RE: Safety concerns over 'A' pillars
Discussion
Timberwolf said:
Well done Paul! 
Turning another piece of tired SUV monomania into a reasoned debate about how far we can go with "safety" before "safety" in itself becomes dangerous.
Taken to an illogical conclusion, one could say that the current trend in vehicle design is towards us all driving around in cushioned pillboxes, in which an accident is almost impossible to avoid, but almost impossible to be injured in.
Would it be better to have lightweight cars with a decent glasshouse and all of the safety innovations that don't carry a major weight penalty, e.g. ABS, traction control, electronic stability, etc.? Therefore having an excellent chance of avoiding a collision and a reasonable chance of survival should one happen; rather than mediocre chances of collision avoidance and excellent chances of survival as per the current trend?
Turning another piece of tired SUV monomania into a reasoned debate about how far we can go with "safety" before "safety" in itself becomes dangerous.
Taken to an illogical conclusion, one could say that the current trend in vehicle design is towards us all driving around in cushioned pillboxes, in which an accident is almost impossible to avoid, but almost impossible to be injured in.
Would it be better to have lightweight cars with a decent glasshouse and all of the safety innovations that don't carry a major weight penalty, e.g. ABS, traction control, electronic stability, etc.? Therefore having an excellent chance of avoiding a collision and a reasonable chance of survival should one happen; rather than mediocre chances of collision avoidance and excellent chances of survival as per the current trend?
We've got to a situation now where secondary safety systems (protection in an accident) are more important than primary safety systems (avoiding the accident in the first place.
Primary safety systems are things like good all-round visibility, low centre of gravity, good handling and roadholding, gripping tyres, good communication through the control surfaces, seatbelts and so on.
Sadly, it seems that if you confront the average modern driver on the issue, they'll say these things are 'unimportant', or 'only of concern to boy racers and other people who break the speed limit yadda yadda yadda'. Also, it seems the Great British/American public want everything 'easier' or 'done for them', so to them a steering wheel that doesn't feel like it's connected to anything and pedals so lacking in feel you brake/accelerate without noticing is a good thing.
To me these things are terrifying. These lumpen controls plus poor visibility and nannying safety systems make me feel as though the car has a mind of its own. To the numpty, this thought is comforting. To me, it's scary - I mean, would you put all your faith in a computer you couldn't test? In any other situation? I trust my instincts. I don't switch off and let a computer do it for me.
The stupid thing is, I can't understand people's sentiments when they talk as though they can't live without this safety-obssessed over-engineering. Twenty-five years ago, we were calling the Audi quattro one of the safest cars out there on account of its handling and roadholding. Nowadays, on accound of its lack of secondary safety systems, we'd be condemning it as a potential deathtrap for mad enthusiasts only.
This is bollox. The quattro is still a very safe car, and if these secondary safety systems are the be-all and end-all of car safety and crash protection, then surely we're all supposed to be dead?
Put it this way - these systems and regulations have only appeared in the past five years or so. I've been ferried around in dozens of cars for nearly 23 years and there's only been one airbag between them. I've even been involved in accidents, write-offs in some cases. Since none of these cars have had tridion shells, pillars like Geoff Capes' arms, airbags for every bone in the body, programs that brake for you and lane departure warning systems, then Dear God I must have nine bloody lives
The driver is the most important safety feature of any car. Isn't it time we started building cars around them for a change, rather than a computer and a set of figures concocted by a computer?
I agree about the current design trend of steep thick pillars. I recently changed from a Land Rover Defender, with slim upright pillars to a modern smallish saloon. Before I decided on the Fabia vRS, I ruled out many possibles because of the serious blind spots and low roof lines including Fiat Panda, Grande Punto, Ka, Seats, and others.
The current obsessions about Euro-NCAP has led manufacturers to ignore active safety, instead pursuing passive safety like strong pillars, side impact protection etc.
The current obsessions about Euro-NCAP has led manufacturers to ignore active safety, instead pursuing passive safety like strong pillars, side impact protection etc.
I had a big fancy-pants post written, but who am I, anyway? Here's an article I just came across online about visibility: www.carkeys.co.uk/columns/david_finlay/8513.asp. I think it's a bigger problem than it has gotten credit for. Bad visibility really sucks. It's annoying, especially on the twisties. And it's dangerous, especially in the city. And it's a growing trend (I think). The article mentions super-minis, something I have no experience with at all, but if it's true, I know there are a lot of them on the roads. Basically it seems to me like styling (and complexity of controls, in-car distrac-tainment, etc.) is more important than visibility and road safety. They are forgetting that a car has to be driven! And we aren't all skilled pro racers... 
Twincam16 said:
Timberwolf said:
Well done Paul!
Turning another piece of tired SUV monomania into a reasoned debate about how far we can go with "safety" before "safety" in itself becomes dangerous.
Taken to an illogical conclusion, one could say that the current trend in vehicle design is towards us all driving around in cushioned pillboxes, in which an accident is almost impossible to avoid, but almost impossible to be injured in.
Would it be better to have lightweight cars with a decent glasshouse and all of the safety innovations that don't carry a major weight penalty, e.g. ABS, traction control, electronic stability, etc.? Therefore having an excellent chance of avoiding a collision and a reasonable chance of survival should one happen; rather than mediocre chances of collision avoidance and excellent chances of survival as per the current trend?
Turning another piece of tired SUV monomania into a reasoned debate about how far we can go with "safety" before "safety" in itself becomes dangerous.
Taken to an illogical conclusion, one could say that the current trend in vehicle design is towards us all driving around in cushioned pillboxes, in which an accident is almost impossible to avoid, but almost impossible to be injured in.
Would it be better to have lightweight cars with a decent glasshouse and all of the safety innovations that don't carry a major weight penalty, e.g. ABS, traction control, electronic stability, etc.? Therefore having an excellent chance of avoiding a collision and a reasonable chance of survival should one happen; rather than mediocre chances of collision avoidance and excellent chances of survival as per the current trend?
We've got to a situation now where secondary safety systems (protection in an accident) are more important than primary safety systems (avoiding the accident in the first place.
Primary safety systems are things like good all-round visibility, low centre of gravity, good handling and roadholding, gripping tyres, good communication through the control surfaces, seatbelts and so on.
Sadly, it seems that if you confront the average modern driver on the issue, they'll say these things are 'unimportant', or 'only of concern to boy racers and other people who break the speed limit yadda yadda yadda'. Also, it seems the Great British/American public want everything 'easier' or 'done for them', so to them a steering wheel that doesn't feel like it's connected to anything and pedals so lacking in feel you brake/accelerate without noticing is a good thing.
To me these things are terrifying. These lumpen controls plus poor visibility and nannying safety systems make me feel as though the car has a mind of its own. To the numpty, this thought is comforting. To me, it's scary - I mean, would you put all your faith in a computer you couldn't test? In any other situation? I trust my instincts. I don't switch off and let a computer do it for me.
The stupid thing is, I can't understand people's sentiments when they talk as though they can't live without this safety-obssessed over-engineering. Twenty-five years ago, we were calling the Audi quattro one of the safest cars out there on account of its handling and roadholding. Nowadays, on accound of its lack of secondary safety systems, we'd be condemning it as a potential deathtrap for mad enthusiasts only.
This is bollox. The quattro is still a very safe car, and if these secondary safety systems are the be-all and end-all of car safety and crash protection, then surely we're all supposed to be dead?
Put it this way - these systems and regulations have only appeared in the past five years or so. I've been ferried around in dozens of cars for nearly 23 years and there's only been one airbag between them. I've even been involved in accidents, write-offs in some cases. Since none of these cars have had tridion shells, pillars like Geoff Capes' arms, airbags for every bone in the body, programs that brake for you and lane departure warning systems, then Dear God I must have nine bloody lives
The driver is the most important safety feature of any car. Isn't it time we started building cars around them for a change, rather than a computer and a set of figures concocted by a computer?
Let me assure you from first hand developement of vehicle safety I would much prefer to be in an accident in a vehicle with airbags. However I would also prefer to be in a car with feedback so I can feel what is happening and actually have to drive the car. I do not own or want to own a highly insulated car.
The comments about Euro Ncap are also true, cars are designed to get a good result whilst ignoring real world safety. Cars that are sold in the USA and Europe have to pass more varied tests so are generally safer in the real world.
octanebooster said:
I first noticed this issue when I swapped my Alfa 164 for a 166 and it has plagued every modern car I've had since, none of which are a 4*4 or an MPV. Could we see a return to the wrap around windscreens seen on American cars of the late '50s early '60s?
I can't understand why we haven't, in our years of polymer research, figured out a way to make a transparent material that's properly stress-bearing.
Surely some research into glass, or even transparent acrylic, could produce a windscreen that's as strong as one of these pillars?
There are several influences coming together to make this a problem - is there a word for the opposite of synergy?
The WORST car I've driven with respect to blind spots was the 1974 Bricklin Safety Vehicle; given the visibility problems, that was certainly a misnomer. It WAS one of the first cars to seriously address rollover protection, but with the thick A-pillar combined with the thick frame for the gullwing doors, it was downright scary...
Part of the problem is in why people choose the cars they do - many designs are influenced by "racing-inspired" design that looks fast. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday resulted in a lot of cars in my old neighbourhood having a more-than-passing resemblance to what Richard Petty was winning in. Part of the problem is in who designs the cars - lots of the stylists are young things that are after the next big "look". If they had twenty years worth of driving experience, they might prioritise differently.
