4 ms·

If safety was the most important thing, everyone would be driving the same car, no one would be driving motorcycles, and no one would get on the freeway with an

If safety was the most important thing, everyone would be driving the same car, no one would be driving motorcycles, and no one would get on the freeway with an SUV. Other factors like available seating, looks, price, and creature comforts often take precedence over safety in the minds of many consumers.

KingMob 9y ago
Aren't a number of SUVs less safe than cars? Particularly, I seem to recall that cheap, top-heavy SUVs built on a car base (instead of a truck base) are way more likely to tip or roll over in an accident.
- freehunter 9y ago
  ldev1 replied to the wrong person, but he's right. I mentioned SUVs would stay off the freeway because they're less safe, especially at high speeds.
- abawany 9y ago
  It is my understanding from anecdotal evidence that perception reins over reality in this case. SUVs do have a mass advantage so they were expected to win in a collision with a compact car. They also project ruggedness, which is equated with safety.
ldev1 9y ago
Hence the > and no one would get on the freeway with an SUV.
smacktoward 9y ago
If safety was the most important thing, nobody would be driving a car at all. There are lots of ways to get from point A to point B, just about all of which are safer than driving. We drive cars because they hit a sweet spot of speed, personal autonomy, and comparative expense, with a cost to personal safety that we've collectively decided we're willing to live with.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  > with a cost to personal safety that we've collectively decided we're willing to live with. It's funny that, as a collective, we're willing to also ignore the safety risk to others.
abawany 9y ago
I think I disagree a bit. Maybe safety is not the most important thing but it is pretty high up on the list of anyone with a certain awareness (victim of car accident, lost someone dear in a car accident, has a family, etc.) One reason SUVs have sucked the air out of automotive variety is their perceived safety, even over minivans (I am talking perception here, not reality). Another reason is that cars have gotten increasingly safer and safe designs don't scream safety so it has gotten easy to ignore how important safety is and how bad things used to be in older cars. A minor crash in a 50s and earlier car would likely result in death or severe injury due to the lack of seat belts, lack of crumple zones, metal bayonets knobs on the dashboard, metal dashboards, etc.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  I was riding in the middle on the front bench seat of an old 70's car with no seatbelt on the highway a while ago (only other option was walking 50 km back home). I have no idea how people used to think that it was at all safe, I was very aware that if the car crashed I was going to be ejected out the window, even in a low speed crash.
  - userbinator 9y ago
    What type of car was it? The 70s is well within the era of required seatbelts for US cars, which had been offering seatbelts since the 50s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeguard_(automobile_safety) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeguard_(automobile_safety)
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
      Holden HQ Kingswood, an Australian car. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_HQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_HQ) It had 2 seatbelts in the front, and none in the back. It was a bench seat in the front though, so we had 3 in the front and 4 in the back.
    - abawany 9y ago
      Remember that offering is not quite the same as available. From your link, it seems that Ford offered this as a package starting in 1956 for some models and it did not sell well [1]; some accuse it of making a half-hearted effort. However, I have to say that kudos to Ford and Robert McNamara for trying to sell safety and offering safer options well before others. 1968 was apparently the first year that seat belts were mandated in cars. [1]: http://www.autonews.com/article/19960626/ANA/606260836/ford-had-a-better-idea-in-1956-but-it-found-that-safety-didnt-sell http://www.autonews.com/article/19960626/ANA/606260836/ford-...

KingMob 9y ago

Aren't a number of SUVs less safe than cars? Particularly, I seem to recall that cheap, top-heavy SUVs built on a car base (instead of a truck base) are way more likely to tip or roll over in an accident.

freehunter 9y ago
ldev1 replied to the wrong person, but he's right. I mentioned SUVs would stay off the freeway because they're less safe, especially at high speeds.
abawany 9y ago
It is my understanding from anecdotal evidence that perception reins over reality in this case. SUVs do have a mass advantage so they were expected to win in a collision with a compact car. They also project ruggedness, which is equated with safety.

ldev1 9y ago

Hence the > and no one would get on the freeway with an SUV.

smacktoward 9y ago

If safety was the most important thing, nobody would be driving a car at all. There are lots of ways to get from point A to point B, just about all of which are safer than driving. We drive cars because they hit a sweet spot of speed, personal autonomy, and comparative expense, with a cost to personal safety that we've collectively decided we're willing to live with.

InitialLastName 9y ago
> with a cost to personal safety that we've collectively decided we're willing to live with. It's funny that, as a collective, we're willing to also ignore the safety risk to others.

abawany 9y ago

I think I disagree a bit. Maybe safety is not the most important thing but it is pretty high up on the list of anyone with a certain awareness (victim of car accident, lost someone dear in a car accident, has a family, etc.) One reason SUVs have sucked the air out of automotive variety is their perceived safety, even over minivans (I am talking perception here, not reality). Another reason is that cars have gotten increasingly safer and safe designs don't scream safety so it has gotten easy to ignore how important safety is and how bad things used to be in older cars. A minor crash in a 50s and earlier car would likely result in death or severe injury due to the lack of seat belts, lack of crumple zones, metal bayonets knobs on the dashboard, metal dashboards, etc.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
I was riding in the middle on the front bench seat of an old 70's car with no seatbelt on the highway a while ago (only other option was walking 50 km back home). I have no idea how people used to think that it was at all safe, I was very aware that if the car crashed I was going to be ejected out the window, even in a low speed crash.
- userbinator 9y ago
  What type of car was it? The 70s is well within the era of required seatbelts for US cars, which had been offering seatbelts since the 50s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeguard_(automobile_safety) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeguard_(automobile_safety)
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Holden HQ Kingswood, an Australian car. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_HQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_HQ) It had 2 seatbelts in the front, and none in the back. It was a bench seat in the front though, so we had 3 in the front and 4 in the back.
  - abawany 9y ago
    Remember that offering is not quite the same as available. From your link, it seems that Ford offered this as a package starting in 1956 for some models and it did not sell well [1]; some accuse it of making a half-hearted effort. However, I have to say that kudos to Ford and Robert McNamara for trying to sell safety and offering safer options well before others. 1968 was apparently the first year that seat belts were mandated in cars. [1]: http://www.autonews.com/article/19960626/ANA/606260836/ford-had-a-better-idea-in-1956-but-it-found-that-safety-didnt-sell http://www.autonews.com/article/19960626/ANA/606260836/ford-...