![]() |
|
Image of the Day Images that will blow your mind - every day. [Blog] [RSS] [XML] |
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#12 | |
Disorderly Orderly
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Philly 'burbs, PA, USA
Posts: 52
|
![]() Quote:
The chatter on alt.autos.volvo is that the 240 was safer than Volvos that have been built since. Unfortunately, the US Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database only goes back to 1994. But in that year, it shows 82 fatalities for the 240, and that's only for the US, of course. For 1995 there were 99 deaths, for 1996 there were 94 deaths, and so forth. I'm highly skeptical that deaths per year could be zero for five years, then suddenly jump to 80-100 a year. I really think this is an urban legend. I saw it repeated on Usenet, too, without attribution. Still, Volvos seem to be fairly safe cars. The IIHS data did apparently show that in the mid 90's, the 240 had, compared the average car in the US, a tenth the fatality rate per 10,000 vehicles registered. I'm pretty happy with my little Saturn, but I've started thinking about a Volvo for my next car. There's definitely a Volvo cult out there. People seem to hang on to them forever.
__________________
== Tove A rainbow rat, a checkered cat... Last edited by Slithy_Tove; 09-05-2001 at 10:39 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|