Safety Features in Cars ...

[honeybee]

You can call this an extension of a thought I had put forward in another thread. I have been watching the recall news, how the electronic systems in various models are malfunctioning and endangering the lives of the car occupants. I have also been going through some youtube videos of Reva, the electric car produced in India. Electric cars and their utility or necessity is another question altogether, but I am wondering how many of the so called safety features do we really require. Please note I am specifically targetting city driving, not inter-city or highway/motorway driving. Typically a range of about 30 - 40 km, at average speeds of around 20kmph, stopping at traffic lights and rush hour traffic scenarios.

Does this kind of a scenario NEED any safety features? Can we have a world where within the city, you can only use the small Reva/Nano like cars which operate on electricity/battery, and use the fuel-burners only for inter-city/inter-state?

.

[penagate]

When you say "safety features", do you mean things like crumple zones and airbags, or driving aids like ESC and ABS?

[honeybee]

When you say "safety features", do you mean things like crumple zones and airbags, or driving aids like ESC and ABS?

All of them which are not necessary in city driving.

.

[RobDog888]

ABS has saved my car before with its controlled stop. I would think that even in the rain in city driving it is a requirement.

[penagate]

All of them which are not necessary in city driving.

.

Well, no safety features are necessary if you remain in total control of your car and no one else ever runs into you.

[honeybee]

ABS has saved my car before with its controlled stop. I would think that even in the rain in city driving it is a requirement.

Has the ABS elevated your sense of safety when driving on wet roads? If you were driving a car without ABS, would you be driving slower on wet/slippery roads?

What would you do if you knew you are driving a Toyota model that's known for occasional ABS malfunctioning? Would you drive slower than normal? Or would you wait till you hit something/somebody, survived and then complain to the regulatory authorities?

Are all the active/passive safety features in your car making you a less careful driver than you would otherwise be?

(reference to Toyota should not be taken as a criticism to their quality or customer commitments. I am using it just because recently some of their models have been recalled due to some glitches in the ABS system)

.

[wossname]

If you never crash you can't claim compensation. That's what elderly pedestrians are for.

[FunkyDexter]

If you were driving a car without ABS, would you be driving slower on wet/slippery roads?

It's an interesting question. There's quite a lot of research that shows we live to a certain level of percieved risk. The reason they floor playgrounds in that wierd rubberised ashphalt stuff is because it looks like it'll hurt if a kid falls on it and that means kids are less likely to fall on it. Similarly, people have been shown to be involved in more accidents if they wear a seat belt (although the acceidents are ALOT less terminal). I doubt that effect would be assosciated with ABS, though, because you're not really aware of it when driving, it's just kind of in the background.

edit> I think a more pertinent question, though, is why wouldn't you put a safety feature in a car if it's available?

[penagate]

Has the ABS elevated your sense of safety when driving on wet roads? If you were driving a car without ABS, would you be driving slower on wet/slippery roads?

You should be driving to the conditions all the time. ABS won't slow a car down any earlier. It is more effective when a sudden unexpected situation arises such as a car pulling out in front of you. Even a good driver can't stop a car as well as a good implementation of ABS because they can only control the master cylinder whereas ABS controls each wheel individually.

Why would anyone drive less responsibly because they have a safer car? No one wants to have an accident no matter what they are driving. It costs money to repair or replace the car and it's just plain inconvenient.

[honeybee]

Why would anyone drive less responsibly because they have a safer car? No one wants to have an accident no matter what they are driving. It costs money to repair or replace the car and it's just plain inconvenient.

Hmmm.. Together with the question FunkyDexter has asked about why NOT install a safety feature in your car, the point I am trying to make is regardless of the safety features built into any vehicle, it's the driver who needs to be aware of what he can/should do and what not. When the driver forgets his limits, there's an accident. So if you want to make driving a safer experience, you should be focussing on the bad drivers and not simply keep adding more and more technology.

Yesterday I was browsing through some 4WD information on the net and came across a very interesting argument. One of the posters on a forum claimed that having a 4WD or AWD vehicle induces a false sense of security in its driver, because he is able to accelerate/maintain traction even on slippery roads. But the 4WD or AWD is pretty much useless in severe braking, where the car would more likely aquaplane and cause greater damage, because it was being driven faster than needed.

I have seen numerous modern cars and SUVs being driven dangerously on our expressway, and a big factor that contributes to this reckless driving is the confidence that in case of an accident, it's the other vehicle that will suffer the most damage. I doubt if any of them would dare do even half the speeds if they were driving 35-bhp Premier Padminis on cross-ply tyres and drum brakes all round, without seat belts.

How many of you would tend to push the limits of your driving and your vehicle if you knew the vehicle has ABS, 4WD, airbags and whatnot? And how many of you would stay well within the limits if you knew your car does NOT have any of these goodies?

To answer FunkyDexter, unless you have good drivers, the safety features mean zilch. And if you have good drivers, you don't need all those safety features. Take airbags for e.g. They are an essential safety feature, you will claim. But in which situations? When hitting a tree at 100mph? If you were following the speed limit, would you be going at 100mph? I guess not.

Take the above example of drum brakes all round. If you are driving a car that has drum brakes all around, you will brake much earlier so as to leave a wide gap between your car and the obstacle even when you have anticipated the braking distance. But switch to a car with ABS and disc brakes and you are most likely to keep flooring the gas pedal till the last moment and then slam onto the brakes. Just because you know you have ABS and disc brakes.

[edit]
With all the safety features in your car, you will keep pushing harder and harder, not knowing when you have crossed the limits of your own driving, the vehicle's condition and the ambient situation. While no one in his/her senses would actually desire to cause an accident, they would surely try and stretch their luck aided with all those safety features.

Also out of all the accidents that have happened, or that you have been aware of, in how many cases it was impossible to prevent or avoid the accident? I would guess none. If you dig deeper you will find that there was something the driver should have done and did not do which led to the accident.

Coupled with this elevated sense of safety when you are pushing the limits, an electronic failure will work just the opposite. And as the recent spate of recalls goes to show, the electronics can fail anytime.

[/edit]

.

[penagate]

And if you have good drivers, you don't need all those safety features. Take airbags for e.g. They are an essential safety feature, you will claim. But in which situations? When hitting a tree at 100mph? If you were following the speed limit, would you be going at 100mph? I guess not.

You can hit things while you are doing the speed limit too.

What if an animal (something big, like a cow or kangaroo) runs across the road in front of you, or a car reverses out of a driveway into your path? You hit the brakes and possibly crash into them. In this situation ABS will help you pull up and airbags and crumple zones will reduce the potential injury to yourself and maybe the other person.

What if a child runs into the road in front of you? Perhaps you swerve to avoid hitting them. In this case ESC can help you control the car and avoid both the child and the ditch or tree beside the road. The average driver can't brake and steer at the same time without it.

If you are driving a car that has drum brakes all around, you will brake much earlier so as to leave a wide gap between your car and the obstacle even when you have anticipated the braking distance. But switch to a car with ABS and disc brakes and you are most likely to keep flooring the gas pedal till the last moment and then slam onto the brakes. Just because you know you have ABS and disc brakes.

If you drive like that, you are a clown, and safety features are a mere hindrance on your path to an early grave.

The rest of us are grateful we have them.

[si_the_geek]

I agree with that, but the trick is to be in the right mindset - there are people who ignore their responsibilities just because there is a little backup there.

So if you want to make driving a safer experience, you should be focussing on the bad drivers and not simply keep adding more and more technology.

One of the best drivers I have ever known sticks to two rules:

• Always think of other road users as if they are crazy lunatics - and therefore always give them a bit of room to do strange things.
• Drive at speeds etc to suit the conditions. If you aren't sure of what the car is capable of in the conditions, practice (starting well below what you expect the limits to be) when there are no other road users nearby.

