Do you think SUVs are inherently safer than small cars?

Question

Many people believe that the goals of a "safer car" and a "more fuel-efficient car" are at loggerheads, and that any increase in gas mileage will lead directly to increased fatalities. Detroit automakers made this complaint when the new CAFE standards were passed.

It turns out that " the best scientific research shows that automotive safety has nothing to do with vehicle weight, but everything to do with vehicle size and design." This is because vehicles do not "collide like billiard balls on a table; they have crush zones and structural features designed to absorb impact." As a result, the surface area available (either thanks to a long or wide design) is what determines the extent to which the vehicle can absorb the impact.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/sorry_detroit_h.php#ch03

Additionally, larger cars are less maneuverable, have a longer stopping distance, and are bigger targets, so they're more likely to be involved in a crash.

What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

I think, personally, that the car itself is not dangerous.  It's the driver, the person at the wheel, controlling the vehicle.

SUV's kill people like a spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat.  It's about the operator of the vehicle/spoon.

Answer 2

No.

Would your china be safer in a titanium box, or a cardboard box filled with packing foam?

Answer 3

Well you partially answered your own question--larger cars may be more likely to get in an accident (thus less safe than small[er] cars) but are more likely to protect the passengers (all other things being equal, of course, like airbags, crumple zones, etc.)

Answer 4

Dig into the records. The smaller car colliding with a bigger cor will probably crush the smaller car. The bumpers now offer no protection.

Answer 5

In a nutshell a larger car because of size and mass can absorb more energy while the smaller absorbs less.

The advantage of the small car is due to its lack of mass and overall weight which allows it maneuver much better.

The problem now its the nut behind the wheel usually lacks the skills to avoid the incident so we are back to square one.

The answer is not in the vehicle but the nut behind the wheel.

Answer 6

If one takes it too extremes if one is in a small car and collides with a lorry there is little doubt about who comes off worst.  I agree that crumple zones, airbags etc are important but weight and size are important factors all other things being equal.  Larger luxury cars have bigger tyres, performance tyres etc and may have better stopping distances and equally good maneuverability than smaller cheaper cars, they also are more visible and perhaps visually intimidating plus more power which can be a factor in getting out of trouble.  Having said that I am against beggar my neighbour on safety matters.  It would be much better for the environment if overweight and overpowered cars were banned and would also result in more equity in terms of safety.

Answer 7

Yes more mass = safer though.  I am not a SUV fan but they no longer handle like a drunk fat woman on ice skates but cars are still more nimble but in crashes I would prefer to be in a SUV any day of the year.

Answer 8

WHAT THE PHYSICS SAYS:

E=0.5*m*(g)²

This means that the main factor is the speed. Nevertheless, a crash against a heavier vehicle corresponds to more energy to absorb in the deformation of the shock absorbers.

A frontal shock from another car against an SUV will always be more damaging. That does nevertheless not protect SUV drivers much more when they collide against a tree as the deceleration of the human body (dangerous for the spine) is the same.

Nowadays, most of the safety of a car depends on FEM modelling which allows for numerical simulations of crashes and optimization. Wether small or large, all can perform well.

The reason is that larger car have longer metal beams which are more likely in the middle to bend.... as such a short structure presents advantages.

The quantity of energy which can be absorbed during a shock is given by:  w*d  (distance multiplied by the metal specific strength). It is in turn only important to have a well absorbing front of the car. A good engineering can make up for a shorter car.

Even better: a good engineering will allow like in the compact Mercedes A class to the motor to slide under the car in case of a frontal collision

AND HONESTLY... what do formula1 pilots use to be protected against shocks at extreme speeds? steel with 800N/mm²??? NO!!!! carbon fibres composites with a strength of 2800N/mm² !

This means that we can build extremely safe car which are light, EVEN SAFER than nowadays if stop being technology conservative and accept that steel is not the best protection.

Answer 9

Yeah, the answer is not always intuitive.  You have to look at results of the test, the data.

When Norm Abrams says always use the most important safety device - and points to his safety glasses - I think he should point to his head and say "Always use this, your brain...".

I rode a motorcycle for years, now I drive an Echo.  Unless you are very unlucky, like something falls out of the sky or a car comes out of nowhere, accidents are avoidable if you drive defensively.

In all the tough situations I've been in, the "car came out of nowhere" because I was distracted and didn't see it.  And I squeaked it out because I was focused, practiced and didn't panic.

