3 ms·

> my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch. SUV are objectively safer due to size and mass. This comes at the cost of

> my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch. SUV are objectively safer due to size and mass. This comes at the cost of efficiency (fuel, space), and damage to other "softer" traffic participants (pedestrians, cyclists, smaller cars). This effect is exaggerated by the fact that when braking or hitting something all cars lean forward and the nose goes down. So a small car crashing into the back of a SUV when both are braking (or the SUV just impacted someone in front) will definitely slide under the SUV and see a lot of damage. Also the back of a car is not designed to crumple as much as the front so it will see a lot less damage. And because I see a wave of downvotes without an actual counter-argument, I will leave this here [0] and quote the essential: > Research by the Highway Loss Data Institute shows that drivers and passengers in a hybrid are 25% less likely to be injured than those in the same model with a standard gasoline engine. And the death rate for drivers in hybrid crashes also was lower. The hybrid advantage is all about weight, it turns out. Putting 2 and 2 together, between cars built to the same safety standards and level of quality, the heavier one is safer. I though this would be obvious for the technical crowd, especially the ones willing to get past reading just the first half a sentence from a comment. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crash-test-hybrids-safer-than-other-cars/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crash-test-hybrids-safer-than-o...

hansvm 6y ago
They can be relatively safer in multi-vehicle collisions (importantly, that remains the case whether you're comparing 3 vs 2.25 ton vehicles or, e.g. 2 vs 1.5 ton -- you're not objectively safer, but you are safer in the current metagame at the cost of killing more people who aren't you). In single-vehicle collisions against approximately immovable objects (trees, barriers, etc) though, that mass is no longer an advantage, and if the crumple zone doesn't function as well because of the frame design in a larger vehicle then you'll be worse off. It's probably also worth mentioning that heavier vehicles tend to be more susceptible to rollover. More importantly, traction scales sub-linearly with vehicle weight, so stopping distance, the ability to not slide off a curve, and whatnot all have reduced performance. That increase in the chance of an accident matters. It might be the case that most accidents are completely unavoidable multi-vehicle collisions where one would want to optimize with a heavy, sturdy vehicle. That's a bit of a different argument from just pointing out that heavier vehicles suffer lower acceleration when colliding with lighter vehicles.

hansvm 6y ago

They can be relatively safer in multi-vehicle collisions (importantly, that remains the case whether you're comparing 3 vs 2.25 ton vehicles or, e.g. 2 vs 1.5 ton -- you're not objectively safer, but you are safer in the current metagame at the cost of killing more people who aren't you). In single-vehicle collisions against approximately immovable objects (trees, barriers, etc) though, that mass is no longer an advantage, and if the crumple zone doesn't function as well because of the frame design in a larger vehicle then you'll be worse off. It's probably also worth mentioning that heavier vehicles tend to be more susceptible to rollover. More importantly, traction scales sub-linearly with vehicle weight, so stopping distance, the ability to not slide off a curve, and whatnot all have reduced performance. That increase in the chance of an accident matters. It might be the case that most accidents are completely unavoidable multi-vehicle collisions where one would want to optimize with a heavy, sturdy vehicle. That's a bit of a different argument from just pointing out that heavier vehicles suffer lower acceleration when colliding with lighter vehicles.