Conference terri::cars_uk

    .0�    Anybody else feel the same way.
    
    Yes,
    	It has rather put the Astra to the top of the list of cars to get for
    if/when I do take up the company car option.
    

I often wonder how Landrovers would fare in these tests. In the car-to-car
impact test, would the Landrover driver actually know he had hit another
vehicle :-)

Yes it does make you think, in fact its almost enough to make you give up
driving.

Simon "Two Walls" French

    
    
    Isn't the European community wonderful... it will endlessly debate
    political union and the flavour of crisps, but when it comes to
    passing legislation that could save the lives of thousands of
    its citizens, what does it do? Nothing! Many of the member states 
    of the EC are huge producers of cars. I wonder if by chance these 
    two facts could be related?
        
    Why did the Astra get such a good press? Ok, so they've made a step
    in the right direction by strengthening the sides of the car. But
    have they done anything about improving its performance in the offset 
    crash test? Err no.  
    
    Merceders, Saab and more latterly BMW have been incorporating safety
    features like this for a considerable time and all build their cars
    to pass the offset crash test (even though its not a legal requirement).
    Audi's Procon-10 system that pulls the steering wheel down and away
    from the driver in the event of an accident, didn't even get a mention
    although they talked a lot about steering wheels.  
    
    Perhaps it was an extended Astra advert after all?
    

    Re .2
    
    Don't know about Landrovers, but I can tell you that in a
    lateral collision between a RangeRover and a telegraph pole
    the damage to the RangeRover is superficial...
    
    Jonathan "it was gravel" Quick.

    The programme got me worried, sitting merrily in my spitty I can't
    really see the slightest hint of protection ......
    
    Bazza
    

	It was a vauxhall carlton that ran up the back of our fibreglass kit 
	car, we drove away, with repair needed to a piece of the body shell
	(insurance cost �1000 parts and labour). They had to be towed, with
	fixing costs of over �5000 - it was a real mess!


	Heather

    It could be worse, you could be driving a Mini!!
    
    In the unfortunate event of a crash the engine jumps merrily onto the
    passenger seat and the driver gets his legs chopped of by and steering
    column and the clutch.....
    
    The lack of safety is, however, negated by the fact that they're
    brilliant cars.
    
    Matt.

    Re the programme
    
    Yes, I saw it.  It made me think that the only reason that Vauxhall
    have fitted these [worthwhile] safety aspects to the Astra is so
    that they can advertise the fact, rather than for any real gain in
    the safety of the occupants.
    
    One bit that had me a bit worried - I think that airbags are a
    good device for saving your face, but to me the clip they showed of
    an airbag going off was triggered by serious braking rather than
    any actual impact.  I sincerely hope that it doesn't go off that
    easily, otherwise drivers of performance cars could find these things
    blowing up in their face when they find out how much grip they have !
    
    One of their comments was that the industry could at least incorporate
    some of the tried and tested safety devices in their cars, but that
    their will always be room for improvement.  If they are really that
    concerned about the strength of cars in an impact, why not campaign
    for bodyshells to be made in a similar manner to competition cars
    with seam welding and decent multipoint cages ?  That would be far
    better than a 'safety cage' design with 'added doorbars'...
    
    Re Land Rover in an impact
    
    You may have found that an L.R. comes off well in an impact with
    a wall or two, but if I were you I wouldn't feel too safe about
    having a real impact in one.  It is a false sense of security
    in this sort of vehicle (same is in my Heep).
    
    The design of using a strong chassis does not help the driver at
    all when that vehicle has an impact with something more solid
    (or something travelling towards it at speed).  This is the
    opposite to the crumple zones which are incorporated into most
    cars to help reduce the impact felt by the passenger.
    
    If you do hit something solid, then the occupants (ie You) will
    probably feel a lot more of the crunch yourself, even if the
    vehicle does survive reasonably well.  At least if you have a
    low-speed impact, which your body may cope with well enough,
    you aren't likely to have to worry about vehicle repairs as
    they may well be almost non-existent.
    
    J.R.

    
    In my opinion, the biggest improvement in safety (and comfort) would be
    'proper' seat belts - four point harnesses, done up tightly, holding
    you into the seat. I find them to be more comfortable, both on and 
    off road, and when you are thrown about - there is very little forward 
    or side movement before you are 'held' by the belt. 
    
    Yes, it may be difficult to reach the radio/change the cassette/reach
    round into the back of the car, but then, if we're talking about
    safety, you shouldn't be doing this anyway! :-) 

    
    Ah, but for everyone who reckons that firm securing seatbelts are the
    answer, there is someone with a story of how NOT wearing a seatbelt
    saved them.
    
    Can someone answer me (factually) some questions?
    
    1) What percentage of people are killed or seriously injured (require
       more than a brief spell in hospital) in car accidents?
    
    2) Which type of car accident has the highest fatality rate?
    
    3) Why, if cars are so dangerous, is the fatality rate at its lowest
       ever (?) while traffic density is at it's highest?
    
    Mark

    
    	Not sure about the stats in questions 1), 2)
    
    	But in answer to 3)
    
    	Cars are a lot safer than they used to be, but they could still
    	be a lot safer, we have the technology but car manufacturers/
    	designers choose to ignore it.
    
    	I wonder if  Ford/Vauxhall/Nissan/Rover etc decided to fit
    	pre-tensioning seat belts, extra strenghtening in the doors,
        extra struts for an offset frontal impact, and an Air
    	bag for passenger and driver, how much this would add to
    	the overall cost of the car ?

    
    I'm far from suprised that the first question answered is the last one,
    since it's the only one which needs an opinion rather than a statement
    of fact! :^)
    
    �	I wonder if  Ford/Vauxhall/Nissan/Rover etc decided to fit
    �	pre-tensioning seat belts, extra strenghtening in the doors,
    �   extra struts for an offset frontal impact, and an Air
    �	bag for passenger and driver, how much this would add to
    �	the overall cost of the car ?
    
    I think your answer would be as expensive as a Mercedes S-Class! Since
    that's the only car I can think of with most (if not all) of the things
    you mention. I didn't see Watchdog (I draw the line at some things!),
    but can you explain how these extra struts help in an offset frontal
    impact (I presume you mean at an angle to the front.)? I can't see it,
    but presumably it was described in the programme.
    
    Mark

    
    
�    2) Which type of car accident has the highest fatality rate?
 
    More Pedestrians are killed than drivers. But they are all included
    in the stats. (2.5k UK)
       
�    3) Why, if cars are so dangerous, is the fatality rate at its lowest
�       ever (?) while traffic density is at it's highest?

    Is this question based on European or UK figures Mark? 
    
    Traffic density in urban areas (where most fatalities occur) probably
    helps to reduce car speeds (to stopped) and so lessen the likelihood
    of death.
     
    Richard.
    

                                
    
    I think all these safety features are dangerous - they cause people to
    feel isolated from external road conditions, and invulnerable in the
    case of an accident.  (only half a :-) - this was shown to be the case
    when ABS was first introduced)
    
    The biggest increase in road safety could be achieved through education 
    of the drivers, and a little more patience and tolerance on the roads! 

>>    you mention. I didn't see Watchdog (I draw the line at some things!),
    
    I only saw the programme 'by accident', the TV was tuned to
    BBC1 when I turned it on !
    
>>    but can you explain how these extra struts help in an offset frontal
    
    I thought they were only intended to help in a side impact.
    
    I suppose they will help to maintain the strength of structure
    somewhat, but not enough to help (since they aren't fitted as
    diagonal braces in a plan view).
    
    
    As for the cost, I wouldn't have thought it would amount to much.
    
    On most current vehicles that provide some (one ?) of these
    features as options, it seems to be quite an expensive choice.
    That is to be expected as 'an option', but if included in all
    vehicles on the production line, it wouldn't greatly affect
    the overall cost of the car.
    
    The only reason manufacturers don't bother is that there is some
    difference in cost - and they can advertise these wonderful new
    safety features on later versions of the car as a great deal !
    
    J.R.

    
    re .12 (cost of safety)
    
�    I think your answer would be as expensive as a Mercedes S-Class! Since
�    that's the only car I can think of with most (if not all) of the things
�    you mention. I didn't see Watchdog (I draw the line at some things!),

    ALL US cars already have to comply - they are all cheaper to buy
    in the US than in the UK. eg CORRADO G60, $17k US, �17k++ UK!!!

    The point was made in the program that safety when "designed in"
    was extremely cheap!  Makes sense too. The technology behind an
    air bag is potentially expensive, but building a few extra metal
    boxes into the frame should be peanuts.
    
    Richard.
    

I mainly read this conference but the issue of cost and safety is something that
I did pick up on in Watchdog. The point they made was that in the States cars
are cheaper than here AND they have the extra saftey features because they are
required to by law.

In Britain we seem to pay more than anyone else for our cars and get less for
our money.

We should also ask the motor companies, and ourselves perhaps, how they can feel
justified in selling one, safer, version of a model in the States and a less
safe more expensive version here.

Matt

    
    Re:- .14
    
    98% of "accidents" are caused by people, so, yes the driver has a huge
    contribution to make in road safety. Safety is an attitude of mind, not
    strong bits in the doors of cars. Strong cars make crashes more
    survivable - if you are in a car - if you are a pedestrian much depends
    on the speed of the thing that hits you. Most pedestrians who are hit
    by road vehicles did not look before stepping out - I saw one the other
    day. He was OK because the car driver was travelling slowly not because
    of any safety feature on the car. Safety features have a part to play
    but we should not lose sight of the responsability we all have in
    making roads as safe as we are able.
    
    Ian.
    
     

    
    Much as driving safely is important, it doesn't protect *you* from
    the other menaces on the road. Accidents *are* accidents! According
    to the program 50% of all drivers will be involved in a serious
    road accident sometime during their life. You need protection!
    
    Richard.

    

    .3�    Merceders, Saab and more latterly BMW have been incorporating safety
    .3�    features like this for a considerable time and all build their cars
    
    There is a major difference between Mercedes-BMW and Saab. The 2
    winners of the test (BMW5xx and Merc2xx) were designed to survive the
    frontal and offset crash. The Saab wasn't. The Saab is one of the 4
    variants of the same basic design (floorpan, sides, doors) together
    with the Fiat Croma, The Lancia Thema and the Alfa 164.
    
    Looking at how poorly the Fiat Croma faired in the real test the Saab 
    guys probably thought they'd better do something in order to keep up 
    with their "safety" image.

    .20:
    
    >There is a major difference between Mercedes-BMW and Saab. The 2
    >winners of the test (BMW5xx and Merc2xx) were designed to survive the
    >frontal and offset crash. The Saab wasn't. The Saab is one of the 4
    >variants of the same basic design (floorpan, sides, doors) together
    >with the Fiat Croma, The Lancia Thema and the Alfa 164.
    
    >Looking at how poorly the Fiat Croma faired in the real test the Saab 
    >guys probably thought they'd better do something in order to keep up 
    >with their "safety" image.
    
    
    The basic shell may be similar, but suspension, strengthening and
    design under the skin is entirely different. Illustrated by the
    difference in weight:
    
    SAAB 9000i 2.0 25.6cwt
    
    Fiat Croma 2.0 21.8cwt

    
    If the shell's the same, it seems unlikely that there is anything
    substantially different. Isn't it true that the outerskin is
    different, but under the skin they are actually essentially the same?
    
    Mark

    I wouldn't expect crash results to be much different for these vehicles
    which are based on the same design.  Maybe there will be some benefit
    if any of them have a fair difference in the front panel/bumper area,
    but I should think the rest of the structure is virtually the same.
    
    I bet the main difference in weight for the vehicles quoted would
    be due to the interior fittings and trim.  I am sure the total
    weight of these parts would be a surprise.
    
    J.R.

    The difference in weight is 3.8 cwt. This can't be explained by
    differences in trim! Try pushing the body panels on a SAAB; the metal
    is much thicker then other cars. 
    
    The bumpers are really solid; they may be plastic on the outside, but 
    they are metal inside. I have just fitted a tow bar to my 9000. Most of 
    the bolts go into the rear bumper!!!
    
    The doors contain tempered corrugated steel bars. Not sheet metal. Bang
    them with a spanner and they go "Donggggg".
    
    I saw a TV program a while back. They showed a 9000 rolling, maybe 6
    times. After 1 roll, the door mirrors were flapping around. After about
    4 rolls, the front window cracked. After 6 rolls, it looked ready to
    drive off in.
     
    Finally, I recently saw a SAAB advert in which they say that the 9000
    conforms to the stringent 1995 US safety regulations NOW.
    
    I'm convinced!
    

    
    Er, didn't another well known Swedish car maker also claim that you
    could drive a truck over their roof (If you've got a rollbar, yeah!)?
    And now they're using old safety reports to compare their new cars with
    the opposition! Both SAAB and Volvo put a lot of store in their safety
    reputation and only so much can be believed. 
    
    Having said that, there's no reason at all why SAAB shouldn't be
    putting heavier duty panels on the underlying shell and strengthening
    doors. Trouble is, heavy outer panels don't really do much to save the
    occupants (and even less for pedestrians!) in an accident.
    
    Mark

    
    From what was said on the program, they implied that the SAAB has
    steel bars in the doors and that the offset crash test is part of
    the testing program. The program put Mercedes and SAAB on a par
    as far as these features were concerned.
    
    But it wouldn't be the first time that the BBC had been wrong would it?

    

    
    
    	Re .12
    
    	The point I was trying to make was that if some of the
    major car manufacturers adopt the safety features I mentioned, then the 
    rest would HAVE to follow, and the cost of these safety "extras", as they
    are now, would come down, until eventually the cost would be almost 
    negligable. As one of the Vauxhall representatives stated in Watchdog,
    the cost of the extra strenghtening in the doors of the Astra was zip.
    
    If they are expensive then why is the XJS cheaper in the states than
    it is over here, but is fitted with an air bag. It's not even an option
    over here.
    
    It's bull we are getting a really harsh deal in the UK over safety.

    Re. 27
    
    The problem with UK vs US car pricing has little (or nothing) to do
    with safety. Cars ARE cheap in the US, while they are expensive (due
    to tax and, it seems, manufacturers' greed) in the UK (especially).
    To say that a car can be made cheaper for no cost, because it's sold
    at a cheaper price elsewhere is confusing the issue.
    
    Surely, the Astra IS a step in the right direction (as are other cars),
    the Astra gets all the attention, because it's the first 'mainstream'
    car to have been designed with safety in mind (How many Volvos or
    Saabs are sold, let alone Merc 'S' classes compared with the Escort/
    Astra class?). However, the response in here is 'big deal!' Saab and
    Volvo have been building tanks for years, but the Astra IS the first
    Mr Average car to make any attempt at being a 'safer' car. If people
    buy it, the competition will have to take note, if they don't (If YOU
    don't!) why should they bother? The cost may be zip in the production
    stage (obviously not entirely true), but there must be a cost in the
    design stages.
    
    Cars are NOT inherently DANGEROUS. They don't have sharp edges and, as 
    a rule, don't have handling vices which will send you into walls!
    Certainly making cars stronger is not a bad idea, but what about the
    environment? Stronger cars usually equate with heavier cars, and they
    will need more petrol/diesel to run on - Or should those ogres at GM
    and Ford be building no-extra-cost super economical engines as well as
    supersafe (for no extra cost) cars? The danger is nearly always due to 
    the driver and making cars more survivable on the inside won't do
    anything for those poor devils walking, cycling or motorcycling along
    will it?
    
    Watchdog has an apt name. It's a DOG of a programme, they come up with
    almost harmless things and parade them as the products of sadistic
    child murders! (I'm not talking about cars here) I'm frankly stunned
    that so much credence is being given to this programme, which I put on 
    a par with That's Life.
    
    EOR (End of Rant! :^))
    
    Mark

    The main thing that bugged me was the woman presenter over-dramatising
    every possible scenario. I know it's a deadly serious business, but she
    could have bben less over-bearing. Her husband on the other hand took a
    much more level headed approach.
    
    No test done on Ladas I noted!
    
    
    

    .0�    shown last night I was considering (Peugeot 405) I certainly have
    
    I agree that Peugeot have not (to my knowledge) invested a penny in
    designing energy absorption areas, etc ... I've studied lots of cars
    for a number of years and I've lifted the bonnet of 404, 504, 604, 204,
    304, 305, 505, 405, 605 only to discover that Peugeot really ignored
    these things. However the new generation of Peugeots (205, 405, 605) 
    is really good in roadholding terms which is another safety argument.
    
    On the other hand Peugeot never pretended to sell super safe cars like
    other (swedish) manufacturers have done for years.
                                                      

RE:      <<< Note 1619.28 by NEWOA::SAXBY "Is Bart Simpson the anti-Christ?" >>>

�    Watchdog has an apt name. It's a DOG of a programme, they come up with
�    almost harmless things and parade them as the products of sadistic
�    child murders! (I'm not talking about cars here) I'm frankly stunned
�    that so much credence is being given to this programme, which I put on 
�    a par with That's Life.
    
    Well said Mark. Sensationalist journalism at its worst. I watch neither
    programme, they insult my intelligence.
    
    Laurie.

    I agree about your comments on Lynne faulds-wood, she does go over
    the top on the smallest of issues, and I have never watched watchodg
    before, Honest Guv, except in this instance when safety happened to
    be slightly higher on my list of priorities when looking for a new
    motor, (mainly because the other half has a nipper on the way).
    
    I tended to ignore her, and just look at what happened to the fiesta
    when it it a concrete block, and the 4 bolts sticking out from the
    centre of the Toyota steering wheel when the flimsy bit of plastic
    covering was prized off. I'm not giving and credability to the program,
    but it definately highlighted to vast difference in car safety between
    us and the states.
    
    
    
    

    
    Sorry if anyone's replying to .33, I decided to delete it and start
    again.
    
    The issue of car safety is often raised and in the final analysis the 
    view is that cars will never be built to be safer unless the public
    want it. The British public (probably due to the large number of
    company cars) seem to want high spec luxuries rather than reliable,
    durable cars. It would seem, with the swing away from lightly
    constructed cars, that the British public want a stronger car now.
    
    However, it would be unwise to assume that merely making a car heavier
    will make it safer. Maybe the Astra REALLY is a big step in the right
    direction, safer, but not built like a tank, rather DESIGNED to be
    safe, rather than engineered. Old cars were heavy, but rarely safe,
    with poor steering, hopeless brakes and terrible blind spots. Safety
    has improved beyond all recognition in these areas, but programmes like
    Watchdog (typically) ignore such things. Once again it all comes down
    to survivability of accidents.
    
    The accident figures prove that cars ARE safer than they were, a lot 
    more convincingly (In my eyes) than crashing cars into concrete blocks
    proves they are dangerous. 
     
    I wonder whether if we all drove Chryslers and Pontiacs if the roads
    would be safer? I doubt it, personally. Maybe a US noter could tell
    us how often their airbag is used?
    
    Mark

    
    Re .28
    
�    The problem with UK vs US car pricing has little (or nothing) to do
�    with safety. 
     Agreed. But US cars *are* cheaper and safer.
    
�    To say that a car can be made cheaper for no cost, because it's sold
�    at a cheaper price elsewhere is confusing the issue.
 
    I don't think anyone said that it could be made cheaper. The guy
    from Vauxhall said that designing in safety added a neglible cost
    to the car.   

�    Surely, the Astra IS a step in the right direction (as are other cars),
�    However, the response in here is 'big deal!' 

    And so it should be. Are we supposed to jump with joy because one
    of the manufacturers has started to think about safety. It would
    be nice if the European car industry acted responsibly like Mercedes
    and BMW and introduced safety without coercion but realistically
    that is unlikely to happen. The EC and European governments have
    to take the blame fairly and squarely for their failure to impose
    additional safety tests on our behalf. They have had all the 
    statistics for years. They pay for research establishments, committees
    quangoes etc. with our money and then don't react to the findings
    and recommendations.
            
�    Stronger cars usually equate with heavier cars, and they
�    will need more petrol/diesel to run on - Or should those ogres at GM
�    and Ford be building no-extra-cost super economical engines as well as
�    supersafe (for no extra cost) cars? 
    
     Stronger cars are not necessarily heavier cars. It's not how much metal
     you have but where you put it that counts.....
        
     Re .33
        
�    The accident figures prove that cars ARE safer than they were, a lot 
�    more convincingly (In my eyes) than crashing cars into concrete blocks
�    proves they are dangerous. 
 
    The accident figures prove how many people are being *killed* and
    seriously injured. The concrete blocks just demonstrate how we
    might have died.

    Richard.        

    � �    To say that a car can be made cheaper for no cost, because it's sold
    � �    at a cheaper price elsewhere is confusing the issue.
 
    �     I don't think anyone said that it could be made cheaper. The guy
    �     from Vauxhall said that designing in safety added a neglible cost
    �     to the car.   

    	Finger trouble. I meant made SAFER for no cost.
    
    �   It would be nice if the European car industry acted responsibly like 
    � Mercedes and BMW and introduced safety without coercion but realistically
    � that is unlikely to happen.
    
    With one breath you complain about car pricing and with the next you
    praise two of the dearest for introducing safety features (with which
    to bombard us with 'Buy a Merc or you don't care about your kids'
    adverts! - They are USING safety as a sales aid, not 'coz their nice
    guys in Munich and Stuttgart - The quality market is hurting and they
    need something to sell). That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
    
    � Stronger cars are not necessarily heavier cars. It's not how much metal
    � you have but where you put it that counts.....
    
    True (as I said in .33), but try convincing even the fairly
    knowledgable people who note here of that!!!!
    
    This discussion is taking on all the symptons of a religious debate, so
    I'll bow out now. Safety seems to be a very emotive subject.
    
    Mark

    Cars are not dangerous!
    
    The people driving the cars are!
    
    - Jyri -

    Re: .37
    
      But from the viewpoint of someone who has someone else plough into
    them, the distinction's moot.

    
    The woman was let loose again last night.
    
    Killer head restraints. Valid topic but over dramaticised. Also why
    didn't she say which ones were well designed. It's all very well to say
    this is bad however it gives the impression that all she is interested
    in is scaremongering.
    
    And what about no instructions on batteries. The example of the bloke
    who was injured because the instructions were in English and he only
    spoke French was totally irrelevant.
    
    My previous comments about this woman are becoming more and more
    justified.
    
    Chris
    
    

	Yep, I find her hard to take, somehow she just grates on my nerves.
	They did make a valid point about adjusting your head restraints 
	properly, I hope that everyone checks theirs...

	Dave