Slashdot Mirror

I don't know where you got your information from, but you are wrong. Smarts are for general use, including motorways (which are coincididentally the safest roads). They have a four-star safety rating, with a 82% adult occupant protection rating.

... according to US tests. In European tests, the Tesla Model S is just a standard car. Here are the Euro NCAP best cars of each class: http://www.euroncap.com/de/bew...

For comparison, here are the numbers for the Model S: http://www.euroncap.com/de/res... and here are the numbers for e.g. a Volvo XC90. http://www.euroncap.com/de/res...

Just look at the numbers, e.g. "safety equipment" Volvo 100% to Tesla 71% or "adult passenger safery" Volvo 97% to Tesla 82%. "Safest car in the history of cars" my ass.

... according to US tests. In European tests, the Tesla Model S is just a standard car. Here are the Euro NCAP best cars of each class: http://www.euroncap.com/de/bew...

For comparison, here are the numbers for the Model S: http://www.euroncap.com/de/res... and here are the numbers for e.g. a Volvo XC90. http://www.euroncap.com/de/res...

Just look at the numbers, e.g. "safety equipment" Volvo 100% to Tesla 71% or "adult passenger safery" Volvo 97% to Tesla 82%. "Safest car in the history of cars" my ass.

... according to US tests. In European tests, the Tesla Model S is just a standard car. Here are the Euro NCAP best cars of each class: http://www.euroncap.com/de/bew...

For comparison, here are the numbers for the Model S: http://www.euroncap.com/de/res... and here are the numbers for e.g. a Volvo XC90. http://www.euroncap.com/de/res...

Just look at the numbers, e.g. "safety equipment" Volvo 100% to Tesla 71% or "adult passenger safery" Volvo 97% to Tesla 82%. "Safest car in the history of cars" my ass.

Many cars, including almost all cars that are more than half the price of the Tesla Model S, but also many cheap and common cars. I am not going to list hem all, because Euro NCAP has already done that.

Tesla has marketed the fact that the Model S end result was five stars (like most modern cars) as something special that cannot be improved upon. In reality, it scored reasonably well in the tests, enough to earn five stars, but nothing spectacular.

Any articles? I couldn't seem to find anything other than this one that says crashes are reduced by 38%, but there were no cost figures.

That said, I don't think it's a buggy-whip problem: 14B Euro per year might be correct, but I don't think it's a win for society in monetary terms - I'd question the assertion that the return on investment is greater than one.

For example, the mandate in the US for rear back-up camera costs society about $25 million per life saved, because it's a couple hundred bucks times several million cars, to save only a couple hundred lives - which is on the order of billions. Given US GDP per-capita is only about $53k, society is losing money there - 80 years times $53k is only about $4.25M, so society is paying at least 5 times the average monetary value of a life* to save one. Now I used something close to life expectancy; it's worse if you only consider working-age years (which is what, 50 years or so?).

It is indeed sad when accidents cost lives, but we passed the point in vehicle safety where the incremental cost of accidents avoided exceeds the losses of the accidents themselves (in aggregate of course - there may be individual accidents which cost more).

*It's sadly harsh, but society has to think of things on economic cost at this scale. Put another way: nobody sensible would pay $100 for an insurance policy that only pays out $20, but that's kind of what mandated automobile safety features does these days.

Tesla model s came 20th (of new models tested in 2014) in Euro NCAP passenger safety rating:

http://www.euroncap.com/en/rat... a make&selectedModel=0&includeFullSafetyPackage=true&includeStandardSafetyPackage=true&selectedModelName=All&selectedProtocols=24370,1472,5910,5931&allClasses=true&selectedClasses=1202,1199,1201,1196,1205,1203,1198,1179,1197,1204,1180&allProtocols=false&allDriverAssistanceTechnologies=false&selectedDriverAssistanceTechnologies=

So saying it is "inherently safe" or that a petrol vehicle would fare worse is pretty absurd. Inherently safe cars don't plant themselves 25m into fields in the first place regardless of their form of propulsion. And that's without even knowing what caused the accident in the first place.

So saying it is "inherently safe" or that a petrol vehicle would fare worse is pretty absurd. Inherently safe cars don't plant themselves 25m into fields in the first place regardless of their form of propulsion. And that's without even knowing what caused the accident in the first place.

