"me@here.com" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:bnspgvg40et1ers3b3arc1ppjlrvbv513c@4ax.com...
> The time has come to get a new(to me) car. Thinking back on all of
> the cars that I've driven over the years, I'd have to say that my
> parents 1990 Civic was the best overall car that I've driven. It had
> 200k+ miles on it and was still going strong. Not exactly cool
> looking or fun to drive, but the damn thing started and drove EVERY
> time we needed it for those 10 years or so, and never needed any
> repairs over a couple $100. When my mom got into a head-on accident
> with an SUV and totaled it, she didn't have a scratch, and the car was
> still drivable even though the engine compartment was reduced by about
> 1/4.

So how do you "total" a vehicle and still drive it away from the scene?
Something tells me that car was far from totaled, and with some parts from a
junkyard Civic it woulda been good as new.

> So I need a new car, and don't have a lot of money to spend. In the
> local papers there are tons of old civics and accords with high
> mileage for like $1000. I figure even if the car has 150k+ on it,
> I'll probably get another 100k+ out of it before any major repairs are
> needed. My only concern is safety.

A cars longevity is _directly_ related to how it is cared for. My '67 lasted
200,000 miles before a major failure... Which was likely the result of abuse
and lack of maintenance by previous owners. My '68 has 95,000 miles and is
still going strong. Starts up every time and gets me where I need to go.
Both of my old Fords have been very reliable cars. As for your previous
comment about reliability in relation to cost of repairs, that's ridiculous.
It's the type of repair that says things about the car. If you spend those
couple hundred bucks on normal maintenance or parts that typically wear out
in that amount of time then sure, it's a reliable car. If that money was
spend on unforeseeable things that should not have failed, then it's not a
reliable car.

> I'm just trying to get a few opinions about the chances of survival in
> a serious accident between an SUV and a 1991 Accord. It sucks that
> SUV's have been consistently outselling cars in the US for years, so
> over time the proportion of SUV's and trucks on the roads will get
> even worse, and make it even harder and more dangerous to drive a
> reasonably sized vehicle. I hate getting caught up in this bullshit
> arms race, but I can't really see any way around it.

You must be delusional. How do lots of trucks/SUVs on the road make it "even
harder and more dangerous to drive a reasonably sized vehicle"? I drive a
reasonably sized vehicle (full-size passenger car) and have no trouble
whatsoever with regards to trucks/SUVs. I don't see how the type of vehicles
you share the road with will make the road more dangerous. So long as they
can move with traffic (i.e. not tractors and such) there is no increased
danger.

> So is it still moderately safe to drive an old Honda, or will I "go
> see God", as a friend put it in the event of an accident? I just
> don't have money to burn on thousands of lbs of armor to protect
> myself against Jane SUV-driver soccer mom's careless driving. Anyone
> know a website where you can get stats on different types of accidents
> and survival rates, etc?

Careless driving is found in drivers of all types of vehicles and is evenly
distributed between them. I suggest you stop being so paranoid about dying
in an accident and just accept the risk involved in driving. Start learning
to drive better, and how to avoid accidents. Play a game with yourself
whenever your alone in the car... Imagine other vehicles or circumstances
putting you in harms way, and then think of the various ways to get yourself
out of harms way. Do this enough and you will get fast at it, so if it were
to really happen you would know what to do in time to do it.