Small Car Deaths Don't Add Up

I heard of a USA Today story about small cars being “deadlier” than large cars the other day while having lunch with a bunch of fellow automotive journalists. I looked up the story, which you can find here, and though it was entirely accurate, it missed one big factor when discussing road deaths.

For those who didn’t go to the link (the headline is totally misleading, as well), the gist of the story is that small cars make up 14% of all cars on the road but are involved in 24% of all traffic fatalities. They’re more likely to be involved in fatal accidents, and the overall number of deaths in small cars is higher than other segments. The story tries to explain the problem by linking the deaths with the type of car. There is quote after quote from authoritative sources, like IIHS, about the physics of cars and the importance of weight and size in protecting passengers during a collisions.

Comments

I've noticed that despite concerns over cost of ownership and gas prices, many parents are opting to get their teenagers slightly bigger cars for safety reasons. They don't mind paying extra for gas if it means that their kids will be protected a little bit more.

In the end, the driver has a lot to do with what happens to the car, and I think the figures show that.

Brandon Watts
Criteo Evangelist

In the headline, "People buy small cars even though they can be deadly," perhaps "they" refers to the people.

You mention the low price as the attraction of small cars. To keep the price down a lot of small cars only have the bare minimum required safety features. On Corollas for example ABS is very rare and side-impact airbags are almost impossible to find. More advanced features aren't even available on most small cars.

I've to disagree with you. Some small cars have many airbags - more than a mid-size, some have ABS as standards. It all depends on how much you wanna pay.

But the moral of the story is that, it's NOT the cars that "kill;" it's those drivers!

Young inexperienced (or bad tempered) drivers > put them in ANY car = pointing a self-shooting gun to you own head. So the question is really NOT 'bou small cars not having enough protection (but the more, the better), but rather whether we should increase the driving age so that the drivers can become more mature before driving a vehicle? Excellent example (a very simplified one though) from another post today - the SRT-4 Calibar. At not a too expensive price, a teenager could ask his/her parents to get him/herself a "Caliber" without mentioning the "SRT-4" at the end. Now if the teenager gets killed in the accident - do you blame the car for not soundly built or lack some safety equipment, or do you blame the teenager from driving crazy, or do you blame the parents for buying a car to the child before thinking that - it's not the age that matters for 16 years olds; it's the way they think and behave!

Amuro Ray,

I think a person who buys a car (the parents in your scenario) would be smart enough to ask the engine and power. Or why it has all the sporty body parts as opposed to the regular Caliber.

And as you mentioned about the safety equipment,

"Some small cars have many airbags - more than a mid-size, some have ABS as standards. It all depends on how much you wanna pay."

Ummmm...Hello? It cost more to for a small car with the safety! Teens don't care about the safety stuff, they just want a car they can afford! So, even though there are options and such for a small car, doesn't mean they are the popular ones (that sell well.)

by personal experience (i.e. not scientific by any means), seems like lot of teens buy used cars, some of which are big and some are small. are there real statistics relating to which demographic drive big cars, which small cars, speed of impact as a function of age, etc?

i'm a surgical resident, and i can certainly tell you that in trauma, i see alcohol as THE major risk factor for major injuries and death, no matter what kind of car one was driving. Fatalities not involving motorcycles are usually at very high speeds, with rollovers (in SUV's usually) as an exacerbating factor.

don't forget, those were just statistics taken by USA today to make news. you can spin data many ways to prove your point.

When I was a Teenager I had a Jeep Wrangler. Compact SUV if it could even be called that. My Parents were Not dumb. They looked at the engine power and they looked at the way I was driving.

Amuro Ray

Raising the Starting age of driving from 16 to 18 or 21 would be incrdebly stupid because people would be just as inexperianced at driving as they would have been when they were 16. It would just be pushing back the age to then cause less 16 year old deaths and more 21 year old deaths.

And think legal drinking age in most if not all states is 21. Inexperianced driver with the chance to DUI. Brilliant combination.

saying small car drivers are twice as likely to die is like how they used to think that homosexuality somehow caused AIDS. at least they weren't stupid enough to think living in San Francisco caused AIDS ...

I agree with the original poster after consulting a next door neighbor, who happens to be a cop. The majority of small car accidents he has seen, he said, are when there is a young driver behind the wheel.

Or the exact Q&A: "So in small cars, would you say the drivers are older or younger drivers? Older being above 30, but younger being below 24"
His Answer "Below 24, its usually college students who are either drunk or driving to fast"

He then inquired why I was asking, and may show up on this board soon. So for all of you talking about driving fast, better have good nicknames....

Another angle:

As someone who PREFERS small cars (preferably topless, fast and red) No one ever figures how many accidents are AVOIDED by the extra agility.

I'm well aware that that Freightliner can squash me like a bug, and that Paris Hilton look-alike is paying more attention to her toy dog than her turn singnals.

So I give them a wide berth.

not all small cars are screaming metal death traps. both the VW Rabbit and Jetta are packed with dozens of saftey options-all standard- for about the same price as the other small cars. they have also gotten 5 stars in the frontal and side crash tests, something you cant say for all of the other subcompacts.

The headline might just as well be "People Buy Cars Even Though They Can Be Deadly", or "People Still Eat Even Though They Can Choke On Food". It's just a typical example of sensationalist "reporting".

I think Dave T. is absolutely right to question the basis for this. We should also not forget that most of the rest of the world drives around in significantly smaller cars without blood running in the streets as a result.

The most important point is that no-one is killed in a car accident which doesn't happen, and that is very largely down to drivers, not the cars. Cars rarely cause accidents, and you can easily argue that weather doesn't either (it being the driver failing to respond appropriately to the prevailing conditions).

This article pretty much sums up why I drive a JGC. If anyone is going to get killed in an accident it's surely not going to be me unless it's at the hands of a mega size SUV driver. Thanksfully those a-holes are few and far between. For the record I require a JGC type vehicle as I tow my boat 8 months out of the year.

You make a good point.

Small cars are much better than they used to be (check out the IIHS crash test scores). Often worse drivers drive small cars and sports cars in particular. This biases the results in the study.

Sure, the Buick Century is safe, but its drivers are also very conservative. Similarly the Dodge Neon is unsafe, but it's drivers are also more reckless.

In a crash with another car you are generally better off in a bigger car (unless your SUV rolls). However, small cars are also more likely to avoid accidents since they are nimbler.

"And the heaviest vehicles, full-size pickups, have driver death rates about the same as small cars."

Just to underscore what I just said. Why do full-size pickups do so badly?

1. they roll
2. they have worse drivers (and many wear no seatbelts)

these two effects outweight the fact that pickups will make pizza out of a small car in a one-on-one crash.

Clearly who drives the car is important both for full-size pickups and small cars.

another factor is seatbelt use. Lots of deaths could be avoided if people used their seatbelts. Who does not wear seatbelts?

I'd guess young people and uneducated people - the same people likely to drive small cars (and pickups).

It's not what you drive but how you drive it. So all small cars drivers should drive safely and buckle up as well as larger car drivers and pick up drivers and maybe just maybe (doubtfull) some of these statistics can change for the better snd we can all enjoy lower insurance rates

If you guys didn't know, Amuro Ray, is a child gundam pilot.

"If you guys didn't know, Amuro Ray, is a child gundam pilot."

Hm, perhaps left out the second part of the whole phase: ,who is the same age as Char Aznable.

I'm 65. I bought an 06 Civic BECAUSE of its safety record, economy and agility. If I remain alert and drive defensively I should avoid an accident. If I find myself in a bad situation the inherent agility and smaller size should help me avoid an accident. If not then the safety features become the last chance to avoid injury. I'll continue to drive smaller cars. Maybe a smart will be next.

Two other reasons for increased death rates in small cars:

- They're driven more, thus exposed to more risk. People who drive a lot are more likely to have a smaller car.

- They're more popular in cities, for reasons of parking and maneuverability. Cities have more dangerous driving environments.

Pick a small car on the safer end of the spectrum, and you be fine.

Hey, finally someone who knows Gundam.

Anyhow, the point that I was trying to make was: it's not the cars that are unsaved (unless we are talking 'bou those budget cars on sale in India, China or S. America), but the mentality of the drivers. As for Kyle C., it's actually a very seriously thought 'bou raising the driving age...by your logic, if it's just the experience of the driver that's causing the accident, why don't we lower the age to 14...oh, or better yet, 9? Then by 16 years old, the driver would have some years of experience! No, but because they aren't mature enough to handle a vhicle. Remember, a car is just as DEADLY as a gun if it falls into the wrong hands, and our court system has repeatedly state that a vehicle is a weapon in many cases. We don't allow teenagers to buy or carry guns, because we don't think that they are mature enough to handle guns, then may be 16 years old are still not mature enough to handle cars. Although I got my license @ 16, I still have to say that this may be the case. If you look at people who do street racing...look how young they are! Yes, there are some cases, but you don't see too many 2X years old young people street races...even less if we are talking 'bou 3x years old! Why? Not 'coz of exeperience, because by your logic, 3X yr. old have so much experience that street racing should not be a problem to 3X yr. old (or older)! It's because the age group is mature enough to understand the danger their actions may cause to others and themselves.

