safest car for driving expressways

In article .com>,
"ap" > says:

>Here in atlanta, the roads are pretty wild with cars and many trucks
>weaving in and out, not to mention following too closely.

A "safe car" for lame drivers (these are the only ones who complain
about all the "scary cars" out there) like yourself? A taxicab.

-Kenny

--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898

"Max" > wrote in message
...

> There is no substitute for a good driver. That said, if you are worried
> about passive crash safety, I'd suggest the usual Saab or Volvo.
>
> However, you really don't want to drive a Volvo.

Volvo V70 T5, costs about $34k new; I dunno how cars depreciate in the US
but here in the UK a 6 month old one would have depreciated easily to fall
into your price range. And it's a Volvo I *would* drive...

"Max" > wrote in message
...

> There is no substitute for a good driver. That said, if you are worried
> about passive crash safety, I'd suggest the usual Saab or Volvo.
>
> However, you really don't want to drive a Volvo.

Volvo V70 T5, costs about $34k new; I dunno how cars depreciate in the US
but here in the UK a 6 month old one would have depreciated easily to fall
into your price range. And it's a Volvo I *would* drive...

ap wrote:
> Hello,
> I need some of your opinion. What sedans/wagons
> are the safest to be in when driving on the
> expressways?
>
> Here in atlanta, the roads are pretty wild with
> cars and many trucks weaving in and out, not to
> mention following too closely.
>
> I have a 01'Honda accord which was rear-ended
> recently, and am looking into other cars that would
> be safer in expressways (hopefully not too expensive,
> ie. under $30K if it's reasonable)
>
> Appreciate the inputs!!! Thanks



A safe car for you would be the Ford Freestyle. It's not an SUV but
rather a tall car that is very functional. Ford cars have been getting
the 5 star crash safety rating for many years running now. Because it
is a tall car you will be able to see over the other cars and SUVs a
lot better in order to avoid a collision. And it is a car because it's
of unitbody construction on a car type platform rather than a turcks
body on frame design. Unitbody is better in a collision because the
whole car is made strong to be held together and not just the
frame/chassis underneath it holding it all together. It's got a V6
which is quite fuel efficient as it is a newer Dual Over head Cam
Design. DOHC.

Oh and Atlanta is wonderful. If you want something more fuel efficient
and you like the SUV look than the new Ford Escape Hybrid is a good
choice. It gets 36 mpg City and 31 mpg highway. It would fair better
in a crash with other SUVs because it's bumpers will line up better
with another SUVs bumpers. Only if you get hit from the side there is
a problem. All SUVs are more prone to rollover because of their higher
center of gravity. The new Freestyle should fair pretty good bumper
hight-wise.

I for one am not overly concerned with the safety factor. I'm more for
the fun factor. I want the new Mustang GT. With it's 5 speed manual
RWD V-8 I can drive coast to coast in 2 days with a radar detector, CB
Radio and Scanner. But than again I also want to own a mini-helicopter
some day. With that I don't have to worry about the state troopers and
I can fly overhead all the neat rock formations in the Southwest. I
can live isolated in a sparsely populated state like Montana-Wyoming
and not be all that disconnected from the rest of the country.

The Volvo XC90 is your best bet hands down. Buy one used if you can,
new would mean shelling out $35,500 - $46,000 It's one of those cars
that uses a computer stability control so that it will not spin out of
control and/or roll over. If the computer senses a slip it applies the
rear and front brakes individual as needed in fractions of a second to
prevent loss of control. It's a car that can not spin/slide. Sure it
all comes with a hefty price tag, but than again, how much do you value
your own personal safety?

ap wrote:
> Hello,
> I need some of your opinion. What sedans/wagons
> are the safest to be in when driving on the
> expressways?
>
> Here in atlanta, the roads are pretty wild with
> cars and many trucks weaving in and out, not to
> mention following too closely.
>
> I have a 01'Honda accord which was rear-ended
> recently, and am looking into other cars that would
> be safer in expressways (hopefully not too expensive,
> ie. under $30K if it's reasonable)
>
> Appreciate the inputs!!! Thanks



A safe car for you would be the Ford Freestyle. It's not an SUV but
rather a tall car that is very functional. Ford cars have been getting
the 5 star crash safety rating for many years running now. Because it
is a tall car you will be able to see over the other cars and SUVs a
lot better in order to avoid a collision. And it is a car because it's
of unitbody construction on a car type platform rather than a turcks
body on frame design. Unitbody is better in a collision because the
whole car is made strong to be held together and not just the
frame/chassis underneath it holding it all together. It's got a V6
which is quite fuel efficient as it is a newer Dual Over head Cam
Design. DOHC.

Oh and Atlanta is wonderful. If you want something more fuel efficient
and you like the SUV look than the new Ford Escape Hybrid is a good
choice. It gets 36 mpg City and 31 mpg highway. It would fair better
in a crash with other SUVs because it's bumpers will line up better
with another SUVs bumpers. Only if you get hit from the side there is
a problem. All SUVs are more prone to rollover because of their higher
center of gravity. The new Freestyle should fair pretty good bumper
hight-wise.

I for one am not overly concerned with the safety factor. I'm more for
the fun factor. I want the new Mustang GT. With it's 5 speed manual
RWD V-8 I can drive coast to coast in 2 days with a radar detector, CB
Radio and Scanner. But than again I also want to own a mini-helicopter
some day. With that I don't have to worry about the state troopers and
I can fly overhead all the neat rock formations in the Southwest. I
can live isolated in a sparsely populated state like Montana-Wyoming
and not be all that disconnected from the rest of the country.

The Volvo XC90 is your best bet hands down. Buy one used if you can,
new would mean shelling out $35,500 - $46,000 It's one of those cars
that uses a computer stability control so that it will not spin out of
control and/or roll over. If the computer senses a slip it applies the
rear and front brakes individual as needed in fractions of a second to
prevent loss of control. It's a car that can not spin/slide. Sure it
all comes with a hefty price tag, but than again, how much do you value
your own personal safety?

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 wrote:

> Ford cars have been getting the 5 star crash safety rating for many
> years running now.

That would be nice if the rating system were based on crash simulations
representative of the most common types of injurious crashes instead
of on the least-common types of crashes.

> And it is a car because it's of unitbody construction on a car type
> platform rather than a turcks body on frame design.

There have been many, many body-on-frame passenger cars on the market.
Ford still makes 'em. So does GM, but they don't sell them in the North
American market 'cause SUVs are more profitable and the North American
regulatory system makes it much easier to sell SUVs than large passenger
cars.

> Unitbody is better in a collision because the whole car is made strong
> to be held together and not just the frame/chassis underneath it holding
> it all together.

This bit of pseudoscientific horse**** has been almost as prevalent over
the years as "Front-wheel-drive cars are more fuel-efficient than
rear-wheel-drive cars".

> It's got a V6 which is quite fuel efficient as it is a newer Dual Over
> head Cam Design. DOHC.

One does not follow from the other, necessarily.

> I for one am not overly concerned with the safety factor.

This is the first well-informed thing you've written in this entire post.
Most people get where they're going most of the time without being
involved in a crash, even in the US which is in 16th place worldwide for
fatalities per vehicle-mile travelled and 10th place worldwide for
fatalities per vehicle registered ( www.scienceservingsociety.com ). Guess
what? Those body-on-frame cars you were fatuously claiming are "less safe"
are extremely popular and prevalent in Australia, which is way up at/near
the number-1/best ranking worldwide in both fatality measure categories.
So much for your theory.

> The Volvo XC90 is your best bet hands down.

If you like living at the Volvo dealership and feel like taking out a few
more lines of credit, sure. Volvo is sitting on its butt on a safety
reputation earned with the 100, 200 and 700-series cars. Their present
offerings are not the world's safest, as recent tests worldwide show them
being beaten by various European and Japanese makes.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 wrote:

> Ford cars have been getting the 5 star crash safety rating for many
> years running now.

That would be nice if the rating system were based on crash simulations
representative of the most common types of injurious crashes instead
of on the least-common types of crashes.

> And it is a car because it's of unitbody construction on a car type
> platform rather than a turcks body on frame design.

There have been many, many body-on-frame passenger cars on the market.
Ford still makes 'em. So does GM, but they don't sell them in the North
American market 'cause SUVs are more profitable and the North American
regulatory system makes it much easier to sell SUVs than large passenger
cars.

> Unitbody is better in a collision because the whole car is made strong
> to be held together and not just the frame/chassis underneath it holding
> it all together.

This bit of pseudoscientific horse**** has been almost as prevalent over
the years as "Front-wheel-drive cars are more fuel-efficient than
rear-wheel-drive cars".

> It's got a V6 which is quite fuel efficient as it is a newer Dual Over
> head Cam Design. DOHC.

One does not follow from the other, necessarily.

> I for one am not overly concerned with the safety factor.

This is the first well-informed thing you've written in this entire post.
Most people get where they're going most of the time without being
involved in a crash, even in the US which is in 16th place worldwide for
fatalities per vehicle-mile travelled and 10th place worldwide for
fatalities per vehicle registered ( www.scienceservingsociety.com ). Guess
what? Those body-on-frame cars you were fatuously claiming are "less safe"
are extremely popular and prevalent in Australia, which is way up at/near
the number-1/best ranking worldwide in both fatality measure categories.
So much for your theory.

> The Volvo XC90 is your best bet hands down.

If you like living at the Volvo dealership and feel like taking out a few
more lines of credit, sure. Volvo is sitting on its butt on a safety
reputation earned with the 100, 200 and 700-series cars. Their present
offerings are not the world's safest, as recent tests worldwide show them
being beaten by various European and Japanese makes.

In article >, Max > wrote:
>Remember to adapt your speed to the road conditions, and look ahead. And
>look behind, and look to the sides. Really aside from a freak idiot who
>rams into you going 30 mi/h faster than you, I don't see how you can be
>rear-ended, IF you were driving properly.

Being rear ended while stopped behind another vehicle (e.g. in a traffic
jam on a freeway or at a red light on a non-freeway) is hardly uncommon.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

In article >, Max > wrote:
>Remember to adapt your speed to the road conditions, and look ahead. And
>look behind, and look to the sides. Really aside from a freak idiot who
>rams into you going 30 mi/h faster than you, I don't see how you can be
>rear-ended, IF you were driving properly.

Being rear ended while stopped behind another vehicle (e.g. in a traffic
jam on a freeway or at a red light on a non-freeway) is hardly uncommon.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> Being rear ended while stopped behind another vehicle (e.g. in a traffic
> jam on a freeway or at a red light on a non-freeway) is hardly uncommon.

It's certainly uncommon enough that avoiding it is no excuse not to keep up.