What vehicles are actually safer?

[StorminN]

I don't mean to pick on the Camrys... but I have to admit... after I read this today, I chuckled at the coincidence of what car had rear-ended the first Tesla to be in an (unplanned) crash...

Tesla #6 rear-ended by a Camry, pushed under a Benz

Wired blog article

Larger Flickr pics

-Norm.

[Paul]

If you run 2 Suburbans head on into each other, each going 50 mph, the likely hood of death is much greater than if you run 2 Camrys head on into each other at 50 mph.

Paul, what brings you to this conclusion of a hypothetical situation? Why do you feel the likelihood of death is "much greater"? I understand the larger amount of kinetic energy involved, but I'm wondering what exactly brings you to this conclusion? The chart that you posted before gives us numbers, but what do those numbers mean? I agree that the Camry handling and braking numbers are slightly better, but in a Suburban - Camry accident, I still strongly disagree... I'd much rather be in the Suburban... and yes, I understand crumple zones, deceleration distances, etc.

You just answered the question. Crumple zones are stopping distance. Greater stopping distance lower the G forces on the occupants. The Suburbans will look a lot better after the accident (with that solid bumper bolted to a rigid frame.) Crumple zones and more strict safety requirements for passenger cars, compared to Trucks (including most SUVs), favor the drivers in the Camrys.

[Paul]

[snip]
If we're to take this chart to heart, we should all be driving minivans (safest for the drivers). Of course, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"... this chart does not tell us the source of this data... first of all, what are we seeing? What do the numbers actually reference? Is this a chart of injuries, or deaths? Also, what is the risk to passengers (are we assume it's the same as the risk to drivers? Probably not true in vehicles without passenger air bags, etc.) and does the source of the data account for the different numbers of each vehicle on the road?
[snip]

These are insurance company numbers and only consider drivers and deaths (not injuries or passengers.) The numbers are per one million registered vehicles per year. Low volume vehicles are not represented because not enough are sold to have reliable data (the Geo Metro is one example.) Several years and sometimes models can are combined due to being of the same manufacturers design and meeting the same safety regulations.

The links to the original data have been lost over several computer changes. Specifically, the web address of a download is not retained in the file properties in Mac OSX (and I didn't know that when I upgraded.)

[StorminN]

You just answered the question. Crumple zones are stopping distance. Greater stopping distance lower the G forces on the occupants. The Suburbans will look a lot better after the accident (with that solid bumper bolted to a rigid frame.) Crumple zones and more strict safety requirements for passenger cars, compared to Trucks (including most SUVs), favor the drivers in the Camrys.

Paul, I think you're confusing crumpling with survivability... these do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. To bring this to the extreme, build a car out of aluminum foil. Now run this car into a Suburban, with both vehicles traveling 50mph... yes, the aluminum foil car will have crumpled, but not enough energy will have been absorbed... the person in the foil car will still be dead. I view subcompact cars as not much more protection than this hypothetical situation, and the numbers of deaths for those cars... Neons, Prisms, Metros, etc. substantiate my view.

-Norm.

[StorminN]

These are insurance company numbers and only consider drivers and deaths (not injuries or passengers.) The numbers are per one million registered vehicles per year. Low volume vehicles are not represented because not enough are sold to have reliable data (the Geo Metro is one example.) Several years and sometimes models can are combined due to being of the same manufacturers design and meeting the same safety regulations.

The links to the original data have been lost over several computer changes. Specifically, the web address of a download is not retained in the file properties in Mac OSX (and I didn't know that when I upgraded.)

Paul, you probably saw the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety status report that James Adcock sent around on the SEVA list... if not, here is a link:

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Safety Report, April 2007

Two thing are very interesting to me... first, that of all vehicles, the Chevy Astro is the safest!... (I never would have guessed) and second, that the Camry is not in the top 15.

I've also attached the file to this post, so it is archived (in case the link dies).

-Norm.

[Paul]

Paul, I think you're confusing crumpling with survivability... these do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. To bring this to the extreme, build a car out of aluminum foil. Now run this car into a Suburban, with both vehicles traveling 50mph... yes, the aluminum foil car will have crumpled, but not enough energy will have been absorbed... the person in the foil car will still be dead. I view subcompact cars as not much more protection than this hypothetical situation, and the numbers of deaths for those cars... Neons, Prisms, Metros, etc. substantiate my view.

-Norm.

You seem to have missed what I was comparing. Not Camry to Suburban, Suburban to Suburban and Camry to Camry. If its got to be an accident with a Suburban I'm taking the train that day 

The Highway Safety report was interesting too. My '04 Tacoma shows as being about as safe as a Suburban. The data is newer than my information. Check out some of the better brand name small and mid-size passenger cars. Many are doing well, even bettering many SUVs in terms of drivers deaths. The sample size of most vehicles was well under 1 million, to small to speak with confidence about the actual death rate per million per year. (2 examples - the Toyota Echo has a small sample size and looks to be safer than either the Civic or Corolla, the 2-door and 4-door VW Golf have very different death rates and very small sample sizes)

Thanks for the link.

[aviken]

There are oh so many ways to look at the numbers.

Just some thoughts...
What defines a car as safe? Number of deaths, or number of injuries, or some of both?
Then are we talking number of deaths for the vehicle driven, or other vehicles in the collision...to illustrate the complexity -

A Camry with 2 people in it collides with a Suburban that has 6 people in it. Lets say that that in the Camry, 1 person was killed, and one sustained moderate injuries, broken leg & bruises, etc...let's assume the suburban afterwards went off the road, and rolled onto it's side, killing 2 people, moderately injuring 2 others, while the other 2 were only shaken up.

Do we say that the Camry is safer because it had half as many deaths as the Suburban (1 to 2)?
Or is the Suburban safer because only 33% of occupants were killed opposed to 50% in the Camry (2 of 6 vs 1 of 2)?
Do we say the Camry is safer because the Camry had half as many injuries as the Suburban? (1 to 2)?
Or is the Suburban safer because only 33% of occupants were injured opposed to 50% in the Camry (2 of 6 vs 1 of 2)?
Do we say that the Camry is less safe because 100% of the occupants were either killed or hospitalized, vs 67% in the Suburban (2 of 6 unharmed)?
Or do we say the Suburban is less safe because it injured and per vehicle, twice as many people were killed or inured (hospitalized)?
But wait, it gets more complicated...
How much weight of the accident to we give to the Camry vs. the Suburban? That is, had the Camry hit another Camry, would the death / injuries be less or more? If the Suburban had hit a larger vehicle, would it have not still had the momentum to careen off the road, and roll over?
This is but one illustration and you can decide how to pull apart the numbers. Without going into too many other variables, keep in mind they track other things in accidents - at least involving fatalities. Was alcohol involved? How about Speeding? I don't have the facts to back it up, but I'll bet that fatalities in Corvettes where speeding was involved is higher than that of a VW Rabbit. I'm sure there are skews to the alcohol related collisions as well.

Part of the problem is that you can't separate the driver from the vehicle in these studies. I guess if you have enough numbers, it becomes less relevant - but I think it's much more complicated than some of the numbers might indicate.






Does it take into consideration if seatbelts were being worn?

[Paul]

This is but one illustration and you can decide how to pull apart the numbers. Without going into too many other variables, keep in mind they track other things in accidents - at least involving fatalities. Was alcohol involved? How about Speeding? I don't have the facts to back it up, but I'll bet that fatalities in Corvettes where speeding was involved is higher than that of a VW Rabbit. I'm sure there are skews to the alcohol related collisions as well.

Part of the problem is that you can't separate the driver from the vehicle in these studies. I guess if you have enough numbers, it becomes less relevant - but I think it's much more complicated than some of the numbers might indicate.

All important issues but I think you missed a big one. What is the accident rate for the various vehicles? By rating drivers deaths 2 vehicles may appear just as safe; however, 1 vehicle may have a 50% greater accident rate with a 33% lower death rate in an accident. When only drivers deaths are being counted the 2 appear equally safe. When injury or death is counted its likely the vehicle with less accidents is safer.

Who drives what kind of vehicle is certainly a big issue. If they try to sort the issues out to finely then the small sample size reduces confidence in the results. Speeding and driving under the influence are also major factors in traffic accidents.

I don't necessarily drive the safest vehicles. The EV Buggy would be a bad choice to get into an accident. The 1965 Dodge, my 1966 Datsun, and an assortment of VW Beetles I've driven over the years are nowhere near as safe as modern vehicles either (gotta love lap belts and a metal dash.) The point is, the largest vehicles available are not necessarily the safest either. The IIHS report you cited makes that clear. Even today some sedans and mini-vans rate very high in safety, bettering many larger vehicles.

Paul