MIT Media Lab Rolls Out Folding Car

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Media Lab Rolls Out Folding Car

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @06:33AM from the sub-sub-compact dept.

kkleiner writes "You think European cars are small now, wait till the Hiriko takes to the roads in Spain's northern Basque country. The two-seater is about the size of a SmartCar, but when parked, the car can actually fold. After folding, the car takes up about a third of a normal parking space. The Hiriko, Basque for 'urban car,' folds as the rear of the car slides underneath its chassis. Every square foot counts."

222 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cool by cyberchondriac · 2012-01-25 06:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Unless it lacks a safety to prevent it from folding while you're in it! :D

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
1. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  It would be like a convertible, only instead of folding up the top, it would do the same to your spine.
2. Re:Cool by Tarlus · 2012-01-25 06:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Obligatory:
  http://pbfcomics.com/156/
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
3. Re:Cool by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  Unless it lacks a safety to prevent it from folding while you're in it! :D
  At issue is how it holds up with the moron tailgating you in an SUV, because you're not speeding fast enough for them, runs into you because you came to, of all things a STOP sign/light.
  So far the old fears of small cars not being safe are proving unfounded as they're typically safer than larger vehicles, particularly in rollovers. Still, it looks like an egg.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
4. Re:Cool by schlachter · 2012-01-25 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I was expecting more of a Transformer type folding :(
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
5. Re:Cool by Joce640k · 2012-01-25 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  If you watch the video it says "easier to get in/out of when folded" so I guess it folds with you inside it.
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:Cool by Phasma+Felis · 2012-01-25 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  WTFV. It's meant to fold while you're in it--makes it easier to get in and out.
7. Re:Cool by Quirkz · 2012-01-25 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I was wondering what happens when you park, the car compacts itself, and then the cars around you park at normal distances. How do you re-expand your car? Unless you can get in and drive it while it's compacted, you're stuck. Or if everyone else has to park several feet away to give you expansion room, does it really save on parking space?
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
8. Re:Cool by Quirkz · 2012-01-25 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, comments below suggest you can be inside while it's folded. Nevermind then.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
9. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps if you weren't in the left lane doing 40 in a 60 the person in the SUV would never even bother you.
10. Re:Cool by tilante · 2012-01-25 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you watch the video, only the undercarriage folds -- the passenger compartment does not. Instead, it tilts as the carriage folds. Indeed, it's mentioned that they're designed to be easier to get into and out of when folded, so it's expected that people will be inside it when it folds and unfolds.
11. Re:Cool by cyberchondriac · 2012-01-26 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Point taken, but at work, watching videos is generally frowned upon. I took a chance and peeked at only the first minute or so. The thing didn't look big enough to accommodate a full sized person even when it wasn't folded, much less folded... unless it was a scale model.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Jetsons by gmuslera · 2012-01-25 06:37 · Score: 1

with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
1. Re:Jetsons by sehlat · 2012-01-25 06:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
  Not evolution. Intelligent design should work, though.
2. Re:Jetsons by yurtinus · 2012-01-25 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Woah... you just blew my mind.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
3. Re:Jetsons by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
  I'm more interested in a Kit. Something which is a basic frame (meeting the usual saftety requirements) where I can ad-on features, change the way it rides, etc, from a box of parts I keep in storage.
  Probably has something to me growing up with Heath-Kits...
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
4. Re:Jetsons by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-01-25 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, my brain started playing the theme song about halfway thru the summary.
not to mention getting run over by SUVs by RobertLTux · 2012-01-25 06:40 · Score: 0

Im sorry but cars this small should not be considered safe for Highway use (or even some cities)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
1. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  But it's okay for country roads...
2. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by BasilBrush · 2012-01-25 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?
3. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Osgeld · 2012-01-25 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
4. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by eepok · 2012-01-25 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  Vehicle size is not nor has it ever been an issue. The issue is likelihood of collision. Responsible/considerate driving and higher visibility (from within all cars) are the points on which to focus.
  The automobile armor race must stop if we're going to safe money and lives (the two go hand-in-hand).
5. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-01-25 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  1. This is a half-scale prototype.
  
  2. If it meets FMVSS then it's the SUV driver's fault for not being able to see it and the SUV manufacturer's fault for making such a huge vehicle to begin with. The SUVs are the unsafe cars here, but they're acceptable to the population because the risk is to others, not the SUV driver.
  
  This is a prisoner's dilemma problem -- You want a safer car for your personal safety so you buy bigger, but in doing so threaten everyone else. This makes all cars large, fat, heavy, costly and full of energy in the inevitable impact. If, however, everyone accepted that it's in the best interest of the population to optimize for average safety, cars should be much smaller since they would then have lower energy in an impact (helping in accidents where property or pedestrians are hit in addition to other cars) and be more maneuverable in order to avoid impacts.
  
  Also, due to the relative rarity of tractor trailers and the fact that professional drivers have faaaaaaaaar better safety records than non-professionals those tractor trailers don't impose much of a risk even in a small car.
  
  Now, will people die in accidents that they would have survived had they been in a larger car? Yes. However, will people /avoid/ potentially fatal accidents that they would have been in had there been a larger car on either side? Yes.
  
  And I haven't even touched on the environmental and financial benefits of smaller cars.
  
  Also, yes, I acknowledge that some families require larger vehicles to haul around hockey gear and three kids and whatnot. The vast majority do not. The vast majority could make do with better packing strategies including such things as roof racks/roof bins.
6. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 06:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
  But they are more likely to suffer injury/fatality in rollover accidents. Funny that. Guess it has something to do with all that mass.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
7. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2012-01-25 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  "How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?"
  Should be interesting to get goods into a city when trucks can't get downtown.
  
  --
  There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
8. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Joce640k · 2012-01-25 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  It'll probably flip over...so yes, they might be.
  
  --
  No sig today...
9. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by TClevenger · 2012-01-25 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
  Except that they'll all die in the rollover crash from when that bricks blows a tire, upsets their balance or, god forbid, they swerve to avoid it.
10. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Joce640k · 2012-01-25 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  The numbers are in and it turns out SUVs are NOT safer.
  Sure, they're safer in a head-on collision but that's one of the least frequent types of accident. In most other types of accident the SUVs tend to flip over and kill everybody inside. Ref: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
  Ironically, the feeling of 'safety' also causes more SUV accidents because the drivers take more risks.
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by cababunga · 2012-01-25 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Also, yes, I acknowledge that some families require larger vehicles to haul around hockey gear and three kids and whatnot.
  Those buy minivans, not SUVs.
12. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by TClevenger · 2012-01-25 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Now, will people die in accidents that they would have survived had they been in a larger car? Yes. However, will people /avoid/ potentially fatal accidents that they would have been in had there been a larger car on either side? Yes.
  I think most of those probably would have been saved in a NEWER car, perhaps. Today's small cars are significantly safer than even those built in the early 90's.
  This reminds me of that famous "Not so Smart now!" picture of a Smart car smashed between two big rigs. Not only was the picture NOT of a Smart, but there is probably NO car short of a bread truck that would have survived such a collision..
13. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by boristdog · 2012-01-25 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, rollovers are some of the most survivable of crashes...providing the occupants are wearing seat belts.
14. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by roman_mir · 2012-01-25 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  And who is going to enforce that exactly and why would anybody sign under that?
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
15. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by berashith · 2012-01-25 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  size / weight is absolutely an issue. I have spoken to many parents who want to buy their 16 year old as big of a car as possible, because they know that 16 year olds are idiots and will wreck the car. Visibility doesnt matter, and responsibility isnt programmed into the kids yet. The parents are concerned for only one thing, the safety of THEIR kid. The mass of the vehicle gives safety, and their are studies to show that reducing weight simply to improve mileage actually increases death rates.
  I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision.
16. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by hawguy · 2012-01-25 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?"
  Should be interesting to get goods into a city when trucks can't get downtown.
  Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
17. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Trains work fine, just build some track.
18. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by errandum · 2012-01-25 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  The real one it's the size of a Smart that is more than capable of performing in cities. It's actually better than all those SUVs
19. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by formfeed · 2012-01-25 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or at least make the speed limit dependent on safety risks the car poses to occupants and to others.
  A slow moving SUV with a rounded hood that hits a pedestrian will result in a broken arm or leg, the same SUV with a "cow bar" will kill the pedestrian. A heavy car will have enough impulse to seriously injure people in a lighter car, even if the lighter car could have (relatively) safely hit a wall at the same speed. And yes, a light car might pose a risk at high speeds and high wind conditions.
  Speed limit, insurance, tax, would all be possible options. Commercial drivers usually have fewer problems with following safety rules than people who just want bigger things but not take responsibility. Driving truck speed on some routes and a few miles slower in a residential neighborhood would not be a big deal.
20. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-25 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Im sorry but cars this small should not be considered safe for Highway use (or even some cities)
  Since when do Basques need highways? You would reach the end of the highway before accelerating to cruise speed.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
21. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Why not? It's not like a person can fit inside. har har. Great for pets.
22. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by DragonWriter · 2012-01-25 07:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  size / weight is absolutely an issue. I have spoken to many parents who want to buy their 16 year old as big of a car as possible, because they know that 16 year olds are idiots and will wreck the car. Visibility doesnt matter, and responsibility isnt programmed into the kids yet. The parents are concerned for only one thing, the safety of THEIR kid.
  They are also poorly informed. SUVs -- and larger cars in general -- are only "better" in terms of safety when you consider injuries/deaths to occupants per accident.
  Once you consider the increased frequency of accidents of larger vehicles, the safety advantage for occupants of the large car disappears.
  
  I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision.
  It is likewise impossible to dismiss the advantage of size if your goal is to maximize the frequency of collisions a vehicle will experience.
23. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by netwarerip · 2012-01-25 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Also, yes, I acknowledge that some families require larger vehicles to haul around hockey gear and three kids and whatnot.
  Those buy minivans, not SUVs.
  Not in the Northeast, Rocky Mtn States, etc. where there are things like snow and ice and hills and shitty departments of transportation.
24. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-25 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's a scale model for display.
25. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-25 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I grew up in northern Canada. Most people I know, including those who live down gravel roads, love minivans. They're good on ice, stable, and relatively cheap. If you need to go offroad on the farm you get a pickup. Never an SUV.
  I heard the same thing from the owners of a remote lodge on the Alaska highway who used a minivan for supply runs.
26. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say my answer to this is let people drive what they want. However, it would be nice if there were a way to use what computing technology we have so on critical freeways, the ride is completely computer controlled from entry to exit. This way, the ricer and the roid-raging SUV driver are not an issue on the crowded core arteries in and out of a town.
27. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by berashith · 2012-01-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. This is a short sighted view, where the only concern is personal. The odds of a crash are damn near 100% it seems... new drivers wreck cars, and kids are stupid . So the mitigation is to survive this eventuality. The car contributing to the accident is just one more factor, and the parents are protecting not by parenting, but by armor. I dont think that avoiding wrecks has anything to do with the choice... having the most momentum is the deciding factor.
28. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2012-01-25 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
  So what size SUV are you talking about? Midsize or full size? What about a pick-up truck or van (commercial, personal, minivan)? It's a slippery slope with that type of legislation.
  
  --
  There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
29. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by interval1066 · 2012-01-25 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I'm talking about. More public transpo.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
30. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by ae1294 · 2012-01-25 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Trains work fine, just build some track.
  We can't we let all the slaves go and the chinks work for themselves now...
31. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's a scale model, I don't think a human could fit in that thing.
32. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  And many small car owners, especially hybrids owners are just plain Big Dicks.
33. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by j-beda · 2012-01-25 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, rollovers are some of the most survivable of crashes...providing the occupants are wearing seat belts.
  My understanding was that the human heart (more accurately the aorta feeding into it) does not take too well to forces/accelerations in the vertical direction - the body is strapped in, but the heart can be pulled away from the aorta, which of course is not how it is designed to operate. I think that this is more common in rollover accidents, since one gets more up/down forces, but I can't find anything specifically about that in a quick search:
  Traumatic Aortic Rupture : http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/heart/art2030.html?getPage=2
34. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-01-25 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Until the car gets really small - like an Italian or German sports car. Then it's compensating again.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
35. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by kryliss · 2012-01-25 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Every year when we get snow and ice, I laugh at how many SUVs are stuck on the side of the road or in the middle of the road when I drive by in my 1998, fully paid for Ford Windstar. Damn good on ice/snow, rarely have I got myself in a jam where I couldn't get out of.
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
36. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Terwin · 2012-01-25 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, from what I understand, the vast majority of SUVs are driven by small females. Especially the really big ones.
  I am a pretty big guy who does not fit into compact cars, and one time I was out car shopping, frustrated with not finding anything I could safely drive without having my legs cut off at the knee, I thought I would try to see if an SUV would fit.
  I tried a few that had even less leg room than the cars I had been looking at, then I tried the really big one(like 7' tall I think) and I could not even close the door because my legs did not fit inside the vehicle.
  On top of that, all of the SUVs I looked at had the optional feature of bringing the pedals up closer to the driver in case they have short legs.
  It seems that the expected driver size-range for an SUV is from 4'6" to 5'6", with the larger vehicles aimed at the smaller frames.
  (Since then I have discovered that used luxury sedans are about as cheap as I can get if I want a vehicle that actually fits me, the only other option being vans)
37. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Pope · 2012-01-25 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually they've mostly been buying SUVs for the last 10 to 15 years. Despite the fact that mini-vans are safer, roomier, and get better gas mileage. They were perceived as "uncool" compared to SUVs when those started getting popular.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
38. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Minivans? They bought those in the 90s. These days, it's rare to see a minivan. Hockey moms and whatnot drive SUVs. I haven't been in a minivan in over 10 years probably.
39. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by hawguy · 2012-01-25 08:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
  So what size SUV are you talking about? Midsize or full size? What about a pick-up truck or van (commercial, personal, minivan)? It's a slippery slope with that type of legislation.
  Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district. When parked, vehicle must be capable of being compacted to no more than 2 meters in length. Commercial delivery vehicles may purchase a permit for a time-restricted exception to the ordnance for active deliveries only - permit fees are based on hours/days of access and size of vehicle. Emergency vehicles are excepted. Disabled driver's vehicles are subject to the same restrictions, or they may use our on-call paratransit system for transportation from park-and-ride lots to the business district. All drivers are encouraged to park outside of the business district and use free public transportation or free citybikes (subsidized through parking fees for all cars). Fossil Fuel powered vehicles must pay a downtown pollution surcharge. Families/groups are not excepted from the ordinance and are encouraged to use public transit facilities.
40. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by realityimpaired · 2012-01-25 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. If you want stability on ice, you don't buy something with a high center of gravity. 4-wheel drive or no, I have seen more SUV's in ditches this winter than any other type of car. And no, I haven't seen any pickup trucks in the ditch, though that could be because unless it's a *really* deep ditch (which doesn't happen when they're full of snow), the pickup truck could get itself out.
  Of course, for snow/ice performance, no amount of traction control/skid control/4wheel drive/etc. can compare with getting winter tires on your car, and not driving like an idiot.
41. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by eth1 · 2012-01-25 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  We need to have the liability insurance rates take vehicle weight into account. Take the weight of a "normal" car (about 3,000lb in the US), and multiply the premiums by (insured vehicle weight / 3000). Insuring a Mini? You get a discount because you won't be causing as much damage. Insuring a hummer? Enjoy your 2-3x insurance premiums (since you're carrying 2-3x the kinetic energy/damage potential).
  That would definitely provide a disincentive to give young drivers (with already-high insurance) a huge vehicle to cause mayhem with.
42. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by operagost · 2012-01-25 08:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Don't cherry pick data in order to support your pet agenda.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
43. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by operagost · 2012-01-25 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  SUVs are falling out of favor, and falling in sales. What will the leftists do when SUVs are rare? What will they target next? I'm guessing anything with an internal combustion engine, no matter how efficient. Or maybe cars without government-installed tracking devices or kill-switches.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
44. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by operagost · 2012-01-25 08:29 · Score: 2
  
  Have a nice day, CITIZEN!
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
45. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by mcgrew · 2012-01-25 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  No, because then I could park my sedan between two other vehicles in a parking lot and actually be able to get the goddamned door open. Also because the lower your gas mileage, the higher the pollution, and when every other car on the road is an SUV, breathing isn't as pleasant.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
46. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-01-25 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  We need to have the liability insurance rates take vehicle weight into account.
  
  Are you sure they don't already do this? Full coverage insurance for my pickup truck (11 yrs old) is more than a new Honda Civic in the same family. Not 2-3x more, but more.
  Because of the greater potential to cause damage to the other vehicle in a crash.
47. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-01-25 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Replying to myself since a few people have brought up the point:
  
  All things being equal, a more massive car will be safer than a less massive car in an accident because there will be less injury due to the vehicle being knocked around.
  
  All things being equal, a car with more crumple zone will be safer than smaller car in an accident because there's more room for the energy to dissipate.
  
  So yes, newer small car is better than older big car. But newest, biggest car is best car. (For self-preservation in an accident, not for avoiding accidents or avoiding injury to others.)
48. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Gee... If only EVERYBODY saw the light then the world would be a safer, more friendly place!
  Killer concept but not rooted in reality. Market influences is what drives things in a free society, not idealism.
49. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by englishknnigits · 2012-01-25 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  What else is data good for? :P
50. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by cforciea · 2012-01-25 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, but they are more likely to kill somebody else when they hit another vehicle. They also have worse maneuverability, and thus are more likely to get in accidents. When you drive an SUV, you get a little more safety for yourself at the cost of a little safety for everybody on the road near you. Everybody would be more safe if everybody drove small cars than if they all drove SUVs.
51. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-25 08:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you can create the mythical brick in the road capable of killing someone when hit then I see nothing wrong with him bringing up rollover accidents. It's not exactly cherry picking data when you both are just bringing up possible scenarios out of no data in particular. Besides if this brick is lethal because it's thrown by the vehicle in front of you then it's more of a matter of the safety of the windshield than the size of the car. With this in mind, If we consider that an SUV can reach a much higher speed than one of these urban vehicles then the SUV could actually be less safer for its passengers in the flying brick scenario.
  I don't think this car is actually "folding" instead it's the equivalent of a full-size smart car than can stand on it front wheels by articulating the rear ones forward. With the rear wheels in the normal driving position, I don't think this vehicle is any more dangerous than the current smart cars.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
52. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by roman_mir · 2012-01-25 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  A tank. It's good to buy your kids a tank - it's not extremely fast and it's very heavy and the other car is always the crumple zone.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
53. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by BasilBrush · 2012-01-25 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  SUVs are falling out of favor, and falling in sales. What will the leftists do when SUVs are rare? What will they target next? I'm guessing anything with an internal combustion engine, no matter how efficient.
  Sure, why not. That's a slippery slope with a quite acceptable end. Although that's more of a green issue than a left issue.
  
  Or maybe cars without government-installed tracking devices or kill-switches.
  That's definitely not a left/right issue. That's a libertarian/authoritarian issue.
54. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-01-25 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  When you drive an SUV, you get a little more safety for yourself at the cost of a little safety for everybody on the road near you. Everybody would be more safe if everybody drove small cars than if they all drove SUVs.
  I believe the you actually get a little more safety for yourself at the detriment of others on the road near you. The false sense of security that the SUV provides make people drive a little more aggressively than they should. Not to mention the substantially lower amount of visibility these SUVs have. You could back over a pedestrian in a parking lot and not realize what has happened until the harm is done. Basically it's up to the pedestrian to get out of the way of the unobservant driver.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
55. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by BasilBrush · 2012-01-25 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  How about the same people that are going to enforce not considering ultra-compact cars for highways.
56. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  That sounds like a great argument to increase the requirements for a driver's license, such as a higher age requirement. If you lower the alcohol age to several years before the driver's license age, you won't have people just learning about drinking at the same time that they are driving either. Heavy cars are dangerous to everyone on the road (getting hit with something heavier is more dangerous), including the person driving it (they flip over in an accident), so why not ban heavy big cars from inner cities - then you could have smaller parking spots and less (also dangerous) smog from the decreased gasoline use too. It's not hard to decrease automobile deaths, the problem is that these things also run counter to American social values, such as creating cities that can't be navigated without a car (so young people need a car), driving heavy cars because aggression is valued and keeping alochol as limited as possible because of religious influences on politics.
57. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by mcgrew · 2012-01-25 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to bicycles?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
58. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  This is so fucking stupid it makes my head hurt. Helllooooo? We already have rules like this. They are very specific and are written by both the Federal Dept of Transportation as well as state dept of transportation. Anyone who owns a truck or car for business can tell you that there is no shortage of requirements from the DOT. I am quite sure car and truck manufacturer's will also agree. The rules are extremely tight and very specific. (see CAFE standards, for example)
  
  Guess what? No matter how much you hate SUV's and loathe their existence.....they meet the rules established by said departments.
  
  This entire discussion is one big mental masturbation exercise. Waaaahhhhh! I hate SUV's!!!! They guzzle gas and usually have grizzly men driving them!!!! Where is my prius? (formerly a Mazda Miata, circa 1994)
59. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by eepok · 2012-01-25 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  From my post: "The issue is likelihood of collision."
  From your post: "I am not defending this, and it actually makes me sick, but it is impossible to dismiss the advantage of size in a collision."
  I state again: It's not the size of the car of the collision, it's that a collision occurred at all. Collision prevention, NOT INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE VEHICLE, should be the goal.
60. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by hawguy · 2012-01-25 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is so fucking stupid it makes my head hurt. Helllooooo? We already have rules like this. They are very specific and are written by both the Federal Dept of Transportation as well as state dept of transportation. Anyone who owns a truck or car for business can tell you that there is no shortage of requirements from the DOT. I am quite sure car and truck manufacturer's will also agree. The rules are extremely tight and very specific. (see CAFE standards, for example)
  Guess what? No matter how much you hate SUV's and loathe their existence.....they meet the rules established by said departments.
  This entire discussion is one big mental masturbation exercise. Waaaahhhhh! I hate SUV's!!!! They guzzle gas and usually have grizzly men driving them!!!! Where is my prius? (formerly a Mazda Miata, circa 1994)
  I think you're confusing DOT car safety rules with city planning rules to alleviate congestion and parking problems in downtown business districts. There's nothing to prevent cities from enacting ordinances limiting which vehicles can drive there. A city is free to ban all cars and only allow golf carts downtown.
  Many large cities are starting to implement (or at least consider) congestion pricing to limit traffic downtown (or are closing downtown business districts to cars entirely). If these small commuter cars become a reality, they may start to look attractive for congested cities cores when they can can triple the amount of downtown parking instantly while allowing more traffic lane capacity (5 12 foot wide lanes can become 8 7.5 foot wide lanes).
  I, for one, would be happy to trade in my commute car and buy one of these $20K mini cars if it meant that my parking space cost $150/mo instead of $350, even if I have to purchase a $50/mo toll tag to enter the downtown district.
  Despite how attached you are to your SUV, it's a matter of geometry - small cars fit in less space, so as city core congestion increases, smaller cars, bikes, motorcycles/scooters and public transportation can all work together to make cities easier to navigate.
  You can still park your SUV outside of the congested urban core to drive to the mountains (or more likely, rent one at a transit center and take the train there).
61. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Dishevel · 2012-01-25 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Idiots that can not drive and try anyway I am ok with if it is they that suffer.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
62. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  i am probably your height (over 6-3) and the honda insight 2011 basic edition works great for me. its a hybrid and a really cheap car to boot. try it.
63. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Shompol · 2012-01-25 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district.
  
  Have fun getting your little folding coffin squished by this. Oh, and as far as "private" goes, no worries - it will be registered to ShompolTech, Inc. This will not be the first time Hummer owners pawn the legislation, either.
64. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, rollovers are some of the most survivable of crashes...providing the occupants are wearing seat belts.
  Engineer here. For regular passenger cars, rollovers are fairly safe, if as you say, they are belted in. For SUVs, not so much.
  The reason cars are generally safe in rolls is that the center of gravity (CG) is higher relative to the occupants. The CG is the point about which the car rotates during a roll. The CG of a car is closer to the heads of the occupants than to the ground, so a rolling car is typically airborne when upside down and head injuries are minimized.
  An SUV on the other hand has a large distance between the CG and the occupants, partly driven by the need to keep the CG low for handling safety to prevent roll overs. The occupant position is much higher in an SUV and the distance between the CG and the passengers head is therefore larger than the distance between the CG and the ground, so a rolling SUV is typically airborne when right side up, and strikes the ground with the roof on each rotation. As a result traumatic head injuries are very common in SUV rollovers.
  Not only are SUVs more likely to roll, they are much more dangerous to the occupants when they do.
65. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Shompol · 2012-01-25 11:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Each year, from 2006 through 2009, drivers of newer SUVs suffered an average of 28 deaths per million vehicles, according to the Institute. That's about half the average driver death rate for cars, which was 56.
66. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by mhajicek · 2012-01-25 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Im sorry but cars this small should not be considered safe for Highway use (or even some cities)
  It's a half scale prototype...
  
  Check it out and let the half-scale Hiriko prototype fold its way to your city-dwelling heart.
67. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  Driving truck speed on some routes and a few miles slower in a residential neighborhood would not be a big deal.
  
  I agree but unfortunately we're fighting human nature here. SUVs tend to go faster than other cars not because they are more powerful or the owners are assholes. They drive faster because most people drive by instinct, and when you sit further from the road the perception at any given speed is of a slower speed than you're actually going. Lots of people drive to a perceived speed rather than their speedometer.
  It's the same effect you get in passenger jet. If you look out the window the ground below is just crawling by, but you're going 550 mph!
  This is partly why sports cars are built low to the ground. The perceived speed is higher. Friends of mine who own Miatas all have stories of giving people who've never been in sports car a lift to the store or something and the people freak out at how "fast" they drive when they're just driving the speed limit.
68. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by hawguy · 2012-01-25 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district.
  Have fun getting your little folding coffin squished by this.
  You realize that the Hummer is out of production? Not even the Chinese wanted to buy the company.
  
  Oh, and as far as "private" goes, no worries - it will be registered to ShompolTech, Inc. This will not be the first time Hummer owners pawn the legislation, either.
  What does that mean "pawn" the legislation? They left it at a second hand shop as collateral on a short-term loan?
  In any case there's a big difference between legally using a tax loophole and exploiting a local ordinance prohibiting non delivery vehicles. And it doesn't matter really, if such an ordinance was in place, a business owner could certainly use a commercially registered Hummer to make his delivery, but if the ordinance requires the vehicle to be used for deliveries only, he wouldn't be able to cruise around downtown, squashing small vehicles at will.
  I've never understood the blind attraction to oversize cars that some people have (as opposed to legitimate utility-based concerns... my neighbor is a contractor, drives a heavy duty F350, and actually *needs* its hauling capacity... but when he needs to go downtown, he takes the Prius because it's hard to park a full size pickup with dual wheels in a busy city). My primary commute vehicle is a bike so I'm already the smallest vehicle on the road... and I do have a healthy fear of those Hummers.
69. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by michael_cain · 2012-01-25 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  A number of European designers and engineers have looked at the issues of vehicle safety in tiny cars. The best rules for very small vehicles, particularly when mixed with larger vehicles, are quite different than current automotive designs. The fundamental issue for most types of collision are "ride down" space -- the distance over which the occupant is decelerated. Some of the different approaches include (1) extremely rigid frame so that the vehicle can make use of crumple zones in the other vehicle; (2) alternate control mechanisms like sidesticks in place of steering wheels and pedals, in order to gain the space those would otherwise occupy; (3) better restraint systems, such as inflating shoulder belts that spread the forces over larger portions of the body; and (4) sensors and software that monitor surroundings and take action, like slowing when the closing rate on the vehicle ahead is too high (a surprising number of impacts would be considerably smaller if people weren't distracted, had better depth perception, or had faster reflexes).
  
