Another young driver crash,sad story, Hamble, Hampshire
Discussion
Heaveho said:
It's not about maturity though, at least initially, it's about experience.
No it's not. A 50 y/o who passed their test yesterday will pay about a quarter of the insurance premium a 19 y/o would pay after 2 years of driving, all other details being the same. Why is that?
GliderRider said:
The insurance company aren't concerned at all about paying out for the car, they aren't concerned about Lotucub, they are only slightly concerned about who or what he hits. They are VERY concerned about the three 'promising, talented teenagers with their whole lives ahead of them' in the passenger seats, and what that might cost them as a payout.
The Rover Metro got slated when it was subjected to the NCAP test. That's because it was optimised for the earlier 30mph test, and the new NCAP test was at 40mph. It could be argued that you would be safer in the Metro than a good NCAP car in a 30mph test, as the later stiffer car won't crumple so much so could be harsher on the occupants. The Austin/BL/Rover Mini was designed 23 years before the Metro, and survivability and crumple zones probably weren't given any consideration at all.
There was a photo of a Rover Mini post-crash test in our lab (for prepping the dummies and cars for NCAP tests); the steering column was through the back of the driver's seat. Where the dummy went, I have no idea.
Sure, my 'question' was rhetorical and the response simply added for interest and I would have been far more concerned at him batting around the country lanes of Cumbria in an old Mini that his Skoda for that very reason. I've had many cars and the only one I've put in a hedge was a classic Mini - they do love to roll!The Rover Metro got slated when it was subjected to the NCAP test. That's because it was optimised for the earlier 30mph test, and the new NCAP test was at 40mph. It could be argued that you would be safer in the Metro than a good NCAP car in a 30mph test, as the later stiffer car won't crumple so much so could be harsher on the occupants. The Austin/BL/Rover Mini was designed 23 years before the Metro, and survivability and crumple zones probably weren't given any consideration at all.
There was a photo of a Rover Mini post-crash test in our lab (for prepping the dummies and cars for NCAP tests); the steering column was through the back of the driver's seat. Where the dummy went, I have no idea.
That said they would not insurer him for the Aygo either, but the VRS was no problem! (or perhaps he was telling us that in order to get his pocket rocket!)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No it's not. A 50 y/o who passed their test yesterday will pay about a quarter of the insurance premium a 19 y/o would pay after 2 years of driving, all other details being the same.
Why is that?
What has that got to do with the " right to drive " part of the discussion? The fact that a 19 year old has to pay more for his insurance means that he's viewed as more of a risk, fair enough, but under current law he has as much right to drive as the 50 year old, should he choose to pay the difference in premium.Why is that?
You earn the right to drive by accomplishing everything in my op, regardless of age, maturity or experience. You can call it a privilege and feel like it is one, nothing wrong with that, but if you haven't done anything illegal in order to be driving, why wouldn't it be your right? There's no reason why it can't be both things really.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Heaveho said:
It's not about maturity though, at least initially, it's about experience.
No it's not. A 50 y/o who passed their test yesterday will pay about a quarter of the insurance premium a 19 y/o would pay after 2 years of driving, all other details being the same. Why is that?
eccles said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Heaveho said:
It's not about maturity though, at least initially, it's about experience.
No it's not. A 50 y/o who passed their test yesterday will pay about a quarter of the insurance premium a 19 y/o would pay after 2 years of driving, all other details being the same. Why is that?
My friend's wife, same area, passed at 49 and got an Audi A4 3.0 cabrio covered for around £600 as a brand new driver.
Heaveho said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No it's not. A 50 y/o who passed their test yesterday will pay about a quarter of the insurance premium a 19 y/o would pay after 2 years of driving, all other details being the same.
Why is that?
What has that got to do with the " right to drive " part of the discussion? Why is that?
DoubleD said:
Byker28i said:
skwdenyer said:
When I was young, one might be able to afford to insure a Fiesta 950 (45 bhp), or maybe a Mini (850 or 1000). Cars with little power & little grip.
Compared to those, even an Aygo is a rocketship - a car with such performance would have been very hard to insure 30 years ago. Modern tyres mean one can achieve *very* high cornering speeds (relative to the past). Modern safety features make one feel rather more invincible (no ABS, no airbag, no crumple zone tends to focus the mind just a tiny bit).
Of course things are relative, but I don't see a modern Aygo as being especially unsafe.
850 mini had 36bhp, 1000 had 39bhp, but the cornering then was brilliant. You kept the speed up and threw it through corners.Compared to those, even an Aygo is a rocketship - a car with such performance would have been very hard to insure 30 years ago. Modern tyres mean one can achieve *very* high cornering speeds (relative to the past). Modern safety features make one feel rather more invincible (no ABS, no airbag, no crumple zone tends to focus the mind just a tiny bit).
