20 Most Dangerous Vehicles

"Wickeddoll®" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.evilcabal.org:

#5 on the deathtrap list...the Toyota Yaris (an Echo by any other name...)

My answer to all of this, driving an old, tiny Jap-box as I do, is...don't crash into things. Don't stuff yourself into a bridge abutment or an Escalade, and it won't matter what kinda crash test numbers your ride gets.

I speak from the POV of a guy who grew up riding in cars with not even so much as seat belts. All this (very) recent safety obsession strikes me as, well, as...slightly obsessively nutty.

Ditto!

Me, as well.

Natalie

The first thing my parents pounded into my little teen-age head was accident avoidance. That's why I rarely drive a strange car. I don't know well enough what she'll do. Some people think of acceleration when I say that, but I also count handling, braking and 'feel' of a car as knowing what it will do when I have someone cut in front of me on the I-294 and just barely miss my fender, or slam on the brakes so fast that I have to hit mine HARD just to not hit him.

Charles of Schaumburg

"because its emergency handling is quite tail-happy and the driver could get out of control very quickly."

is why the Yaris gets a bad rating... the side air bags are a rememedy to side impacts.

Other than that, its not less safe than any other car.

"GoMavs"

But wouldn't that fishtailing effect make it more dangerous?

By the way, Tegger, I was aware the Yaris and Echo are essentially the same car, but my Echo's chassis looks a lot more durable. Not to mention larger.

Natalie

Hmm... I have been driving in record rainfalls here in Texas and have not really witnessed anything out of the norm. I fishtailed once when excelerating on a right turn from a full stop. I contribute that to pressing on the gas too fast and the record rainfalls had just begun, which kicks up the oils on the ground.

"GoMavs" ...

Well, I assumed the article about the Yaris meant fishtailing when they said "tail-happy" but is that something else?

Natalie

"Wickeddoll®" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.evilcabal.org:

Only if you manage to get it to fishtail. You have to drive pretty carelessly (or aggressively) to get a modern FWD car to fishtail, especially one that's as short as the Yaris.

They might be. I haven't looked at the actuual specs, but they look pretty much the same size to the naked eye.

Yeah, I have tried to actually get it to fishtail at 2 in the morning on a wet abandoned road... and had difficulty doing that..

just testing its ability and such

Don't you love magazine "writers" that repackage other people's information. This guy is incredibly lazy. He probably got the pictures from the manufacturers, so he didn't even have to leave the office to produce this hard hitting expose. Wouldn't it be nice if one of these articles at least questioned the test methodologies of NHTSA, IIHS, or Consumer Reports. The IIHS has a clear agenda -save insurance companies money. No one ever questions the IIHS's motives. No one ever questions whether the latest IIHS campaign to force us to buy Electronic Stability Control is actually going to improve auto safety. The IIHS scores any vehicle without ESC poorly. As a result the "Informed For Life" people rate any car without ESC poorly. As far as I can tell ESC is an even bigger fraud than ABS and five mile an hour bumpers - previous "safety" devices advocated by the IIHS. Just remember, the IIHS is working for Allstate, Nationwide, etc - NOT YOU.

In the past I have compared the IIHS vehicle ratings to the IIHS injury loss ratings - in many cases there is no direct correlation. Vehicles that the IIHS recommends as being safe, often have mediocre injury loss rating, and vehicles they rate as death traps often are average as well. To me this implies that the IIHS testing methods are suspect. However, the next time I want to crash head on into a bridge abutment, with 40% of the vehicle striking the barrier squarely, I'll be sure to check the IIHS offset crash test results. Unfortunately if I hit an some other angle, the result are meaningless.

For the actual Fit for Life Ratings see -

I had a friend that tested his car's abilities in this manner - it ended up on it's roof.

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote in news:46debe6c$1@kcnews01:

Not quite... It's to protect the insurance companies from the ravages of modern tort and government insurance regulation.

If tort and insurance regulations were still what they were prior to about

wow, he has one heck of explaining to do with his insurance.

Really stupid article - it seems that not having side airbags automatically gets you on the list, even if you have a 5-star side-impact rating, like the S2000 had.

"Tegger" ..

That little flea has FWD?! For what? The snow would swallow the whole thing!

Nope, my Echo's bigger. That much I know, having seen one beside mine.

Natalie

"C. E. White" ...

LOL I would be too chicken to try that.

Natalie

"C. E. White" ...

Thanks for the info, Ed!

Natalie

I wondered about that too...

Natalie