European Crash Test Results

[RussJeep1]

I am simply and specifically refuting the claim that it is "naive" to believe that a safe driver behind the wheel is the best line of defense against you or your family being involved in a fatal accident. It is a fact.

I appreciate that. Someone, as you saw it, under rated the importance of driver performance in avoiding accidents, and you wished to stress that it's a lot more important than you might think given the number of single car accidents, despite the fact that multi-vehicle accidents are still prevalent common.

Sponsored

 

[frajnai]

"It's not like it has a perfect score in the US, either, but at least it has more than a single star." (Ouch.)

This https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates ... only goes up to 2014 which would cover the JK.
It shows that fatalities "per million registered vehicle years" for the Wrangler unlimited is 27.

In the mid-sized SUV category, its in 7th last place, with several Chevys and a Nissan worst than it.
When all cars are factored in, the average is 30 fatalities.

This puts the JKU as above average for vehicle fatalites per million registered vehicle years.
Is the JLU such a worse design, even with more saftey features, that it should score nearly unacceptable?

Between that and the factors that lowered the EU score (lack of cutting edge autonomous systems).. something does not add up.

PS - im not playing fanboy here, i drive my kids in this thing, and my first reaction was to look into trading it in for something safer. Then i dug in a little more, and i think, yeah... im going to keep it after all.

 

[TimmH]

I feel risk has to be managed; not ignored or become all consuming.

Consumers should, at any point in time that defines the safety features of the day, seek to maximize, or at least consider within reason, the safety of a vehicle before purchase. And as a result, I don't think the "back in the day" argument holds much weight.

To not do this, I feel is to operate on one end of an extreme whose other point you describe as the person who never buys fearing the worst.

I agree, but if that one thing is the sole reason you decide to not buy, then it should probably been higher on the list before even looking for a vehicle. I know it was on my wifes list when our son turned 16, so she went and bought a Honda Accord, which at the time was one of the few with side airbags.

With so many choices, you need to research ahead of time to narrow down, or downright, eliminate choices.

 

[GGolds]

"It's not like it has a perfect score in the US, either, but at least it has more than a single star." (Ouch.)

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2018-jeep-wrangler-jl-euro-ncap-crash-test/

Score or not, if you looked at the actual crash testing, the Jeep held up like a tank. Doors, roof, inside of vehicle in tact. I assume the poor results must be from the lack of crush absorbing materials that made the inside passengers hit the interior and airbags harder then they should. However, the thing that is so ridiculous in these crash tests is that the vehicles slam into walls or barriers. That's obsurd since it doesn't actually take into account a real world crash with another car or truck. There IS , and I'm having trouble finding it now, an annual NHTSA INSURANCE crash data score system that is actual real world crash injury statistics. IE it scores each vehicle and it's injury claims to the insurance companies. Over 100 insurance companies participate. It would blow your mind how different the scores are form these crash tests that are performed. For instance, even with all the modern safety features and 5 star ratings, cars such as the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, etc. get scores below 50. It's a score from 1-100. It rates them in a color the equates to a number. Vehicles like a Dodge Ram 1500 rate very high in the 80's range. Small cars with government 5 star crash test ratings usually did poorly. Large cars, trucks and vans did very well. SO , with all the hoopla about great crash tests and air bags, bigger is often better. The Wranglers score in the above average 75 plus range. It also lists approximately a 4 year range for insurance data. THIS is the real world injury ratings. Look it up, it's pretty interesting. I could look at it for hours. Once I find it again. I looked at it for a decade and now cant find the most recent one.

 

[GGolds]

Ive seen this data, however, the page you are showing does not look like the NHTSI, (insurance ) data listing as it has been listed. Not sure if you took that page out of the actual data, but it does not show the title or score system as I've seen it in the past. Each category of vehicle is rated in alphabetical order in per class vehicle. So the Wrangler would show in the compact SUV page not lumped with all the other vehicles as you show. So I question where you actually got this. It may be correct as Im not the know all and be all crash guru, but looks very unfamiliar to me.

 

[cjaama]

The overwhelming majority of fatal crashes are related to a single vehicle driving off the road. In a 2 vehicle accident, one of the driver's may be not at fault, but the other driver is. That's only 50% of people involved in a simple 2 vehicle accident.

Naivety? I don't think so.

I’m not sure why you only used fatal crash data, but it is improper not to include personal injury crashes in this conversation. If you compare fatal and injury crashes, the multiple vehicles crashes far outweigh single vehicle crashes.

Unfortunately, I only have the 2017 data for New York in arms reach (NYS vehicle crash data is my job), but… 70% (86,646) multiple vs. 30% (36,838) single. If we included property damage only crashes, the difference would be much greater. But I don’t have it in arms reach and I’m being lazy.

 

[mwilk012]

I’m not sure why you only used fatal crash data, but it is improper not to include personal injury crashes in this conversation. If you compare fatal and injury crashes, the multiple vehicles crashes far outweigh single vehicle crashes.

Unfortunately, I only have the 2017 data for New York in arms reach (NYS vehicle crash data is my job), but… 70% (86,646) multiple vs. 30% (36,838) single. If we included property damage only crashes, the difference would be much greater. But I don’t have it in arms reach and I’m being lazy.

Because fatalities are real and "injury" is not.

 

[cjaama]

Because fatalities are real and "injury" is not.

Wait what?

 

[frajnai]

Yeah but the same data, unless im mistaken, shows that the overall average of all vehiclies is 30, and there are 6 within the mid-size SUV segment that score worse for overall deaths.
The Kia Optima scores 45 and i dont see any headlines about that for example.

Maybe im not interpreting these numbers correctly?

Edit - shit my Mustang is at 49 .. guess i better sell.

 

[mwilk012]

Wait what?

I’d rather survive. How is that not the most important thing? Bumps, bruises, broken bones, severed limbs even, are all better than death.

And by “real” I meant solid, objective standards. Injury has a very wide span and I’m sure you’ll see many reported when the offenders insurance is to pay for it. I didn’t have a lot of time to type out on my phone.

 

[frajnai]

So again, the Hyundai Tucson is an order of magnitude higher for fatalities than the Wrangler, yet i doubt if they are discussing this over in the Hyundai Tucson forums. Im just not seeing, based on the statistics you are showing, how the Wrangler is a death trap to be avoided at all costs.

... and it is valid to compare it to a Kia Optima, since both are likely used as daily driver commuter cars. Class of vehicle doesnt really matter and the bottom line is that the Wrangler is overall a vehicle you are less likely to be killed in than an Optima (which is a car i also have not heard any safety concerns about in particular).

Sponsored