Ever stopped at a dealer to confim how great your current car is?

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Back on topic here.

I got a $5 gift offer from the local Chevy dealer. Stopped by an asked them if they had any cars for sale that got the 78 MPG my Insight had averaged on the trip to the dealer.

The salesperson babbled something about the upcoming Volt, gave me my 5 bucks and I left.

165 miles worth of free gas .

regards
Mech

Priceless

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

So how many of you have done 1/2 hour of cardiovascular exercise 3 days this week?

Nonetheless, newer cars are safer. A 2010 car v. a 2000 car will favor the 2010 with stronger child restraints, including stronger bench seat strength and the LATCH system. Stronger roof crush strength. Safer window glass. Better rollover protection (seat belts, airbags, glass). Traction control. VSC. Better rear crash strength.

So hauling around all that extra "safety" gear means the cars get worse fuel economy. So the country keeps on using imported oil, which keeps putting dollars in the pockets of jihadists who use the money to develop nuclear weaponry, and keeps spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, which is likely to irretrieviably alter the climate. So you trade a miniscule decrease in your chance of dying from an auto accident for a greatly increased chance of dying from the aftereffects of a nuclear war or a changed climate? Seems like a rather shortsighted bargain to me.

[Frank Lee]

Once upon a time I mathed out the odds of becoming a highway fatality; found the data for fatalities/miles travelled, and whatnnot.

The odds of becoming a highway fatality are something like thus: you'd have to drive 24/7 for like 350,000 years before your number comes up.

This is what's causing a major national freak-out?

If someone wants to math it again to validate/correct, great. I ain't doing it again, felt like it was ignored/disbelieved the first time anyway.

[luvit]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

... felt like it was ignored/disbelieved the first time anyway.

um. whatever.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So hauling around all that extra "safety" gear means the cars get worse fuel economy. So the country keeps on using imported oil, which keeps putting dollars in the pockets of jihadists who use the money to develop nuclear weaponry, and keeps spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, which is likely to irretrieviably alter the climate. So you trade a miniscule decrease in your chance of dying from an auto accident for a greatly increased chance of dying from the aftereffects of a nuclear war or a changed climate? Seems like a rather shortsighted bargain to me.

My grandmother was seriously injured, and her husband killed on impact, when their '92 Grand Am was t-boned by a driver who ran a red light. The other vehicle intruded into the cabin. Had they been in pretty much any post-1996 vehicle (1997 is when side-impact standards came into play), they would have fared better, and with side-curtain airbags, they probably would have walked (or at least hobbled) away.

The rants I'm hearing about "feeling better" about safety sound like people who defend their smoking. "I'm 55 years old and I'm not dead yet!" Newer cars are safer and, with planning, don't have to be heavier or less efficient. (My '04 Saturn Ion has more features, interior room and horsepower than my '90 Accord, is far safer, weighs 50 pounds less and gets better mileage.) Hell, even the current year Honda Civic has the same weight and horsepower, about the same interior room, and gets better mileage even with a half dozen airbags.

[MadisonMPG]

LOL @ ALL U LOOZERS IN UR METROS! HAHAH I DRIVE DIS!!!




jk

[Clev]

That thing got a Hemi?

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Once upon a time I mathed out the odds of becoming a highway fatality; found the data for fatalities/miles travelled, and whatnnot.

The odds of becoming a highway fatality are something like thus: you'd have to drive 24/7 for like 350,000 years before your number comes up.

This is what's causing a major national freak-out?

If someone wants to math it again to validate/correct, great. I ain't doing it again, felt like it was ignored/disbelieved the first time anyway.

I got your back, Frank

From wiki, 1.5 deaths/100 million miles traveled = 1 death/66.7 million miles.
60 mph X 24 hrs X 365.25 days = 525960 miles/yr driven @ 60 mph
66,666,667 miles/525960 = 126.75 yrs to drive 66.7 mlllion miles

You were only off by a factor of 3,000

So the odds of cashing in your chips via auto is less than once/lifetime. We knew that. Let's look at something more realistic - your chances of being injured in an auto accident.

There were 2.9 million auto accident injuries in 2005, and 42,643 deaths that year. That means your chances of an injury are 2,900,000/42,643 = 680 times greater than dying. If you're going to die in 126.75 years of driving, you're going to get injured in 68 days.

More realistically, with 300 million people in the country, 1 out of every hundred is going to be injured in an auto accident every year. If you drive 50 years, you've got a 50%-50% chance of being injured in an accident. Would you rather have it happen in an 80s tin can, or in the newest whiz-bang car with all the current safety features?

[user removed]

So Sentra, maybe you should have a preemptive cardiovascular procedure like Arnold, move to the desert where there is no traffic, and stop driving.

Get rid of the CPU and monitor, don't want any radiation. Live underground to stop the cosmic rays and never watch TV, or eat any processed foods.

You could move to the Caucasus mountains in the Ukraine and become a shepherd, so you could live to be 169 years old like the old 5 foot tall Russian shepherd who was born in 1805 (same year as Lincoln) and lived until at least 1974.

Reported by National Geographic and confirmed by Catholic Church birth records.

Personally, understanding the risk involved in everything you do on a daily basis;

I will still drive by the new car dealership in my old tin can,

and laugh all the way to the bank to deposit my additional savings from being financially conservative.

Or I could just ride in the wife's 09 Rogue, but she prefers to ride in my tin can and fall asleep because she trusts my driving better than her own, regardless of the car.

regards
Mech

[Ford Man]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

.

More realistically, with 300 million people in the country, 1 out of every hundred is going to be injured in an auto accident every year. If you drive 50 years, you've got a 50%-50% chance of being injured in an accident.

My odds are looking better all the time, I've already had my auto related injury for my first 50 years. Just turned 50 years old in November so maybe I won't get injured in an auto accident during this 50 years and probably won't have to worry about the next 50. lol

Newer cars may be safer, but they will not withstand what the older cars will in a collision. I've hit 2 deer in my '88 Escort Pony within the last 3 months and both times was running 35-50 MPH. The only damage it has sustained is raising the right side of the STEEL bumper about an inch. Didn't even dent the bumper just bent the supports. My dad hit a deer in his '99 Grand Marquis when it was still nearly new and did between $2-$3K dollars damage and didn't even hit it hard enough to deploy the air bags.