Are newer small cars safer? Why I always make my kid drive the 300D in bad weather... - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pawoSD · #31 12-07-2004, 01:07 AM

My SD has been hit by an older chevy cavalier, and a new Infiniti, the infiniti rear ended me at about 25mph last January, I was at a light when all the sudden "kuflump" and my car goes about 1-2 feet forward....I personally felt very little force at all.....the guy was all paranoid, he said if it was ok he would just fix his car and not have the need to report it (his whole front bumper got smashed inward, with a mark along the whole thing the shape of my bumper

)....mine had no damage at all, just a green scuff that I polished off. He was really worried that I was upset/hurt, but I agreed everything was ok and just let him take off since I didn't have any damage, so why bother, he was VERY grateful. As for the cavalier, I assume the person was on drugs, drunk, or out to hit someone, as it was at night and I was going through an intersection, and this person in this beat up cavalier like floors it as I am going past them, I swerved about 1.5 lanes as fast as I could, avoiding most of the impact, but his front driver side still hit my rear passenger door and slid along it, causing an impression dent and wrecking the rocker panel/chrome piece, it also made my little rocker panel piece fall off the rear fender...but the metal itself was fine. Eventually I am going to get it fixed, but when he hit me it literally shoved his car sideways (I saw it in the mirror), after he hit me he took off like crazy and I couldn't get any info on his car. Whats lucky is that he completely missed my wheel, only the rear door took the impact, and the window and door itself operate perfectly fine, the door just has a "curve" in it about 3/4" deep or so....this was last december. I always feel safe in my 126, I have ridden in my friend's mom's mazda Protege5, and the doors feel like they are made out of plastic, they're so light. I don't feel safe At allll in that car, and its a 2003....I know if there was an accident between it and a 126 I'd rather be in the 126.

Zeuk in Oz · #32 12-07-2004, 02:57 AM

As a parent of teenagers this is an issue to which I have given much thought and on which I have spent some time trying to research.
I do not question that the rules of physics (ie momentum, kinetic energy etc) must apply but I feel that it is much more complicated than that.
The argument in favour of modern (quality) vehicles, in my opinion, is not so much crumple zones and front air bags, though they are certainly important, but more the numerous devices fitted to quality modern cars to help avoid accidents in the first place.
Obviously the first of these was ABS and I would argue that in the hands of anyone other than a professional racing driver it has definite advantages. Just as useful, in my opinion, are all the other computer driven devices such as stability control, traction control, brake assist etc. Their usefulness in avoiding accidents should not be trivialised.
Side airbags and more importantly window bags are probably more useful in saving lives than front airbags (presuming seatbelts are worn).
The other issue is traction. An all-wheel-drive car in slippery conditions will always be the least likely to lose traction.
The other item of interest that I came across was that many "experts" seemed to think that there was a critical mass of 1300-1400 kg above which a car without front airbags (older) was possibly safer than a car under that weight with front airbags (newer).
A friend of mine who is an engineer and earns his living investigating car crashes also feels it is important that a seatbelt stay in the correct position on the body. He drives a Volvo 740 with ABS but without airbags.
In the real world, however, we have to weigh all these issues against what we can afford and what is practical.
In the end I purchased a 1989 E 34 BMW 525 i (1504 kg) with ABS but no airbags for my children to learn to drive on. This might seem like heresy on this forum but I wanted a manual gearbox and in Australia the W124 300E, which was my first choice, are all automatic. Also the smaller engine (reduced performance) appealed.
What did I send my 17 year-old off in 2 weeks ago when he and his mates went on an end of high-school trip for 10 days ? - our 2002 ML 270 CDI. Even though it has a higher centre of gravity and doesn't handle like the Bimmer, I felt more comfortable knowing that the AWD, traction control, stability control programme, brake assist and all those side and window bags were there if needed. Not to mention 2200 kg and slower diesel acceleration.
Fortunately they all arrived back safely.
Now if someone wants to start a thread about safe driving techniques and how to teach them to teenagers………….

Breckman99 · #33 12-07-2004, 03:42 AM

"Now if someone wants to start a thread about safe driving techniques and how to teach them to teenagers…………."

This is a part of the US system that I really have a problem with. When I got my license all I had to do was go around the block and that was that. Lucky for me I had already been through several driving schools at that point, very tricky those left hand turns

I wish there was a requirement to put kids on a track full of ice so they could get the "feel" for a car and what its breakaway points are. I've been driving since I was around 6 - first car was an old caddylac with a 455 BB in her.... Learned allot about sliding around in fields in that baby. I think about 75% of the people out there need great improvement in their driving skills, I have seen some ludicrous things on the roadways here...

