Are cars 'safe as houses', or a false sense of security?

[john.wigley]

Volvo made front seat belts standard fit in 1959, six years before their fitment became mandatory on new cars in the UK in 1965 and the first automobile manufacturer to do so. This is widely acknowledged as the single most effective measure in reducing casualties in car accidents ever introduced.

Supplementary Restraint Systems (Airbags) came later, in part because some drivers were still becoming injured in collisions due to not using the seat belts already provided.

When ABS became generally available in the late '80s / early '90s, we were encouraged to 'practice' using it, as otherwise the first time that it 'kicked in' could be quite frightening and cause one to take one's foot off the brake pedal. We were also advised that if the ABS operated in normal driving, the vehicle was technically 'out of control'.

I appreciate that many of those who contribute to this forum were born after this time thus may be unable to recall a time when cars were not equipped with the safety systems common today. On the other hand, there are those among us who, like me, can remember driving cars equipped with few if any of the systems that we take for granted today.

I'm not saying that I want to see a modern equivalent of the much despised Red Flag introduced, but I do wonder if cars can be made too safe. If a driver has come to rely on his ABS, Traction Control, Stability Control and a myriad of other safety systems to remain safe day to day on the road, can he really be said to be in control of his car and does he have any margin of safety should the unexpected happen?

My own view is that some negate the value of such systems by driving in the belief that they will always get them out of trouble, whereas by driving as if the car was not so equipped they would be much safer.

So, do such systems make a car safer, or do they just imbue a false sense of security, which in reality may make them more dangerous?

Regards, John.

[60041]

After compulsory seat belts were introduced, I remember reading that many drivers drove faster and took more risks than previously, presumably in the belief that they were safer. Again, when ABS became universal, motoring organisations and the police reported a marked increase in tailgating.
I firmly believe that each new innovation introduced increases drivers’ sense of security and many, possibly unconsciously, adjust their driving to suit thus negating many of the advantages of the new technology.
As you say, the majority of drivers on the road today will never have experienced the dubious handling of a 50’s car on cross ply tyres, or realise how ineffective badly adjusted or leaky drum brakes were: I am constantly in awe at how marvellous modern cars are compared to the older ones I used to drive, or occasionally,stil do.
There was a well respected motoring journalist called Dave Minton and I remember him saying, 30 years ago, that the best way to improve driver behaviour, and reduce accidents, would to ban the use of seat belts and have an upturned dagger in the middle of the steering wheel; I think he had a point.

[Angie]

The short answer is 'yes'.

I've long thought that all the safety systems give drivers a false sense of invincibility, with inevitable consequences. My father was driving before the 1914-18 war and, being an engineer, very much understood the mechanics of whatever he drove, and always treated machinery with respect. He was a superb driver, and taught us, his three offspring about the three things, beginning with 'I', which led to most traffic incidents (even back then he rarely used the word 'accident') - impatience, intolerance and inexperience. Also to drive within the limits of our visibility, and to practise driving as if we had no brakes. I'm sure I don't drive with his skill or commitment but I do try to remember those lessons. Too many drivers of modern cars feel that even such basics as the 'three-second rule' don't apply to them in the misguided belief that the safety features will get them out of trouble.

A motoring journalist many years ago, you might remember this, John, suggested that the safest car was the one with a spike pointing at the driver!

[Clan]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Volvo made front seat belts standard fit in 1959, six years before their fitment became mandatory on new cars in the UK in 1965 and the first automobile manufacturer to do so. This is widely acknowledged as the single most effective measure in reducing casualties in car accidents ever introduced.

Supplementary Restraint Systems (Airbags) came later, in part because some drivers were still becoming injured in collisions due to not using the seat belts already provided.

When ABS became generally available in the late '80s / early '90s, we were encouraged to 'practice' using it, as otherwise the first time that it 'kicked in' could be quite frightening and cause one to take one's foot off the brake pedal. We were also advised that if the ABS operated in normal driving, the vehicle was technically 'out of control'.

