What happed to all the Hummers?

[IndyIan]

But your numbers don't reflect common sense.
Nearly all cars stop faster, are more agile, and have a lower centre of gravity than nearly all SUV's
Therefore given equal drivers they are fundementally safer in avoiding accidents.

But since all vehicle type drivers are not equal then we get skewed numbers. Young males who like driving dangerously, don't typically drive SUV's, soccer mom's do buy SUV's so comparing safety based on vehicle type is false.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Ding.

 

[Audi Junkie]

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm obsessed with safety and drive as carefully as possible, so I buy a "safe" vehicle and drive like a putz.

Maybe not even as drive as many miles as someone who buys with gas mileage as a priority.

So, stats based on "fatality rate per vehicle" is tragically flawed, like our friend is.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
But your numbers don't reflect common sense.
Nearly all cars stop faster, are more agile, and have a lower centre of gravity than nearly all SUV's
Therefore given equal drivers they are fundementally safer in avoiding accidents.

But since all vehicle type drivers are not equal then we get skewed numbers. Young males who like driving dangerously, don't typically drive SUV's, soccer mom's do buy SUV's so comparing safety based on vehicle type is false.


Soccer moms scolding their kids, gabbing on their phone and doing their makeup while they try to start a movie on the DVD player for Timmy and the gang is arguably as dangerous if not more so than Pedro in his Integra driving like he's Mario Antretti. Because at least Pedro is paying attention to the road.

Cars may be more nimble and have the ability to stop better. But cars don't have the choice as to what they get in an accident with. And when it happens, and what it gets into an accident with is something like a Tahoe or Excursion, the larger vehicle is far more likely to fair better and the occupants survive. This is part of the reason as to why the fatality statistics read the way they do.

If a Yaris could only get in accidents with other cars in its size range, we'd probably get a lot fewer fatalities. But when something like a Neon ends up under the bumper of an F-250, the results are pretty predictable.

 

[moving2]

1.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
But your numbers don't reflect common sense.Nearly all cars stop faster, are more agile, and have a lower centre of gravity than nearly all SUV's
Therefore given equal drivers they are fundementally safer in avoiding accidents.


Indylan- your idea of "common sense", though logical and thoughtful (thank you for the breath of fresh air, BTW), still may not make much…"sense" here:

a) Consider we're talking about 2006-08 model SUVs (and cars). The number of body on frame SUVs still on the market has dwindled to a one-hand count. With all SUVs, and especially crossovers, emphasizing safety, handling, and braking above things like ground clearance and faux "trail capability", the gap in real world handling between cars and SUVs is shrinking.

b) Modern SUVs with ESC are far better able to avoid accidents than their predecessors, and especially better at avoiding rollovers, further reducing the gap.

Originally Posted By: moving2
And vehicle stability control with rollover protection, canopy airbags, and stricter NHTSA and IIHS roof crush tests are working to change this today, which is good news for SUV drivers. The IIHS has some data on this: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr061306.html

"While both cars and SUVs benefit from ESC, the reduction in the risk of single-vehicle crashes was significantly greater for SUVs — 49 percent versus 33 percent for cars. The reduction in fatal single-vehicle crashes wasn't significantly different for SUVs (59 percent) than for cars (53 percent).

Many single-vehicle crashes involve rolling over, and ESC effectiveness in preventing rollovers is even more dramatic. It reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle rollovers of SUVs by 80 percent, 77 percent for cars.

ESC was found to reduce the risk of all kinds of fatal crashes by 43 percent. This is more than the 34 percent reduction reported in 2004. If all vehicles had ESC, it could prevent as many as 10,000 of the 34,000 fatal passenger vehicle crashes that occur each year."


c) Hence, your assumptions may not represent reality. While you seem to believe cars have an inherent advantage over SUVs- to the point where it is "common sense", the first question to ask is:

i) Are your preconceived notions (AKA "common sense") true for most cars and SUVs?

and secondly, an even more important question to ask is:

ii) Whatever "active safety" advantages cars may have, the differences may not be big enough to make a significant difference when it comes to accident avoidance in the real world. Notice I said in my previous post that cars' active safety may give them no overall advantage, not that SUVs are better in active safety. The question is:Is the difference in braking and handling significant enough to make a difference in real world accident avoidance scenarios?

d) So let's take quick look to see if your "common sense"...well, makes sense. At the same time, let's also look at the actual differences in braking and handling in some of the most popular 2008 cars and SUVs to see how big those differences really are in modern vehicles.

