7 ms·

No, the real test is how survivable the vehicle is in a collision. Probability of suffering an accident is a separate discussion. If your family is T-boned in

No, the real test is how survivable the vehicle is in a collision. Probability of suffering an accident is a separate discussion. If your family is T-boned in an intersection by a drunk driver who ran a red light, are you going to say, "Well, at least the odds of that happening were very small, since she rarely drives!" No, you're going to be dealing with serious injuries or possibly deaths and you're going to be saying, "I wish they'd been in a larger vehicle that was more survivable."

WJW 11y ago
I'd prefer that they would have been not hit at all, which a more maneuverable vehicle with a shorter stopping distance might help with. Also, the probability I'm interested in is not the survivability in an accident, it is the total survivability over my lifetime, discounted by some percentage for cost etcetera. In your argumentation, everybody should drive around in tanks on the off chance that somebody else might get drunk. In reality, nobody does that and tradeoffs are made. Have you ever tried driving in an old European city in an average (American) SUV? You literally would not fit in most parking spaces, let alone fit in some of the smaller streets.
- grandalf 11y ago
  I recently drove a European mini-van through Paris and it was a very tight squeeze... some streets were too narrow, and in one case a moped was parked 6" beyond the designated zone, which made the street impassible for me. It was quite a fun experience, but in the future I'll rent a smaller vehicle.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Larger vehicles have larger crumple zones and more steel all around. Are you saying larger vehicles are no safer than smaller ones? This runs counter to decades of conventional wisdom based on thousands of crash tests. See Edmunds, Consumer Reports, and other reputable organizations for corroboration of this.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Here's some numbers that establish that larger vehicles are generally safer: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates Compare the death rates of small, tiny, and midsize sedans (2011 data is the latest). Then look at large SUVs. Huge difference. "All vehicles" = 28. Most of the large SUVs are single digits, most of the smaller cars are well above 28. Curiously, Ford Expedition 2WD is above average and is an exception. I would love to understand why because it's a huge vehicle. The Ford Expedition 4WD is way at the other end, 5 deaths. Perhaps it has something to do with how people drive, or some flaw in how it handles. Most trucks are pretty safe, but the Ford F-150 4WD has above average death rates, and is the most popular single model of pickup truck. I wonder if this is because lots of people buy this truck who don't really know how to drive a truck. Anyway, some interesting data to explore there. Although as I pointed out, there are some outliers, in general the data lines up with the contention that larger vehicles are safer.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I still think there is a need to normalize for the amount each vehicle is driven - so that it is deaths/injuries per mile driven not per time period.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      >Most trucks are pretty safe, but the Ford F-150 4WD has above average death rates, and is the most popular single model of pickup truck. I wonder if this is because lots of people buy this truck who don't really know how to drive a truck. No, it's probably because it's a truck with a body-on-frame chassis instead of a unibody chassis like any modern vehicle, and was designed for towing and load-hauling rather than crash protection. If you want crash protection, you need to buy a vehicle with a modern chassis that was expressly designed for it. Same goes for the Expedition. And yes, handling could be a factor too: these vehicles have horrible handling and can't avoid accidents the way a good-handling vehicle can, and will frequently roll over.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Or you'll be wishing that the drunk driver was in a smaller vehicle. Or you'll be the one running over a child (possibly your own) and you'll be wishing that your car was smaller or had better visibility as you reversed. Making up unpleasant stories is fine, but at some point actual numbers and statistics are required, and everyone getting larger and larger cars in some kind of arms race seems to have obvious downsides.
- tamana 11y ago
  I suspect rearview camera/sensors are far better protection against bulldozing than small cars. No car is small enough to show a toddler under your tires.
  - marincounty 11y ago
    Off subject, but I'm surprised better rear view cameras/sensors are not being manufactured right now. I'm not talking about just a camera though. Could anyone imagine a a smart camera, with a display. The camera/computer would assist the driver in seeing better at night. Would calculate the odds of a police cruiser behind you. Would warn of potential danger, like an animal on the side of the road. Would warn you if you are being followed. Would be so well designed, you still used your rear view, but kicked in at the needed times? Would map out likely spots police hide? Could even be tied into physiological body sensors? "Today is not a good day to drive? Watch out for ice. Watch you temper?" The camera/sensors would have to be easily installed, like a stereo? I would buy one if programmed right, and the cost was justifiable. Then again there's someting beautiful about a simple chrome rear view mirror. A driver knowing they need to drive with all senses fully engaged, with no assistance other than experience, and good coordination.
    - mattlutze 10y ago
      Most luxury auto manufacturers actually do include image analysis and threat detection in their infrared forward-facing cameras these days.
- akgerber 11y ago
nathan_long 11y ago
Once, I was driving about 65mph on a state highway and a car pulled out of a farm road right in front of me. I had one or two seconds to react and swerve around them. They were probably going 10mph when I passed them. I was driving a Toyota Camry. If I'd been driving a large truck, I probably couldn't have avoided the crash. When I buy a car, I want to know both how likely it is that I can avoid a crash (manueverability, stopping distance, ABS, etc) and how likely it is that I can survive one if it happens. Both are relevant. Consumer Reports' 2016 Automotive Edition had a lot of discussion about car safety. Most of it was centered on technology that helps to prevent accidents or make them less severe. Eg, if your car detects that you're about to hit something (Forward Collision Warning) and has Automatic Emergency Braking, you might not hit it, or hit it at 30mph instead of 60mph. That could save your life. To say that the weight of your car is a safety factor but stopping distance isn't is just silly.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  Absolutely, also if you get hit from the side there is a lot more to it than just the weight of the car. I'd sooner be in the light car with a chassis that doesn't get crushed into the cabin than a heavy car which does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck I know which one Id like to be in..
- djrogers 11y ago
  > To say that the weight of your car is a safety factor but stopping distance isn't is just silly Size is not the same things a weight. Crumple zones are what size buys you in modern vehicle design, and you don't have to have a heavy car to have nice big cushy crumple zones. This discussion started about size, not weight.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  How would your reflexes have helped in my scenario, when you are T-boned (i.e., hit from the side) by a speeding motorist running a light? Maybe you have extraordinary reflexes and could have accelerated out of the way, or slammed on the brakes, but the average driver? I think not. I'd like to have some serious steel and crumple zone between me and that motorist under those circumstances, and the tiny little electric buggy is probably not going to have the same amount of protection as a large SUV.

WJW 11y ago

I'd prefer that they would have been not hit at all, which a more maneuverable vehicle with a shorter stopping distance might help with. Also, the probability I'm interested in is not the survivability in an accident, it is the total survivability over my lifetime, discounted by some percentage for cost etcetera. In your argumentation, everybody should drive around in tanks on the off chance that somebody else might get drunk. In reality, nobody does that and tradeoffs are made. Have you ever tried driving in an old European city in an average (American) SUV? You literally would not fit in most parking spaces, let alone fit in some of the smaller streets.

grandalf 11y ago
I recently drove a European mini-van through Paris and it was a very tight squeeze... some streets were too narrow, and in one case a moped was parked 6" beyond the designated zone, which made the street impassible for me. It was quite a fun experience, but in the future I'll rent a smaller vehicle.
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Larger vehicles have larger crumple zones and more steel all around. Are you saying larger vehicles are no safer than smaller ones? This runs counter to decades of conventional wisdom based on thousands of crash tests. See Edmunds, Consumer Reports, and other reputable organizations for corroboration of this.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Here's some numbers that establish that larger vehicles are generally safer: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates Compare the death rates of small, tiny, and midsize sedans (2011 data is the latest). Then look at large SUVs. Huge difference. "All vehicles" = 28. Most of the large SUVs are single digits, most of the smaller cars are well above 28. Curiously, Ford Expedition 2WD is above average and is an exception. I would love to understand why because it's a huge vehicle. The Ford Expedition 4WD is way at the other end, 5 deaths. Perhaps it has something to do with how people drive, or some flaw in how it handles. Most trucks are pretty safe, but the Ford F-150 4WD has above average death rates, and is the most popular single model of pickup truck. I wonder if this is because lots of people buy this truck who don't really know how to drive a truck. Anyway, some interesting data to explore there. Although as I pointed out, there are some outliers, in general the data lines up with the contention that larger vehicles are safer.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I still think there is a need to normalize for the amount each vehicle is driven - so that it is deaths/injuries per mile driven not per time period.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    >Most trucks are pretty safe, but the Ford F-150 4WD has above average death rates, and is the most popular single model of pickup truck. I wonder if this is because lots of people buy this truck who don't really know how to drive a truck. No, it's probably because it's a truck with a body-on-frame chassis instead of a unibody chassis like any modern vehicle, and was designed for towing and load-hauling rather than crash protection. If you want crash protection, you need to buy a vehicle with a modern chassis that was expressly designed for it. Same goes for the Expedition. And yes, handling could be a factor too: these vehicles have horrible handling and can't avoid accidents the way a good-handling vehicle can, and will frequently roll over.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Or you'll be wishing that the drunk driver was in a smaller vehicle. Or you'll be the one running over a child (possibly your own) and you'll be wishing that your car was smaller or had better visibility as you reversed. Making up unpleasant stories is fine, but at some point actual numbers and statistics are required, and everyone getting larger and larger cars in some kind of arms race seems to have obvious downsides.

tamana 11y ago
I suspect rearview camera/sensors are far better protection against bulldozing than small cars. No car is small enough to show a toddler under your tires.
- marincounty 11y ago
  Off subject, but I'm surprised better rear view cameras/sensors are not being manufactured right now. I'm not talking about just a camera though. Could anyone imagine a a smart camera, with a display. The camera/computer would assist the driver in seeing better at night. Would calculate the odds of a police cruiser behind you. Would warn of potential danger, like an animal on the side of the road. Would warn you if you are being followed. Would be so well designed, you still used your rear view, but kicked in at the needed times? Would map out likely spots police hide? Could even be tied into physiological body sensors? "Today is not a good day to drive? Watch out for ice. Watch you temper?" The camera/sensors would have to be easily installed, like a stereo? I would buy one if programmed right, and the cost was justifiable. Then again there's someting beautiful about a simple chrome rear view mirror. A driver knowing they need to drive with all senses fully engaged, with no assistance other than experience, and good coordination.
  - mattlutze 10y ago
    Most luxury auto manufacturers actually do include image analysis and threat detection in their infrared forward-facing cameras these days.
akgerber 11y ago

nathan_long 11y ago

Once, I was driving about 65mph on a state highway and a car pulled out of a farm road right in front of me. I had one or two seconds to react and swerve around them. They were probably going 10mph when I passed them. I was driving a Toyota Camry. If I'd been driving a large truck, I probably couldn't have avoided the crash. When I buy a car, I want to know both how likely it is that I can avoid a crash (manueverability, stopping distance, ABS, etc) and how likely it is that I can survive one if it happens. Both are relevant. Consumer Reports' 2016 Automotive Edition had a lot of discussion about car safety. Most of it was centered on technology that helps to prevent accidents or make them less severe. Eg, if your car detects that you're about to hit something (Forward Collision Warning) and has Automatic Emergency Braking, you might not hit it, or hit it at 30mph instead of 60mph. That could save your life. To say that the weight of your car is a safety factor but stopping distance isn't is just silly.

noir_lord 11y ago
Absolutely, also if you get hit from the side there is a lot more to it than just the weight of the car. I'd sooner be in the light car with a chassis that doesn't get crushed into the cabin than a heavy car which does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck I know which one Id like to be in..
djrogers 11y ago
> To say that the weight of your car is a safety factor but stopping distance isn't is just silly Size is not the same things a weight. Crumple zones are what size buys you in modern vehicle design, and you don't have to have a heavy car to have nice big cushy crumple zones. This discussion started about size, not weight.
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
How would your reflexes have helped in my scenario, when you are T-boned (i.e., hit from the side) by a speeding motorist running a light? Maybe you have extraordinary reflexes and could have accelerated out of the way, or slammed on the brakes, but the average driver? I think not. I'd like to have some serious steel and crumple zone between me and that motorist under those circumstances, and the tiny little electric buggy is probably not going to have the same amount of protection as a large SUV.