Why I Embrace the Advent of Safer Cars, and Why You Should Too

"Speedmonkey" (Speedmonkey) 10/22/2013 at 10:00 • Filed to: Safe cars, Volvo

6

53

If you are reading this you are probably a petrol head, or at the very least a car enthusiast, and I would bet you consider yourself to be a good and safe driver. And I'd probably agree with you. You may have spent some time on track, you may drive an older car with no driver aids, you may drive a car that would not perform well in Euro NCAP crash tests. But I bet you feel safe when in your car, and I bet you are happy to transport your offspring in it too.

I've just driven home from the supermarket in heavy rain, in a rear wheel drive car with no driver aids whatsoever. My car has no traction control or ABS and only the lightest of input from the power steering. If I lock up under braking, careen off into a hedge or crash into the back of some unfortunate soul it is my fault. Not the car's.

I drove those 5 miles home through teeming rain, through vast puddles, with limited visibility, with reduced grip and I managed to make it home quite safely. Something I've been able to do all my life.

I passed my driving test aged 17 and 4 months in August 1988. In the time since I can count on the fingers of one hand the incidents I've had which could be counted as a minor incident, and none of them could be misconstrued as crashing a car.

I slewed into a ditch in my mum's Fiesta during heavy snowfall in winter 1988. That was at less than 5mph and did nothing more than damage my pride, and is the closest I've ever come to a real crash.

The nearest I've come to injuring anyone else was when Vivian Westwood, on a bicycle flew, from behind a parked van into my path. If my reaction to swerve and brake at the same time (without locking the wheels, in a car with no ABS) had been slower I would have made the national headlines.

Yet modern cars are becoming ever safer. Modern cars are fitted with electronic stability control, crumple zones, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , reversing cameras, automatic braking, cyclist and pedestrian detection and avoidance etc etc etc.

Here's the headline of a press release I recieved last week:

TOYOTA REVEALS NEW INTEGRATED SAFETY TECHNOLOGY FOR PEDESTRIAN COLLISION AVOIDANCE AND AUTOMATED DRIVING

I didn't write an article based on it. But maybe I should. There are more than 31 million cars on UK roads. How many of those do you think are piloted by people who would consider themselves a car enthusiast, or at least take a passing interest in the science and art of driving?

Not many, I would hazard.

And it's the mainstream, or the general public to you and me, who need those safety devices and safer cars.

Uncrashable cars are a good thing because the vast majority of the general public use their car as merely a form of transport and as such do not examine or improve their own driving standards.

That is why I find myself writing articles such as " !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! " and " !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ", in the vain hope that one of these people reads one and thinks, just for once, about their own driving skills.

Most people pass their driving test and then cease to improve for the entirety of their driving life. Old habits are ingrained and compounded, even if they are a menace to other road users. The two most common complaints from those of us who use our brains when driving are comedy parking skills and people who drive at 40mph in a 60mph, and in a 30mph.

So we should applaud car manufacturers, and particularly !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , for beating the drum for safer cars. Because when the vast majority of cars on our roads are driven by people who only barely know how to drive it is a good thing that those cars contain pedestrian avoidance et al.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! is to that by 2020 no person, or animal, should be killed or injured in a collision with a Volvo. That is a beautiful intent. It will make the roads safer and less lives will be lost.

We car enthusiasts call for more simplicity, for manual gearboxes, for less driver aids, for lighter cars. But car manufacturers rarely make cars for us, in fact the only examples I can think of are the Toybaru BRZ/GT86 and all Porsche sports cars.

If other manufacturers follow Volvo's lead, and they will, our roads will be safer for us to continue to pursue our passion.

If I ever find myself in a situation where I unavoidably have to come to a sudden stop, and cannot swerve to an escape route, I hope to a deity I don't believe in that the car behind is equipped with some kind of collision avoidance system. The dullard driver won't react in time, but perhaps his or her car will.

That's a good enough reason for me to fully support modern car safety systems.

My two favourite safety features are adaptive cruise control, which makes travelling on our horrendously overcrowded (and full of erratic drivers) motorways a much more pleasant experience, and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , which means you can leave your main beams on all the time.

Cars which park themselves are also an attractive proposition. Not necessarily from a safety perspective but at least it means people might start parking between the lines, rather than straddling them.

