IRC: lightweight cars = higher injury claim costs
The Insurance Research Council (IRC) has published a report that comes out against small cars. It shows that the average auto injury claim payment in accidents involving lighter-weight vehicles was 14.3 percent greater than the average payment in accidents involving heavy vehicles. What does this mean? That the quest to find lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles might result in more expensive insurance costs. So, when gas gets more expensive, we'll demand lighter cars that burn less fuel but they will be lighter and the insurance will cost more.
IRC's calculation method took into consideration 9,140 personal injury protection (PIP) claims closed in 2007. The cars in these incidents were divided into four weight groups. The IRC found that claims from the lightest group were 14.3 percent more expensive than from the heaviest vehicles. They also found that while 38 percent of the lightweight cars could resume commuting to work after the accident, 46 percent of the heavyweight vehicles were able to continue driving. Not only that, IRC's study says that driving a lighter vehicle made you 12 percent more likely to require hospitalization in case of an accident.
[Source: IRC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Adam 2:43PM (8/28/2008)
I'd be interested to see what the difference in pay-outs was based on what weight of vehicles HIT the light vehicle.
Reply
Relocalize 2:44PM (8/28/2008)
Hmmm, I don't know all the details, but on the surface the analysis seems over simplified. I have a suspicion that analyzing the collisions based on the different combinations of vehicles involved might give a different story. My gut feeling is that light vehicle versus light vehicle collisions or single, light vehicle collisions are less significant. If there were less heavy vehicles on the road, then what would be the impact?
Reply
Mike Simpson 5:13PM (8/28/2008)
I agree and would like to take this a step further...
Basically, I question the validity of this experiment scientifically. The sample chosen for the study was 9,140 vehicles. The US passenger vehicle registrations in 2006 was over 135 million, leaving their sample at 0.006% of the total.
Also, weight does not equal size and design. Unfortunately this coupling gets dragged into safety studies unnecessarily. Lighter weight can prove advantageous...especially for the other vehicle/pedestrian/object involved. Studies also show that a lighter weight vehicle can be pushed out of the way during impact for slight higher accelerations but reduced passenger compartment intrusion - leaving few injuries.
Check out this blog: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/amorylovins/27/picking-a-safer-car-for-you-your-family-and-the-planet.html
brn 2:50PM (8/28/2008)
I think it's great that small cars do as well as they do. The fast that it's only 12%, impresses me.
People keep looking at crash test ratings and miss the "in their class" part. Heavier vehicles have a safety advantage. Yes, you can put technology into a light car and make it safe. Put that same technology into a heavy car and it's even safer.
Reply
Gary 3:20PM (8/28/2008)
What are the numbers for light vs light? Light vs heavy? Heavy vs heavy? etc.
And in 5-10 years, with continued gas price increases, most of the cars on the road probably will be of the light category.
Reply
Trev 3:20PM (8/28/2008)
That the quest to find LIGHTER, more fuel-efficient vehicles might result in MORE EXPENSIVE INSURANCE COSTS. So, when gas gets more expensive, we'll demand LIGHTER cars that burn less fuel but they will be LIGHTER and the INSURANCE WILL COST MORE.
ummm repetitive much?
Reply
BoomBoom 3:24PM (8/28/2008)
I like my D5 Bulldozer. I haven't had to even slow down during any of my accidents and have never been hurt. And it doesn't even have an airbag.
I think it goes without saying that all cars get smaller, the danger of small cars will be reduced.
Reply
Ken 3:49PM (8/28/2008)
Yeah, this 12-14% doesn't really scare me much.
It actually makes for good ammunition when people tell you that lighter cars are death traps to justify their land arks.
At least half of the 'light vs. heavy' safety issue is accident avoidance - based on braking distance, maneuverability, and tendency to roll-over. I'd rather avoid the accident altogether.
Reply
Kevin 3:39PM (8/28/2008)
It's interesting that almost everyone commenting so far had the same thought... "how many of those light cars were 'overly' damaged because of hitting heavy ones?"
Seems like an obvious criteria that the study conveniently neglected to mention.
Reply
Kevin 3:39PM (8/28/2008)
It's interesting that almost everyone commenting so far had the same thought... "how many of those light cars were 'overly' damaged because of hitting heavy ones?"
Seems like an obvious criteria that the study conveniently neglected to mention.
Reply
Mike 3:39PM (8/28/2008)
I don't care, I want lighter, faster, more fuel efficient cars.
Reply
mrbell 3:49PM (8/28/2008)
How about this... Pay attention to what you are doing and magically, you won't get in a wreck. Maye we should make everyone scared to drive. They'll pay more attention and drive their vehicles less. Voila! Lower insurance claims.
Reply
GoodCheer 3:49PM (8/28/2008)
There are lots of variables that are not controlled for (or for which the controls were not mentioned) in this study. In addition to the points made above, I'd like to know
Is the number of claims per vehicle constant in different weight classes?
Is there a difference in the amount of insurance carried by drivers of different weight cars?
Hmmm.. maybe I'll think of more.
Reply
Chris M 3:51PM (8/28/2008)
Lumping a variety of different cars into arbitrary "light" and "heavy" categories may be misleading. I can think of 2 reasons other than weight why the "light" vehicles were getting higher injury claims:
1. Most if not all of the high performance sports cars would be in the "light" category, as reduced weight leads to higher performance. Since such cars tend to be driven faster and a bit more recklessly than average. There would be more accidents and more serious injury accidents due to excessive speed than in "heavy" cars with poor performance.
2. Most cheap poorly designed econoboxes would also be in the "light" category, as cutting materials to cut cost also cuts weight. Poor safety design causes higher rates of serious injury than good safety design regardless of weight.
The injury claim payout rates of individual models would be much more informative, and I would bet that there are many exceptions to the average "low weight = higher injury" trend. There are some lightweight cars with excellent safety ratings, and some heavy cars that perform poorly in crashes. Rollover accidents have the highest incidence of death and serious injury, and massive topheavy SUVs are particularly prone to rollover accidents.
Reply
Scott K. 3:58PM (8/28/2008)
I don't think that's enough information to be more than an anecdote. Admittedly there are light cars that they are in an accident (particularly with a larger vehicle) are going to fare more poorly than larger vehicles, but there are a lot safe small cars as well.
Taken to the extreme, you match a Fit with an Excursion and the Fit is going to get the short end of the stick. It still doesn't make me want the Excursion.
Reply
Serge 4:41PM (8/28/2008)
Categorization by weight is too ambiguous to add sense to data presented. I would rather see data presented based on vehicle class *and* government crash rating.
Reply
srue 4:58PM (8/28/2008)
All this says to me is that heavy cars are dangerous to those around them.
Another thing to consider: this is somewhat old data. According to the report, the study consisted of claims that were closed (paid) in 2007. Who knows how old the accidents were. First you've got to have the accident, then get an estimate/repair, then submit a claim, then wait for the insurance company to try to screw you out of it, and finally close the claim. I'm sure in some cases this can take over a year.
Today the mix of light and heavy cars on the road is different than 1-3 years ago. In my own area I've noticed a strong trend toward smaller cars, and with high fuel prices I bet this is a nationwide trend. As heavy cars are removed from the road, crashes will become safer. And cheaper, which is all the insurance company really cares about.
Reply
Michael Hippenhammer 6:22PM (8/28/2008)
Why don't insurance companies charge more for larger vehicles for causing more damage and causing more harm to smaller vehicles. I think we think of this whole situation backwards.
Reply
ale 5:20PM (8/28/2008)
one word:
bull____
this is dumb. if higher gas prices drive us to smaller cars (which is what they're really talking about), there would be more small cars and less large cars than now. I mean the laws of physics are not gonna say that when that suburban slams into your smart, you're not gonna get the crap beat out of it, but i think the risk vs reward has got to be in favor of small cars.
Here's an idea:
why don't we drive smaller cars (if they can fit our needs, I;m not saying that people who drive large vehicles b/c they need to are at fault here) so we can lose less people overseas...
nah, that would never work
Reply
greg 1:26AM (8/29/2008)
A more interesting tidbit is that the fatality rate per billion km traveled is 3.1 in Germany where the average car is a Golf-sized and 5.0 in the U.S. where the averaged size car is probably somewhere between a Camry and Explorer.
There are a whole host of other factors that tilt the advantage to Germany so just looking at weight is inconclusive.
Reply