I quickly googled the skidpad and 60-0MPH stopping distances of some popular small, midsize, large, and premium cars and SUVs for comparison. Note that I did not "cherry pick" here- I simply looked up some of the most popular cars and SUVs for the small/midsize/large comparison and posted what I could quickly find, and I picked a premium car and SUV that came to mind. I didn't have enough time to find/post a complete list, but I think the important thing when it comes to a comparison like this is to make sure the most popular, top-selling vehicles are represented because they best represent what's actually out on the road in numbers. So, enough talk- let's see the data.

SMALL CARS:
2008 Honda Civic
skidpad: .81g
60-0 stopping distance: 128 ft.

2008 Toyota Corolla
skidpad: .82g
60-0 stopping distance: 125 ft.

SMALL SUVS:
2008 Toyota RAV4
skidpad: .75g
60-0 stopping distance: 120 ft.

2008 Honda CR-V
skidpad: .76g
60-0 stopping distance: 119 ft.


MIDSIZE CARS:
2008 Toyota Camry
skidpad: .77g
60-0 stopping distance: 140 ft

2008 Honda Accord
skidpad: .80g
60-0 stopping distance: 127 ft

2008 Chevy Malibu
skidpad: .84g
60-0 stopping distance: 140 ft.


MIDSIZE SUVs:
2008 Toyota Highlander
skidpad: .75g
60-0 stopping distance: 131 ft.

2008 Lexus RX350
skidpad: .80g
60-0 stopping distance: 123.21ft

2008 Acura MDX
skidpad: .84g
60-0 braking distance:122 ft.

2008 GMC Acadia
skidpad: .79g
stopping distance: 125 ft.


LARGE CAR:
2008 Ford Taurus
skidpad: .78g
60-0 stopping distance: 130 ft.

LARGE SUV:
2008 Chevy Tahoe
skidpad: .80g
60-0 stopping distance: 133ft


PREMIUM CAR:
2008 BMW 328i
skidpad: .88g
60-0 stopping distance: 110 ft.

PREMIUM SUV:
2008 Porsche Cayenne
skidpad: .84g
60-0 stopping distance: 125 ft.


Looking at the numbers above for some of the most popular 2008 cars and SUVs on the road, of various sizes, I think you can see that the braking and skidpad differences are not very large, with the slight braking advantage to the SUVs and the slight skidpad advantage to the cars. Which brings us back to 1c(ii):

Originally Posted By: moving2

ii) Whatever "active safety" advantages cars may have, the differences may not be big enough to make a significant difference when it comes to accident avoidance in the real world. Notice I said in my previous post that cars' active safety may them no overall advantage, not that SUVs are better in active safety. The question is:Is the difference in braking and handling significant enough to make a difference in real world accident avoidance scenarios?


Looking at the numbers- what do you think?

e) Moreover, I believe I considered demographics in the statements I've made thus far. Please let me know what it is, specifically, that you disagree with in these statements I've made regarding the 13% difference in collision claims between cars and SUVs, as I believe they still stand:

Originally Posted By: moving2

1. If we say it's all due to demographics, not vehicle safety: SUV drivers are safer drivers than car drivers, getting into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions.

2. If we say it's all due to vehicle safety, not demographics: the active safety features of cars do not give them an advantage over SUVs when it comes to avoiding collisions, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars.

3. (edit) And if we say the results are due to a mix of vehicle safety and demographics (edit: and I believe it's "common sense" that this is the more likely scenario- a combination of factors): Considering both the demographics of car/suv drivers and the active safety features of cars/suvs, SUVs have an advantage when it comes to avoiding collisions, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars. This is due to some combination of (possibly) safer drivers in SUVs vs. cars, and active safety features present in both cars and SUVs. Because we don't know precisely how much "safer drivers" factor in to this 13% difference vs. "vehicle active safety", we can say that:

i) The average driver in a 2006-08 SUV is at a statistical advantage when it comes to avoiding an accident compared to the average driver of a 2006-08 car.

ii) Whatever role active safety plays in avoiding collisions in 2006-08 cars and SUVs, it doesn't appear to give cars an overall advantage over SUVs, on average, when it comes to avoiding collisions in the real world.


f) I'd like you to consider another possible factor of "active safety", which I believe is not accounted for, to explain the 13% difference in collision claims, and that is motorists' changes in driving style when driving next to different vehicle types. For example, most (but clearly not all) car/truck/SUV drivers drive more cautiously when they are around big rigs. This change in driving style may reduce the rate of accidents between semis and smaller vehicles. I cannot find study data on this, so it can neither be proven nor disproven by me. However, my point as it relates to SUVs is this: I've noticed similar behavior between SUVs and cars, both in my own SUV, and witnessing driver interaction as a 3rd party. In my experience, when I'm driving my SUV, much more often than not, cars keep more of a distance from me (front and back) and they try to stay away from the side of my vehicle. This is in contrast to when I'm driving my small car, when cars keep a much closer distance front and rear, they are less hesitant about staying on my side, and I am cutoff far more frequently. I hypothesize that cars tend to be more careful driving around SUVs in day to day traffic and on the freeways. And how would this be quantified in a study? If this is a reality on the roads, how would we classify this? "Active safety" for SUVs I think, as it would contribute to preventing a crash, and I believe it may also contribute to the better collision ratings. Again, I've stated this as a hypothesis for your consideration, as I cannot find study data on this, so it can neither be proven nor disproven by me. This would be a good study for the IIHS, though.


2.
Originally Posted By: Indylan

Are any of these numbers weighted for who is driving each type of vehicle? Either by sex, age, driving experience, income level?
[…]
When they used to publish numbers for specific vehicles, Mazda Miata's had the same numbers as much "safer" vehicles, I believe due to who was driving them, not the safety features or lack of them.
[...]
But since all vehicle type drivers are not equal then we get skewed numbers. Young males who like driving dangerously, don't typically drive SUV's, soccer mom's do buy SUV's so comparing safety based on vehicle type is false.


a) Your example of the Mazda Miata was a good one, and if this data were being used to compare individual cars and extrapolate that to all vehicles, I would agree with you- the demographics of individual cars vary widely enough that such a comparison would not be valid. However, averaging across all cars is a different story, as is averaging across all SUVs. Again, with cars we are averaging across everything from a Honda Fit to a Ford Fusion to a Mercedes E-class. And with SUVs we are averaging across everything from a Toyota RAV4 to a Nissan Murano to a Chevy Suburban. Data like this is commonly used for comparing aggregates, as such aggregates help to partially account for demographic differences and also reduce the statistical margin of error. I will give you that demographic differences do not appear to be accounted for at all in the collision claim frequency data I presented, however, I believe I considered that when I made my statements in (1e).

b)
Originally Posted By: Indylan
Are any of these numbers weighted for who is driving each type of vehicle? Either by sex, age, driving experience, income level?


Yes- the fatality numbers are. The IIHS started controlling for demographics in their fatality rate data beginning in 2005. See: http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf

Originally Posted By: IIHS
"The rates reflect primarily the influence
of a vehicle’s design and patterns of
use. Because driver demographics can
be a major influence, the death rate for
each vehicle was adjusted according to
the proportion of deaths of women 25-64
years old. These drivers are involved in
fewer fatal crashes per licensed driver.
For most vehicles the rates were adjusted
by less than 20 percent.
“This is the first year we’ve adjusted
the rates to account for some driver characteristics,”
Lund says. “The adjustment
takes away some of the differences
among vehicles caused by differences in
driver gender. Other demographic factors
still influence the death rates, but
more of the differences in the rates reflect
the vehicles.”"


By 2010, they were controlling for even more demographic data:
See: http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/sfsc.pdf

Originally Posted By: IIHS
"Note: Rates are adjusted to account for some differences in driver age and sex within and between vehicle types. Remaining differences in vehicle use patterns and driver demographics may account for some
of the death rate differences."


Of course no study is perfect, and it takes virtually zero effort for anyone with basic statistical knowledge to criticize a study, in this case by adding various demographic, geographic, and countless other variables that have not been accounted for. Go to any sociology conference and you'll see these same questions asked of even the most respected researchers, accepted studies, and foundational papers. The important thing to note here is that these questions alone do not invalidate the broad trends indicated in this study, in this case because the IIHS has made it clear they are controlling for demographics in fatality rate data, they have identified groups where they see it will make a significant difference in the results, they have quantified this difference, and they have been increasingly controlling for demographic factors from 2005 to the present, when "rates are adjusted to account for some differences in driver age and sex within and between vehicle types".

 

[moving2]

Indylan- on that note, I think it's appropriate to point out another IIHS study from a previous post:

Originally Posted By: moving2
Still not sure about larger vs. smaller vehicle safety?

Let's see what else the IIHS has to say about crash compatibility between larger and smaller vehicles:

1. "A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
lol at thinking a vehicle that [...] is the "worst in it's class" is actually the safest.


Audi Junkie- based on your "lol" above, I take it you disagree with the senior VP of vehicle research for IIHS as to what you can conclude from crash test ratings across different vehicle classes? Hmm...I think I'll stick with Zuby's take.

2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area.
[...]
The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported."

From the IIHS summary:

3. "These Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models."

4. "Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants."

5. "Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle."

6. "Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection."

7. "Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes."

8. "Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place."

...you listening here, Audi Junkie?

"...Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones."

Please note again that the IIHS didn't even choose large cars, (much less SUVs, which have a lower overall fatality rate than cars), for a specific reason:

10. "It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes..."

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Ding.


Audi Junkie- great job! This has been your most significant contribution to the thread so far! Oh wait…

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Spyder's observation […] is right on point.


and

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Yes. In addition to reiterating the above post (edit: posted by Indylan) […]


I guess you had equally significant contributions earlier in this thread, as well. Keep up the "me too's", the "dittos" and, of course, those addictive FOX videos- great work!

 

[moving2]

And so I believe this still stands:

So, to summarize so far:

According to REAL-WORLD IIHS accident data and considering demographics and active and passive vehicle safety:


1. IF AN ACCIDENT CAN BE AVOIDED:

a) Considering both the demographics of car/suv drivers and the active safety features of cars/suvs, SUVs have an advantage when it comes to avoiding collisions, since SUVs get into about 13% fewer insurance claimed collisions than cars. This is due to some combination of (possibly) safer drivers in SUVs vs. cars, and active safety features present in both cars and SUVs. Because we don't know precisely how much "safer drivers" factor in to this 13% difference vs. "vehicle active safety", we can say that:

i) The average driver in a 2006-08 SUV is at a statistical advantage when it comes to avoiding an accident compared to the average driver of a 2006-08 car.

ii) Whatever role active safety plays in avoiding collisions in 2006-08 cars and SUVs, it doesn't appear to give cars an overall advantage over SUVs, on average, when it comes to avoiding collisions in the real world.


2. IF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE AVOIDED:

a) Small, midsize, AND LARGE cars all have an overall death rate HIGHER than even SMALL SUVs, not to mention midsize, large, and very large SUVs.

b) Small, midsize, AND LARGE cars have an overall death rate that is about TWICE that of even MIDSIZE SUVs, not to mention large and very large SUVs.

c) ONLY "Very Large" cars have an overall death rate comparable to SUVs- and that rate is matched or beaten by midsize, large, and very large SUVs.


So, whether it's avoiding an accident, or just remaining as safe as possible in the case of an accident, it looks like the average 2006-08 car is at a DISADVANTAGE compared to the average 2006-08 SUV on the road, according to real-world IIHS collision and fatality rate data.

 

[moving2]

And, from the IIHS' "Shopping for a Safer Car 2010":
http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/sfsc.pdf

After talking about crash avoidance technologies:

"DON’T COUNT ON AVOIDING CRASHES.
Despite everyone’s best efforts, millions of crashes
occur each year. Tens of thousands of them involve deaths.
So the most important aspect of shopping for safety is
to choose a crashworthy vehicle — one that reduces
death and injury risk during a crash."

 

[Scienceman]

Comon guys, calm down.

I'd rather drive a bigger truck or SUV than some box car. Common sence says who is most likley to win.
Who cares how much the Government controlled website says it takes for a car to stop? Ability of the driver is what will show up!
Anyone want to argue? Come hit me in your Honda fit when I'm in my F-350 and see what happens.

This thread is pure nonscence- ya'll have managed to turn a thread about Hummers into this [censored].

 

[Audi Junkie]

Funny how Volvos are thought to be super-safe cars, but fare no better than competing vehicles in crash tests, however, I'm guessing their accident rate is actually much lower.

Could it be the drivers themselves?

 

[Spazdog]

I don't know about the Ford-era/post Ford Chinese Volvos.

But the old 240s were exceptional for their time. Exceptionally strong steel unibody. Just good solid cars all around.

little safety features abound. Like the interior door handles. Real pain to use, well recessed into the door itself but in an accident you are very unlikely to catch it and inadvertantly cause the door to open.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Funny how Volvos are thought to be super-safe cars, but fare no better than competing vehicles in crash tests,


Audi Junkie:

1. Which Volvo model(s) are you referring to?

2. Which specific crash tests are you referring to (IIHS / NHTSA?) (front, frontal offset, rear, side, etc.?) Please post a link.

3. When you say "no better than competing vehicles"- is that because the vehicles you are comparing all received the maximum ratings, so it's not possible for the Volvos to receive "better" ratings?

4.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
[...]however, I'm guessing their accident rate is actually much lower. Could it be the drivers themselves?


Wait- what happened to those "better brakes" and "active safety" you used to talk about? Could this not apply to Volvo models vs. competing models? In any case, interesting guess. Would love to see some data.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Indylan- on that note, I think it's appropriate to point out another IIHS study from a previous post:

Originally Posted By: moving2
Still not sure about larger vs. smaller vehicle safety?

Let's see what else the IIHS has to say about crash compatibility between larger and smaller vehicles:

1. "A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
lol at thinking a vehicle that [...] is the "worst in it's class" is actually the safest.


Audi Junkie- based on your "lol" above, I take it you disagree with the senior VP of vehicle research for IIHS as to what you can conclude from crash test ratings across different vehicle classes? Hmm...I think I'll stick with Zuby's take.

2. "The Arlington, Va.-based IIHS rated front-to-front crash tests between microcars and mid-size sedans. The Institute chose 2009 models of the Honda Fit and Accord, the Smart Fortwo and Mercedes C-Class, and the Toyota Camry and Yaris. It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes, the report said.
[...]
In the crash test between the C-Class and Fortwo, for example, the Smart bounced off the C-Class and turned 450 degrees before landing and displacing the instrument panel and steering wheel through the cockpit. The C-Class had almost no intrusion of the front gears into the passenger area.
[...]
The Yaris, in its crash with the Camry, lost a door and, despite the airbag, also forced the dummy's head against the steering wheel. Excessive head and neck injuries, plus deep gashes on the right knee of the dummy, were also reported."

From the IIHS summary:

3. "These Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models."

4. "Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants."

5. "Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle."

6. "Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection."

7. "Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes."

8. "Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place."

...you listening here, Audi Junkie?

"...Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones."

Please note again that the IIHS didn't even choose large cars, (much less SUVs, which have a lower overall fatality rate than cars), for a specific reason:

10. "It did not survey SUVs or large sedans in order to show how much influence even small increases in size and weight have on crashes..."

It sounds like David Zuby isn't the sharpest tool in the IIHS shed...
5th gear crash test, Old Volvo vs new little renault

Poorly designed but heavy isn't a winner all the time...

Anyways, I'm not going to buy a safe gas hog SUV for my commute, and I doubt anyone else is either after reading all this. I'm well aware that my car is about as safe as a wet cardboard box in an actual accident, but I drive in nearly ideal conditions where idiots seem to be thankfully rare.
If an F250 driver tries really hard they might actually involve me in a head on crash, but I'd be dead in almost any vehicle in that case, I'm not going to drive a cement or brinks truck just so I will win 99% of head on collisions...

 

[Spazdog]

Does seem to be a tradeoff in safety.

The "safe" gas hog SUV will most likely outmass it's "opponent" in a collision.

But if you hit a slick spot, (let's just suppose the lube monkey at Chico Watanabe's Falafel, Hair-dos, and Oil Change Shop leaves something loose and that car spews it's contents mid corner)

A car? you slide a bit, recover, continue on your way with your pulse rate elevated.

SUV? Slide, grab traction, barrel roll while everything not firmly attached to the inside of the car slams into your head and body. If you are foolish enough to drive without your seat belt you are ejected and the behemoth rolls over on top of you.

So for every situation where the SUV is safer, it seems that there is an equal and opposite situation that will kill the SUV driver and passengers.

I personally prefer control to mass. I'll stick to a good handling passenger car.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I see a ton of the H2's around here. Tons of modified lifted gawdy H2's. Even one around tow accesoriesed with Pink offroad addons and pink beadlocks for a woman driver obviously.

In the area I curretly work and live driving a car is a simply an indication of near poverty. There are exceptions but this is a blatant generalization, not saying its right or wrong.. I am not from here. I drive SUV's and a half ton truck.

Just an hour north in Durango It is Subaru and prius ville. But here in San Juan County New Mexico Trucks, SUV's and Jeeps are the rule, excludiing the Sports cars and Hot rods that come out on weekends.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: moving2
In any case, interesting guess. Would love to see some data.


Right here:

http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/veh_rating/volvo.asp

"LRI" is "liability rating index" and is based on how many at-fault claims were paid out for the particular model. In other words, a vehicle that tends to be driven by drivers who, for whatever reason, don't cause many accidents gets an LRI of "A".

As for the Hummer:

http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/veh_rating/hummer.asp

With an LRI of "E", which is the worst it can be, it's tied with the Scion tC.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Indylan
It sounds like David Zuby isn't the sharpest tool in the IIHS shed...Poorly designed but heavy isn't a winner all the time...


He seems sharp enough to me, as I see no conflict between the (anecdotal) video you posted and his statement below, which I've highlighted for emphasis:

1. "A really, really poorly designed or insufficiently designed large- or medium-sized car may be more or less protective than the best-designed small car, but that's something that you're not going to be able to tell just by looking at crash-test ratings," says David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research for IIHS. "So all things being equal, if you're concerned about safety, you want a bigger, heavier car."

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: brianl703

"LRI" is "liability rating index" and is [...] a vehicle that tends to be driven by drivers who, for whatever reason, don't cause many accidents gets an LRI of "A".


1. Your post makes it seems like Volvos are A's and Hummers are E's. Not sure if that was your intention, but let me clarify that first:

a)
Originally Posted By: brianl703

Right here:

http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/veh_rating/volvo.asp


Clarification: only 1 out of 11 Volvo models received an "A". The average of all models is a "B".

b)
Originally Posted By: brianl703

As for the Hummer:

http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto_insurance/veh_rating/hummer.asp

with an LRI of "E", which is the worst it can be, it's tied with the Scion tC.


Clarification: 1 model obtained a "C", the other two obtained an "E", which averages out to a "D".


2. With Hummers having a "D" average LRI, I guess this is one example of an SUV model line that doesn't fit the "safe driving soccer mom" demographic as described below:

Originally Posted By: Indylan
But since all vehicle type drivers are not equal then we get skewed numbers. Young males who like driving dangerously, don't typically drive SUV's, soccer mom's do buy SUV's so comparing safety based on vehicle type is false.

 

[brianl703]

No, I was just giving an example of what an LRI of "A" means.

The H3T which got a "C" has not been in production very long, introduced as a 2009 model.. It may drop to a "D" or an "E" over time--I saw that with the Scion tC, when it first came out it had an LRI of "C".

I would say that two "E" ratings and a "C" rating average out to a D- rating.

There are SUVs which have much better LRI ratings. I'll not speculate as to why, I am sure to offend someone.