AutoblogGreen

1. Good for Mazda, I'm tired of the concept that cars must be huge. Cars are to move people and should be only large enough to accomplish that job. Fuel efficency should be the priority.

Posted at 7:02PM on Dec 19th 2007 by JudgeBandor

2. Compact cars such as the Mazda 2 and the Honda Fit achieve high crash ratings despite their modest size. However, because they are relatively light, even a compact car with a high safety-rating will not crash well if it is involved in a collision with a full-sized car or suv because of the significant weight difference. Thus, the notion of a safe compact car is somewhat misleading. However, a safe compact car should perform well in a collision with another compact car of similar weight.

Posted at 8:28PM on Dec 19th 2007 by yahoo

3. Yes, the crash test ratings are for collisions with similarly-sized cars. But I'm not sure if it's really fair to question the safety of small cars on that basis...

I think people need to realize that 'safe' is not an absolute. Being safe doesn't mean you can be protected against anything, or even most things. Think of all the perils that could possibly befall you in a given situation. Then think of the life you would have to live, the kind of society we would have if we didn't think of safety in a broader context.

There are people out there who think that because there are Suburbans on the road, that they themselves must drive a humongous vehicle in order to be 'safe.' Well, what about buses then? Or Winnebegos? And eighteen-wheelers? And trains and snow ploughs and cement mixers and...? If we follow that kind of reasoning, there would be no safety even in the Suburban.

Posted at 10:50PM on Dec 19th 2007 by BHendrix

4. "but the ratings are still very good such a small car."
i thought the whole point was that they were good ratings for any car? closing the piece on this note plays into the old, "bigger is safer" line (which i thought was being refuted?), any big vehicle is ultimately more dangerous, just sometimes it's only to the people who aren't inside it.

Posted at 12:29AM on Dec 20th 2007 by peter

5. Sure, in a serious crash a small car can absorb the damage. The problem is that even a minor crash will affect the crumple zones, totaling a small car. Insurance rates will rise as their will no longer be a minor fneder bender, we will have disposable cars.

Posted at 1:48AM on Dec 20th 2007 by Wildgoosechase

6. Mazda demonstrates that small lightweight cars canbe safe too

Posted at 8:23AM on Dec 20th 2007 by Allen

7. So not only would I need two of these to take my family to visit grandma, costing me more in gas than my Escalade, if we got into an accident, I would basically lose the car and a lot of money. Yea!

Posted at 9:50AM on Dec 20th 2007 by EnviroBob

8. Higher mass does not give you one single direct advantage in a real-world vehicle collision.

1. higher mass means more energy to absorb by BOTH vehicles (not just the little guy who you always think you will be colliding with)
2. higher mass means emergency braking will have less effect on reducing collision energies
3. two high-mass vehicles colliding with each other will be more catastrophic than two low-mass vehicles colliding, simply because there is a lot more energy to absorb
4. a high-mass vehicle colliding with a barrier can be more catastrophic than a low-mass vehicle colliding with a barrier - far more energy to absorb
5. driving an SUV doesn't mean you will "win", remember there are plenty of buses and tractor-trailers out there too, and proportionally compared to a big rig, your SUV is about the same as a compact car
6. vehicles aren't billiard balls, they crumple - when a suburban hits a civic the civic doesn't go flying 500ft (though a jacked-up suburban could run over the civic and decapitate the occupants), this is why they call vehicle collisions "inelastic" as billiard ball collisions are elastic (almost all the energy is transferred between balls by elastic deformation, and almost none is absorbed by permanent deformation)

The only thing that makes you safer in a collision is having as little energy to absorb as possible and having as much energy absorption [by the vehicles not the occupants] as possible.

Things that absorb energy
1. crumple zones - which need to be long/deep but not necessarily heavy to absorb crash energy, and prevent as much energy as possible from being directed at occupants
2. seatbelts - they actually stretch a lot in a collision decelerating your body, along with tension limiters that spool out a little extra slack during the collision
3. airbags - not as much to cushion your landing on the steering wheel or dash (seatbelts should prevent that), but to help decelerate you smoothly and assist the seatbelts

Things that lower the amount of energy to absorb:
1. lower mass vehicles
2. lower collision speeds

So if you must take the attitude that you have to drive a big vehicle so you "win", maybe small car drivers should carry guns so they can shoot dangerous absent-minded drivers (in any vehicle type) so they can have an advantage too. Both attitudes suggest malice and homicidal tendencies. Both are equally irresponsible choices. I'm not saying all people who drive larger vehicles are evil, but if "winning" is one of your motivations...

Posted at 2:10PM on Dec 20th 2007 by kballs

9. The real advantage of High-Mass vehicle is it requires more gas to get it moving, every single day it's on the road. It's as if the auto industry owned stock in the oil industry.

It's like the XBOX being sold at a loss, so that they make a big profit on the games.

Posted at 8:59PM on Dec 20th 2007 by mike

10. kballs knows what he is talkign about.

also... don't forget that in an SUV you are much more likely to roll over in an accident, and much more likely to die in the event of a roll-over than in a small car. As the small cars are relatively stronger when up-turned.

Also much more likely to cause an accident, as they can't turn or stop as well. And reduce visibility of other drivers on the road.

They also increase insurance rates.

Posted at 5:35PM on Apr 18th 2008 by Jon