Car Safety - Small Car vs SUV

[hunoraut]

People have mentioned the vehicle size arms race, but it turns out that only 10% of fatal accidents are head on collisions. 42% of fatalities are single vehicle accidents. Perhaps the best safety recommendation is don't drive stupid.

This may or may not make you think differently about the "arms race."

Yes.

If you break it down from basics, collisions are caused by yourself or someone else, and involve yourself or someone (or something) else.

Mass helps with car-car collision.

But equally important are active safety features that prevent collisions in the first place. These are automated emergency braking, effective traction control, lane departure warning, and so on.

And then there’s the cabin protection from airbags and basic design. (Injury severity matters too, not just death)

All else equal, a heavier vehicle is mostly safer, but all else is rarely equal. Therefore i dont index on weight as the primary consideration.

[Jungle]

Model 3 is very safe. Having that battery mass down low gives them a very low center of gravity, which helps in an accident (less likely to flip). Also, electrics are quite heavy (from the battery), so that helps.

[unstartable]

I am all for smaller cars. SUVs are unnecessary and wasteful. However the better handling of my small, excellent handling car was of no help when I was hit head on by a pickup while I was stopped.

[JackoC]

2. From the example I just gave in post responding to dbr with IIHS stats, yes *%* of driver deaths from single vehicle rollovers was higher in big/very big SUV's

See the table I pointed out. A driver facing eminent death is more likely to die rolling over in any size SUV or Pickup than any size car. The pattern is monotonic by size (except for a large sedan).

Overall, its really not crazy to say that an Suv or Pickup is only going to be safer in a head on collision with a person or a car.

But as you can see from my post above and looking at the link to overall driver death rate, the average rate of 'SV rollover' death rate in large/very large SUV's in the latest period averaged 5.6, that of small 4 dr cars 4. So yes that's higher, but the average overall death rate in the small 4dr cars (including SV rollover and all other) was 49 v 22 for the large/very large SUV's. The problem with focusing on rollovers is that they aren't that numerous compared to other types of fatal accident. The stats clearly show a correlation of *overall* death rate with mass that's unfavorable to small vehicles. They don't show as clear if any penalty for the 'SUV' or pickup formats compared to sedan format for SUV/pickup/sedans in the same size range, in *overall* death rate. And hard to see why a purchaser would care a lot more about any particular type of accident more than they care about *overall* death rate.

[caffeperfavore]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

[dbr]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

In simple theory vehicle weight would not affect braking distance. In practice there is this data. Whether 140' for the largest vehicles vs 130' for midsize vehicles is significant, I don't know. I would not count on saving myself in a small sporty car by being able to stop 10' shorter.

Category Average dry braking 60-0 mph, ft.
Sports/sporty cars 120
Luxury midsized cars 128
Luxury small SUVs 129
Small cars 130
Luxury small cars 131
Small SUVs 132
Luxury large cars 132
Large cars 132
Midsized cars 133
Midsized SUVs 134
Luxury midsized SUVs 134
Compact pickups 136
Minivans 138
Compact electric/hybrid cars 138
Luxury large SUVs 138
Full-sized pickups 140
Large SUVs 143
Average of all tested vehicles 132

[bottlecap]

I'm not sure what the question is, but I can't deny that a heavier vehicle will on average provide more safety.

I wouldn't want to rely on swerving to avoid accidents. To reliably do that is near impossible. Even if you were a stunt driver, you'd have to routinely practice such situations to stay in top form. Who of us can do that?

You decision should be based on your finances, your needs, and your comfort level. Above all, your safety depends on the quality of your driving habits.

Good luck,

JT

[9Iron]

A few posters have mentioned swerving to avoid an accident, that isn’t a real life solution when you are hit from behind!
Additionally, it’s nearly impossible to swerve when you have cars on either side of you, on a narrow road, sideswiped, or T-boned in an intersection.

[H-Town]

A few posters have mentioned swerving to avoid an accident, that isn’t a real life solution when you are hit from behind!
Additionally, it’s nearly impossible to swerve when you have cars on either side of you, on a narrow road, sideswiped, or T-boned in an intersection.

When you step outside of your house, you can either be like Peter or Bob.

Peter: "It's a wonderful day! I'm making the best out of it."
Bob: "It's a scary world out there. Someone gonna hit my car from behind. Someone else gonna sideswipe my car while another T-boned my car in an intersection."

It's your choice!

I've been driving 20 years and counting. During that span, I've accumulated many miles from commute and roadtrips. As I get older, I realize nothing safer than driving defensively and being aware of your surrounding. There is no point of racing to the red light. Leave the house at least 15-20 minutes early so you can enjoy the ride instead of trying to rush through traffic. You can buy a tank and still put yourself in danger if you don't drive defensively. Maybe not physical harm to yourself, but financial harm when you get sued by others. The $1M umbrella insurance policy can't even bail you out.

[JackoC]

People have mentioned the vehicle size arms race, but it turns out that only 10% of fatal accidents are head on collisions. 42% of fatalities are single vehicle accidents. Perhaps the best safety recommendation is don't drive stupid.

This may or may not make you think differently about the "arms race."

Yes.

If you break it down from basics, collisions are caused by yourself or someone else, and involve yourself or someone (or something) else.

Mass helps with car-car collision.

But equally important are active safety features that prevent collisions in the first place. These are automated emergency braking, effective traction control, lane departure warning, and so on.

And then there’s the cabin protection from airbags and basic design. (Injury severity matters too, not just death)

All else equal, a heavier vehicle is mostly safer, but all else is rarely equal. Therefore i dont index on weight as the primary consideration.

Size helps with death rate, that's clear from the IIHS drive death rate stats. And there's reason to think it's not limited to car-car collisions. The bigger vehicle also has typically more linear inches of metal to crush between your body and whatever you run into or runs into you. But, while the IIHS stats aren't perfect*, I don't see much logic in extended debate which type of crash is more likely or how various vehicle factors help in the different types when looking at stats reflecting the real world distribution of accident types. If we were looking at laboratory tests (like the IIHS *crash* tests, which simulate a collision with vehicle same weight as the subject vehicle), it would make more sense to dwell on 'OK but what happens in the real world'. Same with stuff like 'how about (small) average difference in stopping distance!?!', it's already reflected in the IIHS driver death rate stats.

Otherwise, I agree other things are important to safety and some more important than choice of vehicle (choosing to drive drunk or not for example). But, in a discussion of what vehicle to choose, it's not logical to answer 'more mass seems to reduce death rate, at least that's very pronounced between small and not small vehicles in the IIHS stats' with 'but how about this other different factor nothing to do with what vehicle you choose?'. Then it's...nothing to do with what vehicle you choose, but which vehicle you choose is the topic here. Advanced safety features are at least a vehicle factor, but their effect is already reflected in the stats if the feature was on the model in the sample period and more importantly buying a new vehicle now, rarely if ever would the choice be a bigger vehicle with fewer vs. smaller vehicle with more of those features.

