AutoblogGreen

1. I guess that's a problem if adults are to be treated as children. I personally don't see what the surprise is, or what's to be alarmed about. Most of those cars are made that way in order to be classified as motorcycles, because over-restrictive regulations keep us from being able to choose to buy them otherwise.

The problem isn't the cars. I doubt any of them are any more dangerous than riding open-air on two wheels in a motorcycle. The problem is that the cars actually have to be made less safe to be sold here, to be classified as not-a-car.

There are Zap cars all over Salem here, and there is zero doubt they'd be safer with four wheels. However, they can't be sold that way.

So our wonderful safety regulations give us heavier, more expensive cars, slower innovation, and even less safe cars at the margin, either with these kind of work arounds or people driving old beaters because cars are more expensive.

Thanks so much, Ralph Nader.

Posted at 3:13PM on May 10th 2007 by Morgan

2. 40 MPH might be "moderate speed" for regular cars but in the context of Reva, the term should be used for around 25-30 MPH imo.

Reva's top speed itself is only 45 MPH so if you crash it at 40 MPH, you can't really expect any other result.

I'd like to know how well regular cars fare when crashed close to their top speed.

Posted at 3:32PM on May 10th 2007 by Manu Sharma

3. But 40mph is a moderate speed compared to most traffic flow. The top speed of the vehicle is not relevant. Even though a Ferrari can go 200mph, it doesn't mean that 100mph is a moderate speed at which to drive it through the neighborhood.

The trouble is, when people buy something that looks like a car (enclosed cabin, multiple seats, 4 wheels), they assume that it is about as safe as other cars. A bicyclist or motorcyclist knows what they're getting into when they ride in traffic because it's obvious that they lack many of the important safety features that cars have. Tiny cars that are classified as quadricycles and motorcycles give their owners a false sense of security. They look like they should have crumple zones, air bags, and crash structures, but they rarely do.

Posted at 4:42PM on May 10th 2007 by Peter

4. #1 -
Let me get this straight, you are mad that improved safety regulations have saved tens of thousands of lives? People with your attitude are the ones that refuse to buckle a seatbelt because they are an "adult", but then sue a car company after becoming seriously injured.

How can you argue that regulations have slowed innovation? You obviously have no idea how much technology has advanced in today's automobile compared to just 10-20 years ago.

People regularly walk away from crashes today that previously caused serious injury and death. What a terrible thing!

Posted at 8:00AM on May 11th 2007 by BGJ

5. Peter wrote:
"The trouble is, when people buy something that looks like a car (enclosed cabin, multiple seats, 4 wheels), they assume that it is about as safe as other cars."

Peter, while I completely agree that these cars ought to be safer than they are. But the G-Wiz has a plastic body and if you've ever seen one, it looks like a toy. I don't think anyone expects it to be as safe as a regular car.

GoinGreen, the company that sells the G-Wiz in UK says the average driving speed for the car is 10mph in UK. It also advises buyers to "avoid motorways and fast roads."
http://www.goingreen.co.uk/store/content/safe_driving/

According to their FAQ, "the G-Wiz has a safety record second to none, with over 20 million miles driven by customers globally with no reported serious injuries. (source: RECC)"
http://www.goingreen.co.uk/store/content/gwiz_faq/

Posted at 3:40PM on May 11th 2007 by Manu Sharma

6. Well for the most part of it, any vehicle with those specs are bound to be that way. It's a quadricycle, (read about it here: http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=282891&NewsAreaID=2)... u know, just an extension of a motorbike with 4 wheels n a battery et al. When I read up on this, I don't remember since when Quads started being tested as cars?? More over the g-wiz was sanctioned safe as a quad, so why these double standards?? Here's the place where I read up on it earlier : http://www.goingreen.co.uk/store/content/news/

Posted at 8:18AM on May 24th 2007 by Robert Brown

7. With the absence of an engine and other mechanical parts in the front,I am not quite shocked with the results. The point is it’s a car specially designed for city needs. Driving it in such a speed and crashing it will give nothing but bad a result.

Posted at 3:44AM on May 29th 2007 by Mark Robin

8. If it's classified as a motorcycle then you sohuld have to wear a helmet. By the looks of that mess it *might* even save you.

Posted at 10:22PM on Aug 7th 2007 by tankd0g

9. Ok, I hear all the crying over this little cars (because that is what it looks like) bad wrap for safety. If you are in this thing going 20 mph (not fast by any means) and hit another slow car at 20 mph there is your impact speed of 40 mph that you would not likely live through. I hope the goverment takes this death trap off the market until they improve the safety of this rolling coffin.

Posted at 1:05AM on Feb 10th 2008 by Michael