Car Safety

[Moglet]

Sometimes it is

This thread is amazing

 

[xXSilencerXx]

Wow, that's pretty retarded. Higher saftey standards are obviously better than lower. On the topic of Japan being better, isn't the reason the skyline wasn't sold in the U.S before becuase it doesn't have a acceptable saftey rating?

 

[YSSMAN]

The problem here is that "safety" is somewhat relative given that the different size classes will often attain different results. Consequently, you see a lot of cars shifting around year-by-year, but generally speaking, we've seen a drastic increase in safety across the board in all sizes.

While I would love to say that America has the corner on the issue (The Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable, Cadillac CTS, among others are all class-leaders), generally speaking, you're going to see better work done by the Europeans. Hands-down.

As someone who was in a head-on collision in an old-school VW Fox facing off against a late-model Chevrolet Cavalier, I can attest to their prowess in safety development even from a car that is over 15 years old (now).

 

[Duke]

I don't feel like proving anything this time, having information backed up on an opinion is certain no no to me

Then I think the safest cars in the world are made in Botswana.

For that matter, I think the safest cars in the world are all the blue ones, no matter where they are made.

End of discussion. After all, it's my opinion.















Is there a point to talking if all you are going to do is throw out blanket statements that are not supported by facts? And if you don't care to have a point...

 

[buickgnx88]

Dude, the safest cars in the world are the Yugos!

 

[Joey D]

European cars comes to mind when I think safety, especially Volvo's.

 

[HACKr]

European cars comes to mind when I think safety, especially Volvo's.

My opinion = above, actually.

 

[Keef]

Like the Chrysler Voyager (Plymouth/Dodge Caravan) which scored a stunning 0% in EuroNCAP front impact test.

Would an assortment of European cars do well in the US's tests? I can't see how a couple of the safest minivans sold over here could completely fail a foreign test just because the hit it in a different spot. That just tells me that they designed the car specifically to pass the tests, and not actually to be safe as a whole.

 

[slidesquad#1]

Out of curiosity, how does the 500 having an inflated safety rating (if indeed it does) have anything at all to do with the French manufacturers cheating the system again?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I'm not going to vote, IMO if you crash at highway speeds, especially with another car there's a high chance you'll die anyway, regardless of how safe the car is. All safety does is add weight.

 

[Famine]

Would an assortment of European cars do well in the US's tests? I can't see how a couple of the safest minivans sold over here could completely fail a foreign test just because the hit it in a different spot. That just tells me that they designed the car specifically to pass the tests, and not actually to be safe as a whole.

I shall let EuroNCAP describe the testing procedure:

Frontal impact takes place at 64kph (40mph), car strikes deformable barrier that is offset.

Each car tested is subjected to an offset impact into an immovable block fitted with a deformable aluminium honeycomb face. This impact is intended to represent the most frequent type of road crash, resulting in serious or fatal injury. It simulates one car having a frontal impact with another car of similar mass. As most frontal crashes involve only part of the car’s front, the test is offset to replicate a half width impact between the cars. In the test, this is replicated by having 40 percent of the car impact the barrier. The barrier face is deformable to represent the deformable nature of the cars. This test is a severe test of the car’s ability to survive the impact without suffering passenger compartment intrusion.

And now, the Mk1 (for us) Voyager:

The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head. The Voyager acquitted itself better in the side-impact test, but there was still a fair risk of the driver injuring his abdomen. Chrysler chose the child restraints used in the tests, but the company makes no set recommendations to buyers. Euro NCAP believes it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide proper restraint for every occupant and is surprised that Chrysler do not recommend a child seat for the Voyager.

Front impact
The steering wheel and air bag were forced upwards and into the driver's face, hitting his head hard and putting strain on his neck. The driver's chest also hit the steering wheel, increasing risk of injury. His knees were poorly protected too, and the chances of him injuring his left thigh were very high. The footwell spilt open and his lower legs and feet were poorly protected. The passenger also ran a considerable risk of chest injury.

Side impact
The Voyager was generally effective in reducing serious injury risks for the driver in this test. As with other vehicles in this class, the driver sits above the point of likely impact with a conventional car and is safeguarded from injury as a result.

The Voyager scored 2 stars overall, scoring 0 in the front impact and 14 in the side impact. The Mk2 (for us) model tested in 2007 scored 3 in the front impact and 16 in the side impact - scoring enough points for a 3 star overall rating, but not managing it due to the level of injury sustained by the driver in a front impact - also scoring 2 stars.


The EuroNCAP test is designed to simulate a vehicle-vehicle collision, where both cars are doing roughly 35mph and are of roughly the same mass and both drivers make effort to avoid (hence the 40% offset). This is, it is alleged, the most common accident where serious injury and death to occupants occurs. It also allows you to compare vehicles across a class - which vehicle in the class of vehicles from which you are looking to buy will perform better in a typical crash?

Obviously it cannot simulate all real-world accidents. The notion that a 5-star car like the FIAT 500 is manufactured to pass the test because it comes off second best in a collision with a 4-star car like the Audi Q7 is retarded beyond my ability to adequately describe it. It be like me claiming the Q7 is intrinsically unsafe because in collisions involving a sharp, jagged pole approaching at the Q7 driver's head height at 78mph, the Q7 driver always dies whereas there's no damage to the 500...


EuroNCAP allows you to compare like with like. The test is to simulate a head-on crash, with avoiding action, in a vehicle similar to yours. And this also has important implications - people see small cars as unsafe, because in a collision with a 3-star big car, the 5-star small car is toast (which it is). So everyone buys 3-star big cars - but in a 3-star big car to 3-star big car collisions, you're both at more risk than if you were in a 5-star small car to 5-star small car collision...

All safety does is add weight.

And size. The VW Golf has got so big and heavy over the generations that the Mk4 GTi was no quicker than the Mk1, despite being twice as powerful, and the Mk1 Lupo that was introduced 2 classes below it is itself still bigger and heavier than the Mk1 Golf...

And safer cars generate poorer driving - albeit indirectly through an additional layer of confidence. It was probably Clarkson who suggested that if cars had a giant spike which came out of the steering wheel through the driver's face in the event of a collision, driving standards would improve immeasureably...

having information backed up on an opinion is certain no no to me

I hope you're not serious...

 

[homeforsummer]

Not all crashes are at highway speeds though, Paul Safety does add weight but without it there'd be a lot more dead people about, given that crashes tend to happen at higher speeds now than in the past thanks to the general increase in performance of cars that regular people buy, and misplaced confidence in cars' ability thanks to them feeling safer!

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Not all crashes are at highway speeds though, Paul Safety does add weight but without it there'd be a lot more dead people about, given that crashes tend to happen at higher speeds now than in the past thanks to the general increase in performance of cars that regular people buy.

Plus a decent 70% of my daily drive is mostly highway high speed driving. I should also mention that there are many many semi-trailers around where I live, every 2nd vehicle I come across is a truck. A crash with them even at 30km/hr could easily mean death in any car.

I'm happy for safety through smart design as opposed to the metal death traps of the '60s and '70s. But adding ump-tillion airbags, computers and all these other things adding weight is just silly and pointless.

 

[Casio]

Yeah, cause when a car smashes into the side of you, you personally would much rather be smashing its bonnet with your skull then a side impact airbag.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Yeah, cause when a car smashes into the side of you, you personally would much rather be smashing its bonnet with your skull then a side impact airbag.

Do you really think an inflated cushion will stop a 100km/hr moving vehicle weighing approx. 1500kg? Or should I start bringing out some pictures?

 

[V1P3R]

Christ, while we're at it lets mention about the driver's abilities and whether they are fit to drive then...

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Christ, while we're at it lets mention about the driver's abilities and whether they are fit to drive then...

Another reason I don't feel a need for safety, I have no intentions of crashing and generally feel I'm a very safe driver, far safer than most others.

I better put in though, some safety is necessary. Eg. Some idiot might pull out in front of me and I'll run up his rear, therefore a steering wheel airbag might be good. Unless I make a mistake though, what other airbags could I possibly need? Unless I make a mistake what computer controls (Eg. Stability control) could I possibly need, unless I make a mistake what use does ABS have other than killing me if a Kangaroo jumps out on a dirt road in front of me. (Yeah, I drive on dirt roads, it's actually quickest to stop by locking your wheels, and on a dirt road where the speed limit is 50+km/hr, I'll need to stop as fast as possible).
Obviously structural integrity is good, for handling and safety, doesn't add weight much, fine. Headrests on seats provide support for when your head whips back, that way you don't snap your neck on the seat, fine.

 

[Joey D]

It's not how good of a driver you are, but rather the thousands of other people around you.

 

[V1P3R]

Takes two to tango... although with cars sometime it takes only one.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

It's not how good of a driver you are, but rather the thousands of other people around you.

That's why I take careful note of those around me and be sure to avoid dangerous behaviour. For example, even at a green light it's good practice to check the people at the red light are stopping.

 

[Joey D]

That's why I take careful note of those around me and be sure to avoid dangerous behaviour. For example, even at a green light it's good practice to check the people at the red light are stopping.

Right, but we are all still human. Even the most careful driver in the world can't possibly process everything going on around them at the same time. I agree you should always be aware of your surroundings while driving. You'll decrease the chance of being hit or hitting someone else, but nothing is 100% spot on.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Right, but we are all still human. Even the most careful driver in the world can't possibly process everything going on around them at the same time. I agree you should always be aware of your surroundings while driving. You'll decrease the chance of being hit or hitting someone else, but nothing is 100% spot on.

Being human sucks.

 

[Joey D]

Then you better get evolving.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Then you better get evolving.

Nah, I'll just get involved in some nuclear experiment, and become *booming hero cartoon style voice over* Super Holdenboy.

 

[Casio]

Do you really think an inflated cushion will stop a 100km/hr moving vehicle weighing approx. 1500kg? Or should I start bringing out some pictures?

This is at 40mph.

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/...ge-caliber-side-impact-crash-tes_fun?from=rss

So you're seriously arguing that those side impact bags make no difference. Show me your pictures.

 

[Tornado]

I'd say Japan.

I've heard nightmares about the cars sold within the country. Those silly mid engined van things especially.



I say Sweden, though Ford/Mercury/Lincoln is pretty good as well (though strictly speaking their safest cars had a tendency to catch on fire Pinto style).




Something has been troubling me regarding EuroNCAP for a goodly amount of time now: A while ago, there were the tests of the Brilliance SV6 or whatever, and the Chinese Honda Passport knockoff. Now, the Brilliance somehow scored higher than the China Passport, yet it looked considerably worse in the front impact test. Would that be a result of side impact tests raising the score? And what did the actual Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo get when/if it was tested, as in American tests the Passport came out looking quite similar to the EuroNCAP tests of the Chinese copy.

 

[Jondot]

Something has been troubling me regarding EuroNCAP for a goodly amount of time now: A while ago, there were the tests of the Brilliance SV6 or whatever, and the Chinese Honda Passport knockoff. Now, the Brilliance somehow scored higher than the China Passport, yet it looked considerably worse in the front impact test. Would that be a result of side impact tests raising the score? And what did the actual Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo get when/if it was tested, as in American tests the Passport came out looking quite similar to the EuroNCAP tests of the Chinese copy.

The difficult thing is, neither of those were actually tested by EuroNCAP themselves, but instead by ADAC in Germany under EuroNCAP style conditions. As such, the results aren't quite as easy to decipher (being in German), but here's the links anyway.

Brilliance BS6
Jiangling Landwind


We got the Isuzu Rodeo as the Vauxhall/Opel Frontera, which EuroNCAP have tested at 3 stars. I mean it's by no means great, but when you compare the two:

Frontera:

Landwind:

You can see the difference.

 

[Wolfe]

If you want to generalize, it's probably america. Our chassis design is no better than anyone else's, but we're the kings of alarmingly overweight, safety-nanny-ridden bomb shelters. Isolating the driver from the outside world is what Detroit does best, so we can be at peace while eating our McDonald's, sipping our Starbucks, reading the newspaper, doing our makeup, or text-messaging friends behind the wheel.

Besides, we're pretty much the only ones who don't produce tiny, fuel-efficient hatchbacks that perfectly meet the needs of 90% of drivers 90% of the time. Why risk it when we can commute to work alone in our 3500+ lbs. V6 midsize sedans or minivans, or two-ton V8 SUVs, content in the knowledge that a crash would only hideously mangle the car we run into?

 

[Duke]

Another reason I don't feel a need for safety, I have no intentions of crashing and generally feel I'm a very safe driver, far safer than most others.

Yeah, let us know how that works out for you. After they scrape you out of the wreckage.

 

[forza2.0]

You compared the 500 to an Audi Q7 (large 4x4) and the smart to an S-class (saloon).

Much of the mass in the Q7 is higher up than the S-class - regardless of the extra inertia an S-class has over a smart, it's still a "regular" car, and all the energy displaced from the impact goes straight through the smart's safety cell.

In the Q7 versus 500 crash, the city car now has to face an impact with a much taller (and heavier) vehicle than the S-class. The engine and safety structure in the Q7 is much higher, so it's going to strike the Fiat in a different way and with more force thanks to it's extra mass.

So again, I ask the relevance of posting it? I'm sure if there were examples of the 500 vs. S-class and smart vs. Q7 the outcome would have looked more in the 500's favour. To say passengers in a 500 vs. S-class impact wouldn't survive is pure speculation based on watching a 500 crash into a vehicle much taller and heavier than an S-class. You could have come to the same conclusion watching it strike a lorry and it would have been just as irrelevant.

Wrong. The Q7 is designed to crash like a saloon/sedan, purely on the basis of not obliterating any car it crashes into. Therefore taking into account that that the weight difference between the 500 and q7 is roughly the same as the difference between the smart and the s-class I would bet my money that the smart is a safer car.