Certainly true, and they're much more representative of crashes that actually happen. But, as with the superior European standards for many other aspects of automotive construction and design aside from crashworthiness, the European standards are not accepted in the US, so a vehicle's compliance with European standards is meaningless as far as its availability in the US market.
Transport Canada was all set to accept European-standard vehicles in addition to US-spec ones, but the US automakers howled that this would be exceedingly dangerous (...to the home-market compliance advantage they have cultivated over the years...)
Well, it *would* if they would allow it to be tested. It passes in Japan, Germany, and several other countries that are at least as strict as we are in the U.S.
There are several groups trying to get it imported and they sell it in Mexico now - so getting it here isn't a big problem. There is a market for it but the government can't seem to grasp how it can be safe.
Yet - that mutant electric golfcart car they sell around town can get registered???
formatting link
I'd bet Mercededs can make a better vehicle than the GEM.
formatting link
They can get THAT piece of junk highway certified and say the Smart cannot be tested? Just nuts. Oh - and don't even get me started on that little 3-wheeler EV.
3 points better for a Ford Fiesta. Note that the results were better for the Smart with the side airbag. (calculates to 24/25 points)
formatting link
did about the same as the Mini - which the sell in the U.S. So - what gives? It's small, safe, and inexpensive.
Well, that's what a Civic does when hit by a SUV, too. We're talking about a S600 versus a microcar.
Still, the passenger cage was intact. Not bad considering the mismatch. The text translates on the second page roughly to "while the Smart hit hard, the roll-over was rather soft."
It does apparently have a built-in rollcage in the design as well - a nice design feature most U.S. cars do not incorporate into their "safety cages".
I'd rather see the manufacturers and governments spend more time analyzing real crashes and trying to determine what worked in the real world and what didn't rather than engineering cars so they pass a given contrived and unrealistic test.
The aerospace industry does this very well and learns a lot from almost every crash that occurs. Now I realize that many more cars crash than airplanes and thus we can't analyze every car crash to the degree that each airplane crash is analyzed. However, I think we could at least analyze the crashes involving fatalities and any crash that has some unusual circumstances that might provide new insight.
You and me both. The regulatory agencies -- particularly those in North America -- make a terrific show of engaging in just such research. It is largely a sham. There is too much political pressure on them from the automakers to keep things just as they are: A wholly separate set of standards for North America. (Another way of saying this is that US automakers' beancounters and lawyers have *far* too much influence over the US regulatory process.)
H'm. I'd like to see this claim backed up with some very solid documentation. It sounds extremely fishy, and here's why: We don't have Type Approval in North America, where automakers must submit cars and components to a government sanctioned lab and apply for approval thereof. We have Self Certification, where automakers and component manufacturers do their own tests (or contract them out) and certify that their cars (or components) comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, it is improbable that there's any means by which "DOT" could "not allow them to be tested". If that's the story you've heard, there's almost certainly more to it.
I work all day, every day with auto regulations. That doesn't mean I know 'em all off by heart, so I could be wrong, but I think I'm right.
No, it *really* doesn't work this way. You cannot look at European (or any other non-USA country) test results and infer *anything* from them about the safety performance of a vehicle sold in the US. The tests, and therefore the vehicles, are almost entirely different. Even the "same" cars are different under the skin.
Compliance for different markets means more than different headlights and different bumpers.
Standardized auto regulations between Europe and North America???? Heck we can't even standardize clothing washing care symbols! (although strangely enough the US version uses celsius).
All CR subscribers get JD Power surveys? I always wondered what JD Power survey group was.
Hmm well since they are sampling, your response was probably equivalent to about 100,000 people in the US I guess. Oh well, so much for the results of that survey. ;-)
The point is that if you know anything whatsoever about the scientific method you will know one of the fundamentals is the repeatability of experiments and the ability to verify data. None of the commercial survey firms, and this not only includes the consumer crap like Consumer Reports and JD Power, but the business crap like Gartner Group and so on, publishes their data with any possible way for it to be verified. And for good reason, those firms charge in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars for their "conclusions" They have no interest in allowing the customers of their data the ability to see that they might not be compiling the data properly (or even gathering it at all) for fear that the customers might demand their money back.
For all their scientific method, JD Power wasn't able to divine the popularity of the New Bug by VW in advance of it's release, or many of the other trends in the industry that automakers have made piles of money off of. They fill a role much like the benchmarking firms in computers do - as a way of applying a pretence of legitimacy to the marketing and sales departments lying advertisements.
This is exactly what they to in Germany. Note that one link yesterday was a Mercedes S600(V-12 monster) vs a tiny Smart.
The occupants(test dummies) survived despite the huge impact. The above shot was especially telling. You could see that the Smart mashed into the big Mercedes and deformed almost not at all, then bounced off. Nice.
and poke around. Note how they are having HUGE paperwork and regulatory hurdles placed in front of them when they are willing to "self-certify" the vehicles.
They claim that they cannot possibly be made DOT compliant, yet have offered not one example of what does not qualify. Something stinks.
I've been following this intently for two years and every time they knock down a barrier, two more are brought up. There seems to be a real anti-microcar pholosophy in the U.S. Now, the VW Bug and Mini and other 60's microcars WERE unsafe, but when you see a S600 hit a Smart Car and the Mercedes take more damage, you begin to wonder...
has the following to say:(click on the archive link in a search in google as the site is frequently down)
*** JUNE 12, 2003
There appears to be WAY TOO MUCH red tape & politics within our own government and NHTSA/US-DOT has already made the ultimate decision and evaluation that the Smart Car can not be modified for the US-Roadways and they will not let me prove it!
Well, so much for that. Thanks a lot Big Brother for taking away one of our pleasures and our right to drive around in what we want.
One question: If the Car has not had crash tests; How you can say that it DOES NOT qualify for modification for the US-roads. We had a plan to show it does exceeds your standards. Thanks for not permitting me to bring one in to prove it after you said I could bring one in for testing and certification.
I just threw out 10-months of work and research. If anyone has any ideas or know how, lets talk. I have a plan, some funding and I know some of the laws. I just need the NTHSA/US-DOT to bend and let me show them. I'll remanufacture the damn thing if I need to.
In time; I will write a summary listing our Process, Contacts, Problems, Accomplishments and failures.
Regrettably,
Marc-Henry Grau President of Smartcar Research Margate, Florida
***
He tried and they summarily shot him down without even actually crash testing a vehicle or giving him a list of problems that made it fail to comply with U.S. standards. He asked - they refuse to return his letters and emails.
I agree with your conclusion, and DC has been trumpeting the safety of the Smart, but this is what the debate here has been about. This includes the fact that the Smart does well in the EuroNCAP test but not necessarily in another type of test.
Another question (but of no help from a regulatory point of view) is whether the US or ENCAP tests more closely mimic 'real life' situations. On the ENCAP site there is an article about the correlation of its tests with real accidents.
I think that crash tests keep evolving as more measurable info is gleaned from accidents.
Where is it and what is it being used for? Ph.D. theses would be by guess. Which is certainly valuable in its own right, but not as valuable as being design input to Detroit...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.