A US study of road fatalities vs car in which the people died showed no correlation between size of car and liklihood of death.

If there was a crash between a Jetta and an XC90 I’d rather be in my XC90.

If there was a crash between a Jetta and an XC90 I’d rather be in my XC90.

I think it normally depends on the point of impact.

If there was a crash between a Jetta and an XC90 I’d rather be in my XC90.

However that’s not the whole story. If we had a glancing collision and one of us hit a tree, for example, I’d rather be in the Jetta.

Even if it was the Jetta that hit the wall?

You know what I meant. If both hit a wall/tree the Jetta people would most likely be better off. Although in this case there might not be much in it.

If both hit a wall/tree the Jetta people would most likely be better off.

…..interesting. Why?

why’s that then?

What did the study say about the correlation between vehicle size and injury of peds and cyclists?

…..interesting. Why?

Smaller car has less kinetic energy to dissipate. If built well then the smaller car will be as ‘strong’ but will have to do less work to protect its occupants, so to speak.

Comparing a small car with a big SUV there could be half as much energy.

Surely the people in the car the SUV hits are more likely to be injured – I seem to remember a ‘stat’ about it – something like 21 times more likely.

That sounds like rubbish to me.

There are more ways to die in a car accident than from hitting the other car tho, that’s the point. Then again there’s the avoidability too. Smaller cars can squeeze through smaller gaps for instance. That’s why the survey I read was better because it simply related deaths to car (adjusted for mileage I think too) and thereby took into account all the factors.

Been looking into these myself, and the Volvo looks a good compromise.

The latest X3 seems to be the best in the class, apart from a) its an X3 b) its no looker c) it starts at £31k.

Leftfield – the new FWD Freelander from £22k.

If built well then the smaller car will be as ‘strong’ but will have to do less work to protect its occupants

That’s the theory…….. but I think a vehicles ability to absorb energy is also dependent upon what it’s made of (i.e. a lighter steel construction cannot absorb as much energy as an identically designed vehicle constructed of heavier grade steel). Carbon fibre car would be the best of both worlds as it would have the strength of a heavy steel car but be very light.
There are a number of factors involved…….. but I’d still rather be in the bigger car.

Smaller cars can squeeze through smaller gaps for instance.

Well yes….but in reality it wouldn’t make any difference.

lighter steel construction cannot absorb as much energy as an identically designed vehicle constructed of heavier grade steel

Are smaller cars made of lighter grade steel? These days?

Well yes….but in reality it wouldn’t make any difference.

Well the stats I saw would tend to suggest that it does.

but I’d still rather be in the bigger car

You think the stats are wrong?

Smaller cars can squeeze through smaller gaps for instance.

Yeah but smaller cars can fall down holes – you didn’t think about THAT did you?

Are smaller cars made of lighter grade steel? These days?

Generally, cheaper cars are lighter. If a bodyshell is lighter then it must be the grade of steel, no?

Well the stats I saw would tend to suggest that it does.

Our XC90 is about 5″ wider than our Golf – this does not make me think “I can fit through that gap” when I’m in the Golf

You think the stats are wrong?

You can make stats prove pretty much anything can’t you, so they’re probably neither right or wrong.

If a lighter is safer (ignoring carbon fibre) shouldn’t we be driving around in kitchen foil cars? Also what about the height of the vehicle – does this make a difference?

I should add I know nothing about this and I’m merely filling in time rather than scanning some pretty painful files. 😀

Its a firm ride but its a sporty drive and the two usually go hand in hand.

In the eyes of a Marketing Exec, yes…

this does not make me think “I can fit through that gap” when I’m in the Golf

Snot what I am saying. I am saying that when some nutter overtakes towards you and runs out of road, those 5″ might mean the difference between a hit and a miss. I’ve certainly been in situations where I was very glad I didn’t have another 5 inches to look after. Even in my Passat I find myself having to take much more care on the windies because of its width.

If a lighter is safer (ignoring carbon fibre) shouldn’t we be driving around in kitchen foil cars?

That’s also not what I am saying. I am saying that whilst bigger cars have more metal in them they also have to deal with more energy in a crash, and this along with other disadvantages does not necessarily mean you are safer.

It strikes me as the safest thing to do is just to keep clear of Jetta and XC90 drivers.

That’s also not what I am saying. I am saying that whilst bigger cars have more metal in them they also have to deal with more energy in a crash, and this along with other disadvantages does not necessarily mean you are safer.

There are just so many variables it is pretty much futile arguing one way or the other. For example, going back to your ‘tree’ scenario – a smaller, lighter car might crash into the tree and hurt the occupants more than someone in, say, a 44 ton lorry which would plough straight through it like a damp fart and finally come to a nice and controlled stop somewhere three fields down the road.

Theres some really sloppy physics being talked above.
Firstly if you hit an imovable object then the mass of the car does not matter. What does matter is the rate of deceleration felt by the occupants, and this is a factor of crumple zone.
Most injuries are caused by sudden deceleration of occupants (basically hitting stuff in the car or by seatbelts causing internal injuries.)
Many small cars have good crumple zones to allow protection against imovable objects. Larger cars have the advantage that they have more space to allow for crumple zone, and also due to the increase in mass the list of what is classed as “immovable” becomes much shorter!

I would much rather be in an XC90 in a head on or side impact crash than just about ANY other car. Have a look at crash tests on youtube to convince yourself.

Theres some really sloppy physics being talked above.
Firstly if you hit an imovable object then the mass of the car does not matter.

Lol 🙂

A big car could weigh two and a half times a small one. It does NOT have two and a half times more crumple zone!

There are just so many variables it is pretty much futile arguing one way or the other.

Right. So the best thing we could do is maybe look at deaths against type of car adjusted for mileage…….

CHB, would you rather you or your kids were run over by an XC90 or a small car?

RichP – but that means considering OTHER people when you buy your car. That’s ridiculous!

Molgrips: it doesn’t need 2 and a half times the crumple zone.
The mass of the car is not relevant if hitting a solid object. What matters is the rate of deceleration. If you hit a wall at 30mph and the car has 3 foot of crumple zone that is designed to take into account the weight of the car then it will put the same stresses onto the occupant in the crash as a car half the weight but with an equally balanced crumple zone.

RichPenny: Very very good point. I would much rather my kids be hit by a small car. I would also rather that everyone drove small light cars as that way everyone would be “equal” in a crash. However I balance this up against the fact that my sister in laws brother had a crash 20 years ago near Scarborough head on due to a blind dip in the road. He was in a fiat panda, the other driver in a vauxhall cavelier. The vauxhall driver walked away from the accident. My Sisters in laws brother now has more titanium in him than my bike! Like it or not big cars are safer in a crash, and though its a selfish view to take, people will want to protect their nearest and dearest. Sometimes that means that in a crash the other party comes out worse than you. Fair? No.

Right. So the best thing we could do is maybe look at deaths against type of car adjusted for mileage…….

Well no because the type of car attracts a type of driver so deaths may be driver related (ie speed, attitude to risk etc) rather than the actual protection the car offers.

for anyone that is still intersted………I ordered an XC60!

Good choice! What spec?

2.4 D5 SE Lux Premuim ……..with 4-C Chassis.. bit of a mouthful!

for anyone that is still interested

I think this thread stopped being about you a long time ago 🙂

(Nice car BTW)

Oh. A Ford copy made by a Chinese company. Sweet. Or something. If I gave a shit.