Agreed but if it is a one car accident against say a tree, jersey barrier, pole, etc. then you are hiting an unmovable object that is not going to absorb much energy.
are not necessarily designed to break around these parts! From what I've seen, a '78 Magnum isn't strong enough to snap one. Neither is a '74 Ventura! Now if a drunk gets a '70's F-series up to an obscene rate of speed, the one in front of my house will snap like a twig. The truck will also be a pile of rubbish. And the impact will be strong enough to pull down the pole behind it into the neighbor's tree, and catch on fire.
I don't think that's necessarily considered "designed to break away!" :surprise:
Back in 1992 I got run off the road and hit a traffic light pole, sideways, in my '69 Dart. The impact pulled that pole out of the concrete, bolts and all, and vaulted it like a javelin throw. I'm convinced that had I been in a lesser, softer car, that wasn't strong enough to launch that pole, I would've gotten hurt or worse. As it was, the car got smashed in about a foot on the passenger side. I imagine that something like a SMART might just wrap harmlessly around the pole. Harmless for the pole, that is!
As for trees, there were a few in my neighborhood that have since been cut down, but they had blood on their hands. Err, well, on their bark. There was one big old oak tree at kind of a "Y" intersection that had claimed several lives and plenty of cars. Also totaled a dumptruck or two.
However, not all obstacles are created the same, nor are all cars. Something that would be considered a fixed barrier for a Metro might not be for an Excursion. YMMV.
I think people just have to back away from the notion that cars are "safe". They are, statistically speaking, fairly dangerous and one should never be so over-confident to think that they will be spared in an accident because they bought a "safe" car.
For instance, it may be more rational to think of safety these days as about improving your odds, not about actually being safe.
Safety is also "sold" as a fear factor, compelling us to buy what might in fact not be any safer for us.
For instance, I was reading this great book called "Freakonomics" (highly recommended) and it turns out, that by careful statistical analysis, it can be shown that strapping a child in a child safety seat in the rear of the car is at best, only nominally, marginally helpful.( see page 153) It seems that keeping them in the back seat of the car is what is marginally safer, not the $200 car seat into which they are strapped. The $200 bucks was spent on fear factor, not safety.
So there's an interesting case (if the author is to be believed, and he has collected a lot of awards for economics) of something that probably 95% of people believe, not being true at all.
Here's another one--if you calculate "hours per mile" traveled in either a car or plane (that is, how long you spend in each per mile), which is safer?
It could be in fact (but I don't know) that a modern subcompact is way closer to being as safe as a bigger car than most of us might think...close enough, in fact, as to not matter very much.
After what I've read, he could be right...I'd think the rear footwell would be safest of all.
Also I think older cars are way more dangerous...I don't care if they weigh 6,000 lbs...there is no "give" to them and they are filled with dangerous interior appointments.
it can be shown that strapping a child in a child safety seat in the rear of the car is at best, only nominally, marginally helpful.( see page 153) It seems that keeping them in the back seat of the car is what is marginally safer, not the $200 car seat into which they are strapped. The $200 bucks was spent on fear factor, not safety.
The car seat isn't to protect children in a crash, it's to gain the benefit of a seatbelt, since their bodies wouldn't otherwise fit.
You know I wasn't really thinking of telephone poles mainly because I see so few of the now a days. But more of signs and light posts that are designed to break away.
As for trees I did say it depends on the tree. All the trees in my neighborhood are 3-4 years old or less, a kid on a bike would take most of them out.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Also I think older cars are way more dangerous...I don't care if they weigh 6,000 lbs...there is no "give" to them and they are filled with dangerous interior appointments.
Yeah, there are those details working against older cars. However, I think the biggest thing that makes them dangerous is the fact that most of them didn't have seatbelts. Or at best, only a lap belt. Lack of a seatbelt is probably the biggest safety concern of my '57 DeSoto, for example. Moreso than its lack of an airbag, non-collapsible steering column, the pointy metal knobs on the dashboard, etc. My '67 Catalina has a lap belt, but no shoulder belts. In an impact it would keep me in the seat, but I'd still be able to hit the steering wheel. By that time, GM was using cheaper, "softer" platic knobs, but a plastic knob fastened to a metal rod (such as a radio control) is still probably a pretty nasty thing to impale yourself on!
As for putting an unbelted infant down in a footwell, I could see the rationale. For one thing, since the kid's already down there, against the footwell, in an impact he wouldn't get thrown into anything, since he'd be already positioned against it. Sure, the sudden decleration can still be brutal, but at least you take being thrown into something out of the equation. And if the car was to roll over or get its roof crushed, down there in the footwell you might have less of a chance of the kid becoming a projectile out the window!
I have to take to task your assessment that most things give way or are surrounded by things that will. I was a police officer for over twenty six years (mostly highway type patrol) and investigated hundreds of accidents and unless the car hit a dog or cat or squirrel, it sure looked to me that most of the trees, telephone poles, concrete barriers (and there are lots of them) sure as hell won the battle against the car or whatever involved. Yes, the dogs, cats and squirrels lost! I'll give you that much.
Take it to task if you will but on my drives down state to see friends just about every bridge support along the interstate had several of those bright yellow barrels that are designed to absorb the impact and stop the car before striking the concrete support. You also see them at many other "hard" obstacles along the interstate.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Whatever, the book says it doesn't matter much for safety. Of course I presume, but don't know, that a selt belt in the rear is better than no seat belt at all. But the infant child seat doesn't seem to matter. Apparently, a kid just laying in a crib back there is more or less as safe as litle Tiffany belted and helmeted in her car seat.
That's what the man says, anyway, and he wears a lot of medals....
OLD CARS: I think the non-collapsing steering column is the killer above anything else, and in combo with no seat belt, even worse.
This is where the air bag comes in, filling the deficiencies of a lap belt.
Interestingly, an air bag WITHOUT a seat belt performs much more poorly.
Yes, the dogs, cats and squirrels lost! I'll give you that much.
My uncle hit a deer with his 2003 Corolla a few years back, and he "lost" that one. The deer hopped off into the woods, seemingly unfazed. The Corolla had to be towed, and he had to get out on the passenger side because the driver's side door was wedged shut.
A deer can do a lot of damage, though. Years ago, one of my neighbors hit a deer with, ironically, an Impala. A 1965 Impala. While that hit killed the deer and the Impala was driveable, it sure did a good number on it. Mangled the driver's side fender and damaged the front door. Also bent the bumper and the part of the grille on the driver's side.
As for those yellow barrels, I do see them, sometimes. Often I see them where they've been hit, used up, but never "reset", so the next person who careens out of control will end up whacking whatever those barrels were put in place to avoid.
And those concrete Joisey barriers have the unique habit of sending cars airborne in all sorts of neat little trajectories. I imagine the lighter, smaller ones will bounce higher?
without seatbelts, it makes sense to me that the airbag will do worse. The seatbelt's job is to hold you in place, and while it'll let you pitch forward somewhat, if it's working properly it'll keep you pretty much in place. Without a seatbelt, you're going to pitch forward and hit the airbag and steering column much harder than if you were kept in place. Even though an airbag might be soft, it's deploying at an incredible rate of speed. Heck, you can hurt someone with a pillow if you hit them hard enough with it.
My stepdad rear-ended someone years ago with a 1999 Altima. It was enough to deploy the airbag, but the airbag didn't even touch him, because the seatbelt kept him in place.
Often in a harder impact, even when the airbag deploys, the steering column and dashboard still end up in your face.
Most modern utility poles/signage poles/light poles etc are designed to break away and afford some give. This was actually a hot topic with a few papers at a conference I went to recently. One guy did a demo with an 80s Honda Civic and it hit a "new" stop sign, or rather mowed over the stop sign. There was pretty minimal damage to both, the sign had break-away bolts at the bottom. Then he hit an "old" stop sign and the car instantly stopped and would not drive away on its own (test track, not neighborhood). The deal with the Jersey barriers (or K-rails) is they are designed to catch a rear-wheel drive car at some pretty intense angles, redirect it with the flow of traffic, and then hang on to it. Apparently the driving dynamics of a FWD car are very different and my "climb" the wall and flip themselves over. Modern k-rails are designed to prevent this (the curve of the barrier is different). The yellow barrels are garbage cans with sand in them. The things that are really cool are those 8*8 boxes that hang off the back of a road construction truck. That is designed to stop a car going liek 30 or 35 before it gets to the truck, and without damaging the truck. And its only slighty more unsightly then the 70s MBZ bumpers.
Also I think older cars are way more dangerous...I don't care if they weigh 6,000 lbs...there is no "give" to them and they are filled with dangerous interior appointments.
Define "older car". If you are talking cars of the 1960's, I am with you completely.
However, I dont see much reason to repace my 1996 model with a 2006 model safety wise.
andre... sounds to me like you should join the circus or something. just kidding. seems like you have longer legs that i do and i have a taller torso. just don't start calling me 'penguin'. due to headroom issues, i can't fit in the back of a focus or civic.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
is looking for a small car(hatchback). he wants to keep the miles off his modified M3. he mentioned the mini and a honda fit, audi a3(not his first choice), but asked me for some other alternatves. i suggested mazda3 and nissan versa, but they get the thumbs down. what else is there?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
sorry, i should have been more specific. looking for a hatchback type style. he wants it to drive in the winter to keep the miles off the bimmer. there are some decals in the left side rear window of the bimmer. one says 'turner'. a couple of the others look like the layout of lrp and watkins glen. works from home, so no commute.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Still thats not enough information to narrow it down. But if he is looking for something inexpensive there are plenty in the under 15K range, with the Chevy Aveo coming in at under 10K. Of course that Aveo has nothing in it, no A/C (but he will be driving it mostly in winter so that shouldn't be an issue) , no power anything and a stick. If you want more you will pay for more.
I once rented a Ford Focus hatch,, those are pretty inexpensive, and I seemed to like it. Many people who have the Elantra hatchback seem to like it. I checked out the Nissan Versa and that seems real nice, but it seems to be lacking in cargo space. You might want to check out the Yaris and the fit. I would stay away from VW though.
If he is open to it he might want to look at wagons. Subaru has some nice wagons with AWD which would help in winter driving.
Personally I would stay away from luxury or near luxury like the Audi. Why buy an expensive car for the purpose of keeping another expensive car off the winter roads?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes you're right...."old car" means, you know, old like me....
I think I'd put a cutoff at around 1968 for when cars really started to get safer. By that time they all had collapsible steering columns and I think after January 1 1968 they started putting shoulder straps on them. In 1968 they really started padding up the interiors, as well. My '68 Dart probably has more dash padding than any modern car! Not only are the upper and lower parts of the dash padded, but it also has a padding strip running under the a/c ducts.
Now I think with smaller cars, they've improved by leaps and bounds when it comes to safety. And I'd feel much safer riding in a Yaris or xA than I would in whatever would have been an equivalent weight in, say, 1968.
But if you take a modern car that weighs about the same as my '68 Dart, I'd say the differences aren't quite as vast. Still enough to be significant...I'm not saying that a 3000 pound 2006 model isn't any safer than a 3000 pound 1968 Dart. But it's just that, as cars get smaller and lighter, engineering, safety features, etc, are more important because you don't have weight to protect you.
If you look at accident statistics from back in the late 60's and 70's, sure the figures are much higher than today. But also consider that even though the cars had seatbelts back then, nobody wore them. If you had the same seatbelt usage percentages back in the 60's and 70's as you do today, you'd find that the death rates back then would've been much lower, and people probably wouldn't be touting how much safer the roads are today than they were 35 or so years ago.
Interestingly, statistically, even when an automaker does something that gets viewed as a major safety hazard, such as the exploding Pintos, Falcons, and 60's Mustangs, or the GM trucks with their saddle tanks, in the overall scheme of things it doesn't raise death rates enough to be significant. Oh sure, it's horrible for the people who died a fiery death in those particular cars, and I'm not advocating that automakers cut corners and potentially sacrifice lives for the sake of saving a few cents per car. However, the Pinto, pariah that it is, actually had an overall death rate comparable to or slightly lower than other similarly-sized cars of the time. Same with the '73-87 GM saddle-bag trucks.
Yeah but weren't the side saddle gas tanks all hype anyway? I mean I know it just sounds beyond stupid to put the tank between the frame and the body of ther car but dateline couldn't get them to explode even when hitting them with an open flame.
Yeah but weren't the side saddle gas tanks all hype anyway? Well, I know those saddle tanks CAN blow up, but I think you have to t-bone said truck at about 73 mph! Depending on what you hit it with, at that speed there's a good chance that the driver would be dead before the truck blew up.
Also, I'm sure that those saddle tanks are still safer than where they used to put the gas tanks before...INSIDE THE CAB!! :surprise:
FWIW, cars like the Crown Vic and the 1978-88 GM RWD intermediates were also implicated as being too prone to blowing up. However, the Crown Vics, as police cars, regularly get rear-ended at speeds of 70+ mph when they're stopped along the highway. And the incident that started the crusade against GM's RWD intermediates involved a 1980 Malibu 4-door that had stalled out along the road. It had a lady driver and her sleeping children in the back seat. They got rear-ended by a medium-duty truck, hard enough to throw the car into the air and cause it to spin 180 degrees. The resulting impact jammed the rear doors shut, ruptured the gas tank, and caught the car on fire. The mother survived, but the kids died. And the truck driver kept on going.
There was another incident where a 1983 Cutlass Cruiser wagon was stopped at a toll booth and got rear-ended at high speed, and blew up. These were all pretty extreme examples, though, and a far cry from the Pintos where you could supposedly rear-end them at 11 mph and get them to blow up.
I saw a Yaris yesterday. A medium/dark metallic blue 4-door. As popular as these cars are getting, I'm still surprised that I'm not seeing more of them in my neck of the woods yet. If I lived out in Children-of-the-Corn country I could understand it, but I'm in the DC suburbs!
I thought it was a bit interesting that the car really didn't stick out as being overly small. But then, I was riding with a buddy in a 1997 Saturn S-series, so maybe it's all relative. A Yaris isn't THAT much smaller than one of those (actually sits up higher), so maybe that's why it didn't seem so dainty. If I was in something like my pickup though, it would probably look like a toy.
Yes they are extreme, any car under the right conditions and hit the right way will explode. I mean you are carrying around several gallons of a combustible liquid. Its just that some are more likely than others to give you the fireworks.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I didn't look overly small to you because the Yaris sedan is basically the same size as a mid-to-late-90s Corolla (same wheelbase, width, within 3 inches in length, and is taller than the Corolla).
I have a real hard time calling the Yaris sedan a "sub-compact", when based off the hard numbers, it's really a compact. The liftback, however, is a different story.
Okay, hatch back, winter driving, sorta fun I'd imagine since he's a sport driver obviously, probably needs decent ground clearance....yeah the VW hatch sounds good for this, or the Scion xA stickshift can be fun...how 'bout a Mitsubishi EVO? AWD and it'll whup his M3 for about $25,000 less. :P Not a hatch, but a way fun 4-door car and really good in foul weather.
I couldn't agree more about your comparison of the Yaris and the Corolla. I would say the Yaris is just a cheap Corolla.
The thing that really blew my mind about the two cars occurred when I was watching a commercial touting the fuel economy of Toyotas. It showed the car and then it's peak MPG estimate in the upper corner of the screen. Yaris' peak as 40 MPG, and then the Corolla came up with 41 MPG.
I think Yaris sales might slow down very quickly when people get over the hype and realize that they can get a much nicer (in my, but often agreed with, opinion) and equally fuel efficient Corolla for only slightly more money.
Ahhhh, "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder. Stating it once would have been enough. No one is required to drive anything....if you don't like the look, don't buy it. I can look beyond the outer appearance to the total package
In terms of your Elantra, I wouldn't want to stick my two tall kids in the back.
Buy what you want, you don't need to trash what is a workable solution for some.
Not around here. You can get a stripped Corolla for less than a stripped Yaris, and you can get a loaded Corolla for roughly the same $ as a loaded Yaris with minimal haggling in Mass. I imagine it will stay this way more or less until the redesigned Corolla hits the lots....which it sounds like won't be for another 12-18 months.
Aside from the novelty factor, I can't think of a single objective reason for purchasing a Yaris sedan right now over a Corolla.
Yaris versus Corolla...I think the Yaris' seating position is a just a bit better for me than in the Corolla. To really get comfy in a Corolla you need to be built like an ape, with short legs and long arms. Or have a bit of a masochistic tendency. The Yaris felt a bit more reasonable for my 6'3" frame. Otherwise though, I haven't paid attention to pricing on them to really know which is cheaper, although I do remember seeing a Corolla with an MSRP of $18K+ at an auto show, and started to feel queasy! But I guess basically, just buy whichever one you feel the most comfortable in. Some people might like the Yaris because it's about 10 inches or whatever shorter than the Corolla. However, when you get down to cars that small, I think 10" is irrelevant. But then I still call things like Darts, Aspens, Novas, etc "compact" cars! :P
Elantra...I sat in one at the auto show. Surprisingly roomy inside. The EPA actually classifies them as a midsize. I can fit comfortably up front and, even with the seat all the way back, can still fit in the back seat fairly comfortably.
I've driven the Yaris the xA and a 2006 Corolla and you know, I don't notice a whole helluva difference among the lot of them--it's subtle at best. If one were to present the Corolla as an "upgrade" for the other two, it's a pretty slim upgrade IMO--noticeable but hardly dramatic, and in the case of the fully optioned Corolla I drove, not worth the considerable expense by any means unless perhaps you were a older person driving very long distances--then the leather seats and cruise control and somewhat quieter highway ride would be an asset to you on 300 to 500 mile stints.
It's all relative. There probably isn't a car built, today or ever, that I'd be comfortable driving 200 miles non-stop, let alone 300+!
I consider my uncle's '03 Corolla a "ten-minute car" As in, that's about the longest I'd want to drive it. Now it's not so bad in the passenger seat, but that driver's seat is awful. And the car bounces you around and is pretty jittery, which can be tiring.
I might actually be able to put up with a Yaris for fifteen minutes or even longer, since its driving position is a bit less "ape-like"
It's all relative. There probably isn't a car built, today or ever, that I'd be comfortable driving 200 miles non-stop, let alone 300+!
I agree with you. In my younger days, I would only stop for gas and that would be 350 miles at a time. Today, if i can drive 150 without a stop, I consider it pretty good. On the other hand, the trips that I USED to drive when I was living in Virginia are now made in a Southwest Airlines jet!
When I first drove a Corolla last summer, I really had no objection to the drive comfort. My objection was that I had to enter the car "granny style" butt first and swing the legs.
When I rented one two weeks ago so that my mechanic could have my car for the weekend, I finally figured how to slide into the vehicle and had no problems after a little practice.
If someone forced me to buy a new car right now, it would be between the Vibe/Matrix and the Corolla. The Yaris/Fit would not be a consideration at this point.
Tomorrow is the "BIG" microcar show and probably my first ride in a Smart Car (while it is moving). 140 small vehicles in Crystal Lake. Should be kind of interesting. Last night, I saw a couple Smarts, a NSU Prinz, and a small 3-wheel one-seater.
For a hatchback and winter driving and lots of head room, the Suzuki Aerio may be a good choice. Huge amounts of interior volume because it's so tall. And it can come with 4WD.
And because they're redesigning it, and because it's Suzuki, he can probably get at 2006 model for less than the cost of his annual maintainence costs of his BMW. Or not, but it's definitely an inexpensive car.
Alternately, Subaru has a large line of 4WD Hatchback vehicles. They just start at a base of 50-100% higher than the Aerio...
Geez, you guys are talkin' like the princess and the pea. I'm sure you could perform better than 150 miles at a sitting,now really?
Unless I'm just peculiar, I can drive 200 miles easy in an xA---I don't even think about it until mile 199, when I want to stretch and you-know-what.
I have these nice breathable hi-tech slip covers that work GREAT, a good satellite radio, the tilt wheel, good AC, optional armrest, little mini-cooler for cold water or a peach....you know, it's really easy to do this 200 miles.
I drove my MINI almost non-stop from Richmond, VA to Hartford, CT twice a month for three months last spring. I normaly made one stop for gas and well you know but that was it.
It is about a 500 mile one way trip now granted I was doing it at 90 mph but still it was not that bad.
I think that if you start driving more than three hours without a break, you lose your focus. Especially when the first three hours of nearly any trip that I takes involves driving through Chicagoland into Indiana.
If I have to drive more than 300 miles, I prefer to let my pilot do the driving. Anymore, the cost of driving begins to exceed the cost of flying, especially if you are travelling alone. Besides the 4-5 hours I'll spend in the airport allows me to get caught up on work and reading (and keeps me away from the internet).
And you don't have to put up with the idiots driving 90 mph tailgating and weaving ...
Comments
Poles are designed to break away.
Most barriers (such as over pass supports) have collapsing barriers around them to absorb energy.
Basically most things you are going to hit will either give way or surrounded by things that will.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't think that's necessarily considered "designed to break away!" :surprise:
Back in 1992 I got run off the road and hit a traffic light pole, sideways, in my '69 Dart. The impact pulled that pole out of the concrete, bolts and all, and vaulted it like a javelin throw. I'm convinced that had I been in a lesser, softer car, that wasn't strong enough to launch that pole, I would've gotten hurt or worse. As it was, the car got smashed in about a foot on the passenger side. I imagine that something like a SMART might just wrap harmlessly around the pole. Harmless for the pole, that is!
As for trees, there were a few in my neighborhood that have since been cut down, but they had blood on their hands. Err, well, on their bark. There was one big old oak tree at kind of a "Y" intersection that had claimed several lives and plenty of cars. Also totaled a dumptruck or two.
However, not all obstacles are created the same, nor are all cars. Something that would be considered a fixed barrier for a Metro might not be for an Excursion. YMMV.
For instance, it may be more rational to think of safety these days as about improving your odds, not about actually being safe.
Safety is also "sold" as a fear factor, compelling us to buy what might in fact not be any safer for us.
