Sports & fast cars are stupid.

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

See, now you are just being silly. WTF does that have to do with sports cars? Only people with fast cars do that type of thing?? What the hell do they teach you up there in Canuck land?

I'm merely saying owners of performance cars are more likely to get in an accident of their making. Ask your insurance company if you don't believe me

 

[StageLeft]

One more thing...how would the Sentra be "safer". Do you forget that most higher end "performance cars" have things like better brakes, bigger tires offering a much larger contact patch, better supension, etc. I would argue that the Sentra is less safe.

Well, the sentra is safer to others undoubtedly, and it's safer to the driver unless that driver has the self-control to drive at regular speeds, in which case a volvo is probably safer than their peformance car anyway

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Insane3D

See, now you are just being silly. WTF does that have to do with sports cars? Only people with fast cars do that type of thing?? What the hell do they teach you up there in Canuck land?

I'm merely saying owners of performance cars are more likely to get in an accident of their making. Ask your insurance company if you don't believe me

insurance companies have an agenda. that's like asking a fat kid if pizza is better for you than carrots. he KNOWS it's better, but he LIKES pizza, so he's going to say hell no pizza is much better for you. the insurance companies want to get more money, so "sports" cars and suvs are more dangerous, hence they can collect more money from the people driving them, even if their "facts" are based in a land where reality doesn't exist. welcome to america!

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

One more thing...how would the Sentra be "safer". Do you forget that most higher end "performance cars" have things like better brakes, bigger tires offering a much larger contact patch, better supension, etc. I would argue that the Sentra is less safe.

Well, the sentra is safer to others undoubtedly, and it's safer to the driver unless that driver has the self-control to drive at regular speeds, in which case a volvo is probably safer than their peformance car anyway

Ok, this is what I was talking about. You just won't understand no matter what. No offense here at all, but are you really trying to say that all people that drive performance vehicles drive fast and reckless, and all people that drive everything else drive safe? C'mon man. I went ot Florida once and there were 80 year olds driving around in V8 Mustangs and Vette's at about 10 MPH BELOW the speed limit at all times..

Generalizing is rarely accurate.

 

[MattCo]

I agree with Skorb. I have owned sports cars and SUVs in the past and have enjoyed the "image" that most people put on expensive crap. Now that I have become wiser, I wish I had the money wasted on them (initial expense, maintenance, and gas). Luxury would make my morning commute much more enjoyable, not driving fast car at a whopping 6mph in rush hour traffic.

-MC

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Skoorb

One more thing...how would the Sentra be "safer". Do you forget that most higher end "performance cars" have things like better brakes, bigger tires offering a much larger contact patch, better supension, etc. I would argue that the Sentra is less safe.

Well, the sentra is safer to others undoubtedly, and it's safer to the driver unless that driver has the self-control to drive at regular speeds, in which case a volvo is probably safer than their peformance car anyway

Ok, this is what I was talking about. You just won't understand no matter what. No offense here at all, but are you really trying to say that all people that drive performance vehicles drive fast and reckless, and all people that drive everything else drive safe? C'mon man. I went ot Florida once and there were 80 year olds driving around in V8 Mustangs and Vette's at about 10 MPH BELOW the speed limit at all times..

Generalizing is rarely accurate.

probably 80 yr olds that couldn't see 10 feet! see he's right! danger will robinson danger!

*ahem*

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Ok, this is what I was talking about. You just won't understand no matter what. No offense here at all, but are you really trying to say that all people that drive performance vehicles drive fast and reckless, and all people that drive everything else drive safe? C'mon man. I went ot Florida once and there were 80 year olds driving around in V8 Mustangs and Vette's at about 10 MPH BELOW the speed limit at all times..

Generalizing is rarely accurate.

But why did they buy these vetts and mustang GTs if they can't even use the speed...?

insurance companies have an agenda. that's like asking a fat kid if pizza is better for you than carrots. he KNOWS it's better, but he LIKES pizza, so he's going to say hell no pizza is much better for you. the insurance companies want to get more money, so "sports" cars and suvs are more dangerous, hence they can collect more money. welcome to america!

