high-powered cars less likely to crash

[closetbiker]

MAYFIELD VILLAGE, Ohio (AP) - Bigger engines mean faster cars and more accidents, right?

That intuitive logic is faulty, according to an analysis of more than 12 million passenger cars insured by Progressive, the third-largest auto insurer in the United States.

It found cars with more than 200 horsepower actually generate 17 per cent fewer claims than those propelled by less than 200 horsepower.

However, when the more powerful vehicles are involved in accidents, the dollar value of claims averages 22 per cent higher.

Progressive said the effect is consistent: the more powerful a car model, the fewer but more costly its claims.

The insurer's news release made no mention of factors that might skew the statistical correlation, such as the tendency of high-powered cars to be newer, more expensive and driven by more affluent owners.

Progressive noted that the horsepower race continues to heat up. It says only nine per cent of all available makes and models of passenger cars in 1990 boasted more than 200 horsepower; that now has been torqued up to 54 per cent.

© The Canadian Press, 2005

[GeezerGeek]

This begs the question: Do bicycles with big engines have fewer accidents than bikes with small engines?

[AndrewP]

This is like the statistic that street crime is lowest when there is highest consumption of hot chocolate. It is not cause and effect, but coincidence resulting from common cause - most hot choc is drunk in cold weather and fewer people are on the streets in cold weather. Inexperienced drivers are often in cheaper low powered cars. Inexperienced cyclists are more likely to be riding kids bikes.

[andygates]

This was explored a few years ago on BBC's Top Gear (the premium UK petrolhead show). The answer's really really simple: powerful cars have powerful brakes. A Boxter can stop in about 3/5 on the legally-required distance: it has *anchors* and big, fat tyres.

Note that this doesn't apply to our favourites, the big 4x4s: they're too heavy to stop quickly. In the test, a Range Rover did pretty badly.

[khuon]

Note that this doesn't apply to our favourites, the big 4x4s: they're too heavy to stop quickly. In the test, a Range Rover did pretty badly.

The Rangie is a fairly heavy vehicle (~5900 lbs. curb weight) so granted it's going to require more stopping distance. However, it's not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. A standard equipped Range Rover without a towing load will stop in 138 feet from 60 MPH. With a 5,100 lbs. towed load it increases to 240 feet. A BMW M5 (~3900 lbs. curb weight) which is a high-powered/high-performance sedan will come to a stop in 115 feet from 60 MPH. The Range Rover SE Vogue which in addition to being supercharged also upgrades the brakes with 4-piston Brembos reduces the 60-0 MPH stopping distance down to 120 feet. Now just for comparison, a stock Honda Accord EX-V6 has a 139 feet stopping distance from 60 MPH.

[jeff-o]

So... bigger brakes + conaisseur drivers makes for less claims?

[H23]

Its because owners of big cars have over-extended themselves and feel the need to obsessively protect their investment-- so they probably drive (and park!) more defensively.

Sort of makes me think of the guys at work and their beamers, audi's and nissan Z's that park in the far end of the lot-- often taking two spaces, or even worse, parking diagonal.

Sometimes I am tempted to park my dusty old Camry next to the beamer (mimicing the space hogging posture), but I can't bring myself to waste 2-3 parking spaces just for a joke.

[lilHinault]

High end cars are probably safer, hands-down. Once I was on the 405 going to Long Beach and in the shade of some trees overhanging the freeway, there was a full-size pickup, black, dead stopped and turned around facing the wrong way! I started looking for places to go, and first option was I needed to swerve, plus accelerate, into a rapidly-disappearing space to the left of me. (The driver to the left-rear of me didn't see the truck, and was accelerating, closing the gap.) So, I gassed it, plus swerved, and no problem, was able to whip up to say 90 MPH in a blink, plus handle a rapid change of lanes. BMW saves my butt.

Another time, I was again on the 405, at about 5AM, darker than the inside of a cow out there, and again doing 70-odd MPH like everyone else. I saw the box in the road just before I hit it, and whatever was in it was heavy, since the whole car shuddered. No swerve, not squirreliness, just a shudder, then driving along as before. I decided to just continue on to where I was going and inspect the damage then. Well, I lost both fog lights, the shield under the radiator, the lower part of the bumper cover, and I guess other odds and ends. It was quite a hit, and a lot of other cars would have sustained more damage and gone into a dangerous fishtail or swerve. There are TONS of people who swear by BMWs and yeah I'm one of them.

BMWs are not so much of a car, as a belief system. It's the only car I know if that you can lift the hood, and it's built like a Fluke multimeter (that means very well).

However, you really have to question a transportation system that requires that kind of car, or a car at all, for safe daily transportation. There are something like a million people killed worldwide a year by cars. I guess that means driving in cars, hit by cars, their cars hit by cars, etc. By cars.

[closetbiker]

I always think, it's not what you do, but how you do it.

If you have a big, fast car, sure it can cause more damage if you hit something at a higher speed, but if you pay attention, take care and handle the car with skill, maybe you're less likely to get in an accident in the first place. Look at airliners. They sure cause a lot of damage if they crash, but they are handled so carefully in every aspect of their operation, that they are one of the safest things you can travel on.

I wish we could make sure those that do operate any car can simply drive them with all the attention and care they require.

[lala]

It found cars with more than 200 horsepower actually generate 17 per cent fewer claims than those propelled by less than 200 horsepower.

However, when the more powerful vehicles are involved in accidents, the dollar value of claims averages 22 per cent higher.


So it evens out. What the notice did not say: is this the total claims cost or is it just phsyical damage? Bodily injury claims? Inquiring minds want to know.

[PaulH]

Back in the 1960s, many high powered cars were "muscle cars." They were cheap and aimed at younger drivers. Today, I would suspect that the typical "high powered" car is a Mercedes or Volvo, driven by someone a good deal older and less prone to risk taking.

Paul

[theden]

I also think economics plays the major role. Richer people generally buy (or can better afford) the more powerful cars, and they can also afford to have higher insurance deductables. Higher deductables mean fewer claims, since more people will just pay out for damages instead of shelling out $500-$1000 and incurring higher insurance rates too. Also, it is a known fact that people with poor credit make the most insurance claims. They often also have the $100-$200 deductables, so its less economically painful (at least on the surface) to call Allstate everytime your car gets dinged.

The article shouldn't say less accidents, but simply less insurance claims.

[IronHorse]

It found cars with more than 200 horsepower actually generate 17 per cent fewer claims than those propelled by less than 200 horsepower.

But what percentage of cars on the road have over 200 HP?

Unless the statistics are quoted as claims per vehicle per year they don't really tell us a lot.

[ofofhy]

This is like the statistic that street crime is lowest when there is highest consumption of hot chocolate.

I once charted the number of murders in Philly over a two week period. The only day where there wasn't a murder... St. Patrick's Day. So from my research I concluded that holidays centered upon drinking result in less murders!

Seriously though, I believe it is the brakes and handling of these cars that make them "safer".

[John E]

Instead of selecting one arbitrary point, it would be much more interesting to see a multivariate regression analysis among several variables, including motorist age, car cost, horsepower, rated stopping distance, etc. Others have already suggested very probable links to the maturity of the drivers and the handling and braking capabilities of the cars. The most important safety component in any car is the person behind the steering wheel.

[lala]

I also think economics plays the major role. Richer people generally buy (or can better afford) the more powerful cars, and they can also afford to have higher insurance deductables. Higher deductables mean fewer claims, since more people will just pay out for damages instead of shelling out $500-$1000 and incurring higher insurance rates too. Also, it is a known fact that people with poor credit make the most insurance claims. They often also have the $100-$200 deductables, so its less economically painful (at least on the surface) to call Allstate everytime your car gets dinged.

The article shouldn't say less accidents, but simply less insurance claims.


Yes!

[kf5nd]

so if the engine is broken, and the car doesn't run, and the horsepower is ZERO, then what? Higher accident rate?

[khuon]

I think a more interesting report is the latest IIHS status report of "Risk of dying in one vehicle versus another — driver death rates by passenger vehicle make/model" (http://www.iihs.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdf). The last report of this that I saw was done in 1998 I believe. The worst vehicle turned out to be the Chevy Camero and the best was the Ford Windstar. This latest report has the Mercedes E-class as the best and the Chevy Blazer (2WD) as the worst. The rest of the report is pretty interesting too and goes into statistics by body type as well as make/model.

[slvoid]

I think of it this way, people who pay $450,000 for a chunk of metal tend to take measures to ensure that said metal stays as clean as possible. People who pay $450 for a car.. tend to care less.

[supcom]

The study results are worthless unless the data is controlled for other risk factors like age, miles driven, locale, etc. The insurance company knows this and should not have issued a press release like this unless the controlled results tell the same story.

[khuon]

I think many people are confusing a study with a report. One is not necessarily equal to the other. The insurance companies are simply reporting what they've seen. This is not a scientific study and does not follow any of the methodologies associated with scientific investigations.

[theden]

I think many people are confusing a study with a report. One is not necessarily equal to the other. The insurance companies are simply reporting what they've seen. This is not a scientific study and does not follow any of the methodologies associated with scientific investigations.

The problem is that the newspaper is trying to infer something from the insurance company's statistics that isn't necessarily supported by those statistics...