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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Absolutely true! In just about everything, it's the PEOPLE who are at fault. Yes, once in a great while there may be a design problem or defective parts, etc. (like 1st gen Explorers that had rollover problems and blowing out tires due to insufficient tire pressure for the vehicle weight, size of tire, etc.; S10 Blazers of the same year had the exact same tires but had no problems with blowouts because Chevy specified 35 psi in the tires; Ford specified 26 psi.) It's no different than the crazies who blame firearms for all the shooting deaths, etc. I can't recall a single case of a firearm discharging a bullet on it's own; someone had to pull the trigger (except in cases where the gun was dropped and due to some design issue it discharged). Let's put the blame where it belongs; the OPERATOR of the vehicle, firearm, aircraft, boat, etc.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/

 

What I am saying is that the data doesn't back up the data. Crash test data is not real world applicable. If you believe that stuff you are living in a fantasy. Go visit in person, on scene, at a thousand accident scenes, and then come back and tell us all about it.

 

I have met people like kloker before in real life and on the internet. They are the anti-vaccine folks, the climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists and no amount of scientific facts or data will change their minds.

 

Actually, you could not be further off the mark, Mark. I believe failure to vaccinate should be a felony. I know that we are in real and inevitable trouble with climate change. And I do look hard at actual real data and science. And I know the difference between real scientific information and hype. But I believe most in what I've seen and experienced, having been at the scene of many hundreds of accidents over the years. Trust me, you would not want my dreams or experiences. I've probably been injured in more accidents than you will ever see, and severely in several of those. And I've been forced to stand by, unable to help, while people burned or died hopelessly trapped in smashed metal way too many times to count, in my more than 50 years and over 5 million miles of driving.

So, I would guess you've surely led a relatively sheltered life. And yes, I did just call you Shirley.

 

Let me put it this way: Remember the movie line where the astronaut says something about the multi-billion dollar, most advanced and engineered/designed spacecraft ever built, assembled from parts made by the lowest bidder? Well, IMO, while the engineering and design may be advanced and cutting edge on paper, it loses something in translation. It loses its desired effect going from paper to substance, because they spend the big bucks on the paper, and pennies on the execution. The sheet metal is so pitifully beer can thin it can be bent in by the wind. The rest of the parts going to the assembly line are made pathetically cheaply and not fit for the purpose. Ask assembly line workers. Look at the dwindling new car market and declining reliability numbers. Experience or witness the damage done in a 5mph, or 10mph, or 20mph, or any speed, crash. Observe the multitude of recalls, bulletins, lawsuits. See the carmakers exploiting their newly found profit zones in parts and service, all due to crap manufacturing. Heck, just in the Gen 5 CR-Vs, the engine defects alone are a multi-billion dollar fraud being foisted on the consumer without so much as a we're sorry or here, let us fix that for you. They deny there's a problem when it is obvious there is a huge one, then refuse to fix it? Uh, not me, guys. I ain't buyin' it.

And safety is the first casualty, as always. Cars are not better, and they are not safer in most cases, and the body count proves it. Sure, you might (or not) walk away from a relatively mild or even moderate accident, although your car won't. Past that you don't really have a better chance. All you really have is a false sense of security and an empty wallet.

 

Your car can receive damage beyond reasonable repair costs in an accident, and it does so to save your life.
Seat belts, airbags, and crumple zones do make vehicles safer, regardless of your personal bias.

 

You can shout that from the rooftops - it does not make it so. The facts say otherwise. Those things do contribute, but cheap crap materials and construction cancel them out, and lack of driver skills and attention spans on top of all that actually make it more dangerous out there than it has ever been. Ever.

 

Are you or are you not an emergency technician? Please clarify. Or a retired super-trucker who's seen it all I guess. Please let us know. If I run into a Honda Fit with my 1991 Ford F250 Lariat Supercab Long Wheel Base 4x4 460ci Auto. at speed, sorry for them in that poorly built death trap. Perspective helps here. Also, the entire Forum seems to have half way died since the "upgrade", so any posting, even reminding posters on a 18 month cold thread that they were not following guidelines (one of your posts earlier today kloker) is ok to keep the heartbeat alive. I have fond memories of a 1972 F150 1/2 ton 4x2 302ci 3spd manual - "3 on the tree". Wonderful set of wheels when new. Cruise all day at 70-75 in comfort. All day at 60-65 towing an 18' travel trailer (Terry). Those were the days.

 

...sorry for them in that poorly built death trap.

So if you feel that way about small vehicles...explain again why you bought a CR-V?

 

Yes I drive a CRV. 59,000 miles. Forester (80,000 miles) before that, and Civic (93,000 miles) before that. Forester and Civic still in the extended family. I think I can count the number of accidents I saw in those 239,000 miles on both hands and maybe have fingers left over. Ummm......I guess my sarcasm wasn't clear?

 

You obviously must live on the edge of nowhere, not in the middle, where apparently there are a lot of lost people. There are more accidents than that at the major intersection 6 blocks from my house in a week. And 239k miles? I drove that every 2 years before I retired. In heavy traffic. In the middle of everywhere. At night, when all the drunks, crazies, and werewolves are out on the road. While wearing tennis shoes, and making sure the door was locked.

 

Fatality rates have decreased, as have total crashes. Sure if there's a slight increase in the past 2 years but this is variability now and unknown if it's a trend yet.

The safe conclusion is that you are less likely to die or be in an accident today than previous generations.

Fatality Facts 2023: Yearly snapshot

A yearly snapshot of fatality statistics compiled by IIHS from 2023 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data.

www.iihs.org

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

Oh, I'm sure these facts are biased in some way. Just wait for it... ?

 

Time out people. Name calling is not acceptable. Offending posts edited.

 

Rocky, your redaction leaves an impression I was calling names.

 

Unbelievable this is still a debate here.

Facts DO matter.. at least we all agree on that, even though we apparently do not agree as to what they mean.

From reliable sources, not some internet troll blog or opinion pieces, we can quickly see the following.

FACT:

Although the U.S. population has been growing steadily since 1975, the rate of crash deaths per 100,000 population in 2017 is about half of what it was four decades ago. In 2017, the overall per capita death rate decreased 3 percent compared with 2016.

Source: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

FACT:

By all measures, motor-vehicle safety has vastly improved since the early 1900s. Driver attitudes and behaviors have changed substantially, as has vehicle safety technology, which makes car travel safer.

The population motor-vehicle death rate reached its peak in 1937 with 30.8 deaths per 100,000 population. The current rate is 12.4 per 100,000, representing a 60% improvement.

source: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

The second fact quoted is particularly relevant to this discussion... since some feel vehicle safety is improved, but drivers have regressed and gone the other direction. The national safety council disagrees, as you can see.. noting improvements in both... even while facing ever increasing numbers of drivers on the roads.

 

And here it comes: there is literally no limit to the numbers of ways government statistics are skewed to show whatever they want to show. The entire government is and always has been notorious for this. Here's an example: Locally, there is a big investigation going on involving hospital statistics that has revealed that they used a loophole in the reporting rules to purposely not report up to 90% of fatalities of mothers in childbirth in local hospitals, and it has been going on for decades, and was designed to falsely show that maternity wards were much safer than they actually are. If that's true in your local hospital, imagine applying the myriad possibilities to the data presented in that linked "snapshot."

Want another example? Texas DPS recently got exposed for ordering all troopers to list traffic stops using specific biases dictated by the head office, and that has also been going on for many years. Heads are rolling. More? TxDOT is in hot water for having purposely misreported statistics by massive amounts to hide missing funds. I could go on, but you get the idea. So, my question is - how much exactly do you like the taste of snake oil?

Think about it. Large government agencies on all levels use those statistics to show how important and great a job they are doing, while law enforcement and first responder services constantly complain of being underfunded, shorthanded, and short supplied due to what is actually happening out there. Makes me wonder what's wrong with that picture. You can drink the Kool-Aid, but I'll pass. Incidentally, I see they don't include any charts showing that 80% of collisions are caused by distracted or impaired driving, or that in Texas at least one third of all accidents involve unlicensed non-citizens, or the growing category of road rage and aggressiveness. Even insurance companies don't report these things, yet a big chunk of the increase in your auto insurance bill in recent years is due to required uninsured motorist coverage.

So you can defend the statistics all you want, the whole thing just doesn't wash. Have there been safety improvements? Yes. Have they really helped? Only on paper. "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." Yeah, right.

 

Klocker, your observations would be more likely to be considered by other people if they were backed up by other data. In my profession, a scientist who publishes his observations without other evidence to back it up would be heavily criticized and ultimately ignored, especially if their data conflicts with all other existing data and observations from other scientists.

 

Well, as backup I can only say this: Go ask a state trooper, an EMT, a wrecker driver, or another older experienced truck driver. Any of them can back up my data, because they have seen with their own eyes the reality of it. And, as I said, most of the data in this area is fake anyway, wildly inaccurate because of its source. Even large percentages of scientific data is no good, because its sources are tainted by being filtered through narrow traditional academic bias or politics or financial influence. Not all data is that way, but much of it is. Combine that with an almost unlimited lack of common sense and there you have it. These days it's about as reliable as the six o'clock news. And about as believable.

 

A good friend of mine is a recently retired Parametric/Firefighter. While he agrees that drivers now are far more distracted than in the past, the vehicles are far more protective of the occupants. Back when we purchased our CR-V, he told us it was a good choice, for safety reasons. He had seen a few bad accidents involving them where people walked away unscathed. He also said it was rare for him to see an airbag cause a serious injury, or death. Usually, it was due to the person not wearing their seat-belt. He did, however, say they hate the hybrid and full electric vehicles. But, that's a different thing.

You are the ONLY one disputing the FACT that vehicles are safer now than they were back 20+ years ago. You're not going to convince anyone to change their minds. We have actual data to back this up, which you choose to brushoff as "fake news". Facts don't lie. Also, I will take my friends actual firsthand experience in the field. over that of a retired truck driver that I only know of on an internet forum.

 

kloker, this is a conspiracy theory.

 

Y'all are hilarious! You will twist and turn and flip and flop like a fish trying to avoid a skillet. Conspiracy theory? Hey. Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you. You cannot alter reality or overcome actual experience with internet statistics. What is a parametric? Is that someone who rescues numbers? Sorry. It was there, I just couldn't resist. Your friend is right, which means he agrees with me, though you don't seem to see that. But your filters cannot bring you to a place where my exponentially larger experience is less accurate than yours.

I do not dispute that vehicles are safer today, I dispute that you are safer. I dispute that your so-called facts are accurate, that your actual data is actually actual. And I am not alone in my beliefs, just here in this thread. The fact that you are not alone in this thread does not make you right and me wrong. Everything always looks better on paper than in practical application, which is why real progress is as slow as it is. The transportation world is nowhere near as rosy as the industry and the government would have you believe. But they have everything to gain by making you believe it is. The only road out of that box is experience. So, while you can certainly not like what I say when it disputes what you have learned, I have exponentially more experience, and neither you nor they can disprove that. We all base our beliefs on experience, which explains why we don't agree, and I don't expect you'll change yours based on mine, because you will never have as much as I have. Only those who do will be on my side. The real world definition of wisdom is knowledge gained through pain. So I trust that, given enough time, your views will change. Until that happens, all I can do is share, and pray for your safety.

 

...
I do not dispute that vehicles are safer today, I dispute that you are safer. I dispute that your so-called facts are accurate, that your actual data is actually actual.

...

Please provide something tangible that backs up what you keep claiming. "Because I said so" may get you somewhere with your small child, but just makes you look foolish in a debate.

 

Studies show that people who don't take care of their teeth are less healthy. So I am supposed to brush and see a dentist twice yearly and they will keep me healthy. Hmmmm...
Maybe people who don't take care of their teeth don't take care of the rest of themselves? Not just the mouth.
It's not corruption, a government cover up, on and on. You have to use some common sense. Read between the lines, but not to the extent it makes you (me) a fool.

 

Studies show that people who don't take care of their teeth are less healthy. So I am supposed to brush and see a dentist twice yearly and they will keep me healthy. Hmmmm...
Maybe people who don't take care of their teeth don't take care of the rest of themselves? Not just the mouth.
It's not corruption, a government cover up, on and on. You have to use some common sense. Read between the lines, but not to the extent it makes you (me) a fool.

True. Studies can be made to show whatever is desired, regardless of their practical application to reality. Example: your mentioned studies fail to mention that no amount of dental care will protect those who keep smoking that crack.

 

How in the world does this guy ^ become a Moderator? This is sad...

 

Wait, WHAT?

 

Back to the original topic.

The insurance industry has tracked vehicle safety from the crash end of it for decades.

What it shows is that size matters.

The highest injury and death rates correspond to vehicle size, from small cars at the high end of the death rate, to large vehicles at the low end.

Within a certain size range some vehicles do better than others, but move up a size range and they beat the smaller vehicle almost every time.

I did a report on this for a company I worked for that wanted to significantly downsize the vehicles in the leased fleet.

A bean had counter put up a spreadsheet that showed if the company went to the smallest car possible they could save $XXX.xx amount every year.

What my report showed was that overall the added risk wasn’t worth the somewhat limited reduction in the actual cost of the fleet.

When a Civic and a suburban collide, the suburban wins....easily.

 

Back to the original topic.

The insurance industry has tracked vehicle safety from the crash end of it for decades.

What it shows is that size matters.

The highest injury and death rates correspond to vehicle size, from small cars at the high end of the death rate, to large vehicles at the low end.

Within a certain size range some vehicles do better than others, but move up a size range and they beat the smaller vehicle almost every time.

I did a report on this for a company I worked for that wanted to significantly downsize the vehicles in the leased fleet.

A bean had counter put up a spreadsheet that showed if the company went to the smallest car possible they could save $XXX.xx amount every year.

What my report showed was that overall the added risk wasn’t worth the somewhat limited reduction in the actual cost of the fleet.

When a Civic and a suburban collide, the suburban wins....easily.

Absolutely agreed! It lists the vehicles (in the size category) most commonly involved in fatality "accidents," but none of the other major factors that affect those numbers, inferring that size, and safety ratings/features are responsible for the entire picture. While size is obviously a major factor, safety ratings/features is not above many other factors not considered here. Like how many of each vehicle are on the road, or the drivers’ ages, experience or skill level, or seat belt use, or how many of the events cited in the study involved alcohol, drug, or cell phone use, or inattentiveness and sleepiness, or speed and aggression, even though these are also major factors in the difference between fatal and non-fatal events.

Of course, (and I know you guys are just going to love this) I have my own definition of an accident, which is why I call them events. An accident is an event that is non-preventable. All other events are not accidents. I didn't invent that. It's the legal definition.

It's hard to fathom the purpose of publishing the study with such a narrow focus, when it means that it basically takes the numbers out of context, because the focus is far too limited, and the end result is distorted because it is only a partial one. It may be a part of the picture, so the numbers may be real, but it's not the whole picture, without which they cannot be put into a context that gives them relative scale. So, interesting, maybe. But taken alone, not worth a lot.