So here we are, trying to convince American motorists to abandon their SUV’s for smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, to do their bit to reduce global warming and eliminate the need for messy military entanglements. And along comes a scientific study from a reputable independent organization that concludes that you’re safer in an SUV than a passenger car. Nuts.
You remember that debate, don’t you? Back before carbon dioxide was a planet killer, before hurricane Katrina sent the price of gas soaring, before the Iraq war got old, the anti-SUV crowd focused their attention on safety. They highlighted the “us vs. them” SUV vs. car death match, where the guy with the morally indefensible vehicle won the right to play again. Which was unfair but true. And still is.
Last Thursday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released the results of a study examining death rates for drivers of 2001 to 2004 model year vehicles involved in crashes from 2002 through 2005. The results were rated by deaths per million vehicle years (DMVY).
The IIHS’ separated the vehicles into eight categories: cars, sports, luxury, specialty, station wagons, minivans, SUV’s and pickup trucks. The “deaths by body style” stats were conclusive. According to the report, large and mid-sized 4WD vehicles (47 and 59 DMVY) are safer than cars classified as mini (148), small (103), midsize (71), large (81) and very large (61).
The IIHS report also listed the vehicles with the highest and lowest driver death rates. Of the 16 “worst” vehicles rated, cars occupied 12 slots, while SUV’s garnered four places on the list (a 75 / 25 percent split). Of the 15 “best” vehicles, five cars (33 percent), seven SUV’s (47 percent) and three minivans (20 percent) made the grade.
That said, the IIHS study rated both small and very large SUV’s appreciably more deadly than mid-sized and large SUV’s. And there are as many ways to spin interpret the IIHS data as there are media outlets happy to avoid the logical, distinctly non-PC headline “SUV’s Safer than Cars.”
CBS News compared the "death rates in passenger vehicles with similar weight" and came to a different conclusion: "Cars Still Beat SUV's In Safety." The Detroit News report avoided any SUV vs. car comparisons. Reuters touted the Ford F-150’s huge safety gains. Consumer Reports focused on the importance of driver behavior, rather than vehicle design:
“Care should be taken when evaluating this data because there are driver factors (such as demographics and region) that might greatly affect the fatality rates per model. We believe models that appeal to a more careful driver tend to have a lower fatality rate than those that attract a more risk-prone driver.”
While it's easy to understand how the Nissan 350Z made it on the IIHS black list, it’s hard to think of Kia drivers (Spectra fourth, Rio sixth) as “thrill seekers.” No, the simple, unavoidable, inconvenient truth is that both the pro and anti-SUV campaigners were right: physics rule the day.
Corroboration comes via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHSTA) 2005 crash stats. Measuring driver fatalities in all types of crashes, SUV's were 5.2 percent safer than passenger cars. And it’s no fluke. In 2003, SUV’s out-protected cars by 5.3 percent. In 2004, the figure climbed to 6.1 percent. In 2005, it rose to 6.6 percent.
Again, there are many ways to interpret the data. If you measure non-driver fatalities, or rollover crashes, the picture changes. But there’s plenty of evidence to confirm what common sense suggests. In 2005, SUV occupants were twice as safe as passenger car occupants in front, side and rear crashes.
The safety gap is bound to widen. Thanks to rising gas prices and changing consumer tastes, inherently dangerous jumbo-sized SUV’s are either history (e.g. Ford Excursion) or fading fast (e.g. Chevrolet TrailBlazer). Buyers of full-sized SUV’s are migrating towards smaller, lower riding and safer car-based SUV’s (a.k.a. CUV’s). And NHTSA legislation mandating electronic stability control in all SUV’s will yield significant safety gains.
None of this is good news for environmental campaigners, most of whom favor government intervention to “persuade” Americans drivers to exchange their SUV’s for small, frugal and more dangerous vehicles. Still, one should never underestimate the zealot’s power to surmount scientific results. If SUV’s were outlawed, there wouldn’t BE a safety gap. More people will die from global warming than small car crashes. Etc.
To a certain extent, the pro-conservation, anti-SUV crowd has already won this debate, as witnessed by the fact that so few media outlets are willing to raise the safety vs. fuel economy issue. Well, consider it raised.
[Click here for IIHS report or here for USA Today's simplified chart.]
93 Comments on “IIHS and NHTSA Agree: SUV’s Safer Than Cars...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Ummm but if you are considering safety you have to consider rollover and single car accidents. It is hardly news that big stuff is more dangerous to little stuff, but all the various outlets always state that the combined operator safety gap isn’t there (over mid sized cars).
It may get there eventually of course. But for the past 10 years if you want safety you buy a minivan and check all the little safety option boxes. No SUV is particularly impressive compared to that.
No, the simple, unavoidable, inconvenient truth is that the anti-SUV campaigners were right: physics rule the day.
I’d like to know what percentage of the crash data involved SUV-to-SUV collisions and how that would skew the fatality rates for SUVs.
As the article states, there are plenty of ways to parse the stats.
The IIHS reliance on driver fatality data (as opposed to overall fatalities) seems to indicate that it's the most reliable metric of relative vehicle safety.
As for rollovers, we've dealt with that issue before. If you remove fatalities where passengers were not wearing seat belts, it's pretty much a car vs. SUV wash.
We just took delivery of a politically incorrect mid-sized SUV, gladly paying the gas guzzler tax. Other than providing a spiffy funeral, money isn’t of much use if you’re dead.
It’s tough to argue with the suv bumper to car window match up.
The IIHS reliance on driver fatality data (as opposed to overall fatalities) seems to indicate that it’s the most reliable metric of relative vehicle safety.
Ha, you haven’t worked in a stats office much. The report is focused on “The Risk of Dying in One Vehicle Against Another”, thus they used that for the key tables, because that is what the report is, not because of reliability
If one were to select and purchase their vehicle based soley on which “crashes” better I guess we should all simply drive the vehicle at the top of the list.
Better yet I simply try to avoid crashes
over the 35 years that i have been purchasing and operating automobiles, i have – in every instance – chosen smaller rather than larger vehicles [biggest of them all were two 5-series bmws] and tended to select smaller, more economical motors, when given any choice in the matter [all have had either four or six cylinders; manual transmissions; and none had more horsepower than the 265 found in my '66 jaguar e-type coupe - which i ran from 1970 - 1973].
and although i just drove a new cayman this past weekend [with the thought of replacing my ten-year-old boxster] i’ll probably end up keeping the 986 and purchasing a new smart fortwo instead, as a replacement for my 13-year-old bmw 318is with the 1.8 liter, four cylinder engine.
so i choose ‘economy,’ for the benefit of the planet, all its inhabitants and my wallet – but essential elements of ’safety’ almost always come along for the ride – in the form of active safety features derived directly from the design and performance capabilities of these vehicles. and from my own preoccupation with driving defensively.
“As for rollovers, we’ve dealt with that issue before. If you remove fatalities where passengers were not wearing seat belts, it’s pretty much a car vs. SUV wash.”
Does that include relative frequency of rollovers?
The fact that you might be more likely to survive an accident in an SUV needs to be balanced against whether or not you’re more likely to get into one in the first place.
Passive safety is every bit as important as the active kind. I’ll take a maneuverable Evo (say) over a “safe” high-riding SUV any day.
As I looked through the results of this study another thing jumped out at me.
Certain companies tended to have the better results in most categories and other were consistently in the lower half (peak results not withstanding).
The range in most categories was so broad that some companies sedans consistently beat others SUV’s.
Study avg. 79 deaths/million miles.
I ran some averages for some brands.
Toyota-28
Honda-50
Chevrolet-91
Ford-90
I was rather surprised, the spread seems very large, but I also have trouble believing that the average buyer for Toyota is three times as careful as the average Chevy or Ford buyer.
And I rather think one would have to compare full line company to full line, compact to compact etc.
Any thoughts?
Here’s Bob Elton’s piece on SUV rollovers:
I’m not sure what the point of this is… the logical conclusion of such a train of thought is that we all should be driving tanks filled with gelatin. Sure it’s completely asinine, and will make for an extremely slow commute as all our tanks attempt to negotiate the highways, but at least no one will die.
dolo54:
Any argument taken to its logical extreme is, logically enough, extreme.
Most of us here understand the preeminent importance of active safety, especially driver training, skill and awareness. But most of us have also been hit “out of the blue”– or at least seen it happen.
Think of it this way: what type of vehicle would you buy for your teenage daughter/son?
Personally, I drive a small sports car (death on wheels) and a big ass minivan (to protect the kids).
the implication that, if SUVs were outlawed, we’d all die at the (high) death rate of small cars is probably false. when two cars collide, a few people die. when two SUVs collide, a few more people die. when an SUV hits a car, even more people die, but they’re all in the car. reducing the number of SUVs would presumably reduce many of those deaths. the roads would be much safer if we were ALL driving smaller vehicles (other things being equal), since the accidents would be less serious with lighter vehicles involved. but for any individual, they’re personally safer driving an SUV (and risking others’ lives rather than their own). lots of people follow that logic, and we end up with everyone in bigger vehicles and all of us less safe. it’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma, and there’s no way out of it except to change the calculus of self-interest.
this is not an argument that SUV drivers are selfish bastards, by the way. it’s natural to do what you can to minimize the risk to you and your loved ones. you can’t make policy based on the idea that people would sacrifice the potential safety of their children for the welfare of strangers or the environment.
Who is this ‘most’? Got any stats to back that assertion up? Is this some group of collective strawmen in Rush Limbaugh’s fevered, Viagra/cocaine cocktail-addled imagination?
It’s funny that you mention 20 somethings insuring Corvettes because I was shocked to find out how cheap insurance is for me (a 23 year old male with 2 minor speeding infractions) on a 2006 Corvette.
I called up my insurance agent to find out how much the premium would increase over the 1999 Lexus GS400 I was driving before. When she said “$200″ I almost cried, wondering how I would be able to come up with an extra $200 a month for insurance. When she told me the increase was only $200 a year I could hardly believe it.
I remember reading back in 2001 or something that the Camaro was more expensive to insure than the much faster Corvette, because Camaro drivers are typically younger and more reckless. I believe driver demographics are by far the most important factor influencing vehicle death rates, and the insurance companies seem to agree.
If you really believe that to be true, I urge you strongly to do away with the former, or find a safer substitute. The kids need you alive.
As opposed to the sterile arena of a controlled crash test, there are just too many things to take into account in the real world. Driver age/experience, center of gravity, tires, ESC, belts vs. no belts etc. Comparing apples to oranges is possible using the numbers – Z3 (58) vs. Excursion 103).
The only death I personally know of in the past few years occurred in a single vehicle rollover, non-ESC 4 door Explorer without curtain airbags (’04), inexperienced driver over-correcting. nonbelted rear seat passenger (driver’s parent). Still very sad.
“Most of us here understand the preeminent importance of active safety, especially driver training, skill and awareness. But most of us have also been hit “out of the blue”– or at least seen it happen.”
But the IIHS study, by looking only at average rates of driver death, doesn’t even tell you which vehicle is the best in an “out of the blue” accident.
It may well be that some vehicle in the middle of the list (say) has the highest survival likelihood given that you’re in an accident. But that vehicle doesn’t appear at the top of the list because it significantly increases the likelihood of being in an accident (due to poor braking/maneuverability, e.g.). Conversely, some mid-list vehicle may be very good at keeping you out of a wreck but suffer from poorer results if you’re in one.
So where does this leave the buyer? A poor, unskilled driver might want to maximize accident survivability (passive safety), but the IIHS study doesn’t tell you which vehicle does that. A skilled, careful driver might want to maximize accident avoidance (active safety), but, again, the best vehicle for this might not be high on the list.
