How much does having a safe car bother you?

[CampDavid]

petrolsniffer said:

DannyVTS said:

It's the main thing when buying a car for me, it must be very very safe. I will not ever buy a car with lower than 5* safety rating as speed kills and if i hit her at 40 then atleast I'll be safe.

Current Fleet

Citroen Saxo VTS (3)

Er, yeah.

Worth noting that, although the Saxo is a two star car the VTS engine is a fair bit heavier than the 1.1i lump. Should mean that the front end caves into the legs a little easier!

[RobM77]

toast boy said:

Leicesterdave said:

Wait til you've had a bad crash- I don't think you'll fancy driving in your classic then.

Maybe, but until then I'll take my chances. If you took that attitude to risk you would live a very restricted life, no air travel in case of an accident, safest car possible, don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't work or party too hard, don't eat too much red meat, you get the picture.

I want to be here for a good time, not necessarily a long time, if I can do both all the better but I'd rather enjoy myself with the time I've got. I could die in a horrific accident in my classic but then maybe I've got something like enlarged heart syndrome that I don't know about? Perhaps I'll catch a tropical virus that might kill me? If that kind of scenario occurs I'll be glad at least I had fun while I was here rather than sitting in my really safe car eating a safe but boring diet and staying in while my friends party.

Safety is not a binary thing though; there's lots you can enjoy in life whilst keeping the risks under control. I believe in a happy medium between staying inside all the time and going completely bananas. I guess it just depends where we all draw that line. Personally, I like to own a safe car for everyday, and if I decided that I wanted a classic, the lack of safety wouldn't stop me buying it, but I'd drive it at non-peak times for a few thousand miles a year in good weather.

[Baked_bean]

hora said:

ukzz4iroc said:

For those that say "don't crash in the first place" have a point and one that I do subscribe to- but it doesn't account for a truck on the oncoming carriageway having a blowout, jacknifing and going through the barrier into you.

You need a less bleak outlook on life.

If that happens though, you could be in a new range rover and you'd still be screwed.

[thiscocks]

Not at all. Lightness is the key! Just make sure you hit something of less mass.

[k-ink]

It doesn't bother me when I think of my own safety. But I did buy a more solid car when we had a little girl. With a few cars in between, I've gone from an Elise to a Lexus.

[DannyVTS]

CampDavid said:

petrolsniffer said:

DannyVTS said:

It's the main thing when buying a car for me, it must be very very safe. I will not ever buy a car with lower than 5* safety rating as speed kills and if i hit her at 40 then atleast I'll be safe.

Current Fleet

Citroen Saxo VTS (3)

Er, yeah.

Worth noting that, although the Saxo is a two star car the VTS engine is a fair bit heavier than the 1.1i lump. Should mean that the front end caves into the legs a little easier!

Only unsafe if you bin it! Sunroof doesn't leak that much so it keeps me mostly dry, not looking forward to driving home in the snow in it though!

[kambites]

I'd be interested to know if anyone has ever correlated data from real crashes and tried to work out what proportion of them different safety features would help with and what the difference in injury would be. Is the overall likelihood of death for a typical driver in a Cortina 10% higher than in a Focus? double? ten times?

More interesting, but probably even less possible, would be to work out whether there would be less or more accidents if people were all driving old cars.

Edited by kambites on Friday 7th January 11:59

[aizvara]

hora said:

When a car overturns with street furniture into the equation - ALL bets are off.

I'm probably misreading you, but you make it sound like we should all ignore car safety because its not 100% perfect; apologies if that's not what you meant. Anyway, many crashes now are survived which previously would not have been. There are plenty of counter examples of people crashing at 70mph+ in modern, safer cars who get out with the only (minor) injuries being from the airbag deploying. The fact that some severe crashes aren't survivable doesn't invalidate years of safety development.