Our cars are much safer now.
Our roads are much more developed now.
Our laws on driving are much more established now.
Our driver educations are much more sophisticated now (not just from moms and pops, but have to go to school)

What else can we do to minimize accidents?
May be we will have to work on the drivers' age now!

Amuro Ray.

You are generalizing. In your arguement you basicaly said that it is only younger 1X drivers that street race and that only a few 2X and 3X year olds street race.

Ever been on a road with 2 lanes that merge into one (espeically when it is a stop light and then after wards a merger point)? Notice the driver next to you looking over at you. Whats the chance that he is going to floor it just to get ahead of you? Or you doing the same? By Definition this can be CONSIDERED A STREET RACE. Racing to get ahead of another person involving two or more cars.

If you raise the age of driving up to 21 you then put the burden on the parents to be the constant taxi to their older teen. Older teens and even 20 year olds HAVE JOBS in which they may need their own transportation to get to. You basically force parents to still taxi.

Yes there is public transportation but that is not available EVERYWHERE.

What are you trying to make this country into? Europe? We arn't Europe. This is America. We are not all going to drive small 4 cly cars because of your beliefs and we arn't going to be safer with more people like you making these judgements without thinking.

I will ahve to disagree that smaller cars are nimbler. Those "economy cars" like the Yaris, Fit, Rio, Accent, Versa, and Aveo are anything but fun to drive and nimble. THey all have tiny wheels, brakes that stink, and no stability control.

If you want a "nimble" small car, you need to have a bigger car than one of those economy cars. The A3, A4, 3-series, Jetta, GTI, Rabbit, and even the Cobalt or G5

you then put the burden on the parents to be the constant taxi to their older teen.

Wake up, Kyle C. You gave birth to the children. It's YOUR responsibility to make sure that they are NOT
(1) going to hurt themselves;
(2) going to hurt anyone else!!!

Who said parenting is an easy and relaxing job?

As far as Europe is concern...R u plain stubborn, stupid or what? If there is a better system out there, our #1 SMART move is to adapt to their systems to MAKE OURSELVES BETTER. What the heck does "This is America" means? That it's our given right to be stupid and poison the air and everything else, and have fools running around like yourself, yelling "we are special?" Yeah, you are special all right...special ed you need that is. We share everything with people from around the world Sadly, it's because of people like you that really lowers the IQ of this country, as you can only say "me me me" and will never grow up to say "us." Anyhow, if you don't see the picture, that's fine...there's always that frog living at the bottom of the water well...thinking that the entire world is just as big as the opening of the well.

*sigh*

You Obviously arn't a Parent and or never had to face the stigma of a parent driving you around when you should know how to drive. If your logic on that is just that then you are saying that people should not have children!

You know what? Communism looks good on paper and other countrys are doing it, Why not follow that? Hmmm Cuba has free health care, how about we get rid of democracy and install a dictator. America Does not need to FOLLOW other countries. In this country we have the freedom to choose who we want to live WITHOUT THE RULE OF A TYRANT!!

You on the other hand want to punish people for having children. You want everyone in america to drive small 4 cly cars. You think the driving age should be rasied to 21. If you were to instate these rules then you are breaking the first amendment which covers freedom of expression.

America has these Laws to protect YOU from a tyrant dictator. Thats why people came to this country. This country is founded on protecting and serving YOU. In this country you have a choice of what to do. In this country you have freedom.

If you had your way america would have to stop being a democracy founded on the prinipals of the indvidual and start being a country that is founded on "us". In that situation "they" (the people in charge of the government) would choose what you do in life. And America would no longer be one of the few true free countries. Your Plan is brilliant then if your goal is just that.

Ever wonder why illegal drugs are banned in the USA? Its bad for YOU. Ever wonder why Gambling in most parts of the country is banned? It's bad for you. Think about it ALMOST all the laws in America are there to protect the indvidual.

Oh and yes while some places have stated that you can no longer smoke inside a public place, they also raised the prices of ciggs also. And why? To try to lower the amount of smokers because it is BAD FOR THEM!