When it comes time to teach my offspring how to drive I will start them as soon as they can reach the pedals, perhaps get a large field in Nebraska (amazing that you can get so much for so little out there!) or somewhere cheap and just let em loose while teaching them all about handling a auto. The lessons come quick and stick with you like riding a bicycle at that age.

inbanshi · #34 12-07-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Breckman99

OH boy. I hate to say this but I do not agree with those of you that say the newer cars are safer at all!!!!! I have carefully inspected thousands of wrecked cars, everything from fender benders to cars that look like a train just hit them. I do not know the circumstances of the particular crash, but when I see a mangled car in the junkyard I look at the structure, at what it might of hit and what happened to the passenger compartment. The worst car I have ever seen? a 2003 oldsmobile alero! The speedo was jammed at around 70, and bits of concrete were still stuck in the engine block. From the impact points and paint markings it looks as if they had hit a concrete road divider head on! What scared me the most about this car you ask??? the floorboard was bent upward, causing the drivers seat to actually be sticking out of the sunroof! I am sad to say that there is no way that the driver lived. In the low speed collisions many of the smaller cars hold up, but once you get to a critical speed the engine usually ends up where the driver should be. I attribute this to the all mighty dollar. Yes that’s right, all those cost cutting corners that corporate america has standardized may mean a lesser build quality.
On the other end of the spectrum, The best accident survivor! a 1991 420 SEL. The front end was completely smashed, the car had rolled several times and the rear burned. Not one body panel without significant damage. Strange thing was all the doors worked!!! The dash was compressed a bit, but I was able to recover all the seats and panels! I am happy to step into my 126 every day knowing this.
I know that this does not mean that it is indestructible by any means, I have seen a 126 that was mangled badly, it was hit by a truck or a semi as the impact was at the B pillar above door line, nobody on the right side of that car lived.
It seems that the newer Benzes are not able to take it as well, the passenger compartments crush just like the japenese cousins. I do think I will be restoring and driving this 126 for decades to come..... Accident free decades that is!

Another note: I do not think ABS is that great of a feature. I disable if I get a car with it. I find that I have more control without it, and can prevent a skid when I need to by limiting the pedal pressure. I also can't drive without being able to lock the rear wheels to spin the rear end of the vehicle around in emergencies. I was once coming down a steep icy slope into a sharp bend when the car broke loose. I locked the rear wheels and was able to steer the car into position to take the curve, then gunned it when I approached the center of the curve and missed the guard rail by several feet. If I were not in my 126 I would have plowed right into that guard rail. Try that with your ABS equipped vehicle! I will someday install a manual brake proportioning valve in this car to make this easier, I had one of these in a Porsche and it was definitely a very handy feature!

I agree.

There have been many references in previous posts that weigh the stiff older Mercedes versus the crumple zoned econo boxes of today. This is a misconception, unless you are refering to '60's MB cars. The first Mercedes designed with the crumple concept was the 116. The first Mercedes designed with the crumple zones AND the ability to absorb an OFFSET crash was the 126.

I think the point here is how a car handles a crash and also maintains the structure around the passengers. (Seatbelts and airbags both have the same general principle, to control your deceleration) Most cars are ok in low speed crashes, and since high speed crashes are relatively rare, many people are just playing the odds of not getting in a severe crash (whether they know it or not.) I will not take that risk, airbags or not. I changed over to Mercedes cars after a lot of personal research about car safety. The US goverment tests are close to a joke. They have basically been the same for two decades. Look at the http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ site. Almost every car on the road is 4 or 5 star. The Insurance Institute tests give you a different picture. insurance institute

These tests are conducted at relatively low speeds though. They clearly say that they can only be compared to cars of the same weight class, acknowledging that crashes involving cars of varying weights give some advantage to the heavier vehicle.

