Hacker News Reader

What are the crash ratings all around on the Versa? I feel you are not being very scientific on this. She wasn’t injured in her wreck, you are extrapolating that she would have been, but you don’t know that. Bigger is not always better with crash safety, I see this idea espoused a lot. The old huge rigid cars from back in the day are actually death traps because they don’t have crumple zones and the frames are too rigid, transferring all the force to the occupant in a crash. That’s why demolition derby contestants always get those old full frame cars from the past, they don’t crumple and they transfer force to the other vehicles, but also to the driver.

If the modern crown vic is 5 star rated this may not be a problem, but the rating probably came before they added the door supports for the police, so the car may actually be more unsafe now.

Yes! I had the exact same reaction to this story. The way I interpreted the story is that the design of the Versa may actually have contributed to his wife's safety. It's possible the car was designed to crumple in such a way to distribute the weight of the collision. Ironically getting a Crown Victoria may decrease the overall safety.

There's not much zone to crumple in a side impact. On the sides, all effort is invested in keeping the rigid zone rigid and cushioning the resulting acceleration with airbags, as good as space inside the rigid zone is permitting.

I also think the problem space is being solved incorrectly. Sure, 9k might not make a comparably safe 2-4 seater (which is debatable). But I bet they’d make a much safer 1 seater. That’s precisely what most day commuters need.

The crown vic police interceptor (which is likely what the op is talking about) is a fairly "modern" vehicle; it was the go-to vehicle for police departments across the country. Detective versions typically were white or black only (not "cruiser" decorated), and usually lacked the interior cage and hose-out rear seat. Other than that, they usually had the full interceptor package (unless the dept cheaped out for the detectives, I suppose, and just bought standard crown vics).

I'm not sure when they stopped making them, but it had to be sometime in the early-2000s, maybe a bit later. I know that a lot of PDs went to an SUV platform, or other vehicles.

The one potential issue with a crown vic that would make it more dangerous that other cars is that it had a saddle fuel tank. Ford did not learn the lesson of their Pinto. Rear-end accidents with a crown vic had the potential to turn in to fiery death-traps. It wasn't until a police detective here in Phoenix got horribly injured (but survived) did they make modifications to police fleet vehicles (I think they put in a racing fuel bladder or something like that in the tanks). I don't believe such modifications were implemented for standard civilian crown vics...

Regardless, the crown vic isn't the same as much older vehicles. While it likely isn't up to modern crash standards, it is still a fairly new vehicle that does have crumple zones and such, and won't spear someone thru the heart with the steering column in a front-end collision.

> The crown vic police interceptor (which is likely what the op is talking about) is a fairly "modern" vehicle

Yes, it is.

> I'm not sure when they stopped making them, but it had to be sometime in the early-2000s, maybe a bit later.

The CVPI (Crown Victoria Police Interceptor) and the Crown Victoria itself were retired in 2011. Their immediate replacement from Ford was a Taurus based Interceptor sedan and SUV. Most officers I know derided the new Interceptor platform for having less acceleration and smaller interior space than the old CV platform. Where I live, the Dodge Charger police vehicle became much more popular after the CVPI was retired.

> The one potential issue with a crown vic that would make it more dangerous that other cars is that it had a saddle fuel tank. Ford did not learn the lesson of their Pinto. Rear-end accidents with a crown vic had the potential to turn in to fiery death-traps. It wasn't until a police detective here in Phoenix got horribly injured (but survived) did they make modifications to police fleet vehicles (I think they put in a racing fuel bladder or something like that in the tanks). I don't believe such modifications were implemented for standard civilian crown vics...

This is correct. The last revision of the CVPI (2004 to 2011) had a ton of safety improvements, including to the gas tank.

> Regardless, the crown vic isn't the same as much older vehicles. While it likely isn't up to modern crash standards, it is still a fairly new vehicle that does have crumple zones and such, and won't spear someone thru the heart with the steering column in a front-end collision.

It's still one of the safer (for the driver) cars on the road today, though its weight and bulk make it more likely to cause the most damage to other vehicles in any accident it's involved in. And you're exactly right about the steering column, it's a breakaway design. I know this because I've had to replace a dash component that required unbolting the steering wheel and column.

> What are the crash ratings all around on the Versa? I feel you are not being very scientific on this.

Front on the Versa is 3 stars, side impact is 2 stars, rollover is 4 stars. The Crown Vic is 5, 5, 5. The door additions were designed to improve officer survival in a crash, not reduce it (I used to work in law enforcement and that is direct knowledge). I'm not sure why you think I'd look at the Vic's safety ratings and just make an assumption about the Versa, that's extremely presumptive of you.

