Statistics on the number of fatal accidents by car make and model
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
Are you a BMW driver?
It was more about the fact they're all multiple occupancy not single. Young ones showing off maybe...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,641
Accidents, quite a few, I'm sure.
Fatalities/KSI, I'd have expected more. We've had a fair few just in this town in 2017, two of which have been on my road. Even your Telegraph article suggests the number of deaths is higher.
Covers some models, but not all.
I know they're 'basically' the same, but there will be differences even on generic platforms like VAG cars. Gives you some idea, but isn't as comprehensive as I'd expect.
It used to be that the higher SUVs were at greater risk of death in rollover in both single and multiple vehicle collisions, particularly on the tight UK roads and when swerving to try and avoid the crash.
It was one of the main reasons we didn't buy one back then.
I don't know, that's why I was asking.
I do know that the US and the UK consider different things to be (or not be) crimes, particularly when it comes to what is/isn't violent crime and injuries resulting from those. I'm thus also wondering if this is actual medical costs, or just what insurances will or will not (and thus did or did not) pay out for, with a resulting difference.
I'm not that interested beyond the scope of the thread, really, at least not in the statistics as they only tell half the story. I'm more interested in why.
Statistics suggest motorcycles must be the most dangerous thing on the planet, but digging deeper the greatest danger in such cases is other road users pulling out on them.
Half the story.
Not especially. Just not a fan of the overly bright headlights found on so many of them.
Since you mention it - Less than a decade ago, SUVs and pickups did have the higher fatality rate. It's only quite recently with advances in things like electronic stability controls that they've become safer.
Plus, we don't all drive nice safe 2017 models, so in some cases that danger does remain.
But again, I'm not so interested in the what but the why, because 'half the story'.
What opinions would these be?
I've merely asked questions... mainly around what the data does NOT cover.
But since you're taking that route - WHY do small cars with fairly decent safety ratings still suffer so badly when crashing into a nice big strong and safe SUV, then, and is the SUV itself not part of the problem? What do the statistics tell you about that?
Why aren't we all driving SUVs if nothing else is safe enough any more?
There seem to have been quite a few suggestions that SUV safety is at the expense of other vehicles, as well as problems with visibility (in both vehicles), width in narrow lanes (hence my UK query) and even the psychology of an SUV (both driving and being around).
There's the stereotype of SUV-driving mothers with 2+ kids in the back, doing make-up, on the phone, eating breakfast and shouting at the kids, all at the same time while not even wearing her seatbelt, who doesn't care so long as she *thinks* she's nice and safe in her SUV.... But it's a stereotype for a reason, like the usual BMW driver.... and I see both on the road quite frequently.
Less than 10 years ago, apparently...
And again since we're not all driving brand new, top of the line, ultra safe SUVs - indeed our own rather distinctive 2003 model of death-trap is still quite common on UK roads - it stands to reason that some of those death traps remain a factor in the statistics.
If your in an SUV and you go head on with something that's going to go under your bumper and act like a ramp for your 20" wheels, your probably going to end up on your roof due to the high center of mavity.
Some of them only manage to stay the right way up during evasive maneuvers (without a collision) due to the stability control, which isn't ideal.
What you want with everyone driving SUVs is something low and wedge shaped. Then you'll be safer
Some of them only manage to stay the right way up during evasive maneuvers (without a collision) due to the stability control, which isn't ideal.
What you want with everyone driving SUVs is something low and wedge shaped. Then you'll be safer
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,641
ISTR there was an early-ish model SUV that did that with alarming frequency!!
Having very nearly rolled our CR-V.... no, it's not ideal!!
I always wanted a Lamborghini Countach....!!What you want with everyone driving SUVs is something low and wedge shaped. Then you'll be safer
Yeah, it was just a bit of fun really. Data on entire model ranges from a manufacturer are a little meaningless, especially if they don't take into account age. Data on specific models with specific age ranges are more important, but at the same time I'm not sure the UK data has enough "sample" points without some proper analysis on statistical probability associated with each incident anyway.
The stats we were discussing were US stats, so the deaths in your town are pretty irrelevant. As an FYI the UK has around 2,000 death a year, the US around 30,000.
It's never going to be completely comprehensive. They can only work with the data they have. To use one set of data, especially more "random" data like actual accidents is a bad idea. They do help provide a trend and allow you to make a more informed opinion on something however.
It used to be yes, as already discussed. Now, even with a higher rate of rollover probability (1:20, rather than 1:40 for saloons IIRC), newer ones, as a class, are still considered safer.
It's generally considered as a proxy for injury rate, which is why IIHS put it on there. Again it's not a be all and end all statistic.
Why is important too, but at the same time "why" isn't going to save you if you someone else comes along and crashes into you.
Anecdotally I don't think it's an issue with SUVs perse, rather brand of vehicle. It seems to be the likes of BMW and Audi that have super bright headlights, whether they be on SUVs or saloons.
