Honda: Civic News
#1681
Trolling Canuckistan
I question the necessity of some of these tests. We might be approaching a point where we are testing possible crash scenarios that happen so infrequently in real life to make them meaningless. For all we know there are more cars that run into a body of water rather than flip over but we don't have a test to see how long a car floats before sinking (tho we have one for roof sturdiness).
The gov't has done enough already to alter the way cars are made - it's time they quit it.
The gov't has done enough already to alter the way cars are made - it's time they quit it.
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.
#1683
Race Director
#1684
Senior Moderator
#1685
COTM Coordinator
Is that a real proposal? Seriously? That's effing stupid. If you can't turn your head to check for pedestrians, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. If you can't park a car that is small (Subcompact, Compact, Mid-Size), you shouldn't be allowed to drive. Parking a small car or semi-small car is not hard.
On vans (Sienna), I agree it might be good to have it.
I think its even in the driving hand book to check for pedestrians before pulling out or back out of a spot, so I propose that we shouldn't make rear cameras standard but rather to take the license away from the people that can't turn their head to look out the rear window to check to see if its safe to back out.
On vans (Sienna), I agree it might be good to have it.
I think its even in the driving hand book to check for pedestrians before pulling out or back out of a spot, so I propose that we shouldn't make rear cameras standard but rather to take the license away from the people that can't turn their head to look out the rear window to check to see if its safe to back out.
Sadly:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/auto...htsa/index.htm
IMO, it's a useful feature in many new cars, but I do not think it should be mandated by law. Let the market decide if it's worth the cost.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/auto...htsa/index.htm
IMO, it's a useful feature in many new cars, but I do not think it should be mandated by law. Let the market decide if it's worth the cost.
#1686
COTM Coordinator
#1687
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.
#1688
COTM Coordinator
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.
#1689
Backover accidents cause an average 229 deaths and 18,000 injuries per year, according to NHTSA.
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.
#1690
COTM Coordinator
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.
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.
I understand what you are saying. I use my back up camera almost everytime, but I am guilty of not using it everytime.
#1691
Three Wheelin'
Right, you can feel a 6 lb baby in a 4000 lb SUV. By the time you feel anything, it's gonna be dead.
#1692
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.
#1694
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?
#1696
but my sentiment was that it was a far fetched thing to write. i wasn't calling the poster ridiculous.
#1697
COTM Coordinator
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.
#1699
Trolling Canuckistan
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.
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.
#1700
COTM Coordinator
#1701
Race Director
^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.
Last edited by biker; 12-28-2010 at 10:55 AM.
#1702
COTM Coordinator
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.
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.
#1703
I try my best to avoid it, you never know if they'll have sharp objects on their person that might scratch the car.
#1704
Trolling Canuckistan
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.
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.
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.
#1705
COTM Coordinator
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.....
#1706
Race Director
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?
#1707
Trolling Canuckistan
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.
#1708
Senior Moderator
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!
#1709
COTM Coordinator
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.
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.
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!
#1710
#1711
The sizzle in the Steak
Please, no.
#1712
it doesn't look that bad. I don't really like the Sentra headlights, but the overall front fascia looks more upscale
#1713
I feel the need...
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.
#1714
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.
#1715
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.
#1716
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
The pre-mmc down-sized Accord wheels look horrible. I know its not a real pic, but still, they look bad.
#1717
Senior Moderator
#1719
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,418
Received 5,079 Likes
on
2,696 Posts
They went from a great looking civic to just plain boring. Whatever...Honda - playing it safe with their bread and butter.