These Kids......

I sort of disagree with some of that, trying to restrict them as an entire group(as a gov as a parent you know your kids and (should) adjust accordingly) will only make more issues for one alot of people drive to parties/clubs etc take friends and stay completely sober. At that age all you will get is now 4/5 people driving many who will then drink then drive. The main issue is attitude, the gov is obsessed with speed (revenue) cameras and convincing people that exceeding a posted limit is insanely dangerous yet totally ignoring real excessive speed (which can be under the posted limit) and other really dangerous issues, its also worth noting that despite more and more ppl having safer cars our road toll has pretty much stayed the same since 1997. Every time I drive it seems more and more people are locked on the speedo and side of the road paying no attention to the road, tailgating and doing other dangerous things, they seem to either think they are safe if they don’t "speed" or are worried about getting a ticket. Young drivers cop alot of blame but despite what they think most "older" drivers are terrible drivers both physically and more important mentally themselves. Apart from making trouble on the road thanks to our ****ty "licensing" this is who are kids are learning from its a little wonder that when our youth have a crappy base to build on then add the typical "im the worlds greatest driver" type attitude that we all had in general at that age that they crash out and hard.

I drive pretty spiritedly (properly I have never been into the whole traffic light grand prix/street racer scene) and I have punted around some pretty powerful stuff yet I have never even had a fender bender. Im a pretty good driver but nowhere near some of the people on here let alone "world class" it has all been attitude, I never cross that line and when I do screw up on the rare occasion I am in a position to fix it and more importunately learn from it.

Of course fixing attitude is hard but with proper training we could fix most people (young and old) and just come down harder on those that don’t. We need to be telling people not don’t speed but about stopping distance, impact severity, time to react etc etc not just don’t tailgate but why, how it is physically impossible even if you where ms to miss a car if you are to close, again braking distance reaction time, we need to teach them about grip and weight transfer, it scares me the amount of people that I talk to that think the only time that you have different grip levels are if its raining, things like tyre choice, cornering , suspension, road quality etc don’t even make sense to them

But I guess when the state governments can throw a bunch of cameras on the side of the road, make money and convince (and via cameras constantly reinforce) people that they are doing everything to curb the road toll it wont change

 

Hey mate, like Mike360 said take a fncken chill pill. She made a mistake, does that really mean she deserves to die.

Sometimes I am really disallusioned with us males. A girl makes a mistake and gets pregnant and we all jump on her like she is some sort of idiot and deserving to die.

Now honestly how many of you guys have made mistakes and had unprotected sex, and by luck got away with it (ie. no disease, etc.) and ofcourse you never got pregnant, just ran away patting yourself on ya back as you got one in again.

It does not matter that she was 15 and he was 33 (as long as he was not her school teacher ) all she did was make a mistake (maybe also they wanted a child?) and there is no way she deserved to die.

The only person in that car that deserved to have an accident (but not to die) was the driver, who did not take the on responsbility of what he was doing. This is what really pisses me off about teenages, and why it frightens me that teenages can drive. I've got 2 and they break things all the time because they do not think ... and soon they will be driving.

F40 ... I think an appology would make me feel that you actually can think about what you write and not working on your own Darwin Award thesis. God I do hope you do not have a daughter!

ABS does NOT teach people how to drive. Infact it turns people in to bad drivers. It helps people follow too close and builds unrealisitic belief in their cars braking system. I'd much rather my children were nervous about their cars braking ability (obviously, I'd make sure it was perfectly maintained) but part of learning to drive is learning to understand that cars do not just stop. That when you press that brake pedal a brake disc is clamped that slows the tyres rotation and YOU have to control that.

I learnt absolutely heaps when I hit another car when I was 16 or 17 in my parents car. Yes I was lucky ... but I was also speeding in a built up area and playing the risk game. A guy did a U turn in front of me ... that was the best reading the road and situation learning I ever had, and made me a better driver. Would I have hit or not if I had ABS? ... I do not know, but driving cars without ABS makes you think of brakes as something to control NOT just a switch.

As far as airbags go, safety belts, etc. yes I fully agree ... (although I personally do not like airbags due to the fact they were created for fools that refuse to wear safety belts).

I'm still in favour of the older style cars, because they are stronger for the money you pay, i.e. If I buy a cheap new car ... it will be a tin can that will explode if it hits anything. If I spend the same amount on an older car ... gee it could be an old Mercedes or something and just flatten the other car

Thoughts?
Pete

 

Sad.

 

I agree with 95% of what you have said here, but how do you teach that young person that correct attitude?