> She wasn’t injured in her wreck

She was injured, she had bruising and a sore hip for a few weeks, as I stated. This was from a 15MPH crash, one which rendered her car totaled with severe frame damage. If it had been at highway speeds I doubt she would have survived.

Also, the Crown Vic is a 2009, not a 80s or 90s car. It has crumple zones, breakaways, and other modern safety features that all contribute to its exceptional crash rating.

Sources for crash ratings:

Versa: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2011/NISSAN/VERSA/5%252520HB/F...

Crown Victoria: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2009/FORD/CROWN%252520VICTORIA...

God. That story rankles me, the new Jeep, a lifestyle product and environmentally terrible choice, being driven very poorly and causing massive damage and potential serious injury at only 15 mph. These large cars need to be taxed, they are not good for our planet or other drivers

I agree. Driving is essentially an arms race with how people drive large vehicles.

They are effectively taxed through taxes on gas though, aren't they?

Apparently not enough. They're the most popular type of car right now.

We should tax things more because they are popular?

We should tax things to appropriately account for the external costs. Big cars not only consume more fuel, the external costs of which are not reflected by current fuel taxes, they also consume a lot more space on the road. They're also more dangerous to other people, especially pedestrians and cyclists.

I agree, and I would love to trade her Vic for a comparably safe hybrid or full electric. The former simply doesn't exist, and the latter is only available right now as a Tesla S, which is far outside our price range. Maybe when the Tesla or Rivian pickups debut they will be somewhat affordable, but until then we unfortunately are stuck with gas guzzlers in our household.

In general, a side impact is a very bad scenario for the party being hit. There's not much room for crumple zones at all, and cars are often not rigid enough, leading to an intrusion by the other vehicle. But this is true for larger vehicles as well, e.g. older Ford F150s were famous for basically folding in half from the slightest side hit (say, a telephone pole at low speeds after losing control). In this situation, a rigid battery pack might actually make the car a lot safer. But yes, I wouldn't want to be in a tiny car getting hit from the side by a larger one.

Your feeling of safety is not justified. The Ford Crown Victoria had a "Marginal" rating for side impact crashes. And the type of modifications made to police vehicles don't actually do anything to improve crash safety.

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victo...

Check out the side impact crash test pictures. The body actually buckled and rode up over the frame! This is not a safe design.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2009/FORD/CROWN%252520VICTORIA...

As I said above, the modifications made to the police version were done to increase officer safety in a crash, not decrease it.

The NHTSA side impact ratings are considered outdated and inadequate, which is why I linked to the newer IIHS ratings above. The Crown Victoria is not a safe vehicle in a side crash compared to more modern designs.

Ford installed ballistic panels in some of those vehicles, but those won't give you any significant extra protection in a crash.

One little-known fact is that (at least for Euro NCAP crash test scores), the scores are only comparable within "vehicle class", and even then by vehicle mass.

> Euro NCAP’s frontal impact test simulates a car crashing into another of similar mass and structure [...] cars which are within 150kg of one another are considered comparable.

This means that at least for Euro NCAP scores, you can only meaningfully compare crash test results within a type class of vehicle, for vehicles of similar weights. Heavier, higher vehicles will usually be better-off, so a compact roadster with a 5* score is not going to come off well from a collision with a 5* SUV.

Ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20090222214930/http://www.euronc...

What you're saying is true, but there is also this

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs

modern safety features make a big difference, even against heavier cars.

I would argue that a Nissan Leaf would be overall safer than a Crown Victoria.

First of all, the 2nd generation (2018/2019) Nissan Leaf seems to have a comparable weight as the Crown Victoria. From the data I've been looking at online, it's around 25% less weight than the CV, but definitely more than a Versa. Also, this weight is likely better distributed throughout the car instead of being concentrated in one place.

Another factor to consider is that the CV is an older vehicle (did they stop making them in 2012?), and in general newer cars are safer due to strong materials and safety features/design.

Also, the likelihood of a fire during an accident is greatly reduced (although still non-zero, as demonstrated by Tesla).

Yet he said the crown vic has "reinforced doors due to being a former detective's car." Also, are fires really that much of a worry when you get in an accident? I have seen very little of that happening... More likely probably that your alternator causes a fire.

According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24073770 (fire-related auto deaths in Sweden), this is a problem. Around 5% of auto-related deaths in Sweden involved burning cars, and around 1/3 of these deaths fire was the cause of death. Definitely not the main cause of death, it is a factor that has to be considered when looking at overall safety.

Honda is making hybrid versions of their full and mid-sized SUVs.