Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Smart cars are for people who "think" they're better than everyone else.
Obvioulsy, they aren't.
Or, they're for people who have to deal with tight side-street parking every day and so they get one without any implied value judgment toward those who don't.
Or, they're for people who have to deal with tight side-street parking every day and so they get one without any implied value judgment toward those who don't.
"To each his own" does not seem to apply to many posters here.
Naturally a modern, safe mid-sized car is probably going to win in a crash with a modern, safe sub-sub compact car. But there's always something bigger on the road. That same mid-sized car probably wouldn't fair well in a crash with a modern, safe, full size pickup. And that pickup won't look too nice after a crash with a dump truck. And if you get hit by a tractor trailer, I doubt it would matter whether you were in a 2010 Silverado, a Smart car, or a 59 Cadillac (which would probably look worse after a crash with the C300 than the Smart did.)
Ok... I'm failing to see how you arrive at the conclusion that occupants of a smart car have the SAME probability of sustaining the SAME injuries as the occupants of any other vehicle.
If I am not mistaken you explained the "food chain" of vehicles on the road. With the smart car being at the bottom of the food chain it will be destroyed by lets say 95% of all vehicles on the road. The pickup truck will be destroyed by about 35% of all vehicles on the road and the dump truck maybe about 5%.
When you hop into a little econobox like that you are now at a safety disadvantage relative to all the other vehicles you share the road with.
Ok... I'm failing to see how you arrive at the conclusion that occupants of a smart car have the SAME probability of sustaining the SAME injuries as the occupants of any other vehicle. If I am not mistaken you explained the "food chain" of vehicles on the road. With the smart car being at the bottom of the food chain it will be destroyed by lets say 95% of all vehicles on the road. The pickup truck will be destroyed by about 35% of all vehicles on the road and the dump truck maybe about 5%. When you hop into a little econobox like that you are now at a safety disadvantage relative to all the other vehicles you share the road with.
Where you mess up with this conclusion is you are looking at the situation on any given crash AFTER it has occurred where any vehicle in question is involved 100% of the time. This doesn't happen. What you should be asking is what is the chance of being in an accident that results in injuries. For example consider the hypothetical town where there is 1 Smart on the road and 100 pickups. Say there are 5 fatal accidents/year. What is the chance that one of these accidents will involve the Smart? This is why the probability is statistically the same.
There are other factors that come into play such as accident avoidance. The Smart is easier to manuever and to stop. You are 100% guaranteed not to have any injuries in accidents that you don't have.
Where you mess up with this conclusion is you are looking at the situation on any given crash AFTER it has occurred where any vehicle in question is involved 100% of the time. This doesn't happen. What you should be asking is what is the chance of being in an accident that results in injuries. For example consider the hypothetical town where there is 1 Smart on the road and 100 pickups. Say there are 5 fatal accidents/year. What is the chance that one of these accidents will involve the Smart? This is why the probability is statistically the same.
That is not how I am looking at it...
There is a pickup truck and a smart car in front of you. You have the option to drive either. You choose the smart car. You are now at a safety disadvantage to 95% of the vehicles around you.
Alternatively you could have chosen the pickup truck which gives you a more desirable safety disadvantage of 35%, relative to the vehicles around you.
Those percentages are arbitrary, however they are relatively accurate. They are not representative of the likelihood of being involved in an accident, rather they are representative of the probability of sustaining more damage than the other vehicle it has collided with.
What if your hypothetical town had 100 pickup trucks and 100 smart cars. And lets say EVERY driver drove drunk ALL the time so they are constantly smashing into each other. Which type of driver do you think has the highest fatality rate?
Ok... I'm failing to see how you arrive at the conclusion that occupants of a smart car have the SAME probability of sustaining the SAME injuries as the occupants of any other vehicle.
If I am not mistaken you explained the "food chain" of vehicles on the road. With the smart car being at the bottom of the food chain it will be destroyed by lets say 95% of all vehicles on the road. The pickup truck will be destroyed by about 35% of all vehicles on the road and the dump truck maybe about 5%.
When you hop into a little econobox like that you are now at a safety disadvantage relative to all the other vehicles you share the road with.
What I'm saying (though not so much in the part of my comment you quoted. I don't really remember why I added that portion)) is that larger doesn't always equal safer. A Smart car is surprisingly safe for its size due to clever engineering. So is a C300. But chances are, an '85 Cutlass is going to fair worse in an accident than a Smart car. Cars simply weren't designed for safety to the same extent back then. So if you if you crash a Smart into a C300, naturally the C300 is going to come out on top. It's equally well-designed for safety PLUS bigger. Crash the Smart into, say, my old 72 El Camino, and I'd be willing to bet the driver of the Smart would come out looking better. The El Camino's crumple zone would likely be the cab. And those lap belts don't really help as much as a 3 point harness and loads of airbags. The El Camino, despite being much larger, simply wasn't designed to withstand an impact as well as a modern car, regardless of size.
Last winter I saw a Camry and a Smart car involved in an accident. The Camry t-boned the Smart car and pushed it up over a curb and into a local Walgreens' front yard. The Camry sustained a lot more damage than the Smart car did. I was quite shocked to say the least!!!!! Im a believer in their safety!
After reading all the posts in this thread, the only reason I can see for even considering a "Smart" car is if it would be driven in an extremely congested inner city.
Price? Inexpensive, but for a smaller car I would much rather go straight to the used car classifieds and buy a well-maintained 2004 or 2005 Civic, which run about $8,000 to $10,000.
Fuel economy? As many have pointed out, for such a small car with a tiny Geo Metro-sized three-cylinder engine, the Smart's fuel economy seems pitiful. It also requires premium gasoline. Isn't the main idea of buying a small car to save money on gas? This past week I rented a new Corolla. In mainly highway driving I averaged between 38 and 40 mpg. In steady 60 mph driving along California's Highway 37 in the Bay Area (very flat, next to San Pablo Bay), I was getting an indicated 43 to 45 mpg on average. The Corolla's back seat is too cramped, but the trunk space is cavernous! The Corolla, Honda Fit, Kia Forte, Ford Focus, and I think the upcoming (admittedly quite small) Ford Fiesta should all be able to rival the Smart's gas mileage while running on regular 87 unleaded.
What about driving a Smart around San Francisco? I don't think it has the muscle to make it up a lot of its hills without great difficulty. Turning right (south) on Divisadero from eastbound Lombard Street, as just one example, takes you up a grade that has to be at least 25 percent. It's like going straight up almost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
