Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150

Matthew Dec 17th, 2002 Link

They do it because they can. I think the government is willing to look the other way on a lot of things because the economy is tight. Why is this not getting attention from the media? Maybe because they all drive these ridiculous vehicles? I don’t know.

Gabriel Dec 17th, 2002 Link

Makes you realize how little size really matters in some cases when it comes to safety.

Jason Feb 8th, 2003 Link

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (hwysafety.org) quote:

“Why can't I compare vehicles from different categories? The kinetic energy a vehicle must absorb in a crash test increases with vehicle weight, so offset tests are more demanding of heavier vehicles. But people in heavier vehicles in real-world, 2-vehicle crashes typically fare better than people in lighter vehicles (in many single-vehicle crashes, weight offers no safety advantage). This is why test results shouldn’t be compared among vehicles with large weight differences. “

Gabe Feb 8th, 2003 Link

From my post; “Now there's no question what would win in a head-on collesion between the two but then again the majority of accidents involve only a single car” My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a collision with each other. Since most accidents involve only one car my point is I was comparing the results of the off-set crash tests themselves. This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company spent designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's backed up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are more dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as well. This test is just one way it's illustrated.

Matthew Feb 12th, 2003 Link

That's incredibly flawed logic, Jason. If identical tests are performed on vehicles, the results can, and should, be compared. That the vehicles are from different classes doesn't make the dummy in the pickup any less dead.

Jeff Polo Mar 7th, 2003 Link

Wow! Proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes!

MiniMe Mar 25th, 2003 Link

Where is the data that proves that “most crashes involve same-class vehicles or a single vehicle only”? I just can't imagine that a Mini driver is going to coincidentally have an accident with a VW GTI or Honda Civic, when, in fact, our roadways are crowded with Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ford Explorers. BTW, a handful of popular SUVs have a better crash rating than the Mini.

ericRodriguez... Mar 26th, 2003 Link

LOL……..I love my MINI.

Jose Luis Valcarcel Mar 26th, 2003 Link

Size does matter.

Larry Mar 29th, 2003 Link

You all miss the point. Ford GM, Mercedes and others are run by bean counters and they sell steel, plastic and glass by the pound. Their customers are the share holders, not the person that buys the car.

Why would a bean counter make an F-150 safer when they sell at a better profit margin without the extra work?

The vehicle that is for sale is not the one they could build but the one the bean counters think you will buy.

Ford engineers are no different than others and could build something better if….

Gabe Mar 29th, 2003 Link

Larry - I guess that begs the question: Does Ford think so little of us? Why do BMW, Mercedes, and others engineer this safety into their cars for the mass market? Several Euro automakers even have teams that go out and investigate crashes on site right after they happen then take them back to the lab for further study. How can they afford to do that? Ford makes much more profit on a totally loaded F150 than BMW makes on a 32,000 325i. I don't disagree with your assessment by the way.

Azwed Mar 30th, 2003 Link

Here are some statistics for you from the NHTSB.

fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=Trends&stateid=0&year=2001&title2=General.

Look at the accident rate per 100 million miles driven and the involvment rate per 100,000 registered vehicles.

Trucks are always higher then cars.

Jim Apr 11th, 2003 Link

This is a joke. The size of the mini made the test similar to a head on for it and a offset hit for the 150. I think this will give a falce sence of security to mini drivers.

Matthew Apr 11th, 2003 Link

You're right about the difference, Jim. I don't think there's much question that a Mini would not fare so well in a collision with a pickup. However, don't you think that the occupants of an automobile ought to have decent chances of survival if they were to run off the road? I certainly wouldn't want to be in a collision between a tree and an F150.

Gabe Apr 11th, 2003 Link

That's also part of the point. Yes the MINI is small - it has what's called active safety built in. Because it's incredibly agile and can allow people to get out of bad situations before they get into them. Most people forget about the idea of active safety - but it's probably the most important part of the equation. You can see the results in this (thanks Azwed) National Center for Statistics and Analysis Study. Even though there are more cars on the road trucks are almost 25% more likely to be involved in fatal crashes.

smokinjoe Apr 11th, 2003 Link

makes me wanna get rid of my F-150 I have 3 sons that ride in it daily…

Raymi Apr 13th, 2003 Link

Ummm, if an f-150 hit head on with a mini, i think the mini would be squished under the pick up.

Gabe Apr 13th, 2003 Link

Raymi - please read the above comments before posting. If you did you'd see the point you were trying to make was discussed before. From the post and comments above; “My point isn't to compare how the cars would do in a collision with each other.” Since most accidents involve only one car my point is to compare the results of the off-set crash tests themselves. This indicates how well a car is made and how much time the company spent designing crash safety into them. My point is (and it's one that's backed up by every study I've ever seen) that larger trucks and SUVs don't offer the protection most people believe they do. On average they are more dangerous not only to others on the road but to their occupants as well. This test is just one way it's illustrated.

Bustov Jun 8th, 2003 Link

No one even talks about accident avoidance, in which the Mini would handley spank the larger F150 variants.

eric fields Jun 17th, 2003 Link

i love the mini i am going to get 1 when im old enought the mini is gr8!!!
eric fields

Margaret Kimbell Jul 18th, 2003 Link

Thanks for the great pictures showing so clearly that bigger does not necessarily mean better. Intelligent design can accomplish much. Accident avoidence capability (good handling, steering, brakes) has been an important car purchase criteria for years, and my current modern Mini is one of a series stretching back to Austin Minis. Fun, too.

Marcelle Jul 18th, 2003 Link

Glad to see these pics!! I've had family members be concerned about getting in my MINI because of it's size. I will forward this website to them. For anyone thinking about getting a MINI, I suggest you take a test drive…you'll fall in love!! It's a mighty fun car and it handles great!!

Deni Jul 26th, 2003 Link

I think this shows that people may think the SUV's and bigger vehicals are the answer to safer driving, but really a smaller car gives you a safer compartment in a head on collision. That F150 picture makes me never want to get into a truck again. Not to mention it says ford down the side. I hate fords! I'm almost 16 and I am getting a mini! They R the best cars and obviously the safer one.

Deni Jul 26th, 2003 Link

And I forgot to mention. This article isnt comparing the two vehicals hitting eachother, it is comparing the saftey compartment! And like Marcelle… I'm glad these pictures were posted!! My Dad has been concerned about the size of the Mini and he drives a truck. That showed him!!

Steve Baker Aug 4th, 2003 Link

You have to read this carefully. If a MINI hits a brick wall at 40mph, the driver lives - if he does the same thing in the Ford, he's toast. That's all it tells you.

However, I've seen LOTS of photo's of wrecked MINI's - and I've yet to see one with any intrusion into the passenger compartement. I've heard of MINI's being rear-ended by big SUV's and suffering very little damage compared to the big assed vehicle.

MINI's have SEVEN airbags!

There is no doubt that the MINI is engineered for safety - but it's hard to read that much from this test alone.

(I have a MINI Cooper S - and my previous vehicle was a Ford Truck - I'm very happy to have made the switch!)

bryant koosmann Aug 15th, 2003 Link

thats sad the mini wooped the f 150 im disapointed in the results

??????? Aug 16th, 2003 Link

if more ppl buy a Mini how will ever1 be able to tow boats or other trailers and if i were in a crash i would want to be in the pick up and i think most ppl wouldn't want to be stuck under a truck

Alex Aug 16th, 2003 Link

wow great pictures but i don't think the test were done at the same speed or in the same place!

Tommy Aug 16th, 2003 Link

I think u should take the test again with the all new 2004 F-150 which has improved!

Gabe Aug 16th, 2003 Link

Alex - they absolutely were taken with the exact same paramters and at the same exact speed. The NHTSA does this everyday with every car released in America - they know what they're doing. If you follow the links in the article you'll see much more detailed information about the tests.

And Tommy - yes I'd like to see the new F150 take this test. I for one hope they are safer vehicles then the previous version.

James Aug 16th, 2003 Link

I think the new F-150 would be different because it has an all new Personal Safety System,Dual Stage Air Bags with crash severity sensor,Safety Belt Pretensioners,All-new high-performance anti-lock brakes with electronic brake-force distribution and more precise steering, and it has a Crash Optimized Body Structure which protect its occupants with a structure designed to help absorb and dissipate crash energy before it can reach the passenger compartment. One more thing Ford sells about a million pick-ups a year which is more then some car company's entire line up of cars and trucks. i know i'll be owning a 2004 Ford F-150

Gabe Aug 16th, 2003 Link

I think the most important thing in testing like this is a ultra strong structure and one that is designed to dissipate the energy caused by an offset crash. Many European cars have been engineered with this in mind since the 70's. Where has the American auto industry been? I hate to be so negative about the US auto industry but they have been taking profit over safety for so long that it's hard to believe that there will be wholesale change so quickly. I know there has been great improvement in some models in the past five years but as a whole US cars are not as safe as many smaller cars from other parts of the world.

I'm sure the new F150 will be safer than the previous versions - lets just hope that it's also safer for other vehicles around it. With full-size trucks weighing more and more with every new generation their ability to destroy other vehicles and stand alone structures gets greater and greater. Lets hope that Ford, GM, and Chrysler design their full-size trucks with other things in mind than cupholders and increased towing capacity.

Herbert Aug 17th, 2003 Link

i think this is bs because i found the following info on Ford: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) awarded its top rating – a five-star rating – for driver and passenger frontal crash to the following 2003 Ford Division vehicle models: the Ford Expedition 4×4, Ford Crown Victoria, Ford Windstar, Ford Taurus, Ford Mustang 2-door, Ford F-150 Supercrew 4-door 4×2. The Ford Expedition is the first full-size SUV to win a five-star driver and passenger rating three years in a row.So just because u love the mini plz don't put up lies.

Herbert Aug 17th, 2003 Link

More info on ford vehicles. These vehicles have a strong overall record for real-world safety.”

Ford designs all of its vehicles with the objective of reducing the risk and severity of injury in an accident. Ford safety engineers and experts use the most advanced computer technology in the industry to ensure its vehicles meet or exceed stringent crashworthiness standards. Computer simulations are used to identify critical concerns before further testing is conducted and Ford incorporates an array of other very stringent safety testing in the development of its vehicles, including frontal offset, side impact and rear impact.

???? Aug 17th, 2003 Link

ANSWER THAT GABE AND PLZ NO BS

dave Aug 17th, 2003 Link

What do u think is better the Ford Focus or Mini? The MIni is 2003 North American car of the year but the Focus was 2000 North American and 1999 European car of the year. This marks the first time ever the same vehicle has been honored with both titles.Can u answer the other ? also? plz!

Gabe Aug 17th, 2003 Link

First off anyone who thinks the facts I'm referencing aren't correct all you have to do is follow the links to see the sites and the actual figures. Please do this before you call them “BS” - you're only making yourself look ridiculous. And anyone who thinks I originally posted this almost a year ago because, for some reason, I hate Ford would also be completely wrong. I did it to show how much unsafe the most popular vehicle made is and ask why one of the largest companies in the world would not engineer something safer and that utilizes crumple space more efficiently.

Herbert - I don't doubt that many of Ford's cars and trucks do well in the frontal crash testing. Most automobiles do score well in this test. However I'm not focusing on frontal crash testing because off-set crash testing is much more important in the real world. The vast majority of head-on collisions happen “off-set” and not on dead center. There are plenty of studies out there that go into better detail about why the off-set crash test is a better indicator of real world crash safety.

And Herbert - what's the deal with totally sounding like a commercial? Do you work for Ford PR? Do you hold thousands of dollars worth of stock in FMC? If you really believe everything that FMC has put out in it's PR releases I've got some swamp land to sell you - better yet some used Pintos.

Gabe Aug 17th, 2003 Link

And for the record I love the Focus. I almost bought one a couple years ago. Bu there are many reasons why the Focus won both those awards - '99 was an exceptionally slow year in the EU auto industry for one. Another is that cars that are manufactured in the number the Focus is are much more likely to win awards like this over cars like the MINI which is only imported to the tune of 30,000 a year to the US. Low volume cars almost never win major awards like this.

And finally I love seeing opposing views and good intelligent discussions on a wide range of topics and I make it a rule to stay away from deleting posts no matter how ridiculous. But if people continue to post without reading either previous posts or the links that explain the numbers referenced they will be deleted.

Herbert Aug 30th, 2003 Link

found more info on the 2004 F-150: both trucks displayed had been put through crash tests, both the full frontal impact and offset impact. Looks like both trucks did really well with no collapsing of the cab. (click on URL for pictures)

H Aug 30th, 2003 Link

_1

H Aug 30th, 2003 Link

http://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/2003/2004f150drive.html

Gabe Aug 30th, 2003 Link

Thanks Herbert for posting this. I'll do a front page story on the new F150 crash test improvements when I get some time.

I'm very happy to see Ford address this problem. It looks like special care was put into this area by engineers at Ford. I'm sure this issue was recognized as something that had to be addressed with the new version.

David Sep 4th, 2003 Link

I'm about to buy a car but don't know if i should buy the '04 Ford F-150 or the '04 Lincoln LSE. All who think that they can help plz do so!

Gabriel Bridger Sep 4th, 2003 Link

Well what do you intend to use the truck for? Obviously if you don't need a truck I would recommend not getting one. The LSE will be a much more comfortable, fun daily driver. It's also much more refined. However I'm curious - are you only considering American cars and Ford products. If not there are a lot of great products out there in those price ranges.

David Sep 6th, 2003 Link

I live in the North East so the F-150 would work in the snow which the LSE wouldn't! The reason why i would like an American car is because when i need a part for the car its less money. THE F-150 is also Comfortable but not as much as the LSE.

will white Sep 8th, 2003 Link

Iam looking for a truck in a few months but cant decide if i want a gmc denali sierra or a f-250 4×2 crew lariat.Its only a 2 year lease iam looking at just incase i change my mind such as color 4×4 model or something.I feel size does matter in crashes but also feel the ability to manuverabilty is important to.I tilt more towards F-250 cause the room and power, mainly the room/size as i have a boy who rides back center.

joe Sep 8th, 2003 Link

just seen the new f-150.wow!you should try that for size.Alot more powerful and safe so they say.f-250 your more likely to be in a accident due to some one else's reaction on the road.If you have a kid dont go for the f-250 as handling is not ideal compared to the quadsteer.

Mike Sep 13th, 2003 Link

can any1 help me?
i don't know what 2 buy.i like the 2003 BMW 330xi AWD and the 2003 M-Benz C320 AWD.
Can some1 tell me which is better? Plz help!!
I'm looking for the car with the better road grip.

Gabe Bridger Sep 13th, 2003 Link

I've driven both and without a doubt the better car is the 330xi. It's by far more stable, moer agile, and more fun to drive. It's also got better resale value and from my experience much better put together.

jon McTedore Sep 13th, 2003 Link

I'm buying a mini next week!!!

Scott Mcgee Sep 21st, 2003 Link

Two people have been killed in the last week on the same roads I take to work in a the same Ford F150 I drive. Both envolved frontal impacts where someone else crossed the midline of the road. I need something safe to pull my race car trailer and none of the 150 trucks do well and the 250's aren't rated. Any ideas?

Scott Mcgee Sep 21st, 2003 Link

Two people have been killed in the last week on the same roads I take to work in a the same Ford F150 I drive. Both envolved frontal impacts where someone else crossed the midline of the road. I need something safe to pull my race car trailer and none of the 150 trucks do well and the 250's aren't rated. Any ideas?

John Cole Sep 24th, 2003 Link

Scott the 04 F-150 has been redesigned to make the cabin area much safer in the event of a front impact. A new design on the crumple zones, and some much needed protection between the engine and passenger area are amoung some of the changes made by Ford.

Alex Oct 11th, 2003 Link

i'm getting my first car soon but i don't know what to buy. The cars that im looking at are the Mazda 6, BMW 330i, and the soon to come SVT Mustang. Im just 16 years old and im looking far a car thast safe, has a nice style, and not to $.The BMW 3 series is to have a new style for 05'/06', and the new mustang come out in late 04″.

dave Oct 22nd, 2003 Link

I would like to see some proof, that single car crashes are more common than a 2 vehicle crash.
Our roads are so crowded with vehicles, that it dosen't sound right.
Personally i would like to be the guy driving in the f150.
There is a lot of talk about accident avoidance being important part of the vehicle design(better brakes, suspention etc.), but here's how i see it:
Most time i can control my own driving by not driving like an idiot, thus decreasing a chance of hitting as stationary object like bridge pillar or a tree.
Therefore the most likely accident scenario for me would be getting hit by someone else, which is very hard to control and avoid even if i have a good handling vehicle.
I'm going to exagerate to make my point:
A semi truck is probably the poorest handling vehicle on the road and if it hits a non-deformable object like a bridge pillar, it will literally crush itself under it's own weight.
Having said that if the big truck hits any passenger-type vehicle on the road, it won't suffer much damage at all and the worst thing that can happen top the trucker is that he will spill his coffe.
The same cannot be said about the pass. vehicle.
So if operating under assumption that i'm more likely to be hit by someone else, rather than hitting something one has to arrive to a conclusion that bigger/heavier vehicle is much safer than a smaller/lighter vehicle.

Lizzy Oct 26th, 2003 Link

I am AMAZED at this! I'm so glad to have seen it. Hopefully this will help convince my parents to let me get this car. It will atleast make them consider the whole pick-up truck and bigger is better angle… WOW!

Deni AKA... COOPER! Oct 27th, 2003 Link

I posted forever ever ago, and these pictures pretty much changed my parents’ minds about buying me a Mini. I think that everyone posting is getting a little defensive about things. The point of the pictures is to show that bigger is not always better and that sometimes smaller is the safer route. Before you go and bash the poor Minis to death, make sure you check out some of the specs on the Mini, I think you will be quite amazed at some of the nifty details on the site! And I have done a little research on the Ford F150. Ford may claim that they make an extremely safe vehicle and that may be the case for a few of their cars like the Mustang. But the problem with the F150 is where the two doors meet on the side of the truck. There is no bar to reinforce the truck in the case of a head on collision, thus causing the passenger compartment to buckle and crush. I am completely sure that many other 3 door truck making companies have this exact same problem! I do not want to be driving down the street, and see a Ford truck looking like the one pictured above. If you noticed, the dummy in the truck is LITERALY under the dashboard, & there’s always room for improvement. And the earlier issue of bigger cars fairing better than smaller cars, those statistics are not entirely true. I have looked at many pictures of Mini crashes that involve larger vehicles colliding with the smaller Mini, and the Mini comes out just a good maybe even better than the other larger vehicle. I have YET TO SEE a Mini pinned under a SUV or truck! Plus, think of it this way… there is no way a person could miss a Mini driving down the road, they would be too enamored by it to hit it! WOOHOO! Snaps for that! If you still don't believe what an amazing and safe car it really is, you should consider taking it for a test drive! I swear, you can take a turn going 50 and never have to hit the brakes! Take a look at the Mini.com site and check out all the cool safety stuff going on with the Mini!

Deni AKA... COOPER! Oct 27th, 2003 Link

HEY HEY MY LIZZY! No worries! We are gonna convince ur rents to get u a Mini & then we can go cruise down the tollway BLASTING Likin Park! LOL! That will so ROCK!

rd Oct 31st, 2003 Link

We purchased a 1998 Ford Windstar because of it's five star safety rating and it's performance on offset crash testing as shown on Dateline NBC. The Windstar's reliability is good but its ride, handling, and interior noise aren't that great. Maybe minivans are just that way.

As for the pickup truck, The Ford F150 in the test is an extended cab with big tires. I remember in the simulation that the big front tire caused major damage to the passenger compartment. Also, it looks like the rear doors pop open and cause the entire passenger compartment to collapse like a cardboard box with no top or bottom.

Two thing that they could do to improve crash testing is (1) to reinforce the area where the front tire hits the cab and (2) Make the doors more secure so they don't pop open, that would significantly increase crash worthiness because those doors are so beefy.

RD, Lizzy and cooper Nov 4th, 2003 Link

the new f-150 did a lot better and there is a web site that shows it so bigger is better!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/2003/2004f150drive.html GO there and show your parents

Gabe Nov 4th, 2003 Link

I don't think Lizzy was was intending on a F150 - she just wanted to show her parents that the MINI is truly a very safe car.

Nator Dec 2nd, 2003 Link

I HAVE ONLY 1 THING TO SAY ABOUT THIS AND THAT IS THAT THE FORD F-150 HAS BEEN THE BEST SELLING VEHICLE (cars,suv,vans,and trucks)FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS! THE VEHICLE DID BETTER FOR 2004. http://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/2003/2004f150drive.html

Gabe Dec 2nd, 2003 Link

That's great man. No arguments that the 2004 F150 is a much safer vehicle. However next time try turning your caps lock key off before you post.

Geff Dec 6th, 2003 Link

Test

Geff Dec 6th, 2003 Link

I am a police officer in California and I see at least 6 or 7 crashes a week. I think that the crash tests are a guideline to let you know how a car MAY act in a SIMILAR collision. Fact is that I have seen several hundered collisions in the past 15 years and I can tell you that there is simply no telling how a car is going to do. I once went to a collision between a motorcycle and a toyota camery where the camery driver was almost killed and the motorcycle driver was treated and released. I strongly believe that with most all cars made today, if you wear your seatbelt and have airbags, you will be ok except in the most dier cases. I crashed a Ford Crown Victoria police car last year in a major way and was still able to chase after the bad guy on foot. Later looked at the car and was amazed that I even lived, let alone was walking around with nothing more than needing some stitches. It has a AVERAGE crash rating in its class. I saw a full sized Lincoln and a Honda Accord after a head on collision where each was going at least 70 MPH. Between the two cars there were 4 people and NO ONE DIED because of airbags and seat belts. If you had seen the cars you would have thought that all people were dead. I have a Cooper and am OK with its crash rating. Im glad for the airbags and I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt. Having said all this….I like the Cooper because style matters. ;)

David Dec 11th, 2003 Link

This is why you but a Toyota pickup. They are the safest trucks out there. I hit a oak tree head on and walked away with just a scratch on my knee. The cab wasn't touched and the engine was crushed. You can take a look at all the crash tests and Toyota will either win them or be second.

Roland Dec 11th, 2003 Link

Ok, lets make this simple. Mercedes MADE a sales tape that outlines it position. They make the cars safer so that the owners of a Mercedes will live to buy MORE Mercedes. Period. It's good business.
2) The profit to the dealer and manufacture is in the parts, service and support of the “hardware”. Don't think so? Please call the parts department of the car you drive, and ask what ONE wheel OEM would cost. When the shock wears off, consider that to keep the vehicle in warrenty after an accident, you must use FACTORY PARTS to effect the repair. You will notice that after 5 years, depending on supply and demand, the price of those 'replacement' parts, decreases in price. (no I am not talking about 1966 GTO parts here…but mainstream vehicle parts)

As far as…”why don't they make them more safe?” They do…the drivers take more chances because the vehicles allow them too and drive beyond thier ability AND there are MORE of them on the road…doing the same thing…driving poorly.

Joe Dec 12th, 2003 Link

I am an engineer with experience in the automotive field. I know of a number of people that work or worked for the Big Three.

It is often not the fault of the enigneers when a vehicle performs poorly in some manner. It is usually constraints placed on them by their managers who, coincidentally, are not engineers. I would bet quite a lot that Ford engineers were fully aware of the vehicle's performance, and could do nothing about it.

That is why I work for a small aftermarket company, and will hopefully never be an employee of any major corperation…

steve Dec 12th, 2003 Link

the ford fails compared to a mini because of weight distribution. most of the weight in the mini is in front of the driver so the inertia from the back of the car is not so great. the f150 has a lot more weight behind the driver and so the front takes a heavier and deeper hit into the body of the vehicle.

Gabe Dec 12th, 2003 Link

As with almost all stock pickups the weight distribution in the typical unloaded F150 is very front heavy.

An Emergency Medical Tech Dec 14th, 2003 Link

What it boils down to is simple, I've seen my fair share of accidents as an EMT. When your time is up your time is up. I've seen a girl in a ford zx2 , t-boned by a dodge ram 2500 going 70 an hour walk away with a broken toe. Also, new a police officer from a local township where I work, killed in a Crown Victoria that crashed into a tree after hitting a patch of black ice. He was wearing his seat belt, his younger sister 15 years-old wasn't. She was ejected from the vehicle suffered from a broken femur, he died on impact. So when the man up stairs says it's time to come home, you'r coming home.

Gary Dec 20th, 2003 Link

I own a 97 F-150 that has been a major problem since day 1. Now after seeing all these posts and test results on offset crashes it'll now be somebody elses problem! Toyota Tundra here I come!

Ken Dec 21st, 2003 Link

Hey, I love the Mini Cooper, always have, always will! This just makes it better :)

STK Dec 27th, 2003 Link

The new 2004 F-150 is the best pick which is a first for any pick-up. GO check it out at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IISH) website. Motor Trend named the Ford F-150 truck of the year!!

Lauren Dec 30th, 2003 Link

I just got a Mini Cooper S for my first car about 3 weeks ago. Let me say it is one of the nicest cars around. I feel like I am in my Dad's hot rod when we are driving it because people can't help but stare at it! I had someone tell me before I got my Mini that I should go 30 minutes early any where I go because people can spend 30 minutes just asking questions about it… and that was proven too. I was at my Uncle's house over Christmas break at Canyon Lake and all these people at a store I was in were all crowded around it oogling it when I came out! The only thing I had a problem with was having to learn to drive the standard! Let's just say I did a few too many good burn outs before I got it right. But what I'm trying to get at is that some cars do better for other people. I like small cars… I don't need some huge SUV. And then some people need a truck like my dad to pull a trailer or something. Personally I think there are better, safer, and NICER LOOKING trucks then Fords out there. My friend owns a new Ford F150 and he has had more problems with it in a span of 6 months then my dad has had problems with his Chevy truck in the past 3 years. So choose a car you like and you need. The person who posted the pictures at the top probably prefers the Mini to the Ford like me. But before you go picking a car, check it's safety ratings at more than one website and at different speeds. The pictures are just there to show you that at the time the Mini was a safer car than the Ford.

matt Jan 9th, 2004 Link

I wish I could show you the pictures of my MGB after I was rear-ended by a an F150. The MG was converted into a small flat-bed, virtually the entire trunk was sheered off up to the cockpit. The F150 had a little smudge of my MG's black paint on its bumper.

Gabe Jan 9th, 2004 Link

In terms of crash worthiness an MGB is little more than a soda can compared to today's modern cars.

csdmmnt Jan 12th, 2004 Link

This is all well and good but … what do they look like when they meet head on?

MINI hitting F150, nose to nose …

Will the F150 just go over and through the windshield of the MINI and drive off the boot?

Any way … hitting walls, I'm happy to see I'm okay in my '03 MCS Liquid Yellow w/Black roof/mirrors =)

Seize the moment!

Cheerios!

slang Jan 20th, 2004 Link

I was in a head on in my F150 last summer while towing a boat. A Saturn hit me head on - his fault. The car was left in a mangled heap. My F150's saftery features saved my life. I was going between 35-40mph and have to assume the other vehicle was going at least as fast. That said, either my 1998 F150 was superior to the one tested or, the F150 performs better head on. The crash resulted in a broken femur for me. The other driver was far worse off.

I'll order another truck anyday. I am happy the cooper did so well it's a dynamite little ride.

Freddy Jan 22nd, 2004 Link

I am a Funeral Director and I drive safe. I will never drive a small car at any cost. I have seen what F-150 and Dodge Rams do to small cars when they hit head on. We typically do a death removal on the car's occupants and the tuck's passangers are usually out walking around and un harmed other then emotionally shook up…I'll keep my 4,400-lb town car that gets 26mpg.

Tom Jan 30th, 2004 Link

There are some key issues with your arguement. The first is covered in the IIHS web site you link to, and is you cannot compare the results of two vehilce from different classes. The greater the mass of the vehicle the greater the damage. So the large vehicle, hitting a fixed object must absorb more energy. I will give you the point that it is a disapointment that 2004 Heritage substained so much damage, but if you again look at the IIHS web site you will find the Ford has done their home work and the new 2004 scores the abest raiting and is IIHS's top pick. I guess he bean counters lost on that one!

Two, I may not have done extensive research, but I am a traffic engineer and have done countless accident investigations of both intersection and non intersection segements. In the studies I have done, single vehicle accidents are by no means the majority, but more the acception. So I disagree with the protection aspect of larger verses smaller vehicles. I drive a truck myself had have been hit by a small car. I drove away with a dent and the car was towed!

Three, I agree with you that the Mini is a very well engineered vehicle. For a vehicle with so little crumple zone it is amazing what it can take. But in the real world you are not going see too many blocks of concrete parked along the side of road and will more likely encounter one of the millions of cars on our roads today. In that case, size does have benifit.

Lance Feb 6th, 2004 Link

All I have to say to this is, so what? Who cares about your crash tests against stationary objects. I've never seen a tree growing in the middle of the road. The people running into these stationary objects are probably too drunk, tired or incompetent to keep their vehicles going down the road. I have not had such a problem. So I think your off-set crasher are merely contestants in the Darwin Awards. I stay in a big vehicle safe from those of you who can't drive.
Simply put, if you learn how to drive and don't lose your head then your not likely to hit stationary objects.

Chris Feb 14th, 2004 Link

Its said that by the end of the decade that there will be no more “big three” but only a “big two”, I believe ford will be the loser, and when people ask me why, I will point them to this website as an example of why. Shame, pity the US car industry is heading the way of the English ones of the 1960/70's.

Lester Feb 16th, 2004 Link

Well also Trucks fall under differant laws then cars.

Trucks dont have to be built as well in crash tests..

THus why insurance goes up for a truck or SUV!

jonathan Mar 1st, 2004 Link

It's a shame that for a lot of people, driving has degenerated into some sort of arms race. Regardless of how things are, single-vehicle accidents should be the norm. People need to drive safely and respect others as well as themselves. Just because you drive a big truck, or your reaction times and handling are great…

Six2 Mar 1st, 2004 Link

I think it's important to consider the actual safety of a specific vehicle. The photos above depect the 1997-2003 F-150 and the 2004 F-150 Heritage.

The 2004 F-150 (not the Heritage) does well here:

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0328.htm

No intrusion.

Based on this:

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicleratings/ce/html/summarylgpickup.htm

The Chevy 1500 and Dodge Ram show intrusion (though not as much as the F-150 Heritage), but the new F-150 and Toyota Tundra perform well.

In compact cars, most imports fare well, tho domestic small cars generally perform poorly or only acceptably.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicleratings/ce/html/summarysmall.htm

Mike Blaszczak Mar 2nd, 2004 Link

Isn't the F-150 the most popular vehicle on the road in the US? Then, naturally, the numbers of deaths will be higher.

You should divide the number of deaths by the number of units sold, or the number of road miles driven. As it stands your statistics are a little misleading.

Gabe Mar 2nd, 2004 Link

Mike - there are no statistics in my original commentary based soley on number of fatalities. I agree there is no question that due to the sheer number of trucks sold more people will die in an F150 than say a Miata.

Six2 - yes the new F150 directly addressed the issue that the “Heritage” F150 has. Nice to see Ford letting engineers do their work.

Luis Mar 4th, 2004 Link

Thats right a Toyota has the least deaths..Toyotas OWN!

Kevin Mar 22nd, 2004 Link

People that drive 40MPH into walls are either drunk or too stupid to be driving. Thank you Ford for cleaning up the gene pool.

Gerald Mar 22nd, 2004 Link

What are Ford thinking, that must constitute a major design floor of there vehicles. They are not known for enginering prowess, but my god, I would never buy another looking at the way the mini occupants have suvived and the ford ones seem to have been crushed, proberbly faterly!

Some Insurance company should take them to court over such unproative behavior towards safety. I bet the insurers payout big time on this type of vehicle following a death.

solbadguy Apr 6th, 2004 Link

Well, typical liberal anti-American bias.

First, what percentage of accidents involve slamming into a concrete wall at 40mph head-on? Let me guess, 0.1% or something like that? While we are at it, let's blame Ford for not proofing F-150 against tsunamis.

Second, look at the article in the NY Lies. Their own table presents an even mix of American, Japanese and European cars, from top to bottom. Heck, looking at the table we see that Toyota Tacoma isn't too hot, safety-wise. However, most people won't bother looking at the whole table, and the NY Lies reporter has conveniently summarized it for them below the table: American cars are bad, Japanese cars are good.

An excellent example of liberal anti-American brainwashing in action.

bluwater Apr 15th, 2004 Link

Gabe…great site you have here…I just don't understand why so many people seem to take these crash tests personally??? What the …? The concept of an offset frontal crash is NOT that hard to get! As far as people hitting stationary objects (single vehicle crashes), I've known far too many people who have totalled their cars and injured themselves because fido or the geico squirrels ran into the street, so yes, it happens PLENTY. I also strongly agree with the comments on active safety…the first time I realized what active safety was I owned a 1981 VW Scirrocco “S”, handled like nobody's business and the car saved my life on more than one occasion. My 04 MCS is ten fold what that car was and I'd much rather be in it than the F-150. You think you're gonna' roll over me in a non-handling road pig you gotta' catch me first! Yup..I guess I've been BRAINWASHED by those darned typical anti- american liberals….when an american car company is capable of producing a car that handles as well as my cooper (or many other european cars for that matter) then maybe I'll bite…not even that American icon known as the vette handles as well! My pops, a proud vette owner, is now ready to hang up the keys and buy himself a mini after a recent road trip we just took, just couldn't believe the way it handled…Nuff said!

christine Apr 30th, 2004 Link

A professor warned me, “don't trust the statistics unless you've manipulated them yourself.”

I agree wholeheartedly. The table with the statistics is enormously misleading. For a true comparison of vehicle safety, those numbers need to be normalized by the popularity of each vehicle or perhaps the total number of crashes (fatal+nonfatal) of each vehicle.

The more ubiquitous the vehicle, the more frequently that vehicle type is going to be involved in a crash. Popularity needs to be a factor.

lth May 25th, 2004 Link

Nobody has mentioned yet that different cars may have different numbers of fatalities per year because of the different kinds of drivers who drive them.

Would anyone be surprised if there were more deaths per capita (or even per driver) amongst souped-up streetsters than amongst Honda Civic drivers? And is that because one kind of car is safer than the other? No. It's because idiots are more likely to drive the faster car faster and less responsibly.

Mike May 25th, 2004 Link

The benefits of being nimble–of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble–are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big.”

There has been quite a bit of discussion about 'active safety'. Active safety implies that the driver is able to rapidly identify a dangerous situation, and then have the reflexes to avoid it. Active safety is a function of the driver, not the vehicle. It is obvious from the crash results posted that the Mini is a safer vehicle, which makes sense. It has been re-engineered by BMW and is LESS THEN HALF THE WEIGHT. The nimbleness of the vehicle contributes very little to its level of safety. In a real world, a driver practicing 'active saftey' driving techniques is just as likely to avoid an accident in either vehicle. In the real world, most drivers, regardless of their vehicle, do not practice actively safe driving.

neozen May 25th, 2004 Link

i have always loved minis, ths made me love it even more.
grat article by the way, congratulations to you and all commenters.

Michael May 25th, 2004 Link

Crash tests only show passive safety perfromance. Gladwell makes an excellent point in his article that active safety is also very important. Active safety is the ability to avoid running into things in the first place. Large vehicles tend to maneuver much more poorly than small cars, so that chances of getting into an accident are much higher for large vehicles.

Joe Clark May 25th, 2004 Link

I couldn't slog through the txtmsgspeak and SCREAMING above, but is anybody going to point out that 40 mph is significantly faster than the current 35 mph NHTSA barrier standards, which themselves are an increase on the 30 mph specs from 20 years ago? Kinetic energy is (mv^2)/2; even small increases in speed amount to huge increases in energy.

I'm surprised any car can survive a 40 mph offset barrier test. (Well, perhaps a Bentley or something with four feet of metal in front of you.) Such a standard isn't legally required and represents a lot of energy to dissipate.

A car that does survive such accidents is certainly the one to buy, but purchasers don't have a lot of standardized information to go on.

Rick May 26th, 2004 Link

I had a head-on collision in my MINI. I hit a barrier coming out of a 90 degree turn. Fortunately, I hit in on a 45 degree angle, minimizing damage (the car was still totalled). I never felt so safe. For pics, go here.

Andrea Casalotti May 26th, 2004 Link

A safer (for the driver) car is often a more dangerous car for pedestrians and cyclists. The Mini should be made illegal: it is morally repulsive that someone who crashes at 40mph killing pedestrians and cyclists comes out without a scratch. Only if we put the fear of crashing back in the consciousness of motorists will our streets be safer.

Gabe May 26th, 2004 Link

So by that rational all cars should be made illegal. Wow what great logic! (sarcasim intended)

Karlis May 26th, 2004 Link

Oh, sigh, is there truly nothing that Joe Clark has an opinion about? Uninformed, as always. Joe, try to read your Physics 101 text again. If you can read.

Race-fan May 26th, 2004 Link

The whole size = crash safety argument is SO old. It is fostered by ignorance of the laws of physics. The strongest vehicles out there also happen to be the smallest and lightest. An F1 race car can protect the driver in a collision at very high velocities. How do you think the occupants of a Ford F150 would do in a crash of any type at 150 mph? Obviously the cost-is-no-object engineering standards on race cars is not practical in the passenger car market, but that is not the point that I am trying to make. My point is that superior design determines crash safety performance, not pounds of steel used.

Mike May 26th, 2004 Link

I find it quite suprising that not one person has addressed the issue that a mini or such a vehicle just doesn't suit everyones needs. I think they are a great little car, but would never buy one. I don't think i could fit myself, two of my friends and all of our hockey equipment in there.
I work for one of the 'evil' big three companies (luckily not ford!) as a salesman. So i do know enough about crash ratings and the like. Some of our(Chrysler) cars, for example, don't rate as well as some imports. But i also know that i would sell half as many cars if i increased the price of any of them in order to increase safety.
Put simply, if you only have a few hundred to spend a month, unfortunatly, you will have to drive either a vehicle that may not be as safe, as fast, or with as many features as you'd like. Thats just the way it works.
In conclusion, find a car that suits YOUR needs. If you want to tow a trailer, don't get a mini… if you want accident avoidance, don't get an F150.

Oh yeah…… buy a chrysler! just kidding.

Michael McWatters May 26th, 2004 Link

To the people who are writing that there is no telling how you will do in an accident, you are partially correct and partially incorrect. It is true there are many variables that factor into survival, and you cannot be guaranteed survival simply by purchasing a 'safer' vehicle. At the same time, the statistics above are scientific in that they demonstrate death rates per vehicle. While you can't be certain, you may as well hedge your bets and buy a safer vehicle to begin with.

Kevin Fabec May 26th, 2004 Link

Funny… I scanned through most of these and I love the ignorance in some of the posts. The reason the EXTENDED CAB F150 did so poorly is the lack of a B pillar. You call yourselves car nuts. Blah. THe Expedition, Super Crew and Regular Cab F150 got much better ratings. Lets see how the RX8 or Honda Element does considering the lack of B pillar. Not to mention the cost of how much a 5 mph hit would cost to fix a Mini vs a F150.

I will take a lighter quicker car anyday for getting the hell out of a bigger vehicle's way.

Drives a S2000. Owns a F150 Super Crew.

/

Chris Brown May 26th, 2004 Link

I'd like to point out that the the 2004 results are much better.

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0328.htm

Scott S. May 26th, 2004 Link

Has anyone addressed the issue of driver perception of vehicle safety? Recent research seems to indicate that drivers of vehicles perceived as “safe” tend to drive more carelessly. So the efforts of the automotive engineers can be somewhat undone by the drivers.

Theodore Pride May 26th, 2004 Link

As far as statistics go, what's the average deaths for all cars produced by each specific company? I'd be interested to see how Toyota stacks up to the big three on that basis, though I would guess from looking at the numbers given that it definitely beats Ford, and probably beats the other two as well. Larger cars can hold more and ARE safer in head-on collisions, but if it is in fact true that the majority of collisions only involve one car, then the tests results from hitting a stationary object should be of primary importance.

No number of airbags is going to save you if your driver compartment is crushed.

Clint May 26th, 2004 Link

The Honda Element was rated as a Good and Best Pick by the IIHS, without it's B-pillar. It's all in the design my friend.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0304.htm

Lisa May 26th, 2004 Link

Everyone (particularly SUV owners) should check out the fatality statistics on:

http://www.hwysafety.org/safetyfacts/fatalityfacts/general.htm

65% of SUV fatalities in 2002 were single vehicle accidents. 35% of SUV fatalities involved multiple vehicles.

For cars, the distribution is different - 42% of car fatalities were single vehicle collisions while 58% involved multiple vehicles.

So I want to know why are SUV drivers in much more single vehicle collisions than car drivers?

Are they more reckless because they feel safer??

The male vs female death rates on the hwysafety site above are interesting too. Guys who think female drivers are bad should check out the stats!

GCH May 26th, 2004 Link

Just a reminder…

Quote: Michelle White, an economist at the University of California, San Diego, estimates that for each fatality that light-truck drivers avoid for themselves and their passengers, they cause four fatalities involving car occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists. “Safety gains for those driving light trucks,” Ms. White said, “come at an extremely high cost to others.” End quote.

Download the report. [PDF]

Ian Lowe May 26th, 2004 Link

I guess we Europeans are just further down the road in making crash safety a key purchasing factor - the open publication of the Euro NCAP Crash ( http://www.euroncap.com/ )ratings for vehicles has basically made manufacturers openly compete on safety - Renault, Peugeot, Saab, Volvo… all of the major Manufacturers are designing their vehicles to be dramatically safer in impacts than ever before, and TV and press adverts concentrate pretty much on crash safety and comfort features - very few adverts talk about performance any more!

It's one of the ironic things that the NCAP crash tests show that US Style 4×4s (what we call SUVs) are considerably less safe than the smaller family saloon cars.

I can't remember the last time I saw an accident on our roads (UK) where the passenger compartment wasn't intact - a good thing!

Barry May 26th, 2004 Link

I came out of an accident where my MINI was plowed into by a Lincoln Towncar that ran a red light. Not a scratch on me. The MINI is not your old “POS” cheap compact. When I got hit the car absorbed the blow like a champ.

Petunia May 26th, 2004 Link

This article was first posted in December of 2002…and today it shows up in Blogdex's most frequent links. I wonder why?

Anyway, I'm a soon-to-be Mini owner myself, and I'm glad to see this article. So many people, upon hearing of my choice, question whether the Mini is safe. Now I can prove that it is!

Gabe May 26th, 2004 Link

Petunia - While this artcile was posted back in late 2002 it rings true today more than ever considering the ever increasing sales of large SUVs and truck.

Andrew T May 27th, 2004 Link

Let me start by saying that I love America and especially American cars. I have owned 2 68 Mustangs, a 67 Mustang, and 3 69 Dodge Chargers. I currently own a 95 Jeep, a 68 Mustang with a 331 stroker and around 450hp, and an 04 Mini Cooper.

I picked up the Mini two days ago and am totally amazed by it. It handles like nothing I have ever driven. As far as safety goes, I am surrounded by an army of airbags, I've got brakes that can stop me from 60mph in 112 feet, the suspension is as I mentioned awesome, and it has enough electronic safety measures for 10 F-150s.

It's sad that the people defending the F-150 have sunk to the “you hate America” argument, as well as claims that there is little chance of a car hitting a brick wall. Okay, fine, there probably isn't. But there's even less chance of a Mini hitting head-on with anything, unless the Mini was parked or there was a game of chicken going on and both drivers were too macho for their own good.

Earlier today, I was nearly the victim of an SUV. I was going 50mph in a 45 zone, in the slow lane, down a four-lane road. Next to me is a Ford Excursion. We come up on a stoplight where (I'm serious about this) the cross-traffic drivers sometimes decide to, from a stop, run the red light. I've never seen it anywhere but this intersection, and I've seen it there three times.
Well, this time, a kid in a Civic punches it as we're coming up on the light, but the Civic was a stick, and he stalled it right where the Ford and I are about to go. I slam on my brakes about a half second ahead of the Excursion, and for some reason the SUV driver decides to swerve into my lane - right where I was a second before. Unfortunately, she swerved too much and hit the curb, but jumped it, overcorrected, and skidded sdeways in the dirt right into a light pole. The light pole then fell on the Civic's trunk. I was stopped in the middle of the road about 50 yards short of the intersection. While that was going on, the truck behind me (80s style F250, lifted) slams on his brakes and swerves into the fast lane, slides right into the left front fender of the Civic.

Though the Excursion was only going 20mph when it hit the pole, the 13 y/o girl in the passenger seat is in critical condition and her 9 y/o brother on the same side of the car but one row back was killed because he didn't have his seatbelt on and was thrown from the car (apparently he liked to sit on top of the rear seat when it was folded down). The Civic driver walked away with a sprained wrist and about 60 citations. The F250 driver was unhurt (just seatbelt bruises) and the only damage to his truck was a flat tire. The Excursion driver was unhurt physically but now has to live with the death of her son.

If I was in my Mustang, with crappy brakes compared to the Mini, the Excursion would have run over me. My only chance would have been to punch the gas and try to avoid the Civic. Because I was in the Mini, though, I didn't have to worry about my insurance, or my airbags, or anything - I didn't get in an accident while everyone around me did.

THAT is why the Mini is safer than any SUV.

John C Bullas May 27th, 2004 Link

Its good to see the little car do so well against traditional metal BUT remember crash tests are NOT caarried out at 60,70,80mph+ so always drive carefully and within your abilities. Sign up to the BMW-MINI-COOPER Yahoogroup for more MINI chat!

hamstak May 27th, 2004 Link

If anybody is listening at this late hour…one item to factor in (if it has not already been, in this thread) is the age/experience distribution of the drivers of various forms of vehicles. Having lived in affluent Charlotte, NC and seen the numbers of high school students driving to school in their parents (or their) SUVs…compound an inexperienced driver with the notion this driver has about the relative safety of their vehicle…anecdotal, I know. And probably irrelevant given the late hour.

Matthew Pollard May 27th, 2004 Link

just came across this article via blogdex- you might interested in these articles I came across this week:
http://www.sundayherald.com/38681
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3739495.stm

They speicifically from the UK but make similar points.

John Barbour May 27th, 2004 Link

Talk to any insurance actuary- premiums are higher for trucks and SUVs for two simple reasons:
1. Most accidents involve a single car
2. Trucks and SUVs are heavier and therefore carry more kinetic energy into a single-car accident. In addition, a truck chassis is firmer and therefore will pass more of the impact energy along to the occupants.
Many SUVs are typically built from truck chassis (like the Ford F150/Expedition).

Good article!

John

Theodore Pride May 27th, 2004 Link

Oh, one added note. I love America and all it stands for, but anti-competition laws and handouts from the government are not the way for auto makers to show that can-do spirit. A manufacturer who can't compete should go out of business - any economics course will show you that in the long run, everyone in the world gains by allowing the most efficient companies to succeed.

Buy the American way, not American.

Chris May 27th, 2004 Link

It simply proves what I've said time and time again, FORD SUCKS. Substandard vehicles from a substandard company.

mark May 27th, 2004 Link

I think you need to take into account who is driving these vehicles when you look at the information in the table above. These are fatalities per million vehicles on the road, not fatalities per million crashes. All the Toyota Avalons I've seen are driven by “old ladies” on Sundays. A good portion of the F class trucks are driven by high school and college men with considerably more drinking and being stupid in the F class trucks. I want to see fatalities per million crashes.

Steve Allen May 27th, 2004 Link

First of all, that model f150 was designed over ten years ago, where as the mini first surfaced about 2 years ago. There has been alot of safety improvements since then. Also, that Mini probably cost as much as that F150 did. Ford could engineer and build an F150 to be as safe as the Mini, but it would probably cost 50k. Would you buy it then? I think not.

Gabe May 27th, 2004 Link

The new MINI was designed and engineered in the late 90's. The previous generation F150 came out in the mid/late 90's.

The MINI retails for $16,900. The F150 tested retailed for over $20,000.

. May 27th, 2004 Link

I own a 1996 F-150 and a 2005 Chrysler Town and Country. I have died in neither.

You're welcome for contributing to this debate.

JM May 27th, 2004 Link

I would say that 80% of the people that own a 150 or similar dont have a use for it anyway. Else than carrying a few boxes twice a year to help a friend move. Total waste of gas road space.

Michael May 27th, 2004 Link

What the table doesn't appear to account for is the likelihood that many people in large, heavy vehicles will choose to drive them more aggressively, leading to more accidents.

Dominik Stahl May 27th, 2004 Link

Jim, You are so right!
Americans are crazy in wasting energy. So mighty, but so culturless without thinking above 1 feet.
Good Night.

A right bastard May 27th, 2004 Link

Granted, the F150 numbers are high, but you might want to consider that the statistics compiled there are probably misleading. The “other deaths” for the F150 is really high. Is that because the vehicle is unsafe, or because foolish people are riding around in the back of the trucks and being thrown from them in collisions? After all, there's only one other pickup in the list, and it's an around town vanity pickup that probably rarely carries anything but its driver. If you make a quick adjustment for that, the F150 is still on the high side of things, but not that bad.

Also, remember that when the previous generation F150 was designed, the SUV uses were still a twinkle in some designer's eye, and the truck was still thought of, rightly or otherwise, as a workhorse. Now, with the US buying ridiculous numbers of truck based vehicles, things are different - and Ford responded to that.

I own a foriegn made vehicle, but I try to keep the bashing of corporate behavior to a minimum, because it is easy to make a case when you select evidence, ignore or are unaware of other evidence, don't ask anyone who might actually KNOW why this was done that way and that the other way, and so on. That doesn't make it meaningful to do so.

jimL May 27th, 2004 Link

Not only can I put your mini in the back of my Dodge Dakota, but I can also tow a boat to the lake with 4 of my closest frineds in the cab. While I agree with a lot of the points people have brought up here, I also feel the need to keep most of you in check. This picture of the F150 clearly shows us this was not a head on collision but rather the crash indeed favored the driver side.

And this last comment just cracks me up (especially since a lot of you have already told me how “agile” this car really is): “What the table doesn't appear to account for is the likelihood that many people in large, heavy vehicles will choose to drive them more aggressively, leading to more accidents.”

jimL May 27th, 2004 Link

And to this comment, “Jim, You are so right!
Americans are crazy in wasting energy. So mighty, but so culturless without thinking above 1 feet.
Good Night.”, I say, try pulling any load over a mountain pass with your compact car.

Brad May 27th, 2004 Link

I think it's interesting that no one has really pointed out the disparity in perception of safety between Americans and Europeans.

To the average American on the street, size = safety. However, every European I've talked cars with (I've worked with several, been to Europe, and had two German roommates) sees things differently. They perceive that a more agile car (be it smaller or just performance oriented) is safer because you can respond to your circumstances better than you can in a truck or heavy, kludgy car.

Now, I haven't done any national surveys on the matter, but would anyone here say that this opinion is incorrect?

myles May 27th, 2004 Link

a quick note to all those majorly 'dissing' this article.. The guy is trying to improve safety overall on the road by pointing out some potential problems that there have been, cut him some slack.. from some of your attitudes its like you don't car who lives or dies, only that you have a big car.

Andrew T May 28th, 2004 Link

jimL

The idea of putting a Mini in a Dakota is so ridiculous that it's almost funny. The Dakota is a small truck. You look at the door handles of Rams when you sit next to them. But your mileage isn't any better than the Ram, and your crash tests are even worse.

“Try pulling a load over a mountain pass”? Why don't you try changing lanes in the blink of an eye at 75mph to avoid a blown tire on the freeway without fishtailing out of control, or driving on a wet road the same as you drive on a dry one without crashing, or getting 32mpg in town, or 42 on the freeway…

You're right, the F-150 crash was towards the driver's side. So was the Mini. What's your point? That's why it's called “offset”.

As for aggressive driving, it takes a lot to get into trouble in a Mini. But it doesn't take much to get into trouble in a truck or SUV.

Andrew T May 28th, 2004 Link

PS. IIHS has the 97-04 Dakota with a “Poor” overall crash test rating:

OVERALL EVALUATION: POOR The driver space wasn't maintained well in the frontal offset crash test. The steering wheel moved upward and the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. High forces on the head and neck indicate the likelihood of injury. Intrusion into the driver footwell contributed to the possibility of leg injuries.

STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: MARGINAL There was moderate intrusion into the driver footwell area and moderate rearward movement of the instrument panel. There also was extensive floor buckling under the driver seat.

RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: POOR Dummy movement wasn't well controlled during the offset test. There was far too much upward steering wheel movement and floor buckling tilted the driver seat forward and toward the door. After the dummy moved forward into the airbag, it rebounded toward the driver door, and its head contacted the inside of the door above the armrest.

INJURY MEASURES: HEAD/NECK POOR High head acceleration and high neck forces occurred in the offset test when the dummy's head bottomed out the airbag and struck the steering wheel. Head acceleration from the door contact was low. Forces on both tibias indicate the possibility of injury to the lower legs.

Here's the Mini:

OVERALL EVALUATION: GOOD The driver space was maintained well in the frontal offset crash test, and measures indicate that significant injury was unlikely. Side airbags with head protection, advanced frontal airbag and safety belt systems, an optional stability control system, and daytime running lights are all pluses.

STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: GOOD There was minimal intrusion into the driver footwell area and minimal rearward movement of the instrument panel.

RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: ACCEPTABLE Dummy movement was reasonably well controlled. During rebound, the dummy's head leaned partway out the open side window.

INJURY MEASURES: GOOD Measures taken from the head, neck, chest, and both legs indicate low risk of injury to these body regions.

alex May 28th, 2004 Link

I used to drive the old mini's (BLMC) and talking to a fireman he said “I have hosed alot of boys off the road after crashes with mini's. His point was that minis are not more unsafe but rather the people who drive them tend to crash more

alex May 28th, 2004 Link

and another mini story. So it was an old one and the brakes on one side of the car were shot. It was trying to get out of the way of a crahed car on a busy road and braked but ended up doing a full 180 turn during the stop and because of this the truck coming the other way anded up flatening the passenger side of the mini killing no one

Jeremy May 28th, 2004 Link

Hi Gabe,

I posted this over on NAM, FYI. Should interest MINI owners.

Thanks!

“countrym”

adam May 28th, 2004 Link

god that's sick.

Karl May 28th, 2004 Link

I would like to point something out about the F-150 in this comparison… it is a four door extended cab. This makes a big difference. The rear door on each side severely compromises the structural integrity of the passenger compartment.

As an analogy, think of it like stepping on a soda can that is on its side. The top and bottom of the can support the most pressure before failure. If you were to remove the top and bottom, just leaving a thin metal tube, it would require very little pressure to cause the entire structure to fail.

For the ’97 and ’98 model years, Ford recognized this and offered the extended cab F-150 in a three door configuration only. The lack of a fourth door allowed a rigid rear corner on the driver side to strengthen the cab.

Consumer demand, however, prompted Ford to offer four doors on later model years.

Ghost May 28th, 2004 Link

While these statistics are staggering, there seems to be ae few of the puzzle missing. Driver habits, the average speed during these crashes, time of day, etc… as all have significant impacts on the accident. Don't get me wrong, any death is appauling enough as it is, but without the facts to support it, this is hard to fully understand the full implications of the problem at hand.

Alex May 28th, 2004 Link

Andrew_T:

Excellent point about the Dakota. I'll ad one…

I have a friend who drives a 2001 Dakota Sport. Firstly, I could barely fit my COUCH in the back, let alone a MINI.

Secondly, he drove my MINI for the first time the other day and actually made the comment “dude, I feel so much safer in your car because I feel like I could zip around anything in front of me”.

My point is that just because you drive a truck doesn't mean you should defend it's “safety”. There are MANY good reasons for owning a pickup (towing, hauling, work related, etc.); safety should NEVER be one of them.

And to those (especially the idiot who referred to “liberal anti-Americanism”) who think that pointing out flaws in American vehicles constitutes not loving this country…. whatever; history has PROVEN American cars to traditionally be of inferior quality to certain (mostly European and Japanese) imports. This is a FACT. Mind you, this fact is CHANGING. There are a great number of very high-quality automobiles coming out in recent model years from the American manufacturers…. but this is a RECENT development.

Just because you dislike American cars doesn't mean you dislike America. That's like someone who works at a soft drink company and drinks water because it's healthier being accused of “hating the company”; how stupid is that?

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

“The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for drivers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit.”

If you can't see the inherent flaws and bias JUST FROM THIS HEADING ALONE you either need your head examined or you have an agenda. I'm betting on the agenda.

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

Wow that makes no sense Charlie.

Alex May 28th, 2004 Link

“fatalities per million cars…”

HOW is that biased exactly? If anything it levels the playing field on a statistical level since there are (many) more F150's sold than the other vehicles listed.

That means that, for every 1 million F150's out there, 110 people had fatal accidents in them. By comparison, for every 1 million Avalons out there, only 60 people were involved in a fatal accident (which is, apprixmately, 45% less than the Ford #'s).

To me this means, normalized for total units sold/on the road, 45% FEWER people were involved in fatal accidents in an Avalon than an F150.

Explain to me how that's biased?

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

Miles driven. Driver demographics. Vehicle use (F150 is a very popular fleet vehicle). Geographic distribution.

Of course it's normalized to units sold you dolt. It says so. What it's not normalized to is use of units sold, users of the units sold, nor is it representative of danger to occupants. If it's bigger and heaver it will contribute to killing a lot of MINI drivers (not the actress) whereas I'd guess very few MINIs kill people in F150s. Just for an example. Can you extrapolate, or do you need more hand holding?

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

Sure there's a lot of data that could be mined from this and I'm sure there's a lot more work that could be done from that data. But it doesn't change what is at the core of this article… those two pictures at the top of your screen.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

Most accidents don't involve a second car, and most accidents also don't involve hitting an immovable object either. Somehow that last part got omitted. Interesting.

In the real world table quoted above, even not correcting for mileage per unit of time (a huge correction I'd bet) if you only concern yourself with the driver (the only person we can be sure was actually IN the F150) we find it's not even in the top 5 anymore. Why not go rail against the Pontiac Grand Am, Toyota Tacoma, Chevrolet Cavalier, Dodge Neon and Pontiac Sunfire ?

Your agenda is showing.

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

Ah yes… everyone has an agenda. How refreshing.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

As I said, care to address the points above, or is it interfering with your 'message'?

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

Okay now that there aren't any personal insults in your message (his original message was deleted due to personal insults being hurled)…

The reason the F150 and the MINI were compared is just because the huge size disparity and the American publics notion that bigger is always safer. It makes for an interesting, fact based read.

Yes there are other cars out there that aren't safe. You're right to make reference to the Cavalier and the Sunfire - two cars that are among the worst out there in side impact protection. And lets not forget the extended full size vans that Dodge and Ford sell - horrible safety records. I could go on and on but frankly I don't have time to touch on all this (if you'd like to I'd recommend starting your own weblog - very easy to do).

And finally I do not have any agenda, I'm not a member of some radical group. I'm just someone trying to shed some light on a subject that many people don't realize is an issue. I'm ecstatic that Ford redesigned the 2004 F150 to be much safer. I applaud them doing so. However I still question why the previous generation (still currently manufactured) was released with structural deficiencies that the above tests expose.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

OK, let me be more specific. Care to explain how the F150 is so much worse than those other examples, or why you discard multi-vehicle accidents as atypical when offsets into an indestructible immovable object are also clearly atypical?

You can't have it both ways and be analytical about it. Either the F150 is relatively safe, at least average give or take a sigma(after correcting for mileage I strongly suspect this would be true) or we're going to talk about artificial and atypical test conditions.

So yes, if I wanted to select a car to drive into the edge of a solid steel barrier at 40 mph the F150 wouldn't be my top pick. That has so little to do with real world safety it's funny. This is actually BORNE OUT by the table you also posted.

Be fair, man.

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

Q: Care to explain how the F150 is so much worse than those other examples?

A: Well the F150 is the nations best selling vehicle (by a wide margin). That makes this publicity more important since there are so many.

Q: why you discard multi-vehicle accidents as atypical when offsets into an indestructible immovable object are also clearly atypical?

A: Atypical? Not when referring to fatal/serious injury accidents according to the IIHS.

Q: That (off-set crash test) has so little to do with real world safety it's funny.

A: Well that would be a shock to all the government agencies around the world that support and use this testing. Here's what the IIHS thinks:

IIHS test vehicles are driven into a deformable crash barrier at 40 miles per hour. “The crash barrier overlaps the front of the car on the driver's side by 40 percent,” IIHS senior vice president for research, Adrian Lund, told MSN Autos. Lund heads the IIHS crash-testing program. The barrier's deformable face is made of aluminum honeycomb because, the institute says, it helps mimic the forces found in real offset crashes between two identical vehicles, each going just under 40 mph.

Institute officials believe this type of impact is more representative of actual vehicle-to-vehicle crashes than are full head-on impacts with a fixed barrier, such as the wall used in government crash tests for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) frontal crash tests.

In addition, officials say that while frontal crashes are very demanding on safety restraint systems—owing to the rapid deceleration of a vehicle's occupants in such crashes—offset testing places the most burden on the structural integrity of a vehicle's passenger compartment. (Frontal crashes spread the force across the full width of the vehicle; offset crashes concentrate the force over a smaller area.)

“We believe the combination of frontal crash testing and our offset testing accounts for about 50 percent of fatal vehicle crashes and 70 or 80 percent of serious injury crashes,” said Lund. NHTSA spokesman Tim Hurd agreed that a variety of tests helps provide broader information for regulators and consumers. “We welcome all kinds of testing; the more testing the better,” he said. “It's not either/or. You learn from all of the tests.”

Source: http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=9280&src=News.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

“Institute officials believe this type of impact is more representative of actual vehicle-to-vehicle crashes than are full head-on impacts with a fixed barrier, such as the wall used in government crash tests for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) frontal crash tests.”

I'd agree with that AND still say it's not a measurement of real world safety. The other test is even more bogus. They only model a common real world event if you assume all cars are of the same mass, or if you assume all frontal collisions are into bridge abutments.

And of course the folks who make a living promoting the tests are not going to be completely objective IMO.

Studies like the table you posted are the best real world measures, but it is critical to understand what they are measuring. The other problem is they have little useful predictive power, since they measure real world results.

The reason the F150 is the top selling rig isn't because hordes of Americans flock to their Ford dealers to buy them. It's because Ford has a tremendous fleet marketing division and businesses by them in bulk. This is also what I suspect skews the figures, since fleet vehicles are VERY likely to have different use and users than non-commercial vehicles.

Alex May 28th, 2004 Link

It seems to me…. that fleet vehicles would be driven MORE cautiously than their consumer oriented cousins?

It seems to me that if you were to wreck a fleet vehicle at work, and found at fault for something stupid (like speeding 30mph over or hitting a concrete wall, or whatever), there's a chance it could get your fired or (at the very least) effect an annual performance review or the like.

To me that is much more incentive to drive cautiosly than slightly higher insurance fees?

REGARDLESS of who is driving the vehicle, where it was purchsed, and for what purpose it was purchased; THE FACT REMAINS that for every million vehicles sold TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON the F150 had the highest number of fatality accidents, and not by a small margin.

You could certianly go in to more depth, and I'm sure it would make the F150 look a little better, but that will never change the facts. IN THIS PARTICULAR CRASH TEST the Ford failed miserably. No amount of statistical juggling will EVER change that. It IS (whether you, Charlie, like it or not) a nationally recognized and accepted test for vehicle safety and the Ford DID perform badly; plain and simple.

I'm afraid YOUR agenda is showing friend. And so you know, I'm no dolt. I'm not sure why a discussion of CAR CRASH TESTS had to become such a personal issue…..

I can't help but wonder if you either work for Ford, or own an F150 yourself and feel the need to justify your purchase.

AUSTIN... May 28th, 2004 Link

that picture is doctored… look at the angle of the f150 compared to the mini… there is no way a full framed vehicle …truck… can do worse in a crash test then a mini… NO WAY…

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety doesn't doctor photos. All you have to do is follow the links to see the same photos on their site.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

“I can't help but wonder if you either work for Ford, or own an F150 yourself and feel the need to justify your purchase.”

Nope. No Ford products even. Not a single American vehicle, actually.

“It seems to me…. that fleet vehicles would be driven MORE cautiously than their consumer oriented cousins?”

They will be driven a lot MORE, period. More miles per test period, which has to skew results tremendously. Think it over. Is a single person who owns 4 F150 pickups more likely to be in an accident than a person who owns one F150? Assuming they drive identical amounts in identical conditions I'd have to say no. Yet, according to the naive view of the table presented that multi-vehicle owner WOULD be 4 times more likely to die.

Is that reasonable to you? Not me.

To be useful this should be based on miles driven by private vehicles and it would begin to satisfy some requirements of a meaningful study. I'd bet that just such sort of figures are available.

“REGARDLESS of who is driving the vehicle, where it was purchsed, and for what purpose it was purchased; THE FACT REMAINS that for every million vehicles sold TO ANYONE FOR ANY REASON the F150 had the highest number of fatality accidents, and not by a small margin.”

Hah. Back to that. This sort of non-critical thinking is what generated the 'dolt' label. What is you position on this, that the F150 is dangerous on the street or to it's occupants? Because the offset test has NOTHING to do with people OUTSIDE the vehicle.

Define 'fatality accident' please. The table lists ANYONE who died in the wreck, including old ladies crossing the street. Let's see a figure for those ACTUALLY inside the F150, OK? The closest thing you have is the 'driver' column (I'm assuming the driver was inside the vehicle, reasonable I think) and the picture changes radically.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

Here is my beef with this article. It IS interesting, but to a person who isn't accustomed to reading critically it's very misleading.

So, what is the point of this article? What is the purpose?

Are you saying the old F150 is a bad rig? Or are you being more specific?

It performed badly on the offset test. No question about that. Is this what you buy a car for, to drive into barriers?

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0108.htm

Here is a vehicle that performs very well on the same bogus test, yet in the real world is a bit MORE LIKELY to kill it's driver. I find that sort of discrepancy illuminating. Can you explain it?

If you hate the F150, fine, it's a free country. But when you pick and choose statistics to validate your emotions expect to be called to task eventually.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

“that picture is doctored… look at the angle of the f150 compared to the mini… there is no way a full framed vehicle …truck… can do worse in a crash test then a mini… NO WAY…”

Sure it can. This test pits a vehicles mass against it's structure. It is roughly indicative of overall structural integrity and such, but can only be viewed as a rough indicator of actual collision results. A good engineer could run models and optimize a design specifically to pass this test and not alter the real world performance significantly. What if the impact is 50% coverage? 25%? 20 degrees skew between direction of impact and vehicle orientation, as if it were skidding? All these different stresses will affect the outcome greatly, yet are not tested by this 'test'.

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

That argument makes so little sense I really don't know where to begin. First off I'm not even sure what you are really trying to say?

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

Fine, feel free to ignore it. I'm much more curious what you have to say about the other two, though. I'm particularly interested in the vast discrepancy between the prediction and reality of the Tacoma vs. the F150.

Duncan Riley May 28th, 2004 Link

Ive never understood the American obsession with 4×4's (SUV's). Whilst they have their place in rural and regional areas why the obsession in the cities? In Australia the largest selling 2 vehicles are of a similar size to the Avalon (Ford Falcon, Holden (GM) Commodore) with the Camry in third place. Sure we have SUV's (the Toyota Landcruiser is in the top 10) but they dominate outside of cities, not in them. The American obsession with size is even more bizarre given the crash test results, give me a mini cooper any day!

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

This I agree with. Well, not the Cooper part, but yeah, I don't understand the folks who buy an SUV and never get near a gravel road or pull a load. For the record I drive a small car, one that is actually spoken well of in the report.

Here's something fun, our link wherein we decided “trucks are almost 25% more likely to be involved in fatal crashes.”

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=Trends&stateid=0&year=2001&title2=General

This is what I like to call 'lying with statistics'. It's true, but horribly misleading. The definition of a “fatal crash” is that someone, anyone, died. It doesn't mean that anyone in the truck died. This is fine, but then we try to tie in crash test, and it gets stupid. Crash tests don't say ANYTHING about how people OUTSIDE the test vehicle are affected.

In the above link, 27,000 passenger car 'fatal crashes' killed 20,000 passenger car passengers. That's about 2 in 3 occupant deaths per fatal crash. If we do a similar computation on 'light trucks' we get about 1 in 2. Even if we factor in the increased likelihood of being in a 'fatal crash' it's still tilted in favor of the guy in the truck walking away and the guy in the car NOT walking away.

Pretend all you want, bigger is safer FOR THE GUY IN THE BIG RIG. Everyone else pays, of course.

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

A death is a death. But beyond that there are two issues at work here. A horribly engineered truck and a society that demands bigger vehicles and then looks the other way when people are killed becuase of it.

“SUVs inflict more harm on occupants than other cars do,” said Brian O'Neill, president of an insurance industry group that will release new statistics on SUV safety at the hearing. (source)

…and from another CNN story:

“People in most small SUVs are likely to be seriously injured or killed in side-impact crashes, according to a report by an insurance group Tuesday.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by auto insurers, gave “poor” ratings to seven sport/utility vehicles that it ran through crash tests. Many of those vehicles had received good ratings in separate side-impact crash tests run by the federal government.”(source)

… yet more evidence that SUVs and truck pose a danger to not only others but to their drivers:

The number of people killed in sport/utility rollover crashes jumped 14 percent last year as total highway deaths hit a 12-year high of nearly 43,000, according to a government report.

Meanwhile, car crash injuries fell to an all-time low last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in its report, issued Thursday. Child and pedestrian deaths also fell, as did fatalities involving large trucks.

But SUV rollovers killed more than 2,400 people last year, a 14 percent increase from 2001, the government said. It did not offer a reason for the increase. Nearly two-thirds, or 61 percent, of all SUV fatalities involved rollovers. (source)

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

Look, the above quoted source, which you were so pleased with earlier, says, if you bother to analyze the numbers, that 1.25 occupants die per million passenger car miles whereas 1.18 occupants die per million light truck miles. For me, it's statistically the same; I don't see the tiny theoretical lead for light trucks as being significant.

But it sort of blows that whole 'people who buy light trucks to protect themselves are more likely to die' idea out of the water.

And it supports the idea that people who are in accidents are more likely to survive if they're in a light truck.

And while I agree this is a selfish and unkind attitude, and that a death is a death, I still don't see where poor crash tests fit into this death is a death idea. Does the poor test result indicate to you that if the vehicle is a Ford F150 then the jaywalker who caused the accident is more likely to die? I don't see that. Can you tie those together? Or what is the point of the crash test thing?

In other words, make up your mind. Is it the collateral damage you're worried about? If so, the crash test you opened the article with is irrelevant.

If you're worried about the danger to occupants of this unsafe rig, can you show any real world evidence it's actually more dangerous to the occupants?

Or do you just get ticked off when a jerk in a huge SUV blocks your view of the traffic semaphore? I hate that too, BTW.

Which is it?!?!?!!?

Matt May 28th, 2004 Link

Thanks Gabe. Now it will be easier to defend my MINI against my entire family who all drive big suvs and think they are so much safer than I am.

We'd all be alot safer if people could get over the whole me, me, me mentality of the big suv.

But then again this is America.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

Maybe the increased fuel prices aren't all bad.

Mike May 28th, 2004 Link

I'm not saying if I'm for or against SUVs…yet…but let me tell you of a little story…..

My friend owned a Porsche 944. (Mid 80s car). If anyone rembebers this car, it is basically a 924 with a widened body. If you don't remember what a 924 is, well TOO bad =)

Anyways, he was travelling about 40-45mph on a 4 lane road (2 lanes both ways). It's a decent size road so the speed limit is about the speed he was doing.

Comming up on the right was a FULL size Montero at a stop sign trying to cross this main road. Mr Montero decided to try his luck and cross the road……unfortunately he hesitated and jumped across at the very last moment. My friend, unable to react quickly enough, slammed right into the side of the Montero, LIFTING it up and flipping it over.

After a few moments, my friend walks out of the car to check if everyone was ok. By then rescue had arrived. He was a bit banged up, but nothing like the occupants in the Montero. In the Montero…….NOONE was wearing a seatbelt. Everyone had to be quickly rushed to the hospital. My friend was up and walking around like nothing while everyone else had to be rushed to the ER.

angael May 28th, 2004 Link

my 2 sense..

Selling vehicles is all about the Benjamins.. Not about safety.. It is unfortunate but true, as a salesman mentioned previously on this post.. If it was safety they wanted to sell, the price of the vehicle would be pretty high. The pictures above speak volumes true.. In some cases I believe BIGGER is BETTER….but for the driver and their passengers.. Anyone struck by them will lose in spades. How is this a good thing? Should a person feel good about the statistics of killing someone else? Large vehicles should be used for the use they were made, not showing off, or using a lift kit to make them as high as an over-pass.. Making them taller so that you can hover over someone else, can you say ego? More larger vehicles on the road consumes more gas world-wide.. Which is one of America's big problems.. I have an SUV and I'm trading it in for a smaller vehicle to save money.. Here are true without a doubt facts:

Smaller vehicles maneuver better than larger vehicles.

Unless you are using your larger vehicle for what it is for, what is the point?
Check your ego at the door.
Can anyone say HUMMER?

The less we are dependant on something, the better off we are. That statement can plug into allot of things. Gas in my opinion.

Statistics can be biased no matter what anyone says.

Charlie May 28th, 2004 Link

Basically this entry tries to make at least 2, and maybe as many as 4 different claims. Sadly, it mixes the evidence together so badly that no logical sense can be made from it. Here is a summary, I think:

CLAIM 1: The Ford F150 is dangerous to it's operator.

Offered as proof: (1) An assertion that most accidents involve a single car. (2) Results of an offset crash test. (3) Statistics regarding deaths per million vehicles sold. (4) More statistics from the NHTSA

Analysis of proof 1: While possibly true, there is no proof or assertion given that most accidents which result in a fatality are single car accidents. Further, there is the implicit assumption (from proof 2) that the vehicle collided with SOMETHING big. THe offset test is actually designed to mimic a typical offset collision between two cars, so we immediately have a problem where proof 1 and 2 are mutually inconsistent.

Analysis of proof 2: In addition to the points raised in analysis of proof 1, proof two has further issues. The offset crash test is designed to predict how safe the vehicle under test is for the driver. Results of this test are freely available for many different vehicles. Of particulr interest is the results for a similar vehicle, the Toyota Tacoma. We see that the Toyota passes with flying colors, vastly different than the Ford. Thus the Toyota should be much safer for the driver than the Ford is. Sadly the figures in proof 3 clearly indicate this is not the case, and actually show the Toyota as being slightly worse for the driver per unit sold. Proof 3 is terribly weak however, and so we are left suspecting that the F150 is probably not as safe as it could be.

Analysis of proof 3: Proof 3 is a very weak set of figures in that it tries to correlate fatalities to vehicle sales. This is suspect since no one would reasonably expect the mere purchase of a vehicle to actually be dangerous, but would rather suspect the operation of said vehicle might be. Unfortuanately no attempt is made to correlate fatalites to vehicle use. As a second point, this data also indicates that the F-series (not the F150 specifically) is much safer for the driver than several other cars and is just as safe for the driver as the Toyota Tacoma.

Analysis of proof 4: Proof 4 actually indicates that as a class light trucks are if anything safer than passenger cars for their occupants, so it is an anti-proof. It is also the solidest evidence offered, ironically. It does show light trucks are dangerous to non-occupants and are more likely than passenger cars to be involved in a fatality accident, but these points are irrelevant to claim 1. It's weakness as an anti-proof comes from the fact that it doesn't split the F150 from it's classmates. It is however bolstered somewhat by the similarity between the F150 and the Tacoma in proof 3, which weakens proof 1 substantially.

Status of claim 1: Unproven, probably false. Fatality accidents are atypical as compared to accidents overall. The standard test for driver safety actually emulates a two car accident, thus indicating indirectly that two vehicle accidents are at least worth testing against. In a two car accident it is likely the F150 would be the larger of the two and would thus not behave as modeled in proof 1. Further,
for the light truck class the very strong statistical evidence in proof 4 supports this. The F150 may be less safe than its class mates, however.

CLAIM 2: Light trucks are unsafe overall for traffic.

Offered as proof: 1-4 above.

Analysis of proof 1: Similar to claim one, but it begs the question, if only one vehicle is involved, who else got hurt? Thus it is to some degree an anti-proof.
Analysis of proof 2
: Crash tests are only peripherally concerned with overall safety in traffic. This, coupled with the doubts raised vis-a-vis the Tacoma bring this proof into serious question. It is weak for this claim.
Analysis of proof 3: Proof three seems to support this claim, although it's statistical validity is questionable due to the fallacy of correlating fatalities with unit sales.
Analysis of proof 4: Proof 2 supports this claim as well. Although the occupants are slightly safer, everyone else seems to pay for their safety. This is the strongest point for claim 2.

Status of claim 2: Unproven, probably true unless one is only concerned with oneself. Proof 1 is probably pretty bogus, proof 2 supports this claim, as do proofs 3 and 4. Proof 4 is really the nail in the coffin.

In addition to those, there are some other peripheral claims which are so poorly formed it's not worth delving into.

MilesArcher May 28th, 2004 Link

In regards to engineering a F-150 vs a Mini, there are different trade offs for a truck vs a car. Trucks are usually more rigid to be able to handle the a load than a car, which typically makes them less forgiving in an accident.

Being a miata driver, i hope I never impact anything, espectially a vehicle the size of a F-150. My little car would fit right underneath a Hummer.

Gabe May 28th, 2004 Link

Charlie - I can appreciate your enthusasim however you've veered so far off course it's not worth the trouble anymore. It's funny that you're the only one here who can't see the forest for the trees.

JIm May 28th, 2004 Link

Actually he seems to have a pretty coherent argument, and it looks like he's back to addressing the opening points.

Ben May 29th, 2004 Link

Why do you yanks always go for ridiculously big cars anyway?

Mike May 29th, 2004 Link

Hey Ben, don't forget MOST of these american onland boats are still using midevil cart springs!!

Just a small fact froma technical point of view =)

Beth May 29th, 2004 Link

Am I the first female to post? Wow! Anyway my comment relates to an issue that as far as I can tell no one has addressed. If this IS redundant, my apologies. Statistically SUVs and their drivers are in more danger and more dangerous to others one, because of their tendency to roll over and other engineering issues, but more interestingly because of human psychology. SUV owners develop a “King of the Road” mentality. They think they are bigger (ie. better) and safer therefore they take more risks. Something to seriously consider. Here also is a link some of you my find of interest.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5271

Now, back to the point….I LOVE my Mini! Thank you for the interesting reading.
ps. Why can't some of you boys play nice? Lighten up, sheesh!

wheelspin May 29th, 2004 Link

OK. Picture this:
An M1 tank travelling at 60 MPH into an immovable barrier. How mess up is that tank going to be!!?? But if I were to be in a crash, I sure as hell wouldn't pit a Mini vs a tank!. Or an F150 for that matter. Has anyone of you ever SEEN a mini vs F150 cras result? I have seen one in our body shop. We put a new bumper on the F150. ($300) The Mini's rear bumper was up against the front seats, pushing them forward. (We stopped estimating at $25,000 damage…)
Compare a SMALL VEHICLE TO LARGE VEHICLE accident and the small vehicle is TOAST. What this illustrates here is that a MINI would perform well vs a MINI in a head on accident. An F150 would not perform well vs an F150 in a head on accident. However, the F150 would obliterate the Mini in a head on accident. You CANNOT compare these to side by side as is being done here, and assume the smaller car is safer than the F150 in all or ANY crash. PERIOD. It may be safer than other cars IT'S size. But certainly not VS an F150, which is what the F150 crash test is testing it against. This test pits the car or truck against ITSELF.

Guome du Laculotte. May 29th, 2004 Link

Het is wel fijn om te weten dat er een 3e rem achter op gemonteerd zit, toch ??
Gr v Guome.

nobody May 29th, 2004 Link

wheelspin, the info above is not head-on collision info at all, it is single car vs. stationary object at 40MPH. I would have to say that would fall under the “any crash” category (because it is a crash) and, from the numbers above, I think that I would definitely say that the Mini is safer in that crash. Of course, you are right about the headon collision, but that is all you are right about.

Gabe May 29th, 2004 Link

wheelspin - please read before you post. What point you attempted to make is already stated in the article - 3rd sentence actually!

Randy Lahey May 29th, 2004 Link

It's like some of these jackasses above have never heard of inertia. A heavier truck WILL crash harder than a tiny mini. Anyone that says a 70 ton tank vs an unmoveble object wont crush like a pop can at 40mph is a complete and total idiot, when it comes to logical sense making. Honestly, if you think a 2500 pound mini will crush faster than a 5000lb truck, sir or madame, you've got to take another physics class. I'm right.

Dan v May 29th, 2004 Link

This problem has been addressed, and all new f-150's have been changed to dramatically improve carsh test performance. They are now one of the safest vehicles on the road. ANd this topic was seen on an edition of CBS's “48 hours investigates”

Theodore Pride May 29th, 2004 Link

The most interesting point mentioned above is, why are deaths given per million cars rather than per million miles? If certain types of vehicle are driven more than others, you can expect the deaths per million cars to be much higher, regardless of safety.

As for tanks… A tank has SO MUCH inertia and is so solidly built that your “stationary object” is going to be destroyed instead of hurting the tank. Also, I don't think people drive them at combat speed except during combat. :)

David Peilow May 29th, 2004 Link

My god there are some funny comments on this thread. “Active safety is a function of the driver, not the vehicle” - ROFL. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding, but active in this case refers to systems designed to react to an accident - seatbelt tensioners, airbags, hydraulic steering columns etc.

If you want to know why these small european cars do so well in these tests, it is purely down to the work of the European New Car Assessment Program (www.euroncap.com), which over nearly a decade has done a lot of work to first shame and then help European manufacturers with increasingly sophisticated tests. Thanks to them, safety is now a primary consideration amongst buyers here, as the Japanese companies know and as Chrysler found out when the first voyagers were launched here and scored badly so few people would touch them. They quickly went back to the drawing board.

There does seem to be some kind of myth in the States that nothing is safer than solid heavily engineered vehicles. A quote from an Amtrack engineer comes to mind who was commenting on his lovely new Acela and said how he would rather have his heavy steel train than the flimsy aluminum French TGV. I'm sure the Acela is a great vehicle to ride, but the fact remains that there have been full-speed TGV wrecks where everyone has walked away. Why? Because of the excellent structural engineering that goes into them.

Don't get me wrong, I am not meaning to be patronising here - there are obviously engineers in the US that understand this too, eg the guys on Champ car teams with their lightweight but strong tub designs, but the mainstream car manufacturers have obviously got great marketing people that have duped the public into thinking heavier means safer. Decades of materials science have shown otherwise

I hope you check out the EuroNCAP site and see the good that they have done. Many more Europeans can now expect to survive or escape serious injury because of them. You could do a lot worse than campaign for or start a similar organisation in N America.

Eddie May 29th, 2004 Link

I am amazed that towing and occasionally carrying some boxes is about all you yanks can use to justify your purchase of these monstrosities. My dad towed a 19ft steam launch 400 miles with no problems at all, with a 1970's mini pick up truck. That truck pulled a 2 1/2 ton boat for 5.5 hours, and probably returned better MPG whilst doing it, than 90% of your oversized tin boxes.

Plus, I agree with the ability to move out of the way of the SUV/land yacht. I ride motorbikes, for precisely that reason.

I wish you had to pay our prices for petrol [UK], that might stop you buying these fat bastard cars. My bike will return 58mpg at 90mph. Beat that.

Gabe May 29th, 2004 Link

Eddie - there are plenty of us “Yanks” that think like you do believe me :)

Jim May 29th, 2004 Link

This link says passenger cars are more dangerous to ride in per mile than light trucks for every year from 1994 to 2002.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=Trends&stateid=02&year=2002&title2=Occupant

Gabe May 30th, 2004 Link

Actually that only gives you part of the picture. The above information is much more accurate in terms of total fatalities.

Brian May 30th, 2004 Link

I don't know if anyone has said this, but because trucks are seen as more of a work vehicle, the safety standards are not as high on them when it comes to crush resistance and such. If you look at the picture, you can see the roof of the truck is bowed, whereas the roof of the mini is nearly unharmed. It is a more complicated situation than just looking at pictures. Also, the death statistics given. If the ford F-series is the most popular vehicle, it will obviously have the highest death rate because there are more of those vehicles on the road. That is somewhat like saying, we need to produce more food nowadays because there are more people in the world. Well, obviously that is that case. That's pretty much all I have to say.

Phillip Cohen May 30th, 2004 Link

Just got my MINI yesterday. May 29th. LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maxwell H. May 30th, 2004 Link

The most important line in the New Yorker article (which the “debunkers” may be missing) is the following: “The benefits of being nimble–of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble–are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big.”

That acts to negate a large part of the “safer in a tank” mentality.

jebus May 30th, 2004 Link

American cars are crap :) Why is this so shocking???

Infiniti May 30th, 2004 Link

bah just get a volvo, sure they look like boxes on wheels, but they are built like tanks.

Simon May 30th, 2004 Link

Here's a URL to add my grain of salt to the discussion. Just to remind everyone here that the rationale for NOT buying a SUV go way beyond the scope of safety. These cars represent a real danger for the environment, both in terms of fuel consumption, amount of raw materials used and energy in the transformation of these raw materials. Driving is a necessity, but please american citizen, keep it reasonable. I'm seriously pissed when I look at cars on a US highway and I see how much of a waste it is. The SUV trend is a vicious cycle, where even the people who didn't consider buying one 5 years ago will buy one now, simply because they don't feel safe on the roads anymore with all these trucks twice their size, especially twice as tall. Personally I think even in car-car crash, the size doesn't matter that much, it's much more about the ability of the materials to absorb shock in a very short amount of time, read DEFORM, while keeping the driver as well as the passengers in a safe rock-hard cage such as the ones used in F1.Please don't buy SUV's, Please.

Hogan May 30th, 2004 Link

I'd like to see how well a Mini tows a boat. Accident avoidance can be accomplished with good safe defensive driving. I'm not going to argue the statistics that most accidents are single vehicle accidents but if you are in a single vehicle accident chances are you were doing something stupid that you shouldn't have been doing anyway. I drive an F150 and your pictures are not going to put me in a Mini anytime soon. I was perfectly aware of the frontal crash tests when I bought my truck but I don't plan on driving into any trees, telephone polls, or brick walls anytime soon. I feel that I am a good driver and have a higher chance of being involved in an accident with another car where you admittadly say the truck will probably do better.

Jim May 30th, 2004 Link

“The most important line in the New Yorker article (which the “debunkers” may be missing)”

By that reasoning motorcycles should be the safest of all.

Sebastian May 30th, 2004 Link

Ok some people don't seem to understand some of the posts and the point people are making!

NO, you can't actually look at this test compare how the mini will do head on with a F-150, yet it shows what will happen when colliding with a static object.

It also does make a lot of sense why the f-150 had more damage then the mini; the momentum and inertia of the truck are a lot higher. Yet with this said it is still unacceptable as to why the cabin in the F-150 had deteriorated to such extent.

And yes I do agree that this proves that many other manufacturer's out there seem to care more about their customers, and not just their shareholders. It all comes down to greed and morals; because I'm sure many cars on the road could be a lot safer than they are, but they're not.
And that's why the CEO's of Ford are driving BMW's and Benz's.

Just my 2 cents!

Rocketboy May 31st, 2004 Link

I just love how the anti-small car croud is saying that they wouldn't want to be in a MINI if they got hit by a big SUV. Uhhh, I wouldn't want to be in an SUV either in that case. The only time that a SUV driver has the 'advantage' is when it's a Large VS Small accident. When it's a Large VS Large accident, the results are just as fatal as the Large VS Small accident.

micradigitalis May 31st, 2004 Link

They ruined a perfectly good MINI for that picture.

Theodore Pride May 31st, 2004 Link

“These cars represent a real danger for the environment, both in terms of fuel consumption, amount of raw materials used and energy in the transformation of these raw materials.”

I would just like to mention that:

(a) Hybrids are appearing on the market now, and totally hydrogen-powered (or non fossil fuel powered anyhow) vehicles should be available in the next 20-50 years.
(b) The estimated world stockpiles of fossil fuels are enough to last us for at least hundreds of years at current consumption rates.
(c) The human impact on global warming (mainly due to urbanization) is minimal, and human impact on the amount of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere is almost non-existent.

Given that actual pollution from cars (lead, sooty residues) has been pretty much eliminated as well, this only leaves the matter of cost and safety - where an SUV admittedly falls quite short, especially with gas prices as high as they are. Just don't make your buy based on faulty assumptions :)

Timothy Sipples May 31st, 2004 Link

Yes, Ford F-150s are driven more miles, on average, than MINIs. There are a whole lot of them in rural areas where the distances are vast, and fleet operators put miles on them, too.

But they operate in precisely the environments where single vehicle crashes are even more common — sliding off the road and hitting a telephone pole, hitting a moose, etc. So, if I were buying an F-150, I'd very much like to know how it does running into a telephone poll — and that looks an awful lot like the photographs above, doesn't it? Not because I plan to do that, but because if I'm operating it in Colorado on a ranch there's often ice and snow, and accidents happen even with all due care.

Let's play the scenarios and pick a winner in each case:

1. Single vehicle into stationary object: MINI. Less energy. (The very excellent crumple zones have less work to do because they have less energy to dissipate.) Ceterus paribus — that's Latin for other things being equal — I'm much better off. There are lots of these types of accidents.

2. MINI parked touching a concrete wall, large vehicle slamming into the MINI: depends. If the large vehicle has awful design (as too many do), I'll take my chances in the MINI. If it's a Windstar, I'll try that. Very rare accident, by the way. :-)

3. MINI v. large vehicle, MINI not against a wall, MINI not moving (or vectored away): toss-up. MINI will more readily “bounce” off the more massive vehicle. I always wear my seatbelt, even while parked. I've been in this accident — it's your classic rear-ender, for example — and both big and small vehicles did fine.

4. MINI v. large vehicle, MINI not against a wall, MINI also moving: large vehicle slightly favored, assuming it has good design. This would be your vehicle-crossing-median from opposite side type of accident. I'm dead if a semi crosses the median and plows into me. (Then again, I'm dead in any vehicle in that case.)

And then all of those scenarios are colored by how often they occur, active safety, and what I call “footprint” (that MINIs make smaller targets). Ceterus paribus, smaller vehicles have better active safety and obviously make smaller targets. Plus there's rollover. Large vehicles often do, and smaller vehicles often don't. (Amazing nobody mentioned that yet.)

Tally the scores and you quickly realize that…good design is awfully important and dwarfs everything else except maybe good driving. So that's why this page Gabe put together is useful because, even if we don't have perfect information, we do know: (1) this particular Ford F-150 model wouldn't be my pick, even for a truck, because of its lousy engineering; (2) kudos to the MINI engineers on their fine work — and keep working, guys and gals.

Patrick Woo May 31st, 2004 Link

wow the F150 needs a 21 pt roll cage. Ever wonder how street sized WRC cars keep their passengers safe even when thrown a few hundred yards in the air and hit a tree right at its trunk (offset collision too, probably)

It's all in the engineering j00.

Jim May 31st, 2004 Link

I see a lot of talking about how things should be in theory, but no one wants to explain why recent history shows it's safer to ride a mile in a light truck than a passenger car. Anyone?

steve May 31st, 2004 Link

Where can I get the shirt that the f-150 driver is wearing?

Timothy Sipples May 31st, 2004 Link

“…recent history shows it's safer to ride a mile in a light truck than a passenger car….”

Because going to get a gallon of milk in Montana might take 100 miles. Each way.

But airliners beat trucks (and cars) in that department. Way safer per mile.

See the point? It's a lousy denominator (miles), or at least only one of multiple choices. You might try trips for comparison. After all, I don't particularly care how far away the morgue is if I end up in it.

You may have also lurched into a realization that some manufacturers apply the same lousy safety engineering (or lack thereof) to their cars as they do to their trucks. I don't drive a composite of “all cars” — I drive a specific model. (I bet that Volvo beats the F-150, too. Sunfire I'm not so sure about.)

Finally, you didn't say SUV, so I assume those, ahem, suck statistically. I don't see many pick-up trucks in Chicago while everyone has one in Montana, so that fits. (Miles driven where?, in other words.)

Patrick May 31st, 2004 Link

Check out this story from the NYTimes auto section. For people defending the safety of trucks and SUVs, get over it. Need to haul kids? Minivan with AWD for the snow… need a real truck? Go get a Jeep and not a watered down SUV.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/business/yourmoney/30suv.html?pagewanted=1

justin May 31st, 2004 Link

I think its nuts that some people are astonished that the mini did so much better. OF COURSE it did better it probably weights at least half as much as the truck. This test is like comparing apples and oranges. The truck probably has twice as much velocity when it crashes at the same speed. and its also true that if you look at the mini, the impact is basically head on. the f150 on the other hand has a staggered impact on the front. a smaller car, with a smaller engine, has more room in absorb the impact of a collision.

Jim May 31st, 2004 Link

“I bet that Volvo beats the F-150″

Probably. You realize Volvo is owned by Ford, right?

Jim May 31st, 2004 Link

“Finally, you didn't say SUV, so I assume those, ahem, suck statistically”

Ahem, bad assumption. You should follow the link. Large SUVs get classified as light trucks, which, statistically, are safer to ride a mile in than a passenger car. It IS ABOUT physics. 44% of fatal crashes involve multiple vehicles, and people in big vehicles tend to be the survivors.

Gabe May 31st, 2004 Link

This is an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint. First off a death is a death. Whether the person in the truck dies or the truck causes the death of someone in a car - a death is a death.

The rational that you elude to is what leads people to arm themselves with these vehicles. The problem with this vicious cycle is that these arms keep getting bigger and bigger leading to more serious injuries or fatalities.

And of course it's these people that care so much about “safety” who buy large SUVs then look the other way when people are killed becuase of them.

Here are some things to remember:

“SUVs inflict more harm on occupants than other cars do,” said Brian O'Neill, president of an insurance industry group that will release new statistics on SUV safety at the hearing. (source)

…and from another CNN story:

“People in most small SUVs are likely to be seriously injured or killed in side-impact crashes, according to a report by an insurance group Tuesday.(source)

…and yet more evidence that SUVs and truck pose a danger to not only others but to their drivers:

The number of people killed in sport/utility rollover crashes jumped 14 percent last year as total highway deaths hit a 12-year high of nearly 43,000, according to a government report.

Meanwhile, car crash injuries fell to an all-time low last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in its report, issued Thursday. Child and pedestrian deaths also fell, as did fatalities involving large (commercial) trucks.

But SUV rollovers killed more than 2,400 people last year, a 14 percent increase from 2001, the government said. It did not offer a reason for the increase. Nearly two-thirds, or 61 percent, of all SUV fatalities involved rollovers. (source)

Jim Jun 1st, 2004 Link

“This is an incredibly short-sighted viewpoint”

It sure is. Couldn't agree more. But you have to admit, riding in a huge vehicle is safer, and those who do so to protect themselves are in fact protecting themselves. Look at the fatality rates for heavy trucks - practically NO ONE dies riding inside one of those puppies.

As Mr. Scott used to say, “Ya canna change the laws of physics”.

:-)

Mike Jun 1st, 2004 Link

“I think its nuts that some people are astonished that the mini did so much better. OF COURSE it did better it probably weights at least half as much as the truck. This test is like comparing apples and oranges. The truck probably has twice as much velocity when it crashes at the same speed. and its also true that if you look at the mini, the impact is basically head on. the f150 on the other hand has a staggered impact on the front. a smaller car, with a smaller engine, has more room in absorb the impact of a collision.”

The Tundra, which probably weighs about what the Ford does, did dramaticly better than the older F150s. The 04 F150 does better. A heavy vehicle does not have to do poorly in this test.

http://www.hwysafety.org

Tundra pic:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicleratings/ce/photos/01082_22.jpg

Mike Jun 1st, 2004 Link

“a smaller car, with a smaller engine, has more room in absorb the impact of a collision”

How exactly does that work? Run that by a few people who ride motorcycles. Please get back to us with their responses.

123 Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Damn

OMG Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Ok, for those that did not finish school, and don't quite grasp this Mini vs F150 impact test:

It doesn't matter if the car is a half ton, or a 2 ton truck. Both were moving the same speed, and hit the same immobile wall.. The 'results' is where they differ!
Forget cars: Take a 150lb man, take a 300lb man. drop them from a 2 story window. Tell me the 300 lb man is gonna have more broken bones than the 150lb man and I'll show you someone who doesn't understand physics..

The F-150 is POORLY designed for impacts, however it pulls boats nicely.

The Mini is WELL designed for impacts, however you're lucky if you can haul groceries much less anything else.

I've seen this exact discussion on Dateline on NBC, where they nicely gave Ford a black eye about the F150, and their 'fixed' version of the F150 (Even though they continue to sell the dangerous model!).

Noah Daniels Jun 1st, 2004 Link

I'd like to respond to some of the comments about the likelihood of single-vehicle vs. two-vehicle crashes, and so on.

I'd say it's pretty clear that a better handling car like a Mini or RX-8 or even my relatively piggish Audi S4 will do much better at avoiding an accident than an overweight behemoth like an H2 or Yukon Denali, or even a normal truck like an F-150.

Also, the results seem to indicate that a safety-engineered vehicle (Mini, Audi, 2004 F-150… not sure about the RX-8) will do much better in a crash with an essentially immovable object (bridge abutment, big tree) than a non-safety-engineered vehicle (Chevy Cavalier, older F-150, what have you).

Someone pointed out that you're unlikely to plow into a bridge abutment. That's true; that sort of loss-of-control 1-car accident usually happens when you're driving out of control - way too fast, or too fast for conditions (hitting black ice, etc). However, head-on car-to-car collisions are also very rare. What's more likely within the realm of dangerous crashes (I'm not talking fender-benders) are the sort of crash where one car clips another, and one or both THEN go out of control, possibly hitting something like a bridge abutment or tree. In that sort of case, a vehicle like the Mini has THREE advantages over something like the old F-150:

1. You're more likely to avoid the accident in the first place

2. You're more likely to be able to recover control after a vehicle clips you or you hit a patch of ice

3. You're more likely to survive the resulting collision.

Now, the new F-150 addresses only the last of those. And as I said, car-to-car head-on collisions are very rare.

However, I'd rather be a highly skilled driver in an old F-150 than an incompetent, oblivious driver in anything else. That is, there's no replacement for being a skilled, aware driver. Drivers' education in this country SUCKS, and drivers tend to have horrible habits - tailgating, yakking on cell phones, general lack of skill when it comes to car handling - and that is more dangerous than any vehicle by itself can ever be. Perhaps if our drivers ed system were like Germany's - and we taught drivers how to actually control a skid (no, you do NOT just turn into the skid!) and about understeer and oversteer and the friction circle, and actually forced new drivers to get OUT of control in a car to develop the instinct for how to get it back IN control - we would all be much safer.

Anyways, you can do your own part in this - go to a high performance driving school (Skip Barber, Bondurant, etc) and learn how to handle a car. Or join a car club that does track events - not racing, but untimed track events - such as COM, SCDA, ACNA, BMWCCA - and learn how to be a much safer driver.

And hang up the cell phone and stop tailgating. Regardless of what you're driving.

Gabe Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Well said Noah.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Oddly, my posts keep accidentally getting erased

“… forest for the trees”

Physician, heal thyself. You start off saying you don't wish to consider multi-car accidents, then later you decide you want to talk about danger to non-occupants. You can't have it both ways Gabe. Which is it?

Can you decide what you want to talk about and stop tap dancing around?

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Oddly, my posts keep accidentally getting erased

“… forest for the trees”

Physician, heal thyself. You start off saying you don't wish to consider multi-car accidents, then later you decide you want to talk about danger to non-occupants. You can't have it both ways Gabe. Which is it?

Can you decide what you want to talk about and stop tap dancing around?

What's the matter, facts hurt your case?

Gabe Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Your point makes absolutely no sense.

Why can't people talk about the safety issue as a whole? Why does someone have to choose one aspect of it? Why do you have a problem with people discussing multiple issues on this post?

The article started out as a simple discussion on the preconceived notion that bigger is always better. Then some points were brought up and a a section was added to address those points.

It seems like you're desperately grasping at straws here…

Eddie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

A filling station in Chelsea, London is now charging 112p per litre, and if we take the exchange rate, and your bigger imperial gallon, means American's would be paying $11.24 per gallon!!! God I love trouble in the middle east! Ask yourself how many yanks will be buying SUV's if these prices reach the US?

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Not at all. I just find it humorous that so few want to admit the obvious; Bigger cars do protect their occupants overall in the real world.

Then, to try and 'prove' their point they will suddenly want to restrict conversation to a sliver of the subject (no multi-car incidents, for instance) and simultaneously expand it (injury to other vehicle occupants) in an incompatible way.

Bigger isn't always better, but statistically being in the bigger rig will make one more likely to be the survivor, and in all honesty I can't blame folks for wanting to live. Wanting to protect themselves and those they love doesn't make them bad people.

In any case I doubt safety is the primary purchase motivator, I suspect utility, spaciousness and luxury are.

Gabe Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Your statistical assumptions are dubious at best.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

There are no assumptions. Figures like you quoted are true, and at the same time misleading. For instance, I could say that in the USA 250% more people died in passenger cars than in light trucks/SUVs in 2002 and it would be completely true, verifiable by figures from the NHTSA. I would be lying with statistics though, because the use of passenger cars outweighs the use of SUVs/light trucks, skewing the numbers.

The real number is more like a person in a passenger car is 25% more likely to die per mile traveled than a person in a light truck or SUV. That isn't an assumption, that's a measured fact, compiled by the US government.

Thanks to 'Jim' for doing the leg work - see his link.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Oops, math error, and it's 2001. 10% more likely.

1.3 vs. 1.2 occupant deaths per vehicle mile.

Noah Daniels Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Charlie - an interesting experiment would be to see what years those statistics are valid for. In other words, there are very few SUVs that pre-date, say, 1990, and fairly few that pre-date 1995 or so. The huge SUV craze is fairly recent. This means that there are relatively few OLD SUVs skewing the SUV safety statistics.

On the other hand, cars from the 1980s and even early 1990s were nowhere NEAR as safe as cars today, both in collision avoidance and collision survival. Yet if those older cars are present in significant numbers in the NHTSA's statistics, they'll be skewing the numbers.

In other words, if the NHTSA's statistics look at all vehicles going back, say, 10 or 15 years or more, it'll be a useless measure for the safety of NEW vehicles built today. If their statistics look at only the last couple years of vehicles, then it is much more meaningful as a predictor of the safety of today's vehicles.

Regardless, as a reasonably competent driver, I'd take my Audi S4 or my girlfriend's Mini Cooper S over any truck or SUV any day.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Obviously the most important things safety wise have nothing to do with vehicle selection. Not driving drunk would be at or near the top of the list of a lot of other risky behaviors, way before what one decides to drive.

I just think the craze against SUVs is way overstated. I come from a very rural area originally and it was common for most people to drive a light truck, but not like I see now in the city. In the rural areas people actually need and use their trucks, whereas in the city (Portland, OR) I'd bet the VAST magority of SUVs and trucks never see a trailer. a load or anything more challenging than a gravel driveway.

It's silly, sure, and maybe the gas prices we're seeing will bring some sanity to it soon. But I think railing against the horrors of the light truck industry like the New Yorker article does is a serious over reaction.

Anyway, peace, enjoy your Audi. I drive a Jetta Diesel, BTW.

Noah Daniels Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Yeah, I have no problem with anyone picking the right vehicle for the job, but I live in the Boston area, where you see MOST SUV owners having no real need for an SUV. It makes driving on the highway irritating, because they block your view of the road ahead; also, if they're behind you, because they have a better view, they tend to tailgate terribly.

My neighbor has a Hummer H2. He doesn't use it to tow anything - in fact, he barely drives it given the current gas prices, but it's mostly there so he can feel like he's driving the biggest thing around.

Sure, it's his right to drive it, but… well, frankly I think he's an idiot.

I would much rather see the effort put into closing the “light truck loophole” regarding emissions & gas guzzler taxes. If SUVs were at least held to the same standards as cars, and weren't exempt from gas guzzler taxes and safety standards, the situation might be a little better.

Noah Daniels Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Oh, and enjoy the Jetta, it's a fine car :)

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Personally I think the whole gas guzzler tax is stupid. Raising gas prices is the right thing, via economic or tax measures. Make each person pay exactly for what they use.

Gabe Jun 1st, 2004 Link

100% agree. Taxing a gallon of gas at a higher level makes a lot more sense for a number of reasons.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Absolutely. Take the money and spend on alternate fuel development or something useful and related to fuel use, and apply pressure to be economical at the same time.

Gabe Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Oh my God - exactly what I've been saying for years. What d'ya know…

Noah Daniels Jun 1st, 2004 Link

That would be fine by me, too - it's essentially a flat tax then. But having a gas guzzler tax so that the new V8-powered Audi S4 which gets 19mpg (yeah, kinda sucky) pays a $1700 gas guzzler tax, but an H2 which gets like 9mpg pays NO gas guzzler tax, is pretty absurd.

And exempting trucks from emissions and the strictest safety requirements made sense when trucks were only used for work, but now when there are tons of “trucks” (SUVs) on the road that are getting away with polluting and being unsafe to other vehicles, it's pretty bad. Yup, the requirements for the damage a car can inflict on another car are pretty stringent; a TRUCK is not held to the same standard.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

I have problems gettng too worked up about emissions laws when I see a 1992 Geo Metro (this morning, it varies) spewing a blue cloud of stench behind itself. This single car is doing more harm than a dozen new Ford Expeditions.

Noah Daniels Jun 1st, 2004 Link

But in most states (and soon, all states) that Metro could not pass the required emissions inspection, and thus would not be able to be driven legally. Now, there will always be people who don't get their cars inspected and somehow avoid tickets, or who bribe the inspection places, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. The problem is vehicles that are EXEMPT from emissions requirements, and continue to pollute.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

In theory that's here too, but in fact if a vehicle has visible emissions I think it should get instantly tagged and parked, no questions asked. And they do have to pass emissions standards, just less strict. Emissions are to some degree coupled with consumption - make consumption expensive and the rest will probably fall in line. I hate too many laws, it only makes for selective enforcement.

Noah Daniels Jun 1st, 2004 Link

I don't want to argue this to too fine a point, but I think there DOES need to be emissions and safety and gas tax parity between trucks and cars. Sure, emissions can be tied to fuel consumption or something.

At the other end, I think there should be EXEMPTIONS to protect extremely limited-production cars that won't make an overall dent in the total emissions volume of the world. I can drive a catalytic converter-less race car as much as I want on a racetrack, but an exotic sports car that doesn't meet emissions requirements can't be brought to this country. It's a shame that works of art like the Porsche 959 couldn't be driven here. I think something like a 10 or 20 thousand dollar “exemption fee” should be available; one could complain that it just panders to the rich (and I certainly couldn't afford it myself) but it would be nice if there were some way to keep unique cars like McLarens, Lamborghinis, and TVRs on the road in extremely limited numbers, based on the idea that the cost will make the pollution self-limiting and they don't fall under the same category as a basic transportation vehicle.

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

I think we agree in principle. I just like the KISS system, and the creation of too many laws tends to violate that. Economic pressure works, I think we should primarily use that. Driving everywhere on a whim is a privilege, after all, not a right.

Trying to get vehicles to suck hydrocarbons and emit pure oxygen is a misguided effort. Obviously there is a middle ground, but I suspect we're near a place where diminishing returns are setting in. We should concentrate on enforcing what we have and making the big leaps elsewhere.

And I agree with the idea of limited cars. Heck, I'd like to build a fast kit car, but I'd only drive it very few miles per year. Overall it wouldn't emit much, but I'd hate to be forced to run it through the same emissions hoops as production cars go through.

CADster Jun 1st, 2004 Link

do you think the Ford truck has the highest numbers because its the vehicle with the highest number on the road ?

Charlie Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Highest numbers for what? It actually is, according to the New Yorker article, about the same 'danger' to its driver as the Tacoma. I suspect it has high overall numbers because it's big, and therefore packs a lot of kinetic energy with it and it's a fleet rig and therefore covers a lot of miles. But I have no statistical basis for those gut feelings.

Designer Jun 1st, 2004 Link

Yeah the reason for this ridiculous…the design and safety standards for passenger vehicles is different than those for cargo vehicles.
Hence BMW was subject to much more stringent pasenger safety requirements when designing the mini than ford was when designing the f-150.
Now, as most SUV's also slip through the same loophole into cargo or working vehicles they often do not have such “advanced safety features” as crumple zones designed into them.
Instead they rely upon their mass and rigid frame to resist impacts,
Which, of course works well at low speeds and when in collision w. something lighter than you.
However when you run into a fixed object w/ much greater mass than you; say a tree or a wall, you can say sayonara to the front seat occupants cause your mass and rigidity work against you.

W. Kiernan Jun 1st, 2004 Link

You know, I don't buy a car to wreck it, I buy a car to drive it. I know I'm going to die someday for sure but while I'm alive I want to enjoy my ride. I drive a nine-year-old 4WD F-150 at work* (sheesh lookit that picture shiver) and it does the job all right (carry a half ton of land survey junk on and off road) but it ain't no fun to drive. Now my personal car, a '93 Miata, that's all kind of fun.

• that is when old 107's not in the shop, and when all too often it is, I just cram my robotic transit and poles and tripods in the passenger seat of my Miata and zoomzoom off to survey in style…

Jim Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

No amount of engineering is going to reduce the so called 'deadliness' of vehicles like the F150 much. Most of it comes simply from being big, and they have to be big to do their job.

Stuart Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

Great arguments and counter arguments, Just remember there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Or to put it another way,
Who would you rather wake up with with Big Ugly, or Small and Cute :-)
Now I'm expecting a flaming here.

Brent Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

You know, that table really pisses me off. Not because I'm some F150 lover, but just because they are using raw numbers to illustrate the point they want to make: the F-150 is unsafe. They indicate that the table is the number of fatalities per million cars, but they neglect to say HOW MANY million cars that involves! I can guarantee you, though, that there's a TON more F-150's out there than Toyota Avalons, so of course there are going to be more fatal accidents involving a vehicle that comprises probably 10-15% of the total vehicles on the road. Show me numbers as percentages of the total vehicles on the road, and I bet you the F-150 would score much better. Additionally, the table neglects to mention, or differentiate between, model years. How are we to know that 90% of the F-150's in that statistic are not from the 80's or early 90's? While the first pictures are amusing, enlightening, and scary, this whole article does nothing but push a particular agenda, and that pisses me off. Give me the facts, and let me make up my own damn mind.

Matt Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

To Brent…. Ummm…. Did you not read the chart? The number posted are not total deaths but deaths per million. All of those numbers are how many deaths occured for every 1,000,000 of those vehicles on the road.

Next time, read before you speak.

Brent Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

Matt,

Why don't you be quiet while the adults have a chat, okay? Now, I'll grant you that it says deaths per 1M vehicles, but that doesn't exactly level the playing field. One of the key points I made is that there's no distinction made between model years. If you go back to the 1970's, there have probably been something on the order of 30-50 million F150's sold. During that same time, how many Avalons have been sold? 2 Million? 3 Million? The chart above simply lumps ALL F150's together, rather than indicating a specific model year. That means that 200 of those 238 total deaths could have resulted from trucks that were over 20 years old! 20 Years ago, we had FAR different safety standards. To portray the “statistics” in the light of reflecting the current vehicle's performance, however, is a fallacy.

Alex Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

Wow Brent, for someone who (very obviously) didn't read the chart heading very well you certainly are quick to throw out the insults eh?

WHY IS THIS SUCH AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE? It is a FACT that SUV's and trucks do NOT have to meet the same regulatory safety standards as passenger cars. It is also a FACT that car companies (ANY car company, not just Ford) LOVE SUV's for this very reason…. it makes them cheaper to produce and much higher margin due to lower R&D costs.

This has been the case since the Explorer hit the scene in the early 90's and will continue to be the case until we get some competent legislation on the books that holds these beasts up the the same safety standards as other vehicles.

The fact is, that the previous generation F-150 was still using the same platform from the late 1980's (as are almost all Explorers). So honestly, it really doesn't matter WHAT year those numbers were for, as it could just have easily included, for example, Toyota Camry's built in the early 80's that are equally behind on safety features. Since it is normalized for vehicles sold, it doesn't matter if they've sold 10x as many Explorers in the same timeframe, it only matters that the timeframe for the various makes/models is in a similar range.

The simple, undeniable fact is that (until the 2004 model) the F150 was VERY poorly engineered for safety. It's only “safety” component to speak of was it's large size and solid steel frame (and maybe a couple airbags for good measure).

You're right, 20 years ago we DID have more lax safety standards…. consider, however, before you make yourself out to be an ass, that the F150 wasn't the only vehicle sold in 1984.

Charlie Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

Name a current passenger car that has sold as many units for as long as the F series. Didn't think so. His point is valid.

Fact is that 'these beasts' are as safe for their occupants as passenger cars are, and the threat they pose to non-occupants is mostly intrinsic to their size and mass, things that more engineering won't fix and static crash tests won't detect.

Alex Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

I still don't understand what it matters if the F series has sold more units over a longer period than all of the others.

If it is normalized for units sold over the entire life of the vehicle, then yes you have a case that 1970's F150's were probably horrifically dangerous by modern standards (even the F150 pictured above). Since none of us know, and the table doesn't say, we can't really argue that point.

But, if you TRULY believe that a large vehicle is AS SAFE for it's occupants as a passenger car; you are, no offense intended I promise, delusional on this issue.

It is a plain, simple, provable, undeniable FACT that SUVs and light trucks are held to lower safety standards than passenger cars. They use rigid steel frames to derive all of their strength which does NOT adequately protect passengers when hitting an immovable object.

In a two-car accident, yes, the truck/SUV/whatever will come out on top with less damage to it's occupants. But, as many have pointed out, these accidents where NEITHER car runs off the road and hits a stationary object are comparatively RARE (at least among fatality/serious injury accidents, which is what we are discussing here).

But if that F150 hits another car and looses control only to swing into a bridge abutement or guard wall or tree, or whatever IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT THE PASSENGERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE HARMED. The extra weight, and consequently kenetic energy is MUCH higher… that is the cause of the damage yes, BUT, poor safety regulations for such vehicles are an aggravating factor that make the situation that much worse.

Let me put it to you like this, and I think this is the point Gabe is trying to make originally; If you are driving an F150 down the highway and clip the rear corner of an Avalon driving about 70mph several things could happen (and I'm not trying to be comprehensive so please don't pick this apart too much):

1) Everyone regains control and goes about their merry way (maybe stopping to call a cop or something).

2) You lose control because your vehicle has poor “active safety” and careene into the median wall, while the Avalon (thanks to good engineering, luck, or whatever) safely recovers and manages to come to a stop unharmed.

3) You regain control because the impact with the Avalon didn't have sufficient energy to knock you off course, in which case the Avalon took most of the energy from the hit and is probably hitting said wall.

4) You both loose control and hit various immovable objects or other cars etc.

Now, in ANY of these cases except #3 the Avalon wins, and I'll tell you why.

If you DO clip the smaller car, it is more manuverable and much more likely to regain control (simple physics… not as much weight transfer and therefore more even traction)…

If it DOES lose control, it still wins because well-engineered crumple zones and its relatively low weight mean less energy (and better dissipated) and therefore less damage.

On the other hand, your F150 (if it looses control) has been PROVEN (by tests like the above) to fair very poorly when hitting stationary objects. Since your vehicle is more likely to lose control (more weight transfer, less manuverable, slower braking, etc.) this type of test is quite relevant.

To me that is NOT, in any way, “as safe” as passenger cars to the occupants. Just LOOK at the picture man, I mean come on? You tell me which of those dummies went to the hospital?

Charlie Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

This is all very lovely school boy imagining, but sadly the measured facts differ from your idea of what 'should happen'.

The table from the New Yorker clearly shows the Tacoma is just as likely to kill its driver as the F-series is, yet the Tacoma passes a static crash test with flying colors. What is the difference? Size, mostly. Size matters in the real world. Of course that same large size tends to kill people outside the big rig, but being big isn't a matter of safety standards, crash testing or good engineering. The big size is a requirement for a lot of the tasks a light truck needs to do, so that aspect can't be engineered away.

Alex Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

Two things to note:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/98003.htm

Firstly, the Tacoma hardly passed “with flying colors”. It did rather well, but not perfectly.

Secondly, it isn't “school boy imagining” that passenger cars are safer to their drivers….

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=Trends&stateid=0&year=2001&title2=General

That link from above proves my point. Per 100million vehicle miles traveled, passenger car deaths have been lower than light trucks for the past 7 years (at least). Not only that, but you'll notice that passenger car death rates have reduced (per VMT) approximately half a point, while light trucks have only reduced 1/5.

To me, that says that not only are passenger cars statistically safer to the driver, but they also have improved their safety over the years at a much (almost double) higher rate.

What am I imagining?

Charlie Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

Alex, read it more carefully. The page you linked to isn't occupant deaths per VMT, it's fatal accidents per VMT, a completely different thing. This page shows occupant deaths per VMT:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=Trends&stateid=0&year=2001&title2=Occupants

The above link shows occupant deaths per VMT. Passenger cars, 1.3 vs Light Trucks, 1.2.

That is what you were imagining.

Timothy Sipples Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

Charlie, the per miles is still a problem. You have to control for the relative difference in where each type of vehicle is used. Cars are biased toward urban areas (with more accidents), and light trucks are biased toward more rural areas (with fewer accidents and more miles).

One way to start to tackle that is to look at per trip statistics rather than per mile. Got any idea where those stats are?

I also am sympathetic to the argument (listed above) that we ought to look at, say, occupant deaths per trip in vehicles built within the past, say, six years. That would better control for differences in fleet age. Cars last longer, I believe, and with continuing safety improvements in both types of vehicles it's not fair to compare older cars against newer trucks.

Charlie Jun 2nd, 2004 Link

You are probably correct, however it is interesting that one of the 'trends' in the database indicates most fatal accidents occur on roads with speed limits 55 and above, not urban roads, which would actually artifically tip the stats AGAINST trucks if your use assumtions are correct.

And I have no idea where to find trip stats.

Stuart Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

At 3:02 p.m., police responded to a two-car crash near 809 Main Road. Police said Antonio Medeiros, 39, of Celtic Drive was headed north in a 2000 Ford pickup when he tried to make an improper turn into the Cumberland Farms parking lot. His truck hit the front of a 2004 Mini Cooper headed south on Main Road. Police said there was extensive damage to the Mini Cooper but no injuries.

From a newswire story picked up yesterday. ;-)

Dave Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

American cars have been poorly engineered for the last decade. It is only recently that they started playing catchup. Perfect examply is the F150. Even though it has been the best selling truck for the past zillion years or so it still has a terrible crash rating until 2004.

Whats with that?? Then you have people argueing that if they drive a big heavy truck you'll be safe on the road if you arent stupid and don't drive dangerously. Thats just ridiculous. Maybe that MINI driving head on will get smashed and you'll have a dent on your bumper but thats not comparing apples to apples. What if a BMW X5 is coming right at you? Or a Mercedes ML500? They weigh around the same as your 150 give or take and have a much better crash rating. Who will survive then?

Emily Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

There are also videos of these crash tests available at http://www.progressive.com/rc/Vsafety/rccrashvideos.asp?IMAGE1.X=0&IMAGE1.Y=0
Very interesting to see. Of course, the F-150 is the 2nd-worst vehicle tested by the IIHS, the 1st prize for worst goes to the Pontiac TransSport/Pontiac Montana/Olds Silhouette/Chevy Venture, as seen here: http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/96026.htm
Shockingly, this van is still being sold, and GM claims that it is “safe”.
You wouldn't know anything about the crash test performance of the H2, would you? The only things I know right now are:
1. It does not have a shoulder belt in the back center seat, only a lap belt, and
2. Side airbags are not even available.
That does not bode well for the rest of its safety.

As for the MiniCooper v.s. F-150, factor into the equation that trucks have a higher rollover rate that SUVs and you'd be NUTS to drive the Ford. Trucks have a much higher deathrate per 1,000,000 vehicles than SUVs also. [IMG]http://www.hwysafety.org/safetyfacts/fatalityfacts/images/passvehchart2002.gif[/IMG]

For the guy whining about how many F-150s were sold in what year, etc wah wah wah, see this web page: http://www.hwysafety.org/safetyfacts/fatalityfacts/passveh.htm
Scroll down to Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles [b]1-3 years old[/b]
and you will see that either trucks are inherently less safe than passenger cars, or truck drivers are SUCH horrible drivers that they somehow manage to kill themselves at an astounding rate despite the vehicles' inherent safety.
It has to be one of the two. Take your pick.

Timothy Sipples Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

Here's the link for the Ford-MINI altercation near a Cumberland Farms:

http://www.eastbayri.com/print/291443044225377.php

Alexander Lapajne Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

There a thing that don't make sense in the bigger is better discussion. I guess you feel safe owning a F-150 today because you know that in a collision with another car you'll probably be in the bigger car (although considering that you're in the most sold car it's quite likely that you'll be crashing into another F-150). So what happens when everyone drives a F-150? You all of a sudden need a bigger car to protect yourself in crashes against other F-150. So you'll by a hummer? Now, this will lead to everyone driving hummers to feel safe. What's next then? Buying a big rig?

Steve Wang Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

BAD TEST - I must say I love the Mini but I would be scared to be in an accident while driving in one.

I think this is a really bad test. This gives the Mini driver/owner a really bad sense of false security. From basic physics, Momentum = Mass x Velocity aka (p = m*v)

I assume the truck weighs much more then the Mini so that means the truck hit the wall much harder (more momentum) than the Mini. The only way the test would be equal is if you drove the truck slower into the wall than the Mini's speed(v)

Alex Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

Steve,

You're missing the point. This isn't to say that the MINI would “win” in an accident between the two vehicles….

But the fact remains that particular model F-150 would (likely) kill or seriously injure its occupant if it hit a solid object offset at anything over 40mph. This is a VERY realistic scenario, which is what makes it so shocking. Yes, the F150 DOES have physics working against it in this case, but that's all the MORE reason that Ford should pay more attention to safety (which apparently they have w/ the 2004 model year).

ESB Mike Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

size means nothing. big is a loose term. if you want to compare big to big, compare f-150 to tundra. wow, tundra looks just like the mini cooper did…no damage to driver compartment. meaning there is an obvious flaw in the design of the f-150. what is it? “crumple-zone” frame. an idea that works good in certain circumstances, like small cars, to absorb impacts like a shock absorber. well…the f-150s shock absorber needs to be revalved because its cheap frame crumples into scrap metal and killing the driver. a fullsize pickup does not have to be that unsafe, and none of the other vehicles in its class is that unsafe. do people REALLY love thier f-150 that much to where they refuse to even look at whats right in front of them? who am i to talk about this? an offroad raceing suspension engineer. ive worked with every type of truck out there at one point, and can say from personal experience whos frames are built to take an impact and which are going to let you die…and the f-150s is by far the worst.

now, on the subject of SUVs and all that… its unfair in some regards to label trucks as SUVs, as trucks are designed around the fundamental need to carry things. the world would not funcntion without these vehicles, they are an absolute neccessity to every aspect of life. classifying trucks and SUVs togather makes no sense. an SUV is a car that wants to be bigger like a truck, and use alot of gas like a truck, but doesnt (most of the time, there are exceptions) do as well on the road or as well with gas or as well with carrying things as a truck or car. no, i dont think that all these PTA moms need to be driving H2s to the after school meetings and getting groceries on thier way home. dad doesnt need to drive his v8 diesle superduty truck to the store to get a 6 pack….but people are going to anyways. youll never convince someone who has enough money for one vehicle, that HAS to be used for utility as well as daily driving, that they cant drive their work truck to the store or commute in it because its killing the air and stuff. they dont care, and they dont care because they dont have a choice most of the time.

point is. every vehicle out there has its place (most of the time). there HAS to be fullsize pickup trucks. its a shame that so many drive those instead of small cars which work better as commuter vehicles, are safer, and more fuel efficient..but part of living in america is the freedom to decide what you want to drive, how much you want to drive it, and not have someone tell you that you cant have that truck because its too big for you.its just the way the world works.

think about this. i was building full cages, with almost no money put into them, when i was 16 years old and taught myself how to weld. now…what kind of sense does it make that a 16 year old kid, with no money or engineering education, can make a vehicle more safe than the manufacturor, with an unilmited budget and the pick of any great engineering mind they want? it doesnt make any sense. its not at all beyond technology for no one to ever die in a car accident again, and i would personally pay way more money for a vehicle that they could say “look…you wont die in an accident!” and i think the rest of america, as well as the world, would as well.

Charlie Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

I don't think anyone is arguing that the F-Series is an optimally designed vehicle. I know I'm not. My reasoning is simply this; There are bigger problems out there with regard to safety, much bigger ones. The statistics cited so far indicate the F-Series is about the same as far as real world safety as the Toyota Tundra, which did light years better in the same crash test. My conclusion given that, is that this test isn't a terribly good predictor of real world safety. Bigger factors must be involved, and while I laud any attempt to improve the results realistically I can't get very emotionally charged over it. So, for driver/occupant safety the F-Series is about average and light trucks in general are better than average.

As for overall lethality, killing occupants of OTHER vehicles isn't something that will respond to re-engineering the F-Series. Rather, this is a function of size and mass which isn't going to change much given the mission trucks must be able to fulfill.

In my opinion the core addressable problem is, as a poster already observed, people choosing a Suburban or Expedition as a commuter vehicle. Again, engineering can't help that, but increasing fuel costs probably will.

Jayson Stansfield Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

Although the results of the test seem conclusive, one must consider more than just
the number of fatalities per million vehicles in the attached tables. Personally
I suspect the driving habits of SUV and truck owners played a role also in the high fatalities. If your reading this at work, take note of the vehicles that raise your blood pressure on the drive home.

Charlie Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

My personal list seems to cut across the vehicle spectrum, but if I had to pick a single vehicle type as most likely to be poorly driven it would be mini-vans, truthfully.

Jayson Stansfield Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

Noone,

A very fair comment! I agree
here too, but for some reason in Canada, the first snow storm is followed by 4×4's and SUV's lining the ditches
of our major highways, presumably the drivers are lulled into a false sense of security by their bigger, and
alledgely safer vehicles…

on a lighter note, perhaps mini-van drivers would perform better if it weren't for the screamings kids in the back on the way to hockey practice..!!

CADster Jun 3rd, 2004 Link

Dave. you said this - American cars have been poorly engineered for the last decade. It is only recently that they started playing catchup. Perfect examply is the F150

how amny F-150 trucks have you owned ?

I have owned 3 (i have driven trucks for the past 20 years). I have also owned other makes, both forign and domestic.

the only import truck worth owning is toyota. the only US truck worth owning is Ford. Dodge would get a nod if they could make a good transmission again.

they sell more then any other make for a reason.. they are the toughest trucks made.

Dave Jun 4th, 2004 Link

CADster, how do you define tough? According to research if you drove into a wall at 40mph with your F-150 you have a 30 percent chance of being dead. If you drove a Toyota tundra your looking at a 5% death rate. Around the same as a mini cooper. So what do you define as tough?

I'm just saying that big is not necessarily better. There is more to safety than just size.

Dave Jun 4th, 2004 Link

Jayson, actually the vehicles that raise my blood pressure are the riced out civics and eclipses racing down the highway at 100mph…

Cyclist Jun 4th, 2004 Link

“Trucks are more prone to roll over than cars because they have a higher center of gravity. Nearly a quarter of all fatalities in 2002 — 10,626 people — died in rollovers, mosts of them involving SUVs or light trucks.”

Thats 3x Sep 11th, every year, from rollovers!

http://consumeraffairs.com/news04/ford_sporttrac.html

Andy Jun 4th, 2004 Link

WOW
I admit it, I only read about 1/3 of the posts. I would say 4/5 of them pretty much say “I currently own or want to own this car, and it's way better”

Quick version: In this situation, I'd would rather have been in the Mini than the F150. Although it doesn't look like the “driver” of the F150 would have sustained much injury. (Maybe something with the knees.)

Besides a comparison between a pickup and a compact is flawed from the begining. “What's better: Apples or Oranges?”

Being intrested in how Ford could create a vehicle that performs so badly is an odd argument to make to show that Mini's are good cars.
Could I say Ford Focus's are better because BMW has used forced labor to manufacture their product?

Buy the car that's best for you that fits your budget.

Are you a teenager or inexperienced driver? Maybe a car that can survive a 40mph accident with a wall would be best.

Do you feel seatbelts are optional? Maybe a larger SUV that will kill everyone you hit without you feeling anything would be best.

Do you need to haul trailers? Don't buy a Mini if you do.

Will you be the only person in your group of friends with a car? That Corvette probably isn't a good choice.

Wanna' drive twice the speed limit? The SUV has the power, but something with a lower center of gravity would serve you better.

Driving through the sewers of Italy and wanna do it in style? Mini's all the way!

Are you only driving to work and back on familiar streets (your spouse/parrents take care of the groceries and dropping the kids off)? Go for a coupe.

Is going off road a regular thing? Better get something with enough clearance.

Snow, rain, stop and go, gas consumption, roadtrips, average distance, luxury, styling… the list goes on and on.

Andy Jun 4th, 2004 Link

A couple more things…

I would like to see statistics on fatalities from accidents that were survivable. People drowing, freezing, committing suicide, etc. wouldn't be included. This statistic would be deaths/accidents. I guess people would argue this doesn't account for active safety.

Also, as other people have said, pickups including F150s are very common fleet vehicles. People using these vehicles are likely to be on the road at the begining and end of the work day. It wouldn't be hard to argue that the “rush hours” are when most accidents happen. The drivers of these trucks are probably more fattigued than the teens driving civics.

Argh! Someone driving a company car is probably less likely to show off than a teen.

I guess it just goes back to the best car for you.

bloganon Jun 4th, 2004 Link

Ouch.

Yeah, even though I have never driven one yet and have only seen them as they were being driven around (the central Vermont region), I really like those Mini Coop's myself. Only wish I could afford one.

Hmmm, it appears that only a crash dummy would prefer buying and driving a Ford F150, huh?

Charlie Jun 4th, 2004 Link

Or a guy who has to tow a 28' boat and can't afford two cars and the boat. Or any number of other scenarios.

froglegs Jun 4th, 2004 Link

I just now saw a very bad accident between two Ford SUV/Suburban type vehicles.

I didn't see what caused the accident, but the brunt was that one car was turning onto a major street and another was going full speed (trying to make a light? running a red light?), and they collided, front right fender to front left fender. That didn't cause the damage. What did was the car on the right (front left fender) was forced into a light pole.

That SUV looked startlingly like the F150 photo.

The good news is that the driver on the left wasn't hurt, and the airbag of the driver on the right deployed so he didn't go through the windshield.

The bad news is that the driver on the right got out of his car and immediately collapsed on the ground. He was conscious, but he did not get up. He either had two broken legs or a broken back.

Luckily a cop was right there (sometimes I think they're a nuisance, but not always), and an ambulance arrived in seconds.

But seeing that is enough to convince me that the only advantage of an SUV is going on gravel roads. And almost enough to convince me to invest in bus tokens.

sir sam Jun 4th, 2004 Link

wanna see a mini in action? look at this link:
http://klode.com/Kws/Napplications/Display_Pics.aspx?StockID=685887&Exit=close
enjoy

Timothy Sipples Jun 5th, 2004 Link

Ford just lost a big safety-related lawsuit: $369 million judgment because of a Ford Explorer rollover. Story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3775205.stm

Mr Jonas Jun 6th, 2004 Link

i Prefer the mini than a FORD, no matter what kind of ford, mercury or lincoln. for me those are cheap cars… now wanna talk about trucks? ok lets see a Chevrolet or a Dodge Pick up.. Those are Trucks!

Jim Jun 6th, 2004 Link

Yeah, but you drive a Mini. Who cares what you think?

:-)

JoeBob Jun 6th, 2004 Link

There's a lot more here than I can read, and a lot of what I'll say has been mentioned - at least in parts. A truck is not a “passenger” vehicle. It had minimal safety, emission, and economy standards (Ford can sell a zillion V-8s and it doesn't affect their CAFE ratings).

Trucks have little or no safety features built-in. You can have 23 different belt-tensioners and airbags, but it the cab folds up, so do you. They also have NO reinforcement in the roof. If you roll any truck - including most SUVs, the roof collapses on the passengers. Roll a Subaru legacy, and you dent and scratch the heck out of it, but the roof stays put.
Ford, Chevy. Toyota, BMW, et al bulid these as inexpensively as they can - that's their job. They meet ALL minimum saety rules. If you want a Truck, know what you're buying. Just don't let your kids near them.

matt Jun 7th, 2004 Link

Here in the UK, I rear-ended a Toyota Landcruiser in my Fiat Uno. It was my fault. My bumper was unscathed, because my car went UNDER the truck, all the impact being taken by the bonnet and engine. Write-off. The replacement bumper for the truck (the only damage) cost £700 because it was colour-painted.
SUV drivers are in a bubble of false security. The guy barely noticed the collision.

Charlie Jun 7th, 2004 Link

If the Rover driver 'barely noticed' the collision that totaled your Uno how is the sense of security false?

CADster Jun 9th, 2004 Link

@dave - I have owned 10 trucks in my life. 3 have been Fords. The 1983 toyota i owned was very, very dependable, but was a joke when in the woods or when it needed to 'work'. The body panels were so thin that the slightest bump or nudge resulted in what can only be described as 'crushing a tin can'.. the toyota being the can. Loading an engine block in the bed of the toy was painful for the truck. Loading anything over a few bags of concrete stressed the suspension and heavely effected drivability. Hauling anything solid in the bed would dent the bed. I've owned a full size dodge (1993) as well. Aside from the super crappy transmission (burned 3 up in 2 years) it could be said that it was a good truck. The old datsun i owned was a fun street truck … but that was it. The later nissan (1986) was just as weak as the toyota, just not as dependable. I once jumped onto the tailgate and it bent the tailgate on this 'hardbody'. I have owned 2 chevy trucks as well. the 4×2 was a good performer, but the 4×4 was a dog. I dont see me ever owning another GM 4×4. vortec v8s suck rocks and GM frames are weak… almost as weak as the 10 bolt rearends. The fords i've owned and the one i have now have all been super trucks. I base my opinion on my experience and ive yet to see or use a truck that could take the abuse of a Ford.

i have dropped them into 4 foot deep mud holes, lugged them over rocks and thru thick woods, carried over a ton of coal, filled the bed with at least 40 bags of concrete, stacked lumber to the roof, towed other vehicles on and off trailers. I did burn up a c6 towing a car from florida .. but only once in a truck i kept for almost 7 years. they were worked every day of their life and have been nothing but good to me.

When i say truck i mean truck. not SUV, not some 4door leather clad caddy with a bed .. but trucks

@Charlie - LOL

i posted a question earlier and it was answered. Now im posting another -

How many of these Ford trucks that were in accidents had loads, or where towing loads ?

100,000 Ford trucks and not one having a load is hard to believe. Counting a loaded truck as being the same as an empty truck is not logical.

Adrian Jun 9th, 2004 Link

when it comes to multi-vehicle accidents. if our roads weren't full of these behemoth 4×4's, we wouldn't have to worry about getting squished by them.

Rich Jun 10th, 2004 Link

Cadster, if the truck is built to carry and or tow a load than it should be built to be safe while doing so.

Ryan Jun 10th, 2004 Link

I love my MINI! I could rave about it for days, the airbags, the gas mileage, the zip, the control. I have never been so completely satisfied with a vehicle. Rock on MINI!!!!!

Zack Jun 10th, 2004 Link

“Frontal crash test ratings can only be compared among vehicles of similar weights.”

Quoted from your own source.

Gabe Jun 10th, 2004 Link

Zack - please read the posts above. You're point was addressed a year and a half ago.

JFL Jun 11th, 2004 Link

It's a tricky thing to do (make a valid observation) but from just watching the wreck reports around here where someone is killed or severely injured lately, most ARE single vehicle accidents and MOST are SUVs. We've had a rash of fatal SUV rollovers lately. Most with women driving.

Those involving two or more cars are very often SUVs that have gone out of control and crossed a median and hit an on-coming car. The injury and death toll totals are high because these vehicles are generally carrying lots of passengers.

And, most of the single car accidents involve young people late at night and speeding or racing. They've killed a number of innocent bystanders lately by t-boning them but, fortunately, mostly just themselves by wrapping their car around a tree or pole.

Put a young, inexperienced driver in any vehicle and the potential for accidents and death is high..put them in a large vehicle, often unstable and not constructed well, and the risks are even greater..both to the passengers and those in the other car.

Tmack Jun 11th, 2004 Link

First, I have to say there are alot of people here that either did not read this page, or did not understand what the author's point was, or just completely blew it out of scope. Im also amazed by how many people posted replies based on false info, personal feelings, or just ignorant rantings about how the l33t c001n355 of the mini means its safe. Too many people also took the pics at face value to mean the mini is absolutely safer than the f150, and alot of replys were from kids (ALOT of 16yo's it seemed) saying they were going to use this as proof to their parents. I hope the parents read more than just one page when determining the saftey of their child. My favorite comment exemplifying all that has to be from mike, about half way up the comments or so “The truck probably has twice as much velocity when it crashes at the same speed.” For those of you who failed science class, velocity=speed=how fast you are going. What was probably meant was momentum, which has been addressed by several other posts (spimlified as massvelocity when its target is a stationary object). Yes, the F150, being a much heavier vehicle, has alot more momentum going into the collision, and thusly has to disipate one way or the other, all of that energy. Since this test is into an IMMOVABLE barrier, the vehicle basically has to dissipate all the energy itself (the aluminum honeycomb in the barrier does take some of it), whereas in a multi-vehicle crash or crash into non-vehicle, energy can be transferred into the other object (causing said object to deform or move, ie: conservation of energy (action =opposite and equal reaction)). With the mini, less momentum also means the car will dissipate that energy in less time, meaning the car and everything inside will go from 40mph (or whatever pre-crash velocity) to 0 alot faster than the truck (the physics term is impulse, Forcetime: as impact time decreases, forces experienced increase), even though your body has the same mass (and thus same momentum) regardless of vehicle. This can cause alot of injuries in itself, and is the reason the front of the vehicles now have crumple zones (a car that didnt deform in a crash is no good to its dead driver). However, the fact is that in this test the F150's cab deformed severely (roof buckled, steering column went up and back into the driver, driver went under the dash etc…) still remains. The fact that it is built by Ford does not matter to the results, as a Chevy/Dodge/Toyota tuck displaying the same damage would fail just as miserably, and as has been pointed out the 2004 actually did well in the same test. The fact is the designers of the vehicle knew the mass of the truck, and should have designed it to withstand the type of accident representitive in this test if they intended it to pass, as should any designer of any vehicle from any manufacturer. Sure, this test might not be indicitive of a “real life accident”, but how in the world is anyone going to perfectly reproduce the “typical” accident in a lab environment in a way that can be recreated exactly the same way for every vehicle made? The reality is there is no typical accident, every one is different, like snowflakes, they can happen the same way, against the same type of obstruction under the same conditions and come out completely different based on the tiniest of factors. You cannot base the entire safety of a vehicle off of the results of one crash test. There are many tests out there to determine how a vehicle does in a number of situations, all in tightly controlled conditions, strictly to collect statistics. There are also a wide array of statistics on real-life crashes. You have to read between the lines and take all the stats into account. Deaths/sold or per miles traveled or per trip or per region… you can collect whatever stats you want to see, but unless you look at them all you are limiting yourself and your conclusion.
The overall sats for a particular vehicle type also have to be read knowing that the data represents ALL vehicles in the category. If ONE specific model of a vehicle in the category sells alot more than another, yet has poor safety records in crashes, it will skew the results to the negative end. Conversly, a good record on a poor selling model will not skew the stats the other way very much. The point and scope of this article is to point out that the “bigger is better/safer” mentality is severly flawed, and give some evidence to that. I have to agree, size is only one factor of safety, a large truck can be designed such that is ultra-safe or ultra-dangerous or somewhere in between. The pictures above show this (even though the mini might have had a much more sudden stop, at least I wouldnt be crushed by a collapsing cabin), and if you look at other trucks in the same test (or even the 2004 model of the same truck), some faired better in this particular test. This should be a wake-up call, not a pissing contest. Just because it is big does not mean it is safe!

RogerL Jun 11th, 2004 Link

This is in response to Charlie's post about a week ago, to quote:

“As for overall lethality, killing occupants of OTHER vehicles isn't something that will respond to re-engineering the
F-Series. Rather, this is a function of size and mass which isn't going to change much given the mission trucks must be
able to fulfill.”

It's a bit more complex than just applying the simple physics we learned in high school.
I've been reading Bradsher's “High and Mighty”. Interesting read for anyone seriously interested in this topic. He covers the weight issue extensively. While weight is obviously a big factor in the deadly results of Car Vs. Truck/SUV, it's by no means the only factor. Just as important is what engineers call 'compatibility'. The difference in height between the stiff frame of the truck, and the height of the parts of a car that are designed to absorb impact.

Of course, trucks need to weigh more and ride higher than cars, especially if the truck is going to be driven off road.

But it's still not a hopeless engineering task.
Bradsher refers to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They crashed vehicles into the drivers door of the Mercury Grand Marquis.
1- Lincoln Town Car. Did the least harm to the Marquis.
2- Unloaded F-150 2WD. Did more damage.
3- Loaded F-150 2WD. Did a bit more damage
4- Unloaded F-150 2WD with raised suspension. Considerably MORE damage
5- Unloaded F-150 4WD. The tallest, stiffest, heaviest model. Least damage of the F-150's, but still worse than the Town Car.

5 left the researches puzzled. It didn't jive with high school physics. After studying the crash in detail, they realized that the 4WD truck had tow hooks below the front bumper, and that these hooks had caught the door sills of the Marquis. Some of the force of impact was directed to the part of the car designed to absorb just such a hit. A part that probably cost Ford $20 bucks, and wasn't even designed as a safety feature, more than offset the extra height and weight of the 4WD model.

Ford made extensive studies of the 'compatibility' issue in the late '90s. Based on this, they made minor engineering changes to the Explorer to make it a bit less deadly to the rest of us. Prior to 2001, the Explorer frame rails had a slight upward bend before the front bumper. In a front end collision with a car, the Explorer would tend to skid up and over the car's front bumper. Not a pleasant experience for the car occupants. Ford simply inverted the front segment of the rail. Furthermore, with a few other 'tweaks', they added an inch of ground clearance along the way. (i.e. Safety isn't incompatible with “the mission”).

So…Don't underestimate the cleverness of engineers. They can dissipate huge amounts of energy and protect occupants quite well. The Mini at the top of the page proves it. Those of us who drive such cars (I own a Mini and a TT), would like just a little more effort from the truck/SUV vendors to reduce their kill rate.

J.C. Holder Jun 11th, 2004 Link

The issue here is really…What do you think you are going to crash into? If you are more concerned with hitting an immovable object then the vehicle that performed best on the barrier testing is probably the one. But the fact remains that the Mini, in a collision with a vehicle that is for example twice it's weight, will experience twice the change in speed as the heavier vehicle. In 15 years of investigating vehicle collisions, it has not been my experience that most collisions involve single vehicles.

In short, size (meaning mass) does matter in a collision with a moveable object. In a barrier test it's all about occupant protection and crumple zones, etc. Just make an informed choice. Don't purchase a Mini just because these pictures lead you to believe they are safer. And don't purchase a Ford truck simply for the mass of the vehicle. A balance is important in real-world collisions.

Drive safe.
J.C. Holder

Alex Jun 12th, 2004 Link

Hello everybody, I found most of the comments and discussion great, I think we can learn a lot about it, about the way americans think about cars, and also about the idea of the perceived safety. A lot of people think that bigger cars are safer, but that (as shown in a lot of tests) is not necessarily the truth.

Based on this customer perception of “heavier is safer” in mind, some companies are increasing the weight of the cars sold in the United States (and indirectly, making a lot of profit with bigger SUVs in comparison to passenger cars), but a heavier structure does not necessarily means a safer structure; is more important how this structure handles, if we are able to reduce the kinetic energy linked to this increased weight in the case of a crash, and how the forces involved in a crash are absorbed, transmitted or dissipated in the structure, also if they reach or not the occupants, and in the case of frontal or offset collison, also if some components like the engine are able to intrude into the passenger compartment. Of course, the things mentioned like compability in the case of a crash with another vehicle are important.

The first thing to consider before driving a conclusion about the photos and results presented, is how to evaluate the presented information, how is performed and what is evaluated in this test, and try to realize what really mean the Data, statistics, and all this stuff regarding “safety”, like the famous 5 stars rate in frontal collision, and another marketing information. Normally you are taking as a base for safety the criteria defined by NHTSA, and also one important thing to know are the criteria and tests defined by NCAP (in the case of european vehicles, http://www.ncap.org), which are not always the same than the American Standards; this is important since most european Cars are also designed taking in account these different test procedures, which were more stringent than some of the former american tests.

In my personal opinion, the european manufacturers have been investigating crash and making more improvement in the structures since more time than the american companies, but fortunately the american companies are right now making a lot of improvement, in some cases not that much like they could do due to a fierce price competition and cost reduction.

Thanks, and good discussion!

Alex Jun 12th, 2004 Link

Sorry, in my previous post i included a wrong link to the NCAP (European New Car Assessment Programme)

The right address is:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Thanks

Brad Jun 12th, 2004 Link

Is this really so surprising if you look at the physics of it? Trucks like the 150 have a lot more mass, and at the same speed have a lot more energy to dissapate when they smack into a wall, or whatever. If you added enough weight to a mini so that both vehicles weighed the same for the test, then it would be a far different picture, of course nobody would ever be hauling a load like that in a mini, so toe results are valid for a single car crash at 40 mph.

If only everyone drove cars that were appropriately sized towards their needs, then there would be less concern about who else you might hit.

Brad

Matt Jun 16th, 2004 Link

I read something in the Santa Barbara News Press this morning that reminded me of this discussion. Specifically of the people who think most crashes involve other vehicles and that few result in hitting a stationary object.

' A 65 year old Buellton woman died Tuesday after she lost control of her SUV…for unknown reason the woman overcorrected and loss control of her Jeep Cherokee…the vehicle flipped over…no other vehicles were involved.'

If I lose control of my MINI and overcorrect chances are I will not flip and die. If I must take evasive action to avoid a car in my lane or an animal etc in my MINI I will most likely remain in control. However if I'm in a SUV or F-150 and must swerve to avoid a collision there is a much greater chance of losing control and hitting a bridge, telephone pole or tree or fliping.

From the sound of some of these post it seems like SUV and F-150 drivers understand this and claim their stagey is to ram any vehicle in their path instead of taking evasive action.

God bless America!

doug Jun 18th, 2004 Link

I have a question…where are the doors?…they are a very important structural component of the body. I don't see any eveidence of them being there. If they were removed for the testing the I really have to question the results. I would rather be in my F 150 than a Mini in any crash…. I have seen the bodies on the side of the road under tarps after a small car crashes or is hit by a larger vehicle.Size does matter in the majority of crashes. Granted the europeans build a excellent product, like the americans used to, but the cost of production and corperate greed will soon catch up to them and they will be the same as the us manufacturers. Probably the most important thing for all to remember is that if you slow down and drive defesively you should never have to worry about the crash test results when purchasing a vehicle.

Gabe Jun 18th, 2004 Link

They are always removed after these tests to illustrate the damage (or lack there of) within the passenger compartment.

Art Jun 20th, 2004 Link

doug - what planet are you on? “if you slow down and drive defesively you should never have to worry about the crash test results when purchasing a vehicle” So when a car runs a red light or you have a blow out then you'll be fine? As the saying goes “shit happens” and I'd rather be in a safer vehicle.

David Blomquist Jun 21st, 2004 Link

I just read through all of the posts above in one sitting, so I feel I have a decent grasp on what has been said. I agree highly about the smaller cars can avoid better statement. I drive a '72 vw Beetle, and I know if I am hit I WILL DIE. The car weighs less than 2,000 lbs, fully one third of an SUV. I have been forced off of the road 3 times by truck and SUV drivers who saw me on a freeway on ramp and decided they HAD to be in front of me. They accelerated when I was clearly in a safe merging position, honking their horns and cranking the speed, designed to force me out of the way. I honestly felt they had no regards for my safety, and if they hit me they would end up all right and tell the insurance company I was at fault for making an unsafe merge. I am a poor college student, so I could not afford an accident or any of its results. So I gave way and wound up in the gravel on multiple occasions. I honestly feel SUVs and large trucks deserve every flaming rollover they get, because at least in my experience, they are the worst, most combative drivers driving the largest and relatively dangerous vehicles.

On a seperate note, does anyone have any crash data on the old Beetles?

frank Jun 21st, 2004 Link

you dont want to know about the crash data.. the bug is pretty safe if you are just putting arround town.. but get into the high speeds, and things get dangerous.

i have noticed that if you drive an old vw compared to any other car, you have to drive VERY defensively.

other cars like to play the “Pass the beetle at all costs game”, or the “Push the beetle down the road game”..

we should all drive arround in speed restricted electric bumper cars.. then everything will be fine and dandy.

David Blomquist Jun 23rd, 2004 Link

Driving Defensively is an understatement… :(

I do understand just how dangerous an old Bug is, I saw a picture of one run over by a semi truck. It was only about 2 feet high and maybe 4×8 feet in dimensions…..nasty stuff.

As to the bumper car thing, if it was relating to my comments, I merely am bitter at how I am treated on the road by other drivers. I'm sure if my car performed better or other large car drivers were more polite I would feel differently.

Ty Jun 27th, 2004 Link

Hey, if taking a few select pieces data makes you feel better about purchasing a Mini and fuels your hate of big vehicles, more power to ya.

The data presented here is far from complete to ever possibly show real safety. Just go buy the damned Mini (if you haven't already - don't know why I'm bothering to post on this 1.5 year old page) and enjoy it. It is a cool car.

Personal driving skills are by (exponentially) far, a better safety investment.

Ty Jun 27th, 2004 Link

P.S. The New Yorker writing an article on auto safety??? Come on, give me a break!

Dan B Jun 28th, 2004 Link

I have done a fair amount of research into what vehicle to use as a driver training car. After much research, test drives, and the like, we have settled on a 2004 Mini Cooper Classic. Why? ACTIVE SAFETY. All the active safety features come STANDARD on this car…you can't buy one without them.
Safety should not be an OPTION on any vehicle, and when my wife gets in her Instructor car to teach new drivers, I want them to have the BEST car on the road for collision AVOIDANCE. That seems to be the Coopers these days, for the price point!

Ancient Samurai proverb: Man throws spear at head, move head.

Just a thought boys and girls.

FYI. If we didn't tailgate, these kinds of things wouldn't happen. What's tailgating? hmmm….take into account the following:
2 second minimum following distance
45fps at 50km/h.

At 50 km/h, you should be 90 (NINETY) feet back …. How many are….just a thought next time you are on the roads my friends… Drive safe!!

RogerL Jun 29th, 2004 Link

Dan…Have to agree with you that the Mini is tops in ACTIVE SAFETY for its price. In 27 years of accident free driving, active safety has saved my butt more times than I can remember. Haven't needed passive safety yet.

Have to pick one nit with you though: I consider DSC one of the MINIs more important active safety features, but it's not standard, at least in the US. Stand alone, it's an extra $500, or you can pick it up as part of the $1,300 sport package.

DSC is pretty cool stuff. It's showing up on more and more cars now. (And everyone seems to have a different name for it: DSC, ESP, VDC, VSC, etc.)

Computer detects over/understeer. Computer does what no human can do: apply the brakes to one wheel. (And cut the throttle).

Fun to play with in an empty snow covered parking lot :-)

TommyD Jun 30th, 2004 Link

Driving a car is, per default, as insecure as jumping of a cliff - if you're luky, you may survive…

WOOHOO Sep 5th, 2004 Link

“I honestly feel SUVs and large trucks deserve every flaming rollover they get, because at least in my experience, they are the worst, most combative drivers driving the largest and relatively dangerous vehicles.”

Claps Erratically

BRAVO! Well put! I've noticed that over the years… people in SUVS seem to be the one's causing the accidents. They think.. bigger car= I own the road. MMM… not so much. Stupid women in SUVS… they don't know how to drive those big tanks. Jeeze.

BeetleOwner Sep 27th, 2004 Link

I have always liked owning smaller cars because of the handling, gas mileage and to some degree what I would call a “cute” factor. At any rate, this past summer, on my commute to work, the driver of an F-350 crossed the middle lane of the highway straight into my lane. I'm presuming he fell asleep at the wheel as he didn't try to avoid me at all. I was able to swerve my 2001 Beetle out of the way (unfortunately into the oncoming lane…) and ended up sliding down an embankment into some trees. The car ended up being driveable afterwards although it took two months to get all the parts in to repair it.

While the truck driver never stopped, a witness who stopped to help me said the truck didn't straighten out until it went over the shoulder on MY side of the highway. Because my car was small and quick I was able to dodge a head-on by LESS than a foot. If my car had been any bigger there is NO WAY I would have been able to avoid being hit head on at 70mph.

So yeah, I crashed into some stationary objects (trees) in the act of dodging a moving object. It happens. The difference is I was able to dodge the moving object.

Ganou Sep 27th, 2004 Link

To avenge those who drive larger vehicles, it is not the vehicle that causes accidents or deaths, it is the driver themselves.

Accidents do occur, and I am well aware of this, but the manner in which you drive your vehicle is the factor that must be taken into consideration.

The two pictures located at the top of this article are both true, but you have to remember, a “Mini”'s weight is much less than that of a larger vehicle, thus a larger impact, and more damage. This is just standard physics.

As a driver who just recently got rid of his F150, (due to cost and running the vehicle) I have see many occurences, where driver error is at fault rather than vehicle.

I must admit that I have seen my fair share of “Large” vehicle drivers abuse the fact that they can push other vehicles around, and those are the people who are ending up as a statistic.

On the other hand, I would also like to inform people who drive smaller vehicles to please watch for larger vehicles around you. I have in many occasions been forced to slam my brakes due to smaller vehicles cutting me off, and not levaing enough stopping space as required. As well, I have lost sight of a smaller vehicle behind me as I could not even see their headlights as they were following too closely.

Bigger does not mean you have the right to own the road, and smaller does not mean you can maneouver around the highway like a ping pong ball, cause you can.

It means we all have to watch out for each other. The ones who abuse the fact that their car is smaller or larger are the one's who end up in the obituaries. As stated before in this article, most accidents are single vehicle accidents and thus occur because of the driver, and not the vehicle.

Thanks for reading my rant.

-G

aj Oct 3rd, 2004 Link

shit no

dude Oct 5th, 2004 Link

Driving MINI in Minnesota winter is like walking in the snow in your slippers.
I've never liked F-150 until 2004 model came out, but not becasue of safety - just because I think they were ugly inside. When 2004 came out - I loved it so much, so I bought it few months later.
It's a great truck.
BTW, I still own my 2000 VW Passat and like it a lot as well.

Alex
P.S. I grew up in Europe, but now live in US, if that means anything (particularly to UK guys).

D J Evans Nov 11th, 2004 Link

I had a crash in my mini cooper two weeks ago.
Slid off a muddy road going at 50mph and went smack into the hedge. (New Bumper+Bonnet) I was fine, the seat belt tensioner went off and I was stuck firmly in the seat until I came to a complete stop. What a safe car!!!!!!!!

Christopher Burns Dec 21st, 2004 Link

It's quite obvious from examining the pictures that the Mini didn't hit an offset block.

Gabe Dec 21st, 2004 Link

Right… the US government is involved in a complex cover-up to try to make the MINI appear incredibly safe.

Please follow the links provided above to the official IIHS website to see more about the tests before posting something ridiculous like above.

Lyle Jan 2nd, 2005 Link

Americans are funny, N.A.S.C.A.R. involves alot of physical contact. It seams Americans like cars that smash up reeaal good, and don't want to admit that your cars suck compared to most imports. One track minds, heck if Canada had our very own car manufacturer, I would not buy it just because my country makes it.Furthure more, almost all electronics are made overseas for American vehicles. American car manufacturers don't nearly have the pride as oversea companies in making a quality vehicle. Germany has produced some wonderfull cars designed for the Autobann, made to withstand highspeed crashes.
Mini vs. Semi in same test…both win
F-150 vs. F-1 car…F-1 car wins
In order to make cars ultimitly safe, they need a full roll cage, 5 point seatbelts and head restraints along with airbags, or just build them like the Germans.

Gabriel Bridger Jan 2nd, 2005 Link

Lyle - I agree with most of what you say but please don't lump all Americans together. There are 200,000,000 million of us and a healthy number think like you do.

Clint Jan 9th, 2005 Link

Funny stuff here. If you want to make the roads safe, then get rid of alcohol, cell phones and raise the driving age to 25 and then only AFTER passing a very stringent battery of driving tests.

The active or passive safety of a given vehicle ONLY comes into play once SOMEONE has screwed up (let's face it: VERY few accidents are caused by actual hardware failure anymore. Even almost all tire blow out roll overs are caused by poor DRIVER reaction to the event and not by the event itself). If you eleminated the CAUSES of these accidents in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about which car did better in an offset impact test at 40 mph.

Doug Jan 12th, 2005 Link

Every car cannot be perfect. the only reason foreign cars ar “better” is because thats all they can do is screw around with stuff nobody really pays attention to.
A 1996 Ford Taurus with the 145 HP Vulcan engine produced a much faster and smoother acceleration than the 1998 Honda Accord V6 (200 HP). Honda transmissions suck and are hard shifting compared to Ford cars and trucks. Screw Canada,your cars rust to shit. Foreign cars from Asia suck in performance even though they are said to be “best picked” You Canadians think your all that but ain't. I have never seen a foreign car or truck mechanically last longer than 15 years with out something going severely wrong with it, like the engine. American cars, especially Ford are excellent cars and the Best trucks you can buy. Saftey (crash test results) is not that big of a concern when you buy a work truck. Yes it should be safe, but it has to take abuse. Thats why I only buy Ford Trucks with diesel engines. so rethink about American cars and trucks, they are also reliable. I admitt if our workers were paid more they would take some more pride in there work. Americans can do great work, it's just were cheap so we buy from over seas to save money. If you ask me, thats why our economy in doing so poorly.

GB Jan 12th, 2005 Link

Doug - your logic is flawed and most of your statistics wrong. Somehow that seems very appropriate considering your argument.

Austen Saari Sep 26th, 2005 Link

About a month ago I was the passenger of a Ford F-150 traveling South at about 35MPH. The road we were on crossed another road at a bit of an angle. Traveling West on that road was a Mini going approximately 40MPH. There is a building on the corner that comes to a sharp point and makes it a blind corner. Our cars collided at almost full speed. Our driver side headlight nailed her passenger side headlight. The Mini was pushed about 20 ft. were it collided with a parked car. The truck I was riding in crumpled like a soda can. My friend driving the truck was killed as was the person riding behind him. I suffered a broken left foot. The 2 people that were in the Mini got out and came over to see if I was alright. They helped me out of the truck and when I saw their car I couldn’t believe they were okay. It was mangled on almost all sides. But when I went and looked inside the window, the passenger area was almost unaffected. From a view inside, the only way you could tell it had been in an accident was by all of the airbags and the shattered windshield. I personally think that no 2 accidents are exactly the same so you never know exactly what is going to happen. But I think it’s pretty obvious that the F-150 was not engineered to protect the people in the cab as well as it could have. The fact that we were bigger didn’t mean anything when all the metal collapsed around us. I think that the fact that small cars are able to get pounded and still protect their occupants, shows that it’s possible, with some good engineering, to build safer large vehicles as well. This fact is further emphasized by the fact that there are large vehicles out there that do this quite well. All that considered, the best that the testing centers can do is give people a general idea of how things hold up when you pound on them. Some of you say that smashing an F-150 in a lab against a barrier is not a real life situation and thus, when that car ends up being completely destroyed you say it doesn’t prove it’s unsafe. But the F-150 did the same thing when it smashed against a car on the road which I’m pretty sure would be considered a real life situation. So I think that the tests are a FAIRLY good indicator of what you can expect out on the road.

I know that I’m going to pay closer attention to these tests from now on.

Gabe Sep 28th, 2005 Link

After two plus years it would seem all arguments and debates (no matter how ridiculous) have been exhausted. Therefore I’m now closing commenting for this post. If you feel you’d really like your voice to be heard I’m sure you can figure out how to let me know via email.

Thank you and goodnight…

bridger.us » Archive » The New Bridger.us Jun 14th, 2006 Link

[...] A big thanks to Matt for supporting his weblog software on this site for almost four years (and for helping me make the switch to WP). Without his support no one would know how terrible an F150 did in off-set crash testing as compared to a MINI :) Seriously though - thanks Matt! [...]

bridger.us » Archive » Chinese SUV Scores a 0 on Crash Test Aug 25th, 2006 Link

[...] You can read more on the 2003 F150 Crash testing and how the results compare to a MINI’s here. [...]

bridger.us » Archive » The Big and the Bad Aug 25th, 2006 Link

[...] Does any of this sound familar? You can read the entire article here. [...]

bridger.us » Archive » Fatal SUV rollovers jump 14 percent Aug 25th, 2006 Link

[...] It’s absolutely shocking to me how unsafe many modern SUVs and trucks are. For a good example you have to look no further than the most popular vehicle on the US roads: the Ford F150. SUVs have a rollover fatality rate that is nearly three times higher than passenger cars and are much more likely to actually rollover. You simply can’t expect to drive a tall, heavy vehicle and not be susceptible to the laws of physics. [...]

Mundane Ramblings » Blog Archive » Here’s a neat link, I Aug 27th, 2006 Link

[...] Check it out [...]

M@Blog » Sony in Focus?! Oct 1st, 2006 Link

[...] This morning I find out Sony and Ford are teaming up. Then, I find out a MINI is safer than an F150 (courtesy of Gen). Still, it doesn’t take the second article to realize the combo just doesn’t make … sense. The Focus?! It’s a freakin’ Budget rental car. What kind of image is Sony trying to maintain here? When I think of Ford, I don’t exactly think Qualia, that’s for sure… [...]

Akkam’s Razor Oct 13th, 2006 Link

[...] Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 [...]

Small Car Safety - SaturnSpot Apr 16th, 2008 Link

[...] not hitting each other but both hitting a solid object at the same speed. The result is horrifying. bridger.us » Archive » Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 Here’s another comparison, the Smart vs the Mercedes S-class. Video: Mercedes S-Class vs. Smart [...]

Anybody On Here Own a Honda Fit?? - Page 2 - Early Retirement Forums Jun 21st, 2008 Link

[...] Originally Posted by brewer12345 If the playing field were more level, I would be happy to drive a smaller car around. But there are a lot of 4000# and up vehicles on the road, and simple physics indicates that your chances are a lot better in a heavier vehicle if you get in a wreck. And higher gas prices long term would help, but the lifespan of a vehicle is over 10 years, so there will be great hulking SUVs on the roads for many years to come no matter what happens to sales of new ones in the near future. Do some research and you’ll find the size of a car is a minor factor in overall safety. See this link for a visual of crash results for a mini-cooper and Ford F150. Moral of the story is that the safety engineering behind a car is more important the size and the fatality statistics bear that out. Some of the safest cars out there are subcompacts and some of cars with the highest death rates are for larger cars. bridger.us » Archive » Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 [...]

Anybody On Here Own a Honda Fit?? - Page 2 - Early Retirement Forums Jun 21st, 2008 Link

[...] Originally Posted by brewer12345 If the playing field were more level, I would be happy to drive a smaller car around. But there are a lot of 4000# and up vehicles on the road, and simple physics indicates that your chances are a lot better in a heavier vehicle if you get in a wreck. And higher gas prices long term would help, but the lifespan of a vehicle is over 10 years, so there will be great hulking SUVs on the roads for many years to come no matter what happens to sales of new ones in the near future. Do some research and you’ll find the size of a car is a minor factor in overall safety. See this link for a visual of crash results for a mini-cooper and Ford F150. Moral of the story is that the safety engineering behind a car is more important than the size and the fatality statistics bear that out. Some of the safest cars out there are subcompacts and some of cars with the highest death rates are for larger cars. bridger.us » Archive » Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 [...]

NPR Cartalk - Suziki Swift deathtrap - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com Jul 3rd, 2008 Link

[...] bridger.us » Archive » Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 I never understood why F150 was the biggest selling vehicle for so long. I see it as a bad idea to drive one; nevermind that its a Ford. I think somewhere on that site there is a link with a list of "fatalities per million cars sold" and the F150 was top of the list! Factor in the inability to avoid accidents, the high CG encouraging roll-over, the ridiculous crumpling, i’m amazed they are allowed to sell them! I don’t feel like searching right now, but I have also read that head-on collisions are the least-likely by far. Single-car is even more likely than multi-car. [...]

anyone drive a ford f150 pickup? - Yamaha FZ6 Forums - International FZ6 Motorcycle Community Forum Jul 10th, 2008 Link

[...] drive a ford f150 pickup? sell it and buy a mini (or at least a diff truck) bridger.us Archive Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 ______ "We are not human beings have a spiritual experience, we are spiritual [...]

Should I buy this Toyota Camry? - My Les Paul Forums Aug 8th, 2008 Link

[...] that the picture came from. This test was from 2002, and MINI has improved even more since then. http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe…perVsFordF150/ [...]

2008 Crash Thread. Crashed? Post it here! - Page 5 Dec 12th, 2008 Link

[...] if you were in a faull size truck, you probably would have been flipped over on your side and gotten hurt. seriously. size isn’t everything in accidents. 99% of all cars out rank all trucks in safety and less likely to roll over. The roll over is the killer in suv’s, etc. bridger.us Archive Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 [...]

News, Small cars pose a big risk for automakers. - Automotive - Sports cars, sedans, coupes, SUVs, trucks, motorcycles, tickets, gasoline, drivers... - City-Data Forum Apr 10th, 2009 Link

[...] something larger than a bus or a semi, there will always be something bigger than you out there. bridger.us » Archive » Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 - Personally, I’d rather be in the small car and not the pickup. [+] Rate this post [...]

Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Aug 6th, 2009 Link

[...] than half of SUV fatalities, Runge said. Why The SUV Is All The Rage - TIME The look at this: bridger.us Archive Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 Opinion is not FACT. We have shown that while the people believe they are getting the best [...]

I thought Smart Cars were suppose to be safe. - Page 5 - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com Aug 21st, 2009 Link

[...] it to a Mini from the same year, and guess what? The Mini protected it’s dummy very well… bridger.us » Archive » Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150 Mini Cooper vs Ford F-150 Crash [...]