Why driving a safer car isn't necessarily safer

[Daniel]

I've argued this point before but feel it deserves it's own thread.

I know I'm going to get a torrent of "You're talking bollocks" replies but frankly I don't care :)

Here are a few links

http://www.ambulancedriving.com/research/r-u1-e4-pce-09-01.html
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/editorials/risky-business/
http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=602

I really do agree with them all. Back in the day when you had an old 70's car which didn't have ABS, crumple zones, tc, esp and so on you drove carefully because the cars didn't handle very well and accidents were never far away if you drove like a twonk.

Now I'm not saying that it's bad to make cars safer. Only a moronic halfwit would say that. But the biggest problem with cars having accidents is always the driver and that hasn't changed other than the fact that we're now driving cars which are less likely to kill us. So the perception is that cars are safer so we can take more risks.

Imagine how great life would be if cars were safer but people still drove as if they were driving something which wasn't meant to protect them in an accident? We'd have less tailgating. Less multi-car accidents and so on.

Perhaps my thread has no point whatsoever but imagine a world where people realised that every corner carried with it a possibility of death rather than a safe airbag cushioned prang.

[BDunnell]

I don't think what you say is automatically wrong at all. It's a bit like what some say about crime, namely that one reason for there having been less crime in 'the old days' is that there was less stuff to nick then.

[rah]

Sorry dude but you asked for it: "You're talking bollocks".
The safety rating of a car has never prompted me to take more risks. Nor has it had that effect on anyone I know. In fact probably the opposite, new cars these days are much more costly to repair than the old bangers from the 70's.

[BDunnell]

Sorry dude but you asked for it: "You're talking bollocks".
The safety rating of a car has never prompted me to take more risks. Nor has it had that effect on anyone I know. In fact probably the opposite, new cars these days are much more costly to repair than the old bangers from the 70's.

Yes, but is anyone you know the sort of person who may be tempted to take unnecessary risks on the road? If not, what Daniel's saying doesn't apply to them.

I am fairly sure that more people believe themselves to be invincible on the road nowadays, in part because they see driving as an inalienable right.

[rah]

Yes, but is anyone you know the sort of person who may be tempted to take unnecessary risks on the road? If not, what Daniel's saying doesn't apply to them.

I am fairly sure that more people believe themselves to be invincible on the road nowadays, in part because they see driving as an inalienable right.

Sure I used to be that person. In fact most people between the ages of 17-25 are that person.

I am sure this is true. However this is a result of more people on the road, rather than people feeling safer in their cars.

[Daniel]

Sorry dude but you asked for it: "You're talking bollocks".
The safety rating of a car has never prompted me to take more risks. Nor has it had that effect on anyone I know. In fact probably the opposite, new cars these days are much more costly to repair than the old bangers from the 70's.
I didn't say it applies in a blanket manner to everyone though ;)

Most of us motorsport types have been to a race or a rally where a serious accident has occured and understand the implications of speed and we also generally understand the handling of our cars a lot better. I myself follow a lot further back from cars than most others and aim to be able to stop in the distance between my car and the next car rather than just using that space to react and then slowing down in the space used by the other car to slow down.

I saw a car on it's roof today on the A40 after what was evidently a monumental accident which appeared to be just a single vehicle accident. Now in my 504 back in Australia I'd probably expect to be dead after that. But on a 70mph road this car did whatever it did and ended up on it's roof and stayed pretty much intact and was presumably fairly survivable judging by the fact that the driver was being comforted by police rather than being revived by paramedics. So why wouldn't you drive just that bit faster knowing that the consequences were a bit less?

Personally I don't buy into that sort of thinking and today on the M6 when it was bucketing down I was following about 150-200m behind the car in front at times when it was really coming down which I think is almost the amount of road my car would require to come to a dead stop within. But a lot of people just don't buy into that sort of common sense driving because cars are safer and the consequences for boneheaded driving are less than what they used to be.

[airshifter]

I don't disagree, but stated another way you're simply saying poor drivers are the problem.

That will never change.

[Daniel]

Sure I used to be that person. In fact most people between the ages of 17-25 are that person.

I am sure this is true. However this is a result of more people on the road, rather than people feeling safer in their cars.

Of course. But read the links and think about it.

If something is dangerous you take care? It's natural.

If something's less dangerous you take less care.

Now of course airbags and safety features reduce the seriousness of an accident in identical conditions and it would be silly to argue that we should ban them if they save lives.

But one could reasonably draw the conclusion that safer cars make people think that dangerous driving isn't as dangerous and that in itself is a danger to us all ;)

[Daniel]

I don't disagree, but stated another way you're simply saying poor drivers are the problem.

That will never change.
Pretty much. My argument is that the advantages in safer cars are somewhat offset by the assumption that you can simply drive faster and follow closer behind other cars.

[Rollo]

I really do agree with them all. Back in the day when you had an old 70's car which didn't have ABS, crumple zones, tc, esp and so on you drove carefully because the cars didn't handle very well and accidents were never far away if you drove like a twonk.

Now I'm not saying that it's bad to make cars safer. Only a moronic halfwit would say that. But the biggest problem with cars having accidents is always the driver and that hasn't changed other than the fact that we're now driving cars which are less likely to kill us. So the perception is that cars are safer so we can take more risks.


Statistically you are talking crap:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls
Passenger death rates per mile are falling because cars are safer.

Do you honestly think that people changed that much in 30 years? The only reasons that less people were injured back in the 70s is a) because there were less people and b) there were less cars.

I don't think you can reasonably draw the conclusion that safer cars make people think that dangerous driving isn't as dangerous, because people were just as idiotic in the 70s.

[Daniel]

Statistically you are talking crap:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls
Passenger death rates per mile are falling because cars are safer.

Do you honestly think that people changed that much in 30 years? The only reasons that less people were injured back in the 70s is a) because there were less people and b) there were less cars.

I don't think you can reasonably draw the conclusion that safer cars make people think that dangerous driving isn't as dangerous, because people were just as idiotic in the 70s.
So you would drive just as fast in a Mk1 Cortina as you do in your Ka given the same circumstances knowing full well the Ka handles better and stops better and will kill you less if you crash? :)

Statistically you can also prove anything. If cars are so much safer in passive sense then why haven't we seen a dramatic fall in deaths per billion miles? :mark:

[Malbec]

I really do agree with them all. Back in the day when you had an old 70's car which didn't have ABS, crumple zones, tc, esp and so on you drove carefully because the cars didn't handle very well and accidents were never far away if you drove like a twonk.

Now I'm not saying that it's bad to make cars safer. Only a moronic halfwit would say that. But the biggest problem with cars having accidents is always the driver and that hasn't changed other than the fact that we're now driving cars which are less likely to kill us. So the perception is that cars are safer so we can take more risks.

Imagine how great life would be if cars were safer but people still drove as if they were driving something which wasn't meant to protect them in an accident? We'd have less tailgating. Less multi-car accidents and so on.

Perhaps my thread has no point whatsoever but imagine a world where people realised that every corner carried with it a possibility of death rather than a safe airbag cushioned prang.

I don't quite agree with that analysis, it might be a small factor but there are many other bigger issues.

Firstly if you compare a 70s car with a modern one you have a small selection of dials and meters (perhaps not even a radio) compared to a dazzling array of bright lights, multi-functional displays, sat-navs, complex radios and control units such as iDrive that require you to take your eyes off the road completely to use them. Shouldn't forget to mention mobile phones either. I simply cannot believe it is legal to have a bright colour display stuck to your windscreen giving you complex instructions that you often have to look at the screen for.

In the military technology has been used to reduce the brain power required to operate a piece of machinery so more of it can be used to go look for and destroy the enemy. In civilian life the opposite seems to have happened, we seemed to have increased the amount of brain power required to operate the car so we can use less of it to go look for and avoid other road users. Ridiculous.

Then you have a shift in emphasis from primary safety (avoiding an accident) to secondary safety (surviving it when it happens). Having a huge strong A-pillar is wonderful in maintaining structural integrity when you roll (relatively uncommon) but is also wonderful in obstructing your view at junctions (very common situation).

I'm sure some drivers would drive more carefully if they thought there was a significant risk of death on crashing but I don't think there would be that many.

[Rollo]

Statistically you can also prove anything. If cars are so much safer in passive sense then why haven't we seen a dramatic fall in deaths per billion miles? :mark:

We have.
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/reprint/99/8/402.pdf

Accident death rates per billion miles have more than halved in 20 years. That's very dramatic. How many statisics do you want? I can not find a single statistic that supports your theory at all. If you'd like to show data that proves otherwise then please do.


So you would drive just as fast in a Mk1 Cortina as you do in your Ka given the same circumstances knowing full well the Ka handles better and stops better and will kill you less if you crash? :)

If I had a Mk1 Cortina on a motorway I would still be doing 70mph along with every damn other car. I suspect you would as well.

In fact, the Association for British Drivers actually put in a submission to raise motorway speed limits.
http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm#history

[rah]

Of course. But read the links and think about it.

If something is dangerous you take care? It's natural.

If something's less dangerous you take less care.

Now of course airbags and safety features reduce the seriousness of an accident in identical conditions and it would be silly to argue that we should ban them if they save lives.

But one could reasonably draw the conclusion that safer cars make people think that dangerous driving isn't as dangerous and that in itself is a danger to us all ;)

Personally I do not think that is the case. But with a little thinking you could say that we are in agreement of the action needed, but not of the direct cause of the problem.

Now are you trying to say that there needs to be more driver training? If so, I am sure we all agree.

[Daniel]

Personally I do not think that is the case. But with a little thinking you could say that we are in agreement of the action needed, but not of the direct cause of the problem.

Now are you trying to say that there needs to be more driver training? If so, I am sure we all agree.
I definitely agree that there needs to be more education as well. By no means am I saying that having a car which is perceived as being "safe" is the only reason people drive stupidly. I am merely saying that coupled with the fact that these days it's someone elses fault when anything goes wrong the perceived level of safety in new cars merely helps make the situation just that bit worse.

The fact that you would be driving at 70 with both cars is irrelevant Rollo. If you knew the car you were in was not going to be as good in an accident as most other cars you'd probably drive differently.

Road safety is not just about making cars more safe. Road design is a big thing. 20 years ago that car I saw on it's roof might have gone into oncoming traffic or off into a tree and it wouldn't have been pretty. So to dig up some statistics and proclaim that car safety has made the roads safer might not be correct. I think road design has a fair bit to do with it.

Anyway this is not even about fatalities and accident statistics. Feeling safe is far more than that. I can recall half a dozen times just yesterday when I genuinely felt that someone's life was in danger when I was at Rally GB. Does feeling unsafe on the roads not mean anything unless it involves someone dying? :mark:

At the end of the day the weak link in it all is the driver and people will only accept so much danger in their day. Remove some of it and they'll give it a top up of their own by tailgating, overtaking when they shouldn't or just driving too fast for the conditions.

[rah]

Sorry champ, but I still think your argument is wrong. People do not drive stupidly because they feel safer. They drive stupidly because they do not know the concequences. People do not tailgate to feel dangerous. They do it because they do not know any better. Everybody fears having an accident.

There were plenty of stupid thing happening on the road in the 60's and 70's. You could even say there were more stupid things happening because there was less chance of being caught.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I am fairly sure that more people believe themselves to be invincible on the road nowadays

That would be young males. But it's not just on the roads, 17-21 year olds think that they are invincible. Mostly because the brain works strangely at that age, we can't help it.

I don't necessarily think that safer cars means you drive more dangerously. The capabilities of a modern car are greater than a old car, what is considered safe for a modern car is dangerous in an old car because they are more dangerous cars. It's all relative :)

[Dave B]

When I was 17 - 21 I thought I was invincible and, by my own admission, drove like a <bleep>. I'm still here, over a decade later, so draw your own conclusions :p

[Rollo]

Road safety is not just about making cars more safe. Road design is a big thing. 20 years ago that car I saw on it's roof might have gone into oncoming traffic or off into a tree and it wouldn't have been pretty. So to dig up some statistics and proclaim that car safety has made the roads safer might not be correct. I think road design has a fair bit to do with it.

Anyway this is not even about fatalities and accident statistics. Feeling safe is far more than that.

Well if it's more than that then it should be legislated for. Hence the reasons why there are design regulations to do with seat belts, intrusion bars, crumple zones, road furniture, bumper heights etc etc etc.

This is exactly about statistics. How else do you get the data? I can quite empirically say that roads are safer than they were 20 years ago. Whether you feel it not is exactly that - "feeling" and therefore only subjective.

[Daniel]

Well if it's more than that then it should be legislated for. Hence the reasons why there are design regulations to do with seat belts, intrusion bars, crumple zones, road furniture, bumper heights etc etc etc.

This is exactly about statistics. How else do you get the data? I can quite empirically say that roads are safer than they were 20 years ago. Whether you feel it not is exactly that - "feeling" and therefore only subjective.
OK Rollo.
Example

There are two people walking dogs down the street. One's a Rottweiler and one's a Jack Russell. Which one do you reach down and pat on the head and which one do you cross the road to avoid?

It's human nature to avoid danger or to react differently to something which you perceive as being more dangerous than something else. Why is that hard to understand? :mark: I've never said that newer cars are the sole reason why people drive dangerously. I merely said (and backed up with evidence of scientific studies which back my line of thought) that the safeness of newer cars is somewhat negated by the fact that some people feel they can drive less safely and be just as safe as they were in their last car.

If you want to talk about deaths per billion miles you're welcome to it. But drawing the conclusion that people drive more safely or just as safely doesn't take into account that roads are safer, medical practices are better and cars are less likely to kill you and handle better.

You all seem to have drawn the conclusion that I think cars should be less safe and that I feel this would reduce the road toll. That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that driving is less dangerous these days (see Rollo's stats) due to better roads and better cars so we feel we can drive less safely and get away with it.

Did anyone actually open the links I posted? :mark:

[Robinho]

i think theres an issue of relativity here (not the einstein stuff though)

Sure, todays new cars are far safer to have an accident in than those only 5 years older, let alone 10, 20, 30 years. as a result you may feel safer ina new car than an older one, and i can agree that as a result there is a chance that people would perhaps push their luck a little more (assuming they are aware of the consequences in the 1st place)

however, 20yrs ago the new cars were the safest and the height of design, and far safer than their predecessors - they ddn't have the benefit of knwoing that the cars of today would be so much better and therefore should take more care, the current car should always be the safest, beter built vehicle, as a result i would say that at any point the driver probably felt that they were safe and carried on regardless to drive their cars at some limit they deem acceptable, quite likely an unsafe one.

therefore i don't agree that we drive in a more unsafe manner, purely because 10 yrs ago we didn't know that cars could be that much safer and the majority of drivers don't think about the consequences of their driving any more or less now than previously - thankfully, the cars are safer than they used to be so the same driving standard result in less serious accidents

[Daniel]

i think theres an issue of relativity here (not the einstein stuff though)

Sure, todays new cars are far safer to have an accident in than those only 5 years older, let alone 10, 20, 30 years. as a result you may feel safer ina new car than an older one, and i can agree that as a result there is a chance that people would perhaps push their luck a little more (assuming they are aware of the consequences in the 1st place)

however, 20yrs ago the new cars were the safest and the height of design, and far safer than their predecessors - they ddn't have the benefit of knwoing that the cars of today would be so much better and therefore should take more care, the current car should always be the safest, beter built vehicle, as a result i would say that at any point the driver probably felt that they were safe and carried on regardless to drive their cars at some limit they deem acceptable, quite likely an unsafe one.

therefore i don't agree that we drive in a more unsafe manner, purely because 10 yrs ago we didn't know that cars could be that much safer and the majority of drivers don't think about the consequences of their driving any more or less now than previously - thankfully, the cars are safer than they used to be so the same driving standard result in less serious accidents

You're onto something there. Cars are safer so we take more risks.

Taken from one of the links I posted previously.



In Target Risk, Gerald Wilde (1994, pp. 109-114) uses RHT theory to explain the results of research into the behaviour of Munich taxicab drivers. In this study part of a taxi fleet in Munich was equipped with ABS. The drivers knew of the advantages offered by ABS and drove vehicles that were in all other ways the same as others in the fleet. Over a period of several years, these drivers were

over represented in crashes where they were at fault[/*:m:aodo62mp]
more often recorded as braking extremely hard[/*:m:aodo62mp]
made sharper turns in curves[/*:m:aodo62mp]
were less accurate in their lane-holding behaviour[/*:m:aodo62mp]
proceeded at a shorter forward sight distance[/*:m:aodo62mp]
made poorly adjusted merging manoeuvres[/*:m:aodo62mp]
created more traffic conflicts[/*:m:aodo62mp]
drove faster[/*:m:aodo62mp]
had more accidents under slippery driving conditions[/*:m:aodo62mp]Does that not mean anything to anyone? :mark: An actual study done into the effects that just one safety factor has on drivers that shows RHT in action and everyone disagrees with it just because less people die per billion miles now than in the past :laugh:

Your point on current cars always being the safest is true BUT the consequences are different in the safest car from the 70's and the safest car from today and that's what conditions you to drive how you drive. If you know that if you drive around at 70mph in the car that is currently the safest in the world and crash into something you'll die you'll drive differently to what you would if you were driving a car which is built to withstand a 70mph impact and leave you with nothing but a smooshed car. It's the consequences of an action that dicate whether or not we're willing to do it.

[janneppi]

How much current data is there, for example the links daniel gave that mentioned ABS seemed to be about 1994 or earlier when ABS was still rather new and people didn't perhaps fully understand how to use it properly.

I don't think I drive faster with my 2001 Civic than I did with a 1986 Fiat Uno because it's safer, I drive faster in it because the Civic engine has more power and chassis is better at corners. :)
Yet I haven't managed to stuff the Honda into a ditch. :)

[Daniel]

How much current data is there, for example the links daniel gave that mentioned ABS seemed to be about 1994 or earlier when ABS was still rather new and people didn't perhaps fully understand how to use it properly.

I don't think I drive faster with my 2001 Civic than I did with a 1986 Fiat Uno because it's safer, I drive faster in it because the Civic engine has more power and chassis is better at corners. :)
Yet I haven't managed to stuff the Honda into a ditch. :)
But ABS doesn't cause you to enter corners sharper and so on ;)

[janneppi]

Neither do airbags, side airbags, crumple zones or any other "passive" safety method. If anything it's good tyres and well behaving chassis that leads to problems doesn't it? :)

Actually, no the problem, if there is any would be the driver who doesn't understand the limitations and charasteritics of his/her car, especially if they choose to take risks while driving.
That hasn't changed since the first car arrived.

[airshifter]

I would have to say that if a person drives worse because of safer cars, they have poor decision making abilities, and at that point it's still down to poor drivers.

I don't drive any different in newer safer cars than I did many years ago in cars with few safety features at all. To me the safety of the occupants doesn't allow me to disregard the safety of those not in my vehicle, and even in an accident without injuries it caused people headaches and hassles.

If deaths and injuries have gone down per miles driven, then obviously it is in fact safer, regardless of all the factors that contribute.

[odykas]

Some years ago I remember a statistical analysis: number or accidents / car model.

The winner (== lower accident rate) was the legendary Zastava Yugo! http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/~siochos/smilies/bowdown.gif

[Magnus]

The diff Daniel hints at is the possible not very declining accident rates compared to the declining death/severe injurys rates. but I do not know.

What i do know is that when i am driving a bit more inspirated in my BMW I turn of the aid-systems, because I do not know how the car will behave with them on, if the car starts oversteering I know how to handle it, if I am prepared for whjat might happen. Besides they gives the car quite booring handling.
If i just go shoping or something I leave them on(99 percent of time), because the it is just a transport, and since i am less aware of what is ging on and may more easy get surprised by icy spots or other probs.