8th Jan 2007, 14:32

Nah, I'll just count the dead Suburban passengers vs. the Civic ones with minor bruises.

8th Jan 2007, 15:42

First of all, it is an EXTREMELY rare occurrence for an SUV to be at fault in an accident, as most are driven by more mature people who drive responsibly, so talk of "runaway SUV's" is not accurate unless it is referring to the problem-plagued Highlander with defective brakes. And ANY test that indicates that a Honda Civic is safer in an accident than a full-size, truck-based SUV was obviously financed by Honda. People making such arguments are obviously not very adept in the field of physics. I imagine these same folks will try to argue that a beer can can smash an anvil.

8th Jan 2007, 16:55

"If they could turn a profit, they'd probably be building them in China for goodness sakes!"

Yes, in fact DaimlerChrysler just signed an agreement with China's Chery Motors to start producing some lower-end Dodge models. The Japanese undercut the Big Three with cheap labor, and now Dodge is undercutting Toyota in like fashion.

8th Jan 2007, 18:34

Another comment utterly devoid of fact. Just more opinion in the starry-eyed belief that Honda is infallible.

8th Jan 2007, 19:38

Anyone can figure out that a 2-3 ton SUV or pickup will protect you in a crash better then a Honda Accord, duh! And it's not like larger vehicles don't have airbags and safety equipment just like econo-boxes! If you seriously think you're safer in an accident in an Accord or Civic then a 6000 lb. Hummer or Tahoe then you haven't thought the issue through plain and simple.

8th Jan 2007, 21:20

Think the issue through? I just need to read all the FACTS concerning crash tests and real-world data.

Keep believing your Titanic fantasies. After all, if it looks safe it must be safe. Just ask all those Corvair owners like Ernie Kovacs.

8th Jan 2007, 22:09

Obviously you do not work at the Rouge manufacturing plant and know a thing or two about Ford trucks. Look at the crash tests for a 1997-2004 F-150 as indicated and come back and tell some innocent person to buy such a death trap!!!

8th Jan 2007, 22:17

Honda Motor Company has it so hard. People criticize the Civic because it does not hold as much cargo as an Suv--but they never state that it blows Focuses, Colbalts, Corollas, etc out of the water. People hate the Accord cause it is not as rigid as a 5000 pound vehicle, but fail to compare it to what it was built to be better than such as a Camry, Malibu, Fusion, or Sonata. People compare the Ridgeline to F-150s or F250's, but forget it was built to be a light truck to run around town and compete against the 15 year old Ranger. PEOPLE LISTEN!!! You are not doing the big three any good by sitting here and slandering the Japanese cars against American built trucks. From the logic set forth here you all just compare apples to oranges and in the long run make no sense at all. Like I said in the beginning Honda has it hard--people compare Civics or Crx's to Silverados or Suburbans and are making no point other than they are bigger and weigh twice as much. Compare apples to apples. Not Tuna to chicken!!!

9th Jan 2007, 11:03

As someone who is involved in engineering, I find it downright SCARY that there are actually people who would argue that larger, heavier vehicles are less safe in crashes. Try telling that to the parents of the three teenagers who lost control of their Honda Accord and crashed head-on into The GMC Yukon driven by one of my clients. They all died instantly. My client walked away.

10th Jan 2007, 07:03

I cannot believe the above comment stating "most people driving SUVs are elderly and are rarely at fault for accidents". Every driver is different so how can you stereotype people for what cars they drive. I know a lot of people who drive small cars and have never had any accidents. If anything these SUVs are driven more dangerously than smaller cars. Please don't stereotype because of the type of cars young/elderly people drive.

10th Jan 2007, 10:31

Was it say a 1990 Accord or 1994 era Accord? Cause back then I can say that Honda's were tinsel metal. The new ones say 2003-20007 Generation are pretty safe. This generation of Accord is also one of the older designs too because it does not incorporate the "ace" crash system yet. I think many people would be in the market for a newer Accord which are just as safe if not more safe than its competitors such as a Ford Fusion or Toyota Camry. Once again we are comparing an Accord to an SUV. Sadly yes there were fatalities with that Accord, but chances are you would not have been better off in any other midsize car of the time save for the Taurus. I have extended family who have died in crashes with their Silverado and one with their Yukon flipping over.

10th Jan 2007, 11:11

As someone who is involved in engineering I am shocked you wouldn't look at the FACTS and REAL WORLD crash statistics.

I can cite hundreds of SUV-related death stories where the other CAR in the accident had its passengers walk away from the crash.

Your argument reminds me of my driver's ed class in 1982. A girl in the class said she was "saved" by not wearing her seatbelt and therefore not having seatbelts was better.

10th Jan 2007, 12:10

The accident referred to involved a 2004 Accord 4-door sedan.

10th Jan 2007, 12:51

Yup, funny how a high center of gravity, limited safety features, oversized tires, and the rest result in an unsafe vehicle.

But just ignore all that plus the government warnings on every SUV about how it handles "differently" than a car, and you've got a strong case that SUVs are superior in crashes.

10th Jan 2007, 21:42

The comment about SUV drivers doesn't say ELDERLY. It says MATURE. My 16-year-old nephew is more MATURE than many 50 year old drivers (and he, incidentally, drives a large GM SUV). It is a fact that the majority of SUV drivers are not at fault in accidents involving cars and SUV's.

11th Jan 2007, 08:46

Care to back up that statement, because you cannot.

And I don't care how "mature" your 16 year old nephew is, he is NOT qualified to drive such a vehicle.

In Germany he couldn't even get on the autobahn until he was 18 AND had two years worth of driving experience.

This poster just proves why American SUV drivers cause more accidents and death than any other drivers.

14th Jan 2007, 11:55

People who drive SUV's are generally more mature and responsible people who drive much more carefully. There is not a SHRED of evidence that SUV drivers cause even a 10th of the fatalities on the road. Every accident I've ever heard of involving an SUV and a car was caused by the (usually young and irresponsible) driver of the car breaking the law. SUV's are by far the safest vehicles on the road due to their size, weight and safety features. If I had a 16-year-old son, that is what I'd MAKE him drive. And yes, there ARE very mature and responsible 16-year-olds out there. My next door neighbor's son is one, and he also drives a large GM SUV.

14th Jan 2007, 12:06

In regard to comment 12:51, I have yet to see even ONE SUV (even poorly made Japanese ones) that had "limited safety features". ALL SUV's have air bags and seat belts, and given the size and weight of domestic SUV's it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get seriously hurt (let alone killed) in one of these vehicles if you wear your seat belts. I know of several people who have been killed in truck and SUV roll overs, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DID NOT WEAR THEIR SEAT BELTS. Don't blame the SUV's for the stupidity of their drivers and passengers. If you're buckled up you may get tossed around, but you're not going to get hurt. Unlike small cars, SUV's don't collapse in on their occupants in crashes.