Do you agree with GM spokesman Alan Adler?
formatting link
Chevy's Blazer named deadliest vehicle
Mar 15, 2005
Last reply: 21 years ago
40 Replies
Some vehicle is going to be the deadliest. Still probably a big improvement over the cars of just 15 years ago.
Blazers seem to be popular with high school kids. Obviously a vehicle with a large percentage of inexperienced drivers is gonna have a higher accident rate than one that tends to be owned by more mature drivers. SUVs aren't sports cars. Some people find this out the hard way.
There was several Fords in there too, while several Toyotas and a Lexus SUV was the safest. I think it was the 4Runner and RAV4, along with the Lexus RX330
I think driver intelligence and common sense have a lot to do with it, not just vehicle design. I would be willing to bet that drivers of Toyotas on the average score higher on almost any measure of intelligence than your typical Blazer, Firebird or Kia driver. Combine a well-designed car and an intelligent, responsible, alert driver and these results are not surprising at all.
"It is impossible looking at these statistics to know what role driver behavior, such as drunk driving and driving without a safety belt, played in these deaths. We know from decades of work that whether a driver dies in a crash has more to do with behavior than with the vehicle."
MDT Tech® wrote:
The complete results are available at
formatting link
new redesigned 4Runner is very "safe." Before theredesign it was one of the deadlier vehicles in the US. Notas bad as the 2 Door Blazer, but much worse than 4 doorBlazers or Explorers. I give Toyota credit for improving thesafety of their vehicles. Some comparisons I found interesting:
The current 4Runner is the has the best record of any mid sized 4 Door SUV. It has a 12 Rating. A current design 4 Door Explorer is rated 56.
Ford Focus and Toyota had virtually the same driver death rate (Corolla 93, Focus 94)
Toyota Avalons and Camrys had very good ratings (57 and 45), but not even close to the rating for a Passat (16). A Ford Crown Vic was in between an Avalon and a Camry (53) despite the very old design.
A RAV4 had an unbelievably good rating (18). The next closest in this class was a Forester (70).
A Tundra Access Cab (62) was much better than the old F150 Supercab (105) but not as good as an F250 subercab (58).
The average for all vehicles was 87.
The biggest problem with this rating is that it doesn't allow for who actually buys the vehicles or how many miles they are driven. Cheaper vehicles often attract younger less experienced drivers and therefore show up worse in this sort of rating. Vehicles that are on average aren't driven as much, will show up better. Many vehicles aren't even listed because there were not enough incidents to be statically significant. For instance the Toyota Sequoia is not listed.
Ed
WERE the safest, you ignorant twit. Did you even finish high school?
No, actually, you don't.
Having owned one, I find that completely believable. They're great for camping too. :)
Oh, another net nanny, I'm switching to top posting!
Poor li'l gary's got the charisma, machismo, and intellect of the boy at the back of the class yelling, "Teacher...teacher...Rick kicked me."
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.
I worked as a vehicle design engineer from before we first designed crumple zones until the mid eighties. Vehicles today are even much better at protecting properly belted passengers. ALL vehicles sold in the US are "safe" in that they must and will meet the government safety requirement or they can't be sold in the US, period. The insurance companies have a different agenda, trying to show a "difference" in vehicles to justify higher insurance rates. Car and light trucks are built to a "reasonable" standard that will protect properly belted passengers in the most likely type of accident. That being a vehicle striking something with the front of the vehicle. Over
93% of all accident fall into that type of accident. NO vehicle can be built to withstand all the conceivable types of accidents and still be affordable to buy and operate, except to the richest of the rich. One who works where he could sustain an eye injury is "reasonably" protected by safety glasses. To expect the classes to stop a bullet is unreasonable and impractical when the odds are over 93% that he MAY get struck by a chip from a lathe but not likely to be shot in the face. The government standards for crash worthiness are, 35 MPH frontal, and 30 MPH from the rear. That is by far the most common type of accident. Records show that less than 8% of ALL the 15 to 16 million new vehicles sold in the US every year, will EVER be involved in a accident sufficient to deploy the SRS IN THEIR LIFETIME. SRS can be deployed at speeds as low as 10 PH in a full frontal collision. Insurance company test both a front and rear collisions at 40 MPH. Furthermore their test are not valid test, in that they only crash ONE vehicle. To meet the federal government standards we needed to show repeated test that produced the same results. The fact is the most likely accident you will ever have is at a collision speed below 30. For insurance companies to suggest a particular small vehicle, for instance, is "better" than another in an offset collision with a fixed barrier has nothing to do with how that vehicle well perform in a full frontal collision with the rear of another vehicle. It is disingenuous to give the driving public the impression that it is. One can not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle with more mass, and more room to build in better crumple zones, the exponentially better the chance properly belted passenger have of surviving ANY collision. If two five star rated vehicles collide the passengers is the larger of the two will always be better off. Insurance companies know that as well, that is why larger vehicle have better insurance rates than smaller vehicles and RWD vehicles have lower rates that FWD vehicles. If safety in ANY type of accident is your primary reason for buying a vehicle buy the largest heaviest vehicle you can afford to buy and operate, WBMAmike hunt
MDT Tech® wrote:
LOL, he follows everyone of my post to just bash. He's been sore ever since he found out I do CV boots on both axles in about 20 minutes.
