NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are some links of recent crash tests performed. How safe is your vehicle? Is it on one of the lists below? If not you can see if your vehicle has been tested by going to the following link: (enter your make and model, unfortunately if it's not on the list then it hasn't been tested by this facility) http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

If your vehicle isn't on the above link it most likely will be here: http://www.safercar.gov/ (this is where I found my Bronco's test)

This is my scores: http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/466.html
*****= 10% or less chance of serious injury

other tests:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/061219/121406_iihs_small_car_tests.html

other tests for different categories:
minicars: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=90
small cars: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=40
large family cars: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=20

small SUVs: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=58
midsize SUVs: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=55

minivans: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=80

small pickups: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=75
large pickups: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70

So, how safe is the vehicle your driving? Is larger safer? I think it all depends on the vehicle itself. As for me, I feel completely safe in my truck.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=588

None of them have my truck but the closest I could find is the silveraudo 1500 at 4 stars across the board

(If you know where they keep the 05 4wd 2500 Silveraudo HD Diesel then I would be interested in knowing)

11% to 20% chance of serious injury

not bad for a vehicle that is over 10 years old and has no airbags.

The car I'm going to drive when I get my license (which probably won't be until next summer, even though in two days from now I'll have had my permit for a year) will be a Toyota Camry. I'm not sure what year it was made in, but I know that it's at least 10 years old.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=291

Something more reliable. (http://www.euroncap.com/)

I'm driving it, so not very safe at all.

Unsurprisingly my 1992 Fiat Uno isn't listed ;)

Oh, bigger isn't safer for every other poor bugger unlucky enough to get in the way. And woe betide anyone foolish enough to walk or be on a bike or horse...

Something more reliable. (http://www.euroncap.com/)

The ratings for the Passat don't seem any different, except that they include tests for what happens when I run someone over.

More Eurocentric chauvinism?

Also, it's pretty funny to see the Passat called "large".

I'm driving right now? Weird.



98 pontiac grand am-lowest crash rating, >46% chance of serious injury for driver, 21-35% for back seat.

Something more reliable. (http://www.euroncap.com/)

thanks fass, i was having a hard time finding anything for british/european cars :)


my car is a newer model (2005) than the one tested here (2002), but not as new as the latest (2007) model also tested.... meh.
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=1&id2=113


http://www.euroncap.com/images/results/superminis/car_113_2002/corsa_2002.jpg
4/5 adult occupant rating
1/5 pedestrian safety rating :(

The Corsa is a strong small car that gave a good all-round performance. The driver's airbag did its job in the frontal impact but may have reached the limit of its ability to protect. The car's body performed well and there was only modest deformation of the passenger cell. Side impact protection was also good but the results were clouded by a high reading from the dummy's spine which would not affect a real driver in the same way. Protection given by the child restraints was patchy, while that for pedestrians was poor.


the latest 2007 model gets 5/5 and 3/5 respectively.

None of them have my truck but the closest I could find is the silveraudo 1500 at 4 stars across the board

(If you know where they keep the 05 4wd 2500 Silveraudo HD Diesel then I would be interested in knowing)

Is this your truck? If not go to the following link and look to the right side of the screen, they have several different Chevy Silverado trucks... by the way. I love that truck. I may be driving a Ford but I'm a chevy man at heart. A truly unbelievable truck. Shhh don't tell my Bronco, it's a cool truck to though but I'd trade it for yours any day. :D

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2005/chevrolet/silverado/2500_hd_long_bed_crew_cab_pickup/97/safety/index.html

Ooh, I learned to drive in a Corsa.
I hate them with a passion ;)

The vehicle I drive is not safe. Any safety features it has result directly from my capabilities as an operator.

I drive a motorcycle! Exclusively, for now anyways. I intend to purchase an E40 BMW 325, preferably in coupe form but likely in sedan, within the year.

There aren't very many tests I could find in a quick 2 minute search for the BMW I want to acquire, but the few I did see give it top marks. *shrugs*

Safety is not something I feel overly worried about. Not to say I am reckless, but I've been hit by a drunk driver and low-sided off a gravel strewn road over a cliff of 60ft. I've had my share of near-death experiences. Shyte will happen, and though there is no point in tempting fate by being irresponsible, there is only so much you can do. The difference between Good and Average borders on semantics - imagine how even the worst car today would compare to cars 30 years ago.

Unsurprisingly my 1992 Fiat Uno isn't listed ;)

Oh, bigger isn't safer for every other poor bugger unlucky enough to get in the way. And woe betide anyone foolish enough to walk or be on a bike or horse...

I hit a man on a bike once. Right before Thanksgiving last week. He was drunk, wearing dark clothes and riding a dark bicycle at night no lights or reflectors and driving a very dark road with no street lights, no shoulder, etc... I called 911 immediately, he's okay now what happened was my passenger side view mirror clipped him knocking my mirror off and throwing him to the asphalt. State Trooper came, I was kind of in a panick state and explained everything that happened after the intial investigation the trooper told me not to worry about it that I was clearly not at fault in this case. I'm glad he was okay but really by law, you aren't supposed to be driving a bike on the roadway drunk and by law you're supposed to have reflectors and a head light if you ride at night. I felt terrible about it. It was my first accident ever and I intially thought that I'd killed him because he was knocked out.

Is this your truck? If not go to the following link and look to the right side of the screen, they have several different Chevy Silverado trucks... by the way. I love that truck. I may be driving a Ford but I'm a chevy man at heart. A truly unbelievable truck. Shhh don't tell my Bronco, it's a cool truck to though but I'd trade it for yours any day. :D

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2005/chevrolet/silverado/2500_hd_long_bed_crew_cab_pickup/97/safety/index.html

Yeah its mine ... I have that and a Jeep But my jeep is so modified that I doubt that the actual crash performance is anywhere near the ratings

I had to go to the European one to find results for an MX-5 close to the year mine is (1999).

http://www.euroncap.com/images/results/Roadsters/car_120_2002/mazda_mx5_2002.jpg

The MX-5 has had a recent facelift but the body and chassis remains much as it was when introduced in 1989. That being so, the car still proved safe enough to gain four stars, giving a well balanced performance in the frontal and side impact. The passenger safety cell was challenged by the frontal impact, however, and was found to be unstable, post-impact. In the frontal crash, the car was tested with its roof down to give worst-case results. For the side crash, though the top was left up to check for any risk of head injury that the driver might be exposed to. As a two-seater, the car could not be tested with child restraints fitted. While no crash tests were run to assess the safety performance of a child restraint, its fitting and labelling were checked. Finally, protection offered to pedestrians was poor.

It got 4/5 and 1/4 respectively. I guess pedestrians are fucked if I run into them, but pedestrians aren't extremely common where I live.

I'd say it all depends on how careful I'm participating in traffic: I don't have a car and ride my bike everywhere I go.

It got 4/5 and 1/4 respectively. I guess pedestrians are fucked if I run into them, but pedestrians aren't extremely common where I live.

If I run into a pedestrian on the Dulles Toll Road while I'm going 65 mph, they would be fucked even if I was driving in a car made of Styrofoam.

And if you wreck your car at the speeds you can reach on the Autobahn in Germany, it won't matter much what model you crash in after your car leaves the road and flies into the trees.

Ooh, I learned to drive in a Corsa.
I hate them with a passion ;)
Don't blame you. It's what I drove after I'd passed, and it was awful. I just don't like Vauxhalls, really. Currently, I am car-less, but I've got an eye on a Clio when I get a job and have some money.

Wonder if NCAP tested the car I want (http://www.mikeabbasclassiccars.co.uk/Jag%20E%20type%203.8%20Coupe%206.jpg). Probably not.

Ooh, I learned to drive in a Corsa.
I hate them with a passion ;)

i learned to drive in them too and figured since i already knew the car quite well, i may as well get it for my first car :P

i like it :) nippy little thing (i got a 2006 model (tho 2005 reg) sports SXI version)

Once again, I would like to voice my objection to crash tests on the grounds that they fail to take into account the differing momentum values for larger cars.

If I hit your SmartCar with my 1971 Cadillac Fleetwood, your car will experience a much larger impact than mine will, even though the relative speed was the same for both of them.

I hit a man on a bike once. Right before Thanksgiving last week. He was drunk, wearing dark clothes and riding a dark bicycle at night no lights or reflectors and driving a very dark road with no street lights, no shoulder, etc...

Yeah, many cyclists are morons. I used to be quite an enthusiastic cyclist when I was at university, and the number you'd see without helmets or lights brazenly riding through a red light into four lanes of traffic... Well. Many pedestrians are pretty stupid too, especially in London. They seem to enjoy blindly walking out into the road. It makes you wonder; if they waste no thought for their own safety, why should you care?

I was probably a bit harsh in my statement earlier. But it does seem, here, that the larger and more expensive somebody's vehicle is the less regard they have for anybody else.

Truck drivers have the dichotomy of being both the best and the worst in that respect; some are very careful of other road users, and will stop to assist somebody who needs it; others will merrily pull out infront of you at roundabouts, or pull out of junctions which you're less than your breaking distance from when you're doing 60mph on a national speed-limit road.

Once again, I would like to voice my objection to crash tests on the grounds that they fail to take into account the differing momentum values for larger cars.

If I hit your SmartCar with my 1971 Cadillac Fleetwood, your car will experience a much larger impact than mine will, even though the relative speed was the same for both of them.

If you hit a Corsa head on, and both of you are going 120 kph, the Corsa will be completely disassembled into component parts, and the driver of the Corsa will be catapulted several hundred meters downrange.

If I run into a pedestrian on the Dulles Toll Road while I'm going 65 mph, they would be fucked even if I was driving in a car made of Styrofoam.

And if you wreck your car at the speeds you can reach on the Autobahn in Germany, it won't matter much what model you crash in after your car leaves the road and flies into the trees.

Yes, thank you, I wasn't aware that a large piece of metal moving at high speeds was dangerous.

I'm willing to bet that all of their testing was done at speeds where the occupants might have a reasonable chance of survival. I'm also willing to bet that their pedestrian ratings were tested at speeds at which pedestrians and cars might reasonably meet. Since pedestrians usually stay off of roads with 65mph speed limits I don't see what you're getting at.

If you hit a Corsa head on, and both of you are going 120 kph, the Corsa will be completely disassembled into component parts, and the driver of the Corsa will be catapulted several hundred meters downrange.

If any two cars hit head on, both doing 120kph, they're both in a world of hurt. What's your point?

Yes, thank you, I wasn't aware that a large piece of metal moving at high speeds was dangerous.

I'm willing to bet that all of their testing was done at speeds where the occupants might have a reasonable chance of survival. I'm also willing to bet that their pedestrian ratings were tested at speeds at which pedestrians and cars might reasonably meet. Since pedestrians usually stay off of roads with 65mph speed limits I don't see what you're getting at.

It's not uncommon to see pedestrians walking along some roads that are not part of the Interstate system here in the US. Some roads, like US 15, are two-lane roads, and have a speed limit of 55 MPH, which is routinely flaunted.

Pedestrians are hit along US 15 pretty regularly. The fancy bumpers don't do any good.

One guy was flung more than 200 yards off the road and 30 feet up into a tree (dead).

It's not uncommon to see pedestrians walking along some roads that are not part of the Interstate system here in the US. Some roads, like US 15, are two-lane roads, and have a speed limit of 55 MPH, which is routinely flaunted.

Pedestrians are hit along US 15 pretty regularly. The fancy bumpers don't do any good.

One guy was flung more than 200 yards off the road and 30 feet up into a tree (dead).

Pedestrians outside of town are quite rare where I live, and last I heard Michigan was still in the United States. They were pretty rare when I lived in Colorado too. Maybe you live somewhere warmer (I haven't the slightest idea where US 15 is) where people walk from town to town.

And again, the testing for pedestrians isn't assuming speeds of 55+. Pedestrians are more likely to get hit in downtown areas where speeds are usually 25-35 (taking speeding into account). Nobody expects a pedestrian to survive being hit by anything at 55+ just like nobody expects a car to survive a head on collision at 120kph.

Yeah, many cyclists are morons. I used to be quite an enthusiastic cyclist when I was at university, and the number you'd see without helmets or lights brazenly riding through a red light into four lanes of traffic... Well. Many pedestrians are pretty stupid too, especially in London. They seem to enjoy blindly walking out into the road. It makes you wonder; if they waste no thought for their own safety, why should you care?

I was probably a bit harsh in my statement earlier. But it does seem, here, that the larger and more expensive somebody's vehicle is the less regard they have for anybody else.

Truck drivers have the dichotomy of being both the best and the worst in that respect; some are very careful of other road users, and will stop to assist somebody who needs it; others will merrily pull out infront of you at roundabouts, or pull out of junctions which you're less than your breaking distance from when you're doing 60mph on a national speed-limit road.

After I found out he was drunk it took most of my worrying away and before the trooper left he told me the man would be fine.

As long as I'm not running late for work or an appointment, I'm more than happy to pull over to assist another in need. I remember the days I've been broken down and others stopped to help me out so This is my way of paying them back.

Here in Florida, a lot of motorists seemingly pull out in front of everybody, I've seen small cars, large ones, SUVs, Trucks, motorcycles you name it I've seen it. It's like people just don't care or think they're invincible. Hwy US 19 in Florida has been named one of the deadliest Highways in America for many years now and I'm sure many years to come.

As for me, I'm very cautious when I drive my Bronco or any vehicle. My eyesights far from great so I do have a tendency of hugging the center line compared to the line by the shoulder or passenger side. I'm always on the look out for the guys on motorcycles because some of them just plain don't care about people driving in cars. They travel at speeds well over the speed limit. You can look both ways be in the clear then go to pull out and bam theirs a motorcycle that came from nowheres. Years ago I almost hit one that had to have been going 150mph came out of nowheres, I nearly hit him and he got pissed at me, slowed his bike way down hollering and fussing I would have pulled over if he didn't have another friend riding with him. Idiots.

It's not uncommon to see pedestrians walking along some roads that are not part of the Interstate system here in the US. Some roads, like US 15, are two-lane roads, and have a speed limit of 55 MPH, which is routinely flaunted.

Pedestrians are hit along US 15 pretty regularly. The fancy bumpers don't do any good.

One guy was flung more than 200 yards off the road and 30 feet up into a tree (dead).

I believe their are laws that state that no pedestrians are permitted to walk or ride a bike along an interstate hwy. I know some still do but it is against the law the last I knew. Just thinking.

I believe their are laws that state that no pedestrians are permitted to walk or ride a bike along an interstate hwy. I know some still do but it is against the law the last I knew. Just thinking.

You don't need to be on an interstate to go 55 mph or faster in the US.

Plenty of smaller side roads allow that speed.

My car hasn't been tested, but it's a 2004 BMW, so I am very sure it is one of the safest vehicles, as BMWs have always been.

You don't need to be on an interstate to go 55 mph or faster in the US.

Plenty of smaller side roads allow that speed.

I know on a lot of roads, the posted speed limit is 55mph. I can really only speak for Florida, our Highways the maximum speed allowed to be posted is 55 mph with the exception of out interstate and parkways, expressways, the maximum speed by law is 75mph. last I knew.

As for my Bronco, it has scored as 5 stars. I do plan on putting the brushguard on the front that will make it even better yet. The damn brushguard has been in my garage for about a year now. Can't wait til I put it on. :D

I know on a lot of roads, the posted speed limit is 55mph. I can really only speak for Florida, our Highways the maximum speed allowed to be posted is 55 mph with the exception of out interstate and parkways, expressways, the maximum speed by law is 75mph. last I knew.

As for my Bronco, it has scored as 5 stars. I do plan on putting the brushguard on the front that will make it even better yet. The damn brushguard has been in my garage for about a year now. Can't wait til I put it on. :D

Especially useful if you hit a deer, or the occasional pedestrian. Saves on bumper damage.

They haven't tested my truck a 1998 Frontier

Well I couldn't fine it, but my 1977 280Z DOES have 5mph bumpers!

I don't trust safety test that much, at least not to make an assessment on which car to buy. Tests are conducted in controlled environments, at medium speeds. Although you'll likely spend more time driving below those speeds the more serious accidents happen at higher speeds, and in an uncontrolled manner.

I think that relying too much on those tests tends to give some people a false sense of security and feel that they can take more risks or drive less carefully because their car has been rated "safe".

Plus there are other things you should consider to assess safety. How maneuverable is the car? How well does it brake? How big and were are the blind spots? How visible is it? Does it have power to accelerate from a tight spot? How high is its center of mass? You see, first thing to survive an impact is to avoid the impact in the first place.

And don't forget that the heavier you are the more stress your internal organs will suffer under heavy acceleration :)

Especially useful if you hit a deer, or the occasional pedestrian. Saves on bumper damage.

And it's easier to clean.

Especially useful if you hit a deer, or the occasional pedestrian. Saves on bumper damage.

Deer are the reason why during much of the year I take the freeway instead of state highways. My little car probably wouldn't do so well if I hit a deer. Hitting deer is common enough up here I only know a handful of people who haven't.

Deer are the reason why during much of the year I take the freeway instead of state highways. My little car probably wouldn't do so well if I hit a deer. Hitting deer is common enough up here I only know a handful of people who haven't.

in the I-270 corridor, there are places where the interstate is 16 lanes wide, with high retaining walls....

somehow, deer from the National Institute of Standards and Technology manage to leap the barrier during the fall rut, and end up briefly dodging the rush hour stream before being run over.

Cars get damaged, and the deer is completely pulped to nothingness before a work crew can get out to remove the carcass.

My car's pretty safe. It's the driver that we have to wonder about.

Cars get damaged, and the deer is completely pulped to nothingness before a work crew can get out to remove the carcass.

Deer always find a way onto the road. I was driving downstate the other day, and within 50 miles I saw 4 large red spots on the road that were once deer. Still, it's safer than driving on the back roads. A week or so ago I was driving to a friend's house in the country and I saw a herd of 39 whitetails in a field. I wish I'd had the time to hunt this year, they're everywhere.

Apparently I drive the harbinger of death

2/5 both categories for the 1997 Peugeot 406 (mine is actually a 1996 406GLX and isn't listed but I figured it would be close)

On the other hand I drive like an old man as I like my fuel and tyres to last as long as possible. (I drive at speed limits but don't speed).

Actually come to think of it I have behaved pretty well since I got caught on camera by an unmarked cop car doing almost 140mph (Honda VFR750-FH)on the M5. Unbelievably I got off with a warning. That was 12 years ago now.

I miss that bike :)

Stage 3 dynojet
KNN Filters
Micron Race exhaust.
RC30 Fairing kit

104BHP at the back wheel

best standing quater 10.9 seconds.

If any two cars hit head on, both doing 120kph, they're both in a world of hurt. What's your point?
Yeah, sure, but if one car is vastly more massive than the other he'll merely have a sudden reduction in his speed. Perhaps cutting it by half (and causing the requisite damage to his car). But the smaller vehicle will likely be completely destriyed, and its driver will have been subjected to much higher forces because he will have reversed direction.

i don't drive a car. here in Poland you don't really need one,

Yeah, sure, but if one car is vastly more massive than the other he'll merely have a sudden reduction in his speed. Perhaps cutting it by half (and causing the requisite damage to his car). But the smaller vehicle will likely be completely destriyed, and its driver will have been subjected to much higher forces because he will have reversed direction.

the forces subjected on the driver have nothing to do with whether your speed is reversed or not. It's purely down to the masses involved and the total energy involved in the collision. Injury is down to the safety features of the vehichles and the ability of their structures to withstand the forces involved without crushing the occupants. The more damage you can do to a car without crushing the drivers compartment the better because every dent and tear absorbs energy from the impact irrespective of which direction you end up travelling in.

Any 2 cars hitting head on both undergo the exact same change in momentum. Whether one car is bigger than the other or not. the change in momentum equal to the forces acting on the car times the time taken for the collision to occur. If you can increase the time taken for any given change in momentum you reduce the forces acting on the objects involved. This is what crumple zones do.

the forces subjected on the driver have nothing to do with whether your speed is reversed or not. It's purely down to the masses involved and the total energy involved in the collision. Injury is down to the safety features of the vehichles and the ability of their structures to withstand the forces involved without crushing the occupants. The more damage you can do to a car without crushing the drivers compartment the better because every dent and tear absorbs energy from the impact irrespective of which direction you end up travelling in.

Any 2 cars hitting head on both undergo the exact same change in momentum. Whether one car is bigger than the other or not. the change in momentum equal to the forces acting on the car times the time taken for the collision to occur. If you can increase the time taken for any given change in momentum you reduce the forces acting on the objects involved. This is what crumple zones do.

To an extent but a larger mass impacting a smaller mass imparts a greater velocity change in the smaller mass then the bigger one ... the bigger the velocity change (assuming there is not a big difference in crumple zone which changes timing of impact) In that way assuming a similar safety crumple zone over all there is less of a velocity change in the larger of the two masses

I currently ride in a 1995 Oldsmobile 88.
I say "ride" because I have no drivers license. Which leaves me to the mercy of my roommates, who are two of the worlds worst drivers. Even in a large car with airbags I feel my doom is near.

2002 Honda Civic Si. (http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/2124.html)

And again. (http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=34)

I feel safe, and I have a license to teach Traffic Safety, but it isn't me I worry about. When auto manufacturers realize a car is headed for North Dakota, they save money by ripping out the turn signals and all related lighting. This is because nobody uses them, and God help you if you do. I had to get over to the left lane to make a left turn during what passes for rush minute in Bismarck. I signalled, and seeing plenty of space in front of the car behind me in the lane I needed to enter, I gently drifted over -- at least three car-lengths ahead of the car behind the space I entered.

I got the horn, flashing brights, the whole ball of wax. Not one minute later, someone else apparently needed the space in front of me, but didn't so much as look backward, let alone signal. I thought my colleages at the college where I teach were joking about the drivers here, but sadly, no, they weren't. If significant population increase is due here in 15 years (as predicted), and I were planning to live here indefinitely, I'd open up either a body shop or an insurance agency. Because there's a tipping point at which absence of consideration on the road stops being a rural curiosity and becomes a bleeding HAZARD.

the forces subjected on the driver have nothing to do with whether your speed is reversed or not. It's purely down to the masses involved and the total energy involved in the collision. Injury is down to the safety features of the vehichles and the ability of their structures to withstand the forces involved without crushing the occupants. The more damage you can do to a car without crushing the drivers compartment the better because every dent and tear absorbs energy from the impact irrespective of which direction you end up travelling in.

Any 2 cars hitting head on both undergo the exact same change in momentum. Whether one car is bigger than the other or not. the change in momentum equal to the forces acting on the car times the time taken for the collision to occur. If you can increase the time taken for any given change in momentum you reduce the forces acting on the objects involved. This is what crumple zones do.
My car is travelling south at some speed. Your car is travelling north at the same speed. Let's call that speed S.

Your car has a mass of M. My car's mass is 4M.

Therefore, the momentum of your car is MS, but the momentum of my car is -4MS (negative because I'm travelling the opposite direction). If we collide, and let's assume a completely inelastic collision, the total momentum after the collision will still be -3MS. But since the mass of both cars together is 5M, that makes our speed 0.6S.

So, from the point of view of the drivers (let's assume we have equal mass), my speed was suddenly adjusted by 0.4S, while your was adjusted by 1.6S, all in the same span of time. Thus, your body was subjected to forces 4 times that which affected mine. Guess which of us is more likely to have suffered acceleration injuries (like whiplash).

None of my vehicles are on there, except for my '02 Chevy Silverado. But I can surmise certain things about my vehicles.

My 1973 Volkswagen Beetle Sedan, no survivability in side impacts, not much more in frontal collisions, the rear is always safest. Howeve, if I were to wreck in any Beetle, roll overs are always safest.

My 1961 Volkswagen Beetle Sedan, with Fiberglass Baja kit, even less survivability than my 1973 Beetle in frontal collisions, as it has fiberglass fenders and trunk.

My 1964 1/2 Mustang, much better survivability than either of my VW Beetles, however, I'd rather not think of the heart attack I'd have if I survived the accident.

Same for my Beetles though...I'm an Aircooled man.

But I'd say the safest vehicles are my 2002 Chevy Silverado and my 1999 Buck Century Custom.

My car is travelling south at some speed. Your car is travelling north at the same speed. Let's call that speed S.

Your car has a mass of M. My car's mass is 4M.

Therefore, the momentum of your car is MS, but the momentum of my car is -4MS (negative because I'm travelling the opposite direction). If we collide, and let's assume a completely inelastic collision, the total momentum after the collision will still be -3MS. But since the mass of both cars together is 5M, that makes our speed 0.6S.

So, from the point of view of the drivers (let's assume we have equal mass), my speed was suddenly adjusted by 0.4S, while your was adjusted by 1.6S, all in the same span of time. Thus, your body was subjected to forces 4 times that which affected mine. Guess which of us is more likely to have suffered acceleration injuries (like whiplash).
Another physics geek :fluffle:

How do 2005 Nikes rate?

My car is travelling south at some speed. Your car is travelling north at the same speed. Let's call that speed S.

Your car has a mass of M. My car's mass is 4M.

Therefore, the momentum of your car is MS, but the momentum of my car is -4MS (negative because I'm travelling the opposite direction). If we collide, and let's assume a completely inelastic collision, the total momentum after the collision will still be -3MS. But since the mass of both cars together is 5M, that makes our speed 0.6S.

So, from the point of view of the drivers (let's assume we have equal mass), my speed was suddenly adjusted by 0.4S, while your was adjusted by 1.6S, all in the same span of time. Thus, your body was subjected to forces 4 times that which affected mine. Guess which of us is more likely to have suffered acceleration injuries (like whiplash).

We have a car of 1000kg moving at 20m/s and a truck of 3000kg moving at -20m/s (the velocity of the truck is negative because its in the opposite direction relative to that of the car, this is a head on collision)

In the perfectly elastic collision between the truck and the car, total system momentum is conserved. Before the collision, the momentum of the car is +20 000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the truck is -60 000 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is -40 000 kg*m/s. After the collision, the momentum of the car is -40 000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the truck is 0 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is -40 000 kg*m/s. The total system momentum is conserved. The momentum change of the car (-40 000 kg*m/s) is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the momentum change of the truck (40 000 kg*m/s) .

An analysis of the kinetic energy of the two objects reveals that the total system kinetic energy before the collision is 800 000 Joules (200 000 J for the car plus 600 000 J for the truck). After the collision, the total system kinetic energy is 800 000 Joules (800 000 J for the car and 0 J for the truck). The total kinetic energy before the collision is equal to the total kinetic energy after the collision. .

the impulse equation is Ft=mv-mu (Force times time = change in momentum)
F= force on object
t= collision time
m=mass of object
v=final speed velocity of object
u=initial speed of velocity of object

we have already established that the momentum change for the car and the truck were 40,000 kg*m/s and 60,000 kg*m/s.

given that the car and the truck were in the same collision the duration (t) of the collision MUST have been the same for both vehichles

so for the truck F=60,000/t Newtons
and for the car F=40,000/t Newtons

The forces on the car were actually LESS than those on the truck.

However,
(assume t was 1 second for convenience)
Newtons laws state that F=ma
for the truck the acceleration was 60000/3000 = 20m/s^2
and for the car the acceleration was 40000/1000 = 40 m/s^2

So you're right, but for the wrong reason. Not because of bigger forces but because of a larger acceleration. Which is the (rather picky) point I was trying to make. I knew there was a reason I'd done the math on it, I got distracted sorry :)

I can't find the '98 or '04? Subaru Legacy/Outback, or the '05 or '06 (Can't remember which it is) Chevrolet Avalanche. Though the only one I really need to worry about is the '98 Outback, 'cause that's what I'll be driving in less than 6 months!:D

EDIT:

The '98 has average frontal ratings, which are pulled down by the ratings for the foot protection. That doesn't surprise me. When you roll the window up or down with your leg resting on the door you can feel the door moving. Not to mention that for an American that car is tiny. Great for my sister and mother, but bad for my dad, brother and me.

So you're right, but for the wrong reason. Not because of bigger forces but because of a larger acceleration. Which is the (rather picky) point I was trying to make. I knew there was a reason I'd done the math on it, I got distracted sorry :)

And to expand a bit on this (another way to say "I can be more anal than you"), it's not really the acceleration that gets you, but that different parts of your body are accelerated at different rates, ie. your head is accelerated less than the rest of your body, the front of your organs is stopping while the back is still moving forward, etc.

If there was a way to distribute the acceleration equally to all points in your body, car accidents would be no more dangerous than an elevator ride.

Damn you, Star Trek! Where are those inertial dampeners?

Based on those sites my 93 Accord is fairly safe. :)

We have a car of 1000kg moving at 20m/s and a truck of 3000kg moving at -20m/s (the velocity of the truck is negative because its in the opposite direction relative to that of the car, this is a head on collision)

In the perfectly elastic collision between the truck and the car, total system momentum is conserved. Before the collision, the momentum of the car is +20 000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the truck is -60 000 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is -40 000 kg*m/s. After the collision, the momentum of the car is -40 000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the truck is 0 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is -40 000 kg*m/s. The total system momentum is conserved. The momentum change of the car (-40 000 kg*m/s) is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the momentum change of the truck (40 000 kg*m/s) .

An analysis of the kinetic energy of the two objects reveals that the total system kinetic energy before the collision is 800 000 Joules (200 000 J for the car plus 600 000 J for the truck). After the collision, the total system kinetic energy is 800 000 Joules (800 000 J for the car and 0 J for the truck). The total kinetic energy before the collision is equal to the total kinetic energy after the collision. .

the impulse equation is Ft=mv-mu (Force times time = change in momentum)
F= force on object
t= collision time
m=mass of object
v=final speed velocity of object
u=initial speed of velocity of object

we have already established that the momentum change for the car and the truck were 40,000 kg*m/s and 60,000 kg*m/s.

given that the car and the truck were in the same collision the duration (t) of the collision MUST have been the same for both vehichles

so for the truck F=60,000/t Newtons
and for the car F=40,000/t Newtons

The forces on the car were actually LESS than those on the truck.

However,
(assume t was 1 second for convenience)
Newtons laws state that F=ma
for the truck the acceleration was 60000/3000 = 20m/s^2
and for the car the acceleration was 40000/1000 = 40 m/s^2

So you're right, but for the wrong reason. Not because of bigger forces but because of a larger acceleration. Which is the (rather picky) point I was trying to make. I knew there was a reason I'd done the math on it, I got distracted sorry :)

Larger forces as well
F=MA correctly so the user in the car in the end has a higher acceleration then the person in the truck

The force on the USER is directly affected by their acceleration which is what you just proved was higher

So stating that the force on the USER (assuming identical weight) would be greater in the car then the big truck

Larger forces as well
F=MA correctly so the user in the car in the end has a higher acceleration then the person in the truck

The force on the USER is directly affected by their acceleration which is what you just proved was higher

So stating that the force on the USER (assuming identical weight) would be greater in the car then the big truck

You're quite right.

if the driver in each vehichle is 100kg then

the car exerts 100kgx40m/s^2 = 4000N on the car driver
the truck exerts 100kgx20m/s^2 = 2000N on the truck driver

A car is just a tool, it is only as safe as the person operating the tool.

My car got the shared the best score in its class with Mercedes on Euro NCap. I drive a Megané.

My VW Polo (1990) isn't listed. Anyway, I think that is below the current safety standards.

Especially useful if you hit a deer, or the occasional pedestrian. Saves on bumper damage.

As for Florida deer, they're pretty much the same size a Great Dane. We have baby deer.

I currently ride in a 1995 Oldsmobile 88.
I say "ride" because I have no drivers license. Which leaves me to the mercy of my roommates, who are two of the worlds worst drivers. Even in a large car with airbags I feel my doom is near.

I used to own a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88, it was a tank, I felt completely safe in that car. Of course back in the seventies vehicles were made of steel instead of todays fiberglass and plastic. (sarcasm) I was driving one day and a tire came off. Come to find out the previous owner put the wrong type of lug nuts on it. buggers. Very big car though. this was quite a few years ago.

You're quite right.

if the driver in each vehichle is 100kg then

the car exerts 100kgx40m/s^2 = 4000N on the car driver
the truck exerts 100kgx20m/s^2 = 2000N on the truck driver

Exactly and I think that is what the poster you quoted was going for the force on the driver (as that is what causes the injuries besides impacts with things.)

I used to own a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88, it was a tank, I felt completely safe in that car. Of course back in the seventies vehicles were made of steel instead of todays fiberglass and plastic. (sarcasm) I was driving one day and a tire came off. Come to find out the previous owner put the wrong type of lug nuts on it. buggers. Very big car though. this was quite a few years ago.

To be fair a few years back my dad was hit from behind by an olds 88 and pushed into a jeep grand cherokee

He was in an 01 chev prizem

He drove away the grand cherokee did not lol

All he had was a cut in the paint where the receiver was.

Needless to say I was majory impressed with how it took it

This computer looks pretty safe to me.

To be fair a few years back my dad was hit from behind by an olds 88 and pushed into a jeep grand cherokee

He was in an 01 chev prizem

He drove away the grand cherokee did not lol

All he had was a cut in the paint where the receiver was.

Needless to say I was majory impressed with how it took it

Yeah, I'm hearing the Jeeps are lousy when it comes to accidents. They maybe should stay on the off road. :p

Yeah, I'm hearing the Jeeps are lousy when it comes to accidents. They maybe should stay on the off road. :p

I know mine would be hurting in an accident

But yet its cool

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/jeep/jeep5.jpg
I made my own bumpers :)

hehe but my friends Xterra is not much better

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/jeep/jeep11.jpg

I know mine would be hurting in an accident

But yet its cool

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/jeep/jeep5.jpg
I made my own bumpers :)

hehe but my friends Xterra is not much better

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/jeep/jeep11.jpg

Right now, I have a '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Buaer edition. I plan to add atleast a 2" lift maybe 4" lift so that I can get 33" inch tires if I get the 4" I might get the 35" tires if they'll fit. It has a 351 V8 soon to have double headers with a couple of flowmasters. It's an amazing truck. Handles great, drives on wet roads great, excellent braking, suspension, and acceleration. It has air shocks which I definately like. I can't wait to I finish all of this costly work. It's overall condition is in Good shape but by the time I finish (when I finish but have to start first in order to "git ir' done" :p ) it'll be practically mint condition.

Right now, I have a '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Buaer edition. I plan to add atleast a 2" lift maybe 4" lift so that I can get 33" inch tires if I get the 4" I might get the 35" tires if they'll fit. It has a 351 V8 soon to have double headers with a couple of flowmasters. It's an amazing truck. Handles great, drives on wet roads great, excellent braking, suspension, and acceleration. It has air shocks which I definately like. I can't wait to I finish all of this costly work. It's overall condition is in Good shape but by the time I finish (when I finish but have to start first in order to "git ir' done" :p ) it'll be practically mint condition.

That jeeps an 87 , I have the 05 Chev 2500 HD and a 97 GMC 2500 HD

Right now, I have a '95 Ford Bronco Eddie Buaer edition. I plan to add atleast a 2" lift maybe 4" lift so that I can get 33" inch tires if I get the 4" I might get the 35" tires if they'll fit. It has a 351 V8 soon to have double headers with a couple of flowmasters. It's an amazing truck. Handles great, drives on wet roads great, excellent braking, suspension, and acceleration. It has air shocks which I definately like. I can't wait to I finish all of this costly work. It's overall condition is in Good shape but by the time I finish (when I finish but have to start first in order to "git ir' done" :p ) it'll be practically mint condition.

Oh note the jeep has 33's on it

Oh note the jeep has 33's on it

yep, I noticed. I really can't wait to get my larger tires. It's going to have to wait since I'm in the starting stage of trying to buy a house. House is now my priority. :)

yep, I noticed. I really can't wait to get my larger tires. It's going to have to wait since I'm in the starting stage of trying to buy a house. House is now my priority. :)

Mine are spendy tires Procomp Xterains

(I do as you can see almost exclusively rock) they are a bit better then my Super Swamper TSL's

Mine are a bit over 200 a tire for what I picked them up for

But I can take them down to 6 PSI

http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/jeep/jeep9.jpg

I could fit bigger but I would not have the suspension travel that I want without a body mod