Statistics on the number of fatal accidents by car make and model
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
The thing is, how many people have lived because their suv collided with a small car? How many people have died in a small car because it was hit by an suv. Stick everyone in suvs and those trends will change.
I also imagine driver demographic plays a large part. Young, inexperienced drivers are more likely to be in your Corsa or fiesta than a q7.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,292
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Certainly speed will be a factor.
I used to know an A&E guy and he said whilst the speed kills message could be easilt challengable, the mergency services specialists were all pretty much in agreement that speed increased the risk and the nastiness of the outcome
So its no surprise at all that fast cars would have more fatalities.
When I had my faster cars I drove faster, probably more inappropriately. So your IMHO more likely to have a fatal.
Hitting another vehicle is bad, we have all see that, far fewer people see a car vs an immovable object, trees pretty much fall into this category.
Its amazing how much damage a car takes into an immovable object at 100Mph.
Mythbusters have done quite a few of these, such as head ons etc, but this one, 100Mph into a solid object. Makes you think, you could be close to this on a spirited drive down a country lane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkn37BDvTw
I used to know an A&E guy and he said whilst the speed kills message could be easilt challengable, the mergency services specialists were all pretty much in agreement that speed increased the risk and the nastiness of the outcome
So its no surprise at all that fast cars would have more fatalities.
When I had my faster cars I drove faster, probably more inappropriately. So your IMHO more likely to have a fatal.
Hitting another vehicle is bad, we have all see that, far fewer people see a car vs an immovable object, trees pretty much fall into this category.
Its amazing how much damage a car takes into an immovable object at 100Mph.
Mythbusters have done quite a few of these, such as head ons etc, but this one, 100Mph into a solid object. Makes you think, you could be close to this on a spirited drive down a country lane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkn37BDvTw
So now you’re arguing against your original point?
Again, the issue is there isn’t that much of a discrepancy between vehicles sales numbers, in the examples I gave above it’s around 3-4x the number of vehicles sold, not 12 times. Those vehicles are still selling tens of thousands of units each year and there’s litttle chance of the sales figures really having that much of an effect on the death rates.
I would agree with you to an extent if some were very small volume models, with say a few hundred sales a year, that could actually skew death rates. But they aren’t.
To add to that, the data from other sources and analysis agree with this trend, bigger=Safer.
No?
That’s what the data in the second link above is. It’s actual accidents vs vehicles on the road. It’s not a percentage, but it’s easy enough to convert to one if you want to view it in that form.
They’ve done it that way for the very reason you describe, low volume vehicles would give anomalous results.
The first link gives a reasonable indicator of serious injury as it breaks out medical payments as a seperate column.
Yes, SUVs are more likely to have rollovers than a saloon car, but you’re also more likely to survive a head on collision with another vehicle in it. As collisions are much more likely than rollovers the real world data shows that even with the higher rate of rollovers they are still safer overall. The data includes both multi and single vehicle collision information.
See the chart in the second link titled “Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old by crash type, 2016”, it breaks it down into multi, single and rollover and then gives an overall death rate.
That’s the issue, bigger vehicles are safer for occupants, but more dangerous for those outside of the vehicle.
Unfortunately again a US study, and the only one I’ve ever found on this, but a study from around ten years ago looked at fatality rates amongst teenage drivers in the US and found that even then pickups and large SUVs were safer than smaller vehicles.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17898248/
Whether there some urban/rural issues with the data I don’t know. I would love to find some UK data looking at this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,599
Sounds awfully low...
I'd also wonder how much of an effect is due to these being American vehicles, since their SUVs and Pickups tend to be stupidly big. I'd expect UK spec SUVs to be somewhere closer to Medium or Large Car, really.
But more than that, this is why I'd look at percentage of KSIs per individual model OTR, as some of them will be ridiculously bad by comparison.
Do US insurances pay out the same as UK?
But which is more likely on tight UK roads - A head-on, or over/understeering and loss of control/leaving the road/rollover/etc?
And what about collisions other than head-on?
From there, I'd be more curious about the cause of the accidents (with fingers crossed that it's stupidly bright SUV headlights) in the first place.
How many accidents do you think actually happen each year?
UK spec SUVs are on that list, generally under small/medium SUVs. There's very little to no difference between a US spec or a UK spec one (except minor trim variations and some lighting variations - DLRs etc) in the vast majority of cases.
Here you go. Driver deaths per million vehicles (easily changable to percentage) for each model.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates
Shows the same trend mind you...
I'm sure there is a difference, unfortunately the data for the UK just isn't as available. What data there is does show a similar trend though, and if the OP is looking to compare one specific vehicle to another then realistically it's going to be useful data even though its from a different country.
Does it really matter the specifics? The medical costs will be related to the severity and number of injuries. Admittedly we can't tell if the number is lots of small injuries or just a few large injuries, but we're talking about stats from hundreds of thousands of incidents so generally they're going to be reasonably normalised between vehicles.
The only data I can find from a quick search is that in the EU around 60% of accidents are multi vehicle incidents. That's not to dissimilar to the US. Why not look and see what you can find?
So basically you have a preconceived notion that SUVs are more dangerous, so ignore any data that says otherwise and continue sticking your fingers in your ears.
Why not find some actual data to back up your own opinions and refute the data actually provided? The data in those spreadsheets linked would be a good place to start. How about crunching the numbers and letting us know (it actually separates out cause) .
Here's a telegraph article from 2011 on the subject too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html
Just over a fifth of deaths were caused by SMIDSY, whereas:
(Less than dodgy brakes).
Yes, 20 years ago 4x4s were death traps (relative), but things have moved on, as shown in the data in some of the links above. Now SUVs are some of the safest vehicles on the road for their drivers and passengers.
100kph Golf Mk5 crash test.
https://youtu.be/1TNFDeK6GLE
64kph looks survivable
https://youtu.be/Gix7ymymhTo
Realistically probably not a huge amount of difference assuming like for like chassis. Personally I'd pick based on what I prefer to drive. Do you want more space, more sporty drive, higher ground clearance, more visibility?
The X5 has more boot/interior space, but is also the smaller vehicle (shorter, but a shade wider) if that's important. The X5 will also have more visibility because it's taller and has a larger rear window.
Last edited:
I can't really afford an X5 anyway, even £20k won't really buy anything good. I think I'll end up getting an estate.
I found the licencing stats from 2016
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2016
and the key to the files is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicles-statistical-tables-index
So moral of the story OP, if you want a safe car don't get a BMW...
More seriously I wonder why that is, the type of vehicle, driver profile or something else?
(Data calculated by every listing for each brand and model)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2016
and the key to the files is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vehicles-statistical-tables-index
Code:
2016 Deaths Deaths per million
Audi 1513884 42 28
BMW 1688901 91 54
Ford 4420343 214 48
Skoda 658437 17 26
Vauxhall 3595511 148 41
VW 2739147 108 39
Code:
5 series 238693 9 38
X5 88722 6 68So moral of the story OP, if you want a safe car don't get a BMW...
More seriously I wonder why that is, the type of vehicle, driver profile or something else?
(Data calculated by every listing for each brand and model)
Last edited:
I already have a Skoda, but it is a Vrs, which could be the model that accounts for all those deaths.
Do you think Audi might be safer because of Quattro? Audi's share chassis with VW.
Maybe BMWs are just a handful and difficult to control at high speed, like if you had to swerve.
Do you think Audi might be safer because of Quattro? Audi's share chassis with VW.
Maybe BMWs are just a handful and difficult to control at high speed, like if you had to swerve.