yep, and I caught myself making a huge math error. You can't just add the 'per million' numbers together without dividing by the millions. The real point being that we don't have access to the raw data and most of us don't have the time or desire to work the raw data.

Yeah, look up the rear impact ratings of the Toyota Sienna on the IIHS web site. That rating is all about the head/neck support. It has nothing to do with rear crumple zones, the perceived achilles heel of the crashworthiness of the mini cooper.

That's what the TIME article was all about. Are you more likely to die from Mad Cow disease or heart disease? (unfair question for the vegetarians).

 

Graphic from the IIHS report posted by Ian Cull in his blog:
get the report here: http://www.iihs.org/news/2006/iihs_news_121906.pdf



So, what we see is that the same number of fatalities exist for a 2500lb car as a 4000lb truck. And the break even point for SUVs and Cars is about 2600 lbs. The trend is clear that for everything above 2600lbs you are better off in a car than an SUV or a Truck. And below 2600, well there really are no SUVs or Trucks, are there. On the other end the very heaviest truck does no better than the 2600lb car.

So, heavier vehicles have fewer fatalities. Trucks and SUVs are worse than cars at every instance. Thats it, end of story. At least the story of what's already happened. What happens to you in the future is up to you of course. Drive safely, pay attention, limit your risks, and you won't end up on the chart.

 

It would be really interesting to see crash test data for cars/trucks/SUVs as shown above but have it be from a non-USA country with high gas prices or a country that doesn't believe bigger is better. I wonder if overall fatalities would be lower when there aren't as many huge vehicles on the road to contend with It would be intersting to see the data

 

The annoyance of it all, as I covered on my weblog, is that the "facts" haven't been reported by any media, and can only be found by putting some effort into tracking down where they got their info, and reading it fully.

I suppose though that this happens every day with the media; it's just I don't often care how inaccurate they are!

 

laws of physecs cant be broken

 

This article was fascinating and very enlightening, if you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it. I imagine there was some bias, of course, but it makes some very good points, especially about active v. passive safety and the mentality of today's auto buying consumer. My favorite line from the article:

"According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills." (emphasis added) LMAO!!!

Given this whole discussion, my conclusion is that the safety of a car is dependent on a variety of factors so no blanket statement can be made to say that one size or weight of cars is safer than another under every circumstance and condition. The safety of a car depends on the situation of each specific crash, the skill of the driver, and even the mental state of the driver at the time among many other things. For the most part, I think most new cars are generally pretty safe. Trucks and truck-based SUVs are generally less-safe than car-based SUVs. If you want optimal safety, IMO I would go with a quality European midsized or large sedan (ie. Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Audi).

And one more thing, as has been mentioned on here already, I would like to say that "the cold hard facts" aren't always what they seem. So people should be careful when drawing definite conclusions. Even the number of deaths per million vehicles aren't soley dependent on the safety of the car itself. Other factors such as who drives the car, how often it is driven, and the way the car is used also heavily influences these numbers.

 

Buy you left out the part, at least in my reference above, that pickups are skewed because the drivers are usually young males more prones to deadly accidents ... that is why they are so high

 

Un american Who cares about those third world countries??? This is America. GIMME your OIL!

just kidding ...

 

I meant contries like England where people drive smaller cars because of high gas prices

 

Actually, I dont think that is the only reason. I agree their prices for petrol may be higher but they go the North Sea Oil now.

I think its also tied to the little bit of land they got. I think London is jammed pack.

The best way to explain this is that during Katrina, I was reading the posts on MINI2. They were clueless over there in terms of how BIG the US really was. They just could not understand how the mighty US could send massive relief aid, to, for example, the Tidal Wave victims but not to the people effect by Katrina

Even when someone explained that the land mass of LA, parts of Bama, MS, and TX were GREATER than all of England (in terms of square miles), they still had a hard getting it.

I think the little car thing in England is also tied to the land mass size. US ... big vast, you can drive for 100 miles and see nothing but corn ... if you have never seen that, there is no way you can understand the American fondness for things ... large.