For instance, I was reading this great book called "Freakonomics" (highly recommended) and it turns out, that by careful statistical analysis, it can be shown that strapping a child in a child safety seat in the rear of the car is at best, only nominally, marginally helpful.( see page 153) It seems that keeping them in the back seat of the car is what is marginally safer, not the $200 car seat into which they are strapped. The $200 bucks was spent on fear factor, not safety.
So there's an interesting case (if the author is to be believed, and he has collected a lot of awards for economics) of something that probably 95% of people believe, not being true at all.
Here's another one--if you calculate "hours per mile" traveled in either a car or plane (that is, how long you spend in each per mile), which is safer?
It could be in fact (but I don't know) that a modern subcompact is way closer to being as safe as a bigger car than most of us might think...close enough, in fact, as to not matter very much.
Also I think older cars are way more dangerous...I don't care if they weigh 6,000 lbs...there is no "give" to them and they are filled with dangerous interior appointments.
The car seat isn't to protect children in a crash, it's to gain the benefit of a seatbelt, since their bodies wouldn't otherwise fit.
As for trees I did say it depends on the tree. All the trees in my neighborhood are 3-4 years old or less, a kid on a bike would take most of them out.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yeah, there are those details working against older cars. However, I think the biggest thing that makes them dangerous is the fact that most of them didn't have seatbelts. Or at best, only a lap belt. Lack of a seatbelt is probably the biggest safety concern of my '57 DeSoto, for example. Moreso than its lack of an airbag, non-collapsible steering column, the pointy metal knobs on the dashboard, etc. My '67 Catalina has a lap belt, but no shoulder belts. In an impact it would keep me in the seat, but I'd still be able to hit the steering wheel. By that time, GM was using cheaper, "softer" platic knobs, but a plastic knob fastened to a metal rod (such as a radio control) is still probably a pretty nasty thing to impale yourself on!
As for putting an unbelted infant down in a footwell, I could see the rationale. For one thing, since the kid's already down there, against the footwell, in an impact he wouldn't get thrown into anything, since he'd be already positioned against it. Sure, the sudden decleration can still be brutal, but at least you take being thrown into something out of the equation. And if the car was to roll over or get its roof crushed, down there in the footwell you might have less of a chance of the kid becoming a projectile out the window!
I was a police officer for over twenty six years (mostly highway type patrol) and investigated hundreds of accidents and unless the car hit a dog or cat or squirrel, it sure looked to me that most of the trees, telephone poles, concrete barriers (and there are lots of them) sure as hell won the battle against the car or whatever involved. Yes, the dogs, cats and squirrels lost! I'll give you that much.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That's what the man says, anyway, and he wears a lot of medals....
OLD CARS: I think the non-collapsing steering column is the killer above anything else, and in combo with no seat belt, even worse.
This is where the air bag comes in, filling the deficiencies of a lap belt.
Interestingly, an air bag WITHOUT a seat belt performs much more poorly.
My uncle hit a deer with his 2003 Corolla a few years back, and he "lost" that one. The deer hopped off into the woods, seemingly unfazed. The Corolla had to be towed, and he had to get out on the passenger side because the driver's side door was wedged shut.
A deer can do a lot of damage, though. Years ago, one of my neighbors hit a deer with, ironically, an Impala. A 1965 Impala. While that hit killed the deer and the Impala was driveable, it sure did a good number on it. Mangled the driver's side fender and damaged the front door. Also bent the bumper and the part of the grille on the driver's side.
As for those yellow barrels, I do see them, sometimes. Often I see them where they've been hit, used up, but never "reset", so the next person who careens out of control will end up whacking whatever those barrels were put in place to avoid.
And those concrete Joisey barriers have the unique habit of sending cars airborne in all sorts of neat little trajectories. I imagine the lighter, smaller ones will bounce higher?
My stepdad rear-ended someone years ago with a 1999 Altima. It was enough to deploy the airbag, but the airbag didn't even touch him, because the seatbelt kept him in place.
Often in a harder impact, even when the airbag deploys, the steering column and dashboard still end up in your face.
The deal with the Jersey barriers (or K-rails) is they are designed to catch a rear-wheel drive car at some pretty intense angles, redirect it with the flow of traffic, and then hang on to it. Apparently the driving dynamics of a FWD car are very different and my "climb" the wall and flip themselves over. Modern k-rails are designed to prevent this (the curve of the barrier is different).
The yellow barrels are garbage cans with sand in them. The things that are really cool are those 8*8 boxes that hang off the back of a road construction truck. That is designed to stop a car going liek 30 or 35 before it gets to the truck, and without damaging the truck. And its only slighty more unsightly then the 70s MBZ bumpers.
