Chevy's Blazer named deadliest vehicle

Do you agree with GM spokesman Alan Adler?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7193960 /

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jose wrote:

Some vehicle is going to be the deadliest. Still probably a big improvement over the cars of just 15 years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another Tom wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jose wrote:

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
--






The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

Lexus
the
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MDT Tech wrote:

The complete results are available at http://www.iihs.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdf
The new redesigned 4Runner is very "safe." Before the redesign it was one of the deadlier vehicles in the US. Not as bad as the 2 Door Blazer, but much worse than 4 door Blazers or Explorers. I give Toyota credit for improving the safety 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:47:43 -0500, "C. E. White"
Having owned one, I find that completely believable. They're great for camping too. :)
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:44:19 GMT, MDT Tech

WERE the safest, you ignorant twit. Did you even finish high school?

No, actually, you don't.
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary L. Burnore wrote:

Oh, another net nanny, I'm switching to top posting!
--






The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:37:53 GMT, MDT Tech

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eric Dreher 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.
--






The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 03:02:57 GMT, MDT Tech

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 03:02:57 GMT, MDT Tech

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.
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 02:23:25 -0500, Gary L. Burnore

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.
--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

I own everything except the hoist and the air squisher. I do have my own air squisher, but its staying in my garage! ;D
--




The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary L. Burnore wrote:

Not so, I charged for the job, not the time.
--






The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:56:13 GMT, MDT Tech

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.
--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

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?
--






The Second Amendment Is Americas "Original" Homeland Security!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article IdL%d.732$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, MDT Tech at liberals_are@lying_sax_shit.com wrote on 3/21/05 6:16 PM:

So your CV joint install is that much better, to compensate for the "much less" that the independant shop charges?
I love my mechanic. He lets me out of there cheap when it was easy for him, does good clean work, and stands behind it. I could never even afford to own a Volvo or Toyota if I had to pay dealership prices on fixit stuff! In fact the only time I ever got royally reamed was at a dealership (Nissan in this case)...
-jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:16:08 GMT, MDT Tech

Yadda yadda. Lots of us have years of training and much $$$ invested in our career. That doesn't make our time worth $200 an hour. Mechanic services are simply not that valuable. It's not like it's brain surgery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.