<p>For almost a year and a half I drove the small suv that some people on this thread have suggested, the Toyota RAV4. I loved the way the car drove and the room, but I learned that it flipped pretty easily when I actually did roll it in may. The car is built really high and narrow, and I would definently not suggest it for any new driver. It literally only took me 30 seconds to roll it, and I was only going about 45 mph. I was on a gravel road though, and the car fishtailed like crazy. When I tried to get it back under control it rolled two and a half times, and landed on the roof. Luckily my lil bro and I were alright.</p>
<p>lkf725:
Interesting, my main car is a Honda Pilot, which I love, and I just bought a Forester for my daughter, based on reports I’d read. She has the manual transmission model, which is less expensive, and handles better, IMO. It seemed perfect for the wintry mountain roads she’ll be driving on.</p>
<p>Here’s another vote for the Forester. I just got a second, and passed the first down to my son. Looked at others, but came back to the Forester. Good traction and stability. I like having the height with the feel of a car.</p>
<p>An old Volvo! I’m biased, because I have a 1992 940 sedan…which still runs great by the way. The older (80s- early 90s) 240 wagons are great too.</p>
<p>Here’s some of the stories from consumers about how their Volvos saved their lives. <a href=“http://apps.volvocars.us/volvosavedmylife/[/url]”>http://apps.volvocars.us/volvosavedmylife/</a></p>
<p>My son isn’t too interested in driving at all, even tho he’s 17.5. It could be that the traffic is just too heavy around here with too many really BAD drivers & partly that he’s just too tired much of the time. In any case, we’re not pressuring him to drive & he’s shown no great desire to get his license (tho he may want one before he goes away to college).<br>
By the way, the 1992 BMW & 1983 volvo sedan each have about 130,000 miles on it and both run very well. Son prefers to drive the “beamer,” of course.
We feel that they are pretty safe cars, in terms of surviving an accident, solidly built.</p>
<p>When we got my son’s forester the dealer had a photo on the wall of one they had sold and the driver fell asleep at the wheel on the freeway, she slammed into a wall, and the car was totaled. It was not recognisable as a car anymore, but both the driver and passenger survived. The driver broke a leg, and that is it. It helped reassure me that if my son makes a bad mistake he has a better chance in that car than in many others.</p>
<p>I’ll vote for the old Volvo–we have an 850 station wagon from '94, and it’s been through everything. It’s a great car.</p>
<p>I happened to find this old thread in my travels on this site and thought I might revive it. We are getting ready to replace S’s car. He is driving a Ford Explorer right now, and while it is known to be very safe in a multi-vehicle accident, the recent fatal rollover of a neighbor’s son has us wanting to get rid of it ASAP. The plan is to get it now and allow D to learn on it while S is a freshman at college. After that, S will probably get the car. The roads around here are hilly and winding, and snow and ice are common in the winter months. I thought some other people might be interested in the results of my research. </p>
<p>One thing, IMO is that you can’t go on the basis of the NHSTA stats alone. The government crash tests are not as tough to pass as the stricter IIHS offset crash tests. Not only that, but people get a false sense of security if their car gets a 5 star crash test rating. All this means is that the car is being compared to other cars of the same weight and type.</p>
<p>If you go to the IIHS website, and consider both sets of results, you will get a much more accurate idea of what the real world stats look like. In particular, the injury rates (with 100 representing average) and the driver death rates on the iihs.org site are particularly relevant. One caveat is that the most recent injury stats are from 2002-2004 and the most recent driver death rates are for vehicles from model year 2000-2003. </p>
<p>The site for the injury stats is : <a href=“http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html[/url]”>http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html</a></p>
<p>The site for the driver death rates is <a href=“http://iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf[/url]”>http://iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf</a></p>
<p>(Note: For some reason the above is not linking, just go to iihs.org and search for Driver Death Rates, March 15, 2005 article.)</p>
<p>If you read this it will tell you that ,for example, although a Civic may test well in government crash tests, the injury stats tell a different story. The weight of a car is VERY significant in real life. Another thing that is important to look at is the breakdown of the driver death rates. Some cars are very safe in a rollover, but not as safe in a multiple vehicle accident, and vice versa. That’s when it’s important to know what kind of driving your child does. If s/he drives a lot of highways I think a heavy vehicle that does well in multivehicle accidents is a must. If they travel lots of rural one lane roads with soft shoulders (big risk of rollovers) you need to consider how the car does on rollovers(actually, all young drivers need to have that as a priority). Luckily some of the SUVs now come with stability control, making them much safer than before, and newer studies may well show that you can get the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>Another theme I have considered is the overall reliability of a car. From what I have read, it is rare that a car is going to break down in such a way as to put the driver in imminent danger. For example, I have always driven the Volvo, not on the top of the list for reliability. But my experience with it has been that things that have needed to be attended to, could always wait for a routine service visit. No biggie. The little repairs, in fact, add up giving a low reliablity rating. Over the last 20 years, or even less, the average reliablity of all cars has improved dramatically though, and a car with a worse than average repair record might have been toward the top of that list not that long ago. So, personally, safety is MUCH more important to me than reliability. </p>
<p>So, just thought I’d share. Bottom line is we’re looking seriously at the Passats, the Audi A4s, and the Saab 9-3s, possibly the Volvo S60 AWD. Would appreciate reviving this thread to get anybody’s input on this. Thanks!</p>
