Are smaller cars more dangerous compared to medium sized cars, for example if you are in an accident would you suffer more serious injuries in a Toyota Corolla or Mazda 3 or small hatchback compared to a medium sized sedan such as a Toyota Camry
Are Small Cars More Dangerous?
cranswick on 15/02/2023 - 14:35
Last edited 15/02/2023 - 17:21 by 2 other users
Last edited 15/02/2023 - 17:21 by 2 other users
Comments
- 1
- 2
But a Ranger is more likely to crash than a sedan. Higher centre of gravity, heavier, springs designed for being loaded, off road biased tyres that won’t grip as well.
Don't forget presenting a bigger surface area to hit something. Imagine if you have an extra 1m to present to a tree as you skid sideways towards it.
Not a problem cause in a ranger you would start flipping well before you slid that much out of control
Attitude checks out. Yep, that dude owns a ranger.
Unlike a number of people above, I know something about road safety and crash safety. Those were areas I had involvement in back when I still worked. For a time I was involved in serious crash investigations.
The safety ratings on vehicles tells you how well it would protect you in a crash with a stationary object. So if you run into a tree a 5 star rated small car would protect you as well as a five star large car. Ditto in the case of a collision with a similar sized other vehicle.
But the physics of a crash between two quite different sized (mass) vehicles is quite different. In that case you absolutely definitely want to be in the larger vehicle. You would have seen that in the media reports of collisions between trucks and cars. They usually say the car's occupants died, and the truck driver had minor injuries or none.
You can't engineer the crush zones - the front and rear that have to deform predictably to absorb the energy of the collision and protect the occupants - of a small car to be both soft enough to progressively dissipate its own kinetic energy when it hits a solid object, and not be totally destroyed when it is hit by a much larger vehicle. It can't do both. The other issue is compatibility. Heavier vehicles are usually also taller vehicles. And that means they ride right over the top of smaller lighter vehicles, and directly impact the passenger area.
So, yeah, if you are going to have a crash in a small car, try to make sure its with another small car.
But for the same reason small cars are "more dangerous" to their own occupants, they are less dangerous to the occupants of other larger vehicles. And its the other way around for large vehicles.
Requiring small cars to be as crash safe as big cars is the reason there aren't any small cars any longer. They have to be fitted with the same compulsory safety equipment. And they have to provide as much protection in a crash as a big vehicle despite having a shorter bonnet and boot to absorb impacts. Manufacturers have had to massively increase the weight of small cars since crash safety requirements were imposed. A Corolla is now heavier than a Holden used to be. Its no longer possible to build a small car, meet crash safety requirements, and make a profit.
Thanks I learned something interesting today.
You would have seen that in the media reports of collisions between trucks and cars. They usually say the car's occupants died, and the truck driver had minor injuries or none.
the rather differing locations (heights) of the passengers also has a rather significant impact on this 'analysis'
The truck is impacting at the height of the passenger in the car, but not the other way around.media reports of collisions between trucks and cars
Reason why media reports anything is for shock and entertainment.
It makes it sound like trucks and car collisions happen more often than they do. Therefore people engage in an arms race to bigger vehicles. At this rate we'll all be driving as many tonnes as our regular licence involves.
Nobody actually thinks about what kind of car they should be driving which is best suited to their skill level (or maybe they should upgrade their driving skills with a course, not heavier steel that makes them an actual greater risk).
Being involved in an accident is a consideration but I think better to consider how to avoid one. It is pretty much at the point of bankruptcy and considering least worst case rather than avoiding bankruptcy.
the issue with small cars is usually the driver… like volvos and camry pilots
Judging by the below ANCAP ratings all these cars look quite good.
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/corolla/8ad73…
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/3/8fa82b
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/camry/78c21fMuch better than a Jeep Wrangler, look how it rolled from a front impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbUYXSLxYB0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/jeep/wrangler/2db91eDon't listen to the experts. Just eat more wheat bix and try to get fatter, if you find yourself uncontrollably cannonballing down the main drag of your local shopping centre just hope it is enough to push the skinnies and fatties out of the way or vice versa.
Much better than a Jeep Wrangler, look how it rolled from a front impact.
Yeah that goes without saying. Anything is better than almost any Jeep vehicle or larger-sized US-made SUV/4WD.
