Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Note to self: Hang on to Park Avenue as long as possible.
I'll stick to my LS400 here.
Note to self: Hang on to Park Avenue as long as possible.
I'll stick to my LS400 here.
Danger even in 'safe' small cars
- Thread starter strongt
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Probably the normal offset crash tests should simulate hitting the "average" vehicle, so that all cars can dissipate the same amount of energy.
The fixed speed test into a fixed barrier just makes the bigger vehicles tougher so they steal crush space from the smaller vehicles. The bigger vehicles have to dissipate more energy so they are tougher than the smaller cars.
Probably a good short term fix would be to increase the crash test speed as the vehicle gets lighter, so the Yaris, etc do the same crash tests at 50mph as an F150 does at 40mph and Camry does at 45mph. This would make the Yaris tougher for its weight and do equal damage to bigger vehicles and using its own crush space and the bigger vehicle using its crush space.
pretty much what I was trying to say but I think you say it much clearer.
Probably the normal offset crash tests should simulate hitting the "average" vehicle, so that all cars can dissipate the same amount of energy.
The fixed speed test into a fixed barrier just makes the bigger vehicles tougher so they steal crush space from the smaller vehicles. The bigger vehicles have to dissipate more energy so they are tougher than the smaller cars.
Probably a good short term fix would be to increase the crash test speed as the vehicle gets lighter, so the Yaris, etc do the same crash tests at 50mph as an F150 does at 40mph and Camry does at 45mph. This would make the Yaris tougher for its weight and do equal damage to bigger vehicles and using its own crush space and the bigger vehicle using its crush space.
pretty much what I was trying to say but I think you say it much clearer.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Probably the normal offset crash tests should simulate hitting the "average" vehicle, so that all cars can dissipate the same amount of energy.
The fixed speed test into a fixed barrier just makes the bigger vehicles tougher so they steal crush space from the smaller vehicles. The bigger vehicles have to dissipate more energy so they are tougher than the smaller cars.
Probably a good short term fix would be to increase the crash test speed as the vehicle gets lighter, so the Yaris, etc do the same crash tests at 50mph as an F150 does at 40mph and Camry does at 45mph. This would make the Yaris tougher for its weight and do equal damage to bigger vehicles and using its own crush space and the bigger vehicle using its crush space.
pretty much what I was trying to say but I think you say it much clearer.
Oops, somehow I missed your post before writing mine, great minds think alike!
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Probably the normal offset crash tests should simulate hitting the "average" vehicle, so that all cars can dissipate the same amount of energy.
The fixed speed test into a fixed barrier just makes the bigger vehicles tougher so they steal crush space from the smaller vehicles. The bigger vehicles have to dissipate more energy so they are tougher than the smaller cars.
Probably a good short term fix would be to increase the crash test speed as the vehicle gets lighter, so the Yaris, etc do the same crash tests at 50mph as an F150 does at 40mph and Camry does at 45mph. This would make the Yaris tougher for its weight and do equal damage to bigger vehicles and using its own crush space and the bigger vehicle using its crush space.
pretty much what I was trying to say but I think you say it much clearer.
Oops, somehow I missed your post before writing mine, great minds think alike!
Quote:
A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.
* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12
* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13
* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14
* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15
* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16
* The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car. As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17
* Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars. Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html
A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.
* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12
* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13
* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14
* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15
* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16
* The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car. As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17
* Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars. Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
At this ABC News web page they have got the videos of the test crashes. Check it out:
Mini vs. Midsize in Crash Test - ABC News
Mini vs. Midsize in Crash Test - ABC News
Here are the detailed videos from Jalopnik: Crash Tests
After seeing the videos, I'd give the the Smart and the Fit a tie. There's no way in [censored] I'm ever getting in a Yaris.
After seeing the videos, I'd give the the Smart and the Fit a tie. There's no way in [censored] I'm ever getting in a Yaris.
"Yaris" is actually Japanese for "death trap". Surprised you didn't know that.
As soon as I saw Smart Cars I knew the 'smart' part had nothing to do with safety. I remember the first time I saw a Toyota Echo, I couldn't believe someone would get in and drive one of those anywhere near oncoming traffic.
Granted, I think buying a small car to save gas/the planet is noble. But it doesn't take a genius to see the tradeoff in safety is huge. If we all drove them it would be okay. But I want to be the last person driving the big vehicle before I get small.
For size and MPG, I still think the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis is as good as it gets.
As soon as I saw Smart Cars I knew the 'smart' part had nothing to do with safety. I remember the first time I saw a Toyota Echo, I couldn't believe someone would get in and drive one of those anywhere near oncoming traffic.
Granted, I think buying a small car to save gas/the planet is noble. But it doesn't take a genius to see the tradeoff in safety is huge. If we all drove them it would be okay. But I want to be the last person driving the big vehicle before I get small.
For size and MPG, I still think the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis is as good as it gets.
I saw a used M35a3 for sale. Need to see what it costs. Think it would be a good 'safe' daily driver for my commute thru rush hour traffic twice a day. Maybe I should just buy a tank?
Big versus small and big wins. No kidding.
I think yaris vs smart, or fit vs yaris, or fit vs smart would've been more entertaining.
EPA MPG: Smart 33/41 or Jetta TDI 30/41
Explains why I see TDI owners laughing all the time when so-called miser little cars drive by.
Big versus small and big wins. No kidding.
I think yaris vs smart, or fit vs yaris, or fit vs smart would've been more entertaining.
EPA MPG: Smart 33/41 or Jetta TDI 30/41
Explains why I see TDI owners laughing all the time when so-called miser little cars drive by.
I wonder why the curtain airbags deployed in the Hondas but none of the others.
I'm sold. Now where can I find a Buick Roadmaster?
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
Its not my place to decide, legislate, or in any way try to influence what anyone else "needs" or chooses to drive. I may think Hummers are stupid, and I may think Smarts are stupid too. But I'm not going to try to do away with either one or penalize people who want to drive them. And I have no tolerance for busybodies who think it IS their place to decide what others need.
Whenever anyone chooses a car, they should look at the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. If the higher mileage is worth the added risk of driving a micro-car like a Smart- go for it ). If the added fun of driving a 1966 big-block Mopar is worth the 10 mpg city / 14 highway, go for it.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
Its not my place to decide, legislate, or in any way try to influence what anyone else "needs" or chooses to drive. I may think Hummers are stupid, and I may think Smarts are stupid too. But I'm not going to try to do away with either one or penalize people who want to drive them. And I have no tolerance for busybodies who think it IS their place to decide what others need.
Whenever anyone chooses a car, they should look at the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. If the higher mileage is worth the added risk of driving a micro-car like a Smart- go for it ). If the added fun of driving a 1966 big-block Mopar is worth the 10 mpg city / 14 highway, go for it.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
Its not my place to decide, legislate, or in any way try to influence what anyone else "needs" or chooses to drive. I may think Hummers are stupid, and I may think Smarts are stupid too. But I'm not going to try to do away with either one or penalize people who want to drive them. And I have no tolerance for busybodies who think it IS their place to decide what others need.
Whenever anyone chooses a car, they should look at the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. If the higher mileage is worth the added risk of driving a micro-car like a Smart- go for it ). If the added fun of driving a 1966 big-block Mopar is worth the 10 mpg city / 14 highway, go for it.
Well-put sir!
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
Its not my place to decide, legislate, or in any way try to influence what anyone else "needs" or chooses to drive. I may think Hummers are stupid, and I may think Smarts are stupid too. But I'm not going to try to do away with either one or penalize people who want to drive them. And I have no tolerance for busybodies who think it IS their place to decide what others need.
Whenever anyone chooses a car, they should look at the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. If the higher mileage is worth the added risk of driving a micro-car like a Smart- go for it ). If the added fun of driving a 1966 big-block Mopar is worth the 10 mpg city / 14 highway, go for it.
Well-put sir!
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
Its not my place to decide, legislate, or in any way try to influence what anyone else "needs" or chooses to drive. I may think Hummers are stupid, and I may think Smarts are stupid too. But I'm not going to try to do away with either one or penalize people who want to drive them. And I have no tolerance for busybodies who think it IS their place to decide what others need.
Whenever anyone chooses a car, they should look at the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. If the higher mileage is worth the added risk of driving a micro-car like a Smart- go for it ). If the added fun of driving a 1966 big-block Mopar is worth the 10 mpg city / 14 highway, go for it.
Like I said, you have a need for it go for it. But if you live in the city, there is no need for a tank. Period.
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Surprise surprise surprise. Of course now we're going to hear endless bleating about how there should be additional fees or taxes or outrigt bans on evil bigger vehicles.
Anyone remember when some group tried to promote the idea of rating vehicles using terminology citing more "aggressiveness" for larger/heavier vehicles like pickups and vans? I'm shocked that it didn't catch on ;-)
If you legitimately need a lifted truck for work or you live in the country - like you, go ahead.
But people in LA and the Bay Area buy lifted trucks and H2s to compensate for "manhood". And you don't need a Suburban or Escalade to take your kids to soccer, let alone show off how much debt you racked up.
Its not my place to decide, legislate, or in any way try to influence what anyone else "needs" or chooses to drive. I may think Hummers are stupid, and I may think Smarts are stupid too. But I'm not going to try to do away with either one or penalize people who want to drive them. And I have no tolerance for busybodies who think it IS their place to decide what others need.
Whenever anyone chooses a car, they should look at the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. If the higher mileage is worth the added risk of driving a micro-car like a Smart- go for it ). If the added fun of driving a 1966 big-block Mopar is worth the 10 mpg city / 14 highway, go for it.
Like I said, you have a need for it go for it. But if you live in the city, there is no need for a tank. Period.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: nthach
Like I said, you have a need for it go for it. But if you live in the city, there is no need for a tank. Period.
Maybe not a tank, but if you park on the street in DC, having an SUV with raised steel bumpers is pretty useful. It either stops the careless parkers from hitting your car, or if they do, it only damages their vehicle instead of yours. It's half the reason I bought my Cherokee. There is no way I'd ever take a nice looking car into that place again.
Like I said, you have a need for it go for it. But if you live in the city, there is no need for a tank. Period.
Maybe not a tank, but if you park on the street in DC, having an SUV with raised steel bumpers is pretty useful. It either stops the careless parkers from hitting your car, or if they do, it only damages their vehicle instead of yours. It's half the reason I bought my Cherokee. There is no way I'd ever take a nice looking car into that place again.
It doesn't matter what you drive as there is a vehicle on vehicle mass calculation for all 1 on 1 vehicle crashes. More people are killed in SUV rollovers than by being hit by other larger mass vehicles. Luck of the draw IMO.
- Status
