Top 20 Most Dangerous Cars To Drive

[OoTLink]

What about when the 7500lb Tahoe 4WD with lift kit and front end guard rams into that poor little 4200lb 300C? Or worse yet, the 2500lb compact car (civic?)

I agree, it's relative - but then again, while I'm all for people driving whatever they want, I also think they should be forced to prove they're capable of handling it (likewise for guns :P).

We shouldn't have psychopaths with mental problems driving SUVs or trucks, especially for a living.

[The Gunslinger]

See, I believe a lot of SUV's should be on that list, not because they're unsafe for the occupants, but because they cause hideous amounts of damage to anything they have an accident with! An 1800kg 300C is one thing, but these 3-tonne murder bricks that Toyota and Mitsubishi keep cranking out, it's disgusting. If my C4 (1337kg kerb weight) was hit side-on by a Toyota 4x4, they'd have to pry me out with the Jaws of Life and I'd be a mangled wreck. The only reason I'd be alive is a copious number of airbags stopping my brains from being pureed.

Same goes for most of the small cars on that list, probably. They're safe in single-car accidents or with other small-to-mid size vehicles, but trucks and SUV's just paste them.

Also, who the hell decided it was ok to let suburban 4x4 owners buy and fit bull-bars? They turn major pedestrian collisions into guaranteed fatalities, mangle other cars in collisions, and for what? Buckled chassis rails instead of damaging their precious brick bodywork!

[marlinspike]

Here's what I don't like about SUVs far more than I don't like their weight: the position of their bumpers. We have the good sense to start requiring low bumpers on semi-trucks, but we don't on SUVs. It's not like those raised bumpers do anything for them, if you notice all these SUVs have their undercarriage hanging way below the bumpers (my ol' Benz actually has more ground clearance than some of them). When 3 tons of car hits your car in the right places you have a decent change. When 3 tons of car his you in the crumple zone with its bumper, you have little chance.

FWIW, they don't crash the cars into a stationary wall. They crash them into this sort of spring loaded wall. It simulates an impact with a car of the same mass. Mass doesn't always rule as there are plenty of large unsafe cars, but it never helps the other guy. One good way to help understand how the cars stack up is rather than looking at the star ratings, go to safercar.gov and look at the detailed ratings. There you can see what forces actually impacted on where. Cars with the same star rating can do VERY differently. There are also cars with lower ratings because they do more damage to a part of your body you might be willing to sacrifice because they do less damage to your head. Finally, particularly with some older pre-airbag cars, the car may get a low rating because at 35mph you may have some minor injuries , but that may be because the car crumples less, so that you might have injuries at 35mph but at least still be alive when you hit a tree at 90.

[The Gunslinger]

If you go onto the NCAP site it gives detailed information and full videos for all the cars they have tested. The 300C does quite well in the front-on impacts, but side-on there's quite a lot of risk of bashing your head on that high beltline without the side curtains.