It is not "interesting" as you put it, that most of the safest cars are midsize vehicles.

Rather, it is *obvious* that cars with longer crumple zones, greater mass (and therefore, momentum), and lower centre of gravity will always be safer than smaller, lighter, easier-to-flip-over cars.

This has always been the case. What *is* interesting are the number of small roadsters and coupes and the Honda Civic and the 4 wheel drives (SUV's) that *are* in the list, going against the obvious.

And I find a very plain agenda in this statement:
"are they sacrificing safety in order to save a few bucks at the pump?"
The fact is, safety is only one factor in car choice. Otherwise you could accuse *everyone*-who-does-not-buy-the-outright-safest-car* of sacrificing safety for something! -be it brand, form-factor, economy or reliability.

For example, typically SUV's are *less* safe than large sedans due to their higher centre of gravity and inferior rollover rigidity. But people have still sacrificed their safety to buy them.

Well, if you look at the coupes and convertables they're all premium brands. I'm sure they do well in crash / safety testing from the factory.

Combine that info with the average owner as being a college educated, upper-middle class 35+ year old, and that's why they're on the list.

Forbes collected info from the DOT and I highly doubt there are very many of said automobiles involved in collisions.

That goes for the majority of the vehicles on this list.

Pretty normal list I should say; dominated by mostly European and Japanese cars.

I don't know about you guys, but there is no way a Miata is one of the safest cars. If some California legislator talking on the cell phone while driving an SUV hits you while you're driving a Miata, you're toast. The problem with these safety tests is that they crash the vehicles against stationary objects. That'll tell you how good the car is at absorbing it's own energy. Larger cars, including (gasp) suv's, are safer in real world accidents. In real world accidents, it's usually collisions between two vehicles. Physics says that a heaving, bigger object (big vehicle) will transmit more of its energy to the smaller object.(miata). Suv's do have comparatively high rollover tendencies, but those are overstated considering that you have to drive like a maniac and usually go off the road to get even a suv to flip.

Short story, if you plan on driving into wall, pick one of these.

I was driving my Honda Civic 2003 last week and hit a Volvo SUV. To keep the story short I am still walking after lifting the SUV in the air and almost flipping it over. My airbags failed to deploy due to some type of malfunction with the system. Even with this malfunction I walked away from this terrible accident with only a cut lower lip from hitting the steering wheel. I am glad they test cars the way they do. I purchased the Civic due to the 5 star crash ratings it received from the tests and boy am I glad I did. I will only buy cars with the 5 star crash ratings cars in the future.

Had I been driving a SUV of some sort? The accident would have had a different outcome. SUV’s don’t brake as well as a Honda Civic. Just look at braking test done by car any magazines. Sometimes the braking performance can be twice the distance or more compared to a small car. The impact would have been at a much higher rate of speed. With more force that would have been transferred to the other car and mine. There would have almost certainly been more and worst injuries due to the lack of braking performance and greater mass of SUV’s in general.

I have another small note that I would like to add. I will never buy an SUV after seeing one flip over per week on the regular highways here in South Florida. People just have to learn the hard way.

If you're looking at traffic injury numbers there are some other factors to consider. Some of the cars on this list, namely the convertible sports cars, are used only as a second weekend fun car by many of their owners. As that type of vehicle is not going to be exposed to the levels of traffic seen in the daily grind, the numbers will be better.

I don't think that by saying it's a weekend car would be valid. You would count accidents to injuries, not frequency of accidents.

Anyhow my mom HAD the new Miata until someone in a truck ran a red and destroyed the rear of the car. My mom had to be cut out of the seatbelt because it locked in place. Side airbags and front airbags went off. Anyhow she walked away from it and went to work the next day.

I do agree that bigger cars help, but smaller cars can be made pretty safe too. Now if the truck climbs the car and crushes you that is a different story, I don't think they test that in a crash test :)

I'm surprised that more Volvo's didn't make the list besides the XC90. Volvo's whole mantra has always been safety, and innovative safety features that were always a few years ahead of the competition. Not to mention,

Volvos have always been the cars that 'are rather ordinary but have the best and most innovative safety features'. Hmmm, I guess now they're 'only' ordinary.

When I was getting interested in buying a certain smaller, performance car, I got concerned about safety. I looked at real life crash stats gathered by NHTSA and DOT.

My conclusion surprised me.

The stats I found compared hours driven to the # of accidents. So you could clearly see which vehicles were accident prone,

Then it compared stats on those accidents. It showed the # and percentage of accidents with injuries, fatalities and rollovers. It clearly indicated which vehicles were trouble when an accident couldn't be avoided.

