are new cars too safe?

I mentioned in the "do not sell your SUV" thread about an idiot who passed me going up a blind hill and almost took me out when a car coming the other way appeared without warning..

It got me thinking. (always a bad thing) are new cars too safe? The Idiot I am talking about had to quickly "jinx" back into the lane ahead of me.. fast enough that he managed to fishtail his escalade before traction/roll/skid/hand of god control kicked in and straightened him out.

Pondering this.. short of making a boneheaded manuever (like above) it is getting damn hard to wreck a new car. Do you think this is making people do stupid things behind the wheel because the car can compensate for their inability to recover from a skid? Combine that with cars that have more amenities than my house and are better insulated against weather and noise.. and I am thinking we have a lethel concoction on wheels that just encourages people to go too fast and corner too hard.

In other words, do new cars encourage people to drive aggressivly and stupidly?

More big SUV's than anything in the ditches along 81 outside syracuse.

mad_machine wrote: ...In other words, do new cars encourage people to drive aggressivly and stupidly?

Yes, it is a well understood behavior that humans will work within the system they are given. Give them more they use more. Better/easier brakes, they will stop faster (than they would with lesser brakes). More power, they will use it (ask any Corvette owner). More sense of security, they will act more invulnerable.

As a safety driving instructor once said on a TV show I was watching: "if you want people to drive safe, put a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel"

Unsafe cars are safer, and as Ralph Nader has observed, my car is "unsafe at any speed".

I like to think of "skid control" as something that would be nice say I spill some coffee on my lap during a road trip and look up to something scary. Or something you want on a car for a loved one who isn't the best at concentrating on driving. It's something we have gone out of our way in the past to acquire, but its something I very much don't like legislature telling me I have no choice but to buy. I want it for road appliances that see lots of inclement weather. Most systems are designed not to interfere with proper corrective actions, only to aid. I don't have it on any of my "fun" vehicles.

I have read about some gizmo's that help even in sporting events. I have a friend with the new '08 zo6, I asked him about it helping in his latest autocross in the sport mode, he said it made him too slow. I did see a video of his runs, he was spinning the tires the ENTIRE run. with the cost of 18" 325 series tires, I would try to learn to use the traction control.

I often think about "darwinistic" actions that could clean up the mess of our society, but what if your excalade buddy removed himself from the gene pool along with yourself when his limited edition explorer with under inflated firestone tires took you out. Or maybe he scared the crap out of himself when he skidded his caddy and will be a little more careful. Who knows. I want to decide whats on my car and I am willing to pay extra for certain safety items. Even if I didn't have to, I would order a car with seat-belts and air-bags. I like knowing I can ride a motorcycle in my state without a helmet, but I never will.

The skid control reminds me of a consumer reports article about some silly suv or something, they reported that when you jerked the steering wheel from side to side (high speed "S's") and then let go, it handled "scary." Sorry, but If I'm going to be tossing an SUV around the road, the last thing I'm going to do is let go of the wheel and see what happens.

Glad he didn't tag you with his escalade. We just had a appliance retired because of a driver having a lapse of attention.

I always think of this story when people talk about cars being too safe. Any real Rush fan is already familiar with it.

Thanks for the "mornings drive link". I was thinking about that story the other day just hadnt sat down to look for it.

scary thought, that "morning drive"

The problem lies with the driver, no amount of driver aids will beat a last minute lipstick application or a spilled coffe

ignorant wrote: More big SUV's than anything in the ditches along 81 outside syracuse.

+1 on that E36 M3, I had fun on 17 going out to Binghamton in the truck today to pick up a love seat I found on CL. Syracuse is worse, and for some reason I always get lost trying to get back on 81 South when I leave Carousel Mall.

You learn to be a good driver when you have to deal with 6000# SUVs on each side of you going thrue 'Cuse on 81 at 80 MPH.

Seeing as "Morning Drive" was writen 35 years ago, only 1 thing is really inaccurat today. That being no damage in a 10mph crash, look at the repair bills of most SUVs when you back into some thing.

Ultimatly, this goes along with the trend of people using 4WD as a crutch in snow driving and lacking skill and proper tires.

I used to drive commercial trucks for a living. 13 to 16 ton trucks.. That was how the asshat in the escalade managed not to tag me.. the moment he started to pass, all those years of being behind the wheel of a vehicle that could not manuever or power it's way out of a jam kicked in and I got hard on the brakes.

the other inaccuracy about morning drive... CB radios.. today they would just use a cellphone to a buddy

ignorant wrote: More big SUV's than anything in the ditches along 81 outside syracuse.

I once saw a Hummer H2 just south of SYR on 81 drive for a mile or more on the median to get ahead in a traffic jam, only to pull in right before a cop went by the other way... I was hoping for him/her to find a deep drainage ditch in that median.

I read "The Morning Drive" about a year ago and thought about some of the futuristic sci-fi i've read and saw. A bit a truth in it though. I am glad for the safety of new cars for when my daughter was ran off the road (sideswiped) into the median last year. Her 06 Civic flipped and rolled 2 1/2 times and thanks to the built in roll-over protection, airbags and crumple zones, she walked away with airbag rash and a cracked bone in her left hand. Can't say she would have come out so well in an older car without the side airbags. I also think that people use the modern built-in safety as a security blanket and get braver in newer cars knowing there is less chance of (serious) injury. Also, with everyone thinking it's their road and you're not supposed to be in their way mentality doesn't help. (Edit: except us of course that know how darwinistic others are )

aircooled wrote:

mad_machine wrote: ...In other words, do new cars encourage people to drive aggressivly and stupidly?

Yes, it is a well understood behavior that humans will work within the system they are given. Give them more they use more. Better/easier brakes, they will stop faster (than they would with lesser brakes). More power, they will use it (ask any Corvette owner). More sense of security, they will act more invulnerable.

100% true.

I move a whole lot faster on my morning commute if I am driving my Subaru or Saturn than if I am driving my father's Pathfinder. Its probably capable of keeping up with them at commute speeds, but the safety margin is much lower. Should I be driving that much faster?... probably not.

My first car was a 74 Valiant. With a bad proportioning valve. It locked the rear brakes at will. I never drove fast in that car, never stopped fast, turned fast, tailgated, etc.

If only there were a way of making people believe their car is far less capable than it actually is.

It's a nihilistic way to see the world, but I firmly believe that as society in general becomes geared toward protecting the stupid from themselves, society as a whole becomes more stupid and suffers from it. I almost hate to say it, but we should be allowing these people to remove themselves from the gene pool for the good of mankind. Just think of the children these people are raising...

judging by my neighbors... I don't have to imagine it.

One of my neighbors has a slightly "slow" child. A few weeks ago he was lightly mauled by another neighbor's dog while the owner of the dog simply looked on.

Last week I found a petition in my mailbox to have the "retard" removed from the neighborhood.. meaning the poor child who's only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

ProDarwin wrote: ...If only there were a way of making people believe their car is far less capable than it actually is.

Which is exactly the opposite of what they do. I suspect to sell the car better in test drives, they seemed to make cars seem a lot more capable then they are. As an example, if you are accustom to driving older cars, driving a new one usually results in some sudden accelerations. The reason is that the throttles on newer cars have a MUCH faster ramp on them then the old ones. It seems like you get about %75 throttle in the first %25 of movement, great for selling a car, not so great for driving gently. Most modern cars seem to have about 2 inches of travel near the floor that do almost nothing.

If you want to do an experiment for yourself with an older car, put a more powerful return spring on the throttle and notice how much slower you drive. Put a really weak spring on an notice how your drive turns into a day at the track.

Last week I found a petition in my mailbox to have the "retard" removed from the neighborhood.. meaning the poor child who's only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wow. That didn't go the way I thought it would.

Someone was actually circulating a petition to remove the child from the neighborhood? I imagine this is after they put down the dog, right? And they want to...make the kid move away...because the owner decided not to control his dog...so the kid should...um...?

My mind is thoroughly boggled.

and no.. the dog still lives and runs free in their fenced in yard.

That's just disgusting.

mad_machine wrote: judging by my neighbors... I don't have to imagine it. One of my neighbors has a slightly "slow" child. A few weeks ago he was lightly mauled by another neighbor's dog while the owner of the dog simply looked on. Last week I found a petition in my mailbox to have the "retard" removed from the neighborhood.. meaning the poor child who's only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Do y'all have some kind of online neighborhood forum where the rest of America can lodge their disgust at this? Sounds just like the college educated nincompoops we've been getting move into the District this past ten years - dogs here are so much more important than people.

sometimes the dogs owners are the ones that need to be put down.

Yes, part of it is the improved safety aspects of the cars. I will, however, pile on another theory. The NASCARization of the general population.

Stay with me on this.

A large number of people who are otherwise generally disinterested in cars watch NASCAR regularly. They see long strings of cars running nose to tail at 190 mph and don't have the brain cells to distinguish the difference between that and tailgating on their morning commute. It's the only explanation I have come up with while driving highways as much as I do for the ridiculous driving I see. I just never saw such antics 20 years ago. Now every Jeff Gordon lusting soccer mom thinks she can slot her Murano into the tiny cushion of space I allowed between myself and the guy in front of me. It's like "Fast & Furious" for adults.

you driving in NJ DDavid? That is your typical commute going into or out of New York. Usually it flows quite well, until somebody screws up and then everyone is stuck for hours until they clean up the carnage.

On the topic of new car pedal sensitivity, I'm noticing a much more touchy brakes, far more so than a more touchy gas pedal. When I go from one of my old cars (especially the AE92) to a modern one I find that it helps to pretend I'm on my car simulator driving a Formula One when it comes to brake application. I honestly don't know how you could brake through a hard corner with a modern car...maybe that's why some people think it's dangerous. The AE92 has a proper brake pedal - there's LOTS of braking power but you have to put some force on the pedal if you want to use a great deal of it. On my mom's bugeye Impreza if you use more than your big toe muscle, WHAM you're hanging on by the seatbelt.

Oh also this is eerily accurate, it just involves malice (on the driver's part) in place of ignorance and negligence:

http://members.aol.com/redbarche/ANiceMorningDrive.html

I often feel like I'm running from idiot drivers.

GameboyRMH wrote: On my mom's bugeye Impreza if you use more than your big toe muscle, WHAM you're hanging on by the seatbelt.

Wow. Imprezas have some of the worst feeling brakes I have ever used. Don't get me wrong, my RS will stop, pretty damn quickly, even on HPS. But the pedal has too much travel, and feels like crap. A problem that Subarus with the dual-stage master cylinders have.

By contrast, my 10 year older Saturn has a pedal that has about 1/2inch of travel total. If you want to stop faster, you use more pressure/force, it doesn't require any pedal travel. It feels about 100000x better than the Subaru system.