# What is the safest vehicle to drive?



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

ProRail said:


> All of the above is uniformed speculation.


I missed posting this link -- sorry. I paraphrased much of what is here.

http://www.safercar.gov/Rollover


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

> I'm sure that there are reports from the insurance companies that are based on actual statistics. Will someone please post some real information on this subject.


I can try 

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/fact_sheets/CollisionLoss_0910.pdf This lists loss statistics by vehicle class.

Bodily Injury claim frequency and amounts by vehicle class:

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/fact_sheets/BodilyInjury_0910.pdf

Loss payments are made by the at fault driver's insurance. Larger payouts mean more bodily injury. Loss payments tend to increase with vehicle size. One big exception is the mini sports car class, which had the highest payments despite the low mass of the cars. Another is Large 2 door cars. Large 2-doors had larger payouts than the large SUV class.

The data are standardised for the number of under 25's, so driver age vs. type of vehicle is not a factor.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rollover.html


> *Are rollovers a big problem?*
> A vehicle is classified as rolling over if it tips onto its side or roof at any time during a crash. Many rollovers lead to partial or full ejection of occupants from the vehicle, increasing the likelihood of injury or death. Vehicles roll over in less than 3 percent of all crashes,(1) but these crashes account for more than a third of passenger vehicle occupant deaths. In 2009, 23,437 passenger vehicle occupants died in crashes of all kinds. Of those, 8,296 died in crashes where their vehicle rolled over.





> *Are rollovers more common for SUVs than for other vehicles?*
> Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickups than for cars, and more common for SUVs than for pickups. In 2009, 56 percent of SUV occupants killed in crashes were in vehicles that rolled over. In comparison, 47 percent of deaths in pickups and 25 percent of deaths in cars were in rollovers.
> 
> Pickups and SUVs tend to be involved in rollovers more frequently than cars largely due to the physical differences of these vehicles. Light trucks are taller than cars and have greater ground clearance, causing their mass to be distributed higher off the road relative to the width of the vehicle. Additional passengers and cargo can increase the center of gravity even more. Other things being equal, a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is more prone to roll over than a lower riding vehicle.(2)
> ...


References:

1National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2009. Traffic safety facts, 2008. Report no. DOT HS-811-170. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

2Robertson, L.S. and Kelley, A.B. 1988. Static stability as a predictor of overturn in fatal motor vehicle crashes. Journal of Trauma 29:313-19.

3Pickrell, T.M.; and Ye, T.J. 2009. Seatbelt use in 2009 ***8211; overall results. Report no. DOT HS-811-100. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rollover.html



> *How has the number of rollover fatalities changed over time?*
> The annual number of fatalities in rollover crashes on US roads has increased as SUVs have become more popular. However, the size of the US vehicle fleet has grown more rapidly than the number of rollover fatalities, so the fatality rate based on the number of registered passenger vehicles in the fleet has declined consistently during the past 20 years, from 33 driver deaths per million registered vehicles in 1989 to 14 deaths per million in 2009. The percentage of fatalities in rollover crashes for each vehicle type has remained relatively unchanged.
> 
> *What is being done to reduce the occurrence of rollovers?*
> ...


References:

4 Walz, M.C. 2005. Trends in the static stability factor of passenger cars, light trucks, and vans. Report no. DOT HS-809-868. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

18 Office of the Federal Register. 2006. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ***8211; Notice of proposed rulemaking. Docket no. NHTSA-2006-25801; 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 ***8211; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Electronic stability control systems. Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 180, pp. 54712-53. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

But wait there is more:

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/urban.html



> *More crash deaths occur in rural areas.* In 2009, 63 percent of crash deaths occurred in rural areas. However, vehicle miles traveled are increasing rapidly in urban areas, where most of the U.S. population lives. From 1985 to 2009, total vehicle miles traveled rose 68 percent, but miles traveled in urban areas grew 91 percent.1,2
> 
> Pedestrian deaths and injuries are more prevalent in urban areas. *Seventy-one percent of pedestrian deaths in 2009 occurred in urban settings.*
> 
> ...


----------



## drrpm (Feb 9, 2010)

Safetywise it would be hard to beat an MRAP. Some more realistic safe vehicles are the Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna. They're dorky minivans but are pretty big, have many safety features and drive very well.


----------



## Ilovemycar (Feb 19, 2010)

helter said:


> I drive a 2006 325XI and I guess the 3 series has always done really well in crash tests and safety studies.
> 
> However, 9 times out of 10 when I read about serious car accidents involving 2 or more cars/suv's and trucks. The guy in the car is dead or transported to the nearest trauma unit and the guy in the truck or SUV walks away.
> 
> ...


There are a lot of links here, so forgive me if this one was already given (don't think so). It was offered by a member in the 3er subforum, and I thought it to be very interesting. The PDF's title is: The Relationship between Vehicle Weight, Size, and Safety.

The reason why the "other guy" is often dead when in an accident with a truck or truck based SUV is because of the stiff frame rails: they act like fork tines, stabbing right into the other car. Ever since reading this PDF, when I'm driving my Ranger, I am much more aware of the danger I pose to others, as well as the much greater risks to me (my truck is one of the worst vehicles for safety, when considering both danger to driver and others; small cars won't kill others as much for instance).

Some other tidbits from it: Import luxury sedans are safest. Wagon versions of same model tend to have both better drivers and better safety. Sports car drivers are the worst, minivan drivers are the best, with luxury sedan drivers just right behind.

Urban driving is considerably safer than rural driving.

I was surprised at how relatively safe crossover SUVs were. I was also surprised at how relatively unsafe the larger truck based SUVs are. But damn those pickups look like bad news.

There is little relationship between weight and risk, except when the manufacturer is accounted for. There is a weak relationship between weight and safety in a frontal crash. There is a strong relationship between resale value and risk.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.pdf


----------



## helter (Apr 1, 2008)

The link in the post above mine had the most critical piece of data that confirms my observations stated in the OP.
thank you to ILOVEMYCAR


"High risk to others from pickups and SUVs (and to a lesser extent
minivans) associated with chassis stiffness and height
-car driver fatality rate is 5x higher when struck in side by SUV
(4x higher when struck by pickup) than when struck in side by
another car
-SUVs are built on pickup frames, whose rails often override car
bumpers and sills and puncture car bodies"


So basically if your BMW is struck in the side by an SUV you have a 5 times greater risk of dying then from a car.

scary..


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

helter said:


> So basically if your BMW is struck in the side by an SUV you have a 5 times greater risk of dying then from a car.
> 
> scary..


Not exactly --

The most important take away from the link is the *weak* relationship between weight and risk. Slide 20. Trading your BMW for a heavy SUV may not be any safer for you.

It is the *truck based* SUVs and pickups that are the greatest risk. Truck based SUVs are less common in urban areas. See slide 18 in the link. The risk in CA from truck-based SUVs is 3x greater in rural areas.

BMWs have better side impact protection than many other cars and SUVs. Look at the side impact safety for some of the crossover SUVs. I posted a link earlier.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

Ilovemycar said:


> There are a lot of links here, so forgive me if this one was already given (don't think so).


It wasn't. Great link!


----------



## fastgaas (Oct 21, 2010)

All I can say is that my parents were hit head on by a Ford 250 while driving their Mercedes C class. The ford was going 70 (passing a logging truck blind) and my parents 60 mph. 

They both lived, no small testament to the Mercedes that totally absorbed and crumpled an it's engine thrown 40 ft clear. It took 2 hrs to cut my dad out, my mom broke both feet and face/side burns from air bags. My dad took 1 year to take his first step after the crash, now he can play 18 holes of golf and carry his bag.

The drunk woman with no lic driving the truck broke both legs

I always thought a big, heavy SUV was the way to go. But seeing how that car saved my parents lives made me believe in good engineering is the key. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law died in a similar accident 10 years earlier in a Honda with no airbags.

Needless to say I bought my parents a new Mercedes while they were in the hospital.
-H


----------



## BMW220i (Jun 6, 2011)

My guess would be the Mercedes Benz E350 4Matic or Saab 9-5. The reasoning is because they are the biggest cars with a good crash test (keeping in mind that all tests have limitations). The BMW 5 series with X-drive has worse crash test results that the RWD model. FWD is better than RWD in winter weather. SUVs are too clumsy so there's a trade off between agility and massive weight.


----------



## Inline Sixer (Oct 28, 2010)

This thing. It has a v-shaped undercarriage that can deflect the force of a roadside bomb. Cool stuff. It was actually featured in Car&Driver. Plus, it would be cool to slam the breaks hard on tailgaters with this beast. LOL


----------



## VirtuousWolf (Jul 21, 2011)

I think saab makes pretty safe cars  

I used to have one (2003 9-5) but then I got my 330i and I much prefer the look and handling of this car


----------



## helter (Apr 1, 2008)

Ford Explorer smashes into a Ford Focus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBNiQWTZ6pk&feature=related


----------



## Kamdog (Apr 15, 2007)

Accident avoidance is unmeasured in these things though.

I was making a turn into my street, with the green arrow light, and the stopped traffic of the street I was turning into was 2 lanes. Unknown to me, a fire engine, without its siren going (or at least I didn't hear it, and I generally don't listen to the radio), was using the lane for oncoming traffic (the lane I was going into) to run the light.

I caught the flashing red lights, stomped on the brake, and the 5er just stopped, like, right now. That emergency pre-charging really worked, and the car just stopped dead. All of the other cars I had owned could not have stopped that short, and would have gone another few feet, right into the fire engine.

Stopping ability, and the ability to maneuver with control matters a lot too, and the crash tests simply don't measure that.


----------



## Yorgi (Mar 17, 2005)

Well if we are going to include military vehicles I say we should stick to German made machinery since this is bimmerfest after all.

Here is proof that heavier vehicles are safer than lighter vehicles:


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

Kamdog said:


> Accident avoidance is unmeasured in these things though.


It isn't in the crash tests.

Avoidance is indirectly measured in the accident loss numbers. I posted a link. That includes people who avoid accidents by the way they drive as well as cars that are better at avoiding accidents. That puts cars like the Honda Odyssey low on the loss tables. It handles ok, does well in a crash and is typically driven conservatively.

I agree that stopping distance is important. BMWs consistently have some of the shortest stopping distances.

FWIW the 'safe' Honda Odyssey does 70-0 in 187 ft. Not bad, but 10-20 feet more than it takes your 5er to stop. ( Here's the link again --> http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q2/road_test_digest-feature )


----------



## helter (Apr 1, 2008)

http://www.app.com/article/20110728...d-Township?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

This accident happened last night in my town.
Once again another SUV and car crash.
One dead and one critical in the Honda Accord. In the Honda Pilot (SUV) everyone was treated and released including a 72 year old.

Typical of what I read every week in the local papers:bawling:


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

helter said:


> Typical of what I read every week in the local papers:bawling:


Typical journalism. Pick something and then find anecdotal evidence to support it. Repeat until you find a more interesting topic.

They are looking at a single event, not all the other crashes. More importantly they aren't reporting on the cars that weren't in collisions.

If you look at links posted earlier in this thread, on of the best ways to be safe is to buy a new Honda Odyssey and drive it like a typical Odyssey owner. This will put you at about the best possible point on the loss statistics.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

:soapbox:

I'm an American but have lived in the UK for about three years. In 2006, UK traffic fatality rate was 5.4 per 100,000 population. In the US it was 14.3. That is nearly 3 times as high. Link --> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

Part of the problem is that Americans don't know how to drive. They aren't taught well.

American driving licences are far too easy to get. In many states the test is an absolute joke. When I took the written test, the handbooks were available while you took the test. If you could read, you could pass the written test. Our daughter didn't have to drive on the street to get a Georgia licence. The test was around a few cones in a parking lot.

The UK written test pass rate is about 62% The road test pass rate for cars is 45%. Most people in the UK know how to drive. It has to make a difference.

It is also easy to loose your licence here. During the first two years, a new driver can loose a licence for a single speeding ticket. If you are banned, you have to take a longer, more difficult road test to get your license restored.

First offence for drunk driving (.08%) gets you a mandatory 1 year driving ban, a mandatory fine and up to 6 months in prison. Second offence is a mandatory *10 year* driving ban. If your car is parked in the street, you are committing an offence if you even touch it while over the limit...

http://www.dsbs.co.uk/driving-test-pass-rates

===========================

Fatality rates have gone down since 2006. In the UK, there were only 1,827 traffic fatalities in 2010. That's the lowest number since 1926. Of the 1,827 deaths 842 were in cars. (405 were pedestrians)
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics...rted-road-casualties-gb-main-results-2010.pdf

Rates in America dropped too. I can't find number for 2010.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx


----------



## Ilovemycar (Feb 19, 2010)

Andrew*Debbie said:


> I'm an American but have lived in the UK for about three years. In 2006, UK traffic fatality rate was 5.4 per 100,000 population. In the US it was 14.3. That is nearly 3 times as high. Link --> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208
> 
> Part of the problem is that Americans don't know how to drive. They aren't taught well.


I will not comment on driving differences, but the first thing that comes to mind is American dependence on cars. I've lived in Europe for a couple of years, and when I did, I never once owned a car. I didn't have to.

I remember a study I read a long time ago (surely over a decade ago), and the numbers were based on something like 100k people all driving X amount of miles or something. According to that study, the US was sorta average (I want to say 7ish). Germany was one of the highest listed (maybe second highest, around low double digit). Japan was lowest listed (I want to say 4-5). But the country that was just downright horrible was Spain, I want to say getting close to around 50 or something. I think the study attributed this awful number to very unsafe tin can cars. I assume Germany had a high number simply due to the speeds driven, even with great roads and very well built cars. Sorry to waste all your time with these unfounded numbers from distant memory, but I still wanted to blurt that out.


----------



## GG Hyundai (Feb 26, 2007)

fastgaas said:


> All I can say is that my parents were hit head on by a Ford 250 while driving their Mercedes C class. The ford was going 70 (passing a logging truck blind) and my parents 60 mph.
> 
> They both lived, no small testament to the Mercedes that totally absorbed and crumpled an it's engine thrown 40 ft clear. It took 2 hrs to cut my dad out, my mom broke both feet and face/side burns from air bags. My dad took 1 year to take his first step after the crash, now he can play 18 holes of golf and carry his bag.
> 
> ...


Ouch! Is that a w202 C Class?


----------

