RE: Ford Mustang made (a bit) safer
Discussion
Bladedancer said:
Hang on. Are those stars for pedestrian rating then?
If they are I'm sorry to say I care a great deal more about safety of the car's occupants than some random drunk that walks in front of it.
Nope, it does pretty well in pedestrian safety tests. It's rear seat occupant safety where it really loses out. A large part of it, as someone said above, is lack of inertia-reals in the back which means it fares very badly on rear seat chest loads. If they are I'm sorry to say I care a great deal more about safety of the car's occupants than some random drunk that walks in front of it.
Obviously not a worry for people who don't intend to use the rear seats.
Edited by kambites on Friday 7th July 07:27
Surprised about the airbag, but can a 6 foot guy really hit his head on the steering wheel with the current airbag if he's wearing his seat belt and the less than perfect airbag deploys? Really? I think this toweblock fire and the fact that deaths on the roads are still highish shows that common sense has left the building. Stats show half of all fatal accidents in the UK involve HGVs, so if we want to be safe we need a rethink on the real causes. The pedestrian radar is a questionable tech, it switches off on my cars above 15mph... so how many people are killed below that speed? Oh yes, cyclists by lorries at junctions in cities. The safety regulators have lost sight of saving lives. Meanwhile our cars get burdened with more expensive crap to go wrong. Rant over!
kambites said:
Nope, it does pretty well in pedestrian safety tests. It's rear seat occupant safety where it really loses out. A large part of it, as someone said above, is lack of inertia-reals in the back which means it fares very badly on rear seat chest loads.
Obviously not a worry for people who don't intend to use the rear seats.
So pretty much everyone then. Obviously not a worry for people who don't intend to use the rear seats.
Those "seats" are nothing more than glorified extra luggage capacity.
CaptainSensib1e said:
That said, it seems daft that Ford were so lax on some relatively simple elements on improving safety, for example not having the rear seat belt pretensioners. But overall, I'd rather crash in my Mustang than most other cars from 5+ years ago.
To be honest, if you look across the board, manufacturers on started putting RR Seatbelt pretensioners on their cars within the last couple of years...roughly around the same time as the ENCAP protocol changed to using Q6 and Q10 dummies in the back. Coincidence? All cars made today are relatively safe - but they are all tuned to pass these tests.
kambites said:
Bladedancer said:
Hang on. Are those stars for pedestrian rating then?
If they are I'm sorry to say I care a great deal more about safety of the car's occupants than some random drunk that walks in front of it.
Nope, it does pretty well in pedestrian safety tests. It's rear seat occupant safety where it really loses out. A large part of it, as someone said above, is lack of inertia-reals in the back which means it fares very badly on rear seat chest loads. If they are I'm sorry to say I care a great deal more about safety of the car's occupants than some random drunk that walks in front of it.
Obviously not a worry for people who don't intend to use the rear seats.
Edited by kambites on Friday 7th July 07:27
Bladedancer said:
Hang on. Are those stars for pedestrian rating then?
If they are I'm sorry to say I care a great deal more about safety of the car's occupants than some random drunk that walks in front of it.
And what if, instead of a random drunk it's your son/ daughter/family member that gets hit crossing the road?? Would you still care so much about the driver?If they are I'm sorry to say I care a great deal more about safety of the car's occupants than some random drunk that walks in front of it.
Blue Oval84 said:
Mr Tidy said:
But why should you need all that tech anyway?
Because humans are extremely fallible, even the best drivers are.Edited by Mr Tidy on Friday 7th July 02:39
Don't think i'm some kind of safety/fun police though. My Forester only has ABS and mechanicals to be safe and I I haven't gone ploughing off the road yet!
Speary8 said:
The biggest safety improvement they can make to the current Mustang would be NOT to fit Prielli P Zero tyres that dont work under about 11 degC.
Shame the salesman didn't warn me about this before I put it sideways on a country road.
True, a warning might be wise. But I reckon needing to be careful just makes it more fun.And it's fine now the weather is warmer- actually needs a bit more power, which is not what I was thinking a few months back...Shame the salesman didn't warn me about this before I put it sideways on a country road.
adingley84 said:
Blue Oval84 said:
Mr Tidy said:
But why should you need all that tech anyway?
Because humans are extremely fallible, even the best drivers are.Edited by Mr Tidy on Friday 7th July 02:39
Don't think i'm some kind of safety/fun police though. My Forester only has ABS and mechanicals to be safe and I I haven't gone ploughing off the road yet!
So this is the whole post:-
"But why should you need all that tech anyway?
Just raising the standard required from the driver would mean you wouldn't have to rely on all that tech (which will inevitably fail and not get fixed once cars are out of warranty)!
My first car was a MKII Cortina that didn't even have a brake servo but I'm still here!
And an RHD V8 Mustang is definitely on my wishlist (regardless of NCAP score)."
Billions are spent on dealing with things reactively (smart motorways, average speed limits, lower speed limits, traffic calming, speed humps, auto-braking, lane departure, adaptive cruise, lane departure, traction control, ABS, air-bags, even seat-belts, and loads more s
t). If only 10% of that expenditure got put towards pro-active measures like raising driving standards (and software to block signals to hand-held mobiles when the engine is running) I'm sure we'd get better results!
BTW I'm not against everything reactive that I listed, but I think ABS is the only one I have ever used in 40 years.
adingley84 said:
And what if, instead of a random drunk it's your son/ daughter/family member that gets hit crossing the road?? Would you still care so much about the driver?
I knew someone will come up with that. But that's ok, I do love a good 'ol "will someone think of the children".adingley84 said:
Blue Oval84 said:
Mr Tidy said:
But why should you need all that tech anyway?
Because humans are extremely fallible, even the best drivers are.Edited by Mr Tidy on Friday 7th July 02:39
Don't think i'm some kind of safety/fun police though. My Forester only has ABS and mechanicals to be safe and I I haven't gone ploughing off the road yet!
But that is beside the point.
See, for decades people were just fine. We had ABS, ASR, ESP and some cars added AWD/4WD.
Now we all need all that new extra crap crammed in? Lane assist, radar this or that, bonnet that deploys on impact.
It used to be that skill and common sense were what you needed to drive. Apparently drivers these days miss both.
And don't get me wrong, I am all for safety and I don't want to be driving a go-kart with no ABS or anything like that.
But I think they're going overboard with it. Lane assist? Shouldn't you, I don't know, just concentrate on the road?
The problem is people will come to depend on these system instead of thinking for themselves. And that is 100% wrong way to go.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff