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

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)

- Diesel Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

- - Are newer small cars safer? Why I always make my kid drive the 300D in bad weather... (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=109626)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chmilar

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!

A well made, large sedan such as an older W126 or a number of newer, well made sedans have a relatively low center of gravity, making a rollover unlikely except for the very stupid or careless. The internal 6 point rollover roof structure will not collapse like an Explorer. Mass in a vehicle is not dangerous, but a poor distrubution and use of it is. Other factors being equal, the more mass in the vehicle you are traveling in when it collides with another, the less deceleration and subsequent forces are applied to your body. You can rant about how poorly driven SUV's roll over a lot (of course), or try to obscure reality with silly comments about nitroglycerin, but conservation of energy is a pretty fundamental concept used in design of everything, especially passenger vehicles

[QUOTE=dwferg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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!

Glad you.. appreciated the study. ;) Statistics can be a tool, a crutch, or a method of manipulation, depending on how they are used. However, I posted the whole study, instead of just quoting a few numbers, which will let you, the intelligent reader, decide how to interpret them.

The only people who can be mislead through statistics are the people who don't understand how statistics work. If you understand how they work, and how they are generated, you can get a lot of illumination out of them by seeing patterns and trends you wouldn't ordinarily notice. They are a tool to aid comprehension, if you take the time to put them in the right context.

Anyway, I thought it was a useful study, based purely on existing data.

peace,
sam

Another quick note: People keep coming back to old Newton's physics, like F=MA and whatnot. However, the first thing you learn in physics is that the world works through a handful of basic rules (thats as far as most people get). The second thing you learn in physics is that none of those simple rules mean anything in a real-world context.

If two vehicles run into each other head on at the same speed, the resultant 'car mass' won't necessarily be moving in the same direction as the heavier car was. There are a lot of places energy can go besides side to side kinetic energy, and a lot of variables that will determine who lives or dies. Weight is only one of a few characteristics determining the outcome of an accident, to the point where it is not a factor in making a car safer. Numbers from both observational and experimental studies back this up. I don't care how much 'beefier' you feel when you are in a big vehicle, the thing that determines your outcome in an accident is the design of the vehicle. Now, what constitutes a 'good design' is a bit up in the air. Suburbans and Jettas both seem to have safe designs, but are vastly different vehicles. Why buy the Suburban again? I hope safety isn't your answer...

Peace,
Sam

You think Yugo is bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobK

A Yugo at 200MPH? Was Santa Claus driving? Sorry I actually agree with you on the physics, I just can't get my arms around the visual of a Yugo doing 200mph, even if dropped from an airplane! All I know is my daughter is fine after her little "down the embankment, pole hunting expedition" in her 124. For that, I am grateful to MB. And I'm still trying to get into her head the idea that SHE is responsible for maintaining a safe distance/speed to what ever she sees or cannot see in front of her. Unless an airplane drops out of the sky on the road in front of her, she better be able to stop in time.

Look at this one. :eek:
http://www.microcar.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=101&topic_id=233&mesg_id=233&page=
What would happen to that in modern city traffic???

Kia (Hyundai) Spectra first poor rating since 2001

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0417.htm#

Don't want to immagine a crash in this at any speed, especially higher than the test speed.