What happens when a Audi Q7 (the SUV that looks like it eats subcompacts for breakfast) crashes with a minuscule Fiat 500? The result is predictable (Audi vs Fiat 10:0), but the reasons are somewhat surprising. German auto club ADAC has been testing the so-called crash-compatibility of cars for 15 years. The Fiat 500 is an up-to-date car, with five Euro-NCAP stars and even equipped with knee airbags. In this 50 percent-offset test, conducted at around 40 mph (56 km/ h, but equivalent to 80km/h for the lower-mass Fiat), the Fiat fares much worse than it would if it just hit a wall. This is because the Audi's longitudinal beam misses the Fiat's frame and bores right into the smaller car's footwell. Subsequently, the Fiat's frame collapses and the driver's overtaxed airbag ruptures. For the Fiat's occupants, such a crash would likely be fatal, while the Audi's passengers would suffer not much more than some bruises. ADAC's Rolf Ambos says this result is quite unnecessary: with cross members and longitudinal beams in similar heights, damage would be much lower. "We at ADAC call for regulations that require larger cars to have energy-absorbing beams on several levels. Most heavy sedans already take compatibility into consideration; SUVs should too." Yet another nail in the SUVs coffin?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
This is a HUGE safety issue that has been overlooked by the Gov. to date.
How have the manufacturers of SUVs been able to not follow generally agreed safety standards – it’s criminal.
The quicker SUVs are taken off the roads the safer roads will be.
SUVs and big trucks = for occasional use ONLY
One of the best crash photos on the internet is one of a Hummer that rear-ended a school bus.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has been singing the same song for years, if not for quite the same reasons:
the IIHS tends to focus on bumper compatibility, i.e. an Explorer rear-ending you at 5 MPH causes 400% more damage as a Taurus would, because the Explorer misses your bumper and hits you in the trunk. Pretty obvious, but very few people go car-shopping with bumper compatitility in mind.
USTABEE:
The H2 vs. the School Bus is insane, not just for the glee of seeing a recently-deceased Hummer, but for how SPECTACULARLY BAD the H2 performed. If you look closely, there was initially bumper-to-bumper contact, so in theory, the engine compartment should have collapsed and the driver should have walked away. What actually happened is: the front wheels popped off, the H2 nosedived under the bus, and the driver barely survived.
One of the worst crash performers I’ve ever seen, but it serves the driver right, for being so distracted he drove into a PARKED BUS.
One of the worst crash performers I’ve ever seen, but it serves the driver right, for being so distracted he drove into a PARKED BUS.
A school district and bus driver are being sued here in California by the family of a driver who rammed into a parked school bus. Their theory of negligence was that the bus was illegally parked and that the District was aware that this driver made it a habit to illegally park in this spot while she went to get lunch. So, evidentally, if a vehicle is illegally parked, you have no choice but to drive into it at 40 mph.
If the government wants to make all cars compatible, then that’s fine with me. I can afford to get around any rule they are likely to pass. I just want you all to realize that the fallout from your little gripe fest will NOT be the elimination of the SUV. Nope, nothing like it.
However, the results WILL include:
– Uglier cars
– Cars that are incompatible with almost everything made before them.
– Higher costs (for everything)
– Lower mileage
– Reduced market share for domestic manufacturers (even after they are allowed to influence the rules)
– Lost jobs (not just at the 2.8)
– Higher taxes
– Higher insurance rates (yes, higher)
– Crappier cars (did I mention they would be ugly too?)
Maybe, the status quo isn’t so bad when you really look at the likely outcome of more poorly drafted laws. How about you actually think about how many laws have actually had results like they were supposed to have?
It would be better to simply mandate smart brakes by 2015 and be done with it. The tech in the smart breaks would be a lot cheaper, lower cost, and less weight. Mercedes can do it today, so GM should be able to copy it by 2015.
But hey, that wouldn’t be anti-SUV, so who cares?
However, the results WILL include:
– Uglier cars
Well, that depends. More homogeneous, surely, but it’s easy to be ugly without screwing with bumper compatibility
– Cars that are incompatible with almost everything made before them.
Or perhaps cars compatible with everything before them?
– Higher costs (for everything)
Possibly, possibly not. It may force the use of common designs, reducing cost. Cost may also go up for other reasons.
– Lower mileage
Possibly, possibly not, though you’re right that it’ll probably increase mass.
– Reduced market share for domestic manufacturers (even after they are allowed to influence the rules)
So, GM, Ford and Chrysler can’t aren’t agile, resourceful or capable enough to do this? And we should not just let them keep making problematic vehicles, but give them special dispensation for being incompetent?
– Lost jobs (not just at the 2.8)
When the 8km/h bumper showed up, it didn’t result in lost jobs. Ditto airbags, seatbelts or NHTSA minimum crash safety requirements.
Some companies adapted and moved on. Others fought to preserve gross margins. Guess which companies are more viable and have actually grown their workforce?
If more than a couple people lose their jobs, I’d be suprised. It’d certainly be a drop in the bucket compared to the other reasons a company might pare down it’s workforce.
– Higher taxes
Why? No seriously, why? I can’t see the relation.
– Higher insurance rates (yes, higher)
That’s the insurance companies’ perogative. They raise rates when their investment returns dip, so blaming this for a rate increase is disingenuous.
– Crappier cars (did I mention they would be ugly too?)
I think your points have some validity, but mostly this sounds like a knee-jerk reactionary response to any regulation.
Personally, I think there’s an opportunity for shared social responsibility here and that if automakers and insurers aren’t going to step in and take collective responsibility, someone else will. Why do some manufacturers get to make cars that are more likely to kill people, just because it’s cheaper and/or easier for them to do so?
This kind of stuff makes my blood boil and just fuels my hatred. I can’t help it; I hate all big trucks and hold a grudge against people who buy them because they obviously don’t care about slaughtering people. I just hope that fuel gets even more expensive so that we can be more safe.
Psar,
A few points. It was not just knee jerk reactionary response, it comes from having been paying attention. There are few optimists with good memories when it comes to government regulation.
It is possible we could avoid some of the pitfalls I mention, but I doubt it. It certainly would NOT be the end of the SUV, and it will never lead to equality of outcome among crash victims.
I have explained too many times the problem with regulating bumper height. This is the same problem taken to yet another degree. Where do you settle the height, and what is the range? How do you make room for cars that need clearance over snow and water, or do we just let those people live with higher risks? What about heavy duty trucks? Do you lower those as well? Will many of them now need adjustable suspensions in order to function? How much weight will this add to transportation vehicles? Are you now going to make everyone more likely to die when in a crash with a large truck?
If you think these things through, the conclusions become clear. Heights of passenger cars will get taller, everything will NOT come down to the Civic. Quite the opposite. The likely new height would have to be at least like an outback, or you would simply be killing people.
How many cars are that height now? Few.
You will have to have a range, and that will add weight. Even if you have no differences in cars at all, you need a range because of the laws of physics. This will add weight. Height reduces fuel efficiency – cost.
Given the new lack of differentiators, the players will be much more likely to compete on price. Except the japanese, and then they will build market share again over the long term. They will also be more agile about any change, because they are more agile already.
Insurance rates will go up because the new models will have no history. Also, the new fangled rules will likely just cause higher costs of repair. This will not be something that will be readily apparent to the legislators, and they will mostly be all about the savings of lives, not money. That’s politics. A legislator will spend you into misery rather than let a death get blamed on him. The fact that you would rather he just shoot you instead is lost on him. And, the fact that the lost resources will cause deaths impossible to trace back to the legislation will mean nothing to them.
This is all just the way things now work. There will always be some manufacturers who make cars that cause more damage. If that is the target of the legislation, then I can come up with a better line of attack through insurance regulations rather than trying to mandate engineering.
However, the truth is that overall, SUV’s save more lives than they cost. Delete the SUV, and people will buy luxury cars and bigger wagons. Mandate all new cars meet higher standards, and more poor people will stretch out an older less safe vehicle until they can afford the newer safer ones. The newer ones will likely always be safer than the older ones. More poor will likely die than rich ones. It may seem unfair, but the result of trying to equalize it will always be worse on average, and still unfair to a similar degree. All you can do is make people “feel” better about it while they are really worse off.
Okay, it was more than a few points. :)
LC: Regarding the Never-Gonna-Happen Death Of The SUV: I can only find one point to dispute, but it’s a doozy. “However, the truth is that overall, SUV’s save more lives than they cost.” That’s…quite an ambitious statement, don’t you think? You’ll forgive me if I don’t quite bank on that statement until the IIHS makes it; I have a hard time accepting that risk compensation, crash incompatibility, and twenty years of rollover statistics can all be neatly balled up into that statement.
However, this one more than made up for it:
So, evidentally, if a vehicle is illegally parked, you have no choice but to drive into it at 40 mph. LOL, guess so!
Back on topic: there are responsible SUV design practices (like Volvo, who lowered the height of the interior brace of the XC-90’s bumper to a more car-friendly height and managed to make it no less capable than other SUVs, without looking noticably more stupid than other Volvos), and there are irresponsible SUV design practices (I believe we’ve discussed the Dodge Ram).
Regulation WON’T solve all the world’s problems, but it’s something that could help. After several decades of crash incompatibility, I think it’s become obvious that most manufacturers won’t practice responsible design until they’re forced to…any more than they will make bumpers that DON’T cost you $1200 for backing into a signpost at 4 MPH. Nobody’s saying Let’s Make All Bumpers 12″ Off The Ground To Save The Aveos, but for God’s sake, maybe we should be doing something OTHER than churning out more Hummers.
Actually, the way the market is behaving, maybe this problem will solve itself!
Also: what the heck are Smart Brakes? Nevermind; I can look that up. A more relevant question is this: after the notorious ineffectiveness of AntiLock Brakes in reducing traffic accidents or fatalities, what are your reasons for believing this will have a pronounced effect on auto safety?
We need to subject SUVs to the gas guzzler tax. Make people pay for driving a beast.
JM,
First, I think you may have attibuted to me something Lumbergh said. Just to clarify. It was a good point, but I disagree that the driver and district are not negligent if the bus was illegally parked. It is likely the parking spot was illegal due to safety reasons.
Second, Smart Brakes may not be the official term, but the technology is already here to stop the car based on external evidence of an impending collision. It’s not necessarily a desirable thing, but it’s a better idea than crash compatibility which is a poorly thought out panacea being trotted out once again because it appeals to the equality dreamers as well as SUV haters.
I am always suspicious as soon as someone puts a qualifier on accident results (or any other stat – “best mileage in class”).
Don’t quote rollovers, uneven collisions, or any other particular subset. Let’s talk about total deaths per mile (or million miles). That’s about the only stat that makes sense. When you find an anomaly in that, you can use the subsets to try to find causality. It seems there is evidence that large SUV passengers are favored in accidents with smaller vehicles, but I haven’t seen anything to lead me to believe that the total deaths are thus raised. Instead, it seems the total deaths are reduced. We can debate whether that is fair, but I have seen no reliable stat that shows that it’s a net killer.
Ponytrekker,
We already have a gas guzzler tax, it’s called the gas tax. Burn more, pay more. If you actually created a gas guzzler tax like those that have been proposed, it would likely result in more gas usage rather than less. The bottom line is that the incentive works contrary to desire because once the tax is paid the owner has no more incentive to drive less, and the new guzzlers are more efficient than the old ones which will now be kept on the road longer. A more effective approach would be to raise the gas tax for everyone. The majority won’t like that, so it will no longer pass through congress while anyone is looking.