Peugeot 1007 savest car in Europe!

[nota]

A car being tough only ads to the danger of it's occupants. Cars are softer this days so they can absorb the impact. Imagine you were driving a car entirely made of concrete: every small chock would have an immense impact on your body.

Depends what you hit. And how hard you hit it (survivability space). If you crash into an immovable object, ok

But in typical car-to-car impacts, vehicle mass cannot be ignored, truck vs car as an extreme example. Often the lighter vehicle's lesser inertia can virtually fail to initiate the deformable crush zone of the heavier car, so in effect the lighter vehicle usually becomes the crush zone of the heavier car (see my 2nd pic) and the heavier car's deformability remains largely unactivated. Also, greater vehicle mass means less rate of decelleration, as the heavier vehicle effectively 'keeps going' into the tiddler

A significant impact into an immovable object in 2005 M-Benz S-Class (or Benz W140) vs same in Peugeot 1007 .. or a major head-on between 1007 or W140. Either way, I know which vehicle size/weight class I'd rather take my chances in

[Matra et Alpine]

There was a test done on Fifth Gear sometime last year where a 2004 Renault Espace and a 1994 Renault Espace were crashed head on.
The new Espace is a five star NCAP car, the older car probably a two star. Anyway, the "dummies" in the old Espace would have been killed and the ones in the new Espace would have walked away.

"killed" is an exageration

Showing how times have changed the original Espace was the safest people carrier on the market and was considered "good" in its day !!

We often talk about how aggressive 4WDs are towards the cars they hit. It appears that a 5-star NCAP car is very aggressive towards a similar size older car as well - and much more aggressive than any smaller car it hits. If two similar size 5-star NCAP cars hit each other, than they are equally aggressive towards each other.

I tihnk this really only relfects on how little attention there was to "safety" back then !!
Doubt that any of the "old" cars woudl have been better than a 2* on NCAP. So it's not that the new cars are 'aggressive" per se just that the older cars were "bad" ?

[motorsportnerd]

Also, I was in Melbourne last week when there was a serious head on crash killing two drivers.
A 2004 Ford Falcon BA XR8 ute (4-star ANCAP performer) hit a 10-12 year old Mitsubishi Lancer head on. The Falcon crushed the Lancer, killing its driver instantly, but the Falcon was in turn hit by a mid 1970s Holden Statesman and a early 1990s Holden Commodore. The driver of the Falcon later died of head injuries.
The reason I am bringing this up is that the aggressivity of the larger Falcon was fatal to the smaller Lancer (that road has a 80 km/h limit, and it is believe the Falcon driver was speeding). However, the pictures in the paper showed that the Falcon's airbags didn't fire, making me think the computers got it seriously wrong in determining the severity of the crash. Especially as the Falcon was then hit by two other cars - the impacts of which I assume were fatal to the Falcon driver.
So, one wonders, are airbag trigger points sometimes set too high? There is the example of the Renault I mentioned above. And, in the case of this Falcon, the passenger cabin/compartment was completely intact. The crash structure did its job admirably. I suspect that the driver suffered his fatal injuries due to the failure of the airbags to fire. Its possble the Falcon driver would have survived relatively uninjured if there had only been one impact, but I'm guessing after the first impact the car's computers were incapable of firing the airbags for the second and third impacts. If I was a relative of that driver I would be asking Ford to look into why the airbags didn't fire.

[nota]

Wonders if the BA Falcon driver was 'bounced around' by 2nd & 3rd impacts, died of broken neck?

not excusing non-functional airbags but in Australia I guess airbag deployment levels are a tossup between major shunts (airbag please) and high-speed kangaroo strikes eg (no thanks)

[motorsportnerd]

"killed" is an exageration

OK, I exaggerated, but Tiff's explanation suggested that dummy in the older car may not have survived in reality.

Showing how times have changed the original Espace was the safest people carrier on the market and was considered "good" in its day !!

I tihnk this really only relfects on how little attention there was to "safety" back then !!
Doubt that any of the "old" cars woudl have been better than a 2* on NCAP. So it's not that the new cars are 'aggressive" per se just that the older cars were "bad" ?

You are quite correct. However, it will be a while before we're all driving 5-star cars. In the meantime, I hope I don't hit a 5-star car while I continue to drive around an 8 year old 3-star car (measured at a time when I guess the standards weren't so tough).
Yes, the '94 Espace was one of the safest MPVs of its time. As was my '97 Mondeo one of the safest mid-size cars of its time. But the crash technology is way behind todays standards as you point out.
It's worth noting that even these older cars had airbags, seat belt pretensioners and much stronger cabins than anything built in the 1980s, so I guess a mid 1990s car would be as aggressive on a mid 1980s car as what a modern 5-star car is to the mid 1990s car.
In ten years time, we'll know how much of an impact the new 5-star cars have had on reducing road fatalities and injuries. Based on the downwards trends from the 1990s cars, I suspect the new cars will cause an even greater reduction in fatalities.

[motorsportnerd]

Wonders if the BA Falcon driver was 'bounced around' by 2nd & 3rd impacts, died of broken neck?

not excusing non-functional airbags but in Australia I guess airbag deployment levels are a tossup between major shunts (airbag please) and high-speed kangaroo strikes eg (no thanks)

The papers and radio reports reported "head injuries", but I assume they were inital reports.
You're right about the balancing act between major shunts and kangaroo strikes . I've heard complaints Commodore drivers after a crash expressing surprise that airbags didn't go off. I know Holden sets the trigger point for the airbags on Commodores so that the crash has to be quite severe before they fire - part of the reason been so that they don't fire in kangaroo strikes, etc. No-one wants to replace airbags after relative minor impacts, but we do want them to help us in major impacts.

[lightweight]

These cars are tested in a specific task : Crashing head on to an unbreakable wall with X km/h. As the speed rises, so does the damage. So I think it is obvious that heavier cars will handle better a 120 km/h collision.

Therefore the title "safest car in Europe" is not correct

[Matra et Alpine]

These cars are tested in a specific task : Crashing head on to an unbreakable wall with X km/h. As the speed rises, so does the damage. So I think it is obvious that heavier cars will handle better a 120 km/h collision.

Therefore the title "safest car in Europe" is not correct

It's not "head-on" - it's offset to simulate striking a car travelling in the opposite direction corner to corner ( seemingly the most common head-on )
It's NOT "unbreakable" - it's slightly deformable close to the "ideal" 5*vehicle.

The problem with "heavier" cars is they are only safer whilst others take the more public-minded approach to safety. If all cars are heavy then it's carnage If all cars are light then it's more 'survivable"

[nota]

It's not "head-on" - it's offset to simulate striking a car travelling in the opposite direction corner to corner ( seemingly the most common head-on )
It's NOT "unbreakable" - it's slightly deformable close to the "ideal" 5*vehicle.

The problem with "heavier" cars is they are only safer whilst others take the more public-minded approach to safety. If all cars are heavy then it's carnage If all cars are light then it's more 'survivable"

If SOME cars are heavy then it's carnage. If all cars are light, why is it "more survivable" ..?

Whether head-on or offset, an impact is an impact is an impact. I've never had the good fortune to incur a simulated impact while driving

A public-minded approach to safety is indeed a noble sentiment. Yet a public-minded imprimata inevitably raises the personal question of who's 'public' is most important to me? My fellow public, or my immediate family?

With the 'heavy car' genie already out of the bottle (large-SUV sales having ballooned in many lands) a community-minded yet perchance self-sacrificial mandate might prove a very tough sell to our less public-minded fellow public

[Matra et Alpine]

If SOME cars are heavy then it's carnage. If all cars are light, why is it "more survivable" ..?

MASS is the enemy. Lighter cars impart less energy on impact. So being hit by a lighter car causes less damage to the car AND MORE IMPORTANTLY the occupants.

Whether head-on or offset, an impact is an impact is an impact. I've never had the good fortune to incur a simulated impact while driving

The OLD test used to be just head on to a solid wall. Modern tests are more indicative of REAL crashes. I've had a 'few' with immovable objects ( trees and stone dykes ) I prefer offset and glancing

A public-minded approach to safety is indeed a noble sentiment. Yet a public-minded imprimata inevitably raises the personal question of who's 'public' is most important to me? My fellow public, or my immediate family?

With the 'heavy car' genie already out of the bottle (large-SUV sales having ballooned in many lands) a community-minded yet perchance self-sacrificial mandate might prove a very tough sell to our less public-minded fellow public

That's when governments have to over-ride free-market and impose restrictions and penalties. Instead of letting SUVs get away with tax breaks

[nota]

MASS is the enemy. Lighter cars impart less energy on impact. So being hit by a lighter car causes less damage to the car AND MORE IMPORTANTLY the occupants.

This generalisation is where we differ. Of course there are two distinct types of automotive impacts: That being into immovable objects (walls and the like, as prominent in NCAP) and vehicle-to-vehicle. A significant disproportionance of mass between two 'parties' can definately be a crucial ally regards a too-intimate car-to-car social soirée, though this luxury is not shared with the lessor participant. A cruel reality, but such is life (and sometimes death)

I'd venture that for most drivers in most crashes, there is precious little chance to pick your target. These are accidents after all. Walls don't suddenly leap out towards you, but moving vehicles do. So there's often little opportunity for the light-car motorist to select between hitting either a conveniently placed standard-issue NCAP wall artifice .. or that ruddy great Chevrolet/BMW 7-series bearing down on you at warp speed, or even worse the dreaded 2-ton+ mega SUV

I agree those urban behemoth SUVs should be taxed to the max, special licenses required etc. And maybe a 'vision tax' too while we're at it, for those of us at intersections who cannot see through the side panels of the SUV alongside, and are thus forced to wait until M'lady removes herself from our sightlines

As an aside, I readily admit to not knowing which type of real-life road crashes generally result in more fatalities .. into immovable objects, or vehicle-to-vehicle ..??

[Matra et Alpine]

This generalisation is where we differ. Of course there are two distinct types of automotive impacts: That being into immovable objects (walls and the like, as prominent in NCAP) and vehicle-to-vehicle.)

As already stated, the NCAP frontal impact is to an object whioch simulates ANOTHER vehicle becqause THAT is thre most common accident based on analysis of accident records.
I think you may be thinking of the older US and (some) European tests which were into walls !!

I'd venture that for most drivers in most crashes, there is precious little chance to pick your target. These are accidents after all. Walls don't suddenly leap out towards you, but moving vehicles do.

And it's based on analyisis of crahse that the NCAP tests were devloped to represent the most common accidents.

So there's often little opportunity for the light-car motorist to select between hitting either a conveniently placed standard-issue NCAP wall artifice .. or that ruddy great Chevrolet/BMW 7-series bearing down on you at warp speed, or even worse the dreaded 2-ton+ mega SUV

and my point about social-responsibility was that once everyone is in light vehicles there isnt' this dilema

As an aside, I readily admit to not knowing which type of real-life road crashes generally result in more fatalities .. into immovable objects, or vehicle-to-vehicle ..??

That's OK, the worlds safety standards groups ( like NCAP ) have done all the statistical analysis for us

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Peugeot 1007 5 stars 3 stars 2 stars
Citroën C1 4 stars 3 stars 2 stars

Care to explain the differance? THERE THE SAME CAR!

Seriously, NCAP has gone crazy recently.

[Matra et Alpine]

Peugeot 1007 5 stars 3 stars 2 stars
Citroën C1 4 stars 3 stars 2 stars

Care to explain the differance? THERE THE SAME CAR!

Seriously, NCAP has gone crazy recently.

not really

They share the SAME PLATFORM, there are interior and cosmetic differences.

From NCAPs site ....

The 1007 tested features dual frontal airbags, driver's knee airbag, side airbags, head-protecting airbag (curtain) front belts with pre-tensioners and load limiters, ISOFIX anchorages and top tethers to rear seats, belt reminders for all seats, ABS, BA and brake repartition as standard.

The C1 tested comes with dual frontal airbags, seat-mounted side airbags, front belts with pre-tensioners and load limiters, ISOFIX anchorages and top tethers to rear outer seats, a belt reminders for the driver and ABS as standard. Optional equipment includes a head-protecting curtain airbag.

NOT how the 1007 had driver knee airbag and curtain airbags and braking assistance. The C1 only had the curtain airbag as an optional extra and NOT TESTED by NCAP.

See you may THINK there is madness, but it's all perfectly sensible

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Thats strange then, because it has a few more airbags and Braking Assistance, it gets a better result.

What about Megane Hatch and Coupe (Thats how they like them to be called), The 3-door has anti-submarine seat airbags, but the 5-door doesn't,

They get exactly the same rating. Confused?!