Man that reminds me one time... I was riding my cycle when it was wet.  Me and a trash truck heading the same direction on a four lane undivided highway.  Him in the right lane me in the left.  There is a guy standing on the back driver side corner of the trash truck.  Truck pulls away from the light.  Guy on back of truck jumps off backwards with his back to oncoming traffic!  I got nothing, no way to stop or turn and I'm heading right for the guy and he is taking steps backwards right into my path.  So he is now to the left of my center line.  I fishtail rear tire to the left, get front wheel and handlebars past him, leg go of brake and swing fishtail around to the right getting back end around him.  Line of traffic going in other direction all have stunned look on their faces.

Answer 10

Depends on what you run into.  If a Tahoe runs into a brick wall and crumples for 2 feet, it is more dangerous than a Prius that runs into a brick wall and crumples for three feet.  If a Tahoe runs into a Prius, you should be in the Tahoe, because the Tahoe will still be going forward while the Prius is going backward.

Answer 11

I'LL TAKE MY CHANCES WITH THE LARGER VEHICLE OVER THE SMALLER ONE.

Answer 12

What do you expect from a site called "treehugger"?

Let's see what else is out there from potentially less biased sources:

During Accidents, Kids Aren't Any Safer in SUVs

http://www.thechildrenshospital.org/well...

OK, no safer, but not less safe either.

How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety.

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_...

"Consider the set of safety statistics compiled by Tom Wenzel, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in California, and Marc Ross, a physicist at the University of Michigan.   The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for drivers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit. The numbers below have been rounded:

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_...

"Are the best performers the biggest and heaviest vehicles on the road? Not at all.   Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord.   Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta.   Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy.   In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry.   But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans.   The benefits of being nimble—of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble—are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big."

This article however shows that among the worst offenders are the subcompacts such as the Dodge Neon, the Pontiac Sunfire, adn the Chevrolet Cavalier, all only slightly trailing the Ford F-series pickup.

The article also reveals that driver psychology is involved, and the same feeling of helplessness about safety that makes some drivers choose SUVs may also make them react less competently in an actual accident.  In other words, the safety perrformance of many SUV drivers may get no better if they're legislated into driving smaller vbehicles.  That factor embedded in the results has apparently not been adequately studied or tested.

Answer 13

The SUV is dangerous for many of the reasons that you have mentioned. Further risk comes from pedestrian impacts with a large vehicle and also stability factors. There is also a long term 'danger' of fuel consumption and pollution, not only from exhaust gasses but tyre wear and the initial manufacture of the vehicle. An added factor is also the size of the vehicle can obstruct another drivers view of the road.

   I would be more than happy to see the banning of SUV's for anything other than commercial use, such as farming or trailer haulage.

Answer 14

you're mixing your questions here.

- are they safer for the occupants inside?

- do they make our roads safer in general?

also, i hardly think that treehugger.com would be my "go to" source for car safety.

clearly, if i have to be in a car crash, i'd rather be in an SUV.  the SUV will maintain more of it's momentum than the 'victim' and thus the forces on it's occupants will be less than the forces imposed on the occupants of a smaller car.

SUVs in general make our roads less safe.  they insulate their drivers from the sense of speed.  they take more room on the road.  they are sufficiently different from 'normal' cars that there is a learning curve one has to go through when buying them.

i've long thought that in accidents between smaller cars and SUVs, the owner of the SUV should be made to pay for the damage that's caused by the size of his/her car, regardless of who caused the accident, if it can be determined what the difference would have been as opposed to the same accident between 2 cars of the smaller size.

EDIT:  concerning  thecildrenshospital  article.  "SUVs were twice as likely to roll over during an accident compared with passenger cars. In both types of cars, rollover crashes increased the risk of serious injuries in children, especially when the child wasn't wearing a seatbelt. This study showed that children involved in SUV rollover crashes who didn't wear a restraint had 25-fold increased risk of injury."

DUH,  (A) if you're not restrained, you're gonna get hurt,

(B)  SUVs do not encourage their driver's to be more careful,

(C)  stupid SUV drivers are surely more likely to be involved in rollover accidents,

clearly SUVs are far more subject to rollover.  if you drive one, you should be aware of that.  i'd be more inclined to put that in the poor driver category than the SUV category.  i suspect if those same drivers were in smaller cars, in many cases they'd be doing something equally stupid.

also, when someone gets their first SUV, clearly there is a learning curve.  somewhat similar to motorcycles in that respect.  it would be interesting to see statistics of SUV involved accidents comparing how long the SUV drivers had driven their cars.

EDIT:  thumbs down?  why?  SUV owner who doesn't think he should be made to pay for damages caused solely by the size of his car?