@danie: you are missing the point of what is actually a somewhat facetious argument on my part (the scary thing though is that my argument does actually make sense on some level). Of course an occupant is safer in a ferrari travelling at 200km/h than someone in a Smart doing the same thing. But that has a lot more to do with the fact that a Ferrari is better able to keep its driver in control because it has been designed to travel at that speed. However if you are an occupant of a vehicle hit by one of these 2, you would be better off if the other driver was in a smaller, lighter car. Assuming a Smart weighs half of what a Ferrari weighs, then being hit by a Smart travelling at 140 would be the similar to being hit by a Ferrari doing 100. Simple physics (applying the kinetic energy equation). |
L Savage get real. A Smart at 200km/h safer than a Ferrari at 100km/h because it is lighter? |
I think something else that needs to be kept in mind is the dispersion of energy. I agree with the whole Newton's law thing (How can I argue? :)...if your car is lighter it will take on most of the kinetic energy, but if that energy is dispersed and absorbed by the car, occupant injury will be less. Tests with old, large, and harder cars against newer, softer and small cars show that the occupants in the large car will be worse off, as the old car is too hard to disperse all the energy, thus transferring it to the occupants. The small car dispersed and absorbed the energy more efficiently, making it safer. This being said, if both cars have similar "softness" and crumple zones etc. then the larger car will be safer. Something to add on the SUV issue: Volvo introduced a lowered impact zone in the front of their XC90 SUV, so that it can connect with lower/smaller cars to activate the other car's crumple zones, and to stop the XC90 from "going over" the smaller car. Very clever (and considerate :) |
@anon 5:58. That is not a very well thought out argument on your part. The occupants of 1-star car will actually be less at risk of death or injury when crashing into a 5-star vehicle than another 1-star vehicle, because the crumple zones of the 5-star vehicle will help to mitigate the force of the impact (Remember - Newton's law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - so both vehicles benefit). The article is quite explicit in that safety risk to drivers of smaller cars is directly related to the size of the vehicle they are crashing into - or should I rather say, the size of the vehicle that is crashing into them. It is ironic that the article headline states that bigger cars are safer, while the reality is that bigger cars are the source of the danger. While I certainly wouldn't advocate banning larger vehicles, a fair and appropriate counter measure to this phenomenon would be to enforce lower speed limits on larger vehicles. Why? Because the physics are not about mass or size, but about kinetic energy, which is a combination of mass and speed. A bigger car travelling slower poses an equal risk to others as a smaller car travelling faster. However this does not seem to be the trend ever. People in huge cars travelling at high speeds represent the biggest risk to everyone else. |
@anon 8:31 i like the word "fisics"..lol...but you made a very good point.i have been a JAZZ advocate for a long time.i definitedly won't buy it now.smaller may be greener,but at what price?we can't all drive small cars as we all have the power of choice.i will stick to the tried and tested medium sedan.i had a side collision with my 8 yr old sedan.no one wore a seat belt (very stupid-i know),but nothing happened to us.the guy that hit us was doing 80kph.i certainly felt safe.the car took all the impact though.i now put on my belt before starting.....maybe i'll look at a Volvo estate... |
This is simple mathematics. Why waste the money crashing these cars, when this just boils down to logic. This can be measured by every crash involving a car and a bus. But I guess they had to make it official. |
Obviously biger cars will be safer, even a monkey can point that out. The quality of the car is what matters most. Try to go roll a plastic SUV and see what happens. |
All the tests are done with same sized cars or a car against a cement block. People do not crash into cement blocks, they crash into other vehicles. If you go back to grade 8 fisics, you will remember that for any action there is a reaction and the heaviest object has the most kinetic energy. This kinetic energy has to be displaced somewhere to stop the object and energy cannot be destroyed. If you cannot comprehend this theory, take your Citi and drive head on into a 58 ton truck and see who win. The problem is, that all off us cannot drive around in 58 t trucks. If you drive a light car, be extra carefull not to hit a taxi, bakkie, suv or a big German sedan. There is no safe car. Some of them are just safer than others. |
If I put my training weights in the back of my mini, will that help? |
OK, so we must all go out and buy the biggest cars on the road, clear the road of small cars and motorbikes and bicycles, and have massive, hi energy crashes with each other. It would be so much easier, cheaper and more sensible to just ban all large cars - why is the human race so stupid? |
This also highlights the limited value of the official crash tests dishing out 5 stars to all and sundry. Volvo (I think?) has always maintained that there is more to safety than getting 5 stars in a controlled environment. In reality, a crash is a combination of multiple variables, as these car-against-car tests now show. I remember the hoo-ha at the launch of the Smart - how safe it was and so on... You MUST be safer in an S-class than a Yaris. |
I do not believe that this is true in all cases. These test are done in 'best case' that isn't the way it happens. I have sadly been involved in 2 head on collisions - my 1st was in a 2002 Clio, and the 2nd in a Jetta 5.
The accident in the Clio was worse then in the Jetta and I climb out of my little folded up car with no scars. In fact after the accident I went straight off to work for a 9hour night shift.
In the Jetta - however I was not as lucky. The front of the car was gone!! Even worse was at a frontal impact at 78km per hour the airbag didn't even pop!! I always where my safety belt and if I didn't I would have gone straight through the window!!!
I am now back on a smaller car - the 2007 Yaris and I love it. I feel much safer in that then in my mother's 1997 Merc C Class. |
You buy cheap, you die cheap. Check Euro cap rating and see what a low rating "folds up" like. Even a 3 star has difficulty when opening the door. Renault woke up the motor market. |
Yes, L Savage, but have you seen a crash between a 5 star (NCAP) car and a 1 star car? The 1 star car comes second. Very much so. So I guess some might argue that the decision to drive a 5 star car is also selfish. And have you seen a crash between a car and a bicycle... |
Wearing a helmet should thus be compulsory when driving a Yaris or similar small car... |
In other words, if everyone drove small cars, or everyone drove bigger cars, everyone would be equally safe. The fact that some people drive bigger cars puts people in smaller cars at a higher risk. Some might argue that the decision to drive a bigger is somewhat selfish... |
That may be true, but what about some of the BIG SUV's that are available in our country. That fare worse than some of the smaller cars on these crash test. Does that mean bigger isn't always better? The big SUV's buckle ontop at the front doors, which means your head is in a sandwich!!! Rather stay with big sedan's, they are safer. |