Glad you are OK
RAV4 crash safety
- Thread starter fisher83
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by supton
Edit: sometimes I think I should give good though to stepping out of my twenty year old Camry for this reason. Doesn't have to be new but whatever I spend will likely be paid for whatever injuries I don't receive.
Before the mid-2000s and the rise of the IIHS(which automakers strive to make a car that's a Top Safety Pick, they have as much sway as Consumer Reports with the hoi polloi when it comes to cars), if you wanted "safety" as in a engineered structure that will protect you in a crash and passive features such as ABS, 3-point seatbelts with tensioners, etc you had to pay dearly for it - you bought a BMW, Mercedes, Saab or Volvo. The Japanese still built death traps. GM and Ford were still reeling from the missteps with the Pinto and C/K trucks with the fuel tanks outside of the frame. I've heard of stories of Prius vs. truck collisions, the truck's occupants were in worse shape. There is an argument for size with it comes to physics but a truck isn't a place you want to be in during a crash.
I think Toyota took safety a bit more seriously when Lexus came to be. Subarus were a car you didn't want to be caught dead in but now they have a almost Volvo-like reputation for safety. Even Honda's getting better.
I think the mass availability of high-strength steel, economies of scale with airbags/ABS/ADAS along with more homogenized crash safety standards/testing, advanced CAD/CAE software and modeling and government regulations in most of the world has helped make all cars safer, not just luxury cars.
Edit: sometimes I think I should give good though to stepping out of my twenty year old Camry for this reason. Doesn't have to be new but whatever I spend will likely be paid for whatever injuries I don't receive.
Before the mid-2000s and the rise of the IIHS(which automakers strive to make a car that's a Top Safety Pick, they have as much sway as Consumer Reports with the hoi polloi when it comes to cars), if you wanted "safety" as in a engineered structure that will protect you in a crash and passive features such as ABS, 3-point seatbelts with tensioners, etc you had to pay dearly for it - you bought a BMW, Mercedes, Saab or Volvo. The Japanese still built death traps. GM and Ford were still reeling from the missteps with the Pinto and C/K trucks with the fuel tanks outside of the frame. I've heard of stories of Prius vs. truck collisions, the truck's occupants were in worse shape. There is an argument for size with it comes to physics but a truck isn't a place you want to be in during a crash.
I think Toyota took safety a bit more seriously when Lexus came to be. Subarus were a car you didn't want to be caught dead in but now they have a almost Volvo-like reputation for safety. Even Honda's getting better.
I think the mass availability of high-strength steel, economies of scale with airbags/ABS/ADAS along with more homogenized crash safety standards/testing, advanced CAD/CAE software and modeling and government regulations in most of the world has helped make all cars safer, not just luxury cars.
Originally Posted by Ws6
Pain at incident is not a reliable indicator. I've seen people shot to [censored], crushed, maimed, etc acting like they don't hurt. Always err on the side of caution!
With this day and age of the healthcare system and people not being insured, I'm sure they are acting like that to avoid a $10-50K ride in an ambulance to the ER.
Pain at incident is not a reliable indicator. I've seen people shot to [censored], crushed, maimed, etc acting like they don't hurt. Always err on the side of caution!
With this day and age of the healthcare system and people not being insured, I'm sure they are acting like that to avoid a $10-50K ride in an ambulance to the ER.
- Status
