Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[RunningStrong]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Caterham 7 CSR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keeping in mind the Caterham is something an average DIY mechanic can build from scratch and doesn't have ABS, EBD, brake assist etc, that the others do. Porsches have always stopped quickly because the rear weight bias controls weight transfer under heavy braking.

Think about it this way, you're out on a drive and for whatever reason you need to stop suddenly (you happen to have 43m to do it), the dangerous light weight car stops without a scratch, while the safety ladden Cruze sends you to the hospital and probably the morgue.

There are of course some unavoidable accidents, but in general good handling/ braking cars could reduce accident severity at least as much as passive systems.

I wonder what would happen to the road toll if governments gave manufacturers the option to build actively safe cars in return for lower crash requirements. It seems like safer cars don't translate with any significant meaning to reduced death and injury statistics.

The CSR is a great example. A car that's heavier than its predecessor, featuring better brakes, suspension and larger wheels, and performs better than its predecessor in all areas.

Great way to defeat your own argument!

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against the availability of safety features, what bothers me is not being able to choose which ones I would rather get rid of.

[The Other Andy]

To what end are all of these really necessary? I'm fine with having seat belts, air bags, and the typical items, but now we're going to mandate rear view cameras because some jack___ didn't look back when reversing?

I was taught how to drive, I don't need to keep paying for other's mistakes.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by RunningStrong

The CSR is a great example. A car that's heavier than its predecessor, featuring better brakes, suspension and larger wheels, and performs better than its predecessor in all areas.

Great way to defeat your own argument!

The CSR conveniently had some neat specs written into the wiki. It in no way outperforms a R500 or R620. I think you're keen to defeat your own argument, what I've been saying the whole time is I'd rather see improved active safety, wheels, tyres, brakes and suspension, not airbag on top of airbag.

If extra mass was so wonderful surely they'd offer 10 gallon drums in the manufacturers option list.

I wonder if no one on here drives trucks and other delivery vehicles, I drove a van full of car batteries one time, the braking distance was ridiculous, even if theoretically it had a greater static coefficient of friction. A class 8 truck/ trailer takes three times as long to stop as a normal car.

[P-hack]

when trying to make "just upgrade components" comparison, I always like to look at F1 where money really isn't the object.

So, you have these 1400lb cars, that do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, and relevant to the discussion, can stop from 100 mph in 131 feet. For reference, the 911 takes 305 feet. While there may be diminishing returns on tire friction vs weight (not sure), any aerodynamic drag only benefits braking at lighter weights.

[spacemanspif]

Originally Posted by The Other Andy

but now we're going to mandate rear view cameras because some jack___ didn't look back when reversing?

It's because of blind spots that seem to keep growing with every redesign. Look at the next brand new SUV you see on the road and take note of where the bottom of the back window is...it's about 4' off the ground. and take note of how small back windows are becoming on ALL cars. I saw a small hatchback the other day and it's back window was super high (in relation to the rest of the car) and bordering on microscopic size. Then think about rake, the back window on my sister's 2011 Camaro is rather large, but laid down at such a rake that useable viewing area is about the size of a dollar bill.

I can only assume that these changes are so that the car makers can use the back hatch for more structure and handle rear end collisions better, unfortunately this comes at the cost of reduced visibility...

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by P-hack

lol, married with kids as excuse for driving 3800 lb car, emotional, completely misses the point.

... reasons to have safety equipment in a thread about safety equipment... I missed the point? I made an excuse?, no I made a reason.

If you are so concerned with saving $.001/mile by not having a seat belt, air bags, bumpers, ABS, etc. Why don't you go cut them out of your car. I'd LOVE to hear from you after being involved in an accident.

While you're at it, you can save a lot of weight by having fiberglass body panels instead of high-strength steel. Even better, just take those panels off and use some tape and window plastic to cover everything up. I'm sure that will be very beneficial to your safety. Don't forget to leave room for your kids. Hey save even more room!, I bet they don't need that carseat, I mean, you're not actually going to be in an accident right?

Your kids, the ones who depend on you to keep them safe, to provide everything they need, to come home safe everyday so you can play with trains and make them dinner, throw the ball in the backyard, help them with their homework.

Humans have this fantastic ability to underestimate the dangers/implications involved and drastically overestimate their ability to prevent them.

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by jcp123

I disagree. Ever taken a vacation with kids in a subcompact? We do it but it's not fun. I'm going to keep the Echo, but the Kia's gotta go. My fun car is yet to be determined, once I sell the Mustang I'll decide, but it could very well be a classic 9-passenger wagon.

Thank you, someone who actually shares my sentiment. My wife will probably be getting a newer vehicle this year and we're eyeing the 2010+ GMC Yukon, hopefully denali, Hybrid.

She will not go back to a car, in her head bigger is better. So unfortunately that leaves little choice, so I said it has to get better mileage than what she has now.

[redpoint5]

Some technologies will add very little weight and significantly increase safety. For instance, power steering is already going electric to save weight and increase efficiency, and it's a very small step to add a camera that scans the road and keeps the vehicle in its lane. Brakes, too, are already under electronic control. It's a small step to add a rangefinder to the car and have it automatically brake when an accident is imminent.

These technologies will get so good someday that crashes will almost never happen. Heck, we might even get to the point where seat belts and airbags aren't even necessary due to how unlikely a collision is. I wouldn't be surprised if the active braking and steering systems become cheaper than adding airbags, seat belts, and pre-tensioners.

If car accidents could be nearly eliminated, then the structure itself wouldn't have to be designed to withstand impacts. Instead, it could be designed with efficiency in mind.

[some_other_dave]

I've seen studies that appear to show that people will drive to a given level of "perceived risk". That is, if they think their vehicle is "safe", they will tend to take more risks and drive more dangerously.

I would bet that the relationships are not linear, and things are more complex and nebulous than that, but it is an interesting notion.

-soD