  There are textbooks on the subject.
70. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by FishTankX · 2012-01-25 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, according to the article it's meant to be used as an electric loaner city car. So it won't be going on the highway.
  Second of all, it's a half scale model, so the actual car will be much, much bigger. Probably still only enough for one occupant, and probably about the size of a small car. However, you'll be able to cram MANY more of them at a parking lot.
  So, let's say you take commuter rail into a city. Then, when you arrive at your train station, there's a parking lot full of 200 of these guys folded up, waiting for you to hop in. You pay $10, take it to your destination, once you finish working you bring it back to the commuter rail station, park it there, and go home. You've saved yourself on gas AND parking, and helped contribute to the lowered congestion of the city's parking lots.
  How is this not a win?
71. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-25 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  What most people who don't use it frequently don't seem to realize is that four wheel drive only helps you GO. It doesn't help you STOP (everyone has four wheel brakes). SUV drivers especially seem to have a bad habit of hitting the 4x4 button and thinking they're now stuck to the road.
  I was with a friend once, both of us northerners. We were at a Remembrance Day ceremony and they had started parking cars on a field, which promptly got packed into ice. It didn't help when all the city people in their SUVs and pickups started spinning their tires when they got stuck on this one particular slippery spot on the way out. My friend in her Sentra shifted into first, was careful not to spin her tires, and made it out without a problem.
  Winter tires help, but mostly when it's cold. I've seen people with winter tires think they're suddenly invulnerable too (and be spectacularly proven wrong). Not driving like an idiot seems to be the biggest factor.
72. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-01-25 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not only are SUVs more likely to roll, they are much more dangerous to the occupants when they do.
  The problem with Safety and SUV's is that they use mass as the major part of achieving that so called safety. So it's not only an arms race, but an evil one at that. At base is that there is a conscious decision to injure or kill drivers in smaller vehicles. SUV on SUV violence removes that edge. That's why the lunatic fringe of the SUV set has converted over the road tractors for their rides.
  But like all arms races, it has to end some where.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
73. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Ol+Olsoc · 2012-01-25 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  This is so fucking stupid it makes my head hurt. Helllooooo? We already have rules like this. They are very specific and are written by both the Federal Dept of Transportation as well as state dept of transportation. Anyone who owns a truck or car for business can tell you that there is no shortage of requirements from the DOT. I am quite sure car and truck manufacturer's will also agree. The rules are extremely tight and very specific. (see CAFE standards, for example)
  During the heyday of the SUV, in the early 2000's, SUVs were exempt from many of the same rules that governed other vehicles because they were "trucks". Like a 100K tax write off, later reduced to 25K. They don't have the same safety standards, like side impact, they have no safety standard at all for rollovers, Emission standards are also lower.
  So with all due respect, cry me a river. All those regulations that would allow a business to directly write off the entire cost of a vehicle from their tax returns, until the rules were changed to only 25K.
  
  Guess what? No matter how much you hate SUV's and loathe their existence.....they meet the rules established by said departments.
  Guess what. They have different and relaxed rules, because they are classified as "work trucks". I see Escalades all the time at worksites, hauling crap around, getting dented and scratched up. I have a small SUV too. I just don't get religious about it.
  
  This entire discussion is one big mental masturbation exercise. Waaaahhhhh! I hate SUV's!!!! They guzzle gas and usually have grizzly men driving them!!!! Where is my prius? (formerly a Mazda Miata, circa 1994)
  Dunno where you come from, but around here, the typical SUV driver is a 30 - 50 year old woman, who is the sole passenger. The exception appears to be the Hummers. Those are driven by young guys who try to either ram you or pull a pit maneuver.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
74. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by mercurywoodrose · 2012-01-25 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Car choice as an example of the prisoner's dilemma. Which is of course an apt name in this case, as we are prisoners of, and in the automobile.
  
  --
  You hear about the person who didn't rely on anecdotal evidence to support his belief system?
75. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by gandhi_2 · 2012-01-25 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  "What is this? A car for ANTS?"
  
  --
  THL phish sticks
76. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by JWSmythe · 2012-01-25 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget, each vehicle has it's use. I wish they had never put "S" in "SUV". It's not a sports vehicle. It was a way to make a utility vehicle sexy.
  I have a sports car, and a utility vehicle (SUV). I drive the sports car, and enjoy 26mph on the highway, excellent acceleration, handling, and short stopping distance. I drive the utility vehicle to carry passengers, cargo, or tow trailers.
  For example, soon I will be going to the airport to pick up 4 people who are flying internationally, and staying for a while. They will have a lot of luggage, and after 12 hours or so on airplanes, the last thing they want is to be crammed into small seats for the last leg. Our choices (in order of capacity) were a mini cooper, my sports car, a full size sedan, or my SUV. The sedan may work out, but most likely won't have the cargo capacity for all their luggage.
  I also like doing my own handy-man stuff. I do the repairs in our home, and fix our cars. While I can technically put a 4x8 sheet of plywood in my sports car, it's not exactly comfortable. 10' or longer boards or pipes can fit, as long as I am the only occupant. In the SUV, they fit with no problems, and I can easily have a second or third person along to help me load and unload.
  But I'm sure the case you're trying to make is for the soccer mom in the average household (husband, wife, 2 kids), where the largest cargo they've ever carried is a dozen bags of groceries. the SUV as a status symbol was wrong. It was pushed as a solution by the automobile manufacturers, both to make more money, and to avoid emissions restrictions. SUVs can have big engines, heavy frames, and they don't take a hit for them only getting 12 to 15 mpg on the highway. I don't suppose the oil industry had any complaints about it either. How do you go about selling twice as much product to the same consumer base? Make them use the product twice as fast.
  Some say it's a conspiracy. Since neither the automotive nor oil industries invite me to sit in on their meetings, I'll assume the only conspiracy is dumb consumers who will spend more money on stuff, just because they can. Or at least could. (as he considers the economy over the last few years). Never blame on a conspiracy what is easily attributable to dumb consumers.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
77. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by JWSmythe · 2012-01-25 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think these are the pictures you are looking for. They're well commented, and point out the obvious fact that the "smart" cars in the photos weren't smart cars. The first was probably a mid to full size car. I can't even begin to guess what the car was. Something gray, that had at least 1 wheel, and had 5 lugs on a wheels.
  That is a horrible crash though. They didn't stand a chance, between two loaded rock trucks.
  They do make a point. Bigger vehicles survive wrecks better. I bought a 40' city bus as an RV. In every crash photo I've seen involving vehicles of that type, the bus comes out unscathed, while the passenger vehicles don't do so well. I saw an accident in town a while back. All the traffic signals when you're going North bound change sequentially, so if you hold 40mph, you'll go through without needing to stop. I drove the road enough to know, there are a couple signals that don't always change in sequence with the others. It seems a driver of a small sedan didn't know about the signals that can change out of sequence. He slammed into the side of the bus, hitting it at the rear door. The only damage on the bus was that the door jammed. The passengers all walked off without injuries. The driver of the car was loaded up on a back board to be delivered to the hospital. Judging by the fact the front of his car was 3 feet shorter than it would have started at, I'd say he needed the hospital.
  I don't work in that area any more, but I saw plenty of near misses, where people assumed the light would turn green, but it didn't.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
78. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  Here's an interesting factoid, a car as big as an SUV is not the same as a delivery truck, and ordinances could be written to allow one while prohibiting the other.
  Of course they're not the same, but the arguments that go against SUVs also apply to delivery trucks, they're large, heavy, high CO2, provide poor visibility for the driver, that when driven without proper care they become huge, dangerous chunks of metal like every other car on the road, not just SUVs... but you know... it's OK to just hate SUVs because you don't like them.
  All the arguments for most modern cars being dangerous comes down to one thing. The driver.
79. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by berashith · 2012-01-26 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  you are right, but the solution to your proposal goes too far. Too avoid all collisions should we get rid of all cars, then all mechanical transportation, then maybe even all people? That will surely prevent accidents.
  I dont like the armor increasing war, but to say that in a wreck between a dump truck and a kia, that there is no advantage to size, is naive at best. Behaviors need to change, but within reason.
80. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?
  "SUVs take up more space and pollute more than small cars. They shouldn't be allowed in cities." Do you not think that allowing small, cleaner cars into cities is going to encourage those with small, cleaner cars to taken them into the cities, just because they can, even when they don't need to? Negating any good intentions of banning larger, dirtier cars? If banning SUVs from cities leads to more people taking smaller, cleaner cars into cities, you could just as easily end up with a scenario where you have the same levels of pollution and more traffic, as you would with less traffic and less pollution. All because people are self centered and lazy.
  If a city has good public transport links, or can be provided with good public transport links, I'm all in favour of removing ALL private cars from cities unless needed (the driver could pay a small charge, like London's congestion charge, although, that hasn't stopped people from taking cars into the city despite good public transport links, which I think highlights that people are self centered and lazy).
81. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Don't cherry pick data in order to support your pet agenda.
  So why isn't the OP's brick in the road cherry picked "data" too?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
82. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I drive the sports car, and enjoy 26mph on the highway
  You evil speed fiend!
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
83. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ordinance: All private automobiles over 3 meters in length or 2 meters in width or weighing more than 750kg (excluding passengers) are excluded from the downtown business district.
  Have fun getting your little folding coffin squished by this. Oh, and as far as "private" goes, no worries - it will be registered to ShompolTech, Inc. This will not be the first time Hummer owners pawn the legislation, either.
  I imagine you have a laughably small penis.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
84. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of people drive to a perceived speed rather than their speedometer.
  Then they should have their licenses revoked. Permanently. If you can't understand a fucking speedo you shouldn't be in control of any vehicle faster than a bicycle.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
85. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Shompol · 2012-01-26 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that the Hummer is out of production? Not even the Chinese wanted to buy the company.
  Finally, some beneficial side effect from high gas cost.
  
  What does that mean "pawn" the legislation? They left it at a second hand shop as collateral on a short-term loan?
  See definition #3, in common use among multiplayer gamers.
  
  Bicycle is good, using it for commute to stay in shape.
86. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  I actually drive a compact. But thank you for your interest, my penis is imagining you too now.
87. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  size / weight is absolutely an issue. I have spoken to many parents who want to buy their 16 year old as big of a car as possible, because they know that 16 year olds are idiots and will wreck the car. Visibility doesnt matter, and responsibility isnt programmed into the kids yet. The parents are concerned for only one thing, the safety of THEIR kid. The mass of the vehicle gives safety, and their are studies to show that reducing weight simply to improve mileage actually increases death rates.
  Maybe the stupid, selfish parents should think twice before letting an under-trained child out on the roads alone with a vehicle they can't physically or psychologically handle?
  
  And no, I'm not American, so I don't think it's some basic human right to be allowed to drive.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
88. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Reductio ad absurdum is sometimes the best argument by far. Very good.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
89. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  My bet is that you are an expert cock-gobbler.
  You insensitive clod, some of my best friends are expert cock-gobblers!
  
  Apparently.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
90. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't work in that area any more, but I saw plenty of near misses, where people assumed the light would turn green, but it didn't.
  That is, you saw plenty of near misses because a lot of people can't drive properly. Rather than worry about buying bigger and heavier cars, maybe people should take some more driving lessons.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
91. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by tehcyder · 2012-01-26 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Im sorry but cars this small should not be considered safe for Highway use (or even some cities)
  For the sake of my faith in humanity, I'm hoping that this is a joke/troll.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
92. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by JWSmythe · 2012-01-26 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  shit.. 26mpg. :) The car is limited by the computer at 165mph, although I haven't had a chance to prove it yet. There are some groups that rent super speedways. That's the only way I'm willing to try. At 242 f/s, I don't feel all the comfortable on open highways.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
93. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by JWSmythe · 2012-01-26 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  I agree totally.
  I've gone through a good bit of performance driver training over the years. Being that I have, I've seen people who drive better than me. Unfortunately, after the classes, you see every idiot on the road. The ones on their cell phone, eating with one hand, and beating the kid in the back seat with the other.
  All drivers should be required to have advanced training, They should be required to take additional driving courses every four years. I'd say every year, but I'm sure that wouldn't fly. The training shouldn't consist of "drive the speed limit", "stop at the stop sign" and "parallel park there". It should involve collision advoidance, spins and recovery, precision driving (how not to bounce over the curb on a right hand turn). At one, cones were placed 6" wider than our vehicles, and we were to navigate through them. Even nudging a cone was a fail.
  As it is, at least in my state, once you get your license you're never required to prove your ability again. I had the "hardest" requirements in over 20 years, where I had to do the vision test, and take a multiple choice test on street signs. The correct answers were pathetically obvious.
  The only real proof that anyone is competent to drive is that they don't wreck their cars too often. As long as you can get insurance, you can keep driving. Even after that, people do drive without licenses and suspended drivers licenses. Most of the time, they're only caught when they crash into someone.
  Safer vehicles aren't the solution. Making sure only people who are competent to drive is. Accidents will still happen, but if drivers were better, they would be less likely. Of course, it would reduce the number of drivers on the road. Industries wouldn't like that, and people would scream, so it will never happen. You gotta love politics.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
94. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by TClevenger · 2012-01-27 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  He slammed into the side of the bus, hitting it at the rear door. The only damage on the bus was that the door jammed. The passengers all walked off without injuries. The driver of the car was loaded up on a back board to be delivered to the hospital. Judging by the fact the front of his car was 3 feet shorter than it would have started at, I'd say he needed the hospital.
  Unfortunately, that's the rallying cry of people who "need" to drive 6,000 pound Hummers. "But what if I get T-boned by a car? I need a big truck!" Okay, well what if you get T-boned by a Hummer? Guess you need a bread truck. But what if your bread truck gets T-boned by an 18-wheeler? Better get a railroad switcher and put rubber tires on it!
  Interestingly, he hit you on the back corner. Had you been driving a car, he would have missed you completely, and nobody would have ended up in the hospital at all. Not an argument; just an observation.
95. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by JWSmythe · 2012-01-27 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, actually he didn't hit me. I was working in an office building, getting paid shit. I had to park 6 blocks away in a dirt lot. To get to my car, I had to walk across the two streets in the area that had lights in sequence, and had to watch carefully for people running red lights. That day, I was about 30 seconds shy of crossing the intersection. I heard the screech, saw the bus stop in the middle of the intersection on a green light. When I got closer, that's when I saw the car where it didn't belong, and got the story by listening to the passengers as I walked by.
  You can't predict that because that accident happened that way, that all accidents would be the same. I've seen cars hit on various places. Check out any junk yard. You'll see damage on front fenders, rear quarter panels, and even directly on the doors. Actually, if you look around, and the yard is big enough, you'll see just about every kind of collision that can happen.
  If the bus hadn't been hit, because it was a VW bug instead, would he have hit someone at the next non-sequential light? The next one non-sequential light typically had a lot more cross traffic. If we go beyond this, "what if", becomes a discussion of fate, which I simply don't believe in.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
96. Re:not to mention getting run over by SUVs by badkarmadayaccount · 2012-02-08 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that in futile efforts to get mass down so the rolling trash cans can get between gas stations without pushing, reinforcements between the roof and lower chassis are often sacrificed - ever seen a car crusher?
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
What is this? by Moheeheeko · 2012-01-25 06:41 · Score: 4, Funny

A car for ants?!? It needs to be at least.....twice as big as this!!
1. Re:What is this? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. This half scale prototype does seem small...
2. Re:What is this? by Tanman · 2012-01-25 06:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Is this car a part of the Volkswagen Center for Drivers Who Can't Park Good and Wanna Learn to Drive in the City Too?
3. Re:What is this? by mamono · 2012-01-25 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Some aunts are tall, some aunts are not tall. That is a matter that surely an aunt may be allowed to decide for herself.
4. Re:What is this? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand, if it's electric then it should help reduce the number of deaths from freak gasoline-fight accidents.
Meh by 228e2 · 2012-01-25 06:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Optimus Prime would not be pleased with this sham of a car . . . .

--
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Optimus Prime is leader of the autobots. What does he care that there's some tinier than him? Or larger? He's still the most badass of all, because he's got the TOUCH!
"You think European cars are small now, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:43 · Score: 0

"You think European cars are small now,
These american tanks are already starting to roll around here, what a scary waste of fuel and energy ...
Not really folding: more like vertical parking car by youn · 2012-01-25 06:43 · Score: 2

still pretty cool and smart (no pun intended)

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
It can fold-up when it gets rear-ended, too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:45 · Score: 1

And really, can we trust anyone talking about a car that doesn't know what toe-in and toe-out means?
1. Re:It can fold-up when it gets rear-ended, too by viperidaenz · 2012-01-25 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  No we can't. Good thing this guy used the terms in the correct manner.
  The wheels are turning opposite to each other, hence toe-in and toe-out
  Incase you need some education, here
Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:46 · Score: 0

Another use for the phrase "folding at home!"
Re:Not really folding: more like vertical parking by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 06:47 · Score: 1

still pretty cool and smart (no pun intended)
Perhaps something useful for large campuses; industrial, educational or cult.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
SmartCar by Lanforod · 2012-01-25 06:49 · Score: 1

How is this anywhere near the size of a SmartCar? The smallest Fortwo I've seen is probably twice the size of this thing.
1. Re:SmartCar by pulski · 2012-01-25 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you watch the video you will hear the fact that the car is half scale.
2. Re:SmartCar by Sechr+Nibw · 2012-01-25 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  They said the production model will be about the same size as a SmartCar. A little larger, actually. This is a half-size demo model.
  
