Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????

And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
none other than Shena Delian O'Brien:

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

The *problem* is that far too many stupid people are breeding. The
solution has nothing to do with car seats. By the time the stupid
contemplate car seat questions, it's far too late.

Wow you're sick, you know?

The first statement made by Daniel above is an absolutely true
fact. Tragic but true.

Judging people like that simply because they want to drive an SUV?

Nothing dumb about wanting to drive a SUV... that is, if you NEED
a SUV.

Plenty of people drive SUVs because in a crash, you're more likely to
survive in an SUV than in say, a Hyundai Sonata.

Unless you crash with another SUV of course... and what about
evasive capabilities to help *avoid* crashing in the first place?

I agree that they are less stable on the road because their center of
gravity is higher, which is why the lower, more car-sized SUVs are
increasingly popular. They are more stable, or should be in theory.

OK, I'll bite - I rather like the Cayenne myself. :}

--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply
'91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:llhqb.115039$Fm2.103113@attbi_s04...
In article , Cory Dunkle wrote:
If I was in my '67 Galaxie (sold last week) and hit that tree at 65 MPH
I
would probably have serious injuries, if I survived at all. However, if
I
was in my '68 Galaxie I would probably be alright, perhaps some whiplash
and
a few cracked ribs at the worst from the rapid deceleration. The
difference
between a '67 and a '68 is that in '67 shoulder belts were optional
equipment and thus very rare as well as the steering column being solid.
In
'68 shoulder belts for driver and front side passenger were standard, as
was
a collapsible steering column. Those two simple devices would in all
likelihood mean the difference between life and death in the accident
shown
in that picture.

Guess I should have read ahead.

But it's evident how well the structure took the crash. Quite good given
the level of knowledge and effort given to such things at the time.

I have and will continue to be a believer that a well designed big car
with modern crash safety features is the best thing to be in with regards
to crash protection.

One thing I notice though, look at that tire. That's a big problem right
there.

It looks like the frame got bent pretty bad... Probably when the front
cross-bar of the frame hit the tree it bent back and up, twisting the side
frame rails in the front. Since the engine is normally tilted backwards at
an angle when sitting in the car it makes sense that it would have a
tendancy to be pushed up as well as back. For all intents and purposes that
car is totaled. The frame is probably beat up enough that it would need a
new one swapped in, and the front end needs replacing as well as the engine
and probably trans too. I'd imagine the rear end has some damage too, that
was transmitted through the driveshaft. The rest of the body and passenger
compartment likely took very little damage from the looks of it. Built Ford
tough... I'll say!

Overall I'd say it was a good design for crash survivability, but as you
said it probably has more to do with Ford designing a tough, strong and
durable car rather than thoughts about crash survivability, particularly a
65 MPH run-in with a tree! They overengineered things back then, since they
didn't have the computer technology of today to design things exactly as
strong as they feel is needed.

Cory

Brent P wrote:

In article 2QSpb.3372$7B2.1230@fed1read04, Circe wrote:
"Brent P" wrote in message
news:0KSpb.106734$e01.367372@attbi_s02...
If you want automotive safety, repeal CAFE.

How about just evening the playing field so that CAFE standards apply to
SUVs and light trucks as well as to sedans. Everything will get lighter.

That is not workable, nor does it lead to safety. All it is, is telling
people what they can drive.

After all, there are still busses and trucks of various sizes out there.

(However, by 1973
crash protection standards had addressed the majority of weak points.)

Pretty much all of them by 1974. At that point combined lap-shoulder belts had
been standardized and dual airbags were even available--if on a very limited
basis. (Incidentally these probably had some beneficial features modern ones
don't. For one, they were optional. And they were inflated using pre-compressed
nitrogen, an inert gas--no need to use potentially incendiary/poisonous
pyrotechnics, probably had a slightly softer deployment force.) Just about the
only things still to come, aside from additional airbags, were seatbelt
pretensioners and crush zones that are designed to be strictly controlled--which
nowadays often seem to have to overcompensate for lack of impact resistance in
many newer vehicles.

--Aardwolf.


What I claimed was that SUVs are less safe than the classes of vehicles
they replaced. I'll take a 2003 town car (a downsized survivor of the
great CAFE purge) over any of these SUVs for overall safety any day of the
week.

Too bad the late model Fleetwoods are no longer available. Massively reinforced
frame (used to build limos and hearses from, or to tow 7000lb trailers), but still
modern enough to crumple in a controlled fashion--if they have to.

Oh yeah--they also had LT1s and could top 130mph with a mid-15 quarter mile given
the right gearing. And get 23mpg highway on regular gas.

--Aardwolf.

(Paula) wrote:
Hi - just wondering if anyone out there has a vehicle with the car
seat LATCH in the middle seat? Seems like a lot of the auto
manufacturers included a tether hook for the middle seat, but only put
the LATCH anchors on the side seats.

I think this is ridiculous!!!! Isn't it common knowledge that most
parents seat their children in the middle seat because it's the safest
position in the vehicle? What is the point of installing the LATCH
anchors for two of three possible seats? I just don't understand it.

It is cheaper to only populate 2/3 of the positions, and it is even more
common knowledge that parents prefer to place their kids in an outboard
position for the ease of ingress/egress.

I have been looking at SUVs

Well, that's your second mistake. I thought you were looking for safety.
But a car instead. You and those around you will be safer, and you'll have
saved money on the purchase price and upkeep.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
none other than Marc:

I have been looking at SUVs

Well, that's your second mistake. I thought you were looking for safety.
But a car instead. You and those around you will be safer, and you'll have
saved money on the purchase price and upkeep.

Not to mention that a CAR will actually be a heck of a lot more
FUN to drive, unless the SUV being contemplated is, say, a Cayenne
Turbo.

--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply
'91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB