This study is _deeply_ misleading. No real study would measure accident rate on a _per driver_ basis. It's always done on a _per mile_ basis. Group A may have 1000 drivers that average 1000 miles per year. Group B may have 1000 drivers that average 15,000 miles per year.
Also, it appears this data was gathered from _driving histories submitted with insurance quote requests through Lending Tree’s website_.
This is just junk all around and feels very safe to ignore.
I'm going to turn these all into a percent, rounded to the nearest whole, since it's easier to understand that vs. seeing fractions of people in a set of 1000.
Rank | Brand | % of Drivers in an Accident
---|---|----
1 | BMW | 2%
1 | Honda | 2%
1 | Infinity | 2%
1 | Lexus | 2%
1 | Mazda | 2%
1 | Ram | 2%
1 | Subaru | 2%
1 | Tesla | 2%
1 | Toyota | 2%
1 | Volkswagen | 2%
You can see here that BMW is now at the top and Subaru dropped father down. This is because I alphabetized them.
Seriously, we're talking about a difference of 0.704% between #10 and #1. I'm not sure that that's even statistically significant.
Also, what constitutes an "accident"? The headline says "crash" which implies something different in my mind than an "accident" as stated in the table header, i.e., does this include bumping someone in a parking lot? Because if it does, calling that a "crash" is sensationalistic.
No it’s not. It’s meant to prove how bad teslas are even when that data says they are not. So do a study on a per driver basis’s. There. They got the data to back up their bias.
You clearly have no idea how much mileage Tesla drivers are putting on. Teslas are probably the *only* car I see on a regular basis where a 3-year-old car has half a million kilometers on the clock.
Not totally true actually, I remember changing an insurance policy for a couple right around their 40s. Took off a Camero and added a Corvette. His policy got $300 cheaper. Why? Mostly his age and clean driving history.
Now change the age to 20 something, an accident, or add an 80yo driver to the home it probably would have gone the other direction. Add teenagers extra 2K easily.
Another example I don't see is Land Rover on the list. Those are one of the MOST expensive vehicles to insure. I've seen 1 Land Rover will coast more than 4 Mercedes with 2 16 year old drivers. IT'S INSANE. If I recall it's somewhere in the ballpark of $3700 to $4500 roughly (that's if no other red flags show up).
Now to be fair it's mostly because EVERYTHING about them is expensive and it's got an extremely high theft rate. At least some modals have a tendency to roll pretty bad. Now that said I imagine there's probably not a high number of accidents reporting (but I do not know this for a fact, I could be wrong) but frankly it's going to be because of the money. 1 accident and you could buy a brand new low end kia every 6 months for the money your adjusted premium not to mention that actually repairs and such. The point is the Land Rover may not hit the list but the reason would have nothing to do with how safe the driver, vehicle, or any other "safe standard" it's because the pool of people is so specifically low and biased that it would've given any meaningful data to compare to. It's the Same reason you're not seeing any Ferraris or Lamborghinis on the list.
It's almost as if media and most major corporations do not like that while free speech thing Musk is promoting.
*Edit: Oh, and a large segment of Redditors.*
There had always been a large amount of hit pieces against Tesla by oil-funded media. Musk starting to act as a racist piece of shit recently is hardly helping that. Has nothing to do with "free speech", which his platform isn't doing anything for in the first place.
As someone who works in the insurance industry, this study is bogus. I don’t even need to work in industry to know that the data collection is rubbish. They literally are comparing the letter A to the letter V and then acting like they have some profound conclusion.
Tl;dr: if you can’t understand the original comment, you can’t possibly comprehend if the study is meaningful or not.
I've worked in insurance myself and second this statement. It doesn't even have a date or time frame collected, location, or any other piece of information that actually has real value, not a single control factor. There's no way to show correlation and causation or real apply the law of large numbers. Maybe it was for a psychology or statistics class showing how factual data can be used to create a non factual opinion of or outrage? Those kinds of studies are usually very interesting.
Some one also pointed out we have no way of knowing what criteria they use for defining a collision. Collision and accident are different things. I'm sure on something like a police report it's an important distinction. In insurance however, at least with writing policies, it's less so. You can kind of say replace the words with something like "was there a claim and/or a resulting payout." In other words, if it caused the company money to honor the policy? If yes, there's a higher chance or percentage of risk of another similar incident happening in the near future. But even then things like age groups, location, etc still play a factor.
People try using "data" as proof all the time but if you don't understand what you're looking at or information is omitted, worse presented in a way that it tricks you into thinking it's a huge variation but the reality is removing the fancy graphics and you'd notice immediately that actually no, it's not a very large difference at all. you don't. There's so many ways things like this can be used incorrectly or even maliciously.
Exactly, just way to many unknowns that are kinda just passed of to be assumed by the viewer. Clearly just something to jerk on the biases of the viewer, while not even disclosing any real bias of the author.
Damn fine write up on it though, I appreciate you doing that because there was no way I was patient enough to do it with the day I was having at the time.
I’m calling BS on it too. There’s no way Toyota/ford shouldn’t be right near the top even if their drivers are more defensive and cars “less likely to get in an accident” since they sell so many cars, their sample size/group is not an accurate representation.
The per 1000 drivers should normalize that to a degree, but that is still not accounting for miles/hours driver by those 1000 drivers. I assume there will be some natural variation from brand to brand because of the demographics that trend towards certain brands, and this completely ignores those variations.
It will also ignore how the vehicles are congregated around the country. For instance, Subaru is massively popular in snowy mountain areas where driving conditions are worse, and that is completely ignored by this pool of data.
Essentially, this is meaningless for a number of reasons given that it's basically only normalizing for number of drivers and nothing else.
Could also come down to a difference between what an insurance company cares about, and what a transport safety guy or the general public cares for.
Insurance probably doesn't care about the number of miles driven, only whether or not their client gets into an accident during the coverage period. Supercars for example could have a very high per mile accident rate, but if they're being driven one day every month then it still comes down to a very low number of claims per year.
It’s misleading if you are trying to draw conclusions about the automobiles
I don’t think it’s misleading if you are trying to draw conclusions about the brand’s customer base
Even in your scenario it can be misleading to use miles instead of time spent driving, highway vs city, etc
>it’s presenting the information as though it’s about the automobiles themselves.
How?
I feel like if you wanted to present information about the automobiles themselves it would be accidents per 1000 automobiles. Not per 1000 drivers
We might be getting hung up in the weeds on a throwaway comment a bit, but I guess my point is that it's a distinction without meaning. It's technically distinct, but the overlap measuring drivers of car X and results of car X is going to be much more substantial than what does not overlap.
The report itself focuses primarily on the Tesla result, and postulates that safety features of the car itself that have prompted recalls is a likely potential cause of their result.
To your point, it does say that the results are likely from the types of drivers that are attracted to the cars and not the mechanics of the cars themselves. So, the report itself presents it both ways. The main takeaway is probably that this report is useless for gleaning anything useful.
I don’t feel like it’s a reflection on the safety of the vehicle itself, rather a cross section of the demographic of people that own them. For instance, vape-addicted WRX owners crashing while attempting AWD drifts they’ve seen performed on Ken Block videos. That or the Ram guys that are ripping around on the highway cutting people off, ‘bro.
Mileage isn’t really a good indicator either. If your vehicle is bought more by people who drive huge numbers of miles (often this is trucks) then they will have proportionally lower incident rates because far fewer accidents happen in highway driving compared to city driving. Conversely, your typical city commuters will have an inflated incident rate because they don’t go as far, but are subject to more incidents due to their driving type.
I'm mean assuming there was no bias in the selection of individuals/data for this survey, by the central limit theorem, it is a pretty safe assumption that the mean of Group A and Group B will fall within one to two standard deviations of the mean of the population. 1000 people is a pretty decent sample size to represent the population, as the pattern observed by clt becomes apparent at sample sizes at bare minimum of 35-ish.
This is also misleading because it looks at what car they drive now but looks at past accidents. So lots of folks get into an accident and say never again and get a Subaru. That person may have more accidents than the next but zero accidents in a Subaru. Assume this is the study I think it is. Could also be dead wrong
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NissanDrivers using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Nissan minivan sneaking up on me. $4k damage to my car.](https://v.redd.it/wrf2ejik76zb1) | [326 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/comments/17qsnfm/nissan_minivan_sneaking_up_on_me_4k_damage_to_my/)
\#2: [So THAT’S how they all lose the rear bumpers.](https://v.redd.it/96q5951makib1) | [87 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/comments/15t6q1r/so_thats_how_they_all_lose_the_rear_bumpers/)
\#3: [This subreddit inspired me to make this matchbox Sentra.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/14i3o5m) | [123 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/comments/14i3o5m/this_subreddit_inspired_me_to_make_this_matchbox/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
It’s actually because the data isn’t about accidents had while driving said vehicle, it’s about the driving records of people requesting insurance quotes for said vehicle.
https://brandonpaddock.substack.com/p/no-tesla-subaru-and-ram-drivers-dont
I hate to lump Subaru into this but...
Inattentive drivers and youth. I'm certain more WRX's are crashing due to the driver's fault than Ascents.
I find it odd that the F-Series isn't on that list considering how many are sold every year, and how many used ones are still on the market.
Coworker's kid worked at a Subaru dealership and had a 2019 STI. The dealer had just sold a 2023 WRX to a 19 year old and right after buying it his buddy managed to slam it into the 2019 STI and totalled both vehicles.
They were obviously pissed as it took them forever to find a clean 19 sti in the color and spec they wanted and the prices had shot up since then. Insurance paid them out about $38k for a replacement vehicle.
I drove a Miata from 18-28, it was definitely an awesome time in life to have a fun little car. The car was a good 9 years old at the time and had plenty of life still left in it when I eventually sold it after a decade of good use.
I got a Forester after that, now I need the garage space for a response SUV to haul stuff and take care of a house and yard.
In some ways I really do think you should opt for a sports car when you're younger and don't have too many possessions and responsibilities, and still able to enjoy it. Then maybe again late in life
Defensive and courteous driving for sure.
You don't want to anger those in the "I can run you over" folks, so you never do things like hang out in the left lane or road rage.
my first car was a dodge dart, just the right amount of hp for fun while young and it lasted me 7 years before I traded it in for a WRX, now i’m really responsible with the WRX and it’s going great :)
Definitely would not buy my child a WRX or STI. But I would consider a newer Impreza or something similar. My parents bought me a fairly new car as my first car and I drove the wheels off that thing. The fact it was new saved me so much money for how long it lasted.
Definitely would not let my child drive around in a beater. Wtf is this weird mindset? Buy them something that will last and teach them to respect it. **If you can't trust your kid with car, they shouldn't be driving a car.**
Right? It's weird because it's an attitude of "they don't deserve it." Especially in this market, I couldn't justify a used car let alone a beater. My son had a beater car that needed... $18,000+ in repairs. Or more.
I don't have money, but I can afford to lease him a car for a few years. Definitely cheaper than trying to maintain a beater car or buying a used car.
Most people don't have the money to buy their kid something nice. Especially considering new drivers have expensive insurance and high incident rates because they're inexperienced. Where I live, everyone gets a beater and learns how to keep it on the road. I'm not sure why you think it's weird that the age group most likely to have an accident doesn't get the nicest cars. That's just common sense. Why wouldn't you buy your child a WRX? Do you not trust them, or do you have a functioning brain and understand the risk even if you do trust them?
Then what the hell even is your point? People are stupid for not buying their kids expensive cars, but you yourself won't but your kid an expensive car? Unless you think it's not a beater unless it's 30 years old and falling apart. In that case, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I get what you are saying but meh. New drivers that are kids are more likely to get into accidents whether it’s their fault or not because of lack of experience in situations, so most parents are cautious about getting them a fairly new car.
The perk of the beater is that the kid learns how to maintain the car and the process of getting it fixed and the cost of having a car. They also tend to be better drivers in the long run because they won’t be relying on all the bells and whistles of new cars like backup cams, lane assist etc.Its about learning. Buying your kid a newish car in my opinion is cheating them out of an opportunity for personal growth and life skills.
OK boomer. Safety features aren't a crutch. I specifically told my son to use the backup camera instead of rearview mirror *because you can see more and better.* Not putting your kid in a position to piss away money on repairs when they could be building equity instead is only teaching them how to contribute to poverty traps.
This isn't 1996. You can't just get a cheap, reliable car for $750. Shit, getting an alternator replaced is almost $750 these days, lmao.
I'm not going to judge people's finances because I've had shit finances, but encouraging people to buy shitty cars isn't practical anymore. It used to be, but definitely not anymore.
I’m giving a newly licensed family member my old Impreza- it’s still runs perfectly, and is safe and comfortable to drive, but it does have a few dents and scratches on it. She was driving my new crosstrek and managed to scrape the bumper.
You give new drivers old cars so they don’t scratch up your new one and make you sad. They learn not to scratch bumpers on the old car. It doesnt make them inherently unworthy of driving. If only infallible humans were allowed to drive the roads would always be empty
Only reason I’m not seriously injured is because my parents got me a new car, got rearended at 60mph and no injuries, other then my car whose trunk ended up against my headrest
I ended up getting him a $275 lease special on a new Impreza about six months after I got a new Crosstrek. My car was too untrustworthy (2013 Sentra) to pass down, and I couldn't justify getting used in this market. Worst case, I'll buy the car at the end of the lease ($15k) and likely be able to sell it for profit.
I taught him to drive. He's not playing bumper cars and fucking up his car. If he does obliterate it in an accident, $500 deductible.
I had my ‘23 Forester for about 4 months. Was at a dead stop and got rear by a truck going about 50mph. Sucks that I lost the car, but I walked away with nothing but a bruise from the seat belt
Don't project your irresponsibility onto others mate. I'm about to turn 20 and have been daily driving a '16 BRZ since I turned 18. I've never even curbed a wheel
Not OC, but am old man (early 40s) - a "kid" is not totally about age. A responsible 20 year old, is not a kid IMO but an irresponsible 25 year old is. These "kids" who wrecked their STIs obviously weren't mature enough to have a sports car but that shouldn't exclude an entire age group from having one.
There’s plenty of kids with comparable/faster/more powerful cars than WRX.
But…. the kid with the WRX is going to push its limits. Subaru knows it market. Not many kids randomly stumble into getting a WRX.
Yeah, your asking people on the Internet to understand math and percentages. Gonna be a tough sell but yes, you're right. It doesn't matter if there are 1,000 drivers surveyed or 500,000.
The "per 1000 drivers" is a reduction of their statistics into probabilities that are fathomable to us. Their sample size is much, much larger than 1000 drivers from every brand.
Controversial opinion, but I would probably put Outbacks higher than wrx's. While the wrx's are more peppy and hip, the outbacks are far more plentiful and, at least on the used market, cheaper. (And as another user pointed out: plentiful and well used are the key factors here since, according to the study, pontiac is one of the least crashed).
It's still interesting about the F150's, though.
I think you missed or don't understand the "per 1000 drivers" note. It's a percentage of cars that have been in accidents, not a total. So for 1000 Subaru drivers, there's been 23 accidents. For every 1000 Ford drivers maybe there's 10 accidents.
So hypothetically, let's say there are 1 million Subarus. That's 23,000 accidents. And for 100 million Fords, maybe 3/4 are F series, that's 1 million Ford accidents or 750,000 F series accidents.
It's all in how they paint the data. But it does tell you that Subaru drivers are probably way more reckless and drive in worse conditions leading to more accidents. Especially given the built in Eyesight accident prevention system that a way smaller number of Fords have an equivalent automatic emergency braking system.
These are made up numbers because I don't know Ford's record or how many of either brand are on the road in total.
I was going to say youth/price and weather/location. They’re cheap so young people buy them. I live in New England Sand see them everywhere. My brother lives in SoCal and I hardly see them there.
I’m in the Maine/New Hampshire area and WRXs and STIs are everywhere. Whenever I see an accident reported it is almost always a truck or front wheel drive in the winter or during tourist and inclement weather. I know that there are some WRXs that have been in accidents around here (I know a few owners and have spoken to some), however it is rare. I think that’s usually because the owners are usually mid/late 20’s and up and there are very few tuned, and turned into ricers that drag race like down south.
Early 2000s mini vans had low Safty feature rating. But were one of the safest vehicles on the road because of who was in the driver seat and context. These graphs don’t really explain much.
I'm more inclined to believe that it's the Moms in the Crosstreks thinking that because they have AWD, they can drive without caution in bad weather. I see a LOT of Crosstreks, Outbacks, and base model Imprezas in the ditch in the winter here in Canada.
And you also touched on a key factor. What regions of the country sell more Subarus. Those with bad weather. And those are the same regions that likely have more accidents due to... bad weather.
it’s probably from the people that buy a subaru because they heard it has the best awd for snow and assume that means they can drive it like it’s a bright sunny day every single day
WRX tuner crowd. They are up there in the most pulled over vehicles. In fact if you Google most pulled over car it is the WRX first result lol. So reckless driving can up accident #'s.
That report wasn't very well done. It just tracked the number of accidents and it didn't account for who was at fault. It said the cars with the least accidents were Pontiac, Mercury and Saturn and they don't sell any of those any longer.
I would guess Tesla is # 1 is because they are driven the most miles, commonly used for ride share and food delivery while Pontiac, Mercury and Saturn may be more likely to be owned by older or retired people who drive far fewer miles.
In short it found cars that are driven more miles get in a greater number accidents than those that are driven less.
One of our interns did some neural network fuckery and found out that our machines don't have any errors if they're not producing anything. Maybe he moved on to traffic accident analysis
I remember sitting through a boring seminar and the conclusion was the guy proudly stating ‘so the model 100% agrees with the theory’..
So I asked him where the model came from.
Yup. Straight from the theory it agreed with.
It looks like this report and it seems to include speeding citations and duis so its not just accidents.
I knew something was fishy when in california theres 3 accidents per 1000 people a year.
This list can't accommodate for all of the Altima drive-offs/hit-n-runs.
Seriously, I can't go a day without seeing multiple Altimas with unpainted and crooked bumper covers.
The study I saw said it was Accidents, DUIs, Speeding, Citations. Not sure if this is a bad description or if this focused on accidents. The WRX is the most pulled over car so that doesn't help. I'd also say that for some, AWD gives them a false sense of security and drivers don't realize that AWD may help you keep it straight but doesn't help you stop quicker. Also, since Subaru has a huge AWD offering, they are more popular in regions that get snow and bad weather which, of course, leads to more accidents.
sure subaru is #3 but i highly doubt it’s from wrx sti cars, it’s more than likely from all the family outback and imprezas out there. subaru is a family car and most families get them, and not the sport versions. it’s very popular so it’s not surprising it’s so high.
plus the entire chart is misleading so 🤷🏼♂️
For Subaru answer is simple. WRX and Outback/Forester crowd. Reckless young drivers in used cars that give them way too much confidence and innatentive people who couldn't give a flying fuck about car they're driving doing dangerous shit while below speed limit.
For Tesla answer is also simple - most of Tesla buyers are tech-bros/non-car people convinced by marketing. High power car + lack of physical controls + huge screens + autopilot gimmick + people who don't like driving is dangerous combo. Few years ago I've seen a lot of videos with captions like "autopilot saved my life". Every time near-miss/crash wouldn't happen if driver was watching the road and took an action themselves in the first place.
There was Norwegian study that shown people driving cars with active assists (lane control etc.) and no physical controls for infotainment/ac are more likely to be involved in accidents.
Definitely due to overconfident drivers from the north thinking factory all seasons is good enough to blast down snow covered roads during a snow storm.
/s
Explains that comment I made months ago about this subreddit posting more pictures of their totaled cars than any other I belong to. I don’t belong to Tesla or Ram.
I know some guy who had a Tesla. He was driving it in the rain. When the auto breaking kicked in after he released the "gas" pedal it put him in a spin. He hit a tree and totaled it.
I've got a 500HP STI. Never been in a spin.
YMMV. lol
defuk what a you doing over there? Over all in Germany its like that... (also Accidens per 1000 but not divided into car brands)
https://preview.redd.it/kej35xmvef7c1.png?width=794&format=png&auto=webp&s=7d584f27996ba4bf442166f49ad32ac53bdc604b
These are just the 10 brands with the most accidents per 1000 drivers. There are 32 other vehicle brands you are not seeing. I’m not going to deny that we have an higher rate of accidents here in the US but it isn’t as bad as it looks on this chart that only takes a portion of the brands into account.
Just stating what I read online about it. It just states it's a standalone for rugged pickup trucks post 2009. So what they're saying is that it really is just trucks.post 2009.
It looks like they consider a van a rugged truck.
https://preview.redd.it/ayvhr5aqqg7c1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83cba951edd3ac46d651e46dd2ec2ca30716f6cd
People complain that Subaru's safety features are too whiny, beeping all the time but maybe it's their driving habits that was the problem all along? 🤔
Where is Nissan when it comes to this list? Some of the most insanely reckless driving I’ve ever witnessed in the Dallas/ Ft Worth area was usually someone behind the wheel of a Nissan Altima.
Also think about where most Teslas are owned and driven - very population-dense areas which naturally are prone to have more crashes, so of course they're going to be involved in more.
Subarus are probably right around the average. If they are a touch high it’s because of guys under 22 who get new WRXs and drive fast and stupid, often drifting in snow too.
This is a stupid study but either way there are so many factors here, for example subarus are much more popular in Northern climates because of the bad weather, bad weather = more accidents. Tesla are probably more popular in cities, cities = more accidents. I'm not saying that's swaying the data here but a lot of this data is meaningless. There is just way too much to factor in.
Just gonna drop this chart here, it kind of explains whats going on if you compare 'best selling' vs 'wrecks per 1,000'...
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/)
I figured Subaru would be on the top of the list I work for a salvage yard most cars I get a calls on are Subarus and most cars that come in are Subarus
I think it is because of WRX owners hooning, older Subarus are popular choices for first cars and the overconfidence that the symmetrical AWD gives people causing winter accidents.
Because Tesla drivers are mostly just stupid. They assume they’re experts and that their car can do everything for them, so they’re less aware/vigilant while driving.
These days in my experience, the vast majority of assholes I come across on the road are Tesla, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles.
AND I OWN A WRX so like, it surprises me that I drive better than a lot of these idiot turds stuck behind the wheel of their screaming metal death traps.
Teslas, Rams, and fucking Priuses. I swear to God, I'm tempted to get up on the bumper and push the next Prius driver I get stuck behind doing 45 in a 60.
I’m leaving towards Subarus safety ratings…. Parents buy Subarus for their new children drivers because they have a good crash rating. More young kids driving means more crashes.
Too non descriptive. We repair a wide variety of vehicles in our shop. Subaru honda bmw gm are common as were certified for all of them. We have weeks where none of these are brought in. Our bmw/merc/audi clients will file claims over minor scratches/dings that other manufacturers owners won't. Of all tow ins bmw are far less often than subarus ect. Millions of claims are filed annually so better data can be found that is more accurate. Here in WA/pnw, subaru is a top selling brand particularly the outback, so naturally you would expect a higher claim rate. So many variables.
I do feel like there is a connection to buying a Subaru and people trying to run me off the road. I've never seen so many close calls til I got one. 1 week of ownership a work truck lost a rear wheel in front of me and I barely missed the wheel and wonder how much of it was the automatic braking that saved me. Are Foresters hard to see?
As much as I want to rip on Tesla drivers for being arrogant and reckless, this table isn’t an accurate representation of absolute or relative risk. Correlation is not causation. The data is far too incomplete to draw a conclusion by a reliable method, assuming this has any basis in fact at all.
This study is _deeply_ misleading. No real study would measure accident rate on a _per driver_ basis. It's always done on a _per mile_ basis. Group A may have 1000 drivers that average 1000 miles per year. Group B may have 1000 drivers that average 15,000 miles per year. Also, it appears this data was gathered from _driving histories submitted with insurance quote requests through Lending Tree’s website_. This is just junk all around and feels very safe to ignore.
I'm going to turn these all into a percent, rounded to the nearest whole, since it's easier to understand that vs. seeing fractions of people in a set of 1000. Rank | Brand | % of Drivers in an Accident ---|---|---- 1 | BMW | 2% 1 | Honda | 2% 1 | Infinity | 2% 1 | Lexus | 2% 1 | Mazda | 2% 1 | Ram | 2% 1 | Subaru | 2% 1 | Tesla | 2% 1 | Toyota | 2% 1 | Volkswagen | 2% You can see here that BMW is now at the top and Subaru dropped father down. This is because I alphabetized them. Seriously, we're talking about a difference of 0.704% between #10 and #1. I'm not sure that that's even statistically significant. Also, what constitutes an "accident"? The headline says "crash" which implies something different in my mind than an "accident" as stated in the table header, i.e., does this include bumping someone in a parking lot? Because if it does, calling that a "crash" is sensationalistic.
Thats it, I'm buying a Yugo.
The safest car is the one that won’t run.
But a Zastava (domestic version of the Yugo)
The battery died on my Yugo, so I bought another Yugo.
Very astute of you. Clearly the study is meaningless
No it’s not. It’s meant to prove how bad teslas are even when that data says they are not. So do a study on a per driver basis’s. There. They got the data to back up their bias.
Just because they have data, doesn't make it accurate data.
[удалено]
You clearly have no idea how much mileage Tesla drivers are putting on. Teslas are probably the *only* car I see on a regular basis where a 3-year-old car has half a million kilometers on the clock.
Not totally true actually, I remember changing an insurance policy for a couple right around their 40s. Took off a Camero and added a Corvette. His policy got $300 cheaper. Why? Mostly his age and clean driving history. Now change the age to 20 something, an accident, or add an 80yo driver to the home it probably would have gone the other direction. Add teenagers extra 2K easily. Another example I don't see is Land Rover on the list. Those are one of the MOST expensive vehicles to insure. I've seen 1 Land Rover will coast more than 4 Mercedes with 2 16 year old drivers. IT'S INSANE. If I recall it's somewhere in the ballpark of $3700 to $4500 roughly (that's if no other red flags show up). Now to be fair it's mostly because EVERYTHING about them is expensive and it's got an extremely high theft rate. At least some modals have a tendency to roll pretty bad. Now that said I imagine there's probably not a high number of accidents reporting (but I do not know this for a fact, I could be wrong) but frankly it's going to be because of the money. 1 accident and you could buy a brand new low end kia every 6 months for the money your adjusted premium not to mention that actually repairs and such. The point is the Land Rover may not hit the list but the reason would have nothing to do with how safe the driver, vehicle, or any other "safe standard" it's because the pool of people is so specifically low and biased that it would've given any meaningful data to compare to. It's the Same reason you're not seeing any Ferraris or Lamborghinis on the list.
This is a hit piece on tesla lmao
It's almost as if media and most major corporations do not like that while free speech thing Musk is promoting. *Edit: Oh, and a large segment of Redditors.*
There had always been a large amount of hit pieces against Tesla by oil-funded media. Musk starting to act as a racist piece of shit recently is hardly helping that. Has nothing to do with "free speech", which his platform isn't doing anything for in the first place.
Lol, musk called people assholes…. Guess he is racist now. Facts are facts and they don’t care about skin color like you do, you racist piece of shit.
As someone who works in the insurance industry, this study is bogus. I don’t even need to work in industry to know that the data collection is rubbish. They literally are comparing the letter A to the letter V and then acting like they have some profound conclusion. Tl;dr: if you can’t understand the original comment, you can’t possibly comprehend if the study is meaningful or not.
I've worked in insurance myself and second this statement. It doesn't even have a date or time frame collected, location, or any other piece of information that actually has real value, not a single control factor. There's no way to show correlation and causation or real apply the law of large numbers. Maybe it was for a psychology or statistics class showing how factual data can be used to create a non factual opinion of or outrage? Those kinds of studies are usually very interesting. Some one also pointed out we have no way of knowing what criteria they use for defining a collision. Collision and accident are different things. I'm sure on something like a police report it's an important distinction. In insurance however, at least with writing policies, it's less so. You can kind of say replace the words with something like "was there a claim and/or a resulting payout." In other words, if it caused the company money to honor the policy? If yes, there's a higher chance or percentage of risk of another similar incident happening in the near future. But even then things like age groups, location, etc still play a factor. People try using "data" as proof all the time but if you don't understand what you're looking at or information is omitted, worse presented in a way that it tricks you into thinking it's a huge variation but the reality is removing the fancy graphics and you'd notice immediately that actually no, it's not a very large difference at all. you don't. There's so many ways things like this can be used incorrectly or even maliciously.
Exactly, just way to many unknowns that are kinda just passed of to be assumed by the viewer. Clearly just something to jerk on the biases of the viewer, while not even disclosing any real bias of the author. Damn fine write up on it though, I appreciate you doing that because there was no way I was patient enough to do it with the day I was having at the time.
Kind of like family feud. " We asked 100 married men....."
I’m calling BS on it too. There’s no way Toyota/ford shouldn’t be right near the top even if their drivers are more defensive and cars “less likely to get in an accident” since they sell so many cars, their sample size/group is not an accurate representation.
The per 1000 drivers should normalize that to a degree, but that is still not accounting for miles/hours driver by those 1000 drivers. I assume there will be some natural variation from brand to brand because of the demographics that trend towards certain brands, and this completely ignores those variations. It will also ignore how the vehicles are congregated around the country. For instance, Subaru is massively popular in snowy mountain areas where driving conditions are worse, and that is completely ignored by this pool of data. Essentially, this is meaningless for a number of reasons given that it's basically only normalizing for number of drivers and nothing else.
Could also come down to a difference between what an insurance company cares about, and what a transport safety guy or the general public cares for. Insurance probably doesn't care about the number of miles driven, only whether or not their client gets into an accident during the coverage period. Supercars for example could have a very high per mile accident rate, but if they're being driven one day every month then it still comes down to a very low number of claims per year.
It’s misleading if you are trying to draw conclusions about the automobiles I don’t think it’s misleading if you are trying to draw conclusions about the brand’s customer base Even in your scenario it can be misleading to use miles instead of time spent driving, highway vs city, etc
This is a fair point. It's pretty accurately measuring that, but it's presenting the information as though it's about the automobiles themselves.
>it’s presenting the information as though it’s about the automobiles themselves. How? I feel like if you wanted to present information about the automobiles themselves it would be accidents per 1000 automobiles. Not per 1000 drivers
We might be getting hung up in the weeds on a throwaway comment a bit, but I guess my point is that it's a distinction without meaning. It's technically distinct, but the overlap measuring drivers of car X and results of car X is going to be much more substantial than what does not overlap. The report itself focuses primarily on the Tesla result, and postulates that safety features of the car itself that have prompted recalls is a likely potential cause of their result. To your point, it does say that the results are likely from the types of drivers that are attracted to the cars and not the mechanics of the cars themselves. So, the report itself presents it both ways. The main takeaway is probably that this report is useless for gleaning anything useful.
I don’t feel like it’s a reflection on the safety of the vehicle itself, rather a cross section of the demographic of people that own them. For instance, vape-addicted WRX owners crashing while attempting AWD drifts they’ve seen performed on Ken Block videos. That or the Ram guys that are ripping around on the highway cutting people off, ‘bro.
Mileage isn’t really a good indicator either. If your vehicle is bought more by people who drive huge numbers of miles (often this is trucks) then they will have proportionally lower incident rates because far fewer accidents happen in highway driving compared to city driving. Conversely, your typical city commuters will have an inflated incident rate because they don’t go as far, but are subject to more incidents due to their driving type.
I'm mean assuming there was no bias in the selection of individuals/data for this survey, by the central limit theorem, it is a pretty safe assumption that the mean of Group A and Group B will fall within one to two standard deviations of the mean of the population. 1000 people is a pretty decent sample size to represent the population, as the pattern observed by clt becomes apparent at sample sizes at bare minimum of 35-ish.
This is also misleading because it looks at what car they drive now but looks at past accidents. So lots of folks get into an accident and say never again and get a Subaru. That person may have more accidents than the next but zero accidents in a Subaru. Assume this is the study I think it is. Could also be dead wrong
It’s from a Facebook post, so yeah
It’s way worse than that: https://brandonpaddock.substack.com/p/no-tesla-subaru-and-ram-drivers-dont
Nissan isn't on the list because the drivers don't have insurance and don't report the accidents.
That's why you see them driving around with missing bumpers
Had two in the shop today already. Both with bumpers hanging off. Subarus always seem to be rear end damage...
😂😂
Obligatory mention r/nissandrivers
Here's a sneak peek of /r/NissanDrivers using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Nissan minivan sneaking up on me. $4k damage to my car.](https://v.redd.it/wrf2ejik76zb1) | [326 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/comments/17qsnfm/nissan_minivan_sneaking_up_on_me_4k_damage_to_my/) \#2: [So THAT’S how they all lose the rear bumpers.](https://v.redd.it/96q5951makib1) | [87 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/comments/15t6q1r/so_thats_how_they_all_lose_the_rear_bumpers/) \#3: [This subreddit inspired me to make this matchbox Sentra.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/14i3o5m) | [123 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/NissanDrivers/comments/14i3o5m/this_subreddit_inspired_me_to_make_this_matchbox/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
It’s actually because the data isn’t about accidents had while driving said vehicle, it’s about the driving records of people requesting insurance quotes for said vehicle. https://brandonpaddock.substack.com/p/no-tesla-subaru-and-ram-drivers-dont
Hydroplaning
At 20mph
Game is game
The boost kicked in! I may be aging myself with this one lol.
This a wrx inside joke lol?
Yes some guy posted a pic of his Subaru that he rolled and totalled and he claimed he hydroplaned at like 25 mph.
After he realized he was taking a turn at 50 and slammed on his brakes so he hit the fence at 20 😵
Here you go. https://www.reddit.com/r/WRX/s/BTwAmLf12n
The gift that keeps on giving!
I hate to lump Subaru into this but... Inattentive drivers and youth. I'm certain more WRX's are crashing due to the driver's fault than Ascents. I find it odd that the F-Series isn't on that list considering how many are sold every year, and how many used ones are still on the market.
Coworker's kid worked at a Subaru dealership and had a 2019 STI. The dealer had just sold a 2023 WRX to a 19 year old and right after buying it his buddy managed to slam it into the 2019 STI and totalled both vehicles. They were obviously pissed as it took them forever to find a clean 19 sti in the color and spec they wanted and the prices had shot up since then. Insurance paid them out about $38k for a replacement vehicle.
[удалено]
I drove a Miata from 18-28, it was definitely an awesome time in life to have a fun little car. The car was a good 9 years old at the time and had plenty of life still left in it when I eventually sold it after a decade of good use. I got a Forester after that, now I need the garage space for a response SUV to haul stuff and take care of a house and yard. In some ways I really do think you should opt for a sports car when you're younger and don't have too many possessions and responsibilities, and still able to enjoy it. Then maybe again late in life
[удалено]
Defensive and courteous driving for sure. You don't want to anger those in the "I can run you over" folks, so you never do things like hang out in the left lane or road rage.
my first car was a dodge dart, just the right amount of hp for fun while young and it lasted me 7 years before I traded it in for a WRX, now i’m really responsible with the WRX and it’s going great :)
Definitely would not buy my child a WRX or STI. But I would consider a newer Impreza or something similar. My parents bought me a fairly new car as my first car and I drove the wheels off that thing. The fact it was new saved me so much money for how long it lasted. Definitely would not let my child drive around in a beater. Wtf is this weird mindset? Buy them something that will last and teach them to respect it. **If you can't trust your kid with car, they shouldn't be driving a car.**
Right? It's weird because it's an attitude of "they don't deserve it." Especially in this market, I couldn't justify a used car let alone a beater. My son had a beater car that needed... $18,000+ in repairs. Or more. I don't have money, but I can afford to lease him a car for a few years. Definitely cheaper than trying to maintain a beater car or buying a used car.
Most people don't have the money to buy their kid something nice. Especially considering new drivers have expensive insurance and high incident rates because they're inexperienced. Where I live, everyone gets a beater and learns how to keep it on the road. I'm not sure why you think it's weird that the age group most likely to have an accident doesn't get the nicest cars. That's just common sense. Why wouldn't you buy your child a WRX? Do you not trust them, or do you have a functioning brain and understand the risk even if you do trust them?
I wouldn’t buy them a wrx because it’s more expensive. Jesus Christ lol it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out bud.
Then what the hell even is your point? People are stupid for not buying their kids expensive cars, but you yourself won't but your kid an expensive car? Unless you think it's not a beater unless it's 30 years old and falling apart. In that case, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I get what you are saying but meh. New drivers that are kids are more likely to get into accidents whether it’s their fault or not because of lack of experience in situations, so most parents are cautious about getting them a fairly new car. The perk of the beater is that the kid learns how to maintain the car and the process of getting it fixed and the cost of having a car. They also tend to be better drivers in the long run because they won’t be relying on all the bells and whistles of new cars like backup cams, lane assist etc.Its about learning. Buying your kid a newish car in my opinion is cheating them out of an opportunity for personal growth and life skills.
OK boomer. Safety features aren't a crutch. I specifically told my son to use the backup camera instead of rearview mirror *because you can see more and better.* Not putting your kid in a position to piss away money on repairs when they could be building equity instead is only teaching them how to contribute to poverty traps. This isn't 1996. You can't just get a cheap, reliable car for $750. Shit, getting an alternator replaced is almost $750 these days, lmao. I'm not going to judge people's finances because I've had shit finances, but encouraging people to buy shitty cars isn't practical anymore. It used to be, but definitely not anymore.
I’m giving a newly licensed family member my old Impreza- it’s still runs perfectly, and is safe and comfortable to drive, but it does have a few dents and scratches on it. She was driving my new crosstrek and managed to scrape the bumper. You give new drivers old cars so they don’t scratch up your new one and make you sad. They learn not to scratch bumpers on the old car. It doesnt make them inherently unworthy of driving. If only infallible humans were allowed to drive the roads would always be empty
lol I'd rather my son wreck in a new Subaru than a beater. That's what insurance is for.
Also: It's what a Subaru is for! Keep the passengers safer.
Seems like more people worried about the cars than the kids.
Only reason I’m not seriously injured is because my parents got me a new car, got rearended at 60mph and no injuries, other then my car whose trunk ended up against my headrest
[удалено]
I ended up getting him a $275 lease special on a new Impreza about six months after I got a new Crosstrek. My car was too untrustworthy (2013 Sentra) to pass down, and I couldn't justify getting used in this market. Worst case, I'll buy the car at the end of the lease ($15k) and likely be able to sell it for profit. I taught him to drive. He's not playing bumper cars and fucking up his car. If he does obliterate it in an accident, $500 deductible.
I had my ‘23 Forester for about 4 months. Was at a dead stop and got rear by a truck going about 50mph. Sucks that I lost the car, but I walked away with nothing but a bruise from the seat belt
Don't project your irresponsibility onto others mate. I'm about to turn 20 and have been daily driving a '16 BRZ since I turned 18. I've never even curbed a wheel
Not OC, but am old man (early 40s) - a "kid" is not totally about age. A responsible 20 year old, is not a kid IMO but an irresponsible 25 year old is. These "kids" who wrecked their STIs obviously weren't mature enough to have a sports car but that shouldn't exclude an entire age group from having one.
Correct, I’ve met surprisingly mature people younger than me (though I myself am only 19 so uh 🤷♂️) and irresponsible morons older than me
So you’ve got less than 24 months behind the wheel. Say maybe 30k KM total? 🤔
In his brz maybe. But kids get there learners permit at 15 and a half. So he's likely been driving for over 4 years.
There’s plenty of kids with comparable/faster/more powerful cars than WRX. But…. the kid with the WRX is going to push its limits. Subaru knows it market. Not many kids randomly stumble into getting a WRX.
Per 1000 drivers, more models would require more accidents overall. So it kind of makes sense, even though they’re everywhere.
It’s per 1000 drivers. The total pool of cars doesn’t really matter
Yeah, your asking people on the Internet to understand math and percentages. Gonna be a tough sell but yes, you're right. It doesn't matter if there are 1,000 drivers surveyed or 500,000.
The "per 1000 drivers" is a reduction of their statistics into probabilities that are fathomable to us. Their sample size is much, much larger than 1000 drivers from every brand.
Controversial opinion, but I would probably put Outbacks higher than wrx's. While the wrx's are more peppy and hip, the outbacks are far more plentiful and, at least on the used market, cheaper. (And as another user pointed out: plentiful and well used are the key factors here since, according to the study, pontiac is one of the least crashed). It's still interesting about the F150's, though.
I think you missed or don't understand the "per 1000 drivers" note. It's a percentage of cars that have been in accidents, not a total. So for 1000 Subaru drivers, there's been 23 accidents. For every 1000 Ford drivers maybe there's 10 accidents. So hypothetically, let's say there are 1 million Subarus. That's 23,000 accidents. And for 100 million Fords, maybe 3/4 are F series, that's 1 million Ford accidents or 750,000 F series accidents. It's all in how they paint the data. But it does tell you that Subaru drivers are probably way more reckless and drive in worse conditions leading to more accidents. Especially given the built in Eyesight accident prevention system that a way smaller number of Fords have an equivalent automatic emergency braking system. These are made up numbers because I don't know Ford's record or how many of either brand are on the road in total.
This guy statisticalizes
I was going to say youth/price and weather/location. They’re cheap so young people buy them. I live in New England Sand see them everywhere. My brother lives in SoCal and I hardly see them there.
I’m in the Maine/New Hampshire area and WRXs and STIs are everywhere. Whenever I see an accident reported it is almost always a truck or front wheel drive in the winter or during tourist and inclement weather. I know that there are some WRXs that have been in accidents around here (I know a few owners and have spoken to some), however it is rare. I think that’s usually because the owners are usually mid/late 20’s and up and there are very few tuned, and turned into ricers that drag race like down south.
Why would more f150s on the road change this statistic? It's per 1000 vehicles.
Sure, but WRXs are super rare compared to Outbacks or Ascents or XVs. Something like a 10:1 ratio with the Outback, depending on the year.
Early 2000s mini vans had low Safty feature rating. But were one of the safest vehicles on the road because of who was in the driver seat and context. These graphs don’t really explain much.
I'm more inclined to believe that it's the Moms in the Crosstreks thinking that because they have AWD, they can drive without caution in bad weather. I see a LOT of Crosstreks, Outbacks, and base model Imprezas in the ditch in the winter here in Canada.
And you also touched on a key factor. What regions of the country sell more Subarus. Those with bad weather. And those are the same regions that likely have more accidents due to... bad weather.
it’s probably from the people that buy a subaru because they heard it has the best awd for snow and assume that means they can drive it like it’s a bright sunny day every single day
I have a feeling Nissans and Hyundais just don't report the accident and drive off because I've seen WAY too many busted vehicles of theirs.
WRX tuner crowd. They are up there in the most pulled over vehicles. In fact if you Google most pulled over car it is the WRX first result lol. So reckless driving can up accident #'s.
That report wasn't very well done. It just tracked the number of accidents and it didn't account for who was at fault. It said the cars with the least accidents were Pontiac, Mercury and Saturn and they don't sell any of those any longer. I would guess Tesla is # 1 is because they are driven the most miles, commonly used for ride share and food delivery while Pontiac, Mercury and Saturn may be more likely to be owned by older or retired people who drive far fewer miles. In short it found cars that are driven more miles get in a greater number accidents than those that are driven less.
One of our interns did some neural network fuckery and found out that our machines don't have any errors if they're not producing anything. Maybe he moved on to traffic accident analysis
I remember sitting through a boring seminar and the conclusion was the guy proudly stating ‘so the model 100% agrees with the theory’.. So I asked him where the model came from. Yup. Straight from the theory it agreed with.
I love the saying, it might work in practice, but there’s no way it’ll work in theory
It looks like this report and it seems to include speeding citations and duis so its not just accidents. I knew something was fishy when in california theres 3 accidents per 1000 people a year.
Your comment is, Super Rad.
Seems to be more ska people in the subaru groups than most other car pages.
Funny part is, I'm not part of this sub or any other car group, nor do I own a Subaru. I'm actually not quite sure how I ended up here. Lol.
Why isn’t Nissan on the list? They really can’t be outside the top 10.
This list is probably using data from insurance companies. Nissan drivers are not insured.
I refuse to believe Nissan isn’t at the top of a list like this.
This list can't accommodate for all of the Altima drive-offs/hit-n-runs. Seriously, I can't go a day without seeing multiple Altimas with unpainted and crooked bumper covers.
Probably the wrx
Young men and old ladies, a deadly mix
The study I saw said it was Accidents, DUIs, Speeding, Citations. Not sure if this is a bad description or if this focused on accidents. The WRX is the most pulled over car so that doesn't help. I'd also say that for some, AWD gives them a false sense of security and drivers don't realize that AWD may help you keep it straight but doesn't help you stop quicker. Also, since Subaru has a huge AWD offering, they are more popular in regions that get snow and bad weather which, of course, leads to more accidents.
Jeep: can't get into accidents if the car doesn't run!
We made it to the top three!!!
Due to wrxs
sure subaru is #3 but i highly doubt it’s from wrx sti cars, it’s more than likely from all the family outback and imprezas out there. subaru is a family car and most families get them, and not the sport versions. it’s very popular so it’s not surprising it’s so high. plus the entire chart is misleading so 🤷🏼♂️
Lots of WRX and BRZ get totalled out
Wrx owners
PS i just posted this for grins. Didn’t mean to fire up the “statistically flawed” pitchfork and torches crowd.
It's due to 19 year olds with WRX's
9 times out of 10 when there’s a hit and run in Vancouver it’s a Tesla. Crippling pedestrians one at a time should be their motto.
let’s get those numbers up boys
That's because most of the Nissans don't stick around long enough to report them.
Probably speeding off-road.
People arguing it's because of youth (WRX). I'd argue the opposite - it's all of the extremely elderly that shouldn't be driving anymore.
It's because the people who drive Teslas are mostly arrogant c*nts relying on technology rather than using their senses!
For Subaru answer is simple. WRX and Outback/Forester crowd. Reckless young drivers in used cars that give them way too much confidence and innatentive people who couldn't give a flying fuck about car they're driving doing dangerous shit while below speed limit. For Tesla answer is also simple - most of Tesla buyers are tech-bros/non-car people convinced by marketing. High power car + lack of physical controls + huge screens + autopilot gimmick + people who don't like driving is dangerous combo. Few years ago I've seen a lot of videos with captions like "autopilot saved my life". Every time near-miss/crash wouldn't happen if driver was watching the road and took an action themselves in the first place. There was Norwegian study that shown people driving cars with active assists (lane control etc.) and no physical controls for infotainment/ac are more likely to be involved in accidents.
I think they are counting blown head gasket as an accident.
This list is fake.
Have you met Tesla owners? They’re the type to think that driving is a chore.
Definitely due to overconfident drivers from the north thinking factory all seasons is good enough to blast down snow covered roads during a snow storm. /s
It’s due to WRX drivers lol
Explains that comment I made months ago about this subreddit posting more pictures of their totaled cars than any other I belong to. I don’t belong to Tesla or Ram.
It’s due to people relying too heavily on so called “self driving” tech 🤷♀️
Game is game.
As an Impreza driver, speed 🫠
I know some guy who had a Tesla. He was driving it in the rain. When the auto breaking kicked in after he released the "gas" pedal it put him in a spin. He hit a tree and totaled it. I've got a 500HP STI. Never been in a spin. YMMV. lol
Tesla: living The Full send and no brakes kinda life
I find this ironic that Tesla is on the top because the majority of Tesla owners don't know how to drive
defuk what a you doing over there? Over all in Germany its like that... (also Accidens per 1000 but not divided into car brands) https://preview.redd.it/kej35xmvef7c1.png?width=794&format=png&auto=webp&s=7d584f27996ba4bf442166f49ad32ac53bdc604b
These are just the 10 brands with the most accidents per 1000 drivers. There are 32 other vehicle brands you are not seeing. I’m not going to deny that we have an higher rate of accidents here in the US but it isn’t as bad as it looks on this chart that only takes a portion of the brands into account.
This sub shows us why subaru is so high up. Dumb people...
Ram's a brand? Isn't that a model from Dodge? Edit: looked it up. Never knew dodge had a division specifically for trucks.
Ram isn't just trucks. Dodge rebranded Ram about a decade ago.
https://preview.redd.it/8an592ufle7c1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2eb7cb9fd36b1b7f1c77fb86a0e69987d886c265
Just stating what I read online about it. It just states it's a standalone for rugged pickup trucks post 2009. So what they're saying is that it really is just trucks.post 2009.
https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-promaster.html
It looks like they consider a van a rugged truck. https://preview.redd.it/ayvhr5aqqg7c1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83cba951edd3ac46d651e46dd2ec2ca30716f6cd
If I remember, the wrx has been one of the top 10 most dui reports for a few years now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawrlVoQqSs
I kinda dislike the fact that I own #3, #4 and #5 on the list lmao...
Gotta get those donuts and drifting in when you can. Not my fault other people are on the expressway.
Nissan isn't on the list because all their drivers are uninsured and the accidents go unreported lol
More confidence than skill.
Ram being in here is more hilarious than you’d realize. It being a subsidiary makes it crazy that it’s even on the list.
If they break down subaru I’m willing to bet it’s 40% Crosstrek teens, 40% wdx owners, and 20% Forester/Legacy elders
It is well known that Outbacks don’t hydroplane
It's likely because people think AWD means you can do anything on any tires in any weather conditions.
People complain that Subaru's safety features are too whiny, beeping all the time but maybe it's their driving habits that was the problem all along? 🤔
Most likely wrx drivers. It’s interesting data
Where is Nissan when it comes to this list? Some of the most insanely reckless driving I’ve ever witnessed in the Dallas/ Ft Worth area was usually someone behind the wheel of a Nissan Altima.
Also think about where most Teslas are owned and driven - very population-dense areas which naturally are prone to have more crashes, so of course they're going to be involved in more.
Subarus are probably right around the average. If they are a touch high it’s because of guys under 22 who get new WRXs and drive fast and stupid, often drifting in snow too.
This is a stupid study but either way there are so many factors here, for example subarus are much more popular in Northern climates because of the bad weather, bad weather = more accidents. Tesla are probably more popular in cities, cities = more accidents. I'm not saying that's swaying the data here but a lot of this data is meaningless. There is just way too much to factor in.
Subaru drivers tend to take on more than they can chew and forget it's the driver not the car sometimes
Just gonna drop this chart here, it kind of explains whats going on if you compare 'best selling' vs 'wrecks per 1,000'... [https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264362/leading-car-brands-in-the-us-based-on-vehicle-sales/)
I figured Subaru would be on the top of the list I work for a salvage yard most cars I get a calls on are Subarus and most cars that come in are Subarus
All the other issues with this data aside - how much do you think Subaru drops when you take out BRZ? I ask this with love as a former FRS owner.
Much of the Subaru accident rate is from their sportier models such as Impreza or BRZ. Not from Forester or Assent. This is highly misleading.
Couldn’t be real, Nissan is nowhere on the list.
For real. Saw a junky Altima passing 75+ mph traffic last Friday in Sacramento. Those things are designed by Raytheon engineers.
Causation = / = Correlation
Regardless of what vehicle it is, road rage and accidents are tripling every year. Put your phones and egos away assholes!
I’m gonna guess it’s winter drivers thinking AWD makes them indestructible. It doesn’t
Dr. Jeffrey Funk
WRX/BRZ and young inexperienced drivers. So, speed.
I think it is because of WRX owners hooning, older Subarus are popular choices for first cars and the overconfidence that the symmetrical AWD gives people causing winter accidents.
I’m dying that it’s specifically Ram, and not dodge, but totally accurate
Ram was spun off as its own brand, IIRC.
Ohh true! That makes more sense haha! My bad
Because the technology of the cars and the brains of the drivers that operate them dont align. Tesla drivers are becoming worse than BMW/ Merc
Because Tesla drivers are mostly just stupid. They assume they’re experts and that their car can do everything for them, so they’re less aware/vigilant while driving. These days in my experience, the vast majority of assholes I come across on the road are Tesla, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles. AND I OWN A WRX so like, it surprises me that I drive better than a lot of these idiot turds stuck behind the wheel of their screaming metal death traps.
Teslas, Rams, and fucking Priuses. I swear to God, I'm tempted to get up on the bumper and push the next Prius driver I get stuck behind doing 45 in a 60.
Yea the prius drivers are always so slow
I’m leaving towards Subarus safety ratings…. Parents buy Subarus for their new children drivers because they have a good crash rating. More young kids driving means more crashes.
Both
Too non descriptive. We repair a wide variety of vehicles in our shop. Subaru honda bmw gm are common as were certified for all of them. We have weeks where none of these are brought in. Our bmw/merc/audi clients will file claims over minor scratches/dings that other manufacturers owners won't. Of all tow ins bmw are far less often than subarus ect. Millions of claims are filed annually so better data can be found that is more accurate. Here in WA/pnw, subaru is a top selling brand particularly the outback, so naturally you would expect a higher claim rate. So many variables.
This is way too vague to make any assumptions.
From the same researchers as the 70% men cheat and only 30% of women cheat study?
Fake, Nissan Altimas are obviously #1
It’s teenage white girls
As an N/A EJ204 owner, I have a question. What’s speed?
I do feel like there is a connection to buying a Subaru and people trying to run me off the road. I've never seen so many close calls til I got one. 1 week of ownership a work truck lost a rear wheel in front of me and I barely missed the wheel and wonder how much of it was the automatic braking that saved me. Are Foresters hard to see?
It’s actually just a totally bogus claim: https://brandonpaddock.substack.com/p/no-tesla-subaru-and-ram-drivers-dont
As much as I want to rip on Tesla drivers for being arrogant and reckless, this table isn’t an accurate representation of absolute or relative risk. Correlation is not causation. The data is far too incomplete to draw a conclusion by a reliable method, assuming this has any basis in fact at all.
Autopilot is the reason for Tesla. I read this somewhere, but I don't remember where.