I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle models.
formatting link
For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though.
What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms?
By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the data given per mile traveled.
In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did the best when you look at both ratings.
crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
exactly as above.
oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road hazard, not decrease it.
are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra fuel consumption.
except for the fact that you're more likely to crash in the first place. heavier vehicles are harder to stop. they tend to roll more easily too.
this?
formatting link
why would they? can you not see the difference?
yes indeed i am.
you're advocating heavy vehicles. that's very uninformed because just weight doesn't enhance survivability, it's passenger cell design and energy absorption that do that.
otoh, increased vehicle weight increases gas consumption. if you were to, er, "encourage" incorporation of "safety features" that added
400-600lbs weight to every vehicle in the nation, which we are, you're talking very significant additional gasoline consumption. [and of course increasing crash propensity for the reasons above.]
What makes you think that? Some grade school physics:
formatting link
Not if "all other things are equal", like the center of mass.
They were crashed into a cement wall at THE SAME SPEED, presumably. But if they were crashed into each other, the effective speed would be lower for F150.
effective speed =3D=3D speed relative to the center of mass of two vehicles
If you have a 3000 lb Civic crashing into a 6000 lb Ford Pickup head- on, each traveling at 30 mph, then 0.1 seconds after the crash, their combined mess will continue going where the Ford was going, but now at
10 mph (preservation of momentum). Therefore, Civic decelerated 40 mph in the collision, and Ford only 20 mph.
give me a break!!! what matters is what happens to the occupants acceleration vectors [deceleration] and whether the passenger cell intrudes into their space. occupant reactions are not simple m1v1 = m2v2.
Do you disagree specifically with anything I wrote? You were saying that crash testing into a cement wall shows how safe a vehicle is. I wrote that this is not the whole picture, and weight counts (a lot).
I suspect you are one of those big ass SUV drivers who wants everyone else to drive compact cars. You'll obviously be safer than if everyone drives and SUV, but we won't be.
There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause," but one can not escape the laws of physics!
The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain fewer injuries.
In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel, or allow my family members to do so.
The OP chart showed that minivans were safest, but is it because they have better drivers, inadequate engine size, better crumple zones, or higher driver sitting height?
A large portion of the fatal accidents don't involve another vehicle. IIRC, the larger vehicles have a lower probability of a death in such an accident.
One criticism of trucks and SUVs is rollover accidents. What factors are important in reducing the chance of a rollover?
In the real world, the safest car is the one that avoids the crash entirely. Many SUV/pickup drivers/passengers are killed in single vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the F150 that flipped over or the Smart Car that drove by the accident?
It is clear from the web site posted by the OP:
formatting link
that in the real world, many small cars are as safe or safer than SUVs and pickups. The Accord and Camry had lower driver death rates than Suburbans and Tahoes. Civics and Corollas were safer than any of the "Big Three" pickups. The most dangerous vehicle on the chart, the Chevy S-10 is hardly the lightest. While the safest vehicles were minivans, the Camry was close behind as were Accord and Avalon. Interestingly, the Camry was slightly safer than the Avalon.
Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes. Great logic.
Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to prevent people like you from killing the planet.
Hell, let's face it. Cars are *way* too dangerous. All the other drivers are hopeless inept.
The only safe thing to do is stay away from all cars. OK, maybe a converted Sherman tank *might* be safe, until you get some nut case who figures out how to fix the main gun so that it can fire live rounds again.
In the meantime, pretty much forced to get around, I'll drive something that is fun and fuel-efficient. (And keep a sharp eye out for old Shermans.)
The point is dummy if you ARE involved in an accident you want to be in the one that is offers the greatest protection to properly belted passengers, in the third collision.
Many small and midget car drivers/passengers are killed in single vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the Camry that drove by the accident or the Smart Car that was run over by a Camry? LOL
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.