H/T Bernie Wagenblast

This is vintage gold. The Chevy sponsored short film below helps show road safety from 1930s. Chevrolet also tries to convince us the new safety features of their latest cars make them the safest place to be, showing dramatic accidents to prove their point! Interestingly, the traffic fatalities statistics shows that cars were not actually the safest places to be in that era.  There were 34,494 fatalities recorded in 1935 in the United States, which had a population of 127 million at that time. With 228 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and adjusted fatalities per 100,000 population 27.1, was not an ideally safe environment for travel by car. In comparison, today we have about 34,000 deaths for a population of 314 million, with an VMT of 2,954 billion and adjusted fatalities per 100,000 at 10.833.  Thankfully the technology has come a long way to make the cars safer and we have a few more options than a Chevy to look to for a safer ride. Nonetheless it is pretty cool to see how things were back in the day.

Smart USA quickly responds to IIHS crash test results

(Source:  Autoblog, Jalopnik & IIHS)

“There are good reasons people buy minicars,” says Institute president Adrian Lund. “They’re more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time.”

The three tests we have are between the Honda Accord and the Honda Fit, the Toyota Camry and Toyota Yaris, and finally the Mercedes C300 and the Smart ForTwo. With each we get a full speed offset frontal crash with both cars traveling at 40 MPH, destruction and carnage ensue and rightly so, there’s a lot of energy involved here. These are hardly scientific tests, and they represent the absolute most extreme crash scenario for these speeds, especially for the smaller cars. Ratings got from “Good” at the top of the scale through “Acceptable” and “Poor.” Considering this is one car bashing into another, the evaluation is somewhat subjective, but it gives an idea of relative performance. Let’s take a closer look at each.

 Click here to read the entire article and to watch two other awesome videos.  Seen below is the IIHS report in PDF format.  To download the report, please visit the IIHS website. 

P.S:  According to AutoBlog, folks over at Smart USA were not pleased to see the results of the latest batch of crash testing from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS did a series of frontal offset crash tests between small and mid-size cars, one of which included a smart ForTwo versus a Mercedes C300. While the results may have been what most people expected, they don’t correlate with the ForTwo’s results in standardized tests where the IIHS rates the smart as good in front and side impacts. The feds at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration give the smart 4 stars on frontal impact and 5 on side impact. 

The problem, as Smart USA sees it, is that the IIHS devised a test that no automaker has designed to and that they claim only represents about one percent of real world accidents. Smart has even set up a site for customer testimonials about the crash safety performance of their ForTwo. Typically, in the past, Smarts have actually done quite well in similar vehicle-on-vehicle tests, such as the ones conducted by Mercedes and Auto Motor und Sport after the jump.