Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

21 - 40 of 107 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,729 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
I'll put my '91 F250 up against whatever you got, but not my CR-V. Anything stronger than a hard look will knock a dent in it.
You are being ridiculous by comparing a big truck like F250 to a compact SUV, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
That's not what I did at all. You might work on your reading comprehension.
Instead of attacking my reading comprehension you might want to explain the first quote above. If you did not compare your F250 to your CR-V then what did you do there?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
Instead of attacking my reading comprehension you might want to explain the first quote above. If you did not compare your F250 to your CR-V then what did you do there?
I made a simple statement. It did not in any way compare the truck and the car to each other outside of the context of them being the two vehicles I own. To simplify that, I feel much more confident at 80mph around here in the truck than I do in the car. Speed limits here are as high as 85mph, which means people drive 10-15mph faster, and at 80 I am still being passed by most traffic. Any crashes are not going to be pretty. Still, our worst traffic danger here is feral hogs, which cause frequent and almost always fatal crashes, and I won't go so far as to say that the truck would fare well, but I like my chances in it better than the CR-V. The reason I have the CR-V is that in retirement I can no longer afford to operate the truck with its 10mpg and age. That's the real world I live in. Which is where the truck is safer than the CR-V in almost any situation.

By no means did I say that the two vehicles are otherwise in the same category, but I did say that modern vehicles are just not safer than the older ones overall. If you take into consideration the fact that all crash test data, on which your so-called data is based, is sponsored by and/or paid for, as well as compiled by, carmakers. Which makes it marketing propaganda. I am a retired truck driver. I spent over 50 years out there, 40 of that in a truck, and 5+million miles, both witnessing and assisting on-scene, at so many accidents that I lost count many years ago, and I can tell you that your "data" is not backed up by real world results. So, jumping up and down and hollering "data" does not impress me at all. I know what the truth is, and it does not inspire confidence in any modern vehicle over older ones. Sorry, but IMO the data provides a false sense of hope. As far as I am concerned, the only pieces of safety equipment that actually have helped are shoulder harness 3-point seat belts, and collapsible steering columns. The rest, including crush zones, air bags, and the like, are all hype and no benefit. In fact, air bags are unsafe. The idea is good, but the current implementation is dangerous. I have a friend who barely survived a 20mph collision when her airbag broke her neck and 42 bones in her face and skull, as well as brain swelling and concussion. After more than ten years of surgeries and rehab she will still never be the same. She was gorgeous, but no more - her vision is impaired, she does not have full range of motion of her neck or her jaw, she is partially deaf, and she cannot drive. She also walks with a cane. Her lawsuit against the airbag maker was settled lucratively but with a gag order that prevents her from ever sounding any alarm. I wonder how many like her are out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
Instead of attacking my reading comprehension you might want to explain the first quote above. If you did not compare your F250 to your CR-V then what did you do there?
I tried to warn you. :) Some people are stuck in their box and can't get out to see what's happening in the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Problem lies with the drivers nothing more. Just look at how many here keep trying to force crvs to corner like sports cars and complain about body roll at high speeds etc. THAT SAYS IT ALL. Too many stupid drivers.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Absolutely true! In just about everything, it's the PEOPLE who are at fault. Yes, once in a great while there may be a design problem or defective parts, etc. (like 1st gen Explorers that had rollover problems and blowing out tires due to insufficient tire pressure for the vehicle weight, size of tire, etc.; S10 Blazers of the same year had the exact same tires but had no problems with blowouts because Chevy specified 35 psi in the tires; Ford specified 26 psi.) It's no different than the crazies who blame firearms for all the shooting deaths, etc. I can't recall a single case of a firearm discharging a bullet on it's own; someone had to pull the trigger (except in cases where the gun was dropped and due to some design issue it discharged). Let's put the blame where it belongs; the OPERATOR of the vehicle, firearm, aircraft, boat, etc.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
I tried to warn you. :) Some people are stuck in their box and can't get out to see what's happening in the real world.
My point exactly. Those of you who rely on and believe the "data" are not getting out there in the real world, where I am, seeing actual outcomes and knowing just how fake the data is. It's completely manufactured and is designed specifically to mislead and convince the public that cars are safer today, when in fact they are not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
It's completely manufactured and is designed specifically to mislead and convince the public that cars are safer today, when in fact they are not.
I wasn't planning on continuing this debate but reading local fresh news just got me back into it. Here's a crash that happened today over here. The lady driving and her two kids were completely unharmed. Note that this is over 20 year old unibody car (1st gen Focus), still it protected the driver and passengers just fine, all doors and windows (apart from the windshield) were intact:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,660 Posts
My point exactly. Those of you who rely on and believe the "data" are not getting out there in the real world, where I am, seeing actual outcomes and knowing just how fake the data is. It's completely manufactured and is designed specifically to mislead and convince the public that cars are safer today, when in fact they are not.
You can ignore data and go with your gut if you like. But it does not make you right.

