2006 Chevrolet Aveo SVM from North America - Comments

I agree completely about the lack of safety in SUVs. Although, much of that comes from three reasons.

First, until recently, more attention was payed to cars than trucks and SUVs with respect to safety.

Two, most people simply don't know how to drive a SUV properly. While most APPEAR to ride like cars, they're not. They're designed differently and, as such, need to be driven differently.

The third, which falls under your comment about the laws of physics, is that SUVs fall under the height versus width problem (and are inherently made worse by the desire to lift them with higher suspensions and bigger wheels than stock).

It should be pointed out, however, that many "sub-compact" vehicles are running the risk of falling into this situation as well, as the current designs seem to think narrower and higher is perfectly acceptable.

One other quick comment I neglected to make.

Re: "classic" cars versus newer.

I don't doubt for a second that there were substantially more deaths (percentage-wise) in the cars of the 50s versus those of today. Although, I submit that the reason behind that is slightly different than my initial point.

For certain, those cars were "less safe." But, not because they were less "substantial."

Those cars had virtually NO safety features at all. I'm not sure when seat belts became a mandatory part of design, but I do know that many classic and antique cars on the road today needed to have them installed to make them road legal. Cars from the 50s and prior either had no seat belts at all, or (most) had nothing more than basic lap belts. In either case, a head on collision would likely send a driver head first into a windshield. In which case, the car likely faired far better in the accident than the driver.

Along the way, we decided that thinking was somewhat backwards and started building cars where the safety of the occupants was more important than the post-accident usability of the car.

That brings us up to today where, I think ultimately you and I are in total agreement that the fact that a car is smaller or likely to be "totalled" after an accident is no longer an indication of whether or not a car can be considered safe. The condition of the occupants after an accident is what determines safety these days, not the condition of the car.

This is an interesting debate. As has been stated, it takes virtually NOTHING To cause a vehicle to be written off as a "total loss". I hit a vehicle that pulled in front of me with my Dodge pickup and even though there was only minor damage to the hood, a smashed grille, one broken headlight, and a damaged bumper, it was written off as a total loss even though I could have driven it home. The insurance company paid me 92% of the original purchase price for it (it was 5 years old, but Dodge trucks have awesome resale value). As for small cars being safe, most are, due to the air bags and other safety features. Small cars generally protect their occupants very well in collisions. On the flip (no pun intended!!) side, I've seen entirely too many accidents involving SUV's and cars to give any credence to the myth that SUV's are more dangerous. One of our friends was hit head-on in her 7-series BMW by a Chevy Suburban and received serious injuries that required months of rehabilitation. The Suburban driver walked away without a scratch. Although I do not like SUV's, and don't drive one myself (I drive a GM compact and a Ford truck) I want my wife to be safe, and I am glad she chooses to drive a big, sturdy American made SUV. To think these things are more vulnerable in crashes is like arguing that an egg is tougher than a rock. Most SUV fatalities occur due to roll-overs and less than intelligent people who don't wear their seat belts and get ejected in those roll-overs. My high-riding truck has a very bright notice on the sun visor stating "ROLL-OVER HAZARD". I respect that and wear my seat belts. As for the results obtained by "independent research laboratories", if you pay them enough I can assure you that they will easily produce data indicating that your riding mower is safer in a high-speed collision than a Sherman tank.

Sorry, but just check out the statistics behind crashes involving SUVs and those involving cars and you will find SUVs are, on average, 43% less safe.

You're simply living a myth.

I want to add a point to the "classic 50's cars" vs. today's cars debate.

Yes, the 50s cars often didn't have seat belts.

AND

they also had:

No safety-glass (meaning that I breaks in shards, not cubes)

A Metal dashboard, buttons and levers (non-recessed)

No collapsible steering column (often impaling the driver in moderate or severe collisions - rear-end or head-on, I forget which)

No headrests.

Well considering the Aveo is an up to date Daewoo Lanos, I wouldn't expect it to be too bad of a car. Since I own a 2000 Lanos.

Chevy bought the Daewoo company in 2002 after Daewoo went bankrupt and then decided to make the aAveo. I don't drive my Lanos too much since I only have 37000 on her, but she's been good to me so far for what I needed her for. With a few small problems that where faults of my own.

I paid 10.000 for her new, and with eight years gone by I can't complain...

I owned a 2004 Aveo 4 door 5 speed. It had just over 100,000 miles on it when it was totaled in March 2009 when rear ended by a jacked up Jeep that hit us at 35 MPH while we were sitting still. The car did sustain major damage, and the rear end and trunk were folded up almost in to the back seat, but the back seat passenger compartment was not crushed, and my wife, who was in the back seat, sustained only minor injury from the force of the impact.

We took the insurance money and purchased a 2006 Aveo hatchback 5 speed.