“Safest vehicle” is ambiguous. The IIHS defines it in terms of rates of driver death. But that’s not the only relevant way of defining it.
Gardiner: Actually, if you bought a guzzling SUV you *didn’t* pay the gas guzzler tax. That’s a special tax only leveled at cars (as opposed to light trucks). That’s why a Mercedes Benz E55 station wagon (car) purchaser pays thousands extra penalty dollars at time of purchase while a Dodge Magnum SRT-8 (light truck) buyer doesn’t. One is a “car” but the other managed to get the “light truck” rating.
Optic: right on. My thoughts exactly. I’d add that the government has been testing and forming requirements quite backwards. Each buyer of a vehicle has a self-interest to protect themselves. There is no reason that the government needs to have laws requiring a purchaser to buy a vehicle safe for the purchaser. Instead, the government needs to have standards and requirements that make sure the vehicle is reasonably safe for *other* vehicles on the road. This would include lower-placed headlights that aren’t bright enough to blind people, center of gravity and bumper height not aimed squarely at the windows of cars, and public parking restrictions that don’t allow huge trucks to create blind spots at intersections.
when two cars collide, a few people die. when two SUVs collide, a few more people die. when an SUV hits a car, even more people die, but they’re all in the car. reducing the number of SUVs would presumably reduce many of those deaths.
So you’re saying we should all drive motorcycles because there could only be one death per vehicle per accident? Sorry, that logic doesn’t sit well with me.
So where does this leave the buyer? A poor, unskilled driver might want to maximize accident survivability (passive safety), but the IIHS study doesn’t tell you which vehicle does that. A skilled, careful driver might want to maximize accident avoidance (active safety), but, again, the best vehicle for this might not be high on the list.
Unfortunately, most drivers consider themselves ’skilled’, where few actually are. Heck, even Rainman was an excellent driver.
Wouldn’t it be great if an automaker came up with an innovative way to make small cars even safer than large cars and large SUVs in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions regardless of size and weight differential? Under those circumstances, I’d buy a subcompact in a minute. Prediction: that will be one of the achievements of the auto industry within 10 years. And maybe it could be done without simply wrapping the driver and passengers in packing materials.
Looking over the IIHS #’s it seems that the really abysmal numbers are from US (2.5) small cars.
Are they really such junk, or is it just that the people that buy them aren’t the brightest crayons in the box?
Seems strange that a E class would be safer then a S class Mercedes?
While very much a proponent of small cars, there is very little question in my mind that a vehicle against vehicle accident would be much more survivable in the typical full size truck or SUV in the real world though.
Hard to get people out of them when you have a huge percentage of the drivers uninsured or underinsured, and many of them are illegal and/or don’t speak the language.
Look at it this way, what type of vehicle would you put your daughters into?
That’s the whole problem right there.
Wait a minute. Those stats are BS. I mean, they’re correct, but they have little actual value to us.
Take the Cavalier with its near-highest death rates. What’s notable about the Cavalier? That’s right, it’s one of those few cars that under-25 people can RENT. It’s also the #1 car for driving schools. In both cases, the car racks up enormous amount of miles in a relatively short period of time, with pretty inexperienced drivers and rental-type careless driving. Lots of people killed, even though it’s not car’s fault.
Compare it to a Mercedes S-class, which is usually driven by older gentlemen for very, very short distances. Hell yeah it gets low death rate, cause it’s not driven much. I bet DMC-12 would get a perfect score, cause people hardly drive them at all.
IIRC one of the first Elises to hit the States was crashed head-on into a van. Entire front end smashed, up to the firewall. Yet, the driver simply opened the door and walked out. So much for a death trap.
Here’s another thing about SUV’s and compacts: SUV’s get driven less, period. The better mileage you get, the more you drive, usually.
I find deaths-per-mile stats to be far more useful.
There is no question physics will always rule, so buying an SUV or a minivan for safety reasons is completely logical, but also completely unnecessary. If you are over 45 you spent your formative years bouncing around in the front and back seats unbuckled, un-booster seated, probably un-baby seated in virtual death traps. Hey, you’re still around? We live in an age in which cocooned safety and paranoia rule our lives (and certainly our legislatures). Get over it. I have two grown kids and they grew up in vehicles in which the largest was an Accord SW, and used to ride around in my FIAT Spyder (Oh the Horror!). Oh well, I commute every day on a motorcycle, so the IIHS basically views me as dead man walking anyway….
whitenose:
Find me ONE environmental campaigner who is not in favor of raising CAFE standards. The only way to meet tougher standards is to sell more small cars. Ipso facto.
As for the safety debate, well, here are a couple of excerpts from the Sierra Club website:
"Detroit opposes CAFE standards, claiming that they cannot make a safe, clean SUV. Contrary to the auto industry's arguments, CAFE standards don't dictate automobile size or safety. Design, not weight, is the key to both safety and fuel economy."
"SUVs give a false impression of safety. With their height and comparatively narrow tire-track width, SUVs handle and maneuver much less effectively than cars. Emergency swerves to avoid a crash can themselves lead to rollover accidents in SUVs, which are four times more likely to roll over in an accident."
"SUVs are also more deadly to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists than cars, in part because existing braking standards for SUVs are weaker than for cars."
Basically, the Sierra Club et al. focus on SUV rollover deaths and compatibility issues and take the "100 mpg carburetor" approach: the industry could build 30 or 40mpg SUV's if they were forced to.
As both the IIHS and NTSA studies show, if you set aside the preposterous conspiracy theories, once again, the law of physics trumps all.
Hey, don't get me wrong: I wish it didn't. I'm all for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. I simply believe that we need to understand the implications of our actions, apart from political concerns.
Well, I ride the bike daily also, but if you have a little car for when you need to transport stuff why buy junk? when you can have a pretty decent car like a Honda for almost the same money.
I have a perfect compromise: Ford Crown Victoria. It’s safe, big, and gets decent mileage (up to 28mpg on the highway with the A/C on.) Safety, reliability, and decent gas consumption – perfect for a safety- and environment-crazed society.
In the studey, the Infinit G35 has the second lowest fatality rate. The Nissan 350Z has the third highest fatality rate. Because they are two variations of a single platform, I’d infer that the difference in rates is due to the drivers of these vehicles, not to the vehicles themselves.
I want to see the breakdown of how many car occupant deaths were caused by a collision with an SUV or by being forced from their intended path by an SUV. I think the perceived safety gap between cars and SUV’s is magnafied by the behavior of SUV drivers.
Once again, these stats have NOTHING to do with vehicles’ relative safety. They sholdn’t affect your vechicle choice. These studies are only good for post-purchase analysis (I just bought an F-body, I *MIGHT* be a dangerous man because Firebird and Camaro drivers die a lot). They tell a lot more about the driver than they do about the car.
The simple truth is, most cars will let their passengers survive a 55mph head-on collision with a telephone pole. Once you go 70-80, there are only a few supercars that will let you walk away (relatively) uninjured. The margin is pretty thin.
Sure, you could ride a motorcycle with knight’s armor on, and have a slightly higher survival chance. Nobody does it, though, and for a reason – a good fire suit protects you almost as well, and doesn’t weigh a ton. The extra margin is not worth the effort.
Wouldn't be surprising that SUVs are gaining in relative safety as people move to car based SUVs and CUVs. Lower CGs, less ox-cart-like suspensions, fewer compromises required from the off-roading that nobody actually does, etc.
Here's a link referencing some work by a Lawrence Berkley Labs scientist (a registered professional engineer). He looks at insurance loss data but weights fatal outcomes in both the driver's vehicle and the other vehicle. Theres a graphic that looks like its hacked out of a paper but it does show for vehicles from the late 90s that, overall, well engineered mid-sized and larger cars were safer than contemporary 90s SUVs both for the driver and the other driver in a two vehicle accident.
