24

I've long observed that many drivers in the UK choose SUVs (which are often disparagingly called Chelsea Tractors) do so at least partially because they believe such cars to be safer. I doubt this claim.

More importantly, the debate about safety has become a significant component of the US debate about fuel economy standards with some arguing against the government standards on safety grounds. For example, this article argues:

To improve fuel economy, auto makers primarily reduce the size and power of vehicles. Unfortunately, this downsizing has tragic consequences. As far back as 1989, consumer advocate Ralph Nader admitted that larger cars are safer as there is more bulk to protect the occupant. Numerous studies have proved this point. For example:

  • Researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that, on average, for every 100 pounds shaved off new cars to meet CAFE standards, between 440 and 780 additional people were killed in auto accidents or a total of 2,200 to 3,900 lives lost per model year.

  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data indicate that 322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles.

  • Using data from the NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety, USA Today calculated that size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths.

Of course these claims have been questioned. Here is an academic analysis that argues against the above interpretation of US data:

And there are other factors to consider. Big vehicles are probably worse for other road users. And the ones with higher centres of gravity may be more likely to roll over than normal cars.

So what does the worldwide evidence say? Do big vehicles decrease injuries to their passengers? And, even if they do, do they make the roads safer overall?

SQB
  • 3,339
  • 2
  • 22
  • 48
matt_black
  • 56,186
  • 16
  • 175
  • 373
  • There are a spectrum of sizes between "already downsized small cars" and large SUVs. I am hoping that answers will make that distinction - removing 100 lbs from a 1609 lb (730 kg) Smart Fortwo is likely to make a bigger difference than removing the same from a 7,190 lb (3,260 kg) Ford Excursion. – Oddthinking Oct 24 '11 at 00:22
  • longer crumple zones: more impact energy absorbed before the collision starts to deform the passenger cabin – jwenting Oct 24 '11 at 05:59
  • 1
    More mass means more stopping distance, and less maneuverability too. I could see the numbers showing that collisions are more fatal in small cars, but also less frequent. – Flimzy Oct 24 '11 at 07:11
  • I think it is an issue solved by game theory. In mathematics, one can describe a simple game, where if everyone cooperates, then everyone come out ahead, but by a small margin. However, if one bad actor chooses to not cooperate with the rest, then they win big, while everyone else loses. If the bad guy continues not to cooperate, then the stable solution is for everyone not to cooperate too. This results in a game where everyone comes out behind, an unhappy result, but forced upon them. –  Oct 24 '11 at 10:13
  • 2
    Continuing the game theory comment - this is the same with cars. If everyone drives a small car, then all are happy. Everyone gets good gas mileage, they all have small, easy to maneuver cars, able to avoid an accident, and easy to park. However, if one person buys a HUMMER, it will survive virtually untouched in an interaction with your favorite tiny two seater, while the small car will be flattened. So all drivers then go out and buy SUVs, and everyone comes out behind. All of this is made more difficult because there will always be large trucks on the road for valid commercial purposes. –  Oct 24 '11 at 10:19
  • 1
    @woodchips I'm always a little leery of applying that kind of only-one-metric game theory to a situation like this. Collisions are rare and the people making the buying choices face other pressures (initial cost, operating costs, finding parking, ...). – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 24 '11 at 17:12
  • 1
    @woodchips you might also reverse that and say that if everyone has SUVs everyone is happy with loads of internal space, comfort, and safety where before they were all equally happy (but unhappy) with the cramped interiors, lack of comfort, and high chance of fatal injuries when skidding into a crash barrier if they lose control on an icy road... – jwenting Oct 25 '11 at 06:26
  • @Flimzy: The situation with more mass is more complicated than that. Each braking system has a maximal mass above with your claim is true, but below that threshold the variation is very modest and may be dominated by other factors. For instance big rigs stop best when moderately heavily loaded and worst when running very light (because the maximum effective coefficient of friction for rolling stops is higher than that for skidding stops and the lightly loaded trailer skids very easily). That rolling-versus-skidding stop issue is *why* we use anti-lock brakes. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mar 06 '12 at 20:08
  • There are also other factors that make SUVs worse in active safety apart from the weight, size and higher centre of gravity. They usually come with off-road tyres that reduces grip on tarmac (where they mostly drive) and the 4WD cause a false sense of security that causes SUV drivers to not adapt their speed to the road conditions. – liftarn Nov 01 '18 at 12:44

2 Answers2

14

Heavier cars are safer than light cars. Larger cars are safer than small cars. This applies to SUV's as well especially since rollover is not a factor in late model SUV's with standard stability control. Crash rates from both types of vehicles are similar, with the heavier/bigger vehicle having a major safety advantage.

From the IIHS Status Report, Special Issue: Car Size, Weight and Safety, Vol. 44, No. 4, April 14, 2009 exploring mini vehicles and mid-sized vehicles:

The heavier car will push the lighter car backward during the impact, which means the velocity change of the heavier car will be much less than that of the lighter car. If the lighter car weighs half as much as the heavier car, the forces on its occupants will be twice as great.

Also from that report:

...vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants, provided vehicle designers take advantage of the extra length.

The safety advantage isn't just in collisions with lighter cars, either Single vehicle (solo) crash death rates in in small cars like the Honda Fit are as high in single- as well as multiple-vehicle crashes. The death rate in mini cars (as the report describes the Fit and Toyota Yaris) during 2007 was 35 per million, compared with 11 per million for very large cars - three times as high.

The NHTSA performed a study examining all vehicles up to SUV's, vans, and pickup trucks titled Vehicle Weight, Fatality Risk and Crash Compatibility of Model Year 1991-99 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks This study showed that:

Weight reductions in passenger cars, lighter vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) increased the risk of fatal crash involvement.

NHTSA did say that the slightly heavier "Mid-Sized SUV's" lost some of their safety advantage because of their increased rollover risk. But don't forget, these were older SUV's without stability control. In pure collisions however, they retained an advantage over lighter mid-sized cars because of their higher weight.

Which leads us to rollover risk as it stands today,

SUVs now least likely for rollover crashes From an IIHS report reported:

Each year, from 2006 through 2009, drivers of newer SUVs suffered an average of 28 deaths per million vehicles, according to the Institute. That's about half the average driver death rate for cars, which was 56.

About the same IIHS report, in Motor Trend, from 2011:

The rollover risk in SUVs used to outweigh their size/weight advantage, but that’s no longer the case, thanks to [stability control],” said Anne McCartt, IIHS senior vice president for research, in a statement announcing the report’s findings.

Also from that report: the IIHS says minivans were safest (25 fatalities per million registered vehicle years), followed by SUVs (28 per million), then pickup trucks (52 per million), with the broad “cars” class rated most deadly (56 deaths per million.)

Stability control was required in 2006 and phased in completely by 2009. When stability control is ubiquitous in passenger cars then this statistic may change. Nevertheless, that the is situation today - SUV's all have stability control and not every car has it.

On rollovers, if you buckle up then the risk is greatly reduced for you, and the rollover risk is largely mitigated. There is also a large variation of risk between specific models.

2% of crashes involved a rollover, but that 2% were responsible for 35% of the fatalities:

In 2010 alone, more than 7,600 people died in rollover crashes. The majority of them (69%) were not wearing safety belts.

If you choose to buckle up rollovers are far less of a worry. And don't forget in any case that a rollover less likely to happen now in a SUV than it is to happen in a passenger car!

