Smart car does well in IIHS tests...with caveats

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) announced the results of its Smart Fortwo crash tests today. The car earned a good rating (the highest score) in both the 40 mph frontal offset test into a stationary deformable barrier and the side-impact test where the driver's side of the car is hit by a simulated pickup or SUV moving at 31 mph. In the test for rear crash protection, the seat/head restraints of the car earned the second highest rating of Acceptable.

However as Adrian Lund, president of the Institute stated, "All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package." The Institute's test results generally show how well vehicles compare against others of similar size and weight. Frontal ratings can't be compared across weight classes, which means a small car that earns a good rating isn't necessarily safer on the road than a large car that's not rated as highly in the test.

The Smart has a very short "crumple zone" ahead of the occupant compartment, which means the seat belts and airbags must take a bigger share of the load in protecting the driver and passenger in a frontal crash. In fact, the head of the driver dummy hit the steering wheel through the airbag with enough force to indicate the possibility of head injury.

In the side-impact test, all forces recorded on the driver dummy were low, indicating little risk of injury. The car has standard head/torso side airbags, which pop out of the seat during severe side impacts to cushion the head and chest. However, just as in the NHTSA side impact test, the driver door unlatched, posing the risk of partial or complete occupant ejection, especially if the seat belt isn't used. The structure was therefore downgraded to an acceptable rating.

The entire IIHS press release can be found here. A more humorous take entitled "Smart Deemed Safe. Kinda." was posted in The Truth About Cars.

Friends don't let friends...drive Smart!

The tiny Smart Fortwo is all the rage now that gas prices are closing in on $4 per gallon for regular unleaded in many parts of the US. As you can see, the Smart takes up only about half the space of my 2004 Toyota Camry, a typical modern-day midsize car. The Smart holds only two passengers in relative comfort (there is no rear seat), but there is a fair amount of space behind the front seats to hold cargo.

However, the car didn't do so well in the NHTSA frontal crash tests, with only a 3-star rating for the front passenger (and a 4-star rating for the driver). Almost every car today earns 4 or 5 stars in the frontal test, so 3 stars isn't particularly encouraging. In the NHTSA side impact test, the car earned the maximum of 5 stars, but the driver door unlatched, which increases the possibility of partial or complete occupant ejection if the seat belt is not used.

The car has a rear-mounted 1.0-liter 3-cylinder engine, and is rated by the EPA to achieve 33 mpg in city driving and 41 mpg on the highway. However, premium gas must be used (regular unleaded is allowed only in an emergency, and even then, the tank should only be partially filled). The car weighs only about 1800 lbs and is only 106 inches long, shorter than the wheelbase (front to rear wheel centers) on the Camry!

The Camry, by contrast, holds 5 people in comfort plus has a very roomy trunk. It is 189 inches long and weighs 3142 pounds, with a wheelbase of 107 inches. The 4-cylinder model was originally rated at 23/32 mpg for city/highway driving (since lowered to 20/29 mpg according to the new rules for calculating mileage). However, my mileage is much closer to the EPA's original estimates, and on long highway trips, I achieve a bona fide 35 to 38 mpg. Even in my normal day-to-day commuting, I've been averaging about 28 mpg lately.

In the tougher Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests, the 2004 Camry was rated Good (the highest score) in both the frontal offset and side impact crash tests, the latter when the car was equipped with optional side airbags, as mine has. (The side airbags became standard beginning with 2007 models.)

The Smart is slow to accelerate, and one of its most annoying features according to many reviewers is its automated manual transmission. This is basically a manual transmission that shifts for itself (there is no clutch pedal). The problem is that each shift occurs in a herky-jerky fashion, with the result that occupants' heads and necks are thrown back and forth. Apparently, you can smooth out the shifts by trying to anticipate when a shift will occur by lifting off the gas pedal. This can be hard to predict when a tachometer is not standard equipment and if you aren't familiar with driving a car with a manual transmission!

It seems the best use for this car is in congested city centers where parking is very tight. In New York City, for example, many Manhattan streets have no meters or marked spaces, so if you can squeeze your car in, you're fine (just remember to move it when it's time for street cleaning).

Better small car choices, which offer seating for four or five are the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, or even the Mini Cooper. If getting the highest possible gas mileage is your priority, then a Toyota Prius is the hands-down winner, with city/highway ratings of 48/45 mpg, on regular gas.

Here are two articles from Edmunds.com on the Smart, one from Karl Brauer, editor-in-chief, on the day-to-day foibles of the car and the other from Lee Scott of the "Strategies for Smart Car Buyers" blog on the safety issue.

Highway safety...1950s style!

This billboard was spotted along US Route 250 near Dennison in the eastern part of Ohio. This is a real throwback to the 50s when we exhorted drivers to do the right thing and drive safely. Back then, scientific analysis of the causes of crashes, deaths, and injuries on US highways was in its infancy, and most popular messages were directed toward the driver. Now, we have a more enlightened viewpoint, and we know that it’s very hard to persuade or otherwise “educate” drivers not to crash. We take a much more balanced approach, exemplified by the “Haddon Matrix,” developed by William Haddon, Jr, MD, the first administrator of what became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The Haddon Matrix considers all factors before, during, and after a crash: human (the driver, cyclist, or pedestrian), vehicular, and environmental (the road and roadside). For example, daytime running lights added to a vehicle can make it more visible before a potential crash, reducing the possibility of a crash with another vehicle in the first place. During a crash, built-in safety features in the car such as airbags can greatly reduce the possibility of death or injury. And prompt response by trained paramedics after the crash can further improve the chances of survival and recovery. Today, we practice this much more balanced approach to highway safety. Sadly however, not all measures that we know to be effective, such as mandatory motorcycle helmet use laws, are in place because of political pressure.

Noteworthy anniversary in auto safety today

According to the New York Times, " 'Today [June 24, 1983] was a very bad day for deregulators,' one lawyer insisted after the Supreme Court rejected the Reagan Administration's attempt to dump a 'passive' safety restraint rule for autos. It would be more accurate to say it was a bad day for regulators who ignore the will of Congress. The Court's stunning, unanimous ruling should signal a fresh start in the long-delayed effort to reduce traffic deaths with modern 'airbag' technology."

As we remember, Ronald Reagan was famous for his support of deregulation of big business and his distaste for what he called big government. Early in his administration, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) repealed a planned regulation to require automakers to install "passive" restraints (airbags or so-called "automatic" seat belts). This rule was to phase in with the 1982 model year and be completed by the 1984 model year.

Insurance companies, led by State Farm and the National Association of Independent Insurers, sued the government, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. On this date in 1983, the court ruled 9-0 that the Reagan administration's repeal was "arbitrary and capricious" and that the auto industry had waged "the regulatory equivalent of war" on the airbag, a war the industry had "lost -- the inflatable restraint was proven sufficiently cost effective."

This decision paved the way for the Department of Transportation, led by Elizabeth Dole, to propose an ingenious new rule that had the salutary effect of prompting states to pass mandatory seat belt usage laws AND requiring the automakers to begin installing airbags or automatic seat belts in cars starting with the 1987 model year.

As we know, airbags won out ultimately over the automatic belts (some of which were poorly designed), and all cars and light trucks are now required to have driver and passenger frontal airbags. Seat belt use in the US has risen dramatically in the past couple of decades from something like a dismal 12% for front seat occupants in 1982 to over 80% today (and 90% in a few states).