Every so often something happens that gives you a shake and makes you have a diiferent outlook on life.
I, like most people, know that car safety have improved, have heard of NCAP etc etc. However I could probably quote you top speeds and equipment lists before I could give NCAP ratings and numbers of airbags.
My friend was recently involved in a fatal accident, thankfully he survived but 2 people in the car he was in collision with sadly were fatally injured. The police have admonished him of all blame but that doesn't bring these people back.
My friend was driving a Mondeo and walked out it with minor bruising.
I for one, will have a serious rethink about the cars I drive and how important is it to have electric windows, air con etc, as opposed to having a car that I can climb out of after an accident.
|
Unfortunately, all the cars that have high impressive ncap ratings are relatively new, so they can only be enjoyed by those who can afford a relatively new car.
(plus being new, they get leccy windows and air con anway)
|
|
|
admonished = absolved?
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
|
|
Complacency over safety, indeed. I have always wondered about the unquantifiable and unconscious effect on drivers of incremental layers of built-in protection - on their driving habits. I have ranted before on the topic of Risk, which I have said is mainly a property of the driver, rather than the car. When a driver moves to a 'faster' car, there is a period of adjustment while he learns its capabilities, then he resumes taking what he perceives as similar risks when overtaking, etc.
In the ultimate situation (e.g. F1 racing) the drivers are in purpose-built survival capsules, which is why they can drive like brilliant lunatics. Surely we aren't aspiring to that sort of thing?
|
|
Is this the old argument about the safest car being one with a big spike on the steering wheel, as the driver won't dare do anything at all risky?
|
|
No - just pointing out that having a comfortable safe feeling can push more public-spirited thinking to the back of one's mind.
|
|
|
In fact Bobby, although the body of your post states clearly which you are referring to, the title suggests two possible meanings:
Complacency over the safety values of you car
Complacency over the safety of your driving because you know that your car is 'safe'
What I was alluding to in my last post was arguments I have heard that making cars safer does not actually make driving any safer, as people take proportionally more risks knowing their car will protect them.
|
The Big Spike has it for me over other forms of persuasion.
Happy Motoring Phil I
|
Even my Fiesta makes me feel very safe at the wheel, I reckon a larger car makes you feel even more untouchable, I certainly notice it when I drive my dad's BMW. However, in that car the third party only insurance that I have prevents me doing anything silly, and the weird light feeling steering constantly tricks me into thinking that I'm about to understeer, even when driving normally, I think it's 'cos it's RWD.
Bobby - I was very sorry to hear about the accident, I know that must have been devastating for your friend, even though he wasn't at fault. Without wanting to sound morbid, or offensive, do you know whether the people he collided with were driving a similar modern car and wearing seatbelts? It's quite a difference between minor bruising in one car, and two fatalities in the other. Like I say, don't want to cause offense or anything in asking that.
Blue
|
I think safety is not something you give massive thought to until something happens to you or someone close to you.
Having had Polo protect me through 2 serious and one not so serious collisions, "toughness" is top of my list when thinking about a replacement for him...and, shock horror, actually like the chunky/VW look of the new Fiesta - don't know if I will actually be able to bring myself to drive a Ford though!
I've been told my numerous police officers, bodyshop and recovery people that other cars wouldn't have withstood collisions as well as Polo did, and the photos from the last one clearly show how the impact was spread through the side of the car, rather than it just collapsing in on me.
Wouldn't say I am complacent about Polo's toughness now though, as I know he must have been weakened by the last brush with a lorry, but I think even now if I had an accident, I would be better protected than in a lot of other cars of the same age. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong!
Strong possibility I might be rambling now... if only dissertations came this easily!
|
Well, I agree with those that say feeling safer makes you take more risks, I tend to buy larger cars so that I have more area to crumple around me if it crashes. When I drive an old small car, I feel at risk, so slow down more on bends, and such like.
There was once a TV programme which investigated this phenomina, it was probably 10 years ago, since it was shown, but after extensive testing, they concluded that everyone has a built-in 'barometer' of risk aversion and people just adopt their behaviour so that they reach the level of perceived risktaking which they feel comfortable with, note the word 'perceived' - as some people who like risktaking would do things which appeared risky, but were statiscally not. eg parachuting/rollercoasters.
|
|
|
Unfortunately most fatal accidents happen at high speed so the NCAP results are a waste of time. An American car company, Buick I think, did a series of high speed crash tests a few years ago and the results were astonishing. Cars with brilliant test results normally did terribly at high speed crashes wheras some cars with average safety test results normally did brilliantly when involved at high speed crashes.
I think it may have been road and track magazine I read it in but I'm not sure. The general jist was that the bigger the car the better it seemed to be.
I saw a crash last year where a small child had been thrown through the front window and was mangled up lying in the gutter, not a pleasant sight. NCAP safety results counted for nothing, the parent strapping the child in would have done.
|
|
Well, of course most fatal accidents happen at high speed - that's fairly basic physics. But to use this to dismiss the NCAP tests is ridiculous. Most accidents happen at lower speeds where the NCAP test is a good guide.
|
Myles,
The NCAP tests are all done on set angles and positions. I admit that for me to say they are a waste of time was silly but unfortunately most accidents do not happen as the manufacturer intended, hence the tests bieng a bit daft. If you have ever seen the NCAP tests bieng carried out you will notice that they will crash the car only at an exact speed and angle. One of our work E-Class's hit a new Polo the other day from behind. The Polo's back wheels were virtually touching the front wheels and the driver had to be cut free by the fire brigade. The Vito was drivable and the driver had no injurys whatsoever. As mentioned in this thread a Polo does very well in the NCAP tests but real life shows otherwise.
|
|
Sorry, should have written " one of our work Vito's" Not " E-Class's"
|
I think you're using one example to prove a case (Tony Bliar knows the folly in this!).
The trouble with crash tests is in deciding how they should be carried out. It is impossible to mitigate all possible accident scenarios, but what EuroNCAP is trying to do is to improve overall safety standards - the tests are much more rigorous than those which went before. There is always the argument that manufacturers will build a vehicle simply to get a good result on these tests, but they are such that it is nigh-on impossible to do this without having an overall improvement in areas outside the test remit.
A study has shown that there is a strong correlation between good EuroNCAP scores and serious/fatal injuries in real-life accidents, although does point out that on a model-by-model basis the link isn't as strong. www.euroncap.com/downloads/test_procedures/area_4/...c
|
|
|
|
Marcos: have to agree that its multi-facetted, but most fatal/serious injury accidents in the UK happen at lower speeds than you think. Around two thirds of all accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured happen on roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less, according to DfT. Therefore, the NCAP results are highly relevant, particularly the aspect related to pedestrian/car incidents. As an aside, walking on unpavemented rural roads, yesterday, we had 3 low-speed brushes with cars which were reluctant to divert away from us. In one instance they deliberately drove, slowly, close to the kerb (mud/grass on the other side) to force us off. But I've got the swines number!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
