Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Crash Compatibility shopping experience:
1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Crash Compatibility offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Crash Compatibility at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.
2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about
3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Crash Compatibility? Wrong! If the Crash Compatibility is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.
4. Questions - Got a question about Crash Compatibility then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....
5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Crash Compatibility? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Crash Compatibility and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.
6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Crash Compatibility wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.
7. Feedback - happy with your Crash Compatibility then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.
8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Crash Compatibility site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site
9. Contact - got a question about Crash Compatibility, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.
10. Payment - ready to pay for your Crash Compatibility, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.
Crash incompatibility,
crash compatibility,
vehicle incompatibility, and
vehicle compatibility are terms in the automobile
crash testing industry. They refer to the tendency of some vehicles to inflict more damage on another vehicle (the "crash partner vehicle") in two-car crashes. Vehicle
incompatibility is said to lead to more dangerous, fatal crashes, while
compatibility can prevent injury in otherwise comparable crashes.
The most obvious source of crash incompatibility is mass; a high mass vehicle such as a
large MPV or
SUV will tend to cause much more serious damage in a crash with a lighter vehicle such as a typical
sedan (car) or
compact car. Incompatibility may also result from the specific shape, stiffness, or other design aspects of the impacting vehicles. For example, some SUVs and pickup trucks ride higher than cars and lack crumple zones to absorb impact energy. Another source of incompatibility is that heavier vehicles are required to have stronger front ends because of today's test requirements like the NCAP test .
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have done studies of the
aggressiveness of vehicle designs. The term 'aggressiveness' is used to denote the average injury risk a vehicle imposes on occupants of other vehicles during collisions. A 2003 NHTSA study estimated that in vehicle to vehicle crashes, the design of minivans was 1.16 times as aggressive as cars, pickups were 1.39 times more aggressive, and SUVs were 1.71 times more aggressive than cars. When weight was included in the analysis, light trucks (including SUVs) were estimated to be 3.3 times more aggressive than cars in head on crashes and perhaps more so in side impact crashes.
These studies have been controversial as they affect public perception and policy decisions on Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and light truck safety test standards as they exist today. Besides, the numbers above are difficult to translate into any meaningful steps because the NHTSA does not define a car or a light truck very well (the PT Cruiser is classifed as a light truck whereas as Lexus LS430, a much heavier vehicle, is classified as a car). So, it would not make sense to say that eliminating all light trucks (which includes minivans, SUVs and pickups) will eliminate incompatibility because there would still be smaller vehicles crashing into larger vehicles. This is the case in Japan which has few light trucks but crash incompatibility is considered to be a major issue.
There has been extensive research and testing done by NHTSA, other governments, research organizations as well as automobile manufacturers to find solutions that improve safety in the small cars when colliding with a larger vehicle. In the US, a group of experts proposed major steps to improve compatibility and these have been accepted as a voluntary regulation by the US automotive manufacturers as well as by most other companies selling vehicles in the US. The Canadian Government has also accepted these recommendations. The recommendations require all manufacturers to put head protection airbags ('curtain' airbags) in their cars within a couple of years and also to design the front end of all light trucks to be less aggressive.
Although much of the crash incompatibility debate in recent years has centered around SUVs, the concept has been around far longer. When subcompact cars were introduced in the
1970s, there was a fear that incompatibilities of mass and design could lead to more serious injuries for drivers of these smaller, lighter vehicles. Crash incompatibility remains an area of active study.
See also
External links
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report on vehicle compatibility
- Insurance Institute reports on vehicle compatibility (April 4, 2003)
- http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/archive.php?id=56&cat=Press%20Releases
References
- Physics Today, January 2006, "Vehicle Design and the Physics of Traffic Safety"
Crash incompatibility,
crash compatibility,
vehicle incompatibility, and
vehicle compatibility are terms in the
automobile crash testing industry. They refer to the tendency of some vehicles to inflict more damage on another vehicle (the "crash partner vehicle") in two-car crashes. Vehicle
incompatibility is said to lead to more dangerous, fatal crashes, while
compatibility can prevent injury in otherwise comparable crashes.
The most obvious source of crash incompatibility is mass; a high mass vehicle such as a large MPV or SUV will tend to cause much more serious damage in a crash with a lighter vehicle such as a typical
sedan (car) or
compact car. Incompatibility may also result from the specific shape, stiffness, or other design aspects of the impacting vehicles. For example, some SUVs and pickup trucks ride higher than cars and lack crumple zones to absorb impact energy. Another source of incompatibility is that heavier vehicles are required to have stronger front ends because of today's test requirements like the NCAP test .
The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have done studies of the
aggressiveness of vehicle designs. The term 'aggressiveness' is used to denote the average injury risk a vehicle imposes on occupants of other vehicles during collisions. A 2003 NHTSA study estimated that in vehicle to vehicle crashes, the design of minivans was 1.16 times as aggressive as cars, pickups were 1.39 times more aggressive, and SUVs were 1.71 times more aggressive than cars. When weight was included in the analysis, light trucks (including SUVs) were estimated to be 3.3 times more aggressive than cars in head on crashes and perhaps more so in side impact crashes.
These studies have been controversial as they affect public perception and policy decisions on
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and light truck safety test standards as they exist today. Besides, the numbers above are difficult to translate into any meaningful steps because the NHTSA does not define a car or a light truck very well (the PT Cruiser is classifed as a light truck whereas as Lexus LS430, a much heavier vehicle, is classified as a car). So, it would not make sense to say that eliminating all light trucks (which includes minivans, SUVs and pickups) will eliminate incompatibility because there would still be smaller vehicles crashing into larger vehicles. This is the case in Japan which has few light trucks but crash incompatibility is considered to be a major issue.
There has been extensive research and testing done by NHTSA, other governments, research organizations as well as automobile manufacturers to find solutions that improve safety in the small cars when colliding with a larger vehicle. In the US, a group of experts proposed major steps to improve compatibility and these have been accepted as a voluntary regulation by the US automotive manufacturers as well as by most other companies selling vehicles in the US. The Canadian Government has also accepted these recommendations. The recommendations require all manufacturers to put head protection airbags ('curtain' airbags) in their cars within a couple of years and also to design the front end of all light trucks to be less aggressive.
Although much of the crash incompatibility debate in recent years has centered around SUVs, the concept has been around far longer. When subcompact cars were introduced in the 1970s, there was a fear that incompatibilities of mass and design could lead to more serious injuries for drivers of these smaller, lighter vehicles. Crash incompatibility remains an area of active study.
See also
External links
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report on vehicle compatibility
- Insurance Institute reports on vehicle compatibility (April 4, 2003)
- http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/archive.php?id=56&cat=Press%20Releases
References
- Physics Today, January 2006, "Vehicle Design and the Physics of Traffic Safety"
