[rd082298]

Saw this and was somewhat surprised to see the CRV on here given all the safety equipment they seem to have. Noticeably absent from the list is the RAV4. Not a great deal of info to go on.


SUVs Most Frequently Involved in Fatal Accidents
iSeeCars examined the data to determine the SUVs that are most frequently involved in fatal accidents. The average SUV has a fatal accident rate of 1.7 cars per billion vehicle miles. The 10 SUVs most commonly involved in fatal accidents are at least 1.5 times more likely than the average SUV to be involved in a fatal accident.

iSeeCars - SUVs Most Frequently Involved in Fatal Accidents

Rank
Vehicle
Fatal Accident Rate (Cars per Billion Vehicle Miles)
1 Kia Sportage 3.8
2 Jeep Wrangler 3.6
3 Lincoln MKT3.3
4 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport 3.3
5 Buick Encore 3.2
6 Mitsubishi Outlander 3.2
7 Subaru Forester 3.2
8 Nissan Rogue 2.9
9 Honda CR-V 2.7
10 Chevrolet Equinox 2.5

Average for All SUVs 1.7

While SUVs have a fatal accident rate that is 34 percent lower than the overall average, small SUVs tend to have higher fatal accident rates within the segment. Compact and subcompact SUVs account for nine of the 10 vehicles on the list of SUVs with the highest fatal accident rates, with the third-highest midsize Lincoln MKT as the only exception.
Six compact SUVs earn the distinction as the SUVs with the highest fatal accident rates including the highest overall Kia Sportage, the second-highest Jeep Wrangler, the sixth-highest Mitsubishi Outlander, the seventh-highest Subaru Forester, the eighth-highest Nissan Rogue, the ninth-highest Honda CR-V, and the tenth-highest Chevrolet Equinox. Similar to the compact cars on the overall list, many compact SUVs performed poorly in IIHS crash tests. The Kia Sportage earned a “poor” rating in the small overlap front test for its 2013 through 2016 model years before improving to a “good” rating in 2017. The Jeep Wrangler, which is notorious for being unsafe, consistently earned a “poor” rating for its side impact test and marginal ratings in the small overlap front and rear crash protection tests. The Nissan Rogue received the second-lowest rating of “marginal” in the passenger-side small overlap front test during the 2013 model year, which was upgraded to “good” in 2014, while the Honda CR-V earned the same “marginal” rating for the 2013 and 2014 model years before raising its score to “good” in 2015.
The Mitsubishi Outlander and the Chevrolet Equinox stand out as the only compact SUVs with consistently favorable crash test ratings while also receiving the IIHS Top Safety Pick+ designation. “Despite their stellar safety ratings, the Outlander and Equinox draw criticism for their lack of standard safety features,” said Ly.
The two subcompact SUVs with the highest fatality rates include the fourth-highest Mitsubishi Outlander Sport and the fifth-highest Buick Encore. Like their compact counterparts, the vehicles have earned below-average ratings in IIHS’ crash tests and lack standard safety features. “The Outlander Sport performed well in crash safety tests in its earlier models of the vehicles surveyed, but downgraded in 2016 with a marginal rating for the small overlap passenger side safety test,” said Ly. “Meanwhile the Encore earned a poor rating for the small overlap front test in its 2013 and 2014 models, which to its credit was improved in subsequent model years.”
Rounding out the list is the third-highest Lincoln MKT midsize SUV. “While the Lincoln MKT earns high IIHS overall safety scores, it is not tested for the front and passenger overlap, which are typically the tests where vehicles earn low ratings,” said Ly.



https://www.iseecars.com/most-dangerous-cars-2019-study

 

[UNLTD1487]

Discouraging to see the CRV in this list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[williamsji]

iSeeCars - SUVs Most Frequently Involved in Fatal Accidents

Rank
Vehicle
Fatal Accident Rate (Cars per Billion Vehicle Miles)
1 Kia Sportage 3.8
2 Jeep Wrangler 3.6
3 Lincoln MKT3.3
4 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport 3.3
5 Buick Encore 3.2
6 Mitsubishi Outlander 3.2
7 Subaru Forester 3.2
8 Nissan Rogue 2.9
9 Honda CR-V 2.7
10 Chevrolet Equinox 2.5