I remember that. Too funny.
It's a shame when people can't stomach someone else having a skill.
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.
Anyone can do CV boots on both axles in less than a half hour. It's just that you charge for far more than that. You're a thief for your dealer and you're proud of it.
Now now! "Thief" is a bit strong. If you agree on a price ahead of time, it's not theft, just 'slightly deceptive' pricing.
I kinda wish I could find a mechanic that does it like I do - I look at the job and go "If everything goes wrong, it'll take two hours and cost $XX at the outside. If it goes quick and easy I'll be out of here in an hour, and you'll get a pleasant surprise when the bill is lower."
They use "Book Labor" almost as featherbedding. Everyone knows that "the book price" doesn't count air tools, lifts, or other speed tricks. Then again, the mechanic has to buy most of those special tools so it /partly/ makes up for it, but not all by a long shot.
-->--
Not so, I charged for the job, not the time.
I own everything except the hoist and the air squisher. I do have my own air squisher, but its staying in my garage! ;D
Right - but the 'charge for the job' is still based on 'Book Labor' for that job times the 'Shop Hourly Labor Rate'. Gary does have a point, no matter how undiplomatically stated.
The book labor time is artificially increased by the book publisher making asinine assumptions like you've never done it before, you're using no power tools or lift to do the job, etc., so the shop labor rate is effectively inflated.
The end effect is the same overall bill, but I'd rather not pay for a job that "Takes three hours" and get the car back with the work completed in an hour. I don't begrudge you the pay, but I rate the practice in the "Don't pee on my head and then tell me it's raining" category of a very poorly disguised fib. (Wink, Wink! Nudge, Nudge!) Both parties know it's a lie.
Remember, I work by the hour, too. And a certain task like changing out a fixture takes as long as it takes. The difference is, I don't complete the work in an hour and bill you for three - you know the real hourly rate up front. (Which is going to have to go up again if gasoline keeps going through the roof...) They used to really play fast and loose with car prices till the Feds forced the Munroney Sticker through. One of these days they need to reform that 'book labor' system the same way.
-->--
Not really, In my trade, if you are more effeceint, you make more money. If you want to punish someone who is fast, then expect him to slow down. What incentive would a tech have to work faster if your going to pay him less for doing it? I'm commissioned only, not hourly. We have been working on only Toyotas for years and I have every job I do fine tuned, know exactly what tools to take out, and which bolts I do and dont need to remove. I also have about $45,000 invested in my tools just at work, plus endless hours of training and continued updating. Thats doesnt even include my state traing for emission certification. He agreed to a price (we dont mention labor times, just labor cost) and we bid the entire job, the customer agrees, signs the dotted line, and leave his car. We do stand behind all our work for 1 year and unlimited miles. He can take it to an indepedent shop, I'm sure those guys will work for much less. But you do get what you paid for.
But we dont have travel time, minimum charges and we are not paid by the hour, only the job. So lets assume it took me longer then flat rate, you wouldnt complain if we charged you extra then?
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required