:( Sometimes you wonder if the drivers were okay...



Attached thumbnail(s)

OUCH

My Webpage

link to wrecked exotics.

Damb good site!!!

:blush: Very discriminating. No Volvo's listed :haha:

Yeah, nice site!
:)

As for Auckland's Q - maybe cos Volvo is (and I say this as carefully as I type) not an exotic car.
:blush:

:cat: Me being simple.

Volvo does not need titles. Other brands might need titles like Exotic.

Volvo is it's own Title. :57:

Hehehe...

:57:

Not very interested in seeing the vehicled that people have been killed or seriously hurt in. It seems that it doesn't belong here.

:huh: Your first posting is very interesting. You don't think those photograph's have a place here. Well, that is your opinion. However, those photograph's amply demonstrate why we brought Volvo's.

When you see what the resulting deformation of the vehicular body panels and structure looks like, you realise that those drivers/owners exhibited courageousness beyond what we (as Volvo owners) have the mental capacity to handle.

Those photograph's reinforce in my mind why I brought a Volvo. Those photograph's reinforce my ideals of why I drive the way I do. I don't even bother with vehicular insurance. I haven't been insured for thirty years. I don't need it. I drive to accommodate other driver's and their driving idiosyncratic tendencies.

If you are worried about the anthropological aspects of the accidents, I think you are the very person we have all been waiting for.

How would you like to be the one person in the world who tells the other car manufacturer's not to make cars that are not as good as Volvo?

How would you like to be the one person in the world who tells other driver's that this is what they will end up as, if they don't mimic my driving?

I am sure the whole of volvo-forums will be very interested in your response.

Cheers :cat:

I think it very much does belong here. Generally people dont really understand the impact of unsafe driving, or not wearing seatbelts until they see the aftermath of what happens. If the injuries were shown, I would agree with u.

I was interested in what Auckland said though about not needing insurance. Not to sound ignorant, but is auto insurance an option in New Zealand? No matter how safe u drive, how do u get reimbursed for the damages, especially if theres a dispute over whos at fault? I relaize we could go on all day with "what ifs", but just curious.

2000 V70 2.4 NA (non-Turbo),

I apologise if the photos worry you, but take it as a positive thing - as what Auckland and S60R mentioned - to reinforce your belief in driving safely and driving 'safe'. :huh: But the ones above was emailed to me by a friend in New York.




=============================================



I even have photos of bodies all upside-down to put it in the mildest form, with shots of how far the babies and toddlers in the car were thrown OUT of the car due to the impact of the collision, caused by the the sleepy lorry-driver who hit them head-on. But I will save that only for my hard-disk.

* Caution *
Looking at them for extended time, may bring tears to your eyes.

Sometimes, I 'get' these photos by capturing the images, at the Traffic Polices' "Educating the Public of Road Safety Campaigns". They don't show these anywhere else.

:cat: Hi there. To answer your question-insurance is not compulsory in New Zealand. We have the Government insurance (compulsory and paid for in the annual registration) but it only covers accidents involving injury. Hospital care and the like.

We have full cover and 'third party'. Full cover insures you against damage caused by yourself and other drivers damaging your vehicle.

'Third party' covers damage you do to other people's car and property. It does not cover your own vehicle. This is a very popular option is you are poor or cannot get full cover. :bann:

I think we have another scheme which pays for theft and fire of your vehicle.

Unfortunately, to deal with an insurance company-you need the morales of a lawyer and be a far better liar than I am. :wub:

I simply cannot be bothered dealing with them. :devil:

Cheers :haha:

I think we also need to be fully conversant with the work done by Volvo with the Crash Test Dummies in the 1960s and 1970s and before [like we were shown those films of kiddies being catapaulted from back seat and taking daddy's head off at school in 1959]

and at the time of the american assault on Iraq for the one simple reason american oil is running out we need to consider also what happened in 1970s with Volvo and america

in 1972 Volvo introduced the "5 MPH bumper bar" which meant no damage at all in a collision up to 5mph and substantially less damage [relatively] at any higher speed - with the "oil crisis" of 1977 the americans [along with their 50 mph speed limit] said that "the Volvo bumper increases the fuel comsumption by 17.3% and that america "could not afford" such safety devices - of course the motor repair lobby was BIG in that too

OK it was true and carrying around those huge bumpers [which I painted green] has probably cost me 2 grand in fuel in 13 years and I have never got to really test them

but the americans won the day and in 1978 no more safety bumpers - then by 1998 we saw the huge influx of massive Hum Vee junk called 4WD in Oz or SUVs in america which use 117.5% the amount of fuel - and gosh the fuel is running out so we attack Iraq :haha:

also the need for performance as well as safety meant Volvo was forced to cut the weight in many other places to compete with Japanese tinny cars so all in all my own fuel guzzling 1976 model is probably the safest "brick" ever made by Volvo [but as Aukland says I too dont ever intend to test it out by asking for an accident]

OK I get lousy consumption but I simply weigh that up against "if ever some young dude smashes into me from ANY angle ....." then I will have a far better chance than if I was driving Japanese

other nice part of SUV invasion is "Volvo drivers" are no longer despised as that mantle has reverted to the Hum Vee drivers

In an attempt to keep this civil, I dont recall anyone asking your view on world topics in this thread. Wheather a vehicle is headed for the U.S. or not, as one who investigates traffic accidents, I can assure you that in any country, the best way to get vehicle safety information is to look at post accident damage.

I dont really understand your point [but respect your right to make it] are you saying it is pointless to engineer in any safety features or do crash tests but rather to look at the result of such neglect in an accident - ie after horse has bolted

also I was not making comments on world events but simply giving a bit of history of the issue of safety vs politics in the last 50 years or so. In Don Rumsfeld speak these are "known knowns"

My point was in an attempt to address a person who felt crash photos dont belong here, and u who has an issue with America and apparently Japan, was simply what I said... that crash photos are an excellent source of information regardless of your country.

I greatly apologize for typing "the best way" instead of "a great way", but I never said that crash testing was pointless. I have no idea where u got that I said it is pointless to engineer in any safety features, and please no more examples!!!

Thanks for the history lesson, but I have to go fill up my SUV...I left it running in the driveway with a CD of Courtesy of The Red White And Blue on contant playback :grin: :grin: :grin:

OK, guys... Come one.

A little bit less cynical and a little more of openness.

Thanks!
:)

yeah - seems he got me mixed up with other people who objected to crash photos

maybe we just wipe that whole discussion as going nowhere

arent the Crash Test Dummies a famous pop group?

The Crash Test Dummies are OK - but not all of the songs are nice.
:)