The TSX was tested after I bought it, and it received a good rating. I wonder if anyone would have sold the car, or bought another model, if the results were different.

Case in point:
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr121904.htm

 

Unless the rating someone comes out at a point where the car is unsafe to drive, then I'd just keep it. Getting a new car is just too much of a hassle.

 

Nope. But its amazing that still in this day there are cars out there that receive poor ratings.

 

I'm hoping it's because the standards keep rising..

 

If the TSX had a poor rating, I'd sell it - no doubt. I bought it with the confidence that Honda/Acura cars generally do very well in crash testing. Safety isn't something to screw around with - I see too many people who's lives are altered forever after an accident.

 

I saw yesterday on Dateline, the new Kia Spectra got a poor rating! The first since 2001.

I don't really care about safety in cars....and it doesn't affect my decision, styling and features are more important to me. However, yes cars these days have increased their safety standards when compared to older cars.

 

Not to mention the Accord had great ratings as well.

 

slo, the king of polls....

there are too many crappy drivers out there. saftey is like everything else i look for in a car; it doesn't have to be the best, just above average. hmmm....kind of like looking for a woman.

 

Knowing that its an Acura, I know that it would be safe because they pride on their quality. But if they did have a poor rating, I would most likely sell it, especially if I had a family because I would not want to endanger anyone I loved.

 

This even after what happened to your Accord?

 

Last summer my '92 Accord EX sedan was clipped in the rear by hit and run driver. I lost control and my Accord flipped twice. I walked away pretty much unhurt, just in some pain, thats about it.

Seatbelts do save lives and that car did well in such a bad rollover and crash! I expect cars these days to do just as well as my 4th gen Accord, if not better. I miss that car a lot! :'(

Safety is expected in a car, they meet or exceed what is required, thats how I look at it.

 

The crash rating does not influence by choice to buy the car or not. However, it does influence my opinion on whether or not to crash the car.

 

Because when it comes down to it, you'll have the time to decide, right? Should I crash into the tree, or the fluffly dog? Tree or fluffly dog...

tree = hard & painful

dog = fluffly & bloody

Hey it's not my blood! Fluffy it is!!

 

imo, cars today are much safer than they were 10-15 years ago... so overall it's all
pretty good... so to me, the crash rating thing is kinda like a "it's good to know" thing..

 

I don't think about safety when buying a car, it's all about styling, and sometimes performance.
I figure you could be in the safest of cars, and if the man upstairs pulls your card, regardless of what you're driving, it's time to call it a day....or life.

 

It does make a big difference to me. If a car is rated unsafe I would not buy it.

There is a lot more to life then just driving in my car...I would not put everything else in my life at risk just to drive a car that was really fast or looked really cool but unsafe. There's a lot of bad drivers on the road and your safety is also somewhat dependent on how they drive.

Besides cars therez: Money, hoez, designer clothes, and shows. Just to name a few.

 

I would be fine so long as the report didn't say "this car will kill you".

 

It would have to get a review like the Mitsu Montero did a few years ago to have me get away from it.

 

I think that translates to Yugo in Yugoslovian....

 

just as long as it's at least 4-stars (Euro NCAP/Australian NCAP)

 

I love all the bright yellow airbag disclaimer stickers.

 

I just dont like it how the crash test ratings dont usually get released until after the car starts selling...

 

They only test cars that sell a certain number of units, I believe.

 

It might play a role...but the looks/styling and reputation of brand outweighs it for me.

 

Eh, everything in the states has to pass certain standards. I just don't plan on crashing so safety is not needed. If I was worried about crashing then I'd buy a Volvo....

 

Safety is everything. Why buy a car that would later down the line leave you a vegetable? Chances are, in a lifetime, you are bound to get into an accident, no matter how good a driver you think you may be. If it's not you hitting someone, it could be someone else driving their car smack into yours.

 

Thats pretty much what they said about the kia

 

We have a lot of invincible people here. Nobody plans on getting into an accident - otherwise they'd have to be renamed.

There are so many good choices with good ratings, I just don't see the rationale for risking it with a lesser car I think people who are willing to do that need to see more 20-year-olds who have been in bad accidents

 

Passive security isn't as important to me as active security, ie: HIDs, VSA, ABS, a good handling car, reasonnable amount of power, etc.

Things that will help you avoid crashes.

 

The current Kia story not withstanding, virtually all cars in the same class have the same safety features. Some do better than others in tests but there's not much diff between them in the real world.

 

This sort of falls into line with this topic of discussion... but why do so many parents decide their kids need an '85 Hyundai simply because they can't handle the responsibility of a newer car? I understand if you just can't afford better, but I'm specifically talking about parents who can but won't. I've always wanted to ask them if they knew how much danger they were putting their kids in.

Safety is everything. I refuse to even ride in cars that I know are unsafe (Had a friend with a Cavalier and my ass isn't getting in it.) I spend time in 99 and 03 Accords and my best friend's 98 Camry. All three have pretty stellar safety records, though my best friend and I are looking to trade the 99 Accord and 98 Camry for TSXs because of the curtain airbags.

It isn't just yourself you need to think about it. It's everyone who ever takes a ride in your car... but most of you here are TSX owners, so you're in damn good hands.

 

If the crash rating were the equivalent of "folding up like wet Kleenex" in an accident, then maybe I'd factor it in; otherwise, there are approximately 300 hundred other things higher on my list.

Strangely enough, I feel the safest car is a great-handling car with good brakes that is driven by an awake and competent driver who doesn't have one ear in a fookin' cell phone and ain't fiddlin' with their hair, or the vanity mirror, or eatin' a burrito, or drinkin' a beer, or repeatedly diving down into the passenger side footwell to arrange a Zen rock garden or whatever the hell I see some folks doing.

Active safety. Driving a car, not passively operating an appliance. A world populated by folks who actually are involved in driving would be far preferable to an ersatz "safe" world where the seemingly endless supply of clueless idiots who desire an iron cocoon replete with ten thousand airbags (and nearly as many cupholders) which safely insulates and exonerates them from any responsibility for their inattentiveness and automotive ennui. Whew! Rant mode off. Good thing I'm not opinionated, huh?

Yeah, I know accidents can happen to even good drivers. Usually caused by bad drivers running into good drivers. No one is invincible. Safety is a good thing. But the trend seems to be "protect me from my own mistakes". That ain't a good thing in my book. Too many bad decisions being made every day, on every street, at every corner. The root of the problem.

I can see it now ... "incoming!"

 

I recall a time I had to drop off my Jetta for some service (dead intrument cluster) and the dealer offered a Geo Metro for a loaner. I told him I'd rather ride my bike than drive a soda can. And I did.