Automotive Safety: The Problem with Different Sized Vehicles

Combine this with the push for fuel efficiency and I would not be surprised if you see law makers try to regulate vehicle size.

The funny part is, there's like a 50% chance that the above post was payed for by Ford in a last ditch effort to save their SUV line.

I hope that it doesn't come to this -IMO it's not necessary to regulate vehicle size. I'm huge lover of both small cars and large trucks alike. My issue is the lack of knowledge the average consumer has about the damage a larger vehicle can inflict on another object.

Oh cry me a river!

By a Truck or shut up.

"Oh cry me a river!

By a Truck or shut up."

Issue really isn't whether or not you own a truck, SUV or car - it's about crash compatibly between vehicles of different design, weight and stiffness. Even if you own a truck if you are hit by another vehicle which has a slightly higher impact zone you will fair worse in an accident, owning a truck doesn't make you immune. These issues as shown in the video are exaggerated even more when the crash is a side impact.

Own a humble bike. Buy a small car. No, a big car. No, a small truck. No, a big truck. No, a small tank. No, a big tank...

I've always driven a small car and with their better handling, braking and acceleration have managed to avoid quite a few SUV's over the years. I think the people who buy SUV's and 1/2 tons are only having their penile fantasies reinforced by these ads. Also, as force is a result of mass X velocity, my only hope is to drive fast. When faced with an inevitable accident, I'll also accelerate hard to lift my front bumper up to a level where it meets theirs. Perhaps I could even come up with an explosive device which, at the last moment, would launch me up and into their windshield.

While I don't agree with the "penile fantasies" part of you response. I will say marketing is a very powerful tool. The idea of anything "larger" then something else being considered "better" certainly isn't a new concept.

I agree having a smaller car does allow you to maneuverability to avoid many dangerous situations. Unfortunately it's the one you can't avoid that could cost someone their life.

If you focus only on these tests results, you are only saying, "if you are in this specific car going this specific speed and hit this other specific car at this specific angle, this much damage will occur to each of the cars."

That's useful information, but it doesn't answer the most important question: "What kind of car gives a person the highest survivability in the real world."

One way of looking at this statistically is driver and passenger deaths per million cars of a certain make and model driven each year. This gets interesting.

For every million (1,000,000) VW Jettas on the road, their are 70 fatalities; for every million Toyota Camrys on the the road, there are also 70 fatalities; for every million Chevy Suburbans on the road, there are 105 fatalities; for every million Ford F Series Pickup Trucks on the road, there are 238 fatalities.

Notice a pattern?

Yep, there's more to dying in a car crash then the simple physics of vehicles colliding. As engineers, we each have to remember that the things we build are used in the real world by real people, not just in scientifically controlled tests.

Terrible engineering definitely plays a part. The Chevy Blazer is the world's deadliest vehicle to its driver (let alone to others) in a study (that ran through roughly 1999-2003, if I remember) by the IIHS. The Toyota and Nissan equivalents (which are in precisely the same driver demographic) are both in the group of 13 safest vehicles. Most in the safest 13 were neither trucks nor SUV's: a Few Mercedes sedans, the Camry and Accord, the VW Passat, etc.

I'm sure legislators will soon figure this out...what we need to do is mandate that all cars are of the same size, weight and impact characteristics. Then, we need to outlaw using them. Then we'd all be safe.

OK, done. On to next problem...

Showing all of these "pretty pictures" of SUVs and smaller cars "kissing" feels good. The largest SUV is NO match up against the smallest 18 wheeler! As long as you have those on the road, forget about your precious "crumple zones"!

For what it's worth, I think we need to come at this from a different angle. While engineers and researchers definitely should continue developing ways to make us safer in the event of accidents, what we really need to do is to clearly understand the magnitude of the potential when we get into a vehicle, regardless of size. Automotive transportation has become so commonplace today that most drivers get into their car without a second thought about the possibility of the potential catastrophe that awaits should they or someone else make a mistake. One should never forget that driving is an inherently dangerous activity and flippently ignoring these dangers is foolish. I have always maintained that the best safety device ever created is between one's ears. We need to remember to use it or reap what we sow. The last couple of decades have shown a level of complacency on the part of the driving public that basically says " I've got a seatbelt; Ive got airbags; I've got traction control; Ive got.......etc. We've become dependent on all the wonderful technology and forgotten to be careful. We need to remember that the safety devices are for those times when careful is not enough, not to allow us to ignore the danger around us negligently.

Absolutely correct!

The European Union is, believe it or not, experimenting with the elimination of traffic laws to make people safer.

Towns in England, Belgium, Holland and Denmark have already uncluttered their roads, even removing all lane markers. In the Netherlands town of Drachten there are only two traffic rules: 1) yield to the right; and 2) if you block someone, you'll be towed. Driving into Makkinga, you'll see only one sign, "Verkeersbordvrij," meaning "free of traffic signs." Even regulation-obsessed Germany will try this so-called, "unsafe is safe" philosophy in Bohmte, which will no longer have sidewalks. Bohmte's mayor said, "We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."

Everywhere it's tried, bicycle, pedestrian and automobile accident rates plummet while people are forced to personally communicate with nods, hand gestures (nice, useful ones) and even smiles.

Think about it: Danger, allowed to stimulate caution, cooperation and respect, is safer than the false security of rules. And few rules are obviously easier to obey and enforce than the endless deluge of prohibitions to which we've become numb.

So maybe we could make cars safer by simply changing the driving position a bit. Perhaps we replace the front bumper with the driver's bare head (Semi trucks too), and voila...no more accidents.

That is just crazy enough to work! I can see it offering incentive for people to not use their cars so much (in a crowded city, it would become impractical for many to drive). That would be great in terms of our foreign energy dependence. A small step in the right direction.

Hmm. One of the reasons the driver is at the front of a train is that self-preservation is a powerful instinct.

An SUV made of papier-maché? Now there's a thing...

An SUV made of papier-maché....awesome lol .

Fascinating stuff!

I used to ride motorcycles a lot, and back 30 years ago, before my powers of immortality began to fade, I rode them plenty fast. Now, without that shield in place, I ride much less and very conservatively, always thinking about what the other guy is going to do, and always plotting an escape route, should things go wrong. I try to maintain this same sort of focus in my car -- but does it work? Not really -- it's just too easy to sit back and relax.

I am in the midst of building a prototype for a "clean sheet" vehicle. Maybe I have the driver sitting in entirely the wrong place.

BTW, here in Atlanta, where we have 14-lane roads choked with traffic, one finds hand gestures frequently used to communicate... there is one gesture, in particular, that seems to apply to many situations, and is often used as a kind of generous educational signal... it is as if the signalling party is saying "perhaps there is another way to execute that maneuver?" Often, the receiver of the signalled communication will flash back the same signal as confirmation-- apparently to say "Yes, thanks, I bet there is a better way." Sometimes it can be very moving to see these exchanges, and the drivers will get swept up in sharing the moment, signalling, in addition, with their vehicles' horns -- not just with a short "toot" to say "Hi, thanks" but with a lengthy, veritable concert of gleefulness.

It is difficult to imagine more than a few manoeuvres that are possible on a 14-lane road.

1) Lane 1 to lane 2

2) lane 2 to lane 3

Er.....

Er....

You Brits are so "inside the box." Here, it is not uncommon to see people change across four or five choked lanes by simply driving over the top of other vehicles. You've perhaps seen televised "Monster Truck" events (one of our proudest TV exports). The inspiration for these trucks comes from our routine traffic maneuvers.

With declining vehicle values it will soon be economic to do these sort of events with Chelsea Tractors. Er, sorry, SUVs. What about that for recycling?

We're way ahead of y'all in recycling cars. While the wealthier folk buy new ones every few years, those of us on the bottom end of the ladder turn their cast-offs into yard art.

These become not only interesting to look at, but also comfortable homes for cats, squirrels, hornets, and of course, tin worms.

In the UK, they are collected by metal reprocessors and go through the following:

Rubber & plastic is removed and re-sold/re-cycled/used as fuel.

The rest is crushed into a block about 0.5-1m³ for transport in bulk to metal reprocessing facilities, where iron & steel are separated from alloys, and then they go their different ways for re-melting and refining before making into usible metals again.

Television in the UK is peppered with adverts bearing the slogan, "Recycle - the possibilities are endless".

It's understandable. People in these islands resist the temptation to "...turn their cast-offs into yard art. These become not only interesting to look at, but also comfortable homes for cats, squirrels, hornets, and of course, tin worms..." There is much more space for this sort of thing in other countries.

You know, I think I've seen that a lot while traveling in NYC. Thanks for explaining this to me.

I had thought that the NYC drivers somehow sensed that I am from the midwest and more used to driving a tractor. I had thought that they were expressing some sort of frustration with me personally.

But now I see that this is an east-coast way to share information with others. I am now eager to try this with my fellows in Indiana. Thanks again!

Your fellows in Indiana will be most appreciative, provided they fully understand the gesture!

I hope the profound symbolism of the gesture will not be lost on them. I worry that perhaps the homogeneity of the midwest might leave them wondering. In New York, there is phenomenal diversity, so it is understood that when one holds up a hand, the two fingers at one side might be thought to mean (for example) wildly liberal. The two at the other end would be thought to mean (in this case) wildly conservative. The middle finger, then, means center, or in Goldilocks terms: just right. So when a New Yorker displays only the middle finger, he is saying: "Let us celebrate, together, what we have in common, rather than focusing on our differences!"

This gesture has helped New York city become famously tolerant, racially. It is not uncommon to see the symbolism employed between races, sometimes grouped with the jubilant word "Honky!" which means, in this context: Please honk loudly and long to celebrate what we have in common.

If more of your kind could spend time in New York city, (I'd recommend a week spent driving in Manhattan) I think you'd find they would return to the midwest with a real propensity for employing this new found communication ability spontaneously and frequently.

This is truly inspiring. I've been contemplating running for public office, and I think I now know how I can draw some attention to, and create much excitement for, my campaign!

Thanks again!

I am moved almost to tears as I think of people all around the country doing the "Andy Wave".

I could not agree more!

I've been involved in a couple new product launches for Volvo, and the people within Volvo really are focused on safety -- it's not all marketing. Even back when Lee Iaccoca was running around Ford with the mantra "Safety doesn't sell!" Volvo was successfully selling safety (albeit to a very small niche in the US at that time, the mid 60's). They had some great ads -- classics in the ad business.

But I've often suspected that, with Volvo drivers, exactly the phenomena you describe occurs: "Hey, I'm in the world's safest car... I can relax." I've been hoping to find time to really research the idea that maybe Volvo drivers are lulled into complacency, and that their actual accident rates are higher than you might expect. The counter argument is that if you make the effort to buy a Volvo, and pay a relatively high price for it, (as compared to a typical Honda or Toyota of the same size) you are no doubt concerned for safety, and therefore, presumably drive more carefully than the average driver.

But, so far, I haven't found the time to really do the research. But at least it is interesting to look at the list of the 13 safest vehicles: no Volvo there.

By inference, drivers that are more safety conscious and vehicles that are more highly safety-specialised go hand in hand. One lies in the domain of technology, the other in the quality of personal training and the depth of experience. Intelligence must factor in there somewhere. So is there any relationship between that lot and "survival of the fittest" or alternatively the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards?

By looking simply at vehicle safety the other aspect may go overlooked...

This is why I think that insurance companies should be the only issuers of drivers' licenses and license plates.

Insurance companies want you to live long and prosper so that you can keep paying premiums with no claims, right?

So if they were in charge, you'd see graded license plates; flashing red ones for teenage males driving hot rods, and dull gray ones for 40 year-old mothers of three.

It'd cost a lot of money to issue license/insurance to a teenager once he'd screwed up, so we'd see fewer knuckleheads on the road.

I think this may be even better than the idea of paper mache Pinautomobiles.

Great link!! I was nearly in tears.

If you search YouTube, you can find videos of real world crashes: pickup truck vs semi, semi vs train. They prove your point.

On the other hand, in the more common crashes, crumple zones help, even when the vehicles are of different sizes. I think last I checked, that all these safety features are really working in terms of overall highway traffic deaths (I think... I should look again.)

Actually, I was just reading that auto crash fatality rates have been rising steadly for the past 10 years.

From what I had infered, crash ratings on vehicles are essentially meaningless- the likelyhood of death is increased by a factor of 5 in a rollover crash, and you are 80% more likely to rollover in an SUV- yet 5-star ratings are the norm. And while F continues to equal M*A, lightweight vehicles such as the honda civic also recieve 5 star ratings!

The rating system uses vehicles of its class as a baseline! The light-truck (includes SUV's) class has not had its standards significantly updated since the 1970's.

Riding a smaller vehicle (motorcycle, etc) won't save us either- death rates for motorcycles are 1 in 50.

I basically use this as a justification of my other "risky" activities (scuba, skydiving, hang gliding, bungie jumping, whitewater canoeing, etc.) I'll hop in my car and drive anywhere at a moments notice, and so will you, without a second thought- in such context, are these sports even dangerous?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

This link brought back memories of my Sincair calculator (which, if I recall, I built from a kit). My brother, amazingly, still has his -- and it still works just fine!

The C5 is almost extinct now, though there is a well-preserved example in the http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/, in South Kensington, London. Well worth a visit, and free admission.