Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Duck

Study Says Small-Car Buyers Sacrifice Safety

63 posts in this topic

Here's another one from The Globe and Mail.

At least some of the reader comments show a little more intelligence.

''I think this report is more or less biased against smaller vehicles, most US citizens don't like smaller vehicles, that being said most Canadians drive smaller Cars like the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla and seem to get along fine, the secret is to drive defensively and try and avoid accidents of any kind.

Any accident should be avoided at all costs! ''

.........................................

Your choice: Safety or fuel economy

Jeremy Cato, April 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM EDT

Here's something for government regulators and policy-makers to ponder: Are they willing to trade safety for fuel economy and lower emissions?

That's the stark choice that begins to emerge after the latest crash test scores from a highly influential safety research organization funded by the U.S. insurance industry. Minicars – small, fuel efficient and thus by definition relatively “green” -- did poorly in car-to-car frontal crash tests with midsize sedans at 56 km/hour.

No surprise here. This is all about the laws of physics. When an object of greater mass meets an object of lesser mass, the smaller one loses. Sort of like what would happen if Mike Tyson smacked me in the kisser.

In these tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, mini Toyotas, Hondas and Smarts fared worse than I would after three rounds with the former heavyweight champ.

In fact, the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit and Smart fortwo all collapsed into the space around where a driver would be. In this test the driver wasn't breathing; crash test dummies don't do that. But a real person would not have fared well in such a mash-up. Head and leg injuries would likely have resulted even though air bags deployed in all three cars.

"Size still matters," Institute President Adrian Lund said in a statement. "Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes."

To bolster that point, the Institute says the 2007 death rate for minicars was substantially higher than those for larger cars – from nearly twice as high to more than three times greater, depending on the type of crack-up.

These latest crash results should spark a debate about how government regulators go about mandating tougher fuel economy standards without any consideration at all for safety. The quickest and surest way to improve fuel economy is to downsize the side of vehicles. But at these latest tests show, smaller vehicles are not necessarily as safe as larger ones.

Yet with the tougher fleet-wide fuel economy rules being adopted in Canada and the U.S., nowhere have we seen an honest discussion about safety. In a nutshell, all things being equal, bigger is safer than smaller. So as long as roads in Canada and the U.S. are populated with a mish-mash of different sized vehicles, those in the little rides are more at risk, though greener.

Two obvious thoughts come to mind. First, over time, as the fuel rules get stiffer and stiffer, most drivers will migrate to smaller vehicles and that alone will mitigate some of the problem. Still, unless we ban big vehicles entirely from our roads, there will always be some mismatched collisions.

It seems highly unlikely that we'll lose 18-wheelers from our highways anytime soon. The same for dump trucks and buses and the like. And no government is likely to ban SUVs and pickups entirely, either. They are still needed by contractors and so on, not to mention owners who tow boats and trailers.

So that leaves a couple of other options. Governments could mandate tougher, more robust small cars. However, engineering small vehicles to match big ones in a head-to-head smashup costs money, thus small car prices would rise under that scenario. Consumers and voters won't like that.

The Insurance Institute, for its part, says buyers should get larger cars with superior safety to minis and micros. Their view is that the newest midsize cars get similar fuel economy to many smaller cars.

That is true. I've written about this in the past year in the Globe, though my focus was more on the negligible fuel economy benefits of small runabouts versus the more fuel-efficient, four-cylinder versions of midsize sedans.

Somewhere in this debate we have auto makers. They are pressed to build and sell smaller, highly fuel efficient cars to meet the coming extremely strict fuel economy standards. Test results like these announced today don't help their cause.

Smart USA president Dave Schembri sent out a statement saying the collision test was so severe, it “is unlikely to occur in real world crashes. Smart has a proven track record of safety with approximately one million cars on the road in 37 countries."

Smart's talking, but not a word from our policy-makers, regulators or politicians.

..............................................

Source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your choice: Safety or fuel economyJeremy Cato, 14/04/09 at 3:16 PM EDTHere's something for government regulators and policy-makers to ponder: Are they willing to trade safety for fuel economy and lower emissions?That's the stark choice that begins to emerge after the latest crash test scores from a highly influential safety research organization funded by the U.S. insurance industry. Minicars – small, fuel efficient and thus by definition relatively “green” -- did poorly in car-to-car frontal crash tests with midsize sedans at 56 km/hour.No surprise here. This is all about the laws of physics. When an object of greater mass meets an object of lesser mass, the smaller one loses. Sort of like what would happen if Mike Tyson smacked me in the kisser.In these tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, mini Toyotas, Hondas and Smarts fared worse than I would after three rounds with the former heavyweight champ.In fact, the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit and Smart fortwo all collapsed into the space around where a driver would be. In this test the driver wasn't breathing; crash test dummies don't do that. But a real person would not have fared well in such a mash-up. Head and leg injuries would likely have resulted even though air bags deployed in all three cars."Size still matters," Institute President Adrian Lund said in a statement. "Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes."To bolster that point, the Institute says the 2007 death rate for minicars was substantially higher than those for larger cars – from nearly twice as high to more than three times greater, depending on the type of crack-up.These latest crash results should spark a debate about how government regulators go about mandating tougher fuel economy standards without any consideration at all for safety. The quickest and surest way to improve fuel economy is to downsize the side of vehicles. But at these latest tests show, smaller vehicles are not necessarily as safe as larger ones.Yet with the tougher fleet-wide fuel economy rules being adopted in Canada and the U.S., nowhere have we seen an honest discussion about safety. In a nutshell, all things being equal, bigger is safer than smaller. So as long as roads in Canada and the U.S. are populated with a mish-mash of different sized vehicles, those in the little rides are more at risk, though greener.Two obvious thoughts come to mind. First, over time, as the fuel rules get stiffer and stiffer, most drivers will migrate to smaller vehicles and that alone will mitigate some of the problem. Still, unless we ban big vehicles entirely from our roads, there will always be some mismatched collisions.It seems highly unlikely that we'll lose 18-wheelers from our highways anytime soon. The same for dump trucks and buses and the like. And no government is likely to ban SUVs and pickups entirely, either. They are still needed by contractors and so on, not to mention owners who tow boats and trailers.So that leaves a couple of other options. Governments could mandate tougher, more robust small cars. However, engineering small vehicles to match big ones in a head-to-head smashup costs money, thus small car prices would rise under that scenario. Consumers and voters won't like that.The Insurance Institute, for its part, says buyers should get larger cars with superior safety to minis and micros. Their view is that the newest midsize cars get similar fuel economy to many smaller cars.That is true. I've written about this in the past year in the Globe, though my focus was more on the negligible fuel economy benefits of small runabouts versus the more fuel-efficient, four-cylinder versions of midsize sedans.Somewhere in this debate we have auto makers. They are pressed to build and sell smaller, highly fuel efficient cars to meet the coming extremely strict fuel economy standards. Test results like these announced today don't help their cause.Smart USA president Dave Schembri sent out a statement saying the collision test was so severe, it “is unlikely to occur in real world crashes. Smart has a proven track record of safety with approximately one million cars on the road in 37 countries."Smart's talking, but not a word from our policy-makers, regulators or politicians.It's ALL ABOUT active safety, we seem to forget we're supposed to drive around problems on the road !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is no-one else surprised that a Cobalt wasn't crashed into a Silverado in this "test" or a Focus into a Crown Victoria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is no-one else surprised that a Cobalt wasn't crashed into a Silverado in this "test" or a Focus into a Crown Victoria?

Oh, that would have been great :)-Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is no-one else surprised that a Cobalt wasn't crashed into a Silverado in this "test" or a Focus into a Crown Victoria?

Both companies have thousands of vehicles just sitting around waiting to be torn apart and crushed anyways, let's see if they will donate a few in the name of science or comedy depending on the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try to keep Americans buying big vehicles manufactured in the US that rape the world supply of Petrol.

See....it IS true! Great minds DO think alike!! That's exactly what I said when I heard about this report/video! Just WHO is the IIHS in bed with? Hmmm?? Could it be the oil industry? Smaller cars mean better gas mileage, which equals less profit for them! The American car industry (or what's left of it)? Smaller cars means much less markup, which means less profit! Much more profit on a large SUV that can sell for $35,000 +. Or a giant Cadillac! Hmmmm! Decisions.......decisions! :>)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBC's take:

Small cars get poor marks in collision tests

The Associated Press

Micro cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they don’t fare too well in collisions with larger vehicles.

In crash tests released Tuesday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart Fortwo, Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

"There are good reasons people buy mini cars. They’re more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests," said Adrian Lund, the institute’s president.

Automakers who manufacture the small cars said the tests simulated a high-speed crash that rarely happens on the road. They also said the tests rehashed past insurance industry arguments against tougher fuel efficiency requirements.

The institute has raised questions about whether stricter gas mileage rules, which are being developed by the U.S. government, might lead to smaller, lighter vehicles that could be less safe.

"If you were to take that argument to the nth degree, we should all be driving 18-wheelers. And the trend in society today is just the opposite," said Dave Schembri, president of Smart USA.

Sales of small cars rose in North America when gas prices soared last year, but have fallen off with the easing of those prices and the economic downturn, which has slowed car sales.

The tests involved head-on crashes between the Fortwo Smart car and the 2009 Mercedes C Class; the Honda Fit and the 2009 Honda Accord; and the Yaris and the 2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 64 kilometres per hour, representing a severe crash.

In the Fortwo collision, the institute said the Smart, which weighs 820 kilograms, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much.

Smart calls crash scenario 'extreme'

There was extensive damage to the Fortwo’s interior and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs. There was little damage to the front seat area of the C Class.

Schembri said the test simulated a "rare and extreme scenario" and noted that the Fortwo had received solid ratings from the U.S. government’s crash test program.

The Fortwo has received top scores from the Insurance Institute in front-end and side crash tests against comparably sized vehicles but in the front-end tests against the C Class, the institute gave the mini car poor marks.

In the Fit’s test, the dummy’s head struck the steering wheel through the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries. In the vehicle-to-vehicle test, the Fit was rated poor while the Accord’s structure held up well.

Honda spokesman Todd Mittleman said the tests involved "unusual and extreme conditions" and noted that all 2009 Honda vehicles had received top scores from the Insurance Institute.

In the Yaris test, the institute said the mini car sustained damage to the door and front passenger area. The driver dummy showed signs of head injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck and right leg.

The Yaris has received good ratings in past front and side testing but received a poor rating in the crash with the Camry. Toyota spokesman John Hanson said the car-to-car test had little relevance to consumers because of its severity.

"It’s fairly obvious that they have an agenda here with regard to how smaller cars are going to be entering the North American market in larger numbers," Hanson said.

............................

Source.

..........................

''the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs''

''In the Fit’s test, the dummy’s head struck the steering wheel through the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries''

''In the Yaris test, The driver dummy showed signs of head injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck and right leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even read the body and exclaimed already that based on this study, we should all be driving tanks if we all want to be safe! Or better yet, let all quit driving! If no one is driving, then all will be safe!It's plain and simple Physics that larger cars can absorb more impact than smaller cars. Who would even need to put a test on that? And why all these tests are conducted on best selling import sub-compact sized cars? Why not Hundai or Scion or Ford, GM, etc...?And sub-compact cars are just not benefitial because of the fuel efficiency, it's also because of price!!! Not everyone can afford to buy a Hummer, not to mention a bus or even tank!So is this study also implied that poor people also sacrifice safety? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you check out the link safeandsmart.com from the latest smart newsletter? Some of the stories also have photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put my story into safe and smart.com, for the sake of those here, here it is.I was driving on my way to work the night before it had been drizziling and then froze overnight causing the street to turn into a black ice skating rink. Seeing the pickup truck skidding to a stop in front of me, I hit the brakes myself. Only to keep sliding on the black ice. The ABS allowed me to turn and put it into the the snowbank on the side of the road. I drove up on to the snowbank and was able to get around the truck and the car in front of it. I needed help getting down from the snowbank but was fine, as was the car and the truck.

post-1181-1239829348_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt with this guy- Small Cars Are Dangerous Cars

................................................

OPINION- from the Wall Street Journal

APRIL 17, 2009 Small Cars Are Dangerous Cars

Fuel economy zealots can kill you.

By SAM KAZMAN

The super-high efficiency minicar has become the Holy Grail for many environmentalists. But on Tuesday, a new study on minicar safety tossed some cold water on the dream. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reported that in a series of test crashes between minicars and midsize models, minis such as the Smart car provided significantly less protection for their passengers.

The tests did not involve the much ballyhooed mismatches between subcompacts and Hummers, but measured the effect of relatively modest differences in size and weight. Even though the Smart car and other minis such as the Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris have fared relatively well in single-car crash tests, they performed poorly in these two-car frontal offset collisions. In the words of IIHS president Adrian Lund, "though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter."

