I think it depends a bit on the type of driver you are. SUV’s/Trucks have some advantages, so do well rated cars.
IMHO, people that aren’t very good at predicting what other drivers may do, thus avoiding accidents may be better off in a car that handles well. So that at the last minute, you may be able to get yourself out of trouble. If you are good at predicting these things, and are a very good defensive driver, it may not matter as much to have a more responsive vehicle.
On the other hand…
On the other hand, someone who’s good at driving is likely to enjoy it and go for a tight, responsive-handling car. Anyway, defensive driving doesn’t get rid of the problem of “blatantly stupid maneuvers” or “assault with a motor vehicle” - and you need to be able to pull the last-minute dodges off to avoid these accidents.
I’ve heared that harnesses should be combined with a roll-cage. The reasoning is that in case the car rolls over, the roof will cave in a little. If you’re wearing the standard 3 point seatbelt, you can move your body forward a little, thus avoiding the roof hitting your head.
I know what you are saying.
That’s why I included an ‘On the other hand…’
But.
I’ve been driving since ’75. I have mostly driven trucks, Jeeps, SUVs. I did have two sporty cars, but did not own either for very long. I have never been in an accident. Hence, I don’t really feel that I need a responsive vehicle to avoid one. I’m aware. Very, very aware of what is going on around me.
Hmm. I guess you’re a good, solid, skilled driver. I just get a couple close calls each year due to someone deliberately trying to cause an accident - e.g. a car deciding that I shouldn’t pass them on a highway and pulling hard into my lane, or a car deciding to drag-race me when I go for a pass on a two-lane road.
Thanks, I like to think so. You just have to try to predict.
I’ve also had some close calls.
A recent one.
Two lane icy highway in the mountains. 50mph. Cars starting to back up a bit (not bad, 1 mile from town)when an idiot 2 cars in front of me decided it was time to pass. On a blind corner. I saw it, saw the potential for a bad accident and immediately pulled back and slowed down.
End result. He was in the ditch, barely avoiding a head on. I’m sure he scared the shit out of the guy he almost hit. My Wife even complimented me for seeing it and slowing down in case the idiot ahead caused a bigger accident.
My Wife is a good driver too (never an accident). Always feels good to be complimented by a good driver.
Ya gotta pay attention.
Saying that a vehicle is body-on-frame vs. unit-body doesn’t necessarily mean that there’re no crumple zones or that unit-bodies are safer. The front ends aren’t spectacularly different. All of your crumpling should be between the bumper and the firewall/dash, which is your entire front end. Take a Town Car – its front end is huge, and there’s plenty of opportunity to absorb the crash energy as well as slow the deceleration. The frame doesn’t hinder it too much. Then a Focus has an almost non-existent front end, but the mass is smaller, and the crumple zones tend to take advantage of the tires (really, no kidding). Probably just as safe.
For the importance of crumple zones, consider deceleration in addition to energy abosorption:
At 40 miles per hour with 2ft of deformation, you’d experience an average of -27g’s. With 4ft, half of that. I think the government allows 60g’s. The problem with my calculation is that it’s quick and dirty – we’d really want to look at deceleration on an instant-by-instant basis, because there are peaks that are probably approaching the 60g’s.
For the occupants, I’d say deceleration time is a better measurement than energy absorption, although clearly the former is a function of the latter.
Small cars can be as safe as a large car. The new Volvo S40 has the same crash results as an S80 . This is achieved through the extensive use of multiple strength steels in different parts of the structure. In the front frame horns there are 4 different strength steels used so that deformation can be controlled. Also it is good to look at real world crash results, not just tests. The lab does not exactly duplicate real life.
Now as as been mentioned there are two parts to a safe car. Volvo refers to these as active safety and passive safety. Active keeps you out of the accident. Predictable handling, resonse to steering inputs, ABS, and dynamic stability controls are all active safety. Once the accident is inevitable passive safety is what saves yours ass. Seat belts, airbags, and body structure are all passive safety. All cars have belts and bags, the big difference comes in body structures. I recall watching 20/20 or some such program where they were showing crash tests of different vehicles. The then new Dodge Durango was shown. in a frontal crash the door frame and the a-pillar seperated and the crash dummys head wound up in the gap! :eek: IMHO this is a spectacular example of a poor body structure. Of course the talking head did not mention word one about this. :wally
Anyway I have somemore to say on this subject, but the wife of Rick is calling. (It’s a real bitch when life gets in the way of doping)
Meaning that if you can get accident statistics, you’re much better off than the government and insurance industry crash tests. They only do a subset of real word occurances.
I’ll proudly point out that Rick works for Volvo. My company is taking advantage of our relationship, and building Volvo carry-overs here in the USA: Like this and this.
“Year of the Car.” Thanks, Rick.