Dave T. called James R. Healey’s USA Today article “entirely accurate” yet chose instead to promote that “it missed one big factor when discussing road deaths.” The missing factor, Dave says is the “driver”. Yet James R. Healey does in fact take this issue into account. Healey writes that “Even when you adjust for the typically younger and less-experienced drivers often behind the wheel in small cars and focus even more tightly by counting only driver deaths, the statistics still are troubling.” Yes, we need to take into account Dave T.’s point that experienced drivers create fewer accidents than distracted inexperienced drivers. Yet, we must not cloud the ultimate issue that we will be safer in a larger vehicle. Healey writes ‘[Small cars] are safer than ever. And differing designs mean some small cars are safer than average. But even the safest are governed by the laws of physics, which rule in favor of bigger, heavier vehicles, even in single-vehicle crashes.” Healey quotes Honda’s Vice President: "All else being equal, large will trump small," and VW’s U.S. spokesman, "Safety is important, but we have never contended that (smaller, lighter vehicles) are at the same level of occupant protection as large vehicles. There are laws of physics involved."
We need to re-read every other point in Healey’s article that he didn’t “miss”!

Kyle C.
And yet, the so called freedom country does not rank highest on the free trading country list, how does that work?
Because we have a strong government to enforce its rules. And the rules are not necessary what the people want, but the people who paid for the election campaign wants.

And I guess we are getting off topic now.

Thx J, and KC is completely going off topic now, which is usually the case when one's argument stop to make any sense or support, and have o pull in a whole bunch of irrelevant examples to try to save face...very typical of kids like behavior :)

Jeremy's comments seem to make sense, except he's missing the forest for the trees, like JR Healey was.

The claim that a larger vehicle will be safer than a smaller vehicle is such a blatant generality. Sure, if a drunken idiot rams his giant gass-guzzling SUV into a family of 4 driving a Honda Fit, the drunken idiot probably will barely feel like he/she hit a speedbump. But there's no convincing proof that large vehicles are "safer." crash test data are infamously inaccurate in an attempt to recreate reality. plus, they have, that's right, a crash test DUMMY inside (do you sit limp and let another car hit you, etc???). it is very dangerous to use indirect evidence as proof, and even more dangerous to use *statistical correlations* as data to prove causality!

more importantly, if you look at the trauma surgery literature, factors such as driver condition (intoxication etc) and seatbelt wearing are much much more important. that means a sober, responsible driver in a small car will much less likely run into trouble than a drunk bastard not wearing his/her seatbelt but driving whatever big vehicle.

motor vehicle accidents are the biggest killer of young people in our country. it's SHAMEFUL that the author would sensationalize such an important topic and have the gall to write such a ridiculous title to publicize how wonderful larger cars are, when the far more important factors such as seatbelt usage (which is only 70-80% in most states) are ignored. JRH's value system needs to be rechecked.

one more comment -- if small cars are so "deadly," perhaps we need some legislation to regulate the deadly trend since these deadly small cars became popular in the 70's. maybe they should ticket people driving such deadly people killers. all in favor say "Yay!"

Most people here are blaming crashes of small vehicles on "young" people. Well that would just be an ignorant thing to say. Sure young people are unexperienced but that also makes them more cautious. I have been driving for many many years now and people not wearing seat belts are mainly older people above 30. There the people who have the money to buy small sport cars like a corvette with 600 horsepower. My son has his permit now and every time i get in the car his seatbelt is on. When ever i get in the car with an older person or me i just say o im goin up to my sisters again and dont put on my seatbelts. The younger generation is more educated on safety and knows it would just be dumb to not were a seat belt. What i think causes most accidents is drunk driving alchol on my scale is wat puts people into danger when they enter a vehicle intoxicated.

When I read the USA Today article, I had the same thoughts - these numbers do not tell the full story. Not long ago I saw an age demographic curve of small cars buyers - it was shaped like a big U - lots of young buyers pre-family days then a dearth of middle age buyers followed by another upswing at about age 50.

The graph said that this was typical - young, no-kids couples buy small cars and older drivers buy small cars after their own families have grown up.

Accident rates for older drivers (until elderly) are low - it looks like the accident rate for small cars is heavily influenced by the age of the buyer. Since reporters have difficulty with middle school math (that is why they became writers), they often miss this sort of simple data analysis and end up writing stories that are largely nonsensical once we look at the actual data.

Best places to play, best strategies to win. Player ratings & reviews of top online casinos & pokers with highest payouts & biggest bonuses.