[racoon]

...sorry for them in that poorly built death trap.

So if you feel that way about small vehicles...explain again why you bought a CR-V?

 

[Mark001]

And I do look hard at actual real data and science. 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.

If you believe in real data and real science, then you would recognize that automobile safety has improved over the years. Sure, if an accident is severe enough even a new car with modern safety features will not save your life. But on average, you are much more likely to survive a severe accident in a 2019 car than in a 1960 car (of comparable type, size, weight, etc.). To argue otherwise is ignoring real scientific data.

 

[Tigris99]

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.

Man I wouldn't bet on that, we are talking Ford's here. 91 at that. Now you go back further than ya their a tank.

But it's like saying someone expects a golf cart to protect someone from an Abrams Tank. I've seen what a late 90s Camry did to a Honda fit. Hit the fit in the left rear corner and it crumpled like a soda can in a car crusher. The entire back end. Camry was a tierod shy of driving away (outer tierod broke on right wheel).

But a fit is more of an urban commuter where taking on larger vehicles especially at car smashing speeds is more rare.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[bearcrkrd]

Yes I drive a CRV. 59,000 miles. Forester (80,000 miles) before that, and Civic (93,000 miles) before that. Forester and Civic still in the extended family. I think I can count the number of accidents I saw in those 239,000 miles on both hands and maybe have fingers left over. Ummm......I guess my sarcasm wasn't clear?

 

[kloker]

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.

You can shout that from the rooftops - it does not make it so. The facts say otherwise. Those things do contribute, but cheap crap materials and construction cancel them out, and lack of driver skills and attention spans on top of all that actually make it more dangerous out there than it has ever been. Ever.

 

[kloker]

Yes I drive a CRV. 59,000 miles. Forester (80,000 miles) before that, and Civic (93,000 miles) before that. Forester and Civic still in the extended family. I think I can count the number of accidents I saw in those 239,000 miles on both hands and maybe have fingers left over. Ummm......I guess my sarcasm wasn't clear?

You obviously must live on the edge of nowhere, not in the middle, where apparently there are a lot of lost people. There are more accidents than that at the major intersection 6 blocks from my house in a week. And 239k miles? I drove that every 2 years before I retired. In heavy traffic. In the middle of everywhere. At night, when all the drunks, crazies, and werewolves are out on the road. While wearing tennis shoes, and making sure the door was locked.

 

[racoon]

The facts say otherwise.

Do you have a reference for that statement, or is it just your opinion?

 

[Mike728]

Do you have a reference for that statement, or is it just your opinion?

His opinions are facts, according to him.

It's useless to argue with simplex minded individuals.

 

[Tigris99]

You can shout that from the rooftops - it does not make it so. The facts say otherwise. Those things do contribute, but cheap crap materials and construction cancel them out, and lack of driver skills and attention spans on top of all that actually make it more dangerous out there than it has ever been. Ever.

The discussion has to do with vehicle safety, not the morons driving them.

And it is fact, newer cars are safer than older ones. But can compare fender benders of old to distracted drivers hitting each other at speed..

Chances of survival now versus something similar 20 or 40 years ago are higher now in an accident. Problem is that is cancelled out by the increased number of accidents.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[kloker]

Do you have a reference for that statement, or is it just your opinion?

As I have already said several times, my statements are facts, not opinions, based on my own and my driver friends' years of personal experiences involving literally an uncountable number of accidents. For me that includes barely surviving three, and being at least slightly injured or worse in thirty other accidents and racing injuries. 26 of those were in cars or on motorcycles, the others in big trucks. All the rest involved decades of accident scenes, assisting wherever possible.

So you guys can sit there and quote your numbers off the internet all you like. 99% of you have led such sheltered lives you can't do more than armchair quarterback.

I don't need a reference. I am one. I have the x-rays, the scars, and the nightmare memories to prove it. And that doesn't even include cutting horses, which have power steering and brakes but no airbags or seat belts.

 

[kloker]

His opinions are facts, according to him.

It's useless to argue with simplex minded individuals.

That's a truism, and you are proof of it.

 

[kloker]

The discussion has to do with vehicle safety, not the morons driving them.

And it is fact, newer cars are safer than older ones. But can compare fender benders of old to distracted drivers hitting each other at speed..

Chances of survival now versus something similar 20 or 40 years ago are higher now in an accident. Problem is that is cancelled out by the increased number of accidents.

Tigris - You are absolutely correct. That's the nutshell version of exactly what I said. Yes, there have been some engineering improvements, but not near enough to cause a positive result due to all the other negative factors involved. Shoot, the five mph safety bumpers that were mandated for a while are now plastic and cost over $2,000 to replace when damaged. That is not an improvement. The highly touted three-point safety belt systems of today have $2 buckles that jam instantly in a crash and kill people daily by trapping them in. Steering wheel airbags explode and kill or crush faces. Front end crush zones are only any good in head on crashes, but most crashes are not head on. The so-called reinforced side rail crash protection isn't - it's no use at all, as are roof structures. That's just the short list. And you're right - there's no need to even mention the morons.

 

[mrtn]

As I have already said several times, my statements are facts, not opinions, based on my own and my driver friends' years of personal experiences involving literally an uncountable number of accidents.

...

I don't need a reference. I am one. I have the x-rays, the scars, and the nightmare memories to prove it. And that doesn't even include cutting horses, which have power steering and brakes but no airbags or seat belts.

It's not how the Cosmos works. Your position is not "facts" and "truth" while your opponents' ones are "opinions". You are merely presenting your anecdotal evidence and pass it as facts whilst appealing to your own authority.

 

[kloker]

It's not how the Cosmos works. Your position is not "facts" and "truth" while your opponents' ones are "opinions". You are merely presenting your anecdotal evidence and pass it as facts whilst appealing to your own authority.

I am not forcing my views on anyone, just sharing what I absolutely know to be true. I don't think quoting statistics compares. I am also not aware anyone has successfully defined how the cosmos works, so I don't believe you are qualified to make that statement. Since I am simply relating actual real world experiences, your Dunning Kruger effect implication is baseless. And my argument does not constitute a power struggle, it's just a matter of comparing real world to paper. You should really reconsider using such big words when they involve applying such complex concepts. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

 

[mnestrud]

Fatality rates have decreased, as have total crashes. Sure if there's a slight increase in the past 2 years but this is variability now and unknown if it's a trend yet.

The safe conclusion is that you are less likely to die or be in an accident today than previous generations.

Fatality Facts 2023: Yearly snapshot

A yearly snapshot of fatality statistics compiled by IIHS from 2023 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data.

www.iihs.org

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[mrtn]

I am also not aware anyone has successfully defined how the cosmos works, so I don't believe you are qualified to make that statement.

*

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

You missed the "*" part in my previous post.

 

[rocky]

Time out people. Name calling is not acceptable. Offending posts edited.

 

[mrtn]

Rocky, your redaction leaves an impression I was calling names.

 

[Mike728]

Fatality rates have decreased, as have total crashes. Sure if there's a slight increase in the past 2 years but this is variability now and unknown if it's a trend yet.

The safe conclusion is that you are less likely to die or be in an accident today than previous generations.

Fatality Facts 2023: Yearly snapshot

A yearly snapshot of fatality statistics compiled by IIHS from 2023 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data.

www.iihs.org

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Oh, I'm sure these facts are biased in some way. Just wait for it... ?

 

[williamsji]

Unbelievable this is still a debate here.

Facts DO matter.. at least we all agree on that, even though we apparently do not agree as to what they mean.

From reliable sources, not some internet troll blog or opinion pieces, we can quickly see the following.

FACT:

Although the U.S. population has been growing steadily since 1975, the rate of crash deaths per 100,000 population in 2017 is about half of what it was four decades ago. In 2017, the overall per capita death rate decreased 3 percent compared with 2016.

Source: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

FACT:

By all measures, motor-vehicle safety has vastly improved since the early 1900s. Driver attitudes and behaviors have changed substantially, as has vehicle safety technology, which makes car travel safer.

The population motor-vehicle death rate reached its peak in 1937 with 30.8 deaths per 100,000 population. The current rate is 12.4 per 100,000, representing a 60% improvement.

source: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

The second fact quoted is particularly relevant to this discussion... since some feel vehicle safety is improved, but drivers have regressed and gone the other direction. The national safety council disagrees, as you can see.. noting improvements in both... even while facing ever increasing numbers of drivers on the roads.