Small car safety

My mate wants to buy a car soon but some of the cars he has been considering are Citreon AXs, pre 96 Peogeut 106s, Fiat Cinquentos and maybe a fiesta. All of these cars apart from the fiesta are death traps.

I wouldn;t want to get in one of these cars (apart from the fiesta), I have seen what happens when a punto crashes into a 106 at 20mph, you will be badly injured.

Has anybody got any subtle hints to try and convince him to at least buy a car with half decent fiesta like the 95-2001 fiesta? For some reason he has somthing against the punto, he said to high insurance premiums or somthing, he is also against the corsa because its a womans car.

 

In a collision involving you and another vehicle, weight matters. The heavier your vehicle, the better off you're going to be compared to them. Of course, it works against you if you crash into a solid concrete object...

The other thing is "active safety" which is, to my mind, much more important than passive safety. One of the cars I looked at before I bought my mitsubishi was the ford focus. Apart from the obscene prices that the focus had, very few indeed had ABS and no 1.6 or 1.8s had rear discs. Drum brakes are inexcusable in this day and age.

Relatively recently I had a situation where I called upon significant braking power (so, rear discs and the uprated front discs I've put on the car came into play), and the retention of steering control by ABS. If I'd been in the ford without those things I'd probably have ended up in the side of a transit. I very much doubt I would have been injured given the lowish speed and the passive safety in the focus, but I'm happier still to have been able to avoid the collision completely.

Of course, you can never account for the stupidity of others, and passive safety is important for that reason. However, in a very small and light car that has very good passive safety and NCAP rating (eg Audi A2), do you really fancy your chances against a mid-90s luxo-barge (BMW 7, Merc S, Lexus LS, etc) that weighs over twice as much? Perhaps the NCAP ratings aren't quite so good on them, but I'd rather be in the big car...

Also remember safety features usually come in at the top of the range and work down. Whilst it's normal now for even small hatchbacks to have two airbags, which used to be the preserve of the big exec cars, the big execs have 10-12 (front, front side, curtain, side impact, etc).

ABS is now a mandatory feature for new cars sold in the EU. About time too!

And, of course, the most important active safety feature of all... tyres. A decent set of tyres will do more for improving your braking distance than anything. This is also an area where brand names really do mean something.

 

car before the 1 i have now was a fiat seicento. 1 star for ncap rating, i think, and brakes were ok - or so i thought - until my megane, completely something else.
felt safer in a punto, the couple of times i hired one.
but never liked driving on motorways in it.

 

Lol this makes me feel worse, the Citreon AX is virtualy made out of fibre glass and is one of the most flimsy cars ever built. I once worked with a an ex mechanic, this was in 1998 on work experience. His company car was an F reg Mercedes 2.0 190E. He said he reckons that car would be much safer in a crash than (at the time) modern Escort that had the airbags etc.

I am guessing my dads Escort will have rear drums instead of discs, I know it dosn't have ABS or anything like that, it is however pretty solid and weighs quite a bit.

Its a hard situation, I will look a pratt if I refuse to get in his car but on the other hand I would be scared to death getting into a death trap with a driver with no experience over than driving lessons.

I always feel quite scared if I have to go into my grandads car which is a K reg new shape micra, that always feels quite flimsy.

 

Yeah my dad never liked going on the motorway in the punto either, but then it only had a 1.1 litre engine. We had a quite bad crash int the punto, it was written off, however none of us had to go to hospital, the 106 driver was unconcious. The paramics said Puntos seem to be safe cars because people don't seem to be that injured in them compared to other cars of the same size.

I think they have very strong pillers.

What I don't like about the escort is simple things like the hard dashboard and the lack of a passanger airbag and ABS.

 

You could walk under a bus tomorrow. The change in risk to an individual between any of those cars is trivial, they are all much safer than cars from 20 or 30 years ago.

FWIW ABS is only of use in an emergency, and most people probably find holding sufficient brake pressure to keep the ABS in operation difficult. I'm rather cynical about all the safety mechanisms being introduced to cars. I remember talking to a group of Audi quattro owners, they all lauded the performance, the traction in poor conditions offered by the 4wd. But they'd all had accidents on slippery surfaces...

Paul

 

The difference is Audio 80s or is the quartro 100? were very well built, I reckon an Audi 80 could offer more protection than some of the crap being sold from Korea or Malysia.

The problem is the Citreon AX is basicaly a 20 year old car, the Pegeot 106 and Saxo is also based on the same platforms. The french always had a habbit of recycling cars just like the Brits like to do.

This is what happens if you crash a Rover 100 at 40mph



And that was the model with improved safety!

You can see why I feel safer in one of these which is my car (including the very bus number!)

 

Interesting subject. 1 year ago one of my friend got into a situation where she managed to topple her rented small Rover hatchback when turning in a tight corner. Car roll over and land on its roof. The car cage managed to stay intact. She and her passenger who were wearing safety beat were totally unharm.

These were my thoughts. In this situation the size or weigth of the car was not the issue but how well the cage was built and how well the safety bags prevent the passengers inside from hitting the inside of the car hard surfaces. It seems that is a good car. Then maybe we should ask what was the safety record of the stability of the model.

However, I would think the driver experience in anticipating potential dangerous road conditions or situations would be more important.
Then followed by the driver knowledge of the limit and ability of the car handling. If you are used to a family saloon then driving a light small hatchback or suddenly driving a tall and heavy 4WD it might not be a good to try to speed along in the usual pace you are used to. With these she could have prevented the accident in the first place.

In other words drive in a manner as not to place yourself in a risky situation. There is always the other drivers ability and sensibility. If you are going to be hit by another vehicle what would be the best bet? Logic would be in a bus or lorry and nothing else really matter as they are equally bad. On the hand if you are going to hit a big stationary object like the hundred year old tree or motorway barrier sitting in a heavy car will be less desirable. The momentum your are going to be thrown out of your sit is the mass of the vehicle x speed x speed. In that single instant when to are about to hit the windscreen you wish the car is very light and you were going very very sloooowly.

What is the bottom line. Don't go out and spend more time with less hazardous activity like listening to music.

 

My knowledge of physics is not really very update but am I right in thinking the greater the weight the greater G force when you crash into somthing?

 

the car will have greater kinetic energy the larger it is for any given speed - generally in a crash kinetic energy is converted into pain quite efficiently . however, how this effects the occupants depends on a large number of factors such as angle of impact, crumple zones, airbags, nature of the object hit etc. generally, given the choice i'd much rather be in a large, modern car than a small old one however beyond that it's a matter of luck. if you crash it's going to hurt no matter what you're in, mass produced metal and plastic can only absorb so much impact and even the ncap safety tests mean very little if you consider that even in a 30mph zone, closing speeds are 60mph if both cars are doing the speed limit, at motorway speeds i.e. in a contraflow if you get 2 bmw drivers the closing speed will be 160+ mph .
cheers


julian.

 

I guess we were lucky when we had that crash in the punto, I don't have a picture of it anymore but it was quite serious and the car was a complete right off, we walked out of that without a single bruise, I did have a bad back and a tiny tiny amount of wip lash buta week later any slight pains had gone. The 106 driver was not so lucky.

Did you see Top Gear when they crashed them sub £100 cars into a brick wall at 30mph? The Volvo 740 was amazing, the Rover 216 was not so good. All of them got out the cars without injury though, although I think it may have been staged.

 

the best crash sim i saw was on chanel 5's 5th gear. they basically recreated a motorway pileup first they rammed a metro into the back of stationary traffic at 70mph which was pretty bad, with an old uno getting pretty mangled but just about survivable. then they rammed an old merc 300 into the back of that. the uno's front and back wheels were touching - like it had been in a car crusher - basicly if you were in it you'd be mince. the merc was fine except for a few scratches and wrinkles although it was parked on top of a cavalier iirc. if i was going to get an older car i'd buy one that was big, heavy and badass. that way the other cars on the road act as your crumple zones.
cheers


julian

 

Paul - with servo assisted brakes I don't think anyone would have trouble keeping enough pressure on the brake to keep ABS in operation. I'm not exactly the world's heftiest guy (phear my 8 stone bulk) and I had no difficulty at all in doing so in the dry with good tyres in good condition (P6000s, ~5mm tread).

Wolfgang - of course the best solution is to stay out of trouble. That's why I did the advanced driving test. That's why I'm looking to take another driving course in the not too distant future. Anyone who thinks they know it all is sadly mistaken. That's also why I have the view that active safety, such as ABS, stability control, etc is of greater importance than passive safety.

If everyone took driving tuition to a much greater level than the L test, road accidents would decline a huge amount.

 

Julian,
Cool. I wish I have seen that. Hmm..... maybe I should let my old 130k Honda Civic have a long over due retirement.

The amount of crumple zones you have during a crash when the car stop suddenly from 70 mph to 0 mph in less then a faction of a second to more then a second is the key to survival. If the physics is correct you should not be put off by how manggled the front of the car look as long as the passenger cabin is intact and you are not squash inside. They are design to crumple slowly in a control way. Otherwise you get cut in half by the thin rope you are wearing or flatten into a pancake on the hard surface of the prefectly intact cage.

Maybe there is a reason the older type like to drive around in badass ugly over engineered Volvo and in boring slower then snail pace.

Isaac,
What do they actually teach you in the advance driving test? I am being serious as I do not know anyone in person you have done it. If it is about accident prevention then it would certainly be worth it.

 

Worse still, the energy stored is the square of the speed.

AT, I would choose whichever car gives you confidence in it's handling and braking. The rest is down to luck IMO.

FWIW The cars that have inspired confidence are:

405 GLX

Bluebird [tho it wouldn't go fast enough to get into trouble]

Maestro [!]

The only one that let me down twice was a Cavalier 1.6 - brakes locked/no control etc...

 

Yep the problem is its not up to me, its not me buying it, if my mates buy a Metro of AX, I can't stop him, I would look a jealous twat if I refused to go in as well so its a bit of dilema. I have suggested he at least buys somthing like the new shape 95 N fiesta which does have good crumple zones.

Graham - I read some where once that the Meastro peformed quite well in crash tests inb the mid 1980, however its probably lacking in modern terms. It uses very hard plastics so if your head was to crash into the steering wheel you may crack your skull open.

The other problem with my mate is he is a 21 year old living in East Manchester, this means his insurance premiums are sky high and he only earns £11k a year, he is restricted to a 1.0 litre engine, I doubt he could afford insurance on a 1.3 litre fiesta. The 1.25 will be even more expensive to insure.

 

just found this quite usefull

http://www.folksam.se/engelsk/index.htm

 

can i just ask what is happening to the youth of today. concern for safety is laudable of course but in my late teens / early 20's i was out in a mates mums toyota practicing my handbrake turns on the local cricket pitch after an evening smoking er 'herbal' cigarettes. of course now i have responsibilities and obligations and so wouldn;t dream of doing that sort of shite now but back then when i was invincible and would live forever...... today though kids seem to have less time to be kids in.
cheers


julian

 

Well I done hand brakes turns on ice one in a B&Q carpark but lets not go there, it I was a passanger and lets just say he never did it again

There is more of a divide these days I think, I think the majority of younger kids may be more socialy aware. I suppose looking back when I was a teenager I spent a lot of time on the computer, but I did used to be a keen cycler and used to ride by bike near a slight hill about 10 degrees angle and once got upto 33Mph on the pavement! This was of course very dagerous and looking back I can't believe how stupid I was. I had a speodometre so I just to always try and break my 33Mph record, I never did geto beat it.

 

Look like my next car is going to be Saab, Volvo or Yaris.

Last week I was driving alone the country road that seem to go downhill forever. In my uni days I would be practising freewheeling down on my mountain bike without understanding the need to have brakes. I don't think it was a feeling of invincible but over confidence. True. The speedometer is probably the reason I never wanted to use the brake too.