Small cars get poor marks in collision tests

[AnAnonymousDemocrat]

WASHINGTON - 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 government, might lead to smaller, lighter vehicles that could be less safe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30197647/

[Sherman A1]

1. Well, I will continue to drive my Yaris

and drive carefully as I always attempt to do.

[leftyladyfrommo]

11. That's me, too. I drive a Yaris and I am really careful.

I am always very aware that I am the smallest car on the road.

Fortunately I rarely have to drive during rush hour. I can just take my time and stay the hell away from other people on the road.

[flor de jasmim]

2. Look at the European results (no axe to grind!)

http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx

[Double T]

3. Solution: Get rid of the gas guzzling over-sized unnecessary SUVs, Crossovers and Trucks.

It certainly would go a long way in helping our dependence on foreign oil and energy

[taterguy]

4. What's your definition of gas guzzler and/or unnecessary?

Let me guess:

It's anything that gets less mileage than the vehicle you currently use

[michreject]

6. I'm keeping my 3/4 ton truck

I need it to pull my RV. It's not negotiable.

[Double T]

27. OUCH! Looks like WE hit a nerve.

When the chinese have cornered the fossil fuel market, I'll be over to sell you a rickshaw.

[michreject]

32. I'm not pissed

I'm just keeping my truck no matter what others may desire.

[Kalyke]

9. So farmers, people with big dogs and/or other animals and

people who haul tools and equipment for a living are supposed to wedge their wares/pets/tools-of-their-trade into a Smart Car.

:rofl:

Seriously, now.

[Double T]

21. Ah, operative word 'UNNECESSARY'.

Going to the grocery store, Going to the office, Taking the kids to school and so forth; THAT is unnecessary. Yes, those are serious.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. So they should have to buy 2 vehicles?

[Double T]

25. GM, Ford or Chrysler would be very pleased.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. People who really need those vehicles usually can't afford two vehicles.

[Double T]

29. 'really need'. Carpenters, electricians, HVAC technicians really need such vehicles.

Suits, mothers, office workers DON'T need such vehicles.

Buy USED, then THEY can afford two.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. No thanks I'll just keep driving my truck everywhere.

[michreject]

33. I don't buy used

and I need my truck in case I have a accident with a super sub compact.

[Double T]

36. Watch out for those incoming flying Smart cars and Honda Fits.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. Yes, and also walls, dumpsters, utility poles, high curbs, and anything else

that a small car might possibly bump into.

:eyes:

[Double T]

24. You're suppose to drive with your eyes OPEN, not closed.

Better change your ways or you might end up hitting me with that ridiculously large vehicle you drive.

[bighart]

37. well the reaking problem isn't the way I drive.

I have NEVER had an accident that was my fault. I have, however been rear-ended by idiots not paying attention, hit broadside while going through an intersection on a green light because miss thing was searching for her cell phone and didn't see the red light on her side, and come within inches of a head on because the other driver crossed the center line. Being a good driver does not ensure everyone else is.

[wolfgangmo]

18. my definition

Anyone who needs it for work.

The hit list would include any of the hummer variants out there. I don't know how many big SUV's, and pickups etc. that I see out there. They are jacked up 4 wheel drive vehicles that never leave the pavement. There is no need for those folks to have those cars.

How about we tax larger vehicles really high with a waiver for anyone who needs one for work? It would cut down on the suburban idiots tooling around town in their steel cows going from mall to mall.

There is no need for the bigger vehicles for urban dwellers unless they have a job that demands it.

What do you think?

[taterguy]

20. What's the philosophical difference between an SUV and driving a small car when you don't have to?

Both activities waste gas and pollute the planet

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that driving an SUV is a more obvious FU to the planet.

[Double T]

22. Thank you, agree with you completely.

I'm all for a graduated gas guzzler tax for urban dwellers that don't need such vehicles to do their job.

[carlyhippy]

35. Different areas of the country.....

I live in N MN, where it snows several feet in a winter. Most folks here have SUV's and pickups because a tiny car isn't easily able to plow through 1-2 foot of snow on the streets before the plow arrives and also gets no traction on icy roads for 4 months out of the year. If you have ever had to take a shovel and dig out a car at -40 degrees, you will quickly find out why we have 4wd vehicles and don't apologize for it.

Warm places that never see snow we see SUV's on city streets with one person in it, but who are we to judge them? Maybe they have a family member that doesn't ride well in a small car, or an extremely tall family member who doesn't fit in a tiny car (like my DH), or they have a bunch of kids that were just dropped off at school, unless we pull them over and ask why the lone driver in the SUV chose this vehicle, we won't know......

[MadHound]

5. Hmmm, that's odd

Last year the Smart car did quite well,
"The smart fortwo meets or exceeds all federal government crash test standards, including a 5-star side crash rating, and the highest scores for front and side crashes from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. In addition, the vehicle’s safety management system is equipped with advanced crash avoidance (active safety) and crash protection (passive safety) systems that come standard on all models."
<http://www.smartusa.com/is-the-smart-fortwo-car-safe.aspx>

So what's changed between this year and last? Perhaps some money and some hands? Seriously, this is the same kind of bogus bullshit that they tried to pin on sub compacts when they came out in the seventies. And the Insurance Institute is notorious for being in the pocket of Big Auto here in America. They continued to promote the safety of SUV's until they were literally beaten over the head with the evidence about roll-over's.

Sorry, but I don't buy this bogus bullshit.

[zipplewrath]

7. Not Big Auto

Big Insurance. These are the folks that have pushed 5 mph bumpers, anti-lock breaks, etc. Big Auto actually finds them a bit of a pain. As you say "what's changed"? The test has to some extent. These tests were the result of 40 mph impact, front end, offset, with specific other vehicles (always heavier). In the institutes defense, they tend to "raise the bar" over the years. This infuriates the auto companies because they design cars about 2 - 4 years ahead only to have the test change about the time the car is on the market. One of the tests, they had a small car hit a larger Mercedes. The car got launched and rolled over. That probably has less to do with the test car than the Mercedes.

There is a bit of overlapping goals here as well. 5 mph bumpers (that are now actually 3 IIRC) are about having accidents not cause alot of damage. Saving the occupant has alot to do with designing in crush zones. Those two goals tend to be contradictory. And the gold standard for speed was 35 mph, apparently we've increased that. That means designing in more crush to the vehicle, which means more damage, which means more totaled vehicles even from lower speed impacts.

[KittyWampus]

8. charge higher rates for SUV's. It's only fair.

[MercutioATC]

10. In other news, water is wet.

Small cars made out if lightweight materials don't fare well when you crash them into things.

Who knew?

[Statistical]

12. Physics is a bitch.

All things considered a larger object with more mass will be able to safely absorb more energy than smaller one with less mass.

Of course you can still make safe small cars.
Of course you can still make unsafe large ones.

Still overcoming less mass is difficult and you approach an increasingly difficult/expensive limit to safety.


Take lightweight car X. To move it form 4 star to 5 star might either $5000 in additional expensive materials, components, engineering or simply increase weight by z pounds at a cost of $3000.

Making car bigger & heavier is easier to sell as likely means more interior space also.
Cheaper
Easier
Better sales

That is why "compacts" today weigh almost as much as midsized did 20 years ago.
Cars w/ 5 star 20 years ago might only be 2 star (or not pass) today.

[Kaylee]

14. This is news? Smartcar vs. Escalade in crash =No contest. nt

[flvegan]

15. And the Escalade doesn't do well against an 18 wheeler. So?

If more people were to, oh I don't know, DRIVE when they were in a car, there'd be far fewer accidents. Hang up the fucking phone, don't text, stop paying more attention to the sat-nav, turn off the DVD, stop learning Spanish from a CD, don't read/do your hair/makeup or otherwise do a damn thing except drive. It's a simple function. Pay attention and drive.

How hard can that be?

[wolfgangmo]

19. Evidence would suggest

That paying attention and just driving without multitasking is VERY DIFFICULT.

[Hardrada]

28. You left out the people who eat breakfast, do business deals,

brush their teeth, get blow jobs and play chess all while they are supposed to be driving.

[kiranon]

16. Why is this news? It's the law of physics used as propaganda for large vehicles.

Can't believe anyone is still studying this.

[BlooInBloo]

17. I love water is wet studies.

[donheld]

31. Duh

[carlyhippy]

34. I had a small car before, this is why I have an SUV now

If they would make an affordable electrical SUV I would trade mine off today. I slid around on the ice and snow in a small compact car while my kids were packed like sardines in the back seat and DH sat in front with his knees against the dashboard, grills of pickups and bigger cars were the only thing I could see in my rear view mirror, no thanks, I never felt safe. We have to have a bigger vehicle.

[lutefisk]

38. Larger, safer vehicles can get much better mileage than they do.

The manufacturers have gone too far in the horsepower race against each other. The current Honda Accord, for example, gets lower mpg than the previous generation. Also, there are many people who need/want 4wd vehicles offered with the more economical engine choices buyers in the rest of the world have, but manufactures are are convinced that the US market wants 300hp, loaded down trucks.

As far as big vehicles being a menace to smaller vehicles- while the difference in sheer mass is inescapable, some manufactures design vehicles to protect pedestrians and other vehicles in crashes. I believe European safety standards call for this. I know Honda is good about this.

And I completely understand concerns about safety and people wanting to protect themselves and their families on the road. I have a Honda Odyssey, which is a large, and very highly rated vehicle in terms of safety, yet it still gets 27 mpg on the highway, where almost all of my driving takes place. That's equal to or better than a number of smaller vehicles that many assume would get better mpg.