*likely the biggest distorting factor in IIHS driver death rate stats IMO is they can't correct for people who buy more expensive vehicles tending to take and/or be exposed to less risk. Poorer people tend to be younger (weighted by miles driven), younger people tend to take more risk. And less well off people of a given age are more likely to live and drive where risk from other drivers and/or road hazards is greater. Less well off people may also just take more driving risk voluntarily than better off people their age; I believe that's probably true overall though obviously subject to numerous individual counter examples. I believe this probably partly explains why IIHS driver death rate in big 'luxury' vehicle is so low, usually a number of models have zero driver deaths in the sample period. Partly size, but nowadays 'more safety features in luxury cars' isn't as true if at all. I guess driver income v risk difference shows up most in big expensive luxury cars.

[9Iron]

A few posters have mentioned swerving to avoid an accident, that isn’t a real life solution when you are hit from behind!
Additionally, it’s nearly impossible to swerve when you have cars on either side of you, on a narrow road, sideswiped, or T-boned in an intersection.

When you step outside of your house, you can either be like Peter or Bob.

Peter: "It's a wonderful day! I'm making the best out of it."
Bob: "It's a scary world out there. Someone gonna hit my car from behind. Someone else gonna sideswipe my car while another T-boned my car in an intersection."

It's your choice!

I've been driving 20 years and counting. During that span, I've accumulated many miles from commute and roadtrips. As I get older, I realize nothing safer than driving defensively and being aware of your surrounding. There is no point of racing to the red light. Leave the house at least 15-20 minutes early so you can enjoy the ride instead of trying to rush through traffic. You can buy a tank and still put yourself in danger if you don't drive defensively. Maybe not physical harm to yourself, but financial harm when you get sued by others. The $1M umbrella insurance policy can't even bail you out.

Well… I think you missed my point … it’s more like:

Bob: “I’m the worlds best driver, I can swerve in and out of traffic and avoid everyone else, because I have a fast, nimble automobile.”

I was attempting to point out that strategy is flawed..

Where we agree is your statement on how you drive. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is not following those rules.

[cyclist]

It's also worth noting that relatively small EVs like the Tesla 3 have a lot more mass than you'd think.

A Model 3 Long Range weighs around 4072 lbs. A Honda Odyssey EX minivan weighs 4482 lbs.

They're not the same weight, but the Tesla 3 is less than 10 percent lighter.

Cyclist

[JackoC]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

That's not a counterpoint at all to IIHS driver death rate stats. Those reflect actual experience, so any benefit/detriment in factors like handling or stopping distance is already reflected in the death rate, which is by vehicle miles, a lower probability of being in an accident would show up as lower death rate. But that rate is distinctly higher averaging across small models than bigger ones. Your points if actually factual would be relevant if all we knew were Newton's laws of motion and were trying to predict real world death rates from that.

And as dbr pointed, there's a limited validity on the stopping distance point, excluding 'sporty' (and some performance cars on summer tires can reach under 100' 60mph-0) the great majority of models of all kinds are in 130's, not a big difference. The handling thing is even more vague, you could cherry pick cases where what you said is true, but there's no simple objective measure. Consumer Reports has standard 'evasive maneuver' timing test but like their stopping tests, it's not characterized by big differences among models generally. But again main point is that the key evidence for 'mass matters' comes from stats where stopping distance and handling differences are already reflected.

[dbr]

A few posters have mentioned swerving to avoid an accident, that isn’t a real life solution when you are hit from behind!
Additionally, it’s nearly impossible to swerve when you have cars on either side of you, on a narrow road, sideswiped, or T-boned in an intersection.

When you step outside of your house, you can either be like Peter or Bob.

Peter: "It's a wonderful day! I'm making the best out of it."
Bob: "It's a scary world out there. Someone gonna hit my car from behind. Someone else gonna sideswipe my car while another T-boned my car in an intersection."

It's your choice!

I've been driving 20 years and counting. During that span, I've accumulated many miles from commute and roadtrips. As I get older, I realize nothing safer than driving defensively and being aware of your surrounding. There is no point of racing to the red light. Leave the house at least 15-20 minutes early so you can enjoy the ride instead of trying to rush through traffic. You can buy a tank and still put yourself in danger if you don't drive defensively. Maybe not physical harm to yourself, but financial harm when you get sued by others. The $1M umbrella insurance policy can't even bail you out.

Well… I think you missed my point … it’s more like:

Bob: “I’m the worlds best driver, i cam swerve in and out of traffic and avoid everyone else, because i have a fast, nimble automobile.”

i was attempting to point out that strategy is flawed..

Where we agree is your statement on how you drive. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is not following those rules.

Inevitably discussions of choosing a car with an eye to safety will gather a few posts to the effect that a maneuverable vehicle driven by a skilled driver (the poster, of course) can avoid many or most accidents that others will fall victim to and that this is the best approach to be safe in a car.

A completely different thing, which is true, is that one's safety on the road is affected by safe driving habits that everyone can and should practice.

It is also true that accident statistics are affected by an association of driver characteristics with certain vehicles. The biggest upward departures from average are high fatality rates in certain vehicles that attract drivers with unsafe driving habits, meaning speeding, aggressive driving, DUI, etc. Downward departures occur for conservative drivers mainly travelling in saver environments.

[caffeperfavore]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

That's not a counterpoint at all to IIHS driver death rate stats. Those reflect actual experience, so any benefit/detriment in factors like handling or stopping distance is already reflected in the death rate, which is by vehicle miles, a lower probability of being in an accident would show up as lower death rate. But that rate is distinctly higher averaging across small models than bigger ones. Your points if actually factual would be relevant if all we knew were Newton's laws of motion and were trying to predict real world death rates from that.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

Have you really looked at IIHS's statistics? Because, if you had, you would see that there are numerous examples of small cars with much lower fatality rates than larger cars. Many of the pickups seem pretty abysmal in comparison. Clearly, there's a lot more than mass at play here. That's my point and why I don't understand the obsession with mass above all other factors.

If you really want to decrease your probability of dying in a car accident, then the best thing you can do is drive less. Beyond that, driving conditions, where you drive, how fast you drive, how attentive you are, how well engineered your car is, your car's safety features are all things that, in addition to mass, will impact your likelihood of dying in a car. If you are looking at causality and fatality rates, all of those things have an impact. I'll bet the variance leftover for the mass of a small car versus a larger car amounts to decimal dust at that point. That's not going to keep me up at night.

[caffeperfavore]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

In simple theory vehicle weight would not affect braking distance. In practice there is this data. Whether 140' for the largest vehicles vs 130' for midsize vehicles is significant, I don't know. I would not count on saving myself in a small sporty car by being able to stop 10' shorter.

You laugh, but 10 feet or less is often the difference between being in an accident or not. And the difference between a small, sporty car and a large SUV or truck, based on the data you included, is closer to 20 feet.

