OT: Smart cars

[rice rocket]

Visiting DC, I never realized there were so many Smart cars in the US. I know they're popular in Europe, but are they appropriate for this country? Short wheelbase & small crumple zones work for very urban areas with lots of bumper to bumper traffic, but once speeds go above 40-50 mph, I don't see survival rates being too high.

Not to mention that they're expensive, can fit almost nothing, and get no better mileage than a Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, or the like.

Friend of mine just posted this... Can you find the Smart car?

http://i.imgur.com/b1pCr.jpg

[RPS]

Friend of mine just posted this... Can you find the Smart car?

Seriously, do you really think you'd find a Civic or Corolla any easier under those circumstances? :confused:

[daylate$short]

Their sales YTD are just over 5100 so there can't be that many. In my mind, still about 5000 too many for the exact reasons that you stated. That figure is down about 40% from the previous year so people must be catching on. Another knock is that you can't buy the shop manuals for them - last time I heard there was talk of a class action suit to make them available since the first ones sold were coming off warranty and some folks had a looong drive to the nearest dealer.
On a side note, I was looking for a Smart engine a couple years back for a project and could not believe how many totaled Smart cars are out there with less than 1K miles. I would be so paranoid driving one for at least the first year!

[onekgguy]

Here...this may surprise you some...

Smart Car crash video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s)

Kevin g

[rice rocket]

Hmm, it looked rather low speed at first, but looking at the picture again, the (non-structural) cab of the truck looks more damaged than I initially thought.

[oldpotatoe]

Visiting DC, I never realized there were so many Smart cars in the US. I know they're popular in Europe, but are they appropriate for this country? Short wheelbase & small crumple zones work for very urban areas with lots of bumper to bumper traffic, but once speeds go above 40-50 mph, I don't see survival rates being too high.

Not to mention that they're expensive, can fit almost nothing, and get no better mileage than a Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, or the like.

Friend of mine just posted this... Can you find the Smart car?

http://i.imgur.com/b1pCr.jpg

If you don't think they are appropriate for the US..don't buy one. Enough nanny laws already. I'm sure Ralph Nadar is upset.

[rice rocket]

Here...this may surprise you some...

Smart Car crash video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s)

Kevin g
And didn't they conclude at the end of that video that you'd most likely be dead? Crumple zones are your friend.

[Blue Jays]

Have the people who were inside that SmartCar recovered from any injuries they might have sustained?
Hopefully all occupants were wearing their seatbelts and airbags successfully deployed.

[RPS]

And didn't they conclude at the end of that video that you'd most likely be dead? Crumple zones are your friend.
Exactly, but only if they are not too stiff. Having a long crumple zone doesn't help much if your body can't tolerate the deceleration.

[rice rocket]

Sorry, but who makes a stiff crumple zone? Even Kia and Tata have figured it out!


It passes both NHTSA and EuroNCAP tests, but their tests are against cars of similar size and weight.

versus an "American sized car"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6TL15pJtw

:eek:

[onekgguy]

And didn't they conclude at the end of that video that you'd most likely be dead? Crumple zones are your friend.

Emphasis being on the word 'some'.

Kevin g

[rugbysecondrow]

Have the people who were inside that SmartCar recovered from any injuries they might have sustained?
Hopefully all occupants were wearing their seatbelts and airbags successfully deployed.
I hope the ejection seat with parachute was operational, otherwise they are f&cked.

[gdw]

One of my neighbors has one which they retire when it snows. It has terrible clearance* and can't reliably climb the 2% grade from their house to the nearest intersection. Rumor has it that they're tough to start in the cold and prone to rolling over as well.

*The People's Republic of Boulder doesn't plow the roads in most neighborhoods.

[RPS]

Sorry, but who makes a stiff crumple zone? Even Kia and Tata have figured it out!
This could happen with any company that makes the crumple zones stiffer so the car can absorb more total energy before the collision moves into the passenger compartment. I don’t think its black and white – there are trade offs. Stiffer zones improve survival chances at higher speeds while “softer” crumple zones reduce deceleration and injuries in lower speed crashes; but do so at the expense of greater injury if the crumple zone involved can’t absorb all the necessary collision energy.

That’s just part of it. A bigger problem comes in when engineers have to plan for collisions of dissimilar mass automobiles. So to your comment it’s not so much about figuring out proper stiffness, but IMO more about hedging which way to place your bet to survive in different kinds of collisions. And since it all has to comply with (simplistic) government regulations, small car drivers will be at a significant disadvantage.

[Pete Serotta]

these and many others variables are very important for avoiding or minimizing injury. No matter what is hit, if it is a train or a large truck, it is going to be painful.

In cities like DC and NYC the small cars have advantages because of space. I am not one who would want to be on 95 or 495 in DC or on the Long Island Expressway in one.... (Just me and I do not resent folks driving what they like.)


Size matters in most safety situations. I have been hit hard by a drunk years ago with me in a BMW....and we walked away. Safety both active and passive has progressed over the years for all of us... The offset to that is that cars have grown heavier and the number of cars have increased. Add to this the fact that phones, congestion, IPADs, Texting, etc have also become variables. PLease practice safety. In Europe driving is a earned option but in the US it seems to be a "given" right.

I ride motorcycles, which are very unsafe if hit by a car no matter what size. Active safety and incident avoidance is a must in motorcycling. (and biking)

Please lets not get into an adversarial conversation here.

Rice Rocket was "right on" and RPS offered some very good input. THey are two rights!!! :banana: :banana:

Thanks PETE

[RPS]

For what it’s worth, if I posted a picture of my Honda that was totaled this May no one here would ever predict that anyone in that SUV could get hurt. Crumple zone damage doesn’t reflect any measure of deceleration and the damage that those deceleration forces can cause the occupants.

A subject matter is what it is and I try very hard to be as absolutely objective as possible. I have no desire to get into personal arguments. :beer:

[Louis]

Interesting that cyclists are asking for crumple zones...

[rugbysecondrow]

For what it’s worth, if I posted a picture of my Honda that was totaled this May no one here would ever predict that anyone in that SUV could get hurt. Crumple zone damage doesn’t reflect any measure of deceleration and the damage that those deceleration forces can cause the occupants.

A subject matter is what it is and I try very hard to be as absolutely objective as possible. I have no desire to get into personal arguments. :beer:
I get what you are saying, but the car didn't just crumple, it was crushed. This might have happened with other cars with varying degrees of similarity, but this smart car example seems to be a pretty good example of the far end of the spectrum.

I am married to an engineer, so I can make some assumptions about your approach in thinking about this situation. My engineering wife is also a mother, and I can guess what her point of view would be on this. No way in hell. Sometimes the anecdotal is all you need to rule something out.

[markie]

80% of accidents involve a single vehicle. A big-ass vehicle is not going to be an advantage in those situations.

Smarts only really make much sense when parking is at a premium. When I lived in D.C. I could easily spend 30 minutes looking for a space and that was with a MINI.

[BengeBoy]

Interesting that cyclists are asking for crumple zones...

That's what I was doing when I sat down to Thanksgiving dinner -- I was increasing the crush zone on my bike.

[TMB]

They have sold over 20,000 of them in Canada.

The ones sold here have diesel engines and get around 60 to 65 MPG.


I got passed by one on the pass yesterday. I was doing about 120 KMH when it went by me.

[gone]

America might be the only country in the world where people don't equate being safe while driving with driving safely :D

Seriously, I overheard a discussion between two people (both cyclists) rationalizing why they "needed" their Hummers to be safe.

I wish they sold the diesel Smart car (actually, the diesel Four4) here in the states. I'd buy one in a minute and I'd do what I do in all my vehicles: practice defensive driving. Yes, there are situations where there's nothing you can do and you'd be better off driving a cement truck but weighing probability of occurrence versus overall costs makes this a reasonable choice IMHO.

Having said that, all things considered, I'd probably buy a VW diesel since they have a better dealer network.

[wc1934]

I first introduced to them about 6 years ago when visiting Italy - think they are associated with Mercedes - very popular in Europe - great for navigating narrow streets - handle very well.
Sure beats the huge SUV's.

[BCS]

These "ridiculously small car vs behemoth SUV" threads suck so much more than Shimano vs. Sram vs. Campy.

I own both and they each serve a purpose. Whatever...... :crap:

[onekgguy]

One of my neighbors has one which they retire when it snows. It has terrible clearance* and can't reliably climb the 2% grade from their house to the nearest intersection. Rumor has it that they're tough to start in the cold and prone to rolling over as well.

*The People's Republic of Boulder doesn't plow the roads in most neighborhoods.

You may want to watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlf-Wu0bzsg) wrt driving in cold climates.

Kevin g

[Lifelover]

The picture is not a smart car, it is a Ford escape. It is only the passenger side that is smashed and the driver survived.

Snopes in your friend. Learn to use it.

Smart car smash (http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/smallcar.asp)

[alancw3]

The picture is not a smart car, it is a Ford escape. It is only the passenger side that is smashed and the driver survived.

Snopes in your friend. Learn to use it.

Smart car smash (http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/smallcar.asp)

+1 snoopes is a great source for verifying data.

[spartacus]

The Smart 'mini' is known for back flipping into the 'launchpad' position - cheap for a space vehicle.

[93legendti]

http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/weight/weight.htm


Weight reductions in vehicles increased the risk of fatal crash involvement, a study by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded. The study of 1991-99 models also found that large 4-door vehiocles had the lowest fatality rates of all vehicle types.

Statistics show that if 2 vehicles with the same NHTSA full frontal rating crash into each other head on, but one vehicle weighs 2x as much as the other, the occupants of the lighter one (2000 lbs) are 8x times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the heavier vehicle (4000 lbs)...

One hundred-pound weight reductions in lighter LTVs and most passenger cars significantly increased fatality risk...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf

[avalonracing]

But it is when everyone gets involved in a "arms race" for the bigger, safer car that ruins it for everyone. But then again, we don't exactly live in a country where people care too much about "the other guy".

[Ray]

When I was in Europe last summer, almost everyone had a Smart Car equivalent on the streets. Fiat had one, Nissan had one, Renault, Toyota I think had one as well. Honda didn't have one, but there were plenty of Fits around (or Jazz, as I think they're badged over there) and Mercedes sells a little hatchback over there that's about the size of the Fit. Everything is smaller - even the BIG cars and the trucks are pretty small, so the relative differences aren't as great and the safety disadvantages of the small cars are greatly reduced. I fully understand the impulse to get a bigger car so that IF you get in a terrible wreck, you're somewhat more likely to survive it, but the more people who take that attitude, the less safe it is for those of us who either choose or are limited to smaller cars.

As I read the thing that Adam posted, in a wreck between a big car and a small one, the big one is at an advantage, but if too many people have big cars, everyone involved is still frucked and everyone's taking up space in huge cars, making things less safe for cyclists. If two cars are gonna come upon each other on a blind curve in a narrow country road that I'm in the vicinity of on my bike, I'd MUCH rather they be two Fits or Smarts than two big-ass SUVs.

To quote one of my favorite moderators, just sayin'.

-Ray

[RPS]

I get what you are saying, but the car didn't just crumple, it was crushed. This might have happened with other cars with varying degrees of similarity, but this smart car example seems to be a pretty good example of the far end of the spectrum.

I am married to an engineer, so I can make some assumptions about your approach in thinking about this situation. My engineering wife is also a mother, and I can guess what her point of view would be on this. No way in hell. Sometimes the anecdotal is all you need to rule something out.
I love small cars – fun factor, economy, maneuverability, parking, etc… -- but just like when riding a bike, I know I’m taking a much higher risk. And I often accept those risks without delusions of some magical added safety because it’s been marketed as safe on basis of having 40 airbags. We don’t have to be automotive engineers to have a basic concept of the physics involved in a car crash.

[RPS]

Statistics show that if 2 vehicles with the same NHTSA full frontal rating crash into each other head on, but one vehicle weighs 2x as much as the other, the occupants of the lighter one (2000 lbs) are 8x times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the heavier vehicle (4000 lbs)...
Here is a little bit of a trick question very few can answer correctly – I doubt if even most engineers get it right.

As in the example above, assume two vehicles crash into each other head on going 30 MPH each but with one vehicle weighing 2X as much as the other. Best-case scenario has the heavier vehicle driving the smaller one back at 10 MPH following the crash (due to conservation of momentum); therefore the heavier vehicle goes from +30 to +10 MPH (20 MPH change in speed) while the smaller one goes from -30 to +10 MPH (40 MPH change in speed). The question is what percentage of the crash energy does the smaller vehicle absorb?



P.S. – A long time ago I asked three engineering professors with PhDs practically the identical question and was disappointed with the responses. It’s something that doesn’t fall into what most of us consider common sense.

[Pete Serotta]

I love Mini Coopers and Civic SIs,

A few years ago, I mada a mistake and got rid of my s2000,,, :crap:



I love small cars – fun factor, economy, maneuverability, parking, etc… -- but just like when riding a bike, I know I’m taking a much higher risk. And I often accept those risks without delusions of some magical added safety because it’s been marketed as safe on basis of having 40 airbags. We don’t have to be automotive engineers to have a basic concept of the physics involved in a car crash.

[93legendti]

I got it now, the increase in traffic deaths thru the last 3 decades as a result of the race for the small car (to meet arbitrary MPG rules imposed by Congress) is the fault of the big car.

(FWIW, the car companies lose money on the small cars.)

Because others insist on driving unsafe and impractical cars, I
am supposed to follow suit? We have all the energy we need, we are just too stupid to use it. The "we are frucked" rationale is a false argument set up by those who block the use of our own natural resources-something that EVERYONE else is doing.

All cars have gotten lighter in the last 3 decades-including SUV's. Today's "big cars" are dwarfed by the Detroit station wagons and Caddy's from the '70's.

I don't see buses and trucks getting smaller.

I bought my Volvo XC90 after a local man's wife and daughters were killed in their Honda by a drunk driver. I bought it because I cared about my family. I'd walk before I got in a Smart Car.

Caring about other people doesn't mean you have to be a sucker, sitting duck, crash test dummy or martyr. ymmv.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/28/vehicles-get-safer-but-crash-fatalities-climb/

While new vehicles continue to sprout ever-increasing numbers of safety features, traffic fatalities still hit a 15-year high in 2005, notching 43,200 fatalities according to a recent release by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). This represents an increase of 1.2 percent over 2004, while miles traveled only increased by 0.03% to a jaw-dropping 2.964 trillion.


We lose more than 30,000 lives a year on our highways and 1/3 of those involve drunk driving.

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/09/auto_fatalities.html#ixzz16VWHlwIG

[csm]

[QUOTE=93legendti FWIW, the car companies lose money on the small cars.[/QUOTE]
I think that this only refers to the US big 3... and that is because they need to sell so many small cars to meet the cafe standards fleetwide.
Ford, Chrysler and GM have made such crappy cars for so long that they needed huge incentives to move the ones that compete with the imports directly. while the perception that the cars are crap might be incorrect, it still translated to needing to give up margin to move them.
fwiw, the new Fiesta really has me interested..... Ford may have yet another home run with that car. the Chevy Cruze... not so much.

[rugbysecondrow]

I love small cars – fun factor, economy, maneuverability, parking, etc… -- but just like when riding a bike, I know I’m taking a much higher risk. And I often accept those risks without delusions of some magical added safety because it’s been marketed as safe on basis of having 40 airbags. We don’t have to be automotive engineers to have a basic concept of the physics involved in a car crash.

I don't think bigger is better nor do I suffer foolish delusions (as you stated), but I also do think there are cars that are too small. Just because I think a smart car is a niche vehicle at best, doesn't mean I think a hummer is the better alternative. Painting that argument though does make it easier to articulate a point.

Some one said it early, it is a tool with an appropriate purpose.

[flydhest]

Adam,
I think you have a point, but Ray's point was quite as simplistic as the one you are shooting down. You are right that if others are driving big cars, someone who cares for their safety and their family's safety could in all good faith buy a larger car because, given what everyone else is doing (including the drunk driving that you cite and is, in my view, hugely relevant), that choice will make you safer.

I think Ray's point is that, because everyone makes these choice conditional on what others are doing, there is more than one possible equilibrium. If the majority of drivers drove Smart cars, families would be safe in smaller cars. That could be one equilibrium with mostly small cars on the road.. Given that many people drive bigger cars, however, it is an equilibrium for me to get a bigger car to be safe. Each person could think like that and we end up with a lot of big cars on the road.

How stable either of those outcomes is is open to debate, but my point is that you and Ray were not actually disagreeing with each other, necessarily.



I got it now, the increase in traffic deaths thru the last 3 decades as a result of the race for the small car (to meet arbitrary MPG rules imposed by Congress) is the fault of the big car.

(FWIW, the car companies lose money on the small cars.)

Because others insist on driving unsafe and impractical cars, I
am supposed to follow suit? We have all the energy we need, we are just too stupid to use it. The "we are frucked" rationale is a false argument set up by those who block the use of our own natural resources-something that EVERYONE else is doing.

All cars have gotten lighter in the last 3 decades-including SUV's. Today's "big cars" are dwarfed by the Detroit station wagons and Caddy's from the '70's.

I don't see buses and trucks getting smaller.

I bought my Volvo XC90 after a local man's wife and daughters were killed in their Honda by a drunk driver. I bought it because I cared about my family. I'd walk before I got in a Smart Car.

Caring about other people doesn't mean you have to be a sucker, sitting duck, crash test dummy or martyr. ymmv.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/28/vehicles-get-safer-but-crash-fatalities-climb/

While new vehicles continue to sprout ever-increasing numbers of safety features, traffic fatalities still hit a 15-year high in 2005, notching 43,200 fatalities according to a recent release by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). This represents an increase of 1.2 percent over 2004, while miles traveled only increased by 0.03% to a jaw-dropping 2.964 trillion.


We lose more than 30,000 lives a year on our highways and 1/3 of those involve drunk driving.

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/09/auto_fatalities.html#ixzz16VWHlwIG

[Rueda Tropical]

Smart cars are more crash worthy then bicycles on the road and do much better then motorcycles in accidents on highways:)

The Smart does better then the Fit or the Yaris in IIHS crash tests but none of these sub-compact cars do well against larger vehicles. If safety is your primary concern get a Chevy Surburban and don't ride a bicycle on public roads. I commute 100 miles round trip on the highway in a Smart at speeds of 65-75 mph. I use the same defensive driving sense I do on my bike on public roads filled with inattentive, incompetent drivers most of whom are in much larger vehicles.

For me the cars only draw back is a transmission that seems straight out of a Soviet era East European compact. If it had a manual it would be perfect. It was around 3,000 cheaper then the Fit (which was almost impossible to find and selling at a premium when I bought the Smart).

[RPS]

I don't think bigger is better nor do I suffer foolish delusions (as you stated), but I also do think there are cars that are too small.
No doubt, I agree absolutely. Some cars I’ve driven from time to time were just too small for me to want to drive on a regular basis depending on the amount of traffic and speeds I would be encountering. Three come to mind.

The smallest “car” by far I’ve driven was a BMW Isetta 300 with a single-cylinder 13 HP engine; the car weighed about 800 pounds. With a top speed of about 50 MPH it was only good around city streets near one’s home. It was a friend’s and I drove it around Miami streets for a short trip. I would never want to get out in traffic in such a vehicle (I hesitate calling it a real car), but to run errands within a mile or two of home it was fun and very economical to operate.

I also briefly drove a Honda 600 Coupe with a twin-cylinder 36 HP engine; the car weighed about 1300 pounds. At basically the size of an original Mini it had enough power to be useful and take a trip in; although I have to admit that on a 100+ mile trip with the owner driving I had serious concerns about my safety more than once.

The next smallest I recall was a Fiat 850 Spider with a 4-cylinder 49 HP engine; the car weighed about 1600 pounds. It too belonged to a friend and was very practical for everyday commuting to work (other than Fiat reliability issues). He drove it to work on city surface streets and stayed off the I-10 freeway. The owner was an engineer and could afford a much bigger car but loved the little convertible which he drove like an old lady in order to squeeze 50 MPG out of it. I guess it was his personal daily challenge which he got a kick out of. :rolleyes:

I get that some people are OK with the size of a Smart. I would own one as a third car. Maybe even as a second car some day. I just wish they looked better.

[93legendti]

Adam,
I think you have a point, but Ray's point was quite as simplistic as the one you are shooting down. You are right that if others are driving big cars, someone who cares for their safety and their family's safety could in all good faith buy a larger car because, given what everyone else is doing (including the drunk driving that you cite and is, in my view, hugely relevant), that choice will make you safer.

I think Ray's point is that, because everyone makes these choice conditional on what others are doing, there is more than one possible equilibrium. If the majority of drivers drove Smart cars, families would be safe in smaller cars. That could be one equilibrium with mostly small cars on the road.. Given that many people drive bigger cars, however, it is an equilibrium for me to get a bigger car to be safe. Each person could think like that and we end up with a lot of big cars on the road.

How stable either of those outcomes is is open to debate, but my point is that you and Ray were not actually disagreeing with each other, necessarily.
Hmm, you may be right that we were not disagreeing with each other.
(And I wasn't directing my post 100% at his comment, i was also responding to the post that
"....the bigger, safer car that ruins it for everyone. But then again, we don't exactly live in a country where people care too much about "the other guy".

FWIW, in Israel the majority of cars are small-smaller than I would get into and there are 500 traffic fatalities a year (population is 7 million and they drive much less than we do). iirc, Isreal was the only western nation where traffic fatalities increased over the last 10 year period.

[93legendti]

I think that this only refers to the US big 3... and that is because they need to sell so many small cars to meet the cafe standards fleetwide.
Ford, Chrysler and GM have made such crappy cars for so long that they needed huge incentives to move the ones that compete with the imports directly. while the perception that the cars are crap might be incorrect, it still translated to needing to give up margin to move them.
fwiw, the new Fiesta really has me interested..... Ford may have yet another home run with that car. the Chevy Cruze... not so much.
Yes, point taken, I was thinking of the USA auto companies.

Imagine if they didn't have to meet arbitrary CAFE stds and could design cars that achieved the goal of smaller, safe and economical...

[Ray]

I think Ray's point is that, because everyone makes these choice conditional on what others are doing, there is more than one possible equilibrium. If the majority of drivers drove Smart cars, families would be safe in smaller cars. That could be one equilibrium with mostly small cars on the road.. Given that many people drive bigger cars, however, it is an equilibrium for me to get a bigger car to be safe. Each person could think like that and we end up with a lot of big cars on the road.
I don't think I was disagreeing with Adam at all, except perhaps in terms of which of those two possible outcomes I'd prefer to see. But to put it in economic terms, I'd sort of compare it to the current economic conundrum of saving vs spending. On an individual/family basis, the sane response to the recent economic crisis is for people/families to save money, avoid more debt, and get your own economic house in order. And yet if each individual follows this course, the overall lack of spending hurts the economy in general, making it HARDER for a lot of individuals to save more and avoid more debt. So the most rational/reasonable action for an individual to take in terms of self-preservation/protection in each case may be worse for society as a whole.

Now, I don't know for sure that this is true, which is why I use the word "may". Its clear that the occupant of a small car is in more trouble in a crash with a big car than with another small car. But I don't know that its entirely clear that if everyone drove small cars, the outcomes would be as good as if everyone drove big cars. I think it would be better for the society in general in terms of things like energy consumption, pollution, etc, but there might well still be a higher rate of traffic deaths per accident. Then again, there might be somewhat fewer accidents. I'm just acknowledging I don't know for sure. I don't know that anyone does.

Still, would I rather, on balance, see more small cars on the road and fewer big ones? Yeah, I would.

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

America might be the only country in the world where people don't equate being safe while driving with driving safely.

