Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8522 posts, RR: 46 Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1753 times:
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 1): AND this is why I drive a Jeep and not a Smart Car...
Because the safety concept of the Smart Car works perfectly, giving the driver enough room to survive after a 70 mph crash? Or is it because the passenger door of the car opened and closed again after said crash?
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
CPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4761 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
Vehicle size and mass don't solely determine safety in a crash. Design really can make a difference. Remember these photos, anyone?
I can still remember the episode of Top Gear where Jeremy Clarkson had a Volvo 240 thrown off a catapault a few times and it still started and was driveable! I think those must be the safest vehicles on the road...
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 56 Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1658 times:
I still don't get why people are so simple minded when it comes to road safety. People only envision getting slammed by a large SUV or truck, but how about all other aspects of safety? These include the driver's capabilities; vehicle handling; braking; and also the type of accident you may have.
Would you rather hit a cement barrier in a Civic or a Hummer? Would you rather swerve or brake to avoid an accident in a BMW or a Suburban? Would you rather roll over in an F-150 or a Mini? There are a huge amount of instances where I'd much rather be in a well designed small car, such as avoiding accidents in the first place.
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
FlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6771 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
It looks like it did alright I guess but that just how the car looks what you need is a real crash dummy in the car to see what would happen to the human body.
On a side note I like driving my 5500lb SUV around instead of that.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13602 posts, RR: 63 Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1650 times:
A few months ago I've seen a Smart wreck on the Autobahn A61 near Mendig. It got hit by a truck, was lying on it' back, but, apart from scratches, was completely intact. These little buggers are stronger than they look.
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2530 posts, RR: 30 Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1585 times:
How often does any car crash directly head on into a wall? Maybe it happens more often than I imagine- but I also figure usually the car would be out of control in order for something like that to happen...maybe it spun out, or nicked another car first... I feel like that crash scenario is pretty rare. 70 MPH straight into a concrete wall? If that was a real crash, I sadly bet both pax would be very much dead.
Quoting AA777 (Reply 15):
It did hold up surprisingly well though.
Crumple zones anyone? Older cars hurt so many people simply because they DID hold up under crash impacts. It is these types of sudden decelerations that kill, as Jamie757 alluded to.
Although many modern cars look pretty smashed up after accidents, they are designed to do that in order to increase the deceleration time in the event of a crash, and therefore exert less G's on the occupants.