IIHS says small cars are more dangerous

[Ed Anger]

If Kirk and mirror universe Kirk collide, what is the damage?

[Razgovory]

If Kirk and mirror universe Kirk collide, what is the damage?

Series gets canceled in a season and a half.

[Barrister]

If Kirk and mirror universe Kirk collide, what is the damage?

Over the 4 day weekend I started growing a goatee.

I started to feel like my evil twin and shaved it off this morning.

[Iormlund]

Also, there is certain drawback from massive cars: the amount of energy they need to absorb in a crash against something like a tree or a bus is accordingly greater.

True, but they are generally much better built than smaller cars.  Steel has a much better strength/weight ratio than unibody plastic.

Too strong is as bad as not enough, though. You'll die of massive internal injuries. The only part of the vehicle that doesn't have to be deformed by a crash is the driver/passenger area. Every other section has to absorb as much energy as possible.

[DontSayBanana]

OK; some concerns from an EMS point of view:

1) "First impact" is where the car hits. The largest and most rigid cars are the most dangerous at this point, because in this phase of the crash, the vehicle body has to crumple enough to transmit only non-lethal force to the restrained bodies in the cabin.

2) "Second impact" is actually where most life-threatening injuries occur, and is the reason the seat belt is so effective- the internal trauma is minimized because the body never gains the momentum for organs to hit the rib cage or pelvis with sufficient force to receive life-threatening damage.

My concerns about the Smart Car's safety have nothing to do with the frontside safety; we've engineered all that we can out of that. My concern is that the Smart Car is top heavy. Since virtually no traffic accidents happen in a direct line, that car could easily roll, and they've cut substantial roof support from the frame of the car.

[Caliga]

Over the 4 day weekend I started growing a goatee.

I started to feel like my evil twin and shaved it off this morning.

[DGuller]

1) "First impact" is where the car hits. The largest and most rigid cars are the most dangerous at this point, because in this phase of the crash, the vehicle body has to crumple enough to transmit only non-lethal force to the restrained bodies in the cabin.

That's important, but it's even more important that there is no cabin intrusion.  Look at the video where Yaris is crashed into Accord.  The whole front of the car caves in on the driver.

[Ed Anger]

Anybody who buys a Yaris deserves to be crushed.

[dps]

Direct head-on collisions are pretty rare anyway.  Most impacts are at odd angles.

[Iormlund]

1) "First impact" is where the car hits. The largest and most rigid cars are the most dangerous at this point, because in this phase of the crash, the vehicle body has to crumple enough to transmit only non-lethal force to the restrained bodies in the cabin.

That's important, but it's even more important that there is no cabin intrusion.  Look at the video where Yaris is crashed into Accord.  The whole front of the car caves in on the driver.

Which is perfectly natural for a car going from 60 to zero mph in a crash. An Accord driver hitting a lamppost at such speeds would be just as dead. That's over twice the kinetic energy at standard 40 mph tests.

If your point is that heavier vehicles should be somehow classed as safer, then pray tell, how would you do it? You 'd need to take into account the amount of heavier or lighter vehicles in an area, the streets you'd travel on, the time of day or date and a whole lot of other variable data. That doesn't make sense at all.

That's why tests measure the capability of vehicles to withstand crashes at a set relative speed to the occupiers.

[DGuller]

Which is perfectly natural for a car going from 60 to zero mph in a crash. An Accord driver hitting a lamppost at such speeds would be just as dead. That's over twice the kinetic energy at standard 40 mph tests.

Where did you get the 60 mph figure?  The cars were going at 40 mph in tests.

If your point is that heavier vehicles should be somehow classed as safer, then pray tell, how would you do it?

Crash them head on against a standard vehicle size.  Don't crash small cars against small cars, and big cars against big cars (that's not what is really being done, but that's the equivalent of crashing cars into immovable barriers).

[Iormlund]

Which is perfectly natural for a car going from 60 to zero mph in a crash. An Accord driver hitting a lamppost at such speeds would be just as dead. That's over twice the kinetic energy at standard 40 mph tests.

Where did you get the 60 mph figure?  The cars were going at 40 mph in tests.

It's a guess, but if you're really curious you can calculate it by way of the conservation of momentum.

If your point is that heavier vehicles should be somehow classed as safer, then pray tell, how would you do it?

Crash them head on against a standard vehicle size.  Don't crash small cars against small cars, and big cars against big cars (that's not what is really being done, but that's the equivalent of crashing cars into immovable barriers).

But that's not giving you a complete picture either. Frontal crashes against other vehicles are hardly the norm. Even worse, it would lead to heavier, unsafer cars as the manufacturers opt out of using expensive electronic and mechanic devices in favor of installing heavier engines or whatever. The one thing that's made safety as good as it is today is that it's a frenetic race to get those perfect scores in NCAP tests.

[DGuller]

But that's not giving you a complete picture either. Frontal crashes against other vehicles are hardly the norm. 

Who's saying that this should be the only test?  There are many types of crashes, and many types of tests.  Head-ons are pretty rare, but very deadly when they happen, and in US they account for 10% of fatalities.  It would be useful to have a reliable safety rating associated with it, especially if you're living in an area where head-ons are more likely (rural area with two-lane roads, for example).

[garbon]

San Francisco is full of two lane roads without dividers. (Although many of the larger multi-lane roads have them.)