So saying it is "inherently safe" or that a petrol vehicle would fare worse is pretty absurd. Inherently safe cars don't plant themselves 25m into fields in the first place regardless of their form of propulsion. And that's without even knowing what caused the accident in the first place.

Euro NCap do not rate the Tesla as you do (82% score):

http://www.euroncap.com/en/res...

Compared to say a similar size Jag XF (92%): http://www.euroncap.com/en/res...

Euro NCap do not rate the Tesla as you do (82% score):

http://www.euroncap.com/en/res...

Compared to say a similar size Jag XF (92%): http://www.euroncap.com/en/res...

My understanding is that the European safety standards also cover things like the car hitting a pedestrian -- do the American standards care about anything other than the occupants of the vehicles?

No, which is why mounting a battering ram on the front of your car makes your vehicle "safer" in US crash tests. It's not particularly safe for the other guys car though, which is why we have an arms race in terms of how big an SUV/"light truck" people feel a need to drive, alone, 70 miles to work in to downtown...

My understanding is that the European safety standards also cover things like the car hitting a pedestrian -- do the American standards care about anything other than the occupants of the vehicles?

I guess the new requirements for backup cameras sort of cover pedestrian safety to some degree, but I suspect that the need for it has come from the shrinking of car windows to improve the vehicle crash performance.

But above these two problems, far and away above *all* problems with driverless cars is the real reason I think we'll never see anything more than driver *assisting* cars on the road: legal liability.

Well, you have the seeds of the answer right there in the question.

Modern cars, at least those above entry-level priced vehicles, already have Autonomous Emergency Braking systems, collision avoidance radars, Cruise Control, Adaptive Cruise Control, Blind Spot monitoring, Lane monitoring, Automatic Parking, and a host of other features that in some situations can take control of the vehicle for routine or emergency tasks.

Yet at no time does the legal liability leave the driver. There will always be a driver on board or the ability to over-ride the computer.
And because of this, liability would rest with the operator of the vehicle.

To say that no one would manufacture an item because they would have to assume all liability flies in the face of
our legal system, which already takes care of such situations, by the simple legal expedient of shifting all
liability to the owner/operator.

Airplanes, Guns, Chainsaws, Cars, Electricity itself, essentially any products that have some aspect that is inherently unsafe, are treated in this way by the law. The law and the courts recognizes that any other solution is unworkable. Society has long ago decided that living in the dark or burning candles because no one is willing to take total responsibility for the inherent dangers of electricity is not an acceptable solution.

The same would apply to automated vehicles. Even fully automated trains have a supervisor remotely monitoring the system, and/or an emergency stop buttons in each car.

I do wonder how a car built to the same downgraded specs would cost. I always come away with the impression that all these contraptions, driven by a pint-size diesel engine, would do 200 km/litre, cost half the price of the electric version, and on a total life accounting probably be as environmentally friendly not to notice the difference. And remember, a well thought out diesel engine is good for 300.000 km, my car has 130.000, and a cousin of mine's is ticking after 500.000.

As always, tough, it's apples and oranges: a combustion engine driven contraption like this

a. would never get any authorization for the public sale,
b. "we want you to get Euro NCAP certification",
c. would be shunned as a curiosity without a future.

I never, ever saw an "apples to apples" comparison, or serious feasibility study. For example, here in Italy, a local regulation practically prohibits linking your garage electrical system to your house in a condo: what do I do if I want an electric car? Either this regulation is a piece of crap, which I suspect, or the govvies think that I should not keep a refrigerator in a garage eventually subject to flooding, but that I can keep expensive rare earth batteries with nary a problem. Chemistry 101 , anyone?

...the 2012 Jeep Compass practically flunked the EuroNCAP, while the 2012 Honda Civic passed with flying colors.

...the 2012 Jeep Compass practically flunked the EuroNCAP, while the 2012 Honda Civic passed with flying colors.

see smart fortwo
vs BMW 5 series


not too much of a difference, except that you have higher chances to kill pedestrians in a BMW :P

see smart fortwo
vs BMW 5 series


not too much of a difference, except that you have higher chances to kill pedestrians in a BMW :P

TFA *guesses* that. They don't have any proof. Thankfully, more reliable sources actually do look into these things. Check out this site for actual crash test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Lets do a quick comparison. A large 4x4, such as the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Frontera; they get 3 stars for safety.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/frontera.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_frontera_2002/125.aspx

Compared to, say, the 2004 GM/Vauxhall Astra, a small and fuel efficient family car; they get 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/astra.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_astra_2004/185.aspx

Or the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Corsa, an even smaller and more fuel efficient car; 4 stars for them.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/corsa.aspx?class=a18a311b-f3c5-47a8-92a7-15e294350858
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_2002/113.aspx

Obviously this can't be generalised too strongly, but it does rather go against the notion that "small cars are death traps, big cars are tanks".

TFA *guesses* that. They don't have any proof. Thankfully, more reliable sources actually do look into these things. Check out this site for actual crash test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Lets do a quick comparison. A large 4x4, such as the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Frontera; they get 3 stars for safety.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/frontera.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_frontera_2002/125.aspx

Compared to, say, the 2004 GM/Vauxhall Astra, a small and fuel efficient family car; they get 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/astra.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_astra_2004/185.aspx

Or the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Corsa, an even smaller and more fuel efficient car; 4 stars for them.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/corsa.aspx?class=a18a311b-f3c5-47a8-92a7-15e294350858
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_2002/113.aspx

Obviously this can't be generalised too strongly, but it does rather go against the notion that "small cars are death traps, big cars are tanks".

TFA *guesses* that. They don't have any proof. Thankfully, more reliable sources actually do look into these things. Check out this site for actual crash test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Lets do a quick comparison. A large 4x4, such as the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Frontera; they get 3 stars for safety.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/frontera.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_frontera_2002/125.aspx

Compared to, say, the 2004 GM/Vauxhall Astra, a small and fuel efficient family car; they get 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/astra.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_astra_2004/185.aspx

Or the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Corsa, an even smaller and more fuel efficient car; 4 stars for them.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/corsa.aspx?class=a18a311b-f3c5-47a8-92a7-15e294350858
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_2002/113.aspx

Obviously this can't be generalised too strongly, but it does rather go against the notion that "small cars are death traps, big cars are tanks".

TFA *guesses* that. They don't have any proof. Thankfully, more reliable sources actually do look into these things. Check out this site for actual crash test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Lets do a quick comparison. A large 4x4, such as the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Frontera; they get 3 stars for safety.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/frontera.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_frontera_2002/125.aspx

Compared to, say, the 2004 GM/Vauxhall Astra, a small and fuel efficient family car; they get 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/astra.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_astra_2004/185.aspx

Or the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Corsa, an even smaller and more fuel efficient car; 4 stars for them.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/corsa.aspx?class=a18a311b-f3c5-47a8-92a7-15e294350858
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_2002/113.aspx

Obviously this can't be generalised too strongly, but it does rather go against the notion that "small cars are death traps, big cars are tanks".

TFA *guesses* that. They don't have any proof. Thankfully, more reliable sources actually do look into these things. Check out this site for actual crash test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Lets do a quick comparison. A large 4x4, such as the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Frontera; they get 3 stars for safety.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/frontera.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_frontera_2002/125.aspx

Compared to, say, the 2004 GM/Vauxhall Astra, a small and fuel efficient family car; they get 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/astra.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_astra_2004/185.aspx

Or the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Corsa, an even smaller and more fuel efficient car; 4 stars for them.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/corsa.aspx?class=a18a311b-f3c5-47a8-92a7-15e294350858
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_2002/113.aspx

Obviously this can't be generalised too strongly, but it does rather go against the notion that "small cars are death traps, big cars are tanks".

TFA *guesses* that. They don't have any proof. Thankfully, more reliable sources actually do look into these things. Check out this site for actual crash test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Lets do a quick comparison. A large 4x4, such as the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Frontera; they get 3 stars for safety.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/frontera.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_frontera_2002/125.aspx

Compared to, say, the 2004 GM/Vauxhall Astra, a small and fuel efficient family car; they get 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/astra.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_astra_2004/185.aspx

Or the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Corsa, an even smaller and more fuel efficient car; 4 stars for them.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/corsa.aspx?class=a18a311b-f3c5-47a8-92a7-15e294350858
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_2002/113.aspx

Obviously this can't be generalised too strongly, but it does rather go against the notion that "small cars are death traps, big cars are tanks".

TFA *guesses* that. They don't have any proof. Thankfully, more reliable sources actually do look into these things. Check out this site for actual crash test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Lets do a quick comparison. A large 4x4, such as the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Frontera; they get 3 stars for safety.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/frontera.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_frontera_2002/125.aspx

Compared to, say, the 2004 GM/Vauxhall Astra, a small and fuel efficient family car; they get 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/astra.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_astra_2004/185.aspx

Or the 2002 GM/Vauxhall Corsa, an even smaller and more fuel efficient car; 4 stars for them.
http://www.euroncap.com/results/opel_vauxhall/corsa.aspx?class=a18a311b-f3c5-47a8-92a7-15e294350858
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_corsa_2002/113.aspx

Obviously this can't be generalised too strongly, but it does rather go against the notion that "small cars are death traps, big cars are tanks".

Most large SUVs are worse than most smaller cars, have a look at the Euro NCAP data for the 2008 Ford Ranger http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_ranger_2008/342.aspx compared to smaller cars of similar age its score is somewhat appalling.

Nothing going that far back but http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx has some somewhat older results. For example, the 2006 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_2006/270.aspx) compares quite favourably with the 1998 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_1998/35.aspx). Looks like they changed to a new rating scheme this year though.

Nothing going that far back but http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx has some somewhat older results. For example, the 2006 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_2006/270.aspx) compares quite favourably with the 1998 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_1998/35.aspx). Looks like they changed to a new rating scheme this year though.

Nothing going that far back but http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx has some somewhat older results. For example, the 2006 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_2006/270.aspx) compares quite favourably with the 1998 Civic (http://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_1998/35.aspx). Looks like they changed to a new rating scheme this year though.

I realize the crash-test setup and standards continually change, but is there any sort of archive of data tables, or graphs, or something of that sort, showing improvement over time? Like, can I see what the difference in forces on the driver or likelihood of serious injury would be for a 1985 Civic vs. a 2005 Civic going 40 mph into a barrier?

There are details of European crash tests at http://www.euroncap.com/
As al 'almost' example of what you are looking for, please compare the results for a Ford Escort (this model introduced 1990) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_escort_1999/33.aspx vs a current model Ford Focus (introduced 2004) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_focus_2004/204.aspx

I realize the crash-test setup and standards continually change, but is there any sort of archive of data tables, or graphs, or something of that sort, showing improvement over time? Like, can I see what the difference in forces on the driver or likelihood of serious injury would be for a 1985 Civic vs. a 2005 Civic going 40 mph into a barrier?

There are details of European crash tests at http://www.euroncap.com/
As al 'almost' example of what you are looking for, please compare the results for a Ford Escort (this model introduced 1990) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_escort_1999/33.aspx vs a current model Ford Focus (introduced 2004) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_focus_2004/204.aspx

I realize the crash-test setup and standards continually change, but is there any sort of archive of data tables, or graphs, or something of that sort, showing improvement over time? Like, can I see what the difference in forces on the driver or likelihood of serious injury would be for a 1985 Civic vs. a 2005 Civic going 40 mph into a barrier?

There are details of European crash tests at http://www.euroncap.com/
As al 'almost' example of what you are looking for, please compare the results for a Ford Escort (this model introduced 1990) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_escort_1999/33.aspx vs a current model Ford Focus (introduced 2004) http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_focus_2004/204.aspx

Did you watch that video ? It came out of the crash better than the S class. Didn't you know that small things have less mass, and so suffer less deceleration stress in impacts ? Not to mention the full body cage installed in the smart. It is good enough to score 4 stars on ncap which I believe is a better standard than the US version. And the smart version they tested was 2 years ago.

The Euro NCAP ratings are made based on hitting a concrete block. It's the same concrete block, no matter if they're testing a Hummer or a Mini.

