which would be better in a crash

Spit62500

There are studies that suggest that people who feel less vulnerable in their cars take more risks.... The same logic can be applied to airbags, traction control and perhaps vehicle size etc - if the theory is correct

Quoting from here on...

There are at least three studies which show that drivers' response to antilock brakes is to drive faster, follow closer and brake later, accounting for the failure of ABS to result in any measurable improvement in road safety. The following references describe studies in Canada, Denmark and Germany.

Grant and Smiley, "Driver response to antilock brakes: a demonstration on behavioural adaptation" from Proceedings, Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference VIII, June 14-16, Saskatchewan 1993.

Sagberg, Fosser, and Saetermo, "An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers" Accident Analysis and Prevention #29 pp 293-302 1997.

Aschenbrenner and Biehl, "Improved safety through improved technical measures? empirical studies regarding risk compensation processes in relation to anti-lock braking systems". In Trimpop and Wilde, Challenges to Accident Prevention: The issue of risk compensation behaviour (Groningen, NL, Styx Publications, 1994).

[edit]

BrianD3

maoleary wrote:

At higher speeds, the Carina E will not dissipate the energy more effectively, but you can be damn sure it will stay together better than a yaris.

I disagree. The Carina may have a longer bonnet than the Yaris but it's passenger compartment is likely to be significantly weaker even with a longer crumple zone to protect it. In a EuroNCAP test (40 mph actually, not 30) I'd expect an airbagged Carina to be a 2 star car at best with the passenger compartment already unstable from a crash at this speed. What this means is that even a sightly higher impact speed may have had dramatic consequences. The passenger compartment is supposed to stay relatively intact but once it is breached it may quickly lose all its integrity and fold up dramatically. If the airbagged Carina is tested at 50 mph instead of 40 ( big increase) I'd expect the driver to be horribly crushed and certainly killed and and the rear seat passenger behind him to be in serious danger too.

The Yaris OTOH is designed to shrug off the EuroNCAP impact at 40 mph and gets 5 stars. The passenger compartment is intact. A 50 mph impact will see signifcant damage to the compartment with the driver severely injured but he may survive.

I have heard about a test that Honda did between a 1994 Legend and a new Jazz. Actually crashing the cars into each other. Despite the Jazz's far shorter bonnet, and lower weight it was the Legend dummy that got the serious leg injuries. Wish I could find some more concrete info on this test..

ninty9er

BrianD3 wrote:

I disagree. The Carina may have a longer bonnet than the Yaris but it's passenger compartment is likely to be significantly weaker even with a longer crumple zone to protect it. In a EuroNCAP test (40 mph actually, not 30) I'd expect an airbagged Carina to be a 2 star car at best with the passenger compartment already unstable from a crash at this speed. What this means is that even a sightly higher impact speed may have had dramatic consequences. The passenger compartment is supposed to stay relatively intact but once it is breached it may quickly lose all its integrity and fold up dramatically. If the airbagged Carina is tested at 50 mph instead of 40 ( big increase) I'd expect the driver to be horribly crushed and certainly killed and and the rear seat passenger behind him to be in serious danger too.

The Yaris OTOH is designed to shrug off the EuroNCAP impact at 40 mph and gets 5 stars. The passenger compartment is intact. A 50 mph impact will see signifcant damage to the compartment with the driver severely injured but he may survive.

I have heard about a test that Honda did between a 1994 Legend and a new Jazz. Actually crashing the cars into each other. Despite the Jazz's far shorter bonnet, and lower weight it was the Legend dummy that got the serious leg injuries. Wish I could find some more concrete info on this test..

Totally agree. I'd imagine the engine would fuse with you and your passengers in the Carina. Whereas there's an acre of empty space under the tiny bonnet of the Yaris designed to drop the engine on strong impact rather than force it back.

I remember the mechanic told my uncle when some idiot hit my aunt about 7 years ago that had she been driving an Escort or Mondeo(98-01) she would likely have been killed as opposed to the abdomenal and chest injuries she suffered in her 97 Fiesta due to this fact. He was gutted naturally due to the fact he drove a Mondeo and the fact he wanted to keep the Fiesta which was on its way to the showroom to pick up her new Focus at the time!! More importantly though his wife and child survived!

zilog_jones

BrianD3 wrote:

In a EuroNCAP test (40 mph actually, not 30) I'd expect an airbagged Carina to be a 2 star car at best with the passenger compartment already unstable from a crash at this speed...

Judging by similarly aged cars tested in 1997 (BMW 3 Series, Rover 600, etc.) I'd say it'd be a 2 star car too, if not worse. And that's going by the 1997 EuroNCAP standards - they're a lot stricter these days.

BrianD3

I reckon the 95-02 Fiesta might be better than the 90-98 Escort. The Escort did appallingly in crash tests at the start, it was improved over the years but there's only so much can be done with the same basic design.

The Mondeo Mk1 was ahead of its time for passive safety though. Along with the Mk3 Golf and new Astra of the time, safety was starting to become a selling point and new legislation was on the way. Passenger compartments were getting stronger in head ons and side impact protection was becoming important. There was alot of hype about side impact bars. In truth these did very little good on their own.

ninty9er

BrianD3 wrote:

There was alot of hype about side impact bars. In truth these did very little good on their own.

My mother recently had some remedial work done on her Yaris which requireed the dorr panel to be removed. She came home to me and dad shocked saying "it even has those thigs Volvos have":D

BrianD3

LOL ninty9er My story related to side impact bars is - when I was young and stupid(er) in the early nineties I tried to convince someone that the new Astra should be bought ahead of the new Golf Mk3. Why? Because the Astra had TWO side impact bars per door while the Golf only had one!

My advice was ignored and a new Renault that had no side impact beams at the time was bought instead!