Look at the fine print of this test of the c class. Note that this is one of the only cars that the dash does not begin to collapse in this 40 mph test. Mercedes is just refining the idea they were working on all along.c class

Look at this vehicle which people around here buy because they think it is "safe," which is actually an amazing marketing accomplishment:
blazer

Someone said that the olds crash "should not have done what it did." What the heck, that car was not designed to do any better than it did! I doubt they even venture to test it anywhere near a 70 mph impact! The fact is that those cars are made out of garbage materials, cost cut down to the barest essentials demanded by their marketing departments and the government. Tin can really is the best descrition. I am not much of a gambling man any more. The Excursion guy above has the right idea. Look! the alero falls apart at 40MPH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what a piece of #$%T!!!!!!!
alero

Here is an interesting mercedes safety site someone put together:
wolfgang's

European test site, tough combination of variuos crashe results:
euro

Ausie tests.
down under

Carrameow · #35 12-07-2004, 11:26 AM

but i wanted to see what other's thought..My mother, bless her, once was serious about learning to drive at age 56. Some of it was comical. Some of it was very serious. She hit a trash truck doing 40 mph when she drove on the opposite side of the road. Luckily she was in a '80 Ford LTD Crown Victoria and emerged unscathed. Boy she was very dtermined and didnt give up ( maybe thats where I got it..) Two years later she totaled the Mistubishi version of he Escort with airbags and she had bruised ribs..

Hatterasguy · #36 12-07-2004, 11:55 AM

Now I will throw in my 2 cents: Newer cars are safer. But you cannot compare a W126 to a Honda Civic. A W126 vs W140 vs W220 is a better comparision. Now my school of thought is at a certain point it doesn't matter what you are in your dead. Ie if a fully loaded 18 wheeler t bones you doing 50mph whether your in a Yugo or an S600 you are going to be hurting. However chances are you will live if you are in the S600.

But accident avoidence is just as important, now lets compare my SDL to my friends 1998 E300D. They both have some of the best ABS systems around that work perfectly, they both have airbags although the W210 has more of them and their better. The brakes also about equal on both of them. But the W210 has one big advantage over my W126 it has a limited slip diff and ESP. Now ESP is pretty great my friend and I tried to get it to slide in a parking lot with the ESP on, it would not. W210 owners try this on a rainy day, at about 20mph floor it and crank the wheel hard over, with the ESP on it is a sharp turn, with the ESP off it is a nice slide. People complain about traction control but I would say it is great, it could make the difference between avoiding a crash and sliding sideways into it. Now one thing I love about MB's is they are very easy to control if you do start to slide. Take one to a parking lot and try I think with a little practice I could slide one into a spot!

But back to what I was saying I would take the W210 any day of the week over my W126 in an accident. MB has not been sitting on there buts for the past 20 years.

phidauex · #37 12-07-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwferg

I have my family in a Ford Excursion 7.3L Power stroke diesel Large, Heaviest vehicle on the road ( besides a comercial semi)

...

Although I do feel sorry for the person my wife hits, she actually backed over a toyota camery in a parking lot and thought it was a curb! Almost totaled the 2000 camery!

I'm afraid of your wife. I'm serious! It is people in giant cars who don't know how to drive them that are out slaying people right now. If you tell me she talks on her cell phone while driving it, I'm gonna come over to your house and take it away.

Peace,
Sam

phidauex · #38 12-07-2004, 02:10 PM

I mentioned a few posts back that I had a study that was pretty illuminating that I was going to share, here it is:

http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t021full.pdf

This is the full report, and so it takes a bit of reading, but it is important to know how they got their data, and how they account for variability between drivers and whatnot. It is an observational study, they took data from existing accidents, as opposed to crash testing. Their risk qualification is 'deaths per million vehicles'.

You should really check out some of their graphs, and here is an exerpt I find particularly enlightening (emphasis mine):

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS

1. Midsize and Large Cars. The safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, Camry, and Accord) are as safe as the safest SUV (Suburban); average midsize and large cars are just as safe as the average SUV. However, SUVs impose a greater risk on drivers of other vehicles than do all types of cars. The combined risk of the average SUV (129) is about 30% higher than that for the average large car (100) and 25% higher than that for the average midsize car (105), while the safest SUV (Suburban, 111) has at least a 40% higher combined risk than the three safest midsize and large cars (Avalon, 63; Camry, 72; and Accord, 79).

2. Subcompact and Compact Cars. The safest subcompact (Civic and Jetta) and compact (626 and Altima) car models are as safe to their drivers as the average SUV (see Figures 2 and 3, and Table A5 in the appendix). When one considers the combined risk, including those killed in the other vehicle in two-vehicle crashes, then the safest subcompact and compact models are actually safer than the average SUV. Moreover, the combined risk for the average subcompact or compact car (147 and 136, respectively) is only slightly higher than that for the average SUV (129). A critical aspect of the dispute regarding whether light or small cars are relatively dangerous for their occupants is the very large range in the risk to drivers of subcompact cars (see Figure 2). At one end are the low-risk Jetta and Civic models, as just mentioned, but at roughly twice their risk are the Cavalier, Escort, and Neon models (and their twins). Those three very popular models are responsible for increasing the average risk to drivers of subcompact cars. Does the safety record of those three models prove that lightcars are unsafe? We present evidence that there is no such simple rule. Might it instead suggest that relatively inexpensive cars tend to be unsafe? Perhaps. In any event, the argument that the low weight of cars with high fuel economy has resulted in many excess deaths is unfounded; that by paying careful attention to safety in vehicle design, smaller cars can be, and indeed have been, made as safe as larger ones.