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
geoO
  • 540
  • 5
  • 9
  • 1
    Be careful when you go researching you don't run into poor results form SUV's and think they are poor performers in real-world crashes. Vehicle classes are compared against EACH OTHER in barrier crash tests so a "poor" large-car result is often better than a "good" small-car result in direct comparison. There are pitfalls to avoid in the research. – geoO Jun 09 '13 at 11:04
  • 9
    So, are you saying that SUVs are safer for those *driving* them? What does the result look like if you include how safe they are for *everyone else on the road?* – matt_black Jun 09 '13 at 19:47
  • 3
    @matt_black that was not the question, so doesn't matter for the answer... If everyone drives the same, everyone has the same level of safety, whether that's 0 (they're all driving Smart cars) or total (they're all driving Abrams tanks). – jwenting Jun 10 '13 at 06:45
  • Actually, now that the SUV rollover risk is mitigated through technology, the data show that even if everyone drove the SAME small car we would have more fatalities overall because even in *single car crashes* the fatality rate is higher for smaller cars. This is because "car vs tree" and "car vs barrier" collisions are more dangerous in a small car as well as in collisions with larger vehicles. – geoO Jun 10 '13 at 17:48
  • 3
    @jwenting You are interpreting risk in a narrow sense. I'm thinking total risk to all road users and also trying to estimate whether there is a relationship between the frequency of accidents and the sort of car you drive. You seem to assume constant probability of collision, independent of what car you drive (if true then in one narrow sense, SUVs might be safer *for their drivers*, though other road users might be more at risk). I want to see proof of all the relevant factors. – matt_black Jun 10 '13 at 20:14
  • @matt_black that would be impossible to answer as people react differently to different situations. Some people may start driving recklessly when in a larger or sturdier car, others get all uncertain about being in such a big car and go extra careful in case they hit something. Overall, in my experience driving for 20 years+, I see little difference in the way cars are handled. Roughly the same percentage of drivers of large and small cars are idiots. But that is of course in part localised, and I don't claim it to be universally true (another problem...). – jwenting Jun 11 '13 at 05:24
  • 1
    @jwenting but there might be some comparative statistics to *verify* your intuition? – matt_black Jun 11 '13 at 23:29
  • @matt_black probably not, as it's impossible to do a double blind experiment. – jwenting Jun 12 '13 at 05:28
  • 1
    Since there isn't evidence I could find that shows smaller, lighter cars get into FEWER accidents, the answer still holds. If you speculate that the EXISTENCE of large vehicles has an impact on the safety of those in smaller vehicles you need to devise a very good experiment to test it! Good look with those confounding factors! Anyway, that is another question, and research that I could find gives us the answer to the question here. Statistics show big cars ARE, in fact, safer and don't just FEEL safer. – geoO Jun 12 '13 at 10:26
  • 2
    @geoO No they don't. Not until you show that the *frequency* of accidents is independent of car size and that the overall wellbeing of all road users is not impacted by car size (since the major benefit of big seems to be to *transfer* injury to other road users the second point needs some serious real world stats before it is ignored). I don't expect controlled trials, just good analysis of the actual accident stats which should be imperfect but should shed some illumination on the question. – matt_black Jun 12 '13 at 20:48
  • 2
    Current data is unequivocal that larger cars are safer in fatalities per vehicle-mile, whether or not they crash into a smaller car or into a barrier. You are speculating about accident rates which we have no evidence varies whatsoever by vehicle size. Other than the propensity to roll over, which is mitigated, heavier vehicles TAKE THE SAME DISTANCES TO STOP AS LIGHTER ONES, so why would you expect large vehicles to be involved in more accidents in the first place? – geoO Jun 13 '13 at 20:05
  • @geoO "heavier vehicles TAKE THE SAME DISTANCES TO STOP AS LIGHTER ONES" - You think so? Care to test that with a fully loaded semi? – D M Dec 29 '18 at 22:20
  • 1
    @DM Semis have other considerations such as load transfer, contact patch, and especially air brake lag. Look at some car reviews where 5,000 lb SUVs stop in carlike distances. Tractor trailers are another conversation anyway. – geoO Apr 02 '19 at 17:34
4

Not exactly an answer, but there are two physical points that are more-or-less inescapable:

  1. In a vehicle--vehicle collision the more massive body is subjected to smaller accelerations than the lighter one. Mass is favored here. Some readers may remembers those crash test films from the 1970s that show this effect all too well (but see the link on "quality of engineering" below).

  2. In vehicle--fixed, solid object collisions (and vehicle--vehicle impacts with roughly equal masses) the expected accelerations experienced by the passengers go roughly by the inverse of the length of the crumble zone available to absorb the energy. Size is favored here.