Casper > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:09

0

Just because the car has a system like this, it does not mean it will stop in time. Systems like this simply reduce the reaction time... they don't improve stopping distance. If the driver is following too close or closing too fast, the system will still probably be out of luck to save you taking a car up the tail pipe.

The big problems looming with systems like this is the maintenance and dependency. How do you know the entire system is actually working? Right now, the hope is that if it isn't, the driver is still paying enough attention to do their job or that it will throw a warning code, but that is a lot of hope. With people becoming more dependent on little helper tech, the actual attention being paid to the road is decreasing. It has been evident ever since the advent of ABS, power steering, and automatic transmissions, but has become rapidly accelerated by ASC, TCS, lane maintenance alarms, laser guided cruise control, etc. All of which can, and will, fail as the cars age.

While I agree with the sentiment that they are nice bonuses to have, I think it has to be acknowledged that they carry negatives as well, and only improve the chance of success. Not guarantee it. It's very possible that had you had one of these systems on your car, it would have killed the woman on the bicycle because the ABS would have had a longer stopping distance and the response system may not have swerved adequately.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:13

3

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that we as enthusiasts are going to have to have a separate car from our DD with which to enjoy our hobby. The only way I'm going to be able to drive a stick 20 years from now is a resto-mod classic car (E-Type if I can swing it), I have a feeling that new cars 20 years from now are going to be a nanny-system riddled slush box snooze fest appliances.

youshiftem > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:14

10

Well written, the only thing that frightens me is as these systems become more common, they might also be more relied on. This, in turn, might also further reduce the little bit of driving skill that remains on the road.

GhostZ > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:17

11

I like safe cars, but I hate 'faux' safety.

Faux safety is when you have a car that is heavier and bigger, so it gets better standardized safety ratings. This is not an improvement in vehicle safety, it is just making a car that is further along the marginal safety scale for its size and weight (and often a less efficient allocation of the car's weight compared to what else you lose) Likewise, packing more airbags into a car does not make it 'safer'. This makes the individual car safer in a collision, but it does not make all cars safer, and two cars colliding of equal weight at equal speed is going to be nasty, whether they are 5000lbs or 1000lbs.

Structural improvements (roll cages, crumple zones, etc.) are an improvement on safety. Improved alloys in vehicle construction are an improvement to safety.

Safer cars are ones like you've described, which have some sort of technological efficiency that improves safety without anything else .

At the end of the day, the best improvement in safety comes from collision avoidance. If a person is predisposed to quick reaction and control to avoid a collision, they will fare far better in avoiding wrecks. However, some people are at a physical disadvantage (the young and elderly) because of their slow reaction, poor sensory awareness, or inexperience in controlling a car (although with a good teacher, you can teach someone how to control a car extremely well in a few hours, look at stunt driving schools. But driver education is absolutely fucking horrible in the USA) means that they, in order to maximize their safety, would benefit most from an automated system that didn't replace their sensory input and car control, but augmented it considerably.

The double-edged sword exists in the fact that people who are of able body and mind may never develop car control techniques, and remain in that 16-17 year old ham-fisted driving style for the rest of their life. Systems that augment their capabilities properly (such as lane departure warnings or pre-emptive braking systems) are a huge improvement on safety. But more airbags will not cause less wrecks. Bigger cars will not improve their ability to avoid wrecks. Large bumpers will not keep them from driving idiotically.

I think that's the crux of the SUV/CUV explosion, (along with other manufacturing and fuel efficiency factors, but weight and fuel efficiency do go hand-in-hand) and why there's such a need for functional improvement in the vehicles themselves, not just more stopgaps between the bumper and the human: we've already exhausted the safety gains from simple technology, and at great expense, now it's worth more to invest in new technology instead of trying to increase the existing ones to more and more marginally costly levels.

To put it all simply... bigger cars with more airbags are not safer. They may cause less injury, but they are not safer . Vehicles that avoid or minimize wrecks by improving a driver's capabilities are safer. We've spent so much time and money making heavier cars with more airbags that now, to continue improving, costs more and more, so it's better we put money into better systems, not just adding more of the same old technology.

Speedmonkey > youshiftem 10/22/2013 at 10:21

7

We had a debate on twitter about that this morning and came to the conclusion the only truly safe car was one with a spike sticking out of the steering wheel

CalzoneGolem > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:24

7

Why I Embrace the Advent of Safer Cars, and Why You Should Too

because they are safer

/thread

biturboism, the cult > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:31

3

I agree with everything you say. However, I'm afraid those systems may become compulsory (like ABS and AirBags did) aaad then we'll suck on donkey's kong.

Jimmeney > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:33

0

I do find that my driving is much more alert, careful and considered when I drive an old car though. I borrowed my Dad's car a short while back (automatic, auto headlamps / wipers, cruise control that brakes / speeds up for you) going down the motorway I had very little input in the car and got bored. I started looking round at sheep or interesting cars on the other side of the road, which is never good. It's probably driving cars like that which gets people checking facebook and texting on the go.

I still think it's good that the cars are safer, but maybe a little more road noise or something to keep people alert?

When driving a shitty old A series citroens, you do feel quite vulnerable to the 3 series gently drifting into your lane with the driver's face illuminated by a phone.

RW53104 > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 10/22/2013 at 10:33

0

That, or a big rig.

RW53104 > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:34

0

What about that tech that vibrates your ass if you cross the center line (or fall asleep... one of the two)? We need to discuss that- as in what the hell is that?

Speedmonkey > biturboism, the cult 10/22/2013 at 10:37

1

That would be shit. We need two tiers of cars. One for us, one for them

gallahad > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:39

0

I hate to be one of those people on the internet, but feel entitled much? A few hundred words to say "Us enthusiasts are better than and don't need all the help those peons do."

Just because you think you're a good and safe driver doesn't mean you are, nor does it mean that you're going to do everything right all the time. I like that I can turn my traction control off or down when I want to have some fun; but I know that when I'm on the road in real life, when something happens and I only have time to flatten the brake pedal, jam the wheel in some direction, and see what happens, those same nanny aids the plebs need so badly are going to save my life just as much.

HeWhoKnew > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:44

0

I wholeheartedly agree - I got my drivers license in 86 - I am an amazing driver. I take traction control off and I am ever better right up until the point where I am not and I slam into a snowbank. Safety is good not bad - I can pine for the good old days - but the cars from the good old days were a massive hazard on the road.

Chatham Harrison dba SPANFELLER DELENDUS EST > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 10:44

1

I just bought a 2013 Mazda 2, and it made realize something. That car has almost the same interior volume, weight, horsepower, and mileage as a 1997 Honda Civic DX hatchback. The intervening years gave me high-tensile steel in the roof beams, side curtain airbags, and traction control, and I'm glad to have them. After all, if they offered new '97 Civic hatchbacks today, Jalops would probably be all over that, and that car sold new for 17k in today's dollars. Cars are getting better (and cheaper!) without losing their soul (see FR-S, new Z/28, Boss 302). I say that's a good thing.

Ad_absurdum_per_aspera > GhostZ 10/22/2013 at 10:49

1

For enthusiasts, we are living in the golden age of driving, but in a couple of generations, people will look back and marvel that we survived the dark ages when autonomous driving technology had not been perfected and cars were routinely hand-driven, mostly by people who weren't very good at it.

ejp > GhostZ 10/22/2013 at 10:59

5

Have you seen the test video of a '59 Chevy Bel Air vs an '09 Malibu?

While I appreciate your sentiment of cars getting bigger and heavier, the reality is that in a crash, independent of airbags and vehicle mass, modern cars are much, much safer in a crash. In this video, we see a much heavier Bel Air in an offset crash with a mid-size Malibu. The occupants of the Bel Air would have been killed, while the Malibu occupants would have sustained only minor injuries. I know that you mentioned this, but your post seems to gloss over the significance of this.

While cars have grown larger since the malaise era, they tend to be smaller and lighter than they were in the 50's and 60's - but our safety systems are fantastic. This is reflected by a downward trend in highway fatalities, where every year has been a record-setting low.

There will always be faux safety, and some would argue that certain safety features to help us avoid crashes will just make us more dangerous drivers. ABS brakes in the early 90's exemplify this point, where people just drove more aggressively under a (perhaps subconscious) assumption that ABS would save them.

I do agree with the overall message of your post. The reality is that driving or riding in a car is one of the most dangerous things that we do. Most of us do it on a daily basis without any appreciation for the level of risk involved. Talk to any ER doctor or EMT who has worked MVA trauma - irrespective of how much safer modern cars are than their predecessors - car crashes are horrific and break human bodies in mind bogglingly gruesome ways.

Does making driving feel safer make it safer, or does it numb the senses of drivers? As a counter to this, does making driving a more engaging experience make it safer? I don't know...but I know that keeping driving exciting and engaging is what I prefer.

