Herbalist Dr MziziMkavu
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 3, 2009
- 42,319
- 33,125
But even these cars are much more safe than anything made 15 years ago
The Chevrolet Aveo has some of the worst crash-test ratings in its class.
View related photos
Chevrolet
updated 7:58 a.m. ET Feb. 2, 2010
Last month, the Alabama House of Representatives voted to become the latest state to clamp down on texting while driving. The passed bill would fine drivers $25 for their first infraction, $50 for the second and $75 for each subsequent violation. It now moves to the state Senate for debate.
The penalties might not be stiff enough to make a dent in the 8,000 crashes that occur each day nationwide 80 percent of which are caused by distracted driving, according to AAA. The cost extends well beyond the need to repair fender-benders; The National Safety Council, an Illinois-based organization aimed at lobbying for and supporting safety standards, says the average economic cost per traffic fatality in 2007, the latest year on record, was $1.1 million. It's $61,600 for a disabling injury (the figures include wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, administrative expenses, motor vehicle damage and employers' uninsured costs).
But poor driving is only partly to blame.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
The way a car handles itself during a crash determines much about the severity of the occupants' injuries. Some cars hold up better than others: Tiny cars and low-level sedans are especially at risk, according to crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Bigger cars, because of their mass, generally fare better in tests but may be more likely to roll.
This helps explain why the Chevrolet Aveo and Chrysler PT Cruiser, both inexpensive, smaller cars, have the worst crash-test ratings in their class they each received "marginal" test-results for side- and rear-impacts. They join the Cadillac STS and Mercury Grand Marquis as some of the most dangerous vehicles of 2010.
Our list of the most dangerous cars compiled using IIHS crash-test results on 2010 model-year vehicles. After each crash, test dummies are checked for trauma in 28 body regions for front crashes and 37 regions for side crashes, with each region earning a rating based on specific parameters for trauma. A "poor" rating means severe and possibly fatal trauma happened to drivers and/or passengers during the crash, while a "good" rating means little to no trauma occurred.
We awarded values for each overall front, side and rear ratings, with more points awarded for better results ("good" received 4 points, "acceptable" received 3 points, etc.), for a maximum possible total of 12 points. The cars on our list scored the lowest number of total points in their segment. We broke ties by docking points according to occupant trauma ratings within each category (front, side and rear impacts). Except in the case of mini cars, we did not evaluate roof strength, as not all 2010 vehicles have been tested for it yet by the IIHS.
More from Forbes.com
Click links below for slideshows
10 cars that changed the world
Most affordable luxury vehicles
America's dirtiest vehicles
America's most overpriced cars
Best and worst used vehicles
It's crucial to note that all of the cars on our list more than meet federal safety standards, and they're all much safer than anything on the road even 15 years ago. "Automakers have really taken over the lead in safety," says Russ Rader, an IIHS spokesman, because consumers prioritize it when they make a purchase.
Furthermore, some cars on our list, while earning the lowest scores in their class, still scored as many as 10 points out of the 12, such as the Mitsubishi Galant and Nissan's Titan truck. These vehicles make our list because they score only slightly lower in otherwise overwhelmingly safe classes.
It's also true that the IIHS tests are more severe than those administered by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. IIHS's front test is a 40-mile-an-hour front-offset collision into an unmoving barrier. Its side crash is a T-bone collision set at 30 miles an hour. NHTSA tests head-on collisions by a concrete barrier striking at 35 mph (researchers there also evaluate fewer sections on the dummy's head, chest and legs). Its side impacts are set using a 1.5-ton trolley set at 38 mph.
David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research at IIHS, says his organization's more-stringent standards are truer to reality than the government measures. He also says the Jeep Wrangler two-door and four-door on our list are somewhat special cases, since their removable doors hurt their side-impact test scores compared to their competitors. They received "poor" and "marginal" side-impact ratings, respectively.
Even though we separated the cars on our list by segment, there's no getting around physics: In a crash, vehicles with more mass will fare better than smaller vehicles. A 5,500-pound Chevrolet Tahoe will beat a 1,000-pound Nissan Micra every time.
"Our recommendation would be for people to look at midsized cars," Zuby says. "There are a number of midsize cars that if you buy the less powerful engine of the options available, you get gas mileage that is comparable to many of the smaller cars. And by being midsize as opposed to small, you have the size advantage, and there are a lot of midsize cars with good crash-test ratings. Crossovers and wagons count as well."
Click for related content
Forbes.com slideshow: 2010s most dangerous vehicles
Ford and rivals are betting on smaller cars
Interactive: Dead or soon-to-be dead auto brands
Something else to notice: Part of the reason why no luxury cars minus the Cadillac STS, which fared poorly in rear-collision tests appear on our list is because automakers often put the newest, most expensive safety options in their high-end line first, to test driver acceptance. Then, as awareness increases and production volumes rise, manufacturers install the same features in mainline vehicles, with less cost attached.
"It's basic evolution," says Doug Scott, senior vice president of Southfield, Mich.-based research firm GFK Automotive. "The more you see the non-luxury-brands touting safety, I think you're going to get broader pressures by manufactures to try to find breakthroughs that aren't terribly expensive."
CONTINUED : Automakers respond1 | 2 | Next >
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35063465/ns/business-forbescom/?GT1=43001
View related photosChevrolet
updated 7:58 a.m. ET Feb. 2, 2010Last month, the Alabama House of Representatives voted to become the latest state to clamp down on texting while driving. The passed bill would fine drivers $25 for their first infraction, $50 for the second and $75 for each subsequent violation. It now moves to the state Senate for debate.
The penalties might not be stiff enough to make a dent in the 8,000 crashes that occur each day nationwide 80 percent of which are caused by distracted driving, according to AAA. The cost extends well beyond the need to repair fender-benders; The National Safety Council, an Illinois-based organization aimed at lobbying for and supporting safety standards, says the average economic cost per traffic fatality in 2007, the latest year on record, was $1.1 million. It's $61,600 for a disabling injury (the figures include wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, administrative expenses, motor vehicle damage and employers' uninsured costs).
But poor driving is only partly to blame.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
The way a car handles itself during a crash determines much about the severity of the occupants' injuries. Some cars hold up better than others: Tiny cars and low-level sedans are especially at risk, according to crash tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Bigger cars, because of their mass, generally fare better in tests but may be more likely to roll.
This helps explain why the Chevrolet Aveo and Chrysler PT Cruiser, both inexpensive, smaller cars, have the worst crash-test ratings in their class they each received "marginal" test-results for side- and rear-impacts. They join the Cadillac STS and Mercury Grand Marquis as some of the most dangerous vehicles of 2010.
Our list of the most dangerous cars compiled using IIHS crash-test results on 2010 model-year vehicles. After each crash, test dummies are checked for trauma in 28 body regions for front crashes and 37 regions for side crashes, with each region earning a rating based on specific parameters for trauma. A "poor" rating means severe and possibly fatal trauma happened to drivers and/or passengers during the crash, while a "good" rating means little to no trauma occurred.
We awarded values for each overall front, side and rear ratings, with more points awarded for better results ("good" received 4 points, "acceptable" received 3 points, etc.), for a maximum possible total of 12 points. The cars on our list scored the lowest number of total points in their segment. We broke ties by docking points according to occupant trauma ratings within each category (front, side and rear impacts). Except in the case of mini cars, we did not evaluate roof strength, as not all 2010 vehicles have been tested for it yet by the IIHS.
More from Forbes.com
Click links below for slideshows
10 cars that changed the world
Most affordable luxury vehicles
America's dirtiest vehicles
America's most overpriced cars
Best and worst used vehicles
It's crucial to note that all of the cars on our list more than meet federal safety standards, and they're all much safer than anything on the road even 15 years ago. "Automakers have really taken over the lead in safety," says Russ Rader, an IIHS spokesman, because consumers prioritize it when they make a purchase.
Furthermore, some cars on our list, while earning the lowest scores in their class, still scored as many as 10 points out of the 12, such as the Mitsubishi Galant and Nissan's Titan truck. These vehicles make our list because they score only slightly lower in otherwise overwhelmingly safe classes.
It's also true that the IIHS tests are more severe than those administered by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. IIHS's front test is a 40-mile-an-hour front-offset collision into an unmoving barrier. Its side crash is a T-bone collision set at 30 miles an hour. NHTSA tests head-on collisions by a concrete barrier striking at 35 mph (researchers there also evaluate fewer sections on the dummy's head, chest and legs). Its side impacts are set using a 1.5-ton trolley set at 38 mph.
David Zuby, senior vice president of vehicle research at IIHS, says his organization's more-stringent standards are truer to reality than the government measures. He also says the Jeep Wrangler two-door and four-door on our list are somewhat special cases, since their removable doors hurt their side-impact test scores compared to their competitors. They received "poor" and "marginal" side-impact ratings, respectively.
Even though we separated the cars on our list by segment, there's no getting around physics: In a crash, vehicles with more mass will fare better than smaller vehicles. A 5,500-pound Chevrolet Tahoe will beat a 1,000-pound Nissan Micra every time.
"Our recommendation would be for people to look at midsized cars," Zuby says. "There are a number of midsize cars that if you buy the less powerful engine of the options available, you get gas mileage that is comparable to many of the smaller cars. And by being midsize as opposed to small, you have the size advantage, and there are a lot of midsize cars with good crash-test ratings. Crossovers and wagons count as well."
Click for related content
Forbes.com slideshow: 2010s most dangerous vehicles
Ford and rivals are betting on smaller cars
Interactive: Dead or soon-to-be dead auto brands
Something else to notice: Part of the reason why no luxury cars minus the Cadillac STS, which fared poorly in rear-collision tests appear on our list is because automakers often put the newest, most expensive safety options in their high-end line first, to test driver acceptance. Then, as awareness increases and production volumes rise, manufacturers install the same features in mainline vehicles, with less cost attached.
"It's basic evolution," says Doug Scott, senior vice president of Southfield, Mich.-based research firm GFK Automotive. "The more you see the non-luxury-brands touting safety, I think you're going to get broader pressures by manufactures to try to find breakthroughs that aren't terribly expensive."
CONTINUED : Automakers respond1 | 2 | Next >
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35063465/ns/business-forbescom/?GT1=43001