Of course things are relative, but I don't see a modern Aygo as being especially unsafe.
So we still had accidents, on corners, it's just the speed was lower, say 25-40mph...
M4cruiser said:
Again I'm wondering the sense in our insurance rules which effectively put young and inexperienced people in small cars with no crumple zones. The Aygo maybe ok for a small car (3 to 4 stars) but these 4 people would surely have been safer in a Mondeo-sized car? There has to be a case for a low bhp larger car, for new drivers.
They hit a tree.A mondeo hitting a tree can also result in deaths. https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/driver-...
Here a Range Rover "split into two" after hitting a tree. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/driv...
So if you hit a tree hard enough, it doesn't matter what you are in.
hyphen said:
M4cruiser said:
Again I'm wondering the sense in our insurance rules which effectively put young and inexperienced people in small cars with no crumple zones. The Aygo maybe ok for a small car (3 to 4 stars) but these 4 people would surely have been safer in a Mondeo-sized car? There has to be a case for a low bhp larger car, for new drivers.
They hit a tree.A mondeo hitting a tree can also result in deaths. https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/driver-...
Here a Range Rover "split into two" after hitting a tree. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/driv...
So if you hit a tree hard enough, it doesn't matter what you are in.
It's still true that for the same speed the Mondeo would be safer than the Aygo if either of them hit a tree, assuming the two cars were the same build-year as well (a very old Mondeo may be worse than a very new Aygo). My point is that the larger cars currently get driven faster, because they can go faster, hence part of the reason for the larger insurance premium.
Hence my suggestion that a Mondeo sized car with the same performance as an Aygo would be a better bet for young drivers.
If you’re hitting an immovable object like a tree, the only thing that matters is the g force on your chest. Pretty much any modern car can maintain the passenger cell up to 60 mph. The problem is that at 50G, your heart separates from its plumbing and it’s all over. A really big car with lots of crumple capacity will help a bit, but not enough.
Big cars vs. small cars is different. The occupants of the small car will experience much higher g forces than the occupants of a large car.
Big cars vs. small cars is different. The occupants of the small car will experience much higher g forces than the occupants of a large car.
rxe said:
If you’re hitting an immovable object like a tree, the only thing that matters is the g force on your chest. Pretty much any modern car can maintain the passenger cell up to 60 mph. The problem is that at 50G, your heart separates from its plumbing and it’s all over. A really big car with lots of crumple capacity will help a bit, but not enough.
...
A larger car with twice the crumple zone length will halve the g-forces compared to the small car....
It does, to an extent. But the bigger car has more energy to dissipate in the first place. Even in a big car, you’re going to go from 60 to 0 in a metre, which kills you. Generally trees are very unforgiving of either large or small cars. Large cars definitely win out over small cars when trees are avoided, because you’re then going from 60 - 0 in about 5 meters. The occupants of the smaller car will go from 60 to zero in their crumple zone, and then start going backwards.
rxe said:
It does, to an extent. But the bigger car has more energy to dissipate in the first place. Even in a big car, you’re going to go from 60 to 0 in a metre, which kills you. Generally trees are very unforgiving of either large or small cars. Large cars definitely win out over small cars when trees are avoided, because you’re then going from 60 - 0 in about 5 meters. The occupants of the smaller car will go from 60 to zero in their crumple zone, and then start going backwards.
Yes, I agree so much with that last point, which is why the Fifth Gear's Modus vs Volvo is quite interesting (and similar exmaples, e.g. Smart ForTwo vs C-Class) where the small car goes backwards first, and twists more than twice as much as the large car.As for the first bit, I don't think anyone is suggesting a high chance of survival in a 60 mph crash, but there is a speed against a tree where the small car's g-forces exceed a certain threshhold, whilst the big car at that speed doesn't. With a tree it may be 20mph, I don't know.
Regarding the Hamble incident, the police still haven't released any more information as far as I know, but no one is suggesting it happened at 60mph, just that it was on a 60mph road.
Having been in a direct head on in a smaller vs larger car I'm well placed to comment.
My car was a 1993 MR2
His car was a 1995 Escort estate with a diesel engine.
His speed was 60ish
Mine was sub 40 and slowing, he was accelerating.
His car was deformed at the A and B pillar some engine bay deformation but still looked like a car
Mine was obliterated with even both sides of the rear of the car deformed from impact
He walked
I spent 3 monthis in intensive care, 3 weeks in a coma, broke every bone from skull to foot on right side. Only left arm and leg left in touched
He had a broken wrist.
The only thing, bar a miracle, that saved me was the huge crumple zone up front due to no engine.
Size always helps but bigger is not always safer.
I dont feel there is any solution for young drivers. Bigger cars with more safety aids brings false sense of security and the chance of the system going mental (once spun a car driving normal after a faulty abs sensor trigger the car to think it had to apply random brakes), I had a volvo self emergency brake after a leaf hit the screen
Sadly full automation is the best answer now we have gone too far down the tech dependency route
My car was a 1993 MR2
His car was a 1995 Escort estate with a diesel engine.
His speed was 60ish
Mine was sub 40 and slowing, he was accelerating.
His car was deformed at the A and B pillar some engine bay deformation but still looked like a car
Mine was obliterated with even both sides of the rear of the car deformed from impact
He walked
I spent 3 monthis in intensive care, 3 weeks in a coma, broke every bone from skull to foot on right side. Only left arm and leg left in touched
He had a broken wrist.
The only thing, bar a miracle, that saved me was the huge crumple zone up front due to no engine.
Size always helps but bigger is not always safer.
I dont feel there is any solution for young drivers. Bigger cars with more safety aids brings false sense of security and the chance of the system going mental (once spun a car driving normal after a faulty abs sensor trigger the car to think it had to apply random brakes), I had a volvo self emergency brake after a leaf hit the screen
Sadly full automation is the best answer now we have gone too far down the tech dependency route
Heaveho said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nothing. I wasn't answering that point!
So you would argue against the suggestion that with experience comes maturity? Genuinely not following your train of thought here, or the point you're trying to make.If experience = maturity, a 19 y/o driving for 2 years should pay less than a 50 y/o who's just passed. But they pay much more.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
With age comes maturity. Do a quote for a 50 y/o who passed their test yesterday. Then just change the age to 19, and date of passing test to 2 yrs ago, and keep everything else the same. Now watch the premium go thru the roof.
If experience = maturity, a 19 y/o driving for 2 years should pay less than a 50 y/o who's just passed. But they pay much more.
A 50 yr old new driver may not have more driving experience, but they have 30 yrs more life experience. with that comes wisdom. Common sense would dictate they are less risk. I think you already know this though. Which begs the question, why are you continuing to debate the issue? Devils advocate?If experience = maturity, a 19 y/o driving for 2 years should pay less than a 50 y/o who's just passed. But they pay much more.
Drihump Trolomite said:
Having been in a direct head on in a smaller vs larger car I'm well placed to comment.
My car was a 1993 MR2
His car was a 1995 Escort estate with a diesel engine.
His speed was 60ish
Mine was sub 40 and slowing, he was accelerating.
His car was deformed at the A and B pillar some engine bay deformation but still looked like a car
Mine was obliterated with even both sides of the rear of the car deformed from impact
He walked
I spent 3 monthis in intensive care, 3 weeks in a coma, broke every bone from skull to foot on right side. Only left arm and leg left in touched
He had a broken wrist.
The only thing, bar a miracle, that saved me was the huge crumple zone up front due to no engine.
Size always helps but bigger is not always safer.
I dont feel there is any solution for young drivers. Bigger cars with more safety aids brings false sense of security and the chance of the system going mental (once spun a car driving normal after a faulty abs sensor trigger the car to think it had to apply random brakes), I had a volvo self emergency brake after a leaf hit the screen
Sadly full automation is the best answer now we have gone too far down the tech dependency route
His engine stopped before he did; yours, well, the momentum of it behind you, was pushing you into the crash. My car was a 1993 MR2
His car was a 1995 Escort estate with a diesel engine.
His speed was 60ish
Mine was sub 40 and slowing, he was accelerating.
His car was deformed at the A and B pillar some engine bay deformation but still looked like a car
Mine was obliterated with even both sides of the rear of the car deformed from impact
He walked
I spent 3 monthis in intensive care, 3 weeks in a coma, broke every bone from skull to foot on right side. Only left arm and leg left in touched
He had a broken wrist.
The only thing, bar a miracle, that saved me was the huge crumple zone up front due to no engine.
Size always helps but bigger is not always safer.
I dont feel there is any solution for young drivers. Bigger cars with more safety aids brings false sense of security and the chance of the system going mental (once spun a car driving normal after a faulty abs sensor trigger the car to think it had to apply random brakes), I had a volvo self emergency brake after a leaf hit the screen
Sadly full automation is the best answer now we have gone too far down the tech dependency route
All other things being equal, a taller driver and passenger will survive better than shorter ones by being further from the front of the car. In a side impact, which a lot of tree collisions are, you are better off in a four dour car as the B pillar is closer to being in line with you, rather than behind you as on a two door car.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff