Green car advocate proves first hand how small cars aren't deathtraps

Green car advocate proves first hand how small cars aren't deathtraps

Filed under: Economy, Safety, Toyota



Despite numerous positive crash test results and assurances from both manufacturers and safety organizations, we still hear people say they'll never trade their bank-safe SUV for one of those little tin cans on wheels. This makes some people wonder what it would take to change folks' minds about automotive safety.

A first-hand account from Nick Chambers, an admitted greenie who blogs for gas2.0.org, slammed his Yaris into a dirt embankment then rolled it three times. He not only lived, but walked away from his crumpled Toyota with little more than a bump and a really sore neck. He also admits that before his little off-road excursion in the Yaris, he wasn't completely sold on small car safety. But now he says, "Yes. Yes I would trust my family to a small fuel-efficient car, and I'm miraculously alive and mostly uninjured... so no, it's not a death trap."

[Source: gas2.0 via Instapundit]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More...

Interesting. I believe the Yaris did receive poor side crash test ratings though.

There have been improvements in structural design and airbags.

any small sized car could be a death trap,look at the honda crx,insight,eg and ek hatch and few other cars,the yaris should hold up its ground compare to the cars i named above.

I find it funny that my dad wouldn't let me buy my then sister's b/f's CRX because he thought it was too small and then gives me her Fiero for my junior and senior years of HS and for first 2 years of college...

Ok, so its safe if you fall down a hill, but the problem with small cars is that if you hit another car that is bigger you will be subjected to more of a force than the other car.

Conservation of momentum
m1v1=m2v2, where m=mass and v=velocity
So say you have the smaller car with the smaller mass, then your velocity is higher and your force is higher.

LOL, I find people who want big SUV's for safety are funny.

Saw a report of a accident, car hit a Acura MDX on the passenger rear at about 40 and both passengers where bused to the hospital for serve back injuries. I got hit by a car in my 06 Sentra on the passenger side rear at 70 and I walked away with whiplash, back strain and 2 torn ligaments.

Moral of the story big SUV's suck.

sorry to say but the fiero is fugly,i would of jump on the crx for looks

F=ma m=mass a=acceleration and don't forget Elastic Collisions

I think the Fiero is nice, especially cause its mid-engine

Also with a higher force comes a higher impulse
I=Ft, I=Impulse, F=force, t=time

omg @ physics... I should have taken it

I don't think rolling a car involved elastic collisions though. By rolling, energy from the impact is dispelled more evenly and safer. At say 50 mph, I would rather roll my car than crash it head first into a wall.

f150 > smart car in an accident.


i dont give a fuck what the hippies say.

not the idiot in the OP who said he slammed his yaris into a dirt hill....DIRT not some fucking beefed out f150....


i hate hippies

Haha true true, rolling would involve centripetal/centrifugal forces. What if the wall was made of marshmallows??

^^ lol

That would be fun.