The second rule is one that people tend to ignore out of bravado, but the first is one that almost everyone can cope with - because even tho it is your behaviour that is changing, you can blame it on others!

[honeybee]

You can hit things while you are doing the speed limit too.

What if an animal (something big, like a cow or kangaroo) runs across the road in front of you, or a car reverses out of a driveway into your path? You hit the brakes and possibly crash into them. In this situation ABS will help you pull up and airbags and crumple zones will reduce the potential injury to yourself and maybe the other person.

What if a child runs into the road in front of you? Perhaps you swerve to avoid hitting them. In this case ESC can help you control the car and avoid both the child and the ditch or tree beside the road. The average driver can't brake and steer at the same time without it.




If you drive like that, you are a clown, and safety features are a mere hindrance on your path to an early grave.

The rest of us are grateful we have them.

Which drivers can't brake and steer at the same time? Those who can't drive without the technological aids??

Whenever I am driving on roads with potential hazards likely to come my way, I watch, I listen and I anticipate. No technology can help me in this process. And if you are driving a vehicle, you must be doing this all the time. ESC or no ESC, ABS or no ABS, you SHOULDN'T be hitting the child getting in your way. A child or for that matter even a car getting out of a driveway is not something that just falls into your path from the blue. If you hit it, it means you as a driver have failed in your anticipation too.

Otherwise you could have used it as a defense in any accident, "You see I didn't want to hit the child, but my car does not have ESC!!"

The responsibility for safe driving lies with the driver, not with the vehicle manufacturer.

.

[honeybee]

[*]Always think of other road users as if they are crazy lunatics - and therefore always give them a bit of room to do strange things.[*]Drive at speeds etc to suit the conditions. If you aren't sure of what the car is capable of in the conditions, practice (starting well below what you expect the limits to be) when there are no other road users nearby.[/list]

Very well put.

.

[dilettante]

Safety feature: cellphone jammer.

[FunkyDexter]

Just last week I managed to spin my car off the road (nothing serious, I just took it onto the grass verge) and, while I was travelling sideways looking where I was going out of the drivers side window, I pondered this thread.

First of all, I only had myself to blame. The stereo was up too loud, I was going too fast and having too much fun. I was going round a long corner and knew I was getting close to the limit of grip but thought I had a bit more to spare - I was wrong.

The thing is, though, that this is the first time I've been at fault in a road accident in about 20 years of driving (I've had a few people hit me before but was always clearly the other persons fault). I'm generally a pretty safe driver. But lately, I have to acknowledge, the needle's been creeping up a bit on the motorway, the braking's been getting left a bit later, the corners are being taken a little bit quicker. So why has my driving pattern changed for the worse?

A year ago I bought a new car. It's a Ford Mondeo (you are all invited to mock me mercilessly for my choice in vehicle if you wish) and has safety features up the wazoo. I'm not really aware of them though and I'm pretty sure they're not what's changed my driving pattern. Rather, I think it's the fact that the Mondeo is too damn comfortable. I've general driven smaller cars with few features in the past and this one's a big old boat which feels like I'm driving my living room to work. I may be going faster but I don't feel like I'm going faster. In fact, I feel like I'm cruising along at about 60 when I look at the speedo and realise I'm pushing 80. When I think I'm well below the 30 limit I can glance down and realise I'm doing a toddler smashing 40.

To make cars safer I don't think you to remove safety features (quite the opposite, in fact) but you just need to harden up the suspension, stop smothering the engine noise and leave some air gaps around the doors so you can hear the wind whistling past. If you want people to drive more safely, make them feel like they're driving dangerously, even if they're not. Make it so you feel like your doing 90 when your actually doing 60 and I'm pretty sure we'd all slow down. Of course, the reason I bought a comfy car is that I want a comfy commute and I think a deliberately uncomfortable car would be pretty hard to sell.

[JuggaloBrotha]

I don't any safety features, all I need is a roll cage, a good transmission and a well maintained clutch.

I guess brakes would be nice, but brakes aren't a requirement.

[homer13j]

all I need is a roll cage

Heh heh... I came here to say this as well.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Build the cars lower to the ground. Not only would Homer approve of the cornering ability, you perceive that you are moving faster when you are closer to the ground.

[visualAd]

Some drivers are beyond help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB5SFjLxS-U

[honeybee]

I don't any safety features, all I need is a roll cage, a good transmission and a well maintained clutch.

I guess brakes would be nice, but brakes aren't a requirement.

Planning to get an engine and a gas pedal, or you have people to push your car through all those gears?

j/k

.

[JuggaloBrotha]

Planning to get an engine and a gas pedal, or you have people to push your car through all those gears?

j/k

.

Push my car? Nope, a pack of leopard's pull my buggy around.

[honeybee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8507888.stm

The UK is making for a big push to set up infrastructure for electric cars that can be charged by plugging into a socket. The government is also providing a huge amount of incentives to anyone who buys an electric car. So suddenly everyone is buying an electric car.

Here's my view on what should logically allow a better road/traffic infrastructure. Electric cars should be rentable. Individuals cannot purchase them, but there should be plenty so you can rent one anytime you want. You could use these cars for intra-city travel. When going inter-city, you would take a bus (that again works on electricity). When private ownership is controlled/eliminated and public transport used more and more, you would get rid of many of today's problems of traffic congestion or pollution.

.

[homer13j]

When private ownership is controlled/eliminated

[AsmIscool]

Speed limiters would be nice for all the idiots out there.

[penagate]

Which drivers can't brake and steer at the same time? Those who can't drive without the technological aids??

Yes... which is most people on the road.


I really don't know what you're trying to get at with this thread. Obviously driver attitude and skill level is important. There's no debate about that. So why are safety features bad? No one relies on safety features, but they can be helpful in unexpected situations.

You don't seem to understand the word "accident"... It's not something that happens intentionally!

[penagate]

[...] I think it's the fact that the Mondeo is too damn comfortable.

I think you are on to something. A lot of modern cars just don't provide enough feedback to the driver. Steering is one particular area where feedback is vital but a lot of power steering systems don't give you anywhere near enough. One could argue that "sporty" cars are probably safer in that the driver is more aware of vehicle behaviour than in a car which is biased towards comfort level at the expense of the driving experience.

That's a different issue to safety though.

[honeybee]

That's a different issue to safety though.

My point is all these safety features elevate your sense of safety, making you push the safety limits of your abilities and the car's abilities beyond the acceptable levels. They induce you to take risks that you would not take if you didn't have those safety features.

That's a tad different than just plain bad drivers. Bad drivers will always drive bad whether they have a safe car or not. However there are others who will become bad drivers because they know their cars can take corners at potentially dangerous speeds, their ABS will safeguard them even when they brake later than safe or their AWD will allow them to drive faster on slippery roads.

.

[abhijit]

My point is all these safety features elevate your sense of safety, making you push the safety limits of your abilities and the car's abilities beyond the acceptable levels. They induce you to take risks that you would not take if you didn't have those safety features.

That's a tad different than just plain bad drivers. Bad drivers will always drive bad whether they have a safe car or not. However there are others who will become bad drivers because they know their cars can take corners at potentially dangerous speeds, their ABS will safeguard them even when they brake later than safe or their AWD will allow them to drive faster on slippery roads.

.

If I read this correctly, what you're saying is that better cars will make worse drivers out of bad ones.

[visualAd]

Safety and driver experience are two different things.

There are some cars today that would be inoperable if driven mechanically because of the parts used and the way in which they are designed. The features included in the car could elevate the drivers experience, increase its efficiency, reduce emissions or improve safety. It is up to manufacturers to ensure that any critical points are failure are addressed, especially those that compromise safety (in my opinion they are still learning this).

Fighter jets are good place to look when dawning comparisons. Aircraft such as the B-2 (also known as the Stealth bomber) are aerodynamically unstable and require continual, fine adjustments while flying. A human is unable to monitor, respond to and accurately make these adjustments. so a critical failure of the computer systems within that aircraft will cause it to drop out of the sky.

The main way of addressing such risks in aircraft is an ejection seat, but there is the small matter or it landing on civilians heads when it does fall out the sky and $0.75bn price tag they carry. So such failures need to be avoided at all costs.

I think this is where the car manufacturers fall short. It seems that they are happy to connect critical systems (such as those that control breaking and acceleration to the on-board computer system), then install a media player in the back seat. Only to find 6 months later that a new DVD causes the media player to blue-screen and takes out all other computer controlled systems in the vehicle.

I do dread the day when my car tells me I have to pull over because it needs to apply a critical update and restart!!!! I doubt that will happen any time soon in my 1999 Fiesta though.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, you don't have to worry about that. When it comes to critical updates, there are plenty, but restarting ain't likely to happen.

[honeybee]

If I read this correctly, what you're saying is that better cars will make worse drivers out of bad ones.

Basically yes.

.

[abhijit]

On one hand, I feel bad drivers serve a very important economic purpose.
A bad driver will require more attempts to pass the test. This is where the revenue potential for the RTO is. A bad driver will speed in no speed zones, not stop at STOP signs and occasionally RED LIGHTS. There are more opportunities to fine them and also make them pay fees to attend highway safety lessons.

On the other hand, bad driving could also increase expenditure for the state. If a bad driver puts several productive people in a hospital, it means a reduction of income for the state. Also some of these bad drivers might not have any money to pay the fines, in which case the state would have to sponsor a stay for them at the tax payer's expense.

[honeybee]

On one hand, I feel bad drivers serve a very important economic purpose.
A bad driver will require more attempts to pass the test. This is where the revenue potential for the RTO is. A bad driver will speed in no speed zones, not stop at STOP signs and occasionally RED LIGHTS. There are more opportunities to fine them and also make them pay fees to attend highway safety lessons.

On the other hand, bad driving could also increase expenditure for the state. If a bad driver puts several productive people in a hospital, it means a reduction of income for the state. Also some of these bad drivers might not have any money to pay the fines, in which case the state would have to sponsor a stay for them at the tax payer's expense.

I am sure you posted this only half-seriously, but traffic fines are never a source of revenue. They are to discourage bad or unsafe driving. Also a bad driver is as likely to get in an accident as to cause one to another, innocent driver.

Pass a test?? Oh, you are in the states

.

[abhijit]

I am sure you posted this only half-seriously, but traffic fines are never a source of revenue. They are to discourage bad or unsafe driving. Also a bad driver is as likely to get in an accident as to cause one to another, innocent driver.

Pass a test?? Oh, you are in the states

.

As a matter of fact, I did have to take a test at the Thane R.T.O in 1992. That was years ago. I had to take the oral tests thrice, before the traffic cop decided I could have my learner's license.

Friends told me later, I could have gone with an "agent".

[homer13j]

I am sure you posted this only half-seriously, but traffic fines are never a source of revenue. They are to discourage bad or unsafe driving.

Too funny. Honeybee has obviously never driven a vehicle in America, particularly Ohio...

http://www.copspy.com/index.php?id=5637

There are many (way too many) municipalities here that depend almost completely on traffic ticket revenue. We refer to the Ohio Highway Patrol as the official state "revenue generation squad."