BLOZUP > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:07

0

I know plenty of drivers on 287 that leave their high beams on all the time anyway. A few of them camp out in the fast lane as well. Honking, flashing lights, running over the rumble strips have no effect. They never look at their mirrors.

ImOld > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:11

1

Great article. Another point that I believe is important is that car companies are pretty much forced to make cars safer and more idiot proof, lest they be sued into oblivion (certainly in the US, not quite as bad everywhere else, but still an issue). If you're an enthusiast, your choices are limited when it comes to affordable, reliable new cars. But, just like computer gaming enthusiasts, if they don't make what you want, you'll be happier in the long run by building it yourself. Hell, I can't IMAGINE a US manufacturer making a car as spartan as the BMW 2002 (the Toyota Yaris came pretty close, and that is roundly seen as a complete shitbox). So stay out of the "New car" and "Certified used" car sections, and you're sure to find something that will meet your needs.

BiffMagnetude > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:16

1

If you give a computer a single job, it will do that job better than a human. If that job is hitting the brakes when an object appears suddenly in front of a vehicle, it will react much more quickly than any one of us. Many people post reliability concerns, if computers aren't more reliable than we are now, they will be soon. We eat, we talk on the phone, we fuck with the radio, we talk to the passenger, we have colds, bad eyes, bad gas and all sorts of other distractions that computers don't deal with.

Enthusiasts like to pretend that every driving moment is an enthusiast moment and that as enthusiasts they are always hyper engaged and never ever make mistakes. We all know that is a bunch of crap. Even the best drivers have bad days or bad times. And many of the most skilled drivers allow that skill to rationalize monumental lapses in judgement. Commuting is not enthusiast driving, it is tasking, frequently while tired, pissed off and distracted. As long as all of this safety kit has over rides for times when enthusiasm is warranted, I am all for having it in mind numbing traffic. Numb minds don't react very well.

biturboism, the cult > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:32

0

Even if it costs just $ .1 less in legislation expenses (which it does), they will choose to make all cars as safe and dull as possible. And they are doing just that - high window lines, huge, fat and ugly van-like pillars, heavy crumple zones, undefeatable stability crap, the lot.

All to prevent grandma from buying a road legal race-spec V12 1000hp/tonne TVR Cerbera and crashing into a tree to her untimely fiery death.

This is also politically beneficial since it will please the grumpy old electorate and the overprotective parents:

"The hoons and vehicular murderers with their obnoxiously loud and fast cars are off the streets! Who needs cars that go over the speed limit anyway? Praise the currently governing political entity!"

Then the children will be safe and sound until a ham fisted guy who cant drive for shit T-bones his 10' lifted truck into the family's fat bloated car while texting and kills them all. ALL.

Fin.

VanMan > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:37

1

The 2nd demo is quite interesting... Now, assuming a 3-lane highway, given how many slow drivers are in the fast lane, would that mean that you can never ever overtake another car if it is in the fast lane, and there is also one in the slow lane? Middle lane would be free, but the damn computer will just not let you accelerate into the grayed-out zone!

:-)

Garland - Last Top Comment on Splinter > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:37

0

There's a difference between "safety" and "add more airbags and overly complicated automated systems." They're crutches for bad engineering and bad drivers. The more of these systems—stability control, automatic braking, adaptive cruise control—the more that drivers rely on them. So when these systems inevitably fail due to age/damage or are overcome by sloppy, careless driving, these lazy drivers are going to be in even more danger.

A truly "safe" car will handle well and protect drivers before you add all this crap. I'm reminded of a scene from Top Gear where they had a Saab 900 and a BMW from the same year and dropped them both on their roofs. The BMW's roof collapsed down to the top of the doors, and the Saab's roof barely budged. That's true safety, not nanny aids that make it easier for you to fall asleep while driving.

qqwweerrttyy > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:45

0

I prefer safer driving to safer cars.

Steve-E-D > ejp 10/22/2013 at 11:47

0

This video keeps coming into these type of discussions and it illustrates the wrong point. It is more hype and scare tactic than anything. The video puts all the focus on how much damage that the 59 sustained and never gives a really clear picture of how devastating the impact was to the structure of the Malibu. I'm not here to defend the Bel Air, either. It was a total rust bucket (note the huge plume of red-brown dust upon impact) with an X frame and an I6 engine. It impacted the Malibu with little more than empty fender. This was probably the flimsiest thing Chevy could have chosen to put up against the Malibu. From what little the video shows you, this pushed the Malibu nearly to the limits of its crumple zones. I don't think they dare repeat that test with a more substantial vehicle.

biturboism, the cult > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 11:59

0

BTW I read the safety articles on your blog. I love them! Also the car reviewes - I really appreciate the honesty, it's refreshing and infinitely amusing. Keep it up, you've earned a daily visitor :)

94GTratracer > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 12:02

0

We already do: Old Cars (for us) and New Cars (for them). What's funny is that I agree with this article, yet it reinforces my stubbornness about NEVER buying a new car. It's also funny that the author is from the UK. We have safer cars here in the US, like, for example, no new Caterhams :(

Speedmonkey > biturboism, the cult 10/22/2013 at 12:04

0

Thank you! It's heartening to hear that. Jalopnik/Gawker have a great business model but most other print mags and large 'sites rely on advertising from manufacturers so they cannot say a bad car is a bad car. I do! The safety and driving standards stuff comes from the fact I'm also a biker. Bike mags often produce 'better riding' features but car mags and sites never do. I'm seeking to rectify that

94GTratracer > Chatham Harrison dba SPANFELLER DELENDUS EST 10/22/2013 at 12:05

0

97? What planet do you live on? 1989 Si all the way dude.

jaredkuper > youshiftem 10/22/2013 at 12:23

2

While riding with a friend, I became concerned about how fast he was coming up on slower traffic and how late he would brake or change lanes. Knowing that he's not a particularly skilled driver, and that his SUV probably shouldn't be driven like that, he was leaving what I thought was too little distance to be safe. He explained that I shouldn't worry, that he has a collision warning system so he waits UNTIL IT GOES OFF to brake. People are already abusing these safety systems. It's not the system's fault, but regular people need to be trained to use them responsibly.

youshiftem > jaredkuper 10/22/2013 at 12:26

1

That is terrifying, I hope he doesn't live anywhere near me.

mitchelln > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 12:27

0

Not good if you are rear ended through no fault of your own however.

Chatham Harrison dba SPANFELLER DELENDUS EST > 94GTratracer 10/22/2013 at 12:53

0

The metrics I listed are almost identical between the '89 Si, the '97 Civic, and the '13 Mazda 2, so it's almost as good a comparison. The Si gives up a little in fuel efficiency. The Si's price is a mystery, but Car and Driver listed 1989 Civics as going between 12k and 24k in today's dollars. I'd guess the Si had to go for at least 16k. So it's still about the same amount of car, for the same price, but safer and more sophisticated.

The Vibe Guy, Apparently > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 13:12

0

Good article. I am all for the safety systems in mainstream automobiles. If there's less of a chance my car will get hit due to the negligence of another person, I'll be happy. In my three years of driving I have taken three advance driving courses, and an autocross school. I know my car's limits inside and out, and they have gotten me out of trouble a few times, whereas my other skills have kept me from getting into hairy situations. Am I happy with my skills? Yes. Do I think what I have now is all I'll need? No. I have lots of experience to gain. Just the other day I made a stupid move which I'll never do again. But it made me wonder, is TC, ABS, and collision avoidance a substitute for skill? And what happens if you take a driverless car into a snowstorm? Will it have heaters to melt away the snow on the sensors? Will it know when to steer into a skid, or when to throttle-out? Or will it lock-up when the car is stuck in snow? Someday, maybe. Until then I'll do exactly as we were all taught: drive defensively, and gather my skills.

Speedmonkey > The Vibe Guy, Apparently 10/22/2013 at 13:15

0

Your final line is key. Keep on learning. None of us are infallable but recognising our weak points and striving to improve them will do us the world of good,

94GTratracer > Chatham Harrison dba SPANFELLER DELENDUS EST 10/22/2013 at 13:43

0

Ah, yes. Planet couch metrics. Go to an autocross and see what those street touring EF Civics can do—I've seen them run with Elises. That's why Jalops would be all over that, not some 97' piece of crap. Metrics my ass. Kudos for Mazda for building a small car that is fun drive in spite of modern safety regulations—but it won't hang with an 89 Civic. If better is faster you have to go back in time to get both small and fast. I thought the point of this post was that if other people's cars were safer then they would be less likely to kill you in your Morgan 3-wheeler?