Yes, did, as already discussed. And no, we don't, which is why the likes of IIHS break out the data based on vehicle age and model so people can actually look up the information on the version of the vehicle they're interested in buying.
Because a bigger vehicle has more mass and is generally stronger. As already discussed a larger vehicle is safer for the occupants, but not those around them. It's basic physics.
Here's an interesting test the US IIHS did a few years ago.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskt...results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies
As it shows it's not just SUVs that are the "issue". If you're driving a normal saloon then you're part of the "problem" as well. SUV's are just higher up the "food" chain.
The only way to "solve" it would be to mandate all vehicles to be within a very narrow weight class.
That's a problem with the driver, rather than the vehicle itself. TBH just look at a few comments in this thread that back up the point that all types of vehicle owners have an allusion that their vehicle class is "better" than others. 'My vehicle is more maneuverable" and "other vehicles are less stable etc etc".
Hence why they normally break then down by age and specific model.
TBH I'm not a huge fan of the idea of buying into a class of vehicle because it's "safer". Buying a specific vehicle over other similar ones because so, sure. If you're looking for something like a Fiesta buying a CRV doesn't really make sense, no matter the extra safety. At least to me the statistical likelihood of actually dying is low enough already for me not to worry too much.
If your in an SUV and you go head on with something that's going to go under your bumper and act like a ramp for your 20" wheels, your probably going to end up on your roof due to the high center of mavity.
Some of them only manage to stay the right way up during evasive maneuvers (without a collision) due to the stability control, which isn't ideal.
What you want with everyone driving SUVs is something low and wedge shaped. Then you'll be safer
Or alternatively when the wedge shaped vehicle rear ends the SUV the read diff of the SUV ends up through the windscreen of the wedge shaped car, that is (pun intended) "wedged" beneath the larger vehicles.
Seen that a few times TBH.
It's also worth pointing out that newer SUVs have to sustain multiple times their weight on their roofs, so even if they do flip (as long as you're wearing a seatbelt) the occupant is still reasonably safe. Hence why as a class the data shows newer ones are some of the safest vehicles on the road.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,641
Yes, but I'm still interested in giving it more context than just pegging specific models as unsafe on the basis that others have fewer deaths statistically. It's all about what's going on behind the statistics - Who is driving, where and when, for example.
The basic implication that vehicle class or even specific model is safer purely based on statistics is not enough for me.
Case in point, a US state with stringent gun laws also has very high gun crime. Statistics would suggest that tight gun control actually increases gun crime, whereas behind those stats the criminals are buying their guns from the lax-law state next door to circumvent the tight controls.
But what drives that trend is the real question... and makes you even more informed.
Which is of limited use unless everyone drives the newer ones... which we don't.
Neither is knowing that you're 'statistically more likely' to survive... until you do.... or don't. Whichever the case may be.
We have a Honda. It has *stupidly* bright lights (which are correctly adjusted - I insisted on them being checked), but they're also much higher up which makes them as bad as the BMW/Audi ones.
I'd also bet that most drivers don't alter their headlight level when driving a fully-laden vehicle, too, which a family-toting SUV is likely to be.
So more a combination of things... pretty much like these stats, really. I'm just interested in those other things.
A more comprehensive and user-friendly format would be more useful than plain statistics open to 'interpretation' by car magazines and newspapers.
That's still only one part of it.
Isn't that also dependent upon crumple zones and other safety measures as well?
Do those same physics not also mean a bigger, heavier car takes longer to stop, thus making the other vehicles more likely to have a fatal crash in the first place?
Things like that...
Again, part of it.
Design, in this case height, is another factor.
Of course.
However, certain driver types/cultures and certain behaviours will be more likely in some vehicles than others. You could have an Audi, SEAT or Volkswagen model and they'd all be essentially the same car, for example, yet all would attract different driver types than a Škoda.
Same way I'd expect a "family brand" SUV more likely to have a family in and thus driven more sensibly than the single-occupant car with a boy-racer image.
I'd be further interested in exactly what each model tended to crash into. At least some of them will have hit HGVs, for example.
Neither is any motorcyclist, I imagine!!
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,641
I imagine big, safe SUVs all have loads of room for all the safety features you could want... actually, I read the article so I know they do, but still!!
The raw government data is based on completing this form https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230590/stats19.pdf
so does attempt to capture the cause.
Whether the manufacturers or insurance companies have anything better ?
so does attempt to capture the cause.
Whether the manufacturers or insurance companies have anything better ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
Am I the only person who has no interest in how safe cars are or NCAP ratings etc?
I don't disagree, there's not a single reason for crashes, and there's not a single reason for survival rates in crashes. As already mentioned, perhaps smaller cars are in part less safe because they contain newer, less confident drivers whereas larger vehicles have more experienced/confident drivers? Lots of variability that isn't going to be answerable from general statistical accident trends. That said, we still have physics which can be modelled and can be tested in a lab (see the article i posted earlier which shows just how mass affects crash damage).
The majority of people drive vehicles <10 years old. The average age of a vehicle on the road in the UK is 7 years. But again, statistics help guide, they aren't a be all and end all. Some models of certain classes are a lot more dangerous than others.
Hence why I don't believe in buying a vehicle from a different class just because it's safer.
I have to say I've never noticed 2003 CRVs with stupid bright lights.
Hence why I provided a link to the US one, which has a more comprehensive and user friendly way of viewing them than the DfT spreadsheet for UK data.
See above. I don't think height is going to have much of an affect on the survivability of someone in another vehicle, but you're right, all cars would have to be very similar if we wanted to remove the advantage/disadvantage in crashes.
And no, physics do not mean bigger, heavier cars take longer to stop. They will have more momentum sure, but that's offset by larger brakes. As an example I have an F150 Pickup truck, it's got the same stopping distance as a BMW 3 series, Ford Focus, and Range Rover, because it (and the RR) has bigger brakes. It also has a smaller stopping distance than my VW estate.
Which is going to have a more affected stopping distance when loaded with four people? The Range rover, or the Focus?
Brakes are definitely important, but they are class independent. Hence why looking at specific models is important.
True. I love motorcycles, but would hate to ride them on the road. Too many big vehicles!
As ttaskmaster has already mentioned, SUVs generally have more space around the head area. That's also what side curtain airbags and other safety features are for, to reduce the chance of that happening.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,641
Precisely.
I suspect a notable factor will be features of certain cars that actually contribute to the accidents as much as the survivability, possibly even affecting the driver's behaviour.
Might even be the circumstances under which the class of vehicle is more likely to be driven, that skews the stats, ie Hot Hatches being hooned around at high speed, so more likely to have fatal colisions in the first place no matter what else they hit.
How one drives these cars is often considered to be one of the more important safety factors.
Problem is that people seem to rely on that alone.
Neither would I, given the choice, but it's not 'my' car.
If your vehicle is higher, the chances of the other vehicle underriding you (or you override them) and the occupant(s) effectively getting hit in the face with your vehicle are higher.
It comes up in several studies, usually in sections about 'impact incompatibility'.
Basically, the solid bits of your SUV are higher than the impact protection points of the lower vehicles. Supposedly Merc designed their newer SUVs with lower bumpers for this reason.
Can be offset. Not always. Just the same as it can have larger, better brakes, but not always.
Physics does play a part, but it also contributes to accidents in other ways.
As mentioned above, a lot depends on how people drive as well as what they drive.True. I love motorcycles, but would hate to ride them on the road. Too many big vehicles!
I consider myself a pretty safe motorcyclist. I have a big, heavy, old, slow-braking but fast-moving bike, but a pretty good safety record as I leave a lot of room for other people's driving.
I ride careful, because I have no safety features, effectively.
I also seem to recall reading in one of the American studies that, of the 6,000-odd SUV fatalities, it was noted that most of those occupants had NOT been wearing the fitted seatbelts.....
Assuming this to be standard behaviour in general, this might be a double-win for SUV safety (ie, "all those others who survived despite not belting up - Buy our SUV as we protect even the stupid!"), or a more telling statistic on why so many drivers of other vehicles died in the first place...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,641
But in the head-on crashes and sometimes the side ones, hoofing great SUVs have enough room for crumple zones and reinforcing bars and airbags in the front, side, rear, seat, armrest, upper side roof, ashtray and anywhere else you can think of, while still having enough space left over for three storage compartments and a picnic table..... no, really, we do have a folding bloody picnic table in the cabin of our CR-V!!
A statistic take from the uk data sheets that does satisfy my preconception of poor SUV stability,
number of serious accidents, leading to the car leaving the carriageway (#incidents, #cars registered, #accidents/million)
X5 BMW 31 90036 344.3067218
5* BMW 22 239717 91.77488455
Maybe there is a trade-off for SUV crash cell integrity though, or X5's have fewer slight acccidents, or many other ways to misinterpret significance.
Personal accident / driving-event history plays a part in a purchase decision, so I rate increased passive safety(manouverability/stability) highly.
number of serious accidents, leading to the car leaving the carriageway (#incidents, #cars registered, #accidents/million)
X5 BMW 31 90036 344.3067218
5* BMW 22 239717 91.77488455
Maybe there is a trade-off for SUV crash cell integrity though, or X5's have fewer slight acccidents, or many other ways to misinterpret significance.
Personal accident / driving-event history plays a part in a purchase decision, so I rate increased passive safety(manouverability/stability) highly.
X5 is a newer car. It's about 15 years old at most as a guess. The 5 series must be about 40 now!