Honda Car Forum

On Apr 1, 9:14*pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:

> > I'll try to explain this in layman's terms:
>
> > If you have a 3000 lb Civic crashing into a 6000 lb Ford Pickup head-
> > on, each traveling at 30 mph, then 0.1 seconds after the crash, their
> > combined mess will continue going where the Ford was going, but now at
> > 10 mph (preservation of momentum). Therefore, Civic decelerated 40 mph
> > in the collision, and Ford only 20 mph.
>
> give me a break!!! *what matters is what happens to the occupants
> acceleration vectors [deceleration] and whether the passenger cell
> intrudes into their space. *occupant reactions are not simple m1v1 = m2v2.

Do you disagree specifically with anything I wrote? You were saying
that crash testing into a cement wall shows how safe a vehicle is. I
wrote that this is not the whole picture, and weight counts (a lot).

I suspect you are one of those big ass SUV drivers who wants everyone
else to drive compact cars. You'll obviously be safer than if everyone
drives and SUV, but we won't be.

jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of
>>>> other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999
>>>> vehicle models.
>>>> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...afety-newWin.h
>>>> tml For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and
>>>> others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled
>>>> though. What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe
>>>> than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical
>>>> explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the
>>>> quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to the
>>>> poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms?
>>>> By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date
>>>> study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with
>>>> the data given per mile traveled.
>>> In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
>>> NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did
>>> the best when you look at both ratings.
>>
>> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>
> really? have you seen this?
> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
> energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
> vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to
> absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
>
>
>>
>> If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
>> more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a
>> concrete wall.
>>
>> Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
>> http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...uzuki_ignis_7_
>> pics.html
>
> exactly as above.
>
> oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to
> stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road
> hazard, not decrease it.
>
> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE
> vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the
> extra fuel consumption.
>

SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors.
It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must slow
down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and harder to
recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at more risk.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
but one can not escape the laws of physics!

The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design
features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather
than the bodies of properly belted occupants.

I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment
is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
fewer injuries.

In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the
safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would
you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.

If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.

As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in
a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
or allow my family members to do so.



"jim beam" <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 8:47?am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>
> really? have you seen this?
> http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
> energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
> vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to absorb
> energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
>


>> Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
>> http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...is_7_pics.html
>
> exactly as above.
>
> oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to stop
> [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road hazard, not
> decrease it.
>
> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE
> vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
> fuel consumption.

On Apr 2, 9:04*am, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
> engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
> absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
> speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
> one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment
> is not impinged upon. *It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
> the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
> fewer injuries.

The OP chart showed that minivans were safest, but is it because they
have better drivers, inadequate engine size, better crumple zones, or
higher driver sitting height?

> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the
> safer. * Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would
> you rather be an occupant? * *If you still believe what you choose to
> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
> smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding..

A large portion of the fatal accidents don't involve another vehicle.
IIRC, the larger vehicles have a lower probability of a death in such
an accident.

One criticism of trucks and SUVs is rollover accidents. What factors
are important in reducing the chance of a rollover?

--
Ron

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote:

>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the
>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would
>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.

In the real world, the safest car is the one that avoids the crash
entirely. Many SUV/pickup drivers/passengers are killed in single
vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the F150 that flipped
over or the Smart Car that drove by the accident?

It is clear from the web site posted by the OP:

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html

that in the real world, many small cars are as safe or safer than SUVs
and pickups. The Accord and Camry had lower driver death rates than
Suburbans and Tahoes. Civics and Corollas were safer than any of the
"Big Three" pickups. The most dangerous vehicle on the chart, the
Chevy S-10 is hardly the lightest. While the safest vehicles were
minivans, the Camry was close behind as were Accord and Avalon.
Interestingly, the Camry was slightly safer than the Avalon.

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>
>>fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of
>>>>>other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999
>>>>>vehicle models.
>>>>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...afety-newWin.h
>>>>>tml For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and
>>>>>others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled
>>>>>though. What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe
>>>>>than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical
>>>>>explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the
>>>>>quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to the
>>>>>poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms?
>>>>>By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date
>>>>>study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with
>>>>>the data given per mile traveled.
>>>>
>>>>In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
>>>>NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did
>>>>the best when you look at both ratings.
>>>
>>>Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>>>driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>>
>>really? have you seen this?
>>http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>
>>crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
>>energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
>>vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to
>>absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
>>>more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a
>>>concrete wall.
>>>
>>>Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
>>>http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...uzuki_ignis_7_
>>>pics.html
>>
>>exactly as above.
>>
>>oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to
>>stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road
>>hazard, not decrease it.
>>
>>are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE
>>vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the
>>extra fuel consumption.
>>
>
>
> SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors.
> It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must slow
> down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and harder to
> recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at more risk.
>



Nicely stated.