GhostZ > ejp 10/22/2013 at 13:50

0

I've seen the video many times, and its missing two things:

A Bel-Air on Bel-Air crash, and a Malibu on Malibu crash.

The point the video demonstrates is that cars are getting safer only if you're in the newer car . Which is true, but not indicative of real world safety. Take a Land Rover Defender and crash it into a new Chevy Malibu, and you'll see what I mean. You have to remove sheer weight and size from the equation to determine if cars are actually safer or not, something that gets very confusing.

The stronger alloys and improved construction are the reason why the Malibu does so well. That being said, I do think it is relatively insignificant compared to crash avoidance or minimization. It's still a good point though.

ejp > Steve-E-D 10/22/2013 at 14:22

0

Are you sure that it was GM/Chevrolet that chose the vehicles and not the IIHS? Why wouldn't the IIHS repeat this test/exhibition? The IIHS doesn't have much to lose here.

Granted, there could have certainly been other cars chosen for the demonstration. However, to argue that even small cars haven't come a long way since the 60's is insane. We have learned volumes about crash safety since then, and we do perform crash tests of small cars against big cars. I'm not sure what you mean by the crumple zones being pushed to their limit. The purpose of them is to crumple and absorb the impact ahead of the cabin; keeping the cabin intact. I'm no engineer, but my understanding is that this structure is designed to crush irrespective of the mass hitting it (beyond a certain threshold).

Chatham Harrison dba SPANFELLER DELENDUS EST > 94GTratracer 10/22/2013 at 14:25

0

Yes, those Civics are very good cars, with excellent chassis and suspension, easy to work on and modify, and way, way ahead of their time. No one can build cars like them nowadays, and that's sad. But I thought we were talking about stock cars, purchased new from the dealership. I don't know how much of this is improved tire compounds, and I know the CRX and the Civic are not identical, but the CRX Si pulled a 61 mph slalom to the 2's 67 mph. I can confirm these "couch metrics" with my own experience with the 2 and a nearly new (22k odo, owner babies it like Cameron's dad in Ferris Bueller) 1990 Miata, as they have almost exactly equal cornering speeds and the Miata pulled a 65 mph slalom when it was new. There's no question, the Miata is more fun, and the Civic is probably more fun too. The 2 is too tall and too economically geared, but it is surprisingly quick.

New cars are almost disturbingly fast: A 2012 V6 Camry is on par with a 1989 Ferrari 348 in a 0-60 run. Of course, otherwise the car is a complete bore. So it's not just crucial to have safer cars for enthusiasts' sake; they need it for their own protection. When I can afford/have garage space for a Morgan, or an old Maverick with a 351 swap, or a Valiant with a slant six, I will happily wrench and putter and be glad that everyone else has their safe cars. Until then, I like the fact that when I'm commuting or traveling, I am safer in my new car than I was in any of my old heaps, and I still have a car that's committed to light weight, simplicity, and the joy of driving.

ejp > GhostZ 10/22/2013 at 14:27

0

You're right - typically, a larger vehicle "wins" in a crash situation. You're right...assuming both vehicles have a modern crash structure - the larger (and sometimes higher) vehicle wins. However, if both vehicles are forced to a stop in a catastrophically short time, we're looking at g-loads on occupants that absolutely rely upon modern safety structures for survival; e.g. seats, cabin structure, crumple zones, airbags, etc will be essential for maximizing chances of survival.

In any case, I don't think that we're disagreeing on any particular point - just saying the same thing in different ways.

colorfulyawn > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 15:01

1

I have, well, not exactly mixed feelings about this, but maybe feel caught a bit in the middle.

My current daily driver is RWD with no driver aids, and I don't think it's ideal. However, I think modern cars have erred too far on the side of safety for my tastes.

I wish my car had ABS, for sure. And there are times when traction control might be helpful, although I wouldn't rely on it as much as careful application of clutch and throttle.

But I don't want it to have huge, vision-blocking, airbag-stuffed pillars. I'd rather be able to see than have an airbag there. I do not want it to have the kind of tall stature modern cars have to defend against SUVs, because not only do I hate what high cowls and beltlines do to visibility, they also raise the center of gravity and make the car not as much fun to drive. I do not want collision avoidance (yet), because I don't entirely trust things like software to take over a major part of my car control (brakes), nor do I want to be distracted by flashing lights and a shaking steering wheel when I'm driving. I don't want European-style pedestrian safety standards because they make the cars taller, heavier, and much uglier.

What I want instead of those things are safer drivers, minted through more rigorous driver training and licensing standards. Stricter vehicle inspections for safety is also something I'd welcome.

NipperDawg > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 17:08

0

I agree except two little things, the first is automatic parking. I can envision millions of dollars in parking tickets because cars can not read no parking signs. the second is emergency breaking boost (or whatever any mfg calls it). In theory it is fine as most people do not use all the braking power a car has in a panic stop. No real fault of the driver as sadly we don't get to practice it enough until we need it (and there is no where to practice). But what about the person behind who doesn't have that same feature who was traveling at a safe distance behind them. The computer has a quicker reaction time then the carbon based interface behind them, and reaction time is distance.

MotoArigato > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 17:19

0

I actually wonder what it will be like once 90% of cars are autonomous but it hasn't been fully regulated that ALL cars need to be, so those of us who rely on our brains and reflexes will surely be outdone (and alternatively, put in greater harm) by the autonomous cars. It will be like playing a video game against a super computer, we won't be able to keep up. Why? Because speeds will increase as these cars become safer, braking will become shorter/closer to the target, turns will be perfectly executed at the correct apex, and so on. If we are slowing down because our lizard brain says that stopped car ahead is a danger so plan for it now, but all the autonomous cars wait until the last second, there will be some dicey incidents on the roads.

I actually think things will get very odd and potentially even more dangerous as these issues are worked through with a new technology and adding in the unexpected ways humans will interact with it. Kids will jump in front of cars from the bushes to force them to stop. Or carjackers, as your car refuses to budge because it doesn't want to brush into the guys arm to escape. People in non-autonomous cars will pull out in front of auto cars and take advantage of the fact that they know the cars ALWAYS stop and let them in. Heck, even Mercedes S-class road trip of 60-miles was undone by a polite pedestrian who was waving the car forward in a crosswalk, but the car wouldn't move because it was a human standing there.

I'm all for safety, and I would honestly surrender my ability to enjoy my car on major roadways if they were limited to only autonomous cars if that meant fewer or no road deaths. I can drive on back roads, tracks, private property and find a new hobby. Maybe customizing autonomous cars so they are at least a bit more exciting.

Steve-E-D > ejp 10/22/2013 at 18:29

0

Regardless of who selected the vehicles for the test, a rusty 59 Bel Air is a relative "wet noodle" compared to many other vehicles of that era yet it delivered a mighty blow. Not sure what there is to not understand about my comment. An impact that was any more substantial would have breached the passenger compartment. The way the film was cut looks very biased towards showing off the damage to the Bel Air while showing as little as possible of the damage to the Malibu.

ejp > Steve-E-D 10/22/2013 at 18:55

0

I know what era vehicle I'd rather be in during an offset frontal crash.

I'm not really sure what your point is. You don't like that cut of the video...if you feel like googling around, there is far more video out there - this edit was chosen just to be quick - I didn't think that anyone was going to get all pedantic over the editing. There is plenty of information out there if you want to look for it; but do your own research and draw your own conclusions. You also don't like their choice of car. That's fine, but I don't even think that it's relevant to my point that modern cars are WAY safer in a crash. We knew nothing about designing cars for crash safety back then, and the general thinking was that the heavier and more rigid a car's structure was, the safer. This turned out to be errant thinking; when none of the g-load is absorbed by the structure of the car, it is passed completely onto the occupants in the cabin. The cars of that era didn't even have collapsible steering columns, let alone 3-point seatbelts and headrests. Not to mention airbags.

You say that you are not sure what there is to not understand about your comment...what was your point? That you didn't like that video, that it is somehow flawed? That's nice. It's completely irrelevant to the original point was that newer cars are safer in a crash. Do you think that I'm wrong? That's OK.

Do you want to be right? Prove it. Show me a shred of proof that would suggest that I am incorrect beyond your armchair quarterbacking suggesting that the Bel Air was the worst choice of vehicle.

94GTratracer > Chatham Harrison dba SPANFELLER DELENDUS EST 10/22/2013 at 19:07

1

Ok, nice reply—It may be a personal failing of mine, but I really like small, lightweight cars and I believe that increased safety standards are killing the genre. You make excellent points in making the comparisons you have chosen concerning power to weight and basic handling metrics. Another way of looking at it, however, is that the 2 is just treading water—25 years later in the small car segment and all the advances in technology are only just enough to keep pace with the increased weight of the airbags. Further, the comparison is between two different tiers of the market—the 2 is in the smallest, lightest segment today, but the Civics were not. There was a whole sub-segment of Ford Festivas, Geo Metros, Diahatsu Charades and Subaru Justy's that all weighed well under 2000lbs. That market segment is now completely gone—I might also be the only one on earth upset about that, but there it is. I will also admit that the EF Civic's supernatural cornering is not merely a function of power-to-weight without airbags, or even it's unusual (for small FWD) multilink suspension geometry, which the 97 Civic shares without the same success, but it is worth pointing out that SCCA created a new street touring class for modern FWD cars because they are at least perceived as being unable to compete with pre-airbag FWD cars like the EF Civics. I'll keep driving my 1700lb Suzuki, but I guess if someone put a gun to my head and made me buy a new car, a Mazda 2 wouldn't be terrible...

syaieya > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 10/22/2013 at 19:49

1

I've been thinking this for awhile now. I just hope that the major car makers cue in on it and start releasing/rereleasing classics as a luxury for enthusiasts.

Just think about it, free from the regulations of the road they could potentially revive the old, great driving experiences from the past. Instead of having us scrounge for old metal they could potentially make the cars new faster, better.

Chatham Harrison dba SPANFELLER DELENDUS EST > 94GTratracer 10/22/2013 at 20:01

0

I have mixed feelings about the changes in the sub/sub-subcompact segment. There really isn't anything on the market like the cars you listed, but that's mostly because their buyers were either too poor for anything else (those people buy used cars now) or mileage-obsessed hypermilers (they all either buy Priuses, or they still have their first-gen insights and Metros, and the Metros have side skirts.) There's no money to justify goofy stuff like Justy 4WDs or Honda 4WD tall wagons, SHOguns or Mazda 323 GTXs. There's no place in modern times for cars like my neighbor's Tercel 4WD with "MUD SLUT" in the rear window, or dare I say it a Tempo AWD. There's no market for new, cheaped-out but fresh cars, even if they were legal to sell under modern smog and safety laws. You either take your nice new car, or you wait for someone else to rag it out a little first and buy it used. Let us commiserate on this. In the meantime, I need a car that won't break something important every 10k miles.

The reason they're all very close in spec is the same reason a 1978 Cutlass Supreme and a 2009 Honda Accord are about the same size. There are certain dimensions that people look for, and whether it's a 2013 Versa with 110hp and 2500lbs or a Fiat 124 with 90hp and 2000lbs, there's a certain base level of performance buyers look for, and car companies don't care to exceed that with a base car. Not when those buyers make their decisions based on fuel economy, crash safety, and reliability. New cars are practically indestructible compared to their older peers, despite being much more sophisticated and complicated. That's probably the biggest shift in automotive quality over the past 25 years, no more having trim pieces fall off on a test drive or cracking a block after 80,000 miles. Unless you're mechanically inclined and don't mind maintaining your car, this is a golden age. If you are (it appears you are,) let us commiserate further.

Groagun > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 20:17

0

It's so refreshing to read something here with forethought and genuine humane concern about it. All too often the simple minded and selfish keep beating the drums of the supposed 'enthusiast' march of walking backwards. Understanding that we as enthusiasts make up only %10 of the car buying public at best is key to understanding the entire car business as a whole.

I hope everyone takes the time to read this and reflect on it's messages. Well done Sir!

Biostar01 > Speedmonkey 10/22/2013 at 22:02

0

Ermahgersh! Volvo XC60!

Yay for XC60, its instantly recognizable taillights, and its TSP+ rating.

RatMR2 > The Vibe Guy, Apparently 10/23/2013 at 00:33

0

Will the car know when to steer into a skid? If it's fully autonomous, it shouldn't often be in a situation where it loses traction, as the torque supplied to accelerate and brake the car would be controlled to effectively avoid this situation if the vehicle is well-engineered (except maybe in situations where there is a massive change in surface friction in a very short time interval), but yes, it would in theory know when to turn into a skid:

But having the skills is great in any case, and it makes driving more enjoyable.

Speedmonkey > Groagun 10/23/2013 at 02:19

0

Thanks!

AndrewH > ejp 10/23/2013 at 11:45

0

I'm going to raise your Malibu VS Bel Air crash the Volvo 940 vs super mini video:

ejp > AndrewH 10/23/2013 at 23:54

0

Exactly!