I can't find a reference to a real technical paper of his that I read, but he makes no effort to separate out the drivers from the vehicles. How could he? Insurance companies rate cars and drivers not just one or the other – your car likely says something about how you drive. Also, as an FYI, Liberty Mutual rates two cars of interest as about the best in driver injury (in their quarterly mag the send me as one of their insured). The cars? – Porsche 911 series and Corvette – by the time you can afford them, the fires may be banked a little as a result of experience.
I’m thinking most people drive SUV’s slower because they handle less securely. This, plus the better visibility, increases their safety. I have driven SUV’s six out of the 12 years I have been driving. I have received six traffic violations and been in three accidents in all those years. All of the traffic infractions, and all of the accidents, took place while I was driving a car. I may drive like an old man in my SUV, but that’s because it doesn’t feel so secure going fast around corners, or changing lanes like a damn banshee, etc.
“physics rule the day.”
Boy, thats rare. Rare that the broadcast media would deliberatly lie because of bogus environmental[ist] “concerns”. PC = Insanity.
All this makes me want to buy an SUV not because I want one or that they are safer…I have this overwhelming desire to pissoff the environmentalist/news media fools. Maybe place a “Gaia Is My Co-Pilot” bumper sticker on the thing just for added enjoyment.
Robert, et.al-
Your coverage of the IIHS data is accurate as compared to the CBS headline: "Bigger Not Better When It Comes To Auto Safety" Unbelievable – that's the total opposite of what the IIHS report, and ours from SUV Owners of America – http://www.suvoa.com – - says.
Responding more specifically to some of the posters here: rollovers are usually very deadly but they are less than 5% of all fatal crashes. So to determine the crashworthiness of a vehicle type one should look at driver fatalities (as IIHS did) in all crash modes not just one kind of crash.
You can't repeal the laws of physics: all things being equal, a larger vehicle is more protective of its occupants than a smaller one. And also remember to keep the star crash ratings in perspective – they only tell you how well a vehicle does head on against another vehicle of similar size and weight. I'd rather be in a 4-star SUV hitting head on with a 5-star Honda Civic!
And one last point (for those that are compelled to rail against SUVs) in crashes between LTVs (includes SUVs) and passenger cars the deaths in the cars have been going down over the past few years. So that tells you that there is not a huge crisis with all of these larger vehicles entering the fleet.
Ron DeFore
Communication Director
SUV Owners of America
Given all this cross-talk between drivers vs. cars being the determinants of relative safety, I wonder if there’s a way to put this on better footing… As several people have pointed out, the NHTSA/IIHS numbers (unless they’ve been corrected for this) don’t account for number of vehicles on the road… What I would like to see is a crashes per 1000 vehicles sold (or similarly, fatalities per 1000 vehicles sold). These statistics combined would give a much better picture of the value supposedly inherent in driving a big ol’ car. My hypothesis: An Expedition might not crumple up into a little ball, but it’s more likely to get itself into an accident with poor handling, top-heaviness, etc. Anyone have these numbers?
Well maybe the IIHS should throw an Abrams tank into the mix; one would be pretty safe in one of those, too. (Unless someone lobbed an RPG – rocket propelled grenade – at it.)
At this point in time, given how even President Bush has now weighed in on our need to break “our addiction to oil,” we should be able to look at two-wheels as alternative modes of transport, most especially in the city. But of course, we can’t because those of us who might want to consider a scooter or motorcycle as daily transport must defer to the yahoos driving their SUVs as if they were sports cars, all the time whilst chattering away on cell phones.
Three-wheelers, such as the old Moggies of the Thirties, might be another way to reduce petroleum consumption; but again, if one has to factor in whether or not the occupants would survive a hit by a Ford Expedition or Chevrolet Suburban, the law of physics might make a three-wheeler safe, only in how its suspension and size might make its driver able to avoid a collision.
Maybe the IIHS is getting money under the table from the General and Ford to help the sagging sales of its behemoths? More likely, they are not. But the effect is the same: more soccer moms continuing to buy huge, herkin’ SUVs so they can be safe, while those of us still driving automobiles, have to hope and pray they don’t take the greenhouse off of cars, if they rear-end us.
Remember that piece of technology that Ford had on the Excursion which (theoretically) would prevent that behemoth from going over the passenger compartment of a conventional car? How many accomodations do we have to make to ensure that Detroit keeps selling these profit makers, whilst keeping us enslaved to the Mid-east?
“I also have trouble believing that the average buyer for Toyota is three times as careful as the average Chevy or Ford buyer.”
Really! Have you ever been on the road in Hicktown, USA after the bars close on a Friday night?
lprocter1982:
I have a perfect compromise: Ford Crown Victoria. It’s safe, big, and gets decent mileage (up to 28mpg on the highway with the A/C on.) Safety, reliability, and decent gas consumption – perfect for a safety- and environment-crazed society.
Yeah, safe. In an all too typical for Ford crispy sort of way.
http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/
http://www.autosafety.org/getcat.php?cid=34
I like how Ford is making deals to attempt to modify Police Interceptors, but ignoring the civilian model. My former colleagues in the local agencies tell me that is indeed the case with 2 large agencies nearby, but only after Ford was strong armed…some agencies have nothing from Ford on the matter.
Buyers of full-sized SUV’s are migrating towards smaller, lower riding and safer car-based SUV’s (a.k.a. CUV’s). And NHTSA legislation mandating electronic stability control in all SUV’s will yield significant safety gains.
It’s worth noting that a significant contribution to cars being less safe overall than SUVs is that cars take significantly more damage when hit by/hitting SUVs and other large vehicles. A big part of that inequality comes from those SUVs/large vehicles whose frame rails and/or front bumper ride higher than the floor of the cars they hit.
So, as people migrate to car-based SUVs (that generally have bumpers closer to the floor height of average cars) and more existing cars are retired in favor of newer cars with side-impact beams, this inequality will be reduced.
Personally, I’ve always taken less issue with the gas mileage of SUVs, and more of an issue with such large vehicles being used for casual driving (due to the high frame/bumper heights in addition to the weight.) That’s the primary reason I don’t begrudge minivan drivers; they burn almost as much gas as SUV drivers, but their bumpers are more suited to coexistence with cars.
I certainly hope no media outlet runs with this story. There are enough huge SUVs driven by clueless nincompoops who really NEED 2 tons of steel protecting them from their own idiotic driving. Too bad the rest of us in our normal sized cars will be crushed like grapes when they pull some retarded stunt. I was almost squashed by one such knuckle-dragger in an oncoming Lincoln Navigator who just randomly turned in front of me. No turn signal, nothing. Just a wall of glossy black steel and chrome coming at me….
“I’m thinking most people drive SUV’s slower because they handle less securely.”
Ideally, that should be the case. However when many people climb up into their SUV, they think they’ve turned on God Mode in a video game.
During a snowstorm this winter outside of Columbus, I saw 4 cars that had driven off the side of the highway in turns within a 5 mile stretch. All 4 were SUVs equipped with 4WD (Grand Cherokee, Yukon, etc). Obviously it wasn’t the vehicles’ fault since they are easily capable of driving through a little snow.
Driving a larger and poorer handling vehicle should make you more responsible for the safety of your passengers as well as other drivers, not less.
LOL Luther,
Actually I grew up in Hicktown USA.
pop. 680 at the time.
Overall I suspect, can’t prove, that a stronger rural base would be an advantage in lower death rates.
I’m wondering if reliability could have an effect.
Accidents, and therfore deaths, do result from system failures. If a airbag, ABS, other brake sytem, steering or restraint system fails it would cause a problem. Crash tests give us an idea what might be the result of a crash if all systems are working. They do not address reliability of the systems.
CR’s ten year data suggests that in the long run Toy’s are approx. 2-3 times less prone to problems than the Det2.5. Apply that to safety systems and it might explain it. Just a thought.
