Undertoad Tuesday Sep 4 12:41 PM
9/4: Dumb car owner
dave Tuesday Sep 4 12:59 PM
should have bought a volvo...
CyclopONE Tuesday Sep 4 05:21 PM
Re: shoulda bought a volvo
dave Tuesday Sep 4 05:35 PM
Volvo 240's are quite durable and could probably handle something to that effect. I also have experience with the 850, and I must say that the car feels like it's been cast from a single block of steel. Planning on getting an S70 soon, which is basically just an updated 850, and it's quite sturdy. I'd say you're more likely to survive a roll in a Volvo than any other car, less the C70 convertible.
dave Tuesday Sep 4 05:39 PM
fyi, I found the source of the information --
elSicomoro Tuesday Sep 4 08:12 PM
I don't have any doubt about how tough and durable Volvos are. However, I do remember in one of their commercials, where they were a tad deceiving. They had the Volvo (don't remember which model) in a row of cars for a monster truck competition. IIRC, the Volvo was the only car that didn't get crushed. However, when they did a close up of the commercials, there were apparently support restraints for the roof in the car.
Sperlock Tuesday Sep 4 09:10 PM
I do hope the store got this guy to sign a wavier or something saying he doesn't hold the store liable for any damage done to his car. He'd probably still sue them even though they could say "We warned you! We warned you! But did you listen? Oh no, it's just a harmless pile of wood isn't it?" (Say this in your best impression of Tim from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail)
Slithy_Tove Wednesday Sep 5 04:06 AM
Consider that Volvos tend to be bought by those who are concerned with safety. These are the very same people who are likely drive more safely than the average driver, are likely to wear their seatbelts religiously, not disconnect their airbags, not drive drunk, and so forth. Volvos are expensive, which means their drivers tend to be middle-aged and middle to upper-middle class, who also tend to be safer drivers.
Try distributing Volvos to higher-risk populations *cough*teenagers*cough*, and I'll bet they'd start racking up fatalities pretty quickly. They'd still probably have a better safety record than other cars, but it would look less amazing than 'zero deaths in 5 years'.
jaguar Wednesday Sep 5 05:10 AM
Almost enough to make you go out, buy a volvo and drive it into a road train wihtout a seatbelt eh?
Mas71 Wednesday Sep 5 08:09 AM
Volvocars and teenagers
If noone has died in a 240 Volvo between those years I would assume that they mean worldwide.
lisa Wednesday Sep 5 10:55 AM
About the VW picture, here's details that I had from elsewhere:
Slithy_Tove Wednesday Sep 5 11:29 AM
Re: Volvocars and teenagers
The chatter on alt.autos.volvo is that the 240 was safer than Volvos that have been built since.
Unfortunately, the US Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database only goes back to 1994. But in that year, it shows 82 fatalities for the 240, and that's only for the US, of course. For 1995 there were 99 deaths, for 1996 there were 94 deaths, and so forth. I'm highly skeptical that deaths per year could be zero for five years, then suddenly jump to 80-100 a year.
I really think this is an urban legend. I saw it repeated on Usenet, too, without attribution.
Still, Volvos seem to be fairly safe cars. The IIHS data did apparently show that in the mid 90's, the 240 had, compared the average car in the US, a tenth the fatality rate per 10,000 vehicles registered. I'm pretty happy with my little Saturn, but I've started thinking about a Volvo for my next car. There's definitely a Volvo cult out there. People seem to hang on to them forever.
Slithy_Tove Wednesday Sep 5 11:38 AM
It's been suggested that everyone has their own set-point for the amount of risk they want to experience, and that individuals will adjust their risk-taking behavior until it meets their own internal set-point. If you force them to take fewer risks -- for example, to force them by law to wear a seat-belt -- they will find some other way to raise their risk to meet their set-point. By driving faster, for example. Seat-belt laws would then be pointless.
Whether this is true or not, I don't know, and I haven't read the psychology research behind it, but I've always thought it was a fascinating and disturbing idea.
Undertoad Wednesday Sep 5 11:52 AM
One author suggested: what would happen if, instead of air bags, you had a sharply pointed spike in the middle of everyone's steering wheel, pointed directly at the heart?
CyclopONE Wednesday Sep 5 12:06 PM
dave Wednesday Sep 5 12:48 PM
in 1999 models and newer, if the front passenger or driver are not wearing their seatbelt, the front airbags require less of an impact to inflate? Such as, if you're wearing your seatbelt and you hit a tree at 15 mph, it might not come out, but if you're not and you hit it at 10, it would.
As for the death statistics suddenly jumping up on the 240, it could be attributed to anythings. One that comes to mind is the side impact from an SUV, which has been shown to be more likely fatal (in the case of no side airbags, which the 240 does not have, as it was halted in 1993) than a side impact from another car or a minivan even. I've also noticed drivers getting progressively worse, but maybe that's just me...
dave Wednesday Sep 5 12:54 PM
Oh yeah - almost forgot - Volvo cars come with a life insurance policy that pays $250,000 to the estate of anyone killed in one of their cars.
Mas71 Thursday Sep 6 07:33 AM
About the whiplash protection: