Why do I drive an Omega rather than a Vectra (Which would undoubtedly do the job according to your "size doesn't matter" philosophy)?
Well:
I like the extra space for me in the car.
I like the bigger boot while still enjoying a saloon shaped car - though I am getting an Omega Estate for the wife.
I like the extra space for the kids in the back.
I can reasonably comfortably get 5 people in the car, even given the child seats in the back.
It's heavier, so offers a better ride quality (ratio of sprung:unsprung weight is higher)
It's heavier, so it's safer.
It's further up the model range, so had better safety features for its age than a Vectra.
I suspect the last three are what makes people really go for them. On safety, I saw a documentary featuring a crash expert who pointed out that Princess Di would have been unharmed in her fatal accident if she'd had a seatbelt on in the S-class she was in.
So, in summary, the answer is ride quality and security. That's why, as soon as I can afford it, I'll go for even bigger.
V
|
Princess Diana wouldn't necessarily have been unharmed if she had been wearing a safety belt, but she would multiplied her chances of survival many times over.
Of the four people in the Mercedes the only one to survive the very serious high speed collision with a concrete post in the tunnel was the bodyguard, who was sat in the front passenger seat.
He was wearing his seatbelt.
It demonstrated that the Mercedes' extensive safety features, combined with the use of a belt, will give you a fighting chance of getting out alive.
|
It demonstrated that the Mercedes' extensive safety features, combined with the use of a belt, will give you a fighting chance of getting out alive.
As that incident demonstrated, those safety features are particularly useful for a car driven way above the speed limit into a concrete pillar by a drunk driver
|
Gently, NW!
Or for a car driving at a perfectly legal 70mph which is hit by another car being driven way above the speed limit by a drunk driver, and as a consequence hitting a concrete pillar.
|
Or for a car driving at a perfectly legal 70mph which is hit by another car being driven way above the speed limit by a drunk driver, and as a consequence hitting a concrete pillar.
That too ... but the downside of safety features is that they are often negated by drivers who adjust their driving style to the higher safety level. The big car with safety gadgets may survive a crash better than a small one, but only if the driver refrains from using the big car's extra performance.
I'm sure the Merc was much much safer than, say, a superfast version of a Fiesta-sized car. But at the other extreme, a Citroen 2CV would never have got much beyond the legal speedlimit in the first place!
Would a 2CV have been safer overall on that journey through Paris? Possibly not, but it's a more complex question than merely whether it would better withstand a crash -- e.g. the driver would have had to use some technique other than speed to evade the paparazzi?
|
OK, NW.
Let's say you're at the wheel of a 2CV with an international mega-celebrity in the back. You are surrounded by paparazzi on mopeds, who are not yet doing anything illegal. The mopeds are, of course, highly maneouvrable and can stop & turn on a sixpence. However, they are limited in their top speed.
What technique, other than speed, would you use?
[No comment re Diana's accident intended, I just want to know what NW would have done]
|
Well, open the roof, press the ejector button, and catapult minor celebrity onto passing park bench. Couldn't do that with a Merc, as it has a hard top. But with a 2CV, lots of space for getting out of the roof.
How would you do it, Patently?
|
I couldn't, other than by hitting the loud pedal and getting out via the hole between the pillars, as opposed to through the pillar itself.
But NW seems to think she has an alternative. I'm all ears (or eyes, maybe).
|
|
|
|
What technique, other than speed, would you use?
I dunno: I'm not a highly skilled driver, and I know nowt about high security driving. I'm sure that aprt from speed, they have tricks I'd never dream of.
Maybe look for a few cobbled streets, which a 2CV handles in style, but motorbikes hate, and hope to shake em off that way?
Maybe the driver might have said "sorry love, place is crawling with paparazzi, best sit it out for a while or get photographed"?
(maybe even offer a photocall to get them off their bikes)
Maybe use a few decoy vehicles?
Those may all be really dumb ideas, but -- tragically -- none are quite as dumb as the idea actually used. I'm just suggesting that without the apparent possibility of a high speed getaway in a fast-and-safe car, there might have been a bit more lateral thinking.
|
there might have been a bit more lateral thinking.
Easier said than done, I fear!
|
>> there might have been a bit more lateral thinking. >> Easier said than done, I fear!
You're probably right -- I don't really have much faith in the imaginative abilities of some of those involved.
But I there must, somehow, have been a better solution than the high-speed armoured getaway: it's rarely a successful ploy in any circumstances, and it's noteable that (apart from one bodyguard) the folks involved were not the usual team of minders. I suspect that a real pro minder would have had a lot of other cards to play.
|
Blimey, as well as wanting to reclaim the streets, you advise on close protection policies?
I'm praying you never find out where this large-diesel driving moderator lives....
;)
|
Blimey, as well as wanting to reclaim the streets, you advise on close protection policies?
I know sod all about protection, but this wasn't a physical safety issue, it was a media/privacy one. I do know quite a lot about media management, albeit not quite in that end of the process (the few media-intrusion stories I have personally handled have been at the other end of the foodchain) .. but I know enough to recognise a flawed media strategy.
That's why I was toying with the question of how they could have found a way around the problem rather than trying to push through it.
|
|
|
|
Actually there have been some doubts about the claim that the driver had been drinking - or at least been drinking to the extent alleged.
I'm certainly no lover or supporter of conspiracy theories, but there are quite a number of anomalies surrounding this particular incident that have never been fully explained.
|
|
|
|
"Princess Diana wouldn't necessarily have been unharmed if she had been wearing a safety belt, but she would multiplied her chances of survival many times over."
No, the expert in question was not equivocal - he had investigated the accident and said that she would have been unharmed.
V
|
Thanks for that information - it's a while since I read the report.
I'm not sure how any difinitive verdict could have been reached as to whether anyone would have been injured or not, whether seriously or slightly, in an accident if they had been wearing a seatbelt.
Proves the original point though..:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
