Agreed, but what I said about lethality being proportional to your change in velocity during an impact is true for all collisions, not just multi-car or head-on collisions.

All I was saying is that no matter what car you're driving, your survival rate is going to be higher in a collision if the other vehicle is lighter compared to your odds if the other vehicle is heavier, all else being equal (type of collision, relative speeds during the impact, etcetera). Think of it this way - which of these would you rather hit, if *your* survivability were your only concern:

A pedestrian, a bicyclist, a motorcyclist, another MINI, an SUV, or a loaded freight train?

Even if all of the "target vehicles" were somehow traveling at the same speed, your odds of surviving go down as the weight of the target goes up.

Unfortunately, driving a MINI means that most cars on the road are heavier, so it's usually not a matter of "who's heavier?", it's a matter of "how much heavier is he?".

Like you, I'm just stressing the importance of defensive driving, because if you *do* get into an accident, science works, and mass matters..

 

With my third child, following the adventures of my first two, I opted for extra driver education. He has been to two teen driving schools and, at 16, can discuss driving and safety with intelligence and experience. I like the comparison to the pilot's license. The required drivers ed courses teach, essentially, to try not to fly too near the sun.

 

My insurance company agrees. My premium went down when I bought the Mini because my liability decreased--given the size/weight of the car, I'm less likely to cause major damage to someone else.

Granted, this doesn't account for the increase in crash-likelihood associated with having a sport button. I must not only drive defensively, being small, but try not to drive stupidly.

 

The traditional logic is not as clear-cut as most of us seem.

Watch this video, from another thread that was started tonight by the user slickfast. Very eye opening.

I think your "no matter what car you're driving" generalization is just that - too general. It does matter what car you're driving, and how well it was designed. I'd even go so far as to say it's far more important than weight. Like I said in post #10:I never denied that greater mass is a "positive attribute" in many cases, the problem is that people put far more credit in that measurement than they do in other aspects of a vehicle.

Generalization is dangerous.Why the frown face? Less damage to someone else doesn't automatically mean more damage to you! You should be happy that you're less likely to hurt someone... not to mention much more likely to avoid the accident in the first place!

 

slickfast, thank you for your thread (titled "Something to make arrogants shut up."). Your links to the 3 videos in particular are very informative.

Since an existing and active thread already exists on this topic, I am going to merge them now. Since this thread is newer, it means it will be "swallowed up" by the other thread, but I wanted to make it clear that I appreciate the contributions you've made tonight!

Threads merged.

 

No, I meant that whatever car you're in when you have a collision, your odds of surviving depending on the weight of the object you hit. It doesn't matter if you're driving a 1966 Corvair or a 2007 Volvo - whatever car you're in, you're better off hitting a lighter object than a heavier object.

Now of course, if I knew before I started on the trip that I'd be hitting a 3000-pound car, I'd rather be in the Volvo than the Corvair - no doubt about it, but that wasn't my point. Whatever car you find yourself driving when a collision happens, your odds of surviving are proportional to the ratio between the weight of your car and the weight of the other car. There's not a car in the world where you'd be better off hitting a heavier object compared to a lighter object.

 

Understood, my apologies for misinterpreting the original statement.

 

LOL - no worries, I'm still trying to work on making myself clear without being too wordy.

Also, while my claim is true, it's also not particularly useful, since as you pointed out, it doesn't allow you to compare your survival odds for two different cars. It's intuitively obvious that whatever car you're in, you'd rather hit a Yugo than a Cadillac, but it doesn't tell you how a MINI will fare against a Cadillac compared to how a Honda Civic will fare against the same Cadillac.

 

Actually, just read the IIHS test scenarios. If your talking a head-on collision, you can, in fact, compare cars in the same class. It specifically says that ratings for frontal impacts are within the same class of car but not for different classes. So, for example, a MINI and Toyota Yaris is rated Good. The Aveo is rated Acceptable. So you can pretty much say that a MINI or Yaris will come out better on a head on collision than an Aveo. What you cannot say is that, for example, a Toyota Avalon is also rated good but is the large family car class. Therefore if a MINI and an Avalon both hit a brick wall at the same speed, you cannot say they both would come out equally well. Further, you could not say the same in an head-on collision because that silly F=MA keeps getting in the way

 

I guess I'm lucky... my brother owns a MINI, my SO owns a MINI, and my parents love our MINIs.

Some people will "get it" and learn to love the MINI once they know more about it. Others won't. The best advice is to not care too much what other people think. You bought a safe, fun car. Enjoy it!

 

Art, you're generalizing too much. I think the IIHS statement generalizes too much too... in fact, I believe the statement is in there in part to make the Detroit 3 happy.

Quality engineering is MUCH MORE important than higher mass, although I would not dispute that if you can get both at the same time, it's even better. Problem is that getting both is rare, especially in the American pick-up and SUV market.

Did you actually watch this video?

I'm not saying that mass should be ignored. I'm saying that higher mass vehicles shouldn't be given an automatic pass, even in head-on collisions, against well-designed smaller vehicles, simply on the basis of mass. To assume is short-sighted. Don't buy it on face value.

As for the MINI vs. Avalon both hitting a brick wall at the same speed, I'd rather be in the MINI.

 

Good video but its not a head on crash. The car were offset. I'm not sure what that means in terms of how the cars impacted. It looks staged for a purpose. But it does show the difference between an older car and a new one. Since if your talking same year cars, yes it might be a generalization but I have to assume the Avalon would have the same crumple zone technology and therefore would come out better. In fact, looking it up, the Avalon does come with front and rear crumble zones and side impact door beams.

I guess we need to get a MC and a Avalon as test subjects and do a true head-on (not an offset) and see what happens. The results may be interesting and one way or the other, put this discussion to bed

 

Art - offset is considered to be the toughest test - that's why they do it! Now you're trying to say that somehow the offset put the Volvo at a disadvantage? Come on...We already have the photos we need...



Note: This is a "same generation" comparison. 2002-2006 Cooper vs 2000-2004 Avalon. The R56 page on the IIHS website does not have any pictures.

They both did a good job, but it seems to me like the MINI has more leg clearance. Considering the mass difference, I think the fact the dummy's leg ended up even touching the dash is unimpressive.

Here's the 2005-2007 Avalon pic:


Better, but the point remains - mass was not automatic proof of superiority in an immovable object crash test.

Quality engineering is still more important!Well, you've just changed the test. Previously you said hitting a brick wall. In other words, not hitting each other. For the test you originally stated:...I'd still rather be in the MINI... but yes, it would be interesting to see the results of a head-on crash test.

 

Thats why I said I didn't know what that meant. If its tougher, then good.

Good find on the pictures. I'm not sure what they mean from pictures. Hitting the brick wall is the test. Hitting each other is the F=MA thing. If the other car has more mass, it will exert more force on the lighter car. Not the same thing as hitting the wall. Now all we need are two volunteers.

But the pics are good finds.

 

THANK YOU!!!! for posting these links. I had read the New Yorker article when it was published and I was trying to find it to show my Dad!!!! BTW, there's another interesting article on that website about seat belts and airbags. (http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_06_11_a_crash.htm)
My Dad is slowly coming around to the MINI. He thought I should buy a small truck or SUV. He thinks small cars are "death traps", I think SUV's are death traps. . I guess we're both right if you talk on the phone while driving without a seat belt.
I'm always shocked at how many people go buy an SUV because they think it's "safer" for their children, but can't be convinced to look at basic safety data -- it's just their gut feeling.
Oh, back to the thread question. For me, I haven't really told people what I'm getting, but from feeling people out, most people like MINI's and think they're cool, just 'too small' for them. I haven't really run into anyone who dislikes them. I guess we'll see. But who cares if they don't, just more MINI's for all of us.

 

Edge- I was just worried my thread had been deleted, I was thinking "did i do something wrong...?"

Thanks for the recognition, just trying to help the cause and get more people to realize that a big old tub just aint the answer! I'd like to stay alive for a while, at least until I get a mini of my own!