Slashdot Mirror
MIT Media Lab Rolls Out Folding Car
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."
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.
with enough evolution it could fly and fold even more into a (not heavy) briefcase.
A car for ants?!? It needs to be at least.....twice as big as this!!
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'?
still pretty cool and smart (no pun intended)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
And really, can we trust anyone talking about a car that doesn't know what toe-in and toe-out means?
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
How is this anywhere near the size of a SmartCar? The smallest Fortwo I've seen is probably twice the size of this thing.
How about cars as big as SUVs shouldn't be considered for city use?
cause the occupants of an SUV wont be killed if they hit a brick in the road
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?
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 */
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.
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. This is a half-scale prototype.
/avoid/ potentially fatal accidents that they would have been in had there been a larger car on either side? Yes.
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
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.
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!
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
"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.
It'll probably flip over...so yes, they might be.
No sig today...
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.
I prefer folding cars the old fashioned way.
All they need to do now is make it fly.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
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...
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.
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.
what's going to happen if there's a beverage in one of the cup holders when it folds up?
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..
Actually, rollovers are some of the most survivable of crashes...providing the occupants are wearing seat belts.
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..
And who is going to enforce that exactly and why would anybody sign under that?
You can't handle the truth.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
It is likewise impossible to dismiss the advantage of size if your goal is to maximize the frequency of collisions a vehicle will experience.
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.
I think it's a scale model for display.
So how long until I see some yutz driving one of these down the street still in the folded position?
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.
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.
That concept has been around for quite some time. They simply built a model of their own version.
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.
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.
with an inflatable Suburban. When parked, takes three times as much space! Take that, MIT.
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.
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".'
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.
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
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!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps it was this smart car, available in a 5 seat version. Its a whole metre longer than the Fortwo though.
Don't cherry pick data in order to support your pet agenda.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Have a nice day, CITIZEN!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Oh SHIT I left billy in the car!
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 ?
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.
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.)
What else is data good for? :P
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
How about the same people that are going to enforce not considering ultra-compact cars for highways.
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...
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1902
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.
As long as you don't hit the "origami crane mode" button conveniently located on the dash.
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.
As opposed to bicycles?
Free Martian Whores!
Sounds to me suspiciously like: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/crushedbug.asp
"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.
>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!
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.
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).
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Cheeck the pictures https://www.google.com/search?q=renault+zoom&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch
var sig = function() { sig(); }
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.
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?
Stop This Crazy Thing...!
"What is this? A car for ANTS?"
THL phish sticks
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.