I acknowledge that the point you are trying to make is that crash tests =/= real world exactly in every case. And while true for the extremes of real world crashes (where nobody in any vehicle of any age or make survives), the vast majority of fatalities from many years back are now largely avoided under identical crash circumstances precisely because government crash testing continues to refine and get more sophisticated AND car manufacturers must design to survive or they suffer consumer confidence loss. I simply think you are taking this too far and are ignoring the current state of crash safety testing as it correlates to real world crash tests within the physics of survivability of the human body.

Granted.. in the early days of crash tests.... consistency of testing and accuracy of testing in the context of real world scenarios... was sometimes questionable. But that was 20 years ago. Today's testing is actually quite accurate for car on car collisions. Of course you can always have a collision result in the real world that is worse.. particularly if said accident was outside of crash test parameters (ie: going 90 miles an hour and hitting a bridge pillar, or head on collision at 60+ for each vehicle (roughly equivalent to 120 mile per hour collision with a static object). For any collision in the real world that has parameters within the crash test setups for modern vehicles, the data and results track. Further.. as was linked for you a few posts back.. actual data shows consistent year over year improvements in reduced fatalities (real data from real road crashes) ... even though testing has become more rigorous and reflective of the worst case crashes. Once the added the front-side crash test into the program.. they really dialed in one of the most common causes of fatalities ---> non bumper to bumper collisions.

And with better and more accurate crash test profiles.... older vehicles perform poorly (just look at the video above, where in a frontside to frontside impact between the two cars. Thevideo clearly shows the crash dummy in the old car (which lost cabin integrity completely) suffered fatal neck injuries as his head was pushed up into the roof as the roof collapsed down on it and likely fatal crushed chest trauma as well (two classic reasons for improving crash safety in cars).. and the modern car the owner was protected by the cabin integrity and the air bag system and suffered no serious injury metrics from the crash. Now tell me that you would prefer to be in the old vehicle and not the new one and act as the crash test dummy for the test. ;) I certainly know which vehicle I would want to be in if forced by circumstance to act as crash test dummy... and it's not the old 50s vehicle.

Nobody is arguing against the logic that the best possible safety outcome is to never get into a crash to begin with.. because every crash is unique and can be fatal under the right variables and circumstance. But to ignore the progress and improvements in fatality data (which actually reflects and tracks with fewer traffic fatalities) largely gained through rigorous and scientifically devised crash testing is simply choosing to ignore reality. There is a reason the fatality rates nationally for vehicle crashes today is tens of thousands less fatalities then 40, or even 20 years ago (even though we have many more vehicles on the road today then back then, and people are driving more miles and more congested roads as well). Modern cars are designed much better for crash worthiness and continue to improve precisely because crash test profiles and data now largely track the broadest range of recorded crashes in the real world now days and enable (actually force) manufacturers to continue to improve crash worthiness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
You can ignore data and go with your gut if you like. But it does not make you right.

I acknowledge that the point you are trying to make is that crash tests =/= real world exactly in every case. And while true for the extremes of real world crashes (where nobody in any vehicle of any age or make survives), the vast majority of fatalities from many years back are now largely avoided under identical crash circumstances precisely because government crash testing continues to refine and get more sophisticated AND car manufacturers must design to survive or they suffer consumer confidence loss. I simply think you are taking this too far and are ignoring the current state of crash safety testing as it correlates to real world crash tests within the physics of survivability of the human body.

