Volvo's are safe so there is no need for you to worry. There will always be newer cars that come out that will be more safer than the older cars because of advances in technology, materials, etc. You and your family are safe.

 

"Volvo For Life"
Lets put it this way, what other car company builds the car around the safety of its passengers? No other maker. Volvo invented the three-point seatbelt that all automakers use, they were the first to use side-impact protection and airbags, and they were the first with antilock brakes. They continue to be the first with new safety technology (ROPS, WHIPS, SIPS, BLIS), so I put my full trust into Volvo as the safest car I can buy.

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (Psychwarlord)

No you made the right decision, volvo has a reputation, so they don't need to show crash tests or anything like that, volvo is still one of the safest , if not the safest cars on the market, trust me, I would not be standing today if it wasn't for volvo, I mean look at all the new safety features they have on the cars, and think about it, volvo has invented almost every safety feature that is used on other cars today. I would still say they are the safest cars, and will be for along time. http://********************/smile/emthup.gif

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (Psychwarlord)

Psych-
Your XC70 would be just the same as an S60, 4 star frontal and 5 star side impact ratings. So that is pretty decent. Incredible roof strength too. To get 5/5 you need the S80 or XC90.

 

Re: (Cabot)

I heard an interesting Honda commercial this evening: The ad stressed the safety features for inside passengers and pedestrians. "For example, there are break away windshield wipers." While Volvo still leads the pack, others are scratching for being noticed for safety.

 

Volvo will always be ahead of the game, they have a multi- million dollar factory just for saftey testing of there cars, that must tell you something

 

I don't have more current data, but from 1995-1998, the Toyota Camry had a better safety record than the Volvo 850. This is based on number of deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles. The Camry had 37 per 100,000, and the 850 had 39. So Volvo is one of the safest, but I don't think that others are just "scratching to get noticed", but are actually keeping up.

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (Psychwarlord)

I think way to much emphasis is on the tests that the government requires. Things like seat design, interior ergonomics, head rest strength, fuel tank design............ all play into what makes a safe car. I'd take a 4 star Volvo over any 5 star Hyundai or Suzuki any day.

I read in a magazine a while back that Ford engineers were in awe when the saw how a Volvo channels the impact of a crash away from the passengers.

Insurance tests are great and they are a step in the right direction but they don't tell the whole story.

 

Safety

I'm a longtime lurker and Honda owner who is looking to get into a Volvo.

Safety is a selling point for all vehicle makers today. Yes Volvo has a reputation for safety which will always be associated with them, but it isn't like other manufacturers are standing still.

Honda has a huge safety center as well: http://www.hondacorporate.com/...afety

Pedestrian safety is a big issue for them since most auto deaths in Japan are pedestrians. Also, new European laws regarding pedestrian safety are due to come into effect in the next couple of years. Front end designs have to take pedestrian impact into consideration. Things like pyrotechnics under the hood to raise it in case of pedestrian impact and breakaway wiper arms to prevent further injury will become the norm.

The problem with star ratings and the sort is that we don't know if which vehicles perform better within a ranking - ie 4.5 or 4.75 stars.

 

Re: Safety (robr2)

It is hard to pick the safest vehicle in any class - there are too many variables. This means that there is little distinction between the top ones. I believe Volvo's are safe (and are still near the top on my personal "buy" list), but their whole safety image is in no small part to to agressive marketing as well. Many auto companies take safety seriously and have centers for safety research - Volvo advertises this more often though. For example, from much of the reading that I do, the Saab 9-5 wagon is considered by some independent sources to be safer then the V70. But it is not marketed this way aggressively. So much of what we believe as truth is attributed to marketing.

I still get a laugh when I read so often about the 3-point seat belt invention. Yes Volvo invented it and introduced it first, but everybody uses this design. First doesn't mean best - if you believe that, take a look at the computer industry. And even this invention was not necessarily cultivated at Volvo - it was advancement and refinement of aviation technology from an individual that Volvo hired 1 year prior to its introduction. Ford has also contributed to saftey very early on - seatbacks to reduce whiplash injuries, inertia locking seat belts, enegy absorbing components... But again, the marketing has been so successful that we equate "safety" with "Volvo".

The racing industry has done much for the safety of cars - it is amazing the relatively few deaths in car racing when you consider the horrific high speed accidents that are quite common.

So what is my point - there are many safe cars out there, and I defy anybody to conclusively prove which is the safest. I would bet personal driving style and experience plays as important of a role in safety as the technology in a car. With that said, I will still usually pick a Volvo.

