ANCAP vs REAL world crashes. small cars not so good.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

We all know the peer reviewed process is highly suspect.

No we don't. Some of us believe in it...more than don't id suggest

JP

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Unfortunately you and others are falling into a common trap that causes people to invalidly dispute research findings; your observed sample size is much smaller than the researchers and in all likelihood is a tiny subset of all the road accident outcomes that they considered.

This is the point that were forgetting. It's logical to use the biggest available research pool for statistics. In saying that, people have brought up questions about the authors respectability. But that asside you simply have to go with the biggest or largest results if your looking for facts on a topic. I'm pretty sure every single uni or research in the world could be whinged about in some form or another.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I would interested in that answer too. I am a paramedic in a busy metropolitan station surrounded on 2 sides by motorways and high speed back roads (the drag strips) on another side. I don't go to significant crashes that result in injuries that require more than a quick check at hospital daily. I have been to 1000's of crashes involving every type of vehicle from Toyota Yaris size up to B Double (we don't get road trains in Brisbane). I have been to more fatals than I can count and many serious injury crashes.

What I will say is in my observation, the seriously injured that I have been to, the dead that I have been to, are mostly in larger cars.

Could it be because that sense of security you all rave about leads to increased risk taking behaviour?

You see I respect 100% the viewpoint of someone like you who has been through 1000s of these incidents. It at least gives a smallish sample idea of the outcomes in a certain area...at worst. Saying that there is still a bigger picture then that.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

You could say this till your blue in the face and still some people would not get it

Exactly.....so that's why smart people look up results of millions of these crashes so that bias isn't involved.
Still doesn't mean large or small cars are all safer....it's just the odds change.bigger fact pool equals closer to real life results.

[mik]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

The old Morris, I grew up in them, my old’s had an 1100/1300 morris nomad, one was auto and the other manual.

i think i have only seen a nomad in books, where there many of these in oz ?

we had a few morrys as well, the old man had a morris minor for a while, i also had a morris 1100, a warmed mini 1000,and mums mimi matic . and we had friends with an austin tasman..... the most peculiar handling car i have ever driven, pendulum effect anyone .

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

I'm not falling into any trap or invaliding research findings, I'm stating that in my experience "bigger is not always better" (nothing else) which some people here continually harp on about.

You also need to accept that statistics can be manipulated to advance any argument the researcher wishes whether purposely or not.

When you and others comment the way you have....your basically stating your viewpoint and it appears your accusing these particular results as manipulated. Maybe you should clarify that.
And I'm sure most understand(if they've bothered to look at the ACTUALL results) that big cars aren't always safer.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

And I'm sure most understand(if they've bothered to look at the ACTUALL results) that big cars aren't always safer.

Apparently not, refer to the second post of this thread (which you liked).

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

So what Monash research in particular are you rejecting and on what basis so as forum peers we can review or opinion :-) ?

I'd be interested in those details aswell....because the test referred to in this thread involved "every" crash.....not just hand picked ones.

And as aussieblue mentioned above...these tests are open to cross testing and adjustment of results. That's exactly what they did last year when they readjusted the findings with uptodate crashes.....which no doubt involved far more newer cars with better tech then the original pool.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

When you and others comment the way you have....your basically stating your viewpoint and it appears your accusing these particular results as manipulated. Maybe you should clarify that.

I'm stating that in my experience "bigger is not always better" (nothing else)

This was in response to the 2nd post of this thread.

How much more clarity do you want


I'm not accusing anyone of anything just stating that statistics can be used to favor one's own agenda.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

No we don't. Some of us believe in it...more than don't id suggest

JP

So you believe ALL peer reviewed papers?

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

So in what capacity do you deal with motor accidents on a daily basis ?

So with every accident you have dealt with the larger car has always come off better has it ?

Because all I'm saying is that in my experience the heavier vehicle will not always come off better.

I'm not talking about statistics by some uni bum in an office, I'm talking real world experience over many years on the end of hydraulic rescue tools cutting what others see as statistics out of their wrecks.

I shouldn't need to state it but obviously where there is a large weight advantage (ie car vs semi) the heavier will come off better. It's just not as cut and dried otherwise as there are far to many variables.

Once you get back down of your pedestal, re-read what I wrote. I shared by retrospective view on my experience and exposure I have. I didn’t say I have any reports, results or statistics. (If I did, I certainly would not share them on a public forum)

Not everyone on AFF has your opinion, you need to accept mine differs for yours. Neither is right or wrong.

To answer your first question, I speak to drivers, owners and NoK’s following motor accidents. I have access to the reports following these incidents and the circumstances surrounding the cause.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Wrong on so many levels.
Your ability to pull up is a factor of two things: Your momentum AND your ability to apply (braking) friction to the road via your tyres, which is directly related to your mass. So your stopping distance will come down to a combination of factors such as tyres, surface, brakes, weight-balance, etc. Mass actually cancels itself out.

The ability to "swerve around obstacles" is again not dependent on mass, but IS dependent on CoG, so a wide Saloon is better than a narrow Hatchback.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I like this one:

http://youtu.be/cJrXViFfMGk

1959 Bel Air car vs Chevy Malibu

Oh no, don't drag that one up...now all the 'classic not plastic' brigade are going to join the fray.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

So you believe ALL peer reviewed papers?

you know better than that!
I know the paper has been reviewed and the aim, methodology, assumptions and conclusions have been reviewed, and if not torn apart by peers I can conclude the study was conducted and findings made within the confines of the proposed study framework.
Of course I read the whole report not just the headline in a newspaper to determine If I agree with the methodology and assumptions. If I do not agree, the findings are irrelevant. If I do, I know the findings have resulted from adherence with the aims of the study and I can rely upon them.


JP

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Once you get back down of your pedestal, re-read what I wrote. I shared by retrospective view on my experience and exposure I have. I didn’t say I have any reports, results or statistics. (If I did, I certainly would not share them on a public forum)

Not everyone on AFF has your opinion, you need to accept mine differs for yours. Neither is right or wrong.

I never said you did, not sure what your on about

So with every accident you have dealt with the larger car has always come off better has it ?

So ?

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Do you have a link to the actual research rather than just the overview which we can not review?

Your OP links a news report and not the research that was reported on. News reports can bias research to far outside the actual findings.

all MUARCs papers are here http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/

I think this is the 2012 rep0rt referred to in the newspaper http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear.../muarc313.html

there's a 2013 update here (257 pages - happy reading) http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear.../muarc318.html

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Apparently not, refer to the second post of this thread (which you liked).

Are you just being argumentative? The second post in this thread makes total sense....and I still agree with it........because it backs up the facts shown in real world crash test results from the last 20plus years.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by simon varley

all MUARCs papers are here http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/

I think this is the 2012 rep0rt referred to in the newspaper http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear.../muarc313.html

there's a 2013 update here (257 pages - happy reading) http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear.../muarc318.html

And if anyone wants more they can even search for the earlier research done in 1994 that the above quoted 2011/12 results are an extension of.

[zilo]

There is no small car built by

Holden,ford,toyota,mazda,mitsubishi,kia,renault,ho nda,isuzu(insert buzz box here) that could survive a head on with a Mercedes S class.

The S class is a large car, therefore large cars are safer than small cars.

End of thread.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

And I'm sure most understand(if they've bothered to look at the ACTUALL results) that big cars aren't always safer.

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

The second post in this thread makes total sense....and I still agree with it........because it backs up the facts shown in real world crash test results from the last 20plus years.

The problem is the ANCAP crash test doesn't take into account weight. The heavier car will always come off better in a crash.

So which is it...

Does the bigger/larger/heavier car always comes off better/is safer in a accident or not ?


All I am taking issue with is people stating this sort of bollocks, nothing else

The heavier car will always come off better in a crash

[cheap]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

So which is it...

Does the bigger/larger/heavier car always comes off better/is safer in a accident or not ?


All I am taking issue with is people stating this sort of bollocks, nothing else

Well it depends and mass is only part of the issue, in general terms I'd rather my loved ones be in a 3, 4 or 5 star ANCRAP LARGE vehicle than in a small 5 star ANCRAP buzz box.

Also it is meaningless using a 1950's vehicle V's a modern 5 star ANCRAP vehicle. If you had to have a collision, which would you rather be in a FG V8 Supercar V's a 5 star ANCRAP FG Falcon?

Stip a small 5 star ANCRAP vehicles of its airbags, collapsible steering column and so, and just have the body shell to protect you - good luck, don't forget permanent disability, trauma & life insurance. There is safety in having lots of real estate around you which by its very nature means more metal which means more mass.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by zilo

There is no small car built by

Holden,ford,toyota,mazda,mitsubishi,kia,renault,ho nda,isuzu(insert buzz box here) that could survive a head on with a Mercedes S class.

The S class is a large car, therefore large cars are safer than small cars.

End of thread.

Language is such an important asset when discussing and attempting to argue points. Many claim semantics but incorrect or lazy use of sentances and descriptions of ideas leaves yourself open to definition decay and your point will be lost.
A head on collsion may be defined as 'a collision where the front ends of two vehicles such as cars, trains, ships or planes hit each other in opposite directions, as opposed to a side collision or rear-end collision'

There is no indication of speed in which a head on occurs simply a description of geometry and location.
As such I would argue that I will survive a head on collision with almost anything when in a controlled situation, Like say at and impact speed of 3km's per hour, maybe even 20 km's and hour. By definition it is a head on and I am sure Id survive even against a mercedes even in my buzzbox.

I understand your intent and the common parlance allocated to head on collision but I know of the driver of an E class killed in ahead on with a sub 100Kg vehicle and the 'rider' walked away. Mass did not win nor did the expensive car! Its not black and white and as discussed while it may help it might not. Please dont generalise or base argument on loose descriptions

JP

[esppwr]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

I understand your intent and the common parlance allocated to head on collision but I know of the driver of an E class killed in ahead on with a sub 100Kg vehicle and the 'rider' walked away. Mass did not win nor did the expensive car! Its not black and white and as discussed while it may help it might not. Please dont generalise or base argument on loose descriptions

JP

Not wrong, local cars fair well in safety, look at the pics below, the scoring is so retarded. I think more emphasis should be put on being able to open a door normally after a crash and whip lash reduction than a buzzer that annoys the s%#t out of you.

[simon varley]

if anyone has read the report, what stands out to me is that in the last three years, all classes of cars considered have a worse crashworthiness rating than earlier model years. In many cases a 2011 car is rated as poorly as a 2003/4 car. What has changed recently?

ref 2013 update fig 19 p62.

this is also the graph that indicates heavier cars are 'safer' than lighter cars. They use injury risk times injury severity equals crashworthiness. It is not infallible though - small cars appear less safe than large cars, but large and medium classes are practically the same.

all the numbers are very very small though.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Language is such an important asset when discussing and attempting to argue points. Many claim semantics but incorrect or lazy use of sentances and descriptions of ideas leaves yourself open to definition decay and your point will be lost.
A head on collsion may be defined as 'a collision where the front ends of two vehicles such as cars, trains, ships or planes hit each other in opposite directions, as opposed to a side collision or rear-end collision'

There is no indication of speed in which a head on occurs simply a description of geometry and location.
As such I would argue that I will survive a head on collision with almost anything when in a controlled situation, Like say at and impact speed of 3km's per hour, maybe even 20 km's and hour. By definition it is a head on and I am sure Id survive even against a mercedes even in my buzzbox.

I understand your intent and the common parlance allocated to head on collision but I know of the driver of an E class killed in ahead on with a sub 100Kg vehicle and the 'rider' walked away. Mass did not win nor did the expensive car! Its not black and white and as discussed while it may help it might not. Please dont generalise or base argument on loose descriptions

JP

I dunno much about vocalbullary cause I was never learned about that stuff at my school.

But I knows a error when I sees it and when a guy calls a spade a shovel.

I said S class and have made the mistake nice and bold and black for you cause what has that got to do with the price of fish except to let you prove how much gooder your vocal bullary is to the rest of the readers?

Now a really cool guy used to say "are you feeling lucky punk?"

That's how I would feel if I was in your car going head on into an S class merc.

Get the picture?

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

So which is it...

Does the bigger/larger/heavier car always comes off better/is safer in a accident or not ?


All I am taking issue with is people stating this sort of bollocks, nothing else

So why are you quoting and asking me? I've not said that ever....("large car will always be safer")

Because I'm sure there's at least one incident out there where a small car had flown off a bridge and landed on a large car killing the large car occupants, therefore giving the "win" to the small car

[danzvtil]

For the love of God, can a mod close this thread. My head hurts.

[Ben73]

Have you ever seen a car get hit by a train and the train come off second best?
Of course cars are a lot more similar weighed to each other compared to a train, but realistically if I was going to be in a crash and I could choose out of 2 cars with the same star safety rating, I would rather be in the larger car and hope for the best.

[AU1XLS]

Closed