<p>I’m now officially allowed to get a DC learner’s permit, and it looks as if, when the time comes, I’ll be taking over my family’s red 1994 Volvo 850 station wagon. It’s not a luxury car by any means, but it’s safe and in surprisingly decent shape after 12 years… and of course I never expected to get a car at all until I had the funds to pay for it myself. I’m already excited. :)</p>
<p>Congrats and have fun…driving safely.</p>
<p>Old thread about old cars. If you are buying an old Volvo, make sure you know if it is rearwheel drive or frontwheel drive. The 850s of I believe 1993 were the first frontwheel drive cars made by Volvo. We have a 92 740 wagon, rearwheel drive and it is terrible to drive in the snow. It’s been a good car, but I would not recommend it to anyone who has to drive in snowy conditions.</p>
<p>NJres - The most recent awards from the IIHS for 2006 go to some of the cars i mentioned: Saab 9-3, Audi A4, Passat and Jetta. Some of the cars on the sites I’ve referenced are substantially unchanged since the results have come out - others have improved their technology, I realize. We’ve ruled out Jetta because it’s just too light weight. We are looking to buy new, but wouldn’t rule out a good used deal on something safe, either. BTW, I love my Volvo XC90 in the snow, but you have a point about some of the older non - AWD Volvos being difficult in the bad weather.</p>
<p>
That’s a very good point. We have both the old 850 and a 2002 XC70, and it really does make a huge difference (not that it snows often here :D).</p>
<p>I’m not sure how safe they are, but my little sister bought herself a Honda Civic when she was 16. She’s now 17 and recently had a little accident - she got a flat tire when driving home and ended up hitting the side of her car into a speed limit sign as her car was going off the road. One thing about a Honda Civic is that they are EVERYWHERE and very easy to get parts for. My dad got her a new tail light, completely repaired her dent, repainted the area (with the exact same color as the rest of her car, he ordered it directly from honda) and everything for approximately $100.00. (Doing all the work himself)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about the older 850’s, but my '97 FWD (last year of manufacture) had a very good traction control system [via brake force manipulation]. No problems in the snow…just remember to stay in 3rd even from a stop…if you’re in the snow you’ll never go fast enough to need 4th anyways.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>When there is a lot of snow we use… the chain things you put on the wheels to “grip” the snow. I don’t know if that’s a Swedish thing, though, because I’ve never seen them around here. (Or maybe it’s because they’re not usually necessary.)</p>
<p>Best car that I ever had for reliability and strength (taking about the body) was a 55 chevy that I inherited from my grandma. It went everywhere: the sierras in snow, the coast etc. That was before seat belts and airbags and roads crammed with drivers. But when I think of a strongly build car, I think of that one. Probably didn’t have very good mileage!!</p>
<p>In the “real world” tests (such as those by the IIHS, NHTSA, etc.), the demographic characteristics of actual drivers is nearly always overlooked when calculating the real world prevalence of accidents of different types. For example, when I worked as an accident reconstructionist on a case a few years ago, it was alleged that a manufacturer should have known that a particular SUV was designed to be dangerous because its “real world” rollover incidence was higher than some other vehicles. But using their data, we were able to show that the vehicle with the single highest rollover rate was the Chevrolet Corvette, which is mechanically one of the safest vehicles available (low center of gravity, wide track width, excellent suspension and handling). Obviously, the Corvette attracts different drivers than a full-sized Buick or Oldsmobile (Grandma doesn’t often try to take a turn at 75 mph).</p>
<p>Similarly, the Suzuki Samurai was alleged to have high “real world” rollover rates. But if you factor in the extremely high percentage of drivers who were 18 to 24 year old males, the vehicle type was mostly noise.</p>
<p>If you can train your children to drive safely and responsibly, then a large SUV is an extraordinarily safe vehicle. I recall reading “The Millionaire Next Door” a few years ago. If I recall correctly, the preference of these self-made millionaires was to purchase as many POUNDS of vehicle per dollar as they could. The Ford F150 pickup was one of the most popular vehicles purchased.</p>
<p>I understand that putting an 18-year-old male in a powerful sports car with his friends may encourage him to push the limit. But it is not the physical properties of the vehicle that makes it inherently unsafe. Driver behavior overwhelmingly dominates real world accident statistics. </p>
<p>As most of us are aware, Isaac Newton postulated centuries ago that F = MA. In an accident I would rather my child and his vehicle be M than A. If you want a safer car, buy a bigger car. And teach your child to drive reasonably.</p>
<p>The big “if” is “if” your children drive safely and responsibily. As a child, I sure seem to drive “safely” and “responsibly” when my parents are around, but I speed and drive recklessly when I am without them. I am not saying your child will drive like me, but there is a high probability as statistical data suggests.</p>
<p>In October, my parents switched me from a midsize SUV to a new Mazda compact… & and I am extremely glad they did! The midsize SUV did have the “bling bling” factor, allowing me to haul everything and everyone where ever I went, but it was also a tad bit dangerous. The car was less stable on winding streets, and I have to admit that the psychological aspect of being in a large vehicle propelled me to be a more reckless driver. The height of the vehicle was indeed very welcome, but I found that the turning radius of vehicles so large weren’t very good. Parking was harder, and I frequently found myself parking far away from the building because as a “child”, I simply cannot park for the life of me.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I find that the compact Mazda has quicker responses, allowing me to dodge away from possible dangers more quickly. I am able to park where ever I want, and when there are overly large SUVs around me I tend to be very cautious and careful. The Mazda is also very fuel efficient, and driving it is simply <i>easier</i>.</p>
<p>Take this with a grain of salt, as I am a teenager myself, but if I was a parent shopping for a car, I’d stick with common staples like the Honda Civic, Mazda 3, Ford Focus, or the like. Sensible cars = sensible driving. And plus it won’t rob the bank.</p>
<p>Save vehicle for a new driver?</p>
<p>A bus. As in using a bus pass.</p>
<p>A taxi, as in paying cab fare.</p>
<p>Oh, almost forgot, A BICYCLE…</p>