Karl, I though only front impact tests were weight depedant.
 
The rest I agree with. The Smart is a hard cookie, but i'd rather have a foot of fluff take the hit first.
 
and the honda crx that is in a similar weight class got better millage.
 
And did people complain about its tranny?...

Sometimes I wonder how much thought people actually give with respect to the safety of a vehicle. I would bet that the vast majority of people ask the salesman about safety, the salesman assures them that this is a very safe vehicle, and thats that. Maybe they talk for a few seconds about the airbags, but thats about it.

An excellent post.
 
I didn't know that the crash tests were done against vehicles of similar size.
 
This take on the Smart relates to the irony that always comes to my mind when I think of or see one..... just how "smart" are you being by buying and driving one of these? If you always drive it in a city environment where its size and mileage are useful and the speeds and risks are much lower I guess it could be considered smart. The one I saw this morning looked just like your LT one and it was on a 50MPH crowded 2 lane with lots of big stuff around it - the guy looked like a stupid sittin' duck. The other environment where I might buy/use one would be a place like Bermuda where the speeds are low and the vehicles are restricted to about the same size.
 
If you get your clock cleaned in one of these and you end up surviving only to be permanently disfigured or disabled.....I wonder how often you would think "how could I have been so dumb?"
 
Drive something bigger that's safer and still somewhat miserly - save the difference in your monthly petrol bill by going out to dinner one less time each month.

In my opinion, the most important safety feature in a car is the driver. All the latest technological doo-dads and electronic nannies won't save a person who is inattentive at the wheel and practices poor driving habits. As someone who always tries (though doesn't always exceed) to keep in mind all of that "stuff" they taught me in driver's ed, you know, rules of the road and all that nonsense, this whole argument ticks me off.
 
It's as though some people have actually let their driving skills go out the window because they have ESC, systems that detect and correct the space between their car and the next one and all the plethora of add-ons that weigh down our cars more and more with each model year. I choose to drive a smaller wagon that meets my needs and maybe even exceeds them. Though I may not have the impact resistance of an SUV or the high view it offers, I find that driving an average car requires I actually pay attention to the road and the traffic, God forbid. On the off chance I'm actually involved in a collision, I figure the size of my vehicle is the least of my worries and that the size of vehicle I'm alters the situation only by a few degrees. However, until that happens, my best safety feature is me, employing defensive driving techniques when necessary and keeping my eyes and mind on the road as much as possible.
 
Frankly, the whole safety, safety, safety argument has gotten a bit old to me. Cars these days are built to a far, far higher standard than they were even 15 years ago, let alone 50. Even the most basic car out there is considerably safer than its predecessors and a person who buys cars with all the usual safety features plus new experimental ones is just gilding the lily. We're paying the price at the pump by fattening up our cars with excessive crapola - money we could be using to save up for hospital bills when we do actually get in a collision. Why is that better? Because, like I said, safety "bling" or not, you're going to be dealing with the same scenario or not, only by degrees. Sure, degrees might be the difference between a severed spinal cord and severe back trauma, but if you're hit that hard, it's a scenario that's likely to end the same way.
 
Ok, sorry, rant over.

I'd be nervous in a smart too. Then again, lots of people ride motorcycles to save on gas and other operating expenses, and surely those are far less safe in an accident than even a very small car. I wouldn't ride a motorcycle either, not at this stage of my life with a family to support. I can almost trust myself, but definitely not everyone else on the highway.) I believe there are enough people who would never ride a motorcycle but would drive a smart. They know it's not as safe as a Volvo wagon, but they're willing to risk it as gas prices go higher and higher.
 
Everyone will have their own "risk vs. reward" point. Personally, a "compact" car like a Civic/Corolla/Mazda3 is about as small as I am comfortable with (both literally comfortable at 6'3", and in psychologically comfortable in terms of safety). It's good enough on gas for me to pick one over a large car, but a smart isn't enough of an improvement in fuel economy from there (as Rick pointed out, about $40 a month) to go even smaller. I decided that 30 mpg was the minimum fuel economy that I wanted, and then proceeded to pick the best (most comfortable, most fun to drive, most reliable,
 "coolest") car that could acheive it.

