« 2009 First Year of Global Governance, Crows EU President | Main | Barry and Joe's Wild Ride Open Thread »

That first photograph of the collided vehicle, the black shoe box that was rear-ended, I bet that left a mark.
Seriously, when they start draping the sheets at a street collision, that ain't good. I hope it did not end in death.

There is kind of a sport for these little cars over in the EU.....

Moonbattery - July 28, 2009 - Smart Car Dunking

In a dark, positive way, it means that moonbats will never survive their eventual accidents. I'd never habve my family hop in those deathmobiles. Seriously, those dunking their cars are just doing them a favor here.

The more people who die the better the eco-freaks who have read PAUL EHRLICH book THE POPULATION BOMB would like it becuase green moonbats are such idiots

Once again, you guys fail to understand the concept of risk. If you drive a small car you're more likely to die in a collision, but you're also less likely to get into a collision. As long as you avoid high risk behavior (excessive speed, alcohol, etc) you could actually be safer.

Any safety concerns are completely mitigated by one thing: you can parallel park them nonparallelically:
http://happynun.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/smart-car-786675.jpg

Hey You...a smaller car is less likely to get into an accident? REALLY? (Has anyone noticed that "progressives" have a study or statistic for EVERYthing?) Aside from it being total bullshit, following that logic, you'd be safest on the freeway if you weren't in a car at all...just walking. True, you're more likely to DIE, but you can jump out of the way so much easier...

Also, these things like "smart cars" always have the effect of (a) emasculating a person and (b) making you look like a total douche bag. Metrosexuals gotta LOVE these cars! I swear, the designers must have the "pussification" of people in mind. They hate themselves as well as others, so obviously the thing to do is make self-loathing FASHIONABLE.

"I swear, the designers must have the "pussification" of people in mind."

Yes, you are right. And I bet Alan Alda was standing in line waiting to buy one.
I have said for years if there is one person that was supporter 0(zero) in the pussification of American males it was Alan Alda.
This man is such a pussy that he squats to piss while holding his penis pecker with a test tube holder.

Addendum: Hey You...I'd love to know how being in a car the size of the Smart Car will help you "avoid" getting rear-ended.

Is sitting at a stop light "high-risk behavior"?

Isn't it "high risk" to have some guy's bumper come through the 1/16" clearance between the back of your head and the rear window?

Does it require a "Smart Car" to avoid driving with "excessive speed" or under the influence of alcohol?

OH OH, sorry! I forgot. Personal responsibility has been supplanted by "government regulation". Silly me.

Give me my '83 Eldorado Biarritz anytime of the day thank you very much!

Do you have any sources for what happened to the drivers in the first two cases? The first looks like the back took a fair impact, but the door looks intact from what I can see (indicating the driver/passenger compartment is intact, which is a good sign).

I think the second looks worse than it is, the damage being mostly limited to bodywork it seems, the chassis appears to be in pretty much the same shape it came out of the factory in (though the picture is admittedly quite low-res, so it's difficult to be certain).

The third is clearly a crash test, which means results must have been recorded to see what sort of impact the drivers of both cars would've taken. I think it would be good to provide your readers the results of that test, as it would be the best way to ascertain the safety (or lack thereof) of the Smart Car in a realistic crash scenario.

I ask all of this because I recently watched Fifth Gear (a British motoring TV program) give the Smart Car a fair testing, and their indications were that the strong body shell and multiple in-car safety features make it much more able to withstand a crash than its diminutive size would indicate. In fact, your third image seems to be from the Mercedes crash tests (Mercedes being the owner of Smart), and Mercedes indicated that the drivers of both cars would have survived the crash.

I think the conclusion of Fifth Gear's 70MPH crash tests say it all. Both cars they tested held up surprisingly well, but the driver and passengers inside would be dead in either case. It really doesn't matter what you drive, hitting a large obstacle at high speed causes the human body to decelerate in a way it simply cannot handle. There's no such thing as a good crash.

@ Serenity at November 22, 2009 3:24 PM

All good points. Yes, I think that this car is probably 'safer than one would expect'.

Having been personally involved in destroying items of varying mass over the years, including having been in several Local Fair Demo Derbys, as well as having been in the situation of recovering the 'goo' that was once human from crashes, I will tell you........

