Smallest cars sold in the US did really, really badly in safety tests

It is really just simple physics.  From CNN Money:

Of 11 subcompact and minicars subjected to the Institute's small overlap crash test only one, General Motors' (GM, Fortune 500) Chevrolet Spark, did reasonably well. 

 Six of the cars earned the Institute's lowest rating of "Poor." Those were the Nissan (NSANF) Versa, Toyota (TM) Prius c, Hyundai Accent, the Mitsubishi Mirage, Chrysler Group's Fiat 500 and the Honda (HMC) Fit. The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and Ford (F, Fortune 500) Fiesta were deemed Marginal, the second-worst of four possible ratings. Most of these cars have done well in the Institute's other crash tests and in government tests. The Insurance Institute is a private organization financed by auto insurers.

The Spark earned a rating of Acceptable. None of the cars earned the top rating of Good. . . . 

WSJ: Have regulations and lawsuits made playgrounds "too safe" for kids?

Have safe playgrounds created phobias, stunting development, impacted learning ability, and lead to childhood obesity?  Kids not challenged, bored by today's playgrounds?  The obesity argument is that boring playgrounds discourage kids from using them.  Europe is ahead of the US in adding risks to playgrounds.

Some child-development experts and parents say decades of dumbed-down playgrounds, fueled by fears of litigation, concerns about injury and worrywart helicopter parents, have led to cookie-cutter equipment that offers little thrill. The result, they say, is that children are less compelled to play outside, potentially stunting emotional and physical development and exacerbating a nationwide epidemic of childhood obesity.

Some psychologists suggest that not exposing children to risk can result in increases in anxiety and other phobias. Children who never climb trees, for example, are more likely to develop a fear of heights, according to a study in Norway. And encouraging free play, in an age of structured activities and computer games, is believed to be important in helping children develop physical and cognitive competencies, creativity and self-worth. . . .

I can explain why Utah is at the forefront of setting up more innovative playgrounds.  Hint: it is related to family size.  See Freedomnomics. 

• Provocative playgrounds are common in some foreign countries such as Germany, Norway and England, according to playground manufacturers and experts. Gradually, the move is taking root in the U.S., which has traditionally been restrained by litigation concerns and restrictive safety standards. ASTM International, a professional organization, creates voluntary industry standards for various equipment, including playgrounds. And a handbook from the Consumer Product Safety Commission contains safety guidelines for playground equipment. Some states have laws mandating compliance with such recommendations. . . .

Is the Obama administration ever doing cost-benefit analysis for its regulations?: CAFE regulations increasing

Look what Americans can look forward to driving in a few years. Put aside those gas guzzling mini coopers and look at some other cars that fall well short of Obama's proposed MPG rules of 56.2 MPG. Of course, a lot of these excessively large cars don't even make the 2016 mandate of 35.5 MPG average.
The huge/gigantic 2009 Smart FOR TWO PASSION gets 33 MPG city/41 MPG highway, hardly comes close to Obama's proposed 56 MPG and barely gets to the 35.5 MPG required by 2016. The car's 3 Cylinder 1.0L engine would impress some self-propelled lawnmowers. Now it is true that the misnamed "Smart" car has a lot of fat and extra space that could be cut out, but it still isn't clear how they will get its mileage about 20 MPG on average to Obama's 56.2 MPG. A two person car with no crash protection really possible because there is no room for crumple space should really be a one person car, right?


The road domineering 2010 Hyundai ACCENT GLS gets an impressive 27 MPG city/36 MPG highway, but the highway numbers are themselves still 20 MPG short.


The extra large 2010 Honda INSIGHT EX gets an impressive 40 MPG city/43 MPG highway.


The behemoth 2009 Chevrolet COBALT LT's 25 MPG city/35 MPG highway doesn't even come remotely close to the 2016 rules let alone to Obama's proposed mandates.


The Wall Street Journal has this about the new proposed regulations.

The Obama administration may require auto makers to roughly double the average fuel economy of their car and light truck fleets from current levels to 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025. . . .

The new plan, being drafted jointly by the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, would build on the administration's new rules put in place last year that requires new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to average 35.5 mpg by 2016, up from 27.3 mpg today. . . .

What is left out of this study?: "UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road injuries by over 40% in London"

Here is the claim:

the number of children killed or seriously injured has been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal reported.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study estimates 20mph zones have the potential to prevent up to 700 casualties in London alone.

At 20mph, it is estimated only one in 40 pedestrians is killed in a crash.

This compares with a one in five chance for someone hit at 30mph.

The researchers compared data on road collisions, injuries and deaths in London between 1986 and 2006, with speed limits on roads.

After adjusting for a general reduction in road injuries in recent years, they found that the introduction of 20mph zones were associated with a 41.9% drop in casualties. . . .

Note the claim that per 40 people killed, the number dead will fall from eight to one when cars go from traveling at 30 mph to 20 mph. That is an 87.5 percent reduction, compared to the 41.9 percent drop they claim occurred. Taking into account that accidents generally tend to fall over time is helpful, but it seems likely that people are more likely to be careful where the risks are greater. The faster the cars are speeding in an area, the less likely that parents will leave their kids walking around there.

It would be interesting to see some estimate of the cost of reducing speeds by one third. What is the increase in hours that people will spend in cars? Obviously the increase in the short run is likely to be greater than the increase in the longer run. Apparently there were about 2.7 million cars in London in 1992 (in a fast search, I couldn't find a more recent number). Cutting the speed limit from 30 to 20 mph means that it takes 50 percent longer to make a trip. Take some completely made up numbers, simply to give an idea of the magnitudes involved. If each car on average spends two hours per week on these particular streets, that means 52 additional travel hours per year. Even if cars only have 1 person in the car at a time and their time costs on average are just $20 per hour, that comes to about $2.8 billion in lost time costs. Now assume that there are 700 lives that would be saved and that the average value of a life is $5 million, that comes to a total saving of $3.5 billion. Both of these numbers are quite close. If on average 1.5 people are traveling in a car, the $2.8 billion becomes $4.2 billion. I don't know what the final conclusion is here, but the answer is hardly the "should" claimed by this study, even assuming that the study was done properly and I can't make that judgment (though it is a medical journal and I would guess that they didn't get it right).

Some pretty blunt advice on car safety from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Everything else equal they are pretty clear:

"it's bigger and weighs more so we would expect it would be more protective in serious crashes."