London Woman Killed in EV Crash

I think the motorcycle part of 4 wheeled motorcycle needs to be stressed. We all, hopefully, know that a motorcycle is less safe than a car.
Or classify it as a NEV and limit its speed to 25-35mph.

 

The G-Wiz is shit on so many levels. I'd like to see them all crushed as all they do is give EV's a bad name.

 

In the US it is a NEV, and limited to a top speed of 25mph. If you live with that, they are the only EV that's available. In the situations where they work, it's fine alternative. Drivers just have to keep in mind that just being in an enclosed cabin doesn't give you all the protection of a real car.

 

I suspect if one ran a motorcycle into a brick wall at 35mph one would expect to die. This appears to be a problem of perception. Since it looks like an automobile apparantly some feel it should be treated as an auto. The government already bans certain classes of vehicles from some pavement.

 

Should motorcycles be banned on safety grounds? Good arguments can be made for yes, and good arguments can be made for no. But no good arguments can be made that one should be allowed and the other not.

My Xebra is licensed as a motorcycle, even though it drives like a very slow car. I accept the risks, just as a motorcycle rider does. And I'm extra careful when driving it.

OTOH, I will switch to a full-on electric car as soon as I can.

 

How the H is that defined as a motorcycle? It looks like a Smart car. And we know that a Smart car is just a four wheeled coffin, but at least it has some standards it has to adhere to.

I think safety standards are important but on the other hand people are allowed to ride motorbikes, which are just two wheeled coffins, so...

Main comments:
1) This is not a motorbike. It is a car. If it does not meet necessarily laws it should not be legal.

OR

2) Make it glaringly clear on the window that this car does not meet safety requirements and as such chances of fatality and other issues are higher.

 

There it is.

 

Cars here have some pretty obvious warnings displayed when it comes to infant car seats and airbags. Trucks also have them rollover threat.

I never got a motorcycle because of the other nuts on the road. I could accept the responsibility for myself, but the things that make me just shake my head in the car would freak me out on a bike.

I consider the Smart a safe car. Most accidents involve just one vehicle. Thus the forces at work are just your own, and it did score well in crash tests. When other vehicles are involved, it is more agile than an SUV and a smaller target.

 

Agility is not responsible for avoiding a meaningful amount of crashes, attentive driving (by one or all parties) or driving for conditions is. It may be safe in single vehicle accidents but in a multi-vehicle it is a coffin. It simply lacks the mass to not be and, like a three-car train that runs head-on into a 50-car train the smart would be manhandled against something of significant mass (which is basically everything when compared to it).

Case in point Smart vs Mercedes S. Momentum wins. At 1:30 or 2:10 you can really see what happens: Mercedes is still moving forward. The G experienced by that now-smushed Smart driver would be much higher because he's shot backward.

 

In the U.S. a NEV is NOT a NEV if it goes 50mph.

Go 50mph in a car that's built to be easily crushable, and you know what's going to happen.

.

 

Link in the OP mentioned the REVAi was sold in the US with its speed governed to 25mph. It makes them relatively safer, but as NEVs go, a souped up golf cart is likely the safest because the user is constantly aware of how exposed they are.

I have no problem owning and driving a Smart or the upcoming iQ. Yes, the Smart got a poor rating when the IIHS smashed it against a mercedes. The Yaris and Fit also got a poor rating when smashed against a Camry and Accord. Not many cries about them being death traps, despite them likely being closer in mass to car the hit than the Smart and Mercedes.

With all the driving we do being in crash isn't a high chance. Even then, it's a 50% chance the crash will just involve your car. Against an immovable object, like a cement barrier, the Smart performs well, and likely better than most SUVs. This is partly do to more advanced safety features, but it also because hitting an immovable object is like hitting a same mass vehicle head on at the same speed. The mass of the larger vehicle can work against you in such a crash.

Then, how many of those single car crashes involve a head on crash or a glancing collision? It's an exercise in risk assessment. I don't find the benefits outweigh the risks with a motorcycle. I do with a Smart or iQ. In the unfortunate event I am in an accident with a larger vehicle, I'll be hurting puppy. Of course, that's true of any crash where an 18 ton vehicle is a possible party.

 

i am with every one else. a woman died in an accident. so is it UK's fault for allowing the vehicle on the road or is it simply that people die in all kinds of ways?

she hit the proverbial brick wall. the odds of dieing greatly increase with the speeds in any kind of car. her odds are higher in that car since it is not required to withstand such a collision so the manufacturer would not have spent the extra money to do so.

but were she in a motorcycle would she have lived? an older car built before better safety measures were required?.

the questions go on and on. to be honest with ya and this will not be a popular opinion; but if you do it to yourself, you deserve what you get.