That difference is reflected in the real world. The death rate in minis in multi-vehicle crashes is almost twice as high as that of large cars. And in single-vehicle crashes, where there's no oversized second vehicle to blame, the difference is even greater: Passengers in minis suffered three times as many deaths as in large cars.

Given the nonstop pronouncements we've been hearing about the green promise of high-efficiency cars, these results were shocking to some. But not to IIHS. The Institute has long been reporting similar results from other tests, and its publications candidly advise that, when it comes to safety, larger and heavier cars are generally better.

That's not what advocates of higher fuel-economy standards want to hear. Greater weight may increase crashworthiness, but it also decreases miles per gallon, so there's an inevitable trade-off between safety and efficiency. A 2002 National Research Council study found that the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards contributed to about 2,000 deaths per year through their restrictions on car size and weight. But amazingly, with the exception of IIHS, there's practically no one else providing information on the size-safety issue:

- Not the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has a highly dubious track record on CAFE. In a 1992 lawsuit filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Consumer Alert, a federal appeals court found the agency guilty of using "mumbo jumbo" and "legerdemain" to conceal CAFE's lethal effects.

- Not the Environmental Protection Agency, which is about to become a major partner in setting CAFE standards. EPA is often fixated on minute risks, such as radon in drinking water, but don't expect it to admit to CAFE's dangers. Its official mission may be "to protect human health and the environment," but its operating philosophy seems to be "not necessarily in that order."

- Not Ralph Nader and his allied traffic safety groups, which are often CAFE's most energetic cheerleaders. Decades ago, Mr. Nader and his colleagues repeatedly warned of the hazards of small cars. The Center for Auto Safety's 1972 book "Small -- On Safety," noted "the inherent limitations" that "small size and light weight" impose on crashworthiness. But in the 1990s both Mr. Nader and the Center reversed their position. Why? Because CAFE presented them with a stark choice between more government power and more safety. They went for more power.

- Not Consumer Reports, which has consistently failed to mention the importance of size and weight in discussing how to choose a safer car. Though it is regarded as the information bible by many car buyers, not a single one of its annual auto issues in the last five years has touched on this topic.

As the National Research Council reported, the current CAFE program -- 27.5 mpg for passenger cars -- contributed to about 2,000 deaths. But driving is going to get even more lethal over the next decade: CAFE standards will be raised to a 35 mpg combined average for cars and light trucks. And with the notable exception of IIHS, information about those risks may be hard to come by.

Mr. Kazman is general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

...............

Source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since joining the smart car forums almost 5 years ago I can only recall one person requiring admisssion to hospital for observation following an accident. An excellent track record. That's probably one of the reasons why the insurance industry gives the smart an excellent rating. Real world numbers!

I'm not arguing with the safety of the smart; I'd definitely prefer to be bounced away from an accident, rather than have the entire vehicle crumple in on me.....But I'm not so sure about this "excellent rating" that the insurance industry has supposedly given us.... has anybody seen their premiums come down significantly? The premium for our four year old car is actually higher now than it was when it was only one year old!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing with the safety of the smart; I'd definitely prefer to be bounced away from an accident, rather than have the entire vehicle crumple in on me.....But I'm not so sure about this "excellent rating" that the insurance industry has supposedly given us.... has anybody seen their premiums come down significantly? The premium for our four year old car is actually higher now than it was when it was only one year old!

Really that is what this test was all about, it may have the additional result of getting more midsized and larger car sold, but the real reason to me is for the insurance industry to charge even more for insurance on small cars, if people are going to move to smaller and cheaper cars the industry is going to make sure that they can make the same if not more money off of these cars as they were making on the more expensive larger cars.Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for me, that's a prime motivation for this "study". The insurance industry stands to lose a big chunk of change as more and more drivers make the switch to, generally speaking, cheaper to insure small vehicles...that are just trying to protect their revenue stream. The IIHS may be non-profit, but an institution with "Insurance Institute" in its name is unlikely not to have a certain agenda...garth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just re-insured my 2 vehicles. The F350, which is the same year as my SMART, and has a $300 deductible versus the $500 deductible on the SMART, was $100 less to insure than the SMART. I'd say ICBC is ripping us off totally.Curb weights for vehicles tested:Yaris 1370 kg Camry 2227 kgFit 1119 kg Accord 3236 kgSmart 740 kg Mercedes C class- 3560 kgBy that yardstick, they should have been crashing the fit and yaris into something weighing around 5000 kg or else crashing the smart into something weighing about 1500 kg, like the Yaris - I'd love to see a head to head comparison- crash a few smarts into the Yaris and see which one you buy...I watched the vids and what impressed me was how little the cab was deformed in the smart, versus the complete crushing of the cab of the Yaris, sending the dummy's face through the steering wheel.My own accident story?A guy in a newer Toyota Camry rear ended us when we panick stopped for a pedestrian from about 40 MPH. The guy in the Toyota had been tailgating us and pushed us forward about 5 feet , fortunately, not into the pedestrian.The Toyota appeared to be a write off and was taken away on a flatbed with what appeared to be a completely crushed front end. We drove the Smart home and later replaced the back bumper, the heat shield and a few other cosmetics for about a $700 repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and then the engine fell out ;)But your figures for the curb weight of the various "larger" vehicles are all wet.....you should check them again. the Benz for example is under 1800 kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for me, that's a prime motivation for this "study". The insurance industry stands to lose a big chunk of change as more and more drivers make the switch to, generally speaking, cheaper to insure small vehicles...that are just trying to protect their revenue stream. The IIHS may be non-profit, but an institution with "Insurance Institute" in its name is unlikely not to have a certain agenda...garth

Also it need to support those Insurance company in US for more busy to survive. smart car parts are replaceable and cost $. The bigger cars body, dented, just hammer it back into shape and paint. In term of $ to $, smart cars insurance is cheaper and the bigger car cost higher insurance. smart part cost more to replace and bigger car cheaper by hammering and welding. The insurance company don't like smart car!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm - the bigger cars actually tend to cost more to repair as they sacrifice body panels as crush zones - even a minor accident can do some pretty significant damage to an SUV or Truck - they are not as tough as they are big.Add into the fact they have gadgets bolted to the inside of those panels and I can assure you it is not a simple case of pounding them out and painting them. Heck even a plastic bumper for some of those units is upwards of $2000 and they damage pretty easily.In addition most body panels are now high tensile steel and act as structural components - once damaged they have to either be carefully sectioned back to a supporting member or removed completely at the spot welds and replaced if the damage is more significant than a light crease. If you just bang them out you will seriously compromise the strength and safety of the vehicle. What drives the cost of smart repairs up over here is a lack of used parts, a single source of parts (no one makes jobber parts like they do other cars) and a general issue that the car is relatively new to the market over here so insurance companies are tending to go very conservative and charging higher rates. Add in the fact they are a not a big market (less than 10,000 units - the insurance companies know they only will get a backlash of about 10% - or less than 1000 people - a big whoop-de-do as far as they are concerned for PR.Cheers,Cameron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article on the subject.

I like this line......"If people want to use trucks as cars," he says, they should be considered "a luxury item."

...................................................

Can Small Cars Overcome Crash Fears?

By JOSEPH B. WHITE. APRIL 21, 2009 . Wall Street Journal

The U.S. government's push to decrease the nation's output of greenhouse gases by increasing the fuel efficiency of the cars Americans drive is rekindling an emotional debate: Does driving a small, fuel-efficient car make you more likely to die on the road?

Engineers and statistical analysts can point to data that suggest more-efficient cars don't necessarily put motorists at greater overall risk. But most of us care less about the "overall" risk than we do about ourselves. Driving a big Chevrolet Tahoe sport-utility vehicle makes many of us believe we are safer than we would be in a smaller car -- even if statistical measures across a large population of vehicles and all kinds of crashes suggest the margin of safety isn't quite as wide as SUV owners believe.

The Obama administration has put the fuel-efficiency/safety question back on the front burner by calling for new-vehicle fuel economy to rise to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 from about 25 mpg today. That target could move higher if the administration decides to adopt California's mandate to cut vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions, which would result in stricter mileage standards.

Those moves, and the lingering effects of last summer's gas-price shock, are driving auto makers to offer cars such as the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit and Daimler AG's Smart fortwo -- which get the kind of mileage today that federal law says should be the average in a decade. Beyond that, auto makers will launch a wide array of new subcompact and compact vehicles, and decrease production of large, body-on-frame SUVs.

All of this is exciting for consumers who want to leave a smaller carbon footprint. But these smaller vehicles will have to jostle with the millions of SUVs that Americans bought during the past 20 years -- and are still buying today, both new and used.

That's leading to new concerns about "green safety," a term for managing the tradeoffs between reducing vehicle size for efficiency and adding safety and crash-protection features that tend to make vehicles heavier and less efficient. The topic will be on the agenda this week at the Society of Automotive Engineers conference in Detroit, which has as its theme "Racing to Green Mobility."

Tom Wenzel, a researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley national laboratory who analyzes vehicle crash data, says better fuel economy and safety can be compatible, provided car makers make smart use of technology and policy makers take steps to reduce the disparity in the size of vehicles on the road.

SUVs may give their occupants more protection in a collision with a lighter vehicle, he says. But in effect, the SUV owners are transferring risk from themselves to others.

"A much bigger issue" than a vehicle's mass "is the incompatibility between truck-based SUVs and cars of any size," Mr. Wenzel says. One reason among many why overall fatality rates in Germany are lower than those in the U.S., he says, is that there isn't the same disparity in the sizes of passenger vehicles on the road. Better engineering to make cars more crash-resistant also plays an important role.

HondaCritics of a shift to smaller cars have a powerful ally in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, the insurance industry's auto-safety research arm, has long argued against small cars on safety grounds. Earlier this month, the IIHS upped the ante with a video of crash tests it conducted pitting midsize cars against three new minicars.

The Institute's images of a Smart for two getting crushed and thrown spinning into the air after a head-on collision with a midsize Mercedes C-Class sedan dramatize every driver's worst fear -- that no matter how careful you are, someday a car will veer into your lane. That's the moment when you want your car to save your life, and never mind the mileage.

Smart USA says the Insurance Institute's test dramatized a kind of collision that is "rare and extreme," representing less than 1% of all real-world crashes.

The challenge confronting the industry and its regulators will be how to break free of the "bigger and heavier equals safer" formula that the IIHS video represents, and which the auto industry has long used to argue against higher fuel-efficiency targets that threatened their profitable large vehicles.

The insurance group says one answer is to encourage more midsize vehicles that use advanced technology to boost fuel efficiency to minicar levels. The IIHS cites cars such as the Toyota Camry hybrid; European diesel technology could achieve a similar goal. The overall driver death rate in midsize cars is 23% lower than for minicars, the group says. The downside for consumers: Hybrids and diesels cost more.

Mr. Wenzel says auto makers should move even more aggressively to combine smarter engineering and lightweight, high-strength materials such as carbon fiber to create vehicles that can effectively dissipate collision forces, but that weigh less and thus require less fuel per mile.

The government should also require large pickup trucks to be substantially more efficient, which would also likely make them more expensive, Mr. Wenzel says. People who could prove they need a truck for work could get a tax break to offset the added cost, but not people who want to use a truck as a personal commuter vehicle, he says.

"If people want to use trucks as cars," he says, they should be considered "a luxury item."

Email: joseph.white@wsj.com

.................................

Source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal crash story with the smart? I got rear-ended by a lexus LS-430 who failed to come to a stop on Hwy 401 when the rest of traffic did. He did about $1000 worth of damage to my smart car, and gave me a slightly sore neck. His air bag deployed (i think), and the smart pushed in the front of that lexus a fair bunch. Kinda crumpled around the rear crush bar. -Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and then the engine fell out ;)But your figures for the curb weight of the various "larger" vehicles are all wet.....you should check them again. the Benz for example is under 1800 kg.

sorry about that -I was googling for the "curb weights" and those are what came up for me.The engine fell out, true, about 4 months later after the accident, but that was something I'd blame entirely on the dealership! The car did exactly what it was supposed to do. The dealership did not.I told them when it came in for the repairs to the bumper and heat shield, that they needed to replace the motor mounts because they were designed to drop the motor in a siginficant rear end impact! That is probably what absorbed some of the crash. However, the dealership in their wisdom, would not listen to little old me, hence the rude surprise when we put it into reverse one morning and the damn thing went clunk...Of course, the dealership also did not install the engine correctly after that warranty repair, which eventually led to them exchanging my car for a newer, nicer one, when they couldn't figure out why the electrical was screwey.Not the little car's fault, I say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think this gent ever checked out the crash tests on his F150, they aren't pretty.......

......................

Dave Schneider

Congress cannot repeal the laws of physics…

May 18, 2009

I drive a big vehicle. My everyday “car” is a 2001 F-150 SuperCrew pickup truck. I don’t get great gas mileage in it, but for all of the driving I do with my kids I know that is will protect them and gives me as a driver a better view of the road, and the “fine” drivers out on the roads today.

Yesterday one of the SmartFor2 cars by Daimler almost pulled out into my traffic lane. The driver was busy yacking on the phone and thought that it would be OK to pull a running right on red. I was very happy that the fool decided that it would be wise to stop, since I am sure that I would have punted him and his roller skate of a car into the next township.

I kept thinking of how much damage would have happened, and who’s fault the accident would have been if the guy had pulled out on the red light.

Then I say this video from the Microsoft Money Web Site (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/small-cars-get-poor-marks-in-crash-tests.aspx?slide-number=1) that is from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It shows the SmartFor2, The Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris micro cars in head offset on collisions with larger cars from the same makers.

YouTube Full Video of Smart vs. MB C300

Go ahead, go watch the videos. I will wait.

Now that you have seen them, do you want to be in one of those cars? The “larger” cars in each video is really a mid-sized car, (would you call an Accord or a Camary a “large” car?) and the micro cars get thrown like toys. Watch the Yaris driver door pop open. Did you see how far the Smart car “flew” backwards?

I won’t go into much detail on the testing, you can read more at: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html and http://www.iihs.org/news/2009/iihs_news_041409.pdf or watch a little video from IIHS at http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/releases/pr041409

Smart USA President Dave Schembri claims that test simulated a “rate and extreme scenario”. How rare are head on collisions? How rate are side impact accidents where a driver misjudges distance and pulls out in front of oncoming traffic?

And how many vehicles are on the road today that are larger than the SmartFor2? While the car rated good for impact with other MINI and MICRO cars, the test results from these videos show that when involved with a larger car these micro cars do not afford much protection.

“If you were to take that argument to the nth degree, we should all be driving 18-wheelers.” said Smart USA’s Schembri. No, I don’t think that we should be driving 18 wheelers. But the reality is that 98% of the rest of the vehicle population is larger, in some cases much larger, than Mr. Schembri’s products.

In the “real world” the is no repeal of the laws of physics. And I have a good idea what would have happened if that guy on the phone had pulled out in front of my F-150 in his new SmartFor2.

Posted by Dave Schneider on May 18, 2009 |

..................................

Source.

..................................

Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram Rated Poorly in Insurance Crash Testing

In a June 4, 2001 press release, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety issued a press release containing it's first crash test results for large pickups more than 3500 lbs. The results showed that the Ford F-150 by far performed the worst of the four trucks tested. The release stated that "the best performer in a 40 mph frontal offset crash test was the Toyota Tundra, which is rated good. By far the worst performer was the Ford F-150, which is rated poor. The Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra is rated marginal, and the Dodge Ram is poor."

The Toyota Tundra received high ratings in part due to a strong cab which remained intact protecting the occupants (test dummies). "There was very little intrusion into the occupant compartment, very little deformation. As a result, the dummy's movement was well controlled, and the injury measures all were low except for some moderately high forces recorded on the dummy's right leg," Institute president Brian O'Neill says.

Ford F-150 is worst: In contrast, the F-150 "exhibited major collapse of the occupant compartment in the offset test," O'Neill points out. "As a result of this collapse, the dummy's movement wasn't well controlled. High injury measures were recorded on the dummy's head and neck. The airbag deployed late in the crash, and this also contributed to the high injury measures."

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to send a comment, but it refuses to let me, telling me the three letters I type are always wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone else wants to try (I tried in both FF3 and IE7 with cookies on and Adblock disabled), this is my note:Dave, I hope you DO realize that the generation of F150 in which you have such confidence is indeed one of the LEAST SAFE vehicles on the road. For your sake, and that of your passengers (your kids, maybe?), you should consider dumping the F150 in favor of a car that the NHTSA, IIHS and even Consumer Reports consider very safe, such as a smart fortwo or Honda Fit.www.leasetips.com/f150crashtest.htmRegards,Francesco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

    Chatbox
    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More