I can remember getting my license (at the extremely young age of 15 in New Zealand) and getting real cocky soon afterwards ...

The problem comes down to:

• Driving a car (ie. turning a steering wheel, pressing pedals, etc.) is very, very easy.
• Keeping a car on the road and staying alive is NOT, and not related much to the above.

Nobody can teach the second without on-road practice. You could do 1000 laps around say Eastern Creek race track (in Sydney) and learn to control a car really good ... but that still does not teach you how to access risk, etc. and drive according to the conditions. Only driving on the road does that ... and an accident or 2 actually helps those that can learn.

Some people are born cautious, but I would be interested in hearing your background and how you were taught to drive. Did you like me have your father/mother sit beside you for many, many miles when you first drove?

Agree ... but again how?.

Yes sad. It is all about risk taking ... teach drivers how to read the road and conditions and access risk correctly and the road toll will reduce. BTW: I know somebody whose Uni thesis was on this. Brain washing them that driving within the speed limit will not.

Pete

 

did a similar thing when i first started to drive checked the mirror car way back indicated and moved next thing i here screaching and the car ending up just behind me, while he shouldnt have been going at the speed in a residential area i shoulder most of the blame because i only did a quick look, only enough to see if any cars where there, i assumed he was travelling the speed limit rather then checking and then due to the assumtion didnt check just before i merged incredibly stupid on my part and while it taught me to never assume on the road unfortunitly i think the majority on the road will always see it as the other person fault.

 

Via proper explanation at 16/17 (as you know) if you just tell them not to do something they will ignor you (and anything else you say at the same time) eg if you just tell your kid to not drink before they go to a party they will prob do it anyway and may even get wasted just to spite you. If however you explain that they might do something they regret, even better if you can give interesting stories, get a hangover etc and that if they do drink and get hungover they will have to deal with the consequences the next day, i.e going to school/work/family event and you will have no sympathy for them, and may punish them. Sure they may still drink even get wasted but you have more chance of them listening to you and using their brain when they make their decision.

True though i have personally found that most people that do track days etc drive smarter as the relise just how easy it is to lose it in a controlled enviroment let along the road (although you will always have the track god who leaves thinking he is brock/ms etc). This is an issue with getting your license, it is far to easy i did 1 half hr lesson during which i learnt to pass the test, i passed but thinking back shouldnt of. We need a system like places like germany alot of hours in all conditions with properly trained and regulated teachers, expensive sure but i was poor when i got my license if you cant afford it realisticly you cant afford a car

Other than the 1/2 hr lesson i had about 2 hrs experience total , as i said i wasnt ready but i easily passed i wanted to drive and because it was so easy to get i did. Both of my parents are your average dont speed tailgating drivers didnt really learn anything from them. done some laps and did some work for a race training company but nothing special. my attitude personally changed when i started to take pride in my driving

what was the outcome of the thesis??

 

Agree, and I am thinking of taking my kids to a track and giving them the keys. My father did this to me when I was 18 ... probably saved my life.

Mike360,

Sad story about the M3. The credibility issue is such a pain.

Pete
ps: ABS has its place, most definitely but I believe that the more we engineer the car to do things for us, the worse our driving will become. It is only logical.

 

when you're having a chuckle at that great quote "perhaps the purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others" you generally don't think it's talking about you. i bet they didn't.

 

It really isn't difficult to find inexpensive yet safe cars for teenagers to buy. There are plenty out there; do some research.

Also, it amazes me how completely ignorant most people are when it comes to car safety.

I was first taught about car safety by my dad (who's a doctor) when I was 12. At the time we were shopping for a new car, either a BMW or a Mercedes (turned out to be a Merc).

He told me stories about when he was an intern and GP, and the various car accidents he went to.

When it comes to finding a car for your kids, make sure it has:

ABS brakes
at least 2, preferably 4 airbags
crumple zones and a safety cell - make sure you look up crash tests
pre-tensioning seatbelts
headrests which effectively reduce whiplash


When it comes to bang for you buck, late model Volvos seem to be the best value. You get safety which is equivalent to Mercedes/BMW/Audi/Jaguar of the same era, and in some cases better. Plus you have a reasonable amount of luxury and reduced maintenance costs compared with the other mentioned European companies.

A type of car that at first glance would seem like a good choice is the E36 BMW 3 series; especially ones from the early 90's (because they're cheaper) - stay away if you can. Sure, the safety is better than most other cheaper cars of the time, but by today's standards it's completely unacceptable. The C class Mercedes of the early to mid 90's also isn't too good, but still a bit better than the E36. Large amounts of cabin intrusion were found in both during crash tests. You'll also notice the early E36 3 series' don't have rear headrests (disasterous for the neck) and sometimes no airbags (not good for such a small car).