Again, I would be suprised to see a big demographic driving difference between two full line manufacturers buyers. Just an opinion, for what its worth.
Peace be with you.
Wait a minute…
If you drive an SUV, you’re probably well-off. If you’re well-off, you probably live in a nice area. If you live in a nice area, you’re probably NOT surrounded by dumb drunkards who run red lights (Anectodal proof: I had my insurance cut 10% just for moving 3 miles, to a “richer” zip code).
Note how cheaper domestic SUV’s are at the bottom of the pile, while more expensive premium SUV’s are at the top (Rav4 is an exception, but Toyota people are known to be reasonable and careful folks).
These statistics only tell me that if you want safety, you need to get a better job and move. As the old saying goes, it’s better to be rich and well than poor and ill.
As for cars, pick what you like. If you drive like a moron, no car will save you, and vice versa. There are plenty of people putting 20-30K miles on their Harleys every year, and they survive just fine.
Yes more metal is better at absorbing the mechanical force of an impact and no amount of arguing can negate the physics of reality but I would raise the following issues.
1. I disagree that the safety gap between SUVs and cars is set to widen. Two of the issues that were affecting this debate was that SUVs were prone to roll over and that the car-to-SUV impact zone was too high for the car and subsequently posed a danger to the car. Both of these issue are being dealt with – ESP has helped SUVs stay upright and newer cross-over SUVs such as the Edge, Arcadia CX-9 have a much lower impact zone and cars fare better in collisions with them. Drivers of both types of vehicles have benefited from this and will do so as more old SUVs head for the junk yard.
2. The error or ‘background noise’ in the data from this study due to other factors is too high to draw any conclusions that will withstand scientific scrutiny. I will spare you the statistics lecture but given other factors such as driver behavior or even what the definition of what an SUV is make any conclusion dubious given the narrow gap in the results.
3. Lastly, to paint this debate as the environmental movement endangering American drivers by promoting efficient transport is not helpful. There are both safe cars and SUVs and unsafe cars and SUVs and the biggest factor to your chances of a fatal accident is driver behavior – aggression, intoxication, fatigue and distraction. These carry much more weight in the chances of a premature on-road demise than the class of vehicle that you’re in. This is plainly reflected in the road fatality statistics for younger drivers.
Folks – drive safely and teach your kids to drive safely. Do your homework when purchasing a vehicle but don’t get complacent because you have chosen a ’safe’ vehicle. And whatever you do, don’t get distracted by inconclusive statistics.
There’s something wrong here; the Mercedes E Class driver has 2.5 less chance of dying than an S class driver? The S class is a safer car than the E class
These stats would be much more meaningful if the other appropriate variables known to be important were included – e.g. age and gender of driver in crash.
# HawaiiJim:
“Wouldn’t it be great if an automaker came up with an innovative way to make small cars even safer than large cars and large SUVs in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions regardless of size and weight differential? ”
Won’t happen–physics says you die. If you have a head-on collision between a 30mph 3000lb car and a 30mph 6000lb truck, almost instantly the car is traveling 10mph *backwards*.
that’s the equivalent of 40-0 in .05 seconds (i’ll give each vehicle roughly 2 feet of crumple zone). Wrap the passengers in all the safety gear you want, but necks will break and organs will rupture.
The only reason small cars can score 5 star crash test ratings is because they hit a wall and only fight themselves. Weight doesn’t matter when the car stops instantly at a wall–an additional foot of hood crumpling might though. Otherwise, ramming a wall in a MINI is the same as in a Suburban. But put the two together in opposite directions…yikes.
There’s something wrong here; the Mercedes E Class driver has 2.5 less chance of driving than an S class driver?
Get this, Mustang Convertible is “safer” than the coupe. Better yet, Solara is a top-ranking “sports car”. All while F-body is at the bottom of the list, despite being a VERY safe car in a collision.
I guess it’s because poseurs survive better.