Comments on: Let’s not ask the experts?

By: Davi Ottenheimer

Davi Ottenheimer — Wed, 21 May 2008 15:42:36 +0000

Oh, hey, I lost track of a smart car safety video from eons ago. Wish I could dig it up for you.
I admired these cars flitting about while I was working from Paris in 2001 and a video showed one slamming head-first at 50+ mph into a concrete wall. The cage was intact and the passenger had no injuries.
The whole irony (I’ll hold back from saying stupidity, since feelings are involved) of the idea that larger vehicles are dangerous to smaller cars so we need larger cars. Fact: “smaller safer” cars are safer (as the word implies) than “larger unsafe” ones. The factors for safety are measured and measurable. If you want smaller cars to survive head-on collisions with a full-speed semi, then make it so (ala Speed Racer bubbles), but let’s realize that even the largest passenger cars will not reliably survive such a collision today and that isn’t making anyone drive a semi to soccer practice.

By: Iang

Iang — Sun, 18 May 2008 14:16:27 +0000

We don’t need science to explain this, just travel to another country, like (mainland) Europe. Or Bahamas in spring break. Or another time, like Prohibition, if travel-shy.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:22:26 +0000

the part of the brain responsible for judgment is not even fully formed until the age of 25.

Ahhh, that explains my post-college choices…

By: beri

beri — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:23:05 +0000

In tradtional Jewish homes, where wine has a sacramental role, alcoholism is very low, because wine is not seen as a (pardon the pun) forbidden fruit. It takes away the thrill of abusing alcohol when you can drink every Friday night and every holiday.

By: Antonomasia

Antonomasia — Fri, 16 May 2008 05:47:26 +0000

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1955793/Tesco-ban-on-alcohol-sales-to-parents.html

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:41:15 +0000

Michael, David, good points, but you assume that the car will hit something. Small, light objects are easier to both maneuver and stop than big, heavy ones. So given two situations, say (a) an SUV and a Smart headed for a head-on collision, and (b) two SUVs headed for the same collision, and everything else being equal, the Smart may stop fast enough that no collision occurs, where the SUVs will slide into each other. Heavy is only useful when you have no alternative to hitting something. But heavy makes that impact more likely.
My car manual clearly states “at high speed, your car maneuvers better than it stops.” It’s not an SUV

By: David Brodbeck

David Brodbeck — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:10 +0000

While I don’t doubt the safety of the Smart ForTwo, there is something to what he’s saying. Part of the issue is the nature of barrier impact testing. The tests are carried out at a consistent speed. Small cars have an advantage in these kinds of tests because they have less energy to dissipate when they strike the barrier. But in the real world cars don’t drive into brick walls very often — they get hit by other cars, and when a large car impacts a small one more of the kinetic energy will be transferred to the small car.
Generally speaking these effects mean you can only compare crash test ratings between cars in the same size class.

By: Michael Froomkin

Michael Froomkin — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:58:36 +0000

"Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the frontal test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle, and the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles. Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes." source: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html So, indeed, the rating of an ultra-light car might well be misleading when it will be on the road with heavier ones...