A small car like a Civic is much better at avoidance assuming that the
driver has capacity to do so.

OTOH, if all conditions were equal such as a head-on crash, I'll take
the bigger, badder, mass of iron any day.

One of my favorite utterances is, "My '55 Studebaker President state
sedan will take full advantage of the other guy's econobox's crumple zone!"

<G>

JT

(Who would dearly like to challenge a "smart" car)

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote:

>There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>
>The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design
>features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather
>than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>
>I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment
>is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>fewer injuries.
>
>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the
>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would
>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>
>If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>
>As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in
>a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>or allow my family members to do so.
>
>
>

Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
Great logic.

Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
prevent people like you from killing the planet.

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:WvfBl.97636$4m1.3554@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
>> news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>>
>>
>>>fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of
>>>>>>other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999
>>>>>>vehicle models.
>>>>>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-Safety-newWin.
>>>>>>h tml For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and
>>>>>>others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled
>>>>>>though. What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe
>>>>>>than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical
>>>>>>explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the
>>>>>>quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to
>>>>>>the poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms?
>>>>>>By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date
>>>>>>study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included
>>>>>>with the data given per mile traveled.
>>>>>
>>>>>In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and
>>>>>NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did
>>>>>the best when you look at both ratings.
>>>>
>>>>Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>>>>driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>>>
>>>really? have you seen this?
>>>http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>>>
>>>crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with
>>>energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the
>>>vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to
>>>absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably
>>>>more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a
>>>>concrete wall.
>>>>
>>>>Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration:
>>>>http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...suzuki_ignis_7
>>>>_ pics.html
>>>
>>>exactly as above.
>>>
>>>oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to
>>>stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road
>>>hazard, not decrease it.
>>>
>>>are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a
>>>HUGE vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of
>>>the extra fuel consumption.
>>>
>>
>>
>> SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors.
>> It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must
>> slow down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and
>> harder to recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at
>> more risk.

they also block the view ahead for regular passenger vehicles,increasing
risk.
>>
>
>
>
> Nicely stated.
>
> A small car like a Civic is much better at avoidance assuming that the
> driver has capacity to do so.

plus there's incentive to avoid rather than take a hit. ;-)
every driver has "capacity"(ability),it's that many don't exercise the
skill.

>
> OTOH, if all conditions were equal such as a head-on crash, I'll take
> the bigger, badder, mass of iron any day.

And thus LESS incentive to avoid a collision.
Ordinary drivers in large cars/SUVs tend to not maneuver.
>
> One of my favorite utterances is, "My '55 Studebaker President state
> sedan will take full advantage of the other guy's econobox's crumple
> zone!"

And add to -everyone's- risk in the process.
(selfish,besides being wasteful and costly to everyone.)

Since smaller cars have to have additional refinforcements and safety gear
like air bags to partially compensate for the more dangerous large
vehicles others drive,their weight goes up and their fuel economy drops
too.

since much of our petro is imported,larger vehicles that get lower mileage
contribute to more imports,lessening our national security.
It's patriotic to drive a small car! Besides being better environmentally.
More oil tankers means more risk of spills.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
> wrote:
>
>> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>> but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>
>> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design
>> features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather
>> than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>
>> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>> engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>> absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>> speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>> one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment
>> is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>> the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>> fewer injuries.
>>
>> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the
>> safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would
>> you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>> smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>>
>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>>
>> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in
>> a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>> or allow my family members to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
> Great logic.
>
> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
> prevent people like you from killing the planet.

Hell, let's face it. Cars are *way* too dangerous. All the other
drivers are hopeless inept.

The only safe thing to do is stay away from all cars. OK, maybe a
converted Sherman tank *might* be safe, until you get some nut case
who figures out how to fix the main gun so that it can fire live
rounds again.

In the meantime, pretty much forced to get around, I'll drive
something that is fun and fuel-efficient. (And keep a sharp eye out
for old Shermans.)

--
Darryl

<fft1976@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:989e2f9d-4bbd-4e9c-a75b-353c8303035e@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of
>other
> vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle
> models.
>
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html
>
> For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others
> pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though.
>
> What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than
> Corolla,
> according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual
> airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different),
> or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger
> people buying Prizms?
>
> By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date
> study?
> I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the
> data
> given per mile traveled.

The problem with studies like this is that they can't account for who
buys the vehicles and how they drive.

Ed