See this article for photographs of a Smart Car that a friend of mine was driving when he was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle. The roof was removed by firefighters during my friend's extrication from the Smart Car, prior to his helicopter evacuation to a trauma center.

LI Herald: Crash at Atlantic Beach Bridge

I know the folks who responded to this accident, and they tell me they were amazed at how well the little car protected its occupant. I submit that had he been riding a motorcycle, he would have been in MUCH worse shape.

(I have nothing against motorcycles - indeed I enjoy riding them. Nor will I speculate as to whether he could have avoided the accident in a more maneuverable vehicle - though I doubt it.)

I hear you. That's your experience and knowledge. In my experience, I'm personally aware of cases with dire outcomes in Smart Cars, where there likely would have been minor injuries in regular sized cars.

I think it's six of this or half a dozen of the other, when we're comparing safety of this thing and safety of a motorcycle. If I want a reasonable amount of safety, I'm not going to be delusional and think that this go-cart will protect me. The same goes with a motorcycle. However, a motorcycle is at least fun and sexy.

If you want REALLY cheap transport, a bicycle with a small two stroke engine bolted on (or maybe a tricycle or quadrocycle if you wanted to carry more stuff)would seem to be the best bet from what little I'm seen on the net.

I haev no science to back this up, and I really don't care who agres and who disagrees, but I'll take a ride in a smart car over a motocycle with a helmet any day of the week in terms of saftey.

The problem I have with all these car safety tests telling us how safe these vehicles are is that these tests are single vehicle into stationary barrier. The only energy the vehicle has to absorb is its own energy of motion. Which is fine if you screw up and hit something. However, if somebody in a normal sized vehicle hits you, now the vehicle has to absorb FAR more energy than it had to for the safety tests, and as we all know, the bigger car usually takes less damage. The reason I don't want a small vehicle is in case someone else hits me.

On another note, I don't ever see this thing getting over here with that kind of price tag, especially with the government owning GM.

Absolutely agree. I rode motorcycles for many years and IMO there's no way a motorcycle is safer, in any type of crash, than a smart car. Having said that, even though I'm not crazy about tiny cars, they are the future. That is, until SUV's with carbon fiber frames come out.

Sure, I'd drive that around town. And rent or borrow a car for long distance on the highways. Bikes and motorcycles are certainly less crash-worthy. If you get T-boned by a runaway truck loaded with bridge parts it doesn't matter what you drive. Relative weakness also means you're more aware of your vulnerability and you drive defensively, like they are out to get you.

I used to drive a tiny little car that of bought for $250. It was ugly as sin but that was something of an advantage. People in expensive cars, fearing the ugly might rub off, got out of my way.

As for the birth control aspect; it has to be noted that India, where they have a lot of these units, doesn't seem to have suffered hazardous levels depopulation, yet. And there are a lot of ladies out there who might think a Tata was 'cute'. Cute works for me. I'm getting to an age where an expensive car looks like either overcompensation or a midlife crisis.

I like small midlife crisis cars. Have even driven a lightweight street legal go cart. But i'm still not sure that i would drive a Nano. Might change my mind if it had a larger engine and fat tires though.

I am holding out for the Magnum Tatas. I heard that they excelled in the front end collision test.

I'll stick with my jeep. Problem is, I dont see these cars until they are part of my bumper. Which is, essentially, an I-beam.