Staga--
I don't know how Finland rates cars for crash effectiveness.
I do know this:
In the USA, the system of crash testing is completely and deliberately rigged to disproportionately favor smaller cars.
Why?
Because as GScholz pointed out, it is a matter of weight. In the USA, cars are crash tested in a manner that replicates a crash against a vehicle of equal weight .
This means that a Honda Civic has to stand up against an impact from a 2700 pound vehicle to get a good rating......while my Buick has to survive an impact from a 4200 pound object to get the SAME rating. Problem is--in a REAL crash, you can't just choose the weight of what hits you!
Guess what happens if the 4200 pound Buick hits the 2700 pound Honda. Well....it isn't pretty for the guy in the Honda, despite the fact that the Honda gets a slightly higher "government safety rating".
What a crock of baloney!
If government crash data was actually meant to be a reliable indicator of vehicle safety, it would simulate a crash against a vehicle of "average" weight. This would cause the smaller cars to invariably fare very poorly and hence the manufacturers would balk.
Another problem with many small cars is that they aren't made to transport heavy loads and have rather inadequate tires and suspension due to cost savings. This applies to the "economy cars" (eg. Civic/Focus/Cavalier and such) and not really to small performance cars or things like Subarus with AWD. It is disturbingly easy to make something like a Ford Escort fishtail at speed simply because the tires are inadequate. Adding passengers only compounds this problem. Factor in the poor state of maintenence such cars are usually in (nobody drives an Escort ecause he's rich after all) and you have a recipie for trouble!
As for SUV's? Note that I am always talking about cars...SUV's are deathtraps due to their high CG and poor handling. I would never feel safe driving one of those on a highway. I hate them almost as much as I hate small cars. I view an SUV as nothing more than a jacked-up station wagon that trades safety for "cool factor". Not an equitable trade as far as I'm concerned.
And certainly--not using your seatbelt is completely retarded no matter what you drive. Statistics show you are about 40!! times as likely to be severely injured/killed if you're not wearing a belt.
I don't have statistics on the relative death rates of people in different vehicle sizes. I do however see this in action in the real deal all too often. I speak from experience.
One example out of too many:
Cement truck versus Honda Civic (the civic made an improper left turn into path of Cement truck)....result--no survivors in Honda (four dead). Same model of Cement truck a month later against a Buick Electra in the same situation (same intersection actually) at the same speed....result--the two people in the Electra survived; one of them was still walking. Car was all bent up and partially crushed, but it kept its occupants alive.
I've seen Cadillacs get hit by trains and people survive....I've seen a Beretta have its entire top half torn off when a semi ran completely over it. I've witnessed more than my fair share of accidents and dealt with the aftermath of far more. The most gristly was the Honda I mentioned above. There were a bunch of kids in that one out for a joyride. I still get angry thinking about it.
Small cars are simply inherently unsafe. No amount of affordable tech will change this. You are gambling with your life if you willingly choose a smaller vehicle. It's not a risk I'm willing to take, because what you drive is one of the few things you DO have some control over on the road. You can't make people stop drinking, you can't make people pay more attention--but you CAN put as much metal as possible between you and the other guy!
J_A_B