[caffeperfavore]

Bob: “I’m the worlds best driver, I can swerve in and out of traffic and avoid everyone else, because I have a fast, nimble automobile.”

I don't think anyone here has any Fast and Furious delusions of avoiding all accidents. We're merely pointing out that some vehicles have better maneuverability, better accident avoidance capabilities than others. There is ample data to support this. Nearly every review by the car magazines and Consumer Reports includes this data. Every foot can make a difference in being in an accident or not. And even if it is unavoidable, the force of an accident is a function of mass and velocity, so being able to scrub more velocity off before impact is going to help a lot. Again, this is why the mass-fatality relationship is not perfectly linear. There's much variation in makes and models.

[caffeperfavore]

Deleted - duplicate

[stoptothink]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

That's not a counterpoint at all to IIHS driver death rate stats. Those reflect actual experience, so any benefit/detriment in factors like handling or stopping distance is already reflected in the death rate, which is by vehicle miles, a lower probability of being in an accident would show up as lower death rate. But that rate is distinctly higher averaging across small models than bigger ones. Your points if actually factual would be relevant if all we knew were Newton's laws of motion and were trying to predict real world death rates from that.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

Have you really looked at IIHS's statistics? Because, if you had, you would see that there are numerous examples of small cars with much lower fatality rates than larger cars. Many of the pickups seem pretty abysmal in comparison. Clearly, there's a lot more than mass at play here. That's my point and why I don't understand the obsession with mass above all other factors.

If you really want to decrease your probability of dying in a car accident, then the best thing you can do is drive less. Beyond that, driving conditions, where you drive, how fast you drive, how attentive you are, how well engineered your car is, your car's safety features are all things that, in addition to mass, will impact your likelihood of dying in a car. If you are looking at causality and fatality rates, all of those things have an impact. I'll bet the variance leftover for the mass of a small car versus a larger car amounts to decimal dust at that point. That's not going to keep me up at night.

+1 I certainly accept that I may be wrong, but I have a difficult time believing most people who bring up "car safety" as such a priority aren't really trying to justify a want (a new, big car). Which is absolutely fine, but don't try to frame it as something else. There are so many factors and so many others ways to drastically reduce your risk of dying or being injured in a car than by constantly upgrading to a newer bigger vehicle. Of the unlimited number of ways that members of my family are at risk each and every single day, driving a smaller car that may not (by the numbers) be the absolute safest doesn't even register to me.

[sandan]

But as you can see from my post above and looking at the link to overall driver death rate, the average rate of 'SV rollover' death rate in large/very large SUV's in the latest period averaged 5.6, that of small 4 dr cars 4. So yes that's higher, but the average overall death rate in the small 4dr cars (including SV rollover and all other) was 49 v 22 for the large/very large SUV's. The problem with focusing on rollovers is that they aren't that numerous compared to other types of fatal accident. The stats clearly show a correlation of *overall* death rate with mass that's unfavorable to small vehicles. They don't show as clear if any penalty for the 'SUV' or pickup formats compared to sedan format for SUV/pickup/sedans in the same size range, in *overall* death rate. And hard to see why a purchaser would care a lot more about any particular type of accident more than they care about *overall* death rate.

The overall death rate is quite irrelevant for measuring safety.

For example, it is safer to wear a bullet proof vest... But people who wear bullet proof vests are more likely to die of gun shot wounds.

[ThankYouJack]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

That's not a counterpoint at all to IIHS driver death rate stats. Those reflect actual experience, so any benefit/detriment in factors like handling or stopping distance is already reflected in the death rate, which is by vehicle miles, a lower probability of being in an accident would show up as lower death rate. But that rate is distinctly higher averaging across small models than bigger ones. Your points if actually factual would be relevant if all we knew were Newton's laws of motion and were trying to predict real world death rates from that.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

Have you really looked at IIHS's statistics? Because, if you had, you would see that there are numerous examples of small cars with much lower fatality rates than larger cars. Many of the pickups seem pretty abysmal in comparison. Clearly, there's a lot more than mass at play here. That's my point and why I don't understand the obsession with mass above all other factors.

If you really want to decrease your probability of dying in a car accident, then the best thing you can do is drive less. Beyond that, driving conditions, where you drive, how fast you drive, how attentive you are, how well engineered your car is, your car's safety features are all things that, in addition to mass, will impact your likelihood of dying in a car. If you are looking at causality and fatality rates, all of those things have an impact. I'll bet the variance leftover for the mass of a small car versus a larger car amounts to decimal dust at that point. That's not going to keep me up at night.

+1 I certainly accept that I may be wrong, but I have a difficult time believing most people who bring up "car safety" as such a priority aren't really trying to justify a want (a new, big car). Which is absolutely fine, but don't try to frame it as something else. There are so many factors and so many others ways to drastically reduce your risk of dying or being injured in a car than by constantly upgrading to a newer bigger vehicle. Of the unlimited number of ways that members of my family are at risk each and every single day, driving a smaller car that may not (by the numbers) be the absolute safest doesn't even register to me.

Yeah, you're off here. What car do I want? Another Miata - I miss driving one a great deal. For obvious reasons it doesn't work as a family car so an SUV / CUV is more practical for my family. I've also thought about a fun four seater, stick shift, convertible but those are even more $$$.

A motorcycle would be fun as well. But having been hit before riding a bike and having a close friend get seriously injured being hit on his, I'm not going to the roll dice too many times.

[dbr]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

In simple theory vehicle weight would not affect braking distance. In practice there is this data. Whether 140' for the largest vehicles vs 130' for midsize vehicles is significant, I don't know. I would not count on saving myself in a small sporty car by being able to stop 10' shorter.

You laugh, but 10 feet or less is often the difference between being in an accident or not. And the difference between a small, sporty car and a large SUV or truck, based on the data you included, is closer to 20 feet.

As you wish. Possibly the more interesting data would be how well the travel speed has been reduced before the collision as the crash speed has a huge effect on the accident outcome. I have been involved in research on such things, but not for a long time and would not have that kind of study at hand any more.

[okie745]

I would just look through
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

You can look up by car model. The data was surprising to me.
Example: GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV) is 8 times deadlier than the Nissan Leaf (Small Car) and almost 4 times deadlier than the Volkswagen GTI (Small Car).

On the opposite end, the Chevrolet Sonic (small car) is almost 2.5 times deadlier than the GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV).

It is pretty clear that just mass alone is not the SOLE deciding factor.

[dbr]

I would just look through
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

You can look up by car model. The data was surprising to me.
Example: GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV) is 8 times deadlier than the Nissan Leaf (Small Car) and almost 4 times deadlier than the Volkswagen GTI (Small Car).

On the opposite end, the Chevrolet Sonic (small car) is almost 2.5 times deadlier than the GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV).

It is pretty clear that just mass alone is not the SOLE deciding factor.

