13 replies to this topic

[cap'n crunch]

Why driving a safer car isn't necessarily safer...

This is a topic i have seen on another forum i look around on called the rallyforum.com

Basically it looks at the point that as new cars are safer due to advancement in technology ABS, EPS, airbags,etc people will drive less safe and more dangerously as they feel if they are to crash they shall be safer. Where as in the past people knew that their cars were less safe so drove slower/with more caution.

Here is a link to the whole disscussion *CLICKY*, it may have some coarse language.

It is an interesting concept, what do you think?

[dave20046]

Why driving a safer car isn't necessarily safer...

This is a topic i have seen on another forum i look around on called the rallyforum.com

Basically it looks at the point that as new cars are safer due to advancement in technology ABS, EPS, airbags,etc people will drive less safe and more dangerously as they feel if they are to crash they shall be safer. Where as in the past people knew that their cars were less safe so drove slower/with more caution.

Here is a link to the whole disscussion *CLICKY*, it may have some coarse language.

It is an interesting concept, what do you think?

I think to an extent that's right for some maybe even most people but if you have a need for speed then I think you'll drive how you like regardless. I ride a motorbike and even though I'm more vunerable (yes I am more cautious compared to car drivers in some situations i.e engage my brain and think 'what if' and observe what's around me a bit more) I'll still drive as fast as I like. I just think the sensible thing to do especially if you know your one to put your foot down is get as much experience and training as possible; passplus courses and trackdays etc. The worst drivers aren't the fastest they're the one's who drive too fast for their ability.

[Bungle]

thats why london house wives like their 4x4's for school runs

my kids are safe tough luck if i run yours over

[Silicon Skum]

5th gear test crash:




It doesn't actually get much better in a modern car - you would still be dead, or at the very least perminantly dissabled for the rest of your life.




And as for 4x4 vehicles........well they are only slightly safer in a crash with a smaller family car (the occupants of the car would all be in serious trouble though) but that's only because the car is LOWER than the 4x4 body (so hits the car at the weaker areas not desgined specifically to be an impact zone, thus crumples like a wet paper bag). The same thing is NOT true if the crash involves TWO 4x4 vehicles head on though........

Drivers ARE getting worse, and there is something to be said about the fact that most belive their car to be safer in a crash, and thus take more chances. I know of one person who said that "well I'm safe because I have airbags..." This person does not wear their seat belt. Organ donor!

SS

[cap'n crunch]

i think people would be better off learning in an older car that does not have power steering and ABS then you could really see what there car control is like.

As someone mention in the original thread they drive with less care and more speed to offset the fact they are now safer. I suppose it come down to people attitudes to driving.

[Bungle]

everyone should learn to drive in a mini

you learn to drive

you learn real car control

and you learn how to fix things and under stand how a car works

[THE ANORAK]

i read a book about crash tests and safety last year and the fact that "some" people take more risks in so called "safer cars" is not boll####, its proven fact


end of discussion ??

[yorkshirechris]

thats why london house wives like their 4x4's for school runs

my kids are safe tough luck if i run yours over

Chelsea Tractor is the technical term isn't it?

We have a lot of those up north too, well in Leeds anyway, must be cockney migrants

[yorkshirechris]

i think people would be better off learning in an older car that does not have power steering and ABS then you could really see what there car control is like.

As someone mention in the original thread they drive with less care and more speed to offset the fact they are now safer. I suppose it come down to people attitudes to driving.

I agree.

I don't think it's a conscious thought of "i'll drive 10mph faster on the sme road in this car because it's safer than my old car" but more a subconscious realisation that the newer, safer car is smoother to drive and you FEEL safer in it. Afterall, 40mph in a Mini feels like 80mph in a normal car

[Tom Sanderson]

and 80 feels like...

[Teapot]

Basically it looks at the point that as new cars are safer due to advancement in technology ABS, EPS, airbags,etc people will drive less safe and more dangerously as they feel if they are to crash they shall be safer.

Yes, they do, IMHO. Plus the fact that selfishness today is more acceptable than it used to be. Compare the car ads of the sixties (family orientated) with those of today, in which self-gratification is the principal.

Where as in the past people knew that their cars were less safe so drove slower/with more caution.

No, we didn't. We had no yardstick to measure safety. The motor industry knew what was possible but held back because building safety into a car was expensive and they said the public wouldn't want it. But then Rover produced the 2000 saloon which incorporated lots of safety features and it became a pioneering classic.

Around that time there was a hugely successful tv series called Master Driving hosted by John Miles, a genial former police driving instructor. This was all about safer driving and showed films of driving hazards which viewers were challenged to spot. But ironically they were still arguing that making the wearing of seatbelts compulsory would be an infringement of personal liberty.

I guess that if the statistics show that accidents per vehicle mile have fallen in 50 years, it's mainly because of improvements in braking, suspension and acceleration, and that would be down to developments in motorsport. If deaths and injuries have fallen, that would be due to built-in-safety as mentioned above.

[cap'n crunch]

Where as in the past people knew that their cars were less safe so drove slower/with more caution.

No, we didn't. We had no yardstick to measure safety. The motor industry knew what was possible but held back because building safety into a car was expensive and they said the public wouldn't want it. But then Rover produced the 2000 saloon which incorporated lots of safety features and it became a pioneering classic.

...good point, but you would of known the cars limits and ability. Where as now people don't because they are almost shielded to an extent to what the car is doing and soley rely on this new technology.

[Geehawk]

Replace all drivers airbags with a 6" spike pointed at the driver. Bet that would slow people down

[Teapot]

...good point, but you would of known the cars limits and ability. Where as now people don't because they are almost shielded to an extent to what the car is doing and soley rely on this new technology.

Hmm, also good point. The idea of good driving was more popular than it is now and the police driving manual Roadcraft was widely read (but probably not properly practised).

Replace all drivers airbags with a 6" spike pointed at the driver. Bet that would slow people down genius.gif

Isn't there a video of that somewhere?