My massive impact - A real life tale of small car vs large car safety.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

So going by your theory every motor vehicle accident that occurs between different sizes of cars (but with equal star ratings) the occupants of the larger car will always come out better off ?

Doesn't work like that in the real world.

Fom ANCAP FAQ's:

If a large, heavy sedan and a small, light sedan both receive five stars and the same ANCAP scores, is the large sedan safer for the occupants than the small sedan?

It is not appropriate to compare ANCAP ratings across vehicle categories, particularly if there is a large weight difference. The reason is that in car-to-car crashes, the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage (due to the physics of the crash). Similarly, a higher ride height might be an advantage in a car-to-car crash. However in single vehicle crashes, such as with solid fixed objects, the weight might no longer be an advantage. So it depends on the type of crash. Also some small cars do remarkably well in crashes with larger vehicles as they have very strong passenger compartments and advanced occupant restraint systems and these features make up for the mass disadvantage.


Is it better to have a small car with a 5 star rating or a medium car with a 4 star rating?

It is not appropriate to compare ANCAP ratings across vehicle categories, particularly if there is a large weight difference. The reason is that in car-to-car crashes the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage (due to the physics of the crash). Similarly, a higher ride height might be an advantage in a car-to-car crash. However in single vehicle crashes, such as with solid fixed objects, the weight might no longer be an advantage. So it depends on the type of crash. Also some small cars do remarkably well in crashes with larger vehicles as they have very strong passenger compartments and advanced occupant restraint systems and these features make up for the mass disadvantage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q1) In a collision between a 5 Star Barina V's a 5 Star Toyota Landcruiser - which vehicle would you rather be in?

Q2) In a collision between a 5 Star Toyota Landcruiser V's a Kenworth - which vehicle would you rather be in?

Here is a big hint ... the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage

[Danny]

Originally Posted by cheap

Fom ANCAP FAQ's:

If a large, heavy sedan and a small, light sedan both receive five stars and the same ANCAP scores, is the large sedan safer for the occupants than the small sedan?

It is not appropriate to compare ANCAP ratings across vehicle categories, particularly if there is a large weight difference. The reason is that in car-to-car crashes, the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage (due to the physics of the crash). Similarly, a higher ride height might be an advantage in a car-to-car crash. However in single vehicle crashes, such as with solid fixed objects, the weight might no longer be an advantage. So it depends on the type of crash. Also some small cars do remarkably well in crashes with larger vehicles as they have very strong passenger compartments and advanced occupant restraint systems and these features make up for the mass disadvantage.


Is it better to have a small car with a 5 star rating or a medium car with a 4 star rating?

It is not appropriate to compare ANCAP ratings across vehicle categories, particularly if there is a large weight difference. The reason is that in car-to-car crashes the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage (due to the physics of the crash). Similarly, a higher ride height might be an advantage in a car-to-car crash. However in single vehicle crashes, such as with solid fixed objects, the weight might no longer be an advantage. So it depends on the type of crash. Also some small cars do remarkably well in crashes with larger vehicles as they have very strong passenger compartments and advanced occupant restraint systems and these features make up for the mass disadvantage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q1) In a collision between a 5 Star Barina V's a 5 Star Toyota Landcruiser - which vehicle would you rather be in?

Q2) In a collision between a 5 Star Toyota Landcruiser V's a Kenworth - which vehicle would you rather be in?

Here is a big hint ... the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage

Here's another taken from the same body of text: Also some small cars do remarkably well in crashes with larger vehicles as they have very strong passenger compartments and advanced occupant restraint systems and these features make up for the mass disadvantage.


Exactly the point I was getting at in my OP.. Not saying a Barina will smash a Landy, but my Megane sure held up against a larger car. Not a thing inside the car had moved.

Originally Posted by EL2794

Even not knowing you Danny, I'm glad you're ok, due to the commitment Renault has towards small/car safety.

Cheers

Thanks mate what a top bloke you are! Good luck with finding Mum a newie.

Originally Posted by |Nate

I absolutely love it! Likewise with your Megane, they're fantastic cars and excellent handlers.

Are you going to replace it with another Megane? Or are you looking for something else now?

I'll see what happens with the insurance and payout (still technically hasn't been seen by an assessor yet), I did even briefly look at some 135's, but yes it is likely I'll end up with another one, I just can't see myself sans an RS vehicle

[zilo]

Danny, the only problem i have with this thread of yours is the insinuation that you imply that small cars are just as safe as large cars because of your one experience.

Your collision did not emulate any ANCAP simulation yet you rely on the ANCAP rating as being of any significance.

My opinion is you got lucky, you hit the larger car in a structurally vulnerable part of it's geometry....nothing to do with how well your car is built.

I can point to examples where a 500kg motorcycle has killed a driver by slamming into the driver's door ...motorcyclist gets thrown over the top and the driver gets the bike in the chest....motorcyclist beaten up but lives...driver dies.

To extrapolate that to say the bike was better built is absurd.

So...the devil is in the detail.

Please don't think that mass and particularly bonnet length that define a large car aren't important, because they are.

Go and buy a lotto ticket....

[cheap]

Just out of curiosity, would this be your first major car accident or have you had a number of other significant accidents?

[chevypower]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/04...ill-apply.html

When all else is equal, give me the bigger vehicle with more mass and larger crumple zones. When the comparison is unequal, such as a 1971 muscle car versus a Volvo C30, then give me the smaller, but safer C30.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by zilo

My opinion is you got lucky, you hit the larger car in a structurally vulnerable part of it's geometry....nothing to do with how well your car is built.

Mate don't think I've implied that you can go taking on giant cars in tiny cars and get away with it. I have never once said that here. Full stop.

It is unfair to say that I got lucky (though I count myself lucky I was in that car and not an older small car) Saying that implies that the safety engineering of my vehicle played no part whatsoever in this. My front corner hit his front corner. Impact points were exactly the same. His front was just as wiped as mine, and his engine shot oil and diesel all over my car and about a 20m radius in the intersection.

The Megane was a safe car. I'd be putting my loved ones into one of them happily. I wouldn't go feeling the need to pop them into a Navara with a bullbar.

Cheap - I've been in one other major. I was a passenger in my parents ED Fairmont Ghia back in 97, and we were t boned by a drunk driving worm in a kingswood ute. I was in the side that got hit and was taken to hospital with cracked pelvis and broken ribs as well as internal injuries.

[GasoLane]

Funny that we should be talking Small vs Large, I was called out to help one of our drivers who bumped into a Camry today.

A 77yo driver pulled out from a Cafe/Parking Bay on the Right hand side in front of her today. (The Jail Brake Inn if you're a local)

Truck was doing 100kmh. Camry ??kmh. But as it was a Camry and had just crossed the road in front of her I doubt it was going very fast

I should add that they were both going the same way which would lessen the damage a little

The Camry was a little squished, the Truck has paint burns on the Bullbar.
Visibility is about 1km both ways but the Camry driver never saw the Truck.

According to the Police the Camry driver is ok, just a little shaken. Ambo's not needed just a tow truck

[Danny]

Love a good FM ^^^

Keep an eye out for those oldies. Must be horrible when your perception erodes to a point weher you cant drive anymore. I really feel for the old dude who turned in front of me. I don't think he will drive again.

[danzvtil]

Originally Posted by EL2794

I think it's ironic I've stumbled upon this thread tonight after seeing a D40 Navara with a bullbar and trailer rear end a current shape Nissan Micra this afternoon. Now I'm not SCU so I'm not going to estimate the exact impact speed (as the Navara locked up for a second or two before impact on a 60kph road), driver attention/inattention and so on, but for the BANG and size comparison as mentioned in this thread already, the Micra's rear end held up really well. I like to hope that their injuries were minor at the most. The Micra's driver was able to get out of the car herself.

This was a rear world example (unfortunately) that brings me straight back to hassling my mum about upgrading her car. She's currently driving a '91 model ED Honda Civic sedan, and waiting for retirement and considering her car options (Gulietta, A1, Golf). I worry all the time when she takes her car out (as sometimes she will drive my dads car where possible). It is so low to the ground it's like a go kart, the window sills are so low that a side impact with a Mazda3 will probably come through the window. Just some of the things I'm concerned about. Even when at a T-Junction and another car pulls up next to you, a Corolla is difficult to see past.

To me car safety is not something you can overlook when given the option. It's not always about yourself as you may be a good driver, it's other people on the road that you need to look out for, whether you hear them coming or not.

All the best Danny, and I'm glad you're ok. As mentioned I hope there are no long lasting side effects. Which brings me on to our Road Toll.

Next time you look at the figures for our Road Toll, look below at the amount of Serious Injuries that get racked up each year. These aren't broken legs, or seat belt bruising injuries. They are debilitating injuries that will potentially live with their victim for the rest of their lives, that we don't hear much about because its not another tally on our road toll.

Even not knowing you Danny, I'm glad you're ok, due to the commitment Renault has towards small/car safety.