Those cars are absolute jokes when it comes to occupant protection and safety… or reliability, or build quality or you know, being cars in the general sense of the term.
Does playing Abba music in a Volvo make it safer?
Only if you’ve got a bowls hat on the parcel shelf.
Never use it as a selfish tool
Never ever be such a fool
Every feeling you're showing
Is a boomerang you're throwing
Volvo drivers are required to wear a hat while driving. And nothing cool like a fedora.
PS: neighbour got personalised plates when he got an S60. BVD plus some numbers i forget. dealer not impressed.
i think the star rating of a car only applies when crashing into a similar sized car
You think wrong.
Crash testing for vehicles is standardised, they run a few tests - frontal, frontal offset, sideways, etc. The objects they use are, for all intents and purposes, immovable objects, and are large enough that tests with small cars and large cars are effectively identical in that respect.
https://www.ancap.com.au/frequently-asked-questions
see the question "Can ANCAP safety ratings be compared across vehicle categories (e.g. SUV vs. hatchback)?""Care must be taken when comparing results for different vehicles across different categories as only those vehicles of similar size and mass can be compared."
Care must be taken when comparing results for different vehicles across different categories as only those vehicles of similar size and mass can be compared
Sure, however, that has a different meaning to what you've written
i think the star rating of a car only applies when crashing into a similar sized car
Those two things are not the same.
The star ratings are applied and ranked based on vehicles of similar size/mass - but the tests themselves aren't conducted by crashing them into vehicles of similar size and mass.
The tests are standardised. A small vehicle is tested and crashed into the same objects as a large vehicle.
Also, just below the part you quoted from the ANCAP website:
From 2020, ANCAP’s crash tests include a frontal crash with a moving trolley (MPDB test) which better represents the relative risk to smaller and larger vehicles, and also allows ANCAP to assess ’Vehicle Compatibility’ - the risk that the tested vehicle poses to other vehicles when struck
would have avoided so many "bingles" /small accidents if I had a smaller car when learning/ p plater… Different to the safety rating because you may avoid contact/narrow miss because of smaller size.
Hatchbacks are my issue, I will never travel in the back of one just in case rear ended they have no boot for at least a little protection.
But great for IKEA runs
Mummy please get me a Hummer because the dad of my good mate computer Hacker Hunter told the world that Mary Barra was beautiful and that she already electrified America by shredding all the EV1's from the company that sucked out millions from the Land Downunder……
+1 for the effort
You are welcome. But the old Holden freaks feel offended! I guess they also love our Gerry?
If you have two cars, both rated with ANCAP 5-stars, but one car is a tiny compact, and the other a beast of a ute/4WD, then I'd rather be in the beast in an accident. Mass/momentum/inertia will always prevail since you can't break the laws of physics
ANCAP rating can be irrelevant when small car vs big car. They don't test against different category of cars.
Small car with 5 Stars vs Big Yank Tank with 3 Stars, Yank Tank can win based on laws of physics.Plus accidents not always happen just as they are simulated in test conditions.
There’s a reason there aren’t seatbelts on buses.
There are seat belts on busses and coaches.
Not on public transport busses (or trams) due to jumping on and off quickly.except coaches?
Yes there is a reason, and that reason is the same reason you don't need a child seat or wear a seat belt in a taxi.
But I get your point, it is safer in a prang with most other objects on or near the road because of mass.
Who said you don’t need to wear seatbelt in the Taxi?
In general a smaller car will be more dangerous.
But cars do also have safety ratings.
A small car with a 5 star rating is probably going to be safer than a larger car with a lower rating.
When I'm not sure of something I like to compare to the extremes.
Would a Mazda Mx5 without the roof up take a 3 car crash better than G63 G wagon. Both 5 star ANCAP rating by the way. Does this answer your question? I know you wanted to compare a hatchback to a mid sized sedan but you can take the difference between the 2 in my example and just reduce the effectiveness until you get to a 5 star Ancap sedan.
You said cars otherwise I Would of compared a motorbike if you wanted to go smaller than a car.
Daughter had MX-5 hit in rear at 10km/hr. Insurance wrote it off.
Lol serious? Damn that's car park levels of speed. I'll keep that in mind when my kids can drive.
Write offs are a financial matter, not a safety matter
Was just more expensive to fix it than repair it
When I'm not sure of something I like to compare to the extremes.
You have to be careful with this though. As the extremes only represent a very small proportion of all cases.
ie, If is a particular car is safer in the 95% of non-extreme cases, but more dangerous in the 5% of extreme cases, then that car is still far safer overall.
Side impacts. Much the same for small to medium cars
Front and rear impacts, the force on the passengers would be less in a larger car due to more crumpling ability.
I don't think that's true,
A bigger class car will likely have thicker, heaver door with stronger structure.
A small car will likely have lightweight and thin door.Modern cars are built with a safety frame which is what protects the passengers. When it comes to.side impacts, They're all basically the same regardless of size.
The door and outer panels are just there for aesthetics.(which is why performance cars can use fibre glass and carbon fibre panels)The front and rear size of the safety frame difference is what makes the bigger cars safer as they have more crumpling zones.
So does that mean, a 1800kg large sedan will have similar side impact performance to that of a tiny sub 1000kg 2 door hatch?
I'm finding it hard to believe that all the extra weight is going to features and noise deadening, besides small cheap cars are built down to a cost so I don't see how they might benefit from more advanced material to make them light but same integrity?
In speculating here so, I will be happy to stood corrected.
Also I understand that in recent years we've had big changes to regulations in regards to how cars are built (hence a lot of old models being obsolete and not replaced).
But I think it's important to emphasise this so others that might not know, a 3+ year old car won't necessarily have the same regulations as the brand new 2022/23 models.most people think Mazda 3 is Mazda 3, and are not aware of generations etc…
@OpayuOnam: Another factor in side impact performance is the mass of the vehicle. A heavier vehicle is going to absorb more energy to make it move, a smaller one won’t take so much energy to move it.
yes if a small car is T-boned on the driver's door by a huge SUV the tiny driver is much more likely to be killed if they don't have side airbags
but IMHO small cars are better for avoiding accidents, while big cars are more likely to cause accidents due to the bigger mass and slower response to changing direction
in nearly 60 years of driving I've never been T-boned and only had one non-parking ding - a rollover on a dirt road as an 18yo where I was uninjured - I much preferred fun-to-drive, easy-to-park small cars over huge ego-massage things
after an ankle fracture, a doctor told me to get an automatic, and I sold my beautiful tiny hatch to a guy who told me he had a hotted up V8 Ford and was 'tired of pouring $50 notes into the petrol tank'
AFAIK the push to selfish SUV monster-sized vehicles in Australia started with some BS about lower tax on 'primary industry' type vehicles as 4WD were claimed as suitable for farm use (no farmer I know ever owned a 4WD - they all drove old utes)
the joke is they don't typically have more total space than a lower sedan, but mums love them for shopping - pity about crushing the odd tiny kid in the after-school pickup scramble - and they feel safe looking down on regular sedans, pity about the higher centre of gravity that means any sudden swerve on the highway or impact with another vehicle means the SUV is likely to roll over multiple times - and have you seen the cost of tyres for those bumpy riding SUVs ? - an ambitious acquaintance once took us for a ride in their shiny new expensive SUV and asked what I thought - I said 'bumpy' - next I saw he had swapped it for a lower Mercedes - enjoy !
In a serious crash yes.
If you have a head on collision between two 5-star rated cars, the heavier car 'wins'. Loads will be greater on the passengers of the lighter car.
If however you hit a stationary object, especially one that doesn't deform, you're more likely to be better off in the lighter 5-star rated car.
I like how the OP described the Camry as being a 'medium' sized car. Just how much longer do they want the vehicle to be? It's 4.9m long. The Holden Commodore, traditionally seen as a 'large' car, was just a few centimetres longer.
Are Small Cars More Dangerous?
You could also say BIG cars are more dangerous. Because they make normal sized cars into small cars.
I just saw an Ad for the Ford F-150, COMING TO AUSTRALIA!! I don't know why such a truck sized car is going to useful in Australia but it seems like it's not just ford, all car makers constantly make their new models bigger and bigger.
I also remember seeing a new Mercedes SUV (G-Class?) completely stock with normal wheels and it's roof was hitting the height limit bars when entering the carpark. Literally just fitting and dude was pushing through as the bar scratched the roof to shit loll.:D
Depends on the accident and the car, there is no discussion here as it's all situational.
People need to focus on how to dodge accident and be trouble free from all that insurance bs instead of getting hit and surviving.
Had a quick look around online as to the most common vehicles in Australia to have a accident and i couldnt find that sort of info.
Yet America has plenty of data surprisingly those trucks they love over there f100,rams etc were not even in the top 10 going by one insurance company ( of course that is not nationwide figures)
Number 8 was jeep wrangler the only 4x4 the rest of the top 10 were a assortment of cars. Though that may not be a fair as in busy cities theres generally more cars so more likely the chance of a accident and further you get out more 4x4s etc.
Has anyone found actual real statistics for vehicle brand in Australia?
Walking around in sandals is more dangerous than walking around in boots.
So don’t buy a convertible?
Tram always wins.
Might is right. Look to india for an example of how they give way.
Pedestrian < motorbike < car < truck
< train < ship < star destroyer
No, but drivers that drive like idiots are though.
Yes
Simple physics. Generally a small car being hit by a large car, the small one will come off worse.
Surely if society wants to genuinely become safer and better, we should be thinking of others, not just the occupants of the car.
Otherwise the safest vehicle is the largest one with the most mass, and if we go down that route, traffic and environmental impact will be worse, and our roads would ironically be more dangerous.E.g. what cars are most safe for pedestrians? Why aren't we asking that question, when so many people are hit and killed/maimed by cars each year?
There's a well known expression "There's no such thing as silly questions, just silly answers."
Well turns out the OP has disproved that once and for all. ;-)
Depends on the type of crash.
For a lot of standard crash situations. I would probably prefer to be in a 5 star hatchback. Then a 5 star SUV.
SUVs like to roll over.
Hatchbacks are lighter weight with better stopping distance. Or better ability to avoid the crash safely.But in a high speed head on or t bone. A heavy, large 5 star car would be better.. But no one wins in that situation.
If you are considering a vehicle based on what is safer, you might be better off making an active choice and doing a driving course.
Absolutely, cars are positional goods. When someone buys a larger car than your small car and goes on the road your car becomes less safe due to the disparity.
Ford's hatchbacks like the Fiesta are pretty amazing and safe, I've seen one in a head on collision, unlike the Honda City where one family died like being crumpled in a tin can
It’s very hard to compare crash results and infer one make is superior to another based on 2 ‘random’ crashes. Could be the same result if both crashes were otherwise the same.
That’s why they have standardised test methods for safety ratings.
Years ago, I had a seizure in a Toyota Yaris and only came out of it with a fractured sternum, but I had the top level model with all the safety features. The engine design was made so it goes under the car when an accident happens.
Where are the stats for what everyone is saying? And how much of a percentage difference between a big and small car?
We don't all drive the same, so depends a lot on the driver.
- Smaller car won't fair as well in a significant collision with a larger vehicle or stationary object
- In a minor collision, or in-direct hit with say a 4x4, often the larger vehicle will roll and seriously injure the occupants.
- larger vehicles are more likely to roll, spin-out in the wet
- drive in snow\mud\rain then 4x4 is safer
Best to get the car that is most suitable to the driver.
Absolutely: smaller = lighter, if you collide with another heavier vehicle you will almost always be disadvantaged. If you hit a fixed object like a tree/pole/wall a larger crumple zone will save you more than any other aspect.
Comparing the data on this US site below, you can see there's a strong correlation between AWD / 2WD and safety.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-… (if anyone can post a link to Australian data on fatality for each model/number of vehicles, please do)
The mass of the vehicle affects handling though, so low weight is more important, as a large 4WD is more likely to roll over than any other vehicle, in almost all kinds of accidents, due to a higher centre of gravity.Driver ability and temperament is a factor also — people driving White Toyota Corollas are far less likely to be driving dangerously than those driving Red Ford Fiestas (look at insurance rates), so they are more likely to be in an accident, even if their risk of dying in any given accident is similar.
In short, the safest cars are larger sedans/wagons, all-wheel-drive and ideally EV, (their battery makes them overall safer in a collision, though it increases risk to others, especially pedestrians).
- 1
- 2
This is why I have a ford ranger wildtrak. In a crash I'll be fine.