I appreciate that many of those who contribute to this forum were born after this time thus may be unable to recall a time when cars were not equipped with the safety systems common today. On the other hand, there are those among us who, like me, can remember driving cars equipped with few if any of the systems that we take for granted today.

I'm not saying that I want to see a modern equivalent of the much despised Red Flag introduced, but I do wonder if cars can be made too safe. If a driver has come to rely on his ABS, Traction Control, Stability Control and a myriad of other safety systems to remain safe day to day on the road, can he really be said to be in control of his car and does he have any margin of safety should the unexpected happen?

My own view is that some negate the value of such systems by driving in the belief that they will always get them out of trouble, whereas by driving as if the car was not so equipped they would be much safer.

So, do such systems make a car safer, or do they just imbue a false sense of security, which in reality may make them more dangerous?

Regards, John.

actually volvo invented the seat belt .. and has always been about 5 years ahead of the law and anyone else in the safety side of things .

No I do not agree that people are driving differently with all their safety devices protecting them , lots have always been idiots and always there will be idiots .. the vast majority of people have no clue what safety their car has except that they can drive them securely with their big tyres and powerful brakes and secure cornering .. They blast along at 80 in the heavy rain just as they do in the dry .. they have never had their ABS come into action or their city safety so don't know what it is all about . It's just how people see cars these days , more like a railway carriage . sit there whilst it takes them from A to B .All cars are unsafe it is just that some cars are less unsafe than others .
Today is a good example , Heavy rain pouring down for the first time in months , 4 major accidents at the same time around the M4 and M5 in the Bristol area which is gridlocked .. That's those blasting along at 80 in the rain no doubt … at least their hidden and forgotten safety devices worked .

[TonyB65]

I feel safer driving my Volvo than any other car I've owned, I feel safer than a motorcyclist or cyclist, I never feel safe close to HGV's on the motorway, statistically I'm more likely to die in car than on a train or plane, I never assume I'm safe - period, that about sums it up for me.

[Spike56]

So what has changed? Do younger people have a different mindset now (because of the technological advances, or their belief that they are going to live forever)? Are they trained and tested differently? I remember always being aware of how vulnerable I was, and then again with my new family, whenever we went out. I used to have a boot full of tools and oils, fluids and cloths. Now I don't even think, just jump in and go. Nothing but a jack and spare, that's it. My most recent cars have been no more reliable than those of old. A couple of years ago, I drove from Kent all the way to Dingle without a second thought, in a 10 year old car I'd had for a few months.

Maybe it is a lack of risk awareness? Are cars seen as more easily replaceable than they once were?

Just what will happen when cars do finally become 'driverless'?

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by Angie

The short answer is 'yes'.

..........

A motoring journalist many years ago, you might remember this, John, suggested that the safest car was the one with a spike pointing at the driver!

Thank you, Angie. Yes, I remember; clearly '60041' does, too! J.

[ITSv40]

Yes, modern cars do 'feel' safer and no doubt with all the airbags and safety features they will inflict less damage to the occupants than older cars. However, the most critical safety feature on any moving vehicle is still the nut behind the steering wheel.

Reminiscing about old cars: I have only ever spun a car once. It was a 1960's Morris Minor, I was out on snow covered roads doing about 20mph on compacted snow in a built up area. Approaching a Tjunction, I applied the brakes in good time and the car promptly spun one full revolution ending up pointing in the direction I wanted to travel. I just calmly continued to the T junction and carried on my way. It certainly taught me to be very, very gentle with the brakes on winter roads.

[Dippydog]

I have for a long time thought this to be at least partially the case.Of course give it a few more years and it'll all be academic as autonomous vehicles will rule.Manufacturers are already preparing people for the transition what with cars that park themselves,collision assist braking lane keeping assistance etc.

[XC90Mk1]

I didn’t until I bought my xc90 and I do feel as safe as houses. Not only does it feel tough but it’s so planted.

I don’t however drive faster as I have a 4 year old and because I do worry that if I hit a 106 or micra that I would absolutly turn it inside out.