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.

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.

“People with a lot of money generally are more sellfish than other people and think others should yield because their own self is more important.”

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.

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.

shirley lexis drives must be in this list.

Nah trash article, Nissan drivers are by far the worst

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.