Compact cars unsafe?

[flat_four_fan]

Just read article by James R. Healey of USA TODAY:

Americans are buying more small cars to cut fuel costs, and that might kill them.

As a group, occupants of small cars are more likely to die in crashes than those in bigger, heavier vehicles are, according to data from the government, the insurance industry and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The newest small vehicles, of course, meet today's strict safety standards and can be laden with the latest safety hardware, such as stability control and side air bags. They are safer than ever. And differing designs mean some small cars are safer than average. But even the safest are governed by the laws of physics, which rule in favor of bigger, heavier vehicles, even in single-vehicle crashes.

TELL US: Do you think smaller cars are too big a price to pay for better fuel economy?

People are looking for ways to save fuel, and they need to know that if they decide to buy a much smaller vehicle, they are putting themselves and their families at risk," says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. IIHS, supported by auto insurance companies, follows traffic deaths closely.

Lund was on an NAS panel that examined potential safety impacts and other consequences of stricter fuel-economy regulations. The panel's report, published in 2002, noted that there are safe, cost-effective ways to boost mileage, but cutting the size and weight of vehicles is not one of them. Years of statistics show that small cars "are involved in more collisions than larger vehicles," and "Small vehicles have higher fatality rates than larger ones," the NAS report said.

When the NAS report was published, small-car sales were 13.7% of the new-vehicle market, and dropping. Today, they have climbed to 15.4%.


Selling better this year

Small cars are the only cars selling better this year than last. In fact, they are the only vehicles of any kind, except SUVs, doing better in a new-vehicle market that's down 3.2% from a year ago, according to sales tracker Autodata. Small-car sales are up 0.2% this year from a year ago.

Sales and registration data show that small cars ? what most people call compacts and subcompacts, such as Civic, Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra, Chevrolet Cobalt and smaller ? are about 14% of vehicles on the road. But they accounted for nearly 24% of occupants killed in one- and two-vehicle crashes in 2005, the latest year for which specific information is available.

Crashes involving three or more vehicles, which accounted for 7% of fatalities, are excluded from this analysis because the number of vehicles involved in those crashes makes it impossible to determine the fatal contribution of each. Deaths of pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders and others who weren't riding in vehicles, 13% of the total, also are excluded.

Even when you adjust for the typically younger and less-experienced drivers often behind the wheel in small cars and focus even more tightly by counting only driver deaths, the statistics still are troubling.

A driver is up to twice as likely to die in a small car as in a midsize, just one step up the size scale, according to IIHS data. A 2003 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report showed similar results.

But you can't simply buy a big, heavy vehicle and assume you're safe. Studies show that extra weight does little or no good after about 4,500 pounds, roughly the weight of a minivan or midsize SUV. And the heaviest vehicles, full-size pickups, have driver death rates about the same as small cars.

Small cars can be made safer, but that can boost the price and cut the mileage, undermining the reasons for buying a small car in the first place.

"One of the safest vehicles is the VW Jetta, and it's a relatively small vehicle. VW has designed it very carefully ? and charges for it," says Marc Ross, professor emeritus in the physics department at the University of Michigan. He's written a number of papers on small cars and safety.

Volkswagens, in general, he says, "tend to be safe, but they are heavier and get lower fuel economy. If you improve safety, you make a vehicle heavier, at least with today's technology."

Jetta, a compact, weighs more than 3,200 pounds, the same as a midsize car and about 500 pounds more than a typical compact. The weight of its safety hardware and extra-robust structure drags Jetta's mileage per gallon into the mid-20s in combined city-highway driving, same as a midsize car and about 5 mpg less than a typical compact. And Jetta's starting price of $17,000 is about $2,000 more than other popular compacts.

"There are lots of answers" to the question of small-car safety, Ross says. "There just aren't any simple ones."

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.
But the automakers themselves dispute that.

"We have never made such a statement. Safety is important, but we have never contended that (smaller, lighter vehicles) are at the same level of occupant protection as large vehicles. There are laws of physics involved," says Keith Price, VW's U.S. spokesman. "A 2,000-pound (VW) Rabbit against a 6,000-pound Hummer ? well, it's going to be the 6,000-pound Hummer."

"All else being equal, large will trump small," Honda Vice President Ed Cohen said when the ICCT report was released.

There's no single index to the overall safety of small cars, or any vehicles, but several lists are useful. Ross favors the driver death rates published periodically by IIHS in "Status Report" updates at www.iihs.org. Crash-test scores published by NHTSA (www.safercar.gov) and by IIHS can help you weed out the flimsiest vehicles and those with the poorest designs and least-effective safety features.

"If you drive responsibly, you should be safe in a small car," says NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson. "The important thing is that consumers have a choice. If they want to buy big cars, they should be able to do that. If they want to buy small cars, they should be able to do that, too."

Chris Garlington, 28, a Los Angeles photographer, bought a Toyota Matrix last month, partly because it had room for his photo gear and partly because it was the biggest of the low-price, fuel-saving small cars he was considering.

"I figured I should get the largest I can afford," Garlington says. "That's what they recommend at (shopping service) Fighting Chance, to get the biggest vehicle within the class that you can, for safety."

Matrix scores well in most NHTSA categories but requires the optional side air bags for a good score in side-crash tests.

Often heard is that small cars' agility lets them avoid crashes. But the NAS report found no data to back that up.

And the 2003 NHTSA report written by Charles Kahane, whose size-vs.-safety studies often are cited in other safety reports, went further. Kahane suggested, "Small cars, because they felt more maneuverable, might even have induced drivers to weave in traffic or take other risks they would ordinarily have avoided in a larger vehicle."

The deadly potential of small cars isn't, as many people presume, because SUVs crash into them. Just one of every 11 people ? 9% ? who died in small cars died as the result of collisions with SUVs, NHTSA data show.

By contrast, 53% of small-car deaths in 2005 involved only small cars. Either a single small car crashed into something such as a guardrail or tree or two small cars crashed into each other, according to the NHTSA data.

Back in the '80s

Small cars' zenith was 1981. Americans still were smarting over petroleum shortages, rationing and record prices after two oil embargoes by Middle East nations in the 1970s. The government had imposed the first fuel-economy regulations. As a result, small cars were 37.7% of the new-vehicle market in '81 ? a bigger slice than, for example, the 28.8% that SUVs have today.

The lower prices and better mileage of small cars are alluring. But the statistics defining their safety trade-offs are striking.

In its publication about buying a safer car, IIHS lists its "Top Safety Pick" in each size category.

Under small cars, instead of naming two or three high-scoring models, IIHS declares: "No winners."

[niky]

Pure bull.

Simply because:

And the 2003 NHTSA report written by Charles Kahane, whose size-vs.-safety studies often are cited in other safety reports, went further. Kahane suggested, "Small cars, because they felt more maneuverable, might even have induced drivers to weave in traffic or take other risks they would ordinarily have avoided in a larger vehicle."

And it goes further.

Note: why are more Vioses involved in accidents than Corollas?

Because they're small, and they're cheap. They appeal to young drivers who are more likely to take risks and get into accidents. Same goes with scooters. Yes, scooters are inherently less safe than cars, but the high fatality rate is mostly because they're cheap and appeal to younger or less experienced motorists, who are more likely to take risks and crash.

Does that mean you can't be safe on a scooter? No. If you're a responsible rider, you can get through, just fine.

If you don't segregate results by age and social profile, you fail to delineate the differences in who buys these vehicles.

Minivans and midsize SUVs have lower fatality rates... obviously... these are vehicles that appeal to middle-aged women and housewives more (no offense to anyone with a minivan)... drivers who are less prone to risk-taking and who are more safety-conscious.

Large SUVs appeal more to men... more aggressive drivers... and thus fatality rates are higher.

Taking one factor in the statistics and ignoring all others can lead you to make some pretty silly assumptions.

[mbeige]

Objectively, small cars are still not compatible with large SUVs. Even if there are standards to make cars more crash-compatible (bumpers of small cars hit bumpers of SUV's), this is in an ideal world and we all know anything can happen. My friend's car was just totaled because somebody ran a red light and he slammed into him. My friend is OK, had some cuts and bruises on the right arm but his '01 Accord is a wreck. This was average city driving speeds of 40mph/60kph.

I have seen crash tests done with SUV's and small cars, even two identical cars but one is much more loaded and so sits 1 inch lower. The result is that the lower car will suffer more damage. The risk with the large vehicle is that it will have a higher chance of roll over. Imagine your car rolling over a couple of times with your arms flailing out of the windows and possibly getting broken once your car lands on its roof with your arms out the window.

The problem there sa atin is that some of the older cars that many people drive (late 1980's to mid 1990's) don't really have bumpers. They just have a trim to look like a bumper. The "bumpers" are just attached to the frame without any solid beam to protect the occupants in a collision. I guess the newer ones already have these but if you have the older cars, take a look and you will see nothing under that bumper. Here in the US those bumpers are filled with styrofoam which is strong, light and tough enough. Our US version 1992 Corolla has this, but our 1999 Civic there in Manila has nothing behind those bumpers. I guess this is the result of going with really basic, base-model cars.

Don't start me with teenage drivers. I get a lot of them here especially when looking for parking in school. They basically think everything is always a race and they have to drive aggressively.

[chuaed]

if a volvo 940 estate collide head on with a renault modus, which one would you prefer to be in?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I[/ame]

[VtEC]

compact = greater chance of not surviving an impact.buong oto crumple zone.

[oldblue]

compact = sa compartment ka pupulitin pagkatapos ng impact

[mbeige]

Chuaed, good video. However I wonder how the G-forces affected the passengers of both cars. I thought it was a full frontal collision like Tom said, but it's actually an offset collision which puts greater energy on one side of the car.

See the other videos from 5th gear:

BMW vs Volvo * 60mph
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=mOFY2kT5LqA"]YouTube - 60 mph head on crash[/ame]

SUV vs Car * 40mph side impact
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=pnGheoJ_cds"]YouTube - SUV crashes car - Fifth Gear Test Experiment[/ame]

Smart car into concrete barrier * 70mph
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcuimw8ql_A"]YouTube - Fifth Gear Smart Car Crash Test[/ame]

SUV vs van
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=YjKce25Bb9k"]YouTube - Discovery 2 vs Espace Crash Test[/ame]

High speed crash test * 70mph Tiff Needell
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fw6VUwG9nOo"]YouTube - Highway High Speed Crash Test[/ame]

Limousine crash test * 50mph into concrete wall
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=EiJsgOPGhtQ"]YouTube - Fifth Gear - Limousine crash test[/ame]

Car that's been in an accident, repaired, and sold, and then crashed again
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=NWEdlUT17PI"]YouTube - Fifth Gear Crash Test Badly Repaired vs Good[/ame]

[washburn]

wow amazing!

[theveed]

If that article is completely true, how come most of the worst safety rating automobiles come from SUVs hehe.

Haven't seen the videos posted in this thread, but have you seen the crash tests (real-life, not simulated) done in Europe for the SMART car, A-series Benz, etc? It's amazing.

SUVs are the worse when it comes to crash safety, the larger they are, the worse they get.

[mbeige]

Theveed, the Smart car video * 70mph into a concrete wall is posted here.

Those with Kia Prides, Daihatsu Charades, and all the other small compact/subcompact hatchbacks I hope you see what could happen and I hope you'll never have to experience these in real life.

[theveed]

Bike nalang tayo lahat hehehe...

[theveed]

Can't beat this though...

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=F06LjugtIUo"]YouTube - New Chinese Car Crash Test Disaster - 2007 Brilliance BS6[/ame]

Hehhe

[theveed]

Oh, I guess we also just presented why cars are getting bigger, heavier and more expensive, these crash tests and research can't cost peanuts....

[theveed]

Just read Niky's post... Totally agree...

You can give me a sports car, but if my family is on-board, I'm extra cautious and I rarely drive over 80... Give me a dinky 1.3 alone with an open road during a bright day, I wouldn't even think twice hitting above 100.

It'd be best for crowded places to not have cars that can go over 50kph hehehhe

[wren]

tsaka they're only talking about passive safety, no mention of active safety. smaller cars are more maneuverable, so you are more likely to avoid an accident than the plodding big cars/SUV.

[docpete]

sabi nang isang mayari ng picanto..di daw siya rinerespeto ng mga tricycle sa loob ng bayan or sa highway baka lang dahil babae siya

[mbeige]

tsaka they're only talking about passive safety, no mention of active safety. smaller cars are more maneuverable, so you are more likely to avoid an accident than the plodding big cars/SUV.

Right, but passive safety is when you never really saw it coming and it just hit you, which I think is more important. Most cars today are pretty agile, which is a good thing in avoiding accidents altogether. Even the SUVs are becoming more agile than they were back in the day, though there are still some that are lagging behind.

The point of the whole thread is that compact cars are safe these days, if only other cars on the road were also compacts. But the reality is that there are bigger, heavier cars. The crash compatibility issue will always be an issue because of height differences between a compact car and, at least, a compact SUV such as the RAV4, CRV, Escape, etc. Even scarier is that I don't see a lot of crash tests done on vans or minivans such as the Starex that is so popular there or the other counterparts by other makes.

