The Physics Behind Car Crashes

Guinnessy writes "Physics Today has an article on Vehicle Design and the Physics of Traffic Safety. The article analyzes in detail typical crashes experienced between cars, and cars with SUVs'. According to Marc Ross, Deena Patel, and Tom Wenzel, "The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions. That problem is critical because so many light trucks are used nowadays as car substitutes." They suggest some ways in which both cars and SUVs' can be redesigned to improve safety. Meanwhile Detriot News reports on a Pediatrics journal study says that claims that children are no safer in SUVs than cars because of the rollover risks."

Comments

I reckon..

[DeathByDuke]

..that one of their findings was that cars dont explode upon slightly touching each other!

Re:I reckon..

[Indy Media Watch]

That only happens to American cars which will always explode in a ball of flames, but not until the hero can pull the important passengers to safety, and yell, "Watch out! She's gonna blow!"

Re:I reckon..

[genner]

Yeah, it's gotten bad. Back in the 80's they realy knew how to make a car. Sure they would flip but everyone would get out unharmed , just in time for the A-Team to chase them down.

weight& speed are the big issue here

[jacquesm]

you don't have to be Einstein to remember that e=mv^2, and that if you want to reduce the damage to you, yours and the occupants of other vehicles you keep your speed down and your vehicle weight down.

Driving fast in an SUV loaded with kids is about as unresponsible as it gets, I see it quite often though...

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[antifoidulus]

Huh? e=mc^2, where c is the speed of light, a constant. I do believe you are talking about the equation for momentum, which is mv(mass times velocity) ie increasing either mass or velocity raises you momentum linearly.....

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[rikkards]

They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.


It is true for the people in your car probably having less injuries when yours has the largest Mass but the question remains of what is the impact when an SUV hits another SUV? Are you still as safe as hitting a car?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[i_should_be_working]

As others have pointed out, this has nothing to do with E=mc^2.

In addition, in a large vehicle the conservation of momentum is on your side. It's not the crash that kills you it's the sudden acceleration (your body going from 30 to 0 mph in a second). But if your vehicle doesn't change velocity much (because of its large mass, mass==resistance to acceleration) then you're fine. The other guy dies. That's why there don't have to be seat belts on buses (though it would still be a good idea). If a bus crashes into something, it's probably not going to stop very fast.

Large mass is not why TFA says SUV's are dangerous, it's because they tip over.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[i_should_be_working]

Whoever is in the car that undergoes the largest acceleration is worse off. Since mass is by definition the resistance to acceleration, the ones in the larger car win. If two equal mass cars collide they both undergo the same acceleration. Ignoring car vs SUV strength, if two cars have a head-on collision at 30mph, the people inside are just as well off (or just as injured) as if it were two SUVs.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Vellmont]

And you don't have to be an Einstein to know that kinetic energy isn't what kills people, it's the sudden stop that does. If I jump out of an airplane and atain terminal velocity, but deploy a parashoot I'm a lot safer than jumping out of a tree. The point is that if all that extra weight is put into engineering stronger cars that absorb the impact and slow you down more gradually then you're going to be more likely to survive a crash.

That's not to say that SUVs are safer than normal cars. The rollover risks aren't trivial. Personally I think SUVs should be banned, or at least put into some special category of business only use because of the safety risks they put on other cars. The SUV craze is literally killing more people and making driving for everyone else less safe, and this article proves it.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

the same is true with antilock breaks

Since when? Are you alluding to the misconception that a good driver can stop faster without ABS than an average driver with? With modern ABS this just isnt true anymore, even if you're a rally driver.

And ABS systems let an average driver steer their car in a heavy-braking-potential-skid situation, where the non-abs car will be skidding in an uncontrolled straight line. How many drivers are taught cadence braking these days?

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[hackstraw]

Since when? Are you alluding to the misconception that a good driver can stop faster without ABS than an average driver with?

No, I am alluding to the fact that antilock brakes keep you from skidding which increases your likelihood of flipping your car which is much more fatal than skidding into something.

Antilock brakes are best at reducing the most common and least serious of accidents -- rear end collisions. They simply do not help in dangerous high velocity situations, in fact they are more dangerous.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

This 1994 study is interesting http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluat e/808206.html

While it says that the most common accidents - rear enders - were decreased, it goes on to say "Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent. "

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[AndroidCat]

But strangely, the bus will rapidly gain mass after an accident, from all the people who said they were on the bus and want to file an injury claim. Even stranger, this mass gain happens even when the accident is simulated.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Alioth]

It is likely that this was not caused by the ABS itself, but an unintended consequence of ABS - people have a car with ABS, therefore feel safer, therefore drive faster or drive more recklessly because they think they can violate the laws of physics because they have ABS. I bet if a driver continues to drive carefully with an ABS equipped car they will be better off.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

Quite possibly.

But you can't ignore the fact that ABS lets you steer the vehicle in a 'panic braking' situation, and its this abilty to steer (cf skidding in a straight line) that lets people turn too hard and rollover their vehicle.

I'd have thought that the ESP systems that are becoming more commonplace would be able to reduce the problem though.

Having said all that, I still prefer my car with no driver aids.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[saider]

From the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without?
ABS is designed to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle during emergency braking situations, not make the car stop more quickly. ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads. On very soft surfaces, such as loose gravel or unpacked snow, an ABS system may actually lengthen stopping distances. In wet or slippery conditions, you should still make sure you drive carefully, always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of you, and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions."

ABS is about control, not stopping distances. It allows you to retain control of your vehicle by preventing the wheels from locking up. As such, ABS will not reduce your velocity as much as tradtitional brakes and you will therefore impact with more energy.

However, the benefits of ABS and being able to avoid the collision outweighs the costs of reduced stopping force. So for the untrained driver who simply hits the brakes and waits for impact, ABS can result in higher impact velocities. but used correctly, ABS can help you avoid a collision altogether.

So in some cases (when you cannot maneuver) it is more dangerous, in some cases it is safer.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[owen_b2]

When you're in a front-wheel skid you can't steer, you're going to go in a straight line irrespective of steering inputs. Thats the definition of a skid. ABS is designed for one thing only - to let you steer your car under heavy breaking. Thats it.
So what happens when the panicced (sp?) driver sees a crash ahead, slams on the breaks and wrenchs the wheel to the left?

Without ABS he skids in a straight line towards the crash.
With ABS, he steers the car violently to the left and rolls it over

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[TigerPlish]

Lighter cars don't grip the road? How ignorant. Explain, then, the Mazda Miata, or just about any Lotus ever built? How about the old Porsche 914 and the little MGs and Triumphs? For that matter, how about a nice little crotch rocket with really sticky rubber? How come these sub-2500 pound vehicles can exceed the lateral G loadings of say a two-ton pickup?

The suspension design, its geometry, and MOST IMPORTANT, the tires determine grip. (for normal road cars. For all-out race cars, aero is another way to generate grip.. but aero grip goes away when you slow down.)

If you put 20 dollar Wal Mart tires on your car, you deserve to die horribly in a no-grip accident.

If you treasure your life, and that of those you love, then fer $DEITY's sake, put decent rubber on your car. And that' doesn't mean "all seasons". It means summer tires for when it's not snowing, and snow tires for when it is.

Mass is the enemy. Less mass makes for better driving cars. Better grip, better control, better handling. More mass, the American Way, just ruins everything. That's just one reason why EVERYONE builds better-driving cars than America does.

Of course, if you have a small weenie, then your psyche demands you get a big honking chunk of ill-handling, ill-stopping, ill-steering Detroit Heavy Metal. To compensate, y'know.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[justins]

In addition, in a large vehicle the conservation of momentum is on your side. It's not the crash that kills you it's the sudden acceleration (your body going from 30 to 0 mph in a second).

The mass of the vehicles involved is an interesting and significant data point but it's not the whole story. The way the shape of the vehicle changes during a collision is extremely important. The force with which you're whipped around against your various restraints and airbags is important, but none of that matters if the passenger compartment's geometry radically changes while you're sitting in it.

It is easy to see how some big vehicles are not going to be very great in this regard, as rigidity of the passenger compartment can't be a huge priority in their design. The more safety-oriented Euro manufacturers design their cars around the crew compartment but you obviously aren't going to do that with a vehicle designed primarily to haul cargo.

Large mass is not why TFA says SUV's are dangerous, it's because they tip over.

There have been some other morbidly entertaining SUV safety flaws over the last few years. I'm pretty sure one of the Honda SUVs was the first vehicle to ever cut the legs off a steel crash test dummy.

Rollover certainly isn't the only danger, although it sure ain't pretty. Chassis rigidity doesn't tend to scale as the mass of the vehicle increases. Volvo used to show off its wagons in ads with three of them stacked on top of one another. I wouldn't want to sit in a rolled-over Escalade any longer than I absolutely had to...

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Martin Blank]

Now with the SUVs not being any safer for kids, the same is true with antilock breaks. They are both better at reducing injuries in not so hazardous situations, but both are more likely to kill you in serious situations.

I might have bought into this a decade ago, when people were still unfamiliar with how ABS worked. Early on, people would slam on the brakes, get the feedback, and pull back because it felt wrong. They were then dealing with two issues -- whatever they were trying to avoid, and an unexpected sensation from their car. This led to a number of accidents being more severe than they could have been. ABS is far more common now, and most drivers of cars with ABS know what to expect.

My first car with ABS was a 1993 Saturn SL2, and I was warned by the dealer that it was different. So I found a good-sized parking lot, would accelerate to about 20mph and then nail the brakes so I knew the feeling and wouldn't be surprised by it in an emergency. This has helped in a few occasions where I had the need to hit the brakes hard and steer, and the feedback is now in a way slightly comforting because I know that the system is working.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[boingo82]

The point is that if all that extra weight is put into engineering stronger cars that absorb the impact and slow you down more gradually..

That's not necessarily what's being done.

Many of the largest SUVs (Suburban for example) are on a longer redesign schedule than your standard passenger vehicle. Going 8 years between a full redesign means you're still getting crash technology that's nearly a decade old.

Making matters even better, is that the largest of SUVs, by virtue of their GVWR (a number that's made up by the manufacturer) are not required to meet several bare-minimum government safety standards.
The current Suburban, with a GVWR of 7000-8600 lbs, is exempt from government roof crush tests. (PDF)(As is any vehicle with a GVWR over 6000 lbs.) Unfortunately, passing them wouldn't mean much either - as the minimum only requires a vehicle with windshield intact to withstand 1.5 times its weight pressed down on the roof.
In a rollover, the windshield is usually gone by the end of the crash, and forces can easily exceed 1.5 times vehicle weight.
The current standard has been in place - and unchanged - since 1971, and many SUVs aren't required to pass even that lax standard. Many are also exempt from other minimum standards, like Steering Wheel Rear Displacement (only applies to cars with GVWR 4,000 lbs and less), and basic braking standards (applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 7,716 lbs and less).

Detroit, of course, insists the existing rules are adequate - the rules that often don't apply to their vehicles.

Even better, it's been shown that they misrepresented data from their own tests to the NHTSA.

Obviously, we all have to be more proactive in researching the safety of the vehicles we purchase - and not just go out and buy something "big" that "feels safe". Often, we may be safer in that type of vehicle, but only in multi-vehicle-non-rollover crashes - and to what expense? Raising the weight of your vehicle may reduce the risk to your family by 1/3 in some wrecks, but you've increased it threefold to the other car.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[yourlord]

Let me start by saying I dislike SUV's. I drive a truck because I want something big but still useful.

That being said, If given a choice between my child dying and saving a family of 6 that I don't know, or my child being saved by the death of said family of 6, I'll save my child. It may sound harsh, but that's my kid and my children trump the rest of the planet as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not saying an SUV is safe by any stretch.

When most vehicles on the road were small cars and light trucks and the occasional SUV then the odds were in favor of the SUV that they would be the heavier vehicle involved in a crash and win the war of weight. Now that a large proportion of the vehicles on the road are SUV's you gain almost nothing as the odds are pretty good you're going to tangle with another SUV or full sized truck. The guy/gal in the Kia Rio is going to die.

The biggest danger in an SUV is the high center of gravity. Standard trucks are better in this regard as they tend to have a lower one. Cars win hands down in this area and are typically much harder to flip.

Regardless of the vehicle, flipping and landing on the roof is the biggest danger to the passengers.

And just as an aside, a friend of the family was driving an old mid 80's suburban and was t-boned by a fully loaded gas truck that was doing 45. It was the mother and every kid (all 4 kids) in the suburban, buckled in, and they all walked away with nothing more than strap bruises. replace that suburban with a neon and I'll give you 3 guesses how many would have died.

With all 4 wheels on the ground they are safer than a Corolla.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[budgenator]

The belief that you can stop a car hydroplaning on molten tire rubber fast than you can stop a car with ABS is as false as the belief that any technology can mitigate the effects of suicidal stupidity.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[Lars T.]

So as soon as SUVs have taken over, people will buy Sports Utility Tanks to be safe again.

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[jridley]

If you put 20 dollar Wal Mart tires on your car, you deserve to die horribly in a no-grip accident.

Nobody "deserves to die" because of something they bought, or failed to buy. Particularly if they can't afford expensive tires.

Perhaps Charles Manson deserves to die. Probably Hitler deserved to die. Some guy making $12000 at McDonalds who can't afford Pirelli's on his beater doesn't "deserve to die".

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[mfarver]

No.. as the article says, deaccleration of the vehicle itself has very little to do with the safety of the occupants. Even in the most forceful collisions the car will deaccelerate at less than 100G's. Human's regularily survive deaccelerations up to 150-200Gs when the force is spread out.

The problem is peak loads as the occupant collides with the interior of the car. The design goal is to keep the passenger in his seat, and the passenger compartment largely intact. A stiffer vehicle hitting a less stiff one causes the softer vehicle to absorb more than its share of the collision force, often exceeding the design force of the softer vehicle (that was designed to absorb only its own velocity, like when hitting the solid barrier in common crash tests).

Crash compatibility appears to be the greatest factor in crash surviability, and the hardest to measure. For example, the standard side impact test crashes a simulated front end of a Ford Tuarus into the car under test. Most vehicles do well in this test becuase the short soft Taurus tends to engage the door framing, pushing the test car away and spreading the impact force out. Try this same test with a taller stiffer vehicle impact and the passengers in the test vehicle are often killed. A famous test found that when the test vehicle was hit with a Dodge 4x4 pickup the passengers sustained much less injuries than when hit by the same model 4x2 pickup despite the 4x4's 800lbs of additional weight. It took many weeks of film analysis to figure out why... the 4x4 came with factory tow hooks mounted under the bumper. These hooks caught the top of the door frame and pushed the test car out of the way... the 4x2 version's bumper rode over the door frame and struck the dummy directly.

Mark

Re:weight& speed are the big issue here

[TigerPlish]

Bullshit. That attitude makes for a Nanny State. The BUYERS need to educate themselves on what makes a good tire vs. a horrible one... and it has little to do with price.

You dont need *expensive* tires. Just really good tires. You don't need to blow megabucks to get decent rubber.

Right off the top of my head I can think of 3 tires which are sub-80 dollars a piece (on 14 or 15" wheels) and are fantastic rubber.

Builders wagon

[Anonymous Coward]

funny how driving a builders wagon became fashionable, perhaps milk floats are next, or even a dustcart !, we can only live in hope

Re:Builders wagon

[Rob the Bold]

If the bulldozer idea doesn't take off then perhaps we could secretly get parking spaces reduced by an inch or two each time they are painted. Over time it will become impractical to use anything bigger than a hatchback to get the shopping or drop the kids at school.

I like the idea, but sadly, it won't work here. Where I live, the jackasses in the giant suvs with "W" stickers just take as many parking spaces as they need. That is, when they're not driving around yelling unintelligible epithets at bicyclists.

Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[danamania]

I'm reminded of an accident I almost saw several years ago. It was at an intersection where the east/west road had right of way, and the north/south road had a Stop sign. I was in a friend's shop at the time, and we heard a V8 accelerating hard, then a sudden very loud *thud*.

Running outside, we saw from the accident that a 1970s V8 Statesman with a P Plate (here, drivers get P plates to tack on their car for the first few years they're driving on their own) had obviously gone through the stop sign and hit the driver's side of a Prelude driven by an elderly driver. The young guy in the statesman was taken off to hospital, but a rescue team was needed to pull the driver out of the Prelude. Later that night the news had a piece about the accident, saying that the p-plater had caused an accident that killed the elderly guy. Even witnesses at the scene said they heard the V8 go through the intersection far too fast, and hit the prelude.

Then the next night, video shot from inside a building nearby showed the accident - the P-plater had actually stopped at a pedestrian crossing, let the people walk across, then accelerated quickly & noisily... but he was actually moving along the east/west road with right of way. It was the driver in the prelude that had gone through the stop sign at high speed, and the young fellow was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and hit the driver's side of the prelude hard - both cars went spinning around in an impossible looking way, ending up in a position that looked for all the world like the young fellow had gone through the stop sign, even though in this case the only thing he'd done 'wrong' was make a big ol' noise in first gear. My "obvious" guess at who was in the wrong was completely off.

There's a massive amount of energy in a car collision, more than most people would expect given how much we take moving a tonne or two of steel from one place to another daily.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[scolbe]

There's a massive amount of energy in a car collision, more than most people would expect given how much we take moving a tonne or two of steel from one place to another daily.

well the best way to drive home just how much energy it takes to move a car is mandantary push starts(and pushing it downhill is cheating).

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Gordonjcp]

I've seen pictures of a crash involving a Renault Megane, and a Hummer H2. The H2 ran through a red light and got cokebottled by the Megane. So - SUV versus small European MPV. Sounds like no contest, right?

Damn Straight.

The Megane was very severely damaged, with the driver and front passenger sustaining some injuries, mainly limited to cuts from glass and severe bruising. The passenger hit her head on a bent bit of A-pillar.

The H2 was *destroyed*. The impact knocked it on its side, and pushed the gearbox and transfer box through the floor and out through the roof. The chassis was split in two from about the middle up to the front crossmember.
I suppose I don't need to draw any pictures of what this did to the four occupants.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[jacksonj04]

I'm learning to drive, and people who treat indicators as an optional extra are nothing more than life threatening. It's difficult enough for me to try keep tabs on everything I should be doing, what other people are doing, and what the road markings tell me to do without some asshole merging lanes without indicating.

As for the mostly males involved in crashes, it's the same statistical nonsense as mostly red cars are involved in crashes. It's simply because there are more males on the road to be driving dangerously. Insurance for me (18yo Male, learning to drive) is phenominal even on a low power car. Fortunately I plan to do a Pass Plus (An extra test for additional road skills) so it should drop, but your comment about subsidising the idiots still holds true even then.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out some things about older cars. I hope this doesn't disrupt your glee in their injuries too much. I have a 72 Mach 1 Mustang with a 429 in it. Big ol heavy loud car. Older cars like that often don't come off the line like the modern plasticy cars. There have been times where a thin sheet of ice on the road causes me to fishtail a little starting at an intersection...by letting off the brake. No accel and I am already fishtailing a little. It generally does not take a whole lot of pressure to get cars like that to jump a little and make alot of noise, even without being considered reckless. Further the parent said the video showed him stopping at a crosswalk, which leads me even more to believe his driving is more likely to be a case of physics rather than irresponsibility. As for the elderly person, I certainly don't think they should have been on the road, but some states have never ending licenses, and others just require you to sign the dotted line to keep one. But to rant about him disobeying signs is innane and childish. He honestly probably missed it and it cost him his life. I know in unfamiliar parts of town I have missed various signs because they have been placed in odd positions or near other obstructions. I highly doubt you have NEVER missed a sign or anything else on the road EVER, so gleefully ranting about how you are glad is pathetic. Maybe your story will change when you miss something, get hit, hit some black ice and go into a tree, or some other purely accidental (gee I wonder why its called a...) accident, and lose a family member, or even your own life. Grow up.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Kadin2048]

I find that hard to believe, but even if it's true, it's hardly representative of most SUV vs. passenger car crashes. It's just not. Perhaps the H2 is just poorly constructed in terms of side-impact protection or something, I can't say since I'm not familiar with it, but imagine that same collision occurring head-on. It barely matters what equipment each car has, because the H2, having much more mass, is going to decelerate much less violently. It's just not going to experience as serious a collision as the smaller car will.

There are many studies which support this (besides TFA), and I've personally seen (as an EMT) some really hideous SUV/Car collisions, and can tell you: the SUV usually wins. Sometimes there are mitigating factors, like the SUV will roll over and throw out and crush anyone that's not seat-belted, while the car will basically stay in one place, but if you have the choice between being in a Honda Civic and a GMC Suburban with similar safety equipment when they run into each other, you'd be insane not to pick the Suburban. Plus, the increased size of the car makes it likely that you'll get extricated from the vehicle a lot faster (again, assuming no rollover).

The biggest problem with SUVs, traditionally and still, is that they tend to roll over during hard panic maneuvers, or when hit from the side. Where I used to live, the biggest risk was people driving them too fast for conditions (no, your SUV does not mean you can drive on ice) and laying them over -- generally nonfatal though. But in a straightforward front-end or rear-end collision, there's something to be said for surrounding yourself with several thousand extra pounds of steel. Granted, you get that advantage at the expense of the person in the smaller car, and you have to be more careful taking it around a corner, but it's there nonetheless.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Tim Browse]

I would throttle them, but that would make _me_ the bad guy.

Ha. That made this pop into my head:

"Ironic, isn't it Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election. And yet, if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you."

Mr Burns, of course :-)

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Harg- I remember turning 25 and having my auto ins. drop a bunch. There was a recent study that showed the majority of people who drive while on the cell phone are women, so I am sure someday this will be reflected in the actuarial tables.
On a somewhat related note, i never understood how gay people who want to get married, but can't here in the US (most states) haven't sued the insurance companies. Married men pay a lower rate than unmarried men, but gays don't have this opportunity. Seems like a great way for some lawyer to make money...

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[the_bard17]

The biggest problem with SUVs, traditionally and still, is that they tend to roll over

Not from my point of view... their problem is this: the SUV usually wins. From my meager time in life, I've seen plenty of reckless drivers. Not all of them were teenagers... I've seen my share of reckless soccer moms, businessmen, and delivery drivers. Quite a few of these drive heavier vehicles. I suppose it makes them feel safer, being in a heavier vehicle (which they probably are).

They continue their reckless driving habits, however, now becoming that much more of a threat to the general populace driving smaller cars. They may be more likely to survive, but they're decreasing the chance of survival for everybody else.

Until everybody "wises up", goes out and buys an heavier vehicle... at which point we're right back at square one, with worse gas mileage.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[arivanov]

Meganne safety rating is off the scale. The occupant safety level is so good that they are having to redesign the tests because of it. At 35 mph collision of any type (front, side flat, back and side pillar) there is no damage to the occupants. At all. The test result is all green with a possible minor spot of yellow (which corresponds to a bruise). Just look at the EUROncap safety tests http://www.euroncap.com/. Same for every Renault made in the last 3 years.

At the same time the Hummer is not even on the list. In fact if it was, it would have pulled a 2-2.5 star rating at best. Same as a suicidal box like Fiat Ceicento. I have seen a crashed Hummer so this unscientific opinion is based on seeing what happens when it smashes. If you are driving this POS you have a death wish.

Essentially even being in a something microscopic by American standards (like Modus http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/det ails.php?id1=1&id2=201) is safer then being in a Hummer.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Zog The Undeniable]

The insurance companies aren't screwing you (or at least, no more than anyone else). They use actuarial tables which show the average younger driver, or any driver with no clean driving history, is several times more likely to have an accident.

Now I was never a particularly aggressive driver (and the only accident I ever caused was when I reversed into a concrete pillar) but I can safely say that in 19 years of driving I leave a lot more space in front and anticipate other drivers' bad behaviour better than I used to. Hell, when I was 25 in a little 988cc car I used to drive a section of country lane in about half the time that I would risk it now - in a car with 2.5x the power. It's all about testosterone and perceived invincibility.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[skaffen42]

Too true... unfortunately it seems that SUV drivers believe the hype that they are invincible. I'm "trail-rated" so I can go anywhere at any speed!

I saw the result of this last Saturday when there was some freezing rain early in the morning. Driving down Route 80 I counted 14 accidents in the space of about 20 miles. The majority of the vehicles involved were SUVs, and when a car was involved it was usually because an idiot in an SUV had rear-ended them. Worst accident was some large SUV that looked liked it had rolled end-over-end. Couldn't have been more squashed if it had been hit by a train.

The combination of vehicle weight and perceived driver invincibility seems to make SUVs deathtraps in anything other than perfect driving conditions. Ironic, when you think about it.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[killjoe]

"Quite a few of these drive heavier vehicles. I suppose it makes them feel safer, being in a heavier vehicle (which they probably are)."

They probably are safer in their huge SUV. Too bad they are not thinking about the people they will murder though. If they were driving a lighter car which would more effectively crumple and absorb impact the people in the other could maybe survive.

I guess it re-inforces the stereotype of the SUV driver as the guy who doesn't give a shit about anybody else except themselves. Don't care about the environment, don't care about foreign oil dependency, don't care about the survival of the other guys in the crash.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[HairyCanary]

I do not believe people are going to wise up anytime soon, without some impetus. Historically, money has been a good influencing factor on purchasing decisions.

What I propose is that all vehicles that are not commercially owned (that is a separate issue) be grouped together. No distinction between the fuel consumption and crash standards for cars versus pickups & SUV's. Rate them all on the same scale, provide the same penalties to anyone who violates the accepted standards. If we applied the same standards to pickups that we do to cars, most would cost a couple thousand dollars more from the gas guzzler tax. And that is how it should be, no special priviliges to anyone.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Karma Farmer]

I suppose I don't need to draw any pictures of what this did to the four occupants.

This is how we know you're lying -- no H2 has ever had four passengers at the same time.

Unless you mean the driver and three bags of groceries.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Oldsmobile]

The XM is a sort of engineers car, atleast in that it is totally over engineered. Unfortunately those engineers happened to be French.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Undertaker43017]

That will never fly. You do realize that body on frame vehicles are the only correct way to tow large boats and RV trailers, right? While I don't disagree that CDL's should be required (in most states they are not hard to get and in some states, are required for class a motorhomes), requiring commerical insurance so that a family can take a vacation seems a bit extreme.

So if we follow that logic should motorcyclists pay the least insurance, since from a damage to life and property motorcyclists face the greatest danager in any collison. Or you could flip it around and since motorcycles are lighter and in collisons they (or the riders) tend to become dangerous flying objects, perhaps we charge them more?

Also I won't argue that body on frame vehicles cause more damage to other vehicle(s), but you have to base libility premiums on whose at fault more often, and I have to think, based on the rates, that body on frame vehicles are at fault less often. Of the five vehicles I insure, two are body on frame, I pay more in libility for the unibody vehicles than the body on frame, which tells me that some statistics must show that unibody vehicles are at fault more often.

Re:Physics of car crashes aren't intuitive.

[Fizzog]

You forgot:

4) Profit

European car security

[sucker_muts]

The newest european cars nowadays come with an extra protection agains collisions with pedestrians: The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.

The powertrain generally takes up considerable space in the engine compartment, leaving little room between the engine and the bonnet.
To remedy this, the C6 comes with an active bonnet system as standard that automatically raises the bonnet in the event of pedestrian impact. Thanks to an impact sensor and pyrotechnic mechanism, the bonnet rises 65 mm in 40 milliseconds. A second mechanism maintains the bonnet in its raised position despite the impact and thus absorbs the deformation energy.

Example from Citroen.

Re:European car security

[smchris]

Me too (usually a pedestrian). There are significantly more pedestrian deaths in the U.S. _every_year_ than the World Trade Center deaths but I don't see people getting all weepy over it. (http://www.carwrecks.com/info8.html)

Being a long-term survivor of pedestrianism is one of the best ways to become a cynic of the human condition. It annoys me that my local media have to make a point that "alcohol and drugs were not involved" -- to which I always think, "Great, a clean kill." Running over a pedestrian is the safest way to experience the thrill of murder. Unlikely you'll even get the workhouse if you aren't too blatent about it. But be warned that if you only wing your pedestrian you could be paying off the multi-million dollar lawsuit for the rest of your life under the new bankrupcy rules. So in the end it's smarter not to run over pedestrians, ok?

[Aside from personal experience, I tend to be even more cynical because working in various places and talking about walking to work I have met _three_ secretaries who each had their father killed at a stop sign or stop light pedestrian walk.]

Re:European car security

[Krach42]

I was actually witness to a person getting run over in a pedestrian walk way.

This was near/on the New Mexico State University campus (University Blvd), and I was crossing the street illegally in the middle of the road. I heard the audible crosswalk signal (for the deaf) that indicated that the nearest crosswalk was allowing pedestrians to cross. This is a good cue to a jay-walker that traffic is likely not coming from that direction.

After a quick glance to ensure that no traffic was coming, I began crossing, and heard a "thump" noise. I figured someone had had a tire go flat, and looking over someone who had made a right-hand turn was pulling to the side of the road. Then I got to the center of the road, and I heard a wimpering. And I thought, "Oh shit".

Later a few other people got hit in pedestrian walk ways, and the University got on a big "jay-walking bad" rant (if you've been to College, you know how Unis can do this. They get some topic, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon, and argues for/against some stupid thing that happened months ago) And I could hardly understand how people getting hit in cross-walks related to jay-walking. I mean, if anything, it indicated that jay-walking was SAFER, because there were far fewer jay-walker strikes than cross-walk strikes.

Re:European car security

[DigitalReverend]

...I heard the audible crosswalk signal (for the deaf)...

I am pretty sure those are for the blind.

Well, that settles it then...

[shmlco]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars..."

Well, that settles it then. It's obvious we need to outlaw passenger cars. Not only will that remove millions of unsafe cars from the road, it will give a much needed economic boost to the SUV manufacturers.

Besides, if a car is unsafe around a light body truck, it must be a death trap around a standard truck or a semi-tractor trailer rig...

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[blueturffan]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars..."

Strangely, a body-on-frame light truck has been safely coexisting with a (subcompact) passenger car in my garage for the past two years. Amazingly, they both go out and coexist with all other vehicles on the roadway, ranging from bicycles to 18 wheelers, without incident.

I find it amusing when the vehicle is blamed rather than the operator.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Oldsmobile]

"I find it amusing when the vehicle is blamed rather than the operator.

I agree. Seatbelts ought to be BANNED and a large spike pointing at the drivers chest should be fitted on the steering column. Not only would it make people drive really safely, it would cut down on motoring.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[M-G]

Besides, if a car is unsafe around a light body truck, it must be a death trap around a standard truck or a semi-tractor trailer rig...

And the trucking industry constantly lobbies for greater weights for their trucks. Which cause lots of wear and tear on the roads if nothing else. But now they can't stop as quickly, and they can't get out of their own way on a hill, resulting in mini traffic jams and high speed differentials, which are a dangerous situation.

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[blueturffan]

I certainly not opposed to seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones or anything else to keep passengers (and drivers) as safe as possible in the event of an accident.

However, I have seen countless news reports ("SUV crashes into schoolchildren") that imply that the vehicle caused the accident/collision/etc. of its own volition. On the other hand, when it is a subcompact or sedan, the report generally correctly places the culpability on the the responsible driver.

If I understood your message correctly, you believe that the very existence of SUV's/light trucks on the same road as any other vehicle is a safety hazard on the same scale as the removal of seatbelts and the installation of "impaling spikes". On the other hand, my opinion is that an unsafe driver is a safety hazard to self and others regardless of the vehicle driven. (Although certainly more damage can be done with a vehicle of greater mass.)

Re:Well, that settles it then...

[Tim Doran]

Did you RTFA? Unibody cars are much, much safer than body-on-frame cars because the unibody construction permits the car to deform and absorb the force of the collision where a rigid frame exposes occupants to the full force of the collision.

The "problem" is not cars moving to unibody - the improved safety and fuel economy drove that - the problem is millions of drivers using "light" trucks as their day-to-day vehicles, with no requirement that these trucks be designed with passenger car collisions in mind.

The good old days weren't as good as you say - body-on-frame collisions (such as the one I experienced in my dad's '74 Buick Centurion) were horrible compared to unibody-to-unibody collisions (such as the collision my wife experienced last month in her Hyundai Elantra.)

Re:get some priorities!

[radja]

ok then. let's have a party.

Canyonero!

[Life700MB]

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

(Entire lyrics here)


--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95

You're both wrong. or right.

[tabrisnet]

KE = (m/2)*v^2

or the more common form: KE = 1/2mv^2

This incidentally does make it in the same class as E=m*c^2 (due to magnitude/exponentiation) but that's more or less irrelevant.

Chinese SUV

[lovebyte]

I don't know for the USA, but a chinese SUV is being imported into Europe and it received a 0 rating for safety.
So be careful! If you see one on the road, stay well clear.

Re:Chinese SUV

[bobdotorg]

Overheard at a cafe in Stockholm:

Volvo Engineer: But your SUV is so dangerous - it has no crumple zones.

Chinese Car Salesman: Silly Swede. You Volvo my crumple zone.

Re:Chinese SUV

[10Ghz]

Actually, looking at the videos and pictures of the Landwind crash-test, it becomes quite obvious that the whole car is one big crumple-zone. The car seems to simply disintegrate.

See for yourself

Re:Chinese SUV

[AtomicBomb]

How bad? Probably as bad as a similar vehicle the 1990s... And, it is probably the sort of vehicle most driver are with if they are in the budget sector. Check the link below for a comparison between different SUVs + the Landwind. The Volkswagen survive well, the Landwind fails miserably. But, the 2003 Ford Explorer and the Isuzu Rodeo are not much better off. Based on truck design, the protection of a lot of SUV are jsut not up to it. Before laughing out loud, most of us should realise that we are sitting on similarly dangerous vehicle day in and day out. It is an area money can solve the problem.

PDF warnings

[simpsone]

Hows about a warning of some sort about the pdf lurking behind the first link there? Maybe a little something in parentheses would do.

People will always buy an auto they feel safe in

[fantomas]

People are always going to consider their own selfish personal safety as a purchasing factor when choosing a road vehicle; for many people this is a very significant issue, and is played upon by advertising for autos.

We need to focus on methods of ensuring safety that don't threaten other road users: win-win situations rather than soccer moms driving trucks and declaring "I know I will win in a collision" (vaguely remembered quote from a National Geographic article on SUVs). This can only lead to a sort of arms war where we all end up driving 38 tonne truck rigs....I was particularly scared by the picture of the SUV built on what is effectively a couple of forward facing railroad rails - that's going to hurt if you're hit side on in a little compact by one of those.

The annoying thing is I am sure most of the safety issues can be solved with little cost and by improving social as well as technological aspects of road use, e.g. severely enforcing low speed limits round residential areas. As long as its cool to drive like a bastard people will.

I always like the story about how there were a lot of fatal accidents in early autos because of the bolt protruding in the middle of early steering wheels, head on crashes meant drivers suffering lots of chest damage; while this was then changed to make life safer, it's been pointed out that if there was a big spike compulsorily welded onto the middle of all steering wheels pointing at drivers then everybody would drive a whole lot more carefully and there would be a lot less accidents.....

This Is Genius!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The hood in front of the car is lifted a few inches after 40 or so milliseconds so the pedestrian gets lifted as well and won't get run over by the car but lands on the softer hood and might hit the car glass.

Wow! That's great! Now instead of plebs getting messily caught in my undercarraige, they'll just hit the bonnet and windshield and bounce right off! I can just turn on the sprinklers and wash the blood right off while I sip on my latte! This is genius!

The only downside I can think of is that they may be inconsiderately be wearing metallic objects that might scratch my paintjob. That's a serious issue with this system. Perhaps it would be better if they were bumped to the side instead, preferably to the sidewalk, as that way they wouldn't fly into any oncoming drivers, thus exacerabting the problem.

Re:This Is Genius!

[10Ghz]

The idea is pretty simple. When the bonnet raises, there's more room to absorb the impact-energy. Earlier, the only things absorbing the energy were the metal on the bonnet and engine, and the bones in the pedestrian. With this system, the bonnet can absorb more of the impact-energy, sparing the pedestrian.

Here is the EURO-NCAP test-report for Citroen C6. As it happens, it's the first car to achieve the maximum score for pedestrian safety.

Re:This Is Genius!

[advocate_one]

so, what you really want is a whacking great big cow-catcher to shove them to one side or the other...

While that is mostly true

[Chuck Chunder]

Increases in that sort of safety may decrease insurance premiums which may make people consider them more. It probably won't be a major consideration though but such features do tend to become more standard over time.

On SUV safety

[Oldsmobile]

Funny thing anout SUV's. They really are a hazard. Not only is the center of gravity higher, but they usually have misdesigned suspension (Ford Exploder, Mitsubishi Montero) that actually encourages rolling over, SUV's have higher bumpers, so cars running into them slide under, killing the occupants in the lower car. SUV's use more gas and cause more pollution. A very big problem is roof crush. SUV roofs are notorious for being frail and crushing in a roll over accident, squishing the people inside.

I for one don't like the idea of dying by having my spinal column driven into my skull.

Many of these things of course could be mitigated. There could be a standard lane change test to determine suspension quality, there could be rules on the center of gravity, there could be rules on bumper height (like on regular cars) and there could be rules on pollution, perheps making all SUV's except the kind with frugal modern common rail diesel engines (with particle filters) financially impposible to own/buy.

But this is not the case. Infact, with GM and to some extent Ford in financial trouble (and with all their profits coming from SUV's) the current US administration wil do nothing about the laws, that infact make SUV's above the law.

Right now, SUV's are excempt from current fuel efficiency laws (that are not very good in the first place, mind you), they are excempt from bumper laws (making SUV's lousy and expensive to fix in even the smallest parking lot accident) and there are no laws governing roll-overs (only tests).

With all these problems, I don't see why they even allow these on the road.

The funny thing is, I really like the idea of sitting up high in my car and being able to see further. That is probably the only reason SUV's are so popular. Looks like they could accomplish that in a macho looking vehicle without these problems.

Cross-over anyone?

Re:On SUV safety

[rahrens]

SUV = Sport Utility Vehicle

Sport = off road
Utility = Carrying or towing capacity

Off road use requires a higher center of gravity to allow clearance over hazards, the ability to cross over ridge crests without scraping the undercarriage, etc.

Carrying capacity and towing capacity requires both additional cubic cargo space, weight and power. SUVs are used for towing boats, trailers, campers, etc., and need these additional characteristics to be successful.

All of this is expensive. A typical SUV starts out at the dealership at over $25K, with most coming in at over $35K once you add the additional towing packages, etc. Many come in at over $45K!

If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity. But at that expense, many people can't afford both an SUV and a regular car. So they buy just the SUV, or they can afford just one additonal car, so Hubby drives the lower gas milage car to the more distant workplace, and Soccer Mom drives the SUV around town cause thats all the cars they can afford.

At least in the US, the government doesn't have so much power that they can just ban a particular vehicle without political consequences. Not when it's as popular as the SUV. The recreational lobbies would eat them alive.

It's only a very small minority of folks that just buy an SUV as a status symbol.

Re:On SUV safety

[RosenSama]

Many of these things of course could be mitigated. There could be a standard lane change test to determine suspension quality, there could be rules on the center of gravity, there could be rules on bumper height (like on regular cars) and there could be rules on pollution, perheps making all SUV's except the kind with frugal modern common rail diesel engines (with particle filters) financially impposible to own/buy.

The car buying market in the US is pretty democratic. People buy what they want. We don't need more rules here to tell people what they "should" buy any more than we need more rules about televisions telling people what they "should" watch. The reason the SUV-is-a-truck-not-a-car loophole that excludes them from bumper height and fuel economy exists in the first place is because of short-sighted rules. We don't need further rules that just leave new loopholes with age. Eventually the car manufacturing regulations would be like the tax code.

Re:On SUV safety

[Oldsmobile]

"All of this is expensive. A typical SUV starts out at the dealership at over $25K, with most coming in at over $35K once you add the additional towing packages, etc. Many come in at over $45K!

Actually, SUV's might be expensive at the dealership, but they are very cheap to produce, hence the extreme profitability.

Re:On SUV safety

[Politburo]

If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity.

That's bullshit. My family went camping and boating dozens of times and has never owned an SUV. The SUV wasn't mainstream until the 90s.. you think people didn't camp and go boating before then?

Insurance costs could fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

My insurance company charges more for cars whose occupants are likely to be injured. I would propose the opposite approach. They should charge more for vehicles who are likely to injure the occupants of other vehicles. The driver of the giant pickup truck would be penalized for putting my life at greater risk. That would get a lot of those vehicles off the road. If you need something to boost your ego, you could drive a luxury import; it's actually the safest thing you can drive.

Re:Insurance costs could fix this

[draciron]

Yes they could. Drivers of flimsy cars should pay the higher premiums. I personally am tired of all the SUV bashing going on. I drive a smaller SUV that gets better MPG than many passenger cars. I drive a standard instead of automatic which makes a noticable difference there. I drive an SUV for many reasons. One being I need the room. In fact my only regret is not getting a bigger SUV. I play in a band and need to haul my gear on frequent occaisons. I do handyman work at home, so I need the cargo space to haul supplies and tools on many occasions. I have friends and ex-inlaws that live on dirt roads which are inaccessable to most cars during parts of the year. I like to go camping and when I camp it's not at some campground. That's not camping, thats just a hotel without room service or clean sheets. That means driving off road periodically. I live in an area which sees very heavy rain at least two or three times a year, often more. I am able to get places and to ferry friends and family through high water on those occasions. If I want to jump a curb I can. For me SUV's reprsent freedom. They give me the ability to do things. To not be stopped by much. Personally I feel ALL cars of any type should be required to have a roll over bar. Roll overs are one of the biggest killers of any kind of vehicle. I've seen just as many sports cars flat up on their roof as I have seen SUVs. Vans are the most suceptable to roll overs. They are also generally worse at fuel efficiency than any other commonly used car except really high end sports cars and the dreadnaught SUVs. However they are not the evil SUV so nobody cares about the fuel efficiency of a sports car or a van. Even pickups which are almost identical to SUV's, often having the same frame, same engine, same fuel efficiency, height and safety records escape the SUV witchhunt. But lets talk safety for a minute. SUVs ARE different and need to be driven differently than a sports car. Most people drive a car like a car reguardless of what they are driving and the weather conditions. Vans are prone to high wind, are not real good at cornering and have a tendancy to get out of control at high speed if you have a cross wind. Vans also have a high roll over rate. Pickups have light rear ends and are prone to fishtailing if there is nothing in the bed of the truck. They also do not corner like a sedan. SUVs share the same high center of balence pickups and vans do. SUVs drivers should take curves slower and be more aware of the wind than sedan drivers. Sports cars generally corner extremely well but are normally have very low centers to give that cornering abilty. This means while driving a sports care you are almost blind in traffic and invisble to many cars. Sport's car's low clearence make them more vulnerable to road debris and more prone to lose control when hitting debris, huge potholes and other obstackes. They are poor off road vehicles. High water is death to a sports car. The same design that allows them to go fast makes them light enough that high winds can become just as dangerous to a sports car as to a van. Typcially traction in adverse weather is poorer with sports cars than heavier makes of vehicles. Sports cars shed size to gain speed and fuel economy. This makes them more vulnerable in crashes. Light economy cars are the most dangerous in my opinion. They are typically light enough that wind will be a problem, espeically on bridges or when there is snow, ice or heavy rain on the road. They sacrafice weight for fuel economy which makes them more prone to damage in accidents. Often economy cars with thier small size are difficult to see by many other drivers. Unlike faster sports cars and SUVs economy cars tend to be underpowered so they cannot get out of the way as easily. Economy cars are often hazards when entering busy freeways. Unable to get up to highway speed on the on ramp, especially uphill onramps they enter freeways at unsafe speeds. They are as vulnerable to road debris as sports cars but do not have the cornering ability of a sports car. I see as ma

Moonbuggy....

[In Fraudem Legis]

I'm happy with my moonbuggy, the safest vehicle out there. http://moonbuggy.msfc.nasa.gov/images/mbmid.gif

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[Vellmont]

And when the drunk moron is driving an SUV and hits you in the side, you and your family will be dead. Had he not had all the "armor" you and your family might have lived

Bigger cars to suffer more parking damage

[leenoble_uk]

The UK has seen an explosion in the numbers of people driving around in ridiculously proportioned vehicles. America has lived with them for decades so your cities are built around them. The UK is not. Parking spaces are a lot smaller.

I was waiting outside a supermarket the other week, in a parking slot, and one of these tossers shows up and stops in front of me to let out his passengers before moving into a space. The reason was obvious. His car was too damned big to get the doors open properly when it was between two other cars. As far as I'm concerned he should expect to have his bodywork smacked up by the car doors on either side of him.

I also always make a point of thanking people for waiting on narrow roads where parked cars make it impossible for two cars to pass eachother, unless they're driving something like a VW Touraeg. If it is possible for two normal cars to pass each other and your stupid truck sized car is making it impossible then it's your own fault and you'll get no thanks from me. If you drove a normal car you'd have had no reason to stop.

Re:Bigger cars to suffer more parking damage

[G4Z]

You are right on the money there mate, I also live in the UK and I agree 100% that our road are just too small for SUV's. There is some justification for them in the US with miles of wide open roads but here the urban areas are to congested and the rural areas the roads tend to be even smaller. There is an argument for country people to drive SUV's especialy in winter, but I have to say I disagree with anybody driving these things around the towns and cities there is simply not enough space. I also find that this phenomenon really does tend to adhere to the sterotype, I used to live in one of the suburbs around Newcastle, every morning when I went to work I would have to drive down the same strech of road that had 2 private schools on it. Without fail, every single day (apart from school holiday's) there would be a queue of large SUV's in the entrance and car park areas that would block the road as mum dropped little Jimmy off. This for somebody usualy late for work was infuriating. I would like to see road tax increased substantialy on these things, maybe in London they could double the congestion charge for SUV's?

what is the definition of "safely" ?

[tjic]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars "

The author of the study is making the mistake that safety is a boolean, and that things are either safe or unsafe.

In fact, everything is unsafe, to varying degrees. ("Life", in the words of Warren Zevon, "is gonna killa you").

The important thing, when contemplating questions of public policy, is to COMPARE one risk to the next, and make sure that we're making reasonable decisions and tradeoffs.

For example, over the last 10-15 years, a lot of states have dropped the DUI (driving under the influnce) BAC cutoff (blood alcohol content) from 0.1% to 0.08%. Lower is better, right?

Well, as it turns out, having a BAC in the 0.08 - 0.10% range has the same effect on driving ability as (a) having a cold; (b) getting a poor night's sleep; (c) being over the age of 50.

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?

The answer is that one behavior gets a penalty because it sounds good, makes politicians look like They're Doing Something(tm) and has moralistic overtones ("get those damn drunks off the road!").

To say that "light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars " is purest nonsense. We've had light trucks coexisting with passenger cars for 70 years, and the fatality rate drops every single year. Sure, if you could snap your fingers and get every pickup truck, minivan, delivery van, and SUV off the road, things would get incrementally safer for the average driver of a passenger car. ...but how much safer?

I don't know off the top of my head, but is it a level of safety comparable to every passenger car driver making sure that their tires are fully inflated before each trip? Or more, or less?

Absolutist boolean statements like "X can not safety coexist with Y" do not answer questions like this. These statements are public-policy-by-press-release and deserve to be condemned.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[mrtrumbe]

Your logic makes no sense.

Presumably, if the average 51 year old drives as poorly as a person with a BAL of 0.08-0.10, then the average 71 year old would drive comparably to a person with an even higher BAL. If an elderly person has the same driving capabilities as a person with a BAL of 0.15 should the be allowed on the road because they don't have a choice? In fact, they DO have a choice: they could choose not to drive.

Similarly, a person who has slept 1 hour in the last 48 hours is likely to be a terrible driver, comparable to a person with a high BAL. Doesn't this person have a choice to not get behind the wheel of a car? How about a terribly sick individual?

From hearing people in this country talk, you would think driving was a necessity akin to eating, clothing and shelter. Because we treat it as such, we are more afraid of the consequences of taking away drivers licenses than of having dangerous drivers on the road. How many chances does the average DUI offender get before their license is permenantly revoked? How many accidents does an elderly driver have to have before their license is revoked? Too many, if you ask me.

What is the difference between a drunken driver and a driver who is impaired in other ways? Nothing. They are all shitty drivers and they all have a choice: the choice not to get behind the wheel of a car.

Taft

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[hackstraw]

Well, as it turns out, having a BAC in the 0.08 - 0.10% range has the same effect on driving ability as (a) having a cold; (b) getting a poor night's sleep; (c) being over the age of 50.

If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?

Being convicted of a DUI is a crime in most states. In mine, you get 3 years in prison after the third one. Here is an account of such an unfortunate person:

I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segragation though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I've requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things . . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or thinking to hard on all this . . . . I've laid down without physical fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing. Though in not fighting, it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.

-A letter to Human Rights Watch

Although I thought that the US was bad about their BAC limits, they are about the same if not more lenient than many other countries. Some have legal limit of 0.0.

I always get landblasted when I say that this is a feminine thing, but historically women are more against alcohol than men are. Examples are the prohibition phase in the 20s and MADD.

Re:what is the definition of "safely" ?

[robertjw]

From hearing people in this country talk, you would think driving was a necessity akin to eating, clothing and shelter.

Ah, but it is akin to eating, clothing, etc... We have evolved into a culture that requires transportation to be employed and to socialize. In the VAST majority of the US it's very difficult if not impossible to acquire food, clothing and shelter without a driver's license. Most non-metropolitan areas don't have good public transportation, and many cities don't either. Sure, the problem would be solved if we all moved to a major city where everything was in walking distance, but that's not practical either.

I think the whole attitude that 'driving is a priviledge' is half of our problem. If safe transportation was viewed as a requirement for modern life some of these decisions could be made more intelligently.

Have you seen their most recent ad?

[jawtheshark]

I thought it was hilarious: Renault TV . Sorry, it's a Flash application: click on the sausage on the lower-left part. They don't destroy a hamburger (or hotdog) though ;-) On that site they claim that it's a viral ad. Hmmm, don't think so: I saw it on (German) TV.

Re:Wimpifying the SUV's and Trucks is not the answ

[BenjyD]

So basically, screw everyone else in normal cars, I want to protect my family. Nice.

Re:People will always buy an auto they feel safe i

[dkleinsc]

The SUV craze is actually the same phenomenon as the crowded theater phenomenon (where someone stands up to get a better view, so soon everyone is standing to see at all, and no one sees any better than when they were sitting). The idea is "If my vehicle is heavier than the other guy's, then in an accident I'll be in better shape than him." End result: Everyone will go out and get a bigger vehicle, because it appears that will make them better off, and as a result no one is safer.

Of course, the heavier vehicles always create a false sense of security. Trucks and large vehicles are more prone to rollovers, can't stop or swerve easily to avoid trouble, and hit stationary objects with more momentum. But like Homeland Security or MS Windows, it makes you feel safe, so people choose to go with it even if the facts are completely against them.

Really your best defense while driving is to actually use everything you learned in Driver's Ed, or if you don't remember than find books or classes on safe driving. And if there are any teenagers reading this, remember that Driver's Ed is the one class most likely to determine at some point whether you survive a situation. You know, driving at reasonable speeds (somewhere around the speed limit is usually good), slowing down before you take corners, being aware of the drivers around you, good signalling so other drivers are aware of you, etc.

Mini vans vs SUV's

[pease1]

I've always been struck (pun intended) how the day I grew up and traded my SUV in for a mini-van that is about the same weight and gets about the same miles per gallon, I suddenly became more policitically correct, safer and less of a risk to everyone one else on the road.

And they say there is no free lunch.

Funny thing is, other then the "coolness factor," I do everything I used to do in the SUV with the van, and the van is actually better at it since it carries more. This likely includes more off road travel then most SUV's ever see.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[hal2814]

You could also do the same by buying a pickup truck. I remember a Biology class (taught by an Ecology professor) I took in college where I called out my professor for not mentioning pickups when he asked who in the classes owned SUVs and tried to convince them that they shouldn't.

What's funny is that he started asking what the students needed their SUVs for and then quickly stopped when three of the first four students he asked actually needed their SUV for summer jobs (towing a large landscaping trailer, carrying tools and saw horses for decking, and carpooling six people to an internship an hour away). It was priceless because you could tell he was going to use anecdotal evidence to blast their choice of vehicle until he realized that their vehicle choices weren't too bad given their situation.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[boingo82]

The difference is that if you and I wreck, your bumper hits at the level of my bumper, or frame, where my vehicle is best able to absorb and distribute the force of the impact safely. In an SUV, your bumper hits above mine, meaning that my frame is left totally unable to protect me. If it's a side impact, you come right through my door, and the front of your car hits me straight in the head.

Re:Mini vans vs SUV's

[stienman]

The main difference is the body style and bumper height. The bumpers for minivans are close to or at the height required for passenger vehicles. This results in crashes that are much different than an SUV crash. Further, the center of gravity is lower on a minivan than an SUV, though not a lot.

Of course, one can always mine the data oneself. The query function is fairly easy to use.

-Adam

Obligatory Simpsons quote

[ning]

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five..

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero!

Support your local lyrics site!

That's assuming...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right in a generic sense, but the fact that cars don't have elastic collisions changes things.

Also, its important to consider deformation fo the passenger "cage" to be almost as important. A lot of light trucks/suv tend to have signficant instrusion into the footwell and "A" pillar in offset front collisions making them less safe than they first appear.

On the other hand, if you have a 5000 pound SUV hitting a 2000 pound minicompact, I don't have to be Newton to figure out the result.

But in reality, most new cars weight closer to 3500 pounds, and most SUV's are probably around 4000, so despite looks, there's less of a difference than it appears. Combine that with the fact that many cars have more sophisticated crash zones than SUVs and far less tendency to roll over, and you get that a car can be far safer than an SUV.

Personally, I'll take my changes in my BMW rather than a Ford Explorer.

Re:Two points of safety.

[FireFury03]

5th Gear did a test a while back on 4x4's in near-miss conditions. They took a couple of normal cars, drove them along at motorway speeds and simulated a motorway incident with the front car slamming on it's brakes and the back car having to swerve to avoid it. Nomatter what they did they could only make the car spin, not roll over. They then re-ran the test but this time at only 40mph and with a 4x4 as the second car - it rolled right over as soon as the driver swerved to avoid the stopped car. Certainly very eye opening - the driver of the 4x4 would definately not be in very good shape if he wasn't wearing a racing harness, etc.

Truck designation

[B5_geek]

"The evidence is compelling that body-on-frame light trucks cannot safely coexist with passenger cars under existing conditions. That problem is critical because so many light trucks are used nowadays as car substitutes."

This might have something to do with the way that the government allows trucks to be classified.

A truck is a utility/cargo vehicle, not a passenger vehicle.
Trucks are required by law to have a 5 mile/h bumper, cars 10~15mile/hour.
Fuel effiency/emmisions standards are not as stringent on cargo/utility vehicles.
Mini-vans are also classified as utility/cargo vehicles.

The only reason that there is an appearance of improved saftey is the higher kinetic energy + higher sitting position that these monsters have over a standard family-sedan.

Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[CFD339]

As a firefighter and first responder I can state that there's a big problem with the safety crash test ratings most consumers see. These 4 star and 5 star ratings don't tell the real story at all.

These tests emphasise not just the human safety but also the cost of repair. To some extent, the cost of human repair is the factor added to the vehicle repair to make the rating. Interesting data, but not what most of us care about, and it results in very poor decision making information.

Example: I have seen personally how effective "crumple zones" combined with airbags and safety brackets on hoods which prevent the hood from sliding directly back into the windshield in the case of a head on collision can work. I see completely destroyed cars all the time where the occupants are well protected and suffer only minor injuries. That's because much of the force of impact is used up in the act of crumpling the car. These crumple zones are amazingly effective.

The problem for insurrance companies is that crumple zones and the like TRADE vehicle damage for human damage. The low-speed destruction of bumpers, fenders, hoods, and entire engine compartments mean that these cars are a "total loss" much more frequently.

If you REALLY want to promote SAFETY -- and like me, you could care less about the damage to the vehicle if the humans are better protected -- than we need a safety rating system which ignores all things other than damage to the occupants of the vehicles.

AP

Re:Crash Ratings don't say what you think

[nuggz]

There is no mention of cost in the star ratings that I'm aware of.
The determination is risk of injury.
My favourite is the offset crash test.
http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/default.aspx

The standard five star rating is explained here.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/index.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/BASC200 6/pages/CrashTestRatings.htm

low quality vehicals

[plopez]

Remember that one of the main reasons that SUVs were sold was that they exploit loop holes in pollution, safety and fuel efficiency standards. They are by their very nature low quality vehicals.

Minivans were the same way until too many people were killed and the rules tightened. If you take a close look at modern minivans they are essentially reinventing the station wagon.

Instead of exploiting loops holes, non-US manufacturers developed hybrids and high efficiency vehicals. SO now while US car companies are in trouble, foreign car companies are gathering up more market share. Just another sign that US business leadership is screwed. No vision, no intelligence, no ability or concern that we have known that world oil productuion would peak about 2005 (we have known this for about 30+ years). Just business as usual, play golf, out source and go for the short term.

Size is important.

[MaWeiTao]

I personally hate SUVs. I think the fundamental problem in the United States is that drivers licenses are given out too easily and the base license gives a driver access to too many different kinds of vehicles. SUVs should require special licenses with extensive driver education.

The problem comes down to driver ignorance and stupidity. This, however, isn't something unique to SUV drivers. Around where I live there have been countless idiots crashing into various objects in their beat-up, riced-up small Japanese imports. The city can't do anything to beautify the city without one of these morons coming along and destroying it. They sure do a good job of flipping those cars over too.

That said, mass is a huge factor in determining passenger safety. Of course there are situations where people in a smaller car fare better than in the larger car, but that's the exception.

We have all these crash tests which award the same high marks to a small car that they do to a large car. But these tests are performed under controlled conditions in the kinds of impacts people rarely encounter in real life. These tests are also conducted at relatively low speeds. The kinds of speeds drivers on the road are exposed will completely destroy a car regardless of all the safety features car makers install. And a driver in a large car has one simple advantage: there is more of the car to crash before the impact reaches the driver. I've heard from a few sources that a driver in a small car is up to 13 times more likely to die in a small car compared to a large one.

Of course, if you're driving something as poorly built as that Jiangling nothing will help you, but that's another story. I'm surprised that Europe, with all it's regulations even allows the thing to be sold there. Then again, considering some of the things I've seen on the road there, it's not too surprising. The US is fairly strict. The ride height for the new Golf GTI was raised .5 inches to meet US bumper height regulations. And there are countless other vehicles not allowed here because of things like lacking 5mph bumpers. I guess the US government needs to make up for the fact that Americans are generally poor, irresponsible drivers.

Re:Size is important.

[b0s0z0ku]

Of course, if you're driving something as poorly built as that Jiangling nothing will help you, but that's another story. I'm surprised that Europe, with all it's regulations even allows the thing to be sold there. Then again, considering some of the things I've seen on the road there, it's not too surprising. The US is fairly strict. The ride height for the new Golf GTI was raised .5 inches to meet US bumper height regulations. And there are countless other vehicles not allowed here because of things like lacking 5mph bumpers. I guess the US government needs to make up for the fact that Americans are generally poor, irresponsible drivers.

Bumpers are actually 2.5mph now. 5mph bumpers were more of an consumer economic protection regulation than a safety rule - too many people complained about their cars getting expensively damaged in slow collisions. I think the rule was dropped because car makers lobbied for the right to do stupid things like equipping cars with quick-scratch body-color bumpers.

I *wish* the US had laxer safety standards (or at least accepted the results of Euro crash and emissions tests). That way, we could get nifty vehicles that we're missing out on, like the Land Rover Defender 90, Smart Car, and any number of French cars.

-b.

Body-on-frame vs. Unibody construction

[Faeton]

This is an interesting article not because of the SUV vs car crashups, but an overall look at how techniques of making cars can create a disparity between 2 automobile classes.

The last 25+ years, there has been a huge push for increased gas efficiency for cars, due to public consciousness, laws, etc. The easiest way to do this is to move less mass, and thus, the unibody car design is pretty much standard across the board for cars. I believe the Ford Crown Vic was probably the last car to be built using body on frame. But before this period, a vast majority of cars were built using body-on-frame, as it was easy, robust and survived crashes well (think of the boats like a Buick Estate).

Trucks are govern by a different set of rules, and technically speaking, cannot transition to the unibody design that well for practical purposes. The loads they are designed to haul and tow (whether or not they do that in real life is irrelevant) demand that a body-on-frame design be used. There are exceptions like the Honda CRV, the 99-04 Nissan Pathfinder, the new Honda Ridgeline, but in the vast majority of cases, they use body-on-frame.

So, over the last 25 years we've created 2 classes of vehicles. Unibody and Body-on-frame. The article suggests that this class difference cannot be reconciled and needs to be eliminated. But we all know that this won't happen, at least not right away. It seems like Honda is the sole pioneer of this conversion, and it was limited in part by it's lack of experience with the body-on-frame design. We need to encourage more companies to try a different route, and use more of the neat materials that science has given us in the last 25 years to bridge that gap.

Think we're still getting light? Then look at motorcycles and how they've embraced technology far better than any car out there. Ever wonder why the spark plug is so big in the car? Ever wonder why car batteries use 19th century technology and a wimpy voltage? It was because of standards created long ago, where they didn't care about size and weight and didn't have the materials andn technology that we do now. The cost and weight savings are all within grasp. Someone just needs to take the lead.

Hey I know! Let's RTFA!

[sean.peters]

The whole point of this article was that your SUV is NOT SAFER for your family than a smaller vehicle, due to the increased risk of rollover in an SUV. And if you'd read the article, you'd have known that.

I know, I know, I must be new here.

Sean

Repeat after me:

[sean.peters]

The plural of anecdote is not data. Your individual experience does not indicate that this study is flawed.

Short version: you were lucky.

Sean

Unfortuneately...

[bmajik]

the best way to be a safe driver is situational awareness.

You can choose to optimize for avoiding accidents, or you can choose to optimize for an irrational hope that the ones you do have will be survivable.

By selecting an SUV, you've done the latter.

However, by doing so, you've chosen to have more accidents, more often. SUV's, irrespective of any other factors, have less grip than lighter vehicles merely because of their excessive weight, and because the load/grip ratio on modern tires is non-linear.. there's a fall off as load increases.

Additionally, the excessive girth of most SUVs means that you're fighting significantly more inertia than other vehicles. The horrible twist and non-rigidity in the construction means that any evasive maneuvers are uselessly slow - the body of the truck twists instead of directing the tires to move.

Everything the vehicle does is slow.. numb... subdued.

The high roll center means that more weight is transferred in all accelerative movements.. when turning you move more weight to the outside edge.. when braking you unload the rear tires more.. prior to high-roll-center SUVs being commonplace, rollovers were pretty much unheard of on paved roads. (when you leave the road, that's a different story).

even if you are the most situationally aware driver, when you pilot an SUV, you are motivating a stick of butter across a pan. You're driving a numb, useless instrument instead of a precision machine with proper dynamics.

You will be in more accidents, because you're driving a vehicle more likely to roll, more likely to twist/bend under dynamic conditions, that takes longer to stop, turn, and change direction, and which has lower road-adhesion characteristics for a given tire design than a lighter car would.

Also, your increased mass will tend to cause more damage to others around you.

All of this.. because you think you are better off if someone hits _you_? You've chosen a vehicle that makes it more likely you'll get hit (because it cant evade effectively.. and it's an enormous target). Your vehicle is more likely to roll in a side impact. Your vehicle has a very weak chassis, so unless the collision hits in just the right spot, the amount of body deflection and passenger intrusion will be more severe than in a well made unibody car.

I live in the midwest, so i understand the utility and necessity of large, ladder-frame vehicles perfectly well. But i dont own one, because i am not a farmer, construction foreman, or other blue-collar contractor. Trucks and SUVs have a purpose, but passenger safety for daily driving isn't it.

Congratulations, you've been deluded.

Re:Very biased

[Mab_Mass]

You're right. A place calling itself the "Parners for Child Passenger Safety" is going to be very biased, but biased towards keeping children safe.

Is there any reason to think that they would be biased either for or against SUVs? I can't think of any reason. If you see one, please explain.

Perhaps you own an SUV and don't like the implications?

Motorcycles

[b0s0z0ku]

Then look at motorcycles and how they've embraced technology far better than any car out there.

Sort of. The ignition systems, engine designs, suspensions, and brakes of bikes are often more advanced and weight-optimized. However, many bikes still use carbs instead of fuel injection since the pollution standards for bikes are laxer and it's expensive to make a fuel injection system that works well at over 10k RPM.

Furthermore, bikes don't normally last as long as cars (100k miles is a long lifetime for a bike) so maybe their weight optimization has some negative consequences.

That being said, I ride. It's fun, my bike gets 60-65 mpg, I get to use carpool lanes alone, and I can squeeze into gaps in traffic... The downside is of course safety, but I'm willing to accept that risk to some extend.

Cheers,
-b.

Or

[QMO]

"...then your psyche demands you get a big honking chunk of ill-handling, ill-stopping, ill-steering Detroit Heavy Metal"

Or a fast car
Or a modified car
Or facial hair
Or fancy clothing
Or a lot of alcohol (or other drugs)
Or an expensive television
Or an expensive computer
Or large muscles
Or defined muscles
Or a sharp tongue
Or a low /. ID
Or high political position
Or prestegious profession
Or someone that lets you abuse them
Or an "extreme" hobby
Or a gun ...