Ford Rollover
Last Updated:
Not all Fords fold on your head when rolled over.
These are pictures of a Taurus after such an accident.
The damage to the roof is really not comparable to the Dodge Pick up un the bottom picture.
the BMW didn’t crush its occupants either.
I am not saying that trucks are death traps. Most people driving them will never have an accident. But that’s what car safety is all about. About that one time when you do get into trouble. That’s why people wear seatbelts, for that one time that will probably never happen.
Car makers don’t make trucks safe because they don’t have to. It is that simple.
They wouldn’t put seatbelts in cars if they didn’t have to.
We have to make them do it. Car safety has always moved forward because of laws and consumer demand, never because of the car makers generosity.
How can anyone defend these guys?
crybaby.
the people in that krautcar are probably all dead.
and the truck didn’t do that bad.
i’m sure the guy’s just fine
For people reading this site outside of the US…
I’d like to apologize on behalf of the American people. Your average American is not as stupid as Douchebag Jones.
Please continue to visit the US, and continue to trade with us.
I hate it when I see car companies being blamed for vehicle safety. See people driving badly everyday, not giving a s*** about safety. The focus should be on accident prevention, not building cars like tanks.
As an engineer and scientist, I have to inform you that you are guilty of a classic logical fallacy.
You are generalizing a systematic correlation between vehicle type (SUV) and likelihood of structural failure based on a handful of photographs. In statistics, we would laugh and call this the n=1 fallacy (nerd humor).
In fact, many commenters on this site use the very same anecdotal logic: “My mom had a Corolla and the engine died at 20k miles, therefore Toyotas suck.”
I could post just as many pictures of cars being crushed and just as many pictures of trucks surviving rollovers. Your sample is not random nor large enough to draw any conclusions.
Even if you established that SUVs are more likely to crush occupants during a rollover (due to their weight–an argument I buy), that is still relatively meaningless. Rollover accidents are a tiny, tiny fraction of accidents. The qualities that you contend make crushing more likely are the same qualities that make SUVs safer in the far more likely types of accidents.
The bit about manufacturers not implementing safety features unless it is required by law is not true. Look up your history before making such statements. Volvo implemented the 3 point seatbelt long before it was required by law. In fact, this law was written after Volvo proved that safety belts saved lives.
“You are generalizing a systematic correlation between vehicle type (SUV) and likelihood of structural failure based on a handful of photographs.”
How about this little information: According to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216, a roof pillar on a passenger car must deform no more than five (5) inches when subjected to a force of 1 1/2 times the vehicle’s weight, or 5,000 lbs. whichever is less. Pickup truck (light trucks) are not even required to meet the minimal requirement of FMVSS 216.
And while you may not be able to make correlation between vehicle type and structural soundness, there’s a strong correlation between SUV’s high center of gravity and rollover rate. And throw in the lack of legislative incentive (which Vince referred to), and you have SUVs and trucks that are far more likely to kill passengers in rollover accidents than cars. Want stats?
“Single-vehicle rollover crashes accounted for nearly 50 percent of driver deaths in SUVs in 2002, compared with 36 percent of deaths in pickups and 20 percent of deaths in cars.”
Hey, maybe SUV drivers are 2.5times more likely to die in rollover crashes than car drivers because SUV drivers don’t like to wear seatbelts.
But do yourself a favor and google, “SUV pillar failure” and click around some links.
pretty sad when you have to post crap like this to get attention…..if you dont have any good stuff……dont post negative shit like this….
I can’t believe there is even an argument. Trucks are especially unsafe when it comes to rollovers. I spend alot of time at junkyards and there are more Ford rangers and explorers with smashed in roofs than any other model x3. When a ranger or an explorer has a blowout they flip over way too easily.
American car companies only add safety features when required to by law. They had the technology to equip cars with airbags in the late 70’s at a low cost and waited until they were mandatory.
Douche bag jones. Let me guess you voted for that monkey of a president of ours right?
What a strange model name? Ford Rollover
Rollovers account for 3% of all accidents, including SUVs.
SUVs are safer vehicles in 97% of the other types of accidents.
The fact that SUVs’ higher centers of gravity cause x percent more rollovers than cars is irrelevant when rollover accidents are so rare. The other safety advantages of most SUVs more than make up for the tiny likelihood of a rollover.
The SUV can be such an emotional issue to some people, such as Mr. Jung. It’s hard to be objective when you have an irrational disdain for certain vehicles.
Try this google search: “SUV rollover.” 95% of your results are for injury lawyers.
That’s all you need to know.
FOR THAT SELF-TITLED “ENGINEER AND SCIENTIST”:
Apparently you’re writing with such “intellect” hoping to mask the fact that you’re doing that for the sake of it, or… apparently you weren’t much of a engineer slash scientist, haha
Trucks and suvs are a lot more likely to rollover than cars due to the higher center of gravity.
Your figure that rollover’s account for 3% of all accidents would be much higher if you only included the percentage for trucks and suvs.
Why defend suv’s? Theyre dangerous (for the occupants and people in other cars), theyre especially wasteful and bad for the environment, and theyre generally ugly. Its not like the people who buy suvs generally go offroad nor do most people who drive pickups haul crap from consturction sites. Its all a joke, people should be responsible and drive cars unless they actaully need an suv/truck.
using photos of crashed cars to judge how safe a car is is very silly.
Mr. anonymous engineer said:
“Try this google search: “SUV rollover.” 95% of your results are for injury lawyers.”
And why do you think there are so many injury lawyers links for those two key words? Because the problem exists and it is credible, and prevalent. I found this on Detroit News.
“In 1999, Ford twice reduced the thickness of the steel in the A-pillars of its heavy-duty F-series pickups, according to internal documents subpoenaed in Patrick Parker’s 2002 lawsuit against Ford.
The savings, the documents said, totaled $2.42 per truck.”
Mr. anonymous engineer said:
“Rollovers account for 3% of all accidents, including SUVs.”
Hey nice quote. But you left out the rest. I’ll paste the entire quote for you.
“In 2000, only 3 percent of all passenger vehicles involved in crashes were rollovers, but rollovers accounted for 20 PERCENT of passenger vehicles involved in FATAL CRASHES.”
Well, you may argue, many rollover deaths involve passengers being ejected from vehicles. And you’re right. So here’s so more fact.
According to gov’t report, 7000-8000 deaths and serious injuries occur each year in ROLLOVER IN WHICH THE ROOF CAVES IN.
Anyway, enough stats. I’ll just assume that you’re arguing for entertainment and not really because you believe SUVs are safer.
SUVs by any measure and by any authority are far safer for their occupants overall.
If 20% of all deaths are from rollover accidents, that could mean 2 things: a) SUVs are deadly in rollover accidents or b) SUVs are remarkably safe in all other types of accidents. Personally, I would believe both statements are true.
The point is, on balance, SUVs are extremely safe in the more common types of accidents, and more dangerous in the rarer types of accidents. I don’t see why this is so hard for people to understand.
We can argue if the 3% number or 20% number is more relevant, but the fact is undeniable. SUVs are safer vehicles for their occupants. The Institute for Highway Safety estimates that SUVs save between 1200 and 2000 lives annually–and they are part of the anti-SUV crowd.
It’s pretty obvious why SUVs are safer. They are more massive. Rapid deceleration is what injures and kills vehicle occupants. The more mass a vehicle has, the slower it decelerates in a crash.
True, more massive vehicles are more dangerous to occupants of smaller ones. But if I’m a responsible parent, I’d transport my children in an SUV. I’m not so concerned with the drunk driver who t-bones my family after he runs a red light.
Thank God this is a free country and morons who don’t understand physics or statistics can’t decide for us what we drive.
By the way I drive an MR2 Spyder. I don’t think it would do too well in a rollover. But I don’t see any activists campaigning against roadsters. Some busy bodies just don’t approve of choices that others make.
It’s a purely emotional issue. Don’t like SUVs? Don’t buy one.
QUIT FUCKING POSTING PICTURES OF ROLLOVER ACCIDENTS
why not just buy a fucking minivan? those are even safer than SUVs, kill less earth, kill less pedestrians, hold more stuff, cost less to insure, and are stealthier vehicles than pretty much all SUVs. 70% of SUVS sold in the U.S. aren’t used for off-road purposes, and 85% carry only one passenger. only the feds should be able to buy suvs, otherwise nobody really needs one (if you want to tow, buy a truck idiot).
Thanks for posting the pic, Vince. If only Tucker was around making trucks today.
And I’ve said this before, but please feel free to ban Summer’s Eve.
Re: the statement…”why not just buy a fucking minivan? those are even safer than SUVs, kill less earth, kill less pedestrians, hold more stuff, cost less to insure, and are stealthier vehicles than pretty much all SUVs. 70% of SUVS sold in the U.S. aren’t used for off-road purposes, and 85% carry only one passenger. only the feds should be able to buy suvs, otherwise nobody really needs one (if you want to tow, buy a truck idiot).”
And 95.5% of all statistics are made-up on the spot.
no they real fool
Well, it is nice to see at least one other person o nthe planet is sane. I’m glad to see the fellow trying, in vain apparently, to explain to the shrieking knee-jerkers the part physics plays in these issues.
Apart from that, increasing roof structure would add more weight to the top of the vehicle making it even more likely to roll over in an accident.
Additionally, the extra weight in reinforcing the pillars would make SUVs and trucks even heavier and thus “kill more earth” as one chicken little phrased it.
Engineering requires trade-offs. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
But, God damn, I get tired of the bed wetters screaming about crap like this in the most obviously ill considered manner possible.
Also, consider that if the A pillars are made thicker and stronger, there’s potentially the issue of increased blind spots. They could strengthen the roof with three inch thick cast iron. But you’d lose peripheral vision, the vehicle would be top heavy, and you’d probably see more accidents as a result. There is a balance between drive-ability, effeciency, and safety.
That said, it is important that the automakers figure out how do accomplish all of this. The roofs shouldn’t cave in.
Really healthy debate everyone, I’m quite enjoying reading the different views to be honest.”Rollovers account for 3% of all accidents, including SUVs. SUVs are safer vehicles in 97% of the other types of accidents.”Actually, I found an interesting experiment that produced results to the contrary. A British TV show crashed a Renault Espace (people carrier) head-on into a Land Rover Discovery (SUV) and the people carrier came out considerably better.So we shouldn’t assume that SUVs are safer.