gen1 850 crash performance/general safety

[rspi]

A big part of safety is being able to avoid an accident. Some cars loose control easier than others. Also, deaths are not a big factor, as the chart above shows. Being busted up and maimed the rest of your life is a big deal. Especially when the average state only requires people to carry 10,000 to 25,000 personal injury coverage. That doesn't go far when you're busted up in an accident.

I know we can't avoid all accidents but it helps to have a car that can be controlled easier.

[rspi]

Also a thing that has blown my mind lately is seeing car in flames from an accident. Some not even bad ones, poof, up in flames with people stuck inside screaming for help.

[dosbricks]

Just reported this evening: GM to recall 4.3 million cars for airbag software glitch that can cause late deployment. Note this is not related to the Takata exploding airbag issue that GM and so many other brands have already been recalled for.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companie ... smsnnews11

Perhaps old technology that works is better than the latest greatest which is hit or miss.

[misha]

Volvo is Volvo and that's what it will always be.
I would feel safer in either Volvo than in any other brand of the car....even if it's a brand new one vs old Volvo.Saab is also side by side with Volvo.
Those two brands are no.1 for me.

[j-dawg]

Perhaps old technology that works is better than the latest greatest which is hit or miss.

But the data pretty clearly establish that new technologies have dramatically reduced deaths and injuries on the road, consistently bringing that number down annually for the last several decades. The airbag problems are bad, but they hardly indicate that we used to be better off.

[cn90]

Yes and No,

New cars still suffer from safety issues.

Crash data is way too complex to pinpoint to one or 2 devices that increase safety.

As mentioned above:

1. PASSIVE system: when all else fails (i.e. nothing you can do to prevent a crash), then you rely on passive system such as airbags, rigidity of the cage, rigidity of the roof for rollover, seat belt tensioner system (the explosive used to tighten the belt), the crumpled zones (front and back), the rigidity of the door (there is a cross-beam inside the door), headrest (to prevent whiplash) etc. etc.

The PASSIVE system is being defeated by the invention of smartphone, texting while driving, distracted driver, drunk drivers, so no matter what you do (even if you drive like an 80-year-old woman), you can still get hit by a distracted texting driver or drunk driver.
Studies have shown that accidents are up from distracted driving, it is alarming.

2. The ACTIVE system:
- ABS: you can debate forever whether this is good.
* On dry road, a panic stop is shorter if you don't have ABS.
* On slippery road, a panic stop allows you to steer to get out of trouble, although I have to admit that every time I slide on icy road, the ABS rarely helps me steer, my car still slides anyway. Good snow tires are better IMHO.

- Stability control: a lot of loss of control is from driver's behavior (too aggressive on gas pedal, turn corner too quick). So if one is a conservative driver, this technology, while helpful, is not that crucial. In most situations, if you ease the gas pedal, the vehicle usually corrects itself.


See, car mfg's come up with all kinds of technology to counter negative human behavior. Big brothers watching you...lol.

[j-dawg]

I'm not sure it really is that difficult to point to to specific technologies that improve safety. For example, the reason SUVs have gone from being around as safe / marginally less safe than sedans 30 years ago to being significantly more safe is credited by the IIHS to stability control, which dramatically reduces the likelihood of a rollover accident. Side and side curtain airbags dramatically decrease your risk of hitting your head on something hard when T-boned. Crash tests bear out the function of these devices in idealized settings, yes, but in the real world we've seen the numbers of deaths and injuries drop precipitously every year for decades, and it ain't because we're better drivers.

I agree that not every technology will save passengers in every instance, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Those safety issues you mention are real and significant, but experience has borne out that the systems work much more often than not. When Volvo executives proclaim that they want to end all road deaths, it sounds absurd.... until you see how much worse off we used to be. These techniques to protect drivers are working. I can't be a skeptic after seeing the numbers.

I have strong feelings about this issue because I want us to make good, well-informed decisions about our safety. Too many people won't buy a newer car or a smaller car because they feel that bigger, older cars (or Volvos) are safer and "more solid". That's the conventional wisdom and it's so often wrong. The data is out there. We can't ignore it.

[zanzabar]

+1 for what j-dawg says.

[kcodyjr]

I think we got off point. The OP was asking about an older Volvo versus a newer econobox, and we've mainly been talking about general safety advances. This ignores the question of whether the given safety feature is actually present in the $9000-new pocket rocket.

It's a good question, and although the target models shift over time, the point remains the same: is it better to go with a 10-year-old Volvo or a one-year-old Chevy Cruze? Where is the deflection point?

(My instinct: the Chevy is gonna suck even if the bolts are still warm. If you must have an econobox, get a Corolla.)

Re: someone said those Renault passengers were just fine. I say bull. Look at the way their heads fly out the window and then snap back. At the very least, they're laying in a bed with a stiff plastic collar around their neck for a few weeks/months. Given the forces involved, one might very well need to jam a stick down their neck to hold the head in place for the funeral.

[LOB]

The fatality nbr per specific car model says more about whos is driving the car than the safety of the car. Nowadays the 850 is driven by reckless youngsters, 20 years ago by responsible soccermums and fathers. Why not take a look at the stistics I have posted? 178 000 accidents beeing investigated. Much better than fatality numbers.... 850 still is safer than the average car (in sweden) when it crashes. Lacking stability control, total safety might not score so high!?

Rates are corrected for demographics (age, gender, etc), and all the numbers are from when the cars were 0-3 years old.

It's also worth noting that our safety standards in the USA are stricter than in Europe, so the 850 may run ahead of midpack there.

Hmm... US safety standards stricter than in Sweden? Strange since you in the US have twice the swedish death rate per driven distance, check Wikipedia. The average swedish car is most likely safer than the average US car. The 850 is stil today more than 20% safer than the average swedish car (though the average Swedish car is of course not brand new) in terms of passive safety (analyzing 178 000 accidents during several decades, link in my previous post.) The importance of active safety functions, like stability control should however not be underestimated. ...