[metsfan84]

My wife and I currently have two CR-Vs ('18 and '16), but I am seriously considering an Accord when the lease on the '16 is up in a few months.

However, the one thing that is giving me pause about going back to a sedan is the IIHS data showing fewer fatalities in SUVs than sedans (for example, the 2014 or equivalent Accord has 36 deaths per million vehicles registered, while CR-V AWD has 14. Data is here: https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates).

The CR-V would still be my primary family vehicle and the Accord would be my commuter car, but my kids would still occasionally end up in the Accord, especially if my wife and I are each taking one kid on separate outings.

I know the chances of a serious accident are slim, and it's even less of an issue since my kids won't often be in the Accord, and if they are, it'll be for short, local trips. But I'm still concerned about the possibility of them being in a potentially unsafer (is that a word?) car.

What I'm wondering, though, is this: while simple physics (if a big car hits a small car, the small car would sustain more damage) is at play here, I wonder if the IIHS data isn't an accurate depiction of safety, since correlation doesn't equal causation. Obviously if a Suburban hits a Fit, the Suburban will be safer. But the weight difference is not as big when comparing a compact SUV and a midsize sedan. Should other factors be taken into account? For example, sedans are more frequently used by taxi drivers, etc, so they are more likely to be on the road for, say, 12 hours a day. An SUV on the road for an hour or two each day is much less likely to be in an accident. Can that be enough to cause the discrepancy?

 

[metsfan84]

CR-V 4WD = 14
CR-V 2WD = 22
CR-V total = 36 same as the Accord.

I don't think that works, because the 14 and 22 are each per million, so adding them, it would be 36 per two million. The Accord is 36 per one million.

I keep your 16 and say thank you.

I'm not doing that, but I might get a '19 CR-V (or CX-5 or RAV4, but I doubt it). But I'm heavily leaning toward the Accord because it's less expensive, I think I'll enjoy driving it a bit more, and it's something different from what I already have.

 

[metsfan84]

Did you also look at the Top Safety Picks information?

Or are you using that one number to make a decision?

I have... and the Accord and CR-V have the same scores in all of the tests ("Good" across the board) except for headlights, where the Accord received an "Average." But I have also read that the size of the vehicle is more important than the test ratings, at least in head-on collisions (source: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro...shes-but-there-is-more-to-the-story/index.htm). So that doesn't mean that a Hyundai Elantra (Top Safety Pick Plus) is safer in a crash with a larger car.

If safety is a major concern, I would go by the safety test ratings rather than deaths per vehicles registered. On the other hand, if you get hit head on by a semi, it won't make much difference which vehicle you are driving.

Well, yeah. But in this country of people driving SUVs, if you're hit head on by a Ford Explorer, does it matter if you're driving an Accord or CR-V? That's what I'm not sure of.

 

[metsfan84]

Not enough to make a difference in a crash, as the IIHS and NHTSA ratings show.

Thanks for all of that. I'm not sure I understand your last point. Do the IIHS and NHTSA have data on how many pounds of weight makes a difference in a crash?

 

[metsfan84]

Think people are way over thinking this. All modern passenger vehicles are designed with crumple zones and so on for safety.

First thing is to forget the electronic safety features exist. They arent there so you dont have to pay attention. They are there to increase the chance of avoiding an accident that comes out with next to no time to respond.

Messing with the infotainment system and all the other crap while driving is just as had as texting while driving

Concentrate on pay attention to the other drivers and be aware of your surroundings. Dont speed excessively and dont be like the elderly how drive WELL under the speed limit (which causes countless accidents because people are trying to move around. And they dont turn their flashers on as required to signal a slow moving vehicle).

That limits you to someone pulling out from a side street as a serious threat.

The key is to pay attention and be a better driver because the chances of an accident are actually quite high compared to most other things. Be aware and drive within the limits of you and your vehicle because no matter the ratings etc your talking less than 1% increase or decrease risk of injury or death between any modern vehicles.

I agree with all of what you're saying about safe driving, and of course modern vehicles are more safe than vehicles used to be, but I think to totally dismiss safety differences between different vehicles and/or classes of vehicles is irresponsible, especially considering, as you said, the chances of an accident are high compared to other things.

 

[metsfan84]

And what I keep seeing in your responses is that you've already decided that the CR-V is somehow "safer" than an Accord, regardless of what any safety tests show.

No... it's just that I am heavily leaning toward the Accord, and the only reason I'm hesitating at this point is the possibility the CR-V might be slightly safer because of the extra weight, since according to that Consumer Reports article, the weight makes more of a difference than the crash tests. So I was looking for additional information to see how that applied to these two classes of vehicles, since their weights are fairly similar. Your information from Consumer Reports was helpful, showing that despite the lower weight, the Accord has other safety advantages.