When Bigger is Badder

[XFool]

New crash test rules will downgrade the safety ratings of big SUVs if they seriously damage smaller cars in shunts

This is Money

Euro NCAP tests will measure the impact of big SUVs on other cars in crashes
Bigger vehicles will be penalised if they're judged likely to disproportionately cause damage to smaller cars on the road
Raft of new tests to measure vehicle safety will be introduced as part of overhaul
Testing body will also use new advanced THOR dummies that cost £600k each

About time! Now, about those SUV high intensity Xenon headlights...

[MonsterMork]

Basically this is to pander to those who don't like "big SUV's". In essence it is a load of codswallop dressed up as a good safety thing.

The objective is to encourage makers of larger vehicles to share some of the burden of the impact with smaller vehicles

In other words instead of one vehicle getting written off now both are.

In the new compatibility test, if the larger vehicle is too stiff in an impact scenario, it will be penalised accordingly.

So a nice stiff Transit van or Volvo truck are not to be penalised then, as obviously nobody ever crashes into them.

Needless to say they are not telling us how they are measuring the stiffness, other than showing that a "lesser" vehicle comes of worse. Well, yes, no poop Sherlock, but how about comparing apples with apples, instead of pomegranites? Brand new Range Rover versus 15 year old Vauxhall Corsa (because they only get used cars to test against due to the costs involved, as the manufacturers are supplying the new cars for free) - anyone care to guess the outcome? Physics alone tells us that the 2.2 tonne Rangie has a bit of an advantage over the 1.1 tonne Corsa, with or without bean can exhaust. The Rangie is deliberately designed strong to hold the blessed thing together, the Corsa designed widdle weak because it is a damn sight cheaper to repair when the new licence holder stuffs it into a hedge. Bonnet height on a Range Rover? About 3 foot 10. The Corsa? About 2 foot 7. I think you get my drift.

And let us not forget that it was the safety lobby who told the manufacturers to make vehicles stronger in the first place!

Complete and utter bollards

[XFool]

Basically this is to pander to those who don't like "big SUV's". In essence it is a load of codswallop dressed up as a good safety thing.

I'm guessing here. You don't drive a mini car? Yes/No?

Mind you, see the size of some of those 'mini' cars today...

Physics alone tells us that the 2.2 tonne Rangie has a bit of an advantage over the 1.1 tonne Corsa, with or without bean can exhaust.

So why do so many people on the road imagine they need(?) a "2.2 tonne" motor car? I agree it would be an "advantage" in a demolition derby.

Bonnet height on a Range Rover? About 3 foot 10. The Corsa? About 2 foot 7. I think you get my drift.

Yeah. See my comment about SUV's and their high intensity Xenon headlights!

And let us not forget that it was the safety lobby who told the manufacturers to make vehicles stronger in the first place!

Right. So who told them to make them so damn big?

[dealtn]

I'm guessing here. You don't drive a mini car? Yes/No?

I've got 2 cars. An "SUV" and a mini. Do I get to argue with myself?

(I've yet to crash into myself, but came close once when reversing one close to the other)

[MonsterMork]

Basically this is to pander to those who don't like "big SUV's". In essence it is a load of codswallop dressed up as a good safety thing.

I'm guessing here. You don't drive a mini car? Yes/No?

Sadly, I am at present devoid of Land Rover* Currently pootling about in an old Toyota Avensis, coincidentally the first car to get a 5 star crash rating

MM



*older viewers may remember my addiction to the green oval

[DrFfybes]

(I've yet to crash into myself, but came close once when reversing one close to the other)

I haven't

Fortunately MrsF reversed into a protruding tree branch at work aout 4 months later and hasn't mentioned it since.

Re NCAP - how many people even know what their car rates at? I've absolutely no idea about any of our, although I expect the Carina predates the tests?

Paul

[bungeejumper]

Re NCAP - how many people even know what their car rates at? I've absolutely no idea about any of our, although I expect the Carina predates the tests?

Judging by the NCAP website, pretty well everything gets four or five stars these days - the main exceptions being Jeeps, old Chryslers and small Fiats, which will be absolutely fine as long as they're not using the same roads at the same time. (Can it be a coincidence that those brands are all effectiively owned by the same companies these days?)
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rew ... ment=false
Incidentally, in case you're wondering, the 2003 Toyota Avensis got five stars and the 2002 Corolla got four. Honest John query about a 1990s Carina at https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post ... tm?t=55755 . This seems to be the website that it was nteded to point to: http://www.carsafetyresults.com/

Oh, and I reversed into the church railings two years ago and needed a mid-sized bumper respray. A corporation dustcart coming round the corner, and apparently not interested in negotiating with me for street space, so I got out of its way - alas, too hurriedly. I can live with the shame of that.

BJ

[airbus330]

Subjective observation. I've been in 2 car crashes in my life, one was in a big heavy car and one was in a small car. If I'm unlucky enough to have a third, I'll hope to be in the big car, but not necessarily a tall SUV.

[bungeejumper]

Subjective observation. I've been in 2 car crashes in my life, one was in a big heavy car and one was in a small car. If I'm unlucky enough to have a third, I'll hope to be in the big car, but not necessarily a tall SUV.

Nother subjective observation. Decades ago, my wife's Metro was rear-ended by a stuffing great Volvo estate while stationary at a roundabout, and the body shell was so mangled after the impact that she couldn't get the driver's door open. Not that the Metro was ever a safe car, of course - it was discontinued after scoring zero in an NCAP test - but it was probably no worse than some modern Fiats. In the final analysis, it's the momentum of the big'un that does the damage once all the crumple zones have absorbed as much as they can.

There was an American study done about twelve(?) years ago, which found that the likelihood of death from a head-on collision was twelve times as high for the car's occupants as it was for the SUV's driver and passengers. Admittedly it was a mixed picture, because it was very hard to assemble comparable safety criteria for the two classes - we need to remember that an SUV is classed in America as a light truck and not a car at all! And there was the other complicating factor, that American SUVs of the time had a nasty tendency to roll over during a shunt.

Over here, it's not the physical characteristics of the SUVs that worry me, it's the appalling skills and road manners of the eejits who choose to drive them. A grotesque over-generalisation, of course, but I see enough of these things on the daily school run, with terrified-looking drivers who simply refuse to reverse them, because they know that that's when they tend to crash into things and then hubby gets cross.

What we really need isn't a safety reclassification for SUVs and suchlike. We need a higher standard of driving, a different class of driving licence, and compulsory specialist training. End of rant.

BJ

[XFool]

Subjective observation. I've been in 2 car crashes in my life, one was in a big heavy car and one was in a small car. If I'm unlucky enough to have a third, I'll hope to be in the big car, but not necessarily a tall SUV.

Nother subjective observation. Decades ago, my wife's Metro was rear-ended by a stuffing great Volvo estate while stationary at a roundabout, and the body shell was so mangled after the impact that she couldn't get the driver's door open. Not that the Metro was ever a safe car, of course - it was discontinued after scoring zero in an NCAP test - but it was probably no worse than some modern Fiats. In the final analysis, it's the momentum of the big'un that does the damage once all the crumple zones have absorbed as much as they can.

i.e. They are a danger to other road users. Which is where we came in...

[airbus330]

Subjective observation. I've been in 2 car crashes in my life, one was in a big heavy car and one was in a small car. If I'm unlucky enough to have a third, I'll hope to be in the big car, but not necessarily a tall SUV.

Nother subjective observation. Decades ago, my wife's Metro was rear-ended by a stuffing great Volvo estate while stationary at a roundabout, and the body shell was so mangled after the impact that she couldn't get the driver's door open. Not that the Metro was ever a safe car, of course - it was discontinued after scoring zero in an NCAP test - but it was probably no worse than some modern Fiats. In the final analysis, it's the momentum of the big'un that does the damage once all the crumple zones have absorbed as much as they can.

i.e. They are a danger to other road users. Which is where we came in...

There is some truth in all the opinions expressed. My preferred car to crash in would be a large well built car, but if it comes down to a small car or an SUV, I'll take the SUV thanks. Reason being, my dislike of SUV's is based on a friend who rolled his Disco complete with his entire family on an icy road. They all walked away. But the Disco flipped because of the high center of gravity. In a big car, he would have probably hit the trees and survived, in a small car perhaps not. Now, this crash was an outlier statistically, most crashes you hit of get hit by another vehicle. In this circumstance the bigger vehicle generally wins. There was a TV show recently that followed the police forensic car crash investigators, one of their cases was of a 4x4 Mitsubishi which crossed the central reservation and hit a Ford Mondeo or Focus head on. The Ford was obliterated and driver killed. The Mitsubishi looked almost driveable and the driver had whiplash and shock. So the 4x4 driver in this instance (on prescription medication and unfit to drive) survived even though incompetent. Hence all those Chelsea Tractor drivers on the school run are actually doing the best thing for the survival of their families!
If people want something to rail against, the current legalization process for e-scooters is a good starting point.

[XFool]

In the final analysis, it's the momentum of the big'un that does the damage once all the crumple zones have absorbed as much as they can.

i.e. They are a danger to other road users. Which is where we came in...

There is some truth in all the opinions expressed.
...
Hence all those Chelsea Tractor drivers on the school run are actually doing the best thing for the survival of their families!

At the expense of the other people's families... Of course, if everyone drove Ford Modeo type vehicles nobody would be at any more at risk than anyone else. Someone is bound to say: "if everyone drives SUVs we'd all be safe". Yeah? Just wait till I hit demolish you and yours with my Humvee.

[airbus330]

i.e. They are a danger to other road users. Which is where we came in...

There is some truth in all the opinions expressed.
...
Hence all those Chelsea Tractor drivers on the school run are actually doing the best thing for the survival of their families!

At the expense of the other people's families... Of course, if everyone drove Ford Modeo type vehicles nobody would be at any more at risk than anyone else. Someone is bound to say: "if everyone drives SUVs we'd all be safe". Yeah? Just wait till I hit demolish you and yours with my Humvee.

Of course at the expense of other families. That is the intrinsic decision a Yummy Mummy/ Daddy has made when they buy an SUV for taking the kids to school in a city! They may only admit it to themselves in the privacy of their own heads, but thats what people do. Probably the only answer is to require additional driver training/test for vehicles over a certain weight/dimension.

[AF62]

Of course at the expense of other families. That is the intrinsic decision a Yummy Mummy/ Daddy has made when they buy an SUV for taking the kids to school in a city! They may only admit it to themselves in the privacy of their own heads, but thats what people do. Probably the only answer is to require additional driver training/test for vehicles over a certain weight/dimension.

And for the future - https://www.fastcompany.com/3064539/sel ... the-driver

"Self-Driving Mercedes Will Be Programmed To Sacrifice Pedestrians To Save The Driver" - “If you know you can save at least one person, at least save that one. Save the one in the car,”