look at the
next colu
【在 t*f 的大作中提到】
: "分数按照IIHS的substantial better, better, average, worse, substantial worse
: ，依次为2， 1， 0，-1，-2。最后各车系的评分排列大家自己比较。"
: I am not sure how meaningful this analysis is.
: first of all, no one sane person buys a fleet of cars from a given maker. so
: "averaging" doesn't make much sense.
: 2ndly, is "substantially better" twice as good as "better"? consider three
: makers who produce two models each. Maker A's two models score "subtantially
: better" and "substantially worse"; Maker B's two models "better" and "worse
: ",
|
|
