Is the risk of driving small worth it?
 

This video just has me thinking:

https://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80712005/

The Smart was crash tested at 40 mph against the Mercedes at 40 mph. Due to the gross difference in weight, it would appear that the impact equivalence to each is closer to 60 vs. 20 mph. Clearly the Smart driver is at the losing end of this one. Now imagine the same test against an SUV or full size pickup.

For that car, absolutely not. It gets atrocious mileage for what it is!

In general, how do you value risk, Snax? Since so many things have risk associated with them, it makes sense to have a consistent policy worked out, especially if you have dependents. It's sort of a personal thing, although you can use stats from the insurance and medical industries as a rough guide. At least the benefits (and increase in risk of death or serious injury) of owning a more efficient car are reasonably easy to quantify. In general, I'd have to agree about the Smart; the American version of the Fortwo really dissapoints.

Who gives a crap? How many head-ons are you planning on participating in?

Imagine an SUV against a dump truck.

Imagine a dump truck against a semi.

Imagine a semi against a bridge abutment.

Imagine a Smart against a bridge abutment.

Pretty much the same result.

I'd roll this if it was legal:


https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...735b24db02.jpg

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...9859d13059.jpg

I would imagine zero, but I don't thinking planning has much to do with it. I agree that the ever bigger car arms race makes no sense, but it's worth at least considering safety when deciding on a vehicle, especially if safer ones have reasonably equivalent efficiency.

Give me a Porsche Carrera and you take a Greyhound bus. The scenario is a giant paved parking lot. You have to run over me in the bus. I have to avoid the collision in the Porsche.

My parents were driving a 1977 Honda Accord on US 1 in the Florida Keys, headed Northeast. A drunk in a Cadillac came over into their lane at 50 MPH.
Mom was driving and she flicked the wheel and went left of the Cadillac and then back into her lane.

A few years later I was driving the same direction in almost exactly the same spot. This time it was at night and in a heavy rain. Another drunk, another Cadillac, the same scenario. Visibility was terrible. I swerved left into a parking lot. Going right was not an option because they were replacing the water mains and had dug a 6 foot wide 12 foot deep trench just off the right side of the road. The were telephone poles in the parking lot, that I missed, but that was just luck.

In both of these potential accident scenarios, a collision would have been certain if either of us had been driving a less maneuverable vehicle.

Today both parents are in their 80S and both drive Cadillac Eldorados. Their reaction times are not what they were 30 years ago, but they don't drink and drive either.

We could all drive 3 ton vehicles and the effect would be the same if we all drove 1 to vehicles.

There are other factors involved like emergency maneuverability and roll over resistance that tend to even out the odds, but in the end it's the "nut behind the wheel" who is the ultimate equalizer.

regards
gary

The big thing up here is drunk driving (often in large trucks). It seems like there's almost no social stigma about it. Quite a few times I've had conversations about Canada with people (I live on the border) and they volunteer the fact that they can't enter into it because of a DUI. If I were in such a position, I'd be embarrassed beyond belief and keep my mouth shut!

Oh, yeah, forgot this: examine not the relative increase in risk compared to other cars, but the absolute increase in risk from all sources (not just driving). That change would be much smaller and is more relevant.

Large trucks have come a long way in the handling department. I feel my GMC K1500 handles EXTREMELY well, especially for an extended cab, 4x4 pickup. I remember not long after I bought it a friend and I were driving in an unfamiliar part of town, at night, in the rain. We were looking for a particular street. All of a sudden she exclaims THERE IT IS! as I was just about to pass it. I pulled a hard 90 degree turn at 35 - 40 MPH thinking oh well, its night, and there's no headlights down the street so I can take the oncoming lane just to make the turn. To our amazement, the truck made the turn, didn't go into the oncoming lane, and no tire squeal or loss of traction.

When I was younger I used to drive an ambulance in my hometown. We had a fatal crash involving one of our ambulances. The ambulance hydroplaned off a windy back road @ 40 MPH, hit a tree, and flipped on its side.

https://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos..._5484839_n.jpg

https://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos..._1536467_n.jpg

Large vehicles don't always save you.

I once heard most auto collisions involve one car with a stationary object, which works out to being the same hitting a equal weight vehicle at matching speeds head on.

Now, was there sound with the video that I wasn't getting? It looks dramatic, but doesn't actually tells us anything. Was there intrusion into the Smart's passenger cabin? If so, how much? Enough to connect with occupant? What were the force measurements experienced by the dummy? A F1 disintegrating after hitting a barrier looks pretty horrible too, but most of the time the driver walks away.

In the video you can see the Smart's A-pillar and doorframe buckle, and then the dummy's head hits the A pillar.

Is that simulated blood coming from the smart driver's head? Or maybe a dye to show what the head hits...

They put different colors of paint on different sections of the dummy's head so it will rub off on the interior. When they look at the car they know exactly where the head hit.

i'm w/ ya snax. all things being equal, the larger vehicle is the safest--and no one will make me understand differently.

a couple years ago a lady rear-ended me in my delivery truck. she hit me so hard, my bumber was pushed in ~18 inches. i REALLY felt as tho i ran over some relatively smooth railroad tracks, just sitting still. i got out to a suprise, seeing that she contacted my truck halfway up her hood such that her airbag did not go off. i don't think she ever did brake at all.

my decision to go small came after an epiphany of sorts...i'll take the REALITY of guaranteed savings vs a HYPOTHETICAL vehicle collision any day.

That's not really the point. The point is that it may not be significantly safer to outweigh other benefits. You can't put an ultimate premium on any amount of safety improvement not matter how small, or you wouldn't be willing to drive in the first place.

i don't care what the point was/is; i was simply trying to convey that i too have often thought of a serious collision and what the result might be.

the "other" benefits were considered, which is why i bought a chevy prizm. if i drove my w/ kids more often, it is likely my choice would be different.

yes, driving anything has it's risks. how many SUV owners thought they were safe when the turned over their vehicle due to high center of gravity?

I believe the size of the vehicle has much less to do with operator risk than the distance from initial point of impact to the operator.
The Smart with it's stubby front doesn't leave much distance between the bumper reaching zero mph, and the steering wheel, "A" pillar, dash board, windshield, reaching zero mph. Remember that it's not the car's exterior impact that causes bodily injury, it's the body's impact with the car's interior that does.

Kodiak / TopKick with the engine in front, or Mitsu Fuso with cab-over: Which is safer in a front impact?

Smart, head-on, or the mid 80's Caddy in the driver's door: Which is safer?

I'll crash a Greyhound bus into a wall at 100 mph and walk away, provided the controls are set up to operate from the rear seat.

Don't forget the driver's organs impacting against their bones. That's the crash that scares me most.

I'll take an accident in a mid 80's caddy (provided we're not talking about a Cimmaron) any day over an accident in a Smart.

I wouldn't be so quick to choose the Cadillac. It may have had a non-collapsible steering wheel in the mid-80s, and may not have had any air bags. My 1987 Chevy Astro van lacked all of those, and both its passenger and driver would have been severely injured in the 35 mph government crash test. It's likely the mid-80's Cadillacs weren't any better.

Well while everybody else is dreaming of crashing into each other, I'll be practicing safe driving. No cell phones, etc. And due to all the bicycling, scootering, and motorcycling I do, I treat the others on the road as if they are out to get me. That has already prevented many situations that could have been a whole lot worse.

By the 80's all vehicles had collapsible steering columns. My 1981 Buick has one, and my 74 Chevy truck did as well. As far as airbags goes, I'd rather be in an accident in an 85 Fleetwood with no airbags, than in a Smart with airbags. You may not realize, I am a former EMT and drove an ambulance for 10 years, and served as my squad's 2nd Lt. I have seen all sorts of accidents involving just about all makes & models of vehicles. The cars that the worst people came out of? Geo Metros, Suzuki Samurais, and Hyundai Excels. Full size cars (Caprice, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Fleetwood, Town Car, Etc,) rarely had passengers that were seriously injured. Even when they wrecked on I-95 going 65+ MPH.

I have a mid-80s Cad (Eldorado, not Cimarron) and I am pretty impressed with crash tests I've seen with the Smart. Remember, the Smart has about 30 years worth of improvements over the old Cad...the old car has no airbags, no crumple zones, just a lot of weight. And a mid 80's Cad has less weight than most cars of a decade earlier.

BTW, I LIKED the Cad Cimarron...

Frankly, I'd rather avoid the accident in the first place.

Back in 1979, I was riding my Yamaha XS-400 up to Berkley to visit my girlfriend. As I was riding up Interstate 5, a car had a blowout. The driver, a French tourist, stopped in the middle of the freeway. I was paying more attention to the cows on the side of the road, so I didn't realize that there was a stopped car up ahead. When I did, my first reaction was to hit the brakes. On a light bike, this will just send you into a skid. I skidded right into the back of the French tourist's car. At about 60 mph. As I was flying off the bike, the front wheel and the handlebars snapped around, catching my right leg between the right side of the handlebars and the gas tank, snapping my right femur in two. Also broke an arm as I tried to break my fall on the car trunk.

Fast forward...After I started riding again, I would take a spot which I estimated to be about as far away as the car I hit...then I would go around that spot. Kept practicing this until I internalized the concept. Never had another problem like that while I was riding, but I have avoided several accidents in the car by using this technique.

:D Oh, My God! I'm one of the worst people! Of course, my wife has been telling me that for years!

Federal law has mandated collapsible steering columns for the last 41 years.

There's nothing wrong with a Cimmaron itself, I just thought it was a highly overpriced Cavalier...

I think most of you have jumped to the conclusion that the Smart For Two performed poorly in that video. Read this before you make that conclusion.

But, here's a quote from that article...

"All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better,"

But isn't the heavier car, at the same speed, carry more energy than the lighter car. Wouldn't it's safety systems have to handle greater forces than the other car in the event of an accident?

But it also has the capability to absorb more energy... Also, the passenger compartment is usually reinforced more. Compare your average land yacht (Town car or Caprice) against your average compact. The land yacht has the front bumper 6 or 8 feet ahead of the passenger compartment. The compact is only 3 or 4 feet, and in the case of the Smart, probably even less. The doors on a land yacht are about 8 inches thick. A compact's doors are about half that. The large vehicle places the passengers farther away from the point of impact than the small vehicle. That is inherently safer, and cancels out the added momentum.

I'd like to see a light car that has a large trunk in front specifically to provide more crumple area.

I'd like to see that car for its utility.

that there's funny, i don't care who ya are!

my deliveries dictate driving a VERY large vehicle thru parking lots. people on cell phones WALKING are even a menace. they lose hearing and vision while on the phone. my truck is 22ft long, 11 ft tall and has almost the decibals of a jet, yet they can't see or hear me! :eek:

Jeezus max, you need to get out more. :rolleyes:

Look up: VW, Corvair, NSU, Porsche...

Bowtieguy: I used to drive the largest size step van Chevrolet made when I worked for the Gov't. A lady had hit me one day, and I was shocked to hear her say that she didn't see me. What??? I was stopped, and in a huge, white van the size of a school bus, and she didn't see me!

To answer your question of "Is the risk of driving small worth it?" I would guess the answer is a personal choice. Do you want to save gas, save money, starve a terrorist, keep more dollars in our economy, be able to maneuver out of the way of danger, contribute less to global warming and more to your child's college education, OR do you really feel safer in that Hummer? And is safety what life is all about?

The problem I have with large vehicles is they are usually the worst drivers.
Today we drove to the indoor Mall to walk around and get some exercise. The temps were in the mid 90s and the humidity was high enough to make walking outside very uncomfortable.

I had a Chevy Suburban tailgating me, on the Interstate, at two car lengths in the right lane in very heavy traffic. I had some distance between me and the car in front, so he passed me on the right in the acceleration lane from an on ramp.

Then he climbs up on the arse of another compact car at less than two lengths at 65 MPH. I was going between 63 and 65 MPH, not slowing traffic down at all.

I wish every aggressive large vehicle driver was required to drive a motorcycle with a dump truck all over his arse for two months.

Not an indictment of anyone here. I doubt this forums members would drive like that anyway, but almost without exception, every stupid driver I see is driving a large truck or SUV, at least 90% of them.

It seems like an arms race with the bigger marbles acting like they know the smaller marbles really don't have a chance in any collision.

regards
gary

We've all (myself included) been talking about this like the risk of Snax's original specific question can't be estimated, but it can (at least in theory). Anybody know a place where we could find out the relative risk of a Fortwo vs another, larger car is in statistical terms? Then we just need to adjust the risk of an average American dying in a car crash by that amount and add it to the risk of dying (and maybe being seriously injured if we can find a source) for any reason and see what the difference is. Whether or not the difference is worth it or not is up to Snax, but it'd be a start.

OK once upon a time I ran the numbers for odds of becoming a fatality on the road. It was something ridiculous like, you'd have to drive 50,000 miles/year for 600 years.

Find a real cause already. :rolleyes:

I'll take nimble, Marvin's score is about 12 "non-contact" incidents where slight driver inattention, bad maintenance of the running gear, low tire pressures etc would have resulted in a hit, Wile-E's score is 4 or 5.

edit: that's in avoidance of stray unsupervised idiots by the way, not utility poles leaping out to attack me..... though that did happen once....