Which one of these cars are the safest, and which one should I get?

Its because in the UK you have those lovely tall hedges along the sides
of the roads to catch the cars before they roll!

 

Just buy an old Jeep CJ, stick some 36x13.5" Swampers on there and drive
however you want. Not great at handling but if you roll over, who cares? I
felt safer in my Jeep then in any other vehicle I've driven ....I loved the
relatively low center of gravity (with wider tires) and the fact that I was
inside a massive metal cage. My buddy had been hit at 60kmh by a front-end
loader that backed into the intersection and all he had were a few bruises
and a sore wrist ...the Jeep was completely intact except for a bent bumper,
misaligned tires and a cracked manifold.

And you said you didn't really care about mpg ...which is good. Mine got
around 8mpg ;p

Reliability isn't a factor either, right? That's good too ...cuz I passed
everything on the highway except the garage.



But if you want a safe car, go with Volvo. My parents owned Volvo's
throughout my whole childhood due to safety and the reinforced beams. I
remember one accident we got in ...there was about a 6" deep impression in
the side door and you couldn't even see it on the inside. But, Volvo's are
almost as bad as Jeep's for reliability and they are expensive as hell to
fix. Not to mention, most mechanics have no idea what they are doing under a
Volvo hood ...

Rather than trusting some "official" statistics on testing, why not check
insurance rates ...you can bet that the safest cars generally have lower
insurance because the company is less likely to have to dish out liability
costs. The exception is if the car has expensive-to-replace parts (ie
....higher end imports ...BMW, Volvo, etc). You can bet tho that the
insurance companies probably have the "real" stats that matter.

My bet, the best bang for your buck along with safety concerns is a newer
Accord or maybe even a Camry (altho I'm not a fan of Toyota's V6). I don't
know (or care) about safety ratings from these "official" places but I do
alot of junkyard scrounging for parts and most Accords seemed to have faired
not too badly even in write-off accidents. I can't say the same about
Corolla's, Civic's and older Accords tho.

I also wouldn't expect the Matrix/Vibe to be great in T-Bone accidents. They
seem too high up and would probably roll. You might also want to look at the
Jetta as an option ...nice car.

And as someone who's been in more accidents than I can count (and no, I've
never been at fault for one - yet), safety should definitely been an issue,
but I think it's more on how you drive than anything. Instead of worrying
about it so much, find a car that you feel COMFORTABLE in ...because then
you relax and can sit back from the steering wheel and not be so tense
....which is why I've never been hurt in any accident. I've almost always
seen the accident coming before it's happened and I've actually learned to
just close my eyes while it happens and listen for the familiar sound. It's
when you tense up and move towards the steering wheel that you'll get rocked
and be staring at the Hospital Ceiling.

Anyways, good luck. Don't pull your hair out because it may not matter
anyway. You could be in the safest car on the road and the F350 Dualie
running the red is going to make Metal-Sushi out of your car anyways.

PS: borrow $10k and buy a Lexus sc300! Yummy ;p

Cheers!

 

What a pleasant topic! I didn't even really read the rest of the post.
Made me think of a porcupine I saw up the road this A.M. that didn't
*quite* make it!

However:

Most Toyotas rate very highly in IIHS tests for the driver. So do Ford
Tauruses (Tauri?)

I can tell you from 1st hand experience that Volvos are pretty survivable,
although a wife's friend wasn't so fortunate. I rolled a '73 1800ES, once
over lightly, thanks! As I was sitting in the car at times, (stop lights,
parking lots) I uesd to reach up to the roof, and I noticed there was a
steel or iron something under the headliner. Well, this turned out to be
the rollbar...Lucky me!

Honda Civics and Accords are nice cars, and if you can get one with side
airbags, good. But, and excuse me here, you seem a little paranoid of
driving (and good reason: if it's still on your server, see the
dissertation I posted a couple weeks ago about every Mario on the roads
these days...) buy a nice heavy car. Crown Victoria springs to mind right
off the bat, Buick Roadmonster is another, or go looking at SUVs (UGH!!!)
with full frames and airbags.

 

Your buddy was hit a 60kmh (35 MPH) by a front-end loader that
was BACKING into the intersection? That loader must have been
equipped with a Viper V10.



mike hunt

 

Heh, that would actually have been pretty funny to see a loader coming at
you at 60kmh ...I'd probably die of a heartattack. But for those of you who
honestly thought it was the loader moving at 60kmh, I'll clarify ...actually
no I won't. I'll just let you bask in your own thought ...or lack thereof.

 

I received a side impact from a 4x4 at 70 miles per hour on a UK motorway,
and subsequently my car rolled five times before coming to rest. The car (a
1992 Volvo 940) was a total wreck, but I survived and after a short spell (1
week) in hospital with a few broken ribs - the car was not fitted with
airbags - I went on to make a full recovery. I was told at the time that
there were only two types of car where a driver would have survived such an
accident - a Volvo or a Mercedes. So I went and bought another Volvo. I'd
recommend you to do likewise!

Bill

 

"I loved the
relatively low center of gravity (with wider tires)"

Hi "Griffin"

A low Centre of Gravity is certainly a "good thing" with respect to the
roll-over risk, but wider tires will not lower the Cof G.
Wider tires *will* widen the "track" of the vehicle and this too is a "good
thing" w.r.to the roll over risk.
It's all about keeping the CofG within the base, in this case the track, of
the vehicle as it tilts, and of course both a low Cof G and a wide track
will help to achieve this.

Andy I.

 

All I know about your driving is what you told us here, Davey. And it sounds
like you are a danger to other motorists, not to mention your
"white-knuckled" passengers.

Now go wash your mouth out like you've done so many times before for your
mummy.

RS

 

I would guess that you are in Canada.
The speed that he was talking about is the speed limit in the UK for
that type of road, so as long as he could see far enough ahead, there
was nothing wrong with his driving.
The Blanket 55 speed limit which I believe holds in your country make
visitors from there to here think that we are driving too fast.
The normal speed on British motorways is an average of 85-90 Mph, and
we are used to driving at those speeds, and so our reaction times
decrease accordingly.

About the swearing, I agree.

Taff........

www.sounds-pa.com | www.thecomputerworkshop.com

 

In order to put 13.5" wide tires on a Jeep and still have a workable
turn-radius, you must use longer axles ...like something from a 1ton
military vehicle. Barring any rediculous lift-kits (hence keeping 36" tires
....ie: 3" lift), this not only lengthens the track but it lowers the CoG
within the Jeep, especially since the width and length of the Jeep now
becomes almost the same and the height is not increased as much as the
track. You're basically driving a square with the majority of the weight
centered around the middle of the horizontal z-axis (about where the body
meets the chassis). It may not be super-lower relative to a sports car
....but considering what you're driving, the CoG is relatively low (esp
compared to most SUV's)

 

Seems like more and more, the posted speed limits here are mere suggestions
anyway. And don't get me wrong, I love spooling up the turbo and flying down
the road at 90 or 100 (MPH). But I don't do it on small country roads, or
anywhere else that there's the possibility of a motorist coming at me in the
opposite direction. That's just plain stupid. I won't do anything that might
take someone else out.

Anytime I roll down the 401 (read modern multi-lane freeway posted limit 110
kph) I keep up to traffic, and it's all at 120 or 130 kph. That's flow
speed, then there's the passing lane speeds. Plenty of 140/150+ going on.
But that's a modern multi-lane super hiway, not a tiny country road.

I've driven plenty in your country, as well as in Germany, France, Italy
etc. Lots of fun, amongst a bunch of drivers who generally seem to know how
to use the road better and safer than most over here. That being said,
driving too fast on an "english country lane" with possible endangerment to
oncoming motorists or passengers is dumb, wherever you live.


RS

 

When I lived in Spain working for NASA, we drove Seat's(Spanish
Fiat's) as company cars. My very first day, 4 of us got in one...they
put me in the suicide seat...and off we went!

Spain at the time (and I expect now, too) had rock fences on the roads
we traveled on. Looked like a single lane road.

Soooooooooooo we come racing around a corner and the biggest f'ing BUS
I've ever seen comes right for us. I have NO idea how we missed him,
but all the guys were laffin! Welcome to Spain they said...LOL

I had a ball in my BMW.

 

Its because in the UK you have those lovely tall hedges along the sides

Well that's one thing that I was thinking, being hit from the side on a
large intersection would give you plenty of room for being flipped but
you'd need an external input to trigger that such as a collision.

Hedges aren't so great when you're following the hedge trimming tractor
down a single track lane.

David.

 

I received a side impact from a 4x4 at 70 miles per hour on a UK motorway,

So you were stationary perpendicular across the carriageway? What else
happened prior to this?

 

Now go wash your mouth out like you've done so many times before for your

Nothing like a bit of Usenet friendly banter so...

**** YOU!

 

About the swearing, I agree.

To you sir and the rest of Usenet, I sincerely apologise.

 

to use the road better and safer than most over here. That being said,

I never said "too fast", I described a situation that I am familiar with
and you weren't party to. It's not my problem if some American isn't
used to a) the conditions b) style of driving (i.e. not multilane
highways).

The speed I happened to be driving at was completely normal and in
keeping with the situation and performed by just about every other
motorist on that stretch.

Move on...

David.

 

They essentially have.

Are you willing to pay for all that, especially for the small
additional margin of protection they would provide? U.S. cars have
long been required to withstand rear impacts of 30 MPH without fuel
leakage, and most can actually take > 40 MPH.

Forget the Volvo; Volvo's reputation for crash safety is overblown,
and the cars aren't that reliable and parts are expensive.