Having in the misty past looked into research study on exactly that question, I don't recall the exact r^2 on fitting* a 1/W curve to the existing fatality data, but the result is significant. No one has ever suggested this is the only or even the single largest factor. NHTSA did/does not like that sort of finding broadly disseminated because it has conflicted with the policy goal of improving fuel economy in the vehicle fleet.

*It is a 1/W fit because mechanics/biomechanics models of crash outcomes indicate that dependence should exist.

Given that the data analysis is normalized to exposure (miles driven) one would appreciate that the biggest safety factor is miles travelled per year.

[TheOscarGuy]

I would just look through
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

You can look up by car model. The data was surprising to me.
Example: GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV) is 8 times deadlier than the Nissan Leaf (Small Car) and almost 4 times deadlier than the Volkswagen GTI (Small Car).

On the opposite end, the Chevrolet Sonic (small car) is almost 2.5 times deadlier than the GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV).

It is pretty clear that just mass alone is not the SOLE deciding factor.

Is the data oer million registered vehicles *for that make, model*? So 5 deaths per million registered Nissan leafs which seems wrong? Or maybe I am not reading this correctly.
Yukon has a higher death % in rollover category and all of them are single vehicle crashes (not head on collisions, which I think was what OP was concerned about) which is expected. Still I thought it would be smaller than smaller cars.
Thanks for sharing.

[Johny Fever]

Just go drive a Toyota Highlander hybrid and I think you will be all set. Terrific car, reliable, decent mileage, all wheel drive, plenty of room and they are a pleasure to drive on the highway. Wish you all the best.

[stoptothink]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

That's not a counterpoint at all to IIHS driver death rate stats. Those reflect actual experience, so any benefit/detriment in factors like handling or stopping distance is already reflected in the death rate, which is by vehicle miles, a lower probability of being in an accident would show up as lower death rate. But that rate is distinctly higher averaging across small models than bigger ones. Your points if actually factual would be relevant if all we knew were Newton's laws of motion and were trying to predict real world death rates from that.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

Have you really looked at IIHS's statistics? Because, if you had, you would see that there are numerous examples of small cars with much lower fatality rates than larger cars. Many of the pickups seem pretty abysmal in comparison. Clearly, there's a lot more than mass at play here. That's my point and why I don't understand the obsession with mass above all other factors.

If you really want to decrease your probability of dying in a car accident, then the best thing you can do is drive less. Beyond that, driving conditions, where you drive, how fast you drive, how attentive you are, how well engineered your car is, your car's safety features are all things that, in addition to mass, will impact your likelihood of dying in a car. If you are looking at causality and fatality rates, all of those things have an impact. I'll bet the variance leftover for the mass of a small car versus a larger car amounts to decimal dust at that point. That's not going to keep me up at night.

+1 I certainly accept that I may be wrong, but I have a difficult time believing most people who bring up "car safety" as such a priority aren't really trying to justify a want (a new, big car). Which is absolutely fine, but don't try to frame it as something else. There are so many factors and so many others ways to drastically reduce your risk of dying or being injured in a car than by constantly upgrading to a newer bigger vehicle. Of the unlimited number of ways that members of my family are at risk each and every single day, driving a smaller car that may not (by the numbers) be the absolute safest doesn't even register to me.

Yeah, you're off here. What car do I want? Another Miata - I miss driving one a great deal. For obvious reasons it doesn't work as a family car so an SUV / CUV is more practical for my family. I've also thought about a fun four seater, stick shift, convertible but those are even more $$$.

A motorcycle would be fun as well. But having been hit before riding a bike and having a close friend get seriously injured being hit on his, I'm not going to the roll dice too many times.

What does a miata and a motorcycle have to do with anything I said . A miata and a motorcycle don't meet the needs of your family, period. My family has a compact sedan and a small (the smallest currently for sale) pickup, we drive the most cost-efficient vehicles that meet our needs and lifestyle, and drive little (relative to most). There are risks in virtually everything you do, the fear porn regarding car safety is a good reminder that most people do not have a great understanding of statistics and absolute risk.

[randomguy]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

In simple theory vehicle weight would not affect braking distance. In practice there is this data. Whether 140' for the largest vehicles vs 130' for midsize vehicles is significant, I don't know. I would not count on saving myself in a small sporty car by being able to stop 10' shorter.

You laugh, but 10 feet or less is often the difference between being in an accident or not. And the difference between a small, sporty car and a large SUV or truck, based on the data you included, is closer to 20 feet.

Sure but you are avoiding accidents that are rarely going to cause seriously harm. Hitting someone going say 15 mph (i.e. the difference between stopping in time and being 20' short) isn't going to cause serious injuries most of the time. The difference when you have a head on collision at 45mph between 4000lbs and 2500lbs might be.

There is a nice middle ground of 3500-4500lb cars/SUVs (and yeah that weight seems incredibly porky to anyone who remembers the 80s) where you can still drive pretty good and you are also big enough not to get smushed. And once you get into that range the individual model choices matter a lot. You can't expect the worst 5000lb car to better than the best 3500lb car. The advantages of mass just aren't that great.....

[NYCaviator]

I remember reading in an older article that unibody SUVs are generally safer than body-on-frame SUVs that were built on pickup truck platforms (mostly American made SUVs). If you dig into the IIHS stats, even though they have good overall safety ratings, a lot of larger "full size" SUVs have pretty poor overlap and roll over ratings. The safest vehicles seem to be the crossover SUV segment.

I will say that I would not want to drive a compact car in 2023. Too many people are driving around in massive, full size pickup trucks, which have gotten bigger and heavier every year. It's almost comical to see the size of a 1990s F-150 compared to a 2023. It's especially noticeable if you pull up next to one of the "Texas Edition" Chevys or one of the "off-road" factory lifted trucks that are becoming more common place. The grille is almost higher than the top of a standard sedan.

In 2023, people are objectively less safe drivers overall. I've noticed far more excessive speeds (not 5 over, but 15-20 over on surface streets), drivers ignoring stop signs, trying to beat the light on a red, and people who absolutely cannot seem to put their phones down for more than 30 seconds. I am all about buying the safest car you can, especially if you have kids.

[tibbitts]

I am all for smaller cars. SUVs are unnecessary and wasteful. However the better handling of my small, excellent handling car was of no help when I was hit head on by a pickup while I was stopped.

The obvious alternative to larger vehicles are more instances of smaller vehicles, given that people have a certain number of passengers and amount of cargo to transport. Obviously that's not true in every case but is in some cases. So now someone will come along and discuss the statistical implications of a greater number of small vehicles vs. a smaller number of larger vehicles.

[TheOscarGuy]

I will say that I would not want to drive a compact car in 2023. Too many people are driving around in massive, full size pickup trucks, which have gotten bigger and heavier every year. It's almost comical to see the size of a 1990s F-150 compared to a 2023. It's especially noticeable if you pull up next to one of the "Texas Edition" Chevys or one of the "off-road" factory lifted trucks that are becoming more common place. The grille is almost higher than the top of a standard sedan.

