|
04-14-2009, 03:06 AM | #1 |
Drives: 09 hatchback Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ca
Posts: 24
|
Mini v. sedan = injury. No duh. Is this news?
The pimps and slime in the insurance industry rolled out a fresh round of propaganda veiled as science.
My 09 Yaris was on the losing end of their science so I'd thought I'd share with my comrades. But before you peruse the April 13 press release, note how their bottom line agenda about the 55 MPH speed limit seems to drive their findings. --- News Release | April 14, 2009 New crash tests demonstrate the influence of vehicle size and weight on safety in crashes; results are relevant to fuel economy policies ARLINGTON, VA — Three front-to-front crash tests, each involving a microcar or minicar into a midsize model from the same manufacturer, show how extra vehicle size and weight enhance occupant protection in collisions. These Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models. "There are good reasons people buy minicars," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time." The Institute didn't choose SUVs or pickup trucks, or even large cars, to pair with the micro and minis in the new crash tests. The choice of midsize cars reveals how much influence some extra size and weight can have on crash outcomes. The Institute chose pairs of 2009 models from Daimler, Honda, and Toyota because these automakers have micro and mini models that earn good frontal crashworthiness ratings, based on the Institute's offset test into a deformable barrier. Researchers rated performance in the 40 mph car-to-car tests, like the front-into-barrier tests, based on measured intrusion into the occupant compartment, forces recorded on the driver dummy, and movement of the dummy during the impact. Laws of physics prevail: The Honda Fit, Smart Fortwo, and Toyota Yaris are good performers in the Institute's frontal offset barrier test, but all three are poor performers in the frontal collisions with midsize cars. These results reflect the laws of the physical universe, specifically principles related to force and distance. Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants. Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle. Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars. "Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter," Lund says. "In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher, and there's less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to 'ride down' the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood." The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact. Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars. But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection. Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes. Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones. Here's how the pairs of cars fared in the Institute's new crash tests: Honda Accord versus Fit: The structure of the Accord held up well in the crash test into the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit's occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar's rating is poor in the front-to-front crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the Institute's frontal offset test into a deformable barrier. The Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests. Mercedes C class versus Smart Fortwo: After striking the front of the C class, the Smart went airborne and turned around 450 degrees. This contributed to excessive movement of the dummy during rebound — a dramatic indication of the Smart's poor performance but not the only one. There was extensive intrusion into the space around the dummy from head to feet. The instrument panel moved up and toward the dummy. The steering wheel was displaced upward. Multiple measures of injury likelihood, including those on the dummy's head, were poor, as were measures on both legs. "The Smart is the smallest car we tested, so it's not surprising that its performance looked worse than the Fit's. Still both fall into the poor category, and it's hard to distinguish between poor and poorer," Lund says. "In both the Smart and Fit, occupants would be subject to high injury risk in crashes with heavier cars." In contrast, the C class held up well, with little to no intrusion into the occupant compartment. Nearly all measures of injury likelihood were in the good range. Toyota Camry versus Yaris: There was far more intrusion into the occupant compartment of the Yaris than the Camry. The minicar's door was largely torn away. The driver seats in both cars tipped forward, but only in the Yaris did the steering wheel move excessively. Similar contrasts characterize the measures of injury likelihood recorded on the dummies. The heads of both struck the cars' steering wheels through the airbags, but only the head injury measure on the dummy in the Yaris rated poor. There was extensive force on the neck and right leg plus a deep gash at the right knee of the dummy in the minicar. Like the Smart and Fit, the Yaris earns an overall rating of poor in the car-to-car