Define "older car". If you are talking cars of the 1960's, I am with you completely.
However, I dont see much reason to repace my 1996 model with a 2006 model safety wise.
due to headroom issues, i can't fit in the back of a focus or civic.
I can't think of anything else.
Bicycle.
But to be honest what he mentioned is a very broad range. What is it that he is looking for in the car. Low price? Good Mileage? What?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
there are some decals in the left side rear window of the bimmer. one says 'turner'. a couple of the others look like the layout of lrp and watkins glen.
works from home, so no commute.
one of the last of the RSXs?
or in a lower range, the new Accent SE?
I suppose a Beetle is out of the question? :confuse:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
RSX is, technically, a hatch. Even though it has a coupe shape, there is no trunk - the cargo door is open to the rear seats.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I once rented a Ford Focus hatch,, those are pretty inexpensive, and I seemed to like it. Many people who have the Elantra hatchback seem to like it. I checked out the Nissan Versa and that seems real nice, but it seems to be lacking in cargo space. You might want to check out the Yaris and the fit. I would stay away from VW though.
If he is open to it he might want to look at wagons. Subaru has some nice wagons with AWD which would help in winter driving.
Personally I would stay away from luxury or near luxury like the Audi. Why buy an expensive car for the purpose of keeping another expensive car off the winter roads?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not only is the new GTI a great looking and fun little driver, but your friend can configure with Helga on the VW website, a rare treat indeed :P
I think I'd put a cutoff at around 1968 for when cars really started to get safer. By that time they all had collapsible steering columns and I think after January 1 1968 they started putting shoulder straps on them. In 1968 they really started padding up the interiors, as well. My '68 Dart probably has more dash padding than any modern car! Not only are the upper and lower parts of the dash padded, but it also has a padding strip running under the a/c ducts.
Now I think with smaller cars, they've improved by leaps and bounds when it comes to safety. And I'd feel much safer riding in a Yaris or xA than I would in whatever would have been an equivalent weight in, say, 1968.
But if you take a modern car that weighs about the same as my '68 Dart, I'd say the differences aren't quite as vast. Still enough to be significant...I'm not saying that a 3000 pound 2006 model isn't any safer than a 3000 pound 1968 Dart. But it's just that, as cars get smaller and lighter, engineering, safety features, etc, are more important because you don't have weight to protect you.
If you look at accident statistics from back in the late 60's and 70's, sure the figures are much higher than today. But also consider that even though the cars had seatbelts back then, nobody wore them. If you had the same seatbelt usage percentages back in the 60's and 70's as you do today, you'd find that the death rates back then would've been much lower, and people probably wouldn't be touting how much safer the roads are today than they were 35 or so years ago.
Interestingly, statistically, even when an automaker does something that gets viewed as a major safety hazard, such as the exploding Pintos, Falcons, and 60's Mustangs, or the GM trucks with their saddle tanks, in the overall scheme of things it doesn't raise death rates enough to be significant. Oh sure, it's horrible for the people who died a fiery death in those particular cars, and I'm not advocating that automakers cut corners and potentially sacrifice lives for the sake of saving a few cents per car. However, the Pinto, pariah that it is, actually had an overall death rate comparable to or slightly lower than other similarly-sized cars of the time. Same with the '73-87 GM saddle-bag trucks.
Also, I'm sure that those saddle tanks are still safer than where they used to put the gas tanks before...INSIDE THE CAB!! :surprise:
FWIW, cars like the Crown Vic and the 1978-88 GM RWD intermediates were also implicated as being too prone to blowing up. However, the Crown Vics, as police cars, regularly get rear-ended at speeds of 70+ mph when they're stopped along the highway. And the incident that started the crusade against GM's RWD intermediates involved a 1980 Malibu 4-door that had stalled out along the road. It had a lady driver and her sleeping children in the back seat. They got rear-ended by a medium-duty truck, hard enough to throw the car into the air and cause it to spin 180 degrees. The resulting impact jammed the rear doors shut, ruptured the gas tank, and caught the car on fire. The mother survived, but the kids died. And the truck driver kept on going.
There was another incident where a 1983 Cutlass Cruiser wagon was stopped at a toll booth and got rear-ended at high speed, and blew up. These were all pretty extreme examples, though, and a far cry from the Pintos where you could supposedly rear-end them at 11 mph and get them to blow up.
