Are SUVs vulnerable in accidents with cars?
A recent article by the
Washington Post
questions whether SUVs are truly a threat to the cars, and that SUV occupants are less safe than car occupants in
a SUV/car collision. The common belief is that SUVs present a major threat to car occupants but are safe for their
own occupants. The Post cites a new report by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety as stating the SUV occupants are more likely to die in an SUV/car accident than
car occupants. If you've ever driven beside an Escalade while riding in a Mini Cooper, you know, despite all
the airbags in the world, that Escalade is uncomfortable close to your head. The Washington Post seems to ignore the
numbers and physics, because clearly the IIHS report indicates that size does matter in an accident.
The Post seems to focus on the distribution of accident deaths between SUVs and cars. This was one section of the 8 page report where the percentage of deaths between cars and SUVs in an SUV/car accident was three percent higher on the SUV side of the accident. There could be a lot of reasons for this, but the total percentage was between seven and ten percent for accident deaths between SUVs and cars. The main focus of the IIHS report is on crash compatibility between SUVs and cars, and the Post does eventually bring it up deeper in the article.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tony 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
Funny, the next-to-last paragraph says:
"...in the interest of promoting an intelligent, productive discussion of vehicle and traffic safety, the media ought to follow it. They can start by writing more balanced headlines and placing the blame for traffic fatalities where it generally belongs--on the drivers."
That's funny, because the headline for this article does sensationalize the topic and misses the point of the Washington Post article.
Reply
md 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
Its funny they print this because they also print click and clack who for some reason support consumers suing manufacturers because of their SUV comercials.
Reply
Charles Mayer 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
What the autoblog author fails to understand this issue. The question posed in the study is "what happens when a car hits an SUV?", not the other way around.
Clearly a 5000lb SUV will destroy anything it plows into because of its sheer mass.
But what happens when a car hits an SUV -- not pretty for the SUV, since SUVs are not required to meet the same crash safety standards that cars do.
For example, there are no roof crush strength guidelines for SUVs as there are for cars -- really silly given SUV's propenity for rolling over in a crash...
Reply
Brian 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
Actually, I think SUVs [and everything else] do have roof crush "guidelines" they must meet.
If I recall correctly, this is the new thing Ford is getting into hot water for, because the Explorer -- why meetss/exceeds this requirement -- cut back on it's original designed strength to save money. This was in a lawsuit they recently were found guilty of...
[ie: you must meet a rating of 4, you first design it so it gets a 9 and you cut stuff out to make it 5 to save money....]
Reply
B 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
Yes, the 5000 lb SUV will win when it hits anything, except for a bridge adbuttment. You may be safer in a two vechile collision with an SUV, but you're also more likely to crash into an immovable object. This isn't because SUVs are unsafe, it's because they are trucks that people drive like they are sporty sedans.
Reply
Randall Halcomb 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
The Washington Post is using the vulnerability of an SUV in a crash with a car to illustrate that SUVs are not:
"the marauding, murderous vehicles that many in the media have portrayed them to be.
In fact, the statistical opposite is true. In a two-vehicle crash with a smaller car, the occupants of the SUV are more likely to be killed than are the people in the car, according to the IIHS report, which is based on a study of U.S. highway traffic fatalities during years 2002 and 2003 involving vehicles made from 1999 through 2002. "
The primary purpose of the IIHS report is to evaluate crash incompatibility.
Reading the report and saying, "Oh, SUVs are not safe to their occupants, and then they must be less dangerous to car occupants." This is how the Washington Post article is written. They do discuss crash incompatibility, but it's not linked with the first discussion about the accident distribution.
Ultimately, the issue of SUVs and safety has two components. SUV design is one side, but driver education and saftey is the other. However, the IIHS's report is about the design.
Reply
Mick 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
What you have to keep in mind here is that The Washinton Post's Warren Brown is the ultimate contrarian. Among other things he writes a Sunday column for the Post, highlighting one car a week.
Last week he wrote a favorable article in the Post about the Subaru B9 Tribeca. That particular vehicle had an "as tested" price of more than $38,000 and Warren called it "a buy." $38 grand for a Subie! A buy? He and I must have been raised in different ghettos. Warren also hosts a Wednesday, live internet auto chat room for the Post (free transcripts available on-line), and has a program on Washington radio.
He doesn't easily disquise his disdain for hybrids - he constantly touts diesel; nothing wrong with that, of course - and can't quite conceal his dislike for Honda and Toyota - even when he occasionally praises them. All in all, he's a pretty quirky guy. I make a point of reading him each week, even though his comments often make me wonder what he's on.
Warren loves his Mini-Cooper, but don't be surprised if he starts touting the advantages of driving a Sherman tank. They're diesels, don't you know.
Reply
md 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
B has hit it on the mark!
SUVs are only statistically more dangerous (at least in single vehicle carashes) because most people don't drive them like they are trucks, which they are. most of the dangers of SUVs can be avoided with using common sense and driving in a way that reflects the vehicle one is driving.
Reply
Charles S 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
You know, if weight is the ONLY factor in determining safety, then I don't know why we even bother having a debate about it!?!
I'm not asking people to ignore physics, but there is more to vehicle safety than just WEIGHT! Seatbelts weight next to nothing in cars, and yet it is more important than how well a 5-mile-per-hour bumper should work. An Egg can survive a fall with plastic straws, if we only design it right.
Yes, trucks and SUVs have strong frames and that means they are tough, but the design of the vehicle yeilds flaws, and we all should accept that such design flaws can affect the survivability of the occupants.
More than once I've been told that high-riding trucks and SUVs that got "T-bone" by a passenger car can have the potential to FLIP. My co-worker in his Hyundai T-bone a Nissan Xterra and flip the vehicle on its side. Now, I'm sure that the heavy SUV has good protection on all 4 sides, but if another vehicle crash into the exposed roof, folks in the vehicle will not survive.
I wonder if people think that just because a vehilce LOOK big and tough, that it HAS to be better. Why are we not talking about bumper mismatch, roof strengthes, and crumple zones?
What good is a bumper if that protection is bypassed by vehicles with different height?
Passengers cars have been known to flip, but well designed cars have high roof strengthes that will protect its occupants, and yet, no one cares about that with the heavier trucks and SUVs.
And I bet there is probably no such thing as crumble zones in SUVs (not the lower priced ones anyways).
But guess what, I've said such things to people before, and in the end, they still end up buying their favorite trucks and SUVs for any other rationale they can come up with. In the end, I think vehicle safety is mostly a political debate, but will rarely affect sales. If people REALLY care about safety, Volves would have cornered the market (not that I think Volves are safer, but it advertise itself that way).
Reply
Mick 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
Charles S. is absolutely correct in saying that safety is determined by more than just weight. That's why BMW ran ads a while back touting the accident AVOIDANCE capabilities of their vehicles, emphasizing their agility and responsiveness in emergency situations. There's at least one thing positive I can say for horsepower - it'll often let you quickly run away from trouble. And with really responsive steering and road holding - it's magic!
Reply
Andrew 10:44PM (12/18/2005)
Interesting article, but it's pure statistical manipulation. People shouldn't get the idea that cars are faring well against SUV's because the truth of the matter is that the weight/height incompatabilities still cause major problems. It's interesting to me that the Post writer did not also choose to review IIHS entire series of crash test's that simulate a truck/suv striking a car in the side. This test has proven to be very demanding, and the results have been somewhat sobering. Cars without side curtain airbags do not perform well - period. The cause of this is simply the height of the SUV and the resulting mismatch of window v. bumper.
As far as SUV's being unsafe, I don't buy that either. They do have crumple zones - don't kid yourself. If you want proof of that, try analyzing the IIHS's offset test (again much more demanding the NHTSA's cupcake) of SUV's. Granted, some of them have done very poorly and probably are not well designed (See Chevy Blazer), but others have proven to be very safely designed, even the Ford Explorer (gasp).
I have nothing at all against SUVs. As others have said, the problem is the moron behind the wheel driving his SUV like a car. However, despite this, there are still realities that result from the mismatch. Side curtain airbags do wonders in protecting occupants - Why the government doesn't require them yet is beyond me. I sold my Accord for a Passat for mainly this reason.
Reply