Also consider that even if the car's cabin remained intact, the lateral forces affecting the passengers such as the one seen in the Smart car video will be too much and your internal organs will probably get injured even if you seem physically fine from the outside.

[niky]

A big car, with lots of inertial energy, will have a harder time shedding that energy on impact... which is why, until recently, some big SUVs have had horrible crash scores, because that kinetic energy ripped apart crash structures and supports.

If you're in a small car and properly belted, you can definitely survive the impact deceleration. Look at F1 cars... 350 km/h and straight into a wall... but the drivers survive due to protection from the crash structure and proper restraint... not due to the car's mass absorbing energy. Of course, it takes carbon fiber to keep them alive, but then, that's not the point... the point is that as long as the driver is properly restrained, he doesn't absorb the forces of the impact... it passes through him on the way to the back of the car.

If safety agencies mandated four point or five point harnesses, I'd be all for it... it would reduce fatalities by a hell of a lot.

Small cars are approaching the point where crash structures are getting pretty good. A Honda Jazz is safer than an early 90's Accord. And look at cars like the Jetta (mentioned in-article), or the Ford Focus... I feel the Focus is discriminated against in the PTCC... with the amount of crash structure, it shouldn't need a roll-cage... that's just added weight!

Proof of the stiffness of this crash structure? The handling... the excessively rigid bodyshell of the Ford gives it great handling for its weight, compared to the Civics it's running against. The Jazz is another new car with exceptional handling, despite its relatively crude suspension... thanks to a stiff structure.

The problem with small cars in some crashes is that they're built to absorb a certain amount of force by use of crumple zones. We need these crumple zones to absorb kinetic energy at the point of impact because people don't always wear their seatbelts properly. By crumpling up, the car absorbs impact and transmits less force to occupants who are not properly restrained.

If you restrain occupants in the proper manner (as in a racing vehicle), you could make the crumple zones stiffer (without incurring a weight penalty, you're just changing steel grades, not the amount of steel), transmit the energy throughout the entire car more easily (and if you're strapped in tightly, it'll just pass through you) and avoid fatalities in harder crashes.

[mbeige]

A big car, with lots of inertial energy, will have a harder time shedding that energy on impact... which is why, until recently, some big SUVs have had horrible crash scores, because that kinetic energy ripped apart crash structures and supports.

If you're in a small car and properly belted, you can definitely survive the impact deceleration. Look at F1 cars... 350 km/h and straight into a wall... but the drivers survive due to protection from the crash structure and proper restraint... not due to the car's mass absorbing energy. Of course, it takes carbon fiber to keep them alive, but then, that's not the point... the point is that as long as the driver is properly restrained, he doesn't absorb the forces of the impact... it passes through him on the way to the back of the car.

F1 car drivers are trained for this kind of thing, normal drivers are not so the chance of survival for normal drivers would be much lower. Also you must consider realistic events. Not everybody will be properly restrained, some will be too close to the steering wheel, for example, because not everybody knows the consequences. These kinds of things must be considered when producing a passenger car compared to an F1 race car.

If safety agencies mandated four point or five point harnesses, I'd be all for it... it would reduce fatalities by a hell of a lot.

The problem with this is that the harness must be anchored to a point far behind the driver/passengers like on the rear seat anchor points. This is because in an accident when the harness is anchored on the floor right behind the front seats, it will actually serve as a trap rather than a harness. It will then make multiple-passenger vehicles such as vans, 4-door sedans, wagons, SUV's, etc impractical.

Small cars are approaching the point where crash structures are getting pretty good. A Honda Jazz is safer than an early 90's Accord. And look at cars like the Jetta (mentioned in-article), or the Ford Focus... I feel the Focus is discriminated against in the PTCC... with the amount of crash structure, it shouldn't need a roll-cage... that's just added weight!

Proof of the stiffness of this crash structure? The handling... the excessively rigid bodyshell of the Ford gives it great handling for its weight, compared to the Civics it's running against. The Jazz is another new car with exceptional handling, despite its relatively crude suspension... thanks to a stiff structure.

