Ford's new-in-Europe Kuga compact crossover has achieved the best combination of crash test star ratings, placing the car at the top of the Euro NCAP small SUV group. The Euro-Focus-based Kuga scored the maximum five stars for adult occupant protection, four stars for child occupant protection and three stars for pedestrian protection. (Only a few other SUVs have been deemed relatively pedestrian-friendly. The BMW X3 for instance scored only one star). And no other SUV, large or small, has achieved a total of so many stars in the various categories. How did they do it? Technical gobbledygook alert… The credit goes to Ford's intelligent protection system (IPS) which "combin(es) a body structure optimised for strength and crashworthiness with restraint equipment," and high strength steels "for a very rigid, yet lightweight passenger safety cell." The high pedestrian protection score was achieved through the use of soft bumper material, a special energy absorber between the bumper and the front panel and radiator, breakaway headlights, front wings manufactured from recycled plastic and a carefully shaped hood. Best of all: the Kuga is reported to be a pretty good drive. Review to follow.

In their latest commercials Subaru tells us that dumping a junk car in the wilderness or driving a car you can't see out of equate to some strange form of love. The first shows some environmentally-challenged dufus driving two days to take his old Forester to "Subaru heaven," which consists of a spot somewhere in an otherwise pristine wilderness area where other Subaru owners have abandoned their worn-out rides. There, apparently, they sit until they rust to pieces, releasing their various petrochemical-based fluids and toxic metals into the environment instead of being responsibly recycled and reused. The other shows someone who must come from the same genetic pool as that guy because he refuses to wash his Outback, claiming it's a "badge of honor" and that he'll "let the universe take care of it." He'd better hope the universe is taking car of him when he pulls out in front of that bus or runs over that motorcycle in the lane next to him because his windows are so nasty he can't see what's around him. And this comes from a company that not long ago bragged about how their factory is a wildlife preserve and how safe their cars are. Maybe they just don't expect their customers to share their "values."

As fuel prices hit historic highs, small car safety once again takes center stage. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the Insurance Institute's president gets straight to the nub of the matter. "The tradeoff is still there," says Adrian Lund. "Large cars and small cars are both much better designed to protect occupants than 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. But if you look at the fatality rates today, we see the risk doubles for the smallest cars compared to a very large one." The WSJ's Joseph B. White points out that "small cars [that] are a lot safer than they used to be– as safe, by one measure, as midsize cars were a decade ago." Yes, well, a 20-year-old Honda beats the fuel economy pants off a brand new microcar. Which one is safer, and does it matter? (I wouldn't send my wife or daughter out on the mean streets in either.) Anyway, the scribe reprises the old argument that small cars can avoid crashes: "It's reasonable to think that a good driver in a small car could steer out of a situation that would cause a crash for someone in a slower-handling, heavier vehicle with a long stopping distance. But note the qualifier: a good driver."  

And? Who amongst us didn't totally cram for that test? Anyway, the PR stat of the day comes from "The 2008 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test" [via CNNMoney]. The gekko-less insurer extrapolated data from a survey of 5,524 drivers from across the USA to conclude that 16.4 percent (or some 33m) American drivers would fail a driver's test re-do. Their call center clones asked 20 questions from department of motor vehicle tests. Apparently, an [unrevealed] number of drivers didn't know what to do when approaching a yellow light (floor it?) or the safe following distance when you're behind another car (one car length per bumper sticker). Talking points: drivers over the age of 35 were more likely to pass; women were more likely to fail. Northeast drivers sucked even more than respondents in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Kansas drivers rock! "It's encouraging to see that scores are beginning to get better," said GMAC Insurance's VP of marketing. "But there is still a lot of room for improvement." You can take some comfort in the fact that "nearly all of the test-takers knew how to respond to an emergency vehicle with flashing lights (get out of the way), what to do when hydroplaning (freeze), and how to interpret a solid yellow line (look for cops before passing)."  

The New York Times reports that the failure of the Interstate 35W bridge in downtown Minneapolis had many fathers. A study by Gray Plant Mooty, a Minneapolis law firm hired by the state legislature, indicates that the collapse was caused by bad design, bad maintenance, bad inspections and bad enforcement. "In their 84-page report, the investigators laid out a pattern of missed opportunities and policy violations: inspection reports that failed to quantify the severity of corrosion, officials who later said they had not known that their duties included reviewing such inspections and a lack of special provisions for where heavy equipment should be placed for the construction work." Needless to say, the post-tragedy investigation has turned into partisan politics and finger-pointing. “It appears that some of what was happening was due to a lack of funding and communication problems,” said State Representative Bernie Lieder, a Democrat who is co-chairman of the committee that assigned the investigation. “You have to say that the governor bears some responsibility.” Seems to me there's plenty of blame to go around. The "accident" on August 1, 2007 killed thirteen people and injured 145 others.

While Chrysler is busy berating its suppliers to cut costs by setting-up shop overseas, Toyota is about to export U.S.-made vehicles to foreign climes. Asahi Shimbun [via Reuters UK] informs us that "Toyota, the world's biggest automaker, will begin shipping the Sequoia large sport utility vehicle to the Middle East some time this year, and the Sienna minivan as early as 2010 to China and other markets… A Toyota spokesman said the automaker was always looking for ways to best supply vehicles on a global basis but declined to comment on the report." The report is good news for workers at ToMoCo's Indiana plant. And there is precedent here. Last year, Toyota sent some 7k American-made Avalon sedans to the Middle East. With the current slowdown (as in collapse) of the U.S. truck market, how long before Texas-built Tundras (same platform as the Sequoia) apply for a passport? Why we could see a whole new generation of African warlords driving modiified American-made Japanese pickups. 

Nobody I know drives a convertible. That's because unless you are young and pretty a droptop makes you look like a tool on exhibit. Unfortunately, the young and pretty usually can't afford a cabrio– unless they are rich socialites, trustafarians or enjoy the company of impotent older gentlemen. ADAC (that's the ubiquitous German driver's club) found another reason to dismiss convertibles: you better be pretty short if you want to survive a roll-over crash. Spiegel Online reports that of three Euro-minis tested by ADAC, only the MINI was safe enough for a roll in the hay (or anywhere else you choose to disregard the laws of physics). The oldish Citroen Pluriel suffered from a severely bent A-pillar. The new Peugeot 207 CC was equally flimsy, but offered longer and stronger roll-over bars. Even the MINI's dummies looked unhappy (don't they always?); their seat belts didn't hold them down as well as they should. ADAC says every convertible should have ESP, since the electronic nanny strongly reduces the (already low) probability of a rollover. (German-language video of test results at link.)

According to the AP [via Yahoo! News], the diminutive 2008 smart fortwo received an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) rating of "good" in both front- and side-impact testing. It's the IIHS' highest rating. However, the IIHS pointed out that "the front-end test scores can't be compared across weight classes, meaning a small car that earns a good rating isn't considered safer than a large car that did not earn the highest rating." Still, "all things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better," says IIHS president, Adrian Lund. Meanwhile, U.S. government crash tests gave the fortwo five stars in side-crash testing, BUT the driver door unlatched and opened. Government regulators say the incident requires them to note a "safety concern," which will appear on the cars' window stickers. More than 6.1k smart cars have been sold in the U.S. through April 2008. "America has never seen a car this size before and their first question usually isn't about (fuel) economy, it's about safety," says the president of smart USA, Dave Schembri. "And that's why we think these results are so very important." So now you know: the clown car is a safe ride. As long as you stay out of the way of Tahoes and Expeditions.

As U.S. politicians respond to the imperative "Do something, anything about all those soccer moms driving around while yakking on cell phones (except my wife, of course)," it looks like we ain't got game. According to the country cell phone bans list, use a cell phone whilst driving in New Delhi, India– hands-free or no– and you're looking at prison time. But do all these legal strictures actually increase road safety? The Wall Street Journal [sub] reports that many researchers have concluded that the only deterrent that makes a difference is the New Delhi solution. The New York Times [reg] recently reported on work from Carnegie Mellon saying that even listening on a hands-free cell phone impairs drivers as much as knocking back a few beers. Nobody seems to talk about the safety benefits of cell phones including calling AAA for help with a flat tire, calling 911 to report accidents, reporting road debris before someone gets hurt or calling in drunk drivers. Perspective people, perspective.

Volvo's set itself a lofty, laudable goal: banishing all deaths and injuries from Volvo vehicles by 2020. That's right, the company that invented three-point seat belts, crumple zones and side-impact airbags is looking to recapture it's lost Grim Reaper-aversive mojo. Reuters reports the main development upon which Volvo is banking: a radar/sonar system which provides early-warning information (to the car) so that it (the car) brake and/or steer out of trouble, reducing impact speed to about 10mph. Volvo's long-term goal: building an "uncrashable car." As Volvo safety team leader Jan Ivarsson says, "We as a community will not accept that we have injuries."At least not in Volvos. PC pollyanna utopianism aside, why would Ford dump a ton of money into Volvo's safety rep if it's trying to sell the Swedish safety swamis? Unless, of course, this is just a "buy us please" PR exercise. Perish the– I mean, as if.

The Thatcham Institute tests cars for the UK's insurance industry. Why not just rely on the pan-European NCAP (new car assessment program)? Because NCAP is only about survivability, not all aspects of car safety. One yet-missing factor which Thatchham is testing is whiplash protection. For the insurance industry, whiplash is a big issue. Not only do scamsters like to feign whiplash, but there are thousands of real, disability-causing cases each year. How will the trend towards smaller cars influence whiplash rates? According to tests published yesterday, city cars are the least effective in preventing whiplash in low speed rear end collisions. Fiat's 500 got a "marginal" rating for safety. The only two City cars to achieve an "acceptable" rating were the Renault Twingo and the Smart Fortwo. Two thirds of the (larger) supermini cars tested were rated as "marginal" or "poor". Renault's Modus was the best smaller car with a rating of "good." Thatchham: "You now have a choice at almost every price range."

Consumeraffairs.com reports NHTSA is investigating complaints of rust producing "fist-sized holes" in the subframe on Hyundai Sonatas, resulting in suspension failure. So far the problem has occurred in 1999 – 2002 model year Sonatas. The rust weakens the subframe to the point where it causes "wheel collapse or separation, half shaft detachment resulting in sudden vehicle disablement and or steering anomalies" according to the NHTSA web site. Most of the reports are from states where salt is used to control ice in the winter. Several accidents have been reported, and one car was rusted so badly the insurance company totaled it. If you have a Sonata, you may want to check under it to see if yours is affected. The car comes with a seven-year, unlimited mileage warranty against rust through; depending on how old yours is, you may need to move fast. Or slowly. Or both.

The New York Times wants us to know that the possibility of deleterious health effects from hybrids' electromagnetic fields (E.M.F.) is not so unbelievable. (OH!) "With the batteries and power cables in hybrids often placed close to the driver and passengers, some exposure to electromagnetic fields is unavoidable. Moreover, the exposure will be prolonged — unlike, say, using a hair dryer or electric shaver — for drivers who spend hours each day at the wheel… Their [critics] concern is not without merit…" Not without merit? Is that the same as real? Scribe Jim Motavali ain't saying. Instead, an anecdote from E.M.F.-aware Civic Hybrid owner Neysa Linzer offers the proverbial money shot: "She said… her blood pressure rose and she fell asleep at the wheel three times, narrowly averting accidents. 'I never had a sleepiness problem before,' Ms. Linzer said, adding that it was her own conclusion, not a doctor’s, that the car was causing the symptoms." Toyota's Prius spokesperson responded to the concern by saying "What are you guys, nuts?" More specifically, "The measured electromagnetic fields inside and outside of Toyota hybrid vehicles in the 50 to 60 hertz range are at the same low levels as conventional gasoline vehicles. Therefore there are no additional health risks to drivers, passengers or bystanders.” [thanks to QuasiMondo for the link]

Motor Authority reports that the Dutch Cycling Federation (their equivalent of AAA) is calling on the Dutch government and the auto industry to make externally-inflating airbags standard issue on all cars. The external airbags would inflate upon impact with a cyclist or pedestrian, absorbing the impact and potentially saving lives. Swedish supplier Autoliv has developed such an airbag already, and Jaguar and Nissan have tested pop-up hoods which deflect pedestrian impacts in a similar manner. Of course, these technologies are too expensive to be included as an available feature on any vehicle, but that isn't stopping the Dutch Cyclists Federation. The spandex crowd claims that by making these technologies standard issue, some 60 lives could be saved each year and some 1,500 injuries prevented in Holland alone. If required by law, the expense would also probably cause most automakers to exit the Dutch market (score one for the cyclists) but at least it might make for some cool "Jackass" stunts. Critics say that cyclists are responsible for their own safety, and that several companies are currently developing an airbag-equipped vest for cyclists. Not that making people pay for their own safety makes any sense…