陶陶乐，乐陶陶请进。关于汽车安全性能的比较

来源: woth 于 2008-11-12 10:50:58 [] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 阅读数 : (3948 bytes)
本帖于 2008-11-12 12:28:43 时间, 由普通用户 casinoeye 编辑

不知道你会不会看到，再在这里发一边好了。
我老公可以算是这方面的专业人士，这是他花了一个晚上帮你整理出来的数据和比较,以及他的一些观点，也算是给你和你老公有个参考吧。希望你们能买到合适的汽车。

原文件本来是excel的，还带有一些汽车被撞坏后的图片，可惜太大，放不上来了。

The IIHS(Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) is a good source for data on the real world crash performance of new vehicles. The US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also requires that car manufacturers conduct slightly different tests, but vehicles that perform well in one set of tests generally do well in the other.

The results of IIHS crash tests are easy to search online (http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx) so I have collected the results for a variety of small and mid-size European and Japanese cars in a single table.

The cars are sorted in order of fuel economy in city driving (MPG = miles per gallon.) Results for the "Side Impact" test represent a crash where an SUV hits the driver's side of the vehicle. Results for the "Front Offset" test represent a head-on collision with another vehicle of the same mass, with 40% overlap between the two vehicles.

The results are color-coded to a four-step scale, according to the possibility of injury from excessive deceleration of the driver/passenger, or collapse of the vehicle body, causing injury. The deceleration results are specified by "head/neck","chest","leg/pelvis" etc.

Green - Good
Yellow - Acceptable
Orange - Marginal
Red - Poor

Injuries can not be predicted perfectly (it's really the statistical probability of injury.) But in general, Good and Acceptable results indicate that no injury, or only minor injuries are likley. Marginal and Poor results indicate that moderate or severe injuries may occur.



To summarize the results for these vehicles with two points:
1) There is no evidence that the heavier vehicles are safer (in fact, the heaver BMW 5-Series, and Mercedes C and E-Class perform the worst in side impact)
2) Safety should not be a major reason for choosing to buy (or not buy) any of these vehicles. The crash results for all of these vehicles are quite similar.

It may seem suprising that lighter vehicles can be as safe (or safer than) heavier vehicles, and that vehicles with a good reputation for safety (like Volvo) don't always perform better than others. However, the truth is that vehicle safety is very dependent on good design, and unless there is a very big difference in mass (like between a Hummer and a Smart), design will be the most important thing. The European and Japanese manufacturers have done a very good job in the last 10 years of designing vehicles that absorb energy in the front crush zone without allowing the cabin area to be damaged. For side impact, these companies have improved the strength of the body, and use air bags and collapsable trim pieces to absorb the energy and reduce the chance of injury. As a result of these design changes, within any size class, vehicles from Honda, Audi, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagon, Mercedes, Nissan, Volvo, etc all have similar safety performance.

One final comment about the use of recycled materials and safety. Nearly all vehicle bodies today are made of steel (with the expection of specialty vehicles like the Audi A8, or Lotus Elan which use aluminum or carbon fiber) and the crash performance will not be affected by the use of recycled steel content. In fact, all these vehicles use steel from the same suppliers, and all the steel will contain some recycled steel. Some companies may advertise the use of recycled plastics in the interior, but this will not have any effect on safety. In fact, the use of recycled material should be considered a positive thing for the environment!

所有跟帖： 

• WOW,好仔细! -红色娘子军- ♀ 给 红色娘子军 发送悄悄话 红色娘子军 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 11/12/2008 postreply 11:49:23

• niu -zhuce- ♂ 给 zhuce 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 11/12/2008 postreply 16:57:35

• "Safety should not be a major reason for choosing.." ???? -internuts- ♂ 给 internuts 发送悄悄话 internuts 的博客首页 (183 bytes) () 11/12/2008 postreply 18:56:21

• 呵呵，这话的意思是，对于这些车来说，安全性不应该是最主要的 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (80 bytes) () 11/12/2008 postreply 19:40:12

• 就是，买车也是个权衡 -MOVEOVER- ♂ 给 MOVEOVER 发送悄悄话 MOVEOVER 的博客首页 (252 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 00:10:04

• 是啊。这些车的比较主要就是给那些对汽车安全性能有误解 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (74 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 11:31:17

• 驾车安全和车的统计的安全性是没太大关系， -wxc1031b- ♂ 给 wxc1031b 发送悄悄话 wxc1031b 的博客首页 (24 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 09:06:10

• 呵呵，驾车人确实是很主要的 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 11:28:48

• 谢谢你和你先生的辛苦工作，但对IIHS实验结果的归纳俺不敢苟同 -TBz- ♂ 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (51 bytes) () 11/12/2008 postreply 22:57:21

• 呵呵，那你能不能说出不同意的原因呢 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 06:44:26

• 汽车的安全标准和食品的安全标准同理 -color- ♀ 给 color 发送悄悄话 color 的博客首页 (210 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 10:46:34

• 呵呵，这里比较的是相同大小的汽车，主要是小型和中小型的 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (241 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 11:21:18

• Results for the "Side Impact" test represent a crash where an SU -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (144 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 11:27:46

• On the road, any kind of collisions might be happened. -color- ♀ 给 color 发送悄悄话 color 的博客首页 (25 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 14:11:05

• 呵呵，当然。不管是宝马沃尔沃还是丰田本田，如果是撞上了 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (16 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 18:51:56

• 回复：呵呵，当然。不管是宝马沃尔沃还是丰田本田，如果是撞上了 -color- ♀ 给 color 发送悄悄话 color 的博客首页 (113 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 19:07:39

• 呵呵，十多年前，美国大概90%的都是suv和minivan，现在 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (128 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 19:12:45

• 嗬嗬，不敢说多，怕产生误导。 -color- ♀ 给 color 发送悄悄话 color 的博客首页 (22 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 06:49:48

• 呵呵，如果是自己观察，一般总是会有误差。不过确实是有统计表明 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (148 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 07:03:08

• 俗话说，眼见为实。我比较相信自己 -color- ♀ 给 color 发送悄悄话 color 的博客首页 (0 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 07:20:14

• 发现你比较喜欢抬杠，但还有人比你更能抬杆 -color- ♀ 给 color 发送悄悄话 color 的博客首页 (88 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 07:32:23

• 呵呵，我可不喜欢抬杠，我是比较严肃认真的说的。大车比例问题， -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (342 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 09:27:59

• 继续跑题。 在路上跑的车并不是相同尺寸的。 -color- ♀ 给 color 发送悄悄话 color 的博客首页 (142 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 10:09:56

• 严重误导！如果Yaris 和 BMW5系相撞谁活下来的机会大？ -jgsaron- ♂ 给 jgsaron 发送悄悄话 (374 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 14:18:37

• 呵呵，照你这么说，人人都应该开大卡车喽？前面已经说了 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (310 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 17:05:01

• 错! 回去再看看原文 -TBz- ♂ 给 TBz 发送悄悄话 TBz 的博客首页 (114 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 18:50:48

• 呵呵，我不懂这个。我想这应该是模拟试验，模拟的就是 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (22 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 19:34:23

• 回复：错! 回去再看看原文 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (284 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 20:57:55

• 回复：严重误导！如果Yaris 和 BMW5系相撞谁活下来的机会大？ -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (2109 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 20:39:58

• A very strong arguement also from IIHS! -jgsaron- ♂ 给 jgsaron 发送悄悄话 (245 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 07:25:32

• BMW midsize 应该和 Toyota midsize 比 -曲肱而枕- ♂ 给 曲肱而枕 发送悄悄话 曲肱而枕 的博客首页 (344 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 14:36:48

• 是的。丰田的在列出的表格中也有中等大小的，camery是不是？ -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (146 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 18:57:52

• 回复：BMW midsize 应该和 Toyota midsize 比 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (1247 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 21:27:13

• 结论应该是：大车比小车安全，相似大小车的安全性与厂牌没有太大关系 -曲肱而枕- ♂ 给 曲肱而枕 发送悄悄话 曲肱而枕 的博客首页 (58 bytes) () 11/13/2008 postreply 21:57:40

• 呵呵，这也要看多大多小了，不是么？大卡车和小汽车比 -woth- ♀ 给 woth 发送悄悄话 (115 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 07:00:02

• 总的来说，大车更安全！ -jgsaron- ♂ 给 jgsaron 发送悄悄话 (509 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 08:06:39

• 回复：You need to know how the test were done!! 关于汽车安全性能的比较 -EscaladeESV- ♂ 给 EscaladeESV 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 20:08:39

• 回复： -EscaladeESV- ♂ 给 EscaladeESV 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 20:09:13

• 回复：Guys, read carefully!!!!! "Test results can be compared only -EscaladeESV- ♂ 给 EscaladeESV 发送悄悄话 (514 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 20:16:08

• 我向来不信这个。 -杀雨- ♂ 给 杀雨 发送悄悄话 杀雨 的博客首页 (350 bytes) () 11/14/2008 postreply 21:54:05

• which idiot put this on top? this is the stupidest post I ever r -yyang3- ♂ 给 yyang3 发送悄悄话 (0 bytes) () 11/18/2008 postreply 08:39:47

请您先登陆，再发跟帖！