I remember reading something on death rates by vehicle type. Large luxury sedans scored first, followed by midsize cars, then SUV’s then compacts, etc. Oddly, as far as fatality rates go, the big SUV’s aren’t really much safer than a compact sedan.
This is very likely because even though they may be safer in certain rare types of accidents (which the SUV industry has used to sell scads of SUV’s to soccer moms, who then think their little darlings are thus safer. Not so, not by a long shot.)- they get in a lot more crashes overall.
Note that here, we aren’t comparing “crash test” or “star rating”. It compared how likely you were to die by type of vehicle.
So a large luxury sedan like Mercedes, Volvo, etc are your safest cars. SUV’s are not so safe at all.
I would agree that the large luxury sedans are safe. However, if you drive reasonably, and wear your seatbelt, the SUV is not the death trap that anti-SUV folks make them out to be. 70% of the rollover fatalities in SUV’s occur when an occupant did not wear their seat-belt.
I didn’t say they were a “death trap”; the stats show them as slightly safer than a normal compact car. This means they are neither particularly safe nor unsafe. In other words- don’t buy an SUV for safety reasons, but there is no reason to scrn them as 'death traps". Now, scorning them for being gas-guzzlers is another thing entirely. 
Yes, I do work for Volvo, I would have mentioned it in my last post, but I was in a hurry.
I hope our technology works to help sell a jillion of the 500’s (and siblings) that way we both might get a raise! 
The street is not just one way. This safety item came from Gothenburg via Dearborn.
Now back to the subject at hand.
chaparralv8 I have to disagree with your suggestions. Your suggestion that putting a cage in a car automaticaly makes it safe really doesn’t hold water. This arguement reminds me of when airbags first came out. People would tell me that they drove a safe car because it had an airbag. No that does not compute. If you have a safe car and you add an airbag to it, it becomes safer. If you have a shitbox and you add an airbag, you wind up with a shitbox with an airbag. Real world example. About 15 years ago, our engineers noticed that people were surviving accidents that previously were fatal. This is a good thing, the bad part was that in these previously fatal accidents, the front suspension of the car was being torn off and would intrude into the driver’s and passenger’s footwells, causing severe foot and lower leg injuries. So starting in 1992 they redesigned the front wheel wells so that the rear part of them was angled outward. In addition the bottom of the wheel well was reinforced with a heavy steel plate to prevent intrusion. Now in a frontal accident if the suspension is carried away it will be deflected outward, rather than having it become tangled in your feet. So if you are in an accident, where the front suspension will be torn off, would you rather be in my car with the reinforced wheel well, or some shitbox that does not have this feature, but has a roll cage? It should be noted that the roll cage will not protect your feet.
furthermore, a cage may actaully increase your likelyhood of injury if you are not wearing a helmet. Roll cage tubes are much harder than the normal interior items in a car. There is limited space inside a car, placing a roll cage inside the part where your head will be moving around represents a real danger. Also placing a full cage in a 5 passenger car either makes it almost impossible to use the rear seat, or makes the rear seat very unsafe for the same reasons as listed above. Anyway, who needs a roll cage, with a roof like this one? Or this one
Five point belts also have some serious issues in a street car. First off, if the crotch belt is not fastened, the lap belt will tend to ride up in an accident. This causes the crash forces to be absorbed by your internal orgrans, not your pelvis as it should be. Severe internal injuries can result. Good luck in getting your wife /girlfriend to fasten the crotch strap especially if she is wearing a dress.
“Here dear let me help you with that”
:eek:
::: SLAP!:::
Next on the list is just what are you going to mount the shoulder harness to? Unless you install a roll bar/ cage (quite possibly turning your 4 seat car into a 2 seater) you will need a sky hook. In other words you will have nothing to mount to. You cannot mount them to the floor (Cite: Simpson safety’s instructions for mounting of racing harness) Lastly, 5 point belts are not legal for road use here in the good ole USA. Probably because there is no control on who or how said belts are mounted.
About some of the suggestions for safest car that have been mentioned in this thread
Town Car / Crown Vic. I had a TC as a rental earlier this year. No offense to Balthisar but this thing handled like the Queen Mary with a pair of 6 foot oars. For sure it is a heavy battle cruiser. Might do OK in an accident, but could not avoid one to save its sole. Crown vic? Don’t get rear ended
Hummers? H1 are a incredible truck, but not designed for safety. H2 are just like any other large SUV
Thanks for the info rick you seem to be one of the few who knows what he is talking about. 
No 'blem. Any other questions?
None taken – it’s not a sport car, and it’s usually driven by guys that still wear non-baseball-style hats. Given that, it sure is a comfortable ride, and it’s got decent power when needed. But… if it gets into an accident, I trust it well enough.
For everyone – the fuel tank problem is limited to the police version, due to some of the packaging requirements. Fuel tank is the same. It just so happens that until somewhat recently, I used to be heavily involved in the manufacture of this very fuel tank.