Granted.. in the early days of crash tests.... consistency of testing and accuracy of testing in the context of real world scenarios... was sometimes questionable. But that was 20 years ago. Today's testing is actually quite accurate for car on car collisions. Of course you can always have a collision result in the real world that is worse.. particularly if said accident was outside of crash test parameters (ie: going 90 miles an hour and hitting a bridge pillar, or head on collision at 60+ for each vehicle (roughly equivalent to 120 mile per hour collision with a static object). For any collision in the real world that has parameters within the crash test setups for modern vehicles, the data and results track. Further.. as was linked for you a few posts back.. actual data shows consistent year over year improvements in reduced fatalities (real data from real road crashes) ... even though testing has become more rigorous and reflective of the worst case crashes. Once the added the front-side crash test into the program.. they really dialed in one of the most common causes of fatalities ---> non bumper to bumper collisions.

And with better and more accurate crash test profiles.... older vehicles perform poorly (just look at the video above, where in a frontside to frontside impact between the two cars. Thevideo clearly shows the crash dummy in the old car (which lost cabin integrity completely) suffered fatal neck injuries as his head was pushed up into the roof as the roof collapsed down on it and likely fatal crushed chest trauma as well (two classic reasons for improving crash safety in cars).. and the modern car the owner was protected by the cabin integrity and the air bag system and suffered no serious injury metrics from the crash. Now tell me that you would prefer to be in the old vehicle and not the new one and act as the crash test dummy for the test. ;) I certainly know which vehicle I would want to be in if forced by circumstance to act as crash test dummy... and it's not the old 50s vehicle.

Nobody is arguing against the logic that the best possible safety outcome is to never get into a crash to begin with.. because every crash is unique and can be fatal under the right variables and circumstance. But to ignore the progress and improvements in fatality data (which actually reflects and tracks with fewer traffic fatalities) largely gained through rigorous and scientifically devised crash testing is simply choosing to ignore reality. There is a reason the fatality rates nationally for vehicle crashes today is tens of thousands less fatalities then 40, or even 20 years ago (even though we have many more vehicles on the road today then back then, and people are driving more miles and more congested roads as well). Modern cars are designed much better for crash worthiness and continue to improve precisely because crash test profiles and data now largely track the broadest range of recorded crashes in the real world now days and enable (actually force) manufacturers to continue to improve crash worthiness.
60 mph head on between two cars isn't = to 120 mph with static object it is = to 60 mph with static. Learn some basic physics!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
You can ignore data and go with your gut if you like. But it does not make you right.

I acknowledge that the point you are trying to make is that crash tests =/= real world exactly in every case. And while true for the extremes of real world crashes (where nobody in any vehicle of any age or make survives), the vast majority of fatalities from many years back are now largely avoided under identical crash circumstances precisely because government crash testing continues to refine and get more sophisticated AND car manufacturers must design to survive or they suffer consumer confidence loss. I simply think you are taking this too far and are ignoring the current state of crash safety testing as it correlates to real world crash tests within the physics of survivability of the human body.

Granted.. in the early days of crash tests.... consistency of testing and accuracy of testing in the context of real world scenarios... was sometimes questionable. But that was 20 years ago. Today's testing is actually quite accurate for car on car collisions. Of course you can always have a collision result in the real world that is worse.. particularly if said accident was outside of crash test parameters (ie: going 90 miles an hour and hitting a bridge pillar, or head on collision at 60+ for each vehicle (roughly equivalent to 120 mile per hour collision with a static object). For any collision in the real world that has parameters within the crash test setups for modern vehicles, the data and results track. Further.. as was linked for you a few posts back.. actual data shows consistent year over year improvements in reduced fatalities (real data from real road crashes) ... even though testing has become more rigorous and reflective of the worst case crashes. Once the added the front-side crash test into the program.. they really dialed in one of the most common causes of fatalities ---> non bumper to bumper collisions.

And with better and more accurate crash test profiles.... older vehicles perform poorly (just look at the video above, where in a frontside to frontside impact between the two cars. Thevideo clearly shows the crash dummy in the old car (which lost cabin integrity completely) suffered fatal neck injuries as his head was pushed up into the roof as the roof collapsed down on it and likely fatal crushed chest trauma as well (two classic reasons for improving crash safety in cars).. and the modern car the owner was protected by the cabin integrity and the air bag system and suffered no serious injury metrics from the crash. Now tell me that you would prefer to be in the old vehicle and not the new one and act as the crash test dummy for the test. ;) I certainly know which vehicle I would want to be in if forced by circumstance to act as crash test dummy... and it's not the old 50s vehicle.

Nobody is arguing against the logic that the best possible safety outcome is to never get into a crash to begin with.. because every crash is unique and can be fatal under the right variables and circumstance. But to ignore the progress and improvements in fatality data (which actually reflects and tracks with fewer traffic fatalities) largely gained through rigorous and scientifically devised crash testing is simply choosing to ignore reality. There is a reason the fatality rates nationally for vehicle crashes today is tens of thousands less fatalities then 40, or even 20 years ago (even though we have many more vehicles on the road today then back then, and people are driving more miles and more congested roads as well). Modern cars are designed much better for crash worthiness and continue to improve precisely because crash test profiles and data now largely track the broadest range of recorded crashes in the real world now days and enable (actually force) manufacturers to continue to improve crash worthiness.
What I am saying is that there is NO SUCH IMPROVEMENT in safety due to modern construction. New cars are actually less safe today than they have ever been, speeds are higher, and drivers are far more stupid, careless, and aggressive. All that combined far offsets any hoped for or imagined or faked gains liberally factored into statistics. Yes, things like collapsible steering columns, 3-point seat belts, ABS brakes, crush zones, and far better tires have vastly improved survivability. But that value is offset by the ultra-flimsy materials, the idiocy of massive driver distraction from cell phones and in-dash entertainment systems, and the huge downgrade in driver mental fitness in recent years more than counteracts any safety improvements. So, while statistics can be and are manipulated to show progress, the actual real world truth is that it is far less safe than it used to be out there. Add all that and more to far worse than ever impaired driving, and your level and percentage of risk when you pull out of your driveway is far higher than ever before and getting worse all the time. In fact, law enforcement can no longer keep up, and doesn't even pretend to.

Of course, us older folks, who have lived in literally another era, can much more easily see the contrast, but saying cars are built safer today is like saying houses are built better today. It simply isn't so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
By no means did I say that the two vehicles are otherwise in the same category, but I did say that modern vehicles are just not safer than the older ones overall. If you take into consideration the fact that all crash test data, on which your so-called data is based, is sponsored by and/or paid for, as well as compiled by, carmakers. Which makes it marketing propaganda.
....
The rest, including crush zones, air bags, and the like, are all hype and no benefit. In fact, air bags are unsafe. The idea is good, but the current implementation is dangerous. I have a friend who barely survived a 20mph collision when her airbag broke her neck and 42 bones in her face and skull, as well as brain swelling and concussion.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries and property damage — from motor vehicle crashes.

My wife and I were in an Acura TSX Sportwagon going 55mph on a highway service road when someone blew a light. We t-boned him squarely. Thanks to airbags and the car's crush zones, we both walked away.

I'll take my chance with the airbags, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
I have met people like kloker before in real life and on the internet. They are the anti-vaccine folks, the climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists and no amount of scientific facts or data will change their minds.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries and property damage — from motor vehicle crashes.

My wife and I were in an Acura TSX Sportwagon going 55mph on a highway service road when someone blew a light. We t-boned him squarely. Thanks to airbags and the car's crush zones, we both walked away.

I'll take my chance with the airbags, thanks.
I'm very thankful that you and yours came out okay. I have seen many instances where airbags helped a great deal. I have seen just as many, however, where they made things much worse. And the insurance industry is interested in more profit at less cost, and nothing else. None of that matters all that much, as we have little choice.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
I have met people like kloker before in real life and on the internet. They are the anti-vaccine folks, the climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists and no amount of scientific facts or data will change their minds.
Actually, you could not be further off the mark, Mark. I believe failure to vaccinate should be a felony. I know that we are in real and inevitable trouble with climate change. And I do look hard at actual real data and science. And I know the difference between real scientific information and hype. But I believe most in what I've seen and experienced, having been at the scene of many hundreds of accidents over the years. Trust me, you would not want my dreams or experiences. I've probably been injured in more accidents than you will ever see, and severely in several of those. And I've been forced to stand by, unable to help, while people burned or died hopelessly trapped in smashed metal way too many times to count, in my more than 50 years and over 5 million miles of driving.

So, I would guess you've surely led a relatively sheltered life. And yes, I did just call you Shirley.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,660 Posts
And the insurance industry is interested in more profit at less cost, and nothing else.
If you believe this, then it actually undermines your stated position about modern cars.

The single largest claim liability for auto insurance companies is injuries or deaths. When they happen, costs of a claim skyrocket very quickly and legal costs pile on as well as everyone sues. As such.. insurance companies have collectively been one of the largest pressure points on car manufacturers to continue to improve passenger safety in vehicles... even at the expense of higher collision repair costs.

Now.... it is true that as cars become more modern and more safety systems and design structure are employed... the cost to repair is much much greater. So in that regard.. an older car is probably better then the modern ones... but that is a cost to repair.. NOT a safety point.

As for your skepticism about air bags as a safety system... there are really only two large risk factors in this regard: 1) defective design or manufacture, as we have seen with Takata. 2) Drivers and passengers NOT wearing a seatbelt, thinking the airbag will protect them. An airbag deployment in the absence of a seat belt being properly used IS dangerous. But if airbags worry you so much, you can always disable them.. but I certainly would not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Actually, you could not be further off the mark, Mark. I believe failure to vaccinate should be a felony. I know that we are in real and inevitable trouble with climate change. And I do look hard at actual real data and science. And I know the difference between real scientific information and hype. But I believe most in what I've seen and experienced, having been at the scene of many hundreds of accidents over the years. Trust me, you would not want my dreams or experiences. I've probably been injured in more accidents than you will ever see, and severely in several of those. And I've been forced to stand by, unable to help, while people burned or died hopelessly trapped in smashed metal way too many times to count, in my more than 50 years and over 5 million miles of driving.

So, I would guess you've surely led a relatively sheltered life. And yes, I did just call you Shirley.
Well, if you really believe scientific data and the opinions of experts, then why do you disagree with multiple organizations and many experts in the field of auto safety who all say that cars have gotten safer over the years?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
Let me put it this way: Remember the movie line where the astronaut says something about the multi-billion dollar, most advanced and engineered/designed spacecraft ever built, assembled from parts made by the lowest bidder? Well, IMO, while the engineering and design may be advanced and cutting edge on paper, it loses something in translation. It loses its desired effect going from paper to substance, because they spend the big bucks on the paper, and pennies on the execution. The sheet metal is so pitifully beer can thin it can be bent in by the wind. The rest of the parts going to the assembly line are made pathetically cheaply and not fit for the purpose. Ask assembly line workers. Look at the dwindling new car market and declining reliability numbers. Experience or witness the damage done in a 5mph, or 10mph, or 20mph, or any speed, crash. Observe the multitude of recalls, bulletins, lawsuits. See the carmakers exploiting their newly found profit zones in parts and service, all due to crap manufacturing. Heck, just in the Gen 5 CR-Vs, the engine defects alone are a multi-billion dollar fraud being foisted on the consumer without so much as a we're sorry or here, let us fix that for you. They deny there's a problem when it is obvious there is a huge one, then refuse to fix it? Uh, not me, guys. I ain't buyin' it.

And safety is the first casualty, as always. Cars are not better, and they are not safer in most cases, and the body count proves it. Sure, you might (or not) walk away from a relatively mild or even moderate accident, although your car won't. Past that you don't really have a better chance. All you really have is a false sense of security and an empty wallet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,922 Posts
Your car can receive damage beyond reasonable repair costs in an accident, and it does so to save your life.
Seat belts, airbags, and crumple zones do make vehicles safer, regardless of your personal bias.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Are you or are you not an emergency technician? Please clarify. Or a retired super-trucker who's seen it all I guess. Please let us know. If I run into a Honda Fit with my 1991 Ford F250 Lariat Supercab Long Wheel Base 4x4 460ci Auto. at speed, sorry for them in that poorly built death trap. Perspective helps here. Also, the entire Forum seems to have half way died since the "upgrade", so any posting, even reminding posters on a 18 month cold thread that they were not following guidelines (one of your posts earlier today kloker) is ok to keep the heartbeat alive. I have fond memories of a 1972 F150 1/2 ton 4x2 302ci 3spd manual - "3 on the tree". Wonderful set of wheels when new. Cruise all day at 70-75 in comfort. All day at 60-65 towing an 18' travel trailer (Terry). Those were the days.
 
21 - 40 of 107 Posts
Top