Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
with airbags?

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

ahorsefly@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> with airbags?

Some helpful details would include what type of driving you do, whom you
carry in the car, besides yourself, how many miles a year you put on the
car, and whether you're stupid enough not to wear a seat belt.

Jeff

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

Here is a thread you might find of interest, it is in a Hybrid group but,
physics is physics....the newer Civic is, according to the epa, hybrid or
not, one of, if not the cleanest running cars on the road right now as well
as one of the safest.

http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f...24/#post161264


<ahorsefly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5dcf3260-56c4-47e0-8c7d-7224a1bf9e2e@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> with airbags?

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

<ahorsefly@yahoo.com> wrote

>I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.

I also had a '91 Civic and was happy to "upgrade" to a '97 at least because
it had front airbags and ABS. My '04 Accord has front, side, and side
curtain bags, and ABS... I wish it had traction control, and will look
forward to one day having a car with that feature. So it does appear later
model cars are safer. I often hear Tom and Ray advising against an older car
for new drivers for that reason.

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

I always wear my seat belt. I would think that even if you wear it,
an airbag is going to provide a lot of added protection.

I drive under 12,000 miles/year. I drive to work an average of only
about once a week. When I do drive, to work or anywhere; my trip
usually is 30 minutes or longer each way.

On Feb 10, 3:25 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ahorse...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> > probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
> > Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> > A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> > other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> > think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> > with airbags?
>
> Some helpful details would include what type of driving you do, whom you
> carry in the car, besides yourself, how many miles a year you put on the
> car, and whether you're stupid enough not to wear a seat belt.
>
> Jeff

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

I too have a 1991 Civic that runs well. A year or so ago I
was thinking of buying a 1999 or more recent Civic. I priced
the auto insurance for a newer car. Despite the newer car's
higher value, the auto insurance was less by a fair amount.
Ten percent or so? Can't remember, but your current auto
insurer should be happy to quote you the figure. I asked
what was behind this. My insurer said all the safety
features of the newer car. I think the insurance companies
back this up with statistics.

As to whether it's worth the extra piece of mind, I reckon
that's up to each individual.

I do not speed. I am not out gallavantin' at 2 AM or
similar. Lately I do almost all [western] city driving
(ugh). So a high speed, and hence more dangerous, crash
might be said to be less likely. My Civic is very
maneuverable compared to SUVs and other large cars. Overall,
I feel safe driving it. The fuel mileage is great, too.

<ahorsefly@yahoo.com> wrote
>I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like
>I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a
> crash.
> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that
> mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection.
> On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does
> anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a
> bigger car
> with airbags?

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

ahorsefly@yahoo.com wrote in news:5dcf3260-56c4-47e0-8c7d-
7224a1bf9e2e@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well, but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.



Air bags may have no overall effect at all in safety. Offsetting behavior
is a confounding factor in computing their effectivelness.
See the book "True Odds", chapter 10, By James Walsh. Merritt Publishing,
1996.


> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection.



A larger car is undoubtedly safer than a smaller one. You are safer in a
large car with no seat belt than you are in a small one with a seat belt.



> On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> with airbags?


I don't think it's necessary. The probability of being involved in a fatal
or greviously injurious collision is remote.

Overall, it's about 1 in 60 if you drive 10,000 miles every year for your
whole life, but that's misleading, since the figure (from the NHTSA, 1993)
includes all drunks and 16 year-olds as well.

Personally, I've covered well over half a million miles since I started
driving. By the NHTSA's figures, I should be dead now.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

ahorsefly@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have a 1991 Honda Civic and it runs well,

great car.


> but I feel like I should
> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.

if that is truly a concern, wear a helmet. seriously. if transport
safety authorities were serious about safety, helmets and 5-point seat
belts would be mandatory.


> Another reason I might want to buy another car is that mine is small.
> A larger car would probably provide additional protection. On the
> other hand, if I keep my current car I'd save money. Does anyone
> think it's not necessarily worthy spending the money for a bigger car
> with airbags?

these are not airbag issues, but they are "should i buy a more modern
car or look at the big picture" issues:

1. paradoxically, the gas savings of more efficient modern engines are
offset by much heavier modern cars, so no benefit there.

2. heavier cars are harder to stop, given that tire sizes are the same
and thus available braking traction is the same.

3. modern cars consume more resources in their manufacture.

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:00:13 -0800, jim beam wrote:

>> but I feel like I should
>> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.

> if that is truly a concern, wear a helmet. seriously. if transport
> safety authorities were serious about safety, helmets and 5-point seat
> belts would be mandatory.

Will a helmet keep the steering column from piercing your chest?

Will a helmet keep your neck and ribs from snapping when that SUV hits you
directly on the driver's door at 60mph?

The answer to both questions is "NO". An airbag likely would, though.

I wouldn't drive, or let any member of my family drive, a vehicle without
airbags. Yeah, we all used to do it "back in the day", but things change.
There's just no good reason to not have them now. Not to mention the fact
that the roads are crowded with inattentive morons talking on cell phones
while driving 20+ MPH over the speed limit, and driving the biggest
vehicle they (can't) afford. An airbag is a necessity.

> 1. paradoxically, the gas savings of more efficient modern engines are
> offset by much heavier modern cars, so no benefit there.

We're talking safety here, not gas mileage. Would you rather be safe(r),
or save $0.23 on a trip across town?

> 2. heavier cars are harder to stop, given that tire sizes are the same
> and thus available braking traction is the same.

Tire sizes are generally quite a bit wider now-a-days than they used to
be, not to mention the existence of ABS. Today's cars can stop *MUCH*
better than a car of 15-20 years ago.

> 3. modern cars consume more resources in their manufacture.

That's beyond our control, and not a factor in anything.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

Dan C wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:00:13 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> but I feel like I should
>>> probably buy a newer car with airbags for more safety in a crash.
>
>> if that is truly a concern, wear a helmet. seriously. if transport
>> safety authorities were serious about safety, helmets and 5-point seat
>> belts would be mandatory.
>
> Will a helmet keep the steering column from piercing your chest?
>
> Will a helmet keep your neck and ribs from snapping when that SUV hits you
> directly on the driver's door at 60mph?
>
> The answer to both questions is "NO". An airbag likely would, though.
>
> I wouldn't drive, or let any member of my family drive, a vehicle without
> airbags. Yeah, we all used to do it "back in the day", but things change.
> There's just no good reason to not have them now. Not to mention the fact
> that the roads are crowded with inattentive morons talking on cell phones
> while driving 20+ MPH over the speed limit, and driving the biggest
> vehicle they (can't) afford. An airbag is a necessity.

untrue. there are no air bags in race cars. race cars can crash at
150+ and the driver walks away because [s]he's properly restrained.
5-point belts and helmets will save many more lives than airbags.



>
>> 1. paradoxically, the gas savings of more efficient modern engines are
>> offset by much heavier modern cars, so no benefit there.
>
> We're talking safety here, not gas mileage. Would you rather be safe(r),
> or save $0.23 on a trip across town?
>
>> 2. heavier cars are harder to stop, given that tire sizes are the same
>> and thus available braking traction is the same.
>
> Tire sizes are generally quite a bit wider now-a-days than they used to
> be,

that's a function of suspension, not desire to improve braking. you
need wider tires with macpherson strut to make up for its geometrical
shortcomings. the disadvantage of wider tires is more gas consumption
and more tendency to aquaplane in rain or slide on loose surfaces.



not to mention the existence of ABS. Today's cars can stop *MUCH*
> better than a car of 15-20 years ago.

untrue. they can help a driver stop under certain conditions where
inexperience or lack of skill may be a problem, but in many situations,
anti-lock braking distances can be longer than stock brakes. check your
owners manual.



>
>> 3. modern cars consume more resources in their manufacture.
>
> That's beyond our control,

if we make it, we control it. by definition.


> and not a factor in anything.

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:03:35 -0800, jim beam wrote:

>>> if that is truly a concern, wear a helmet. seriously. if transport
>>> safety authorities were serious about safety, helmets and 5-point seat
>>> belts would be mandatory.

>> Will a helmet keep the steering column from piercing your chest?
>>
>> Will a helmet keep your neck and ribs from snapping when that SUV hits you
>> directly on the driver's door at 60mph?
>>
>> The answer to both questions is "NO". An airbag likely would, though.
>>
>> I wouldn't drive, or let any member of my family drive, a vehicle without
>> airbags. Yeah, we all used to do it "back in the day", but things change.
>> There's just no good reason to not have them now. Not to mention the fact
>> that the roads are crowded with inattentive morons talking on cell phones
>> while driving 20+ MPH over the speed limit, and driving the biggest
>> vehicle they (can't) afford. An airbag is a necessity.

> untrue. there are no air bags in race cars. race cars can crash at
> 150+ and the driver walks away because [s]he's properly restrained.
> 5-point belts and helmets will save many more lives than airbags.

Jesus, you really are clueless. There's more to it than belts and
helmets. There are roll cages, kill switches, fuel cells, and more, in a
race car. Can you see the normal citizen putting on a full-face helmet
and attaching a 5-point harness every time they make a trip to the grocery
store? Get real. Try to speak in relation to reality for a change.

>>> 2. heavier cars are harder to stop, given that tire sizes are the same
>>> and thus available braking traction is the same.

>> Tire sizes are generally quite a bit wider now-a-days than they used to
>> be,

> that's a function of suspension, not desire to improve braking. you
> need wider tires with macpherson strut to make up for its geometrical
> shortcomings. the disadvantage of wider tires is more gas consumption
> and more tendency to aquaplane in rain or slide on loose surfaces.

Nice try at dodging the issue. Wider tires also assist braking due to
more surface area contacting the road. Simple physics, man.

> not to mention the existence of ABS. Today's cars can stop *MUCH*
> better than a car of 15-20 years ago.

> untrue. they can help a driver stop under certain conditions where
> inexperience or lack of skill may be a problem, but in many situations,
> anti-lock braking distances can be longer than stock brakes. check your
> owners manual.

Wrong again. You really don't understand much, do you?

>>> 3. modern cars consume more resources in their manufacture.

>> That's beyond our control,

> if we make it, we control it. by definition.

The point was that we as consumers, can't control that aspect. If you
want a new car, you buy a new car. You can't buy a "new" 1985 model just
because you want something that was made with "less resources".


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

In article <pan.2008.02.11.14.07.44.676908@moria.lan>,
Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:

> > not to mention the existence of ABS. Today's cars can stop *MUCH*
> > better than a car of 15-20 years ago.
>
> > untrue. they can help a driver stop under certain conditions where
> > inexperience or lack of skill may be a problem, but in many situations,
> > anti-lock braking distances can be longer than stock brakes. check your
> > owners manual.
>
> Wrong again. You really don't understand much, do you?

No, he's right about that. ABS helps the driver keep control. ABS does
NOT in and of itself automagically shorten braking distance under all
conditions.

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

Dan C wrote:
> I wouldn't drive, or let any member of my family drive, a vehicle without
> airbags. Yeah, we all used to do it "back in the day", but things change.
> There's just no good reason to not have them now. Not to mention the fact
> that the roads are crowded with inattentive morons talking on cell phones
> while driving 20+ MPH over the speed limit, and driving the biggest
> vehicle they (can't) afford. An airbag is a necessity.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on the airbag being a
necessity. I was properly restrained in my accident, and the damn
airbag did MORE damage to me than the accident did. Of course, I was
blowing my horn when the moron crossed the center line and hit me, but
nonetheless, the airbag sprained the hell out of my wrist and left me
with some scars that will probably never go away.

This is what the car looked like post accident, as seen in another post:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8891294@N04/2258118240/

I will try to find a better picture of what my arm looked like post
accident.

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

Nothing is perfect is all situations. In this case the airbag did
more harm than good, but would you agree that in many situations an
airbag can protect you from serious injury; and that you are better
off with it than without it?


> > vehicle they (can't) afford. An airbag is a necessity.
>
> I have to respectfully disagree with you on the airbag being a
> necessity. I was properly restrained in my accident, and the damn
> airbag did MORE damage to me than the accident did. Of course, I was
> blowing my horn when the moron crossed the center line and hit me, but
> nonetheless, the airbag sprained the hell out of my wrist and left me
> with some scars that will probably never go away.
>
> This is what the car looked like post accident, as seen in another post:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/8891294@N04/2258118240/
>
> I will try to find a better picture of what my arm looked like post
> accident.

Re: Newer cars a lot safer? Worth the expense?
 

ahorsefly@yahoo.com wrote:
> Nothing is perfect is all situations. In this case the airbag did
> more harm than good, but would you agree that in many situations an
> airbag can protect you from serious injury; and that you are better
> off with it than without it?

It is hard to judge based on the fact that I have only been involved in
two automobile accidents. My other accident happened in a vehicle that
didn't even have airbags yet I fared much better. The only thing
different about the other accident was the fact that I was traveling
faster and the car took a direct hit to the passenger side bumper by
someone turning left in front of me.

Of course, that seat belt/lap belt bruise hurt like a MOFO in both
accidents.