Is safety/crash test a priority of yours?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is "did fire" related to "Hang Fire"? I thought that was a song by the Stones...

"I REMEMBER WHEN SEX WAS SAFE & MOTORCYCLES WERE DANGEROUS"

If you believe everything the guv'ment (& I mean as either yourin' or ourin' is concerned) tells you, then you probibly also believe the hybrid cars ACTUALLY do achieve their grossly inflated gas mileage claims...

Cheers!

p.s. As far as "...nobody could drive at 85 mph 20 years ago..." is concerned... Well... I surely did! Often & safely, too, I might add.

p.p.s. As far as "I drive a Volvo I think that answers your question..." is concerned...

Why, yes it does. It suggest a couple other things, too...
 
Quote:


i guess what i am trying to say is airbags and seatbelts are not the end all be all to safety. once you are actually committed to crashing and you pass the point of no return, i bet random chance has more to do with survivability than anything else.




Same with the casinos. Of course, you're still more likely to come out ahead with better odds!

After watching many crash test videos, I'd be willing to be the dummy in the 40 mph frontal offset test for a 5 star vehicle for a small fee. Would you be willing to do that in a '64 Impala without a seatbelt?
 
Earlier this summer I started riding a bicycle every evening in a effort to fend off the "bulge". Of course, I didn't wear a helmet because I grew up in a day where bicycle helmets didn't exist, and "I lived, didn't I?"

Well, two weeks ago I came off that bike and straight on to the asphalt while riding about as fast as I can go. Banged up my arm and the opposite hand. I was VERY lucky to have no broken bones, but my hand still hurts as I type this...

It will be a while before I can get back on the bike. But when I do, I will be wearing a helmet. If I had hit my head, I would be dead right now and sparing you this lecture. I can replay that impact in my mind. Sometimes I wonder how I made out so well.

Anyway, yes safety is important. In the US, is one vehicle that much different than another? I don't know. I like to think that my Jetta is not only safe in an accident but would help me avoid an accident in the first place. (It really handles very well.)

I saw on the web the other day a crash test done on a Chinese made "Cherry" vehicle. As the car collided into the bulkhead the entire driver compartment simply collapsed into the test dummy. It was so bad I wonder if they would just amputate. Uh, no, the driver would be dead anyway.

Fortunately that Cherry will never be sold here. I would imagine that the worst performing car here is light years ahead of that model.
 
The best minimum is 4,000-lbs and 120" wheelbase (not wishful thinking on my part) for cross-referencing injuries/fatalities by car type against driver age/conditions, etc. Then add in electronic gizmos, etc.

Black Bart, that's fine you've had an exemplary record. I do wish more people took the time (and the pleasure) to really learn how to drive. Still. Come on down here and I'll see to it you have that wreck after all. I'll get me a junkyard-bound Grand Prix and have that 4x4 rolled over in the first block. "Luck" and "skill" and "experience" aren't being debated here.
 
"Luck" and "skill" and "experience" aren't being debated here.
No but it should be because with proper driving you won't need all those safety gadgets.
A vehicle built to withstand a crash without injuring the driver is great but all the gadgets like traction control and all the other things are just a crutch to help make up for poor drivers.
My last place of employment before retiring would give a driver a letter for being involved in an accident even though the police said that the other driver was at fault.
Their thinking was that if you did everything that you could have and should have done you would not allow the other driver put you in a situation where you could not avoid an accident.
Three letter of reprimand and you were fired.
 
Quote:


Was that a big priority when you purchased your new car?


Well, even though I gravitate to big, heavy coupes and sedans that would absolutely excel in most all crash test measures, I don't care at all about crash test ratings, and I scoff at people who buy them JUST BECAUSE they have a better crash test rating. Crash tests are by and large a crock of ____ and the people who buy Fords or Volvos just because they have a "five star" rating certainly deserve what they get in terms of how awful the vehicle is aside from that.
 