I'm not going to provide citations for these fact as anyone who has passed freshman physics should be able to work a Back-of-the-Envelope problem to demonstrate them.

IIHS video on these issues.

Note however, that these are only two of many factors which apply. I haven't discussed collision avoidance, handling, tendency to roll (a problem with some trucks, SUVs and vans), the impact of choice of materials, quality of engineering (youtube link), compensatory behavior, what types of collisions are most prevalent (i.e. if many accidents involve sliding sideways into a tree having a long car isn't going to help you), etc, etc.

I will note that improved materials science may (indeed to some extent has) allowed cars to get lighter without getting smaller.

  • 8
    As you suggest, this is not exactly an answer. Your physics would suggest it is plausible that, if you are in an accident, the extra mass and length would help. But, if for example, the difficulty in manoeuvring extra momentum makes it more likely to be involved in accidents in the first place, that protective effect may disappear. (I think we are in agreement here - I just want to promote people coming up with full answers.) – Oddthinking Oct 24 '11 at 04:20
  • 2
    regarding crumble zone argument - most SUVs are built on frames and have no crumble zones. – vartec Oct 24 '11 at 10:18
  • 1
    @vartec - Can you source that statement because I believe you are wrong on that. That was probably true until ~2005 but I am pretty sure that has changed. – Chad Oct 24 '11 at 13:46
  • @Oddthinking: I quite agree, this answer only discusses things that happen once an accident occurs. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 24 '11 at 15:14
  • @Chad: take Ford Explorer for example, only since 2011 it's unibody. – vartec Oct 24 '11 at 15:39
  • @Vartec - Sources... – Chad Oct 24 '11 at 15:43
  • @Chad: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ford+explorer+unibody – vartec Oct 24 '11 at 16:04
  • @Vartec - "most SUVs are built on frames and have no crumble zones. " That is what i am asking for. Citing one which has been redesigned to include them does not fulfill the requirements – Chad Oct 24 '11 at 16:27
  • 1
    @dmckee also, what happens if a SUV smashes into another SUV? How much of the possible gains would be transitory if everyone bought a SUV? – Sklivvz Oct 24 '11 at 16:30
  • @Sklivvz Neither vehicle has a big mass advantage over the other, but size (not mass) still plays a role in the accelerations experienced by the passengers. Because it is lengths that matter I'd suggesting that a well build land-barge would have the energy absorbtion advantage over a truck or SUV. All else being equal two SUVs is better than two mini-cars, but two full-size sedans is better than two SUVs (the Grand Marquis I had for a while had nearly two meters of front crumple zone). – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 24 '11 at 17:05
  • 3
    Euro NCAP FAQ, Are large cars safer than small cars? - http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Faq/f795b985-edb5-4fd6-ac45-1afc92ca6610/buying-your-car.aspx#faq692fe9b6-e006-4167-b471-07b99c8f62c4 – Tom77 Mar 07 '12 at 14:11
  • Your point 1 considers mass, point 2 size. But in In vehicle--fixed, solid object collisions, isn't mass actually a disadvantage? More kinetic energy to dissipate, and it will all on the vehicle.. – Lorenzo Dematté Sep 05 '13 at 08:10
  • @LorenzoDematté The size thing out weights (heh!) that. The energy goes up linearly in mass, and the amount of mass around to absorb it also goes up more or less linearly in mass. In fact, big cars tend to have a larger fraction of their mass outside of the passenger cage. The accelerations on the other hand go by 1/distance (up to some maximum ability of the design to take up the impact before there is massive intrusion into the passenger cage). Big, sprawling, well-designed land barges are your best bet for safety in a collision. Not so much for fuel economy, of course. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Sep 05 '13 at 09:15
  • The heavier car manages to move more of the energy to the lighter car. I'm still waiting for the moment where someone driving a small, light car sues an SUV driver, because their damage was mostly caused by the excessive weight of the SUV. – gnasher729 Sep 09 '14 at 14:57