The IIHS recently subjected 11 popular minicar models to its toughest crash test, and just one protected its crash test dummies well enough to earn a rating of “acceptable.” To be sure, the IIHS tests — especially the small overlap front crash test — are very strenuous.

In the federal government’s frontal crash test, the car strikes a rigid barrier, fully head-on, at 35 mph. The IIHS moderate overlap front crash test sends each car into a deformable barrier at 40 mph, with just 40 percent of the vehicle’s front end (on the driver’s side) absorbing the impact. This concentrates the force of the collision onto a smaller area of the car, increasing the likelihood of structural failure and “injury” to the crash test dummy.

The IIHS small overlap front crash test, introduced in 2012, is tougher still. It too is conducted at 40 mph, but just 25 percent of the vehicle’s front end (on the driver’s side) absorbs the impact, and the barrier the vehicle strikes is rigid. This is the type of impact a vehicle would experience if it struck a large tree or utility pole head-on on the driver’s side.

The IIHS gives each car an overall rating and ratings for each of several distinct categories. The possible ratings are “good,” “acceptable,” “marginal” and “poor.” Just one of the 11 cars tested — the Chevrolet Spark — earned an overall “acceptable” rating. The rest were rated either “marginal” or “poor”, including the popular Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Toyota Prius c and Ford Fiesta.

All vehicles were given structural ratings of “marginal” or “poor”, but the Spark scored better overall because the dummy’s movement was better restricted and showed lower injury levels.

The IIHS reminds consumers that the Spark compares favorably only with other vehicles in its own class. The ratings the institute bestows cannot be compared across different weight classes of automobile. Among the 17 “small cars” the IIHS has tested (which are just slightly larger and heavier than minicars), five earned “good” ratings and another five earned “acceptable” ratings.

If you decide a that smaller car is right for you, it is very important to check out crash test ratings and, of course, drive cautiously. If you are involved in a serious auto accident, you need all the help you can get.

If you need to speak with a auto accident attorney, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

The man was also charged with improper lane change while driving the RV, which was believed to be responsible for triggering the multiple-vehicle chain reaction. Marietta Police said the current warrant has a no-bond and a nationwide extradition clause added. Police stated that they had encouraged the driver to turn himself in within 24-48 hours when they spoke with him, but that they did not know his exact location.

According to prior reports, the accident was caused when the RV, which was traveling southbound on I-75 near Delk Road, reportedly slammed into a Toyota Camry, which then collided with a Toyota Prius. The Prius then hit a median wall and flipped, partially ejecting its passenger, a 40 year old man who was not wearing a seatbelt. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

What stands out regarding the criminal charges in this case is that the charges against the driver would have been less stringent had he not fled the scene. As previously discussed, the accidental killing of another person in a car accident is typically construed as second degree vehicular homicide, and is a misdemeanor offense,  punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000.00, or both. Therefore, the driver’s act of leaving the scene bumped up his criminal charges from misdemeanor to felony, and could potentially have tripled the jail time he may be sentenced with, as this charge carries a potential prison sentence of 3-15 years.

The reason behind the heightened charges is indicative of the public policy concerns with having to track down the responsible person, and potential added difficulty of discerning the circumstances surrounding the accident, etc.

However, the potential legal fallout of this case, and other accidents ending in fatalities, is not necessarily limited to the criminal charges. The goal of criminal cases is to punish an individual for their wrongdoing. Our justice system supplies the option of pursing civil lawsuits in order to give some sort of compensation to the victim or their family for the harm caused, in an attempt to compensate them for the injury or loss.

If you have been injured, or a loved one has been killed, in a car accident due to another individual’s negligent driving, you should consult with an experienced Atlanta car accident attorney as soon as possible. Stephen M. Ozcomert is a knowledgeable personal injury attorney with over 20 years of experience. Attorney Ozcomert understands the evidentiary intricacies involved in complex accidents which are caused as a result of the negligent or reckless driving of others in Atlanta and throughout Georgia. Contact us today in order to schedule your free initial consultation. You can reach us by calling (404)-370-1000 or through our website.

More Blog Posts:

Fatal Tractor Trailer Collision on I-85 over the Weekend, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published October 31, 2013

Sleepy Driver Causes Multi Vehicle Collision, Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, published October 21, 2013

Experts predicted the 2025 availability date at the 2013 Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress, according to the Detroit News. The SAE issues standards that affect every aspect of car design. Panelists at the conference said that “semiautonomous” vehicle technology, which combines steering and vehicle-detection systems to keep cars in the lane and far enough away from the vehicle in front of them, would be available much sooner.

Much of the debate about self-driving cars centers on the potential for distracted driving. In theory, autonomous vehicles have the potential to greatly reduce traffic accidents, since most crashes are caused by human error. However, a malfunction could have serious consequences. And if drivers cannot safely attend to other matters while the vehicle is traveling, then the benefits of the technology are greatly diminished. In October, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that it would spend $1.75 million on a multiyear research endeavor to determine what human controls would be necessary in self-driving cars.

A recent survey found that 49 percent of drivers would prefer a driverless car. Google has successfully driven a robotic Toyota Prius over 140,000 miles in heavy traffic in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Many features of self-driving cars are already available in today’s models, such as lane departure warning systems, crash-avoidance, self-parking and adaptive cruise control.

Convenience is one of the features consumers welcome most in self-driving cars. Autonomous vehicles offer the promise of turning “wasted” driving time into time available for other activities. All of the activities that currently amount to distracted driving – cell phone use, eating, conversations with passengers – could be engaged in without threatening safety. Commuters could get work done or simply relax as their cars transport them to their destinations.

The potential for enormous gains in traffic safety is another predicted benefit of driverless cars. Google has claimed that at some point in the future, self-driving car systems will be able to decrease traffic accidents by 90 percent. This would amount to saving almost 30,000 lives annually, preventing nearly 2 million injuries and decreasing costs due to car crashes by about $400 billion.

Paul Greenberg is a car accident lawyer in Chicago and car crash attorney with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.

Google+