I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of other
vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle
For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others
pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though.
What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla,
according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual
airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different),
or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger
people buying Prizms?
By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date study?
I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the data
given per mile traveled.
Yes. The same group that would be buying the other cars that do poorly
in that study.
Interesting, but as with all these studies, the extenuating factors
greatly affect the results.
Camrys and Accords are bought mainly by more educated, more affluent
consumers toting along children. You'd expect them to have lower
Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a concrete
Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
really? have you seen this?
crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to
absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
exactly as above.
oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to
stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road
hazard, not decrease it.
are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE
vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
except for the fact that you're more likely to crash in the first place.
heavier vehicles are harder to stop. they tend to roll more easily too.
why would they? can you not see the difference?
yes indeed i am.
you're advocating heavy vehicles. that's very uninformed because just
weight doesn't enhance survivability, it's passenger cell design and
energy absorption that do that.
otoh, increased vehicle weight increases gas consumption. if you were
to, er, "encourage" incorporation of "safety features" that added
400-600lbs weight to every vehicle in the nation, which we are, you're
talking very significant additional gasoline consumption. [and of
course increasing crash propensity for the reasons above.]
/your/ only winner seems to be the oilco.
What makes you think that? Some grade school physics:
Not if "all other things are equal", like the center of mass.
They were crashed into a cement wall at THE SAME SPEED, presumably.
But if they were crashed into each other, the effective speed would be
lower for F150.
effective speed == speed relative to the center of mass of two
I'll try to explain this in layman's terms:
If you have a 3000 lb Civic crashing into a 6000 lb Ford Pickup head-
on, each traveling at 30 mph, then 0.1 seconds after the crash, their
combined mess will continue going where the Ford was going, but now at
10 mph (preservation of momentum). Therefore, Civic decelerated 40 mph
in the collision, and Ford only 20 mph.
give me a break!!! what matters is what happens to the occupants
acceleration vectors [deceleration] and whether the passenger cell
intrudes into their space. occupant reactions are not simple m1v1 = m2v2.
Do you disagree specifically with anything I wrote? You were saying
that crash testing into a cement wall shows how safe a vehicle is. I
wrote that this is not the whole picture, and weight counts (a lot).
I suspect you are one of those big ass SUV drivers who wants everyone
else to drive compact cars. You'll obviously be safer than if everyone
drives and SUV, but we won't be.
1. weight doesn't mean shit when a vehicle collides with a solid object.
and a vehicle with a high roll propensity or that's hard to stop is
much more likely to do that.
2. yet again, what matters in a collision with another vehicle is how
the occupants collide with the rest of the car. to minimize injury,
they want a vehicle whose passenger cell remains intact and whose
exterior absorbs the blow.
3. i've avoided collisions in my civic that i couldn't in larger cars
because it's light and agile and stops quickly. and frankly i reverted
to an 89 civic from a 2000 because the 2000 was so much heavier it
handled like crap. the damned thing wouldn't stop fast either.
The center of mass of my Fit is about 14 inches off the deck, two
inches left of midline and about 11 inches ahead of the center of the
car. My B-i-L's F350 is 44 inches up, about 4 inches left and about
18 inches aft of the front axle. Guess which is more stable.
"Effective speed"? I shall peruse some of the SAE journals I have
access to for this term.
BTW, why does California require more liability coverage for vehicles
with a GVW of greater than 4400 lbs? Because they kill people?
- dillon I am not invalid
Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
My Fit can drive circles around an F150. I'm more likely to avoid the
Somewhere I have some pictures I took during my days as an
investigator for the Federal Railroad Administration. One was of a
Suburban vs. an SD40. The burb is huge, but it's weight didn't do
shit for it.
The claim of "heavy weight = safety" only hold up when you smack the
heavy critter into or with a lighter car. Somebody is always heavier
Well, for years the "Toast 3" were winners, touting the "greater
safety" of their high margin trucks. Whcih they now can't give away.
$12K off a Ram? WTF?!
- dillon I am not invalid
Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors.
It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must slow
down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and harder to
recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at more risk.
A small car like a Civic is much better at avoidance assuming that the
driver has capacity to do so.
OTOH, if all conditions were equal such as a head-on crash, I'll take
the bigger, badder, mass of iron any day.
One of my favorite utterances is, "My '55 Studebaker President state
sedan will take full advantage of the other guy's econobox's crumple zone!"
(Who would dearly like to challenge a "smart" car)
they also block the view ahead for regular passenger vehicles,increasing
plus there's incentive to avoid rather than take a hit. ;-)
every driver has "capacity"(ability),it's that many don't exercise the
And thus LESS incentive to avoid a collision.
Ordinary drivers in large cars/SUVs tend to not maneuver.
And add to -everyone's- risk in the process.
(selfish,besides being wasteful and costly to everyone.)
Since smaller cars have to have additional refinforcements and safety gear
like air bags to partially compensate for the more dangerous large
vehicles others drive,their weight goes up and their fuel economy drops
since much of our petro is imported,larger vehicles that get lower mileage
contribute to more imports,lessening our national security.
It's patriotic to drive a small car! Besides being better environmentally.
More oil tankers means more risk of spills.
that's because they can't. if you have 100% more weight on the road but
only 50% more rubber [if that], it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to
figure out which vehicle can be best stopped or maneuvered. [hint -
it's not the suv.]
this is something that blows my mind - modern engines are /way/ more
efficient than old ones, yet because modern cars have all this "safety
weight", their fuel consumption is actually /worse/ than older vehicles.
check out the fuel consumption on the crx hf vs. the fit or civic hybrid.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.