29th Oct 2005, 23:55

Why do people always assume whoever does the most damage "wins?"

*sigh*

Crumple zones are... meant to crumple. Would you rather have all of that energy be taken out on the bumpers or on the parts between the seatbelts and the seats?

If the car bends in, you don't feel anything, if the car is super stiff, YOU move.

Small cars aren't necessarily more unsafe either. Oh well. Looks like a very nice car for the price regardless.

19th Dec 2005, 15:53

I saw an aveo in a collision with a late 90's Lincoln town car and the aveo was pretty much totaled while the town car had only minor damage to the bumper. Still can't beat a big luxury vehicle with a sub compact.

21st Oct 2008, 12:50

Just got into an accident yesterday with a Honda civic. Hit the Honda while it was doing an illegal left hand turn while I was in the middle of hte intersection (going 50km/h). My air bags DID NOT deploy. What the hell? I'm okay except for some muscle soreness and whiplash, but what if I hadn't of had my seat belt on?!

I'm very concerned about the lack of deploition with the airbags... Is deploition a word?

7th Apr 2011, 07:25

Seriously people, just because a car does NOT get damaged does not mean it is safer. Safe cars are meant to crumple in the area where there is no person. A car that does not crumple in an impact with something it cannot destroy (say a granite wall) will transfer all the energy to the occupants of the car. Engineers are making choices here: destroy the car and you walk away, or keep the car intact and you leave on a stretcher or in a body bag.