Am I the only one that sees the selfishness in the bigger is better philosophy for safety?! Sure, YOU'll be safer in an accident if you're in an Accord rather than a Smart, or a Suburban over an Accord, but what about the people you might plow into?! If we all drove smaller cars we'd be safer as a whole. The is one problem with that, and that is commercial trucks, buses, etc. My only advice is avoid tangling with them and keep the bad drivers off the road.

I think the Smart is too small to be comfortable with safety. However, small cars like Versa, Civic, Accent, Yaris etc. should be good enough. Another problem with American (and not only American) roads is that we have (or had) some sort of arms race: whoever buys the biggest car is the road "king" and everybody suppose to yield to this driver... Hopefully, the gas price situation reduce the presence of very large SUV's on the road, and then nobody will worry what will happen if you got hit by Ford Excursion (thank god, not produced anymore) being in a sub-compact.
 
Sometimes I think what would happen if gas prices were very low (below $1 a gallon)... and I imagine a ridiculus picture: people who really want to win the car size arms race would be buying 18-wheelers - the ultimate safe machine! After that even a big SUV wouldn't make you feel safe...

I will say I agree about the Smart's risk vs. reward compromise. It doesn't sound like a compelling one thus far.

A Nissan Versa costs $1500 LESS, seats 3 more people and gets the same fuel economy with a good CVT versus a bad manual transmission. Plus, If a Ford F-150 was coming up my tailpipe, I know which one I would rather be in!

bechtel,
"Am I the only one that sees the selfishness in the bigger is better philosophy for safety?! Sure, YOU'll be safer in an accident if you're in an Accord rather than a Smart, or a Suburban over an Accord, but what about the people you might plow into?!"
 
So are you saying that we should all drive Smarts or that we should all drive Accords? Or Suburbans? Call me selfish, but I'm more worried about my wife and kids than the other guy. ;-)
 
In our case, we bought the Suburban for utility. We felt perfectly safe in a minivan (perhaps a bit safer given the lower center of gravity), but it didn't always meet our needs, and believe it or not it didn't do all that much better on fuel economy either. But I hesitate to "justify" our SUV like that. I'm perfectly fine with people driving more car than they "need", if they're willing to pay for it.
 
Active safety systems and good driving skills to avoid accidents are far more important than airbags and safety cells. Even most accidents that are not your fault, such as getting plowed into or run off the road, can be avoided. I know a girl who had five accidents that were "not her fault". Technically, no they weren't, but she had habits that put her in situations where she was more vulnerable to idiots.
 
The biggest problem I see is that people get all self righteous (Don't tailgate me!, I was already in this lane!, Your light was red!) and proceed to "challenge" the other driver rather than humbly yield to the bozo even when he's wrong. You're not going to teach her a lesson, and you're not going to change her habits. Just let it go, folks. Let them pass, let them merge, let them through. Take it easy, put on some music, you'll get there when you get there.

Well said, Hightower.
 
Bechtel - I've had similar debates in my head and the arms race analogy often comes to mind.....but, I don't think it's selfishness and I don't know exactly how you would go about mandating who drives what. Who makes this decision for you or I? No thanks.....call me selfish but I'll decide what I'm going to drive....and I want you to decide what you drive.
 
When I see someone cruising around in an H2 that never ever gets used for anything close to it's capability, I do think it's somewhat foolish and wasteful (and comical) but in the end .... it's to each his own. Let the mandated safety features and enforcement of existing traffic laws designed to make things safer, do the job.

phinneas519 - In my opinion, the most important safety feature in a car is the driver .
 
True....
 
However you might be the best driver in the world. The guy next to you just lost his wife, hit the bar and swallowed a liter of vodka...
 
no matter how good of a driver you are, you cannot control the actions of others.

I'm looking at this right now, car for my soon to be 16-year-old, and I put safety at the top of the list. Must be mid sized with side airbags and high crash rating for him. For me, safety's not as much of a criteria, but he's what, ten times more likely to be in a crash?

Karl,
 
I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing a chart from a few years back that tabulated not only the fatality rates of the vehicle in the accident, but also the fatality rates of those in other vehicles involved in the accident and pedestrians. IIRC, the most dangerous vehicles were pickup trucks in rural areas, due mainly to the high incidence of single-vehicle fatal accidents. The sweet spot where fatalities were lowest for everyone involved (crasher, crashee and any involved pedestrians) was occupied (perhaps unsurprisingly) by the usual practical suspects - Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, and other midsize sedans. Large SUVs were somewhat safer for the crasher, but significantly more dangerous for the crashee.
 