Much like the bike, most of it is the driver/rider. They tend to leave that part out 'cause they can't sell it.

[Pete Serotta]

Please fell free to start another thread on the forum about this, We all have an opinion on many things, this being one of them.

Flydhest was "right on" in trying to mellow the way the thread was going. Much better and more diplomatic than I know how to be, And in my view he was very articulate and accurate.. thanks!!


Sorry to start the day off with closing but in my view it is on a slippery down hill slope of discussion, but :eek:

Yes I am not saying I am correct or even close for the opinions of my actions or my behavior are always ok for you to voice.

Have a good day, PETE

[Ray]

As long as this isn't close quite yet, I'll take the opportunity to say I don't see this one going downhill at ALL. It started off looking like that, but in the more recent posts I see a lot of conceding of points and points of agreement and understanding reached. If you want to close it because its OT, ok, no problem. But I just really don't see this one going in a bad direction at all.

IMHO.

-Ray

[RPS]

On the subject of direction, in these you ARE the crumple zone from any angle.

For small cars to become safer when sharing roads with larger vehicles I think it will require adopting very different technologies that can overcome mass difference disadvantages. Something really different like external airbags or other preemptive devices. With radar and computer override of brakes it won’t be that long before cars can stop themselves before most crashes.

Ultimately these new technologies may help cyclists too.

[Pete Serotta]

As long as this isn't close quite yet, I'll take the opportunity to say I don't see this one going downhill at ALL. It started off looking like that, but in the more recent posts I see a lot of conceding of points and points of agreement and understanding reached. If you want to close it because its OT, ok, no problem. But I just really don't see this one going in a bad direction at all.

IMHO.

-Ray
:D :banana: PETE

[pbjbike]

A uniform bumper height requirement for all vehicles, including SUV's and trucks, would save thousands of lives.

[spartacus]

A uniform bumper height requirement for all vehicles, including SUV's and trucks, would save thousands of lives.

Rubber bumpers too.

[Rueda Tropical]

I bought my Volvo XC90 after a local man's wife and daughters were killed in their Honda by a drunk driver. I bought it because I cared about my family.

In a major collision with a large SUV or pickup your XC90 and it's occupants would be toast. Does that mean the responsible thing to do for your family is to get the biggest heaviest vehicle possible? Shouldn't you be driving at least a one ton dually truck? Can I measure how much someone cares about their family by the weight of their passenger vehicle? What's the formula?

Any idiot texting or otherwise distracted in a tiny sub-compact can kill you while you are cycling. How can you justify that risk? I find it odd that cyclists should be talking about how unsafe driving a small car is.

[rice rocket]

A uniform bumper height requirement for all vehicles, including SUV's and trucks, would save thousands of lives.
Not giving every jackass a license would too (and gifting it back to him after he registers multiple DUIs).


Drivers education here should mirror what the Finnish do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy8LJx71_9o

[benb]

You might as well get tanks..

I've seen photos/videos of accidents where a *motorcycle* hitting an SUV or minivan managed to kill all the occupants of the larger vehicle. Less then 1/4 the weight of a Smart car.

There is just no safety other then paying attention to what is going on and being a skilled & defensive driver.

And the larger vehicles are, as always, more risky with respect to single vehicle accidents. More prone to rollover, more difficult to recover from an out of control situation, longer stopping distances, etc..

Bring on the tiered licenses and draconian training programs. At the very least make the driver tests as tough as the MSF's motorcycle tests. (Which aren't very tough compared to other countries if I've heard the truth.)

[phcollard]

A uniform bumper height requirement for all vehicles, including SUV's and trucks, would save thousands of lives.

A reduced number of cars or an increase in passengers/car ratio would too. IMHO it's not about having a bigger car, larger seatbelts, hitech bumpers : there are too many cars on the road period. And it's not likely to change anytime soon unless - like most of us beautitul Serotta forumites - people change their mind and realize the many benefits of riding a bike to go buy a pint of milk instead of puping the Hummer :D

[nahtnoj]

I got it now, the increase in traffic deaths thru the last 3 decades as a result of the race for the small car (to meet arbitrary MPG rules imposed by Congress) is the fault of the big car.


There are more traffic deaths because there are more of us doing more driving.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_18.html

Scroll down to "fatality rates per 100 million vehicle miles". They have declined substantially since 1980.

[RPS]

Scroll down to "fatality rates per 100 million vehicle miles". They have declined substantially since 1980.
It seems there are two different issues. Even though cars and highways have become safer since 1980, differences in vehicle mass can still contribute to fatalities – past and present. That specific data would have to be extracted from the totals for it to be meaningful in the "size" debate/context.

In my opinion the overall range of differences in typical automobile mass hasn’t changed much over the decades I’ve been driving, but that in itself hasn’t precluded both small and large cars from becoming safer in their own right; as have highways. A very large number of typical cars seem to fall within a 2:1 range. Comparing a Pinto or Vega to a Dodge Monaco or Cadillac from decades ago isn’t that different than comparing a Civic or Corolla to a large SUV today. Excluding commercial trucks and motorcycles I’d bet a 2:1 mass range covers more than 90 percent of private vehicles on roads.

By the way, thanks for the interesting data highlighting differences between urban and rural fatality rates.

[djg]

Visiting DC, I never realized there were so many Smart cars in the US. I know they're popular in Europe, but are they appropriate for this country? Short wheelbase & small crumple zones work for very urban areas with lots of bumper to bumper traffic, but once speeds go above 40-50 mph, I don't see survival rates being too high.

Not to mention that they're expensive, can fit almost nothing, and get no better mileage than a Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, or the like.

. . .

It's hard for me to say what makes the most sense for others (and my most recent auto purchase was an eminently un-sensible BMW M3, although a used '06 model which may be sorta-kinda sensible on the price end). Still, you have to keep in mind that many folks here have more than one car and may be using the Smart cars in precisely the way you suggest. I've seen a couple of Smart cars in my neighborhood, which is in a "close-in" suburb of Washington, DC. Most days I ride my bike to work. But I've driven often enough to know that commuting downtown by car can be slow on a good day and bumper-to-bumper on a bad one. A very short car can be handy for on-street parking, and it can be handy in a garage too, where some very large vehicles can leave available spots cramped. Are the Smart cars good choices for my neighbors? I dunno. Not really what I want for myself and, as you say, there are other choices offering similar or better mileage (and if I had to double my mileage, I'd be unlikely to buy a Smart car). But it's not obviously a pointless choice for somebody who lives in one of our larger metro areas and/or higher traffic areas. Here's another wrinkle: I have a fairly large house, but because it was built c. 1959-60, it has a really small garage by American standards -- what's known as a "tandem," supposedly able to accomodate two cars end to end. No effin' way with two average-sized sedans of recent vintage, let alone a typical sedan plus a mini-van or urban assault vehicle. But if one car is really tiny . . .

[sg8357]

You might as well get tanks..

I've seen photos/videos of accidents where a *motorcycle* hitting an SUV or minivan managed to kill all the occupants of the larger vehicle. Less then 1/4 the weight of a Smart car.

Motocycle vs. SUV is a good one, mass x velocity and all that, figure
the moto was at 100mph hour, hitting above the frame rails of a SUV.
SUVs are plastic & pot metal above the frame rails, the moto is pretty
dense, engine, hi strength steel, think cannonball.

Think of vehicles that can survive a 125mph crash, F1 cars, Grand Nationals,
S-Class grosser Mercedes.

[PETER REID]

I almost bought one except that it is 8" too long to put on the lower floor of my truck, so i bought a Piaggio X9 scooter instead..

peter

[Ken Robb]

I haven't read all the posts herein but Smart Cars would be a lot more desirable in my area if they were allowed to park nose-in to the curb so two would fit in one space.

Our parking enforcers OTOH wrote me a parking ticket because my motorcycle was in the same slot as a car. The fact that I was there before the car came didn't matter. I was told they always assume the bike squeezed in after the car. They REALLY didn't want to discuss how squeezing more than one vehicle into each space was really helping everyone. :crap: