MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
|
Glad to see someone bucking the usual trend, I whole heartedly agree.
The only thing that truly scares me on the roads is our arrogance and naivety.
Few accidents are the direct result of speed and handling, most are caused by lack of judgement and easy mistakes.
If you think your l33t skilzors will help you, or you'd rather be in an older car if involved in an accident I suggest a tour of some the Internets' more shocking video sites for a reality check.
|
|
|
|
|
timasorus
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 439
Club RR Member Number: 90
|
car safetytimasorus
@timasorus
Club Retro Rides Member 90
|
|
i think this is slowly going of subject..............
yes its true if i had to crash there was no choice then i would do it in the newest safest car there is............... but i feel like i am going to crash more doing 25mph in a modern car than i do in an old car at 100 once again its the feedback argument
|
|
banditos ahoy!
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 10:13:28 GMT
|
The false sense of security moderns give is a very good argument. Some people really should learn to drive (and I mean really drive, not just pass a test) before they take a car any distance. As for the original topic, if it was a choice between the same collision in a brand new smart car and a 25 year old Mk2 Granada, I know which one I would pick. At the end of the day if somebody is going to hit you, better to have a lot of metal around you....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 11:40:14 GMT
|
OK, back on topic, I found a lot of mid/late 90s cars VERY disconcerting to drive, like the car was on sheet ice. I have to say that there were some good ones then too of course and I think a lot of the newer new cars are better. Also depends what you drive. A nasty economy box on wheels or a top of the line luxury saloon or a balls out sports car... Oddly with my cliche'd bashing of French cars some of the best "bread and butter" moderns I drove were Peugeots. I liked the 306 and the 406 when they were new cars and tried to get them as pool cars when possible. Nissans of that period were awful. The Almera in particular was a non-favourite with my team although I never had one. I hated the Mk1 Avensis too. Dreadful. Mitsubishi also made some horrid stuff to drive back then too. The Astra was OK too, certainly better than the Focus.
Interestingly (and goinf back off topic) in a collision between a Smart and the Mk2 Granada you probably will get less injury in the Smart as it has a proper safety cell as well as the airbags, pretensioners and all that. Now if you said Perodua Nippa vs Granada, different story perhaps.
But then look at how horrific car accidents happened back when all the cars on the road were Mk1 and Mk2 Granadas and the like. We killed far more people on our roads then than we do now.
Theres that false sense of security again then! feels safe so it must be safe....
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 12, 2009 11:41:35 GMT by akku
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
Nathan
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 5,649
Club RR Member Number: 1
|
car safetyNathan
@bgtmidget7476
Club Retro Rides Member 1
|
Aug 12, 2009 11:48:30 GMT
|
Ahh well cars will be banned soon so all these issues will go away
|
|
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 11:50:07 GMT
|
At the end of the day if somebody is going to hit you, better to have a lot of metal around you.... That's a common miss-conception. At at least according to a friend of mine who does crash testing for a living.
|
|
|
|
|
car safetyDeleted
@Deleted
|
Aug 12, 2009 11:51:04 GMT
|
with the amount of modern cars on the road now lack of crumple zones on old car is less of a problem just so long as its a modern car you drive into ;D the biggest problem though is the fact that modern cars are sold on the fact the idiots buying them are told it'll be fine if you crash it. hence newer car are therefor more dangerous because they are mostly driven by people who have no care for what or how they are driving
|
|
|
|
lae
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,045
|
car safetylae
@frinkmakesyouthink
|
Aug 12, 2009 12:03:11 GMT
|
Having better road feel and visibility and technical driving skill isn't going to help you one bit if you get rear-ended by a Range Rover Sport.
To be honest, we are all 'car people' and probably better-than-average drivers (although more than 50% of the population believes they are a better-than-average driver which is impossible) so any crash we get into is more likely to be the fault of the other person - as far as avoiding an accident is concerned it doesn't matter what car you're in.
|
|
Currently: Mk1 Focus blandmobile
Formerly: 1969 MG Midget 1972 Avenger GT 1981 Datsun Cherry 1989 Corolla 1979 Mercedes W123 200D 1995 Ford Falcon 1996 Ford Telstar (bet you had to google that one)
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 12:16:20 GMT
|
At the end of the day if somebody is going to hit you, better to have a lot of metal around you.... That's a common miss-conception. At at least according to a friend of mine who does crash testing for a living. Simple law of physics. You get hit by another modern car that's made largely of plastic, if it hits something twice it's weight made of metal, seriously which is going to come off worst? I am not talking about 'lab' conditions here. I am talking about joe public who believes he's invincible cos he's got air bags. See my previous post about people needing to learn to drive first. Does your friend do those kind of tests? How do these modern cars fair running under a fully loaded transit luton? The loadspace end of a luton has not changed in it's construction since the 60s, no crumple zones at the back.
|
|
|
|
miaspa
Part of things
Posts: 829
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 12:40:07 GMT
|
Don't think I have crashed anything retro, if I exclude rolling my Fiat 126 when I was 17.
Don't you tend to drive more defensively in something older, a lack of air bags, pre tensioning seatbelts, and all the other safety gadgets means you don't take risks. Well it does in a something small half made out of plastic.
Plus a Midget, Rover P4, feels like its doing 50mph sit in some moderns the only perception of speed is the trees move quicker.
|
|
Found my flashing Pao again.
|
|
|
skinnylew
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 5,620
Club RR Member Number: 11
|
car safetyskinnylew
@skinnylew
Club Retro Rides Member 11
|
Aug 12, 2009 13:16:06 GMT
|
I feel alot safer doing 70 in my Toledo V5 than i did in my Fiesta mk3/Polo mk1 or even my Ax GTi. I know my V5 has the brakes, airbags, safety features to protect, where as my others don't. The exception being the Ax GTi as that has harnesses, buckets and a cage
|
|
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 13:26:30 GMT
|
That's a common miss-conception. At at least according to a friend of mine who does crash testing for a living. Simple law of physics. You get hit by another modern car that's made largely of plastic, if it hits something twice it's weight made of metal, seriously which is going to come off worst? In terms of passenger safety it all depends on which vehicle dissipates inertia and maintains cabin rigidity best. Old cars simply absorb the energy in an impact in the wrong places such as the bulkhead, sills, floor and roof. Passing more energy into the occupants increasing the chances of injury and trapment.
|
|
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 13:32:15 GMT
|
The exception being the Ax GTi as that has harnesses, buckets and a cage The only problem with roll cages on the road is the chance of impacting your un-protected head into them in a crash. It's worth padding the bars if they aren't already. They can also make it harder for rescue crews to cut their way into helping you.
|
|
|
|
|
car safetyretrowagen1234
@GUEST
|
Aug 12, 2009 13:44:51 GMT
|
I love it when that happens to people ... realy.. the clutch and brake are there for a reason... theres no reason to hit anything.. not in an auto when the cause was a brake servo hose that broke meaning big air intake into the inlet which caused it to throttle up and as it was going down hill it picked up speed pretty quick coming up behind a mini full of people with servo on a mk2 granny the brakes are poor at best without the servo . personally I thought it was pretty quick thinking on the part of the driver hit a car full of people or pull into the nearest space and chance hitting an empty one throttle jammed... ignition off? that would be my first thought..... stamp on brakes and turn the key.. not oh curse word.... um ill stuff it into a parked car... the last thing id wanna do is crash if its avoidable by a flick of a switch ... but thats just me ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 13:50:42 GMT
|
The only modern car i drive is my works van. Its a Transit Connect and i have to say that despite feeling less connected (no pun intended) to the driving experience (although it does handle really well) i'd certanly rather have an accident in that than in either of my Peugeots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 14:07:45 GMT
|
Simple law of physics. You get hit by another modern car that's made largely of plastic, if it hits something twice it's weight made of metal, seriously which is going to come off worst? In terms of passenger safety it all depends on which vehicle dissipates inertia and maintains cabin rigidity best. Old cars simply absorb the energy in an impact in the wrong places such as the bulkhead, sills, floor and roof. Passing more energy into the occupants increasing the chances of injury and trapment. Old vans are very good at rigidity. Had a Mk2 transit luton rear ended by an artic on a French motorway. It was shoved up the bank, flipped over, slid on it's roof (ripping the top of the body off) and yet the driver and passenger still walked away. The van was 19 years old at the time, mid way between MOTs, and the driver and passenger were not even wearing seat belts. The only modern car I drive is my works van. Its a Transit Connect and I have to say that despite feeling less connected (no pun intended) to the driving experience (although it does handle really well) i'd certanly rather have an accident in that than in either of my Peugeots. No offence mate (or to wish it on you) but I would rather you crash your connect than me crash one of me Mk2s.... ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 15:10:09 GMT
|
all the bumf about the protection the car now gives tells people it'll be fine if you drive like an idiot the car will sort it all out for you and if it don't your perfectly safe . This is why the advert for the new Volvo 4WD (XC60?) with the automatic brakes (presumably some form of proximity based tech, also an option on highspec Fords) concerned me when I saw it - how many idiots will assume it will work at speeds over 9mph, and just drive around with even less attention paid to the road than at the moment .
|
|
|
|
|
car safetyDeleted
@Deleted
|
Aug 12, 2009 16:27:48 GMT
|
all the bumf about the protection the car now gives tells people it'll be fine if you drive like an idiot the car will sort it all out for you and if it don't your perfectly safe . This is why the advert for the new Volvo 4WD (XC60?) with the automatic brakes (presumably some form of proximity based tech, also an option on highspec Fords) concerned me when I saw it - how many idiots will assume it will work at speeds over 9mph, and just drive around with even less attention paid to the road than at the moment . yeah that was my point exactly there really needs to less advertising about how safe cars are ,put the safety equipment in them by all means but don't use safety as a sales pitch it just tells the modern car driver take less care throttle jammed... ignition off? that would be my first thought..... stamp on brakes and turn the key.. not oh curse word.... um ill stuff it into a parked car... the last thing id wanna do is crash if its avoidable by a flick of a switch ... but thats just me ;D then you have quite obviously never been in that situation then doing that would be fine on an empty road but turning the ignition off on car traveling at speed will cause a: power steering to stop working b:the steering lock to come on a lot of older fords will lock if you turn the back from the run position and c:its a lot quicker to avoid a car in front of you and hit one with no passengers than to fumble about wasting time looking for the ignition key and then try to avoid the same car with none of the a fore mentioned parts working with the engine running there are still ather things that can be done to scrub off speed believe me we could have hit the other car a lot harder
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 12, 2009 16:38:41 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 16:33:32 GMT
|
Just drive on the motorway in heavy rain and watch the amount of idiots power past at 80+. But hey, they have abs, ebd, 50 airbags and esp so they can't crash!
On a related note I was driving the new Megane recently. Now doubtless this has 6 ncap stars and 50 airbags as standard. But the visibility was absolutely shocking. The A pillars created a massive blind spot and the c pillars were so thick that reversing out of a space was just guesswork as you couldn't see anything. How exactly is that safe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2009 16:49:58 GMT
|
all the bumf about the protection the car now gives tells people it'll be fine if you drive like an idiot the car will sort it all out for you and if it don't your perfectly safe . This is why the advert for the new Volvo 4WD (XC60?) with the automatic brakes (presumably some form of proximity based tech, also an option on highspec Fords) concerned me when I saw it - how many idiots will assume it will work at speeds over 9mph, and just drive around with even less attention paid to the road than at the moment . You can check out the chicks walking along without worry of rear ending the car infront AND avoid elephants!!!! WIN!!!! I've been having this problem for a while now too, I'm off to the Volvo dealer ;D
|
|
Last Edit: Aug 12, 2009 17:19:34 GMT by gemik
|
|
|