PROOF: Bigger cars are deadlier in collisions.

[Philly]

Follow this link to check out the gallery and see the results.

Link to article.

One of the biggest concerns people have with buying smal cars is crash safety. More specifically, there are concerns about what happens when a small car meets a larger one in an accident. Regardless of size, all cars are required to meet the same crash safety standards. The problem is that crash tests are done by slamming a car into a standardized barrier, while accidents in the real world don't generally involve impacts with standardized barriers.

When cars of different sizes collide there are a huge number of variables that impact the result. One of those is kinetic energy, which is a function of mass and velocity. A larger, heavier vehicle has more energy than a smaller, lighter one, and in combination with less crush space, the latter tends to come off worse in an accident. The Insurance institute for Highway Safety has run a series of crash tests between sub-compact and mid-sized cars and in all three cases the small cars did substantially worse than they did in the standard crash tests. All of the small cars earned good scores in regular testing but did poorly in the new tests. The IIHS press release explains the results after the jump.

The thing that does bother me about this study is that they don't show what happened to the bigger car at all. The pictures make it look like the smaller car gets completely mauled, and the bigger car comes away with barely a scratch. I'm sure it's not quite as bad as the smaller car, but if their barrier tests aren't accurate (which seems pretty clear here), then surely they'd have something to show us for the bigger cars being perhaps not as safe as advertised.

It still is rather frightening that you can go out and buy a small car (which as enthusiasts, I'm sure we can say we prefer smaller cars) that is said to be very safe, but we will still have to compete with big SUVs that will likely cause even more damage to the driver compartment than this test shows. And even more scary is the thought that the people driving those SUVs probably aren't quite as good at accident avoidance as those of us in small cars. I wish people would wake up and realize that going out and buying a big SUV or whatever because they feel safer in it does indeed make it more dangerous out there for the rest of us.

And perhaps this test also shows that the IIHS could stand to revise their safety ratings a little. Because after seeing this, you have to wonder if that 5-star rated Kia is really going to be that safe out there. I wouldn't know from experience, but I do hear that the majority of collisions do not occur with standardized crash barriers planted at a specific point in front of a car.

 

[bicycleshorts]

I wish people would wake up and realize that going out and buying a big SUV or whatever because they feel safer in it does indeed make it more dangerous out there for the rest of us.

This will never happen because:
1. Some people always want to have the "biggest" - this is not just with cars.
2. Some All people are selfish and will put themselves (and their family) before everyone else.

Edited because of Jondot's reply. I was in a rush when I first posted.

 

[YSSMAN]

What I thought was weird was watching the ForTwo test, and then thinking of the videos on YouTube of them crashing it into an older S-Class. In that test, despite the ForTwo being tossed around quite a bit, it still survived the impact.

I think the most surprising result in that test was the mauling that was done to the Toyota Corolla Yaris. Wow. Absolutely obliterated.

 

[Jondot]

2. Some people are selfish and will put themselves before everyone else.

That's all very well and good, but ultimately if I'm going to buy a car, I want (primarily) to make sure I am safe. When I, as a hypothetical American parent, goes out to buy a family car, whose safety am I going to put first? The chances are that, when handing over the $28,000 for my new Honda Pilot, I'm not going to suddenly think 'hang on, what about the poor driver in the Yaris I might hit?' and throw the keys back in the salesman's face before asking to look at the Fit again.

If you're going to make a statement like that, then you can brandish pretty much every car buyer in the world as selfish too. Again, let's say as the hypothetical parent I go and do the 'unselfish' thing and buy a Honda Fit. If I hit an Accord, I'm screwed (apparently...). But what if I drive into a Geo Metro? They're going to be wiped out by my larger, far more modern car. So I'm selfish again, surely?

Ok, so instead I buy a Geo Metro. If I hit pretty much any car, I'm coming off worse. Great. But wait, what if I hit a bike?


...you can't win.



But I do get where you're coming from.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I think the most surprising result in that test was the mauling that was done to the Toyota Corolla. Wow. Absolutely obliterated.

Where? or are you talking about the Yaris?

 

[Gil]

Dang, Treed by Jondot. But keep reading anyway.

Yes, that is why I transport the family in an Excursion when all of us travel together.

By the same token, I'm also an enthusiast. I feel your pain as I usually drive a car.
But, I also know how long it takes to stop a 4 ton SUV.
I try to keep a pretty good deal of space around my vehicle, because of the decreased "agility" of said vehicle.

If I could transport the 8 of us in something smaller, with better handling, better fuel economy, and that was easier to park, don't you think I'd be driving it? Believe me, I tried numerous vehicles to find something larger then my Venture, but "reasonable" sized and comfy. My Choices ultimately came down to the Expedition, and the Excursion. The fuel economy, and extra space of the diesel won out.

I picked the most fuel efficient vehicle I could get my family in, (15-20MPG) And sure as shooting someone concludes that I don't care about the safety of others, because that vehicle happens to be a large SUV.

Well, I have a few observations as well:
It's a 4 ton SUV.
DON"T cut me off from the stoplight. It's not easy for me to stop this behemoth. So signal, and get some distance before you cut into my lane and inexplicably slow to a crawl. Signalling also alerts me to your intentions, so that I may act accordingly.

Oh, did I mention that I'm well award that I have a longer stopping distance? DON"T rush to jump in front of me, and then slow to a crawl.
I realize that it is often difficult to see around me.
Please realize when I'm going slow infront of you, it's because some dude in front of me is going slow, and I've given him a wide berth in case he decides to do something stupid.
When you "slide around" and cut me off, you effectively erase the safety margin I've left for stopping behind the slow guy. And I'm glad that you are no longer tail-gating me...However, Now if there is an emergency stop situation, Your car is now in the space I tried to leave for a safe stop. If you do the math, that means I'll be stopping where you are, or in front of you. If I stop in front of you, or where you are, YOU will be UNDER a 4 ton SUV.

And I'm the one that doesn't care about anyone else's safety?

See, I believe you secretly harbor some sort of death wish. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. You can't possibly just be stupid...so, you cut me off because you want to die.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have obliterated my safety zone. You've gained a whole 50 feet by cutting me off. And you've effectively put yourself in a position where you are way more likely to get crushed between "mr. Slow", and an SUV. What other conclusion is there?

How late are you that cutting 5 seconds off your trip by cutting me off is worth your life?
I know it's only about 5 seconds because I just pulled into the parking lot pretty much on your tail.

Please don't stereotype SUV drivers as being ignorant to the safety of people in cars.
EVERYONE needs to drive aware.

 

[Keef]

Why do you need proof to understand that more mass causes more damage? That theory hasn't been proven before?

You do realize the only way to make small cars safer is to...make them bigger. And heavier. And at that point we'll have a Smart car as big as an 80s Accord. By the way, that 80s Accord is now as big as a Crown Victoria.

So everybody go buy yourself an SUV. Those things don't even land on the wheels half the time when they hit something.

 

[YSSMAN]

Where? or are you talking about the Yaris?

Whoops, Yaris not Corolla. Good catch! See how much they look alike...

 

[Omnis]

Forget a Fiesta... I'm getting one of these:

 

[Philly]

@Gil:

Yes, it is hard to lump all SUV drivers into one category. There certainly are some like you who drive them because they need them, and even drive them responsibly. But there are a lot of SUV drivers who aren't like that. There are plenty of people who drive their Yukon (which probably isn't a necessity for them) like it's a car, weaving through traffic at 80. Those are the ones who may buy their SUV because they feel safer in it and whatnot.

Although you do raise a good point that EVERYBODY needs to drive a little smarter. But even still, that's not going to save us all because if you still have somebody who thinks their truck is in fact a car, and adjusts their driving habits accordingly, there's still going to be a good chance of them plowing over the car in front because they couldn't stop fast enough.

But I do get where you're coming from.

Even still, if people downsized the cars that they drive, there probably would be fewer bigger cars on the road. And then the threat of getting into a run-in with an SUV would be lower so the need for a bigger car to protect yourself isn't as great.

 

[Tornado]

Wait, this is news?

 

[Azuremen]

@Gil- I understand where you are coming from, and you bought said beast of a vehicle to transport your family. However, I have seen a lot, and I do mean a lot, of families I know that have 1 kid, or maybe two, but they have two Escalades so that dad can go to work in his tank and mom can drop their son off for soccer practice. Also, most of the time when people pull out in front of me and cut me off, they are in an SUV or truck of some sort. I've had to move into lanes of on coming traffic because they just roll the stop sign and go, sometimes in snow. A lot of those drivers tend act surprised when they realize there was a car there. And then you have all the kids that mommy and daddy got an SUV because they felt it is safer.

In general, I hate SUVs. Yes, some people do need them, but a fast majority never see off road or are filled with people and stuff. Most of the people with them would function just fine with a Forester, or a mini-van.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I have NEVER though of smaller cars to be safe at all. I pretty much know that if I get hit really hard in a little car, I am dead. But hey at least I am saving gas each day that I am alive in my little car. 👍

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm very confused. I'm almost certain I posted a response in this thread earlier today, but it doesn't appear to be there. Ah well.

I have NEVER though of smaller cars to be safe at all. I pretty much know that if I get hit really hard in a little car, I am dead. But hey at least I am saving gas each day that I am alive in my little car. 👍

Depends what you get hit by. Small cars can be safe. There are umpteen videos of Smarts crashing into various things on youtube, and they do seem to come out of them relatively well. It shows the benefits of a well-designed safety cell, and probably more so, a strong shape - that of effectively a sphere, and we all know that circles are naturally resilient and spread the force of an impact in all directions. It's why a skull is the shape it is, why a crash helmet is the shape it is and why the Smart makes a point of showing off it's safety cell.

Interesting to see how the tiny smart comes off comparatively much better against the Mercedes than the Yaris does against the Camry though - despite the fact that the Yaris has the engine in the front which (in theory) can be useful in absorbing impact forces.

Whoops, Yaris not Corolla. Good catch! See how much they look alike...

They do indeed. I'm strangely taken by both cars though. The sedan Corolla and Yaris look so much better than the 5dr Auris and 5dr Yaris we get in the UK. The Yaris is quite a sporty looking little number.

Back on topic and on accidents in general - it's always worth remembering that you aren't automatically unsafe by buying any car nowadays, no matter how big or small - if you're a careful and observant driver, you can drastically minimise the risk in any car. As Gil and Jondot mentioned, you just need to have consideration of other drivers when you're actually driving, not when you're buying a car. If you drive like a moron then you're going to be more of a danger to others and to yourself regardless of what you're driving.

 

[Joey D]

What I always find amusing is the many big vehicles score poor with crash rating as well. I remember this story that was posted on Jalopnik that showed what happened between a crash between a MINI Cooper S and a Chevy Tahoe, and the winner was defiantly the Cooper S (Link).

I've found the crash tests tend to not really represent what actually happens in a real life collision since you can not duplicate the randomness of a real world crash. The IIHS more or less provides the ideal crash and shows the results.

I'm not saying small cars are safer than bigger vehicles but I think a lot of this is blown way out of proportion. Any vehicle can be safe, just as any vehicle can be unsafe, it all depends on how the accident happens.

I do think however this is a case for lighter weight vehicles, I mean obviously we can not change the laws of physics. Force will always equal mass x acceleration. Lower the mass and you will lower the force, this however is not to suggest we should all drive around a bunch of Lotus Elise though.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I guess my point was that if you take a very tiny car and a very large car, then smash into them with the same object, the tiny car will take more damage.

 

[Jim Prower]

The main thing you can do to protect yourself is to be aware of what everyone else around you is doing. Case-in-point: had I not been paying attention to some guy backing out of his driveway in a Chevy HHR, I'd have ended up with my engine in his rear cargo area instead of inches from his bumper honking at him and trying to resist the temptation to give him the finger.

Some people can't be arsed to give a damn. So you have to give one for them. Sad, but true.

As for bigger vehicle being worse for others in a collision...DUH. Law of energy transfer, people: the item with less mass will have a harsher acceleration. Thus, both vehicles might crumple the same, but the occupants of the smaller vehicle will undergo a larger acceleration. Aside from stuff entering the passenger compartment, the big cause of people getting killed in accidents is this acceleration. Even if the Silverado on the wrong side of the road because Bubba's Drunk doesn't pierce Louis's Mini's passanger compartment, Louis will be shot off so fast that his neck will snap.

 

[Joey D]

I guess my point was that if you take a very tiny car and a very large car, then smash into them with the same object, the tiny car will take more damage.

That's not exactly true though, much of it is how the vehicle is designed to take that collision. If you are in a truck you will probably take more damage since the frame will more that likely give out. Check out this article. It shows the result of a 40mph crash on an off set barrier and the larger vehicle did not win this round.

 

[homeforsummer]

But also remember that a bigger, stiffer object will crumple less and more of the decelerative force will be absorbed by the occupants rather than the car. The more crumple you can get without intruding too much into the passenger compartment, the better it's going to be for the occupants.

EDIT: Tree'd by Joey.

 

[Duke]

It's all a conspiracy to get Americans to buy the main thing American automakers seem to make these last few years - honking big massive vehicles.

Neither the current nor past administrations have proven themselves to be above this kind of manipulation...

 

[Jim Prower]

This is the IIHS, independent from the Gov't.

and I dont' see Obama being one of the SUV crowd. He's way too liberal.

 

[Joey D]

and I dont' see Obama being one of the SUV crowd. He's way too liberal.

Nope, apparently he drove a 300C before becoming president.

 

[Jim Prower]

Really?

Huh. I'm an Illinoisan, and did not know this.

Still, he seems to carry the party line pretty good.

 

[Gil]

@Gil- I understand where you are coming from, and you bought said beast of a vehicle to transport your family. However, I have seen a lot, and I do mean a lot, of families I know that have 1 kid, or maybe two, but they have two Escalades so that dad can go to work in his tank and mom can drop their son off for soccer practice. Also, most of the time when people pull out in front of me and cut me off, they are in an SUV or truck of some sort. I've had to move into lanes of on coming traffic because they just roll the stop sign and go, sometimes in snow. A lot of those drivers tend act surprised when they realize there was a car there. And then you have all the kids that mommy and daddy got an SUV because they felt it is safer.

In general, I hate SUVs. Yes, some people do need them, but a fast majority never see off road or are filled with people and stuff. Most of the people with them would function just fine with a Forester, or a mini-van.

A lot of SUV's pulling out in front of people can be attributed to cranial rectal insertion.
A good deal can also be attributed to people not having the first clue how to properly adjust the outside rearview mirrors.
With the mirrors adjusted like most people tend to (so they can see the back end of their own vehicle), it is likely they pulled out in front of you because they simply didn't see you.

You should set your outside mirrors so that you can eyeball the car in the adjacent lane till the point it becomes visible in your peripheral vision. This applies to all vehicles.

In the case of my truck, it comes with HONKING HUGE "Dumbo Ear" outside mirrors. (Thank you FoMoCo) These mirrors also have the bottom 2 inches as a seperately adjustable convex mirror.
For me, the convex mirrors are set so I can see what's close to the truck. IT makes it somewhat easier to park the thing.

That said, I can make the arguement for having one Escalade. But two is somewhat ridiculous. If you can afford two Escalades, you can afford to let your wife drive the Escalade, and buy something more interesting for yourself. Say a CTS-V.
Then every time you have "team transport" duty, you'll love your car that much more when you can park the troop carrier, and return to your car.

 

[Stevisiov]

What I always find amusing is the many big vehicles score poor with crash rating as well. I remember this story that was posted on Jalopnik that showed what happened between a crash between a MINI Cooper S and a Chevy Tahoe, and the winner was defiantly the Cooper S (Link).

Its true smaller cars often score better in crash test, but don't let that fool you in to thinking that those cars are indeed safer on the road, infact the opposite is far more true.

It can be shown in a fairly simplified physics calculations, why a smaller cars tend to fair better.

Lets in a crash (similar to how crash test are conducted) two cars hit a concrete wall at 20m/s (about 40mph). the crash brings the cars to a complete halt.

One is a big heavy grand tourer (2100kg) and one is a small light econobox (700kg)

Just before the crash they have the same speed but the grand tourer has far more kinetic energy due to its higher mass.

The kinetic energy can be calculated by the equation Ek = 1/2mv^2 (m = mass, v = velocity)

grand tourer: Ek = 420000J
Econobox: Ek = 140000J

After the crash they both have 0 kinetic energy.

As you can see, the kinetic energy the grand tourer is substantially higher, all of which has to dissipated in the crash. The econobox has to dissipate far less energy (although presumably has less crumple zone) which suggests why it could fair better in this test.

However if you put the two head to head (literally) the odds change and you'd certainly want to be in the grand tourer and not the econobox.

The two cars collide head on, both travelling 20m/s (same as last time). They crash head on and both are brought to a complete halt. The kinetic energy that has to be dissipated now is the kinetic energy of the grand tourer + the kinetic energy of the econobox. (Ek = 140000 + 420000)

So the energy dissipated by both cars having a head on is now 560000J

For the grand tourer this is 33% more energy it has to dissipate, than when it hit the concrete wall.

For the econobox this is 400% more energy it is required to dissipate, than when it hit a concrete wall.

What this means is, when the econobox car hits a wall, it has an easier time dealing with the impact, because it has less mass for the crumple zones to decelerate. The larger car has more mass to decelerate, even with the bigger crumple zone, the grand tourer has to decelerate 3 times the mass, this is why it may not fair as well in the crash test.

However the same isn't true in a head on. The econobox's crumple zones no have to decelerate its own small mass and the grand tourer's big mass combined. In fact both cars crumple zones have to decelerate their combined mass, however the grand tourers big crumple zone is going to fair better than the econobox's small crumple zone.

You can look at it through momentum change and it tells the same story.

Simply put, the occupants of the small car hitting the tree might fair better than the occupants of a large car hitting a tree, but in a large car hitting the a small car, the large car is going to come out better off.

Now that was all a bit general, crashes obviously aren't so simple but the quick physics should give a good idea, providing I got it right ( it is late though ).

I do think however this is a case for lighter weight vehicles, I mean obviously we can not change the laws of physics. Force will always equal mass x acceleration. Lower the mass and you will lower the force, this however is not to suggest we should all drive around a bunch of Lotus Elise though.

Yep F=ma is another good way to show it, it might have been easier doing that actually, or just momentum changes, ah well, nevermind.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

When I needed a people mover, I bought a people mover. It's not exactly rocket science to buy a car optimised for moving seven adults (or a family of 5 plus the battle rations they seem to need), rather than some jacked up pimped out saloon car with seriously compromised dynamics.

This is an example of my car (for the avoidance of doubt, the Espace), and a soccer-mom-mobile giving it offset-frontal angry.



See my point?

 

[Tornado]

See my point?

There wasn't one, as that test was seriously compromised and as a result quite unfair. I understand where you are going with it, but that particular video doesn't prove anything.

 

[homeforsummer]

That said, I can make the arguement for having one Escalade.

Safety aside I can't see a reason why any individual of right mind would buy an Escalade...

This is an example of my car (for the avoidance of doubt, the Espace), and a soccer-mom-mobile giving it offset-frontal angry.

Good vid 👍 Fifth Gear's crash tests are always interesting and often sobering. The Espace was always going to come out of that one better. It'd be interesting though to see how a modern 4x4 would fare, one without a ladder chassis.

Incidentally, has anyone watched some of the other 5th gear crash vids? The Mitsubishi Shogun vs. Honda Civic side impact one is terrifying, especially knowing that occupants in both cars would have been killed - the Civic from being completely crushed and the Shogun because it flipped over. The Volvo Estate vs. Renault Modus one is interesting too - 80mph closing speed and the Modus absolutely mashed the tank-like Volvo.

 

[ND4SPD]

Yay for my 18ft long land yacht. Oh wait.. I think my car bursts into a nice big fiery ball if it gets rear ended hard enough. Much like the pinto. Gotta love how my car's gas tank s in the crumple zones!

 

[Tornado]

Safety aside I can't see a reason why any individual of right mind would buy an Escalade...

The same reason people buy Range Rovers.

The Volvo Estate vs. Renault Modus one is interesting too - 80mph closing speed and the Modus absolutely mashed the tank-like Volvo.

I think I remember seeing that one during the brief time that 5th Gear was shown in America.