Yeah this is a big one. You have to buy specialty car seats now if you want to go three across in a sedan. Admittedly, the seats are much safer (just like the wider cars), but it certainly is a problem.
From the article in the first paragraph: "To comply with today’s stringent crash regulations – by passing offset, side and roof impact tests, as well as those evaluating pedestrian protection performance – cars require considerable cubic metres of controllably crushable bodywork."
If you mean other people not in cars then picking a lighter car wont matter for the people outside. Airbags on the outside of the car are the only real solution.
0.5mv^2 scales too fast for m1 to matter if m1 >> m2.
Not necessarily. Much of the extra size is to increase the crumple volume. Those crumple volumes absorb energy in a crash, which benefits all involved in the crash. Raw weight on the other hand is an entirely different matter.
Is it physically possible for the energy absorbed by crumple-bits to be greater than the additional energy required to decelerate all the extra mass which the crumple-bits provide?
You need those laws, because current situation doesn't fit you. I've heard the tank argument for last 20 years over and over. There are tons of use cases when bigger is required, say bigger family, lots of goods being transported etc. I don't have a big car myself, but such statements are pretty ignorant of reality. and what about all the cargo vehicles, trucks etc?
If you want to punish those evil rich capitalists in good ol' communist class envy way, then I have few ideas - we should ban people changing phones in less than 7 years, have only 1 computer per family, every 10 years, only 2 pairs of trousers, no meat for anybody ever, in fact no car and of course only 1 kid max. Its for the greater good, right?
What Switzerland does is, with its car tax is, at least in some cantons, the tax is calculated in equation which considers HP of the car and its weight.
I made that choice, too. Crash tests don't give the full picture. Since "downgrading" to a smaller vehicle I've found it much easier to avoid incidents completely. It seems like the right trade off for the kind of driving I do, which is mostly on urban streets.
Ditto. If I crash my bicycle into any car, I'm guaranteed to be the worst off. And a pedestrian would likely be far better off than if I was in a car. (Ps peds get off your bloody phones when crossing the road, especially when emerging from behind a SUV).
It’s not. But 3 across is obviously important because your vehicle selection goes down significantly once you need to expand to a third row to grow your capacity.
I can say from experience that vehicle selection goes down much more once you need to expand to a fifth row. There were just two choices, one from Ford and one from GM.
Fitting three car seats across is still difficult, despite enough car width to have a 4-wide bench in the rear. Putting car seats in the back rows makes them hard to get to, so they should go in the second row or in the third row seat nearest the door. That gives reasonably easy room for 3, but some states would have had me needing 5.
The title/registration stuff does in fact say "bus", but I wouldn't call it that. It's just an extended body van. I get mildly accusatory questions when registering it for non-commercial use and when I go places that have per car or per family payment.
I got the E350. It holds 15 people including the driver, which leaves me just one empty seat when I drive my whole family. Seating is 2-3-3-3-4 from front to back, with an aisle along the right side.
In Europe you would in fact have to have a bus driving license (D or D1) for that kind of vehicle since it can transport more than 8+1 [passengers+driver] (and it most likely also goes beyond the maximum authorized mass of 3500 kg for the B license).
Fun fact, my mom was the 15th child of 16. My only sister and I worked it out, our grandma was basically pregnant 12 years of her life if it would have been back to back and exactly 9 months each child.
So far nobody has been able to beat my late grandma for children count. Also soup, she made the best soup around.
Just thought I’d throw that one out there. They were spaced out a fair amount though so not like she needed to bus all 16 around at the same time. By the time 16 was not in the oven the first few were already out of the house.
I meant that's cool, but I'd argue that's the nichest of niche uses I've ever seen. And as someone else already said, in Europe you would actually need a full D class licence to drive this in the first place, so you might as well get something like a modified Mercedes Sprinter with 12-15 seats.
A few years back we got (with a bit of squeezing) three broad-shouldered adults into the back of a friend's Skoda Fabia hatchback [0]. Bit uncomfortable but we fit.
No way we could get 2 seats in our small 1-Series. While it's fine for my wife when in the passenger seat with the child seat behind her, the drivers seat would be far to forward if we were try to and fit one behind me.
If you're talking about the BMW 1-Series this has a peculiarity that most small cars don't have: a rear wheel drive (or all-wheel in some models) and a longitudinal mounted engine. This means substantially less space inside, especially in the back with the higher floor and the drive shaft down the middle. I found the Polo a lot more spacious than that.
I second that! VW Polo and two kids work - despite being able to buy about any car there is, we stuck with a Polo until last year. All our gear was bought to fit in it. It is possible to find small stuff that fits. People who say stuff for two kids does not fit in a small car have not thought about it long enough or should seriously consider what their "needs" are.
Buy smaller strollers that are easily foldable, instead of bulky ones. Buy smaller and softer bags so they can fill every gap. Buy car seats that are a bit less space taking.
The only time we were in a bit of trouble with space was when we went on a big vacation with 4 people.
But that happened only once (admittedly, we usually takes flights when going on vacation).
You can fit two car seats in the back of mine as well -- but only if the parents are both under 5'6" tall and happy to have the front seats as far forward as they go.
My car isn't one of these modern, ever-growing ones, but it's not particularly small in most respects either.
American car seats are huge. A friend of mine, who is not small – even by American standards, despises SUVs and ended up having to import a car seat from Japan for his spawn.
I’ve been wanting to buy a European car seat but am worried about the legality of it. I can just imagine my insurance company refusing to pay for injuries because the seat doesn’t have the right stamp on it.
The Evenflo Tribute LX is a very reasonably priced car seat (~$60), that has very high safety ratings, is parent friendly, and doesn't take up too much space. I regretted buying a much more expensive Nuna after we bought an Evenflo for travel.
I just installed my first iSize isofix car seat in what is a very normal sized Toyota hybrid hatchback that had served us well for years before having children.
I had zero inkling how much space these things take up. With a very ordinary baby seat (not obviously bigger than any of the other 10-20 ones they had at the store) we had to move the front passenger seat so far forwards that it is basically impossible for anyone "tall" to fit in any more.
I am now relectantly planning to buy a larger or SUV car simply because we can't fit anyone in the pasenger seat when we have the baby seat installed. Thought about putting it in the front passenger seat, but it would probably obscure vision.
The longer distance that big vehicles have between people and hard surfaces is a good thing; modern airbags are amazing.
1) glossing over details, because of the way materials scale, this works out (for a smaller human a) even with larger m's on both sides, because there are longer distances involved, and therefore longer crush zones, and more room between humans and hard surfeces for airbags to fill. In accidents that involve a vehicle and a immovable object, this also works out better.
Small vehicles are inherently unsafe, and should come with a disclamer tutorial on basic dynamics.
Staying alive is more important. Larger cars are not significantly more expensive; people get to choose, some ride motorcycles, it's their choice, but we shouldnt gloss over the 2nd law. Unfortunatly F=ma is not common knowledge. Pointing that out shouldn't be offensive. When one learns that simple rule, they apply it. You quoted when I was still editing, first versions are always worse:)
I think the more relevant equation is a=𝚫v²/(2d) which gives you the acceleration needed to realize a speed change 𝚫v over a distance d. Larger cars allow for a larger d, therefore a smaller peak acceleration in crashes.
edit: I just realized you were focusing on mass. While a higher mass is safer for you, it comes at the cost of making things less safe for everyone else. Making cars larger while keeping mass the same doesn't come with this trade-off, it reduces peak acceleration for everyone.
Most prams I see these days are much larger than the simple, light-weight folding models many people had when I was a child in the 80s. They're basically monster-truck-prams.
I think the perceived comfort, safety, and luxury is a big drawcard in both cases.
Having pushed my share of prams, larger diameter wheels are a plus. But my favorite one for convenience was a folding "umbrella stroller" that I could shake open with one hand while holding a baby with the other.
As well as the reasons you mentioned there is also perceived value for money. I suspect this trend is due to an interaction of psychological marketing and consumer preference.
Some places require kids to be in car seats until age 8. This is 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grade. These are not babies.
The manufacturers have lobbied for this "think of the children" law. Sales go up because parents are forced to buy the product. The manufacturers would be happy to raise the age even more.
1% of those kids are over 92 pounds. One can outweigh the mom, and can be asked to install his own car seat.
Maybe I'm missing something super-recent, but for second graders, a "cat seat" is basically a piece of plastic for them to sit on so that the seat belt passes on their chest, instead of neck, which would be disastrous in case of accident.
Unlike toddler car seat, these seats don't look huge by any means, compared to the kids sitting on them. (Well I guess it's still problematic to sit three of them in a row in most cars, but that's a separate discussion...)
Fear is not only the mind-killer, it's also the most powerful upselling strategy in the world. Particularly to young parents who tend to be a bit insecure about how much caring is enough. It's not just fear that something bad might happen to their child, it's also fear of being only the second-most responsible set of parents in the room.
Washington state just changed their law. Now kids under 4'9" must use a booster up to the age of 16. Realistically, they have stated that 13 year olds will not be required to use a booster since, at that age, they are allowed to sit in the front seat anyway.
For a single seat, the size makes sense as you want to have cushioning on the outer walls. But there is no good reason not to have double and triple seats which only has thin separation on the inner boundary of the seats (even just having once the default padding vs. twice would be a big win).
So, if car manufacturers want to advertise "3 rear seats", they should be forced to offer child seating for 3 too.
