It's Official: SUV owners survive crashes 50% better

[nimbus]

I guess we're past that whole "f=ma" thing now. That was sophomoric at best.

lol, sophomoric is clearly above your level of comprehension still


lighter vehicles are advantageous because the reduce the energy in vehicle to vehicle collisions, so the crumple zones are able to absorb a higher percentage of the crash energy, slow the collision, and reduce the force experienced by the vehicle occupants.

obviously if you switched to motorcycles you are completely changing the crash protection offered by the vehicle and can't make a fair comparison anymore.

 

[nimbus]

agreed

elastic/inelastic collisions wood have been a more application physics concept

Elastic and Inelastic Collisions

if you don't see why f=ma is applicable, then you don't understand why people get injured in a collision

 

[nimbus]

So let's move the tought experiment forward: What if every single American was forced to drive a two-seater smartcar?

Hint: What percentage of fatal accidents are actually caused by hitting another moving car, versus a loss of control where they hit something that is stationary?

Smart car is too drastic of a change; they have a totally different design plus they have tiny crumple zones. Moving this thought experiment forward with something else small like a honda civic, I think we'd be safer.

Hint:


2007 US Fatalities and Injuries by Type of Crash

Although motor-vehicle deaths occur more often in collisions between motor vehicles than any other type of accident, this type represents only about 40% of the total. Collisions between a motor vehicle and a fixed object were the next most common type, with about 31% of the deaths, followed by pedestrian accidents and noncollisions (rollovers, etc.).

While collisions between motor vehicles accounted for less than half of motor-vehicle fatalities, this accident type represented 73% of injuries and 68% of injury accidents and 70% of all accidents. Single-vehicle accidents involving collisions with fixed objects, pedestrians and noncollisions, on the other hand, accounted for a greater proportion of fatalities and fatal accidents compared to less serious accidents. These three accident types made up 57% of fatalities and 56% of fatal accidents, but 30% or less of injuries, injury accidents or all accidents.

Of collisions between motor vehicles, angle collisions cause the greatest number of deaths, about 8,500 in 2007, and the greatest number of nonfatal injuries as well as fatal and injury accidents.
The table below indicates the estimated number of motor vehicle deaths, injuries, fatal accidents, injury accidents, and all accidents for various types of accidents.

Excerpted from National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2009 Edition


the fixed object thing is def an advantage for heavy cars. i just dont think it outweighs the benefits of multiple vehicle crash safety. Plus if you hit a tree that isnt going to budge regardless of vehicle size, you are also better off in a lighter car as well provided comparable crumple zones exist for the light and heavy vehicle

 

[nimbus]

If they had to google "f=ma" in the first place, it doesn't really count.

i know you have a phd in ee and that's pretty impressive; i have an ee degree also, only a b.s., but it's not like you would've learned more newtonian physics than i did and there's def no reason to be a condescending shit. especially when you def know that lighter vehicles reduce crash energy, which with the presence of crumple zones reduces forces experienced by passengers and their internal organs, and that there is a strong case for that making v2v collisions more survivable overall

 

[mrplunkey]

Smart car is too drastic of a change; they have a totally different design plus they have tiny crumple zones. Moving this thought experiment forward with something else small like a honda civic, I think we'd be safer.

Gah! Our thought experiment is going terribly. F=ma didn't pan out. And now we can't even pick specific cars. I guess the absurd is now becoming the norm.

So now let's move the thought experiment forward yet another time: You clearly want to choose a small car with fairly advanced safety features such as newer crumple zones. But shouldn't we pick a comparable SUV with similar features?

2007 US Fatalities and Injuries by Type of Crash

Although motor-vehicle deaths occur more often in collisions between motor vehicles than any other type of accident, this type represents only about 40% of the total. Collisions between a motor vehicle and a fixed object were the next most common type, with about 31% of the deaths, followed by pedestrian accidents and noncollisions (rollovers, etc.).

While collisions between motor vehicles accounted for less than half of motor-vehicle fatalities, this accident type represented 73% of injuries and 68% of injury accidents and 70% of all accidents. Single-vehicle accidents involving collisions with fixed objects, pedestrians and noncollisions, on the other hand, accounted for a greater proportion of fatalities and fatal accidents compared to less serious accidents. These three accident types made up 57% of fatalities and 56% of fatal accidents, but 30% or less of injuries, injury accidents or all accidents.

Of collisions between motor vehicles, angle collisions cause the greatest number of deaths, about 8,500 in 2007, and the greatest number of nonfatal injuries as well as fatal and injury accidents.
The table below indicates the estimated number of motor vehicle deaths, injuries, fatal accidents, injury accidents, and all accidents for various types of accidents.

Excerpted from National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2009 Edition

Good facts. Facts progress the debate.

the fixed object thing is def an advantage for heavy cars. i just dont think it outweighs the benefits of multiple vehicle crash safety.

That's opinion.

Plus if you hit a tree that isnt going to budge regardless of vehicle size, you are also better off in a lighter car as well provided comparable crumple zones exist for the light and heavy vehicle

Another thought experiment!

We're going to go with your Honda Civic. Let's also assume you are hitting an immobile object (tree, embankment) at a theoretically survivable speed. Now are you trying to say you'd be safer in that Civic than if you were in a BMW 5-series?

(I chose those because your Civic is #4 on the "Small Cars" list while the BMW 5-series is #3 on the "Big Cars" list (published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2011 report).

 

[Mr. dB]

Are there any stats to say what kind of vehicle is most likely to HAVE a potentially-lethal crash?

 

[miplank]

The smart car has the tridion safety cell as opposed to large crumple zones.

 

[Mr. dB]

The smart car has the tridion safety cell as opposed to large crumple zones.

Yeah, if you look up pictures of wrecked Smart Cars, they look like they fare pretty well, at least at protecting the occupants. The little Scion box has a passenger cage that seems to hold up pretty well in crashes too.

 

[mrplunkey]

Yeah, if you look up pictures of wrecked Smart Cars, they look like they fare pretty well, at least at protecting the occupants. The little Scion box has a passenger cage that seems to hold up pretty well in crashes too.

Crash tests show small car ratings are misleading - USATODAY.com

 

[miplank]

Crash tests show small car ratings are misleading - USATODAY.com

Well, duh!


It's common knowledge, or at least it is to me that a smart car which is in the micro class that gets a "good" rating compared to say a malibu in a midsize class with a "good" rating aren't actually equally as safe.


The ratings are from class to class and only mean they're acceptable for that class size of vehicle.