Average for All SUVs 1.7

Interesting data. Covers model years 2013-2017.. which spans vehicle generations, which clouds things some. Those numbers though, especially when compared to non SUVs (particularly sub-compacts) in the report you linked ... are really low for all the vehicles that made the top 10 SUV list .. so I think we need some more context to make objective use of them. A break down of the types of fatal accidents, and actual causes is needed.. to determine better what the data actually means in more context. What percentage are driver error induced... what percentage are driver fatality, passenger fatality, other vehicle fatality, pedestrian fatality... etc. etc. The linked article also shows that SUVs and light Trucks fatality per billion miles is roughly the same.. which is not surprising.. given that vehicle size and similar factors plays a role here.

Also... the Current generation CRV is not a model where Honda has made Honda Sensing standard on all trim levels.. yet. And I suspect this plays a role in the CRV current numbers. Honda is now doing this beginning with the latest generation Accord, and some manufacturers have done so earlier as well. I would love to see actual data that shows accident data for the more modern vehicles that have advanced active and passive safety features.

Oh.. and check out that chart on fatalities per billion miles, by city or state!! Now we can begin to see behind the curtain some on insurance accident actuarial tables that drive insurance premiums. This one really stuck out to me ---> New York, NY Toyota Camry Hybrid 21.6 AND this one, by state ---> PA Toyota Yaris 24.2

 

[Wombat]

I am guessing that there are a lot more of these makes on the road than those that don't appear, subsequently these makes are more likely to be involved in an accident.

I too am surprised to see Subaru ahead of Honda, Subaru pride themselves on the safety of their vehicles.

 

[williamsji]

I am guessing that there are a lot more of these makes on the road than those that don't appear, subsequently these makes are more likely to be involved in an accident.

I too am surprised to see Subaru ahead of Honda, Subaru pride themselves on the safety of their vehicles.

Well.. the data is fatalities per billion miles.. so that normalizes out number of vehicles on the road. That said.. I don't think this data directly correlates to the inherent safety of the vehicles.. because there are drivers involved, local driving conditions involved (hence the city and state tables being shown in the linked article), other local effects like weather, bad roads, bad traffic safety systems..etc. etc. etc.

 

[robbyg]

I don't think this includes the Gen 5 CR-V. Maybe I missed something but all i found was this.

Honda CR-V earned the same “marginal” rating for the 2013 and 2014 model years before raising its score to “good” in 2015.

Rob

 

[319625]

Discouraging to see the CRV in this list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really... the outlander for example is higher and theres probably 2304293402340234x more crvs on the road lol
tons of factors also.. most people that do loads of miles driving would think to buy a realiable car but not everyone can afford that.

Lists like this are a huge waste of time bcause like others said, theres just too many variables

 

[Tigris99]

Number of fatal accidents isn't am issue with the vehicle. Look at where Jeep Wrangler rates and it would pancake a new CRV or most new crossovers.

The problem is the volume of them on the road and that most people don't have a freaking clue how to drive. CRVs being on the list is because of the sheer number of them. They are everywhere from gen 1 all the way up because they don't die.

Problem lies with the drivers nothing more. Just look at how many here keep trying to force crvs to corner like sports cars and complain about body roll at high speeds etc. THAT SAYS IT ALL. Too many stupid drivers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[kloker]

I'll say two things about this:

1. Today's flimsy vehicles are built so light and cheaply it's a wonder anyone survives a fender bender in them. And don't come back with that crap about crushability and zones. If the sheet metal was any thinner it would be transparent, and there's nothing under it, as opposed to older cars that had actual steel in there - cars you could lean on or even sit on without damage. No amount of safety equipment can offset the lack of any real substance. And no amount of statistical twisting can change the fact that cars are less safe than they have ever been.

2. It's as much about the drivers as it is about the vehicles, maybe more. 80% of the driving public are idiots. They have no common sense, no training, no discipline, no attention span, and no regard for consequences. And yes, this includes 80% of the drivers on this forum, we are not special. The other 20% are generally older, more experienced drivers, folks who were actually taught how to drive properly, since they actually used to do that once upon a time. And not addicted to cell phones or other distractions, or totally self-absorbed and selfish and rude and arrogant and aggressive and emotional. All these things present in today's drivers add up to a more dangerous group than drunks.