3. Minivans. Of all major vehicle types, minivans have the lowest risk and the lowest combined risk. This is probably due in part to the fact that minivans tend to be driven with special care, often being used for transporting a family’s children. Relatively few minivan drivers are found to be young males (see appendix, Table A3). But the relatively low risk in minivans is probably not all due to driver behavior. The popular minivans are built on car rather than pickup truck platforms, which may reduce the risk to their drivers and certainly reduces the risk to other drivers (Gabler and Hollowell 1998; Hollowell and Gabler 1996; Joksch 1998, 2000). An example of this is that the car-based body of the Grand Cherokee has about 20% lower risk to its drivers than the truck-based Cherokee, a suggestive though statistically marginal result.

4. Pickup Trucks. Pickup trucks, as driven, are riskier than any other major type of vehicle. The risk to drivers of the average pickup is higher than that for minivans, SUVs, and large and midsize cars, although it is not significantly different from that for the average compact and subcompact car. The combined risk is much higher than that for other vehicle types. This high risk is partly due to pickup trucks being driven more in rural areas. It is well established that risk is high in rural driving due to factors such as higher speeds, more miles traveled, and poor road design and conditions. Light trucks, especially pickups and to a lesser extent SUVs, are responsible for the deaths of many people in other vehicles, as shown by the vertical scale in Figures 2 and 3. This result supports earlier findings by Joksch (2000, pp. 9–10), who examined the outcomes of two-vehicle crashes reported by the police. He found that there are twice as many deaths in car-to-pickup crashes as in car-to-car crashes and 1.8 as many deaths in SUV-to-car crashes as in car-to-car crashes. The pattern in car-to-truck crashes is that people die in the truck somewhat less often than in car-to-car crashes, while people die in the car much more often. Nevertheless, trucks are not safer than cars: SUV and pickup users are at unusually high risk of death in one-vehicle crashes, such that drivers of average SUVs face the same risk as drivers of average midsize and large cars while drivers of average pickups face the same risk as drivers of average compact and subcompact cars. A substantial part of the risks light trucks impose on other drivers is associated with the design of trucks (Gabler and Hollowell 1998; Hollowell and Gabler 1996; Joksch 1998, 2000).

5. Import Luxury and Sports Cars. Import luxury cars have the lowest combined risk, while sports cars have the highest combined risk, of all vehicle types studied. The relatively high fraction of young males driving sports cars suggests that much, but not all, of their high risk is associated with aggressive driving.

Peace,
Sam

Carrameow · #39 12-07-2004, 02:11 PM

Some stressed out guy in an ESCALADE, leaving the Mall, talking on the cell-phone with his wife yelling at him, and the kids with the DVD player turned up to the max plus the two Dogs going Crazy in the rear compartment...I witnessed this last night..because he almost ran me over...if he did, I would rather be in my 300D 87 or 85 vice the Corolla anyday...
I am staying off the road during the Holidays, its not safe out there!!!

3Diesels · #40 12-07-2004, 03:52 PM

I have come to believe that car accident survival (and any other death) has a lot to do with "is it my time?"...My sister has had THREE major accidents (and not been hurt more than bruising in any!). The first, she was driving a early 80s Mazda 323 hatchback (teeny, tiny car) and some idiot in a "big American car" turned left in front of her--she hit at about 60 mph--no injuries other than seat belt bruising, car was totalled. Since the 3rd accident, her husband will only let her drive an OLD Volvo 240 (cheaper to replace, but still safe LOL).

Also, I read a recent accident report in the local paper: A new Ford Excursion was driving along the highway at about 65, an older (late 70s/early 80s) Lincoln (the big one) pulled out and the Excursion driver was killed. Lincoln driver was OK, even though the Excursion hit on the driver's side.

I drive both an older Mercedes (190D) and a newer VW Golf. Parked next to each other, they are pretty much the same size...I think the VW is actually a tad longer. I feel safe in both because I wear my seatbelt, sit in the proper position, and drive DEFENSIVELY (my dad knocked this into my head at an early age, sis didn't learn to drive until 25). I mainly end up watching for the MANY people in SUV/Pickup trucks who can not seem to stay on their side of the line on the winding country roads.

