Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

safety tradeoffs of smaller cars

Expand Messages
  • murdoch
    http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/autos/iihs_small_vs_big/index.htm?iref=werecommend ... [...] ... [...]
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 19 2:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/autos/iihs_small_vs_big/index.htm?iref=werecommend

      >Danger even in 'safe' small cars
      >The Insurance Institute crashes small cars into larger ones to show what could happen in real wrecks.

      >By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer
      >April 14, 2009: 4:08 AM ET
      >

      [...]

      >The small cars involved in all three tests - the Toyota Yaris,
      >Honda Fit and Smart ForTwo - had already earned top scores for
      >front impact protection in the Institute's standard front impact
      >test in which cars are crashed into a crushable barrier, not
      >another car.
      >
      >That test simulates two cars of roughly equal size hitting almost
      >head-on.
      >
      >In these new experimental tests the Institute wanted to show what
      >would happen to a small car in a crash with a larger vehicle. So
      >instead of crashing the cars into a stationary barrier,
      >researchers created actual collisions between small and midsized
      >cars.
      >
      >This time, the same small cars that had top marks in regular
      >crash tests earned poor ratings for impact protection.

      [...]
    • Ron Cochran
      This sounds like yet another good reason to get rid of the large cars! Ron _____ From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 19 7:44 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        This sounds like yet another good reason to get rid of the large cars!

        Ron


        _____

        From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of murdoch
        Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:01 PM
        To: murdoch@...
        Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] safety tradeoffs of smaller cars







        http://money.
        <http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/autos/iihs_small_vs_big/index.htm?iref=were
        commend>
        cnn.com/2009/04/14/autos/iihs_small_vs_big/index.htm?iref=werecommend

        >Danger even in 'safe' small cars
        >The Insurance Institute crashes small cars into larger ones to show what
        could happen in real wrecks.

        >By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer
        >April 14, 2009: 4:08 AM ET
        >

        [...]

        >The small cars involved in all three tests - the Toyota Yaris,
        >Honda Fit and Smart ForTwo - had already earned top scores for
        >front impact protection in the Institute's standard front impact
        >test in which cars are crashed into a crushable barrier, not
        >another car.
        >
        >That test simulates two cars of roughly equal size hitting almost
        >head-on.
        >
        >In these new experimental tests the Institute wanted to show what
        >would happen to a small car in a crash with a larger vehicle. So
        >instead of crashing the cars into a stationary barrier,
        >researchers created actual collisions between small and midsized
        >cars.
        >
        >This time, the same small cars that had top marks in regular
        >crash tests earned poor ratings for impact protection.

        [...]






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • arcologic
        I have another idea on how to deal with the danger of large cars. (Yes, it s the large cars that are dangerous.) I suggest replacing simple speed limits with
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 20 11:19 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I have another idea on how to deal with the danger of large cars. (Yes, it's the large cars that are dangerous.)

          I suggest replacing simple speed limits with momentum limits instead. Your individual limit on a highway would be the product of the car's empty weight and its speed. If a 3000 pound car is allowed to go 60, then a 6000 pound car would be limited to 30 mph.

          This is a practical way of dealing with the problems of big cars, and I think many people would think it is fair.

          In my view, all speed limits should be lowered just a small amount while we are trying to deal with our energy and GHG crisis.

          Ernie Rogers


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • murdoch
          I tend to agree to remind people that the answer is not for everyone to size up to some humongous tanks for everyone. Many people drive a higher-mass car
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 20 9:04 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I tend to agree to remind people that the answer is not for everyone
            to "size up" to some humongous tanks for everyone. Many people drive
            a higher-mass car than they need to drive and hopefully we can find a
            policy solution (as Ernie strives to do) to incentivize them to move
            to lower-mass vehicles.

            However, a separate issue is that any move toward reducing the mass of
            cars does not take into account that cars (and 2-wheelers) share the
            road with trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, other larger vehicles and
            18-wheelers.

            The mixing of those heavier vehicles with the smaller cars cannot be
            dealt with so easily as just getting rid of them. They are necessary
            and important for a variety of transportation tasks. We have done a
            bit to try to make the roads safer to share, but this does not make
            the roads fully safe.

            I suppose a primitive example of executing a portion of Ernie's
            suggestion is the lower speed limit for 18-wheelers that you see in
            some areas California = 55 mph and drive on the right?).



            [Default] On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:44:53 -0400, "Ron Cochran"
            <rcochran@...> wrote:

            >This sounds like yet another good reason to get rid of the large cars!
            >
            >Ron
            >
            >
            > _____
            >
            >From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
            >[mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of murdoch
            >Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:01 PM
            >To: murdoch@...
            >Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] safety tradeoffs of smaller cars
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >http://money.
            ><http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/autos/iihs_small_vs_big/index.htm?iref=were
            >commend>
            >cnn.com/2009/04/14/autos/iihs_small_vs_big/index.htm?iref=werecommend
            >
            >>Danger even in 'safe' small cars
            >>The Insurance Institute crashes small cars into larger ones to show what
            >could happen in real wrecks.
            >
            >>By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer
            >>April 14, 2009: 4:08 AM ET
            >>
            >
            >[...]
            >
            >>The small cars involved in all three tests - the Toyota Yaris,
            >>Honda Fit and Smart ForTwo - had already earned top scores for
            >>front impact protection in the Institute's standard front impact
            >>test in which cars are crashed into a crushable barrier, not
            >>another car.
            >>
            >>That test simulates two cars of roughly equal size hitting almost
            >>head-on.
            >>
            >>In these new experimental tests the Institute wanted to show what
            >>would happen to a small car in a crash with a larger vehicle. So
            >>instead of crashing the cars into a stationary barrier,
            >>researchers created actual collisions between small and midsized
            >>cars.
            >>
            >>This time, the same small cars that had top marks in regular
            >>crash tests earned poor ratings for impact protection.
            >
            >[...]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.