I thought it was a bit interesting that the car really didn't stick out as being overly small. But then, I was riding with a buddy in a 1997 Saturn S-series, so maybe it's all relative. A Yaris isn't THAT much smaller than one of those (actually sits up higher), so maybe that's why it didn't seem so dainty. If I was in something like my pickup though, it would probably look like a toy.
Yes they are extreme, any car under the right conditions and hit the right way will explode. I mean you are carrying around several gallons of a combustible liquid. Its just that some are more likely than others to give you the fireworks.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I have a real hard time calling the Yaris sedan a "sub-compact", when based off the hard numbers, it's really a compact. The liftback, however, is a different story.
Discontinued in 07
The thing that really blew my mind about the two cars occurred when I was watching a commercial touting the fuel economy of Toyotas. It showed the car and then it's peak MPG estimate in the upper corner of the screen. Yaris' peak as 40 MPG, and then the Corolla came up with 41 MPG.
I think Yaris sales might slow down very quickly when people get over the hype and realize that they can get a much nicer (in my, but often agreed with, opinion) and equally fuel efficient Corolla for only slightly more money.
In terms of your Elantra, I wouldn't want to stick my two tall kids in the back.
Buy what you want, you don't need to trash what is a workable solution for some.
Not around here. You can get a stripped Corolla for less than a stripped Yaris, and you can get a loaded Corolla for roughly the same $ as a loaded Yaris with minimal haggling in Mass. I imagine it will stay this way more or less until the redesigned Corolla hits the lots....which it sounds like won't be for another 12-18 months.
Aside from the novelty factor, I can't think of a single objective reason for purchasing a Yaris sedan right now over a Corolla.
Elantra...I sat in one at the auto show. Surprisingly roomy inside. The EPA actually classifies them as a midsize. I can fit comfortably up front and, even with the seat all the way back, can still fit in the back seat fairly comfortably.
I like to call subcompacts great "200-milers".
It's all relative. There probably isn't a car built, today or ever, that I'd be comfortable driving 200 miles non-stop, let alone 300+!
I consider my uncle's '03 Corolla a "ten-minute car" As in, that's about the longest I'd want to drive it. Now it's not so bad in the passenger seat, but that driver's seat is awful. And the car bounces you around and is pretty jittery, which can be tiring.
I might actually be able to put up with a Yaris for fifteen minutes or even longer, since its driving position is a bit less "ape-like"
A vegetarian, I appreciate the Germans foresight in making loaded vehicles where cloth seats are still an option.
No one else seems to get that right.
I agree with you. In my younger days, I would only stop for gas and that would be 350 miles at a time. Today, if i can drive 150 without a stop, I consider it pretty good. On the other hand, the trips that I USED to drive when I was living in Virginia are now made in a Southwest Airlines jet!
When I first drove a Corolla last summer, I really had no objection to the drive comfort. My objection was that I had to enter the car "granny style" butt first and swing the legs.
When I rented one two weeks ago so that my mechanic could have my car for the weekend, I finally figured how to slide into the vehicle and had no problems after a little practice.
If someone forced me to buy a new car right now, it would be between the Vibe/Matrix and the Corolla. The Yaris/Fit would not be a consideration at this point.
Tomorrow is the "BIG" microcar show and probably my first ride in a Smart Car (while it is moving). 140 small vehicles in Crystal Lake. Should be kind of interesting. Last night, I saw a couple Smarts, a NSU Prinz, and a small 3-wheel one-seater.
And because they're redesigning it, and because it's Suzuki, he can probably get at 2006 model for less than the cost of his annual maintainence costs of his BMW. Or not, but it's definitely an inexpensive car.
Alternately, Subaru has a large line of 4WD Hatchback vehicles. They just start at a base of 50-100% higher than the Aerio...
Unless I'm just peculiar, I can drive 200 miles easy in an xA---I don't even think about it until mile 199, when I want to stretch and you-know-what.
I have these nice breathable hi-tech slip covers that work GREAT, a good satellite radio, the tilt wheel, good AC, optional armrest, little mini-cooler for cold water or a peach....you know, it's really easy to do this 200 miles.
Now 300 miles would start to get annoying....
It is about a 500 mile one way trip now granted I was doing it at 90 mph but still it was not that bad.
If I have to drive more than 300 miles, I prefer to let my pilot do the driving. Anymore, the cost of driving begins to exceed the cost of flying, especially if you are travelling alone. Besides the 4-5 hours I'll spend in the airport allows me to get caught up on work and reading (and keeps me away from the internet).
And you don't have to put up with the idiots driving 90 mph tailgating and weaving ...