But the real problem is money, and who is doing the counting. There was, and probably still is, for all I know, a pernicious body called the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, funded mainly by Sears Allstate Insurance that spent lots of dosh lobbying US legislators for things they thought would reduce the amounts they had to pay out on claims. They got us the 10-mph safety bumpers, etc. If you really looked at cost-benefit, how many people are killed or injured in rollovers versus how many bikers are knocked down by people who didn't see them?
The auto makers are notorious for cutting costs out of a design - if you bought a 1960's Corvair, you were supposed to remove the engine annually to have the rubber pushrod tube seals renewed, because rubber seals cost about ten pence per car, whereas silicone ones, which would not need such frequent replacement were $2.40 per vehicle. The technology to reduce the size of the pillars already exists, it's just costly, and a difference of a pound or two mounts up quickly when you are a multi-national company building a million cars a year worldwide. Thirty years ago, when I was an engineering student, one of my profs was working on high-strength, unbreakable glass that would remove the need for A-pillars almost entirely... but at what cost? A former student made a change to the dashboard design that saved 50 cnts per unit for an American automaker, and got a 5-digit bonus, on the basis that it saved many times that amount in a year.
Given the reliability of the little TV cameras that are used on GP cars for the on-board shots, why not have a camera that shows the view behind the A-pillar on an LCD screen cut to fit on the pillar itself?
The thing that really pisses me off about the "SMIDSY" is that it is always the biker's fault, presumably for not being in a tank, but when was the last time a bloke on a Gixxer pulled out in front of a Mercedes?
If cars felt more dangerous to drive, people would treat driving with a little more attention...
The WORST car I've driven with respect to blind spots was the 1974 Bricklin Safety Vehicle; given the visibility problems, that was certainly a misnomer. It WAS one of the first cars to seriously address rollover protection, but with the thick A-pillar combined with the thick frame for the gullwing doors, it was downright scary...
Part of the problem is in why people choose the cars they do - many designs are influenced by "racing-inspired" design that looks fast. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday resulted in a lot of cars in my old neighbourhood having a more-than-passing resemblance to what Richard Petty was winning in. Part of the problem is in who designs the cars - lots of the stylists are young things that are after the next big "look". If they had twenty years worth of driving experience, they might prioritise differently.
But the real problem is money, and who is doing the counting. There was, and probably still is, for all I know, a pernicious body called the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, funded mainly by Sears Allstate Insurance that spent lots of dosh lobbying US legislators for things they thought would reduce the amounts they had to pay out on claims. They got us the 10-mph safety bumpers, etc. If you really looked at cost-benefit, how many people are killed or injured in rollovers versus how many bikers are knocked down by people who didn't see them?
The auto makers are notorious for cutting costs out of a design - if you bought a 1960's Corvair, you were supposed to remove the engine annually to have the rubber pushrod tube seals renewed, because rubber seals cost about ten pence per car, whereas silicone ones, which would not need such frequent replacement were $2.40 per vehicle. The technology to reduce the size of the pillars already exists, it's just costly, and a difference of a pound or two mounts up quickly when you are a multi-national company building a million cars a year worldwide. Thirty years ago, when I was an engineering student, one of my profs was working on high-strength, unbreakable glass that would remove the need for A-pillars almost entirely... but at what cost? A former student made a change to the dashboard design that saved 50 cnts per unit for an American automaker, and got a 5-digit bonus, on the basis that it saved many times that amount in a year.
Given the reliability of the little TV cameras that are used on GP cars for the on-board shots, why not have a camera that shows the view behind the A-pillar on an LCD screen cut to fit on the pillar itself?
The thing that really pisses me off about the "SMIDSY" is that it is always the biker's fault, presumably for not being in a tank, but when was the last time a bloke on a Gixxer pulled out in front of a Mercedes?
If cars felt more dangerous to drive, people would treat driving with a little more attention...
Watching the RedVictor1 piece on Top Gear brought home how ridiculous modern A-pillars are. From inside the Victor, it was a panoramic view all round. It actually caused me to comment to my mainly disinterested wife just how narrow they were and she actually said "Blimey, yes", she coming from a younger generation who never knew such slimness of pillar.
Dave Tripp said:
If cars felt more dangerous to drive, people would treat driving with a little more attention...
Agreed - stop making it feel like you're driving your lounge armchair. Scrap all the stuff that thinks for you, scrap airbags, brake servos, power steering etc. Make Joe Average realise that what he's in control of is a potential lethal weapon and that if he's involved in an accident that he's liable to get hurt! Then he may just pay a little more attention to those around him and to what he's doing.
:luddite mode - off:
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff