Yaris high rated in safey among small cars

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/[/url]

Natalie

--


"Wicked little doll, you are not human;
wicked little doll, you have no soul."
(David Byrne, 1997)

Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/[/url]
>
> Natalie
>
> --
>
>
> "Wicked little doll, you are not human;
> wicked little doll, you have no soul."
> (David Byrne, 1997)[/color]

With the optional side airbags it was better; what I want to know is
how well these small cars would hold up against each other (rather than
against a frickin' tank like an Escalade). I suspect they'd be ok

The one thing that bothers me about these tests is they freak people
out so they buy even bigger cars to protect themselves and disregard
common sense protections like defensive driving, watching the road and
slowing down.

I say a small prayer every day as I leave in my no-side-airbagged Yaris
hatchback.

"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166546515.778055.260580@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/[/url]
>
> Natalie
>
> --
>
>
> "Wicked little doll, you are not human;
> wicked little doll, you have no soul."
> (David Byrne, 1997)[/color]

With the optional side airbags it was better; what I want to know is
how well these small cars would hold up against each other (rather than
against a frickin' tank like an Escalade). I suspect they'd be ok

The one thing that bothers me about these tests is they freak people
out so they buy even bigger cars to protect themselves and disregard
common sense protections like defensive driving, watching the road and
slowing down.

I say a small prayer every day as I leave in my no-side-airbagged Yaris
hatchback.

Seerialmom

My theory is that no matter what you drive, unless it's like a semi, there
will always be something bigger to mow ya down, so it's all relative.

Natalie

Natty, as a former design engineer, that helped develop crumple zones, I can
tell you contrary to what many would have you believe, statistically less
than 8% of ALL the millions new vehicles sold annually in the US will EVER
be in accident sufficient to deploy the SRS, in THEIR LIFETIME.

Your bigger problem is you are driving a very small car, statistically
doubling you chances of being killed in a collision in which the SRS is
deployed. One can not defy the laws of physics, the larger the vehicle the
safer it is for properly belted passengers, period

Small car simply do not have enough room for engineers to build in proper
crumple zones to sufficiently lower the terminal speed of the third
collision, where one organs strike ones skeleton. Buy that Lexus LS V8 NOW,
WBMA, if you are worried you may be one of the 8%. :-(


mike


"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166546515.778055.260580@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/[/url]
>
> Natalie
>
> --
>
>
> "Wicked little doll, you are not human;
> wicked little doll, you have no soul."
> (David Byrne, 1997)[/color]

With the optional side airbags it was better; what I want to know is
how well these small cars would hold up against each other (rather than
against a frickin' tank like an Escalade). I suspect they'd be ok

The one thing that bothers me about these tests is they freak people
out so they buy even bigger cars to protect themselves and disregard
common sense protections like defensive driving, watching the road and
slowing down.

I say a small prayer every day as I leave in my no-side-airbagged Yaris
hatchback.

[color=blue]
>
>
> "Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166546515.778055.260580@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=green]
> > [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/[/url]
> >
> > Natalie
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > "Wicked little doll, you are not human;
> > wicked little doll, you have no soul."
> > (David Byrne, 1997)[/color]
>
> With the optional side airbags it was better; what I want to know is
> how well these small cars would hold up against each other (rather than
> against a frickin' tank like an Escalade). I suspect they'd be ok
>
> The one thing that bothers me about these tests is they freak people
> out so they buy even bigger cars to protect themselves and disregard
> common sense protections like defensive driving, watching the road and
> slowing down.
>
> I say a small prayer every day as I leave in my no-side-airbagged Yaris
> hatchback.[/color]

Mike Hunter wrote:[color=blue]
> Natty, as a former design engineer, that helped develop crumple zones, I can
> tell you contrary to what many would have you believe, statistically less
> than 8% of ALL the millions new vehicles sold annually in the US will EVER
> be in accident sufficient to deploy the SRS, in THEIR LIFETIME.
>
> Your bigger problem is you are driving a very small car, statistically
> doubling you chances of being killed in a collision in which the SRS is
> deployed. One can not defy the laws of physics, the larger the vehicle the
> safer it is for properly belted passengers, period
>
> Small car simply do not have enough room for engineers to build in proper
> crumple zones to sufficiently lower the terminal speed of the third
> collision, where one organs strike ones skeleton. Buy that Lexus LS V8 NOW,
> WBMA, if you are worried you may be one of the 8%. :-(
>
>
> mike[/color]

Actually the Yaris HB, although "short" is bigger than my last three
cars (2 Festivas and a Fiesta). I'd still like to see a crash test
with 2 small cars against each other :)

Mike -

Do you agree that if we could significantly lower the average weight of
cars on the road that the chances of being killed would decrease? Are
the head-on collisions the problem, or is it more an issue of hitting
inanimate objects like bridge abutments? It seems like a shame that a
150 lb person needs to drive something that weighs 20-40 times what
he/she does in order to be relatively safe at highway speeds.


Mike Hunter wrote:[color=blue]
> Natty, as a former design engineer, that helped develop crumple zones, I can
> tell you contrary to what many would have you believe, statistically less
> than 8% of ALL the millions new vehicles sold annually in the US will EVER
> be in accident sufficient to deploy the SRS, in THEIR LIFETIME.
>
> Your bigger problem is you are driving a very small car, statistically
> doubling you chances of being killed in a collision in which the SRS is
> deployed. One can not defy the laws of physics, the larger the vehicle the
> safer it is for properly belted passengers, period
>
> Small car simply do not have enough room for engineers to build in proper
> crumple zones to sufficiently lower the terminal speed of the third
> collision, where one organs strike ones skeleton. Buy that Lexus LS V8 NOW,
> WBMA, if you are worried you may be one of the 8%. :-(
>
>
> mike
>
>
> "Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166546515.778055.260580@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Wickeddoll® wrote:[color=green]
> > [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16273695/[/url]
> >
> > Natalie
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > "Wicked little doll, you are not human;
> > wicked little doll, you have no soul."
> > (David Byrne, 1997)[/color]
>
> With the optional side airbags it was better; what I want to know is
> how well these small cars would hold up against each other (rather than
> against a frickin' tank like an Escalade). I suspect they'd be ok
>
> The one thing that bothers me about these tests is they freak people
> out so they buy even bigger cars to protect themselves and disregard
> common sense protections like defensive driving, watching the road and
> slowing down.
>
> I say a small prayer every day as I leave in my no-side-airbagged Yaris
> hatchback.[/color]

"Mark" <bogusmailmark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166645676.478306.67560@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Mike -

Do you agree that if we could significantly lower the average weight of
cars on the road that the chances of being killed would decrease? Are
the head-on collisions the problem, or is it more an issue of hitting
inanimate objects like bridge abutments? It seems like a shame that a
150 lb person needs to drive something that weighs 20-40 times what
he/she does in order to be relatively safe at highway speeds.

**********************

A significant reduction in the maximum gross vehicle weight of ALL vehicles
on the road would reduce the chance of being killed in a collision with an
average vehicle, with the cost side of the equation being a increases in air
pollution, road congestion, overall fuel consumption, and in the cost of all
goods.

A significant reduction in the average weight of cars on the road without a
reduction in the weight of every other vehicle on the road would probably
result in an increase in the chances of being killed in a vehicle-to-vehicle
crash.

A significant reduction in the size of passenger vehicles will result in
increased injuries and deaths as the result of hitting inanimate objects
like bridge abutments.


--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Actually the Yaris HB, although "short" is bigger than my last three
> cars (2 Festivas and a Fiesta). I'd still like to see a crash test
> with 2 small cars against each other :)[/color]

From a physics standpoint, two identical cars crashing into each other
head-on is exactly the same as crashing into a cement wall.

So the NHTSA data are meaningful for you there.

One thing the big-iron manufacturers don't mention is that a big vehicle
is more dangerous than a small vehicle when hitting a stationary object
such as a big tree or concrete barrier, because there is more force to be
dissipated in a big vehicle. F=ma, force = mass * acceleration.

----[color=blue]
> Do you agree that if we could significantly lower the average weight of
> cars on the road that the chances of being killed would decrease? Are
> the head-on collisions the problem, or is it more an issue of hitting
> inanimate objects like bridge abutments? It seems like a shame that a
> 150 lb person needs to drive something that weighs 20-40 times what
> he/she does in order to be relatively safe at highway speeds.
>[/color]
I don't think weight has anything to do with how well a car holds up in
a crash. That is, heavier is not necessarily safer. Design has a lot
to do with how safe a car is in a crash. The Smart car has a safety
cage built around the passenger compartment that helps maintain
structural integrity in a crash. If you run into an oak tree with a
6000 pound car you won't be any safer than running into the same oak
tree with a Smart car. The tree is not going to move.
In theory you need to dissipate the kinetic energy of your body moving
forward at a given velocity. And, this slowing down needs to happen is
a very short period of time. If you can spread that force over a large
area of your body, you have a good chance of surviving without injury.
If the force is localized to one point on your body, that's when an
injury occurs. At least that's the way I see it.
Now I guess if you hit a 6000 pound truck with a 1500 pound Smart car,
the Smart car might have to reverse direction, if the impact was head
on. This would increase the change in kinetic energy. Let's hope it's
not a head on crash.

In article <4589e5b5@news.meer.net> [email]ccreekin@yahoo.com[/email] "Bill
Tuthill" writes:
[color=blue]
> One thing the big-iron manufacturers don't mention is that a
> big vehicle is more dangerous than a small vehicle when hitting
> a stationary object such as a big tree or concrete barrier,
> because there is more force to be dissipated in a big vehicle.
> F=ma, force = mass * acceleration.[/color]

And let's not forget our friend Kinetic Energy, 0.5 * m * v * v,
the energy to be dissipated and which is available to deform big
chunks of metal and create interesting razor edges, smash window
glass into skin-shredding shards, rip off limbs &c. That little
formula reminds us that, actually, reducing velocity reduces the
KE faster: halve the mass and halve KE but halve the velocity to
_quarter_ the KE.