Oh come on, insurance costs more on a sports car because people get in more accidents with them. Any agenda takes a back seat to the statistical proof behind that. If you've got a guy in a 100 horsepower car and another in a 350 horsepower that looks the part, you can bet on the second guy getting into more accidents.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Ok, this is what I was talking about. You just won't understand no matter what. No offense here at all, but are you really trying to say that all people that drive performance vehicles drive fast and reckless, and all people that drive everything else drive safe? C'mon man. I went ot Florida once and there were 80 year olds driving around in V8 Mustangs and Vette's at about 10 MPH BELOW the speed limit at all times..

Generalizing is rarely accurate.

But why did they buy these vetts and mustang GTs if they can't even use the speed...?

insurance companies have an agenda. that's like asking a fat kid if pizza is better for you than carrots. he KNOWS it's better, but he LIKES pizza, so he's going to say hell no pizza is much better for you. the insurance companies want to get more money, so "sports" cars and suvs are more dangerous, hence they can collect more money. welcome to america!

Oh come on, insurance costs more on a sports car because people get in more accidents with them. Any agenda takes a back seat to the statistical proof behind that. If you've got a guy in a 100 horsepower car and another in a 350 horsepower that looks the part, you can bet on the second guy getting into more accidents.

that right there stinks of BS. apparently you also visit the world where reality doesn't exist. to even say something like that is so ignorant i can't even fathom the words to properly describe it.

edit: oh and by the way, the guy i roomed with in college (oh and my best friend, his mom was my second mom) had a mom that worked for an insurance company for MANY years, so i have a little bit of insight to these things.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Ok, this is what I was talking about. You just won't understand no matter what. No offense here at all, but are you really trying to say that all people that drive performance vehicles drive fast and reckless, and all people that drive everything else drive safe? C'mon man. I went ot Florida once and there were 80 year olds driving around in V8 Mustangs and Vette's at about 10 MPH BELOW the speed limit at all times..

Generalizing is rarely accurate.

But why did they buy these vetts and mustang GTs if they can't even use the speed...?

insurance companies have an agenda. that's like asking a fat kid if pizza is better for you than carrots. he KNOWS it's better, but he LIKES pizza, so he's going to say hell no pizza is much better for you. the insurance companies want to get more money, so "sports" cars and suvs are more dangerous, hence they can collect more money. welcome to america!

Oh come on, insurance costs more on a sports car because people get in more accidents with them. Any agenda takes a back seat to the statistical proof behind that. If you've got a guy in a 100 horsepower car and another in a 350 horsepower that looks the part, you can bet on the second guy getting into more accidents.

You just will not get it. Arguing the same point over and over is pointless. If you really believe all that, then more power to you. What is it they say about ignorance?

I thought a rational discussion could ensue here, but I see with every post the chances of that are slim.

Skoorb, have a nice day. I'm out...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Ok, this is what I was talking about. You just won't understand no matter what. No offense here at all, but are you really trying to say that all people that drive performance vehicles drive fast and reckless, and all people that drive everything else drive safe? C'mon man. I went ot Florida once and there were 80 year olds driving around in V8 Mustangs and Vette's at about 10 MPH BELOW the speed limit at all times..

Generalizing is rarely accurate.

But why did they buy these vetts and mustang GTs if they can't even use the speed...?

insurance companies have an agenda. that's like asking a fat kid if pizza is better for you than carrots. he KNOWS it's better, but he LIKES pizza, so he's going to say hell no pizza is much better for you. the insurance companies want to get more money, so "sports" cars and suvs are more dangerous, hence they can collect more money. welcome to america!

Oh come on, insurance costs more on a sports car because people get in more accidents with them. Any agenda takes a back seat to the statistical proof behind that. If you've got a guy in a 100 horsepower car and another in a 350 horsepower that looks the part, you can bet on the second guy getting into more accidents.

that right there stinks of BS. apparently you also visit the world where reality doesn't exist. to even say something like that is so ignorant i can't even fathom the words to properly describe it.

Are you kidding? You really are trying to tell me that nisurance is higher on a sports car than on an accord because the insurance companies are trying to gouge customers? Is that what you're saying? it's got nothing to do with the fact that, hmm, people in sports cars cause more accidents? I can't imagine anybody else here agreeing with that take on things.

 

[spidey07]

Skoorb,

Do I need to remind you that almost all modern safety features were born and came to market via sports cars?

Not to mention the added braking of a sports car and agility IMHO makes them safer.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

You just will not get it. Arguing the same point over and over is pointless. If you really believe all that, then more power to you. What is it they say about ignorance?

I thought a rational discussion could ensue here, but I see with every post the chances of that are slim.

Skoorb, have a nice day. I'm out...

This was a different point. I hope you're not in the same boat as fisher who thinks that sports cars have the same accident rates as non-sports cars, like an accord or a minivan.

 

[Vic]

Skoorb... trolling? :Q

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

One more thing...how would the Sentra be "safer". Do you forget that most higher end "performance cars" have things like better brakes, bigger tires offering a much larger contact patch, better supension, etc. I would argue that the Sentra is less safe.

Well, the sentra is safer to others undoubtedly, and it's safer to the driver unless that driver has the self-control to drive at regular speeds, in which case a volvo is probably safer than their peformance car anyway

Anyway,
I can see your thinking and I am with you to a point. I think Humvees are patently worthless on the road. I don't think I could even get one in my driveway (width). But I'm not going to bother to tell someone to not buy one. If GM makes it and no one buys it then tough luck. But people do buy them, GM can't make enough of them, and if that is what people want to buy then more power to them.

As far as a sports car being more dangerous I do not see the logic in that. The car itself isn't more dangerous, it's the person driving it that makes it more dangerous. Just as with guns, if you don't know how to handle or shoot a gun safely then you have no business using them. Do all accidents involve sports cars? God, no. Most accidents involve more pedestrian cars. Me, personally, I love to drive. I LOVE to drive. I'd much rather be in a G35 coupe with 280 horsepower than a Civic DX with 103 horsepower. I would undoubtedly use more of the potential of the latter than the former but so what? I'd be happier in the G35 and what else really matters? Life is too short to worry about things that just don't matter.


Cheers! :beer:

 

[MattCo]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Skoorb, Do I need to remind you that almost all modern safety features were born and came to market via sports cars? Not to mention the added braking of a sports car and agility IMHO makes them safer.

Do the security features Volvo invents all come from sports cars? I dont think the air bag was invented from sports cars. Maybe I am wrong.

-MC

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Ok, this is what I was talking about. You just won't understand no matter what. No offense here at all, but are you really trying to say that all people that drive performance vehicles drive fast and reckless, and all people that drive everything else drive safe? C'mon man. I went ot Florida once and there were 80 year olds driving around in V8 Mustangs and Vette's at about 10 MPH BELOW the speed limit at all times..

Generalizing is rarely accurate.

But why did they buy these vetts and mustang GTs if they can't even use the speed...?

insurance companies have an agenda. that's like asking a fat kid if pizza is better for you than carrots. he KNOWS it's better, but he LIKES pizza, so he's going to say hell no pizza is much better for you. the insurance companies want to get more money, so "sports" cars and suvs are more dangerous, hence they can collect more money. welcome to america!

Oh come on, insurance costs more on a sports car because people get in more accidents with them. Any agenda takes a back seat to the statistical proof behind that. If you've got a guy in a 100 horsepower car and another in a 350 horsepower that looks the part, you can bet on the second guy getting into more accidents.

that right there stinks of BS. apparently you also visit the world where reality doesn't exist. to even say something like that is so ignorant i can't even fathom the words to properly describe it.

Are you kidding? You really are trying to tell me that nisurance is higher on a sports car than on an accord because the insurance companies are trying to gouge customers? Is that what you're saying? it's got nothing to do with the fact that, hmm, people in sports cars cause more accidents? I can't imagine anybody else here agreeing with that take on things.

that's EXACTLY what i'm saying. what you drive doesn't determine HOW you drive. you can drive badly in a POS pickup truck and get in more wrecks then some dude in his porsche will ever get in. besides that the guy in the porsche is going to be able to avoid accidents because he has a vehicle that can perform in a situation where he might need to swerve quickly or hit the gas and get out of the way. unless you start pulling out statistics (and not from the insurance company) then i'm going to keep telling you over and over that you are in fact full of BS and just making things up to support your point of view.

i'll add this in down here since you missed it up there:

edit: oh and by the way, the guy i roomed with in college (oh and my best friend, his mom was my second mom) had a mom that worked for an insurance company for MANY years, so i have a little bit of insight to these things.

 

[StageLeft]

Passenger vans showed the lowest death rates, with the Nissan Quest at 18 per million vehicles, while sports cars had the highest-308 for the Chevy Camaro. No, how can that be!!!

 

[dolph]

skoorb, you're absolutely right. unfortunately, people are, by and large, idiots. if you have a performance car that can do 0-60 under 6 but you only drive it 65 mph to work and back, you're probably a dick. to have a fast car and not do anything with it is like having an oc'd 4 ghz p4 with 2 gb of ram, serial ata raid 0, 256 mb 9800 pro, & 2 21" 2048x1600 120hz monitors to check your email and play solitaire. it's your choice, and i would never want a law of any sort prohibiting you from squandering your money however you like (unless you're skipping child support payments), but i would strongly urge someone to put their money towards something they can at least derive some pleasure from.

 

[Insane3D]

Oh sure...drag me back in with this...

Are you kidding? You really are trying to tell me that nisurance is higher on a sports car than on an accord because the insurance companies are trying to gouge customers? Is that what you're saying? it's got nothing to do with the fact that, hmm, people in sports cars cause more accidents? I can't imagine anybody else here agreeing with that take on things.

Years ago, Geico bought out a company that was floundering. The company made laser guns for monitoring speeds. Once Geico took over, then started a program where they "donated" several new laser guns to the police departments in certai nareas where they had a large number of insured drivers. They stipulated to the Police departments that they would expect X number of tickets to be written per month. The obvious idea here was they would make much more money then they lost on the laser guns by cranking up the insurnace of the people that were written tickets with those spiffy new laser guns.

If you really think the rates are higher because faster cars are in more accidents, you really have no idea.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MattCo

Originally posted by: spidey07
Skoorb, Do I need to remind you that almost all modern safety features were born and came to market via sports cars? Not to mention the added braking of a sports car and agility IMHO makes them safer.

Do the security features Volvo invents all come from sports cars? I dont think the air was invented from sports cars. Maybe I am wrong.

-MC

googled...

When airbags were fitted
1986 Mercedes S Class
1990 Lexus LS400, Volvo 960
1992 BMW standard across range, Volvo driver and passenger airbag
1993 Holden Commodore, Mazda 929
1994 Mazda standard or option across entire range, Mitsubishi standard on Verada Xi, option on V6 Magna and Verada, Volvo side airbags introduced
1995 Toyota Celica, Nissan Pulsar
1996 Ford Fairmont/Fairmont Ghia
1998 Ford Falcon standard across range

hmmmm, SPORTS class was first car.

-edit- I'm thinking more along the lines of seatbelts, ABS, traction control, etc

 

[StageLeft]

that's EXACTLY what i'm saying. what you drive doesn't determine HOW you drive. you can drive badly in a POS pickup truck and get in more wrecks then some dude in his porsche will ever get in. besides that the guy in the porsche is going to be able to avoid accidents because he has a vehicle that can perform in a situation where he might need to swerve quickly or hit the gas and get out of the way. unless you start pulling out statistics (and not from the insurance company) then i'm going to keep telling you over and over that you are in fact full of BS and just making things up to support your point of view.

i'll add this in down here since you missed it up there:

edit: oh and by the way, the guy i roomed with in college (oh and my best friend, his mom was my second mom) had a mom that worked for an insurance company for MANY years, so i have a little bit of insight to these things.

Well that's lovely that the driver causes the accident, and not the car. But insurance companies, and those with common sense, know that a sports car is more likely to be in an accident than a non sports car. Whether that's from God pushing it off the road, or the driver doing it, that car is more likely to end up in an accident. The statistics proove this irrefutably. And in fact I will eat my own hand if you can find statistics that show that a sports car is no more likely, on average, to be in a driver-caused accident than a 4 door family sedan.

 

[LAUST]

Why do you think I got a blower made for towing

The speed is a side effect of having 570lbs of torque

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

that's EXACTLY what i'm saying. what you drive doesn't determine HOW you drive. you can drive badly in a POS pickup truck and get in more wrecks then some dude in his porsche will ever get in. besides that the guy in the porsche is going to be able to avoid accidents because he has a vehicle that can perform in a situation where he might need to swerve quickly or hit the gas and get out of the way. unless you start pulling out statistics (and not from the insurance company) then i'm going to keep telling you over and over that you are in fact full of BS and just making things up to support your point of view.

i'll add this in down here since you missed it up there:

edit: oh and by the way, the guy i roomed with in college (oh and my best friend, his mom was my second mom) had a mom that worked for an insurance company for MANY years, so i have a little bit of insight to these things.

Well that's lovely that the driver causes the accident, and not the car. But insurance companies, and those with common sense, know that a sports car is more likely to be in an accident than a non sports car. Whether that's from God pushing it off the road, or the driver doing it, that car is more likely to end up in an accident. The statistics proove this irrefutably. And in fact I will eat my own hand if you can find statistics that show that a sports car is no more likely, on average, to be in a driver-caused accident than a 4 door family sedan.

Dude...is this one of those old time Skoorb threads??? Have you seen how these kids drive in these little Honda civics??? I give up, this thread is so pointless, I think I'll go argue with the wall to my right, I might have more luck.

 

[StageLeft]

Linky

It is actually much more complicated than 2-door or 4-door. Insurance company
compile actuarial tables based on the make/model of car, driver sex, age,
ticket frequency, etc. They use those to rate vehicles and drivers. If there
is a surcharge for a particular car, it is based on the claim history of all
insured vehicles of that type. Now, it turns out that certain cars are
primarily driven more "safely" than others according to the statistics, and get
the most preferred rates: things like Ford Crown Victorias and Buick
Roadmasters. Other things are driven by testosterone overloaded people more
often and get higher rates, like Camaro Z28's. There are some intersting
anomolies which I noticed while looking over a general listing of the rating
catagories published by Consumer Reports a few years ago: Porsche 911/928 are
in the "average" rating class, while 924/944 are in the very risky class.
Ferrari's are average, Pontiac Fiero's are even more risky than 924/944.
Mustang V8 GT was riskier than Mustang V8 LX. Wheeeee! The tables don't
explain why a particular car might be more risky to insure than another, the
tables simply reflect experience.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Linky

It is actually much more complicated than 2-door or 4-door. Insurance company
compile actuarial tables based on the make/model of car, driver sex, age,
ticket frequency, etc. They use those to rate vehicles and drivers. If there
is a surcharge for a particular car, it is based on the claim history of all
insured vehicles of that type. Now, it turns out that certain cars are
primarily driven more "safely" than others according to the statistics, and get
the most preferred rates: things like Ford Crown Victorias and Buick
Roadmasters. Other things are driven by testosterone overloaded people more
often and get higher rates, like Camaro Z28's. There are some intersting
anomolies which I noticed while looking over a general listing of the rating
catagories published by Consumer Reports a few years ago: Porsche 911/928 are
in the "average" rating class, while 924/944 are in the very risky class.
Ferrari's are average, Pontiac Fiero's are even more risky than 924/944.
Mustang V8 GT was riskier than Mustang V8 LX. Wheeeee! The tables don't
explain why a particular car might be more risky to insure than another, the
tables simply reflect experience.

Oh yeah, the GT is riskier than the EXCAT SAME FREAKIN CAR...the LX.

Must be those power lumbar seats...