The last sentence of your posting is very true, but cars with low safety ratings result in many deaths and serious injuries whereas when cars with high safety ratings crash there is a much lower chance of serious injury or death. We may not be able to stop car crashes but we can vastly improve the results of these car crashes.
thejazzpianoma,
Aug 31, 4:12pm
I agree, we haven't had a decent government in a long time. It's time the system was revamped to encourage better talent through and give them a fair and reasonable chance of being elected. Of course the current sub standard lot won't want that though.
To be fair, it would be nice to be rid of the butchers apron in the corner of our flag.
meow_mix,
Aug 31, 4:46pm
I don't think Jacinda and her govt are communists or thugs, she cares, which is important in a leader. John Key didn't care, he only cared about his flag, his image, and his knighthood. Jacinda has some fanciful ideas which sometimes turn out to be extremely expensive or unrealistic. She can't tax us all into near-new cars with high safety ratings.
stevexc,
Aug 31, 4:48pm
They can pry my Soarer from my cold dead hands. Might take a bit of effort, depending on how mangled the car is.
gsimpson,
Aug 31, 4:56pm
Maybe at the time but by current standards would only get a 1 star as it won't have several features that will make it slip down the list.
thejazzpianoma,
Aug 31, 5:00pm
You are aware that she is the leader of Socialist World Youth aren't you? Are you familiar with Socialism and what has happened to the countries that tried it?
meow_mix,
Aug 31, 5:07pm
Socialism isn't a bad word, people perceive it as bad because of it's ties to communism.
Saw a mint Generation 1 Ford Laser sedan today, those things are so flimsy I'm surprised a gust of wind hasn't blown it into the sea by now
mack77,
Aug 31, 5:18pm
As at 8/2017 the 1999 Subaru Legacy was rated as 3 stars in the "used car safety ratings" system. Never under-rate the Subaru's.
jmma,
Aug 31, 5:31pm
Was in 2008, :oP
mrfxit,
Aug 31, 5:43pm
. But again, cars don't crash by them selves at any speed. A human makes a mistake somewhere setting off that chain of events. Even an unoccupied vehicle can only crash if a human doesn't set the brakes correctly.
stevexc,
Aug 31, 5:45pm
Aren't the stars somewhat misleading in some aspects?
Eg a late 90s Falcon is one star. A late 90s Fairlane, which is the same thing with a stretch in the middle, gets two stars.
Is this because a bogan is more likely to pick a Falcon to paint matt black and crash at high speed? Where as some elderly man will pick a Fairlane and slowly run over a fence during a medical event.
So a car which is popular with the wrong crowd might get a rating it doesn't actually deserve.
And a car which can barely move under it's own weight - the 1st gen Odyssey somehow gets 4 stars. Is it actually safe or have all the accidents been minor?
framtech,
Aug 31, 5:55pm
kinda like the ambo the bottom of the cliff, I knew this would happen with an idiot party like a labour green govt, curse you NZF for letting this happen. Its like this, owners of perfectly good older cars are going to pay to fix a problem caused by bureaucrats because they have not invested in safer roads for 30 odd years under rogernomics. so instead of preventing accidents with the likes of fly overs and dual carriage ways, they are going to accept carnage on the roads and make the cars idiot proof instead. This works in other countries but and its a big but, cars cost stuff all overseas and overseas governments have a brain. The wanky Greens will be wetting themselves with the though of less cars on the roads except the wealthy who can afford safety at any cost. If the govt had policies that make jobs instead of bulk export, everyone could afford a new car.
poppy62,
Aug 31, 6:22pm
Easy fix! make petrol $20 a litre. The wealthy can pay the extra taxes the drop kicks can take public transport or walk. Less cars means less accidents. No need for extra/better roads, less pollution, less old tyre problems and my Mrs won't go shopping every day.
richynuts,
Aug 31, 6:43pm
I cannot understand how a 18 year old car can get away with a yearly wolf. They should go back to 6month WOF I reckon there is plenty of post 2000 cars with worn tyres, badly worn brakes and suspension, worn out wiper blades, blown bulbs etc etc. More important to get regular wof’s than what the safety rating is.
Nicely illustrated. Incidentally, cab forward vans, Chinese cars and some JDM city vehicles are some of our local key issues. Three point seat belts on all seats on all imports should have been mandatory 10 years ago
That’s got nothing to do with yearly WOF. The WOF is only good for the day it is put on your car after that it is up to the owner to maintain it to a WOF standard. I’ve seen better maintained 30 year old car than some 5 year old ones. It’s more about educating drivers.
gammelvind,
Sep 1, 2:30am
The Scandinavian variety of socialism is doing very well thank you, perfect no but nor is the way we do things here.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.