Automotive history is littered with good intentions gone bad. Automatic seatbelts. Vocal warning systems. Ralph Nader.
One of the more vivid automotive tragedies of the last 50 years centered on the desire to save car owners money by creating bumpers that wouldn't be damaged in low-speed accidents. The idea seemed simple enough: If a car's bumper could withstand, say, a 7 mph impact without damage it would mean no repair bills for the thousands of minor accidents that happen every year.
Sounds good in theory, but the reality is that few manufacturers could blend this type of impact absorbption into a car's bumper when the regulation went into effect in 1973. Instead of integrating the impact protection into a vehicle's front and rear styling most manufacturers simply did what corporate resources dictated -- they slapped 6-10 inches of rubber onto each end of the vehicle. And in case you haven't ever seen cars from this era (1973-1977), the answer to the question "Didn't that look odd while upsetting the car's overall lines and proportions?" is an unconditional "YES!"
Thirty-five years later I see the latest attempt to make cars safer, and the resulting impact (sorry) on vehicle styling feels like 1973 all over again.
This time the idea is to reduce impact damage between cars and people. This Wired article goes into the details of current and pending pedestrian impact safety standards, but the upshot is pretty straightforward -- car designs will be increasingly dictated by laws requiring them to "catch" any pedestrians that come in contact with the front end.
How to accomplish this is still being worked out, with each manufacturer taking their own approach. But while elaborate external airbags and moving body parts will work in some instances, such as low-volume cars with high price tags, the cheapest way to deal with this situation on a volume level is to create a higher, more upright front-end. I call it the "rubber bumper" solution.
And like the original rubber bumper solution, this one suggests styling will take a hit in the name of government regulation. I first spoke of this issute back in 2005, but at that time my concern for future vehicle design was more theoretical than factual. Now we have the 2008 Mercedes-Benz C-Class and 2009 Acura TL (pictured above), and it appears my fears have been realized.
Looking at both of these cars it seems clear the front end design is driven by pedestrian safety first, aesthetic (and aerodynamic) effectiveness second. And because both were in the midst of their redesign cycle during the initial rumblings of Europe's growing pedestrian safety standards I have no doubt they reflect those laws.
Plenty of all-new cars will be hitting showrooms in the next couple years. Will they all have Karl Malden noses? The mind reels. (And please spare me the "If it saves just one life..." line.)
By vvk
on September 4, 2008
10:15 AM
With all the "high and mighty" SUVs, pickups and crossovers on our roads, this becomes a moot point. While some pedestrians will be saved by compliance with European regulations, scores of others will be killed simply because US/Canada drivers like a higher point of view. While a normal passenger car strikes an adult at the knee level, sparing head and torso, a high-off-the-ground SUV/Crossover strikes to kill.
By blueguydotcom
on September 4, 2008
10:38 AM
I like the nose on the C class. I think the nose and tail are nice looking. Horrible interior and lousy pricing, chassis, suspension but it's got a nice nose and great rear deck.
By orangutan
on September 4, 2008
10:58 AM
How about we just hold people accountable for their actions while training both drivers and pedestrians to be smarter and more aware?
By Karl Brauer
on September 4, 2008
11:07 AM
To me there's an incongruous aspect to the C-Class. It looks alright from most angles, but the profile betrays the pedestrian-safety styling.
Look at the angle of the body line going from the front wheel well to the tailights. Look at the angle of the front windshield. Look at the angle below the headlights. They all have a nice, relaxed lean to them. Then look at the front grille -- BONK! A very jarring (to my eye) upright, bilboard angle.
I feel like I can almost see the original hoodline and front grille angle (both of them lower and with more slope) and then the engineers came in and said, "Nein! Must be more upright to suite regulations! Must provide more space between hood and engine!"
Could just be me, but that's what I see whenever I look at the profile of our long-term 2008 C-Class.
I won't even get into the TL's front-end styling...
By wolverine85
on September 4, 2008
11:12 AM
While I generally support regulations to make cars safer, these pedestrian safety regulations are ridiculous. No matter what you do people are going to get hurt if they get hit by a car. People need to take responsibility for being careful when crossing streets. Of the examples you mentioned, the MB looks okay but the Acural is simply hideous. Kark - Did these regulations affect the design of the Jaguar XK? That car would look so much better with a swoopier front end instead of its Taurus look-alike front.