BTW Psk, your comment about airbags being designed for those who don't wear seatbelts is completely incorrect. Airbags are designed to work most efficiently when the occupant is also strapped in by a seatbelt.

Also I don't recommend hatchbacks. In a car vs car accident, it's good to have some sort of weight equivalence or advantage. You also need to have at least some 'give' when it comes to the crumpling of the car in an accident - something which the smallest cars just can't physically provide.

On the other hand, I'm not advocating SUVs. They've been proven to be less safe for their own occupants than a mid-size sedan. Side-impact protection is generally poor (abdomonal injuries common), and obviously rollover chances are much higher - they're inherently unstable vehicles. To make things worse, their rollover protection is usually subpar.

 

well, that would satisfy the safety requirement AND negate the probability of said teens going out and doing knuckleheaded stuff in the car.

my nimble little car - strong yet probably not entirely "safe" in a collision - has allowed me to avoid more prangs than i care to recall. it is unfortunate that many of the people in these "safe" cars are incapable of allowing awareness of the road and other road users to occupy more than 1/4 of their attention at any one time.

it also seems that of all the near-hits that must be avoided in any given day, the almost-perpetrator is totally unaware 90% of the time how much myself and/or others have had to compensate for their inadequacy in vehicle control/conduct.

i refuse to refer to tall station-wagens as Sports-Utility Vehicles. they're just an oversized griswold-mobile. (oh, mister thrawn, for a great larf checkout queen st on the south side of the parade around 3:30pm. all the mum's are picking up their kids from school, i swear 19 out of 20 vehicles in that street are tall station-wagens. it's a surreal sight. )

 

Happy to be wrong , but my comments come from the fact (view, belief, or something I read somewhere ) that the airbag was invented for the American market where seat belt wearing was not compulsory ... it may be now.

Ofcourse it may well work better if the they are belted/strapped in.

Pete

 

Well, it doesn't work very effectively at all if you're not strapped in. The bodyguard, who was in the front seat of the S-class Mercedes that crashed in Paris in 1997 into a concrete pillar at 120kmph, was the only survivor. He, like the other 3 people in the car, were not wearing seatbelts. The only reason he survived was because of the airbag. Even so, he needed extensive reconstructive surgery and months of recovery time. What happens is that the airbag protects you from the initial impact, but then the rebound impacts do significant damage.

Of course, this wasn't the case for the driver, because of the close proximity of the steering wheel. The airbag protected him at first; but it deflates very quickly, and he still suffered fatal head injuries. The backseat passengers died simply because they slammed into the seats in front of them with the force of falling out of a multistory building. Dodi's heart was destroyed instantly, and Diana died a few hours later as a result of massive internal injuries.

Comparing that with an airbag's use while strapped in, the airbag is to protect you from excess movement of the head and limbs which occur even when wearing a seatbelt. It's the same principle of the HANS device adding another layer of protection to a racing driver who is already strapped in with a harness.

 

FUBU?

 

That is not true, ie. that the body guard was not wearing a seat belt. I have watched an interview where he states he was the only person wearing a safety belt ... hence he survived. If Diana had been wearing a safety belt, she would be alive today.

Anyway we have no choice, manufacturers are installing airbags because it adds to the advertised specs of the cars. A great bolt on for the marketing department, .... I guess I do not believe in airbags like you and many others do. But I have no real numbers to back up my opinion ... so I'll shut-up , and accept that you like them ... I'm a stuck in the mud, possibly a fool, that doesn't

Pete
ps: If you are interested:

From http://www.airbagonoff.com/airbag_safety_articles.htm

And

I cannot accept that view. That is a view that goes against education!

He was also involved with Nadar ... and they did many great things, as the article suggested ... but

Worrying comment

I always find it concerning when people run off in one direction with so much excitement, without anybody checking them, making them take a double take. I used to design mechanical products and it is critical that you have that opposing view and understand it ...

And here is my proof that airbags were designed to replace seat belts

Just crazy ...

And some figures

And yet they made them standard equipment ... like I said a great tool for the marketing department to make their car LOOK better!
And the airbag industry marketing continued

And

And more proof of the airbag team's insanity

Also

So sad

I'll let you read the rest ...

 

Actually, European standards for air bag inflation pressure were quite different than US standards for such. Keep in mind that the stuff I am talking about is turn of the century technology, and quite possibly the standards in the US have changed since then.

While air bags work best when used in conjunction with seat belts, early US standards stipulated that air bags should meet design standards for protecting an un-seat belted driver, whilst Euro standards had a much softer inflation pressure designed because they were made to supplement, NOT REPLACE seatbelts, as in the US standard. This is complete and utterly mind-numbing stupidity, and a world apart from the more logical view that air bags should be used in conjunction with safety belts (like, in the rest of the world). I am aware that changes in the standards for the US were in the works, but I haven’t been following them in the past few years.

I have been in several bad wrecks and sustained some pretty harsh injuries, even whilst belted in. I have ovaled the steering wheel with my face and broke a few ribs in a seemingly mundane meeting with a light pole (the break-away type) at highway speed, and feel to this day that my injuries would have been greatly lessened if an air bag had been present to keep my face from honking the horn at 55 MPH in a rapid deceleration maneuver.

 

Just wear your tinfoil hat when going to that airbagonoff site.

 

Wrong. The official investigation conclusively found that he was not wearing a seatbelt afterall. Noone in the car was. In the Bodyguard's own book about the incident, he confirms this. The whole notion of "he was the only one wearing a seatbelt and that's why he survived" is a complete myth.

Diana: no seatbelt, impact into seat in front, no airbag
Dodi: no seatbelt, impact into seat in front, no airbag
Driver: airbag, but lack of wearing of a seatbelt resulted in fatal impact with steering wheel
Bodyguard: airbag, and larger amount of space than driver (no steering wheel) to prevent instant fatal injury. Nature of the crash resulted in secondary impacts as he was thrown around because of lack of wearing a seatbelt, causing severe injuries.

Obviously....

So would Dodi and the driver. Plus the bodyguard wouldn't have suffered such serious injuries.

 

well until we see something like full-envelopment airbags/foam (think Demolition Man) i won't have much faith in passive safety measures.

 

I'm going to buy my tinfoil hat ...

Seriously though. It concerns me greatly that because a group of people (Nadar and co. ... and we can prove that Nadar and co. got thing a little wrong and are a little weird and tunnel visioned) who came up with the concept, are then given free rain to push it for no other reason than it was their idea.

This is how the American auto industry has always operated and sold utter rubbish to the public for many years ... think of the attitude of telling the car buyers what they want, not listening to what they want ... hence the barges from the 60's, etc.

What has been proven is that their airbag is everything attitude is WRONG, and thus the high powered airbag is dangerous and potentially more harmful than good. The european (more open to other peoples views and not so rail roading) airbag concept is far better as a safety device.

Now we have the Hans device for racing drivers, that has been rail roaded into most motor sports, when we have no real proof that it works as perfectly intended. We have many opposition products but for some reason this Hans device is rail roading in. The device was only invented a little while ago ... and yet we are forcing our F1 drivers to wear them. Surely we should give it due time and ensure it is right first. F1 drivers have been pretty safe for a while now, and yes we should keep looking ... but forcing an unproven device on to them is just like the bullsh!t marketing brigade that sold the airbag to all the naive public. This is the same bullsh!t marketing brigade that believe enforcing speed limits is the way to safety ... and yet we KNOW that is wrong.

I accept that the newer airbags will probably get the compromise right, but I really would like the road safety departments to stop knee jerking everytimes some potential safety device is invented (marketed and the potential for millions of dollars put of the table). Road safety should not be a profit making area and treated like the latest stocks. The airbag forcing has created a great little industry that DOES add a marketing bullet point to the car makers list of options, it has created a product that once deployed has to be replaced and yet it has NOT been the safety device that it was marketed as ... infact it only works in certain circumstances, hence the close to rediculous attempt to add hundreds more airbags (always a sign of a flawed concept ... ie. just add more).

Yep I think ashsimmonds idea of filling the car with some sort of foam has more merit.

I also think that foam filling fuel tanks and installing roll over cages in cars would save more lives ... but that does not look cool and inviting as a selling point!

Pete
ps: I will never buy a car with an airbag ... I'll leave it to others to complete the research while I stick my head in the sand.

Also regarding the Diana accident. I concede that I could be wrong. I am disappointed that this misinformation has occurred, because I was clearly informed by some media that the survivor had been wearing a safety belt. Infact I always thought it would make a powerful seat belt ad campaign.

I'm not going to investigate it, I'll accept that the survivor was extremely lucky, and yes airbags may have had a very, very minor play in that luck.

 

Exactly why my parents bought me a 2001 Volvo S40. I know I act stupid sometimes, and while I'd rather have a Mustang or something similar, it is comforting to know that if I **** up I probably won't kill myself.