Safety - Real or Psychological?

[john.wigley]

A recent comment in another thread made by a member in response to one of mine made me think!

I used to drive a lot of miles on business - 20 to 30,000 per year - and the observation was that it is better to be in a well-built Volvo (or Saab) than a smaller, more fuel efficient, car if it all went 'pear-shaped'.

I agree, which is one of the reasons that we drive the cars that we do. My wife feels the same way - perhaps even more strongly than I do. Before we married she had a Maxi to my Mini, having always owned larger cars because - as she put it - 'I feel safer in them'. That was in '82 and soon afterwards I bought our first Volvo - a '72 145E - to help with house renovation and the rest, as they say, is history!

So. Are (older) larger cars safer than (newer) smaller ones as a principle, or, in an age of air-bags, SIPS, ABS, EBFD, etc., is the argument no longer valid? In other words - are we kidding ourseves? Would we be as safe - or safer - in an accident in a modern 'euro-box' than our trusted 745?

What do others think?

Regards, John.

[Ninja59]

Perceived hence why people think SUV's are safer as they are "higher up", they don't see the issues of that extra height going round bends and weight disadvantage etc.

More crumple zones, design of airbags, amount of airbags it goes on and on so the eurobox would dissipate the energy more effectively

However one cannot forget that people are potentially more reckless because they feel safer therefore taking more risks negating any actual benefit as they have increased their speed (or increased risks for that matter for example pulling out of junctions etc.).

[stephend]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

So. Are (older) larger cars safer than (newer) smaller ones as a principle, or, in an age of air-bags, SIPS, ABS, EBFD, etc., is the argument no longer valid? In other words - are we kidding ourseves? Would we be as safe - or safer - in an accident in a modern 'euro-box' than our trusted 745?

Fifth Gear ran a test where they crashed a Volvo 940 into a Renault people carrier, in a corner-to-corner collision. The outcome was that there was less intrusion into the passenger compartment in the Renault: being a much newer design, it had load-spreading capability that the Volvo lacked. Ok, I'm not sure how scientific this was, but it does seem that newer and smaller may be safer.

I feel safer in my V40 than my 740: although the 740 is larger, the V40 is much more modern, has a full safety curtain system where the 740 has no airbags, and the V40 had a class-leading Euro NCAP score when new. I don't feel unsafe in the 740, though: it's still a big Volvo. What I think one can say for definite is that, for a given age of car, a big Volvo is the safest thing to have: in other words, I'd rather be in an H-reg Volvo than an H-reg Fiesta, say.

[Bill_56]

My take is, in a car to car collision, the larger heavier vehicle will always be the safer place, almost regardless of crash testing, and regardless of its own crumple zones. The reason is that the smaller, lighter, car will provide you with a very generous crumple zone (by crumpling).

But if you plan on hitting another identical car, or solid block of concrete (which is pretty much equivalent to hitting an identical car) you'll be better of in a car that does well on crash testing, regardless of size and weight.

If you plan on hitting a bigger heavier car it'll probably hurt quite a lot, regardless of how your car fares on crash testing.

All things considered, safest place to be is a car that does well on crash tests, and is also big and heavy.

[RollingThunder]

I reckon things have gone way too far safety-wise, people have less reason to be fearful of being in an accident because the seatbelts, airbags, crush zones will all prevent serious injury (usually). Drivers seem very blase about driving - you only need to look around to see people texting while doing 60 in the middle(ish) lane of the motorway for example. Driving isn't being taken seriously these days.

I'm with Jeremy Clarkson - every car should have a nice shiny sharpened spike in the middle of the steering wheel - people would drive much more carefully then

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by RollingThunder

I reckon things have gone way too far safety-wise, people have less reason to be fearful of being in an accident because the seatbelts, airbags, crush zones will all prevent serious injury (usually). Drivers seem very blase about driving - you only need to look around to see people texting while doing 60 in the middle(ish) lane of the motorway for example. Driving isn't being taken seriously these days.

You are dead right there that driving isn't taken seriously these days. Years ago it was considered a privilege, nowadays people see it as (one of their many) rights

I think if we were still driving around in stuff like Morris Marinas, Escorts, Cortinas etc that are not classed as safe cars, drivers attitude would be exactly the same. Whilst there is probably some thought process by the driver in so far as they feel much safer due to todays technology, I think it is more down to todays what we call 'stressful' lifestyle. I mean why have things become more stressful, when the technology was/is intended to make our lifes easier?

Regards

[Dirty Rooster]

I drive a massive old 940 and yet I'm happy to admit in terms of passenger calculated safety due to sensible metal deformation ;

Originally Posted by john.wigley

... in an age of air-bags, SIPS, ABS, EBFD, etc., is the argument no longer valid? In other words - are we kidding ourseves? Would we be as safe - or safer - in an accident in a modern 'euro-box' than our trusted 745?.

However, everything is modified by the basic billiard ball mechanics : massy ball smacks lighter ball harder, and the more space between you and the "Darren" the better.

[Pete940]

Originally Posted by stephend

Fifth Gear ran a test where they crashed a Volvo 940 into a Renault people carrier, in a corner-to-corner collision. The outcome was that there was less intrusion into the passenger compartment in the Renault: being a much newer design, it had load-spreading capability that the Volvo lacked. Ok, I'm not sure how scientific this was, but it does seem that newer and smaller may be safer.

About that Fifth Gear test, does anyone believe the conspiracy theory regarding that test?
Some seem to think that the engine and/or gearbox weren't actually in the Volvo at the time of the crash.
It's difficult to see from the footage, so I don't know what to think.

[Bill_56]

Originally Posted by Pete940

About that Fifth Gear test, does anyone believe the conspiracy theory regarding that test?
Some seem to think that the engine and/or gearbox weren't actually in the Volvo at the time of the crash.
It's difficult to see from the footage, so I don't know what to think.

I'm not really into conspiracy theories.

But conspiracy theories apart, I would totally disregard any 'evidence' produced by a TV programme who's principal purpose is amusement and entertainment, and who's only goal is audience statistics.

Same comments would of course apply to any comparable media, BBC, ITV, whatever.

[stephend]

Originally Posted by Pete940

About that Fifth Gear test, does anyone believe the conspiracy theory regarding that test?
Some seem to think that the engine and/or gearbox weren't actually in the Volvo at the time of the crash.
It's difficult to see from the footage, so I don't know what to think.

What would be the point, though? If it was played for laughs, then yes, or if they had some kind of Volvo-bashing agenda - but if it was some kind of put-up job, it would seem to be a rather pointless one...