Don't get me wrong it's admirable that you have a good driving record but please don't delude yourself about getting in an accident. You've been both vigulent and lucky.
statements like "I rely on my brains to keep me from crashing into someone. just drive with common sence and 99% of accidents are eliminated" are ludicrous! You can't anticipate 100% of other drivers actions. Sh1t happens and there is nothing you can do about it. Not much different than who gets ill and dies early, just the luck of the draw. Just look at the carnage on the roads. I'm sure most of these dead drivers thought nothing would happen to them.

What are the numbers? maybe 4-5 million highway deaths in the last 10 years? As 20/20's John Stossel says "gimee a break"

Others are welcome to chime in.
 
I like the attitude of that company, BB; as my old man used to say, "There is no such thing as an accident". It covers nearly all contingencies. Even when stopped (less than ten feet from the next guys bumper, etc). Still, can't control some of the worst. Easy to roll a 7,000-lb pickup with a Camry (watched it happen just over a year ago; a stop sign running granny doing 25 mph hitting a truck doing probably 40. A nearly new dead-stock FORD.), etc. The gizmos are nice until they stop working. And, since physics laws haven't been repealed: 4,000-lbs, low-center-gravity and 120" wheelbase are minimums for the "safe" car. The statistics are reliable on this.
 
Quote:


Crashes should not be called accidents because they are caused by poor drivers it was not an accident.




What about the drivers that experience strokes, heart attacks, and the rest of the health problems that plague mankind? When they get sick at the wheel they crash and take many innocent lives with them.

Are these crashes due to poor drivers or medically compromised people?

Technically any person that has a chronic illness and takes medication should not drive, but they do. Are they poor drivers when their condition causes fatalities?
In fact if you personally have a chronic illness and take medication you are a poor driver according to your logic.
 
Quote:



What are the numbers? maybe 4-5 million highway deaths in the last 10 years? As 20/20's John Stossel says "gimee a break"




Actually, I think they're about one tenth of that. About 40K per year, so 400K in ten years. FWIW. At those levels, the race would be in jeopardy.
 
You're correct, my math is slightly off but what the heck my numbers are still more accurate than anything that comes out of Washington DC.
throwroses.sml
 
Quote:


Quote:


Crashes should not be called accidents because they are caused by poor drivers it was not an accident.




What about the drivers that experience strokes, heart attacks, and the rest of the health problems that plague mankind? When they get sick at the wheel they crash and take many innocent lives with them.

Are these crashes due to poor drivers or medically compromised people?

Technically any person that has a chronic illness and takes medication should not drive, but they do. Are they poor drivers when their condition causes fatalities?
In fact if you personally have a chronic illness and take medication you are a poor driver according to your logic.




In the scenario that you laid out they would not be poor drivers they would be irresponsible drivers.
Many on the road today are both poor and irresponsible.
You can make excuses all day long but some one has to screw up before a crash happens
 
I used the "I'm safe because I'm a good driver" until last year when we got hit head-on by an unconscious diabetic who crossed the center line. If those 10 year old air bags hadn't gone off, my wife and I would both be dead now. The new Civic has side air bags too and I'm glad. I would have bought it without them but I'm really happy they are there. I don't think I want another car without airbags now.
 
Quote:


I used the "I'm safe because I'm a good driver" until last year when we got hit head-on by an unconscious diabetic who crossed the center line. If those 10 year old air bags hadn't gone off, my wife and I would both be dead now.




I used to think the same way until I got smoked head-on! Glad you're okay, but I think you may be giving the airbags too much credit (unless you weren't wearing seat belts). My 17 year-old airbags didn't exist, and they had to cut the door off and hydraulically push the dash off me to get me out of the car. Airbags certainly could have made for a softer landing, if there was room for them, but my upper body injuries (bruises, concussion) were very minor compared to my leg. The most important safety feature is the ability of the passenger compartment to maintain a solid cage around the occupants. With side impact, there's not much there to absorb the energy, and I believe air bags are far more important in that situation. I'd certainly be willing to pay extra for side air bags. They're standard on the new Mazda3, but unfortunately they weren't available when I bought mine. They weren't common on anything in '04.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom