Recent Crash Test Video Footage on TV -- Rebuttal?

[iwannasmartcar]

I suppose most of you saw the 40-mph offset head-on crash test videos of various mini-cars versus mid-size cars made by their own manufacturers recently on TV. In addition to the resulting damage, the way the fortwo was essentially "bounced" out of the way by the Mercedes Benz looked pretty bad. I've seen the more favorable fortwo "conventional" crash test videos on the web but is there any additional mitigating information out there beyond what the mini-car manufacturers offered ("Accidents of that type happen very rarely...")?

(I STILL want a fortwo!)

[JPaul]

Check:
News article (Re: IIHS)
Theory on Small Car vs Large Car Collision Information
Yaris/Fit/smart get poor marks in collision (IIHS) tests

[rfernatt]

Originally Posted by iwannasmartcar

In addition to the resulting damage, the way the fortwo was essentially "bounced" out of the way by the Mercedes Benz looked pretty bad.

Even in the normal IIHS offset test, the fortwo lifts in the rear and rotates after the collision. I would suspect that any rear engine car (more mass in the rear of the vehicle) would tend to do the same thing in an offset crash. I remember hearing a 'joke' that in most Porsche 911 loss of control accidents, that the rear of the car impacted first (also rear engine). It's just physics and rear engine vehicles. So I don't think the Mercedes technically 'bounced' the fortwo out of the way - the most massive part of the fortwo wanted to stay in motion and slung the car around.

Am I concerned? Nah. You're more likely to die of a great many things before death in a small car. I hear those banana peels are killer...

[jwight]

We could take this same scenario back to the late 1940s (MG-TF), 1950s (Austin Mini and VW), 1960s (Corvair and Falcon), 1970s (Pinto and Vega), etc.

Nothing's changed except today's small cars have much more in the way of active and passive safety features.

[Old smart]

I wonder if there is 3D accelerometer data available (I'm sure they were used). Could an analysis of the data show that the smart's 420-degree, horizontal spin-off was actually a deceleration attenuator?

[forestacademy]

[SuperGeek]

Originally Posted by Old smart

I wonder if there is 3D accelerometer data available (I'm sure they were used). Could an analysis of the data show that the smart's 420-degree, horizontal spin-off was actually a deceleration attenuator?

OK, so in layman's terms... what you mean is, spinning and/or rolling eats up the energy that might have been used to send dashboard into skull, right?

It's sometimes better to grab onto the edge of something and spin around it (think of aikido) rather than smack directly into it. I consider a certain amount of spinning/bouncing action to be beneficial, like I think OS is suggesting.

[BobDiaz]

The information from the news media is given out of context. I'm sure that the TV news media loves such crash footage, because it has all the drama to it, but here are the numbers I found regarding crashes:

Common types of collision

Crashes are categorized by what is struck and the direction of impact, or impacts. These are some common crash types, based on the total number that occurred in the U.S.A. in 2005, the percentage of total crashes, and the percentage of fatal crashes:

* Rear impacts (1,824,000 crashes, 29.6% of all US crashes, 5.4 % of US fatal crashes)

* Angle or side impacts (1,779,000 crashes, 28.9% of all US crashes, 20.7% of US fatal crashes)

* Run-off-road collisions (992,000 crashes, 16.1% of US crashes, 31.7% of US fatal crashes)

* Collisions with animals (275,000 crashes, 4.5% of US crashes, 0.4% of fatal crashes)

* Rollovers (141,000 crashes, 2.3% of all US crashes, 10.9% of US fatal crashes)

* Head-on collision (123,000 crashes, only 2.0% of all US crashes, but 10.1% of US fatal crashes)

* Collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists (114,000 crashes, only 1.8% of US crashes, but 13.5% of US fatal crashes)

* Back-up collisions killed 221 people in the US in 2007, and injured about 14,400. This is one of the most common types of non-traffic auto collision in which road workers and children 15 and younger are killed.

Car accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yes, one can make a case that the smaller car does not do as well in a Head-on collision. That comes to 2.0% of all US crashes and 10.1% of all fatal crashes, BUT if you purchased an SUV, because you want to be "safer" in a head-on crash, the SUVs have a much higher risk of rollover and many SUVs lack the roof support to stand a rollover crash. The end result is that if your are in a rollover, which is 2.3% of all US crashes, it's 10.9% of US fatal crashes.

On the other hand, the Smart Car has proven itself to hold up very well to, Angle or side impacts, Run-off-road collisions, and Rollovers. As for the other types of crashes, I can't find any data online to back up any thing either way.

Another factor to consider is the degree of risk, more people are going to die from cancer or a heart attack this year, than from a car crash.


Bob Diaz

[gstreetcomic]

Great flash video, gets the point across well.

Originally Posted by forestacademy

[The Rigger]

Originally Posted by rfernatt

Am I concerned? Nah. You're more likely to die of a great many things before death in a small car. I hear those banana peels are killer...

You're statistically more likely to die of a heart attack or get struck by lightning than you are to die in a collision in *any* mini-compact car, let alone a ForTwo.

Forty-five fatalities per million collisions. That's *Million*, with an "M." That's a zero-point-zero-zero-four-five percent chance of buying the farm.

I'm just sayin'...