Going to put in a plug for Diono Radian car seats [1]. We have a 4 year old and 2 year old twins. All three of them fit with these seats in the back of our Honda Civic.
They are amazing and definitely worth the premium, in my opinion.
Length-wise, our car seat only fits in the center of the back seat of our 3rd gen, and even then we have to push the front passenger seat so far forward that you have to be pretty small to fit in it. We could probably raise the seat a bit more if needed, though, but it's already fairly upright.
The Golf was always an unusually spacious car for its segment. Probably because of the more vertical hatch and a roof that's not so slanted as on most other cars. So the back seat can sit further back.
The sad thing is an original Isigonis style 1980s mini estate gives more chance to put a full size dog in the back, with the rear seats up, than the current massive Mini Clubman estate that's cramped for a Yorkie with the back doors closed. It really is comical seeing original Mini and new next to each other -- the new one is not, by any stretch, "mini".
I keep thinking my retirement project should be an EV 1980 mini estate with upmarket seats and instruments -- as that's honestly what I want to buy in an EV. Something starting that light should have lots of range and performance scope...
Draconian safety laws for manufacturers mean less visibility with narrow windows on the front, barely back window (backup cams required), and huge a-pillars.
So apparently we get safer cars but can see anything infront of us.
Oh dearie me. Hadn't seen one of those before. That over muscled slab fronted steroid abuser is not a patch on a DB5. Or 6. Or even a mid 70s Vantage. It doesn't look deserving of an Aston badge.
Actually, that's a really odd car. I looked around for more pictures ... it looks fine looking head on toward the front, as does a perfect side view. Every other angle looks oh so wrong. I have no idea how they achieved that! :)
Yeah, that new vantage is actually not that great looking, is it. I didn't look too closely, just grabbed a random shot off image search. The previous iteration of that car looked so good.
Which I think is a neat summary of current cars all having got over fat and bloated. The Jag F type is similarly too big (for my taste), but is one of a very few that manages to wear it well. An E type it is not, but it manages that "certain something".
So many cars built within the last ten or so years look like the same boring identical bar of soap on wheels. Minus trivial details like the headlight cluster and grille, you really can’t tell most 4 door sedan brands abart unless you look closely. I wish the Cybertruck succeeds, not because I need one (I don’t) but because finally someone out there is trying to get a little creative with styling again!
The trend to sameness is probably due to two main factors, more comprehensive collision safety laws and the push in many markets for fuel efficiency.
The collision safety regulations appear to have caused side and rear windows to get smaller (probably to improve side impact intrusion protection) and pillars to get wider (rollover protection).
Aerodynamic drag is a major contributor to fuel efficiency. To my eye there has been a trend (in Australia at least) to blur the line between sedans and hatchbacks. Sedan boots/trunks are getting taller and more sloped to smooth the transition from the rear window. The rear of hatchbacks have been also getting more sloped. Both are attempts to get a more tear-drop shape without overly compromising utility.
After many iterations working within the same industry wide constraints, it is not surprising that designers all optimise their designs to similar shapes and sizes.
The same effect can be seen in road bicycles. The UCI imposes limits on wheel size and other physical dimensions on bikes that are allowed to be used in UCI events (pro and amateur racing). Above 30km/hr aerodynamic drag starts to a major effect on the power a cyclist needs to output to maintain speed or accelerate. In recent years bike manufacturers have been wind tunnel tuning their designs more rigorously. This has resulted in the aero road bikes from the major manufacturers converging to almost identical designs. Cycling commentators and journalists have started agitating for relaxation of the UCI rules to try to get some innovation happening again.
I actually go an opposite approach. I am buying old cars - the market is great here in the US.
I got a 47k mileage 1991 Mazda Miata for 4500$! And the girlfriend loves how cool it is and shifting stick. You should try to snag something from the 90s before people realize how nice they are.
Modern cars are spy machines needing constant software updates and nonsense features like "push button start" which is probably just a ploy to no longer have to make complicated ignition switches.
that's nice and all. But if you collide with one of these new spy machines, you'll figure out why it's not the greatest idea to prefer old cars when you can afford newer cars. Safety is not something it's worth being a luddite for. I agree with you, even as a software engineer, I find it disgusting the amount of computing power my Honda has for that matter. However, if I run off the road, I would rather be in my current Honda than in my previous Honda (pre 2000).
I think the 2010-2012 strike a sweet spot for what you're saying. Reasonable safety, not a lot of software.
True, it is dangerous to drive a cool sports car. But its light and it handles well - its even modular with a huge aftermarket meaning I was able to easily spend an extra 1k and get both upgraded brakes and rotors installed.
Besides, if my girlfriend and I want to take a risk an enjoy a nice car I don't like the government telling me otherwise.