Over all, the stats showed that avoiding an accident in the first place had great value. This favored small cars over large cars and performance oriented cars over 'regular' cars. What surprised me here was the HUGE effect this had. It was probably the #1 effect on safety.

In individual accidents there was a clear link between rollovers and fatalities. Cars that were prone to rollovers had FAR more deaths per accident than cars that stayed level. Again, this was a huge effect. For example, per accident, convertibles had fewer fatalities than pickup-based SUV's, simply because they had far fewer roll-overs. This seemed to be the #2 effect on safety.

After those two items, there were other effects that were harder to nail down. Newer cars tended to do better than older designs. Cars that attract younger drivers tended to have worse records than cars that attracted older drivers. Expensive cars tended to do better than cheap ones. These trends were vague enough it was hard to really nail them down.

In the end I concluded that shear mass has very little to do with real world safety.

Big is not safer. Avoiding accidents is safer. Not rolling over is safer.

I bought my little performance car, with its good real world safety record, and haven't worried since.

Hmm, why isn't the outbak, legacy, and impreza on this list? All received highest marks from the IIHS. The fact firemen need something with more power than the jaws of life to rip away that ring frame should be enough to put them on here.

It is true that SUV do rollover more. And for that to happen, you don't have to drive it like a maniac: another car hitting you by you side, or from behind when you are turning are enough to tip over a bigger car and mess up with any stability control they might get (usually you can count on stability controls to acount for being hit by another car). After rollover, you prey you scrubbed off enough speed, because you can't rely on the ceiling for the next impact (the road, or the incoming traffic). So I'm not surprised that roll over tendency's offset one car safety record.

The thing is, it is scary how more frequent you can get t-boned on stop signs, intersections and by people making u-turns. I have a bike, and it is scary how people simply misjudge other people's speed all the time...For that kind of accidents, I'd be hard pressed to believe it is safer to be t-bone in a Miata than in a Volvo XC-90 or Expedition.

Call me crazy, but if I had three children, I'd never put all of them in the back of a Civic or Corolla. I'd rather have a big SUV for that matter.

My current small SUV (Inifinit FX-35) has curtain air bags on the ceiling, and supposedly that should help in case of rollovers. Not that the sporty and stiff Inifinity FX is likely to rollover, I believe. And it is big enough (4390lb) to stand for the regular t-bone crashes. I feel safer than in an Accord or Civic, I must tell you that.

I find it strange that the Mercury Grand Marquis is on the list, but the Ford Crown Vic is not. They are identical cars. This tells me that there is more to this list than just the inherent safety of the car itself, like maybe the types of people who drive them and how often they are driven. If someone owns a Miata and another car as a daily driver, they are more likely to get into an accident in their primary car, thus making the Miata appear to be the safer car, even though it is only because they don't drive the Miata nearly as often as their other car. That situation doesn't show up in statistics.

There a lot of Crown Vic taxis (esp. in NY?), but I never saw any Mercury doing taxi duties. Do they count taxis? This site gives the basic info only, I'd have to dig deeper here.

This list is a total crap.
What kind of safety?

Active?: What are the SUVs doing there?
Passive?: What are the Mazdas and convertibles doing there? A corvette? haha!

Where are the Volvos S80, BMW 5, 7, Mercedes S, E, Renault Laguna, VelSatis, Volkswagen Phaeton, Audi A8, Q7, Skoda Octavia, Superb, etc...

American cars in the list? Maybe the new Ford Mondeo should be there.

Just because a vehicle is prone to roll-over, does not mean it's going to avoid accidents more. It might fare worse in an accident than a 'normal' vehicle, but it won't prevent the accident from happening.

People seem to be missing the point here a bit, a car that does well in crash tests is not going to help you avoid accidents. Good braking, good tires, all-wheel-drive, good visibility, and most importantly by far, alert drivers help avoid accidents.

To all those who say they "feel" safer in a large SUV. That is why these vehicles are involved in more fatal accidents. Because those who "feel safe" tend to pay far less attention while piloting 2 or more tons of steel down the road at 60 mph.

I drive a small 1957 sports car daily (along with a small 2000 sports car) and am as safe as anyone on the road because I pay very close attention to what I am doing. The saying that you can't prevent the "other guy" from hitting you is completely false. Especially in your daily commute where most accidents occur. You know exactly what spots on your daily drive are bothersome, you merely need to pay attention to them.

There is a good reason that luxury sports cars have lower injury rates as recorded by the Highway Loss Data Institute. Luxury sports cars are typically owned by wealthy middle aged men. These guys usually commute to work in a second car because they don't want to scratch their new toy or put too many miles on it. As a result there are fewer injuries in these vehicles. It would be interesting to see the injury rates, normalized for miles driven per year. This may tell a different story.

"Rather, it is *obvious* that cars with longer crumple zones, greater mass (and therefore, momentum), and lower centre of gravity will always be safer than smaller, lighter, easier-to-flip-over cars."

Uh, a heavier car makes it harder to slow down, and therefore easier to crash. Also, a smaller, lighter car isn't easier to flip - that's almost entirely a matter of center of gravity and you normally find higher center of gravity on bigger, heavier cars. Don't believe me? Take a Ford Escape around a 90 degree turn at 90 miles an hour. After you pull yourself from the wreckage, take the same turn at the same speed in a Lotus Elise. The Elise weighs about a half (possibly less) of what the Escape does.

There is this myth that SUV's are safer than sedans, coupes or what have you. Sure if its a 30mph fender bender the SUV will usually do quite well. But if that considerable bulk gets on its side or gets airborne, well its all over for the occupants. Just imagine a ford expedition upside down. That roof wasnt designed to hold 3 tons!
But hey, if you feel safer in an Escalade/Hummer/Denali, go ahead and pay the higher gas prices. Just go slow around turns.

This is an important topic, and so is convertible safety in general. It is why California Drivers for Convertible Safety (CDFCS) is pushing for mandatory helmetage for all drivers and passengers of convertible motorcars by the year 2012.

Our children are our most precious resource. Visit http://www.convertiblesafety.com for more information.

Isn't anyone surprised that no Toyotas made the list?

I really don't feel safe at all in SUV's... Not due to the vehicle, but the WAY PEOPLE DRIVE THEM. I've personally witnessed a jeep nearly roll over at only about 15 mph! It was on two wheels twice. The woman driving it was visbily shaken by the near disaster and had to sit for a few minutes. (All this to avoid running over a few ducks!) I've also been in an SUV (Ford Explorer) that smashed into the back of a pickup truck. I remember thinking as we were skidding (or that chirp-skidding thing with antilock brakes) "shouldn't we be stopped by now?". I literally had TIME to get prepared for the crash and marvel at how long it was taking to slow the heavy vehicle down! Overturned SUV's are a dime a dozen at accident scenes here in Atlanta (and Lord knows drivers in Atlanta love their SUVs!). Most drivers do not seem to understand that SUVs performance characteristics are signficantly different than those of a car.

The braking alone reveal STAGGERING differences (sourced from ConsumerReports.org).

Chevy Corvette
Braking 60-0mph dry, ft. 126
Curb weight, lb. 3,280

Ford Exporer
Braking 60-0mph dry, ft. 154
Curb weight, lb. 5,055

That's 28 feet further! That's nearly TWO car (or SUV in this case) lengths further from a weight difference of 1775 lbs. A Hummer weighs in at nearly 6800 lbs. I couldn't even find braking stats from 60-0 (apparently hummer drivers aren't concerned about stopping distances!?) Car and driver has this: "214 feet to stop from 70 mph—30 feet better than that '02 wagon". Of course, that's from 70mph so its longer but WOW! 2/3 the length of a football field to come to a stop from 70mph! That's insane!

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/8892/hummer-h2-sut-page2.html

I feel much safer being able to stop quickly, maneuver competently, and get out of the way when required. I'd rather avoid the bad drivers out there as opposed to "up-armoring" my vehicle to play bumper cars with them. Many of those vehicles listed in the article fall right in line with that philosophy (even the SUVs on the list are less SUV and more car in everything but appearance). My philosophy is good drivers avoid accidents in the first place. I'm also a motorcyclist so that ideology is VERY true on that vehicle platform.

All that being said, safer is only a part of the whole host of reasons why people buy the vehicle that they do. I have a feeling SUV drivers perceive value in the additional cargo space, visibility from higher position, and the whole image thing (bigger vehicle is more powerful / rugged / manly / able to crush small vehicles / etc.). If that's what makes them happy, good for them. Do what makes you feel best about yourself. The world needs more happy people. ;-)

The bottom line comes from insurers. Most SUV's cost more to insure than those cars above. It may sound crazy but check it for yourself. (And remember, you can only compare YOU. NOT your friends rate. So, you in a Tahoe vs. you in a RL). Those companies know better than any of us that, putting average joe behind the wheel of any SUV is statistically worse than putting joe behind the wheel of a Acura RL.

The counterweight to the current "safer than a car misperception" should be a seperate license for SUV vehicles. Nobody can deny they drive significantly different than regular cars. (Overall, the driver tests here in the US are lame, but it is no excuse to let people think driving an SUV is just the same as driving a car).

"It is why California Drivers for Convertible Safety (CDFCS) is pushing for mandatory helmetage for all drivers and passengers of convertible motorcars by the year 2012."

Please tell me this is a joke. Then again, since California is ranked #2 (just behind Florida!) for the country's dumbest state, I wouldn't entirely be surprised.

Say what you want about how well each of these cars(and all those not on the list) protect their passengers from accidents and injuries....but I want to see data on the OTHER guy in the accident. I could go out and get an armored car or a tank(literally...not a hummer or suburban....or is there a difference anymore?), and I'd be safe from WWIII....but I feel sorry for the guy driving a 5-star vehicle when 16 year Stacy from the valley blast through his driver side door doing 95 through a school zone in a H2 while blaring mambo #5 and smacking her gum through her razr to her D-bag JV linebacker boyfriend. Does your cars safety record really matter when you're getting blindsided by a missile? I doubt it.

Actually, many of these cars are not foreign brands:
Jaguar and Volvo are made by ford, while Saab is made by GM. Also, For a fiberglass sports car to be safe is quite an achievement.
More truck type vehicles would have made the list, alas, they are prone to rolling over. (I believe most of the full size trucks, except the Japanese new Toyota Tundra, got 5 star front and side crash test ratings.)

This isn't really related to safety, but more to American cars in general. I almost gagged when I saw pictures of the Lincoln Town Car and the Mercury Marquis! Urgh!! You're not seriously telling me people over there buy these new??

No wonder the US industry is in so much trouble. Trust me, those monstrosities would be laughed off the road over here (Australia) or in Europe, Japan, or anywhere. For some reason you just don't 'get' style. It's a bit sad really.

Something like the Holden Statesmen (see link below) on the other hand, developed by GM's Aussie subsidiary (ironic, no?), looks awesome, drives awesome, and earns big export $$s for our little country.

http://carsguide.news.com.au/story/0,20384,20290245-21822,00.html

Help might be on the way though, as Holden's design guru, Mike Simcoe, now heads GM's US design dept. Personally I really hope GM and Ford manage to pull out of their current funk.

"Actually, many of these cars are not foreign brands:
Jaguar and Volvo are made by ford, while Saab is made by GM."

Hey... Jaguars and Volvos are not MADE by Ford, they're just owned by majority by Ford!
The same goes with SAAB. They're not made by GM, but as a brand is owned by GM.

Sure both Volvos and SAABs nowadays uses alot of common parts with some of their american (mostly german counterparts in SAABs case, namely Opel) to keep price down.

As of today Volvo S/V40 are based on the Ford Focus frame, but is way more safe than the Focus.
The new S/V/C70 are based on the Mondeo platform, and the C70 has so far received top notch in crashtests.

I have perused this sight for quite some time now and This is the first time I have ever posted on a topic.
I have been in and driven Jeeps, Suburbans, Grand Marquis, Civics, Neons, and Magnums. I currently own the latter two.

First, those that posted the safety testing specs are correct. Most if not all tests are performed against stationary objects using certain and mostly straight on trajectory angles. Nothing like height, weight or angle are considered besides the few industry standards. Two moving objects of differing size, weight, height, or angles of impact will have a huge difference of these testing results and the outcome of real world issues. Also the top performing vehicles are designed specifically against these industry standards.
MAYBE there are many other cars that perform far better in real world situations instead of a staged crash?

I personally have never felt safe in a large SUV with the body roll and long stops. When I also watch other people drive them, they are putting on make-up, turning without signaling, cellphone in one hand and cigarette in the other, or other things... Probably because they themselves DO feel safe and relax their safe driving habbits. I have also heard the "How can other people not see me coming? That is the safest thing because who will see a little car?"

All these tests and statistics are just that, statistics. It is an aid, a guide to help you make an educated decision. The true judge is the real world conditions and the drivers who create them. I know personally that I see more accidents and have avoided more on my daily commute than on the weekends and with different vehicles.

That being said, in the end the safest vehicle is ultimately the one that you know how to drive well and you are an attentive driver that knows the little details that can avoid accidents. After all, most accidents are from people just not paying attention.

"Chevy Corvette
Braking 60-0mph dry, ft. 126
Curb weight, lb. 3,280

Ford Exporer
Braking 60-0mph dry, ft. 154
Curb weight, lb. 5,055 "

This is ludicrous. Are you seriously basing your argument on the braking ability of a sports car compared to that of an SUV? That should be obvious.

Personally
I believe that Volvo should be at the top of the list. If you don't know Volvo has pioneered many of the safety features that you may see standard on most cars today. A few example would be the drop down engine which is designed to drop under the car instead of through the windshield. and the crumple zones. Most people buy cars because of their reputation such as Honda-Economy, Ford-Good Trucks, Volvo- Safety. My family has gone through two Volvos and have run well over 300,00 miles on them. I am still currently drive the second one which is a 1993 Volvo 240 and still rides smooth!!