UKC

I found this quite an eye opener.

youtube.com/watch?v=mLLanPwRgio&

In reply to Timmd:

Personally I thought the Renault would be safer at the start but I did recently do some studying related to crash safety.

It's worth seeing though, 40mph can feel so slow but that crash was unbelievably f*cking violent. Gotta take care, driving is the most dangerous thing a lot of people ever do.

In reply to Timmd:

I had a similar crash (40% overlap) on a single track in the Highlands at the top of a blind brow. I was in a Freelander and the other car was a Mondeo, the estimated speeds were slightly higher (me 40mph, Mondeo 50mph). The Mondeo looked in far better condition than my Freelander that had a twisted chassis beyond repair. I also had my kids in car seats in the back, both were ok bar for seat belt bruising. Lady in Mondeo broke her arm but walked away ok (airbag never went off in Mondeo). My airbag went off and I never had any injury, the passenger airbag didn't and the mrs had bad bruising to her legs but otherwise walked away. Don't always count on airbags going off.

In reply to Steve Perry:

I like how cleverly designed the Espace is to send the energy around the occupants, I think that's really intelligently done.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Yes, people can seem to think nothing of bombing along with not 100% of their focus being applied to driving. Apparently the speed at which it can be certain that people will survive is 25mph (the context for this was a car going into the back of a stationary tractor), which is too slow for people to be happy with when it comes to getting anywhere, which makes being on the alert really critical if we're going to be safe.

In reply to Timmd:

Terrifying how safe we all feel in our glass and metal bubbles.

Here's some interesting reading, sometimes heavy is best, sometimes modern is best.

"This publication presents estimates of the risk of driver injury in popular models of car, if they are involved in a two car injury accident. It does not address issues of primary safety and gives no information on whether or not specific makes of car have different risks of being involved in an accident. The statistics are based on personal injury road accident data reported to the Department for Transport by police forces within Great Britain."

http://web.archive.org/web/20080613172011/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statist...

In reply to Timmd:
The whole series of these 5th gear videos are well worth watching especially the one below.

The renault system is astonishing... not sure if it was topgear or 5th gear that had a feature on it basically the car falls apart round you in a almost comical way leaving the occupants safe. great idea, and effective in single impact collisions, but it does make me wonder if it would be a disadvantage in a multiple shunt like this horrifying 5th gear video on the problem with fog & crashes:

youtube.com/watch?v=NwcVEnyxeo8&
Ok the cars are old, but you still see some on the roads, and I don't think modern cars would fair a huge amount better

In reply to Timmd:

They did a similar crash with a Renault Modus against an old style volvo estate and again the Renault won despite being much smaller than the volvo.
These crashes really highlight how far car design has developed and makes me think that I should replace my 14 year old ford focus. Even though it was considered a relatively safe and advanced vehicle when it was made it's probably miles behind a new car.

In reply to Timmd:


Particularly if the collision is with a more vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian.

In reply to Orgsm:

Don't be silly. There's no way you're going to be seriously hurt driving a modern car if you just crash into a pedestrian.

In reply to Timmd:

Renault have a long and honourable reputation for not designing to the test and producing vehicles that are survivable in the real world and not just if you are a crash test dummy looking at a concrete block.

Crash results are often not what you'd expect. The Ford Escort vs Nissan Micra I saw on the A82 many years ago was a case in point. Very very very mangled Ford and beautifully controlled crumple Nissan that still looked like a Nissan.

However, I would prefer a car that is less likely to crash. That's a car with good suspension, good brakes and premium tyres for a start. Then one that has less distracting garbage telling me everything from how close some irrelevant obstruction is while I wait at a junction to annoying me because I didn't turn left into a street that no longer exists. Maybe one that is simple enough that it can easily be kept in safe condition too.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Seeing one of these had a similar effect on me - I now feel much happier (for which read safer) in my two year old Fiesta than in my 12 year old Focus estate, despite the Focus being a bigger car.

In reply to deepsoup:


And sadly that the way many drive, I'm safe don't need to worry about others.

In reply to Timmd:

The more interesting test would be to crash a new SUV (eg the brand new Volvo XC90) into a new small people carrier (eg VM Touran) and see the result on each 5 star rated euroncap car.

Money would be on the smaller car coming off much worse (as per euroncap website which states your can't compare ratings if weight differential is more than 150kg)

This would highlight the "arms race" issue of people buyig large SUVs and the resultant impact if they crash into smaller road users.

In reply to jonfun21:
That's quite interesting about the weight differential, 150kg doesn't sound like a very large weight difference to me somehow. There does seem to be an 'arms race' of sorts.

In reply to Timmd:
Indeed, actual was +/- 150 kgs. From the AA:

Are large cars safer than small cars?
In a frontal crash between two cars, occupants in the heavier car or the one with higher structures will tend to fare better.

The influence of mass cannot be simulated in a barrier test and Euro NCAP recommends comparison only between cars which are of a similar mass (+/- 150kg) and in the same category.

Can results be compared between groups?
Accurate comparisons can only be made between cars in the same group. The frontal test reflects a crash between two similar cars.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/euroncap/euroncap-faqs.html

In reply to Timmd:
As a former Defender owner it was always amusing to see those who touted the line, or had a bumper sticker insinuating 'you are my crumple zone'.

If there was one car I would NEVER want to be inside during a crash it would be an old Discovery or any Defender. Anything other than a pure head on would probably result in obliteration, rolling and complete annihilation.

I just hope I don't lose my driving awareness now I have airbags.

Looking for defender crash tests, this real accident was horrific!

youtube.com/watch?v=nu7na0ytK0o&

And the aftermath...

youtube.com/watch?v=EL-E_n_YQJY&

In reply to GarethSL:
Very horrific, I guess it's no surprise that anybody in the Defender was killed outright.

A crazy risk to take, to overtake around a corner too.

In reply to Timmd:

I should probably mention that the aftermath video isn't quite forum safe and is pretty graphic if you see the whole thing. I had initially skipped through to see the damage to the vehicle and had not registered that the occupants are still inside, ish.

If any mods wish to edit that out for me it might be a good idea...

In reply to cuppatea:


Cant remember where i heard it but someone said the best way to make the roads safer was to stick a metal spike on every steering wheel. See how much more seriously drivers would take their responsibility for driving sensibly.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

Its also a societal thing of 'its more important I get where I am going as fast as possible rather than considering the implication to others of driving as fast/dangerously'

It still amazes me how many people you see using their phones/playing with screens whilst driving - only way to stop it is to make it an instantaneous 1 year ban if caught etc.

Alternatively making everyone ride a bike on a road now and again might improve things.

In reply to cuppatea:


We are pretty safe in our glass and metal bubbles.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Which isn't quite the same as invulnerability (which I'm not saying you're implying).

I can remember how before I fell off my road bike at about 28 miles an hour, it was always an abstract concept to me - what it must be like to fall off going that fast, in that I knew it must be bad, but cycling that fast was/is pretty fun too so I put it to the back of my mind, and then I did fall off going that fast and the amount of energy involved or it's impact on my body became apparent to me when I fell off and head butted the wall (happily escaping a brain injury if you discount being concussed for 2 and a bit weeks), and kind of went splat on the ground before I did.

What I'm ramblingly getting to, is that I'm now a hell of a lot of more cautious when I'm cycling, having had an 'up close' experience of the consequences of quite a fast crash, and that I think it's a good thing that for most drivers most of the time a crash is just an abstract concept, but I think it perhaps escapes people - the amount of energy involved in a crash, and what the potential outcome might be.

In reply to Timmd:

I went to a lecture last year from a professor who was highly influential in setting up Euro-NCAP in the first place.

It was very interesting, especially from 2 points
1 - how technology has developed over the years to make cars safer both inside and out, such as the safety cell for occupants and how energy can be absorbed.

2 - how manufacturers have tried to make their cars appear safer than they actually are, by analysing the tests and, for example, adding extra bits around the driver that aren't around the passenger, etc. Famously, one maker actually added concealed hooks in the seat to catch the dummy and stop it sliding and another had specific reinforcing to beat another test, but the testers found them! Note that these "features" are in all production models, as the makers don't know which car is going to be picked for testing.

In reply to LastBoyScout:
That's very sneaky & dishonest.

In reply to Timmd:

Top Gear covered this years ago, with NCAP'ed destroyed 4x4 and a well rated hatchback, showing how much the 4x4 crumpled into the passenger area, and how the car absorbed the impact better. It does show how looks aren't everything!

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

It does.

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

This one between an older Volvo 940 and a newer Renault Modus is informative too.

youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs&

In reply to jonfun21:



I do think this is a massive problem and it's not just the SUVs all these "plus" size cars- even just the fact you can't see through them (or round them at junctions) which means you should drop back further when tailing them as you don't have the ability to anticipate them avoiding something in front. The same applies to privacy glass which should be banned in my opinion. It is a huge advantage to see through the vehicle in front - it's not always possible with vans and lorries etc, but for cars why would you make it more likely to be rear shunted than if you left your class clear? Its amazing how many people I know who have SUVs that wax lyrical about how good the driving position is being able to see over cars and the anticipation it gives, yet have blacked out rear windows.

Not to mention the issue of being blinded by lights (and they're getting ever higher intensity) because the SUV behind you has lights as high as your rear view mirrors, and the fact that on coming suv lights shine over motorway central res barriers.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Is this genuinely a problem? Considering the amount of vans, lorries, large vehicles etc on the road blocking line of sight through them, I've never had an issue driving safely with them. If you anticipate, drive at a safe speed and with decent space between you (like with all cars) then you shouldn't risk a crash any more than usual.

By the same logic you should make vans illegal. Try reversing out of a driveway in a van with cars parked either side. Or those sports cars with ridiculously long bonnets, how do they pull out of blind junctions? Etc etc etc. Once you start down this line where do you stop?

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

do you honestly think being able to see through a vehicle in front doesn't help you stop in time should the vehicle 2 in front hits the brakes? Would you rather the driver behind you has a chance to anticipate something a few milliseconds earlier than not?

All I'm saying is travelling x distance behind a vehicle you can see through is safer than the same distance behind a vehicle you can't see through, and many people don't leave the space they should.

As to where do you stop, I think it's a matter of need. Clearly if you are regularly transporting bulky items around you need a van or lorry to do it and these vehicles have additional safety limits imposed on them due to the danger they pose (lower speed limits, limits on when they can enter some cities etc). Do you need a 6 seater vehicle capable of scaling 35% inclines and deep ruts to take 1 kid to school? And I agree there are all sorts of cars that are of questionable design when it comes to safety (other than passing the unrepresentative tests).

Incidentally Vehicle weight is something that is being looked at very carefully in the insurance industry... its very likely that "high" variants of vehicles and SUVs will become massively more expensive to insure due to the injuries they inflict on third parties (previously only significantly larger vehicles attracted much of a penalty - e.g. vans, lorries, pickups, some 4x4s).

Over the years vehicle design has focused on safety only of the occupants, not other road users (including occupants of other vehicles) look at the VW golf. It weighs nearly twice as much as the original, a lot of that weight (that endangers others) was added to improve safety of the occupants