Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Thread summary:

Small cars getting safer, car safety, selling point, vehicle safety features, Saab crumple zones, engine rails, passenger compartment safety, dash designed to minimize knee injuries

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-24-2008, 10:13 AM
 
695 posts, read 1,377,197 times
Reputation: 142

Advertisements

I think the main features making smaller cars more safe today are:

1. Seat belt/shoulder harness laws.
2. Multiple Airbags
3. Crumple points.



By the way, a friend of mine was once driving a PT Cruiser in bad snow on the Interstate. Lost control, slid across the median and into oncoming traffic, pegging a Suburban.

The driver & passenger of the PT Cruiser walked away, but it killed the driver of the Suburban. Go figure...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2008, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,146,737 times
Reputation: 29983
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar5822 View Post
All safety features equal, the heavier a vehicle is, the safer it is. . .
Maybe in the event of a collision. Maybe. With trucks you have a higher center of gravity and therefore a higher chance of rollover.

But I think too many people neglect the most important accident safety feature of them all: accident avoidance. All other factors being equal as you might say, the smaller, lighter vehicle will have shorter braking distances and better maneuverability and therefore a better chance of avoiding a collision in the first place.

It is dismaying to me how much emphasis this country puts on passive safety versus how little emphasis they put on making sure the people on the roads actually know how to drive -- not just point the car in a particular direction and step on the accelerator, but really know how to drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2008, 02:54 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
262 posts, read 1,042,553 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Maybe in the event of a collision. Maybe. With trucks you have a higher center of gravity and therefore a higher chance of rollover.

But I think too many people neglect the most important accident safety feature of them all: accident avoidance. All other factors being equal as you might say, the smaller, lighter vehicle will have shorter braking distances and better maneuverability and therefore a better chance of avoiding a collision in the first place.

It is dismaying to me how much emphasis this country puts on passive safety versus how little emphasis they put on making sure the people on the roads actually know how to drive -- not just point the car in a particular direction and step on the accelerator, but really know how to drive.
Actually, it's physics at work. Let's say vehicle A weighs x pounds. Vehicle B weighs .75x pounds. If vehicle A and vehicle B are in a colision, vehicle B will experience a greater change in velocity, and at some point, no amount of engineering will help you. This was well demonstrated by a test someone did with a Smart 2. They slammed the car into a concrete barrier, and even though they engineered it well and the passenger compartment was virtually undamaged, and the crash dummy looked fine, the amount of force exerted on the dummy would have killed it. Thus, everything else equal, vehicle A is safer. I wasn't talking about just trucks, all vehicles in general. Yes trucks do have a higher center of gravity, but it has nothing to do with their gross weight, many of the super light suv's had far worse rollover rates than lets say a ford f150.

While it certainly takes more force to stop or manuever a vehicle the heavier it is, it's pretty common for large vehicles to stop just as well as small vehicles, because they have more weight on their tires and therefore more friction. Stopping has more to do with road surface, tire compound, tread design, and the braking and suspension systems on the vehicle than it has to do with weight. Generally speaking yes, lighter vehicles have a good advantage when it comes to manuevers, especially abrupt ones, but it's still very possible to design heavy vehicles to handle nearly just as well. All of the technology put into vehicles now help a great deal as well.

I agree 100% with your last statement, I wish there was more mandatory training involved before allowing (usually immature) people to begin driving large death machines capable of much more damage than a gun. I know this isn't practical and would never advocate it, but put someone on a motorcycle for a month and they'll get really good at accident avoidance lol. Then you have none of that texting while drivng BS, unless you're this awesome guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjGfv...eature=related

Last edited by jaguar5822; 11-25-2008 at 03:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2008, 04:50 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,823,165 times
Reputation: 18304
Seems lately that we are seeing more motorcycle one vehicle accidents where the driver just loosses it. That after taking a motorcycle mandatory driving test.I really wander the number of head injuiores on moptorcyckles since they became popular. You hear about so many of these case how days since they are popular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2008, 06:40 PM
hsw
 
2,144 posts, read 7,160,563 times
Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Maybe in the event of a collision. Maybe. With trucks you have a higher center of gravity and therefore a higher chance of rollover.

But I think too many people neglect the most important accident safety feature of them all: accident avoidance. All other factors being equal as you might say, the smaller, lighter vehicle will have shorter braking distances and better maneuverability and therefore a better chance of avoiding a collision in the first place.

It is dismaying to me how much emphasis this country puts on passive safety versus how little emphasis they put on making sure the people on the roads actually know how to drive -- not just point the car in a particular direction and step on the accelerator, but really know how to drive.
Well said...

No crash tests I know of assess driver judgment, active safety and passive safety......

A new 3100lb Porsche 997GT2 can be a hell of a lot safer than nearly all 4000lb+ cars/SUVs on planet

I commute daily via an almost 5000lb '09 MB CL65, which I believe is arguably safest overall car on planet, esp if rear-ended on a high-speed freeway...or face head-on collision in wkend mtn twisties driving

But so much of safety is basic driver judgment....tailgating distances; risk-profiling and anticipating mistakes of fellow drivers; safe lane changes; assume other drivers will run red lts/stop signs, etc etc

Suspect if one examines driving records/insurance premiums of most commuters who drive $150K+ cars will find rather safe driving patterns vs the typical driver of a typical 10+yo POS car/SUV.....

