What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
49 Comments
- juliusthecat, on 10/27/2009, -2/+28This article is utter *****. You can't call a death trap because you think that people tend to drive it more dangerously. They forgot to mention the beef with Suzuki and Consumer Reports is that CR reported that the samurai rolled over on the way to the test track. Every car made in the 50s is far far far more dangerous than the smart car, or the camaro, or the audi, etc.
- MattyDienhoff, on 10/27/2009, -0/+23"So it’s perhaps no surprise that the little car was about as resilient as the Maginot Line."
What a stupid analogy. The Maginot Line didn't fail because it was weak, it failed because the enemy found a way to *go around it*. - fredrockbluff, on 10/27/2009, -2/+24this article keeps on using "if a 16 year old boy drove it" as their main argument. buried.
- tugger, on 10/26/2009, -9/+25sorry to contradict. The smart was the first car to reach encap-5, and still holds the highest rating for any car submitted.
The smart is the full production car where the no occupant has died through head-on or side collision.
The car is so light and strong that it simply bounces away.
If you have a head-on crash with a smart, the owner probably just saved your life.
Just have a look at crash survival statistics between 4x4 vehicles, it's not a pretty picture.
Roughly, accidents involving two 4x4s have four times the death rate compared to accidents involving two saloon cars.
Accidents involving only one 4x4 vehicle (ie crash into wall/barrier/stationary vehicle) has double the death rate compared to accidents involving one saloon car.
Go figure. Mass is a killer. - AFCdtLoeb, on 10/27/2009, -0/+16Agreed. The Maginot was in fact, so strong that it did not fall when it was attacked *from either side*. The Germans could not break through it from their border, then, when they went through Belgium and came back from the French side, it still held. It is still taught in schools as a model of defensive construction.
- sinurgy, on 10/27/2009, -0/+11If you get hit by a semi you're likely going to be crushed regardless of the car your driving. Also, do you actually know any truck drivers or are you just talking out of your ignorant ass?
- MattyDienhoff, on 10/27/2009, -0/+9"Just like the Ford Explorer, the Samurai suffered from the same problem: a lot of weight up high. These little SUVlets were always on the verge of rolling over."
This is true of the majority of four-wheel drives. I don't see why the author singles out the Suzuki Samurai, since other comparable vehicles (like the Jeep Wrangler) suffer from the same tendency, and unlike the Explorer, the Samurai didn't have any defects that made it particularly likely to roll over (at least, not that the article mentions). In addition, the fact that ignorant people believe an SUV is safer than a car because it's bigger and heavier isn't exactly the fault of the vehicles themselves. It's a well known fact that such vehicles are more prone to rolling over in accidents than cars.
Same with the Camaro. The author added it to the list because people *tend to drive it recklessly*, therefore it's more likely to be involved in an accident. That has nothing to do with the crashworthiness of the vehicle itself. And don't even get me started on the Audi 5000 entry, the author even acknowledges that the so called safety issue wasn't an issue at all, yet adds the car to a 'list of deathtraps' because some people *thought it had a defect*? What a load of crap. - palehorse864, on 10/27/2009, -1/+9You'll probably have a very intact smart car at the end of the crash, but other groups have rated them and found problems. The smart itself is sound and holds up during the crash. However, the problem is that while you may not experience passenger intrusion, even a little extra deceleration can save your life in a crash.
Going from 35-60mph to zero very fast, or even bouncing into reverse is not very good for you, even if you don't hit anything in the car other than your air bag or seat belt.
If we could invent Star Trek style Inertial Dampeners, the Smart might be one of the safest cars on the road, but as long as humans are subject to the effects of rapid deceleration, you have a problem. - ChronicColonic, on 10/26/2009, -1/+9They did not show the whole front impact crash test of the Smart car.
http://digg.com/d315wG1 - palehorse864, on 10/27/2009, -0/+8Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts, Canyonero-oooOoooooo-ohhhooohh
- anixmander, on 10/27/2009, -1/+8Those so-called dumbass redneck truckers are better drivers than 99.9 percent of the general population.
In any country. - anixmander, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6I take it this reinforces peoples opinions that the author is an idiot?
I know it does mine. - HopeForTomorrow, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5Ford Pinto.
Killing people since 1970. - inactive, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5Fail even more,its Autobahn.
- CronosPerros, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5Buried for it's sheer level of stupidity. Is it just me or have these top ten list just completely worn out their logic especially when they're being written by complete morons with no level of expertise about the topic that they are writing about? I mean, the smart car is number two most unsafe vehicle? Really? And you proceed to support this choice by showing a youtube video of testing that proves it is incredibly safe, thereby completely disproving your point? How ***** stupid are you?
- gl77, on 10/27/2009, -2/+6wow, no Pontiac Fiero? how could you leave it off of this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiero
scroll down to see the section called "Engine Fire Reputation" - a117, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5What about the Ford Fiesta? Even the name sounds like death. The only fiesta you'll have after crashing in one of those is a Los Dios de Muertos party.
- SweetDaddyD, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4Ottobaan
- Chronometron94, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5this is entirely based on personal opinion and speculation. buried
- MrFisty, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Wow. Number 10 is instant death.
- Virgule, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3pffft.. the worst death trap ever is that chinese truck. Pay attention to the passengers cabin... all 4 doors get crushed like wet paperbags! The survival odds are exactly zero. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0ZfYUC21eQ
- bcassner, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3How about the Yugo? Wait the car has to go fast enough to do any real damage, so never mind.
- brucefrench, on 10/29/2009, -0/+2But the videos are fun to watch!
- wwwonka, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3sorry, but I still drive a '66 Chevy Corvair as my daily driver, the car is 40 years ahead of it's time.
- gills62ca, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2My husbands' cousin died in a Ford Pinto. Burned to death after a relatively minor accident. It took years for the family to get any kind of settlement or justice. Horrible. Apparently he was a fine young man.
- johndi, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Tugger is right about small cars bouncing away. When I was deployed in eastern Europe I saw a Trabant get hit by an M1 Abrams. That little pos car did a 180 and slid into the ditch. Not only did the driver walk away uninjured, but when they towed the car out it still ran. No way he'd have been so lucky in an SUV.
- blackfrancis789, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2I just wasted my time reading this. next time, auto-ban!!
- Chirp08, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2There's a difference between the driver being hte problem and the car, but whoever wrote the article couldn't discern the two. Calling the Camaro "poorly constructed" as if this makes it the cars fault people crashed was *****, if that were the case you would see them on the road in large numbers still today. The interior was garbage the car itself and powertrain are solid and desirable. Letting a kid drive a car that ran low 13's in the quarter factory does not make the car a death trap, it makes the parents idiots.
- AFCdtLoeb, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2Autobhan.
- nublet, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1that geo storm is turbocharged lol: http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/Geo-Sto ...
- u3b3rg33k, on 10/30/2009, -0/+1that covair video did not support the article's arguments one bit. made the car look better than chevy's current lineup...
- rebrad, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Isn't how green the car is more important? If the car is in a crash how recyclable is the car and it's contents?
- srs2000, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2Autobahn.
- ktan91, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2If the Geo Storm really came like that in the picture.. I would see why people would die in it.. Why the hell does it have such a huge ass Intercooler for?
- ramfire98, on 10/29/2009, -0/+1Knocking Camaro which is also knocking Firebird. No statistics provided. BURIED
- falstaff, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1"Now with expanded crumple zones!"
- falstaff, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1My first car was a '74.
Apparently, there were under 30 deaths from fire in the Pinto in its 11 year run. That's 30 too many, but as far as safety issues go, this one was pretty minor. - deathandtaverns, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1My father used to drive an MG midget. If you ever want the experience of driving a go-kart on the highway find someone with one of those things. It's a surreal feeling to have to look up to see the tops of a semi's tires and get the feeling that if it were to change lanes it would just feel like a bump in the road.
- cocoamix, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1I knew the Pinto would be on that list:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0J0rcJTLo - rlx02, on 10/27/2009, -1/+1wow, this author knows absolutely nothing about automobiles and the automotive industry. I don't need to say anything that hasn't been said already. How the hell did this article get dugg so much?
- JustinTX, on 10/27/2009, -1/+1Sorry to contradict you, but mass differential does make quite a bit of difference. The Smart is an incredible engineering achievement and protects its occupants well... provided they only hit other Smarts. In the USA where 95% of the vehicles have twice as much mass as a Smart, probability suggests that the Smart drivers will be absorbing the brunt of any impact they are likely to encounter.
The Smart is a nice car and safe for its size.... but in an encounter with an Expedition, Suburban, or other such mommy-mobile the Smart (and thus the Smart occupants) lose. In any impact it is generally the acceleration (deceleration is a negative acceleration... think G-forces) are usually the killer. The smart won't impale you with its steering column like the Corvair, but it is a billiard ball in a sea of bowing balls. Crash a bowling ball into a billiard ball and tell me which experiences greater acceleration forces.
You'll still die in a Smart... but at least your corpse won't be a car-part pincushion. - anixmander, on 10/27/2009, -0/+0If I remember right, it turned out that the test they did involved making a hard turn at speeds normally reserved for regular cars?
Sorry, dkonigsbach anyone who tries to drive an SUV or any truck like its a car, should expect problems. If you're dumb enough to drive an Explorer or Samurai like its a Fusion or some such, then you pretty much deserve whatever happens. Don't blame the manufacturer because the driver is ignorant and reckless. - bitmanx, on 10/27/2009, -2/+2The Covair being the worst had a pretty funny video with some guy driving it like it's a 4-wheel off-road truck. He's driving it through fields, down hills, and the best part through a river stream.. Good old days without environmentalist...
- jsffive, on 10/27/2009, -6/+5It's unfair to even include the Audi on the list. I had a 1988 5000 CS Turbo Quatro for about six years, and it NEVER "suddenly accelerated" on me. In fact, it was the second best car I've ever owned, next to my Honda Accord. Like I said, it's a 1988 model, it's STILL running, and it STILL gets 27 MPG. And I never felt unsafe in it. It was built for the Audubon, so it's probably ten times safer than any American piece of *****.
- SDL486, on 10/27/2009, -5/+3How about the Mazda Miata?
- dkonigsbach, on 10/27/2009, -4/+1Dugg you down. You can blame the victim for every irresponsible decision made by a car company executive. It didn't matter how *you* were driving, if you got rear-ended in a Pinto, you were, literally, horribly, toast. Nader's point about the Corvair, hell, it was the title of his book, was that it was "unsafe at any speed". A high center of gravity is a rollover waiting to happen, because the driver doesn't have any feedback warning that wht's save in other cars is deadly in this SUV. Any respectable engineer will tell you that you build vehicles with a margin of safety, and when you don't include structural integrity, crumple zones, etc., and do include things that will impale passengers in what should be survivable accidents, it's "utter *****" to blame the driver for getting into an accident.
And if you think they only made unsafe cars back then, well... Maybe I should send you the floor mats from my new Toyota. - AmazingSteve, on 10/27/2009, -7/+2Dupe from yesterday. BURIED.
- thinboyslim, on 10/26/2009, -9/+3http://www.dan-dare.org/Dan%20FRD/WackyRacesWallpa ...
- VinceIP, on 10/27/2009, -21/+4I don't give a ***** about your crash ratings. Big things crush little things, and Smart Cars are very little things compared to big semi-trucks on the highway being driven by dumbass redneck truckers.
I'm too afraid to drive a Smart Car :(.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