They don't have Hummers on the website http://www.euroncap.com/ so the nearest thing is a large 4x4 (British English for SUV). Note that a large Volvo has a 4 or 5 star safety rating, which compares very well (the large 4x4s seem to be less than that, but I haven't checked many of them).

Enough hard data for you?

... but nobody seems to advertise the offset crashes, such as the right half of your bumper hitting the left half of your 'opponents' bumper. Why? Because it's sad in comparison. It's also not pretty to watch.

Euro NCAP do test that one. See the Frontal impact1 test description: frontal impact at 64kph (40 mph) at only 40% overlap.

Rocking your car out of the snow requires absence of traction control. If you can't turn it off, good job Ford!

Or, just a suggestion, if you're going to go driving during snowy season, you just *could* ask your parents to give you the normal car keys...

Ford focuses are also notorious deathtraps. The cars crumble more than any other car in their market. Engine will drop at the slightest of frontal impacts (we're talking bumper dent equivalent).

Never heard of this. Can you give a reference?

Or is American Ford Focus a different car from the Europen one? Because if the engine crushed the dummies at a low-speed frontal impact, I kind of doubt it would have gotten *any* stars at all... And about crubmling, a quote from the 2004 model comments: "Front impact: The body structure suffered minimal deformation; the drivers' door could be opened almost normally after the impact."

Ford focuses are also notorious deathtraps.

Really?

For a highly detailed report on the new Focus, see here:
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_focus_1999/34.aspx
Oh, look. Pretty much maximum safety rating.

I'm not sure what your point is. I could read between the lines and assume it's USAsian-bashing of smaller European cars, but that'd be uncharitable. Perhaps you know someone who had a minor prang and the crumple zones in their car did the job, rather than transmitting the energy of the collision to the occupants, who don't dent?

Funny, here's me thinking they weren't bad:

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/ford_focus_2004/204.aspx

Still, seems you know better. Thanks for the heads-up ... I'll certainly be watching out for Ford Focus engine blocks next time I drive on the public roads!

I'll assume that the N. American Ford Focus is pretty similar to the Europe one as I don't know which one you're talking about.

The Euro NCAP tests for car occupant safety give the Ford Focus 5/5 for adult safety (with 35 points score, the highest for ANY car is 37) and 4/5 for child safety (with 40 points score, the highest for ANY car is 43). See for yourself here.

Crumple zones are considered to be a saftey feature as it causes the car body to absorb the impact instead of it being transfered to the human body.

I'll assume that the N. American Ford Focus is pretty similar to the Europe one as I don't know which one you're talking about.

The Euro NCAP tests for car occupant safety give the Ford Focus 5/5 for adult safety (with 35 points score, the highest for ANY car is 37) and 4/5 for child safety (with 40 points score, the highest for ANY car is 43). See for yourself here.

Crumple zones are considered to be a saftey feature as it causes the car body to absorb the impact instead of it being transfered to the human body.

If care about roadsafety try looking at its NCAP results, in europe all cars have to go through a standardised set of results. The tests cover things from survival in various head/side on collisions to the survival of any pedestrians you hit. Unfortunatly I can't seem to load the homepage atm, but the site address is http://www.euroncap.com/ and remember bigger isn't always best.

Why do people "put up" with cars that only give them X amount of protection in a car crash even though there is technology out there that would make them safer?

Because they are North American Scum.

Have a nice day!

I don't know much about European tests, except that they do have a "moose test" that involves testing the maximum speed that a vehicle can swerve. So maybe, just as the American tests favor heavily-armored body types, the European tests favor performance and agility.

Oh, many idiots are allowed to drive in Europe as well. :-)
The link below is to Euro-ncap, the primary EU organisation for crash testings. How a car fare in these tests are considered a big deal and is an important sales factor.

www.euroncap.com.

The difference in design of american and european cars does rather stem from cultural, economical(read gas price), environmental and political reasons, than the level of driver training, even though most drive with a stick in Europe. Which only the really hard-core ones do in the US.. :-)

Just look the test criteria and results up at NCAP's test site. Here are the results of the Chrysler PT Cruiser as tested in 2002.

Just look the test criteria and results up at NCAP's test site. Here are the results of the Chrysler PT Cruiser as tested in 2002.