Because SMART frugal people bought Corollas or Civics.
"I drive a SUV because I feel safer in it"
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
OK...since no one else will say it outright....so long as your car looks like a vag, it makes it a vag.
You might can stuff John Holmes penis inside a girls box, but it's still....a vag.
That was definitely a tl;dr post.......but did they take into consideration that SUVs will most likely carry more passengers per vehicle on average, given it's size? Are the deaths absolute values, or are they given as a percentage of the total number of passengers?
You are assuming a base level of frugality. Try assuming a level of poverty. Cheapest car wins.
Well from that pov... I'm a big dick, shoved into a little can... I can see where you are going here.OK...since no one else will say it outright....so long as your car looks like a vag, it makes it a vag.
You might can stuff John Holmes penis inside a girls box, but it's still....a vag.
That being said, it's the two-toned SF body type that was the lesbaru. They all went VW Bug when it came out in 2003/4
Hahahaha wish i could rep this!
Hell, I already did!
Yup, most folks seem to buy the nicest car they can afford. Age plays into this as well, in general younger folks don't have $$ so they end up in a car like the Rio. The actual crash testing is probably more telling.
What is the CPO for? I have a Fit Sport, and saw a guy with BC plates driving a Fit RS that had some sort of dual exhaust but couldn't find anything about a Fit RS on the Google?
PS; the model of F150's around the 2001 model year (until the redesign in '04?) were notorius for there bad design/cabins colapsing in accidents.
The redesign was done with the help of Volvo (not sure if Ford still owns Volvo or not?) and were advertised as setting some sort of landmark in crash protection.
PPS; comparing a F250/350 to a F150 since about 1997 isn't right as they are basicly different trucks now. I don't believe they share anything anymore?
I'd still like this question answered:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3571981&postcount=43
Driver deaths per million registered vehicle-miles.
Do back-seat drivers count?
I can't find a source for it, but I remember they had some weird accident rates between a Dodge/Plymouth badged cars some years back. They couldn't figure it out, until they looked at the demographics of the buyers-and it turned out that the Dodge was being bought by a significantly younger group than the Plymouth. The Plymouth was much safer statistically, even though they were the same car.
Could all be BS though, since I can't find it....
I was going to say something along similar lines.
For example, WHITE cars are the safest. FALSE
White cars are in less accidents than similar models in say GREY or RED... TRUE... Becasue the Red or grey ones are bought by younger more agressive drivers. White by older family oriented folks. SO my wife arguing that we need to get a white car bc it is safer is BS. Color AND accidents are a factor of a common denominator... the driver.
Then she tried to say that the white car was more visible thus safer... Well what about RED cars. Those are probably the MOST visible but not the "safest".
What I want to see is comparisons of death rates PER accident, not per registered car/vehicle.
Gotcha.
My fit was a CFC (cash for clunkers) but that is a different story...
Still have my '82 2-wheel drive but that is more or less "mothballed" at the moment.
Currently I am in the middle of taking a 3/4 ton crew-cab 2wd and a 1/2 ton short bed and combining them into a 1/2 ton crew 2wd short bed. Once that is to the point of being able to be driven daily, I will dedicate myself to getting the Blazer to a state of being worthy of being kept in the garage.
This pict was before I did the flip kit in the rear, but you can see the sole Blazer nose sticking out.
Attachments
How did/do other pickups do, they only talked about the F150 (which isnt known for being very safe) tundra? chevy?
Red is actually the least visible in terms of retinal physiology, and there are measurable effects of human perception lag/lack thereof. I wrote about this topic elsewhere at some length last year, and I think I posted it in my ride pics thread. Easier to find this ADVrider thread by me: http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615400I was going to say something along similar lines.
For example, WHITE cars are the safest. FALSE
White cars are in less accidents than similar models in say GREY or RED... TRUE... Becasue the Red or grey ones are bought by younger more agressive drivers. White by older family oriented folks. SO my wife arguing that we need to get a white car bc it is safer is BS. Color AND accidents are a factor of a common denominator... the driver.
Then she tried to say that the white car was more visible thus safer... Well what about RED cars. Those are probably the MOST visible but not the "safest".
Do these roll over rate charts take into effect Male Driver vs Female Driver as well as the asian drivers up ahead causing half the roll overs?
jk
My old boss used to tell me his Xterra was so much safer with the giant solid metal offroad bumper and skid plate installed. I told him he was a redneck idiot-gineer and I'd trust the little Asian guys with the slide rules first.
"Dude, they designed your car with crumple zones and stuff to protect you. You just ruined it all trying to look cool and enhance the snorkel/winch masculinity of your Japanese SUV." His reply... "I make other cars into my crumple zone."
Although he did have one good point...we were in Africa where there is no such thing as highway speed, and the solid bumper was good for ramming through cross-traffic and blockades if necessary and appropriately directed; these are times when you're trying to avoid the crumple zones and deployment of airbags. It was also good for tearing off the fenders of idiot taxi drivers who didn't understand the turning radius of their rear wheels.
"Dude, they designed your car with crumple zones and stuff to protect you. You just ruined it all trying to look cool and enhance the snorkel/winch masculinity of your Japanese SUV." His reply... "I make other cars into my crumple zone."
Although he did have one good point...we were in Africa where there is no such thing as highway speed, and the solid bumper was good for ramming through cross-traffic and blockades if necessary and appropriately directed; these are times when you're trying to avoid the crumple zones and deployment of airbags. It was also good for tearing off the fenders of idiot taxi drivers who didn't understand the turning radius of their rear wheels.
in 99 the superduty was introduced, they have completely different bodies, I do not know if they share any of the same dash/interior components, but they do share the 5.4 liter engine and some drivetrain components from time to time but in a crash I would believe them to have many differences.
I've heard this is the same reason why cops use blue code three lights. A couple fire departments bought into this study and changed the colors of their rigs from red to this fugly lime green.
OMG! Still ROFL! Dude I tried giving you rep on this one and it won't let me. I'm posting that youtube vid on Facebook! This is too funny! "good luck evreeboddy!"
probably cause you neg repped me yesterday...OMG! Still ROFL! Dude I tried giving you rep on this one and it won't let me. I'm posting that youtube vid on Facebook! This is too funny! "good luck evreeboddy!"
wow, that was a lot of words to say "it depends" and "judge by crash test"
the subaru nerds have come out to attest to how safe their cars are....maybe the audi geeks will come out in another day or two to say how safe their cars are....whatever.
don't drive like a spaz, buy a car that was designed with safety in mind....yeah. Is there any table quantifying the added outside visibility that a taller car gives you, or the better viewpoint that ones gives?
the subaru nerds have come out to attest to how safe their cars are....maybe the audi geeks will come out in another day or two to say how safe their cars are....whatever.
don't drive like a spaz, buy a car that was designed with safety in mind....yeah. Is there any table quantifying the added outside visibility that a taller car gives you, or the better viewpoint that ones gives?
It would also be interesting to see how seat belt usage (or not using them) impacted the stats.
I'm going to get a Unimog next, the K1500 just isn't big enough.
All this to say......(and I didn't do very well in stats), can the sheer enormity of the sample size level out the human factor in the data? Because as stated....likely a bunch of times, certain vehicles attract a certain type of driver. And then those certain drivers will conduct themselves in certain ways. It would seem that it would be difficult to define "safest". ....("What's the best DH bike? Can the RM7 be used for free-riding?")
I don't want to throw a wrench into the analysis that's been going on here, but I haven't seen anyone go too deep into the typical buyer of these different vehicle categories/gvw's.
Ex: the likely ages of the buyers of the three large luxury cars mentioned. I don't have any data on hand, but I would guess that a BMW 7-series buyer is younger than an S-Class buyer who is still younger than a Town Car buyer. Town cars are also more likely to have more passengers IMO because so many of them are used as limos. So, for every mile traveled, there are more potential deaths because there are more people in the vehicle.
OP, great thread. I find this stuff very interesting and there aren't a whole lot of objective sources on vehicle safety.
My opinion is that, if an accident is unavoidable, a heavier vehicle is likely to fare better in a vehicle-to-vehicle collision, assuming everything else is the same. I understand that it's unrealistic to hold every other variable constant, but it's too complicated to get beyond that.
However, there is no reason why a heavier vehicle will necessarily be safer in a single-vehicle accident (ex. driving off a bridge). As the mini cooper vs F150 footage shows, at that point the construction/design play a big role and having extra size and weight may not be advantageous.
Ex: the likely ages of the buyers of the three large luxury cars mentioned. I don't have any data on hand, but I would guess that a BMW 7-series buyer is younger than an S-Class buyer who is still younger than a Town Car buyer. Town cars are also more likely to have more passengers IMO because so many of them are used as limos. So, for every mile traveled, there are more potential deaths because there are more people in the vehicle.
OP, great thread. I find this stuff very interesting and there aren't a whole lot of objective sources on vehicle safety.
My opinion is that, if an accident is unavoidable, a heavier vehicle is likely to fare better in a vehicle-to-vehicle collision, assuming everything else is the same. I understand that it's unrealistic to hold every other variable constant, but it's too complicated to get beyond that.
However, there is no reason why a heavier vehicle will necessarily be safer in a single-vehicle accident (ex. driving off a bridge). As the mini cooper vs F150 footage shows, at that point the construction/design play a big role and having extra size and weight may not be advantageous.
I have been hearing a lot about $5 gas in the near future. This problem may solve itself.