My massive impact - A real life tale of small car vs large car safety.

[Nikked]

Slammed?


We all brought up facts from the same article he posted and he dribbled on saying we need to read etc...we agreed the the falcon is a safe car, but we are talking about how a small car is not the death trap they are made out to be...something reinforced in the exact same article (and another article...from the same study...go figure...)

Then to say that ANCAP is useless for comparing the safety of cars, then take a another 5 star system as gospel?


Bewilderment.


Besides, the article (with the data available from local rego authorities, hell I remember looking at the pamphlet in the RTA/RMS office last license renewal...) shares some similarities with ANCAP ratings anyway...

I'm not sure what is happening anymore?

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by MAD

Next we'll be arguing that two identical cars in a head on crash is equal to a 200km/h into a solid immovable object.

If a plane is on a conveyor belt, will it take of?

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Slammed?


We all brought up facts from the same article he posted and he dribbled on saying we need to read etc...we agreed the the falcon is a safe car, but we are talking about how a small car is not the death trap they are made out to be...something reinforced in the exact same article (and another article...from the same study...go figure...)

Then to say that ANCAP is useless for comparing the safety of cars, then take a another 5 star system as gospel?


Bewilderment.


Besides, the article (with the data available from local rego authorities, hell I remember looking at the pamphlet in the RTA/RMS office last license renewal...) shares some similarities with ANCAP ratings anyway...

I'm not sure what is happening anymore?

Just save your breath, you'll get further talking to a brick wall, people like that cannot understand facts, they see what they want to see and ignore the rest. Also known as the flat earth society.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by MAD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXunnaaYtz0

You wouldn't know it by reading some responses here, but physics does exist.

.

For those that can't be bothered with youtube ...

The longer the bonnet, the longer the crumple zone and time, the less forces on the occupants.

And...

It follows that the longer the bonnet usually the larger the car.

Pretty basic really, unless you've just bought a small 5 star car and are trying to justify it as being just as safe as that big thirsty 5 star large car the neighbours drive....

[1TUFFUTE]

So if I'm in a large 5 star car....a bmw550 for eg would anyone be willing to hop in a 5star ford KA and run head on into a pole at 80klms, or take a truck crashing into your drivers door at 80klms the same as the large 5 star car?

hence why people using 5 star ratings to choose between new cars is useless. All you need is airbags, ABS and traction control probably for a 5 star rating these days. They in no way take into account the size or the quality crash protection engineering built into cars



I for one am not a SHEEP. Your a dumb stupid ignorant gullible clown if you think all " 5 star cars are as safe as each other in the real world How bout some of you look at the article I POSTED and see how many of those cars with high injury numbers are 5 star cars or 4 stars even...........

WOW

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

would anyone be willing to hop in a 5star ford KA and run head on into a pole at 80klms

You source a 5 star Ford KA, then we'll talk

[jpblue1000]

There is a significant part of the argument missing from this debate and It dawned on me while reading something else.
The data presented in the Monash report was reporting not on the safety of a car but the crash worthiness of the cars in the study.
Meaning the report determines and illustrates the likelyhood of being injured in a crash and the expected proportion of crashes in which the driver will suffer a life threatening injury.

This data has been derived from assessing real world accidents, identifying injuries and type of car involved. The Report says nothing about how likely you are to be involved in a crash, when driving a particular vehicle.
With the significant choice of vehicles available on our roads over a long time the report cannot correlate the percentage of crashes and resultant injuries with number of instances of a car type existing.
For example. a low number of ultra compact or light cars (type 1) of a particular model exist and a small percentage crash resulting in injury vs a large car model (type 2)which has a higher number of crashes but when injuries are compared to the significantly higher base figure of cars the type 2 may appear safer! as the injury rate may be lower as a percentage of total units.
The pool of accidents to calculate against in some of the cars cases is statistically insignificant ans as such skews the results about safety but perhaps points to another fact. The active safety of a smaller car vs the passive safety of the larger car, the car with the lower crash worthiness rating as presented in the monash report may actually help avoid accidents better?

In effect the Monash report could actually be saying the FG falcon is more likely to be involved in a crash than a Barina.

JP

[pottery beige]

You dudes make my head hurt

Happy yo all crashings x

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

So if I'm in a large 5 star car....a bmw550 for eg would anyone be willing to hop in a 5star ford KA and run head on into a pole at 80klms, or take a truck crashing into your drivers door at 80klms the same as the large 5 star car?

Where did anyone say all small car's would be safer all large cars? Also, this thread is about one blokes impact, his small car into a large car. He faired better then the other dude...


Does this mean all small cars are the same...no...

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

hence why people using 5 star ratings to choose between new cars is useless.

How so?

Not everyone is going to jump on the interweebs to sift through mindless dribble to find a 2009 Falcon is safer then a 1996 Daihatsu...

They are going to research (ever via new car ANCAP star Ratings, or the RMS/RACV etc) and say,

"Hey car B (small 3-door hatch) has 5 stars, while car A (small 3-door hatch) has only 4, I'd rather car B"

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

:
All you need is airbags, ABS and traction control probably for a 5 star rating these days. They in no way take into account the size or the quality crash protection engineering built into cars

That's a first, I guess they just crash cars into wall's to watch dummies flop about? Its rally going to be a waste of time explaining why/how they crash cars, collect data from dummies etc if you already think this...

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

:
I for one am not a SHEEP. Your a dumb stupid ignorant gullible clown if you think all " 5 star cars are as safe as each other in the real world How bout some of you look at the article I POSTED and see how many of those cars with high injury numbers are 5 star cars or 4 stars even...........

WOW

So we should ignore one star rating, and accept the other as gospel? Even though the RACV, RACQ and NRMA support both, and even use ANCAP in there guides?

You do no that UCSR tend to only take into account driver data...not passengers to?

[chrisandsharon]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Not everyone is going to jump on the interweebs to sift through mindless dribble to find a 2009 Falcon is safer then a 1996 Daihatsu...

They are going to research (ever via new car ANCAP star Ratings, or the RMS/RACV etc) and say,

"Hey car B (small 3-door hatch) has 5 stars, while car A (small 3-door hatch) has only 4, I'd rather car B"

Lol this thread has done my head in, I've just been scanning through from time to time. The above quote is exactly why ANCAP ratings are changing very shortly. Research has indicated most people see the 5 star rating and think it's the safest. Problem is vehicles with no rear curtain airbags are receiving 5 star ratings such as the VW Amarok. Very shortly they'll be rated a 4 star.

We wanted to upgrade our dual cab and were scratching our heads when looking at the 5 star Amarok. We said to the salesman 'we can't find the rear curtain
air-bags'............'doesn't have em' he replies. I said 'it's 5 stars'.

Good to see the star ratings are changing.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by chrisandsharon

Lol this thread has done my head in, I've just been scanning through from time to time. The above quote is exactly why ANCAP ratings are changing very shortly. Research has indicated most people see the 5 star rating and think it's the safest. Problem is vehicles with no rear curtain airbags are receiving 5 star ratings such as the VW Amarok. Very shortly they'll be rated a 4 star.

We wanted to upgrade our dual cab and were scratching our heads when looking at the 5 star Amarok. We said to the salesman 'we can't find the rear curtain
air-bags'............'doesn't have em' he replies. I said 'it's 5 stars'.

Good to see the star ratings are changing.

dont need rear bags in 4wd cos bigger car, paper, scissors, rocks

sillly

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by chrisandsharon

We wanted to upgrade our dual cab and were scratching our heads when looking at the 5 star Amarok. We said to the salesman 'we can't find the rear curtain
air-bags'............'doesn't have em' he replies. I said 'it's 5 stars'.

Good to see the star ratings are changing.

Not surprised, the improvement of safety features is moving along at a remarkable rate, 10 years ago half the cars on the market hardly had side impact bags, now just about every car (even cheap hyundais) have side curtain airbags...ANCAP has just been caught behind in this regard.

So it nakes sense that they are going to rework they guide.

Keep in mind the scores take into account the crash data, pedestrian protection, passive safety etc...not just the impact and beyond data. As we know, best way to survive a crash, is to not have a crash.


ANCAP (NCAP etc) are partialy the reason for the improvement in car safety...catch 22

[MAD]

ANCAP are always adjusting the criteria as tech improves. Not the first time a 5 star car has become a 4, won't be the last.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Nikked

best way to survive a crash, is to not have a crash.

My point earlier small cars have better passive safety vs bigger cars active safety meaning you are less likely to be involved in a crash in a small car! (oooh controversial)

Furthermore:
approximately 45 % of fatal crashes are single car crashes
Head on type crashes account for near 20%
Angle crashes (T Bone) 14%
Rea end hits 4%
side swipe 4%
Hit pedestrian 12%
Other 2%
(http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...6330100,d.dGI0)
So many of the arguments about long bonnets short boots and null and void according to the above as the likely hood of a head on is low and you are more likely to die in a single car accident where the larger object is going to be a telephone pole, a wall, a cliff or whatever and even 5 star rated cars big and small will suffer badly.
Also the largest proportion of deaths happen to drunk male drivers aged 30-39 while traveling above 100 and or below 60 Km/h between 2-4 pm on a Saturday while pulling an illegal manouvre in a car with an open license.
JP

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

You source a 5 star Ford KA, then we'll talk

It's CLEARLY used as an example of a super small car....insert ANY small car you wish into the small vs large 5 star equation......that's the point!