I'll keep looking to see if I can find the chart - it was pretty revealing.

While a bit morbid, I think the IIHS's death rate tables are the best indicator of overall safety. Most small cars don't do so well, but there were some notable exceptions, and Toyotas seemed to do very well across the board (the Rav4 was among the best vehicles of any size, IIRC). Some SUVs and pickups did poorly, others didn't... and a few stuck out as being disproportionately involved in crashes in which the other car's driver died.
 
They try to normalize for driver behavior by using a certain age group of female drivers as a control. So the downsides to the tables are that you have to wait several years for a new vehicle to have data available, they don't get enough data on low-volume cars, and I don't think they can compile miles driven, just the number of registered car-years.

Good point re: Rav4, Carlisimo, looks like small SUVs are some of the safest from that table, not something I would have guessed.

Karl,
 
This isn't the exact chart I was thinking of, but it's very similar in that it shows combined risk to the driver and to others. The most relevant chart is on page 9.
 
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
 

If you're interested in the topic, the WSJ just published an article in yesterday's edition. According to the IIHS, here are the numbers:
 
           1996 Rate 2006 Rate
Cars
 Mini 165 106
 Small 126 99
 Midsize 99 70
 Large 63 69
 Very large 76 41
 Pickups
 Small 143 116
 Large 118 98
 Very large 94 84
SUVs
 Small 108 42
 Midsize 96 50
 Large 57 43
 Very large 58 33
 
Source: IIHS
 
To read the whole article, go to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121095568704998989.html?mod=rss_Autos_Main

This assertion that small cars are statistically more risky conveniently omits the real reason for it -- the flood of HUGE vehicles on American roads. If we could adjust the public policy in some way to get MOST people to switch to small, light cars, then this situation would change dramatically. Eliminate F-150s and Tahoes from American roads and all the Smarts and Minis will suddenly become much less likely to be at a disadvantage when it comes to vehicle crash compatibility. Mini vs. Yaris is MUCH better than Mini vs. Explorer, in so many ways.
 
I strongly believe that most people who use F-150 and other rigid-frame, high-ground-clearance vehicles that are so incompatible with small cars would be MUCH better served by Ford Transit Connect and similar LCV type vehicles. Even ignoring the severe environmental and geopolitical impact such vehicles have on American society, they simply are poorly suited for the kinds of tasks tradesmen and contractors need them for.

And here's a similar more recent report. Best chart is on page 28 of the PDF (labeled as page 22 of the report):
 
http://www.theicct.org/documents/LBNL_FE&Safety_2006.pdf
 
Looks like the sweet spot is actually minivans.

ahh yes VK,
 
since some people cannot afford cars, what we should do, is just have the Great All knowing goveremnt, give everyone a smart car, and ban all other cars on the road.

opfreak,
 
I don't think the government should tell people what to do. However, it should hold accountable those of us who cause small cars to be statistically riskier. One good way of doing it is to raise taxes. Tax gasoline -- a $10/gal tax would quickly make people think twice about buying heavy and inefficient vehicles. The proceeds could be used to improve infrastructure. Better roads and better public transportation would improve things for everyone. Alternatively, we could tax by engine displacement, by weight or by power/torque. Or even by CO2 emissions, although I personally dislike that method. My favorite is a HEAVY tax on gasoline. It is clear that even at $4/gal gasoline is way too affordable to an average American. It needs to be $10-15 before people will start using their legs to walk places and will stop idling in front of WalMarts with their A/C at full blast.

"I don't think the government should tell people what to do."
 
"However.. [the government should price gas at $15 as gallon to force people to do what I want.]"
 
Well, which one is it going to be?

wk,
 
Another thing the government can do is not subsidize the purchase of large SUVs, as it did a few years ago when a change in the tax code allowed businesses huge tax breaks when purchasing vehicles with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. While it was intended to spur investment by businesses who genuinely need vehicles of that size, the tax loophole was used extensively by small business owners (including professionals and small home-based business owners) to purchase full-size SUVs at a much reduced after-tax cost.
 
I agree that increased gas taxes (although not as high as you suggest), phased in slowly and with the revenue dedicated for road construction and maintenance, is a good idea. Unfortunately, it's a political non-starter. In California, Proposition 218 restrictions would require such a tax increase to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the electorate, which makes such a proposal DOA.

Karl, since you brought up fuel efficiency:
 
"If you've got the money to -- literally -- burn and simply must have an SUV, knock yourself out."
 
Sure, all you SUV drivers. Go ahead and knock yourself out if you have money to burn. And while you are at it, please accept a hearty "THANK YOU" from me for increasing demand and making MY GAS more expensive.

vvk-
 
any other behavior you want to control?
 
drinking: 25 dollar a drink tax
 
smoking: 10 dollar a cig tax
 
eating: 10 dollars per gram of fat.
 
In the VVK world : Goverment Knows best, I know nothing.

Small cars have improved so dramatically lately I can't see accident safety in them (generally) being a big issue. I'm sure their fatality rate is artificially increased by the type of people driving them. Kids out of high school drive small cheap cars, older people with families drive minivans. Guess who is going to go out drinking and race through traffic with their friends?
  
It does pay to pick your model though. Watching the crash test videos on Consumer Reports there is huge differences in relatively similar sized cars through things like airbag inflation rate and body structure. Korean engineers especially seem to be struggling with side impacts, watching Hyundais, Kias, and Daewoos side impact tests in slo-mo is painful.
  
The other thing is to buckle up and get all the airbags. Although the structure may be very tough in the latest small cars, the smaller the car the more critical it is to keep the driver from bouncing around inside.

opfreak, the government tells people to do things all the time:
 
"Drivers, don't get drunk before getting behind the wheel."
"Automakers, put seatbelts, airbags and catalytic converters on all your new cars."
"Tiremakers, put lots of information on the sidewall of your tires."
"Gas stations, install this vapor-recovery equipment and post all these dire warnings on your pumps."
 
The valid question is not whether the government should be regulating behavior, but what behaviors should be regulated, how that regulation should be enforced, and what the penalties for violating behavioral restrictions should be. All these topics are eminently suitable for debate.
 
It all comes back to "what is the just and proper role of government," which has been argued over for thousands of years and won't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction anytime soon.

Karl,
preach on, the choir is listening
http://66.160.188.111/Straightline/41
 
The other aspect to remember is the horrible rollover rating of the Smart Fourtwo.
Look at the bodily injury ratings, I simply would not allow my fiance to own much less be in a Smart in LA.

What ever you drive, if you hit something at 70mph you're dead
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s&eurl=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2008/05/mad-man-day-one.html

"So are you saying that we should all drive Smarts or that we should all drive Accords? Or Suburbans? Call me selfish, but I'm more worried about my wife and kids than the other guy. ;-)"
 
"Bechtel - I've had similar debates in my head and the arms race analogy often comes to mind.....but, I don't think it's selfishness and I don't know exactly how you would go about mandating who drives what. Who makes this decision for you or I? No thanks.....call me selfish but I'll decide what I'm going to drive....and I want you to decide what you drive."
 
Maybe I feel differently about this because I'm a young single guy, and nothing's ever going to happen to me, right? But I certainly am not suggesting that we regulate the size of vehicles people drive. I'm just pointing out that people aren't thinking the big picture through when they say that larger vehicles are safer. My point is buying a larger vehicle because it's "safer" is not a good thing to do (unless your alternative is a Smart ;-) Drive whatever you want, just don't buy bigger because it's "safer", because what you're really doing is making things less safe for everyone else.

I do think Americans should drive smaller cars, but jumping from one extreme (Excursion) to another (Smart) is not a viable solution. Jumping down from an Explorer to a Taurus or a CR-V to a Civic is a much more mature solution.

I do not and will not allow crash ratings to color my car buying choices. It simply isn't a concern. If this were 1980 that'd be a different story but for the most part everything is good enough.
 
And yes, I have a wife and baby on the way. The baby's going in the back of the cooper. I grew up riding in my mom's sports cars and survived. My wife managed to survive riding in the back of her dad's Porsches (which lacked seatbelts) even on cross-country trips. When I was a kid I'd ride in the back of pick-ups on freeways and around country roads. Good grief, last year in Thailand we road around in the back of little tuk-tuks and all manner of dodgy vehicles.
 
People in this country are too concerned with safety at the expense of fun...

I agree there's a level of "good enough" beyond which I don't pay much attention... but anything with poor crash test ratings would have to be very good in every other way for me to buy it over the competition. (Lotus Seven replica?)
 
The smart would undoubtedly prove safer than the 1950lb Tercel I spent my early (and reckless) driving years in. I wouldn't be surprised if it were safer than the Aveo... heck, it might be better than the Aveo in more ways than one. Too bad the Fit exists!

^ya, but you can get an aveo for like 9 grand.
 
but when it brakes down to fit vs smart.... hmmm both are similar in price... i'd take the fit.

"I grew up riding in my mom's sports cars and survived. My wife managed to survive riding in the back of her dad's Porsches (which lacked seatbelts) even on cross-country trips. When I was a kid I'd ride in the back of pick-ups on freeways and around country roads. Good grief, last year in Thailand we road around in the back of little tuk-tuks and all manner of dodgy vehicles."
 
Blueguy - ever stop to think that lots of other folks did these things, but aren't here to talk about it? Your surviving these things is no 'proof' that they're not worth worrying about. Maybe they're proof you're lucky!

Texas, maybe but yet almost everybody on this board grew up without carseats or 5 star crash protection. It's ludicrous how far it's gone and how paranoid people are.

Karl,
There is one important factual issue you were not...well...factual about. You state "But the key to all these tests is that they are measured against vehicles of similar size and weight.". However, regarding the side impact tests, the IIHS states "NOTE: Side impact crash test ratings can be compared across vehicle type and weight categories, while frontal crash test ratings cannot. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the side impact test depends on the weight and speed of the moving barrier, which are the same in every test. In contrast, the kinetic energy involved in the frontal crash test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle."
  
Thus, a safety conscious shopper should choose a 3,200 lb VW Jetta over a 4,600 lb Chevrolet Trailblazer if they want the safer vehicle in a side impact.
  
Link for verification: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html

You're right. When I said "testS" (as in plural) I meant all the various front crash tests by both IIHS and NHTSA. Side impact uses a standardized barrier for every car.

Here's some interesting numbers.
 
In 2006 there were 38,588 automotive deaths in the US. In the same year there were 2889 automotive deaths in Canada.
 
Even when you factor in the difference in population, ther's still roughly 30% more fatal car accidents in the US then Canada.
 
However while small cars are relatively rare in the US, they are everywhere in Canada. (The top selling cars are the Mazda3 and the Civic). Smarts are everywhere.
 
Perhaps the size of your car is not the biggest concern for those of you so worried about safety.
 
Perhaps all this "concern" over safety is more to with people trying to justify their dislike of small cars more then any real worries about safety.
 
Just perhaps.

What are the prospects for using the super strong cage technology developed for this car in more reasonably sized cars to make them safer? I think you can get pretty decent fuel economy out of a 3200 lb sedan and the larger crumple zones would seem to offer more protection if given the same technology.
 
Also, have there been any studies of the affect of seating position height on side impact injuries? (are SUV drivers vital areas of head and thorax above the impact zone vs a small car driver getting a bumper to the noggin)

Can't legislate personality traits, but drivers act less responsible than ever before. From kids who (thanks to video games and generally being spoiled) have been isolated from reality, to an ever growing elderly population who shouldn't be driving, to the hectic pace of life that the rest of us lead as we multi-task while driving, U.S. drivers are less responsible than ever. Add to that the ever number of licensed cars in the world and you have a recipe for daily disasters.
 
So the answer has been to make cars safer. But this has resulted in replacing personal responsibility with air bags, seat belts, ABS, etc. Now a trained, alert driver can't fully control his car, partially due to the extra weight of all those safety devices, and the numbness from many of the new electronic steering systems, but mostly due to various braking/acceleration controls.
 
U.S. versus Canada statistics: Caulk that one up to vehicles on the road per mile of road and a little slower pace of life.
 
If you're worried about big versus little vehicle impacts, why stop at SUV's or service vehicles? The heavy trucking industry is highly subsidized as they cause the majority of road damage, but don't pay their share of the fuel taxes. With $4 gas and $5 diesel, we need to consider giving up the speed and convenience of trucks and jets for the energy conservation and environmental friendliness of travel via rail and water.
 
Imagine a world with almost no semi traffic on roads that almost never need repair.