Yaris vs. Camry - Yaris looses

[Red Horse]

Toyota should move the Yaris driver seat in the center :)

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by supmet

Wow a bunch of numbers that do nothing to show how often cars hit with exactly opposite forces, thanks!

Here is something from wiki that's actually useful:

# Head-on collision................but 10.1% of US fatal crashes)

2% is low, but how many of those are exactly opposite vectors of each other?? .

sarcastic and smug all at once...are you sure you dont drive a prius?

so, one out of every 50 crashes is a head on collision. head on crashes are going to be quite often opposite vectors of each other.

you just cited information that contradicts your "1 in a million" idea. then you ask a question that my useless statistics already gave you the answer to. the head on crashes are precisely the crashes that make up a good chunk of the fatalities.

head on crashes may make up 2% of all crashes in the u.s. but the fact that head on crashes make up for 10% of fatal crashes is very disproportionate.

so, of the 40,000 fatal crashes per year in the U.S., 4000 of them are due to head on collisions.

trees make up another 8% of all fatal crashes, and certainly many of those are of the head on variety.

so, clearly more than 1 in 50 crashes are of the head on variety. to argue about how precisely offset the crashes are is not productive. a head on crash in any car has a disproportionate chance of ending in a fatality compared to all crashes, and having it happen in a yaris wont make those odds better.

however, the point that driving a smaller, more nimble car can help one avoid crashes in the first place is valid, so there are advantages to a car like the yaris that crash tests, of course, cannot measure.

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by Red Horse

Toyota should move the Yaris driver seat in the center :)

...and to the back seat. just need a steering wheel that telescopes 4 feet.

[supmet]

Originally Posted by roxy1

so, one out of every 50 crashes is a head on collision.

so, clearly more than 1 in 50 crashes are of the head on variety.

I don't argue with people that forget where they are going by the end of their own paragraph.(or people that consider trees head on collisions)

[Tamago]

driving lessons are a better way to spend your money than buying a heavier car :)

a majority of accidents happen when the driver of one or both vehicles is screwing around "not" driving.. radio, makeup, smoking, reading, talking on the phone.... it's just a shame when the irresponsible driver takes out the guy who was paying attention but couldn't react quickly enough

[POORSHA]

Hate to mention it, but there was a video of a smart vs mercedes. The smart did ok.

[Tamago]

Originally Posted by POORSHA

Hate to mention it, but there was a video of a smart vs mercedes. The smart did ok.

the smart has always done well. no surprise there.

[supmet]

Originally Posted by Tamago

the smart has always done well. no surprise there.

The smart did ok. What about the passengers? I'm still a firm believer in the necessity of crumple zones.

There's a video of the smart running into a concrete barrier, and then the guy is like "oh look how well built the smart is! the passenger door still opens!". Everyone would have died in that car.

[Tamago]

Originally Posted by supmet

The smart

There's a video of the smart running into a concrete barrier, and then the guy is like "oh look how well built the smart is! the passenger door still opens!". Everyone would have died in that car.

please name ANY car where the passengers would survive an 70mph head on impact. and don't take that video out of context. the commentator stated in the video that no one would have made it out alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJnWSUhjp0g

[supmet]

Originally Posted by Tamago

please name ANY car where the passengers would survive an 70mph head on impact.

I googled 70 mph collision, and this was the first link that wasn't about the smart test

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Str...00811315153872

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by supmet

I don't argue with people that forget where they are going by the end of their own paragraph.(or people that consider trees head on collisions)

reading is a skill. since some frontal collisions with trees and other solid barriers are obviously head on collisions, and car on car head on collisions make up for 1 in 50 of crashes, then obviously more than 1 in 50 crashes are of the head on variety.

physics will clearly show that hitting a tree head on will impart more damage than two cars hitting each other going 25 mph.

the abilities of a car to withstand these types of crash tests has relevance in the context of any type of head on collision regardless of the object.

they are not "wasting their money testing a 1 in a million accident"

sorry you dont consider these types of crashes as head on collisions. i do:

[Tamago]

Originally Posted by roxy1

reading is a skill. since some frontal collisions with trees and other solid barriers are obviously head on collisions, and car on car head on collisions make up for 1 in 50 of crashes, then obviously more than 1 in 50 crashes are of the head on variety.

why are you two arguing about this?

[TheRealEnth]

cars crash.. people die.... dont worry about statistics.... just try to be a good driver.... if someone else was the bad driver and u got f**ked over.. then thats life.... end it

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by Tamago

why are you two arguing about this?

you are right. i wasted a good six minutes of my life rebutting a statement that was ludicrous in the first place. from now on i will let ignorant statements stand on their own.

i should have known better then to get dragged down.

shame on me

[Tamago]

Originally Posted by roxy1

you are right. i wasted a good six minutes of my life rebutting a statement that was ludicrous in the first place. from now on i will let ignorant statements stand on their own.

i should have known better then to get dragged down.

shame on me

the shame is all yours! (by the way i do this too, all the time )

[roxy1]

Originally Posted by supmet

The smart did ok. What about the passengers? I'm still a firm believer in the necessity of crumple zones.

There's a video of the smart running into a concrete barrier, and then the guy is like "oh look how well built the smart is! the passenger door still opens!". Everyone would have died in that car.

ill make nice and agree with supmet on this. deceleration plays havoc with internal organs of the body and head. while the cage of the smart might keep the interior of the car intact, the deceleration would have to be made worse by lack of much in the way of a crumple zone.

[Tamago]

Originally Posted by roxy1

ill make nice and agree with supmet on this. deceleration plays havoc with internal organs of the body and head. while the cage of the smart might keep the interior of the car intact, the deceleration would have to be made worse by lack of much in the way of a crumple zone.

i'd rather die with my legs intact than live with my lower body crushed by the dash/steering column.

living without legs is not living.

[Yaris Hilton]

Originally Posted by TheSilkySmooth

You are incorrect here, Mr. Hilton. Simple physics, Newton's third law/conservation of momentum. If both vehicles weighed the same (Mass a=b) and they were traveling the same velocity and collided head on - this situation would be equivalent to a single vehicle collision into an immovable barrier (the Dozer in Vanishing Point?). What added to the structural damage is the 1/3 offset and the 1/2 tonne extra mass of the Camry. Without going through the calculus, I estimate a 50mph barrier collision. The Yaris damage in this trial isnt that much worse than vehicle structures 10 years ago; survivable but with injuries. Still ugly.

You are totally incorrect, from start to finish.