Cheers

Funny thing about those civics, was the technology of the time allowed each model to be lower and lower (certain suspension types and radiators with side mounted tanks) so they looked really sleek. But then crash/pedestrian safety became a factor, so subsequent models are getting taller. Ive been driving all week a new Micra hatch which in traffic has you the driver sitting upright almost to the same height for the driver in a falcon for territory.
A pedestrian being hit by an early civic would be struck below the knee meaning the head will impact the pillar/windscreen where the most harm will occur. A modern vehicle with an upright stance will hit above the knee forcing the pedestrian to fold down onto the bonnet with a head strike zone above the engine where chance of physical injury can be minimised.
Same goes for vehicle to vehicle, smaller cars will generally strike a larger one at a more equal height minimizing chances of the larger one overriding the smaller.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cheap

Q1) In a collision between a 5 Star Barina V's a 5 Star Toyota Landcruiser - which vehicle would you rather be in?

Q2) In a collision between a 5 Star Toyota Landcruiser V's a Kenworth - which vehicle would you rather be in?

Here is a big hint ... the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage

in an honest opinion Barina V's kenworth (not that you compared)
but I would take the barina..

in a lot of accidents the small car normally hit the trucks battery box into fuel tank.
or removes the truck right steer tire, maybe a no win for either vehicle.

[SantoAU]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Funny that we should be talking Small vs Large, I was called out to help one of our drivers who bumped into a Camry today.

A 77yo driver pulled out from a Cafe/Parking Bay on the Right hand side in front of her today. (The Jail Brake Inn if you're a local)

Truck was doing 100kmh. Camry ??kmh. But as it was a Camry and had just crossed the road in front of her I doubt it was going very fast

I should add that they were both going the same way which would lessen the damage a little

The Camry was a little squished, the Truck has paint burns on the Bullbar.
Visibility is about 1km both ways but the Camry driver never saw the Truck.

According to the Police the Camry driver is ok, just a little shaken. Ambo's not needed just a tow truck

image

image

bloody volvo drivers

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by burnz

in an honest opinion Barina V's kenworth (not that you compared)
but I would take the barina..

in a lot of accidents the small car normally hit the trucks battery box into fuel tank.
or removes the truck right steer tire, maybe a no win for either vehicle.

You must have missed post 69.

Originally Posted by SantoAU

bloody volvo drivers

I wondered who'd be the first to sy it

[burnz]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

You must have missed post 69.
I wondered who'd be the first to sy it

with a Volvo agree battery behind the cab, or strait head on or into trailer.

but with KW's with the battery box in front of the fuel tank, not that confident.

[fte50]

A great vid for those that haven't seen it, and a somewhat eye opening vid for the non believers of "plastic" technology. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iKGfo1wmOM

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by zilo

Glad the OP got out without a scratch

Devil's advocate here...


Got a photo of the Navara to compare the relative damage?

BTW...I don't mind a good happy story...but that doesn't look like an 70km/h head on impact, I say about 45km/h

(cause you would be typing from a hospital bed at 70km)

Much more than 45km/h, closer to 70km/h

I really do love the many years of theoretical experience in this threads.

[EL2794]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

Funny thing about those civics, was the technology of the time allowed each model to be lower and lower (certain suspension types and radiators with side mounted tanks) so they looked really sleek.

Funny you say that actually... Mum has always said the reason she liked it and bought it at the time (it was the last of the runout models) was because of the sleeker/low look. Also the only reason she hasn't upgraded yet - because of the high sides and rear ends on the newer cars.

[Shonky.]

Ef vs GTR

Red means stop douchebag.....

[mik]

Good to see your ok , theres no doubt safety has improved in small cars, be that as it may I think the star system is deeply flawed imo, the tests are fairly limited, and theres is no rear end testing of which rear enders make up 30% of crashes, you look at some small cars from behind and the rear most of the car is a foot or two from the occupant(sometimes less), in my mind the question beckons.......... how the hell does a vehicle like this get a 5 star rating when testing in this area is not carried out ?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by mik

Good to see your ok , theres no doubt safety has improved in small cars, be that as it may I think the star system is deeply flawed imo, the tests are fairly limited, and theres is no rear end testing of which rear enders make up 30% of crashes, you look at some small cars from behind and the rear most of the car is a foot or two from the occupant(sometimes less), in my mind the question beckons.......... how the hell does a vehicle like this get a 5 star rating when testing in this area is not carried out ?

This can be said for any size car! but any car with a 5 star rating has to be better than a car with lower rating.
It is not about how well the car stands up in accident damage wise, it is about how you minimise injury or death.

[UberKnee]

Never knew there were so many car crash experts on the forum. Size isn't the be all and end all in these situations, smarter engineering can make up for size discrepancy.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by shonkymofo

Ef vs GTR

Red means stop douchebag.....

image

You can really see that passive rear steering on the excellent R32 can't you...normally it's hard to imagine how it works but this pic shows it up fine...

Originally Posted by UberKnee

Never knew there were so many car crash experts on the forum. Size isn't the be all and end all in these situations, smarter engineering can make up for size discrepancy.

I'd agree...up to a point where physics takes over and "mass wins"...

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by mik

Good to see your ok , theres no doubt safety has improved in small cars, be that as it may I think the star system is deeply flawed imo, the tests are fairly limited, and theres is no rear end testing of which rear enders make up 30% of crashes, you look at some small cars from behind and the rear most of the car is a foot or two from the occupant(sometimes less), in my mind the question beckons.......... how the hell does a vehicle like this get a 5 star rating when testing in this area is not carried out ?

IIHS in the US tests stuff like rear enders.

[chrisandsharon]

Something I didn't know........ ANCAP ratings are soon to change. The VW Amarok for example sports a 5 star rating but doesn't have rear curtain airbags. Shortly vehicles that do not have rear curtain airbags (vw isn't the only one) will score a 4.

[naddis01]

That change is retarded and will only cause confusion. Surely just adding a more stringent sixth and seventh star would be a better way to go.

[mik]

Originally Posted by UberKnee

Never knew there were so many car crash experts on the forum. Size isn't the be all and end all in these situations, smarter engineering can make up for size discrepancy.

Too each his own , id rather have my rear occupants have a bit of crumple zone between them and the vehicle behind, ask yourself if you feel your rear occupants are safe being belted up a foot away from the rear extremeties of your small car.......... personnaly I like the 4 or 5 foot of my falcon or lexus boot as a bit of a sheet metal buffer.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any stretch, however being a tow truck drivers son and a bloke that's been around smashed cars a bit......... even smashed a few up including rollovers I think I have a right to an opinion.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

ask yourself if you feel your rear occupants are safe being belted up half a foot away from the side extremities of your Falcon.

Ask a similar question...'T' boning accounts for over 1/4 (25%) of crashes according to some studies and even WRC cars cant withstand a +45 Km/h crash into a tree sideways?

We all take our chances, sometimes even the biggest and best engineered car wont save you.
Ive driven near on 1 million Km's mostly in small cars and I have never died, By the scientific reckoning displayed within this and many similar threads that would mean either:
a) small cars avoid crashes better than big cars as many other posters claim they survived the big one because their car was big
b) Small cars are as safe as big cars when they do get hit just the right way.
Whereas the likelihood is Ive been and continue to be lucky or observant and capable of avoiding any incident, would I have been as capable in a big car, would the car be as nimble, braking turning avoiding?
who knows but conjecture has no place in the argument???

JP

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by mik

Too each his own , id rather have my rear occupants have a bit of crumple zone between them and the vehicle behind, ask yourself if you feel your rear occupants are safe being belted up a foot away from the rear extremeties of your small car.......... personnaly I like the 4 or 5 foot of my falcon or lexus boot as a bit of a sheet metal buffer.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any stretch, however being a tow truck drivers son and a bloke that's been around smashed cars a bit......... even smashed a few up including rollovers I think I have a right to an opinion.

Of course you have a right of opinion, that is what forums are about!

I think people forget about the crash design of modern vehicles & that is the car is designed to crumble to lessen the impact to save lives & injuries.
Just don't be surprised when you see the wrecks & people walk away. (survive)

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by UberKnee

Size isn't the be all and end all in these situations, smarter engineering can make up for size discrepancy.

[1TUFFUTE]

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble about small car safety ( although these stories here are great results)..... But the FG falcon was independently tested as the SAFEST car you could buy out of ALL cars on the aus used market.(sorry I've mentioned this quite a few times......but hey....it's a safety thing and I'm proud OUR FG falcons are so safe). And not just some silly five star rubbish!

Good too see everyone safe above!

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by UberKnee

Never knew there were so many car crash experts on the forum. Size isn't the be all and end all in these situations, smarter engineering can make up for size discrepancy.

Why does it have to be one or the other, why can't it be bigger AND smarter? Because when all else is equal (including technology), the bigger and heavier vehicle will prevail.