How much does having a safe car bother you?

[Fatman2]

Without doubt safety features, in their many forms, represent progress. I've seen a good few Austin Mini's involved in head ons and the accompanying body bags due to the engine being pushed right into the cabin. Active head restraints, belt pretensioners, collapsable steering columns/pedals crumple zones and many other safety features have been instrumental in saving serious injury so are all welcome in my book.

Sadly it gets a bit grey with some other features that seem to nanny the driver but given the diversity of opinion on this thread it's clearly difficult for manufacturers to decide what to include.

I will consider safety as a small part of my purchasing decision but it doesn't ultimately dictate what I'll buy.

[Hitler Hadrump]

randomwalk said:

I saw a youtube vid of an early 60s Chev being hit by a new car, the Chev passenger compartment was totally crushed by the smaller newer vehicle.

The American Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did an offset test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu. Predictably enough, the 2009 car demolished the classic. But the Bel Air has an unusual chassis - instead of a ladder frame, it's X shaped with no side rails. In an offset crash, there's nothing adding strength to that side of the car. It just folds up.

There was never any doubt that a 50s car was going to come off worse when hit by a new car. However, I don't think it's cynical to suggest that the crash organisers deliberately chose the car which would give the most dramatic result.

[cris654321]

wether you've got a megane or a 1000cc bike, if its your time to die then you'll die reguardless

you cant have a world without inocent healthy people dying in accidents (not just on the roads) despite the governments best efforts with HEALTH AND SAFETY

however i think seatbelts are good,drive without them you've got a death wish, all the other stuff unnessasery but sometimes beneficial

personaly safety dosnt bother me, but my very cynical veiws may change if i ever have kids

[Fatman2]

Hitler Hadrump said:

randomwalk said:

I saw a youtube vid of an early 60s Chev being hit by a new car, the Chev passenger compartment was totally crushed by the smaller newer vehicle.

The American Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did an offset test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu. Predictably enough, the 2009 car demolished the classic. But the Bel Air has an unusual chassis - instead of a ladder frame, it's X shaped with no side rails. In an offset crash, there's nothing adding strength to that side of the car. It just folds up.

There was never any doubt that a 50s car was going to come off worse when hit by a new car. However, I don't think it's cynical to suggest that the crash organisers deliberately chose the car which would give the most dramatic result.

That's why 5th Gear did a head on with two different Renault Espace models. One was a modern 5 star NCAP jobbie and the other an older version (not sure how old it was but probably about 5 years).

It was the same result with the older model coming off very badly. At 60mph the new Espace didn't even set the airbags off as it didn't deem the crash to be severe enough. Yet the driver of the other car would've ended up in hospital.

[randomwalk]

Hitler Hadrump said:

randomwalk said:

I saw a youtube vid of an early 60s Chev being hit by a new car, the Chev passenger compartment was totally crushed by the smaller newer vehicle.

The American Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did an offset test between a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu. Predictably enough, the 2009 car demolished the classic. But the Bel Air has an unusual chassis - instead of a ladder frame, it's X shaped with no side rails. In an offset crash, there's nothing adding strength to that side of the car. It just folds up.

There was never any doubt that a 50s car was going to come off worse when hit by a new car. However, I don't think it's cynical to suggest that the crash organisers deliberately chose the car which would give the most dramatic result.

here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk

[Hitler Hadrump]

randomwalk said:

here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk

It still pisses me off to watch that. They destroy a perfectly good 50 year old car just to prove a point which didn't need proving. It's like the NHS pushing an old man down some stairs to prove that old people break bones easily.

[grumpy]

What is this "air bag" you talk about and where can one get one?

My Lotus has a seat belt light that flashes for 20 secs. after the ignition is switched on and then goes out, that's about it.

[Jeffmaniac]

I started putting safety at the top of my list when looking at cars after I started working in an insurance motor claims department. The same old story would be repeated at least 10th times a day 'their new car barely has a scratch but my older car is a wreck'. Then you would get the occasional serious injury in the old car but just minor whiplash in the new car. Then the once a month fatality claim which would never be in a nearly new car.

I will always choose a car that I know will have a good chance in a crash as it only takes one moment for things to go wrong.

[pixieporsche]

I love classic cars, would never buy anything less than 20-odd years old again. Can't get te same enthusiasm for modern stuff, it don't get fun until it's reaching it's limits - which is a lot more in a modern

[Pigeon]

kambites said:

I hate the modern obsession with safety, it has almost single handedly ruined modern cars, IMO.

So to answer your question, I'd far rather be driving an old car with no airbags, etc.

Not just modern cars, all sorts of stuff has been ruined by Daily-Mail-reading nesh tts whining about it being "too dangerous". FFS, you'd wonder how the human race has managed to survive at all. Keep your terrified whinging insecurities to yourselves and stop fking up everyone else's lives and heads with them, you bleeding ninnies.

Only time I've ever worried about the crash safety of a car I was driving was when it was an old Mini that was so fked I could hardly steer it and so rusty I was waiting for bits to fall off it or my seat to go through the floor the whole time (And the passengers - who had got me to drive it so they could get off their faces - were telling me I was too slow and to go faster )

I prefer to think in terms of active safety, ie. trying to drive so as not to have a crash in the first place. And if I fail at that, my priority is to be able to repair the car with minimal hassle. That means not having one which is designed to disintegrate so as to "dissipate the energy", or which has loads of shattery breaky plastic bits that cost hundreds of pounds to replace.

[slomax]

pixieporsche said:

I love classic cars, would never buy anything less than 20-odd years old again. Can't get te same enthusiasm for modern stuff, it don't get fun until it's reaching it's limits - which is a lot more in a modern

^^ what she said.
in a classic, everything starts to get on edge well within the speed limits of exciting roads and still be safe to drive because the driver is better than the car in most circumstances. Nowadays, the cars suspension, build quality and performance just laughs at the face of speed limits and so it feels safe up to a much higher speed until the drivers skill is surpassed by the cars characteristics and handling. You get so much more from an old car at lower speeds. instead of trying to stick to 60, it seems more of a target, which is great fun!

As an aside- yes, i do think about safety in old cars. Mine has no roof, windscreen, roll cage, roll bar or anything. If it rolls over i'm a dead man. The more dangerous it is, the more careful about how you drive it, as you know its going to hurt if you hit anything.

Edited by slomax on Saturday 8th January 01:15

[fluffnik]

Ozzie Osmond said:

fluffnik said:

I like keeping myself safe with rigorous maintenance and the best tyres rather than extra airbags...

Equally effective is making the ceremonial sacrifice of a small hamster before each journey to make sure nothing goes wrong.... Neither of them makes the blindest bit of difference if there's an idiot coming the other way.

They might well let me see a hazard earlier and manoeuvre harder to avoid it.

I value my car's ability to pull up straight at better than 1G from >160mph far more than the extra airbags that previous cars lacked. I use good visibility, tyres and brakes every day, I've never used an airbag...

[Noccer]

ukzz4iroc said:

In these days of multiple airbags, pre-tensioners and similar I find myself getting a little nervous if I'm in something older. Clearly it doesn't stop me driving the classics but it is in the back of my mind.

My IROC only has rear lap belts and I'm thinking that I should not let my kids travel back there really.

Any thoughts on this?

Obsession with safety is a bit like the same thing with health. Cancer is the No1 killer, OK so target that, now Heart Disease is the No 1 killer, Ok so now AIds is the No 1 killer.....

F ... Something always has to be the No 1 killer And I think car/bike safety has gone the same way. They keep tackling the top number. Mind you they still let people in the late 80s drive without any retest - while 2 pints will get you banned. And some sober people in a bad mood are worse than either.

On a fast motorcycle you learn a lot. Being in the right is not good enough, you must avoid having an accident at all costs - it hurts. You must be very very careful of slippy roads, and people in old cars on a bank holiday monday will indicate left and turn right.

Car drivers have been found to drive closer and faster due to air bags and ABS. It is said that if they had a big spike in front of their chest then they would be better drivers.

I don't think the answer is more and more EU rules and expensive technology. I like having no ABS or air bags in a high performance sports car, or on my Ducati. I see a gradual reduction in driving quality over the last 5 years - people crossing red lights, or indicating on a roundabout and then not taking the exit.

