The mis-leading part of crash testing is that each car is tested in it's own size class. So a small car with four stars would not be as safe as a larger, heavier car with four stars.
This from www.vehiclechoice.org/cafe/usa1.html
"A small car, even with the best engineering available - physics says a large car will win," says Jack Collins, Nissan's U.S. marketing chief.
Small cars - those no bigger or heavier than Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - comprise 18% of all vehicles on the road, according to an analysis of R.L. Polk registration data. Yet they accounted for 37% of vehicle deaths in 1997 - 12,144 people - according to latest available government figures. That's about twice the death rate in big cars, such as Dodge Intrepid, Chevrolet Impala, Ford Crown Victoria.
"We have a small-car problem. If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute, supported by auto insurers, crash-tests more vehicles, more violently, than all but the federal government.
Little cars have big disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside have to.
And small cars don't have the weight to protect themselves in crashes with other vehicles. When a small car and a larger one collide, the bigger car stops abruptly; that's bad enough. But the little one slams to a stop, then instantly and violently accelerates backward as the heavier car's momentum powers into it. People inside the lighter car experience body-smashing levels of force in two directions, first as their car stops moving forward, then as it reverses. In the heavier car, bodies are subjected to less-destructive deceleration and no "bounce-back."
The regulations don't mandate small cars. But small, lightweight vehicles that can perform satisfactorily using low-power, fuel-efficient engines are the only affordable way automakers have found to meet the CAFE (pronounced ka-FE) standards.
Myths about small cars are strong. Here are two of the most common and why they are wrong:
Small cars have a high death rate because they get hit by those big sport-utility vehicles all over the roads.
Fact: In 1997, latest-available government data, 56% of small-car fatalities involved only small cars: 46% from single-car crashes, 10% from small cars running into each other. Just 1% of small-car deaths in 1997 involved collisions with midsize and large SUVs - 136 out of 12,144 total small-car deaths that year.
Small cars are necessary because they pollute less than big cars.
Fact: Federal regulations impose the same pollution restrictions on all cars, big and small. The limits are stated in "grams per mile" of acceptable pollution, not in grams per gallon of fuel burned. Thus, a large Lincoln Town Car with a V-8 engine can't legally pollute more in a mile, or 10 miles, or 1,000 miles, than a tiny Chevrolet Metro with a three-cylinder engine driven the same distance.
Some automakers acknowledge the danger.
"A small car, even with the best engineering available - physics says a large car will win," says Jack Collins, Nissan's U.S. marketing chief.
Tellingly, most small-car crash deaths involve only small cars - 56% in 1997, from the latest government data. They run into something else, such as a tree, or into one another.
In contrast, just 1% of small-car deaths - 136 people - occurred in crashes with midsize or big sport-utility vehicles in '97, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that enforces safety and fuel-efficiency rules. NHTSA does not routinely publish that information. It performed special data calculations at USA TODAY's request.
Champions of small cars like to point out that even when the SUV threat is unmasked, other big trucks remain a nemesis. NHTSA data shows, however, that while crashes with pickups, vans and commercial trucks accounted for 28% of small-car deaths in '97, such crashes also accounted for 36% of large-car deaths.
|
You could argue that a small car having a lower mass and therefore being more agile has a better chance of avoiding a bump.
Also, generally having a shorter bonnet, a small car might not even connect with the obstacle in any given accident.
Also, smaller cars, being generally less desirable than big cars, are less likely to be driven to the accident in the first place. The driver, having rejected the idea of making a journey and staying at home is therefore more likey to be injured by an exploding telly or electrocuted with a faulty iron.
|
|
Small car = lower mass = less grip = easier to lock up = easier to crash (proved it, and now have the insurance rating to back it up, big cars for me from now on!)
|
Same here.
I was given a Nissan Micra for a few days last year. It was uncomfortable, slow and I found that after a couple of days I was never relaxed while driving and starting to drive more aggressively.
Maybe small, underpowered cars are contributing towards the deteriorating driving standards in the UK ?
I'll stick with my 'large' cars and lower blood pressure thanks.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
>Small cars - those no bigger or heavier than Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon
Now, I can believe that those two cars are death traps!
My point was that there is far more to vehicle safety than size and weight. A car with a non-deformable cabin and some sort of mechanism for a graceful decelleration is going to be safer than a car without. Vehicle safety doesn't just revolve around the billiard ball model of physics.
To be honest I'm amazed that anyone is still bothering to argue this stuff. As far as I am aware most vehicle manufacturers have realised that basic vehicle safety AND economy are major selling points for any car. Having said that I've seen so many articles arguing seat belts are the devil's own work I'm prepared to believe that some people will swallow anything.
|
|
|
|
The standards set for small and larger cars are different in NCAP testing. NCAP states that you cannot compare the results of a 4star small car and a 4star larger car. . .
|
|
|
|
|
If a smart hit a MB side glancing blow the smart passangers would be dead without question as demonstrated in the German safety crash tests .I drive a Ford Explorer(with new tyres supplied free by ford) imagine what would happen if that hit a Yaris or similar car it would go over the top crushing the car passengars to death.If manufactures really had safety at heart cars would look something different I think.
|
|
|
|