You're right about that date range, probably the best without software that thinks its better than you. Its going to be bad when cars have full electronic steering with no mechanics - you will essentially be holding an xbox controller and have no idea about your cars alignment lol
I once saw an original Mini, a BMW Mini and a Hummer H2 waiting next to each other at the traffic lights. The latter two looked almost same size next to that original Mini.
As a driver, I would rather have larger crumple zones or places to put curtain airbags and such than space to be able to fit a full size dog in the back. Regulations aren't always bad or a burden on the industry (or for that matter on the dog owners). Having an EV 80's chassis would be a great idea for a hobby build or something to take out for a Sunday drive to the country. But I would'd drive that death trap daily.
Agreed. I think it's important to include safety in the conversation when making comparisons between today's vehicles and those of decades past. It's apparent that pursuing safety over things like "max # of canine accommodations" has yielded positive results.
Pedestrian fatalities are included in the linked stats, but the proportion of pedestrian fatalities has been increasing. There are a number of potential explanations, including the increased prevalence of SUVs and trucks against which pedestrians fare worse, but nothing concrete yet. Vehicles are being designed with pedestrian safety in mind, but if a greater proportion of people are driving SUVs and trucks to get around, I think it's logical that more pedestrian fatalities would follow.
The majority of vehicles sold in the US are vehicles also sold elsewhere, e.g. Asia and Europe, which do have pedestrian protection rules in place. I found a short article that elaborates a bit on the relationship between these safety regs and design:
Do the statistics on pedestrian fatalities include whether or not the pedestrian was distracted, such as talking on/looking at their phone? Or what about jaywalking/ignoring signals.
Cars arent solely to blame. Pedestrians need to held responsible for their reckless behavior in the presence of cars, too.
Rather irrelevant considering the increasing chance of dying if you're hit. That's nothing to do with phone or pedestrian signals which can only affect the chance of being hit.
Speaking as a car driver, in nearly all of those situations a car driver would be deservedly held responsible, as you're expected to be able to stop short of unexpected hazards. In built up areas that's going to include pedestrians. Drive slower.
I put a couple of greyhounds in my Mini (I think it's still the same basic size as the current gen). It is certainly much larger than the original, but smaller than a Clubman so I have to wonder what your Yorkie looks like ;-)
I've only seen a Clubman in the street from the outside, and the estate bit looked like 20cm or so with the seats up. Obviously that's at the windows line so there's probably a bit more room lower down... So with seats up less than a Shepherd (or greyhound) shoulder width. Seats down, sure...
The idea of loading up that suspension ‘system’ with batteries makes me twitchy, but it’s such a great car that the extra effort that would be required would definitely be worth it.
> It’ll be interesting to see if converting classics will become more common
It'll depend on the owner, really. Some folks want the style of the older vehicle but the technology of the future, so they go the EV (or at least Restomod) route.
Many folks like the simplicity, the sounds, the smells, and the looks of the classics, so they leave them original (or make minor mods to make them more "livable" without sacrificing the original intent).
As for size, I have a '71 MGB GT which can fit quite a lot in the back. But I like how it smells, how it rumbles, how it sounds, and that B-series motor, so it'll stay mostly original (though I have a hotter engine ready to go in it).
The difference being that the new one can survive a straight t-bone at 50-70km/h and everyone walks out unhurt, while that's not necessarily the case with the old one. Just look at the size of the door sills and the actual depth of the doors - there's at least twice the depth of doors from a 1980s S class for instance, a lot more crumpling to work with.
US CAFE standards are well-known to have resulted in the switch from station wagons to minivans and SUVs, resulting in a great overall increase in emissions than what would have otherwise occurred.
The new (2020/2021) European regulations allow approximately 1 g/km of extra CO2 emissions per kg of extra curb weight for passenger cars. [1]
It's actually less emissions per unit mass, so I was wrong on that fact, but the point of perverse incentives to make cars bigger to be allowed more emissions still stands (I think?)
Also, diesel vehicles are basically banned in most places unless they're coal-rollers - even though they have way less CO2 emissions than their gasoline counterparts.
In my opinion, if the North American and European governments had truly wanted to reduce absolute levels of emissions, instead of just following existing technology and trying to take the credit for it (like they do for NOx emissions, and probably will for electric cars), and making complex rules that favour certain manufacturers at the expense of others, then they'd have just have made a Kei car category. [2]
I was in San Francisco last week, and the car rental agency "upgraded" me from the compact I had requested to a full size SUV.
Fortunately we weren't staying in the city, but that thing was definitely no fun headed up Hwy 1...
I regularly drive ambulances and fire trucks, so I'm used to "aggressively" driving large vehicles, but that was a whole new level of stressful. California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...)
Same thing happened to me. I got a Toyota sequoia instead of a smaller car I reserved for a family trip down hwy 1.
Width aside it was just clumsy and rolled a lot. Had to go pretty slow to have people in the car not throw up. I’m a bit of a car enthusiast and enjoy canyon carving, but this was definitely not a fun drive.
> California either needs wider roads, or to mandate narrower cars (it seems to have worked well enough for emissions...)
Taking the opposite view, mandating narrower roads (or, refusing to widen existing narrow roads) has worked great for opposing the problem of car growth in some countries. If you watch a busy intersection in Japan you see a ton of incredibly tiny cars go by, and it's no coincidence that backstreets in major Japanese cities are often nightmarishly narrow alleyways, sometimes without sidewalks so you even have pedestrians sharing the already-tiny road.
You can see people walking right along the road. An average person would not feel comfortable driving with a big car, nor driving aggressively nor at a high speed, on this road. Taken combined, this is what makes these roads safe and pedestrian-friendly, even though at face value a road without sidewalks might seem the opposite.
It’s their fleet. They have an awful lot of crossovers and SUVs (presumably because that’s what is popular with our market) but they continue to misrepresent their fleet in their booking engines (it’s been years now).
A recent trip to Europe and the cars, trucks, highways, roads, etc.. everything feels smaller. Parking garages are the worst, so narrow you can barely see if you're going to scrape a wall or car. You really have to use the force.
I'm glad to hear this perspective and know it's not just me. I live in Europe and parking in a garage here always raises my heart rate. I don't think I'd make it without parking sensors. Some people I know just slam their car in there in one quick swoop. I don't know how they do it. Even driving past parked cars makes me feel like not hitting side mirrors is just an act of faith.
I wonder how much of this is due to safety, and if size expansion is due to safety, whether it’s a matter of trying to be in a bigger car than the other guy. Is there an ideal car size or will cars grow forever?
I dont think it makes sense that wider cars are an attempt to be bigger than the other guy.
Height, yes absolutely, but wider cars are safer because they have more room to crumple and space for airbags and reinforcement in the sides. The thickness of car doors today vs cars from 20 years ago is pretty drastic.
I was going to bring up the Mazda MX-5 as an example of a car that shrunk in its latest generation, only to find out that the current model is the widest by a whole centimetre.
I used to barely fit in the NA but I can't squeeze into any of the later models without amputating my legs. I'm not sure how they did it because otherwise I'd be first in line to buy another.
I removed the driver-side door grab/armrest in my NA. Gives me about 3" extra room. Perhaps that's possible on newer models?
I popped off a couple plastic panels, unscrewed the bolts, and it came right off. Then I attached a loop of cloth with a washer so I could close the door.
The layout of these cars also plays an important role. Sedans have been getting bigger because the internal space is wasted in every possible way and manufacturers have been struggling to sell the smaller ones given how useless they are. That market segment has been completely dominated by the new generation of small hatchbacks like the Honda Fit/Scion XD/Toyota Yaris etc.
My RV is 102 inches wide not including the mirrors. Apparently that's the max allowed federally by the US although technically in some states it may not be on smaller roads and might be the old standard of 96" though never heard of that being enforced. Most Semis and box trucks are 102" wide.
I believe the max allowed length is 65 feet, my RV is 32ft plus I tow a jeep, probably close to 50ft total. Height is under 13 ft.
Interstate driving is no problem it gets pretty interesting driving around in the city, but surprising where you can fit it. Both the width and height cause the most issues.
Normal cars and trucks still have room to grow within the federal limits, I don't believe any are 102" wide, full size dual rear wheel pickups are only 96" and the Ford Raptor is 86" and a Lambo is 80".
Driving my RV feels like driving a room down the road, there is about 3 feet between me and passenger.
I used to have a Lotus Elise. With cars that low you don’t see much if there is just some grass growing along the road. Makes it really hard to pass other cars or go fast with no visibility.
This 10x when driving in Brooklyn(or similar big city). I used to think smaller would be less stressful but since I got rid of my truck and have been renting small zipcars its much harder to see around SUVs and delivery trucks. Its harder not only to predict the flow of traffic but also to see pedestrians or cyclists who may be obstructed from your vision. I’ve always been a car person but thinking my next one will be an SUV to compete in this stupid arms race.
There is some interesting related research being done by the DLR (German Space Agency). They have developed a low-weight chassis for small light-weight vehicles (the european L7e vehicle class, i.e. up to 450kg (1000lbs) without battery) that achieves good crash test results: https://www.spotlightmetal.com/dlr-tests-ultra-light-commute...
Just switching to electric cars will not save the planets resources. We have to use less resources by using smaller, lighter vehicles instead of heavy SUVs.
Doesn't matter what kind of black magic you put into a tiny car, a big heavy SUV will destroy it in an impact and barely take a scratch. People buy big SUVs because they "feel safer", and they're going to keep doing that without some intervention. If I were a national regulator I would pass a law adding a pollution rating and a 3rd party danger rating to the vehicle registration plate.
Big cars for safety is a tragedy of the commons type affair with one caveat.
There will always be large trucks and some large cars so having a larger car is slightly safer (I assume).
But as the portion of large cars increases, small cars presumably become more unsafe and those drivers will start buying large cars. Then when nearly everyone has large cars, everyone is left back at square one or worse.
Their car doesn’t let them see over the average car anymore and neither do they give them a (somewhat selfish) size advantage in a collision.
True, the larger car probably has bigger crumple zones, but since cars are now larger and heavier it requires more crumple zone to stop one. And parking, fuel efficiency, road congestion and car prices are all worse.
It's an irrational "feel safer" though. Despite no legislated requirement for mixed size impact tests, enough have been done to see that tiny cars do surprisingly well. Whether the microscopic Smart Car against an max size old Volvo estate, or super mini against a Range Rover. They are categorically NOT destroyed in an impact with the SUV barely taking a scratch.
I mostly agree with the rest though. :) My solution would be to copy the Scandinavians with a yearly car tax derived from a combination of weight over say 500kg and emissions.
This is a myth. There have been massive improvements in safety design and some tiny cars do surprisingly well in some tests against old cars of any size - but modern SUVs are much safer than a modern tiny car, and improvements to the strength of the safety cage in large vehicles have offset the improvements in smaller vehicles. Relative vehicle weight is still the biggest predictor of occupant injury, and the types of impacts that kill occupants (small overlap and side impacts) favour higher ride heights. There is no trick engineering that can protect the occupant of a tiny car from a 2 ton SUV going through the side window. You can see this in the data for average death rates (https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...) - the death rate per million registered vehicle years for mini cars is more than double the rate of SUVs.
I reckon small cars pose less risk to others. Pedestrians and cyclists can easily see over them. Stopping distances are probably better. Ending up on the hood/bonnet of a small vehicle rather than under a large one with it's very high front end (often with an attached bullbar) is almost certainly preferable. Finally, consider that large vehicles likely do much more damage to other vehicles in a crash.
All in all I find ownership of a large vehicle to be a fair proxy for an inconsiderate personality (bear in mind, I don't live in the US where large vehicles seem to be the defacto choice).
Center consoles used to be seen only on large trucks. Now most cars have them. That's width not used by the occupants. Even the Tesla Model 3 has a huge center console, despite not having a driveshaft to hide.
Most modern cars are also unibody, so the center console interior design element isn't entirely without merit.
The axial bulge that would normally be concealed by a center console acts as structural support in vehicles without driveshafts. Furthermore, if it exists, the cavity will also serve as exhaust midpipe routing to the rear for improved underbody aero performance. Some manufacturers also offer an AWD variant of a chassis primarily sold as FWD--e.g. Acura TL, Mazda3--so design reuse is another path to consider.
The Model 3 doesn't appear to fit this generalization, but a center console still makes sense. It's a 5-passenger vehicle by design, so rear seating arrangement will drive width constraint. You can't put a 6th seat in the front-center position for obvious safety reasons, while leaving it empty would miss the mark when compared to competing luxury vehicles around the same price point (something about how America loves cupholders comes to mind), so filling it in with a sleek and generous center console strikes me as the natural direction to steer towards; it's cheap, serves a functional purpose, fills a void and flows with the overall interior aesthetic. Besides, a closed luxury cabin whose volumetric efficiency approaches 100% is a luxury vehicle that simply won't appeal to the masses.
For a good idea of just how inconvenient not having a decent center console can be, look no further than the ND Miata. Anecdotally, mine is a weekend solo/track toy so not a deal breaker, but it's one of those things that can be easily taken for granted until you don't have one anymore: fitting a pair of sunglasses in the laughably small center compartment is like working a puzzle piece, the large rear-center storage compartment can't be conveniently accessed while seated unless you're a human pretzel, some smartphones won't fit in the cubby hole designed to hold one, and retaining non-bottled drinks with a passenger seated is a spill accident just waiting to happen.
Cars keep getting heavier too. With electric cars and energy use it would be good if there was a weight limit. It is normally safer in a collision if you sit in a heavier car. But this length and weight race make cars heavier.
I guess one factor is car test where they measure trunk capacity in liters/ back seat leg room. Cars with more space usually get better reviews.
For global warming we need ultra light cars which are energy efficient or no cars at all bikes.
the Golf was essentially replaced by Polo nowadays. people are getting richer so obviously the well known models are also getting bigger and fancier than they were in past and if you want comparable model with the one from past you must go one class lower
same thing applies with phones and display size/specs, it's the easiest way to show customer the progress by offering him bigger display, sadly with smartphones you don't really have small options anymore like with cars where you just choose appropriate model
I am driving a 2007 VW Golf. You could make it easily 15 cm smaller by cutting off the center console between the front seats without sacrificing any safety. Of course, the rear bench would be comfortable for 2 only, but that already applies to it as it is. So one could design nice 4 seated cars - especially if they are designed electric only, removing most of the need for the center console, as there is no gear shifting.
This! sometimes I think it would be nice if they produced a low cost small car like the 1960s mini. with today's productivity they could build a simple version for quite cost effective. But, regulations mean it's completely impossible and so the cost of cars and their size keeps going up.
My personal perspective is that if I'm allowed to sign myself up for danger on two wheels - a motorcycle - and danger on four lackluster wheels - an older car - then I should also be allowed to sign myself up for danger on four satisfying wheels - a new but small and light car. Cutting-edge impact protection be damned; make me sign a waiver if you must.
I've come to realize that laws aren't generally about fairness. They're about whole-systems thinking. Lots of rules seem unfair if you're an individual in a system.
The popcorn kernel that doesn't pop may feel slighted, but that doesn't mean my popper is broken, or the kernel is.
Allowing car companies to make new cars which are less safe would cause more injuries and deaths. We allow older cars and motorcycles for political and economic reasons. Banning them would be even worse.
Here's a political and economic reason: modern cars, new and used, are painfully expensive for large portions of our society. Most of these price increases come from modern requirements for impact protection and other safety provisions. Allowing companies to pump out <$10k econoboxes would be a boon to low-income individuals.
dude have you been in a classic mini? its literally a coffin. that being said i like trying to drag race mustangs in my buddies one. Check out Kei Cars in Japan.
A coffin that fits 4 adults and a German Shepherd in the estate bit. That's quite snug, but no worse than a Polo, Beetle, Fiesta or 2CV of similar era.
But like most cars it spends most of its time carrying just one or two adults, maybe a bit of shopping, when it has ample room.
I personally know of someone that suffered permanent short-term memory loss from a terrible crash in an original mini. A woman pulled out in front of him without looking properly, his car was pretty much completely destroyed, and he was lucky to survive. It's all well and good to praise their size and practicality, but they come at a heavy price.
In the same era few cars would see you better off. A Polo or Escort would be similarly totalled, a big Merc or Volvo would often happily demount the engine and punch it back into the cabin taking your legs with it...
There are recent cars like that, you just can't buy them in places like the US or Europe because they're deathtraps. The Tata Nano was produced until 2018 and cost about 3000USD. BYD makes a tiny electric car (e1) for about 9000USD.
A used but modern Mini Cooper is not that expensive. In 2012 I bought a 2008 with 20K miles on it for $15K, and it's been a super reliable car, real joy to drive.
I also have a 1967 Pontiac, and THAT thing is enormous. There were a lot of big family cars back then.
I don't mind a wide car as long as it's not one of these absolutely fuck-ugly SUVs. They're a plague.
Go to any remotely rural place in the UK (especially if it's rich) and you'll see SUVs and 4x4 with no more than 2 people in them usually - basically just because there are some leaves on the ground, despite all the millions of Dollars, Euros and Pounds that have been spent on making normal cars safer, grip better and more efficient.
Edit: I fully expect to be seeing some Tesla Cybertrucks assuming they come to mass market.
People complain about SUVs with a lot of apparently unnecessary capability (4x4, holding lots of people), but the nature of car sales is that you kind of have to buy one that covers all use cases, because it's the only one you're going to have. I.e., maybe most of the time it's just you in the car, but you want to be able to haul you and your spouse and your parents around when they come to visit. Or you mostly commute to work, but want 4x4 for when you go skiing.
This is why long term, we need to move away from car ownership and toward something like Zipcar for all. In that world, you would just rent whatever vehicle you needed when you needed it. Step one is making it not just possible, but preferable to not own a car.
Most people don't need SUVs to go skiing, just good tires, chains, and a shovel. There's a good chance you'll need these things even if you have an SUV.
Also mhh__ was talking about rural UK. They don't have ski hills there (at least not ones with snow).
People complain about SUVs because
1. They are large and get in the way.
2. Their lights are high up, so they blind you when they tail-gate you at night.
3. They often have poor drivers, possibly because they have large blind spots, possibly other socio-economic reasons.
4. They tend to hit pedestrians and cyclists above their center of gravity, so they knock you down under the wheels instead of up and over the windshield
> but the nature of car sales is that you kind of have to buy one that covers all use cases, because it's the only one you're going to have.
Exactly. My budget only allows for one car (more precisely: my apartment only gives me one parking space). That car has to be able to do all the things I would want to be able to do. That includes driving to work in a snowstorm. That includes potentially giving my nieces and nephews (who are young enough to need car seats) rides to family functions. That includes hauling an entire warehouse's worth of networking equipment and cables to a job site. That includes occasionally having to drive on unpaved mountain roads.
An SUV is a pretty darn good intersection of those needs.
I feel the same way. I have a VW Atlas. It’s big but I often take advantage of its size including road trips with 4 adults, two kids in car seats, and luggage. I think
I use the volume of it enough to justify a large vehicle versus renting one when needed.
Unfortunately I can’t afford To also have a small car for the times I don’t need the volume. I definitely feel a little guilty when there are only 2 people in it.
My wife likes to drive an SUV because of the high vantage point of visibility for the driver, and because it's easer to put kids in a car seat when you don't have to bend over.
There are reasons people like SUVs other than "leaves on the ground".
Ironically that's why we had to get one in the first place. However, in the US, SUVs and Pickups outnumber sedans, so the majority of people sit at the same vantage point.
I don't think that's a casual relationship though. SUV drivers are probably more distracted because they are more likely to have kids in the back, they might just be worse drivers, etc. Too many factors to say if it's the SUV's fault.
One easy way to find out is to compare proneness to pedestrian collision—fatal and non-fatal—and see if the difference is nearly as great as when comparing only fatal accidents.
But I really don’t see why you’d even guess otherwise. Much larger and taller front compared to a smaller car means it’ll basically hit your abdomen instead of your legs. Higher weight means tha it’ll hit you with greater energy, and won’t brake as easily. In my mind, of course pedestrian accidents involving SUVs are more often fatal, so I wonder what goes on in yours when you say that you think they aren’t.
Is it because there are leaves on the ground? Or because it is worth the extra price to occasionally have the ability to drive 6 people around or haul all your gear up to the mountain safely or to feel safer on the road?
I've got a narrower than average car, and it's nice to fit in garages, tight parking spaces, narrow ferry lanes, etc. The seats are a little narrow, but not too bad. For some reason they built it so the turning radius is worse than a mini-van though.
The roads aren’t getting any wider. I’m having trouble finding numbers, but I would be surprised to learn if the occurrence of lane departure accidents has gone down or stayed the same since cars have begun to get wider.
I have a VW Atlas. It’s the biggest car I have ever had. It’s volume is great for road trips with multiple kids and a dog in a cage.
I too worried about lane departures (even though of course I think I’m a better than average driver;). It has automatic lane assist which warns me if I’m on the lane line without putting on my blinker. I’m pleasantly surprised how infrequently it needs to remind me!
However more importantly I think it’s safety features of lane assist, adaptive cruise control, front and rear assist (emergency breaking), and blind spot sensing with haptic feedback are fantastic! If every can had these, I’m certain driving would be safer even without autonomous driving.
As strange (and low stakes) as it may sound: I worry most about city driving. I live in a city that gets a healthy dose of snow. The roads are barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other. Throw in a truck and all parties better be paying close attention.
Other than its mileage efficiency, I love it! But that is a true critique of all Vehicles in its size and I knew it going into it. If we didn’t have a dog or require 3rd row, I’d get a Tiguan.
I wish that were unequivocally true, but at least here in Switzerland, the standards for lane widths and parking spot sizes are creeping up, explicitly explained with the trend towards larger cars.
I guess once wing mirrors go away and are replaced by rear looking cameras, carmakers will have another foot or so of sideways real estate to expand into...
Is this really a modern trend, or just cherry picked data? This article needs a more thorough statistical analysis of car width through time.
I'm hesitant to take it at face value because, for example, to my knowledge the classic American land barges of the 60s and 70s (many of which are quite beautiful in an aggressive, almost obnoxious way) were quite wide - a 1969 Dodge charger is just a couple inches narrower than a 1990 Ford F150/Bronco, for example.
The Toyota Tacoma is a US-only car and is well-known in truck circles for starting out as a "compact" pickup and becoming midsize. Per Google, the 2000 model was 67" wide, the 2020 is 75". An 8" increase is in line with what the article describes.
Yeah, I used to have a 2003 Tundra, and then I had a friend with a 2008 Tacoma pull up next to me one time, and they were virtually the same size. I shuddered when I realized what that meant for the new Tundra (I already thought my truck was big).
The vehicles mentioned (sprinter vans, and Ford Transit) are classified as light trucks, but most people would call them commercial vans or panel vans. Pickup trucks were never commonly imported from Europe, and most of the Japanese makes moved assembly to the US. While the 80s was really the peak of compact pickups, they were still some made into the 2010s, although a 2011 Ranger is a lot bigger than a Ranger from the 80s. I don't think the 2019 Ranger comes in a regular cab either.
.jpg){kind=link}