5 ms·

> I wouldn't want to crash in one This is what is keeping my wife and I from getting her a Nissan Leaf. She drove a Nissan Versa (basically the same platform b

> I wouldn't want to crash in one This is what is keeping my wife and I from getting her a Nissan Leaf. She drove a Nissan Versa (basically the same platform but traditional gas engine) until she was hit by another car. The accident was caused by a person in the oncoming lane not seeing her and turning left, striking her driver's side door. The other person was in a mid sized SUV (first gen Jeep Liberty) and was only going about 15MPH when she struck my wife's car, but the force pushed my wife's driver side door all the way into her seat and against her hip. The Versa was severely frame damaged and not driveable; the only damage the Jeep sustained was losing the bumper cover. Thankfully my wife was not hurt apart from some bruising and soreness on her hip, but if the other car had been going faster (say, at an intersection) she could have been seriously hurt or killed. She is now driving our Crown Victoria, a full frame vehicle with five star crash ratings all around and reinforced doors due to being a former detective's car. Her fuel economy sucks, and she was just moved to a more remote office at her job which makes the Vic a very expensive commuter car now, but we're leery of getting her a subcompact (gas, hybrid, or electric). It's probably an irrational fear; such an accident is probably a once in a lifetime thing, but traffic is insane where we live and work so we both feel much safer with her in "The Tank".

marketer 8y ago
I would argue that a Nissan Leaf would be overall safer than a Crown Victoria. First of all, the 2nd generation (2018/2019) Nissan Leaf seems to have a comparable weight as the Crown Victoria. From the data I've been looking at online, it's around 25% less weight than the CV, but definitely more than a Versa. Also, this weight is likely better distributed throughout the car instead of being concentrated in one place. Another factor to consider is that the CV is an older vehicle (did they stop making them in 2012?), and in general newer cars are safer due to strong materials and safety features/design. Also, the likelihood of a fire during an accident is greatly reduced (although still non-zero, as demonstrated by Tesla).
- tudelo 8y ago
  Yet he said the crown vic has "reinforced doors due to being a former detective's car." Also, are fires really that much of a worry when you get in an accident? I have seen very little of that happening... More likely probably that your alternator causes a fire.
  - marketer 8y ago
    According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24073770 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24073770 (fire-related auto deaths in Sweden), this is a problem. Around 5% of auto-related deaths in Sweden involved burning cars, and around 1/3 of these deaths fire was the cause of death. Definitely not the main cause of death, it is a factor that has to be considered when looking at overall safety.
danielbarla 8y ago
In general, a side impact is a very bad scenario for the party being hit. There's not much room for crumple zones at all, and cars are often not rigid enough, leading to an intrusion by the other vehicle. But this is true for larger vehicles as well, e.g. older Ford F150s were famous for basically folding in half from the slightest side hit (say, a telephone pole at low speeds after losing control). In this situation, a rigid battery pack might actually make the car a lot safer. But yes, I wouldn't want to be in a tiny car getting hit from the side by a larger one.
Dumblydorr 8y ago
God. That story rankles me, the new Jeep, a lifestyle product and environmentally terrible choice, being driven very poorly and causing massive damage and potential serious injury at only 15 mph. These large cars need to be taxed, they are not good for our planet or other drivers
- ianai 8y ago
  I agree. Driving is essentially an arms race with how people drive large vehicles.
- GhostVII 8y ago
  They are effectively taxed through taxes on gas though, aren't they?
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Apparently not enough. They're the most popular type of car right now.
    - squish78 8y ago
      We should tax things more because they are popular?
      - adrianN 8y ago
        We should tax things to appropriately account for the external costs. Big cars not only consume more fuel, the external costs of which are not reflected by current fuel taxes, they also consume a lot more space on the road. They're also more dangerous to other people, especially pedestrians and cyclists.
- morganvachon 8y ago
  I agree, and I would love to trade her Vic for a comparably safe hybrid or full electric. The former simply doesn't exist, and the latter is only available right now as a Tesla S, which is far outside our price range. Maybe when the Tesla or Rivian pickups debut they will be somewhat affordable, but until then we unfortunately are stuck with gas guzzlers in our household.
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
What are the crash ratings all around on the Versa? I feel you are not being very scientific on this. She wasn’t injured in her wreck, you are extrapolating that she would have been, but you don’t know that. Bigger is not always better with crash safety, I see this idea espoused a lot. The old huge rigid cars from back in the day are actually death traps because they don’t have crumple zones and the frames are too rigid, transferring all the force to the occupant in a crash. That’s why demolition derby contestants always get those old full frame cars from the past, they don’t crumple and they transfer force to the other vehicles, but also to the driver. If the modern crown vic is 5 star rated this may not be a problem, but the rating probably came before they added the door supports for the police, so the car may actually be more unsafe now.
- marketer 8y ago
  Yes! I had the exact same reaction to this story. The way I interpreted the story is that the design of the Versa may actually have contributed to his wife's safety. It's possible the car was designed to crumple in such a way to distribute the weight of the collision. Ironically getting a Crown Victoria may decrease the overall safety.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    There's not much zone to crumple in a side impact. On the sides, all effort is invested in keeping the rigid zone rigid and cushioning the resulting acceleration with airbags, as good as space inside the rigid zone is permitting.
- ianai 8y ago
  I also think the problem space is being solved incorrectly. Sure, 9k might not make a comparably safe 2-4 seater (which is debatable). But I bet they’d make a much safer 1 seater. That’s precisely what most day commuters need.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  The crown vic police interceptor (which is likely what the op is talking about) is a fairly "modern" vehicle; it was the go-to vehicle for police departments across the country. Detective versions typically were white or black only (not "cruiser" decorated), and usually lacked the interior cage and hose-out rear seat. Other than that, they usually had the full interceptor package (unless the dept cheaped out for the detectives, I suppose, and just bought standard crown vics). I'm not sure when they stopped making them, but it had to be sometime in the early-2000s, maybe a bit later. I know that a lot of PDs went to an SUV platform, or other vehicles. The one potential issue with a crown vic that would make it more dangerous that other cars is that it had a saddle fuel tank. Ford did not learn the lesson of their Pinto. Rear-end accidents with a crown vic had the potential to turn in to fiery death-traps. It wasn't until a police detective here in Phoenix got horribly injured (but survived) did they make modifications to police fleet vehicles (I think they put in a racing fuel bladder or something like that in the tanks). I don't believe such modifications were implemented for standard civilian crown vics... Regardless, the crown vic isn't the same as much older vehicles. While it likely isn't up to modern crash standards, it is still a fairly new vehicle that does have crumple zones and such, and won't spear someone thru the heart with the steering column in a front-end collision.
nradov 8y ago
Your feeling of safety is not justified. The Ford Crown Victoria had a "Marginal" rating for side impact crashes. And the type of modifications made to police vehicles don't actually do anything to improve crash safety. https://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victoria-4-door-sedan https://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victo... Check out the side impact crash test pictures. The body actually buckled and rode up over the frame! This is not a safe design.
- morganvachon 8y ago
  https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2009/FORD/CROWN%252520VICTORIA/4%252520DR/RWD https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2009/FORD/CROWN%252520VICTORIA... As I said above, the modifications made to the police version were done to increase officer safety in a crash, not decrease it.
  - nradov 8y ago
    The NHTSA side impact ratings are considered outdated and inadequate, which is why I linked to the newer IIHS ratings above. The Crown Victoria is not a safe vehicle in a side crash compared to more modern designs. Ford installed ballistic panels in some of those vehicles, but those won't give you any significant extra protection in a crash.
g_p 8y ago
One little-known fact is that (at least for Euro NCAP crash test scores), the scores are only comparable within "vehicle class", and even then by vehicle mass. > Euro NCAP’s frontal impact test simulates a car crashing into another of similar mass and structure [...] cars which are within 150kg of one another are considered comparable. This means that at least for Euro NCAP scores, you can only meaningfully compare crash test results within a type class of vehicle, for vehicles of similar weights. Heavier, higher vehicles will usually be better-off, so a compact roadster with a 5* score is not going to come off well from a collision with a 5* SUV. Ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20090222214930/http://www.euroncap.com:80/Content-Web-Page/0f3bec79-828b-4e0c-8030-9fa8314ff342/comparable-cars.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20090222214930/http://www.euronc...
- adrianN 8y ago
  What you're saying is true, but there is also this > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs modern safety features make a big difference, even against heavier cars.
irq-1 8y ago
Honda is making hybrid versions of their full and mid-sized SUVs.

marketer 8y ago

I would argue that a Nissan Leaf would be overall safer than a Crown Victoria. First of all, the 2nd generation (2018/2019) Nissan Leaf seems to have a comparable weight as the Crown Victoria. From the data I've been looking at online, it's around 25% less weight than the CV, but definitely more than a Versa. Also, this weight is likely better distributed throughout the car instead of being concentrated in one place. Another factor to consider is that the CV is an older vehicle (did they stop making them in 2012?), and in general newer cars are safer due to strong materials and safety features/design. Also, the likelihood of a fire during an accident is greatly reduced (although still non-zero, as demonstrated by Tesla).

tudelo 8y ago
Yet he said the crown vic has "reinforced doors due to being a former detective's car." Also, are fires really that much of a worry when you get in an accident? I have seen very little of that happening... More likely probably that your alternator causes a fire.
- marketer 8y ago
  According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24073770 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24073770 (fire-related auto deaths in Sweden), this is a problem. Around 5% of auto-related deaths in Sweden involved burning cars, and around 1/3 of these deaths fire was the cause of death. Definitely not the main cause of death, it is a factor that has to be considered when looking at overall safety.

danielbarla 8y ago

In general, a side impact is a very bad scenario for the party being hit. There's not much room for crumple zones at all, and cars are often not rigid enough, leading to an intrusion by the other vehicle. But this is true for larger vehicles as well, e.g. older Ford F150s were famous for basically folding in half from the slightest side hit (say, a telephone pole at low speeds after losing control). In this situation, a rigid battery pack might actually make the car a lot safer. But yes, I wouldn't want to be in a tiny car getting hit from the side by a larger one.

Dumblydorr 8y ago

God. That story rankles me, the new Jeep, a lifestyle product and environmentally terrible choice, being driven very poorly and causing massive damage and potential serious injury at only 15 mph. These large cars need to be taxed, they are not good for our planet or other drivers

ianai 8y ago
I agree. Driving is essentially an arms race with how people drive large vehicles.
GhostVII 8y ago
They are effectively taxed through taxes on gas though, aren't they?
- adrianN 8y ago
  Apparently not enough. They're the most popular type of car right now.
  - squish78 8y ago
    We should tax things more because they are popular?
    - adrianN 8y ago
      We should tax things to appropriately account for the external costs. Big cars not only consume more fuel, the external costs of which are not reflected by current fuel taxes, they also consume a lot more space on the road. They're also more dangerous to other people, especially pedestrians and cyclists.
morganvachon 8y ago
I agree, and I would love to trade her Vic for a comparably safe hybrid or full electric. The former simply doesn't exist, and the latter is only available right now as a Tesla S, which is far outside our price range. Maybe when the Tesla or Rivian pickups debut they will be somewhat affordable, but until then we unfortunately are stuck with gas guzzlers in our household.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

What are the crash ratings all around on the Versa? I feel you are not being very scientific on this. She wasn’t injured in her wreck, you are extrapolating that she would have been, but you don’t know that. Bigger is not always better with crash safety, I see this idea espoused a lot. The old huge rigid cars from back in the day are actually death traps because they don’t have crumple zones and the frames are too rigid, transferring all the force to the occupant in a crash. That’s why demolition derby contestants always get those old full frame cars from the past, they don’t crumple and they transfer force to the other vehicles, but also to the driver. If the modern crown vic is 5 star rated this may not be a problem, but the rating probably came before they added the door supports for the police, so the car may actually be more unsafe now.

marketer 8y ago
Yes! I had the exact same reaction to this story. The way I interpreted the story is that the design of the Versa may actually have contributed to his wife's safety. It's possible the car was designed to crumple in such a way to distribute the weight of the collision. Ironically getting a Crown Victoria may decrease the overall safety.
- usrusr 8y ago
  There's not much zone to crumple in a side impact. On the sides, all effort is invested in keeping the rigid zone rigid and cushioning the resulting acceleration with airbags, as good as space inside the rigid zone is permitting.
ianai 8y ago
I also think the problem space is being solved incorrectly. Sure, 9k might not make a comparably safe 2-4 seater (which is debatable). But I bet they’d make a much safer 1 seater. That’s precisely what most day commuters need.
cr0sh 8y ago
The crown vic police interceptor (which is likely what the op is talking about) is a fairly "modern" vehicle; it was the go-to vehicle for police departments across the country. Detective versions typically were white or black only (not "cruiser" decorated), and usually lacked the interior cage and hose-out rear seat. Other than that, they usually had the full interceptor package (unless the dept cheaped out for the detectives, I suppose, and just bought standard crown vics). I'm not sure when they stopped making them, but it had to be sometime in the early-2000s, maybe a bit later. I know that a lot of PDs went to an SUV platform, or other vehicles. The one potential issue with a crown vic that would make it more dangerous that other cars is that it had a saddle fuel tank. Ford did not learn the lesson of their Pinto. Rear-end accidents with a crown vic had the potential to turn in to fiery death-traps. It wasn't until a police detective here in Phoenix got horribly injured (but survived) did they make modifications to police fleet vehicles (I think they put in a racing fuel bladder or something like that in the tanks). I don't believe such modifications were implemented for standard civilian crown vics... Regardless, the crown vic isn't the same as much older vehicles. While it likely isn't up to modern crash standards, it is still a fairly new vehicle that does have crumple zones and such, and won't spear someone thru the heart with the steering column in a front-end collision.

nradov 8y ago

Your feeling of safety is not justified. The Ford Crown Victoria had a "Marginal" rating for side impact crashes. And the type of modifications made to police vehicles don't actually do anything to improve crash safety. https://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victoria-4-door-sedan https://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victo... Check out the side impact crash test pictures. The body actually buckled and rode up over the frame! This is not a safe design.

morganvachon 8y ago
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2009/FORD/CROWN%252520VICTORIA/4%252520DR/RWD https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2009/FORD/CROWN%252520VICTORIA... As I said above, the modifications made to the police version were done to increase officer safety in a crash, not decrease it.
- nradov 8y ago
  The NHTSA side impact ratings are considered outdated and inadequate, which is why I linked to the newer IIHS ratings above. The Crown Victoria is not a safe vehicle in a side crash compared to more modern designs. Ford installed ballistic panels in some of those vehicles, but those won't give you any significant extra protection in a crash.

g_p 8y ago

One little-known fact is that (at least for Euro NCAP crash test scores), the scores are only comparable within "vehicle class", and even then by vehicle mass. > Euro NCAP’s frontal impact test simulates a car crashing into another of similar mass and structure [...] cars which are within 150kg of one another are considered comparable. This means that at least for Euro NCAP scores, you can only meaningfully compare crash test results within a type class of vehicle, for vehicles of similar weights. Heavier, higher vehicles will usually be better-off, so a compact roadster with a 5* score is not going to come off well from a collision with a 5* SUV. Ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20090222214930/http://www.euroncap.com:80/Content-Web-Page/0f3bec79-828b-4e0c-8030-9fa8314ff342/comparable-cars.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20090222214930/http://www.euronc...

adrianN 8y ago
What you're saying is true, but there is also this > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs modern safety features make a big difference, even against heavier cars.

irq-1 8y ago

Honda is making hybrid versions of their full and mid-sized SUVs.