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (Psychwarlord)

there are tons of safe cars out there now.

...and remember roughly twice as many ppl get killed via med malpractice as die in car crashes each year, and we don't obsess over putting every bit of technology on our side each time we see a doctor in an or.

if you're in a late model car and are wearing a seatbelt your chances are pretty good.

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (littlewaywelt)

don't get me wrong, all car companies today work on saftey, but I am sorry if you look at the inventions on todays cars and look at volvo and what they have done, its pretty amazing, I mean I keep hearing volvo coming out with never seen before saftey features (when I thought we had already come up with everything). And since volvo has saved my life twice from deadly crash's along with my friends I will always own a volvo. http://********************/smile/emthup.gif

 

Re: (sarahbau)

Quote, originally posted by sarahbau »

I don't have more current data, but from 1995-1998, the Toyota Camry had a better safety record than the Volvo 850. This is based on number of deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles. The Camry had 37 per 100,000, and the 850 had 39. So Volvo is one of the safest, but I don't think that others are just "scratching to get noticed", but are actually keeping up.

I agree that the safety sweepstake is getting closer, but where can one find the stats you mentioned? According to the IIHS injury claims statistics (available at http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm) which includes fatalities, the 1995-97 Camry was"average" at 93% of base while the 850 was "better than average" at 73%. A similar pattern is evident in the Folksam data http://www.folksam.se/forsknin...k.htm.

 

Calhon, the results there are based on insurance claims. They state that death rate has very little influence on those numbers, since the frequency of death is so rare compared to the number of injuries. Every time I look for this data, it's hard to find, but here it is: http://www.iihs.org/sr%5Fddr/s...4dmid

Something I just noticed glancing at the numbers, that I think is interesting, is of cars that are "better than average" in safety, 7 are Japanese, 2 are American, and one is Swedish. Of the cars that are below average, 9 are America, one is Japanese, and one is Korean. I'm sure American manufacturers have caught up some, but that still doesn't look good for them.

 

Re: (sarahbau)

Sarah, thanks for the link. I have been interested in finding this kind of data for some time.

It's an important piece of the safety puzzle, but remember it's just that .... i.e., one piece. As you pointed out, fatalities are infrequent and I note that only driver deaths are used to compute the overall rates. Notice, for example, that passenger deaths are significantly lower for the 850 than the Camry. If those are included, the death rate for the Camry is higher than that for the 850: 59 versus 52 deaths per million registered vehicle years.

Also, the data has not been standardized for driver age, demographics or usage variables. The injury claims statistics have a similar problem, but at least they are adjusted for driver age. Just a few points to keep in mind.

 

OK. The fact that the American cars seemed to have higher death rates interested me enough to make a spreadsheet. There aren't really enough European models on it to get a good idea of average European safety, but it shows pretty well that the average Japanese car out there is safer than the average American car.

Someone was bored

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (littlewaywelt)

Littleway, you have a good point about safety in the healthcare industry. The press alleging of the figures of persons "killed by medical malpractice" is completely overstated, essentially laughable, for the benefit of the trial lawyers who are behind that study. It is a skillfully crafted piece to whip up a frenzy of ignorant persons for the purpose of frustrating liability reforms. But I will readily admit my industry needs serious technological innovation to make hospitals safer for patients, and there is an initiative now underway.

 

Re: (sarahbau)

Sarahbau, I have said for some time now that if Volvos are "significantly" safer than other brands, wouldn't it make sense that the margin of safety would justify a discount on insurance coverage? I realize premiums would have to include accidents between Volvos and a non-volvos which would cloud the $$ costs, but since there is no company catering to covering volvos exclusively, the difference cannot be too dramatic. If Ford credit makes $$ from financing and leasing, why not insurance products too??? There is your answer!

 

Huh? When did I ask that question? I've been saying that Volvo isn't significantly safer, and you just said the same thing. The only thing I actually showed in my spreadsheet is that Japanese cars tend to be safer than American.

 

Re: (Gunner S60)

I expect losses due to fatalities and injuries along with those due to theft and property damage are figured into the premiums charged for each car. As to question of why there aren't any companies insuring Volvos exclusively, I would be interested in seeing some projected figures for such a business model before accepting your argument .... assuming any insurer has even thought about it.

Modified by Calhon at 9:12 AM 11-5-2004

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (Gunner S60)

Gunner,
I appreciate your comments and without turning this into a debate about healthcare, my point was that we obsess over the wrong things-more people I suspect put more study into their car purchase than their doctor choice, when it is statistically more likely that they'll die as a result of medical negligence or error, or something that could have been prevented but wasn't in a hospital. I am hardly ignorant.

It suffices to say that most of the problems in the medical field are largely of their own doing: financial mismanagement by insurance companies, Medicaid problems created by the gvt in the coding system, cleanliness in hospitals and of course drs, pas and rns making mistakes. Historically caps & tort reform have never solved this cyclical problem. Florida is perhaps the best example.

The lawyers are there because the market has created a need for them to be there. Are some unethical sharks? Sure, but that number isn't higher than the number of Dr.s that make real errors that affect ppl.

Those stats are not laughable; they are real stats and I'm sure you're aware of it. They are reported by real papers and real journalists & statisticians: including the Wall Street Journal, Harvard, The Washington Post and many many health care studies, not all of which are conducted or funded by ATLA. Is the Harvard study old? Sure, but it has a lot of good info I haven't seen anything less biased or as quantitative. Lawyers see what they want in those studies and so do doctors.

The medical industry just like the trial lawyers is skillfully avoiding & spinning their issues. No one can argue that trial lawyers make a convenient whipping bag and it's poor form to beat up on Drs who are there to help people unlike lawyers </sarcam>. Why is it ok for a dr to make a lot of cash but not an attorney?

sorry for blabbering and hope I don't incite a riot.

Anyhow, I won't make any replies/arugments because we're here to discus Volvos not insurance. I apologize for taking us down this road.

 

Perhaps the logic here is a bit flawed. Most insurance costs are based on the cost to repair or replace after an accident. We all know Volvos are not cheep in this regard.

In general, the better Euro cars, Merc, BMW, SAAB and Volvo; are way ahead of most cars in terms of surviving a crash, followed by the Americans and then the Japanese. The Asian mfgrs are latecomers to the safety issue. This may be cuz the average speed on japanese roads is very low, US average is higher and of course the Euro average is fastest by far.

Far as I can tell, safety has always been Volvo's top priority and nothing has changed. But to say that a Volvo has always been the safest car out there ignores things like an S class Benz, which is truly a tank.

 

Re: (sarahbau)

Sarahbau, yes I'm only trying to underscore the point you are making, and that others seem to be disputing. I'm not disputing with you, sorry I did not make my comments clearer.

 

Re: Are Volvos still considered the safest cars on the market? (littlewaywelt)

It simply is silly to think that trial lawyer "data smokescreen" about healthcare dangers has any relationship to reality. How can I say that? I work 12 hours a day in a hospital and can tell you that stuff is pure hype. I've been intimately involved in quality assurance committees, disciplinary committees etc for a long time as a real "insider". You are correct though that we have swedespeed members who brag about Volvo safety and who then exceed speed limits on crowded freeways, kind of irreconcileable isn't it? Or worry about cholesterol but they smoke tobacco. Or they smoke and simultaneously contribute $$$ to their 401ks or their pension plans. Just the human condition I guess. We all know figures don't lie but liars do..... As a practicing physician for 22 years now, that data is wildly inaccurate and based upon bogus assumptions. I truly have no motivation to misrepresent anything or minimize the dangers, as there indeed is a small fraction of idiot physicians for sure, careless workers, or even the hourly employees who make mistakes. But if there was a fatal mistake in a hospital, it would almost never escape notice and REMEDIAL ACTION in any facility I've ever worked in. And seldom is it likely that the family would not catch on to what happened--trust me. Most of the people who hatched that data never even get their hands dirty working in the real world of health care. But believe what you wish, this is America after all! And if you want your fees to reflect litigation and defensive medicine, that too is your right as an American. Indiana limits non-economic damages and requires all litigation to be reviewed by an expert panel before it can be brought to trail. And we have the best compensated injured people and lowest malpractice premiums of just about any state in the USA. And consumers pay lower fees when the see their physicians, and their high risk specialists are not closing their practices because of $150,000 annual insurance premiums. Please do not say that tort reform does not work. We in Indiana KNOW THAT IT WORKS.

Modified by Gunner S60 at 11:14 PM 11-10-2004

 

Most cars today claim to be all about safety and they brag about the 50 different air bags in the car but they simply don't have the same safety technology as Volvo (most don't). Volvo has side impact air bags but it also has SIPS which basically is the sideframe designed much stronger and made to absorb the impact. Volvo also has seat belt pretensioners which have a gunpowder charge that tightens the seatbelts in impacts. Then theres the WHIPS system in the seats that make the seat recline on impact in order to prevent whiplash. Good stuff.