A stiff structure may be good for the cabin but the crumple zones must be staggered so that the kinetic energy will be absorbed in stages. See the video on the car that was in an accident, repaired, and crashed against a Focus that had no prior accidents. The salvaged title car fared poorer and the occupant could have been killed because of this. The structures may both be stiff but the manner in which the kinetic energy is absorbed is another matter altogether. Some cars probably have crumple zones but the way they're engineered can not be observed just from the handling and performance of the car.

The problem with small cars in some crashes is that they're built to absorb a certain amount of force by use of crumple zones. We need these crumple zones to absorb kinetic energy at the point of impact because people don't always wear their seatbelts properly. By crumpling up, the car absorbs impact and transmits less force to occupants who are not properly restrained.

The problem with small cars is that they do not have large enough crumple zones or that the crumple zones are too small so they have to be reinforced, which adds weight; therefore they have to shed weight elsewhere.

If you restrain occupants in the proper manner (as in a racing vehicle), you could make the crumple zones stiffer (without incurring a weight penalty, you're just changing steel grades, not the amount of steel), transmit the energy throughout the entire car more easily (and if you're strapped in tightly, it'll just pass through you) and avoid fatalities in harder crashes.

Look at the Smart car crash test. The crumple zones were stiff enough and the cabin looked intact except for a "nasty kink" on the A pillar. However I'm pretty sure the occupants would have experienced severe G-forces that may also be fatal. You can be properly restrained but in a high speed crash, if there are really small crumple zones or they're not designed properly (crumple too early as mentioned in one of the videos) the passengers will suffer injuries and possibly death.

These compact cars are great for city driving but when it comes to high speed driving I feel much more comfortable in our larger cars than in the compact cars.

Compact cars are safe enough for "average" condition or "normal" accidents like city driving accidents and the like but the risk of colliding with any vehicle that has a higher frame, or worse, a stiffer body that will take advantage of the compact car's softer shell, is highly possible also. What I'm saying is that in their own perspective, they are truly safe cars. They are light, nimble and agile but when they collide with a much larger car with stiffer crumple zones, they will be thrown around more and will absorb more energy than they're designed for.

I'm not disagreeing with you Niky, I see your point my friend. All I'm saying is that you also have to consider other vehicles with different designs. I also agree with you that proper restraint is key, hence the mandatory use of seatbelts, headrests, airbags, etc when and where you need them. Most of the time, on average accidents where city driving is involved, the cars usually fare well enough that the occupants survive. But when the crash compatibility issue comes up and happens, chances are the larger and heavier vehicle usually overrides the smaller car's safety features.

It looks like we'll have a good discussion here.

[niky]

Nah... let's just flame!

As for F1 drivers, the only additional training that means anything in an out-of-control crash is the presence of mind to take their hands off the wheel to prevent wrist and finger injury. Restraint is the key.

As for harnesses, well, the most effective harnesses are anchored to strong points far back in the cabin, but it's possible to design in-seat harnesses that are strong enough.

RE: Smart car: Whether or not the pillar collapses is incidental. What's important is the speed of the collapse.

RE: Focus: well, it's a given that a crashed car that is improperly repaired will not be safe. That goes for any type of car, whether big or small.

RE: The size of crumple zones. The less mass on the vehicle, the less force a crumple zone needs to absorb. Of course, modern design language conspires against making bigger crumple zones, but I'd suspect if manufacturers would give cars their noses back, everything nowadays would be 5-star.

Unfortunately, what you said about small car versus big object = true. But a concerted drive to decrease curb weights would make things safer for all motorists, as long as the decrease in weight is in the right area.

Yes, I do feel safer in heavier cars... they're often steadier at high speeds, and can absorb hard impacts. But look at Princess Diana's death. That was in a relatively heavy, very "safe" car. Anything can be unsafe in the wrong conditions. A Honda Jazz is 1000 times safer than a Chinese SUV... by smart use of weight and design... and driving one, I can feel the solidity... (although it does sound like a tin can at times... :hysterical: )

A heavier car can be made nimble, but in treacherous conditions, they are still at the mercy of momentum... while tire technology has made it safer for SUV drivers in recent years, it still can't make up for all conditions. Also note: heavier compact cars which are "safe" are often made by luxury manufacturers, who charge more and can spend more on materials and crash structure. Sure, they're heavy, but only a portion of that weight is crash structure. Stripped of non-essential insulation, a Ford Focus (sorry for overusing this one... hehehe) can lose about 50 kilos.

It's possible to design small cars that are very safe and still not so heavy. The only problem is designing large cars that are safe for small cars to crash into...