[kcrudup]

I've seen a few of these "ESUVEE.com" commercials, thinking they were trying to sell some new car. Turns out they're some sort of awareness campaign so soccer moms and folks who need to hang up and drive won't kill themselves trying to over-manouver one:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/esuvee/index.shtml

I'd love to see an Escabling do some of the stuff I do in my FX!

 

[contaygious]

:lol:

They should send out bumper stickers that say "My kids are more important than yours" because that's what I think when I see a tiny woman or man trying to look over the steering wheel and manuver like a hummer or something to drop their kids off somewhere.

 

[msu79gt82]

Actually MY kids are more important than yours - to me!

Any responsible parent should make safety a major part of the car buying equation. Far too many people only look at the price and/or curb appeal of a given vehicle w/o taking into consideration safety, dependability/reliability, family needs, utility, purpose, costs of operation, depreciation, etc. How does it look or how fast does it go, by itself, are poor car buying factors in my opinion.

 

[kcrudup]

... w/o taking into consideration safety ...

That's what the NHTSA/DOT is for- they provide a baseline of safety in order to get a car federalized for sale in this country. No car can prevent you from being injured in every accident.

 

[msu79gt82]

... w/o taking into consideration safety ...

That's what the NHTSA/DOT is for- they provide a baseline of safety in order to get a car federalized for sale in this country. No car can prevent you from being injured in every accident.

Uh yea right. I guess it was the NHTSA/DOT best intention for the '05 Toyota Corolla to come standard WITHOUT Anti-Lock Brakes or Side-Curtain Airbags. :roll: The IIHS just released the side-impact study for 13 small cars and 11 of the 13 FAILED the test - failed so badly that Consumer Reports issued an "emergency" announcement recanting their "Recommended" status for several of those cars. Only two passed (the Cobalt and Corolla); and they had the OPTIONAL Side-Curtain Airbags.

Yea the NHTSA/DOT has my kids best interest at heart!! I can't believe its even legal in this country to sell a NEW car w/o anti-lock brakes. :shock: When I consider a vehicle for my family it will EXCEED any NHTSA/DOT "baseline" requirements. 8)

 

[kcrudup]

I can't believe its even legal in this country to sell a NEW car w/o anti-lock brakes. :shock: When I consider a vehicle for my family it will EXCEED any NHTSA/DOT "baseline" requirements. 8)

Man, I guess it's a wonder you managed to survive the 60s and 70s (and 80s) then!

 

[pudicus]

Somehow I never understood the hoopla surrounding the perceived benifits of ABS. I'll give you an example. Few winters back I'm on Com. Av near Ritz Carlton around 6 p.m. It's snowing like Gawd made a hole in the sky. Some sections of the road - as I'm about to find out - already carry a layer of ice. As I'm approaching a 2-way intersection I start - in due time - to gradually slow down in front of red light. Suddenly the ABS kicks in and I proceed not to come to a stop but roll along covering the remaining 10 feet before the light, crossing and finally stopping after I'm already smack in the middle of intersection :shock: . Luckily for me there was no traffic emerging from the side street . Had there been, we would've been talking frame damage and then some. Given all the big-ass 2 axel trucks that roll around downton all day long.
What's the moral ? Had I not had the ABS, my tail simply would've stepped out. And since I was basically crawling along it shouldn't have been a problem to catch it. And mine is just a small tale.
There are scores of people out there who ended up in the ditch or worse because their wheels didn't lock up, and so they simply continued to roll along when trying to avoid a collison.

 

[bradical]

ABS brakes are a disaster in icy conditions. many times, once they engage, they will continue to operate once you let you foot off the brake. since you are one ice, they basically just keep you in a skid and out of control.

now on dry stuff, they rock for those super sudden stops

 

[kcrudup]

Back in the day, ABS used to have disengage switches so that those with a clue could turn it off for exactly the reasons y'all stated. But, as usual, some dumbass got hisself hurted, and sued- bye-bye ABS switch!

 

[drsvelte]

Man, I guess it's a wonder you managed to survive the 60s and 70s (and 80s) then!

Somehow, I navigated the (late) 60's in my non-assisted steerin'; non-powered brakin' (ABS what ?); four-speed manual, Hurst-shiftin'; manual window roll-downin'; four-barrel gas guzzlin'; headers thunderin'; no A/C nor radio listenin'; seat-belteded inin(yes we did have those!); friggin' stompin' chevy BOSS 302. Ah, life was good!

 

[msu79gt82]

Man, I guess it's a wonder you managed to survive the 60s and 70s (and 80s) then!

You missed my point; I was responding to your qoute about how the NHTSA/DOT was all I needed to protect me and my family. Pardon me if I choose to not trust Big Government to protect me with their minimal regulations.

That's what the NHTSA/DOT is for- they provide a baseline of safety in order to get a car federalized for sale in this country.

 

[Silver Bullet]

After reading the first couple of posts of this thread I wanted to comment that when I was a kid we didn't even have seat belts. I remember long road trips while taking turns with my brother laying in the back window above the rear seat of my fathers Oldsmobile. I survived, but I guess according to the Fed. I was just lucky.

Then I read the rest of this thread and all I can say is "here's to a Government that knows what's best for me". Sounds sarcastic, right? I happen to agree with msu79gt82, there's no substitute for taking responsibility for yourself. That being said, not every safety advance the Fed requires is a bad idea. No question that today people survive all kinds of accidents that would have killed them 40 years ago. As we say in the Security business almost every advance in safety and protection requires a certain measure of giving up individuality, privacy, control and convienence. 8)

 

[BigMatt]

...chevy BOSS 302. Ah, life was good!

I hate to be the hard-on here, but the Boss 302 was a Ford Mustang. Chevy did make a 302, in the Camaro Z/28. Bonus points if you can tell me why they used the 302 in the original Z/28 instead of a 327 or 350...

Matthew

 

[gtpaul]

SUVs handle like trucks, not cars.

the FX handles better then my "performance" grand prix with stiff springs and struts.

 

[GarryMac]

SUVs handle like trucks, not cars.

the FX handles better then my "performance" grand prix with stiff springs and struts.

The FX is not an SUV. It's a "Cross-over." Whatever that means.

 

[gtpaul]

SUVs handle like trucks, not cars.

the FX handles better then my "performance" grand prix with stiff springs and struts.

The FX is not an SUV. It's a "Cross-over." Whatever that means.

It's more of a car to me anyways. :lol:

 

[DGFX]

...chevy BOSS 302. Ah, life was good!

I hate to be the hard-on here, but the Boss 302 was a Ford Mustang. Chevy did make a 302, in the Camaro Z/28. Bonus points if you can tell me why they used the 302 in the original Z/28 instead of a 327 or 350...

Matthew

Yeah I was about to say, something looked wrong there...