The Fiat 500 EV is smaller, 200kg lighter, and quite a lot cheaper but gets 4 stars. The fact it's a lot newer does put them at an advantage, but high scores are possible in small cars.Also being hit with a 2 ton SUV is hard to protect against unless you are also in a 2 Ton SUV.
Yeah, the Zoe is bigger, but that just further underlines the point that it doesn't require a large SUV to achieve a good safety score. Going cheap on the airbags cost Renault on passenger safety.The Zoe is a 10yr old Design. The 500 is brand new. I've not been in the e500 but the Zoe seemed a lot bigger than the petrol 500 I've driven.
They crash the cars into soild objects that I would imagine are a lot tougher than an SUV. The point of the test is everything crashes into the same wall and metal beam.Its not all about the airbag, being an older car it also lacks vulnerable road user protection and crash avoidance technology, which is included in the new tests.
I would love to know how these cars fair in accident against SUVs. But I can't find any recent studies on it. Does the NCAP test this.
They crash the cars into soild objects that I would imagine are a lot tougher than an SUV. The point of the test is everything crashes into the same wall and metal beam.
You can watch the crash test videos where they actually smash it at speed into the wall or whatever they call it.
At speed SUVs don't seem to do much better than small cars. Everything is carnage at speed no matter what you drive it seems like.
There was an article by a Zoe owner in Saturday's Guardian* which may be of some interest.
Streets ahead? What I’ve learned from my year with an electric car
Record sales and now news of a battery that lasts hundreds of miles. It’s getting better, but going green was tough, admits a reluctant pioneerwww.theguardian.com
(*generally a dreadful paper, but happily there's no Fintan O'Toole slant to this particular article!)
You clearly have no idea how the tests work so. Its all about a controlled environment, enough said.You don't hit a wall the same way as you hit SUV. Listen I'm not going to derail the thread going on about it. I was just curious about the absence of those kind of tests, I kinda assumed they would be included by now.
You clearly have no idea how the tests work so. Its all about a controlled environment, enough said.
Diesel gate has nothing to do with crash tests.No why would I? So I went looking for the details of how the new NCAP tests different bumper heights, and large vehicle vs small vehicle collisions are tested. I couldn't find it. All the tests I found are US or quite old. Maybe you could link to how crashing into a wall replicates different bumper heights, and weights and is tested in NCAP. Like a two ton SUV crashing into your e500 from behind. I'm open to be convinced. I'm not assuming I'm right or that these tests are comprehensive. We've had the elk test and the Diesel gate. So I think its good to question these things and not just accept them at face value.
I look forward to any links you have detailing tests like this.
Like in many other western countries, the number of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) in Germany is increasing. This study investigated their involvement in injury crashes based on national statistics and data from liability insurers. In addition, SUV driver attitude and self‐reported driving behavior was determined in two surveys. Almost parallel to the growth of the SUV share in the car fleet, their accident involvement has increased. The SUV driver population is less accident‐prone than that of conventional cars, but SUVs have a higher risk exposure due to higher annual mileage. SUVs are underrepresented in single‐vehicle accidents, but demonstrate a threat to occupants of passenger cars in two‐vehicle crashes. The lack of compatibility becomes evident particularly in frontal collisions. This must be attributed not only to the larger mass, but also to the raised front structure and younger vehicle age of SUVs. Pedestrians who were struck by SUVs did not demonstrate a significantly higher injury risk than in accidents with conventional cars.
While the UK government doesn’t record passenger vehicle type in collision injuries and deaths, British academics who analysed police collision data have identified pedestrians as 70% more likely to be killed if they were hit by someone driving a 2.4-litre engine vehicle than a 1.6-litre model.
“You’re saying if you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed,” says Adam Reynolds, one of the researchers.
Reynolds and Robin Lovelace, who jointly performed the analysis, are still looking into the figures. “Rather than making a declaration that SUVs are dangerous what we can say is large engine cars are dangerous,” he adds. The lack of collision data is “masking a deadly problem created by the car industry marketing and producing taller, heavier vehicles”, he told Forbes.