Recent Topics
Are the 2002-vintage Northstars something to avoid
by redhat
07/30/14 12:07 PM
How hot is too hot for EOT?
by Griz95
07/30/14 11:29 AM
Mix my own dexos1??
by wolf_06
07/30/14 09:46 AM
Avoid FedEx
by Touring5
07/30/14 09:45 AM
New vehicle protocol
by Mfrank84
07/30/14 09:13 AM
Four Baldwin BT223 oil filters
by NormanBuntz
07/30/14 09:13 AM
UOA: 02 WRX 5MT, 40K - Valvoline "cocktail" 80w90
by Buffman
07/30/14 08:37 AM
Help me select the correct Dex/Merc fluid.
by reemoe2
07/30/14 08:03 AM
IIHS crash testing on small cars
by Hokiefyd
07/30/14 07:58 AM
Havoline Conventional 5w20, thoughts?
by wemay
07/30/14 07:35 AM
Powerful car crusher..
by pbm
07/30/14 07:18 AM
Air / oil separator. . . .
by Robster
07/30/14 07:17 AM
Newest Members
StephenSanchez, Tony05, sacamano, handy, amber
50800 Registered Users
Who's Online
101 registered (4wheeldog, 05LGTLtd, 97tbird, 123Saab, A_Harman, 8 invisible), 2086 Guests and 228 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
50800 Members
64 Forums
217035 Topics
3417242 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#3256158 - 01/22/14 11:47 AM Small cars and small overlap front crash test
Quattro Pete Offline


Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 24852
Loc: Illinoistan
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/minicars-fall-short-for-small-overlap-frontal-protection

Good (just barely) news for Chevy Spark. Bad news for all others.

In all honesty though, even many larger cars did poorly in this test as they haven't been designed in a way to pass it. I'm sure within a few years the new designs will be introduced that will do well in this test, and the added cost will be passed on to us - the consumers.

And then IIHS will come up with yet another test that nobody can pass so that the insurance companies can hike up your rates "because your car isn't safe."
_________________________
'02 530i (PU 5W-40)
'08 C300 4Matic (M1 0W-40)
'13 F700 GS (Spectro 15W-50)

Top
#3256167 - 01/22/14 11:54 AM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
eljefino Offline


Registered: 06/15/03
Posts: 23562
Loc: ME
You said it all.

Since side impacts are safe now we're going to start ramming telegraph poles head-on again?

How about making *them* softer? Ski areas do it! LOL

Top
#3256177 - 01/22/14 12:09 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
rjundi Offline


Registered: 03/16/04
Posts: 5995
Loc: New England
This size of car class IMHO is a poor value anyway and that is too bad less safe.

The FIT for example did poorly in this test. I really don't see the value of that vehicle vs a Civic which achieves significantly better MPG, larger, better comfort and gets a good rating for the same crash test. The base price difference is $3000.

I don't get these really small cars.

Top
#3256183 - 01/22/14 12:15 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
stranger706 Offline


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 870
Loc: Gulf Coast
The last paragraph from the article -

"Frontal crash tests like these only indicate how a car will perform in a crash with a similarly-sized vehicle. In real life, however, cars this size are much more likely to hit a larger vehicle, the Institute pointed out. Insurance Institute crash tests have indicated that, in crashes between larger and smaller vehicles, occupants in the smaller vehicle will suffer significantly greater injuries.

"These cars have an inherent safety disadvantage in many kinds of crashes," Insurance Institute spokesman Russ Rader said."

Top
#3256200 - 01/22/14 12:23 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
dparm Offline


Registered: 04/19/10
Posts: 12359
Loc: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

In all honesty though, even many larger cars did poorly in this test as they haven't been designed in a way to pass it.



Your choice of words is interesting. Are we designing cars merely to pass the test, or to be safe? If the car is protecting the passengers, it should be able to pass the test...it's not supposed to be the other way around.
_________________________
2011.5 BMW M3 saloon ZCP
der stärkste buchstabe der welt
Castrol Edge Professional TWS 10w60 + Mahle OX 254D3

Top
#3256201 - 01/22/14 12:24 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
RISUPERCREWMAN Offline


Registered: 07/29/08
Posts: 655
Loc: RHODE ISLAND
Whether I'm driving my 2011 Crown Vic or 08 F-150 I feel safe! Small cars are for the birds!
_________________________
2012 Ram Express 5.7 HEMI 2wd short bed 24k miles
2012 Harley Davidson FLHX Vivid Black 11K
2011 Ford Crown Victoria 57K miles Stainless works duals

Top
#3256207 - 01/22/14 12:27 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: dparm]
Quattro Pete Offline


Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 24852
Loc: Illinoistan
Originally Posted By: dparm
Are we designing cars merely to pass the test, or to be safe?

Good question. How do we determine if a car is safe? Typically we determine this by looking at how it did in one test or another because this data is readily available.

Sure, you could search for fatality and injury rates instead, but since these accidents happen in uncontrolled environments, you never know if you're comparing apples to apples.
_________________________
'02 530i (PU 5W-40)
'08 C300 4Matic (M1 0W-40)
'13 F700 GS (Spectro 15W-50)

Top
#3256224 - 01/22/14 12:35 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
VNTS Online   content


Registered: 03/01/07
Posts: 1208
Loc: NE
saw this on the morning news, guy said the Fit is a basically a death trap.

Top
#3256232 - 01/22/14 12:43 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
surfstar Offline


Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4277
Loc: Santa Barbara, CA
How does this relate to past "car-size classes"?

Remember how the Civic now-a-days is larger than an Accord from the past? e.g. - the Fit/Versa were designed to fill the void by the Civic/Sentra as they continued to grow with each redesign.

A Tacoma is much bigger than it used to be. Eventually we'll all be driving tanks.

I'm assuming a 2014 Fit is safer than a 1988 Accord, so at what point is it 'good enough'?
_________________________
2000 Civic HX 1.6L MTX ~42mpg
2005 Saturn Vue 2.2L MTX ~27mpg
--My 'new' car will be an early retirement--

Top
#3256236 - 01/22/14 12:45 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: dparm]
IndyIan Offline


Registered: 09/23/08
Posts: 5367
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

In all honesty though, even many larger cars did poorly in this test as they haven't been designed in a way to pass it.



Your choice of words is interesting. Are we designing cars merely to pass the test, or to be safe? If the car is protecting the passengers, it should be able to pass the test...it's not supposed to be the other way around.

I think the criteria of the test is passenger safety. Nothing else determines the rating I believe.
It is an odd test though, they don't "pad" the barrier to simulate hitting another car.
Overall though, I don't see a big problem with adding additional safety tests. Probably this small offset one isn't even a big challenge to figure out. I imagine at some point they will add air bags on the outside of the car which might cost a little to figure out. But 2 feet of controlled decelleration would go along way to reduce the structural requirements of the actual car to be safe and may even save money?
_________________________
07 Focus ZXW, 5spd manual, 80km M1 5W20
03 Tracker, 5spd manual, 250km, Valvoline Syn 5W30
95 Neon, 3spd auto, 282km, RT6 5W40 "Cone Killer!"

Top
#3256239 - 01/22/14 12:46 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: surfstar]
cptbarkey Offline


Registered: 02/27/12
Posts: 1141
Loc: texas
Originally Posted By: surfstar
at what point is it 'good enough'?


when there is no more inherit conflict of interest.

case in point: ban all pickup trucks and large SUVs from public highways. grin
_________________________
2011 toyota sienna
2014 ram 1500
2005 subaru legacy gt (project)
2000 nissan xterra (project)

Top
#3256245 - 01/22/14 12:48 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
shDK Offline


Registered: 04/03/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Denmark
It did below average in the euroNCAP test back in 09 aswell. There are however several good examples of minecars that did well in the euroNCAP.

Renault ZOE and Audi a1 Are Good examples.

Top
#3256252 - 01/22/14 12:52 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
dparm Offline


Registered: 04/19/10
Posts: 12359
Loc: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: dparm
Are we designing cars merely to pass the test, or to be safe?

Good question. How do we determine if a car is safe? Typically we determine this by looking at how it did in one test or another because this data is readily available.

Sure, you could search for fatality and injury rates instead, but since these accidents happen in uncontrolled environments, you never know if you're comparing apples to apples.



I'm not saying the tests aren't necessary. I just don't like the idea that cars are designed to pass the test. A standard is still a necessity to compare vehicle safety.

There have been many vehicles over the years (Volvo, hint hint) that were so safe to begin with that they were passing the tests before they were even required. That is a sign of good engineering and prioritizing safety. I think this philosophy is applicable in many areas of engineering and design.
_________________________
2011.5 BMW M3 saloon ZCP
der stärkste buchstabe der welt
Castrol Edge Professional TWS 10w60 + Mahle OX 254D3

Top
#3256266 - 01/22/14 01:01 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: dparm]
Quattro Pete Offline


Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 24852
Loc: Illinoistan
Originally Posted By: dparm
That is a sign of good engineering and prioritizing safety. I think this philosophy is applicable in many areas of engineering and design.

I agree. But this costs money, so many economy-tier car manufacturers won't go out of their way and over-engineer on safety unless some test makes them look bad.

Then there is the separate issue of the test's validity. Is it really reflective of some real-life scenario and what is the likelihood of its occurrence? Designing cars is about compromises - you can't have it all and still meet a given price point that will assure sufficient demand. So I can't necessarily blame the engineers either.
_________________________
'02 530i (PU 5W-40)
'08 C300 4Matic (M1 0W-40)
'13 F700 GS (Spectro 15W-50)

Top
#3256271 - 01/22/14 01:04 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
eljefino Offline


Registered: 06/15/03
Posts: 23562
Loc: ME
Everything's a compromise. Mercedes got flamed 20 years ago because their cars didn't crumple "as much" in our 30 mph brick-wall test, and the occupants felt more decelleration than they otherwise would have-- even though they were "safe". Merc pointed out that head-on crashes were often one corner and they were glad to be stiffer.

Did you know seat belts have some stretch built in? This helps in the vast majority of crashes but is a compromise in the super high speed doozie ones.

Top
#3256276 - 01/22/14 01:07 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: dparm]
IndyIan Offline


Registered: 09/23/08
Posts: 5367
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: dparm
Are we designing cars merely to pass the test, or to be safe?

Good question. How do we determine if a car is safe? Typically we determine this by looking at how it did in one test or another because this data is readily available.

Sure, you could search for fatality and injury rates instead, but since these accidents happen in uncontrolled environments, you never know if you're comparing apples to apples.



I'm not saying the tests aren't necessary. I just don't like the idea that cars are designed to pass the test. A standard is still a necessity to compare vehicle safety.

There have been many vehicles over the years (Volvo, hint hint) that were so safe to begin with that they were passing the tests before they were even required. That is a sign of good engineering and prioritizing safety. I think this philosophy is applicable in many areas of engineering and design.

I think the standard testing makes all the car makers make safety a consideration, otherwise advertising claims could make it hard to figure out which cars are built well and which ones just claim to be.
One of the british car shows did a offset crash of a, "safe" at the time, late 80's Volvo and some new Renault small hatchback. The result was near certain death for people in the Volvo, and the Renault passengers probably walking away...
So I think the standardized testing has been effective in increasing all cars safety, probably more than if the manufacturers had been left alone.
_________________________
07 Focus ZXW, 5spd manual, 80km M1 5W20
03 Tracker, 5spd manual, 250km, Valvoline Syn 5W30
95 Neon, 3spd auto, 282km, RT6 5W40 "Cone Killer!"

Top
#3256281 - 01/22/14 01:16 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: rjundi]
99Saturn Offline


Registered: 02/25/13
Posts: 934
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: rjundi
This size of car class IMHO is a poor value anyway and that is too bad less safe.

The FIT for example did poorly in this test. I really don't see the value of that vehicle vs a Civic which achieves significantly better MPG, larger, better comfort and gets a good rating for the same crash test. The base price difference is $3000.

I don't get these really small cars.


IMO, the value is what you called out, its $3K less. Plus I would think as you incorporate more add ons to the base model, the Civic "feels" more expensive that the Fit.

Not trying to defend the Fit or that size car in general, I just think it is filling that segment of the market that wants to buy new but wants a lower (lowest) price tag, safety may isn't the first thing the consumer.

Top
#3256285 - 01/22/14 01:21 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
Miller88 Online   content


Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 6090
Loc: Onondaga County
Interesting that two of the "premium" cars in this segment did the worst.

+1 for Chevy Spark! I really like that little car!
_________________________
'11 Focus PYB 45K
'00 Cherokee PYB 125K

Top
#3256286 - 01/22/14 01:21 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
EvanD Offline


Registered: 03/21/10
Posts: 272
Loc: well traveled
I can't believe these thing do so well
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/smart/fortwo
_________________________
Silverado SS with mods 5k mobile one driving this one till the wheels fall off currently 200K on mobil one.
mods=about every bolt on possible

Top
#3256287 - 01/22/14 01:22 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
stephen9666 Online   sick


Registered: 12/08/06
Posts: 2437
Loc: USA
I wonder how the Versa Note would have performed? I think there are some differences between the Versa sedan and the Versa Note.

Top
#3256300 - 01/22/14 01:30 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
Miller88 Online   content


Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 6090
Loc: Onondaga County
It's all in perspective, too. A Spark vs a Crown Victoria may not end well.

However, if you are playing chicken with an 18 wheeler, doesn't matter if you are in a Spark or an Excursion ... it won't end well.
_________________________
'11 Focus PYB 45K
'00 Cherokee PYB 125K

Top
#3256310 - 01/22/14 01:37 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
Win Offline


Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 3261
Loc: Arkansas
Little bitty econoboxes are dangerous and much more likely to get you killed or horribly maimed?

What a shocker.
_________________________
09 Torrent 3.6 V6 Fram 5/30
09 Solstice 2.4 I4 Fram 5/30
08 G8 3.6 V6 M1 0/40
04 Xj8 4.2 V8 Fram 5/30
99 S-10 2.2 I4
94 Xj12 6.0 V12

Top
#3256338 - 01/22/14 02:03 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: rjundi]
ARCOgraphite Offline


Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 8365
Loc: N.H, U.S.A.
Originally Posted By: rjundi
This size of car class IMHO is a poor value anyway and that is too bad less safe.

The FIT for example did poorly in this test. I really don't see the value of that vehicle vs a Civic which achieves significantly better MPG, larger, better comfort and gets a good rating for the same crash test. The base price difference is $3000.

I don't get these really small cars.
Back when i bough my FIT the civic was built like a garbage can and even fell off the CR list. The Fit is the most reliable car made and is the only real HONDA you can buy (other than some Acuras). I agree that its WAY overpriced.++ Its pretty comfortable for my 6'-2" frame - many midsizers have a very cramped drivers seat and console and poor sightlines.
Also a commuter car should not ever! weight more than 1 tonne! Soory that Safety and the fEDS has erased the fun from many small cars though.

++ My buddy paid an M.D. 11K$ for a lighltly used $110,000.00 Mercedes sl500. Not My cup o tea but ... His other Acquisition is a slightly used BMW 540 for 14K$.
That's a verie schweet rode to hoe.


Edited by ARCOgraphite (01/22/14 02:05 PM)
_________________________
2012 Honda Fit Sport 5MT, OC#5 30kmi- PP 5W20SN+Honda PLM A02 Filter
2014 Forester 5MT 5Door, OC#0 50mi-FACTORY 0W20(?)+TokyoRoki 160 Filter

Top
#3256366 - 01/22/14 02:23 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
bigjl Offline


Registered: 09/06/12
Posts: 1669
Loc: London, England
Will give that link a good rear later.

The Chevy Spark was a 4 Star EuroNcap car i believe.

Renaults have long been the safest small cars.

My wifes Clio is an 06 model and that scored very well on EuroNcap and i am fairly certain it was 5 Star.
_________________________
06 Clio1.5DCi,124k 6kOCI Shell Extra 5w40
08 Pathfinder 2.5 Dci 122k 5kOCI Castrol Edge FST 5w30
12 Jaguar XJL 3.0 D Luxury 108k 8kOCI Mob 1 ESP 5w30

Top
#3256371 - 01/22/14 02:27 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
SuzukiGoat Offline


Registered: 02/04/13
Posts: 371
Loc: Louisiana
I drive one of the least safe cars ever built according to those tests. The wife has the same thing with air bags...which she wont let me disable.

But...your best bet in an accident is mass and height.

I've put an 01 Camry into a tree at 45 and walked away with bruises. The tree pushed the engine, which pushed the firewall, which pushed the steering wheel, which pushed my big [censored] and the seat into the rear seat. But to be honest since it was slowed down so much by crumpling what hurt the most was the [censored] airbags engaging and sending my right arm/fist into my collar bone.

I hopped out fine, in shock, and probably should have gone to the hospital...but without a scratch. The car looked like it was hit by a tank.

Another safety recommendation for car crashes...get fat. Cushion everywhere!


The next investment for our cars are safety seats with head padding. Very comfortable and one more layer of safety.
_________________________
1995 Suzuki Sidekick Auto 4x4 on 33s. Low mileage motor in 200k body. Denso with M1 0w40.

1996 Geo Tracker Auto 4x4 Denso VNG 10w30. 120k.

Top
#3256394 - 01/22/14 02:43 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
morepwr Offline


Registered: 01/17/12
Posts: 1196
Loc: ventura, ca
If your in a small car and get hit by a big vehicle that outweighs you then you get that "bat hitting the ball" affect.
Really no surprises that those tiny cars don't do as well in crashes.

Top
#3256401 - 01/22/14 02:51 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
Donald Offline


Registered: 03/21/04
Posts: 13192
Loc: Upstate NY
I did not read the article but NPR did report on this this morning and the net was you are giving up safety for economy in most sub-compact vehicles.


Edited by Donald (01/22/14 02:59 PM)
_________________________
2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.0 - PP & M1
1999 Dodge Ram 2500 w/Cummins - Rotella T6 & M1
Amsoil ATF in both vehicles & Magnefine filter.

Top
#3256507 - 01/22/14 04:28 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Donald]
dparm Offline


Registered: 04/19/10
Posts: 12359
Loc: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted By: Donald
I did not read the article but NPR did report on this this morning and the net was you are giving up safety for economy in most sub-compact vehicles.


For a vehicle used to drive around town at low speeds, especially in crowded cities, that might actually be fine. In downtown Chicago I don't think you can even get moving any faster than 30mph except on Lake Shore Drive.
_________________________
2011.5 BMW M3 saloon ZCP
der stärkste buchstabe der welt
Castrol Edge Professional TWS 10w60 + Mahle OX 254D3

Top
#3256540 - 01/22/14 05:30 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
sciphi Offline


Registered: 03/24/07
Posts: 8312
Loc: Upstate NY
There are other reasons to own a subcompact. Parking is a big one. We can slide our Fit into ridiculously tiny spots, which has proved to be a huge asset for my wife who works in a city center.

Regardless, folks have a great track record of walking away from really gnarly crashes in Fits, testing be darned.
_________________________
2009 Honda Fit Sport
2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco

Top
#3256547 - 01/22/14 05:39 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
Quest Offline


Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 6269
Loc: beaver land EH?
IIHS has really tighten the impact (collision) requirements since 2011 or 2012 (thereabouts). This corner side-impact has initially failed many, many automobiles during the 1st year when the new requirements came out, incl. the 2012 release of camry, amongst many other automobiles in many categories.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if fit or many other subcompacts would fail in that category...citing that the requirements is almost to the point of being nit-picking.

While I must say that bigger automobiles may provide more margin of safety, but I still feel safe even in my 06 fit, when compared to all the other accidents I had in the past: crashed a 81 GLC during a blizzard, all 4 occupants walked out of the car with very little scratches; rolled over in a 93 4-runner due to driver's fault (black ice, 4wd mode), front windshield completely collapsed....occupants walked out with minor bruises...

I would like to see my cars passing Euro Encap tests but realistically speaking: NA's IIHS tests are stringent enough to be safe to begin with...if you are to compare to some mainland chinese cars avail outside of N.A. market.

Q.
_________________________
"Internet discussion boards act as echo chambers for conspiracy dittoheads" A.Allen

Top
#3256603 - 01/22/14 06:38 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
antiqueshell Offline


Registered: 03/02/12
Posts: 3862
Loc: chicago, Illinois
LOL.

I'm not going to let the highly questionable auto insurance lobby change my buying habits based on a test they conjured up to help them justify higher rates for smaller cars.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

Top
#3256639 - 01/22/14 07:04 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: antiqueshell]
ls1mike Offline


Registered: 06/14/08
Posts: 2989
Loc: Bremerton Wa
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

What if you are at fault?
_________________________
Mike
00 Trans Am
02 Silverado 2500HD
04 Grand Prix GTP
13 Equinox
12 Passport TT

Top
#3256646 - 01/22/14 07:10 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: ls1mike]
antiqueshell Offline


Registered: 03/02/12
Posts: 3862
Loc: chicago, Illinois
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

What if you are at fault?


I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.

Top
#3256662 - 01/22/14 07:21 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: antiqueshell]
ls1mike Offline


Registered: 06/14/08
Posts: 2989
Loc: Bremerton Wa
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

What if you are at fault?


I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.

Um Ok. I have a 420 RWHP car that I have driven daily. No tickets in it, no accidents. I too practice "Personal responsibility". I have been hit more than once by an insured motorist. My insurance covered me and in the event I screw up, because that is what people do, I have insurance. That is why it is called an accident. Insurance is also a courtesy for your fellow drivers if one day your "personal responsibility" takes a break.
_________________________
Mike
00 Trans Am
02 Silverado 2500HD
04 Grand Prix GTP
13 Equinox
12 Passport TT

Top
#3256705 - 01/22/14 07:49 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: antiqueshell]
clinebarger Offline


Registered: 12/19/13
Posts: 174
Loc: Fort Worth, Texas
Originally Posted By: antiqueshel
I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.


With a good driving record, Liability Insurance is cheap. My Suburban cost about $15 a month. Insurance is responsibility, If you hit someone & injure them....Would you take responsibility for their hospital bills?
_________________________
1985 Chevy C20 Suburban LM7/4L60E
2006 Chevy 2500HD LBZ/Allison 1000
2010 Toyota Corolla 2ZR-FE/Auto

Top
#3256727 - 01/22/14 08:10 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5103
Loc: southeast US
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/minicars-fall-short-for-small-overlap-frontal-protection

Good (just barely) news for Chevy Spark. Bad news for all others.

In all honesty though, even many larger cars did poorly in this test as they haven't been designed in a way to pass it. I'm sure within a few years the new designs will be introduced that will do well in this test, and the added cost will be passed on to us - the consumers.

And then IIHS will come up with yet another test that nobody can pass so that the insurance companies can hike up your rates "because your car isn't safe."



In all honesty, this is no science, as we had only one of each experiments and we don't know how much is left to randomness in this test. I think a lot, looking at different results for Yaris and Prius C. In reality, Prius C is just a hybrid version of Yaris, so results should be similar.

Speaking about insurance rates, wait for a stock crash, then the rates will really spike up. Since 2000, my cost to insure the very same home went several fold. After all, greedy insurance must make their money no matter what.

Top
#3256785 - 01/22/14 08:47 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
Spazdog Offline


Registered: 09/06/10
Posts: 5492
Loc: Arlington
I hit a RWD Dodge Diplomat in an '85 Mustang (elderly driver with macular degeneration said that I, "appeared out of nowhere."

The Mustang was not a heavy car nor was it a large car. It would not pass any current collision test. It had 0 airbags and the crumple zone was probably under the passenger compartment. It is probably not as safe as a Honda Fit. I was un-injured.

The police investigator said that I was doing 50mph by the skidmarks. A practice rendered completely irrelevant by ABS which is fine with me because it has all the scientific value of phrenology. He literally measured the marks that were a little longer than the width of one lane and referred to a small laminated card that indicated X speed = Y distance. No taking into account mass, brake bias, weight distribution, effectiveness of brakes....etc.... This distance = this speed = junk science admissible in court.
_________________________
2005 Mazda 6S hatchback - Mobil Super 5000 5W20
2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT - QSUD 5W30

Top
#3256867 - 01/22/14 09:40 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: antiqueshell]
ram_man Offline


Registered: 03/15/13
Posts: 1475
Loc: southern mo
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I'm not going to let the highly questionable auto insurance lobby change my buying habits based on a test they conjured up to help them justify higher rates for smaller cars.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


I like these tests, their is zero reason why they cant build a safe car. Here is an idea that the masses should but wont support get rid of all the b.s. technology in the cars and focus more money on making them safe. Safety should come first.
the insurance companies doing these tests have contributed to the auto manufacturer building safer cars.
_________________________
02 Saturn sl 131,000 miles
95 Dodge ram 1500 5.9l 183,000 miles



Top
#3257049 - 01/23/14 05:37 AM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Spazdog]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14265
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I hit a RWD Dodge Diplomat in an '85 Mustang (elderly driver with macular degeneration said that I, "appeared out of nowhere."

The Mustang was not a heavy car nor was it a large car. It would not pass any current collision test. It had 0 airbags and the crumple zone was probably under the passenger compartment. It is probably not as safe as a Honda Fit. I was un-injured.

The police investigator said that I was doing 50mph by the skidmarks. A practice rendered completely irrelevant by ABS which is fine with me because it has all the scientific value of phrenology. He literally measured the marks that were a little longer than the width of one lane and referred to a small laminated card that indicated X speed = Y distance. No taking into account mass, brake bias, weight distribution, effectiveness of brakes....etc.... This distance = this speed = junk science admissible in court.


The company I buy my service vans from has one guy on their payroll who consults with clients when there are traffic accidents involving their vans.

Accident investigators have been known to make HUGE errors in estimating speeds due to the way a 9000 pound plus van folds up a car!
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3257324 - 01/23/14 11:08 AM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: antiqueshell]
cptbarkey Offline


Registered: 02/27/12
Posts: 1141
Loc: texas
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
LOL.

I'm not going to let the highly questionable auto insurance lobby change my buying habits based on a test they conjured up to help them justify higher rates for smaller cars.

I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


You must not have children. My paternal instincts has never felt comfortable ENOUGH, even with our Sienna which has the best survival rating.
_________________________
2011 toyota sienna
2014 ram 1500
2005 subaru legacy gt (project)
2000 nissan xterra (project)

Top
#3257346 - 01/23/14 11:29 AM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: antiqueshell]
exranger06 Offline


Registered: 01/25/08
Posts: 2513
Loc: Guilford, CT
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

So if you're driving along, not doing anything wrong, and some idiot smashes into you (his fault) and he has no insurance, and he has nothing of value to sue over, basically leaving you to pay for your damages out of pocket when you did absolutely nothing wrong. You'd be ok with that? Even if it cost you thousands to fix or replace your car, and thousands more in medical treatments? Yeah, I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy paying for that yourself. smirk
_________________________
2006 Ford Ranger Sport -54k mi
1992 Honda Accord EX -172k mi
1994 Ford Explorer Sport -189k mi
1994 Ford Bronco XLT (project)

Top
#3257456 - 01/23/14 01:02 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: exranger06]
eljefino Offline


Registered: 06/15/03
Posts: 23562
Loc: ME
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


Insurance companies can do what the gov't/ DMV cannot: Discriminate. Four OUI's? Space them out enough and you can still get a license, but insurance might be a tall order. As it should be.

And there are 100's of insurance companies to choose from. If they are all too expensive, maybe it's time for some inner reflection.

Top
#3257537 - 01/23/14 02:13 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
dparm Offline


Registered: 04/19/10
Posts: 12359
Loc: Chicago, IL
From the NMA's website on why they do not approve of mandatory insurance:

1. It increases the cost of auto insurance.
2. It increases the regulation of auto insurance.
3. It adds more punitive sanctions to be applied against motorists, even if they have auto insurance.
4. It reduces the number of companies offering coverage in a given state.
5. It does not necessarily increase the number of insured vehicles.
6. It does not guarantee coverage of catastrophic losses.
7. There are better ways to protect responsible motorists from serious losses attributable to uninsured motorists.


"The principal reason vehicle owners do not have auto insurance is the cost of insurance. Passing a law that increases the cost to administer, sell, and buy auto insurance does not constructively address the main reason people aren't buying insurance in the first place, cost."


http://www.motorists.org/insurance/
_________________________
2011.5 BMW M3 saloon ZCP
der stärkste buchstabe der welt
Castrol Edge Professional TWS 10w60 + Mahle OX 254D3

Top
#3257633 - 01/23/14 03:38 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: eljefino]
PandaBear Offline


Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 12279
Loc: Silicon Valley
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


Insurance companies can do what the gov't/ DMV cannot: Discriminate. Four OUI's? Space them out enough and you can still get a license, but insurance might be a tall order. As it should be.

And there are 100's of insurance companies to choose from. If they are all too expensive, maybe it's time for some inner reflection.


The government has been too loose in terms of doing the right things to protect people in the country from their daily activities and stupidities, and since everyone demands the private sector and market economy, insurance companies are doing what the law should have done anyways.

Driving is just one example, others are work place safety, building safety, medical services, discrimination against specific groups, building safety, etc etc.

I hate insurances, but I hate irresponsible individuals who wants to free ride the rest of the society without paying for the liability even more.
_________________________
"You keep asking questions PandaBear and you'll end up a vegetarian like my wife" - Camu Mahubah

Top
#3257698 - 01/23/14 04:22 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: PandaBear]
MCompact Offline


Registered: 07/21/02
Posts: 1546
Loc: KY
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

The government has been too loose in terms of doing the right things to protect people in the country from their daily activities and stupidities, and since everyone demands the private sector and market economy, insurance companies are doing what the law should have done anyways.



Exactly; a grossly expanded government and more regulations are just what this country needs...
_________________________
2009 328i
2004 X3 2.5
1995 318ti Club Sport
1975 2002A
2007 Mazdaspeed3
1999 Wrangler Sahara
1996 Speed Triple

Top
#3258803 - 01/24/14 04:17 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: antiqueshell]
Bladecutter Offline


Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 816
Loc: Arvada, CO
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell


I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.


Boy I'm glad people like you aren't in charge of anything more than your keyboard.

So, lets see if I understand your point:

If insurance wasn't mandatory, the world would be a better place, according to your logic.

There is one glaring flaw with your idea, and that's the fact that if you remove the insurance requirement, then you will only INCREASE the number of bad drivers on the road who do not carry insurance. Not a single bad driver will actually become a better driver.

Your logic is that if a bad driver uses his insurance policy as a safety net for bad driving habits, and if you remove the safety net, then they will miraculously become a better driver instantly, because suddenly they won't want to get into accidents anymore.

Your logic is actually based on YOUR DESIRE to not pay for auto insurance.
I can understand that piece of the puzzle. Why should I have to pay for insurance when I don't get into accidents, and I don't cause other people to have accidents?

You just want your money to stay in your pocket, which I understand.

But don't try and pawn off your desire as some sort of reasonable assumption on other people. It doesn't fit. If the world went the way you wanted it to go, I would guarantee that the hit and run rate would easily quadruple in a matter of months.

"Oh crud, I just had an accident, and I don't have insurance, so I better get out of here as quickly as I can. Too bad for the motorcyclist I just t-boned, hopefully he's dead so he can't tell the police what I look like, or what car I was driving."

That sequence already happens too many times a day, and in your "utopia", it would skyrocket.

Thankfully, you don't run the world, and never will.

BC.
_________________________
2014 Mazda CX-5 Touring (Soul Red)
2007 Ducati 848
1988 Honda Hawk GT

Top
#3258813 - 01/24/14 04:29 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: MCompact]
Bladecutter Offline


Registered: 02/21/11
Posts: 816
Loc: Arvada, CO
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

The government has been too loose in terms of doing the right things to protect people in the country from their daily activities and stupidities, and since everyone demands the private sector and market economy, insurance companies are doing what the law should have done anyways.



Exactly; a grossly expanded government and more regulations are just what this country needs...


New Regulation 1 - No one should be allowed to have anymore children.
That way, we can guarantee that the stupid people will eventually all die off.

I think we're long overdue with this government mandate.

New Regulation 2 - Anyone who currently has more that 2 children of the same sex will have to turn them in to a recycling center. Your can only have 1 make child, and 1 female child out of your current brood. Your spare children will then be offered up for adoption across the country to those who want them in order to fill their child quota, or will be destroyed.

New Regulation 3 - All children between ages 2 and 18 will be sterilized.
Chances are they are an idiot, and we really don't want to risk them having exponentially stupider children in the future. According to some, the Founding Fathers of this country were the most brilliant people ever, and today's kids are way dumber than they were back in the late 1700's, so that means that the kids of the late 2000's should be prevented from being born.

New Regulation 4 - If you get into a vehicle accident, or a multi-vehicle accident, regardless of who's at fault, all parties involved in the accident should be executed on site, regardless of fault. Passengers in the vehicles, too. Family members, friends, and neighbors should also be executed, as they would suffer loss and grief, so we must eliminate that outcome from occurring, also.

Nice world.
Who wants to sign up?

BC.
_________________________
2014 Mazda CX-5 Touring (Soul Red)
2007 Ducati 848
1988 Honda Hawk GT

Top
#3258984 - 01/24/14 07:44 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
MCompact Offline


Registered: 07/21/02
Posts: 1546
Loc: KY
_________________________
2009 328i
2004 X3 2.5
1995 318ti Club Sport
1975 2002A
2007 Mazdaspeed3
1999 Wrangler Sahara
1996 Speed Triple

Top
#3259031 - 01/24/14 08:27 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: Quattro Pete]
Quattro Pete Offline


Registered: 10/30/02
Posts: 24852
Loc: Illinoistan
Yup, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject...

Quote:

If it sounds asinine that a car that previously was “safe” now “isn’t,” it is. The IIHS’s small-overlap test won’t gain significant meaning in assessing relative safety until most or all cars are designed with the test in mind, at which point they’ll all probably do quite well. This is the unfortunate cycle in which the industry finds itself: Cars are deemed “safe,” a government or watchdog agency formulates new standards that indicate otherwise, the automakers engineer their next generation of models to ace the latest tests, and we start all over again.

_________________________
'02 530i (PU 5W-40)
'08 C300 4Matic (M1 0W-40)
'13 F700 GS (Spectro 15W-50)

Top
#3259752 - 01/25/14 03:19 PM Re: Small cars and small overlap front crash test [Re: MCompact]
R2d2 Offline


Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 518
Loc: New York, L.I
Originally Posted By: MCompact





Great retort by Car and Driver on this media hype about this test. Here's the short version MANY new mid sized cars fail the same test but are still considered "top safety picks".


Edited by R2d2 (01/25/14 03:19 PM)
_________________________
2014 Acura MDX
2011 Honda Accord V6 coupe

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >