ANCAP vs REAL world crashes. small cars not so good.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

AU Falcons and Fairlanes where theres not much metal left behind the rear plastic bumper...

This is one problem that people get stuck on

More metal = more safe.

I vaguely remember a demonstration of crumple zones using a egg placed in a wooden block. One block was nothing but wood, the other had a end made out of cardboard. The block's were dragged into a brick...


The egg in the plain wooden block couldn't be helped by all the kings horses and men...


The egg in the cardboard fronted block happily rolled away without harm.

The amount of different steels that form cars these days amazing, 1.0 mild steel is out-dated...now steels as thin as .6 - .8 feature blends of boron and the like to give much stronger yet lighter materials, and a secondary advantage of being able to use less of it in the construction of a car...

Look at just about every radiator support panel in todays cars, its a composite of fiberglass reinforced plastic and metal...

Including the FG falcon.

[Franco Cozzo]

I like this one:

http://youtu.be/cJrXViFfMGk

1959 Bel Air car vs Chevy Malibu

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I like this one:

http://youtu.be/cJrXViFfMGk

1959 Bel Air car vs Chevy Malibu

Lot of people in the past have spotted the amazing amount of rust and dirt coming out of the massive old Bel Air at impact.
One come back to those comments is that "a car that old would probably be full of rust anyway so it's a fair comparison".

[TheInterceptor]

The variables are nigh on infinite. Vehicle type(s) (body type, size, construction & year of manufacture, what modifications present to vehicle, roadworthyness etc), type of road, environment conditions, driver(s) reaction (drivers condition, fatigued, under the influence etc) and type of crash (head on, multi vehicle, roll over at speed etc).
A Falcon can be good in one situation but deadly in another, same with a Focus, same with a semi truck. Its not black and white.

Abruptly stopping is the issue in rear ender crashes and head on crashes (head on into a car or static object). Same theory when you catch a tennis ball. If you hold your hand steady with a locked elbow to catch a tennis ball at speed, there is no give and it will hurt your hand. If you hold your hand out and quickly bring your hand back around the ball to slow it down, its smooth and does not hurt.
Hence car makers have built in buffer (crumple) zones to slow the impact. Then theres the impact absorbsion.
Naturally, cars are not identical so the amounts of buffer and absorbtion will be different.
One would assume a smaller car would not be as good in a head on/rear ender crash as the body is smaller than a larger car therfore the buffer zones are smaller. So in theory, the car will crumple and absorb impact nicley but only till the buffer point ends, then the rest of the impact is transferred to the occupants of the vehicle. A large car with a decent crumple zone and impact absorbtion is in theory, ideal.

Having said that, if your big solid car crashes and doesnt crumple great, more impact is transfered to the occupants and wouldnt be as good as a smaller car which would have absorbed more of the impact. BUT. Small cars can have only so much of it deform. Most of the car is the passenger compartment which is now designed to deform as little as possible. So again, less to deform and absorb than a larger car. Older cars are also a different bottle of oil altogether as they were not designed to withstand a decent crash.

And anything other than a head on or rear ender, it becomes a bit more complex. . . Its not all black and white. Saying small cars aren't as safe is as wrong as saying the bigger the car the safer it is.

If i were asked which of my cars id rather be in during a crash, i would say the AU or the Subaru as id really hate to have a crash or be crashed into in my beloved Fairlane.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

/snip.

Mercedes questioned MUARC findings when the Vito Van was rated worse then a Transit Van (That rated better then a VE commodore!). They asked about the data collection, and Monash couldn't provide any data that made the results, just were told a "calculated algorithm". Huge disparities in vehicles sold and driver experience among other things that can effect results. Monash could not provide the data on how and why the Vito was only rated 1 star, compared to the Transit, and how a Transit could be found to be safer then a VE commodore.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Mercedes questioned MUARC findings when the Vito Van was rated worse then a Transit Van (That rated better then a VE commodore!). They asked about the data collection, and Monash couldn't provide any data that made the results, just were told a "calculated algorithm". Huge disparities in vehicles sold and driver experience among other things that can effect results. Monash could not provide the data on how and why the Vito was only rated 1 star, compared to the Transit, and how a Transit could be found to be safer then a VE commodore.

Interesting comment here, would not be the 1st time a university study has been questioned how it was conducted, some studies are known to be biased on how they were funded.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by trublu

Interesting comment here, would not be the 1st time a university study has been questioned how it was conducted, some studies are known to be biased on how they were funded.

I wouldn't trust a study conducted by experts that have never left school.

Just kids with NFI and half the time having a desired answer then looking for data that matches the desired (funded) outcome.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Mercedes questioned MUARC findings when the Vito Van was rated worse then a Transit Van (That rated better then a VE commodore!). They asked about the data collection, and Monash couldn't provide any data that made the results, just were told a "calculated algorithm". Huge disparities in vehicles sold and driver experience among other things that can effect results. Monash could not provide the data on how and why the Vito was only rated 1 star, compared to the Transit, and how a Transit could be found to be safer then a VE commodore.

I'd be careful with any theory or "fact" coming from Monash uni. Of all the extreme left wing, group think, green orgy, latte sipping, hair armpit, anti-car, anti-everything universities in Australia, Monash uni is leaps and bounds the worst. Pity because their name sake was a great Aussie. I'm surprised that global warming isn't mentioned in the accident study.

This is the same mob that is always recommending reducing speed limits on virtually all roads.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I come out of it with minor burns and one hell of a bruise from the seatbelt.

Burns?

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

20 years of attending motor vehicle accidents and extricating the victims has proven to me that the heavier vehicle will not always come off better.

Examples?


I deal with motor accidents on a daily basis. So like everyone, I have my opinion.
I don't as feel safe in small cars, whether they are new or 30 years old. Compared to a Falcon or similar sized cars. Do I have stat's to support this? Nope. All I have is what I have seen. Am I right? Probably not but, what is there to prove otherwise?

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Burns?

Airbags.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by cheap

This is the same mob that is always recommending reducing speed limits on virtually all roads.

I'm surprised it has taken this long for someone to mention this. Monash Uni's credibility has been completely shot in my mind for years based on the garbage they're constantly pumping out on the behest of our traffic authorities.

My favorite example - "the chances of being in a crash double for every 5 km/h over the limit you drive"

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Burns?

From the airbag gasses, it gives you the worst after taste as well

[aussiblue]

The fact is all university research (Monash or otherwise) is independently peer reviewed (i.e. reviewed by other scientists from elsewhere) and can generally be trusted (until overturned by subsequent research) but you also need to read the original research findings and the related fine print and disclaimers so you have the full context - not just the reported key findings. Yes scientist can make mistakes and sometimes unconsciously or unintentionally introduce bias ,but this is usually picked up when others try and replicate the results. Just because we don't like the outcome of the research is no reason to bash Monash or others.

[aussiblue]

Even ANCAP acknowledge here http://www.ancap.com.au/faqs#q22 that a larger vehicle has a theoretical safety advantage:

If a large, heavy sedan and a small, light sedan both receive five stars and the same ANCAP scores, is the large sedan safer for the occupants than the small sedan?
It is not appropriate to compare ANCAP ratings across vehicle categories, particularly if there is a large weight difference. The reason is that in car-to-car crashes, the heavier vehicle has a theoretical advantage (due to the physics of the crash). Similarly, a higher ride height might be an advantage in a car-to-car crash. However in single vehicle crashes, such as with solid fixed objects, the weight might no longer be an advantage. So it depends on the type of crash. Also some small cars do remarkably well in crashes with larger vehicles as they have very strong passenger compartments and advanced occupant restraint systems and these features make up for the mass disadvantage.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

I deal with motor accidents on a daily basis. So like everyone, I have my opinion.
I don't as feel safe in small cars, whether they are new or 30 years old. Compared to a Falcon or similar sized cars. Do I have stat's to support this? Nope. All I have is what I have seen. Am I right? Probably not but, what is there to prove otherwise?

So in what capacity do you deal with motor accidents on a daily basis ?

So with every accident you have dealt with the larger car has always come off better has it ?

Because all I'm saying is that in my experience the heavier vehicle will not always come off better.

I'm not talking about statistics by some uni bum in an office, I'm talking real world experience over many years on the end of hydraulic rescue tools cutting what others see as statistics out of their wrecks.

I shouldn't need to state it but obviously where there is a large weight advantage (ie car vs semi) the heavier will come off better. It's just not as cut and dried otherwise as there are far to many variables.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

So in what capacity do you deal with motor accidents on a daily basis ?

So with every accident you have dealt with the larger car has always come off better has it ?

Because all I'm saying is that in my experience the heavier vehicle will not always come off better.

I'm not talking about statistics by some uni bum in an office, I'm talking real world experience over many years on the end of hydraulic rescue tools cutting what others see as statistics out of their wrecks.

I shouldn't need to state it but obviously where there is a large weight advantage (ie car vs semi) the heavier will come off better. It's just not as cut and dried otherwise as there are far to many variables.

I would interested in that answer too. I am a paramedic in a busy metropolitan station surrounded on 2 sides by motorways and high speed back roads (the drag strips) on another side. I don't go to significant crashes that result in injuries that require more than a quick check at hospital daily. I have been to 1000's of crashes involving every type of vehicle from Toyota Yaris size up to B Double (we don't get road trains in Brisbane). I have been to more fatals than I can count and many serious injury crashes.

What I will say is in my observation, the seriously injured that I have been to, the dead that I have been to, are mostly in larger cars.

Could it be because that sense of security you all rave about leads to increased risk taking behaviour?

[aussiblue]

I'm not talking about statistics by some uni bum in an office, I'm talking real world experience over many years on the end of hydraulic rescue tools cutting what others see as statistics out of their wrecks.

Unfortunately you and others are falling into a common trap that causes people to invalidly dispute research findings; your observed sample size is much smaller than the researchers and in all likelihood is a tiny subset of all the road accident outcomes that they considered.

[aussiblue]

Note also the Monash and other related research outcomes are also open to critical examination and review by various insurance companies, motoring organisation and lobby groups who also have the opportunity, and often the financial capacity, to fund their own research. The base data is also readily available so people can verify it and the research outcomes. I think it's a case of put up (objective verifiable counter proof/evidence) or shut up.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Note also the Monash and other related research outcomes are also open to critical examination and review by various insurance companies, motoring organisation and lobby groups who also have the opportunity, and often the financial capacity, to fund their own research. The base data is also readily available so people can verify it and the research outcomes. I think it's a case of put up (objective verifiable counter proof/evidence) or shut up.

Granted, but how does their research assess increased risk taking behaviour due to increased sense of safety? Even the leading motoring groups have stated that statistics show 4wd vehicles are more likely to be in a crash than smaller vehicles.

Personally I would prefer not be in the crash in the first place than have have an advantage in a crash.

Research is great but you can not discount real world experience, my experience is not limited to a few cases, we are talking 1000's of crashes of various severities . The simple fact is depending on the situation in a big car versus small car crash, sometimes the occupants of the big car come out better and sometimes they don't. There is no always in vehicle crashes.

[aussiblue]

sometimes the occupants of the big car come out better and sometimes they don't

I don't think the research (or I) disputes that. There are even case where someone in an older much less safer car survives an impact with a modern safer vehicle but the odds are against it. I guess the extreme example is a prime mover and car collisions with most prime movers have less modern safety features (and safety impairing bar work) but because of their weight and height off the ground, are often a safer place to be in a truck-car collision.

[aussiblue]

my experience is not limited to a few cases, we are talking 1000's of crashes of various severities

Still a small subset of the total data analysed and:

a) were you objectively recording the outcome a keeping the stats; and/or
b) is your recall influenced by the victims and severity of the accidents as is the usual case; and /or/
c) Did your work itself introduce a bias in terms of the selection of accidents attended, the geographic region or shifts/time of attendance?

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Unfortunately you and others are falling into a common trap that causes people to invalidly dispute research findings; your observed sample size is much smaller than the researchers and in all likelihood is a tiny subset of all the road accident outcomes that they considered.

I'm not falling into any trap or invaliding research findings, I'm stating that in my experience "bigger is not always better" (nothing else) which some people here continually harp on about.

You also need to accept that statistics can be manipulated to advance any argument the researcher wishes whether purposely or not.

[geckoGT]

Do you have a link to the actual research rather than just the overview which we can not review?

Your OP links a news report and not the research that was reported on. News reports can bias research to far outside the actual findings.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The simple fact is depending on the situation in a big car versus small car crash, sometimes the occupants of the big car come out better and sometimes they don't. There is no always in vehicle crashes.

You could say this till your blue in the face and still some people would not get it

[aussiblue]

You also need to accept that statistics can be manipulated to advance any argument the researcher wishes whether purposely or not.

Yes; I in fact said in my earlier post:

Yes scientist can make mistakes and sometimes unconsciously or unintentionally introduce bias ,but this is usually picked up when others try and replicate the results. Just because we don't like the outcome of the research is no reason to bash Monash or others.

Similarly in my post several times I have acknowledged bigger is not always better eg:

I don't think the research (or I) disputes that. There are even case where someone in an older much less safer car survives an impact with a modern safer vehicle but the odds are against it.

[aussiblue]

I spent a lot of my career before I retired managing fisheries and having to explain to fishermen that research outcomes were correct despite there sometimes being an apparent contradiction to what some were observing. This sometimes came down to local regional differences in fish stock abundance, fisherability of stocks and individual fishing practices so it wasn't really a case of the fisherman's observations contradicting the research but data and outcomes across the whole fishery being different from data from specific (sometimes large) group of fishermen or part of the fishery. So my point is, that while someone may observe a large number of accidents that appears to give outcomes that conflict with research data or findings, this doesn't mean that either are wrong. There may be something relatively unique about the observed subset that creates the apparent contradiction that might also be interesting to analyse as it may also tell something about big car V small car accidents in that subset e.g the effect of the road designs or rainfall in middle earth or the population statics there may create particular conditions that change the outcome of collisions. Similarly, if people have data that suggests conflicts with research data or findings it is likely something that the researchers would be open to considering and reviewing as analysis of such perceived discrepancies often reveal useful information. They will have the data subset so if you give them the region and years they should be able extract that subset More importantly, as in fisheries management, the willingness to consider alternatives and openly analyse and debate the data and findings is often the best way to bring doubters onside and have some agreement of the findings. In some cases, it may also suggest a new hypothesis and new area to be researched. From my experience scientists are always ready to explain their findings and examine in a friendly way the arguments of other who perceive their findings or data doesn't fit with their own observations.

BTW, while I have some scientific training, I am not a scientist (unless you group accountants and economists with scientists). Worse for some I guess I was a bureaucrat (albeit one that ensured he got out on fishing boats as much as possible and didn't just shine his bum :-)

I guess I know that there are big differences between fishers and motorist; fishers (particularly commercial fishers) are generally extremely rational and will accept and support research findings and management changes that will lead to improved sustainability and long run catch/ profits. Us motorist (including me) are generally more emotive about cars and driving and often resist research findings and changes that might improve our life expectancy but constrain our motoring freedom (speed limits, stronger control on younger statistically more at risk drivers etc).

[aussiblue]

BTW unless we believe in conspiracy theories, one has to note that much overseas research also come to the same conclusions as our local universities and therefore it is not corrupt or biased. And given most car manufacturers (with some exceptions such as MB), have historically wanted to reduce costs and not adopt new safety measures (and have even in some cases cheated on adopting them) you would think the balance of dollars and the bias would be there; not with Road Safety Authorities or safety equipment manufacturers. In any event my view is that larger cars are likely marginally safer than smaller cars of similar safety ratings; it will always depend on the circumstances of the accident but the stats show that the odds will be slightly in your favour in a larger vehicle all other things (including ANCAP rating) being equal.

On an aside I had two major accidents in my first car which was a Mini Moke. The Moke would I think would get a negative ANCAP rating but I believe it's low weight, low centre of gravity and lack of overhead structure saved my life when my stationary car was hit side on by a VC Valiant going in excess of 100 mph. My Moke was simply flung aside as the Valiant went another couple of hundred yards down the road then off the road, it stayed upright (in this and other accidents due to its low centre of gravity), and while my head was cut open I think my head injuries would have been worse in a car with a hard roof or a closer windshield. My long hippy hair probably also helped protect the head. But any sort of head on in the Moke I am sure would have been fatal.

[2011G6E]

I think there are a few things we can all happily agree on:

* Generally speaking, it's usually...not always, but usually...better to have more mass around you to absorb the energy. I was once called "irresponsible" after a very near miss T-bone between our old XC Fairmont and a small Kia hatchback in a Bundaberg street. We'd been doing 60kph, they reversed straight out of a driveway ahead of us. Lots of traffic in the other lane (so no idea where she thought she was reversing out to), parked cars to the side of the road, literally nowhere to go but hit the brakes hard and brace for impact. Our bumper overriders were actually just touching her passenger side door. I got out to check and she abused me, saying had I considered what would happen in such a "massive old car" if I hit her. Such "huge" cars shouldn't be allowed on the roads "these days".

* Injuries in a road accident...it's all the luck of the draw. Some people will walk away from staggering big accidents with a few knocks and bruises, some people will die after a low speed impact at just the right angle. The better your car, the more likely you'll get out with less injuries, but you never know.

* Over a certain speed, all bets are off. One study some years back showed that a heavy impact with a solid immovable object (tree, post, bridge pylon, etc) at anything over 80kph was "basically unsurviveable". Your car will do it's best to absorb the forces involved, but too much of the energy is transferred to the occupants and the odds are very good that you simply won't be able to survive that level of impact.


It;s basically all a crap shoot. You can nudge the odds in your favour one way or another, but when push comes to shove, there are so many variables that all you can really state are basic generalizations about what could happen.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

The fact is all university research (Monash or otherwise) is independently peer reviewed (i.e. reviewed by other scientists from elsewhere) and can generally be trusted (until overturned by subsequent research) but you also need to read the original research findings and the related fine print and disclaimers so you have the full context - not just the reported key findings. Yes scientist can make mistakes and sometimes unconsciously or unintentionally introduce bias ,but this is usually picked up when others try and replicate the results. Just because we don't like the outcome of the research is no reason to bash Monash or others.

Unfortunately peer review means reviewed by a like minded individual.

Countless times the green community hoists up "peer reviewed proof" but ignores "peer reviewed papers" that point out the opposite to their theory/proof (and vise versa).

We all know the peer reviewed process is highly suspect. So I hope you're not trying to use peer review as some moral high ground, because I'm not buying what you're selling.

In my opinion I wouldn't trust Monash Uni with an ant farm let alone perform unbiased research.

[aussiblue]

I don't think the research (or I) disputes that. There are even case where someone in an older much less safer car survives an impact with a modern safer vehicle but the odds are against it.

So what Monash research in particular are you rejecting and on what basis so as forum peers we can review or opinion :-) ?