Which is more dangerous: SUV Rollover or a Car Wreck?

Factual Questions
1

With these new rollover ratings out now and all the Firestone press, I’m a bit confused.

I’ve not seen whether it is better to be in a SUV because you are not really very likely to roll over (but may get killed if you do) or in a regular car which isn’t as likely to get rolled over (but doesn’t offer much protection if struck from the side/rear/head-on).

This type of thing is a trade-off to a certain point, but are there are government or insurance industry crash statistics that tell what percentage of SUV drivers and passengers get killed or paralyzed in accidents versus what percentage of car drivers and passengers get killed or paralyzed?

2

Just would like to know what an SUV is before making any comments on this one!

3

I own an SUV (A Cherokee) and love it. I think this roll over hype is way, way, WAY overblown. It drives me nuts that idiots make a big deal out of that. Sure, it may be more prone to rolll over than my 300zx, but so is everything else with a higher center of gravity. That also doesn’t mean its going to roll over on the way to the store.

That being said though, I think you have a bit of a misconception of passenger car safety. I haven’t looked at the stats (I am sure someone here has) but I would be dollars to donughts that cars are about as safe as you can be in front/side impact accidents. They have more saftey standards to pass for such things than an SUV does, which I believe are still classed as “trucks” and have less stringent rules.

Eric

4

Sports Utility Vehicle.

Like the Ford Explorer and the Mercedes M-class.

5

Sport Utility Vehicle (like a Ford Explorer, Jeep Cherokee, etc.)

Even Lexus and Mercedes make them now, although they look odd to me.

6

This is already wandering off-topic. All things being equal, let’s assume you are a calm safe driver, not a pumped up testosterone-engorged road rage maniac. There you go, down to the local 7-11 for this month’s " Tattoo Art Critique".

You’re just being a good samaritan, driving like a wuss. You’re making your left turn, WITH a green arrow. Out of nowhere comes a caddy, bearing down upon you and running it’s red light.

You swerve. Hard, to avoid the impact. In doing so, your 14 mph speed allows your SUV to do something that a VW Beetle wouldn’t do. ( The numbers here are bullshit,I’m just making a point so don’t go asking for a cite on 14 mph). Your SUV, with it’s very high specific Center of Gravity ( C of G ), will want to tip over as you swerve. It tips over, and you slam into the telephone pole as you do so.

The nature of a roof impact is different than a side or frontal impact. Aside from a Humm Vee, I can’t think of many vehicles that have roof protection. Yeah, Jeeps etc with their roll bars. BFD- the roll bar isn’t a huge cage, it’s a single steel bar. You’re much more exposed to injury as you roll a vehicle over and over, opposed to swerving to avoid said car, and hitting a pole head on. All new cars have airbags. Some have side-impact bags. Many have “crumple zones” that protect you but let the rest be damaged. Not many have that level of protection on the roof.

In addition to the thin skins of most car roofs, there is the inherent damage to an occupant. Three point restraints are designed with the forwards velocity of a body in mind. When you’re rolled, your body can be ejected OUT of the three point restraint pretty easily. Now, you’re a sack of potatoes rolling around your car. IMHO, being rolled in any vehicle offers greater potential for life-threatening injuries than being in an identical accident scenario with a lower C of G.

<----placing my .02 cents on the table, strolling out to my thin-skinned but very stable Nissan Quest :smiley:

Cartooniverse

7

One of the big problems with car crash safety statistics, is that the crash tests (let’s use front end, non-offset) only test one thing. That is, how the car protects it’s passangers when colliding head-on with a car of the **exact same weight and shape **.

So, a Saturn SL1 may do great in the government crash tests, and a Suburban may do lousy, but if a Saturn is hit by a Suburban, you can guess who is going to come out better. That’s because in a collision of unequal masses, the bigger mass usually “wins”. The piece of data you need to know is how real world crashes relate to the crash tests, and there’s lots of conflicting data out there.

If both vehicles were to crash into a bridge abutment, I’d probably want a car. If I were to be hit by a Suburban, I’d want the biggest vehicle out there.

Having said all that, I drive a Saturn.

8

Here is an article about the relative safety of SUVs.

What it says is that due to the higher wieght of SUVs they are safer than a car they are less safe that a minivan of comparable weight because of the higher rollover rate.

9

I don’t see an answer to my question, really.

Surely some agency has stats that say of all major (as in there was injury and a police report) accidents involving SUVs, 8.548947857457% of SUV drivers/passengers were killed or seriously injured. For cars it was 9.1345363456% of drivers/passengers. For minivans, 7.957373474% and for Amish buggies, 4.34569348%.

A final, bottom-line, real-world number like this would have to take into account everything, wouldn’t it, and not just rollovers or airbags or road rage?

10

I saw some of the new roll over rankings on the news last night and was wondering along similar lines. They stated:

  1. SUV’s are more likely to roll over.
  2. Roll over accidents more often result in fatalities.

What they failed to say was whether or not a SUV offered more protection in roll overs. My thinking is that (if designed properly) a larger vehicle with more interior room has more room to crumple, and therefore even in a roll over is likely to be safer. I suspect, therefore, that the statistics as presented were misleading. I think I would rather be in a rolling SUV than a flattened compact car.

For a car to roll over, it generally has to be moving at a relatively high speed or be hit at a high speed, and of course, the higher the speed, the more likely a fatality will occur. And let’s not forget that fiberglass sports cars and convertibles offer zero protection once the car is rolling…

Therefore, to make a valid comparison, you really need to know the fatality rate in roll over SUV accidents versus the same rate in car accidents.

H8, you’re probably right that the numbers do exist somewhere. I suspect the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) would have them, but a cursory examination of their website did not reveal anything. ( http://www.ntsb.gov )

11

Man, was this question too broad, or what?

Yes, a vehicle with a higher CG will roll easier than a vehicle with a low CG. Not exactly the whole story though, is it? There are other considerations, like, what kind of accident are you most likely to encounter, a rollover scenario or an impact scenario?

One of the big advantages to SOME of the SUV class automobiles is weight. If a 3800 pound car hits ANY stationary vehicle at 40 MPH, the impact energy is going to be the same, but if the “target” vehicle weighs 3000 pounds, the effects will be different from an impact with a 4500 pound target. The heavier vehicle has an extra 1500 pounds to absorb energy, resulting in a slower transfer of force to the passengers (assuming all vehicles are perfectly rigid, and no crumpling takes place).

Another advantage to MOST SUVs is the fact that they are generally built on a full length frame, like a truck. Most cars, and some of the light, small, cutesy SUV’s are built using a “unibody” design that employs subframes front and rear to tie together the suspension, but they are held together in the middle by only the passenger area. If the passenger compartment is poorly designed, it can crumple under stress, and so do the occupants. Unibody designs are also poorly suited to areas with rough, uneven roads, because over time they can twist and warp enough to prevent proper door alignment, etc. How much are those “side intrusion beams” worth if the door doesn’t fit right.

Yet another advantage to both trucks and SUV’s is that they elevate the passengers above the level of most of the material that comes crashing into them in an impact. Ever seen a low slung sportscar wedged under the back of an 18 wheeler? Ever noticed that though the back bumber on the trailer may be mangled, the contents of the trailer are a lot better off? Same thing…

This is not to say I think SUVs are for everyone, or that they should replace cars. Rather, drivers play a big part in the whole SUV problem. Maybe they should require a special license to drive a vehicle with a CG over a certain height. Years ago I owned a full-size Ford Bronco, and decided it wasn’t big enough, so I added a 4" suspension lift, 3" body lift, and 35" tires. In doing so, I raised the CG several inches, but I never rolled, or even had a tire off the ground (unless I jumped it over something). The point is I knew the performance envelope of the vehicle, and knew how to drive it. Most of the people you see in these things have never had any experience in high CG vehicles, and want to drive them just like the Volvo they traded in. If they want to hold manufacturers responsible, make them supply new owners with a behind-the-wheel safety course.

12

H8,

You might check out this site:

http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9803/ru980303.htm#OccProt

Table 1, about a 1/4 of the way down the page, lists injuries and fatalities in raw numbers for each type of vechicle.

I’ve spent about the last hour reading up on the subject (I ride a motorcycle, and was sort of curious), and found that, more important than the type of vechicle:

  1. Wear your seatbelt.
  2. Don’t drink and drive.

and if I may be forgiven a slight hijack:

What sort of idiot rides a motorcycle drunk? 30% of motorcycle fatalites involve a biker with a BA count of above .10. Hunh?

Anyway, if you can put together the number of fatalites with the percentage of each type of car on the road, you can get the answer you’re looking for.

13

Who? The asshole who flipped his bike and narrowly missed the telephone pole. He wasn’t just drunk, he was violent AND drunk. It took 4 of us to hold him down enough for the Paramedic to examine what was left of his face. He wore those cute little Nazi BrainPan helmets. ( It was in pieces when I got there in my ambulance). He suffered head trauma, facial trauma, broken legs and a broken hand and fingers.

They flew him out. I had to stop on the way onto the field, with the chopper already down and waiting on me, so the Paramedics could administer a sedative sufficient to get him loaded safely into a helicopter.

I assume he lived. The drunks always do. :mad:

Cartooniverse

14

Minor point: most of the smaller SUVs–the XJ (little) Cherokee, maybe Explorer, all the imports–are unibodies.

I’ve seen pictures of fullsize Jeep Cherokees (1974-'84) and Wagoneers (1962-'91) (real full-frame trucks with very thick roof supports) that rolled at highway speeds and were still driveable. And they do pretty well when hit at 70 mph, too. That was done by a '99 Ford Ranger, BTW. I’m glad I was in the Jeep and not one of those little plastic import cars :eek:.

15

I think a part of the problem with SUVs is the drivers. A lot of people get the impression that they are somehow immune to bad weather conditions and other dangerous factors on the road because they are in a big 4WD vehicle. Here in Dallas we recently had an ice storm, and most people on the roads were driving 40 mph or less. Almost every time somebody flew past me like I was standing still it was someone in a SUV or a big truck. Along one 10 mile stretch of road on the way to work I saw 5 wrecked vehicles on the side of the road, 4 of which were SUVs. It’s the same when it rains, though not as bad of course. During the ice storm the local news was specifically warning drivers of SUVs that road conditions were just as dangerous if not more so for them than other drivers, because the police had said it was a real problem. They were saying ‘Remember, 4 wheel drive does NOT mean 4 wheel stop’.

I’m not saying that all SUV drivers are irresponsible drivers, but a lot of them are, or have misconceptions about how their vehicle drives, or just have no experience driving high, heavy vehicles.

16

Badtz,
I live very near DFW… A little too near… In the midcities, the 12/12/00 ice storm wasn’t as bad as the New Year’s Eve snow. We limped into Irving in my 4x4 Dakota, without even seeing anyone having trouble except the occasional fishtail on a bridge. On the way home from a late church service, though, 114 was a big sheet of ice. I put it in 4WD and never had a problem, but there were planty of people sliding all over, not because they had an SUV or a car, but because they had 2WD and didn’t know how to handle ice. CG, ground clearance, etc. were not factors, except possibly in making some people overconfident, but I also saw people in low slung cars that flew along on the shoulder, at least briefly.

As far as the number of wrecks when it rains here, it’s not about SUV’s, but about Texas drivers. I’ve never seen a bunch of people more frightened by precipitation. Apparently they think the sky is falling.

Gunslinger,
I went to the Jeep website, hoping to be able to tell you that you were wrong about the Cherokee. Geez! They try to call it “uniframe” construction, but it’s the same thing. Too bad. The Wrangler is still using a ladder-box frame at least but with that short wheelbase and narrow track, they can still get a little squirrely. On the other hand, I’ve owned one, and driven a few, and never had a problem, even when jumping them over a variety of things.

As for “all the imports” I assume you don’t include import labels built here? The Isuzu Rodeo & it’s twin the Honda Passport are both pretty small, but use a full frame. I’m not sure about this new SUV Toyota is making based on the Tundra, but usualy if they build it “on a truck chassis” it means they’ll be using a full frame. Four Wheeler just did an article comparing four SUV’s, I think for their “Import of the Year” award. Maybe I can get some specs from them.

Of course, you mentioned thick roof supports, and a frame doesn’t guarantee that. For all I know, my Dakota might turn into a pancake if I turtle it… I’ll just have to try my best not to find out. :smiley:

17

INJURY, COLLISION & THEFT LOSSES by make and model, 1997-99 models

From this page, you can select the comparitive ratings for vehicles based on actual insurance claims. You don’t get raw numbers, but at least they are real world results.

I was actually surprised how well most SUV’s ranked. They aren’t the safest class of car on the road, but they aren’t anywhere near the worst (with some exceptions). Another surprise: these are the only type of vehicle where they break down the statistics by 2 wheel drive and 4 wheel drive, and it looks to me like the 4 wheel drive isn’t saving any lives.

18

Okay, a whole lot of 'em. And the roof strength bit was just a comment on how well-built the bigJeeps were :).

19

Looking at the entire class might be the better way, since individual models could be deceiving. If you examine the injury numbers for SUV’s and trucks, you’ll notice that four wheel drive vehicles in the same classes had better or (in one case) equal injury numbers than the two wheel drive. An examination of all classes reveals that the larger vehicles are consistently the safer ones, confirming the conventional wisdom.

This is one of the reasons I drive a Chevy 1500 Silverado 4x4 (besides the fact that this is Michigan).

20

4WD wasn’t designed to save lives, but to provide extra traction. Effectively comparing 2WD to 4WD in accidents would require a case by case examination of the incidents, to determine whether 4WD even COULD have added an extra safety margin. In cases where someone runs a light, swerves into oncoming traffic, drives too fast to stop in time, etc. it doesn’t make a difference. 4WD can’t sober up a drunk, fasten a seatbelt, check your blindspots, make you an experienced driver, or make you pay attention to what you’re doing.

It can, however, provide grip under power in some circumstances where 2WD would be insufficient. Of course, the difference between “can” and “does” usually boils down to the driver.