I wonder how many people here can even answer this question: What is the number one most important rule in driving? Let's hear what you think it is.

 

[mrtn]

I'll say two things about this:

1. Today's flimsy vehicles are built so light and cheaply it's a wonder anyone survives a fender bender in them. And don't come back with that crap about crushability and zones. If the sheet metal was any thinner it would be transparent, and there's nothing under it, as opposed to older cars that had actual steel in there - cars you could lean on or even sit on without damage. No amount of safety equipment can offset the lack of any real substance. And no amount of statistical twisting can change the fact that cars are less safe than they have ever been..

What

That's actually completely untrue. The safety of today's unibody vehicles are way superior compared to the body-on-frame "American Iron" with a fixed steering column.

 

[Mike728]

What

That's actually completely untrue. ...

There are some people stuck in their own little world, where only things "they believe" are true. You just ran across one of them.

 

[Tigris99]

There have been several fatal accidents involving the 5th gen CRV.. from what I have seen, the structure holds up well, so it must be a problem with the airbags/restraint system. Take this accident for example:
View attachment 130541
This CRV was rear ended by a minivan, pushing it into the truck. As you can see, the structure help up well, no A-pillar deformation, even the driver's door can be opened. Yet the driver did not survive.

Here's another one:
View attachment 130543
This CRV was in a head-on crash with a Jeep that was going the wrong way. Again, the structure held up, even the door could be opened. Yet, the driver was killed. Of course the wrong way driver of the Jeep survived, though.

Since the structure holds up, it seems like there must be a problem with the airbags or seatbelts. If they were functioning properly, I think these people should have survived.

Both instances:

Heavy duty built vehicles versus an SUV that's built at the weight of a compact car. A modern full frame offroad capable vehicle is going to win a fight with anything meant to be soccer mom commuters.

Also looking at damage, both examples the main for of the impact was in the driver's side of the vehicle.

In head on collisions like that the bigger vehicle wins.

Think this is bad I find the pictures from recent accident near a friend's place. HYUNDAI Suv ripped in half, damn near could have driven the other SUV onto the tow truck.

You will find evidence to support any outcome you want for what is Dangerous on the road. Most articles listing vehicles are very biased or their information is from a small geographical area.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[kloker]

What

That's actually completely untrue. The safety of today's unibody vehicles are way superior compared to the body-on-frame "American Iron" with a fixed steering column.

No, they are not. There is always a way to show something that appears to back it up, but if you view the two vehicles in person, the outcome is deceivingly not as it appears. I actually had a '59 in high school (with a 409/4-speed), loved it. Would never buy anything GM-made in recent years. If you watch the video very carefully several times, you can see that your first impression is not what you first thought. Also, that's only one crash type. In most others the '59 would destroy the '09. Your statement is false - today's vehicles are flimsy and unsafe at any speed. I'll put my '91 F250 up against whatever you got, but not my CR-V. Anything stronger than a hard look will knock a dent in it.

 

[kloker]

There are some people stuck in their own little world, where only things "they believe" are true. You just ran across one of them.

You guys are the ones living in a dream. The reality is plain to see. No amount of industry propaganda actually ever hides it very well, except for those of you who choose to drink the Kool-Aid. I've seen many times more crashes than both of you combined ever will, and I know the truth the hard way. You've only seen it on tv.

 

[mrtn]

I'll put my '91 F250 up against whatever you got, but not my CR-V. Anything stronger than a hard look will knock a dent in it.

You are being ridiculous by comparing a big truck like F250 to a compact SUV, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. These two sedans (above) of the same segment are vastly different in safety.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/cg-suv-safety3.htm

 

[williamsji]

Both instances:

Heavy duty built vehicles versus an SUV that's built at the weight of a compact car. A modern full frame offroad capable vehicle is going to win a fight with anything meant to be soccer mom commuters.

Also looking at damage, both examples the main for of the impact was in the driver's side of the vehicle.

In head on collisions like that the bigger vehicle wins.

Think this is bad I find the pictures from recent accident near a friend's place. HYUNDAI Suv ripped in half, damn near could have driven the other SUV onto the tow truck.

You will find evidence to support any outcome you want for what is Dangerous on the road. Most articles listing vehicles are very biased or their information is from a small geographical area.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Agreed. Basic physics says the higher mass object wins in a collision. That said... these modern vehicles are designed to crumple and absorb impact and protect the cabin and it's contents. So.. my thought on both of these collisions is that the drivers may have not been wearing their seat belts at the time of the collision. There is no appearance of any side impact or spin around that could have caused a head injury (no side airbags appear to be deployed).

 

[williamsji]

Your statement is false - today's vehicles are flimsy and unsafe at any speed. I'll put my '91 F250 up against whatever you got, but not my CR-V. Anything stronger than a hard look will knock a dent in it.

It is you who are mistaken here, but I don't expect you to accept this.. based on your combative responses so far.

Here's the thing you are ignoring.... modern vehicles are designed to be totaled in a modern collision precisely because the goal is to protect the passengers in the cabin and so the vehicle has many different crumple mechanics in it's structure that absorb energy. By absorbing energy in the vehicles structure, it dampens any collision energies entering the cabin. Your '59 you are so fond of did not, though it was a much heavier vehicle. I would be that in side by side crash test comparisons... a modern Compact SUV will better protect the passengers then your old 59 would. Federal crash safety tests demonstrate this quite well on modern vehicles.. even in the every troublesome front-side high speed impact crashes. Your 59 would certainly fail modern crash safety tests.... emphasis on the word "safety" by the way.. of cabin passengers. The 59 would of course incur less damage from an identical collision, AND would pass a lot of collision energy directly into the cabin and it's occupants.

There are some modern vehicles that do not have good federal safety crash test scores, but you know that up front from the score results and these vehicles do suffer from sales volume due to safety concerns. Modern SUVs, and especially the CRV are not one of these.

 

[kloker]

It is you who are mistaken here, but I don't expect you to accept this.. based on your combative responses so far.

Here's the thing you are ignoring.... modern vehicles are designed to be totaled in a modern collision precisely because the goal is to protect the passengers in the cabin and so the vehicle has many different crumple mechanics in it's structure that absorb energy. By absorbing energy in the vehicles structure, it dampens any collision energies entering the cabin. Your '59 you are so fond of did not, though it was a much heavier vehicle. I would be that in side by side crash test comparisons... a modern Compact SUV will better protect the passengers then your old 59 would. Federal crash safety tests demonstrate this quite well on modern vehicles.. even in the every troublesome front-side high speed impact crashes. Your 59 would certainly fail modern crash safety tests.... emphasis on the word "safety" by the way.. of cabin passengers. The 59 would of course incur less damage from an identical collision, AND would pass a lot of collision energy directly into the cabin and it's occupants.

There are some modern vehicles that do not have good federal safety crash test scores, but you know that up front from the score results and these vehicles do suffer from sales volume due to safety concerns. Modern SUVs, and especially the CRV are not one of these.

I'm not saying you are wrong on the '59, I'm saying you are wrong that the modern vehicles are safer. They are simply not. Of course, a head-on collision is not the best comparison by which to judge. Modern marketing says these newer cars are safer, but I've been out there and seen the results in person, on scene, and they are not safer in most instances. This does not mean I'd prefer the '59 in a crash, it just means I have no faith in the newer vehicles, and, based on my experience, rightly so. You can choose to not accept that, but it does not make it untrue. I have witnessed and assisted on scene at many, many collisions, and I know what I know from personal real experience, and I will put that up against an infinite number of crash test videos any time. But, hey, you will believe what you choose to until life shows you something different, and that's okay. I will still wish for you and yours to always get there safely.

 

[amc2002]

Sorry @kloker, the data just doesn't back up what you are saying.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/05/10/new-cars-safer-nhtsa-crash-data/

 

[kloker]

You are being ridiculous by comparing a big truck like F250 to a compact SUV, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. These two sedans (above) of the same segment are vastly different in safety.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/cg-suv-safety3.htm

That's not what I did at all. You might work on your reading comprehension.