Small cars are UNSAFE!!!! Run, panic, stockpile guns! Resurrect Charleton Heston!

This might expose a lot of my biases and personally philosophies when it comes to car buying, but the new IIHS study that claims that mini- or subcompact cars are less safe than mid-size ones really drives me crazy.

Not because it’s wrong. It isn’t. Not because I dislike midsize cars or think they aren’t as safe as the study claims. They are. And they’re “safer” than mini-cars.

What pushes my buttons is that the byline, “mini- or subcompact cars are less safe than mid-size ones” is so easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. I fear that folks considering outstanding cars like the Honda Fit or Scion xD will now look at them as “unsafe,” rather than understanding that no car is 100% safe in every circumstance. (By the way, if you want a small car like these, get the side airbags! That’s just some advice. They really work. Back to your regularly scheduled rant …)

For example, let’s design a test to prove that the same mid-size sedans vindicated in this IIHS test are “unsafe” by crashing them at 50mph into a large “light” truck, like a Chevy Silverado 2500. I can’t actually run this test, but I think you can assume that hypothetically the byline could be “Mid-Size Sedans Unsafe in New IIHS Study.” It’s just misleading. It’s designing a study to produce an easily misunderstood result. It makes “safety” seem like a binary situation – safe, or unsafe – rather than a continuum where safety increases almost every model year.

I think most folks, if you explained to them that you were designing an offset 40 mph (80mph closing speed) test between a Hyundai Sonata and a Toyota Yaris, that one would fare more poorly than the other. But it’s not like the “exploding Pinto” situation that scared generations of people away from smaller cars into large metal safety cages. Your Yaris won’t instantly entomb you by disintegrating instantly. The IIHS test represents an artificial, laboratory test that is not reflective of real-life accident scenarios. In fact, that hitting anything at an 80mph speed could even possibly be survivable represents the vast leaps we’ve made in midsize car safety even in the last 10 years.

What the test DOES demonstrate is that weight differential is always an issue. Smaller vehicles usually fare worse in an accident when they hit something larger. That is reality. New technology increases the survivability or likelihood of injury dramatically. (You should use your best judgment when determining what size of vehicle to buy, of course.)

On the other hand, if you take that philosophy and decide “I want to put every member of my family into a giant SUV like a Nissan Armada,” then we’re locking ourselves into this cycle of up-sizing and putting others at risk. Ideally, all cars would be lighter (and thus more fuel efficient), reducing our environmental impact while working on getting the size differential issue under control. I’m not saying I want you to get rid of your big truck that you need for work, I’m saying I’d like it to be as strong or stronger, but lighter and safer and also more fuel efficient (for example, through the use of lightweight composites or light metals like aluminum).

I just hope that folks will be able to read the results of the IIHS result and understand what the limitations of it are. And I’d encourage you to think about safety, but not to fall into the “bigger is ALWAYS better” trap. Better is relative. Be an educated consumer and weight the considerations. I trust you’ll make a good decision, especially if you’re concerned enough to read this whole rant.