Paul296 wrote:I know nothing about air bags, crumple zones, side impact protection systems and all that stuff that makes modern car drivers think that if they get twatted driving at 95 mph they'll somehow be OK. In modern terms I suspect the BX is a bit of a death trap, so I just drive safely and assume that every other road-user is a homicidal maniac; and let's face it, many of them are.
That is my exact philosophy. I am proven right regularly and also have friends for ever argueing over nerfs, and worse, with other parties or thier insurers over damages, who I know to have poor driving habits, like holding cups of coffee while in motion. ABS and such Driver Safety additions do not make cars safer in an accident, they make some more likely to create one, as there are those arrogent or negligent idiots who will always drive beyond the limit of the cars capabilities. The trick is to learn to see them coming. Only years of experience does this, which is why old farts with clean driving records get cheap insurance. Defencive driving is formost the most important element of not getting envolved in an accident, and yes, that does mean not using certain streches of road at a certain time and getting tailgaters to overtake you (It amazes me how slow you have to go before some will bugger off).
Case in point, of a difference. Two cyclists who insisted it was there right to cycle down the A420 pre speed limit. They could not get it, that we did not deny thier right to do this, but it was highly inadvisable. Both proved they were right by doing this ride regularly, until indevidually both went under a truck who missed seeing them. You can blame the truck driver but why on earth would a cyclist put himself in that position, unless he was happy to disreguard his safety for a more pleasent and marginaly longer alternative route? When your mangled rights do not enter into it. I have minimal sympathy for either really, despite that one of them was a really nice guy. They were in fact selfish and threw away thier lives, mucked up the truckers and their families lives, blocked the road for several hours, all for what? To prove they were right. Not worth it, give a bit and move on.
My feeling is that modern cars offer many benifits to those that like them. Among the more conriversial is that they insulate you from the road and feedback. Add radios, telephones and other distractions and you have something akin to a drone. Drones natrually move on autopilot. Only an advanced intelligence on board is going to negate the lack of instant feedback from the controls to the remote operator. To combate this and the huge power of even quite humble cars, I think learners should be made to use under 1000cc basic cars of limited BHP for two years, possibly always painted orange, and then take a second exam to prove they have learned the full menu of driving skills, like night and motorway driving. They might then be better drivers, learn not every car in the world accelorates like a bullet, stops on a sixpence and that driving in busy areas is about looking ahead while dealing with the current action, keeping up a steady progress, not roaring around in a series of drag races behaving like an arsehole.
Currently I have a rental Iveco Dailey van. It is a horrible drive as no control has any feel to it, the seats no side support and the whole has half the controls, or seat, in the wrong position. You cannot see the important elements of the dash display like speed, untill your doing 80 mph. I am sure it is one of the safest vans ever made, but I think it is a dangeriously badly built vehicle. It should be rejected as unroadworthy until these issues are corrected, so it can be made to fit the driver who can see, reach and operate all the controls in an unstressed environment. That includes a gear change with some feel to it, or a light telling which of 7 gears you are in on the tiny stick sprouting out of the dashboard. None of this is difficult. I wonder if they ever got a few hundred van drivers and let them use the prototypes for a few weeks. I bet not, it would be company men who needed to protect their jobs and gave a politically correct answer to a computer generated solution. I would not buy one of these vans, crap. My old Duccato might have been crude but with a better engine would be far more preferable - with a better payload as it was not full of geezmos. It's a van, not a Rolls Royce!
The latest trend seems to be new Range Rovers driven by very angry people. Well I am sorry if the bought the wrong vehicle on finance, I agree they are overblown crappers from Tonka, but do not take it out on me. I am giving these vehicles a very wide birth, but also no quarter in the the driving tactics stakes, as the drivers are stupid and if you give them space, they will dive in and create some great passing entertainment. I am evil enough to offer folk free agrivation, as long as it does not envolve me. Helps pass the time on a drive, don't you know?
Suppose you could lean into your door just before you get T-boned and try to brace it.......
I am actually surprised it wasn't an American firm that did this first, or Volvo being the most famously safety concious car company.
