Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Buick Rendezvous Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades
132 messages, Last post on Jan 06, 2008 at 7:26 PM
You are in the Buick Rendezvous Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
another thing... what is the credibility of the person yelling fire? this is really relevant. it's like the old story of someone crying wolf, right? I personally don't read forbes, so I do not know their history. So to me, the credibility of forbes is basically neutral. I am not inclined to think they are lying, nor am I inclined to think they are automatically trustworthy and believable. in your example of someone yelling fire, it would be as if a stranger I did not know yelled fire. and if i heard a strager yelling fire, I probalby would move and somewhat take their word for it instead of "automatically dismissing it " because I did not know them. This is because fire is dangerous and for me to ignore it could potentially impact my safety. On the other hand, if someone that was KNOWN to be a prankster yelled fire, then I might not take their word for it and just sit there. That is like the crying wolf story. If you cry wolf too many times, no one would believe you. And, if it was a friend or relative who yelled fire, I would probably most likely automatically believe them because I know them and trust them. All I'm saying is that your idea to "compeltely dismiss" the article seems a bit extreme, especially since it has not been shown that forbes has a history of making wrong decisions or bad articles... So although they may not be a "trusted" source, neither are they a "prankseter" or completely uncredible source. Again, to me it is like a stranger yelling fire. And when it comes to something like safety, I would give someone who yells fire the benefit of the doubt unless I could prove otherwise. I'm not saying I trust them that what they are saying is 100% correct, but I'm saying that for now, I give them the benefit of the doubt unless someone can show me otherwise, or unless through my research I find out otherwise, which is still an ongoing process....
|
|
|
Replying to: hawaiianguy (Sep 30, 2007 11:47 am) It has to do with track record. A business magazine doesn't survive and flourish for 90 years with slipshod and careless reporting so I'd be inclined to place them toward the upper end of the credibility scale. But then anomalies are always possible. tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper |
|
|
|
|
"A business magazine doesn't survive and flourish for 90 years with slipshod and careless reporting so I'd be inclined to place them toward the upper end of the credibility scale." Yea, that too Steve. Which is again, why I would just not "automatically dismiss" the article as nonsense. What I meant was that "without further investigation" on my part, I personally do not know of the reputation of forbes as far as reporting the safety of vehicles. It is true (along spike99's position) that they are not a safety or regulatory agency like the NHSTA which to me would have a LOT of credibility when it comes to making opinions like these, when compared to a business magazine. Still, you bring out a very good point. FORBES does have their reputation on their line. And they are a very well respected business magazine. Therefore they have an incentive to check their work and their conclusions and are not likely to publish irresponsible informations and conclusions. But like you said, anything is possible.
|
|
|
Replying to: hawaiianguy (Sep 30, 2007 11:37 am) BTW: If one looks up, one does see the fire is actually from lady lighting her cigarette - as she's pulling out of the gas station. If one yells fire is a movie theater, do you "panic and instantly run out?" I wondering... . |
|
|
|
|
"BTW: If one looks up, one does see the fire is actually from lady lighting her cigarette - as she's pulling out of the gas station. If one yells fire is a movie theater, do you "panic and instantly run out?" I wondering." Spike99, I think steve brings out a good point. If a policeman comes in and yells fire, would you run out without looking? I bet you would. I think it is both steve and my position that Forbes is not "just a stranger" or "just anyone" . They are a respected magazine. So it's not like a bum or a homlesss guy yelling fire. It's a well respected person, say the movie theatre owner or the usher that works for the theatre in uniform yelling fire. It may not be like a policeman or fireman yelling fire (which is what it would be like if the NHSTA came out with that article), but it's more than just "anyone" yelling fire. I think that's the point we're getting at... |
|
|
. Why is this turning into Forbes against the world???? The statement was "RVDs are the #1 most dangerious vehicle on the road". For details, surf: http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/26/cars-dangerous-twenty-forbeslife-cx_bh_0726cars- _slide_2.html?partner=msnbc If this is so, why isn't DMV/MTO pulling them off the road, why isn't my RVD's insurance triple (or more) then our previous vehicle, why isn't the User ratings in this Edmunds forum full of users (real users) complaing about driving on 2 wheels around the corners, too mushy of suspension, etc. etc. ???? Again, look at the 2002-2007 RDV User feedback and see what the majority of "real users" of the product are saying. I don't care if Forbes or Edmunds or "Joe Blow" made the statement. The statement that model xxx of vehicle is the worst "of all the vehicles on the road". I couldn't care less. What really surprises me is that others are NOT seeing the indirect data is NOT supporting the statement. Common sense does NOT support the statement (regardless who made it). . |
|
|
|
|
"I too find the entire Forbes article a bunch of BS... " Spike99, I never said the entire artlce was a bunch of BS. All I said was that through my own research, it appears that the CXL and Ultra models do have 1) a form of traction control and 2) side airbags. Therefore, based on the underlying criteria of the forbes article, the "most dangerous" rating may not be applicable to the CXL and Ultra models because their 2 underlying critiera mentioned above are met by these models. Despite my finding of this information which in my mind leads me to believe the article from FORBES may not apply to the CXL and ultra models, I never said it was BS, and because FORBES is a respected magazine, I probalby still give them the benefit of the doubt that what they are saying holds true for the base CX models which lack side airbags and traction control. Still, because they are not clear on things, the above is just an assumption and would need to be clarified with them in order to conclude if that assumption is correct. Since I have a CXL, I am a little relieved by my findings that my car does in fact have traction control and side air bags. Still, I don't take anything for granted, which is why I STILL would like to improve the suspension in order to positively affect and/or change the third factor FORBES mentions, which is potential for rollover. Being a respected magazine and having consulted with established safety experts, I believe that at a bare minimum, their 3 critera for the safety of vehicles is focused on the right target. The article even says the NHSTA says traction control is the biggest development is safety since the seat belt. And the NHSTA is like that policeman or fierman talking. I think you would "without looking or without checking" belive the article if the NHSTA had written it. But just because it is not the NHSTA, doesn't mean that FORBES is otherwise compeltely uncredible and that the article should be dismissed as nonsense. So no, I didn't mean to say that my research indicated the entire article was entirely "BS". I just mean to say that the FORBES article did NOT distinguish between CX, CXL and ultra models, and that through my research, at least 2 of the 3 the underlying safety critera appeared to be met with the features that are standard in the CXL and Ultra. Therefore, the article didn't "appear" to apply to those models, only the CX base model. But again, I can't be "sure" this is the case unless FORBES clarifies this particular point (whether their research is based on the CX model only or includes the CXL and Ultra models). |
|
|
|
|
"If this is so, why isn't DMV/MTO pulling them off the road" Spike99. The statement FORBES made about the rdv being the "most dangerous" vehicle is "relative". Auto safety has improved A LOT in the past 20 years. The 'most dangerous' vehicle by today's standard is probably LIGHTYEARS ahead in safety as the 'most safe' vehicle 20 years ago. Just because a vehicle has the 'most dangerous' rating RELATIVE to all the other vehicles produced today, does not mean it is equivalent to some death trap of a vehilce made 20 years ago. Likewise, perhaps a '3 out of 5' rating is abysmal by todays standards, where 20 years ago, it might have been the best rating possible. The vehicles are not being pulled off the road because the NHSTA or governmental standards are lower. All FORBES is saying is that RELATIVE to the standards today (which are admittedly much more improved than the past), the RDV ends up having the lowest rating. It's not to say that the RDV is so bad that it is going to be pulled off the road. It just says it is low RELATIVE to the standards of other vehicles that are being made. |
|
|
|
|
"If this is so, why isn't DMV/MTO pulling them off the road" My theory is that governmental bodies like the NHSTA have "minimal" safety standards. And those standards are always improving. For example, I think the article said stabilitrac will be mandated by the year 2012 and it is the most significant improvement since the seatbelt. So the thing is, it takes "TIME" for the NHSTA to raise it's standards. If a car does not have stabilitrac by 2012, you can bet it will be pulled off the road according to the article. If you READ BETWEEN THE LINES and PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER, what this means is that due to high demand, manufacturer's are EXCEEDING the minimal standards. Even the artlce said that luxury and higher lines of vehicles have already offered stabilitrac for the past couple years already. Doesn't this tell you something? Why would manufacturers be offering stabilitrac on more expensive lines and models since 2004 or so when it won't be mandated till 2012, a full EIGHT years later?? That is because governmental standards lag behind the manufacturer's standards. In effect, what the article is saying is that MOST manufacturers are EXCEEDING governmental guidelines. And since their rating is RELATIVE, it means that if all the other models are going BEYOND governmental guidelines and including safety features but some vehicles are not, then those vehicles become the "most dangerous". So your conclusion that the "most dangerous" vehicle today "RELATIVE" to other vehicles produced today should be "pulled off the road" is a faulty conclusion. The pure fact of the matter is that the most dangerous vehicle is not going to be pulled off the road, because MOST manufacturers are EXCEEDING governmental guidelines to begin with. The article is NOT basing the rating on governmental standards, but standards of MOST manufacturers, which are MUCH HIGHER than the governemntal standards. |
|
|
Ok - let's chat about reviews. 2007 against 2007 (apples against apples). Forbes gives the 2007 RDV the worst rating. Actually, #1 worst rating of 20 other vehicles. To me, that's a 5 our of 5. (assuming 5 is the worst). Worst is enough ammunition to "pull her off the road". NHTSA Ratings (on Edmonds own board) gives the 2007 RDV a 3 out of 5. For more details, surf: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/buick/rendezvous/100721288/safety.html NHTSA Ratings Passenger: 4 stars Driver: 3 stars Side Impact Front: 5 stars Side Impact Rear: 5 stars Rollover Rating: 3 stars NHTSA: 5 star, 4 star, 3 star, 2 star, 1 star, Not Tested Notice the Roll-Over is 3 out of 5 (which is in the middle of the pack). Between Forbes and Edmunds, who is correct? What is the rating for the 2007 RDV? Who is the official test authority when it comes to car safety tests??? . |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Buick Rendezvous Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2007 Buick Rendezvous
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
