Independent U.S. Insurance Group rates the Prius v & Camry lowest in Head On Collision Safety !

2010 North American model is 2009 model everywhere else, GenIII. It got 5 stars:
Toyota Prius | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating




Notice how the passenger compartment looks perfect. There is no bending, crumpling, or deformation of any kind on the pillars around the passenger cabin. The engine compresses as it is designed to totalling the car and not the passengers.

Video here:

From article:

Adult occupant
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. The dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs. Toyota showed that occupants of different sizes and those sat in different seating positions would be offered a similar level of protection. The car scored maximum points in the side barrier test. In the more severe side pole impact, protection of the chest was rated as marginal. Likewise, marginal protection was provided by the front seats and head restraints against whiplash injuries in a rear impact.

 

Funny and right-on! Thanks

 

It's not a fallacy. It is not based on test results, but on compiled claim history from insurance companies. OK, I should have left pickup trucks off, the data for that was older. The latest stats from IIHS list the 10 safest car models as:
Audi A6 (0)
Mercedes E-Class (0)
Toyota Sienna (0)
Ford Edge (0)
Nissan Armanda (0)
Land Rover Range Rover Sport (0)
Land Rover LR3 (0)
Honda CR-V (7)
Jeep Grand Cherokee (11)
Acura MDX (11)

The numbers listed are fatalities per 1,000,000 vehicles.
In the real world, mass matters.

 

Hey, the car in front, even breaking hard, is not going to nailed onto ground. So I will have more than 3 cars distance to spare in reality.
My point is better illustrated with math. If you divide by zero, you get infinity. You have to keep a balance, for most situations.

People always say something silly as "I want something (security, safety...), regardless of the cost". I would say: Sorry, you can't afford it.

Examples in life such as this are plenty.
Driving always has the risk of accident, can you afford not to drive at all?
Walking is not absolutely safe as well. Will you stay at home all day long?
Even staying home, you have to assume there is no earthquake to collaps the house. Will you buy the latest earthquake detection devices, and get ready at any second to run down stairs?

Now, talking about keeping distance. On a typical local street, if you want to keep 5 cars distance, you practically will have to drive at least 10 mph below the limit, because once you get 5 cars distance, other cars will get in, and you have to slow down further. How many "safe drivers" like that you've seen on street?

Next time when you drive, take some videos, and let's see how safe you drive, and at what "cost".

 

Apparently not, since the accident occurred.

This illustrates exactly what?

If you are maintaining 5 cars distance you are by definition going the same speed. Since you mention it (below), I suggest you try it. Aside: perhaps I am biased by living in Maine, but are 'local roads' all two lane now everywhere else? Otherwise, there is no problem.

What is the "cost" of driving unsafely? In the example given, it was the cost of the damage to the car, the time waiting at the accident, the time to get the car fixed,... Driving safely may cost seconds, driving unsafely costs hours, or lifetimes.

 

If you are going 5 car distance in a heavily trafficked multilane road, someone will come in front of you, and you will need to slow again to allow 5 cars. You become a hazard that cars speed up to pass, then slow down.

In lighter traffic, on two lane roads, in weather, maintaining distance is safer. At least 2 second rule should be used in these conditions. At night and especially in bad weather longer distances are needed. Night and bad weather are where the majority of accidents occur.

 

Local roads are the discussion here. As I said, I currently live next to the second busiest road in Maine, US Route 1, which goes from the Florida keys to the top of the Maine coast. It is not a 'local' road, but it is one lane each way. On a road like that there is extremely little passing of any sort. I drove 200 miles on it yesterday and was passed once. (And no one was driving at three car lengths since to do so would be to be covered in road salt, dirt, grime etc. and not be able to see. But that isn't relevant to our discussion)

The amount you need to slow to allow another car in, is remarkably small. Let's do the math. 45 MPH (default speed limit on local roads around here) is 66 feet per second. 5 car lengths = 74 feet. So I need to drop back 1.1 seconds. In order to lose the ten minutes claimed (above), I would need to let 535 cars in. If I take 30 seconds to re-establish the 5 car length buffer, I need to travel at 63.5 feet per second for that period, or 43.2 MPH. I can't maintain my speed within 1.8 mph under normal circumstances. So you are SERIOUSLY saying that a car traveling 43.2 MPH for 30 seconds and then traveling with traffic at 45 MPH is a hazard? That is nuts, IMHO. And we KNOW that 3 car lengths IS a hazard, under the conditions he stated, since he DID get into an accident.

If you want to be more conservative about it, take an entire minute to re-establish that safety margin. You will need to going 44.1 MPH! If my commute was an hour, and a car cut into my lane EVERY MINUTE, AND my allowing that did not ease traffic (unlikely, see the literature), I would need to leave the house an extra minute sooner. Oh, the horror.

 

You did a good job at cutting off the second part of what I wrote. If traffic is flowing well - light to moderate - at 45 you should gap it at 2 seconds. 5 car lengths is not enough.

Of course I didn't say that. I thought I clearly said the opposite for those conditions.

The situation of large gaps becoming a hazard are in heavy traffic on at least 2 lanes in your direction - minimum of a 3 lane road. If the car ahead of you is going within 5 mph of the speed limit its not heavy traffic to me.

The poster you responding to was talking about Chicago, not Maine, and I assume much slower speeds than you are talking about and higher traffic. Time and not car lengths are better measures. You need a lot more car lengths when traveling at higher speeds, and you normally allow more car lengths in lighter traffic as you are not paying as much attention.

 

It wasn't pertinent to the point I was making. Surely anyone looking for context knows to scroll up one message.

Nope someone else did. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I still have not gotten anyone to say whether this is considered a 'local road' in other parts.

I am glad you noted that I was responding to another poster, not just you.

 

Except that by cutting off the pertinent part, you made it seem like I was making a obviously wrong argument. There was clear context there, with only an out of context quote from me before your straw man argument. 2 second rule in good weather and light to moderate traffic should be the rule of thumb. 3 car lengths, 5 car lengths, etc without context can always find a context that is wrong.

IMHO a two lane highway has very different rules for following than a multilane heavily trafficked road. I do not know the meaning of local road in this context. 2 lane rural highways are the spot where we do get the small offset collisions that is the topic of this thread though.

That is where the original post on my part came from. Hopefully everything is clear now. The first part, the part you quoted was about heavily trafficked roads with multiple lanes in the same direction.

 

You are driving 45 MPH on a Local Road? Are you sure there are no one on sidewalk?

A pedestrian only need 1/2 second to run into the middle of road, and he is unprotected by the metal frame, no side air bag neither. You better do a quick calculation and figure out how much distance you should keep from him, and at what speed.

Make sure come back and share with us this important safety tip. Please!

 

Read what I said. The highest limit around here is 45 MPH on local roads. In other words, I was describing the worst case scenario.

I do sometimes drive that speed on local roads. I am QUITE SURE that there is no one on the sidewalks. There are no sidewalks.

Did you successfully divert attention away from your comments?

 

Corwyn,

My points are illustrated clearly, that if you want to cut risk to 0.000001%, the cost is prohibitively high and makes it impossible.
I consider this the end of my discussion on this topic.

 

But of course you have no references for that number. You just pulled it out of thin air. Presumably just as mistaken as your other numbers. The cost is miniscule, a minute a day. Considering what an accident costs in the best of cases, you are getting paid very well for that minute. The 'impossible' is just a non-sequitor.

 

So according to all the tests they did they the vee only did bad in that small front overlap test were it was givin a poor rating. Still a top safety pick, just make sure you keep your steering wheel completely turned and hope for the best in an accident.