war1974:
but surely with crumple zones airbags etc. modern cars must be safer even if they get written off more easily?
The fact remains that the ‘crumple zones’ of an old E class Merc for example contain a lot more metal before it runs out of metal to crumple ahead of the front bulkhead or in its doors than something like a newish Corsa etc.That so many parents seem happy for their inexperienced offspring to be running around in.While if the Merc has got the right ( 4 cylinder 2.0 litre ) engine option it will also have a nice low power to weight ratio too.
Carryfast:
people are driving,often much,smaller lighter less crash worthy cars(
The accepted wisdom is that car (and passenger) safety has increased exponentially over the years. (I say accepted wisdom, but I very much doubt that your wisdom will accept that)
No the crash protection of ‘the equivalent size class car’ has increased over the years.Which is why N Cap is class based they aren’t saying that a new Corsa will stand a chance in a serious head on crash with a 5-10 year old E or S class Merc.
war1974:
i would say that I disagree am afraid, yes there may not have been any or as many cameras etc. but for example my old capri was about flat out at 110 down hill with wind behind it (1.6s). I can get a corsa to this easier.
the only difference is cars were made to be driven not electronically controlled like some of the modern examples, and trust me once you have spun several times in a capri you quickly learn how to drive straighter and less jerky.
still say cars are far faster now than any old jag from the 70’s even with engines half the size.
The problem with cars these days is pretty similar to that with modern motorcycles; the machine is more capable than the rider/driver. Tyre, brake and handling technology has improved so much that a Corsa bought off the shelf today would be competitive in a race thirty years ago.
Firstly, apologies if my previous “generalisation” comment has caused a bit of upset, it wasn’t intended to be taken completely serious but rather with a pinch of salt and slight humour (perhaps).
Upon reflection, it maybe wasn’t the best comment to come out with, it was more of a “gather opinions kind of comment” if that makes sense!!!■■ I don’t dispute the fact that there are indeed some very sensible younger drivers out there, and also some very good “older” drivers out there.
bertiebus:
When I learned to drive I was taught not only to pass a test but how to read the road.
My old fella would take me out into the sticks down lanes and roads I had never seen.
So I learned how to drive down single track lanes. Main roads like the a65 from kirkby lonsdale towards jnc 36.
Suppose this helped me learn about reading corners. Judging speed etc.
My neighbour has just watched his daughter pass and asked if I would take her out for a drive to just see how good she is.
All I can say is she scared me witless. Now clue about country driving. She flew into corners with no clue how tight they might be.
On telling him this all he could ask me was can you teach her how to drive safely.
Maybe the instructors need to teach the young un’s how to drive. Not just how to pass a test…
Rip all the poor victims of the roads this weekend.
With you on that one. When I learned to drive (2003) I don’t remember being taught anything about thinking, planning, anticipating or just reading the road in general. It was essentially ‘do this, this and this, don’t do that, that and that and you’ll pass’.
It was only because I was (still am!) a geek that I bought a bunch of driving books and had a proper crack at applying the stuff. Also, I’ve always been a wuss, so the whole driving carefully thing came naturally!
My boy passed his test about 18 months ago and I couldn’t believe they teach them to drive to the speed limit these days!
Not to the conditions of the road! If they do, its certainly not the message he was given when he was learning.
Its a limit not a target FFS!
Gembo:
My boy passed his test about 18 months ago and I couldn’t believe they teach them to drive to the speed limit these days!
Not to the conditions of the road! If they do, its certainly not the message he was given when he was learning.
Its a limit not a target FFS!
this is because they are taught to pass a test, not to drive. its all about numbers so the driving school can say ‘we have a 90% 1st time pass mark’ which has absolutely nothing to do with how safe their newly qualified drivers are in the real world. unfortunately, most people only want to be legal and dont give a ■■■■ about being safe for themselves or anyone else
i remember a suggestion of making the test harder a good few years ago and the AA objected on the grounds that people wouldnt bother and would drive illegally. in my mind, illegal drivers can be taken the road but inadequetely trained drivers cant be touched unless they make a mistake because they dont know any better. i would vote for fewer legal but better drivers over more legal but poorer trained drivers. i suspect that everything in parliament, its all about money. more learners = more tax generated
Gembo:
My boy passed his test about 18 months ago and I couldn’t believe they teach them to drive to the speed limit these days!
Not to the conditions of the road! If they do, its certainly not the message he was given when he was learning.
Its a limit not a target FFS!
this is because they are taught to pass a test, not to drive. its all about numbers so the driving school can say ‘we have a 90% 1st time pass mark’ which has absolutely nothing to do with how safe their newly qualified drivers are in the real world. unfortunately, most people only want to be legal and dont give a ■■■■ about being safe for themselves or anyone else
i remember a suggestion of making the test harder a good few years ago and the AA objected on the grounds that people wouldnt bother and would drive illegally. in my mind, illegal drivers can be taken the road but inadequetely trained drivers cant be touched unless they make a mistake because they dont know any better. i would vote for fewer legal but better drivers over more legal but poorer trained drivers. i suspect that everything in parliament, its all about money. more learners = more tax generated
you dont see much about the pass plus course these days and how many people have been on a skid pan? i personally think both should be compulsory because they are both valuable courses. the skid pan teaches you not only how to deal with a skid but how to avoid getting into one in the first place and that includes simulating wet roads and icy roads. how many accidents would that training prevent? natural instincts say hit the brakes when you skid and that is exactly the opposite thing to do because you have no traction and therefore lock the wheels up which takes away any possibility of regaining control of the vehicle. i personally think a lot of winter jack-knifes are caused by the exhaust brake which is why i only ever have it active in good conditions. i never run with it on when the road is wet
The big incentive with PassPlus was reduced insurance premiums for first-time drivers.
But those incentives have shrunk over the years, possibly because the ‘claims experience’ of those who did it was not much better than those who did not.
My view is that modern children are so shielded from risk they have little idea that their actions can have negative consequences, and the various ‘murder’ driving games like GTA desensitise them from road risk.
As a cyclist and motorcyclist, I’m very aware that a moment’s inattention could change my life for ever…and that carries over at least a bit when I’m behind a steering wheel. But if you’ve only ever driven a car, and never slid down a road on your arse at 30 mph, you really don’t have a clue about speed and danger
having grown up playing the original gta etc don’t think that’s any argument at all am afraid (its no different to serial killers who people say were influenced by shoot em ups).
I just think too much is placed on how safe cars are these days which will inevitably de-sensitise people.
still say modern smaller cars are safer than some old jag or rover from the 80’s
war1974:
still say modern smaller cars are safer than some old jag or rover from the 80’s
Pack it in War! You’re just trying to pick an argument from a certain poster. Trying to goad him in to defend the indefensible.
a chav is safer than a nostalgic mid life crisis sufferer?
my 1997 legnum beats both. crazy jap metal built during the WRC/touring car era which has good tech but before all the safety features started adding serious weight to cars
war1974:
having grown up playing the original gta etc don’t think that’s any argument at all am afraid (its no different to serial killers who people say were influenced by shoot em ups).
I just think too much is placed on how safe cars are these days which will inevitably de-sensitise people.
still say modern smaller cars are safer than some old jag or rover from the 80’s
Fact is that functioning airbags will make a huge difference to the occupant in a crash…any car from the 1980s is unlikely to have these.
But the cost of replacing deployed airbags can often increase the cost of a crash repair enough to write an otherwise repairable car off!
Re; the video games. Prince Harry made some quite telling remarks about how machine-gunning people from a helicopter on-screen was good training for the same in real life. I suspect that many younger people have a real issue with ‘games’ and ‘reality’ becoming blurred.
war1974:
still say modern smaller cars are safer than some old jag or rover from the 80’s
Pack it in War! You’re just trying to pick an argument from a certain poster. Trying to goad him in to defend the indefensible.
As I said the numbers of 150 mph + and almost two tonnes of car built along the lines of the forth bridge really aren’t something that anyone wants to try to overtake on an autobahn let alone hit head on with a Corsa etc.
but 150mph? my insignia says 160 on it but it sure as hell doesn’t do it nor anywhere near it.
and whilst I admire how fond you are of old British motors, holding a discussion based on size is best when one is made from sheet steel with no crumple zones etc versus one which is state of the art I don’t buy. look at that ford focus on here that hit the truck on the slip road the woman came out alive somehow (because the car absorbed the energy) had airbags etc.
Airbags really aren’t relevant in the type of collision where its all about which one punches through the other’s front bulkhead and A post/s as opposed to stopping vice versa for example.That gets more into the realms of tank warfare.
I was unlucky enough as a child to see my old mans bmw hit an old rover tank style thing (old style r reg so 70’s) it was only the bmw which crumpled that saved my old man from great injury.
lets face it anything hitting head on is going to be a bad accident and not much survives.
war1974:
but 150mph? my insignia says 160 on it but it sure as hell doesn’t do it nor anywhere near it.
and whilst I admire how fond you are of old British motors, holding a discussion based on size is best when one is made from sheet steel with no crumple zones etc versus one which is state of the art I don’t buy.
But your insignia doesn’t have around 300-400 bhp or what is definitely a ‘crumple zone’ the size of a football field that walked through its US crash tests in the day ahead of its windscreen.Although admittedly the transverse engine layout punches above its weight in the case of an offset head on.But in general as I said regardless of old classics v new I’d prefer to put a young new driver son or daughter into that 5 yearish old E class Merc than the newish Corsa on the unarguable basis that its certainly all about energy absorbtion and size matters in that regard.