GM has said that about 95% of a car's safety is in its crash avoidance
ability, but they also found that most people exploited only half of a
vehicle's maneuverability (I have no idea how they defined "half").
The most important crash survival criteria is probably head injury
(HIC, Head Impact Criteria, expressed on a points scale), but I don't
know what comes next -- chest force, leg force, or side HIC.

Side air bags can be a big help in side crashes. Experts disagree
about whether offset or full frontal crash test results are more
important, and a car can be designed to do badly in one test yet well
in the other, but don't be impressed by the Insurance Institute's
claim that their test is done at 40 MPH while the federal government's
optional test is done at 35 MPH; the latter is into a solid barrier
while the former is essentially into a parked car (actually honeycomb
aluminum), making it more like a 20 MPH crash into a solid barrier.
Notice that the doors windows of the Pontiac/Toyota are start several
inches higher than normal, probably for improved side crash
protection.

Personally, I'd buy the Pontiac/Toyota because it's a 4-door hatchback
with large cargo capacity, but gas mileage is significantly worse
than that of its near twin, the Corolla sedan.

Virtually every front wheel drive car will have a centered fuel tank,
but that's not a guarantee of better safety because the tank can be
surrounded by sharp edges or bolts.

Be sure that any car you buy hasn't been in a major crash (anything
where the chassis was bent, the seatbelt "replace" stickers came out,
or an airbag deployed), and check for operation of the airbags through
the indicator lamp on the dash (should come on and then turn off --
some dealers remove bulbs to cover up for airbag, ABS, or engine
computer problems) because bags are often replaced with padding,
either because of collision repair or theft.

It's good that you're relying more on test results than unreliable
anecdotes because every crash survivor credits his car, rightly or
wrongly, rather than circumstance. On the other hand, it's not
possible to evaluate the safety of cars with a high degree of
accuracy.

 

They essentially have.

Are you willing to pay for all that, especially for the small
additional margin of protection they would provide? U.S. cars have
long been required to withstand rear impacts of 30 MPH without fuel
leakage, and most can actually take > 40 MPH.

Forget the Volvo; Volvo's reputation for crash safety is overblown,
and the cars aren't that reliable and parts are expensive.

GM has said that about 95% of a car's safety is in its crash avoidance
ability, but they also found that most people exploited only half of a
vehicle's maneuverability (I have no idea how they defined "half").
The most important crash survival criteria is probably head injury
(HIC, Head Impact Criteria, expressed on a points scale), but I don't
know what comes next -- chest force, leg force, or side HIC.

Side air bags can be a big help in side crashes. Experts disagree
about whether offset or full frontal crash test results are more
important, and a car can be designed to do badly in one test yet well
in the other, but don't be impressed by the Insurance Institute's
claim that their test is done at 40 MPH while the federal government's
optional test is done at 35 MPH; the latter is into a solid barrier
while the former is essentially into a parked car (actually honeycomb
aluminum), making it more like a 20 MPH crash into a solid barrier.
Notice that the doors windows of the Pontiac/Toyota are start several
inches higher than normal, probably for improved side crash
protection.

Personally, I'd buy the Pontiac/Toyota because it's a 4-door hatchback
with large cargo capacity, but gas mileage is significantly worse
than that of its near twin, the Corolla sedan.

Virtually every front wheel drive car will have a centered fuel tank,
but that's not a guarantee of better safety because the tank can be
surrounded by sharp edges or bolts.

Be sure that any car you buy hasn't been in a major crash (anything
where the chassis was bent, the seatbelt "replace" stickers came out,
or an airbag deployed), and check for operation of the airbags through
the indicator lamp on the dash (should come on and then turn off --
some dealers remove bulbs to cover up for airbag, ABS, or engine
computer problems) because bags are often replaced with padding,
either because of collision repair or theft.

It's good that you're relying more on test results than unreliable
anecdotes because every crash survivor credits his car, rightly or
wrongly, rather than circumstance. On the other hand, it's not
possible to evaluate the safety of cars with a high degree of
accuracy.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is what I found most troubling about The Diesel's first inquiry.
He seems so paranoid about driving in anything, worried about rollovers, gas
tanks being punctured, etc. that I fear he'll never *enjoy* a minute of
driving. I've been behind a wheel (or in my youth, handlebars) for over 50
years, and although I've had my share of collisions (three in that time) and
cracked a couple of ribs in a rollover of a Volkswagen, I've never had a
head-on collision, nor a serious T-boning, nor have I ever experienced a
fire in an automobile. I venture to say that few of us have.
Seat belts, air bags and now side curtains are fine, but to be in constant
dread about accidents reminds me of Dustin Hoffman's character in RAIN MAN,
who would only fly on Qantas because they were the only airline that never
had a fatality. Life is a gamble every day, and you can always slip in the
bathtub or accidentally ingest a piece of broken glass or a poisonous
substance, but most people survive the gamble every day too. I hope The
Diesel gets over his paranoia about auto accidents, and that whatever car he
decides on, he can drive it with a smile.