black label

How about we make the test to get a license more stringent instead and try to remove the people who need all the extra safety equipment from the road. I'm in favor of making the cars less safe and let Darwin sort the mess out.

dallison

now that i look at it again, i can see the humor.

biker

+1

fsttyms1

This!!!

MurkyRiversTL

Back Up cameras do save lives. There have been numerous incidents where a small child is run over by the parent by not being able to see the child behind the car. Actually happened to one of my girlfriends relatives. The kid was running out to grab a ball and was ran over. The Mom had no idea the kid was there and she was looking over her shoulder.

MurkyRiversTL

Im pretty sure this is how they did Tokyo Drift......

phile

and was backing out at 15mph, I'm sure. I don't think I can ever back over anything or anyone, I back out at a snail's pace so once I feel something I can stop immediately.

MurkyRiversTL

I cant say whether or not she was going 15mph out of her drive way, but if anyone is backing out at 15mph they have the intention of escape or hurting someone. I doubt that was the case in this situation.

Colin

I never said they didn't and I even acknowledged that it's a useful feature. There is no doubt that the potential for saving lives is there. But you could still be NOT looking at the camera so there is no guarantee that it WOULD help in all situations. From the article:

I suppose it depends no how you define "numerous incidents" cause I think that that number is infinitesimal when you look at how many people drive, and back up several times a day.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that I'm 'for' running over kids (most of the time), but rather, there are plenty of ways for someone who wants this tech to acquire it. I'm taking the stance that opposes this type of government regulation.

MurkyRiversTL

that made me laugh

I understand what you are saying. I use my back up camera almost everytime, but I am guilty of not using it everytime.

alex2364

Right, you can feel a 6 lb baby in a 4000 lb SUV. By the time you feel anything, it's gonna be dead.

phile

who the hell leaves a 6 lb baby behind a car...

stop being ridiculous i meant shit like trash cans and little kids. all of those people who "accidentally" run over people do exactly what I said they do - they back out while stomping on the accelerator. if you backed out slowly you don't run over things, it's pretty simple.

MurkyRiversTL

Do you actually know people that race in reverse out of their driveway?

Perhaps you need to not be ridiculous

phile

No, but I see it often enough.

and the ridiculous comment was about feeling a 6lb baby that the other poster wrote. we're talking regular driving - you reverse, there are obstacles - trash cans, toddlers, people, pets...not a 6lb baby, which is a newborn...how would that get there in the first place?

MurkyRiversTL

yeah I agree the 6 pound baby thing is a little odd.... maybe he meant a 6 pound baby puppy??

phile

but my sentiment was that it was a far fetched thing to write. i wasn't calling the poster ridiculous.

MurkyRiversTL

moving on....

civic, pole, crash, crappy rating......

one of my co workers was out of work today because her son was in a car accident. His friend lost control of the car and slid into.... yup..... a pole. Driver is in a coma and the her son is fine.

biker

^ right, and a car with a 5 star rating on this new test would have aleviated that, NOT.

black label

Colin, I know you have numerous years in the automotive industry so I think your opinions on this matter are very valid and important. So just so we can be clear and everyone can understand, what are your stance on running the children over?

MurkyRiversTL

Touchy, touchy...... I was merely stating a situation where someone did slide into a pole, since there were quite a few comments about how it never happens.

biker

^Nobody said it never happens-it's just that it's rare enough that the gov't shouldn't be coming up with rated tests (or require features) for every possible accident scenario.

MurkyRiversTL

I believe they are looking from a "in case" scenario. Cause shit happens and "in case" shit does happen the driver and passengers are protected. They are called accidents for a reason, not intentionals.

IMO it is better to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, rather than letting "x" amount of people to die then determine that it is required to have another safety standard.

Colin

I try my best to avoid it, you never know if they'll have sharp objects on their person that might scratch the car.

black label

While in it's purest definition that is 100% true, whether it's really an accident or not can still be up for debate. Many times what the "victim" considers an accident others would consider ignorance. If you lose control of your car because you were driving too fast in the snow, that's not an accident, that is an unfortunate circumstance of your ignorance or irresponsibility. It always pisses me off when people talk about a "drunk driving accident", thats not an accident, that's irresponsibility.

The other issue we have here is the bigger, stronger and heavier we make these cars, the more mass they now carry and the more destructive power they possess when they hit something. Crash a 1989 CRX in to a brick wall at 50mph and you total the CRX, crash an armored car in to into a brick wall at 50 mph and you demolish the wall.

MurkyRiversTL

Funny, I drove a 1971 Chevy Impala. Took the drive-thru turn a little wide and hit the wall of the building. Took a chunk out of the wall and didnt do a single thing to the 1/4" chrome bumper.....

biker

That's the big philosophical issue - at what point does one say OK, enough? At what point is x small enough and should the gov't be the one requiring the fix?

black label

That was from back in the days when we thought safety was provided by solid strong vehicles. We later learned that pre determined crumple zones are better for our safety than a rigid, tank like structure.

It also reinforces my point about the mass of the vehicle being tied in with how much damage it does when it hits something. Hop in an 89 Civic CRX and go hit the same wall at the same speed, I'm willing to bet that this time the wall turns out to be OK but you have some damage to the car.

fsttyms1

I think the Enough part came a while ago, But that is just me.. Now they are making the cars, bumpers hood etc.. at the correct height to hit pedestrians and make it safer for them, and im sure shortly air bags for them????? How about teaching the pedestrians to stay off of the paved surfaced designed for cars when they should be waiting or crossing in the correct areas? Maybe people should be required to wear protective pads and helmets instead!

MurkyRiversTL

"x" is small enough when its an extreme rarity, like some driving into a ravine, someone somehow ending up tangled in telephone wires and other odd accidents. Those are ones that the gov't doesnt make a stink about. But with the increase of population comes the need for increased power lines. Take a look at the streets and see how many light poles are in your city, it may seem pretty damn hard to hit a pole, but explain that to a friend of mine that hit a telephone pole when he crashed his bike. It was the only one within 100 yards and he smacked it dead on.... killed him of course so you cant really tell him anything.
Predetermined crumple zones are indeed safer. It allows the car to absorb as much impact as possible allowing the body to come to a less abrupt stop. There isnt much room for crumple zones in the doors so reinforcments of the lower and upper frame need to be made to help absorb or redirect the impact to achieve the same goal of less trauma to the driver/passenger.

I agree with the pedestrians part. There is a stupid amount of people that walk in the street thinking that the car is going to move before they have to. I teach them otherwise, luckily I havent hit anyone but if I did, it wouldnt be my fault

phile

Moog-Type-S

Please, no.

phile

it doesn't look that bad. I don't really like the Sentra headlights, but the overall front fascia looks more upscale

Fibonacci

Gawd, I cringe when reading stories like that. My worst nightmare. Suppose your opinion on these things change after you have kids, (I know it did for me). I don't view back up cameras as useless or fluffy like electro nannies like blind spot/lane change monitors or radar cruise control.

Costco

I actually like that illustration. Looks a lot more aggressive. I don't like the 8G Civic because of how vanilla it looks. My only gripe is it looks quite big for a Civic - like 1998 Accord-sized.

phile

yeah supposedly this gen got smaller, but it sure doesn't look like it. for me, "smaller" means going back to I dunno, 2 gens before the current size. not a 3 inch reduction in length or 1 inch reduction in height. those things aren't noticeable to me.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

The pre-mmc down-sized Accord wheels look horrible. I know its not a real pic, but still, they look bad.

Yumcha

Don't mind it...

biker

Again, how bad was the last design so they had to come up with this.

Sarlacc

They went from a great looking civic to just plain boring. Whatever...Honda - playing it safe with their bread and butter.

HondaOnWORKS

The Civic doesn't look that bad. It actually looks more upscale compared to the current generation Civic.