The Truth Behind "Auto Safety"

[Ming]

Top Of The News
Skinning The Auto-Safety Cat
Dan Ackman
Forbes.com
3/15/05



NEW YORK - Which car is the safest? Which is the most dangerous to drive? The answer is that it depends on the car, the type of accident and the driver.

If a big vehicle hits a small vehicle, it's safer to be in the big vehicle. But a smaller vehicle might better avoid the crash in the first place. Half of all auto deaths in the U.S. are caused by single-vehicle crashes, and those are more likely in big vehicles, including SUVs. Rollover crashes play a big part in SUV deaths, but fatalities can be avoided for the most part simply by wearing a seat belt.

The latest group to weigh in on the "which car is safest" question is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an insurance industry trade organization. In a new study, the institute finds there is a wide disparity in auto deaths, depending on not just the vehicle class but also the vehicle model within each class.

The report analyzed the driver-death rates of nearly 200 vehicle models. It finds that in almost every vehicle class, "the death rate for the worst vehicle was at least twice as high as the rate for the best." Unlike some other safety studies, such as that by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, the new report does not consider the deaths of drivers in other cars.

Large cars and minivans dominate among vehicle models with very low death rates, the study finds. Small and midsize SUVs have some of the highest death rates, along with small cars. The model with the highest death rate of all--the two-door, two-wheel-drive Chevrolet Blazer from General Motors --is an SUV, with the majority of deaths coming from rollovers.

There are many apparent anomalies. Two-door cars have higher driver-death rates than four-door cars, regardless of size. Luxury cars have far lower death rates than non-luxury cars, again regardless of size. Sports cars have lower death rates than non-sports cars. But within the sports car class, mini- and small-size cars have lower death rates than the mid-sizes. For most other classes of cars, the larger models are safer.

Minivans and station wagons all have low driver-death rates, perhaps owing to how they are driven. SUVs have lower death rates than cars overall. But that is because they have low death rates from multiple-vehicle crashes. Measured by single-vehicle crash deaths, SUVs are more dangerous than cars. SUV drivers also face more rollover crash deaths. Smaller sports cars roll over and die much less often. But midsize sports cars roll over just as often as most SUV classes.

The vehicle group with the lowest driver-death rate was large luxury cars. Within that class, the Mercedes E-Class from DaimlerChrysler had far and away the lowest death rates, followed by two Cadillac models built by GM. The next lowest rate was in large minivans and station wagons. In each group (cars, SUVs, pickups), the heavier vehicles, like bigger ones, generally had lower death rates. The rate in the lightest SUVs, for example, was more than twice as high as in the heaviest SUVs.

The disparity in death rates between models was one of the more surprising findings. Among small cars, Nissan Motor's Infiniti G20 had about one-fourth the death rate as the Pontiac Sunfire and the Chevrolet Cavalier. Within sports cars, the tiny Mazda Miata had less than half the death rate as the midsize Chevrolet Camaro.

Within the small SUV class, Toyota Motor's RAV4 and 4Runner had much lower death rates than any other models in the study, and had the second-lowest rates of any type and model overall. The Chevrolet Blazer two-door had the highest death rate by far, mostly due to rollovers.

What explains the disparity between models? The Insurance Institute says the type of driver may play a role, as well as the type of vehicle. "The rates reflect primarily the influence of a vehicle's design and patterns of use," it said.

Article Here:http://www.forbes.com/business/servi...15topnews.html

[jwrebholz]

This study has some misleading information. Yes, it says the big luxo cars have the fewest per capita passenger deaths, but look at the types that drive these things--Upwardly mobile yuppies, corporate big-shots and the like--people generally not prone to ridiculous driving maneuvers and other such immature tomfoolery. These cars are driven gently and carefully (for the most part). Same with any premium-brand car, like the Infiniti G20. These were NOT CHEAP CARS. Minivans follow a similar path of logic, as the people who usually drive these have kids in the back and are trying to keep the young'uns safe. Cavaliers and SUnfires did so poorly because most of the people who drive the **************** things are high school and college kids who love to do what? Drive like maniacs and show off (statistically speaking). Same story with the Miata. Most of the people that drive Miatas drive them because they're a cute little roadster. Pardon the chauvanism but IT'S A CHICK CAR! It's a buzzy little underpowered four-cylinder runabout. What's a Camaro? A big, V8-powered monster typically driven by--again--younger males who are almost ALWAYS harder on cars than other groups. By the way this article is worded it sounds as if they have no idea why this is going on. They just want a scapegoat, and look! All these cheap domestic compacts and overpowered muscle cars have ridiculously high death rates! It must be the car's fault!

[Slack]

That is an incredibly poorly written piece. Very little useful information and no solid conclusion. What a winner.

[Havasavana]

It's important to note that this IIHS report deals with deaths, which are very rare relative to accidents. IIHS has another report dealing with injury claims which I think are more significant in selecting a vehicle since we are far more likely to be injured than killed. One thing I notice is that in the injury claim report, the safest vehicle was the 2500 Silverado/Sierra. In that report the Dodge Dakota had 3 times the injury claims as the Silverado. Also, the Corvette was among the cars with the very lowest injury claims. I don't see the Corvette anywhere in this report. As I understand it, a vehicle had to have at least 120,000 registered vehicle years OR 20 driver deaths during the study years. OR, not AND. So why do we not see the Silverado 2-wheel drive? The report mentions factoring in the gender of the driver, but it is apparently based on number of registered vehicles. Miles driven is not considered it seems. I'd be interested to know how they use the gender in the ratings. I know some large pickups are driven by women but not in the same percentages as cars. This information is interesting and of some value but there are many important questions that are not addressed.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by jwrebholz

Cavaliers and SUnfires did so poorly because most of the people who drive the **************** things are high school and college kids who love to do what? Drive like maniacs and show off (statistically speaking).

The Cavalier and Sunfire are two of the least safe cars on the road. They rank near last ('Poor') in the frontal offset crash and have 1 star in the side impact crash test. The Cobalt is so much heavier in part because it's tremendously safer.

If an F-350 plows into a small car, it doesn't matter if the small car is a Cobalt or a Cavalier, the occupants are toast. But for a 25 mph crash between small cars , the difference between a Cobalt and a Cavalier is a few scratches vs. a week in the hospital.

[gmsickofan]

Originally Posted by Slack

That is an incredibly poorly written piece. Very little useful information and no solid conclusion. What a winner.

At least it looks in to why Blazer deaths are so high, something the big media folks are quick to dismiss in their attempt to lable the Blazer as another Suzuki Samurai or Ford Explorer deathtrap.

[jwrebholz]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

The Cavalier and Sunfire are two of the least safe cars on the road. They rank near last ('Poor') in the frontal offset crash and have 1 star in the side impact crash test. The Cobalt is so much heavier in part because it's tremendously safer.

If an F-350 plows into a small car, it doesn't matter if the small car is a Cobalt or a Cavalier, the occupants are toast. But for a 25 mph crash between small cars , the difference between a Cobalt and a Cavalier is a few scratches vs. a week in the hospital.

Hm, perhaps that bit was a little unclear. See, I own a Cavalier. I'm reminded every single day just how much of a screaming metal death-trap that thing is. The way that car shimmies over expansion joints and speed bumps is truly frightening. I wasn't defending the J-bodies, I was merely illustrating a point that they didn't seem to be taking age demographics into account when they compiled these erroneous figures. I'm not suggesting the Cavalier or Sunfire are remotely safe vehicles, I'm just using them as examples.

[Nocturn_Bird]

Look at the differnce in drivers between a Camaro and a Miata. One is a teenage dominated sports car with a V8 that is often raced. The other is more of a roadster with an Inline 4 with not near the performance.

Of coarse the Camaro is going to have more deaths, its driven by younger drivers, and has more performance. In this example, the death rate has almost nothing to do with the cars safety but the type of driver.

[Vintalage]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ness/auto2.gif

Not good for GM at all. Most of the cars on the list are GM. That's not a good message. Yet another stab in GM's side.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by jwrebholz

Hm, perhaps that bit was a little unclear. See, I own a Cavalier. I'm reminded every single day just how much of a screaming metal death-trap that thing is. The way that car shimmies over expansion joints and speed bumps is truly frightening. I wasn't defending the J-bodies, I was merely illustrating a point that they didn't seem to be taking age demographics into account when they compiled these erroneous figures. I'm not suggesting the Cavalier or Sunfire are remotely safe vehicles, I'm just using them as examples.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I do see what you mean. A Civic has pretty good crash ratings, but a good portion of your Civic drivers are going to pull stunts in their Civic that no owner of the (considerably less safe) Regal would do in their car.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by Nocturn_Bird

Look at the differnce in drivers between a Camaro and a Miata. One is a teenage dominated sports car with a V8 that is often raced. The other is more of a roadster with an Inline 4 with not near the performance.

Of coarse the Camaro is going to have more deaths, its driven by younger drivers, and has more performance. In this example, the death rate has almost nothing to do with the cars safety but the type of driver.

The funny thing is, I read that the Miata has a disproportionately high rate of rollovers.

The Miata has superb handling and an extremely low risk of rollover, but many drivers are so thrilled by its handling that they become overconfident and try really risky moves.

[Slack]

Originally Posted by Nocturn_Bird

Look at the differnce in drivers between a Camaro and a Miata. One is a teenage dominated sports car with a V8 that is often raced. The other is more of a roadster with an Inline 4 with not near the performance.

Of coarse the Camaro is going to have more deaths, its driven by younger drivers, and has more performance. In this example, the death rate has almost nothing to do with the cars safety but the type of driver.

I don't suppose you have ever been to a SCCA Solo II event. There are usually more Miata's than any other car there. And most of them are driven by men.