Is There Such A Thing As A SAFE, SMALL Car? And Who Do You Think Makes The Safest?

Well if a small civic has a head on collision like the picture above of course the people in the civic are screwed.

— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 8:59:54 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

well if ur planing a head on collision wit a big trailer like that then NO its not safe
but i like small cars
most of the best made cars are small

— eric452 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:12:53 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

Tiff did this on Fifth Gear - the second greatest motoring sghow on the planet - with the Smart Car and an Opal Corsa .

Loads of fun. Here is the bit...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sR6UozdBWRY

— lewishamiltonpimp (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:23:18 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

let's rephrase this. if you drive a yaris or fit, what is the biggest vehicle you think it will stand up to?

— olscuul (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:23:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

The small, inexpensive car that resonates with me is the VW Jetta...Watch the 'Safe Happens' ad campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjcSWW3vCBk

This IS a serious subject so let's take it that way.

001

— Agent001 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:25:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

In that picture, the car looks like a small VW, maybe Polo or Golf

— mpls (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:30:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Generally, if you're lucky enough to hit something straight-on, you're not in too bad of shape.
But when you get "T-Boned" you're in trouble.
In fact, we had an RCMP officer killed in Richmond when his Crown Vic was t-boned by a kid playing mid-town madness with his mom's Civic, and the kid walked away!

Safe, tough small cars:
* Smart Car: very tough car, but can you handle the G-forces?
* New Beetle: when I bought my TDI in 1998 it was rated higher for side-impact than the Camry, Crown Vic, or (surprise) Chevy Tahoe, meaning that cop that died on duty would have had better odds if he was in a Beetle!
* almost anything from Germany, Sweden, etc.

A highway patrol officer working in the Rocky Mountains ("first on the scene") once told me: "I'd rather be in a German car with a seat-belt than a Japanese apple-crate with an air-bag!"

— DieselRules (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:32:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

Well to make one thing clear, almost every new small car launched in Europe has recieved a (maximum) five-star rating by EuroNCAP.

So although you can't beat the laws of physics, as witnessed by the last-gen SEAT Ibiza in the photo, you can be sure modern small cars are absolutetly some of the safest cars on the market.

For example, the five-star rated FIAT Grande Punto is SAFER in a head-on crash than a Chrysler Voyager, which recieved severe structure deformation in the A-pillar and footwell.

— Matthew1 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:33:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

The current generation (997) Porsche 911 is a remarkable safe, very well built and crash-worthy small car.

— 204E60 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 9:52:27 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

In a head on collusion like the picture above, I dont think any car would be considered safe. There is a limit for safety, and some cars might be safer than others, but that questions what you mean by "safe".

Cars by the day are becoming lighter and lighter, and more plastic is used to make the body. Lets compare a 1974 beetle with a new one. The old one feels about a million times more solid, while the new one can be bent by your hands! Same can be said about any other new car.

Try crashing a Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, Nissan Tiida/Versa, Honda City and even the safest one of them wouldn't really be considered "safe".

— M53R (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 10:48:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

You are safer in a latest generation car. Even a smaller one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

— LDMAN (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 11:24:50 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

I don't think a truck would be safe in this head on. I bought a 2007 civic because it had the safest 5 star ratings all around, and yes a smaller car isn't as safe as a comparable year 5 star rated vehicle.I would be driving around in a full blown full size off road race truck if I could fit the family in it and afford the gas.lol

— truckmen (View Profile)

Posted on 6/16/2008 11:47:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Well, Volkswagen AG Cars Have the lowest accident death rates for small and midsize cars according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - April, 2007

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/6901/2007iihsvehicledeathratag3.jpg

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf

And the VW Golf also has the lowest Insurance losses of any small car according to the latest IIHS data

http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?cls=2&sort=name&sz=2

— TurboSpyder (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 12:29:03 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

We must remember that the laws of physics are not subject to repeal.

Big whoops up on small every time. Especially head on.

— m5todd (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 12:39:59 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Semi trucks should be much smaller, and all larger trucks should have better bumpers with deformable structures, and the headlights at the same height as passenger cars. Next they need to have a barrier in place on all Interstates and 4 lane highways that would stop cars from jumping across into oncoming traffic and stop headlights from oncoming traffic from blinding people driving the other direction. That would be a start to making our roads safer for small cars.

— valhallakey (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 12:42:41 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 7   

Another thing to factor in, other than passive safety in small cars, is active safety.

It's no secret smaller cars stop quicker and react to sharp steering inputs more quickly, so one can assume that if you are an alert driver, you can utilise a smaller cars better handling to avoid a crash.

Larger cars (SUV's in particular, though) take longer to stop and in the case of SUV's without Stability control systems, can roll over in an avoidance manoeuvre.

— Matthew1 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 12:55:24 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 7   

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever read...
MichaelTaylor, it is time for you to be banned.. Nothing, I mean nothing you post is constructive.
We don't need trolls like you.

— AlexTx (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 3:06:57 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

yea that was a pretty gay comment, do you sell toyota's?

— xlr8 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 3:14:34 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

He cleans them.

— M53R (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 3:43:26 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

"hence the high death rate in Europe of small car owners"

lol, it's obvious this guy isn't being serious. Probably another person makiong a mockery of Japanese car fans. The majority of modern safety innovations in cars were created in Europe.

— Kinger (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 6:36:54 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

"Some of the safest small cars are made by Toyota and Honda. European cars with their poor build quality cannot really stack up in most crash situations, hence the high death rate in Europe of small car owners."

failed a IQ test? did you read the sources that turbospyder provided? wheres your?

— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 10:03:18 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

MichaelTaylor- You obviously don't read very much. I have never seen a person look as foolish as you do sometimes.

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 10:48:33 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Michael Taylor reminds me of this guy

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/722/iraqbaghdadbobhf1.jpg

— TurboSpyder (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 1:52:22 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

And just what do you drive?

— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 8:38:23 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

monkey man is not allowed to drive motorized vehicles yet. he is limited to swinging on tree branches, and just MAYBE, under supervision, on playground swings.

— ChicaneShooter (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 3:43:55 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

A year ago I got into a head on collision driving my mother's '02 civic at about 40 mph. A '98 BMW 325 cross the line and hit the car on the front driver's side. Me and my girlfriend walk away and my daughter woke up in her car seat. The Civic held up very well and is still on the road today. The BMW got totaled (probably caught a bad angle). It's funny because I use to look at my mother crazy when she use to praise the 5 star safety commercials Honda use to run with the Civic. This isn't praise for the Civic or a bash at the BMW (because the woman was unharm also) but just a testimony on a small car fairing well.

— DexDiamonds (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 8:45:19 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

I have a out-of-reach question: whats with europes crash standards making them allow that deathtrap-out-of-china brilliance in their market?

— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 10:02:08 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

My first car was an '81 Fiat X1/9. That was probably the toughest little car I've ever owned. Not only was it agile enough to avoid most accidents, but it withstood a blind-side impact from a Jeep Cherokee traveling at 110mph. All I know is, that little car saved my bacon. Myself and my passenger walked away from that wreck without even 1 scratch between the 2 of us. I can't even count the number of major wrecks I was able to avoid all together because of the agility of that car.

— dodahman (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 10:31:19 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

If a car like a Smart Car was hit by a full-size SUV, game over. It would fly into the next time zone. Might as well just ride a motorcyle, have more fun, and not look like a tool.

— supermoto (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 1:22:50 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

One solution might be to restrict passenger vehicle size on the road. This would not only be for fuel economy but for safty reasons as well.We should perhaps limit the length of a vehicle to 190 inches,width to 75 inches,height to 60 inches and weight to not exceed 4000 LBS.Further we should stipulate that no more then a certain amount of the largest vehicle's(within the perameters just mentioned) can be sold in a yr.That would mean that SUv's,pick ups,crossovers and ultra large vehicles would be a thing of the past.Yes it's Draconian and screams of "Big Brother". However it would probably reduce the damage caused by a big car and a small car colliding not only to the vehicle's but also perhaps reduce fatalities.Building vehicles within these perameters would force auto makers to use lighter materials and make them more space efficient.

— mini22 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 1:52:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

It is not an issue of whether a small car is safe, its an issue of whether the passengers of a small car will live through an impact with a LARGE car.

And the answer is NO. A larger vehicle will ALWAYS win that battle. Now, you know why a military tank is called a "tank". Weight and mass wins in combat and on the streets.

Yes, good design can "improve" your changes (~20%) of surviving when your small car impacts a larger vehicle, but a larger vehicle will improve your chances several times (100-200%) when impacting a vheicle of similar size.

