Bigger car, better protection, selfish decision?

[Artsy]

As the title says

Does anyone feel the need to get a bigger car for the perceived or real additional protection they offer?

I'm in a 2010 Prius and when I'm on a fast road or motorway, I can't help but feel that a Range Rover or Volvo XC90 would completely destroy me (and more imporantly the kids) if something was to go badly wrong.

Am I wrong for wanting to go down the route of getting a similar size vehicle just for the sake of evening out the playing field should anything ever happen?

I appreciate this kind of question can go very wrong with a lot of people saying that if everyone thought less of themselves the world would be a better place...

[Debaser]

Nothing wrong with wanting a big, safe car for your family.

I don't particularly enjoy driving large SUVs, so I'm happy with my small(ish) car.

[QBee]

The problem for all of us car drivers is always the 44 tonne HGV with the driver watching a movie.... oblivious as he approaches the queue of stationery traffic at 56 mph.

But I totally agree. You improve your survival chances in something big, and higher up.
I wonder if the outcome would have been any different on the A66 crash if the police had been in a Range Rover.

I drive a Range Rover for longer journeys for exactly this reason.
My wife has a Saab estate ditto.
Both are within one inch of the same length, both have good sized crash absorption zones.


Back in 1984 I was in a 5 car shunt on the M11.
My brand new Renault 25 (think Granada sized) took the impact front and back and I was able to get out of the car as there was no distortion to the passenger cell. I was uninjured too.
The car was repaired, as the cost was only 50% of the cost of a replacement new car of the same type.
I swore then never to have a small car for family journeys.

[irc]

It is logical. All else equal a big car is safer in a crash than a small car. On the other hand as someone who cycles in city traffic the risk when I travel in a car is so much less it isn't a huge consideration whether I am in the absolutely safest car.

Even average cars provide great crash protection. Around 3am couple of former police colleagues were sitting in their car a night writing up their notes. There was a car stopped at red lights 50 yards ahead.

A drunk driver passed them doing an estimated 40mph. The driver obviously watched the police car not the road because he ploughed into the rear of the car at the lights without braking.

They thought someone would be killed but while both cars were severely crumpled it was only cuts and bruises. The czar that was hit had a driver and f/s passenger. A rear seat passenger if there had been one might not have fared as well. Both were Focus sized hatchbacks.

I drive a medium sized SUV - because of the luggage capacity - but being big enough that few cars dwarf if is a useful bonus.

Depends on your use as well. Ultimate crash protection less important if most of your miles are in slow urban traffic.

Edited by irc on Monday 14th September 13:53

[RizzoTheRat]

The counter argument is that heavier cars often can't brake as rapidly as lighter ones, and SUV's with the weight higher up are less able to turn quickly and more likely to roll over so you're more likely to have an accident in the first place.

[WH16]

I drive a FFRR, but not because of the increased safety. I would be just as happy in a classic Range Rover or Defender which offer pretty much zero crash protection.

If I wanted something optimised for safety it would be Volvo all the way.

And yes, it may be selfish to want to maximise your family's chances of survival in the event of an accident at the cost of someone else's, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision. Maybe.

[Alex_225]

There is certainly some logic in this approach.

My other half had a Mercedes ML, which is a sizeable car. The car was rear ended by a car transporter lorry (thankfully car free at the time) and subsequently the ML ended up 2ft shorter than before. My son who was 6 months old at the time was completely unscathed in the back. That was a 10 or 11 year old car but I'm sure it's size played a part in keeping everyone safe.

RizzoTheRat said:

The counter argument is that heavier cars often can't brake as rapidly as lighter ones, and SUV's with the weight higher up are less able to turn quickly and more likely to roll over so you're more likely to have an accident in the first place.

You say that but modern cars are equipped to stop extremely well. The brakes on our old ML were enormous and very effective, gone are the days of Vitaras rolling over. Admittedly you can't negate physics entirely but my partner recently bought a BMW X1. Tall, surprisingly spacious yet drives like a hatch back.

[Xenoous]

Equally, while you're safer in your car, while everyone else around you is at more of a fatal risk.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-44-cent-more...

[QBee]

Xenoous said:

Equally, while you're safer in your car, while everyone else around you is at more of a fatal risk.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-44-cent-more...

We are talking about everyone and their family being safer in what kind of car, not talking about protecting cyclists from the results of accidents between them and cars etc.

We protect cyclists by driving more carefully, seeing cyclists as an under-protected hazard and being careful around them.
Ditto pedestrians, children, horse, cats, dogs.

If we want to protect cyclists better then government need to adopt the Dutch model in cities and keep cyclists and cars separate.
And cyclists need to use designated cycle ways as their part of the deal.

[vikingaero]

The downside of a bigger car, say a tall upright SUV, is that it will be more wieldy and handle less ably than say a 5 series touring. So a standard car might get you out of trouble in the first place.

[WH16]

vikingaero said:

The downside of a bigger car, say a tall upright SUV, is that it will be more wieldy and handle less ably than say a 5 series touring. So a standard car might get you out of trouble in the first place.

If you are driving that close to the limit that you would get yourself into trouble in an SUV then you are the problem, not the car. Modern SUV limits are way higher than any responsible sensible driver should ever reach on the public road.

[kambites]

QBee said:

If we want to protect cyclists better then government need to adopt the Dutch model in cities and keep cyclists and cars separate.
And cyclists need to use designated cycle ways as their part of the deal.

From what I've seen, if you install well-designed cycle ways, cyclists use them. If you install poorly designed one, they do not. Same to a lesser extent with pedestrians using crossings properly, etc.

Regardless, despite the increase in the number of cyclists on the road, the death rate amongst cyclists on the road hasn't actually been rising so whilst it makes intuitive sense that bigger, heavier cars with poorer visibility would be more dangerous for cyclists, the figures don't really appear to back that up.

[Xenoous]

QBee said:

We are talking about everyone and their family being safer in what kind of car, not talking about protecting cyclists from the results of accidents between them and cars etc.

We protect cyclists by driving more carefully, seeing cyclists as an under-protected hazard and being careful around them.
Ditto pedestrians, children, horse, cats, dogs.

If we want to protect cyclists better then government need to adopt the Dutch model in cities and keep cyclists and cars separate.
And cyclists need to use designated cycle ways as their part of the deal.

The point is you're more likely to be fatally injured if hit by an SUV compared to a 'normal' car. I'm not against SUVs per se (my wife owns one), but just a factor people should start taking into account

Also cyclists don't 'need' to use cycle ways at all. The road is not just for cars, like it or not. But you are right, we protect cyclists (and any other vulnerable road users) by driving more carefully. That doesn't even necessarily mean sticking to speed limits, it's more about constantly paying attention to your surroundings, which many people do not.

There's a thread running right now infact arguing if drivers in bigger cars bully smaller cars around... Big car mentality is a real thing, albeit not by everyone.

[NDA]

I had a FF Range Rover until the kids were about 18. It wasn't deliberately for this reason (protection) but I certainly felt very well defended - in any weather too.

During my ownership I also had a couple of Morgans and felt just the opposite - in fact I would try to avoid motorways as I felt extremely vulnerable in it. Any sort of accident and you'd turn into jam (with bits) immediately.

[FA57REN]

WH16 said:

If you are driving that close to the limit that you would get yourself into trouble in an SUV then you are the problem, not the car. Modern SUV limits are way higher than any responsible sensible driver should ever reach on the public road.

It's not just about 'limits' though, it's the psychology and situational awareness of the driver of the large vehicle.

Invariably when someone pulls out of a junction int the road ahead of me, or swaps lanes on a roundabout without warning, or blasts through the Tesco car park at 30mph so everyone can hear their V6 diesel roar, it's an RR or other big SUV. Feeling 'safe' in their steel cocoon also seems to make them feel invulnerable and abstracted from the World around them, so they take more subconscious risks.

Edited by FA57REN on Tuesday 15th September 09:01

[_Rodders_]

It's not perceived, it's a fact.

In a head on crash the heavier car is merely decelerating. The light car is reversing direction quicker than you can say "st."

[Caddyshack]

WH16 said:

vikingaero said:

The downside of a bigger car, say a tall upright SUV, is that it will be more wieldy and handle less ably than say a 5 series touring. So a standard car might get you out of trouble in the first place.

If you are driving that close to the limit that you would get yourself into trouble in an SUV then you are the problem, not the car. Modern SUV limits are way higher than any responsible sensible driver should ever reach on the public road.

Yeah, I doubt this would ever be a factor. To be fair, my FfRR has active anti roll bars and you can throw it about surprisingly care free, it just wears out tyres and bushes for fun….bludgeoning the laws of physics where it can.

[WH16]

FA57REN said:

WH16 said:

If you are driving that close to the limit that you would get yourself into trouble in an SUV then you are the problem, not the car. Modern SUV limits are way higher than any responsible sensible driver should ever reach on the public road.

It's not just about 'limits' though, it's the psychology and situational awareness of the driver of the large vehicle.

Invariably when someone pulls out of a junction int the road ahead of me, or swaps lanes on a roundabout without warning, or blasts through the Tesco car park at 30mph so everyone can hear their V6 diesel roar, it's an RR or other big SUV. Feeling 'safe' in their steel cocoon also seems to make them feel invulnerable and abstracted from the World around them, so they take more sunlvconacious risks.

Again though, it is the driver, and not inherently the vehicle that is the problem in those examples. Perhaps a certain type are attracted to large SUVs, but not all large SUV drivers are of that type.

[kambites]

WH16 said:

Again though, it is the driver, and not inherently the vehicle that is the problem in those examples. Perhaps a certain type are attracted to large SUVs, but not all large SUV drivers are of that type.

It's a bit of both, albeit not directly related to SUVs. There's a well understand relationship between how well a car isolates its occupants from the outside world and how much attention a given driver pays to that outside world. The more isolated you are from what's going on outside the car, the less the brain processes the sensory bombardment as a threat and hence the easier it is to switch to "driving on auto-pilot".

Can a suitably self-aware driver overcome that? Probably, but the vast majority of drivers are not that self-aware (I know I'm not, although I do my best).

[sixor8]

WH16 said:

I drive a FFRR, but not because of the increased safety. I would be just as happy in a classic Range Rover or Defender which offer pretty much zero crash protection.

If I wanted something optimised for safety it would be Volvo all the way.

And yes, it may be selfish to want to maximise your family's chances of survival in the event of an accident at the cost of someone else's, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision. Maybe.

All modern cars are safer in an accident, not just the large ones. I remember shortly after 5th Gear had started (1990s ?) that they did a crash test between a modern small car and an old Land Rover Discovery. The passengers in the Land Rover would have come off worse due to deformation. Large and old is not necessarily good in a crash.