test. The Camry is acceptable. Fuel economy implications: One reason people buy smaller cars is to conserve fuel. Gasoline prices skyrocketed last year, and there's no telling what the price at the pump might be next week. Meanwhile, the gears are turning to hike federal fuel economy requirements to address environmental concerns. The conflict is that smaller vehicles use less fuel but do a relatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, so fuel conservation policies have tended to conflict with motor vehicle safety policies. A problem with the current structure of fuel economy standards for cars is that the target of 27.5 miles per gallon is applied to an automaker's whole fleet, no matter the mix of cars an individual automaker sells. This encourages manufacturers to sell more smaller, lighter cars to offset the fuel consumed by their bigger, heavier models. Sometimes automakers even sell the smaller — and less safe — cars at a loss to ensure compliance with fleetwide requirements. In response, the Obama administration announced it is boosting the fuel economy standard for cars, beginning with 2011 models, and instituting a size-based system to set fuel economy targets like the one already in effect for SUVs, pickups, and vans. This system will mandate lower fuel consumption as cars get smaller and lighter, thus removing the incentive for automakers to downsize their lightest vehicles to comply. It also could mean that technology currently used to enhance horsepower would go instead to reduce gas consumption — a direct safety benefit because less powerful cars have lower crash rates. Another way to conserve fuel, and serve safety at the same time, is to set lower speed limits. Going slower uses less fuel to cover the same distance. The national maximum 55 mph speed limit, enacted in 1974, saved thousands of barrels of fuel per day. It also saved thousands of lives. Highway deaths declined about 20 percent the first year, from 55,511 in 1973 to 46,402 in 1974. The National Research Council estimated that most of the reduction was due to the lower speed limit, and the rest was because of reduced travel. By 1983 the national maximum 55 mph limit still was saving 2,000 to 4,000 lives annually. "Fifty-five was adopted to save fuel, but it turned out to be one of the most dramatic safety successes in motor vehicle history," Lund concludes. "The political will to reinstate it probably is lacking, but if policymakers want a win-win approach, lowering the speed limit is it. It saves fuel and lives at the same time." |
04-14-2009, 04:24 AM | #2 | |
Drives: yaris 08 sedan Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 1,286
|
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2009, 06:03 AM | #3 |
Half a Bubble Off Plumb
Drives: 2009 Yaris Sedan Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bristol, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1,593
|
Hah! I was just coming here to post a link to the same article, which the New York Times is highlighting this morning. What a revelation! Ram a big car into a little car headon, and you're worse off in the little car! Whodathunkit?
|
04-14-2009, 08:14 AM | #4 |
Drives: Yaris Sedan (auto) Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 545
|
So I guess I should avoid head on collisions after all?
|
04-14-2009, 08:32 AM | #5 |
Drives: . Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 1,931
|
JUst makes me realise that ALL big cars should be banned. They are obviously going to do more damage to people, and are therefore unsafe for the public at lasrge. Burn 'em all!
|
04-14-2009, 09:53 AM | #6 |
Half a Bubble Off Plumb
Drives: 2009 Yaris Sedan Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bristol, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1,593
|
BTW, I just looked up the nominal curb weight for a 2008 Camry. 1050 lbs more than my 2009 Yaris sedan.
|
04-14-2009, 10:35 AM | #7 |
Half a Bubble Off Plumb
Drives: 2009 Yaris Sedan Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bristol, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1,593
|
Now they're highlighting this on the CNNMoney site, too.
|
04-14-2009, 11:08 AM | #8 |
Drives: Yaris Sedan (auto) Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 545
|
I saw a test on Fifth gear a year or two ago where they pitted a new small car (Yaris size, I can't remember the brand) vs an old 90's volvo station wagon in a head on at 40mph I think and the small car passenger dummies had maybe a broke leg while the dummies in the volvo were dead.
I'm sure you can find this test on you tube. This is just more fear mongering by the people who don't want the shift in taste to happen in NA from big to smaller. edit: here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY |
04-14-2009, 11:33 AM | #9 |
resident senior
|
Somebody should address the REAL issue . People need more driver training ..................
__________________
|
04-14-2009, 12:58 PM | #10 |
Parallel Parking Pro
|
When was the last time you saw a head-on accident compared to all other types of accidents?
I think head-on accidents are a small percentage of car accidents.
__________________
Leong's NCP91 Toyota Yaris E Hankook V12 Evo 195/55/15 on Buddy Club P1 replicas 15x7 ET +38 Stebel horns, Philips Silvervision turn indicator bulbs TTE Lowering Springs, Camber bolts TRD Blue brake pads Fujitsubo Super Wagolis axleback exhaust DC Sports header |
04-14-2009, 01:23 PM | #11 |
Small cars are a big deal
Drives: 2007 Yaris Liftback Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,144
|
Posted this on my blog, too:
Subcompact Saftey: IIHS gives 'poor' rating to Honda, Toyota, and Smart And yes: basic physics. Like my friend says "BCW: Big Car Wins." To be honest, I didn't see the fuel economy card coming here. I certainly understand what the IIHS is saying. However, I'm not sure I believe that people will stop buying smaller, lighter cars when the fuel economy mandates make automakers raise their lineups' overall economy. I think some people (like all of us here) actually enjoy driving small cars. Really: Compared to the subcompacts of the '70s, '80s, and even some of the '90s, a Yaris, Fit, and even a ForTwo are like driving armored cars.
__________________
Subcompact Culture: The Small car blog |
04-14-2009, 01:27 PM | #12 |
Half a Bubble Off Plumb
Drives: 2009 Yaris Sedan Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bristol, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1,593
|
Now foxnews.com has put this as their lead story and top video link.
|
04-14-2009, 02:32 PM | #13 |
Drives: . Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 1,931
|
Time to mandate a Momentum Limit on the roads. Let's see, a Yaris at (say) 2500 lbs nominal, at 55 mph, gives a momentum of 137,500 lb.mph. Assume a Camry at 3500 lbs, then his max in a 55 zone would be 137,500 / 3500 = 39 mph.
An old Cadillac at around 5000 lbs would be limited to 27.5 mph, etc. A semi, say consevatively 30 tons (60,000 lbs) would be limited to 2 or 3 mph. Time to give the semis their own road system, abnd make life safer for all of us. |
04-14-2009, 02:34 PM | #14 |
Half a Bubble Off Plumb
Drives: 2009 Yaris Sedan Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bristol, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 1,593
|
|
04-14-2009, 02:43 PM | #15 |
Banned
Drives: yw calls me douche and racist. Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hay
Posts: 2,183
|
|
04-14-2009, 02:51 PM | #16 |
DWEED
Drives: 3DR 2008 Metorite Metalic Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,161
|
23 years ago I was involved in a head on accident. I was driving a 73 camaro doing 45mph. A teenager driving a 69 valant crossed the center line at 70 mph. He died. I broke my left hand. Rather it was blind luck or the grace of god that I am alive today I don't know. When your time is up it's up. Live today to it's fullest.
__________________
Making a decision without following it with an action is still a fantasy. |
04-14-2009, 02:56 PM | #17 |
Drives: '14 GT86, '08 Vitz Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Valley, CA
Posts: 9,873
|
hmmm, I guess we all should buy Mack semi trucks now...
But yeah, people need to learn how to drive better and safer, as was mentioned earlier. |
04-14-2009, 02:59 PM | #18 |
Drives: . Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 1,931
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NEWS: TOYOTA REVEALS ALL-NEW YARIS SEDAN AT 2006 LOS ANGELES AUTO SHOW | VitzBoy | General Yaris / Vitz Discussion | 7 | 09-20-2023 07:50 AM |
2007 Yaris Pricing Info ! | YarisBueller | New YARIS Purchase Forum | 104 | 06-24-2009 04:54 PM |
Why people choose a 5dr Liftback instead of a Sedan?? | SimmZ | General Yaris / Vitz Discussion | 53 | 05-29-2007 10:28 PM |
Toyota Australia releases YRX SEDAN. | Sp33dY | General Yaris / Vitz Discussion | 1 | 08-01-2006 01:19 AM |