Example of KE (metric units; apologies to our team Victorians):
Vehicle mass: 1500 Kg (ie, about 1.5 Imperial tons)
Vehicle velocity: 80 Km/h --> 22.22 m/sec (ie, about 50mph)
KE = about 370370 joules (ie, the energy used by a 3KW fire
during slightly over 2 minutes)
--
Andrew Stephenson

The may apply to a solid block but when applied to applied vehicles with
crumple zones, the data does not support your personal opinion. ;)

mike


"Bill Tuthill" <ccreekin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4589e5b5@news.meer.net...

[color=blue]
> Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One thing the big-iron manufacturers don't mention is that a big vehicle
> is more dangerous than a small vehicle when hitting a stationary object
> such as a big tree or concrete barrier, because there is more force to be
> dissipated in a big vehicle. F=ma, force = mass * acceleration.
>[/color]

Can we assume you never heard of the third collision, where one organs
strike ones skeleton? The fact is ridding in a small car doubles one
changes of being killed in a collision of any type, compared to a large car
;)


mike


"Don in San Antonio" <drist@att.net> wrote in message
news:4589ef21$0$17131$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...[color=blue]
> ----[color=green]
>> Do you agree that if we could significantly lower the average weight of
>> cars on the road that the chances of being killed would decrease? Are
>> the head-on collisions the problem, or is it more an issue of hitting
>> inanimate objects like bridge abutments? It seems like a shame that a
>> 150 lb person needs to drive something that weighs 20-40 times what
>> he/she does in order to be relatively safe at highway speeds.
>>[/color]
> I don't think weight has anything to do with how well a car holds up in a
> crash. That is, heavier is not necessarily safer. Design has a lot to do
> with how safe a car is in a crash. The Smart car has a safety cage built
> around the passenger compartment that helps maintain structural integrity
> in a crash. If you run into an oak tree with a 6000 pound car you won't
> be any safer than running into the same oak tree with a Smart car. The
> tree is not going to move.
> In theory you need to dissipate the kinetic energy of your body moving
> forward at a given velocity. And, this slowing down needs to happen is a
> very short period of time. If you can spread that force over a large area
> of your body, you have a good chance of surviving without injury. If the
> force is localized to one point on your body, that's when an injury
> occurs. At least that's the way I see it.
> Now I guess if you hit a 6000 pound truck with a 1500 pound Smart car, the
> Smart car might have to reverse direction, if the impact was head on.
> This would increase the change in kinetic energy. Let's hope it's not a
> head on crash.[/color]

Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> One thing the big-iron manufacturers don't mention is that a big vehicle
>> is more dangerous than a small vehicle when hitting a stationary object
>> such as a big tree or concrete barrier, because there is more force to be
>> dissipated in a big vehicle. F=ma, force = mass * acceleration.
>>[/color]
> The may apply to a solid block but when applied to applied vehicles with
> crumple zones, the data does not support your personal opinion. ;)[/color]

Although the NHTSA crash data show a Saab is safer than a Suburban,
thus supporting my personal opinion. :-(

I believe you are confused, both the SAAB and the Suburban meet all NHTSA
standards. Even if what you believe to be true was true, larger vehicles
are still safer than smaller vehicles, for properly belted passengers.
Regardless of your personal opinion, the fact remains ones chances of being
killed doubles for passenger riding in small cars.. Antidotally you can
prove it to yourself by visiting any salvage yard and observing which
destroyed vehicles faired better in actually collisions


mike


"Bill Tuthill" <ccreekin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:458ac98e@news.meer.net...[color=blue]
> Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>
>>> One thing the big-iron manufacturers don't mention is that a big vehicle
>>> is more dangerous than a small vehicle when hitting a stationary object
>>> such as a big tree or concrete barrier, because there is more force to
>>> be
>>> dissipated in a big vehicle. F=ma, force = mass * acceleration.
>>>[/color]
>> The may apply to a solid block but when applied to applied vehicles with
>> crumple zones, the data does not support your personal opinion. ;)[/color]
>
> Although the NHTSA crash data show a Saab is safer than a Suburban,
> thus supporting my personal opinion. :-(
>[/color]

Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> I believe you are confused, both the SAAB and the Suburban meet all NHTSA
> standards. Even if what you believe to be true was true, larger vehicles
> are still safer than smaller vehicles, for properly belted passengers.[/color]

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't imply any of those things.
All I said is that, when hitting a fixed object, there is more force
to dissipate in a heavier vehicle.
[color=blue]
> Regardless of your personal opinion, the fact remains ones chances of being
> killed doubles for passenger riding in small cars.. Antidotally you can
> prove it to yourself by visiting any salvage yard and observing which
> destroyed vehicles faired better in actually collisions[/color]

Let's look facts. The IIHS did not test the Suburban, but the
structurally simlar Silverado Classic 1500 received a "Marginal" rating
in the offset crash test, while the Saab 9-5 sedan received a "Good" rating.
The Suburban was rated "Fair" in a Gov't rollover test, the Saab "Good".