By Karl Brauer
on September 4, 2008
11:39 AM
I'm sure the regulations affected the latest XK, and I agree it could/should look "swoopier" than it does. The previous XK had a timeless style that likely can't be recreated with these regulations. And I fear the vehicles we're discussing (C-Class, TL, XK) are just the tip of the "pug-nosed" iceberg in terms of future vehicle styling.
By tysalpha
on September 4, 2008
12:15 PM
I'd say even the latest versions of the Accord and Camry were beginning to approach this look. Then of course there's the Chrysler 300 -- but on that car, the formal upright grill fits the design. I can't imagine how hideous it will be if the Civics, Cobalts, and Foci have to go to such a prominent front end.
By carlisimo
on September 4, 2008
12:19 PM
Here in San Francisco, we get plenty of deaths when cars run a light and hit a pedestrian. With all the crests and dips and obstructions, you can be perfectly attentive as a pedestrian and still get clobbered... I don't see the justification in blaming the victim here. ("But he was too poor to drive a car! He deserved to be killed!") It's not like getting hit by a train, which does seem to take some effort on the victim's part.
In Europe, the regulations make sense too. Pedestrians there tend to be much more wary than pedestrians in the US, and the drivers are more aggressive around them. And I just don't believe that better training or fear of the law are going to make accidents disappear; not this type of accident, which isn't caused by a lack of knowledge. In most of the US, the regulations aren't so necessary nor relevant... but we're the ones asking for European-market cars! You get all the good and bad things about a car designed for the European market, i.e. designed for driving in congested cities full of people walking.
Besides, the regs do make a difference. Most people don't get hit at 40mph - they get hit by a car that's braking desperately and has slowed to a relative near-stop. At those speeds, the changes help. They make the difference between a pedestrian getting swept up and over the car versus having their knees shattered, or a concussion versus a fatal head trauma. These cars don't look THAT bad considering the benefits, do they? It's not like the old federal bumpers that many of us would've traded for higher repair costs... that was just money. (We already made that choice by refusing to buy black vinyl bumpers.)
By carlisimo
on September 4, 2008
12:21 PM
tysalpha, the smaller Hondas are designed to be pedestrian friendly. You can achieve it will low sloping hoods as well as high ones.
By billt9
on September 4, 2008
01:11 PM
These laws are ridiculous.
What's a man who had both his legs amputated good for anyways? You don't see them getting very far in life after being crippled.
Drive carefully. More driver education. Stricter traffic fines.
Prevention >>> amelioration.
If you can't prevent, then prevent more. We need fines for sleepy drivers, we need fines for acciedentally touching a white line for 1 second. We need fines for cars that stop with their nose 6 inches past the stop line.
Fines! More fines for all!
By ahightower
on September 4, 2008
02:06 PM
Yup, they tried to disguise it or even make us believe it was intentional. But the profile betrays. I wonder what effect this really has on aerodynamics and therefore fuel economy? Large cars can pull it off, but it could destroy some small cars and sports cars' looks. Just imagine a 911 with a pug nose... yikes.
By altimadude00
on September 4, 2008
03:29 PM
I think floors should be softer because it hurts when I fall down. Plus all these old people that break their hips when they stumble. All of that could be avoided if we all had softer sidewalks and floors.
Seriously, this is one of those hazards of life that cannot be improved no matter how much technology or education we throw at it. People will be careless (both drivers and pedestrians) and people will be hit by cars, scooters, bicycles, skateboarders, etc. This issue will never be fully resolved because technology is making us increasingly lazy and less self aware and self dependent (be it cellphones, ipods, or whatever).
By mozzz77788
on September 4, 2008
04:48 PM
If it saves A BUNCH OF LIVES....you know the rest.
By drwales
on September 4, 2008
05:11 PM
Remember that push-button ignition was also a requirement of the Euro safety folks, and just about every car with luxury or even semi-luxury intentions proclaims that in their ads nowadays...
By billt9
on September 4, 2008
06:42 PM
"I wonder what effect this really has on aerodynamics and therefore fuel economy?"
2008 LS 460: 0.26
2009 Mazda6: 0.27
2008 Camry: 0.28
2008 M35: 0.28
2008 Cayman: 0.29
2008 911: 0.29
2009 C300: 0.29
2009 Corolla: 0.39
2009 Altima: 0.31
2009 Sonata: 0.32
2009 Grand Caravan 0.33
2008 599 GTB: 0.34
2008 Sequoia: 0.35
2009 Flex: 0.36
2009 Tahoe: 0.36
2009 FX50: 0.36
No negative effect. They get the same numbers as before. Can't even separate pug nosed and non-pugnosed.
By ramon1
on September 4, 2008
07:09 PM
I don't know what inspired the design of the Acura TL. Safety, fuel efficiency, some other factor?
Based on these pictures, I think the car looks incredibly ugly. Why would anyone want to buy something that looks like that?
By blackadder5639
on September 4, 2008
08:18 PM
I think the regulations have less to do with cars' styling than many of us and Karl think. The new C-Class is beautiful. The TSX is ugly.....I guess Honda figure the Accord (which is what the TSX is) doesn't sell on style so it's okay to leave it ugly and blame safety regulations.......
The regulation have (at least in Europe) been proven to work, cars still have good aerodynamics and many cars still look good.....so I don't think the safety regulations in this case are to blame for anything.
drwales, I didn't know push-start started as a safety requirement! What is it supposed to protect? I think turning a key is more fun.....
By 210delray
on September 5, 2008
06:05 AM
I fully agree with Carlismo's and blackadder's comments. Most if not all of Honda's cars already meet the pedestrian standards, even for their cars sold in America, and not all have "pug" noses (Civic and Fit, for example).
Calling for more "training" is an exercise in futility; humans are imperfect and will always make mistakes ("to err is human"). People shouldn't have to pay with their lives for errors in judgment or a moment of inattention.
BTW, most cars of the immediate post-big bumper era had huge chrome-plated steel "railroad ties," not rubber bumpers.
By drwales
on September 5, 2008
07:35 AM
Blackadder, the rationale is that your keys don't impale you, or crush your kneecap in an accident.
Is there any difference between the application of "pug noses" to transverse or longitudinally mounted engines?
So, Ahightower, the 911 (and all other mid/ rear-engined cars) is quite safe as a ped won't hit its engine in a collision.
Pugnose or not, I don't care for the kitchen mandolin grille of the TSX, which is a pity.
By karjunkie
on September 5, 2008
09:31 AM
These "standards" are a ridiculous exercise in futility. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows that when a 3-4,000 lb. object comes in contact with a 1-200 lb object at any speed over 5 MPH quite a lot of damage to the smaller object is pretty much in the cards no matter what the shape is of the larger object. Sure you can get lucky and happen to flop on the hood depending on a myriad of impact angles, but no design is going to guarantee that outcome. After being run into twice by a car when I was on a motorcycle in my younger years, I can attest to the inexorable law of physics firsthand.
By carlisimo
on September 5, 2008
10:17 AM
Well I looked it up on the IIHS's website, and in 2006 the US saw 61,000 pedestrian injuries and nearly 5,000 deaths - so you have good odds of survival if you get hit by a car (but some of those injuries will cripple you for life). In Baltimore and DC, 50% of pedestrian accidents were deemed the pedestrian's fault (usually jaywalking), 39% were the drivers' fault (often while turning, or backup up). In the US, fewer pedestrians are getting hit compared to 30 years ago, largely because people don't walk so much anymore (especially children going to school). The goal of vehicle regulations is to have the pedestrian roll over the hood instead of having his knees or pelvis crushed and then being thrown to the ground; one aspect of that is to have the head hit the hood more softly than it would hit the ground, hence the crush zone above the engine, pop-up hood, or external airbag. So while the nose should be higher up for crush space, the frontmost point of the car (even if it's just a splitter) should hit the lower leg.
By george2040
on September 8, 2008
04:36 PM
So are European governments trying to protect drunks from getting killed when they stagger out in front of a moving car? I guess mandating crush space between the hood and engine does leave more space for an aftermarket supercharger or a larger engine.
By huyracing
on September 16, 2008
12:14 AM
yeah these noses simply look out of place... isn't the lancer designed with ped safety too? that elongated nose is the only design aspect that doesnt fit to me on the c class and the lancer. both are otherwise good looking cars in my opinion.