Recent SUV 5 mph crash tests (Pacifica ranked poorly)

Discussion in 'Pacifica' started by MoPar Man, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. MoPar Man

    Art Begun Guest

    Actually I think the painted bumpers help avoid accidents compared to
    the black rubber bumpers. The front and rear of the car are more
    visible. You have this big blue/black/red/white/etc thing coming at
    you or driving in front of you instead of a smaller profile with a
    bumper which almost matches the street color. As for chrome being
    visible, not enuf around now to compare.
    Art Begun, Dec 10, 2003

  2. Art, there are absolutely *no* data to support this notion of accident
    reduction due to painted bumpers. In order to support that position, you'd
    have to show *both* that painted bumpers improve vehicle conspicuity
    *and* that this increased conspicuity actually reduces crashes. I am quite
    confident you would be unable to do either.

    Daniel J. Stern, Dec 10, 2003
  3. |
    | The real roblem with bumpers anyway is not whether they
    can be designed
    | better or worse at such-and-such a speed. The problem is
    that there's
    | apparently
    | no uniform bumper height requirement. As a result you get
    collisions such
    | as I
    | had a week ago where I rear-ended a Chevy truck going at
    about 3 Mph with
    | my Datsun 210, doing no damage whatsoever to the truck and
    | destroying
    | my grill, both fenders, headlights, etc. because the
    bottom of the truck
    | bumper was
    | fully an inch above the TOP of my bumper.
    | Now granted I was happy since I didn't have to have a fat
    claim put against
    | my
    | insurance, and the car I was driving was basically worth
    about $500 anyway.
    | However, clearly it would have been better if it had been
    a bumper-to-bumper
    | bump, rather than a bumper-to-plastic gingerbread bump.
    | Ted

    The 1989 Dodge Dakota 4x4 I had was rear-ended twice. Once
    my a Pontiac T-1000 (Chevy Chevette) and the other by a Ford
    Taurus. In both cases all I needed was a new bumper and the
    tailgate repainted from the battery acid splash that had
    eaten the paint off. Both cars were totaled since the
    impact was into their grilles. I agree that non-uniform
    bumper height is a issue
    James C. Reeves, Dec 11, 2003
  4. Whoops, I meant that if you get a ticket you are going to pay the STATE
    (a fine) regardless of whether you pay for the other driver, etc. As for
    who pays in an accident, the insurance companies of each driver determines
    that in questionable cases. Usually these don't happen because most times
    cops show up and write a ticket to whomever is at fault, even though the
    charge may be minor. Also the State has some law that automatically assigns
    blame in certain cases. (ie: if you rear-end someone, your automatically at
    fault no matter what the circumstances are)

    Ted Mittelstaedt, Dec 11, 2003
  5. You know it would be impossible to do that, though, for a simple reason.
    You cannot increase vehicle conspicuity simply by mandating some change
    to the ass-end of a vehicle, because over time as more and more new
    vehicles get the mandated change, they all blend into each other.

    This was tried with the 3rd brake light. The 3rd brake light proponents
    went out there and ran some cars with 3rd brake lights and the results
    were some wonderful decrease in rear end collisions. So they got
    all excited, little realizing that the only reason their test cars had
    results is because at the time the test was run, they were the ONLY cars
    on the street with the 3rd light - thus they attracted attention.

    Today, every blinking car out there has a 3rd brake light, so nobody
    pays attention to the damn things anymore and the rear-end accident
    rate is no better than it was before the first light.

    Undoubtedly now the 3rd brake light proponents are probably running
    studies with a total of 4 brake lights, getting the same spectacular
    and no doubt before long we will have yet more ass-end brake lights
    to hang on cars.

    Eventually the ass-end of cars are going to look like a mobile Christmas


    Ted Mittelstaedt, Dec 11, 2003
  6. MoPar Man

    Bill Putney Guest

    And don't forget DTL's on the front! 8^)

    Bill Putney
    (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with "x")
    Bill Putney, Dec 11, 2003
  7. MoPar Man

    Art Begun Guest

    That is why I said "I think".

    But I've always been interested in magic and illusions. And the same
    concept of "black art" is often used by magicians to make tables and
    platforms look thinner than they really are.

    There is a way to prove my visibility theory if someone had the bucks
    to do so. You get a bunch of cars with bumpers that match body color
    and you paint the bumper black matte and you set them loose in a city
    and wait a year and see how their accident rate compares with the same
    model in the same city with body matching bumpers. When I win the
    lottery, I'll run this experiment and let you know.
    Art Begun, Dec 11, 2003
  8. MoPar Man

    Art Begun Guest

    All this talk about bumpers reminded me that a couple of years ago
    they were talking about making car bodies more pedestrian friendly.
    So when you collided with a pedestrian, even though he was dead, it
    would be easy to clean him up so he looked good in the open coffin.
    Wonder what happened to that idea.
    Art Begun, Dec 11, 2003
  9. MoPar Man

    rickety Guest

    istr that the elevated third brake light was intended to be viewable through
    a vehicle in front of you, giving earlier awareness that a car further ahead
    was slowing and stopping.

    The wide variation in vehicle heights (or at least the "see through" height)
    has limited a driver's ability to see these.

    I would find it hard to believe that a third light on a car immediately in
    front of you would help at all, even if it were unusual ("Oh! Look at that,
    he's got a third brake light", BANG), but the intended ability to see beyond
    the car immediately in front would.

    My $0.02
    rickety, Dec 11, 2003
  10. That's a popular but incomplete and therefore incorrect belief amongst
    those who think they know more than they actually do. The novelty effect
    does exist, but it is usually not an overriding effect.
    Sorry, no. That's simply wrong.

    Daniel J. Stern, Dec 11, 2003
  11. MoPar Man

    Geoff Guest

    This was tried with the 3rd brake light. The 3rd brake light proponents
    I think the CHMSL is a *very* good idea, and it gets on my nerves when
    people fail to maintain them in working order. I wish there was something
    similar available that increased vehicle conspicuity from the rear in heavy
    snow/rain situations. Some of the most frightening driving situations I've
    ever been in were cases where a snow squall made it impossible to see or be

    By the way, the below is snipped from the abstract from the NHTSA text Dan


    a.. The lamps were most effective in the early years. In 1987, CHMSL reduced
    rear impact crashes by 8.5 percent (confidence bounds 6.1 to 10.9 percent).
    a.. Effectiveness declined in 1988 and 1989, but then leveled off. During
    1989-95, CHMSL reduced rear impact crashes by 4.3 percent (confidence bounds
    2.9 to 5.8 percent). This is the long-term effectiveness of the lamps.
    a.. The effectiveness of CHMSL in light trucks is about the same as in
    passenger cars.
    a.. At the long-term effectiveness level of 4.3 percent, when all cars and
    light trucks on the road have CHMSL, the lamps will prevent 92,000-137,000
    police-reported crashes, 58,000-70,000 nonfatal injuries, and $655,000,000
    (in 1994 dollars) in property damage per year.
    a.. The annual consumer cost of CHMSL in cars and light trucks sold in the
    United States is close to $206,000,000 (in 1994 dollars).
    a.. Even though the effectiveness of CHMSL has declined from its initial
    levels, the lamps are and will continue to be highly cost-effective safety
    Geoff, Dec 12, 2003
  12. There is, it's called a "rear fog lamp".


    DS (Yes, there are plenty of aftermarket add-on rear fogs available)
    Daniel Stern Lighting, Dec 12, 2003
  13. MoPar Man

    Dan Gates Guest

    My thought is that the CHMSL was a direct result of those nasty GM
    station wagons that had the tail lights mounted in the low, chrome rear

    I hit one of those (very softly, no damage to either) on my motorcycle
    once. They were completely out of the normal field of view, no mater
    what you were driving.

    Dan Gates, Dec 12, 2003
  14. MoPar Man

    Brent P Guest

    My guess it is just kludge patch to the lighting because of all the
    crap US regulations allow in general.
    Brent P, Dec 12, 2003
  15. ....and now Range Rover's done it again. Think those red lights up on the
    rear surfaces of the quarter panels are brake lights? Naw, they're just
    the taillamps and the reverse lights. The brake lights and turn signals
    are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the bumper.

    Daniel Stern Lighting, Dec 12, 2003
  16. MoPar Man

    C. E. White Guest

    As far as I know there is no such law or even rule in North Carolina
    that automatically assigned blame to the the driver of a car that rear
    ends another car. Many years ago a school mate got a ticket for making
    an "unsafe movement" that resulted in a rear end collision. He pulled
    out of a parking lot immeadiately in front of traffic. The car that
    struck him had little choice. On the other hand I was deemed financially
    responsible for damage to the car in fron of me in a chain collison,
    even though the officer told me he didn't see how I could have avoided
    the accident.


    Ed White
    C. E. White, Dec 13, 2003
  17. Right. Rather than making drivers play the guessing games of 'where are
    the brake lights on this car' or 'what does that particular red light
    mean' they just put one in a standard place with a dedicated function.
    Paul Hovnanian P.E., Dec 13, 2003
  18. MoPar Man

    Arif Khokar Guest

    [regarding CHMSL]
    Now what we need is to have amber LHMSL and RHMSL (left/right high
    mounted signal lamp) mandated on all passenger vehicles :)
    Arif Khokar, Dec 14, 2003
  19. MoPar Man

    Brent P Guest

    The CHMSL is not universal in location, it too is all over the place.
    From above the rear glass of an SUV to the trunk lid above the lic.
    plate on some cars.
    Brent P, Dec 14, 2003
  20. MoPar Man

    Arif Khokar Guest

    I believe that some vehicle models use the rear edge of the spoiler for
    placement of the CHMSL, but I don't know if this is as it's equipped
    from the factory, or an aftermarket modification.
    Arif Khokar, Dec 14, 2003
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.