The Most Dangerous Cars Study (USA)

Road deaths only happen every hundreds of millions of vehicle kilometres travelled. It is only that so many vehicle kilometres are travelled that the number of road fatalities are as many of they are. And that makes it hard to dig into the numbers and draw conclusions in a country where there as few road deaths as Australia has. So few road deaths, so many brands and models, means you would be drawing dubious conclusions based on very small numbers of random events.

This study of what model, brands and vehicle types are the most dangerous was done in the US where the numbers are bigger.

Some of its results are entirely plausible. Like that you are more likely to die as an occupant in a small car than a large car, with large SUVs and trucks the safest place for an occupant to be. And the sheer number of Teslas on the road, and the small number of Tesla models, would tend to make the numbers for that brand and its models likely to be representative. Though it is harder to understand why a vehicle brand that does as well as it does in crash testing is as unsafe as these numbers say it is. Is it the fact that it is high-performance, and so attracts unsafe drivers and unsafe driver behaviour? Is it that it has autonomous features which drivers rely on to work, and that encourages them to rely on them? Certainly the fatality rate for Teslas is consistent with the cost of insuring them that indicates they are in a lot of crashes and/or in high severity crashes. It's also likely that you've got a high chance of dying in a small car like the Mitsubishi Mirage in a country where the vehicle you collided with was almost certainly a lot bigger.

But some of its results are harder to see a reason for. Why would fairly ordinary smallish SUVs like the Hyundai Venue and Honda CR-V Hybrid be way up at the high risk end of the scale? Are short narrow high smallish SUVs more inherently unstable, and so more likely to be tipped over in a crash, and does vehicle design and the types of crashes and crash protection crash testing does fail to take that into account? And why are there so many Hyundais and Kias at the high end of the risk scale that those brands rate as poorly as they do? Is it just that that's what those brands sell so many of?

And, yes:

  1. it was done in the US so it necessarily relates to the cars they drive there, but that's the only data available for the reasons I stated,
  2. it only relates to recent models, which is why it's a very different picture to what Elon paints because he compares Teslas to all the vehicles on the road, and
  3. it is based on the fatalities of occupants in that vehicle, not the number in the crash, or which vehicle and driver was responsible, so it only tells us how well the vehicle protects its own occupants, not how safe it is.

Comments

  • +10

    Honestly has nothing to do with the car. Just has something to do with the driver. Check out mkbhd

  • Ford Pinto. lol

  • Hyundai and Kia are over represented in the US data because their cars are built even more basic than what's available in Aus. Many standard features we get they don't get but are much cheaper. So lower-socio groups are buying up these cars.

    • They didn't even get immobilisers, so they get stolen by kids

      • Yeah, it's a real ethical point. They would say they offer the cars cheaper for everyone and buyers can always grade up but still the amount of havoc on society to mop up to save $200 is another story.

    • We bought a new Hyundai 2y ago and I was really pleased to know that all safety features, including active safety features, were standard across the range. We went for the base model

    • -1

      I have a bit old Hyundai but it has 5 EuroNCAP and even comes with seat airbags. TBH, can't complain for the price as I bought it second hand.

  • +2

    The cars with fewer crumple zones/safety features and cars that can go super fast have the highest fatality rates. What a surprise.

    • Dont forget idiots who turn on self driving or some flavor of that even thou they are basically beta testing the software for the company

  • +3

    what about for pedestrians? the number of 6 metre yank tanks just to lug the driver and their shotgun around is a fascinating cultural phenomenon

    • +3

      The ol' Child-deletors

      • If you can't see 'em from over the bonnet, they don't count

  • -8

    Two Teslas, the Model Y and Model S, make the most dangerous cars list

    Is that due to the fires ?

    • +1

      You trying to troll @pegaxs again?

      • -3

        No, it's is just a question about the article.

        Four people recently died in yet another Tesla fire…

        • They love their quotation marks.

      • +1

        It’s done to death at this point. I’m still waiting on my answers to my previous questions regarding Tesla fire in Australia and I don’t I’ll get an answer to them anytime soon.

        And they didn’t die because of a fire, they died from slapping a guard rail and then being wrapped around a concrete pylon.

        Noticed you cherry picked that though from all the examples I gave in that same thread of ICE vehicle fires killing people.

        • -1

          done to death at this point.

          Yes, four young people in Canada. 😔
          Seems like it deserves to be categrorised in the 'most dangerous cars' as per the article.

          Has Musk commented about it or is he too busy celebrating Trump's win?

          • @jv: Why did you fail to mention anything about all the ICE vehicle fires that killed people??

            • +1

              @pegaxs: This article is about the most dangerous cars on the road.

              Two Teslas, the Model Y and Model S, make the most dangerous cars list.

              Feel free to discuss other cars in this list too…

              • @jv: Toyota Corolla Hybrid rates higher than Tesla… so, why are you not outraged about the Corolla?

                And have you got the data on how many fires for these Tesla vehicles stats? Or you just talking shit again?

            • +3

              @pegaxs: ICE fires can be put out with Brawndo so they're not too big an issue.

              • @ihfree: I suppose it gets to a point where something happens so often you just lose count… something novel to count is always going to be easier to track…

                • +2

                  @pegaxs: Exactly that - segments of the media also jump on every Tesla issue/accident/fire and act like it's the norm.

                  I'm sure similar has been posted before but anyway

                  https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/how-many-electric-cars-ha…

                  Passenger electric vehicles have a 0.0012 per cent chance of catching fire, according to research from EV FireSafe, which provides free EV fire safety knowledge for emergency responders. In comparison, petrol or diesel-powered cars have roughly a 0.1 per cent chance of igniting.

                  • -1

                    @ihfree: I think you'll find that study did not test vehicles of a similar age.
                    It also did not compare the severity of the fires and how difficult they were to put out.

                    • @jv: It would definitely be interesting to see a study that takes into account age and maintenance. Are you aware of any other studies?

                      There are definitely areas where things need to catch up but much of the discussion around it goes into the FUD category rather than a focus on solutions.

              • +1

                @ihfree: It's not great for growing crops though

              • +1

                @ihfree: Brawndo - The Fire Mutilator!

    • +3

      Guess we can steal the joke from the Tesla's thread -

      Q. How do you know if someone drives a hates Tesla?

      A. Don't worry, they will tell you.

  • Small SUVs and cheaper (smaller) cars are likely to be driven by young kids (not as much money/dont need the space) and to some extent retirees/older people, who no longer need the space and dont want to spend the money because they are all thinking they will die in a year anyway. Fast cars driven by young men on the whole.

    Its an interesting question whether the cars are 'at fault' or the nature of the car is causative of the type of driver and young/old/idiot drivers tend towards particular models. a bit of both, but I feel the driver is the biggest contributor. You cant die if you dont have an accident (accepting that some accidents cannot be avoided by both drivers)

  • And the sheer number of Teslas on the road, and the small number of Tesla models, would tend to make the numbers for that brand and its models likely to be representative.

    It's not the total number of deaths though, its deaths per mile driven. It means the Model Y likely travelled a lot more miles and also had a higher rate of deaths.

    To adjust for exposure, the number of cars involved in a fatal crash were normalized by the total number of vehicle miles driven, which was estimated from iSeeCars’ data of over 8 million vehicles on the road in 2022 from model years 2018-2022.

    • It's not the total number of deaths though, its deaths per mile driven.

      My point was that if there's a million of them on the road you're less likely to get a number that is affected by a single crash than if there's a hundred of them on the road.

  • +1

    The top five most dangerous cars are the Hyundai Venue, Chevrolet Corvette, Mitsubishi Mirage, Porsche 911, and Honda CR-V Hybrid, with fatal accident rates nearly five times higher than the average vehicle

    Probably reflection of the type of drivers in the vehicles than the actual safety of the vehicle themselves.

    Two Teslas, the Model Y and Model S, make the most dangerous cars list despite Tesla’s advanced driver-assist technology

    Demonstrates the point. More worried about talking and defending Elon than pay attention on the road.

    Compact and subcompact cars have had the highest rate of fatal accidents by size, at 3.6 fatal accidents for every billion miles

    Question is do they still sell those things? How many units do we sell in Australia? Again who buys these is more likely contributor to outcomes than the cars themselves

    12 Toyota Corolla Hybrid

    That is an interesting inclusion

    It is a bit like people and home improvement tools. Some people find creative ways of getting into an accident even with safety features. Had to go to hospital once due to someone in the family cutting back of their hand. Hospital staff asked if it was trying to take the see out of Avocado, it is the most common hand cut treated at hospital, how that is possible is mind blowing.

    • It would seem that the data is over simplified.

      The top five most dangerous cars are the Hyundai Venue, Chevrolet Corvette, Mitsubishi Mirage, Porsche 911, and Honda CR-V Hybrid, with fatal accident rates nearly five times higher than the average vehicle

      Two of those are obviously quite different to the others and would hint at being driven too fast and losing control.

      The other 3 are possibly at the mercy of the stupidly big cars they have. Id imagine an F150 hitting a Mirage would be a lot different to 2x F150s crashing.

      Im sure the report does go into more detail, and im not going to delve into it to find out, but the individual circumstances of the crash make a massive difference.

      • massive difference

        Is that meant to be a pun?

        The numbers are of the likelihood of the occupants of the vehicle dying in a crash.

        The Corvette and Porsche would be near the top because they'd be driven hard, and crash hard.

        The Mirage would be in there because if almost anything else on the road in America hit a Mirage, the Mirage and its occupants would come off worst, because of the mass(ive) difference.

        The puzzle is how the Venue and the CR-V came to be near the top of the list that you're most likely to die in. What is it about smallish SUVs? Are all the families who are buying an SUV because they assume their family would be safe in it wrong? And whatever the reason is for that, does it explain why the Tesla model Y, the SUV, is higher risk than the Model 3, the sedan, when they'd be bought by much the same people, have the same performance, and be driven similarly? It can't be as simple as a Model Y, or any other smallish SUV, is likely to have more occupants. Could it?

        • The numbers are of the likelihood of the occupants of the vehicle dying in a crash.

          Yes, but it doesnt really help without context if you are purchasing a vehicle. If you want to choose the safest vehicle its not as simple as looking at the vehicle with the most likely fatalities.

          The Corvette and Porsche would be near the top because they'd be driven hard, and crash hard.

          Yes. We can surmise that, and maybe it is within the data somewhere. Sumilarly we can guess the mirage is just undersized.

          The puzzle is how the Venue and the CR-V came to be near the top of the list that you're most likely to die in. What is it about smallish SUVs? Are all the families who are buying an SUV because they assume their family would be safe in it wrong? And whatever the reason is for that, does it explain why the Tesla model Y, the SUV, higher risk than the Model 3, the sedan, when they'd be bought by much the same people, have the same performance, and be driven similarly?

          This is where it gets tricky. Are these vehicles bought by a particular demographic? Do they perhaps not come with DRL or ABS or airbags? Maybe their touchscreens are more difficult to manage and therefore create a bigger distraction? Maybe they are just shipped with rubbish tyres to save a buck on something 'unseen' by the buyer.

          Its over simplified to just look at fatality rates. What are the collision injury rates, what are the collision rates? What are the causes of the collisions?

          • @Euphemistic: No matter what questions some piece of research answers, there will always be questions other people can think of that it didn't. Often because the data wasn't there to do so. That doesn't detract from the value of the answers it did get. Now that we know that the numbers don't come out as well for smallish SUVs as everyone would have expected, someone can ask questions that might shed light on that.

            • +1

              @GordonD: I have to disagree. The sort of 'most dangerous vehicle' clickbait articles that get written on these sorts of reports dont really help anyone. The cause of the crash is far more important than the brand of the car with the fatality IMO.

              someone can ask questions that might shed light on that.

              Unfortunately in this era i dont think 'we' have the fortitude to actually ask the questions. We rely on the headline and dontask the questuons pften enough. Sure, the actuaries and the scientists will investigate further, but not the peolpe buying the cars.

      • individual circumstances of the crash make a massive difference

        Not as much as you think. I've looked into the data because someone thought that having an SUV makes you safer.

        Far as I can tell by the data is for Australia.

        About 33% of people die as result of single vehicle accidents (like they are the only car and crash into a tree because they are asleep)
        You are less likely to die as a passenger of a vehicle (possibly because driver less likely to drive dangerously with family members in the car)
        Very few fatalities are as result of collision with trucks and buses
        Fatalities as pedestrians / cyclists are up (given fatality rates are pretty constant means vehicle types being sold are more dangerous for pedestrians / cyclists)
        Fatality rate per 100k of population is 2.1 for major cities up to 26.6 for very remote

        Road trauma annual summary spreadsheet can be downloaded here https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_au…

        BI dashboard on hospitalisations https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZWQ0NTQ3ZDMtYWM1ZS00Z…

        • About 33% of people die as result of single vehicle accidents

          In 2023 62% of fatal crashes were single vehicle.

          You are less likely to die as a passenger of a vehicle

          Hard to get statistics on this. Half of deaths are drivers, the rest are divided about equally between passengers, pedestrians and motorcyclists, with a few pedal cyclists thrown in. But most driving is done with only the driver in the car, so its hard to tell if drivers drive safer with passengers. Certainly the reason young people are restricted from carrying passengers is that they don't. The classic young male accident is a guy coming home on a friday or saturday night late with a gutful of booze and a car full of mates egging him on to do stupid things. I suspect though that when people grow up they do drive safer with passengers in the car.

          Very few fatalities are as result of collision with trucks and buses

          Definitely true.

          Fatalities as pedestrians / cyclists are up

          No. Pedestrian and pedal cyclist deaths are flat. Motorcyclists deaths are up the most. Which may be because of the old guys buying Harleys, or the visibility from cars is poorer. Drivers second most.

          Fatality rate per 100k of population is 2.1 for major cities up to 26.6 for very remote

          True. Road deaths disproportionately occur on country roads to locals. There have been measures like lowering speed limits in the suburbs, but they aren't about cutting road deaths, they're about making you feel that its safe if your kids play in the street because they don't have a backyard in most modern homes.

          Where Euphemistic is absolutely right is that while car crashes occur for a number of reasons, ones that are severe enough to result in fatalities are disproportionately due to the driver choosing to do something risky. Driving too fast. Or too pissed. Or too long. So the driver is the dominant factor in deciding whether the crash occurred. But some cars encourage risk-taking driving because they have excessive performance, and other cars make it more likely that when a crash occurs it will be fatal. And more recently we are seeing more elderly fatalities because there's more of them than in the past, they have age related issues, and they are frailer so the same severity crash is more likely to kill them.

  • In rural Victoria in the last few years traffic has gotten much faster not just all the Melbourne people on a mission to get to their destination but regional people are driving faster too. Some naive belief that it gains them heaps of time most times you catch them at the next set of lights.

Login or Join to leave a comment