  My question is this: If it is programmed to not exceed speed limits, what about times that you need to put on a burst of speed? Before everyone jumps in saying you NEVER need to speed, here's a scenario. You're going through a green light. Someone on a cross street decides they are more important than stoplights, and runs through it. Sometimes, you could slam the brakes to avoid them, sometimes you're already in their path and need to speed up to get out of the way. Surprise! Your car won't let you do that! And you're in a tin can of a car, and are smeared across the front of that Hummer H3.
3. Re:SmartCar by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  This is the "half-size prototype".
4. Re:SmartCar by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2012-01-25 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Most systems to regulate speed will allow a burst of speed, for situations just like what you described.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
5. Re:SmartCar by hawguy · 2012-01-25 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  here's a scenario. You're going through a green light. Someone on a cross street decides they are more important than stoplights, and runs through it. Sometimes, you could slam the brakes to avoid them, sometimes you're already in their path and need to speed up to get out of the way. Surprise! Your car won't let you do that! And you're in a tin can of a car, and are smeared across the front of that Hummer H3.
  Is this really a common scenario? More than crashes caused by excessive speed?
  I've been driving (including cars, motorcycles and bicycles and 2 summers driving a truck) for over 20 years and have never needed to accelerate through an intersection to avoid a side impact. (nor have I ever been in a side impact collision). I'm not even sure that human reaction time and acceleration rates of most cars is even sufficient to recognize the impending side impact and accelerate out of the way.
6. Re:SmartCar by viperidaenz · 2012-01-25 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you're already in their path and it is it a gigantic intersection, the vast majority of cars would not have enough power to vastly change the speed of a car in the 10 - 20 metres or so that most intersections span, especially if it is a traditional automatic with a torque converter and a kickdown switch. Most cars can approach 1G with the brakes, you'd need a Bugatti Veyron (0-60 in 2.4 seconds = 1.15G average) to have acceleration that quick.
7. Re:SmartCar by xclr8r · 2012-01-25 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  I've had similar experience.. the scenario your looking for is 1st responders hitting their sirens unexpectedly. Recently they have had better training and ambulances run at a snails pace nowadays so is becoming less of an issue. But in the 80s (Streets of SF/CHiPs/DoH) you really had to gtfo the way.
  
  Different scenario.. You are half way past the side of a big rig. Its retreads start flying off do you stay at the same rate of speed - risking trailer sway; slow down - risking trailer sway, possible jack knife and running over retread that could disrupt your driving; or speed up and get the heck out of the situation.
  
  --
  Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
8. Re:SmartCar by c++0xFF · 2012-01-25 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Math time!
  (I'm going to make big generalizations, assumptions, and approximations here. Bear with me.)
  Let's say that your stopping distance at 40 mph is 75 ft, and your reaction time is 1.5 sec, or about 90 ft. So, if anything happens within 165 ft, you won't be able to come to a complete stop.
  However, let's say your car can go 0-60 in 6 seconds. That's an average acceleration of around 10mph/s, or about 15 ft/s^2. Instead of trying to brake, let's say you hit the accelerator. By the time you react, you're within 75 ft of the obstacle. Had you done nothing, you would have hit that obstacle in 1.28 s, but because you accelerate, you'll be 12 feet further than if you had done nothing. That's about one car length.
  Keep in mind that this is the best-case scenario: braking is just barely unable to stop you before you reach the intersection. Any more reaction time and braking would be a clear winner. Even then, the most you can hope for by accelerating instead is to advance your car about one car length. Less reaction time makes things worse.
  Is one car length enough? Yes, that's barely enough to avoid an accident. But braking has twice the ability to change velocity than acceleration, and has the advantage of giving you more time to react and maneuver. And then, if you still can't avoid a collision, you're going slower, instead of faster.
  I'm fully prepared to admit that accelerating might be the right choice to avoid an accident. The problem is that most any scenario where it might be better requires faster thinking than most people are capable of.
  (p.s. This being Slashdot, someone will come along and point out some terrible mistake in my math. Never do math on Slashdot!)
9. Re:SmartCar by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, what is this, the 'grasp for the most unlikely possible scenario' thread?
  The odds of that happening are so ridiculously slim, I'd be far, far more worried about hitting a panther that escaped from a zoo darting across the road.
  As with Hawguy above, never, ever have I needed to, or heard of anyone ever needing to accelerate PAST the speed limit, through an intersection. And if, IF you're currently travelling at, or very near speed limit, hammering on the gas in any common vehicle (discounting luxury sports cars that are specifically designed to do as such, which tend to be rather uncommon) won't accelerate you fast enough to be able to move you a full car length ahead in the split second you indicate.
  And with retreads start flying off of a semi. Disclaimer, I grew up in the country and passed semis every day for decades. 1. Semis have more than one tire on each side. If one blows, they're not going to suddenly fishtail and jackknife. 2. Seeing tire rubber on the side of the road is very rare. The odds of being beside a semi at this exact moment is again so ridiculously slim that I'd be more worried about that aforementioned panther darting in front of the semi and making it swerve into me. 3. Mythbusters has shown that a retread hitting your windshield can decapitate you. You want to accelerate? 4. Thanks to our old friend called 'momentum', said rubber is moving forwards. FORWARDS. Not backwards. Hammering on the brake will far faster get you AWAY from the rubber. Attempting to pass the semi will just leave you in the danger zone longer.
  Long story short: You just want to keep your ability to speed, and will grasp at ANY straw as justification to allow you to keep doing so. I hope you have so many demerits that it costs you a hundred times more than me to register my car.
Pretty much useless? by Psylok · 2012-01-25 06:52 · Score: 1

I mean, what's the point of making it smaller, if no one can park near it, because it need to grow back for you to enter and move it?
1. Re:Pretty much useless? by modernzombie · 2012-01-25 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  +1 That is exactly what I was thinking.
2. Re:Pretty much useless? by Joce640k · 2012-01-25 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  You know how I can tell you didn't watch the video...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:Pretty much useless? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  The car can turn without moving and going by the demo be remotes controlled. "Driving" a car is alot easier in tight spaces when you have a outside view to avoid collision since many don't have the required 3d spatial awareness while being inside a car. They also mentioned some built-in collision avoidance (sensors to avoid bad input that will hit another car?).
4. Re:Pretty much useless? by newcastlejon · 2012-01-25 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  So not road legal in the UK until we they change the law that prohibits "quitting" a vehicle with the engine running and, by extension, starting a cars engine by remote.
  
  Leaving motor vehicles unattended
  107.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall leave, or cause or permit to be left, on a road a motor vehicle which is not attended by a person licensed to drive it unless the engine is stopped and any parking brake with which the vehicle is required to be equipped is effectively set.
  (2) The requirement specified in paragraph (1) as to the stopping of the engine shall not apply in respect of a vehicle—
  (a) being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes; or
  (b) in such a position and condition as not to be likely to endanger any person or property and engaged in an operation which requires its engine to be used to—
  (i) drive machinery forming part of, or mounted on, the vehicle and used for purposes other than driving the vehicle; or
  (ii) maintain the electrical power of the batteries of the vehicle at a level required for driving that machinery or apparatus.
  (3) In this regulation “parking brake” means a brake fitted to a vehicle in accordance with requirement 16 or 18 in Schedule 3.
  Don't even get them started (no pun intended) on a car that drives itself even over small distances with no-one inside, much less at the wheel.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Old News? by Tarlus · 2012-01-25 06:53 · Score: 1

Not to shoot down the article, because this really is a fantastic idea for efficient travel and parking in congested downtown locations, but haven't folding cars been used in urban Japan for the better part of a decade?

--
/* No Comment */
For the article impaired... by undeadbill · 2012-01-25 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

MIT is showcasing this vehicle, because some of their forecasts are showing that larger vehicles in urban environments are going to be on the decline. This vehicle is intended for use inside urban environments as a shared vehicle (like ZipCars), as most urban vehicles are only used ~10% of the time. It also is electric powered, and will have a variety of electronic safety features. It is NOT intended for highway use amongst homicidal SUV drivers, so those people can continue to "drive" with a clear conscience, yakking on their phones and running over cyclists, etc. without having to worry about something larger leaving a serious dent in their day.
The showcase vehicle is a sized-down prototype. It is not intended to be driven by ants or other arthropods. Actually, it would be the first publicly viewed prototype, but I've seen concept photos of vehicles in Japan with designs like this. This prototype is going into production with models coming out in 2013, so obviously there are businesses and municipalities already putting in orders to fund this.
Which means that folks should be paying attention to the sub-text of the discussion going on in the video- there is an expectation that there will be more people in cities, and fewer resources to go around.
1. Re:For the article impaired... by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-01-25 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  This vehicle is intended for use inside urban environments as a shared vehicle (like ZipCars), as most urban vehicles are only used ~10% of the time.
  True, perhaps, but a rather meaningless statistic, because usage is not distributed evenly throughout the day. Demand for cars is much higher in the morning and afternoon rush hours. In Spain you can add lunchtime to that (siestas). 10% of 24 hours is about 2 and a half hours, and a lot that can be accounted for by the daily commute....
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Hemmed in? by eth1 · 2012-01-25 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

So what happens when you park and fold the car, then someone comes and uses the extra space to park? You're stuck.
It's bad enough with cars that don't fold when idiots park so close you can't get back out.
Now maybe if it shortens the car enough that you can "parallel park" head in... Of course then you'd have to expand the car into traffic and sit there while you load up/get in.
1. Re:Hemmed in? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Did you watch the video? Having someone else take up that extra space wouldn't have you blocked in. The car drives folded or unfolded, and they specifically mention that egress/ingress is easier with the car in the folded position.
2. Re:Hemmed in? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  So what happens when you park and fold the car, then someone comes and uses the extra space to park? You're stuck.
  It's bad enough with cars that don't fold when idiots park so close you can't get back out.
  Now maybe if it shortens the car enough that you can "parallel park" head in... Of course then you'd have to expand the car into traffic and sit there while you load up/get in.
  notice how all the wheels assist with steering? Someone parks right behind you in parallel, you can probably zero-turn this thing.
3. Re:Hemmed in? by minister+of+funk · 2012-01-25 09:10 · Score: 2
  
  Also, each wheel can steer independently so you get a zero-radius turn. While the car doesn't fold into a perfectly round shape, you should still be able to rotate and drive out then expand.
4. Re:Hemmed in? by PPH · 2012-01-25 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  So what happens when you park and fold the car, then someone comes and uses the extra space to park? You're stuck.
  Its happened to me in my 4x4 truck a few times. I just slip it into 4WD, low range and back them up a few feet.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Great! by brian0918 · 2012-01-25 06:56 · Score: 3, Funny

So basically, the car comes pre-crumpled, so you don't even have to bother driving it into someone's blind spot and getting creamed. How convenient!
Small cars are so 60's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:56 · Score: 0

http://youtu.be/dJfSS0ZXYdo
Oblig xkcd by Chemisor · 2012-01-25 07:05 · Score: 4, Funny

I prefer folding cars the old fashioned way.
Wow, almost like a "Jetsons" car by jd2112 · 2012-01-25 07:06 · Score: 1

All they need to do now is make it fly.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Dangerous of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:07 · Score: 0

My brother in law was taking his State Trooper exam and one of the areas of the test was accident reconstruction. He told me one of the accidents he received was one where an 18 wheeler hit a SmartCar from behind at 45 mph, which pushed it forward to stationary UPS-style truck. When all was said and done, there were only 11 inches left of the SmartCar. All 3 occupants in the SmartCar died. While I am all for smaller cars and better city parking, I will never purchase one of these types of cars as long as huge SUVs, Delivery Trucks, and 18 Wheelers are still on the roads I travel on. So .. never :P
1. Re:Dangerous of course by tekrat · 2012-01-25 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Smart car is a two-seater only. How could there be three occupants in a Smart car?
  
  --
  If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
2. Re:Dangerous of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  could ANY car or SUV survive that collision short of a full size 1 ton cargo van or cargo truck ?
  if not, then why single out the smart car ?
3. Re:Dangerous of course by hawguy · 2012-01-25 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My brother in law was taking his State Trooper exam and one of the areas of the test was accident reconstruction. He told me one of the accidents he received was one where an 18 wheeler hit a SmartCar from behind at 45 mph, which pushed it forward to stationary UPS-style truck. When all was said and done, there were only 11 inches left of the SmartCar. All 3 occupants in the SmartCar died. While I am all for smaller cars and better city parking, I will never purchase one of these types of cars as long as huge SUVs, Delivery Trucks, and 18 Wheelers are still on the roads I travel on. So .. never :P
  Is there any reason to believe that any car would have let the occupants survive being smashed between a 20 ton 18 wheeler and a 5 ton stationary UPS truck (both of which have hard frames that don't crumple upon impact)? That's a lot of force for a car to absorb. Maybe we should all be driving military tanks to protect us from the rare small-car smooshed-between-two-trucks accidents.
4. Re:Dangerous of course by viperidaenz · 2012-01-25 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it was this smart car, available in a 5 seat version. Its a whole metre longer than the Fortwo though.
5. Re:Dangerous of course by ray-auch · 2012-01-25 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Any car can be crushed to inches if hit at speed between two trucks.
  I recall accident report like that from a few years ago - they didn't even realised there was a car full of (ex)people there until they pulled the trucks apart. It was Ford Galaxy I think. 7 seater. Is that too small too ?
6. Re:Dangerous of course by smellsofbikes · 2012-01-25 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Is there any reason to believe that any car would have let the occupants survive being smashed between a 20 ton 18 wheeler and a 5 ton stationary UPS truck (both of which have hard frames that don't crumple upon impact)? That's a lot of force for a car to absorb. Maybe we should all be driving military tanks to protect us from the rare small-car smooshed-between-two-trucks accidents.
  While I'm not advocating large cars for general usage -- they're a terrible idea -- I can say that having been in this particular crash, in a Subaru wagon, I appreciated having the car crush over a meter shorter than it was, while still maintaining enough space for me to survive. Here's a picture of what was left: the car was shortened by about the same distance as the total length of a SmartCar after the semi truck rear-ended me at 75 mph when I was sitting at a stop.
  But how often does that happen? (Once per life is probably an extremely accurate estimate: I'm most likely an outlier.) Planning for crashes like this is like planning for an asteroid strike: the amount of time spent even thinking about it isn't justifiable. Spend your energy considering how to lower your risk of cardiovascular disease: it'll probably be 1000x more useful.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
7. Re:Dangerous of course by tilante · 2012-01-25 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds to me suspiciously like: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/crushedbug.asp
8. Re:Dangerous of course by ray-auch · 2012-01-25 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  More likely this one: http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/archive/2005/02/09/Ammanford+Archive/4258471.Bus_tragedy_parents___life_sentence_/
  Not quite how I recalled, coach and a truck, and the crushed car was noticed quickly. Although various reports have the truck driver initially believing he'd been hit directly by the coach, not realising there was a car crushed in between. A Galaxy is around 16ft long, normally.
  Amazingly, two people in the car survived. I suspect they and the front of the car were pushed under the truck in front, while the back pf the car was crushed. The kids in the back all died.
9. Re:Dangerous of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  Now it's a Subaru hatchback!
10. Re:Dangerous of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect you're right.
  I'm no expert in this, but a Land Rover Discovery will crumple and crush the driver far more than a Citroen C4 (for the same speed collision into the same object). There's something called the Euro ncap safety tests, which tell you all of this. If you look up these two cars, you'll see the crappy Citroen is safer for you and kids/pedestrians.
  http://www.euroncap.com/results/land_rover/discovery.aspx?class=89a54410-df46-4551-aa7c-f2f6f5643454
  http://www.euroncap.com/results/citroen/c4.aspx?class=9abf175b-92c7-4c9f-b111-b37f9369f2f7
1/3 of a parking space by ShavedOrangutan · 2012-01-25 07:08 · Score: 1

Great! That leaves a 1 and 2/3 space next to it so I can park my HUMMER.

Seriously, though, it sucks that all spaces cost the same where I work, whether it's for a motorcycle or a SUV.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
1. Re:1/3 of a parking space by Spectre · 2012-01-25 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  True, that would suck.
  At my work, motorcycles get "rock-star" parking in a special section by the guards' booth (making it rather unlikely anybody will mess with or steal a motorcycle). Likewise, at some of the concert venues in our area, while parking for motorcycles is priced the same as for cars, the motorcycles get to park right up front along with the people who have handicapped parking permits.
  Makes the "same price" not sting so much.
  As for the article/video ... well, they managed to prototype a all-electric vehicle that parks into the same space as a motorcycle ... that is pretty impressive, but less so when I consider that it is such a small car to begin with. I'd think a typical smart forTwo takes at most a 2/3rds parking space, probably less.
  
  --
  "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
2. Re:1/3 of a parking space by viperidaenz · 2012-01-25 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Move to my country, motorbikes don't have to pay for street parking.
OPtimus Prime? Halloe! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:09 · Score: 0

Optimus Prime would not be pleased with this sham of a car . . . .
Optimus Prime has a side to him that you don't know about. He is into little Spanish hotties - well, let's just say they'd be giving each other lube jobs all night long, honey!
I have to ask... by BenSchuarmer · 2012-01-25 07:10 · Score: 1

what's going to happen if there's a beverage in one of the cup holders when it folds up?
1. Re:I have to ask... by liamevo · 2012-01-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Simples, the cup holder moves as well. Or could you not imagine such a thing?
2. Re:I have to ask... by PPH · 2012-01-25 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Gimbaled cupholder. Same thing that keeps my beer from spilling in my sailboat.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Reminds me of the Scarab concept by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:11 · Score: 0

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/eco-cars-scarab-electric-concept-could-impress-james-bond/
nothing new.. by SuperDre · 2012-01-25 07:15 · Score: 1

I remember seeing such a thing a couple of years ago from japan, so it's nothing new..

certainly won't trade in my Jeep Cherokee for a dingy like that..
1. Re:nothing new.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  how about a folding jeep ?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku-j4JVpUT4
  That being said here's a cherokee :
  http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f103/KQ6WQ/Motivational/SUVs_Kill.jpg
Intended use case by DragonWriter · 2012-01-25 07:20 · Score: 2

So what happens when you park and fold the car, then someone comes and uses the extra space to park? You're stuck.
If you RTFA, you'll learn that the intended use case is for centrally-stored, per-use rental applications in urban areas where many people occasionally need cars but don't own them (similar to ZipCars) and where space is at a premium.
For this use, folding gets you a big advantage at the central storage location, since you can store them folded in a line and only need access space for an unfolded vehicle at the head and tail of the line (you could actually do arrive/depart at the same end of the line, but its probably simpler to do those at opposite ends.) This works, because when ready vehicles are stored for rental, they are interchangeable, so as long as you can get one out when you need it, it doesn't matter which one you get out.
You don't need to use the folding capability in traditional parking environments where you need random access to vehicles for the capability to have utility.
or a purse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:24 · Score: 0

a purse would be better. this one is superior :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku-j4JVpUT4
Looking at that... thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:25 · Score: 0

...makes my eyes bleed.
so... by Taibhsear · 2012-01-25 07:34 · Score: 1

So how long until I see some yutz driving one of these down the street still in the folded position?
1. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  It would probably come with a safety feature that limited the car to 5mph or something in the folded position.
So what? by lennier1 · 2012-01-25 07:38 · Score: 1

That concept has been around for quite some time. They simply built a model of their own version.
Bigger != Better by mindcandy · 2012-01-25 07:42 · Score: 1

Here's a good (albeit dated) example : Mini Cooper vs F-150. http://paultan.org/2005/11/08/mini-cooper-vs-ford-f-150-crash-test/

While you can't argue with the laws of physics with respect to mass, engineers can (and have) done an amazing amount of work to ensure the energy is absorbed slowly and evenly.
1. Re:Bigger != Better by BiggerIsBetter · 2012-01-25 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  I beg to differ.
  
  --
  Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Chevy should answer by photonyx · 2012-01-25 07:44 · Score: 1

with an inflatable Suburban. When parked, takes three times as much space! Take that, MIT.
Trunk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:49 · Score: 0

So you can't keep anything in the trunk?
Better solution, motorcycle. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:54 · Score: 0

...
On the gripping hand by Anomalyst · 2012-01-25 07:54 · Score: 1

I wonder if MIT is harboring motie engineers.

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Not New! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:57 · Score: 0

I saw this exact concept 15-20 YEARS ago in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. I've even seen animation that shows similar cars being nested together in a parking lane like shopping carts.
If its the MIT media lab by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:03 · Score: 0

you can safely assume the hype/reality ratio >> 1
(hype being a polite term for the usual media lab stuff)
Crowded offramps? by Slicebo · 2012-01-25 08:04 · Score: 1

These cars are so small, every Basque in the country could fit on the same offramp.
Of course, then you'd be putting all your Basques in one exit.
1. Re:Crowded offramps? by VisceralLogic · 2012-01-26 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nice. :)
  
  --
  Stop! Dremel time!
2. Re:Crowded offramps? by gjkopf · 2012-01-29 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day!
Not a bug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:15 · Score: 0

Unless it lacks a safety to prevent it from folding while you're in it! :D
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
It allows you to cut in front of large trucks on the highway through the narrowest of gaps.
Levity aside, he did mention it being easy to enter/exit while in the folded position.
Actual size car presented in Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:30 · Score: 0

I'm surprised TFA didn't include any mention to the presentation at the European Commission to which even tha presdent Durao Barroso atended.
Or even to the Hiriko project webpage.
Just waiting for this one by Phizital1ty · 2012-01-25 08:31 · Score: 1

Oh SHIT I left billy in the car!
you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:57 · Score: 0

stupid slashtards - that's not a car, it's an effing Hasbro GI Joe Barbie-mobile!
Death Trap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 09:00 · Score: 0

Every square foot counts... Especially in an accident..
What is this a car for ants? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 09:03 · Score: 0

It needs to be at least 3 times this size!
much like the folding bike by recharged95 · 2012-01-25 09:13 · Score: 1

This will not handle well, period... the physics don't allow it.
But as something to casually get from point A to B, not bad...
1. Re:much like the folding bike by sandmaninator · 2012-01-25 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Folding bikes are a godsend in certain situations and even IF they have slightly poorer handling than a regular bike, they sure beat walking!
2008 Folding Car Concept by aphxtwn · 2012-01-25 09:22 · Score: 1

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1902
Extra weight for minimal space saving by gtada · 2012-01-25 09:28 · Score: 1

The weight of this folding mechanism would tank the fuel economy of this car. Think about the stresses it would have to handle in even normal driving situations... and because of safety concerns, it would have to be overbuilt.
1. Re:Extra weight for minimal space saving by tilante · 2012-01-25 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the article, it's meant to be a rental vehicle, used by city dwellers who don't have their own car. They'd be parked at "stations" specially designed for them. Since the cars are also electric, most likely those stations would be designed to also recharge them.
It's perfectly safe by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-01-25 09:32 · Score: 1

As long as you don't hit the "origami crane mode" button conveniently located on the dash.
MIT students -- only 20 years too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 10:00 · Score: 0

http://www.roadraceengineering.com/suitcasecar.htm
Folds up a lot smaller, too, and you can save money on the parking space--just chain it to a bike rack.
Incorrect translation by tirerim · 2012-01-25 10:12 · Score: 1

"Hiriko" just means "urban". Presumably they didn't feel the need to call it "Hiriko Autoa" because it's pretty obvious that it's a car.
Superfold by maggern · 2012-01-25 10:12 · Score: 1

>After folding the car takes up about a third of a normal parking space

...and after crashing the takes takes about a tenth of a normal parking space!
Great Niche by Phoenix666 · 2012-01-25 10:18 · Score: 1

They're onto something good with this vehicle. In New York, late at night, or even during the day between two points not served well by public transportation, it can be difficult to get around. If it's raining, that's doubly so since you'll never be able to get a cab. But if you had pods of these around the city that could self-drive to their destination, well, then I could see them doing quite well.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Already done in 1992 by Matra and Renault by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 10:21 · Score: 0

see here http://www.etsav.upc.edu/locus/outputs/accessibility/technologies/AEVehicle/SRDesigns/gran/sr07.html
Been done, ok but it is smaller. by g0bshiTe · 2012-01-25 10:30 · Score: 2

It's been done and about 9 years ago at that. http://www.netcarshow.com/rinspeed/2002-presto_concept/

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Gives a new solution to being parked in by dak664 · 2012-01-25 10:56 · Score: 1

Getting parked in was common in Chicago in the '70s, but my solution was push-in bumpers on the old volkswagen. Of course I always had to pull them out after parking. In this case leave the car expanded and just fold to get out. Assuming they keep the nifty remote control feature, or that you're a contortionist.
1. Re:Gives a new solution to being parked in by gjkopf · 2012-01-29 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know that was possible. Was that a built-in feature for VWs, or did you modify your bumpers yourself? This is a "neat" idea!
2. Re:Gives a new solution to being parked in by dak664 · 2012-01-29 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Getting rear ended at a stoplight did the modification. Rust allowed the mounts to give way, nothing got bent and it would just slide in and out after that.
Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:30 · Score: 0

You "roll out" a roll-up car. You unfold fold-up cars.
clean air act by Doormoose · 2012-01-25 11:52 · Score: 1

Doesn't the clean air act limit the number of parking spaces in most cities in America? Why make it fold? This feature (folding up) makes the car far more complicated-- more to fix, more upkeep, more failures... how about building a small car thats inexpensive and energy efficient? Maybe they should ask Dean Kamen if they can have the Segway name-- it will be just as popular.
1. Re:clean air act by Mal-2 · 2012-01-25 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't the clean air act limit the number of parking spaces in most cities in America?
  Why make it fold? This feature (folding up) makes the car far more complicated-- more to fix, more upkeep, more failures... how about building a small car thats inexpensive and energy efficient?
  Maybe they should ask Dean Kamen if they can have the Segway name-- it will be just as popular.
  (1) Electric cars don't cause air pollution (directly). If the law doesn't account for this, then alter the law. The car isn't the problem.
  (2) There's a lot more world than just the United States, and even within the United States, there are large parts of it where congestion is more of a problem than air quality is.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Dupe! Renault Zoom had it first in 1992 by Rui+Lopes · 2012-01-25 15:30 · Score: 1

Cheeck the pictures https://www.google.com/search?q=renault+zoom&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch

--
var sig = function() { sig(); }
Jane !!! by cstacy · 2012-01-25 17:20 · Score: 1

Stop This Crazy Thing...!
Oh yes! by Ptur · 2012-01-25 20:36 · Score: 1

I really want a car that will be completely wet inside after being parked in the rain for some time! Seriously though, I think the folding will remove the stiffness of the frame, and as such the stability while driving and the safety in case of an accident.
We asked for flying, not folding by TrogL · 2012-01-26 03:03 · Score: 1

I know they start with the first letter, but get it right. However, both would be interesting and there is prior art, just not affordable or practicable.