Car safety (Injury rates)

[Ultima]

Everyone thinks bigger is always safer (but if all cars were big then the size advantage is gone), but anyways I decided to take a look for myself.

Car safety (Injury Rates)

A score of 100 represents the average for all cars of any size. 90 would be 10% better than average, 120 would be 20% worse.

Edit: Added both sedan and coupe for listed models

Injuries:
Small cars:

Audi A4 Quattro 63
Audi A4 67
Volkswagen Beetle 69
Volvo S40 82
Volkswagen Golf 2dr 91
Volkswagen Golf 4dr 101
Honda Civic 3dr 105
Honda Prelude 113
Honda Civic 4dr 125
Acura Integra 2dr 132
Acura Integra 4dr 133
Nissan Sentra 134
Geo (Chevy) Metro 2dr 138
Toyota Celica 139
Honda Civic 2dr 143
Toyota Corolla 147
Geo (Chevy) Metro 4dr 189
Suzuki Swift 192
Kia Sephia 221
Suzuki Esteem 247

What does this mean? The Sephia and Esteem are deathtraps. The VW Golf is pretty safe by comparison. The Beetle is amazingly safe for its size. I still wouldn't get one though The Volvo near the top is no surprise.

Midsize:

Buick Century 63
VW Passat 80
Toyota Camry Solara 96
Chevy Malibu 97
Chryser Sebring 98
Honda Accord 4dr 102
Toyota Camry 102
Honda Accord 2dr 116
Nissan Altima 144

Now for the big cars

Buick LeSabre 39
Mercury Grand Marquis 53
Pontiac Bonneville 53
Buick Regal 57
Ford Crown Victoria 63
Chevy Impala 73

So weight's not all that matters; it's also how the car is built. The big cars I just listed are all quite safe but they're all boats as well. The Beetle was a surprise, I was expecting it to be bad but it's safer (in injury rate) than a Chevy Impala. The Golf is one of the safest compacts, and the Metro didn't do as bad as I thought. Anyways, make your own conclusions, the numbers speak for themselves

I think I'll make another thread but with death rates just to see how the same cars fare

Edit:

A quick look at Trucks and SUV's:

Trucks:

Toyota Tacoma 111 (Worse than a Beetle or Accord!)
Chevrolet S10 81
Ford F-150 64
Dodge Ram 2500 40
Chevrolet Silverado 30

Suvs:

Toyota RAV4 129 (Almost as bad as a Geo Metro)
Honda CRV 88
Dodge Durango 73
Jeep Wrangler 69
Oldsmobile Bravada 52
Ford Excursion 37 (Meh.. doesn't make up for the fact that it probably kills the other party in an accident 90% of the time. Also, a Buick LeSabre which is probably half the weight is just about as safe and doesn't pose such a threat to everyone else. I'm glad they're killing the Excursion.)

 

[Evadman]

Where the hell is a Dodge Ram?

<edit>
Found it. under All Very Large with a 40. Page 3

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Evadman
Where the hell is a Dodge Ram?

Cars means cars only, no trucks or suv's.

Edit:

But since you asked, hold on, I'll compare some trucks and SUV"s too and edit my original post okay?

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: Evadman
Where the hell is a Dodge Ram?

Cars means cars only, no trucks or suv's.

Neener Neener, I found it 40 under Very Large

So what would happen if, say, I ran over a Suzuki Esteem? Would the driver of the Suzuki Esteem come out looking like hamburger?

 

[Viper GTS]

How much is this influenced by the nature of the vehicle?

For example, the Civic vs Metro debate - I would bet money a Civic would significantly outperform a Metro in any government standard crash test - yet they scored worse in injury rates.

Could this be that Civic drivers are much more likely to drive like a dumbass than a Metro owner, thus influencing their odds of removing themselves from the gene pool?

Viper GTS

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: Ultima

Originally posted by: Evadman
Where the hell is a Dodge Ram?

Cars means cars only, no trucks or suv's.

Neener Neener, I found it 40 under Very Large

So what would happen if, say, I ran over a Suzuki Esteem? Would the driver of the Suzuki Esteem come out looking like hamburger?

Lmao, probably. Anyway I added trucks and SUV's too

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
How much is this influenced by the nature of the vehicle?

For example, the Civic vs Metro debate - I would bet money a Civic would significantly outperform a Metro in any government standard crash test - yet they scored worse in injury rates.

Could this be that Civic drivers are much more likely to drive like a dumbass than a Metro owner, thus influencing their odds of removing themselves from the gene pool?

Viper GTS

In that same vein, isn't the Chevy Metro a rebadged Suzuki Swift?
I'm wondering how the injury rates could be so disparate.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
How much is this influenced by the nature of the vehicle?

For example, the Civic vs Metro debate - I would bet money a Civic would significantly outperform a Metro in any government standard crash test - yet they scored worse in injury rates.

Could this be that Civic drivers are much more likely to drive like a dumbass than a Metro owner, thus influencing their odds of removing themselves from the gene pool?

Viper GTS

In that same vein, isn't the Chevy Metro a rebadged Suzuki Swift?
I'm wondering how the injury rates could be so disparate.

Hmm I dunno. Maybe it's cause of the Swift GTI's with 100hp (a lot for a 2000lb car)? I think the Metro's are 3-cylinder and have what, 60-70hp?
There's a lot of Civic drivers that are dumbasses, but Civics are such a common car that even those dumbasses are just a slice of the pie. It's gonna be something else...

Edit:

2000 Chevy Metro: 1895lbs, 79hp, 1.3L 4cyl
2000 Suzuki Swift: 1895lbs, 79hp, 1.3L 4cyl

wtf?
Well I dunno then. I guess the Swift drivers are more aggressive. I know my friend is with his '94 Swift He tinted the windows and put mags on it, subs too... it handles much better now but god I hate that car (I'm tall).

Edit 2:

Oh wait, I knew it
2000 Chevy Metro Base: 1895lbs, 55hp, 1.0L 3cyl
No Swift counterpart.

That's why the rate is lower for the Metro, they can't get much above 60mph and 0-60 time is probably 20 secs

 

[OS]

I would take this report with a grain of salt. Take a look at the results for the Chevrolet Prizm and the Toyota Corolla. These cars are almost exactly the same except for a few cosmetic differences. And yet, there is a very large disparity between the injury rates for the two vehicles despite the fact they are basically the same exact car. This suggests to me that there is a large demographics/human factor that the report failed to take into account.

Also remember that smaller, economy cars are often purchased and driven in high density urban areas, which obviously means more collisions, injuries and thefts.

I believe that standardized government crash tests are more accurate for comparing the safety.

On an interesting note, look at the theft rate for the Integra. :Q:Q:Q:Q

 

[SuperTool]

Midsize:

Buick Century 63
VW Passat 80
Chevy Malibu 97
Chryser Sebring 98
Honda Accord 102
Toyota Camry 102
Nissan Altima 144

The Altima is a big car (bigger than a Passat and Accord, right?) but look where it ended up.

No, not right. The document says 1998-2000 models, and those year Altimas are smaller than any of the other mentioned sedans.
Anyone have the 2002+ Altima safety numbers?

 

[OS]

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics. . ."

 

[SSP]

I agree with OuterSquare on this.

Besides, there are more Corollas and Civics on the road then Metros, so its common sense that the Corollas and Civics will be in more accidents then Metros. Therefore, it will stand out comparing to something that can barely go at 60Mph.

I'd take the US Government crash testing over this turd.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Midsize:

Buick Century 63
VW Passat 80
Chevy Malibu 97
Chryser Sebring 98
Honda Accord 102
Toyota Camry 102
Nissan Altima 144

The Altima is a big car (bigger than a Passat and Accord, right?) but look where it ended up.

No, not right. The document says 1998-2000 models, and those year Altimas are smaller than any of the other mentioned sedans.
Anyone have the 2002+ Altima safety numbers?

Ah, I didn't know that.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: SSP
I agree with OuterSquare on this.

Besides, there are more Corollas and Civics on the road then Metros, so its common sense that the Corollas and Civics will be in more accidents then Metros. Therefore, it will stand out comparing to something that can barely go at 60Mph.

I'd take the US Government crash testing over this turd.

It's a relative measure not absolute, so the number of metros doesn't make a difference. Like others have said demographics play a role, but it's up to you how to interpret the numbers. Metros are too slow to be driven aggressively which is probably why they don't do so bad despite their tiny size. The 80hp Swifts are faster and have higher injury rates.
If you look at the accident rate Corollas don't get in many more accidents than Prizms but their injury rate is higher. Why this happens I dunno, it's just statistics

 

[notfred]

<- buys silverado and runs over things.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OuterSquare
On an interesting note, look at the theft rate for the Integra. :Q:Q:Q:Q

Damn, no wonder my insurance is so high (even though it's garaged at virtually all times)

 

[Pooteh]

the problem is that it doesn't account for the driver and market of each vehicle. this study assumes that all cars are not equal, but all drivers are which is simply a crock. a buyer of a geometro is either poor, old, or an eco freak. either way they are going to be paranoid driving that thing, and likely to drive less. also since they aren't being sold anymore and didn't sell all that well in the first place, the market can't be that diverse

was a civic sedan listed? sedans perform better then civic coupes in side impact for obvious reasons. and well, any car with a younger demographic and slightly peppy engine will probably rack up worse numbers.

 

[SWirth86]

Where are the fatality ratings?
EDIT: Just read that part about the death rates.....must have missed that

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Pooteh
the problem is that it doesn't account for the driver and market of each vehicle. this study assumes that all cars are not equal, but all drivers are which is simply a crock. a buyer of a geometro is either poor, old, or an eco freak. either way they are going to be paranoid driving that thing, and likely to drive less. also since they aren't being sold anymore and didn't sell all that well in the first place, the market can't be that diverse

was a civic sedan listed? sedans perform better then civic coupes in side impact for obvious reasons. and well, any car with a younger demographic and slightly peppy engine will probably rack up worse numbers.

They don't specify how, but in the first page of the PDF it says "Results also are adjusted, or standardized, to reduce possible distortions from two nonvehicle factors - operater age and insurance deductible".

 

[CocaCola5]

Originally posted by: notfred
<- buys silverado and runs over things.

You'll just hit another big car, last time I was on the freeway there were WAY more large vehicles than smaller ones.

 

[Ultima]

I edited the post and added 2dr and 4dr when a model has both (also added a 3dr civic)

 

[Ultima]

^ afternoon bump

 

[Doggiedog]

Cripes! My GS is the 3rd worst car in theft after the Integra and the Corvette? How can that be?

 

[vi edit]

Woo! Go VAG!

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Wonder where the Mini would fall...