If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
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. Incidentally, I challenge your presumption that cars were safer 40 years ago than they are today. The statistics do not bear out this assumption. I made no such claim. Nor did I mention any 1963 models. (However, by 1973 crash protection standards had addressed the majority of weak points.) 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. Oddly enough... spotted while looking for info on the new NHTSA rollover ratings earlier today... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in563159.shtml Not sure if you picked that vehicle on purpose, but your assessment seems to be spot on. nate -- go dry to reply. http://www.toad.net/~njnagel |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
Real-world data trump ignorant guesses like this every time. And in the real world, most car drivers have much better odds than most SUV drivers. I know that all the times we've gotten into fender benders with my LSS or the Intrigue it's all been worse for the wear with the other guy and slight cosmetic damage for us. Of course, the only time an SUV was involved it was me rear-ending him, and knocking his bumper off. Personally, I prefer my cars, even if it does cost an arm and a leg to fix anything and they came with defective intake manifolds & plenum which warp and cost us $3500 to fix BECAUSE THE DAMN MANUFACTURER WON'T PLACE A RECALL.. grr... ok.. vent over. LOL |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
Circe wrote: Incidentally, I challenge your presumption that cars were safer 40 years ago than they are today. The statistics do not bear out this assumption. It would be impossible to compare safety statistics for 1963 cars and 2003 cars unless you could figure how to adjust the statistics for seat belt usage, road improvements, differences in driver training, differences in traffic density, etc., etc., etc. I will say this, I was in an accident where a 1969 Ford Country Sedan was struck in the left rear corner by a 1967 Ford Galaxie doing about 55 mph. No one in either car was wearing a seat belt. No one was injured (including 4 young children). I was able to dive the Station Wagon away, although it was totaled (bent chassis). The Galaxie's front end was toast, but the car was repaired. I can only imagine what would happen if you replaced either car in this scenario with a late model Camry. Hopefully the air bags and seat belts would be in use and protect the drivers. I have seen what happens when a Camry hits anything substantial at highway speeds. It isn't pretty. Ed |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
"Brandon Sommerville" wrote in message s.com... | On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:23:56 -0500, "James C. Reeves" | wrote: | | Dodge Stratus Sedan/Chrysler Sebring Sedan | Chevy Malibu | | Both have the car seat latch mechanisms for the center backseat | position...at least in the USA... | | But they may not fit all car seats. The most important thing to do is | to *test* the various combinations before actually buying anything. | -- | Brandon Sommerville | remove ".gov" to e-mail | | Definition of "Lottery": | Millions of stupid people contributing | to make one stupid person look smart. Good advice. However, it's my understanding that these are being standardized. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:35:10 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
wrote: "Brandon Sommerville" wrote in message ws.com... | On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:23:56 -0500, "James C. Reeves" | wrote: | | Dodge Stratus Sedan/Chrysler Sebring Sedan | Chevy Malibu | | Both have the car seat latch mechanisms for the center backseat | position...at least in the USA... | | But they may not fit all car seats. The most important thing to do is | to *test* the various combinations before actually buying anything. Good advice. However, it's my understanding that these are being standardized. They *are* standardized, that was the whole point of LATCH. Unfortunately, real world tests don't bear this out. I can't remember where I read the article (I've looked for it since) but what I read indicated that LATCH was far from a perfect solution as there is enough variation between different auto manufacturers and different child seat manufacturers to prevent some combinations from working. -- Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail Definition of "Lottery": Millions of stupid people contributing to make one stupid person look smart. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote: Plenty of people drive SUVs because in a crash, you're more likely to survive in an SUV Real-world data trump ignorant guesses like this every time. And in the real world, most car drivers have much better odds than most SUV drivers. I think you'll have a hard time proving this. The NHTSA data is so confusing as to be almost useless. The IIHS Injury loss ratings indicate that large SUVs are safer than very large sedans (very large being Crown Victorias and above). From http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm : Vehicle Class Injury Loss Rating (100 = average) VERY LARGE 4X4 SUV 39 VERY LARGE 4X2 SUV 31 LARGE 4X4 SUV 49 LARGE 4X2 SUV 47 MIDSIZE 4X4 SUV 76 MIDSIZE 4X2 SUV 83 VERY LARGE LUXURY SEDAN 53 LARGE LUXURY SEDAN 59 MIDSIZED LUXURY SEDAN 72 VERY LARGE 4DR SEDANS 57 LARGE 4DR SEDANS 71 MIDSIZE SEDANS 107 LARGE STATION WAGON/ MINI VAN 70 MIDSIZE STATION WAGON 60 So it would seem, you are safer in a very large car than in a mid size SUV, but not as safe as in a large SUV. However, even the very large sedans (A Crown Victoria) don't have the ability to carry 7 people like a "midsized" Explorer does. Large station wagons / mini vans are safer than mid sized SUVs, but not as safe large SUVs at least accordig to these ratings. Ed |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
In article ,
C. E. White wrote: but not as safe as in a large SUV. However, even the very large sedans (A Crown Victoria) don't have the ability to carry 7 people like a "midsized" Explorer does. Large station wagons / mini vans are safer than mid sized SUVs, but not as safe large SUVs at least accordig to these ratings. On the other hand, driver death rates listed on http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fat...ts/passveh.htm say a different story. There, cargo and large passenger vans (not including minivans) have a driver death rate of 49 per million registered passenger vehicles. SUVs do about as well as cars (including minivans) overall (90 for 2WD SUVs, 66 for 4WD SUVs, and 83 for cars), despite the SUVs being significantly heavier. However, certain classes of SUVs and cars do poorly -- mini cars, small cars, and 2WD SUVs between 3501 and 4500 pounds (162, 117, and 105 respectively -- note that the car sizes in this report are defined by length and wheelbase, not weight or interior room). Pickups do poorly (126 for 2WD and 115 for 4WD). Large cars (wheelbase 111-115 inches or length 196-210 inches, which may include some minivans) do better than all categories of SUVs (58 for the large cars; best SUV groups are 64), or anything else other than cargo and large passenger vans. Of course, driver demographics can have a significant effect on insurance losses and driver death rates. In some cases, vehicles that are essentially the same, but have different badges, have greatly different insurance losses and driver death rates. Sometimes, the 4-door sedan does better than the 2-door coupe, while the station wagon does even better. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
"C. E. White" wrote in message
... Circe wrote: Incidentally, I challenge your presumption that cars were safer 40 years ago than they are today. The statistics do not bear out this assumption. It would be impossible to compare safety statistics for 1963 cars and 2003 cars unless you could figure how to adjust the statistics for seat belt usage, road improvements, differences in driver training, differences in traffic density, etc., etc., etc. I will say this, I was in an accident where a 1969 Ford Country Sedan was struck in the left rear corner by a 1967 Ford Galaxie doing about 55 mph. No one in either car was wearing a seat belt. No one was injured (including 4 young children). I was able to dive the Station Wagon away, although it was totaled (bent chassis). The Galaxie's front end was toast, but the car was repaired. I can only imagine what would happen if you replaced either car in this scenario with a late model Camry. Hopefully the air bags and seat belts would be in use and protect the drivers. I have seen what happens when a Camry hits anything substantial at highway speeds. It isn't pretty. Anyone curious what a '67 Ford Galaxie (Custom in this case, same car as a Galaxie only with a cheaper trim and interior package) looks like after hitting a tree at 65 MPH have a look-see at this... http://www.ford-registry.com/images/...Meets_Tree.jpg 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. In the late '60s most of the most significant safety improvements were made and became standard on cars. Things like dual circuit master cylinders, shoulder belts, collapsible steering columns and head restraints. If I had to choose between my modern sub-subcompact econo-box ('86 Honda Prelude) and my classic cruiser ('68 Ford Galaxie 500 two door hardtop) to hit that tree at 65 MPH in I would choose the Galaxie in a heartbeat. I would hate to see her smashed like that but in the Prelude that tree would in all likelihood be at or past the drivers seat before the car stopped. In other words *I* would have hit the tree, not just the car. Cory |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????
In article , Cory Dunkle wrote:
Anyone curious what a '67 Ford Galaxie (Custom in this case, same car as a Galaxie only with a cheaper trim and interior package) looks like after hitting a tree at 65 MPH have a look-see at this... http://www.ford-registry.com/images/...Meets_Tree.jpg Look at that pic. The passenger compartment is intact. Maybe some intrusion into the foot wells, but I doubt it as it appears the engine went up and out instead back through the floor and firewall. With modern safety features I would say the passengers would fair quite well. With 1960s lap belts alone they would have been hurt. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ages of Sitting In Seat With Just Belt | valerie ramano | General | 129 | October 14th 04 01:43 PM |
LATCH For Car Seats - Shouldn't all new 2003 cars have them??? | Cheryl S. | Pregnancy | 2 | July 9th 03 06:06 PM |