At this time, the existing population of vehicles containts millions of large SUV's. Until that population is retired and off the streets you have to assume that your small car will impact a much larger vehicle(your life and your family's lives depend on it).

Thus, at this time, there are NO safe small cars. To drive one or let your family drive in one is pretty equal to criminal neglect. would you let them run with sissors? Get into a car with strangers? Play with fire? Then why would anyone let their loved ones risk impacting a 3 ton SUV in a 1 ton hybrid - all just to save $20 a week in gas?

— thstone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 5:31:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

Well, everyone jut wants to believe that small cars are safe, but they are just fooling themselves.

Fact is, a beach ball filled with air will stop your head from hitting the windshield, but is no match for a 70,000 LBS trck coming at you at 70 MPH. The forces are just too great. A thin piece of 12 Gauge Sheet metal is no match as well. A cast steel I-Beam frame will save you, but is prohibited due to weight and the CAFÉ standards. Volvo has door intrusion beams, but they are made of stamped sheet metal, but better than nothing at all.

I drive on the interstate, hundreds of miles per day. I’ve seen many accidents. The gruesome ones involve small cars. they have to place a tarp over the car due to the decesed occupants. I always see old people walking away from accidents in large sedans.

I have a friend who was badly injured in a Chevy Cobalt. A truck rear ended her at 40 MPH. The Truck headlights were embedded into the back of the driver’s seat. If there were Back seat passengers at the time, they would have been unrecognizable. Where is Chevy now?
They claim they build a safe small car on paper, what about the real world? It is like measuring the MPG on a car while it is coasting downhill, they may not be lying, but they certainly are not representing the truth either. Text book answers are great, they get people feeling good, and absolves the manufactures liability.

The government is going to regulate what we can drive. the big three phased out city trains decades ago in favor of increased car sales.

— mercuryguy (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 5:43:30 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

And yes, a more agile small car can avoid some accidents (~10%). And there are other equally minor mitigating factors as well, but as they say, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR SIZE (well, actually mass in this case, but you know what I mean).

All of the crash safety tests are designed to evaluate the crashworthiness of cars relative to each other (by imparting the same impact on each car). But that isn't what happens when you are in a small car and impact a much larger vehicle. That scenario is NEVER tested and reported because the small car loses every time and the results would scare your pants off (basically everyone in the small car dies almost every time).

— thstone (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 5:46:20 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

The Town Car is Dirt Cheap to insure for 1 reason. It has owned the Triple 5-Star Crown for over a decade now.

5-Star Front/Rear Impact,

5-Stra Side Impact

5-Star Roll-Over

Underwriters at my Insurance company tell me the Town Car is considered one of the Safest Cars on the road, hence the much lower insurance costs. And I’m insured with one of the most respected Insurance companies, you need to have a super-clean driving record, and be referred by a member to gain acceptance.

— mercuryguy (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 6:12:03 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4   

Nope. A small car may be safeif you drive straight into a wall, but when going up against an SUV or large sedan, there's no changing the laws of physics.
If you survive the initial collision, then you have to survive the tumbles that the vehicle will be doing down the road after.

Civic size should be the absolute smallest vehicle they make. Put a smaller engine in, fine, just leave the car size to "adequate" or more.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/17/2008 11:49:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

Well at 23 MPG Highway I’d rather have a few feet of Crumple zones in all directions on the TC as opposed to only a few inches found on small cars.

I’ve seen the TC crash test movies, the front hood collapses and absorbs impact. Ford pioneered the Energy absorption Steering Column that we seen on their cars as far back as the 70s. I will agree, that the crumple zones are not as sophisticated as say BMW, but they are robust enough for me.

You only need to roll underneath a TC on a creeper to see how well built they are, heavy duty twin-rail frames and heavy duty coil springs that are normally found on commercial pickup trucks.

Yes, it is a cheap way to buy safety, but it works.

Take a stroll through junkyards and see how cars hold up to accidents, especially when they have burned and the plastic is melted away revealing the metal skeleton. I remember seeing a Ford Excursion that had burned, I couldn’t believe the massive I-beam housed underneath the dashboard. Of course the Excursion is just to massive, but it drives the point.

I rented a Kia for a few days, I was really concerned about how paper thin the driver door was. All the technology in the world can’t replace steel.

— mercuryguy (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 12:43:19 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

One key thing to note is that it's not as much as it is about size as it is about weight. Momentum = mass x velocity. The greater the mass of your car, the greater momentum. It just so happens that smaller cars tend to be lighter, bearing the brunt of a collision.

There are a lot of factors in how safe a car is, and a lot of it also depends on the collision itself or the other car. Some SUVs, such as Volvo, Mercedes, and I think BMW, design their chassis so that it's around the same height as a car (to help dissipate collision forces). Some other SUVs have chassis that are much higher than the chassis on a car, which means the car can't effectively absorb and dissipate the forces because there is no structure in place to withstand it at that height. In that situation, you could be driving a large family car but still potentially sustain significant damage and injury.

Having said that, there are safe small cars that would be wise choices if that's what you were looking for.

— ktu01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 2:04:43 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Just a small amount of a good crush zone can mean the difference between survival or not. They should make every vehicle have them and the large trucks and SUVs should have an extra amount depending on weight. Check some of the crashes in F1 etc... that small amount of carefully constructed crush zone has saved some lives. Of course sometimes no matter what you have in place the forces are just too great to be absorbed. Still these huge trucks, SUVs and especially the Semis with the giant steel bumpers have a ton of room for improvement to make the roads safer for everyone on them.

— valhallakey (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 2:21:29 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

the most critical piece of safety eqpt. is THE NUT BEHIND the wheel.

at one time, the drivers with the BEST SAFETY RECORD as a group, were big rig truck drivers. yet, they drove THE MOST DANGEROUS VEHICLES. overweight, underpowered, underbraked, ill-handling. what made the operators safe? just knowing and ALLOWING FOR the inherent drawbacks.

flip to the other side: among the MOST DANGEROUS drivers (mainly just to themselves), are kids on sport bikes. YET, the machines are INHERENTLY CAPABLE of being THE SAFEST on the road: outstanding capabilities in handling, braking, evasive action, and acceleration. kids are killing themselves because they tend to OVER EXPLOIT the handling and speed capabilities, TOO OFTEN OVER-DRIVING their skill level!

i myself seasonally drive both an inherently dangerous vehicle (tour bus) and an inherently safe vehicle (motorcycle). i DO NOT FEEL UNSAFE with either! EVER. (i sometimes get close to the 'edge of the envelope' but ONLY when in my car.)

and other nuts on the road ARE NOT much of a threat factor; a GOOD driver will spot and avoid them LONG BEFORE they're in striking range.

people looking at stats also need to distinguish between single vehicle accidents and others. most of the former are the 'tanks' which either FAIL to make a curve, or rollover in a failed evasive action. they also have MORE MOMENTUM/ENERGY that needs to be dissipated.

— ChicaneShooter (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 4:33:07 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Underpowered cars are dangerous as well. I drove through a construction zone with an improperly placed yield sign at an Interstate on-ramp. The detour put the on-ramp at the backside of a blind hill. And a stop sign should have been used instead. Pulling out onto the interstate, an 18 Wheeler suddenly came over the hill at 70MPH and almost smashed me in the rear. It was on my within mili-seconds. I had my Chrysler 300 floored, and the car just wouldn’t go. The 18 Wheeler was jack-knifing behind me, desperately trying to stop, he was even down shifting and jake-braking and cloud of tire-smoke was engulfing the rig.

So much for 6 cylinders. I really thought I was dead! This was a time where I really needed the power of my Ford v8. The acceleration just wasn’t there on the Chrysler V6. The V6 was severely lacking. I drive the Chrysler 300 with extreme caution now. I consider it a death-trap of a car, and it isn’t a very big car either, kind of tight inside, and I’m a slim guy. I don’t like driving cars while my knees are touching the dashboard and my torso is hugging the door panel.

Once you get used to the security of a V8, it is amazing how vulnerable you feel in a V6 or 4 cylinder when you hit the gas, and the car just won’t get out of its own way.

The point is, I consider myself an extremely safe driver, but the construction zone just threw me a deadly curve-ball I wasn’t expecting. It is in rare moments like these where a safe car becomes worth its weight in gas, I mean gold.

— mercuryguy (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 4:17:27 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

800,
How fast can a person walk? How fast can a normal bicycle go?
People on motorbikes have a death wish in my opinion.
Legislating a minimum size (and a max size to get rid of Excursions) would put most people on a more equal footing in a collision. I'm sorry, but a SMART would bounce off my Jeep and its only midsize. A Crown Victoria would probably crush a SMART.

EURENCAP scored the Corolla higher in safety than the safety cell A-class, which I'm sure was partially due to the trunk and longer nose.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 8:15:26 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

i guess audi's are ok.
http://www.nbc30.com/news/16276964/detail.html

— olscuul (View Profile)

Posted on 6/18/2008 9:42:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

This article reminded me of an interesting video from Fifth Gear

http://www.mahalo.com/Smart_Car

Not saying the Smart is the safest small car, but it's an interesting video cause I've never seen a crash test done at 70 mph! too bad no dummies were involved to collect data (though that looked lethal).

— ktu01 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/19/2008 1:13:20 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I suggest you access the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They test and rate virtually every car available in the U.S.

I can't list all of the winners, but I am pleased to note that the 2008 Audi A3, A4, and A6 all got top ratings! AmazinBimmer please take note! :-)

— Audiphile (View Profile)

Posted on 6/19/2008 9:26:12 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

For what it's worth, when I read a study on this years ago (I think it was from Consumer Reports, but I might be wrong), they found that the one overwhelming thing which contributed to survivability in an accident was car weight; nothing else was close. Unfortunately, this is usually the bane of fuel economy. I'd guess the best for both would be a large-size hybrid (eg: LS600h), since they compensate for weight with more fuel efficiency.

— sigmabody (View Profile)

Posted on 6/19/2008 6:34:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

The semi was invisable, on the other side of the hill. It appeared within seconds, after I was onto the interste, and was on my bumper within mili-seconds. I don't think the semi had bad brakes, because the wheels were locking up. I suspect the trailer was loaded with probaly 30-50,000 lbs. of cargo Inertia forces at theat speed are tremendous. You can't change the law of physics. This is why the trailer came sidways, the weight and force of the trailer steamrolled around the side of the cab of the slowing truck.

I should have backed down the entrance ramp, but with a line of cars behind me, and people in a hurry to get somewhere, that would have been a bit challenging. I could have maybe backed around them, but people get confused and panic easily if you do something they are not expecting.

— mercuryguy (View Profile)

Posted on 6/19/2008 10:44:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Size does matter. The industry for more than 50 years told us that cigarette smoking was also safe, but people eventually figured it out that this couln't be true.

I share the road with double trailer rigs, and they all push the stopwatch. They are even talking about goig to Tripple trailers. That would be about 100 ton coming at you really fast.

— mercuryguy (View Profile)

Posted on 6/19/2008 10:53:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Accident studies studying deaths per million miles driven showed a wide range of results for vehicles. The VW Gulf was the 4th safest vehicle on the road. The Chevy Cobalt was the 4th least safest vehicle on the road. Yet the VW Gulf and the Chevy Cobolt are in the same class of vehicles. So well designed crumple zones make a huge difference in how safe vehicles are. Some of the largest vehicles had the highest death rates. Insurance companies also go by number of deaths per million miles driven caused by the vehicle to the other vehicle. If your vehicle is twice as likely to kill the driver in the other vehicle you hit than killing you than your insurance will be higher as well.

When some well to do person says lets ban small cars because they are unsafe, what that well to do person is really saying is lets ban poor people from driving the road, I do not wish to be sued by them, or their family, should I run one of them over because of driving over the speed limit in a aggressive manner.

Not one person suggested requiring all mid size and all large size vehicles have radar/laser automatic breaking systems, backup warning systems with rear cameras, and IR heads up display for night driving, to prevent accidents as standard equipment. If you can afford a mid to large size vehicle, then you should have to pay for additional safety equipment to automatically avoid hitting the vehicle in front of you. Plus there are systems available that limit the speed of vehicles to the legal speed limit. Not one of you suggested making automatic speed controls standard safety equipment on all vehicles. If both the truck and the car in that photo had automatic braking systems and automatic speed control that accident could have minor with the driver of the car being arrested for driving on the wrong side of the road. If that car had GPS controlled lane system which prevents driving on the wrong side of the road (which could be made and automatically reprogrammed for road changes at construction zones.) that accident would not have occurred at all.

— ellenbetty (View Profile)

Posted on 7/25/2009 10:10:42 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1