G-Wiz.... how can this be?

[jmw]

Following an accident in London, there are some questions being asked about the safety of this vehicle. Going Green and be sure to click the link to the safety crash video on this site ..... except you get a "not found".
This is one of the articles questioning the way the vehicle came apart:‘crumpled and imploded’ in a crash

But on this site it seems the vehicle has been exempted from a number of safety requirements.... because "they are designed for high speed vehicle crashes" (it has a top speed of 50mph) which assumes in a head on collision that the other vehicle will also be within the speed limits?
driving down pollution

Neither the Euro NCAP test nor the 31 mph Dept of Transport UNECE Regulation 94 test are required or recommended under the European regulation for quadricycles. Both tests are designed for M1 vehicles, primarily cars capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph and not low speed urban vehicles.
Like all vehicle manufacturers RECC is however constantly reviewing safety features and innovation relative to usage and the G-Wiz I is crash tested at 25 mph, reflecting its low speed usage.

Is it this just media reaction or is it possible that to encourage "Green" electric vehicles onto the roads some safety concerns have been glossed over?

This car costs £7000, is tax exempt and congestion charge exempt... and costs 1.5p per mile to charge.....

I don't know enough about this to comment technically but I have my suspicions that the "green" ethos is causing some cutting of corners.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[MikeHalloran]

It's reflective of global insanity, politicians pretending that they have some control over Newton's Second Law.

Small cars here in The Colonies are crash-tested and rated, but only against other small cars.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[BrianPetersen]

That class of vehicles was obviously exempted from certain requirements, rightly or wrongly.

I will say this, though. In addition to the effect on energy consumption ... the amount of resources that it takes to build a passenger vehicle that conforms to all of the crash test safety standards is an unsustainable situation in the long term. We can not be transporting every individual person in 4000 lb vehicles that are thrown away every ten years or so, regardless of the energy source used, and expect to be doing that a century or two from now. Something's gotta give.

 

[IRstuff]

"that are thrown away every ten years or so"

If we did that, there would be way fewer new cars built. The average is what? Six years, maybe? If that went to 12 years, we would be talking about a 50% reduction in cars built, so there would need to be roughly a 50% reduction in workforce.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[MikeHalloran]

The median age of the US fleet had reached 9.0 years in 2005.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/us_vehicle_flee.html

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[jmw]

I suspect the median age is due in part to the increase in the total number of cars, much like the average age of humans is decreasing even though we live longer and while Lancias may once have left the factory with terminal rust, modern cars tend to be more durable in many ways and more energy efficient.

There have also been some political dodges like the bounty on old cars scrapped which artificially took a proportion of older cars out of the equation (though probably not as many as they'd have liked). This has also been responsible for some very nice old aficionado cars being scrapped, which was first evident in France where the scheme originated.
But it also artificially reduces the ashes to ashes life of cars (if they can scrap enough cars still with life in them), I'd guess Cuba and the Philipines lead the way in extending the life of old cars for a good while) and hence increases the apparent carbon footprint.... except greenies only look at running costs, hence the popularity of the hybrids and electric cars, and not the ashes to ashes costs which would see some rather chunky 4x4s in the top green spot.

I guess these cars compensate for the added weight and special steels (and total energy cost) electric cars normally need by skimming from the safety margins as well as performance, and artificially enhance their popularity through low cost, taxes etc. With a 50 mile range and an 8 hour charging time, these don't actually deliver much (bring back the {link

http://www.sinclairc5.com/

]Sinclair C5?[/url]) and may well be ideal for city commuting, if only they could exclude all other vehicles. Except, much better to encourage the angst ridden greenies to use public transport in cities?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[TheBlacksmith]

As unpopular as this is, if the US raised the gasoline tax significantly the free market would create small cars far better than all the CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] and other meddling laws. People would think before buying. And no, I do own a truck, older F150, 2 wheel drive, 4.6 liter V8, honest 18-19 mpg. And it has the scars of many trips to the lumberyard, dump, mulch and topsoil bulk yard, etc. I passed on the 4x4 5.3 liter 13 mpg truck years ago. My daily driver is a Focus that gets an honest 34-25 mpg. Interssting point is the same model and year of my Focus (2008 SES)) is currently being advertised in my area for 1500-2000 more than I paid right before the last gas price runup.

 

[swall]

The gasoline price increase will happen, given the increasing difficulty in producing petroleum from deep water, the arctic, etc. People will react and cars will get smaller--just not as quickly as some would like. Increasing the tax on fuel just gives the government more money to waste. Let the free market work.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

No need to increase the tax, the price itself has already doubled (and stuck there) in two years. I still pay roughly $4/gal form something I was paying <$2/gal for two years ago, and I don't believe the price will ever go below the high threes again. If it stays that way for a few more years, I believe the group of people wanting (and buying) a more efficient engine will slowly increase. I expect more of a trickle effect over 10+years rather than in 2-3, but it will happen. IMHO...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[jmw]

Except, that as the use of fossil fuels in vehicles diminishes to nothing, so too will the tax revenues.

About that time, electric vehicles will start to be taxed either directly or indirectly through energy costs.

The government will have to raise its taxes through electricity taxes. Now these are high enough as it is, artificially high for some of us as we struggle to pay not only for wind farms but all that goes with them.

Most of the money we pay for our petrol is tax.
As we transition from petrol to electricity, not only do we have to make up the tax revenue from the new use of energy but we also have to fund the natural growth in taxation expected.

The same is true of any taxes, even those which are "for our own good".

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ewh]

Are'nt they already floating the idea of being taxed per mile driven?

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[jmw]

The crash test video on the GoingGreen website was, and still is, "Not found" but google "G-Wiz Crash test videos to see some alarming videos.
e.g. BBC Report and government concern

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cloa]

What about maximum speed of Gwiz in actual use? The crash test is with a ute (is that called a pickup) which basically a brick wall for this "car". What about with more normal shaped car?

I see no materials information on its website- sure that's not everything but it'd be a start to understand its failings.

Try to stick to the thread topic- Crash worthiness of the G-wiz

 

[MikeHalloran]

Easy topic. It's _not_ crash-worthy by any definition. It's a deathtrap.


Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[IRstuff]

That video was uploaded in 2007, so this has been known for FOUR years; there should be no surprises.

The G-Wiz spokesman makes completely ludicrous statement about the "average" speed of the car as 10 mph. The "average" or even median car does not get into an accident. Accidents are in the tails of the distribution.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[MikeHalloran]

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REVAi

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[1gibson]

My 2 cents: Probably still safer than a motorcycle

 

[jmw]

I think a point about motorcycles is that people are aware of the dangers.
When you put them inside something that looks like a car and surrounds and insulates you from the outside world, it gives the impression of safety.

Incidentally, a bit of searching finds a very brief crash video of the latest variant. In this it deforms a bit then bounces of the wall and is intact again..... nothing to say the speed or the test standard, but it appears they have taken some of these concerns to heart.
I note the Going Green web site says nothing about this accident.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[dgallup]

But everybody expects motorcycles to be dangerous. There may be a lot of uninformed drivers of "heavy quadricycles" who don't realize they are death traps.

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.