SMART, HONDA FIT AND TOYOTA YARIS MICROCARS: UNSAFE!

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

An old proverb goes something like this:

The rock hits the jug . . .
The jug hits the rock . . .
The jug still ‘gets it.’”

To anyone with an abecedarian grasp of grasp of physics, the meaning is obvious. When something heavy and hard hits something light and fragile, heavy and hard wins every time.

And so it is with the new flyweight microcars that the freedom-hating greens want to force us into.

You shouldn’t need a crash test to confirm what is apparent to informed logic. However, in this age of science, a crash test is a powerful convincer.

In crash tests released Tuesday [April 14, A.D. 2009], the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart "fortwo," Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

The tests involved head-on crashes between the fortwo and a 2009 Mercedes C Class, the Fit and a 2009 Honda Accord and the Yaris and the 2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 40 miles per hour, representing a severe crash.

Predictably, the Honda proved “unFit,” the Smart was “fortwo” to the hospital, and the Yaris increased “YaRisk.”

In the fortwo collision, the [I]institute said the Smart, which weighs 1,808 lbs, went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much. There was extensive damage to the fortwo's interior and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs.

[Head injuries are not good]

In the Fit's test, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries. In the vehicle-to-vehicle test, the Fit was rated poor . . . .

In the Yaris test, the [In]stitute said the mini car sustained damage to the door and front passenger area. The driver dummy showed signs of head injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck and right leg.

Predictably, trial lawyers are salivating while Smart, Honda, and the Evil Empire (Toyota) are spinning P.R. denials and excuses worthy of the infamous Tobacco Institute.

Truth With Speedzzter, of course, believes in informed vehicle choice.

And that means the freedom to choose a less-than-safe microcar.

Thus, if you want to put your kid in a cheap, flimsy, airbag-filled micromachine, it ought to be your choice (so long as the rest of society doesn’t have to pick up the tab for injuries sustained when Junior or Muffy staggers out of a frat kegger and bounces Daddy’s little B-car off of a 5,000-pound pick up truck).

But that also means the freedom to chose a larger, safer vehicle.

The greens and some among the ranks of the mini-golf/phone-booth/toy-car sellers are against the liberty to wrap one’s most precious cargo in 3,500-7,000 pounds of life-saving steel. They believe that selfishly protecting one’s family “kills the planet” and endangers green dreams of a road packed with GM-Segways, electric cycle-cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. They use anti-choice sledgehammers such as increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to drive larger, better crash-absorbing vehicles off the road, or at least reduce their diversity and make their further development cost prohibitive. This deprives consumers of the ability to “choose safety” as a free-market value.

The IIHS is not a full-throated supporter of vehicle choice. They’re in the game to assess risks and save the insurers money. If the IIHS had its way, we’d all be riding around in ugly, low-performing, idiot-proof, padded battle tanks (see e.g. the “Safety Cars” promoted in the 1970s). However, considering the high costs, pain and suffering of personal injuries, the IIHS data bears consideration when policy makers, regulators . . . and unfortunately . . . judges sit down to tamper again with the not-so-free market for new light vehicles.