From Wikipedia:

"New Rome police had systematically taken advantage of the village's sudden drop (from 45 mph to 35 mph) in posted speed along the busy thoroughfare of West Broad Street to pull over thousands of motorists, raising nearly $400,000 gross annually from speeding tickets but primarily vehicle citations including trivial offenses such as dusty taillights and improperly tinted windows. Nearly all of this money was funneled back into the police force, which almost exclusively dealt with traffic violations and so essentially existed to fund itself. The 60-resident village had as many as 14 policemen (all part-time), with the Village Council wanting more.[3]

Many local business owners complained that customers were being driven away by the village's reputation, and there were many reports of arbitrary and even abusive conduct at the hands of the New Rome police, who even ventured into surrounding jurisdictions to arrest people over unpaid traffic tickets."

Never a source of revenue, eh?

[abhijit]

In one county in California, the cop who collected the highest amount of fines in a year used to get an all expense paid vacation. A really bad county to drive through.

honeybee is probably alluding to the situation in Mumbai, where most traffic cops will gladly pocket your "fine" and look the other way.

Some of that revenue generated goes towards supporting widows of cops killed in action.
Some of that also goes towards supporting unwed mothers working in seedy establishments.

In either case, it proves that bad drivers will generate revenue.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

but traffic fines are never a source of revenue

Erm i think that you are mistaken there, In the UK in some places traffic & parking fines are one of the councils biggest source of income.

In fact one UK council (cant remember which one, down south somewhere, maybe someone else knows the name) had a document leaked which proposed to increase the parking restriction hours, which they said the revenue could virtually by itself plug the large millions of pound deficit they have.

Also speeding fines in the UK bring in millions & millions of pounds each year

[honeybee]

Well, fines do generate revenues. That's never in doubt. What I am trying to convey here is they shouldn't be looked at as a source of revenue.

Compare the fines with taxes. Taxes are a source of revenue, fines are not. Fines are to discourage people from doing certain acts. The effectiveness of the fines should not be measured by how much revenue it generated, but by how many incidents were prevented. The decision to raise fines would be taken only if there's no significant drop in the incidents leading to the fine. For e.g. if parking offenses aren't going down, you may want to increase the fine for illegal parking. Once the parking offenses start going down, the fines are working as intended.

If you are looking at fines as a source of revenue, it becomes more of a tax, because the enforcement agencies will only be interested in collecting the money, not in preventing the incidents.

At a busy intersection (without traffic lights), should the cop be in the middle of the intersection, regulating traffic, or should he be standing obscurely at a concealed location, looking for soft targets, people not wearing helmets or seat belts? As a policy maker my choice is the former.

Compare this with damages awarded by courts. These are fines, and their amount is usually determined (or should be determined) so as to prevent a repeat occurence of the incident. If this intention is not enforced, people will treat it as a tax and the purpose behind the fines will be defeated.

.

[honeybee]

In one county in California, the cop who collected the highest amount of fines in a year used to get an all expense paid vacation. A really bad county to drive through.

honeybee is probably alluding to the situation in Mumbai, where most traffic cops will gladly pocket your "fine" and look the other way.

Some of that revenue generated goes towards supporting widows of cops killed in action.
Some of that also goes towards supporting unwed mothers working in seedy establishments.

In either case, it proves that bad drivers will generate revenue.

These cops, or municipalities, are setting a dangerous precedent. If you treat fines as a source of revenue, you will soon start encouraging offences so you can generate more revenues. The end use to which the money is put will usually be some grand theme so nobody resists the increase in fines. But as I said in the earlier post, law enforcement by fines is only effective if your revenues from fines keep going down.

@Abhijeet, from the driver's perspective, it really doesn't matter if the money goes into the cops' pockets, as the driver has learnt his/her lesson. (sorry, I don't want to sound as if I don't care if they take bribes. I am taking the driver's perspective here). If I am caught talking on a cellphone while driving and the fine as per the law is Rs. 1000, the cop won't settle for anything less than Rs. 400. So the effective fine for me is Rs. 400. Which is still high. And if you raise the fine from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 10000, the bribe money will go up proportionately. So it still acts as a deterrant to me. Heck, paying even Rs. 50 would be costly, you can get almost a litre of petrol with that money and drive another 15 kilometres, or get a decent lunch with that money.

.