If someone is short of cash, would advise leasing a new MB C300....but would never want to be a driver or passenger in a US (or Asian)-engineered car/SUV, no matter wt.....one's health is worth a few more bucks than cost of any car....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2008, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Northeast Tennessee
7,305 posts, read 28,216,536 times
Reputation: 5523
I have been somewhat obsessed with auto safety since the early 90s.

In 1979, there were many safe cars out there. Mercedes and Volvo also heavily advertised safety. Mercedes boasted that all interior panels were softly padded and the interior had flat controls/knobs for added safety. If I were to buy a brand new car in 1979, the only cars I would be hesitant of for safety would be the small cars like the Pinto, Chevette and the small cars in general, but by the mid 80s, even many small cars had become much safer.

To many peoples amazement crumple zones were pioneered by Mercedes back in the 1950s... Volvo was in there as well. An early example of the crumple zone concept was used on a 1959 Mercedes-Benz sedan. Although not always heavily advertised, they could be found on some American cars from the early 70s. I remember even my old 1984 Honda Accord had crumple zones. They can be seen on some cars... little "notches" in the frame rails and fenders, etc. Varies from car to car. Crumple zones do not automatically make a car safe. If a car does not have a strong and well-designed safety cage, the crumple zones are worthless.

Back in 1944, Volvo introduced the first safety cage, but it was patented by Mercedes Benz before Volvo. Strange.

Mercedes also was a pioneer in the energy absorbing steering columns, as was GM. Padded dash panels were seen as early as the very late 40s/early 50s in cars like Chrysler and Cadillac, but Tucker was the pioneer of this safety feature!

The first airbags (and they were dual airbags) were installed in General Motors cars an an option from 1974-1976. It was a rare option and installed on only about 10,000 cars during those years. They were optional on the 1974-76 Cadillac DeVilles/Fleetwoods/Eldorados - Buick Electras/LeSabres/Rivieras - and Oldsmobile Ninety-Eights/Eighty-Eights/Toronados. They were not optional in the Pontiacs or Chevrolets those years, but Chevrolet did install them on 1000 1973 Chevrolet Impala sedans for testing. Oddly, they were installed with Oldsmobile instrument panels. By 1977, the option faded away... as no one cared about airbags!

In 1984, airbags made another appearance, this time in Mercedes cars as an option for 1984-1985 on the 190s and S-Class models and by 1986 a driverside airbag became standard on ALL Mercedes cars and a passenger side airbag became optional on the S-Class sedans beginning in 1989. BMW added a standard driver airbag starting in 1988 and by 1990, many cars added driverside airbags, as a safety standard came in effect for some sort of automatic crash protection. Mercedes also offered anti-lock brakes optional on the USA models as early as 1984 - standard in 1986. The first cars with anti-lock brakes to most peoples amazement were first optional on the 1970 Lincolns and Chrysler Imperials by the mid 70s. Ford called them "Sure-track" braking systems on their cars and Chrysler called them "Sure-brake".

Anti-lock braking systems were first developed for aircraft in 1929. (This was to my amazement).

Chrysler Corporation, introduced an all-wheel antilock brake system called "Sure Brake" on the 1971 Imperial. It was available for a few years after that. GM corporation introduced the "Track-master" rear-wheel ABS as an option on their rear-wheel drive Cadillac models in 1971. As mentioned, Ford also offered a system called "Sure Trak" on the 1970 Lincoln Continental Mark III and the Ford LTD Country Squire station wagon.

Some companies went with airbags, while others went with motorized shoulder belts (remember the Honda Accord and Toyota Cressida and Ford Escort) or the dreadful door-mounted seat belts (remember the Lumina, Cavalier, Cutlass Supreme, Metro, Regal, Century, etc, etc, (the list is endless and this seemed to be mainly a GM thing). By 1996, most had added airbags and even dual airbags.

THEN, it seems like the IIHS started testing cars in these off-set crash tests. Many cars were performing dreadfully in these tests (collapsing passenger cages). This sent many automakers scurring to make more structurally sound cars.

More info - back in 1986, all new cars sold were required to have a center "3rd" brake light and 1989 cars added rear shoulder belts, but some cars such as Mercedes, Volvo, BMW, Jaguar, Toyota Cressida and even the Honda Accord had them much earlier. In fact, rear shoulder belts were optional in cars as far back as the 1969 General Motors cars as an option.

In 1967 a law was passed where all 68' "new cars" had to have shoulder belts, hazard flashers, energy absorbing instrument panels and steering columns, side marker lights, etc. GM was a year early on many of these and had them on the 67' cars (energy absorbing instrument panels, etc). 1969 required head restraints to be installed on cars.

Check this link for more info!
Automobile safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have rambled on enough about this... hopefully I have shed some light on the history of auto safety.

I for one am glad they are so much safer now.

Last edited by Tennesseestorm; 11-25-2008 at 08:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2008, 08:15 AM
 
Location: state of enlightenment
2,403 posts, read 5,239,748 times
Reputation: 2500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
I remember when we went looking for a new car in 1979. One of the questions we asked was, "What safety features does this car have?"

We received an amazing number of blank stares.

Bought a Saab.
So did I. My 93 9000 is up to 196k. Lots of room, great mileage, good power with turbo. Was hoping to upgrade this year until the financial train wreck killed my savings. So, I'll just keep changing the fluids and hope it goes another 196k. Finding a good mechanic is essential tho.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top