> Eh, they also choose big trucks so they'll win in a crash

Eh this is where it gets really complicated. I used to be a car crash enthusiast as a kid (crash science, not crashing myself). The main thing I learned is that big cars are ridiculously unsafe. Especially american big cars.

Long stopping distance, lots of inertia, bad on the moose test, ridiculous amounts of energy to dissipate/absorb in a crash. Terrible.

Give me a Fiat 500 any day.

Anyway, the best thing you can do for crash survivability is to ensure you’re never driving a car that’s more than 5 years old. The engineering advances fast and a modern small car colliding with a 10 year old big car will absolutely destroy the big car. Use it as a crumple zone.

Oh, agreed on small cars being much more nimble and so maybe more safe in practice. I am 100% sure that a lot of SUV and truck buyers are doing so because they perceive them as "winners" in crashes, though. Some also, and relatedly, like the better visibility (but what's that doing to everyone else's visibility? Oh well, who cares).

Source: they'll just tell you, it's not a secret.

(yes, of course, some people actually use trucks enough for real truck-things that it makes some sense for them to own one, I'm not denying that such folks exist, and there are even quite a few of them—there are also plenty of Suburban Commandos, though, and lots of them are women who, again, will tell you that one reason they want a giant car is for perceived safety, so not just your usual "compensating for something" sorts)

Ah if your argument was about what they say not what’s real, then yes I agree. My girlfriend says the same thing and refuses to believe me when I present engineering evidence.

Luckily we don’t need a car so it’s merely a theoretical debate.

Yeah, "will 'win' if a crash occurs" is very different from "likelihood of death or serious injury while driving this vehicle", though the former is (AFAIK) a lot easier to get stats on. I definitely feel safer, as in less likely to get into a wreck, in a smaller, more nimble car, personally.

Desire to be the crusher rather than the crushee is definitely a reason I've been repeatedly given by people—men and women alike—for why they prefer huge vehicles, though. Enough times that I'd stand by that being a significant motivation for people actually buying them, as far as (partially, but significantly) explaining the level of huge-vehicle sales, whether or not it's rational (I really don't know for sure).

This is known as active and passive safety in car engineering.

Active safety talks about how (un)likely the car is to get into a crash. Visibility, brakes, grip, driver assists play a major role.

Passive safety talks about thr survivability of a crash once it happens. Passenger cell, crumple zones, seat belts, airbags, etc.

Most crashes (iirc) are single-vehicle incidents. Amount of energy involved is the biggest factor here.

You’re more likely to survive crashing a small car into a tree than a big car … with some fudginess around a bigger car having more ability to absorb the energy. I think it usually about cancels out.

Most deadly crashes between cars are t-bones in an intersection because of people chasing yellow lights. You are more likely to die in a big car because of rollovers.

Sideways crumple zones are very small in all car sizes.

I haven’t kept up with the science the past 10 to 15 years but this stuff was a big interest of mine for about a decade. Can nerd out for days :)

tldr: please don’t chase yellow lights. It’s among the deadliest common behaviors.

Bonus funfact: Large vehicles are safer for pedestrians because they spread the load across more of the human body when you hit them. That’s why all modern cars have tall flat noses.