And they’re less likely to stop for pedestrians:
Cost of car was a significant predictor of driver yielding (OR = 0.97; p = 0.0307); odds of yielding decreased 3% per $1000 increase.
Based on a study of two crosswalks in Las Vegas, and 461 cars.
That’s the sort of study you do in primary school
Significant, but far from p = 0
Around here in Texass land, I’d speculate it’s Dodge Ram trucks. Hyper aggressive. But I’d also speculate that oversized roll coal truck culture isn’t much of a thing in the UK.
I’d speculate it’s Dodge Ram trucks.
Road accident, it’s in the name.
You’d be right. Ram sized trucks literally don’t fit down London streets sized for horses & carriages from centuries ago, they’re very rare here.
deleted by creator
Whilst that statement is quite often true, it doesn’t account for chavvy types in their 4th hand beemers that think they’re Pablo Escobar.
Can’t say I’m surprised with the result. Do the study in a few years and it’ll have Audi and Tesla in there as well.
the researchers hypothesised that branding could be to blame
I’d believe correlation – I certainly regularly notice a number of BWM drivers being assholes in the US – but correlation isn’t causation. Personally, I doubt that the car is what causes it, so much as it acts like a magnet for assholes. If you’re gonna drive like an asshole, you’re gonna drive some model of car. Maybe a BMW appeals to you more because of said branding, but if it weren’t available, you’d drive something else, and I’m skeptical that you’d suddenly change your driving habits.
I don’t believe the article anywhere tried to claim that buying a BMW turned you from a safe driver into an arsehole did it ? Therefore your causation comment isn’t really apropos.
It’s a clear case of effective marketing selecting a sub demographic: drivers who have self perceptions around their driving and certain innate traits (selfishness, lack of concern for others) will prefer to buy cars that are advertised in a way that boosts their ego or enhances their self perception.
Or to quote an (Aussie) friend of mine "maybe not every BMW owner is an arsehole, but every arsehole I know owns a BMW "
Interesting (to me anyway) anecdotal aside, here in the UK it’s usually Audi drivers who are stereotyped as the aggressive drivers not so much Subaru WRX and BMW owners (source: reddit sub discussions and pub/work conversations, not scientific of course)
Very true. Shitty drivers with no regard for anyone else will be the same whatever they’re in.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Dodgy driving – covering such reported infringements as speeding, jumping a red light, overtaking on double white lines or ignoring the humble pedestrian crossing – was more likely to be a factor when a Subaru, Porsche and BMW was involved than a Skoda or Hyundai.
Lead author Alan Tapp, professor of social marketing at the University of the West of England, said: “All things being equal, you’d expect the same proportion of aggressive manoeuvres across all types.”
However, there was a higher prevalence in the Department for Transport collision data among makes he characterised broadly as those with “advertising and marketing that seems to celebrate performance driving, look at me, king-of-the-road stuff”.
Drivers of Subaru cars – once enthusiastically defined in his Top Gear days by Jeremy Clarkson as “a fire-breathing incarnation from the pixellated world of the PlayStation” whose slamming door “makes exactly the same sound as a recently shot pheasant hitting the ground” – were involved in proportionately the most “injudicious action”, the paper found.
“None of those experiences and imagery seem particularly real, but people maybe – particularly guys – step into those cars and think they’ve become those brands, even when you don’t have those Swiss mountain passes or the LA Freeway.
A Subaru UK spokesperson said that the brand had changed its range and focus since the 2011-2015 data examined in the paper, adding: “Our core pillars are safety, capability and reliability.
The original article contains 828 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
All manufacturers that make high-performance cars. I imagine the Subarus in question are Imprezas rather than Justys and the BMWs are M3s rather than i3s, and other manufacturers aren’t called out not because a Ford Focus RS is driven more carefully but because Ford tend to sell a lot more Fiestas.
Nah trash article, Nissan drivers are by far the worst
Depends on where you are in the world.
I live in Ireland, the only Nissans you see here are Micra, Leaf, Arriya and some non EV SUVs.
They are usually driven by middle aged moms and they get them on finance from a dealer.
Most young guys here all drive BMWs or Audis or even older VWs. They tend to be the most aggressive on the road and so I imagine, the most likely to crash.
Fair point. I live on Vancouver island and the only people driving bmws are old people. Honestly it’s annoying they buy such fast cars and we hardly see them ever floor it.
This article just reads that the authors have solely set out to draw the conclusion they’d already decided upon.
A study of more than 400,000 UK road accidents found that when “risky or aggressive manoeuvres” played a part in collisions, there was a significant statistical difference in driver culpability across different brands.
While I completely understand why the drivers are considered culpable for making risky or aggressive maneuvers. What I would be interested in is the circumstances that led them to making those maneuvers.
My own experience is that I only overtake (which I presume is considered risky?) when I’m behind a vehicle driving well below the speed that the road and weather conditions permit.
So while I am responsible for an incident that may occur due to my choice to overtake I do think consideration should be paid to what caused that manoeuvre.
Well it’s 400,000 accidents, so there’s probably every kind of circumstance you can imagine in there.
The point is that owning a BMW shouldn’t affect the chance of you finding yourself in dangerous circumstances, other than ones you create by your own actions. (Unless everyone in the UK is secretly hoping to ram BMW drivers off the road).
Then there’s the subjective language of “risky” and “aggressive”. Is it risky and aggressive to overtake a slow vehicle? Quite possibly? But I regularly drive in an area frequented by older tourists. Often they’ll be driving at 30 on a wide, open, road where the national speed limit applies. So is it aggressive that I overtake them at double their speed?
Did you actually read the article? It specifically calls out “overtaking on double white lines” which is ILLEGAL for a very good reason. It’s not calling ordinary overtaking dangerous.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the road rules in UK, Europe where the US has double yellow lines to mark a centre line that is illegal to cross, those lines are white here.
They indicate that it is unsafe to overtake (lack of visibility due to bends etc)
Anyone who overtakes on a double centreline is an utter twat and well deserves to be called dangerous
I did read the article. The context of the statement you’ve picked out is as follows
Dodgy driving – covering such reported infringements as speeding, jumping a red light, overtaking on double white lines or ignoring the humble pedestrian crossing – was more likely to be a factor when a Subaru, Porsche and BMW was involved than a Skoda or Hyundai.
The authors have hand picked these items but they don’t say that these behaviours are exclusively what’s defined as risky or aggressive behaviour.
I agree with your statement:
Anyone who overtakes on a double centreline is an utter twat and well deserves to be called dangerous.
I’m not sure if you thought I was implying otherwise?