Maybe the answer is an option to take a refresher test every 15 years and discount on your insurance according to how you do. I was amazed when I went down to London a few years ago and saw red lines at the edge of the road - I had no idea what they were for. These things creep in when you are not looking. At least a refresher course would keep you up to date. I did an IAM test about 5 years ago but it taught me nothing, it needs to be targeted on updating existing drivers to changes in the system, and making sure they are still OK to drive.

So how did I survive being a child ? Well it wasn't by being strapped in the back of a car, or bolted to the pillion seat of a motocycle. It was by the driver not having a serious accident. Besides lap belts seem good enough for aircraft - how quick do they stop if they bale out at the end of the runway?

[davepoth]

Noccer said:

Besides lap belts seem good enough for aircraft - how quick do they stop if they bale out at the end of the runway?

The pilots, and all of the steward/esses have four point harnesses. The cattle get lap belts because that's what the authorities told them to put in. In a crash it's usually going to be either "you're fine" or "you're dead" so seatbelts don't do too much.

I'm a classic car owner (Dolomites) and I also recently had a bad crash in my modernish car ('98 Fiesta which is now a coke can). The accident I had would have probably been fatal in the Dolomite, and although I have no memory of the accident, from what I've been told and found out I don't think I would have done anything differently if I was driving my Dolomite. So it's certainly food for thought.

Certainly I've got half an eye on safety for my new car, although not in the way many would think. I'm looking for a new Fiat Panda for a couple of reasons.

1)it's narrow - I mean seriously narrow. This is a good thing because it gives more road space to move into.

2)It has got a lot of glass compared to most modern cars - Narrow A-Pillars, and a nice low waistline means I should be able to see things before they hit me, or I hit them.

3)It runs high profile narrow tyres - makes the handling a bit safer.

and then after that come all of the other safety systems.

[GavinPearson]

I live in an area that has a lot of snow and ice, unfortunately people do spin out and crash into other cars and it is often at a speed that can cause bad injuries.

I've seen the effect of this and I value my wife and son's health very highly. This is why my wife has a nice big SUV that is on a very stout chassis and has 5 star crash ratings front and rear. I want her and my son to be in a vehicle that limits damage to them in a scenario that is often seen. The SUV also does DIY duty, takes us on holiday, gets us through really bad snow - it's a great vehicle.

I agree that it is extremely important to have good active safety features and alert, well trained drivers, and recognise that an SUV will never handle like a sports car. However, we live in a suburb and with all trade offs taken into account think my decision is a good one. In a crash, mass and metal tend to be pretty useful....

[greggy50]

I drive a old mini I think this show's my view on the point

[uk_vette]

Well safety is important, not just how you drive, but how others drive into you.
So in my mind, being in a bigger car than most, first of all, puts you at an advantage.
An advantage, that it takes longer for the offending car to get to your legs etc.
So, point 1, drive a bigger car than average.
Throwing the dice in my favour.
More metal, more mass, I think, apart from hitting a truck or bus, then all things being equal, I should be at an advantage, over the other vehicle.
3 point seat belts for all 8 on board.
Airbags, if your going to get hit, then you want as much protection as possible
Some thing like an airbag, at every possible impact place.
8 is a good number to have.
2 at the front, 1 by each of the front doors, 1 by each of the rear doors, and 2 at the rear.
ABS on all 4 wheels, not just the fronts, as many cars.
Vehicle stabilisation.
This is why I feel safer when I drive my Land Cruiser, than when I drive the Corsa.
Which reminds me to get the Corsa sold.

'vette

Edited by uk_vette on Saturday 8th January 04:14

[garethj]

And always have the parts catalogue open on the “Replacement subframe” page?

[greggy50]

garethj said:

And always have the parts catalogue open on the “Replacement subframe” page?

Front one is original I believe and still in great condition actually
Wont comment on the rear you can get them to last just have to look after them

[Rubin215]

There is a relationship between the perception of how safe you feel and how likely you are to take risks.

i.e. if you are in 2 tonnes of comedy jeep (or a "Discovery" as some people call them) airbagged to the max, traction control, abs, seatbelt pretensioned etc you are more likely to drive like a cock than if you are in a 1968 mini with only some old bean cans between you and certain death.

Unfortunately, this also counts for motorcycles too (my favourite mode of transport) where so many people think that because they are wrapped in the hide of a dead animal and have a fibreglass bucket on their head they are immortal...