Is car safety really that good?

[irrational_i]

Well just an opinion. Let me explain my issue.
Most of the recent safety features engineered are to help drivers control the car.
After that to keep passengers from breaking every bone in their bodies.

I believe that the latter is great, the former not so much. All these so-called "driver aids" are teaching people seriously bad driving habits.
In South Africa there are lots of old cars (older than 20 years) for instance. I can't tell you how many of them are bumberless because the arsehole in front slams on his ABS brakes and the older car doesn't stand a chance. Also in highway driving if you leave a reasonable gap to the front you get 3 of said arseholes weaving in front of you and then slamming on their brakes and getting upset if you can't brake in time to not hit them.
Things like anti-skid, anti-lock and abs makes people completely ignore safe driving distances.

I get upset and admittedly somewhat aggressive when somebody tailgates me. Unfortunately this seems to be a common thing nowadays because the arsehole behind can brake quickly enyway. If I feel this way, many others must do the same, including people who can not control their rage. This leads to dangerous driving and accidents.
Which of course leads to more driver aids.

So in my opinion there is a fine balance that is ignored.
I will stick my neck out and say that driver aids are like communism. On the surface maybe a reasonable idea, but you ignore basic humanity.

[SPEEDKILLAR]

It has nothing to do with driving-aids, it's about the person in question.

You could be in a new Mercedes or in an old Fiat, it all depends on the drivers menatlity.
But yes, some persons tend to think they are "good" drivers and they have a great car, at the end of the day, they will be the one that are sorry if he sees his brand new car fucked up and some body fractures :P

[irrational_i]

Well yes it does depend on the person. But as you say, I think in general the aids give an overinflated idea of ability. :)

And in the end the guy who writes off his car is fine, but the crappy car full of dead people that can't afford help are not so well off. :|
I admit S.A. is not a first-world country where people may display more sense, but I think the problem is a general one.

[SPEEDKILLAR]

^^^^^^^^ It sure is a general problem, dickheads are everywhere.

Best thing ppl in a "crappy" car can do, is be more careful and drive in a defensive manner.
I know it's not fair, but it's the best way to keep safer I guess. That is untill you get a new car :D

[ARMAN]

Its understandable - if you have and ABS - brake watching cars behind you. People who dont care about the money and hassle of fixing car will slam on theyr barkes anyway.

[irrational_i]

Yah you are right. I suppose in the end fewer people die on the roads than before - even if their lives are more stressful. But modern medicine can deal with heart attacks! :D

Another 20 years down the line the old crappy cars will all have ABS too.

Luckily a good session of gratuitous blasting of computer-generated opponents go a long way to relaxing the mind. :D

[RC45]

Minibus Taxis - they don't have driving aids.. ;) :lol: -- aren't they the biggest culprits? :P

[irrational_i]

hahaha. Minibus taxis are evil, evil, evil! :D
Its really scary what you see on the road and how many people can fit in one taxi!.

As for Thamar: I agree in normal circumstances the guy behind is at fault, but if you swerved in front, you are at fault for causing an avoidable situation. I am sure you will agree that good driving also depends on your ability to assess a situation correctly and acting responsibly as if all the guys around you are idiots. ;)

Also as I said. South Africa is not exactly a first world country. I think the average age of cars on the road is something like 25 years! I will also have a different attitutde driving on the autobahn in Germany.

[pharzo]

So you're against brakes being good...?

Hmm, that'll be a popular position :roll:

If a driver knows a thing or two, s/he'll (don't really know why i put the s :lol: ) will know how to brake in a manner similar to ABS. However this will take practice so you can do it instinctively in an emergency situation.

And a note to all those wild south africans with ABS: If you feel the need to engage in emergency braking, do what most normal drivers, here in Poland anyway, just step on the brake pedal, let go, and then stomp it. This will flash it first and give the person behind a chance to respond. That's sort of like road etiquette...something most young drivers lack :roll:

[ZfrkS62]

its reasons like this insurance companies are raising rates on older cars. they want them off the roads so that they don't have to pay out on a claim because of a situation like what you described.

[ARMAN]

Bullshit!
If I have to brake hard, I brake hard. I don't even think for 1 second about the one behind if he has ABS or not, the one driving behind is ALWAYS wrong!

I'm not going to ram the car in front of me, because the idiot that's hanging behind my ass doesn't have a modern car...

If you drive a wreck, stay of the road!

First - not to crash the car infront ofcourse :lol: But once checking the guy in the mirror (I stopped already) helped avoid a little crash in my ass, it was icy and I saw that he is not gonna make it :shock: so I quickly moved my car, he stooped in half of the car size where I was standing 8)

[rk331]

I understand the position, all the systems and not only the ABS, like ESP, CBC, ESB, etc, all contributes to the active security, I think that ol of us are good drivers, experimented drivers, even passionned drivers, but what about my mother, my sister, the aunt, grandfather, the ppl with (or wothout) discapacity, with only 1 leg, 1 arm? If I think only me, I don´t like the systems, they makes my driving experience some boried, however i understand that they are useful, even in tests drives with manufactures I had great results imposible to meet with my "experience" like driver. The systems are good, and without disccusion help to the mankind to saves lives. Not all the days we drive in a circuit. Watch out, the front car or the rear car could be your family.

[JaguarEtype]

posted by irrational_i


And in the end the guy who writes off his car is fine, but the crappy car full of dead people that can't afford help are not so well off.


i used to think i was perfectly safe in my 20 yr old car cause it got a hell of a safety rating but i recently watched an NCAP test of 2 cars, both the same model but 1 was 9 years older the other was new, both had a five star rating.
however in a offset head on collision at 35mph... the 9 yr old car was obliterated (unsurvivable for the driver)
showing that there are huge differences in the structural integrity as well as placement of crumple zones with newer cars
i recently looked into a thread where some guy in a Lambo Gallardo crashed into an Audi 80 at 120 mph and the driver of the lambo survived but the audi driver didnt (i was expecting the complete opposite)
obviously people in cars even 10 or so years older are at a disadvantage compared to people with new cars

as for driver aids, if you are in an older car you just have to accept its short comings and adjust your driving to compensate, such as leaving larger distances for braking .... (you can however put on big fat sticky tyres 8) :lol: which will help)
i agree that its frustrating here in oz people regularly tailgate and chop n change lanes with little or no indication and in very short distances.. where by they often slam on the brakes to avoid hitting the car infront of them (as they had just accelerated to get around you) which always makes it annoying to leave distances between you and the car infront knowing this will happen sooner or later

as SPEEDKILLAR said in the end they will be more upset and wearing a larger cost for repairs, hopefully you wont be held accountable... thats the worrying part :?

[Keenman]

Ah the age old question.
Volvos have the highest crash rate in the US.
Do they drive more dangeriously because of a sense of saftey, or do they buy a volvo because they know they're bad drivers?

[graywolf624]

I've wondered a similar question about reliability. How much of toyotas reliability would be still there if people who drove them actually knew where the gas was. If you flogged a camry as much as someone flogs a (insert car here) would it still be more reliable? Not to insinuate it would drop off the face of the planet, but what effect does it have.

[jakaracman]

i agree that its frustrating here in oz people regularly tailgate and chop n change lanes with little or no indication and in very short distances..
Just out of curiosity, what is a very short distance in oz terms? 10 meters at 130 kph? 5 meters? 20 meters? (or shoud I say 2 cars, 1 car, 5 cars distance ...)

[ZfrkS62]

posted by irrational_i


And in the end the guy who writes off his car is fine, but the crappy car full of dead people that can't afford help are not so well off.


i used to think i was perfectly safe in my 20 yr old car cause it got a hell of a safety rating but i recently watched an NCAP test of 2 cars, both the same model but 1 was 9 years older the other was new, both had a five star rating.
however in a offset head on collision at 35mph... the 9 yr old car was obliterated (unsurvivable for the driver)
showing that there are huge differences in the structural integrity as well as placement of crumple zones with newer cars
i recently looked into a thread where some guy in a Lambo Gallardo crashed into an Audi 80 at 120 mph and the driver of the lambo survived but the audi driver didnt (i was expecting the complete opposite)
obviously people in cars even 10 or so years older are at a disadvantage compared to people with new cars

as for driver aids, if you are in an older car you just have to accept its short comings and adjust your driving to compensate, such as leaving larger distances for braking .... (you can however put on big fat sticky tyres 8) :lol: which will help)
i agree that its frustrating here in oz people regularly tailgate and chop n change lanes with little or no indication and in very short distances.. where by they often slam on the brakes to avoid hitting the car infront of them (as they had just accelerated to get around you) which always makes it annoying to leave distances between you and the car infront knowing this will happen sooner or later

as SPEEDKILLAR said in the end they will be more upset and wearing a larger cost for repairs, hopefully you wont be held accountable... thats the worrying part :?


Yeah, but put a 58 Impala up against a 2003 Impala and see which one gets away :wink:

Once the departure from full on steel cars was complete and crumple zones started becoming the selling point for safety, it seemed like structural integrity took a couple steps backwards.

Now that the years have progressed and more and more data has been collected, not to mention the introduction of programs like AutoCad, and simulations can be run on a computer long before an insurance carash test rig, we're seeing a higher instance of survivors in crashes that 10 years ago there wouldn't have been a chance of a cockroach escaping (i refer you to the X5 vs. M5 Thamar posted awhile back)

As long as cars are on the road there will always be fatal accidents unfortunately. but with cars making leaps and bounds in safety advancements, the number of those wrecks will continue to decline.

[JaguarEtype]

jakaracman wrote


Just out of curiosity, what is a very short distance in oz terms? 10 meters at 130 kph? 5 meters? 20 meters? (or shoud I say 2 cars, 1 car, 5 cars distance ...)


hmm well it would be hard to describe, but say at 60kmh they would often drive less than 2 car spaces prob ten meters, obviously there will be a few that are much closer or a further away, the odd thing is... they generally dont back off when its rained or is raining they keep the same distances..... (bad idea) loads of accidents, i while ago it actually hailed really heavily in my area and there were loads of accidents because people simply didnt compensate for it...
in Brisbane theres also a big thing with the transport authority having various speed zones ie you can change the speed zone like 6 times over a few km its rediculous
what you often find is people will have a certain distance for say 50 or 60 kmh.. but it will also be the same distance for 70 or 80 kmh
when i was in melbourne on some uni trip the bus driver was barely 3 cars away from a car infront whilst doing 80 or 90 kmh, its situations like that where there is no way he would be able stop (without crashing into the car infront) if there was an incident ahead

with reference to car crashes what often happend in the old days with cars is that the car was made like a brick shit house, would barely deform.. but the occupants would endure a majority of the forces involved, and thats what often killed them

i used to think that crumple zones was bullshit and just a marketing ploy to charge you heaps for bits of plastic body work but it does have a hell of an effect in reducing forces on occupants

[ZfrkS62]

i used to think that crumple zones was bullshit and just a marketing ploy to charge you heaps for bits of plastic body work but it does have a hell of an effect in reducing forces on occupants


yeah, i always thought it was stupid to deform a car that easily. But then i realized the longer the car is in contact with the object it's hitting, the less inertia is transfered to the driver. Which is still to say that a muscle car vs a civic won't yeild a totalled civic and a scratched muscle car :lol:

[JaguarEtype]

an incident i found hilarious a number of years ago back when i was in the UK was when Ford had just released an escort with side intrution beams (which are nothing like the size of the beams you'd find in a volvo).
what happend was a guy in one of these new escorts pulled out of a parking spot or out of a corner i cant remember exactly and was hit side on by an old Rolls royce (which weight about 3 tonnes) the old guy in the roller said he was probably doing less than 55kmh... never the less it killed the guy in the escort....

[pharzo]

never the less it killed the guy in the escort....


Wow that one still has me laughing uncontrollably :roll:

[ZfrkS62]

that's the only thing that scared me about my Z was someone broadsiding me like that. you talk about a tin can under an anvil..i would have been toast :|

Won't stop me from getting another one though :mrgreen:

[rk331]

I think that today the cars deforms intelligently, the forces of an impact are distributed not only in the zone of the impact, that forces, in a front impact are distributed by the pillars A thru the pillars C, so the force deform all the car turning the force of the impact in movement and heat. When you see a impact in a car the most important is the safe cell, I mean all the cockpit, it don`t have to deform by any circumstances. By the way, the impact tests are made at 54Km/h, and the data that the manufactures gives to us is valid if you crash at the same conditions. What is the legal speed maximum in your country? here is 110Km/h It's the double of the test. So, I think that the test must be done at the maximum speed aproved by the goverments.

[pharzo]

Probably because most crashes into non-deformable barriers are in the city, hence speeds of ~50 KM/h

If you crash at 110 KM/h into a non-deformable barrier, you can be inside a Volvo crossed with a Renault, you're not gonna make it

[rk331]

Maybe could exist 2 tests, with deformable barriers and with non-deformable barriers, because is more dangerous to sell the idea about your "safe" car when the test was made at low speed, only in the 40% of the front area and with a deformable wall.