In 2023, people are objectively less safe drivers overall. I've noticed far more excessive speeds (not 5 over, but 15-20 over on surface streets), drivers ignoring stop signs, trying to beat the light on a red, and people who absolutely cannot seem to put their phones down for more than 30 seconds. I am all about buying the safest car you can, especially if you have kids.

Your comments are spot on! A full sized F150 is HUGE! I think my SUV is generally big but next to a truck it feels rather small. A huge reason however is due to customer demanding more internal space and towing capacity, that trucks have to get bigger. There is a lot of waste however. I suspect a very high percent of pickup truck owners do not use it as intended and just want a large comfortable cabin, and street creds that they own a truck. I bet their truck beds look awfully shiny
I agree! I can not believe so many people -- not just young folks -- drive distracted with their heads alternating between looking ahead at the road, and their phones on their lap or on the side, as they drive.

[JackoC]

But as you can see from my post above and looking at the link to overall driver death rate, the average rate of 'SV rollover' death rate in large/very large SUV's in the latest period averaged 5.6, that of small 4 dr cars 4. So yes that's higher, but the average overall death rate in the small 4dr cars (including SV rollover and all other) was 49 v 22 for the large/very large SUV's. The problem with focusing on rollovers is that they aren't that numerous compared to other types of fatal accident. The stats clearly show a correlation of *overall* death rate with mass that's unfavorable to small vehicles. They don't show as clear if any penalty for the 'SUV' or pickup formats compared to sedan format for SUV/pickup/sedans in the same size range, in *overall* death rate. And hard to see why a purchaser would care a lot more about any particular type of accident more than they care about *overall* death rate.

The overall death rate is quite irrelevant for measuring safety.

For example, it is safer to wear a bullet proof vest... But people who wear bullet proof vests are more likely to die of gun shot wounds.

The second odd analogy does not support the ridiculous first contention. It makes no sense to focus on a higher rollover death rate in big SUV v small 4 dr car when the overall death rate in big SUV is much lower. Death is death. You can reasonably choose not to a put a lot of emphasis on driver death rate in choosing a vehicle, since the numbers are X, 49 for example average across small 4 dr car models, driver deaths per million vehicle-years. The overall chance of dying in a car crash is small in absolute terms. But it makes no sense to reach a relative conclusion 'big SUV's aren't any safer for their drivers than small sedans' by focusing on rollover accidents ignoring that the overall death rate is much higher in the small cars.

[JackoC]

Counterpoint: the bigger the car, the sloppier the handling, the longer the braking distances, which makes it more likely you'll be in an accident.

That's not a counterpoint at all to IIHS driver death rate stats. Those reflect actual experience, so any benefit/detriment in factors like handling or stopping distance is already reflected in the death rate, which is by vehicle miles, a lower probability of being in an accident would show up as lower death rate. But that rate is distinctly higher averaging across small models than bigger ones. Your points if actually factual would be relevant if all we knew were Newton's laws of motion and were trying to predict real world death rates from that.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

1. Have you really looked at IIHS's statistics? Because, if you had, you would see that there are numerous examples of small cars with much lower fatality rates than larger cars. Many of the pickups seem pretty abysmal in comparison. Clearly, there's a lot more than mass at play here. That's my point and why I don't understand the obsession with mass above all other factors.

2. If you really want to decrease your probability of dying in a car accident, then the best thing you can do is drive less. Beyond that, driving conditions, where you drive, how fast you drive, how attentive you are, how well engineered your car is, your car's safety features are all things that, in addition to mass, will impact your likelihood of dying in a car. If you are looking at causality and fatality rates, all of those things have an impact. I'll bet the variance leftover for the mass of a small car versus a larger car amounts to decimal dust at that point. That's not going to keep me up at night.

1. There's noise in those statistics but if you average by weight class the relationship between death rate and mass is obvious. Only cherry picking can counter it.

2. Other things you can do to reduce accident risk are not relevant to the narrow question of vehicle selection. The thread is about vehicle selection, not safe driving, let alone the obvious point that if you never leave home your traffic accident risk goes to zero. Your own previous point I responded to was about vehicle selection. You claimed the higher death rate of small vehicles on average would be countered by them handling better and stopping shorter. I just pointed out your basic error there: the stats are death rate per vehicle-year, already reflecting any reduction in likelihood of being in an accident because of better handling or stopping, if that were generally the case.

[sandan]

But as you can see from my post above and looking at the link to overall driver death rate, the average rate of 'SV rollover' death rate in large/very large SUV's in the latest period averaged 5.6, that of small 4 dr cars 4. So yes that's higher, but the average overall death rate in the small 4dr cars (including SV rollover and all other) was 49 v 22 for the large/very large SUV's. The problem with focusing on rollovers is that they aren't that numerous compared to other types of fatal accident. The stats clearly show a correlation of *overall* death rate with mass that's unfavorable to small vehicles. They don't show as clear if any penalty for the 'SUV' or pickup formats compared to sedan format for SUV/pickup/sedans in the same size range, in *overall* death rate. And hard to see why a purchaser would care a lot more about any particular type of accident more than they care about *overall* death rate.

The overall death rate is quite irrelevant for measuring safety.

For example, it is safer to wear a bullet proof vest... But people who wear bullet proof vests are more likely to die of gun shot wounds.

The second odd analogy does not support the ridiculous first contention. It makes no sense to focus on a higher rollover death rate in big SUV v small 4 dr car when the overall death rate in big SUV is much lower. Death is death. You can reasonably choose not to a put a lot of emphasis on driver death rate in choosing a vehicle, since the numbers are X, 49 for example average across small 4 dr car models, driver deaths per million vehicle-years. The overall chance of dying in a car crash is small in absolute terms. But it makes no sense to reach a relative conclusion 'big SUV's aren't any safer for their drivers than small sedans' by focusing on rollover accidents ignoring that the overall death rate is much higher in the small cars.

I'm not claiming that a Sonic is safer than a Silverado for a driver... Would it be possible that an Avalon might be safer for both myself & pedestrians compared to a Sequoia? I think so.

[dbr]

You claimed the higher death rate of small vehicles on average would be countered by them handling better and stopping shorter. I just pointed out your basic error there: the stats are death rate per vehicle-year, already reflecting any reduction in likelihood of being in an accident because of better handling or stopping, if that were generally the case.

That is correct. While my experience in the field is ancient, I can say one thing that has been famously observed is higher fatality rates for high capability cars due to driver behavior being more aggressive and risky. A sense of invulnerability is not a positive factor. There is an opposite driver behavior benefit for mini-vans and luxury sedans. But it is all rolled into the statistics.

[JackoC]

I would just look through
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-dea ... -and-model

You can look up by car model. The data was surprising to me.
Example: GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV) is 8 times deadlier than the Nissan Leaf (Small Car) and almost 4 times deadlier than the Volkswagen GTI (Small Car).

On the opposite end, the Chevrolet Sonic (small car) is almost 2.5 times deadlier than the GMC Yukon 2WD (Large SUV).

It is pretty clear that just mass alone is not the SOLE deciding factor.

Having in the misty past looked into research study on exactly that question, I don't recall the exact r^2 on fitting* a 1/W curve to the existing fatality data, but the result is significant. No one has ever suggested this is the only or even the single largest factor. NHTSA did/does not like that sort of finding broadly disseminated because it has conflicted with the policy goal of improving fuel economy in the vehicle fleet.

*It is a 1/W fit because mechanics/biomechanics models of crash outcomes indicate that dependence should exist.

Given that the data analysis is normalized to exposure (miles driven) one would appreciate that the biggest safety factor is miles travelled per year.

Not sure I understand the last sentence but to clarify the measure in the IIHS driver death stats is X driver deaths per million registered vehicle-years. This is probably dictated by practical considerations of gathering statistics from police reports of fatal (to drivers) accidents though it's not ideal theoretically. So the stats give an artificial penalty to models which tend to get driven more miles/year. Although again I think that would No.2 in hole in these statistics overall after the effect where people with more money tend to both buy more expensive cars and also be involuntarily exposed to and probably voluntarily take less driving risk. I don't think either flaw or others though is a convincing argument to reject to hypothesis that mass/size helps. That's a clear general result of those stats.

The counter arguments consist of cherry picking and non sequiturs. Noting that a non sequitur doesn't mean a false or unimportant point, just one nothing to do with the conclusion it's offered to support, as in 'mass/size helps in car accidents' v, 'no, you should dry safely'. It's reasonable to say one will buy a little sedan because 49 driver deaths per million vehicle years is a small number even adding passengers and 22 (big/very big SUV's) isn't a significant absolute difference given the cost and suitability for needs. But it's not reasonable to try to argue mass/size doesn't tend to help, without showing evidence besides cherry picking stats noise. Though as we agree the benefit of mass/size has apparently diminishing returns, whether or not a simple equation. In many cases seems like the issue is read by people driving 3.5-4k# vehicles as 'you must go get a 6k# vehicle!' and it's really not. Our older SUV is 4.9k#, but I didn't target that big a vehicle, was just the model my wife liked best 18 yrs ago and it's been good (2005 Lexus GX). Soon we'll sell it and buy back from our son (originally) our 2015 BMW 328i, 3.5k#, big enough IMO. Our Porsche Macan S is 4.3k# but again I didn't buy it directly because its heavy for its dimensions (interior space at best equal to ~3.5k# 'regular' small SUV's), the weight is a byproduct of relatively large engine/drivetrain and very stiff frame for handling, spectacular for an SUV.

[dbr]

Given that the data analysis is normalized to exposure (miles driven) one would appreciate that the biggest safety factor is miles travelled per year.

Not sure I understand the last sentence but to clarify the measure in the IIHS driver death stats is X driver deaths per million registered vehicle-years.
[/quote]

Yes. When I worked in this field the data we used was per vehicle miles driven per year based on whatever could be gathered about that. It is relevant over time.

In any case it has to be that different exposures in miles driven have to be a dominant risk factor for the individual driver. That is aside from the question of vehicle choice, of course, unless some models are driven more miles than others.

[stoptothink]

I will say that I would not want to drive a compact car in 2023. Too many people are driving around in massive, full size pickup trucks, which have gotten bigger and heavier every year. It's almost comical to see the size of a 1990s F-150 compared to a 2023. It's especially noticeable if you pull up next to one of the "Texas Edition" Chevys or one of the "off-road" factory lifted trucks that are becoming more common place. The grille is almost higher than the top of a standard sedan.

In 2023, people are objectively less safe drivers overall. I've noticed far more excessive speeds (not 5 over, but 15-20 over on surface streets), drivers ignoring stop signs, trying to beat the light on a red, and people who absolutely cannot seem to put their phones down for more than 30 seconds. I am all about buying the safest car you can, especially if you have kids.

Your comments are spot on! A full sized F150 is HUGE! I think my SUV is generally big but next to a truck it feels rather small. A huge reason however is due to customer demanding more internal space and towing capacity, that trucks have to get bigger. There is a lot of waste however. I suspect a very high percent of pickup truck owners do not use it as intended and just want a large comfortable cabin, and street creds that they own a truck. I bet their truck beds look awfully shiny
I agree! I can not believe so many people -- not just young folks -- drive distracted with their heads alternating between looking ahead at the road, and their phones on their lap or on the side, as they drive.

For sure. We drive the smallest pickup available for sale in the U.S. (Ford Maverick) and it certainly is not a small vehicle. The majority of those driving trucks could get by with a Maverick (of course, they are near impossible to buy). Huge cars (and homes) is a U.S. phenomenon; pretty funny that car manufacturers produce larger vehicles specifically for the U.S. market.

[H-Town]

1. There's noise in those statistics but if you average by weight class the relationship between death rate and mass is obvious. Only cherry picking can counter it.

2. Other things you can do to reduce accident risk are not relevant to the narrow question of vehicle selection. The thread is about vehicle selection, not safe driving, let alone the obvious point that if you never leave home your traffic accident risk goes to zero. Your own previous point I responded to was about vehicle selection. You claimed the higher death rate of small vehicles on average would be countered by them handling better and stopping shorter. I just pointed out your basic error there: the stats are death rate per vehicle-year, already reflecting any reduction in likelihood of being in an accident because of better handling or stopping, if that were generally the case.

Which vehicles do you drive? I just want to see your argument/logic matches your choice of vehicle. If vehicle mass matters, I'd expect you roll down the street with at least a F-250 with 7,000 lbs of steel.

It seems illogical if you pick a 3,500 lbs small crossover over 3,000 lbs sedan and argue that vehicle mass is important factor of safety.

[dbr]

Just in general the safety model in question goes something like this:

1. Traffic environment and driver behavior* ---> accident frequency by subject/other vehicle, crash mode/incident speed, accident severity including braking/steering, occupant position.

2. Collision physics. (mass dependence here and no question at all what it is)

3. Mechanics of vehicle(s) crush dynamics and structural geometry (vehicle dimension/design factors).

4. Restraint system performance by occupant position.

5. Biomechanics relationship of occupant trajectory to injury severity.

Relating overall accident statistical results to this process is complicated and not very satisfactory due to lack of enough data sufficiently stratified. On the other hand good engineering/biomechanics work is a big and difficult project.

Note NHTSA test criteria examine 3.-5. while insurance data is an overall result.

*I should add that "driver behavior" would include everything from driver training to impact of drunk driving campaigns to personality at the individual level to also technology devices such as accident warning and accident avoidance. Included as "driver" would also be the car itself if self driving.

[JackoC]

1. There's noise in those statistics but if you average by weight class the relationship between death rate and mass is obvious. Only cherry picking can counter it.

2. Other things you can do to reduce accident risk are not relevant to the narrow question of vehicle selection. The thread is about vehicle selection, not safe driving, let alone the obvious point that if you never leave home your traffic accident risk goes to zero. Your own previous point I responded to was about vehicle selection. You claimed the higher death rate of small vehicles on average would be countered by them handling better and stopping shorter. I just pointed out your basic error there: the stats are death rate per vehicle-year, already reflecting any reduction in likelihood of being in an accident because of better handling or stopping, if that were generally the case.

Which vehicles do you drive? I just want to see your argument/logic matches your choice of vehicle. If vehicle mass matters, I'd expect you roll down the street with at least a F-250 with 7,000 lbs of steel.

It seems illogical if you pick a 3,500 lbs small crossover over 3,000 lbs sedan and argue that vehicle mass is important factor of safety.

There's no logical connection between saying those stats clearly show a benefit from size/mass on average (though with apparently diminishing return at very big size) and what I drive. The stats show what they show no matter what I drive. But lots of people seem to either be unaware of those stats or make irrelevant counter arguments to them ('but big vehicles don't handle as well to avoid accidents', already reflected in the stats to the extent true; 'how about rollovers'; already included in the stats). Or cherry picking ('but how about this lowest rate small model against this highest rate big one?'). Or deliberately misinterpreting 'mass matters' to read 'only mass matters'. I'm simply arguing for the lack of rational basis to reject the hypothesis generally supported by those stats: mass/size help for the occupants in a car crash as a general rule. Or as in any debate, seeing if someone can present an actually good counter argument from which I can learn.

As just above, our current cars are 4.3k# and 4.9k# SUV's. But I see no reason to change my mind about what the IIHS stats show because the newer SUV replaced a 3.5k# 2-dr (BMW M2) which wasn't replaced because it was too light (though partly because marginal interior space for our stuff on multi-k mile trips, the replacement Macan is also more livable on bad roads and only marginally less capable on fun roads). Likewise the car before that was also 3.5k# (BMW 328i) and we'll likely buy it back from our son to replace the 18 yr old 4.9k# SUV. Then in the new line up the Macan is surely safer than the 328: it's bigger, it handles better (marginally inferior to the M2 but superior to the 328), it has all the newest safety gadgets which the 2015 328 doesn't. I'm accepting that, not making bogus arguments why it doesn't matter at all.

[H-Town]

1. There's noise in those statistics but if you average by weight class the relationship between death rate and mass is obvious. Only cherry picking can counter it.

2. Other things you can do to reduce accident risk are not relevant to the narrow question of vehicle selection. The thread is about vehicle selection, not safe driving, let alone the obvious point that if you never leave home your traffic accident risk goes to zero. Your own previous point I responded to was about vehicle selection. You claimed the higher death rate of small vehicles on average would be countered by them handling better and stopping shorter. I just pointed out your basic error there: the stats are death rate per vehicle-year, already reflecting any reduction in likelihood of being in an accident because of better handling or stopping, if that were generally the case.

Which vehicles do you drive? I just want to see your argument/logic matches your choice of vehicle. If vehicle mass matters, I'd expect you roll down the street with at least a F-250 with 7,000 lbs of steel.

It seems illogical if you pick a 3,500 lbs small crossover over 3,000 lbs sedan and argue that vehicle mass is important factor of safety.

There's no logical connection between saying those stats clearly show a benefit from size/mass on average (though with apparently diminishing return at very big size) and what I drive. The stats show what they show no matter what I drive. But lots of people seem to either be unaware of those stats or make irrelevant counter arguments to them ('but big vehicles don't handle as well to avoid accidents', already reflected in the stats to the extent true; 'how about rollovers'; already included in the stats). Or cherry picking ('but how about this lowest rate small model against this highest rate big one?'). Or deliberately misinterpreting 'mass matters' to read 'only mass matters'. I'm simply arguing for the lack of rational basis to reject the hypothesis generally supported by those stats: mass/size help for the occupants in a car crash as a general rule. Or as in any debate, seeing if someone can present an actually good counter argument from which I can learn.

As just above, our current cars are 4.3k# and 4.9k# SUV's. But I see no reason to change my mind about what the IIHS stats show because the newer SUV replaced a 3.5k# 2-dr (BMW M2) which wasn't replaced because it was too light (though partly because marginal interior space for our stuff on multi-k mile trips, the replacement Macan is also more livable on bad roads and only marginally less capable on fun roads). Likewise the car before that was also 3.5k# (BMW 328i) and we'll likely buy it back from our son to replace the 18 yr old 4.9k# SUV. Then in the new line up the Macan is surely safer than the 328: it's bigger, it handles better (marginally inferior to the M2 but superior to the 328), it has all the newest safety gadgets which the 2015 328 doesn't. I'm accepting that, not making bogus arguments why it doesn't matter at all.

Understood. You have a good lineup there. M2, Macan, and to an extent 328i are performance cars. They can drive fast, nimble, and grip the road very well. I think mass wasn't the primary factor driving the decision to acquire those performance cars.

[unstartable]

I am all for smaller cars. SUVs are unnecessary and wasteful. However the better handling of my small, excellent handling car was of no help when I was hit head on by a pickup while I was stopped.

The obvious alternative to larger vehicles are more instances of smaller vehicles, given that people have a certain number of passengers and amount of cargo to transport. Obviously that's not true in every case but is in some cases. So now someone will come along and discuss the statistical implications of a greater number of small vehicles vs. a smaller number of larger vehicles.

The vast majority of trips can be comfortably accommodated by a midsize sedan. Yes, large families and commercial purposes exist, and larger vehicles are appropriate in those instances.

[sls239]

Are we pretending that small car and SUV are the only choices?

I’m personally fine with my small car. I’ve never been in an accident except for being rear-ended. I live in a small city that has a high proportion of older people and mostly slow speeds.

But I would definitely move up to a mid-size sedan - like an Accord - if I was making a daily commute in suburban traffic or if I frequently did longer drives on rural highways.

I will say that there is a belief that SUV drivers take more risks. I don’t know stats, that’s just anecdotal from a person that rescued people from cars in floodwaters.

[dbr]

Are we pretending that small car and SUV are the only choices?

I’m personally fine with my small car. I’ve never been in an accident except for being rear-ended. I live in a small city that has a high proportion of older people and mostly slow speeds.

But I would definitely move up to a mid-size sedan - like an Accord - if I was making a daily commute in suburban traffic or if I frequently did longer drives on rural highways.

I will say that there is a belief that SUV drivers take more risks. I don’t know stats, that’s just anecdotal from a person that rescued people from cars in floodwaters.

Anecdotal but maybe also real. Once many years ago I was coming across the top of Loveland Pass in Colorado in a Renault Dauphine (yes really) and we noticed a whole fleet of 4 wheel drive vehicles stuck off the side of the road. Turns out there is a significant depression in that spot and these people had all driven into 2-3 foot deep snow downhill from the road and could not get out.

I am less sure that SUV drivers as a generalization take more risks. There could be some distinction there between macho speed and aggression drivers and soccer moms just driving around town (are soccer moms aggressive - maybe). That generalization might change between full-size and compact SUVs as well.

The general problem of correlation of driver behavior with vehicle make/model is significant and needs research. The insurance companies can certainly tell you some models do stand out for selective driver behavior risk, at both ends of the risk spectrum.

[stoptothink]

Are we pretending that small car and SUV are the only choices?

I’m personally fine with my small car. I’ve never been in an accident except for being rear-ended. I live in a small city that has a high proportion of older people and mostly slow speeds.

But I would definitely move up to a mid-size sedan - like an Accord - if I was making a daily commute in suburban traffic or if I frequently did longer drives on rural highways.

I will say that there is a belief that SUV drivers take more risks. I don’t know stats, that’s just anecdotal from a person that rescued people from cars in floodwaters.

Anecdotal but maybe also real. Once many years ago I was coming across the top of Loveland Pass in Colorado in a Renault Dauphine (yes really) and we noticed a whole fleet of 4 wheel drive vehicles stuck off the side of the road. Turns out there is a significant depression in that spot and these people had all driven into 2-3 foot deep snow downhill from the road and could not get out.

I am less sure that SUV drivers as a generalization take more risks. There could be some distinction there between macho speed and aggression drivers and soccer moms just driving around town (are soccer moms aggressive - maybe). That generalization might change between full-size and compact SUVs as well.

The general problem of correlation of driver behavior with vehicle make/model is significant and needs research. The insurance companies can certainly tell you some models do stand out for selective driver behavior risk, at both ends of the risk spectrum.

Again, anecdotally, it sure seems like those in SUVs or anything with AWD are less likely to have snow tires where I live (mountains of Utah). We've had to help my mother, my brother, and two of my sisters get out of snow-related problems (in our VW jetta, with snow tires) because they thought their AWD (all Subarus) meant they could go anywhere. For sure, certain types of people are more likely to drive certain types of vehicles, and driving a certain type of vehicle impacts driving behavior, and this influences the data.

[dbr]

Are we pretending that small car and SUV are the only choices?

I’m personally fine with my small car. I’ve never been in an accident except for being rear-ended. I live in a small city that has a high proportion of older people and mostly slow speeds.

But I would definitely move up to a mid-size sedan - like an Accord - if I was making a daily commute in suburban traffic or if I frequently did longer drives on rural highways.

I will say that there is a belief that SUV drivers take more risks. I don’t know stats, that’s just anecdotal from a person that rescued people from cars in floodwaters.

Anecdotal but maybe also real. Once many years ago I was coming across the top of Loveland Pass in Colorado in a Renault Dauphine (yes really) and we noticed a whole fleet of 4 wheel drive vehicles stuck off the side of the road. Turns out there is a significant depression in that spot and these people had all driven into 2-3 foot deep snow downhill from the road and could not get out.

I am less sure that SUV drivers as a generalization take more risks. There could be some distinction there between macho speed and aggression drivers and soccer moms just driving around town (are soccer moms aggressive - maybe). That generalization might change between full-size and compact SUVs as well.

The general problem of correlation of driver behavior with vehicle make/model is significant and needs research. The insurance companies can certainly tell you some models do stand out for selective driver behavior risk, at both ends of the risk spectrum.

Again, anecdotally, it sure seems like those in SUVs or anything with AWD are less likely to have snow tires where I live (mountains of Utah). We've had to help my mother, my brother, and two of my sisters get out of snow-related problems (in our VW jetta, with snow tires) because they thought their AWD (all Subarus) meant they could go anywhere. For sure, certain types of people are more likely to drive certain types of vehicles and this influences the data.

Apparently 70% of drivers in MN, WI, and MI do not use snow tires and studded tires are illegal in, I think, all of those states. AWD is pretty common though.

An aside regarding SUV purchasing and features is the other day we were all out helping people get out in the snow and one person had a Forrester that just kept spinning. I tried to ask if she had engaged X-mode, but we pushed out before I got an answer. I think she didn't know. That drive system should not have been stuck there. Of course also no snow tires.

[stoptothink]

Are we pretending that small car and SUV are the only choices?

I’m personally fine with my small car. I’ve never been in an accident except for being rear-ended. I live in a small city that has a high proportion of older people and mostly slow speeds.

But I would definitely move up to a mid-size sedan - like an Accord - if I was making a daily commute in suburban traffic or if I frequently did longer drives on rural highways.

I will say that there is a belief that SUV drivers take more risks. I don’t know stats, that’s just anecdotal from a person that rescued people from cars in floodwaters.

Anecdotal but maybe also real. Once many years ago I was coming across the top of Loveland Pass in Colorado in a Renault Dauphine (yes really) and we noticed a whole fleet of 4 wheel drive vehicles stuck off the side of the road. Turns out there is a significant depression in that spot and these people had all driven into 2-3 foot deep snow downhill from the road and could not get out.

I am less sure that SUV drivers as a generalization take more risks. There could be some distinction there between macho speed and aggression drivers and soccer moms just driving around town (are soccer moms aggressive - maybe). That generalization might change between full-size and compact SUVs as well.

The general problem of correlation of driver behavior with vehicle make/model is significant and needs research. The insurance companies can certainly tell you some models do stand out for selective driver behavior risk, at both ends of the risk spectrum.

Again, anecdotally, it sure seems like those in SUVs or anything with AWD are less likely to have snow tires where I live (mountains of Utah). We've had to help my mother, my brother, and two of my sisters get out of snow-related problems (in our VW jetta, with snow tires) because they thought their AWD (all Subarus) meant they could go anywhere. For sure, certain types of people are more likely to drive certain types of vehicles and this influences the data.

Apparently 70% of drivers in MN, WI, and MI do not use snow tires and studded tires are illegal in, I think, all of those states. AWD is pretty common though.

An aside regarding SUV purchasing and features is the other day we were all out helping people get out in the snow and one person had a Forrester that just kept spinning. I tried to ask if she had engaged X-mode, but we pushed out before I got an answer. I think she didn't know. That drive system should not have been stuck there. Of course also no snow tires.

The times we've gone out in outright blizzard, scary driving conditions, it sure seems like all the cars on the side of the road are trucks and SUVs. I assume most don't have snow tires because we were cruising along just fine in our jetta - same thing as when we had to save my family members. Then again, they may have been the only ones willing to drive in such conditions and nobody in sedans has snow tires either

Another aside, my brother now works about an hour from me (oil fields in Utah). He recently traded in his outback for a TRD pro 4-runner because he was having issues getting to the work site in the snow. I have no idea if the 4-runner is fairing better, but I didn't even bother to suggest that maybe he should have tried snow tires before dropping $60k on a new vehicle.