No matter what the data says, you cannot overcome the laws of relative mass! The physics are fairly constant and proven on this matter.

When ObamaCubes in one of these or a Prius cut me off on the freeway, I just chuckle and wish them good luck in the future.

I'll stick with my 8,800 pound vehicle, thank you.

Idiots!!!Time to say oh chitttttttttttttttt its a Kenworth. Noo its a Peterbu....
"Mark Moonbat was a good man,Mark Moonbat will be missed by his family and friends.The insurance company is failing to pay off on his life insurance. Suicide isnt covered.

S-M-R-T!!

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at November 22, 2009 3:02 PM

I love it:

"Forget statistics, I don't like how it looks!"

What a mature and responsible argument. (sarcasm)

ANYONE seriously considering buying one of these death traps (totally ignoring common sense) be sure you have a printed copy of all the wonderful statistics and a copy of the Mercedes crash test with you so they can bury them with you. You might need them to bargain with at the Pearly Gates...

UK Smart Car Crash Test and Info - Video

Except you HYG, it won't help.

UK Smart Car Crash Test and Info - Video

Fixed myself....

Hey You...typical "progressive". Stay on message. You didn't answer any of my points...because you can't, obviously...so you just say "nyah nyah nyah".

Your sarcasm is SO incisive!

Oh, I almost forgot:

Statistics show that almost 100% of "progressives" obfuscate any point necessary so that they may later do a study that shows whatever it is they currently believe...this according to a study done by the "Progressive Center for Statisical Studies" at UC Berkeley.

"Smart Cars"...
Marketed in the manner in which "Liberals" savor marketing their products (such as forced socialized medicine): "If you don't buy this, you're stupid".
Maybe they plan to try upping their sales by diversifying their line of offerings: Non-Racist Cars, Non-Homophobe Cars, Tolerant-of-Islamists Cars...wow- the possibilties are endless!!!

What points? You still don't understand relative risk. More likely to avoid collision is not the same as avoiding all collisions. Then you compare unlike things by trying to equate a vehicle with a pedestrian.

Your mentality is that of a child clinging to a security blanket. You can imagine it will make you safe all you like; unless you have the numbers to back it up, that doesn't mean anything.

Video - Mercedes C300 and Smart Car at 40 MPH offset head on Crash Test

Once again, you guys fail to understand the concept of risk. If you drive a small car you're more likely to die in a collision, but you're also less likely to get into a collision. As long as you avoid high risk behavior (excessive speed, alcohol, etc) you could actually be safer.

Posted by: hey you guys at November 22, 2009 2:52 PM

By your line of reasoning, you're safest on a motorcycle.

Testing another "smart car", the G Wiz. It loses n a race against a TABLE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6l7X5zFu0s

@ hey you guys at November 22, 2009 2:52 PM

You wrote......
As long as you avoid high risk behavior (excessive speed, alcohol, etc) you could actually be safer.

Well, um, OK. I'll buy that argument. If you do not live a risky life, you will stastically not be at a larger danger..... Gee, insurance companies kind of work on this principle when charging you your premiums.

So, if you are living this uber safe lifesyle and I come down the road, driving my 8,800 pound vehicle, speeding, drunk off my ass, arguing with someone on the cell phone and don't see you as I destroy you in your Smart car, who has better odds of surviving?

I do, you twit. Have a short and blissful life if you choose to drive one of these on the US freeways. I see very few of these little clown cars playing in traffic in NorCal on US101.

That last post was me.

Also - I would add that driving a Smart car anywhere off of a Golf Course is risky behavior. Though, be assured, you can feel real smug as you risk death every day in one of these things.

I encourage my liberal "friends" to buy this car.

A person might as well drive an automobile made out of origami. I suppose that's next.

Ok, briefly, relative risk.

Let's have C represent your risk of getting into a collision and I represent your risk of injury from a collision. Your risk of injury while driving would be C x I. (This is a simplification of course.)

I is lowest for big cars, higher for small cars, and highest for motorcycles.

However, C is highest for big cars, smaller for small cars, and smallest for motorcycles.

However, these prove nothing by themselves. The total risk is still C x I.

The difference between I for big cars and small cars is small enough that it is overwhelmed by the difference in C for both. If you further reduce C by voluntary choice, the voluntary choice to buy a smaller car becomes better as C x I is smaller.

However, the I for motorcycles and pedestrians is so much larger that it overwhelms the relatively low C so that the C x I for both is higher, making them worse risks.

You guys are just looking at I and thinking that's the only thing which is important. You also use faulty logic that since C can't be eliminated entirely that reducing C means nothing. Both points are flawed and represent a "common sense" understanding which is, ultimately, incorrect.

@ hey you guys at November 22, 2009 5:34 PM

Accidents are called accidents because the participatants did not plan on them happening.

No amount of wishful thinking and feel good math is going to revive you after I run through you in a 8,800 pound vehicle. I will most often walk away with minor injuries (if wearing the seatbelt). You will be goo.

I've seen it first hand son.

Keep rationalizing. So far that is working well for to keep making my point.

Not to sugar coat it but... Smart Car is the best thing since sliced bread. The more dead and maimed moonbats the better.

Posted by: hey you guys at November 22, 2009 5:34 PM

I'm not sure that's how Geico rates their auto insurance.

Posted by: TrickleUpPolitics at November 22, 2009 4:44 PM

FOTFLMAO! Hurts! "Quadracycle!!" Must watch! here it is again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6l7X5zFu0s

Driving the smallest car in the world - Peel P50 at
54" long and 41" wide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo

If you think those pics are bad, try this one ...

http://www.starsareblind.com/2009/08/07/smart-car-is-smashed-between-two-trucks/

Aside from its dubious crash safety, the thing looks barely capable of carrying more than one person to and from a nearby job. Grocery shopping would have it loaded up like Jed Clampett's truck, moving a family would be impossible, whether for a vacation or for relocating.

blue at November 22, 2009 5:14 PM

Agreed, blue. Hopefully 'hey you guys' will run out an buy one immediately. The silly little twerp could prove a few points. But the silly little twerp will NEVER prove they are 'safer'. What a stupid assertion. He (she) has again shown that the average liberal IQ is right around 59.

If silly little liberals want to drive these little 'crushible' coffins, the by all means - GO FOR IT! but don't force me to drive one, and don't sue me when you are a paraplegic after you pull out in front of my 3/4-ton crew cab pickup and end up blowing through a straw to operate your daily life.

If I want to endanger my body to larger vehicles - I'll ride a Harley, thank you very much.

Oh - and by-the-way - if you want to drive something really small, at LEAST drive something cool, like these:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/256990476

@mexicano: If you'd bothered to read the comments to that post, you'd find that's not a Smart Car smashed between those two trucks, it's a Ford Escape (a compact SUV that weighs five times as much as the Smart). Incidentally, the picture is a bit deceptive, the driver's side was not as badly crushed and the driver has since been released from hospital.

this is definitely an in town car, from the coffee shop to class to the dorm set of wheels. I wouldn't take it on any road I'd have to share with Semi's or straight trucks. I'm considering one because my job is only four miles away and it's all residental roads to there. Deer collisions is our main problem. I'd say it only slightly better than a motorcycle for safety

Ugh, sorry to double post. Metric/imperial conversions caught me out, the Ford Escape is actually more like 2.7 times the weight of the Smart Car. I apologize for the mistake, and now shall get some well-needed sleep.

No difference to me. I refuse to drive a 'Ford Escape' also. But can you imagine - if an Escape was damaged so badly, think what would happen to a dumb person's "smart car". Thanks for enforcing our point, Serenity.

Cheers.

Gunner - most accidents happen close to home.

Fact.

"James McEnanly at November 22, 2009 6:20 PM"

That's where the "fuel efficientcy" comes in; they chopped off everything that didn't involve seating the driver and making the car go, lightening to rediculous ends. I could have done the same with my old Mustang.

Are today's cars REALLY that much more "fuel efficent" than the old cars? I read in a reprint of a WWII ordinance publication that the sedans of 1942 weighed over two tons, but got 16-18 mpg on 70 octane. With today's lighter materials, computer fuel injection, higher octane and cleaner-burning gasoline, wouldn't the same designs get mileage in the 20+ range? I would be willing to put money on it.

"GunnerJones at November 22, 2009 6:55 PM"

Yeah, that would be a good use for this thing. Hook a trailor designed for a motorcycle onto the back for grocery runs. Maybe a "rickshaw" can be attached for a taxi at some university.

I've driven one of these.

Piece of shit as well as a death trap.

I was watching Ghost of Wellstone and andy42302 making out during New Moon. It was so wicked hot! Andy, hit my cell later if you're free! We can both spam Moonbattery and fool around.

Holla!

Name hijackers are just about as pathetic as the Smart car.

Posted by: Oiao at November 22, 2009 5:42 PM

Ok, here`s where your logic is faulty.

Yes, IF something happens, THEN that`s bad. However, you`re assuming something bad happening is inevitable and basing your conclusion on the emotive impact of the bad thing happening. That`s a very human thing to do. However, a negative result IS NOT inevitable. Instead, you should measure risk; which is the impact of the bad thing AS WELL AS how likely it is to occour. Humans aren`t naturally good at predicting probabilities, which is why gambling is always such a big business. This is why you have to rely on impartial numbers to assess things like safety.

I think I'm going to get one of these to park in the cargo bay of my 10 passenger Sprinter! It will make those long walks from the hinter-land of the Walmart parking lot so much easier!
Seriously, I had a $#@%*& teenager pull out WAY TOO CLOSE in front of me in one of these (covered in left-leaning bumpers stickers, of course) the other day, I waited to apply the brakes until nothing but grille was visible in the rear view mirror, and the driver very obviously stiffened up in the front seat. I pulled up beside her at a stop light, she seemed at little shaken. I rolled down my window and yelled to her, "Must be time to get new brakes, huh?" I hoped she learned a lesson. Even my 12 yr old, who previously stated that the Smart was "neat" when he first saw a picture of one, said, "They look kind of dangerous in person."

the car won't be succesfull because it only fills a small niche in this country, usually at one point or another you have to get on the interstate or major state road designed for full size vehicles. I'm considering a motorcycle or a mule as well. but this cart will keep the rain off me. If I could buy a car that ran on coal I'd do that, might have to stoke the fire before goingto bed but if it means the "A" rabs aren't getting my money I'm for it.... see you guys later I'm off to kill some trees and shoot Bambi in the face tommarow

I approach life with caution and so I am sure you can understand that the only small thing I will ride will be my casket when I'm dead. Now as far as the Commies and Greens driving these mobile two man caskets, the first thing that pops into my mind is Captain Quint from Jaws singing to Hooper regarding his anti-shark cage....

Farewell and ado to you my fair Spanish lady...
Farewell and ado to you lady of Spain...
For we've received orders to sail back to Boston
And never more shall we see you again

@ hey you guys at November 22, 2009 7:42 PM

Lay off of that bong son.

At this point, you have become non interesting.

When you die, please do so quickly so that my tax money does not have to carry you on 'one of those little machines that go Ping'.

This is a nice crossover vehicle. It will save you approximately $6,000. Here's how:

You get in a wreck with a SMART car...it becomes your ready-made coffin.

Your family buries you in the car in the ground...

Voila! No need for an expensive casket and they can even leave your iPod headphones on you and plugged in for music as you cross the River Stix.

What a concept! Gotta luv it! :-)

Posted by: addy at November 22, 2009 7:51 PM

I hope you blew a very loud horn as you hit the brakes.

Ah, I love you guys. I try to teach you math and using logic, you accuse me of drug use. What clever, clever folks you are.

I am so wasted right now. Whoa!

How...I repeat...HOW does a small, under-powered, easily rolled vehicle keep you OUT of accidents? Based on what?

Screw your feel-good math and statistics. Until we ALL are driving golf carts, the risks are higher in a 4-wheeled toy like a smart car...period.

I ask again, how do you come to the conclusion that a tiny vehicle like this will lower your risk of an accident?

I may have figured it out. If C represents the risk, times I being the potential for X, which is the number of fatalities divided by Y (the existential illusion of life as dogma re: Kierkegaard), then to modify C, I and X, by definition the outcome will be a safer car. If it wasn't for Hey You "teaching" me math, I'd never have seen it.

Bottom line: a small car can't keep you out of an accident any better than a big car, it's more dangerous to be in, and your chances of dying are greater...period.

HYG, people here have shown vids of the "Smart"car crash tests, the thing's a frackin' sardine can on wheels ya probably have to start by zipcord. I watched some of the vids and checked the statistics. When the car gets in a crash going 70, it looks like a crushed up Pepsi can (I didn't think they could go 70 if ya pushed it off a damn cliff! )

And as another poster was saying you can hardly put groceries in the damn thing, let alone take a damn vacation with your family.

If you wanna drive one of these sardine cans, fayho.... be my guest. Just don't plan on getting too far. Me and my family will be just fine in our Trailblazer.

hope you blew a very loud horn as you hit the brakes.

Posted by: single stack at November 22, 2009 9:16 PM

No, I didn't. I absolutely love my Sprinter, it is fantastic for hauling around loads of kids/strollers/groceries etc...and for pissing off liberals-I love the cow-eyed looks I get from them when I unload 7 kids in this stretch-limo length, massive vehicle, they don't realize that it is a diesel with 20-25mpg and usually think I'm delivering packages, but the horn is the most ridiculous, pathetic, Euro-wienie (they are actually made by Mecedes) dinky little "beep"- people usually laugh when I honk at them. I really should get one of those tractor-trailer air horn jobs installed!

Cudos to The MaryHunter....

Stupid thread - great response. Who wudda thunk?

ROFLMAO and shitting my pants to boot!

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at November 22, 2009 11:29 PM

Smaller cars avoid collisions by having superior maneuverability and shorter braking distances. Also, you know, by being smaller targets. It's not that hard to figure out.

You're letting your emotional response to a possible bad thing overwhelm the facts. You are, in fact, using the exact same reasoning as a proponent of global warming.

Posted by: Atomic Lib Smasher at November 22, 2009 11:52 PM

Where you watching the same video I was? Sure, the car as a whole looked like crap, but the passenger compartment was remarkably intact. Heck, the doors still worked. The damage to the driver in that case was caused by the rapid acceleration, which would be the same if you were in a roll cage or a tank.

It's a commuter pod, it's not marketed to families. Capitalism results in a variety of goods to meet every need.

In my view, it doesn't matter what car you drive, your hosed when that MACK truck careens out of control and squashes you like a bug. Although personally, I prefer vehicles that are bigger because they give me a greater 360(provided I'm not hauling a trailer or what-not.)

Posted by: hey you guys at November 23, 2009 2:22 AM

Capitalism results in a variety of goods to meet every need.

I'd never imagined I'd hear that one from the hopeychange crowd - invoking "CAPITALISM" as a key part of an argument. Well, whenever it suits y'all, I guess.

Let's go there, shall we? I've nothing against loonbats who have the need to buy a death trap. At least, for now they have the CHOICE, something the Statists in power now would just as soon eliminate. As CAFE standards ramp up unrealistically, manufacturers must make lighter and lighter cars... which over time correlate with increased traffic fatalities. Cause and effect? CEI thinks so. So does IIHS (via Edmunds). (Again, that pesky physics F=ma thing)

Don't get me wrong: the capitalistic "right" for enviro-lefties to buy a Smart car is great, I support it wholeheartedly. It's also just one more indication that natural selection against liberalism is working. ;-)

All registered Democrats should be forced to buy these Stupid Cars - within a few years the Democratic Party will be extinct as they will either be 6 feet under or brain dead from massive head trauma.

Like when the VW first came out they should stick a wind-up key on it

Seriously HYG..."superior maneuverability"? They're a "smaller target"?

Man, I sure feel safer now.

Look, you want one, go for it. The point is they are NOT safe. If you're living in a little village with almost no traffic and good weather conditions, they they'd be fine for putzing around town. But of course, the savings (in gas and emissions) would be negligible since you're driving it so little. (Better make sure those roads are straight, too...their cornering ability is scary-bad.)

Jimbo,
"Gunner - most accidents happen close to home."

Yeah, that's what my Pa told me. He said all he wanted was a Blow Job.

You betcha, by golley, oh darnit.

HEY YOU GUYS has made the case that the fact that they are so crappy, they would make people MORE carefull on the rodes.

With that logic, I am sure that he/she supports all HONEST people carrying LOADED GUNS in public.

Well KH, that sounds like a reasonable thing to me! Someone please get me a CC permit for Xmas. The perfect accessory for my S&W .44 mag.

"Well DO ya'.....punk?"

(Unfortunately, I live in L.A. The odds that honest people will be able to pack heat are about as good as hitting the Super Lotto. Guns are a right reserved for illegal alien gang members.)