Danger even in 'safe' small cars

[mstrjon32]

Originally Posted By: PT1
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.


I'll take my chances with the roll over...

 

[PT1]

Originally Posted By: mstrjon32
Originally Posted By: PT1
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.


I'll take my chances with the roll over...


You will probably fair ok as long as you are not in a KIA they still have pretty weak roof line reinforcement. Most of the others pass Ok. But the current restraint design in SUV's is still insufficient for rollover collisions. Side air bags help but not enough.

 

[brianl703]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

It is possible to drive for hundreds of thousands of miles and not get into one if you pay attention to everything around.


Yea, but some people have really important phone calls to make.

 

[440Magnum]

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.


If you live in a furnished loft apartment in the city, never buy an appliance, never move your own furniture, never go camping, never go mountain biking, don't have a large family, don't have a home that you do maintenance on, don't ever take long trips, don't tow a boat, don't tow a camper, don't have a lawn that occasionally needs manure, don't have property in the country that needs work from time to time, don't have any friends that will share a ride with you... then yeah. You don't need a truck, SUV, or larger car, period.

 

[Bamaro]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
That just proves that it is the larger cars that create the hazard.


I was waiting for a remark like this

Why, its the truth. Simple laws of physics mass & motion.

 

[PT1]

Originally Posted By: Bamaro
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
That just proves that it is the larger cars that create the hazard.


I was waiting for a remark like this

Why, its the truth. Simple laws of physics mass & motion.


You forgot the laws of economics...when gas gets back to $4-5/gallon another wave of SUV's will disappear. With the global consumption of oil by China & India projections of the next 20 years...it is only a matter of time. Then add the future CAFE requirements and that will have an impact as well. Last year I traded 2 vehicles in for more fuel efficient models and have reduced my family fuel consumption by 33% which is almost enough to make the additional payments. The safety factor to the overall auto fleet is secondary. It is just the way of the 21st century energy pinch. SUV's will disappear very soon as they will just be too costly to operate and the depreciaion rate will be too high for consumers to bear.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
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.


If you live in a furnished loft apartment in the city, never buy an appliance, never move your own furniture, never go camping, never go mountain biking, don't have a large family, don't have a home that you do maintenance on, don't ever take long trips, don't tow a boat, don't tow a camper, don't have a lawn that occasionally needs manure, don't have property in the country that needs work from time to time, don't have any friends that will share a ride with you... then yeah. You don't need a truck, SUV, or larger car, period.

Well, I think most families of 4 would be fine with a Corolla/Focus/Cobalt/Civic and a small utility trailer and some roof racks if they had too... Most people in Canada do as the compact class is the most popular here.
Of course they can't tow that much at once but other than that there aren't too many limitations with what you can do with them.

I moved 10's of thousands of pounds of stuff(logs, firewood, gravel, lumber, round bales of hay, snowmobiles, atvs, boats, a whole kitchen's worth of cabinets, etc...) on trailers behind my 127hp 4 banger tracker, I just take smaller bites than if I had a bigger truck. And I know a few people with big trucks on the rare occaision I need move a large mass of stuff in one trip.

I could have bigger truck but I don't like to waste gas as even my tracker still does 90-95% of its mileage unloaded... I'd rather spend much less on gas all the time than being able to tow twice as much 1% of the time that I need to.

Where there is a will, there tends to be a way. I haven't yet had to not do something due to a small vehicle.
Ian

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Bamaro
That just proves that it is the larger cars that create the hazard.


bingo, and the government should start putting speed regulator on them to limit the MOMENTUM.

 

[Tornado Red]

If you ignore the [censored] and focus on the facts, this "study" turns out to be completely bogus. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4404.pdf

In most crash tests, a car is propelled into a concrete barrier at 40 mph.

In this "test", two cars were propelled into each other at 40 mph EACH -- so the combined speed was 80 MPH!

How many of you folks who drive Crown Vics or big Buicks or Tauruses think you would be safe in an 80 mph crash into a solid object?

Would you be safer if you crashed into something soft, like a Yaris or Smart? Probably.

The study was bogus, but what is really disturbing is that USA Today and the NY Times and every other major publication basically printed the IIHS press release without bothering to examine the facts.

The goal of the IIHS is to reinstate the national 55-mph speed limit. Apparently the gullibility of the American people cannot be underestimated. The IIHS must be commended for one of the best scams ever.

 

[benjamming]

Crashing two movable objects into each other at 40 mph is not the same as crashing into an inmovable object at 80 mph.

 

[mstrjon32]

Originally Posted By: benjamming
Crashing two movable objects into each other at 40 mph is not the same as crashing into an inmovable object at 80 mph.


Yeah, last time I checked solid concrete walls don't absorb engine quite as effectively as the crumple zone of another car.

All this study proves to me is what I've always known: Bigger is better.

 

[PT1]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

Its not my place to decide, legislate, or in any way try to influence what anyone else "needs" or chooses to drive.


driving a motor vehicle in the US is not a protected right. It is a priviledge granted & licensed by each State. Likewise the State and Federal Gov reserves the right to legislate emission and fuel economy standards for vehicles. So it is not a free choice and certainly not covered by the bill of rights.

 

[wapacz]

Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
If you ignore the [censored] and focus on the facts, this "study" turns out to be completely bogus. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4404.pdf

In most crash tests, a car is propelled into a concrete barrier at 40 mph.

In this "test", two cars were propelled into each other at 40 mph EACH -- so the combined speed was 80 MPH!

How many of you folks who drive Crown Vics or big Buicks or Tauruses think you would be safe in an 80 mph crash into a solid object?

Would you be safer if you crashed into something soft, like a Yaris or Smart? Probably.

The study was bogus, but what is really disturbing is that USA Today and the NY Times and every other major publication basically printed the IIHS press release without bothering to examine the facts.

The goal of the IIHS is to reinstate the national 55-mph speed limit. Apparently the gullibility of the American people cannot be underestimated. The IIHS must be commended for one of the best scams ever.



You need to do some research before you go off on a rant. Though I do admit it looks a little fishy at first before you think about it.

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/43804/article.html

"The frontal test that the IIHS conducts is offset; meaning that only one side of the vehicle's front end is hit. The vehicle being tested strikes a deformable barrier on the driver side at 40 mph, which means the forces are similar to a frontal offset crash between two vehicles of the same weight that are each traveling at just under 40 mph."


Think of it this way. Lets say you push against a wall with a force. Now for the wall not to move it must push back with the same force in the opposite direction. Now lets say you push against a friend with the same force you push against the wall with. For him not to move like the wall he has to push back with the same force of you. So what I am getting to is that to match a crash into an immovable wall, you have to have forces equal to that seen in a crash with the wall. Such a car moving the same speed as when it crashed into the wall must have another car coming at it at the same speed to replicate crashing into the wall.

 

[ikeepmychevytoo]

What many people has been overlooking is that the official crash tests (NHTSA and the NCAP for Europe) divided into the five classes by the weight, and it is stressed that tests are to give idea for comparison amog the similar (by weight) cars.

These five classes means, with half of a sedans payload capacity and Voila! we're in a different class. For decades cars are officially being regarded as "incomparable" with weight differences as small as 250- kgs.

Weight correlation with statistical safety in regard of deaths and injuries... After 1700 kgs fatalities rises again (early 90's data). It's thought then "rollover" disadvantage of heavier vehicles starts to show after 1700kgs.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: nthach
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.


Like accidents can't happen in the city?

 

[Zaedock]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Well, I think most families of 4 would be fine with a Corolla/Focus/Cobalt/Civic and a small utility trailer and some roof racks if they had too...


You don't have a family of four, do you?

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I moved 10's of thousands of pounds of stuff(logs, firewood, gravel, lumber, round bales of hay, snowmobiles, atvs, boats, a whole kitchen's worth of cabinets, etc...) on trailers behind my 127hp 4 banger tracker, I just take smaller bites than if I had a bigger truck. And I know a few people with big trucks on the rare occaision I need move a large mass of stuff in one trip.

I could have bigger truck but I don't like to waste gas as even my tracker still does 90-95% of its mileage unloaded... I'd rather spend much less on gas all the time than being able to tow twice as much 1% of the time that I need to.

Where there is a will, there tends to be a way. I haven't yet had to not do something due to a small vehicle.
Ian


If you bought a fullsize diesel truck, you would get about the same mileage as your Tracker. A diesel truck would also get better mileage than your four banger Tracker while towing twice the load.

 

[Audi Junkie]

"The highest good lies in the mean"

-Plato

 

[John K]

Remember the tests done in the 50's (?) IIRC, by a Cadillac dealer, with a big Caddy and a Nash Rambler? A Nash dealer then had one staged with a Caddy and a Semi! There is always something bigger.....

 

[tonycarguy]

Originally Posted By: smokey1
we've driven FORD Festivas , PLYMOUTH Champs / DODGE Colts , and other death traps for years and still here . No more danger than some knife / gun toting madman walking into a public restaurant , etc..


The odds of being killed in a car accident with a random stranger is orders of magnitude higher than being shot in a restaurant by a random stranger.

 

[tonycarguy]

IMO the crash tests were fair. They're complaining that the test wasn't done against another Yaris? Oh, you mean when you're driving your car you have a choice which car you crash head-on with?? Since when are car accidents supposed to be fair??

A crash against a Camry or C-class is a realistic real-world test. There are over 10 million of these cars out there so it's much more likely you'll hit one than hit another Smart.