There have been 8 "young driver" fatalities this year in our rural county. All of them have been teenage boys who were drinking (or riding with someone drinking). My 12 year old son gets a safety lesson every single time we drive. I actually point out safety hazards (see the deer 200 feet up the road?, see the driver who may or may not pull out in front of you? see the black ice?). Hopefully he will have developed good judgement by the time he's old enough to drive--he'll know what to look for, but will he be able to say NO to his drunk friend? Course, he'll never be leaving the house again now that I think about it...

Cathy

Pete Burton · #41 12-07-2004, 04:24 PM

Sam, thank you for digging up that info and posting it here to see. I especially liked "Import luxury cars have the lowest combined risk, while sports cars have the highest combined risk, of all vehicle types studied" I think we can all agree that safety is almost infinitely complicated, involves a bit of luck, and starts with us. I consider myself lucky to have a very safe car and to take responsibility to keep it that way.

chmilar · #42 12-07-2004, 04:40 PM

From the 2003 NHTSA report:

You are 10% more likely to die in an SUV/LT than a car. (Based on number of registered vehicles.)

SUV deaths increased by 10% over 2002. Car deaths decreased by 5.4%.

59% of SUV deaths occurred in rollovers. (44% for LT's.) 80% of the rollover deaths were single-vehicle accidents. (ie. 50% of all SUV deaths were due to single-vehicle rollover.)

In a head-on collision between SUV/LT, 3.3 times as many car occupants killed as SUV/LT occupants.

When a car is hit on the side by an SUV/LT, 24 times as many car occupants killed.

When an SUV/LT is hit on the side by a car, 1.5 times as many SUV occupants killed.

Seeing how far more car occupants are killed in vehicle-vehicle collisions than SUV occupants, how can the SUV be less safe? Because of the high rate of single-vehicle rollover deaths in SUV's!

Conclusion: SUV/LT's are a hazard to their occupants, and the occupants of other vehicles.

Mass can work in your favor, but more often it works against you!

Pete Burton · #43 12-07-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmilar

From the 2003 NHTSA report:

You are 10% more likely to die in an SUV/LT than a car. (Based on number of registered vehicles.)

SUV deaths increased by 10% over 2002. Car deaths decreased by 5.4%.

59% of SUV deaths occurred in rollovers. (44% for LT's.) 80% of the rollover deaths were single-vehicle accidents. (ie. 50% of all SUV deaths were due to single-vehicle rollover.)

In a head-on collision between SUV/LT, 3.3 times as many car occupants killed as SUV/LT occupants.

When a car is hit on the side by an SUV/LT, 24 times as many car occupants killed.

When an SUV/LT is hit on the side by a car, 1.5 times as many SUV occupants killed.

Seeing how far more car occupants are killed in vehicle-vehicle collisions than SUV occupants, how can the SUV be less safe? Because of the high rate of single-vehicle rollover deaths in SUV's!

Conclusion: SUV/LT's are a hazard to their occupants, and the occupants of other vehicles.

Mass can work in your favor, but more often it works against you!

You make 3 statements here. I mostly agree with the first one, SUV's are not very safe AS DRIVEN. I partly agree with the second. SUV drivers are frequently a hazard to themselves, and others, AS DRIVEN. I disagree with the third. Mass can work in your favor, and it does, especially in collisions with lighter vehicles. The basic principles that govern matter in our universe have not changed recently.

chmilar · #44 12-07-2004, 06:07 PM

A single-vehicle rollover is a case of mass working against the driver. Especially when the mass also collapses the roof over the driver, as I've seen happen to a couple of Explorers and Pathfinders. Since 50% of the SUV deaths are single-vehicle rollovers, at least half of the time mass is a detriment.

The other points are theoretical. An SUV/LT could be driven very safely. However SUV's are driven AS THEY ARE DRIVEN. That isn't going to change soon.

In theory, you could have a vehicle carrying an unstable barrel of nitroglycerin, and giant rotating thresher blades mounted in front, and you could drive it safely. That doesn't mean it is a good idea!

dwferg · #45 12-07-2004, 06:35 PM

[QUOTE=phidauex]I mentioned a few posts back that I had a study that was pretty illuminating that I was going to share, here it is:

http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t021full.pdf

Thank you for the study, what I like about statistics is that a person can manipulate them to what ever point they want to make!!! It is statistical reports that allow such drugs as viox on to the market, which later ends up killing percentages of the population who are just trying not to have sore knees! The problem with our population is that noone knows how to think for themselves anymore!