"safety" of little tin can cars.

[J_A_B]

Bad weather handling is largely the reason why FWD replaced RWD.  While they're generally easier to drive in bad weather, you do have to watch for a tendency to understeer.  My Cadillac was especially bad for this--it liked to go straight

I lost it because it kept going straight--right through the front end of a Honda Accord that pulled out in front of me, lol.  No chance to avoid that one either due to the massive ice present.  I think I have bad luck.

RWD tends to be a mixed bag in bad weather.  My Roadmaster handles great in snow, even better than the FWD Cadillac did, but my wife's Grand Marquis is rather terrible.  The "work" Crown Victoria with upgraded traction control is marginally better than the Grand Marquis but not by a whole lot.  All three will oversteer in snow if abused.

Do you live in Oregon Holden?

J_A_B

[Holden McGroin]

yup

[Pyton]

Here is a lot of talk about collisions with other cars. However this type of accident accounts for a very small amount of accidents. Most of the accidents result in cars hitting objects  (trees, posts, buildings) around the road either because they lost control or because they hit other car (relatively) lightly and then got out of control. Thus collision tests against solid objects is much more representative of collisions. The solid object collisions also tend to be more destructive than collisions against other cars - even though there is less energy to dissipate more of it has to be absorbed by the car in shorter time. At least EuroNCAP conducts its tests using solid collision targets.

[DieAz]

yanno , i have always wondered why cars were never as tough as the diecast hotwheels cars. those things can take abuse. but a real car 15 mph or so , tears up pretty badly, when hit a wall (etc).

if anyone has the know how, could you say, figure what a real car would be like ( weight and stuff etc ), if built like one those hotwheels cars.

[Ripsnort]

Just thought I'd mention this since it happened last week.

Two mothers who live in our neighborhood (My oldest son plays with one of their sons) were recently coming home from Tacoma from an event at 9pm at night in their Dodge Durango, 2002 model.  I do not know the crash test history of this vehicle, but to make a long story short, a drunk driver in a pick up truck crossed the center line on a 2-lane road, colliding head on with Lindsey and Karen.  Estimate travel speed was roughly 45-55 MPH, both vehicles.  Both vehicles caught fire after the collision, and Karens Durango ended upside down, her passenger, Lindsey had a broken wrist but managed to drag Karen out the busted-out back window as Karen had suffered two broken knee caps and could not move as the fire began licking the underside of the crumpled dash board.  The airbags went off as advertised and prevented yet more serious injury than what was sustained.

Naturally, the drunk driver walked away without a scratch (they always do, don't they?)

Both women claim they owe their lives to the Durango.  Had this happened in a smaller car (and subsequent collision with a pick up truck) they say they wouldn't be alive today.

Long live SUV's.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Staga
Hmmm and some thought SUV's are safe cars? Jeep Cherokee 2002...

Protection given to pedestrians proved to be poor, however.
Pedestrianrating(Image removed from quote.)

 that's reasuring....if i get hit by it while walking i'm screwed....good to know!

[Pyton]

Most SUVs get poor ratings in collision tests. There are few bad things in most SUVs:

-Poor frontal cell preformance especially in the area of drivers knees. Because short hood and large mass of the car the frontal cell can't be built strong enough to last. This means that in most frontal collisions the driver's legs are going to get serious injuries.

-High center of gravity. This makes SUVs very likely to roll over in most accident situations making them much worse. It may also cause SUVs to roll over where other cars would come out unscathed.

Also the added safety in other areas is very small compared to big cars especially when looking at collisions with solid objects where the higher mass is a clear drawback. Combine this with greatly increased tendency to get into accidents due to worse handling and tendency to tip over and the end result is that risk for serious injury or death per kilometer is at about same in SUVs as in small cars - it is much worse than in big cars.

As to Rip's story, they were certainly better off in the Durango than in small car but probably would've been even better off in a large sedan. Especially the broken kneecaps and possibly the tipping over sound like typical result caused by SUVs in accidents.

[CyranoAH]

3 words that would make a difference: Russian ejection seats

Daniel

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
 that's reasuring....if i get hit by it while walking i'm screwed....good to know!

It just goes to show how severe injuries the pedestrian would get when hit by car at speed of X.

Your legs are definately going to get more seriously injured when hit by high profile SUV than a low profile sedan.
Say byebye to your kneecaps.
plus what other factors there can be...

[Staga]

About heavy vs lightweight car colliding: I saw a video where a light and small A-Model Mercedes collided with much bigger and heavier Mercedes E-type.

After collision both cars stopped pretty much in same point where collision happened; E-type rolled maybe 3-4 meters forward from the impact point while A-type jumped couple meters backwards.

My guess is people are over-estimating the benefit of the heavier car in accidents...

Of course there are cars like some little Suzukis which would propably collapse like a house of cards if someone would hit it with a bicycle...

[J_A_B]

"E-type rolled maybe 3-4 meters forward from the impact point while A-type jumped couple meters backwards. "

And you don't view that as signifigant?   That's almost a gaurantee that the people in the smaller car will suffer more serious injuries.  And the E-series isn't even a really big vehicle!

But...as I understand it there aren't a lot of big cars actually available in Europe.  The E-series Mercedes is what I would call "midsize".   Since there are fewer big vehicles in Europe, I'd guess that there's less chance that you'll be struck by something far larger than you.   Hence it's less of an issue.

The USA is the land of the SUV's and such; small cars are at a massive disadvantage here.

J_A_B

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by J_A_B
"
The USA is the land of the SUV's and such; small cars are at a massive disadvantage here.

J_A_B

True.

America has bigger roads, bigger distances to cross for commutes, bigger dicks, you name it, we're "bigger" than the rest of the world in every way.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by GScholz
... bigger egos ... bigger mouths ... biger butts ... bigger women ...

We rule!

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by GScholz
... bigger egos ... bigger mouths ... biger butts ... bigger women ...

Bigger noodlees and bigger bank accounts.  

[mietla]

Originally posted by GScholz
Staga the problem for the small cars is weight. In a head-on collision the lightest car will always be at a disadvantage because it will literarily be thrown back since the heavier car has more energy. The heavier car will just slow down. The extreme example is a dump-truck against a small car like the Peugeot 307. Therefore the people in the lightest car will always have less chance of surviving.

yeah, but the cabin frame was intact...