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

There is a significant part of the argument missing from this debate and It dawned on me while reading something else.
The data presented in the Monash report was reporting not on the safety of a car but the crash worthiness of the cars in the study.
Meaning the report determines and illustrates the likelyhood of being injured in a crash and the expected proportion of crashes in which the driver will suffer a life threatening injury.

This data has been derived from assessing real world accidents, identifying injuries and type of car involved. The Report says nothing about how likely you are to be involved in a crash, when driving a particular vehicle.
With the significant choice of vehicles available on our roads over a long time the report cannot correlate the percentage of crashes and resultant injuries with number of instances of a car type existing.
For example. a low number of ultra compact or light cars (type 1) of a particular model exist and a small percentage crash resulting in injury vs a large car model (type 2)which has a higher number of crashes but when injuries are compared to the significantly higher base figure of cars the type 2 may appear safer! as the injury rate may be lower as a percentage of total units.
The pool of accidents to calculate against in some of the cars cases is statistically insignificant ans as such skews the results about safety but perhaps points to another fact. The active safety of a smaller car vs the passive safety of the larger car, the car with the lower crash worthiness rating as presented in the monash report may actually help avoid accidents better?

In effect the Monash report could actually be saying the FG falcon is more likely to be involved in a crash than a Barina.

JP

Apparently they adjust the scores depending on car numbers, along with other things. It's a logical idea otherwise expensive low volume euros and other less main stream cars would not be represented very well at all!

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Where did anyone say all small car's would be safer all large cars? Also, this thread is about one blokes impact, his small car into a large car. He faired better then the other dude...


Does this mean all small cars are the same...no...


NObody said that. And yes...lucky for the op....but as I stated.....small cars aren't as safe as you or him think. The results show the FG the SAFEST out of over 180 cars from ALL classes. The FG is a LARGE 5 star car for your info!


How so?

Not everyone is going to jump on the interweebs to sift through mindless dribble to find a 2009 Falcon is safer then a 1996 Daihatsu...

They are going to research (ever via new car ANCAP star Ratings, or the RMS/RACV etc) and say,

"Hey car B (small 3-door hatch) has 5 stars, while car A (small 3-door hatch) has only 4, I'd rather car B"


WELL YOU jump on here and sift through crap....and then post it thinking its fact....instead it's a non factual ripoff article from the real test results with ZERO facts. Lucky your not advising people on safe cars to buy
And what do they do when car B is a small 5 star hatch...and car A is a large 5 star hatch. If they truely care about safety they research which 5 star car is SAFER.......OH ITS THE LARGE CAR!! Shock horror.....



That's a first, I guess they just crash cars into wall's to watch dummies flop about? Its rally going to be a waste of time explaining why/how they crash cars, collect data from dummies etc if you already think this...






So we should ignore one star rating, and accept the other as gospel? Even though the RACV, RACQ and NRMA support both, and even use ANCAP in there guides?

You do no that UCSR tend to only take into account driver data...not passengers to?

(answers to your off topic questions in quote above)

I never said 5 star ratings and ancap was totally useless....I did say if your after the "safest" car it is. Obviously 5 stars are better then 4! Not forgetting 5 star is wAy too easy to achieve! Next to zero safety engineering is needed....just airbags and tech. That's why ACTUALL CRASH RESULTS are very USEFULL if your looking for a SAFE CAR.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

My point earlier small cars have better passive safety vs bigger cars active safety meaning you are less likely to be involved in a crash in a small car! (oooh controversial)

Sounds like dribble, can you prove that claim?

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

(http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...6330100,d.dGI0)
So many of the arguments about long bonnets short boots and null and void according to the above as the likely hood of a head on is low and you are more likely to die in a single car accident where the larger object is going to be a telephone pole, a wall, a cliff or whatever and even 5 star rated cars big and small will suffer badly.

quite amazing that you read that the laws of physics have changed in that report...
I certainly don't see that.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Not forgetting 5 star is wAy too easy to achieve! Next to zero safety engineering is needed....just airbags and tech.

I just had to quote this again for lulz.

That car of mine proved worthy of it's 5 star status in this situation. I'm very grateful for this. It sure wasn't just because of airbags and "tech", the whole safety cell remained intact around me, and the doors were 100% openable.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Danny

I just had to quote this again for lulz.

That car of mine proved worthy of it's 5 star status in this situation. I'm very grateful for this. It sure wasn't just because of airbags and "tech", the whole safety cell remained intact around me, and the doors were 100% openable.

Says a lot

New vehicles are awarded or deducted points based on a combination of test categories and scientific criteria. All vehicles are assessed under identical testings standards and conditions.

In all tests, dummies are used to measure the various forces on the occupants in a crash. The data gathered is then assessed, using internationally recognised protocols and star-ratings are determined for each crash test.

Observations are also made on the displacement of dummies during the crash, as well as the structural impact on the vehicle's occupant compartment.

Points are also awarded if the vehicle is fitted with safety features such as Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and seat belt reminders.

To achieve an ANCAP 5 Star rating, a vehicle must achieve the highest international recognised standards in all test categories.

They must be some airbags to be able to maintain the structural integrity of the passenger cell.
Tech he says? Well of course, technology advances (we hope) with every iteration of vehicle (or anything for that matter). Structural strength, body materials, crumple zones, air bags, esc, ABS, etc they're all a form of technology advancements. I guess some people need to understand the word technology before liberally applying it in a negative fashion.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Apparently they adjust the scores depending on car numbers, along with other things. It's a logical idea otherwise expensive low volume euros and other less main stream cars would not be represented very well at all!

Im not sure about that as much of the critique of the reports assumptions centers on the statistical analysis being drawn from too small a pool in many cars cases and not normalising for vehicle model volume.

I'm certainly not going to die in a ditch over it but assessing the peer review suggests a statistical anomaly in the original data assesment

JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by zilo

Sounds like dribble, can you prove that claim?

Did you read my earlier post# 157?

Reading the critique of the report in question analysis of data proves the crashworthiness of a vehicle not its propensity to be involved in crashes. Analysing the data alternatively, against statistical occurrence of a model on our roads could suggest that while if you do crash your in trouble the likelyhood of crashing must be lower!

Originally Posted by zilo

quite amazing that you read that the laws of physics have changed in that report...
I certainly don't see that.

Never said anything about the laws of physics.

The crumple zone of the front your car only works when you run into the back of something. In the majority of cases death occurs not from multiple car frontal impacts but from single car and side impact.
The laws of Mass are not on your side irrespective of what ANCAP or AFF rating your cars has when you hit a pole sideways.
Much of the debate has been on front end crumple zones but they only protect you in 30ish percent of cases when a fatality would occur.

The so called safest car ever the fg falcon! is not much better in side impact than the smallest car! which I argue probably wouldn't be sliding towards a pole in the first place.

Im not arguing that Mass does not help the occupant in the bigger vehicle in a crash. I am hypothesising that that same mass is detracting from the large vehicles ability to avoid a crash!

JP

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Did you read my earlier post# 157?

Reading the critique of the report in question analysis of data proves the crashworthiness of a vehicle not its propensity to be involved in crashes.

The crumple zone of the front your car only works when you run into the back of something. In the majority of cases death occures not from multiple car frontal impacts but from single car and side impact.
The laws of Mass are not on your side irrespective of what ANCAP or AFF rating your cars has when you hit a pole sideways.
Much of the debate has been on front end crumple zones but they only protect you in 30ish percent of cases when a fatality would occur.

The so called safest car ever the fg falcon! is not much better in side impact than the smallest car! which I argue probably wouldn't be sliding towards a pole in the first place.

JP

Hence why they average all accidents to provide a "statistical" "safest car in the world" as you put it, not just the cases that slide into a pole sideways.
OVERALL...covering all areas where accidents have been recorded and injuries recorded.....the FG "was" determined" the "statistically" safest car!
Just because the op has one accident in a small car.....doesn't prove all these results wrong. Congrats on being safe by the way. Can I suggest an FG next

SO....until the tests are redone, the FG falcon is the safest car in the universe...including Uranus....the place where people think a five star car is the safest car you can buy!

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Hence why they average all accidents to provide a "statistical" "safest car in the world" as you put it, not just the cases that slide into a pole sideways.
OVERALL...covering all areas where accidents have been recorded and injuries recorded.....the FG "was" determined" the "statistically" safest car!
Just because the op has one accident in a small car.....doesn't prove all these results wrong. Congrats on being safe by the way. Can I suggest an FG next

SO....until the tests are redone, the FG falcon is the safest car in the universe...including Uranus....the place where people think a five star car is the safest car you can buy!

Tuffute I think your quoting the wrong post when arguing another point.
Yes, the FG falcon has a high crashworthyness when compared to the Australian 'fleet' and I concur it is a very good car, Furthermore the the articles Author declared it the best in all history everywhere, despite it recording similar scores to a numerous other cars.

I'm arguing it needs to be the best crasher as its more likely to crash!

JP

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Tuffute I think your quoting the wrong post when arguing another point.
Yes, the FG falcon has a high crashworthyness when compared to the Australian 'fleet' and I concur it is a very good car, Furthermore the the articles Author declared it the best in all history everywhere, despite it recording similar scores to a numerous other cars.

I'm arguing it needs to be the best crasher as its more likely to crash!

JP

no I was talking to you...and then about the op.

Sorry I see where your coming from but it doesn't make sense. There are far more heavy and cumbersome cars in the test results. Commercial cars and 4wds for eg. Maybe if you find a test that shows the FG as more likely to crash then others I'll believe you....but I'm not convinced.

And yes while it recorded similiar scores to other cars...large ones at that.....it still out scored them....if even by the tiniest or widest margin....A win is a win. That is if you call the best crashing car a win of course. But stats are stats!

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

But stats are stats!

Didn't someone once say "there are lies, damned lies and statistics"

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Didn't someone once say "there are lies, damned lies and statistics"

Yeah I know that guy.....it's the same bloke who argued a point without any facts.....just an opinion.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Sorry I see where your coming from but it doesn't make sense. There are far more heavy and cumbersome cars in the test results. Commercial cars and 4wds for eg. Maybe if you find a test that shows the FG as more likely to crash then others I'll believe you....but I'm not convinced.

And yes while it recorded similiar scores to other cars...large ones at that.....it still out scored them....if even by the tiniest or widest margin....A win is a win. That is if you call the best crashing car a win of course. But stats are stats!

When put in the context of this debate, in this thread where a smaller car survived admirably against a larger vehicle in a crash my comments are aimed at the extremes, the FG at one end the smaller cars at another.Yes there are more heavy and cumbersome cars than the FG Falcon. But at the same end of the scale, I continue to argue the FG and the similar cumbersome vehicles are more likely than a smaller car.

What I haven't seen in the data used in the articles is a n actual score. Did the FG falcon score more points than every other vehicle in the study or was it ranked along with others in the good category.
I am not picking on the FG Falcon, but trying to understand the Authors claim in the article in context Of what i have read.

Justin

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

When put in the context of this debate, in this thread where a smaller car survived admirably against a larger vehicle in a crash my comments are aimed at the extremes, the FG at one end the smaller cars at another.Yes there are more hevey and cumbersome cars than the FG Falcon. But at the same end of the scale, I continue to argue the FG and the similar cumbersome vehicles are more likely than a smaller car.

What I haven't seen in the data used in the articles is a n actual score. Did the FG falcon score more points than every other vehicle in the study or was it ranked along with others in the good category.
I am not picking on the FG Falcon, but trying to understand the Authors claim in the article in context Of what i have read.

Justin

Yes I see where your coming from.
Also yes they do briefly comment the worst scorer was a small car(Forget which) and the best was the FG with a score of 8.1 I think it was. There are also links in the article I posted(not the one the muppets posted) that list some other stuff, no scores which is a shame. Maybe to save the auto industry from mass outcry if they saw how Manu of those cars scored so low.who knows.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

When put in the context of this debate, in this thread where a smaller car survived admirably against a larger vehicle in a crash my comments are aimed at the extremes, the FG at one end the smaller cars at another.Yes there are more heavy and cumbersome cars than the FG Falcon. But at the same end of the scale, I continue to argue the FG and the similar cumbersome vehicles are more likely than a smaller car

Justin

Actually I think your argument is a fair debate! What about the fact that I would assume that a lot if not most accidents are non avoidable(considering the difference between the more manoeuvrable small car and a large one).
Head ons,falling asleep,tbones,driving too fast for the cars ability( same for both big of small as the edge of traction is the edge) I'm sure there's more eg's but deffinately the very nature of an "accident" large enough to be injured or killed would surely be enough explanation to believe the majority of those situation are unavoidable no matter what your in. Does that make sense?

Ask the op....I'm sure his accident was not avoidable simply because he was in a smaller car. It's the nature of a bad accident.