Is it irresponsible...

[jbi]

To transport your family in a car which is just not safe?

I'm talking about small cars such as the Citroen Saxo and Ford Fiesta featured in this news article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13659709

They are really only small city cars, possibly justified by saving a few miles per gallon in fuel costs, but really only IMO for personal commuting only.

Is it really worth the risk?

What if someone goes into the back of you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSEl2ueCATs

even two modern cars have vastly different results

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLfK35O91gE

what's your opinion?

[thinfourth2]

Ban them

Ban everything

[BrewsterBear]

When I was a kid I travelled around in mum's beige Austin Metro a lot and I was killed two or three times every journey, so yes, it is totally irresponsible.

[RemainAllHoof]

Possibly. Everyone should drive around in 4x4s just to be safe.

The alternative question could be: is it irresponsible to drive around in a family-slaying 4x4? </Daily Mail>

But if you think about it, you have some low class, peasant family who is stealing oxygen from us and driving around in their tin-foil Saxo 1.1 (AND THEY ARE WASTING OUR PETROL) and you drive through them in your X5 (for whatever reason - judgement error for either party, mechanical failure, poor road conditions, excessive speed for the corner, either driver's mobile phone rings, either driver is lighting up a cigarette)... are you cool with it?

[g3org3y]

jbi said:

To transport your family in a car which is just not safe?

What's your definition of 'not safe'?

Any non 5* NCAP car?

Any car from the 70s or 80s lacking 10 airbags and 'modern' crumple zones?

[poo at Paul's]

I think OP and his family should stick to the bus.

[Shaw Tarse]

I was expecting at least 8 people in each car!

[jbi]

4x4's are not necessary for occupant safety obviously... but good crumple zones and a strong shell help.

Things typically not found on budget compacts

[NoVetec]

thinfourth2 said:

Ban them

Ban everything

[nottyash]

OP ITS YOUR BEDTIME

[thinfourth2]

jbi said:

4x4's are not necessary for occupant safety obviously... but good crumple zones

Saxo have a crumple zone

Its called your legs

[thinfourth2]

NoVetec said:

thinfourth2 said:

Ban them

Ban everything

Ban Smilies

[Chrisw666]

jbi said:

To transport your family in a car which is just not safe?

Seriously?

Hand in your membership at the door and you will recieve a map leading you to the Daily Mail and Mumsnet.

Even a crash between a huge barge and a motorbike could result in the death of occupants of the car.

My thoughts are that the only way I can be remotely safe on the roads is to drive with as much care as possible and keep a very tight watch on what others around me are doing. The box I am sat in has very little bearing on how well I perform that task.

[jbi]

g3org3y said:

What's your definition of 'not safe'?

Something that crumples like a crisp packet and results in my death. Most modern cars are fairly good these day's, however you still have a lot of turgid crap from the 90's/early 2000's littering the roads.

EDIT: indeed my car is from the early 90's... but I would take my chances against a lot of cars right up until recently.

[Acheron]

I think this proves a point.

Why anyone would drive around in these deathtraps is beyond me. All for the sake of cheap fuel and tax;

[EDLT]

We had this thread a few weeks ago, most responses were similar to this:

BrewsterBear said:

When I was a kid I travelled around in mum's beige Austin Metro a lot and I was killed two or three times every journey, so yes, it is totally irresponsible.

I used to be carried around in a Fiat Uno that didn't even have rear seatbelts. I was killed so many times I inspired a running joke on South Park.

[LukeSi]

It really depends on the car. Something like my mother's Kia Picanto I would dread to think what would happen in a crash. 3* NCAP and it is made of paper from how easily the panels flex if you put any pressure on them. Compare that to my father's 3 series BMW where I feel like even if it went head on into something at 70mph I would be able to walk away with only minor injuries.
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/bmw_3_series_2005/22... (ofc. the car obviously tries to kill pedestrians :P)

Infact would anyone blame me if I refused to ever get in the Picanto again?

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/kia_picanto_2004/200...

I'm 6 foot 5 and would be screwed.

Hell a 1989 MX5 is safer apparently. KILL EM ALL!!!!

[sinizter]

It's a choice to be made.

I personally will not drive anything smaller than a Golf/A3 as a family car. And I will not allow my wife to do so. And except sports cars, I will not run anything that small for any reason.

[Chrisw666]

jbi said:

Something that crumples like a crisp packet and results in my death. Most modern cars are fairly good these day's, however you still have a lot of turgid crap from the 90's/early 2000's littering the roads.

So what you are saying is that people who can't afford new cars that enable them to drive like utter fkwits should stay off the road?

An ever so slightly arrogant point of view.

[NoVetec]

thinfourth2 said:

NoVetec said:

thinfourth2 said:

Ban them

Ban everything

Ban Smilies

Surley better than a generic "lol".