Yes, cars are now often heavier, and bigger, that is a nuisance. Power steering, TC and ABS do apparently take something out of the feel of driving. But my (modern, probably reasonably safe) car still feels relatively nimble, quick and fun to drive, despite its 1.4 tonnes and mostly optional electronic help. And many of these things will hopefully improve as stronger and lighter materials and other technology is developed.

As I stated before, I don't care that much for NCAP ratings in my buying choice, though, and I would like a classic car at some point; I just think that as driving a car is actually a fairly high risk day-to-day activity, it is worth appreciating advances in car safety. And certainly not sensible to just dismiss it.

[LuS1fer]

I work on the basis I'm not going to have an accident and having had cars for 30 years, I actually find modern cars are LESS SAFE.

Why?

(1) Sh*t visibility - causes more accidents than it prevents as far as I can see
(2) "The cocoon principle" - people drive far more carelessly thinking they are indestructible
(3) They are generally faster so you go faster
(4) They are bigger so drivers tend to try and bully each other and are less considerate
(5) No-one seems to care about minor collisions anymore, probably because the car's footprint is so massive.

The NCAP rating is also b*llocks - there are different ratings for drivers and front and rear passengers and many 5 star cars are not very good for passengers whereas some low NCAP cars are actually very good for rear pasengers (old Voyager springs to mind).

So I don't care what I drive as I drive within the limits of the car's capabilities (and brakes) not it's safety features.

Don't get me wrong - there are worthwhile advances like side impact bars and driver airbag to stop you being speared by the steering wheel but they have never ever been a factor for me, even with kids.

[Scantily]

There's Always a huge amount of machismo and chest thumping in threads like these, almost as though it's a competition for who has the least safe car. Sure your own driving matters a huge amount in the safety stakes, but you can't control everyone else, what's to stop someone running into the back of you at 70mph if you have to stop on the motorway? Or if you have to stop suddenly on a wet greasy road to avoid someone that walks out between parked cars. And for that reason safety is a big concern in my choosing a car, when I bought my mr2 turbo I made sure I bought one with abs and traction control.

[RobM77]

Baked_bean said:

hora said:

ukzz4iroc said:

For those that say "don't crash in the first place" have a point and one that I do subscribe to- but it doesn't account for a truck on the oncoming carriageway having a blowout, jacknifing and going through the barrier into you.

You need a less bleak outlook on life.

If that happens though, you could be in a new range rover and you'd still be screwed.

That's an interesting point, as safety is more than just how the car withstands being hit, it's avoiding accidents. A Range Rover, in fact any off roader, has terrible accident avoidance compared with a car. This is an early one, and modern ones won't roll so dramatically, but I still wouldn't want to be in a RR twice this safe!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjnBpruer8g

40mph!!! Early on they tried the swerve in a Jag X Type at 120mph and it managed fine. Modern Range Rovers are better, but imagine a 60mph swerve (kinetic engery is the square of speed) - no thanks.

[otolith]

kambites said:

I'd be interested to know if anyone has ever correlated data from real crashes and tried to work out what proportion of them different safety features would help with and what the difference in injury would be. Is the overall likelihood of death for a typical driver in a Cortina 10% higher than in a Focus? double? ten times?

This is a paper looking at the correlation between NCAP score and outcomes in real crashes:

EURO NCAP RESULTS AND REAL-LIFE INJURY RISKS

conclusion said:

There was an overall correlation between the Euro NCAP scores and risk of serious and fatal injury. The results indicate a 12% per star risk reduction for severe and fatal injuries. No overall relationship was found between Euro NCAP scores and minor injury crashes. Highly rated vehicles, as a group, had a lower risk of serious and fatal injury across 90–110% of average impact severity, indicating that in crashes of such severity there have not been any drawbacks of the high test speed in Euro NCAP. Overall, highly rated vehicles produce approximately 30% less fatal and serious injuries compared with low-rated vehicles.

[Johnnytheboy]

On modern cars, I'd happily lose some structural strength in return for thinner door pillars, so I could actually see out.

[xr287]

Don't care about driver aids etc but one of the reasons I bought an 05 plate car rather than something older and cheaper is I wanted something with more modern crash protection.

Considering I could quite easily be involved in a crash thats not my fault it seems sensible to have a fairly structurally sound car with airbags etc that will protect me better than something from 15 years ago. You don't need to watch many crash test videos or read many reports to see how far safety has come since then even in smaller impacts.

[ewenm]

Scantily said:

There's Always a huge amount of machismo and chest thumping in threads like these, almost as though it's a competition for who has the least safe car. Sure your own driving matters a huge amount in the safety stakes, but you can't control everyone else, what's to stop someone running into the back of you at 70mph if you have to stop on the motorway? Or if you have to stop suddenly on a wet greasy road to avoid someone that walks out between parked cars. And for that reason safety is a big concern in my choosing a car, when I bought my mr2 turbo I made sure I bought one with abs and traction control.

In your top example (70mph motorway) the ABS and traction control of your MR2 will not help at all. If you were really concerned by that scenario you'd have bought an estate so you've got lots of crumple room behind you.

Of course, when the motorway goes all stop-start-stop-start, it's safer to be in the inside lane as you've got an escape route (hard shoulder) and the trucks are usually better at smoothing out the sharp changes in speed that are common in the tailgating outside lane. Again, it's all about risk mitigation and reduction, not risk elimination.

[GadgeS3C]

aizvara said:

Yes, cars are now often heavier, and bigger, that is a nuisance. Power steering, TC and ABS do apparently take something out of the feel of driving. But my (modern, probably reasonably safe) car still feels relatively nimble, quick and fun to drive, despite its 1.4 tonnes and mostly optional electronic help. And many of these things will hopefully improve as stronger and lighter materials and other technology is developed.

Good points but I'm not convinced things will improve. The benefits of improved materials and productions techniques have been channelled into offsetting the additional weight of "essential" safety and comfort features. Unless the trend for more comfort and safety changes I can't see this changing.

Reading through the thread it seems that there are a lot of people on PH that consider safety to be the highest priority based on the lack of control of the "other" driver. Given this is PH and the general population care even less about driving then the logical next step in road safety is to take control from those "other" drivers.

Just don't forget we are those "other" drivers too.

Unlocks car, gets in, boots up, "Car, take me to Tesco's"...

At least we'll be able to post on here on the way

[otolith]

Personally, yes, I would consider it as part of the fitness for purpose of the car. For a toy, like my Elise, it is a relatively minor consideration (though I think Elises do crash fairly well). For something which is purely for practical transport and not entertainment, the safer the better with the caveat that more weight incurs higher running costs.

Also, selfishly perhaps, I am happier trading safety off against other factors for cars that I drive than cars my loved ones drive; I was more comfortable with my wife commuting in the MX-5 than in the AX, and more comfortable still with the 350Z.

It occurs to me that advances in safety need not be at the expense of weight - airbags, ABS and stability control are not particularly heavy items, and good engineering and better materials do not need to add weight. A base model Citroen C1 weighs about 800kg. A similarly powerful 1.4 litre Peugeot 205 also weighs about 800kg. A 1980 Ford Escort 1.1 weighs about 810kg. An early sixties Ford Cortina weighs about 800kg. You can look at that as glass half empty and say that a little city car now weighs as much as a sixties family saloon, or you can see it as half full and say that a modern city car gives you massively better crash protection than a sixties family saloon while weighing no more.

[R11ysf]

Scantily said:

There's Always a huge amount of machismo and chest thumping in threads like these, almost as though it's a competition for who has the least safe car. Sure your own driving matters a huge amount in the safety stakes, but you can't control everyone else, what's to stop someone running into the back of you at 70mph if you have to stop on the motorway? Or if you have to stop suddenly on a wet greasy road to avoid someone that walks out between parked cars. And for that reason [b]safety is a big concern in my choosing a car[b/], when I bought my mr2 turbo I made sure I bought one with abs and traction control.

So you bought an MR2 Turbo????? If safety was a big concern you'd have bought a massive barge 7-series or the like. MR2's are pretty low the last time I looked, they look about slide under a truck height to me. They aren't exactly a Hummer.

It's simply a personal level of where you apportion risk. Those with children tend to be more risk averse (they say in bike racing it costs you a second a lap!) and those who marry may also want safety for her indoors. That is why you guys get lower insurance premiums.

Personally, I couldn't give a toss about safety and I think this sums it up very well

toast boy said:

Maybe, but until then I'll take my chances. If you took that attitude to risk you would live a very restricted life, no air travel in case of an accident, safest car possible, don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't work or party too hard, don't eat too much red meat, you get the picture.

I want to be here for a good time, not necessarily a long time, if I can do both all the better but I'd rather enjoy myself with the time I've got. I could die in a horrific accident in my classic but then maybe I've got something like enlarged heart syndrome that I don't know about? Perhaps I'll catch a tropical virus that might kill me? If that kind of scenario occurs I'll be glad at least I had fun while I was here rather than sitting in my really safe car eating a safe but boring diet and staying in while my friends party.

[RWD cossie wil]

I actually think modern safty systems & crash protection create a feeling of invincibilty, causing people to drive far too fast for the conditions. I get sick of people saying stuff like cars with no ABS are dangerous etc, and that they need further to stop. NO THEY DON'T!!! ABS's primary function is to allow the driver to brake hard & maintain directional control/ steer at the same time, hopefully avoiding the crash.

Same as stability systems, they can only sort your mess out up to a point, If you have gone into a wet greasy corner 30mph too fast, you are still going to have a very very big accident!

Don't get me wrong, I think modern cars safty with airbags/ passenger safty cell designs etc are fantastic, but don't automatically think older cars are dangerous.

95% of crashes involve some form of human input, so that's where you are going to see the biggest improvement if you want to reduce accident rates, ie don't crash in the first place!

I fly light aircraft, the very concept of flying is inherantly VERY dangerous, but training & procedures mitigate the risk AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. Life is dangerous, for some reason as a society, we are getting extremly risk adverse

[aizvara]

GadgeS3C said:

Good points but I'm not convinced things will improve. The benefits of improved materials and productions techniques have been channelled into offsetting the additional weight of "essential" safety and comfort features. Unless the trend for more comfort and safety changes I can't see this changing.

You are probably right. I just always try to be optimistic about these things, and in general have a (possibly deluded) belief that things are normally getting better over time. Certainly, I think there are a lot more good cars, safety included, these days than there were when I was a child, and even a normal family saloon these days is capable of pretty impressive speed and handling, (and safety).

GadgeS3C said:

Reading through the thread it seems that there are a lot of people on PH that consider safety to be the highest priority based on the lack of control of the "other" driver. Given this is PH and the general population care even less about driving then the logical next step in road safety is to take control from those "other" drivers.

Just don't forget we are those "other" drivers too.

Unlocks car, gets in, boots up, "Car, take me to Tesco's"...

At least we'll be able to post on here on the way

I guess for many safety becomes a higher priority when you have children, or after being involved in an accident. I don't think I'm overly concerned about safety, but equally I don't see the improved safety of my car as a bad thing, and I don't really see what I've lost to gain that safety (actually, I'd rather the throttle was not DBW, which is the result of a safety development, but its not something I get bothered by).
I also certainly don't have a cast-iron faith in my own abilities or those of the car, despite its TC & ABS, as I've experienced what can happen when accelerating away from a slippery roundabout slightly too enthusiastically (mostly fun things if you are expecting it ).

Yes, automatic driving is probably the endpoint of increasing safety, and there's already a fair amount of impressive technology. Having been for a ride in an autonomous car on a track, I think it would take a lot of convincing for many people to trust the machine; I was fairly open to the experience and still found it somewhat odd, to say the least.