Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BaldEagl on February 10, 2015, 08:38:25 PM
-
The overall driver death rate for all 2011 and equivalent models during 2009-12 was 28 deaths per million registered vehicle years. Nine models had driver death rates of zero. The highest death rate was 149 for the Kia Rio, a four-door minicar.
My contention is that the car was too small to have four doors. It was an obvious attempt to lure people into saving money by claiming such a small vehicle could carry four passengers.
Just looking at it:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--XODfi1QE--/cegwerwgk2ahqzdpczbq.jpg)
you can tell they couldn't possibly mount a sufficient brake system to stop the car with four overweight women onboard.
And yes, I'm a real driver so I know.
:noid
-
you can tell they couldn't possibly mount a sufficient brake system to stop the car with four overweight women onboard.
And yes, I'm a real driver so I know.
But you are no overweight woman :old:
Or are you....? :bolt:
-
It would take for ever to accelerate to a dangerous speed with 4 overweight women on board. That can't be it. I think its the excessive amount of forward rake that is causing all the accidents. Either that or the inadequate fog lights. What ever the cause that thing is a death trap.
-
I think its the chevy look-alike punched/stretched honeycomb in the upper grille. That kind of grille is killing the chevy SS and this car is so much smaller its killing both the car AND the passengers.
-
The overall driver death rate for all 2011 and equivalent models during 2009-12 was 28 deaths per million registered vehicle years. Nine models had driver death rates of zero. The highest death rate was 149 for the Kia Rio, a four-door minicar.
It can't be that bad if only the driver is killed and the 3 passengers live.
-
Kia's suck period.
-
Kia = K.I.A.
Connection?
:noid
-
Whats your source? Does it include both multi-vehicle accidents and single only?
-
Small cars have higher death/injury rates regardless of what the safety tests say. Tests are done against static obstacles and do not take into account vehicle incompatibility. The smaller, lighter car typically takes more damage when hitting a larger, heavier car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility
-
But then u can claim that the bigger cars are the problem, if all had smaller cars it would not be a problem
-
The reverse would also be true.
-
The real problem is that you can't remove all the big cars from traffic. Trucks, buses, delivery vans, construction rigs, whatever... The are a lot of huge vehicles on the roads that need to be huge to serve their purpose.
-
Most people dont need a bigger car. Only a fraction of all suv/pickup owner need a car that big.
-
Who is the arbiter of "what people need"?
You miss the essential point. You simply CAN'T remove all the big cars. You can however remove all the small ones.
Or simply accept that if you drive a small car you're taking more of a risk.
-
Try to convince me that a suv is needed in a city
-
I don't have to "need" something to "want" it. And I don't have to justify it to anyone except my better half...
-
Also people want to protect their kids on the school run. A big, heavy SUV is excellent for that and can fit a whole lot of shopping bags as well. That KIA is nowhere near adequate for the job.
-
But why put others kid at risk by having a car bigger and heavier than necessary?
-
But why put others kid at risk by having a car bigger and heavier than necessary?
Because you want yours to be safe as priority.
-
Correct. Would you drive your kids to school on a motorcycle? Most parents wouldn't. Same thing with small/big cars.
And again, you simply CAN'T remove all the big vehicles. The most dangerous vehicles are not SUV's or personal transportation, but commercial vehicles which need to be large to do their job. You can't remove them from traffic and you have to face the possibility of encountering one in an accident. The only thing YOU can do is choose the vehicle you might end up having an accident in.
-
I find those head on tests funny. 40 MPH into a wall... :rofl
Want something that is big and heavy to take kids to school? It's an awesome vehicle, easily weighing twice of what ANY SUV could ever achieve. It's called a SCHOOL BUS. :D
-
Correct. Would you drive your kids to school on a motorcycle? Most parents wouldn't. Same thing with small/big cars.
And again, you simply CAN'T remove all the big vehicles. The most dangerous vehicles are not SUV's or personal transportation, but commercial vehicles which need to be large to do their job. You can't remove them from traffic and you have to face the possibility of encountering one in an accident. The only thing YOU can do is choose the vehicle you might end up having an accident in.
Disagree. the average car is smaller here and we have a lot heavier trucks than u have in the US and people are not getting killed in amy greater numbers. commercial vehicles are driven by bbetter drivers than the average suv-driver so they are prob less dangerous.
-
Disagree. the average car is smaller here and we have a lot heavier trucks than u have in the US and people are not getting killed in amy greater numbers. commercial vehicles are driven by bbetter drivers than the average suv-driver so they are prob less dangerous.
You guys drive Volvos. They're like armored trucks.
-
Maybe, but they are also safer to other cars.
-
Volvo is Chinese! :neener:
-
Also people want to protect their kids on the school run. A big, heavy SUV is excellent for that and can fit a whole lot of shopping bags as well. That KIA is nowhere near adequate for the job.
Weight can also work against a vehicle not properly designed to absorb the energy of the impact. The Hummer H3 comes to mind.
-
Entire US will belong to the Chinese if u are gonna pay back the money u owe them...
-
Weight can also work against a vehicle not properly designed to absorb the energy of the impact. The Hummer H3 comes to mind.
Thats very true, a heavy and stiffer car is more dangerous to the passengers. the car might be fine but the forces on those inside it are bigger.
-
Weight can also work against a vehicle not properly designed to absorb the energy of the impact. The Hummer H3 comes to mind.
Any vehicle not properly designed can be dangerous.
-
Any vehicle not properly designed can be dangerous.
Quite right.
-
Any vehicle not properly designed can be dangerous.
Whaaat? Pfft... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaYFLb8WMGM
-
Weight can also work against a vehicle not properly designed to absorb the energy of the impact. The Hummer H3 comes to mind.
The H3 is a horrible vehicle. It's an overweight SUV, on a compact pickup chassis.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXunnaaYtz0
-
German test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58zqJCtUjSI
-
Even more than weight, you want physical size. Bigger usually means heavier, hence the rule of thumb that heavier cars are safer, but the weight's really more of a side effect of size. Lightweight materials can be plenty strong. Point is, you'll come through a crash a whole lot better if you have 8 inches between you and the steering wheel or door, versus 2 or 3 inches..more room for the seatbelt to stop you, more room for the car to absorb the energy of impact, etc. Last summer my wife and I rented a new Ford Focus for a long drive--big mistake! Worst car I've driven in the past decade, probably! This supposedly "safe" car would've been a major liability in a collision. It's just too small. With the seat as far back as practical, my head was brushing the ceiling and my knees were wedged firmly against the lower dash. Even a moderate collision would've transmitted the force of impact directly into my body, causing serious injury. Horrible car for a lot of other reasons besides that, but the above was downright unacceptable.
There's a reason so many cars are built like that Focus (ie, built for short people). The standard model crash dummy used in official U.S. crash ratings is about 5 foot 8 tall. Car interiors nowdays tend to be more or less designed around that dummy, so as to maximize their crash ratings. If you're short, no problem (and admittedly, most people are short given that "most" includes virtually all women in addition to short men). Taller dummies exist but aren't really used for the official ratings so they're little more than a novelty. The government's gone pretty haywire with respect to crash ratings over the past decade and a half or so, so the automakers do everything they can to eke out good scores. As such it sucks being tall, and you have very limited selection in buying a car suited for taller drivers. Lot of tall drivers buy trucks, which are sub-optimal at best. Between my wife and I we've only owned Cadillacs, Lincolns, Buicks and a Mercury...and even the current models of those remaining makes, nowdays, feel like sardine cans. Even as recently as twenty years ago a "large" Lincoln of today would've been considered mid-size. Unfortunately people stay the same size (well folks are gradually getting taller on average) so the trend towards smaller exterior dimensions isn't good in the long run.
It doesn't help that in an effort to reduce costs the US automakers have largely moved to international car platforms that make no use of the larger US loading gauge. We get to drive sardine cans because Europe has small roads. Sheesh. SUV's aren't great either. They're plenty big, but also tend to wallow and tip relatively easily. Rollovers are bad. Traditional SUV's are also built on truck frames and hence not made to the same collision standards as ordinary cars. Car-based SUV's are nothing more than jacked-up station wagons with worse aerodynamics and a higher center of gravity for folks who're afraid of not being cool enough.
Long story short, modern cars are built as well as possible within the limits of their increasingly small sizes, but you can only do so much with a subcompact. As always, it's best to maintain good situation awareness and not get in a crash in the first place, or at least react to reduce the severity of an inevitable crash.
-
maybe kia drivers just drive like dicks?
-
maybe kia drivers just drive like dicks?
<Looks out in Garage and notes the Kia Sportage and Rio>
I beg to differ :)
The Sportage is the best SUV we've ever owned. Well over one hundred thousand miles on it a d nothing but tires, brakes and oil changes. I was a huge fan of Blazers but this thing puts any of them to shame. The Rio is the Mrs. Car and no she is not fat :). Also has been problem free. We went with the second Kia as the first has been such a great car for us.
-
So which does better? The modern Malibu or a '59 Bel Air?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U)
-
An old crappy design will of course be worse off than a new good design. Thats a given. Even cars from the 1990's are considered "death traps" today. We're back to:
Any vehicle not properly designed can be dangerous.
-
My cousin is deputy head safety designer for GM in Germany He told me that the Emphasis is on ( in the E.U) reducing the injuries to pedestrians in collisions because deaths and serious injury rates are very high here in Europe for them
The biggest factor is not size or weight but Energy absorption, if the energy of a collision can be distributed round the passenger compartment and not through it the occupant's have a better chance of survival
Good design achieves this allied with the use of modern materials
The European safety tests take all these factors into consideration when awarding a star rating
Renault Clio 5 Stars
Nissan Navaro 0 Stars
-
If u collide with a solid object u most likely will have bigger chance to survive in a kia rio than in a MBT. the tank will look just fine but the people inside will not.
-
<Looks out in Garage and notes the Kia Sportage and Rio>
I beg to differ :)
The Sportage is the best SUV we've ever owned. Well over one hundred thousand miles on it a d nothing but tires, brakes and oil changes. I was a huge fan of Blazers but this thing puts any of them to shame. The Rio is the Mrs. Car and no she is not fat :). Also has been problem free. We went with the second Kia as the first has been such a great car for us.
There are always exceptions to the rules sir! :)
-
Either that or the inadequate fog lights.
You might be on to something. If they extended the nose of the car, thereby moving the fog lights forward, the driver would be able to see further. It's an obvious engineering flaw resulting in poor fog light authority in obscured conditions, no doubt encouraged by the bean counters to hold down costs at the price of lives.
When will they stop?
:noid
-
If u collide with a solid object u most likely will have bigger chance to survive in a kia rio than in a MBT. the tank will look just fine but the people inside will not.
Most of the time you're going to collide with some other vehicle though. This is when bigger mass is in your favour. Of course if the opposition is a 60 ton truck it won't matter if you have an SUV or a Rio other than that the SUV has a much longer nose to absorb deformation in case of collision.
-
Try to convince me that a suv is needed in a city
No. None of your business why I drive what I want to drive. I don't owe you, or any entity an explanation, you are not due one as well. I don't care what you drive, you owe me nothing, it's none of my business, nor is my business any of yours.
I could convince you, as I do drive an SUV in a city, but then all I would be doing is justifying your need to think you or anyone else is owed that explanation.
-
Try to convince me that a suv is needed in a city
my friend just bought one. he's got 2 kids, his new wife has 2 and there's another on the way, total of seven. since buses are really expensive it's either an suv or a minivan. do they still sell minivans?
semp