Newer SUVs less dangerous to other cars in crashes: study | Car Advice

Car Advice
  • Home
  • »  Newer SUVs less dangerous to other cars in crashes: study

Newer SUVs less dangerous to other cars in crashes: study

By Brett Davis |

A recent investigation by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in the US has found that newer SUVs are less dangerous to smaller cars during a crash than in the past. This could potentially remove some of the perception that SUVs aren’t safe for other road users.

It’s a pretty common perception that SUVs are dangerous. In the event of an accident they leave a big, heavy impact on conventional sedans and hatches. The high ride-height matched with the common flat-nose posture of previous-model SUVs against a small car doesn’t bode well for those in the small car.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal report citing IIHS data, this is not the case anymore. Newer SUVs have become significantly safer towards other cars. The findings showed that during 2000-2001, the fatality rate caused by SUVs that were one to four years old was 44 deaths per million registered vehicles.

In the year 2008-2009, that figure dropped by almost 64 per cent to just 16 deaths per million registered vehicles, regarding SUVs of the same age. This is due to increasing attention and technology being poured into the design of the front ends of new SUVs, and the advances in crash structures and crumple zones.

IIHS chief administrative officer and co-author of the report, Joseph M. Nolan, said, “It used to be, pound for pound, that pick-ups and SUVs were more deadly than cars”, but statistics are showing improvements.

What do you think about the perception of SUVs? Do you drive an SUV simply for the safety factor? Feel free to give us your thoughts below.


 
  • Harry

    what I hate about them is how in city traffic they take away your ability to see what the traffic in front is doing, the only way to get aroung this is to get one yourself buggering it up for everyone else

  • ab

    In this day and age, when you need a car that can do everything, suv’s offer a perfect mix. The good ones drive like a car, are economical like a car, are safe, well styled and offer more usable interior space for their footprint compared to most cars. And to be honest, I don’t really find them a hassle in traffic!

    • Harry

      from your comment I assume that you are driving one, which is exactly my point, no wonder you don’t find them a hassle.

    • Jacob

      A 2 tonne 4WD will always require 2x as much energy as a 1 tonne car.

      Not to mention bigger, more expensive tyres.

    • aaaaplay

      What you have described is a crossover, basically a mini SUV (e.g. ASX, RAV 4, Outlander, Freelander, Escape, CR-V)

      • AB

        No what I have described is all SUV’s!
        BMW X5 and X3 provide more usable interior space than their equivalent sedan oferings. The same applies to the Territory vs the Falcon, A4 vs Q5 and possibly even Q3, Subaru Tribecca vs Subaru Liberty and Outback. The list goes on!

        The main difference, especially for someone who is 6’4″, is the extra height in the cabins… It allows for more headroom, which subsequently allows for a more upright seating position, which provides more legroom… etc etc

        • Nick

          I’m sorry but you are just wrong! Have you ever been in an x5?! I was amazed to sit in a new one recently and realise how small they are inside! I was in the back and I have had better leg room in most normal sized sedans. Boot was high and shallow, too.

          This study is rubbish! I’m sorry but it seems to me to be some sort of attempt to deflect safety criticisms from American made ‘trucks’ like the big fords.

          Futuremore

        • Nick

          I’m sorry but you are just wrong! Have you ever been in an x5?! I was amazed to sit in a new one recently and realise how small they are inside! I was in the back and I have had better leg room in most normal sized sedans. Boot was high and shallow, too.

          This study is rubbish! I’m sorry but it seems to me to be some sort of attempt to deflect safety criticisms from American made ‘trucks’ like the big fords. I say this because it clearly has nothing to do with safety features and a lot to do with a collision involving a mass and a comparitively large mass!

  • ab

    Nope I drive a sedan! But have had 4wd’s in the past. And if you live an active lifestyle or require a versatile car…. then you can’t go past an suv!

    • Sonic

      How about a wagon? You still have a similar amount of interior space, only you’re not blocking-off the vision for the poor people behind you.

      I still don’t understand why so many people drive 4WD’s in the city. If I were in power, they would be banned… unless you actually take them offroad on a regular basis.

      • Kev

        Have you really looked at a lot of new cars. Many off them are nearly as high as many mid sized SUVs.

        • JonnyBravo

          subaru outback wagon is around the same height as rav4

          • http://www.facebook.com/priusfreezone Matthew Werner

            And doesn’t it look horrible

      • AB

        Wagons are great, but as I mentioned above, their interior space is generally no better than the equivalent sedan which its based on.
        The SUV on the other hand always has more interior space, and often is a shorter vehicle

  • Biker

    If you can’t beat them, join them.

  • Zaps

    That may be the case with some of the more ‘modern’ SUV’s but I’d still think that they’re more detrimental to pedestrians than a conventional sedan/hatchback etc.

  • Glen

    If they have bull bars they are still more dangerous to others.

  • RedBack

    I question the research.

    Studies conducted through statistical analysis only are frought with issues.

    For example, the death-rate for SUV-related accidents has fallen, but is this due to improvements in SUV design, or to improvements in passenger car safety features over that period?

    A comparison with death-rates NOT involving SUVs might give us a base-line, but even that would not be conclusive because the quoted statistic is “per million registered vehicles”.

    How has the mix of vehicles changed between 2000-2001 and 2008-2009 and how has the number of km driven by each vehicle changed over that period?

    (2008-2009 coincided with the GFC, when motor vehicle usage (total km driven) dropped significantly in the US.)

    Plucking convenient statistics out of a hat can be used to prove any point you like…

    • http://www.facebook.com/priusfreezone Matthew Werner

      Multiple + votes on that. Without seeing any details on the methodology of the analysis, there are way too many holes in it for it to be taken seriously.

      A proper way to do it would be to crash SUVs from different years into the same model & year of passenger car and look at the results.

  • statistician

    correlation does not imply causation