1978lovebus
Guest
GRWXJR
Guest
Some of the electrical 'aids' are a bit OTT, and I'm not a fan of most. ABS excepted - in perfect conditions such as a track, where a skilled operator can plan and use ALL his skill, it is possible to better it. But in an emergency where you instinctively hammer on the anchors and your reflexes take over, then finesse isn't present, and ABS can save your bacon.
As for the rest.... well modern vehicles now cocoon the driver from the outside world - I pay attention to what other drivers are doing around me (as a bike rider this has helped keep me alive). So many are zoned out, with a behaviour much like a bloke sat idly watching tv, than a person in control of a mass or metal at speed.
I recall that some study or other came up with that (not that its rocket science) all of us have a perceived level of risk that we are comfortable with (though of course that threshold will vary from one to another). Humans like to operate at or close to this risk threshold, and only get stressed once their personal limit is exceeded.
So what? Well - it means that really, really bad drivers are driving at speeds (relative to the environment and conditions) that they simply don't have the mental and physical skills to handle safely. And they are doing this because the vehicles that are 'safest' engender a reduction in the drivers perceived risk threshold - so they drive with either less attention, or speed up (or both).
The thing is, people will happily admit that they are rubbish at all sorts of sports or other things - but not many will own up to being a poor driver. And often the most sanctimonious and ones who believe that they are a good driver simply because they don't speed - they don't consider that perhaps their own skill and risk threshold is simply at the lower end of the scale, so they can't cope. Often as well, the sanctimonious non-speeder is also the one who drives with no real attention, 'safe' in the supreme knowledge that they are a good and responsible driver.
Being a 'good' driver is what nearly all claim - where the evidence to the contrary is everywhere. I reckon some fella's would sooner confess to being rubbish in bed before they'd confess they were an awful driver!
I'm all for a car being 'roadworthy' and tested to see that it is. But all these gadgets and 'safety aids' largely to nothing to address road safety at all because of the way the human mind works.
A spike in the centre of the steering wheel might be a bit OTT - but compare driving say an original Mini at 60mph compared to any modern car. 60 feels a LOT faster and more risky in the Mini (so you're on the ball), while it feels virtually stationary in the new car, and you've also got your airbags, NCAP 5 safety rating and so on to make you feel that you are taking a lot less risk (so encouraging more speed combined with less input and attention from the driver). Of course you aren't really - crash either at that speed and yer organs will still be mush.
Accident/Crash prevention still really needs the driver to be paying attention, use good judgement and consideration, and to always be looking toward accident avoidance, not accident survival. Modern systems do very little in this respect - they just encourage drivers to be even more Ignorant, Incompetent or Inconsiderate (or all 3).
This is why motorcyclists tend to be better drivers - they KNOW they'll be hurt or killed in ANY collision with another vehicle, so they have to be vigilant, defensive and always look to avoid the accident, as that is the only real way to ensure you survive. Car drivers largely do not do this - and the better the car they drive, the more the vehicle is complicit in encouraging this behaviour in them.
(sorry - didn't mean to bash out war n peace!
)
As for the rest.... well modern vehicles now cocoon the driver from the outside world - I pay attention to what other drivers are doing around me (as a bike rider this has helped keep me alive). So many are zoned out, with a behaviour much like a bloke sat idly watching tv, than a person in control of a mass or metal at speed.
I recall that some study or other came up with that (not that its rocket science) all of us have a perceived level of risk that we are comfortable with (though of course that threshold will vary from one to another). Humans like to operate at or close to this risk threshold, and only get stressed once their personal limit is exceeded.
So what? Well - it means that really, really bad drivers are driving at speeds (relative to the environment and conditions) that they simply don't have the mental and physical skills to handle safely. And they are doing this because the vehicles that are 'safest' engender a reduction in the drivers perceived risk threshold - so they drive with either less attention, or speed up (or both).
The thing is, people will happily admit that they are rubbish at all sorts of sports or other things - but not many will own up to being a poor driver. And often the most sanctimonious and ones who believe that they are a good driver simply because they don't speed - they don't consider that perhaps their own skill and risk threshold is simply at the lower end of the scale, so they can't cope. Often as well, the sanctimonious non-speeder is also the one who drives with no real attention, 'safe' in the supreme knowledge that they are a good and responsible driver.
Being a 'good' driver is what nearly all claim - where the evidence to the contrary is everywhere. I reckon some fella's would sooner confess to being rubbish in bed before they'd confess they were an awful driver!
I'm all for a car being 'roadworthy' and tested to see that it is. But all these gadgets and 'safety aids' largely to nothing to address road safety at all because of the way the human mind works.
A spike in the centre of the steering wheel might be a bit OTT - but compare driving say an original Mini at 60mph compared to any modern car. 60 feels a LOT faster and more risky in the Mini (so you're on the ball), while it feels virtually stationary in the new car, and you've also got your airbags, NCAP 5 safety rating and so on to make you feel that you are taking a lot less risk (so encouraging more speed combined with less input and attention from the driver). Of course you aren't really - crash either at that speed and yer organs will still be mush.
Accident/Crash prevention still really needs the driver to be paying attention, use good judgement and consideration, and to always be looking toward accident avoidance, not accident survival. Modern systems do very little in this respect - they just encourage drivers to be even more Ignorant, Incompetent or Inconsiderate (or all 3).
This is why motorcyclists tend to be better drivers - they KNOW they'll be hurt or killed in ANY collision with another vehicle, so they have to be vigilant, defensive and always look to avoid the accident, as that is the only real way to ensure you survive. Car drivers largely do not do this - and the better the car they drive, the more the vehicle is complicit in encouraging this behaviour in them.
(sorry - didn't mean to bash out war n peace!
)GRWXJR
Guest
While I'm at it though.... I drove a friends brand-new VW Tiguan yesterday.
It has an electric and automatic handbrake. Pull up & it applies the handbrake for you. Let out the clutch and it releases it for you.
1. What a horribly complex system - when a cable handbrake is simple, reliable and does the job excellently.
2. This is just another 'ease of use' system that 'dumbs-down' the driver so that their skill level diminishes further, and they have even less responsibility and less charge of the vehicle. Sorry, but if a driver can't operate a handbrake, do hill starts etc. then they really ought to take the bus, not get a car that does it for them.
This car will also parallel park for you! Again - seeing as it has all around parking sensors to aid the driver - so a competent driver should not need this complex system. Again - if you cannot park a car with decent mirrors and parking sensors, then you should take the bus.
This new car is back in the dealer today as it has already 'lost' the entire menu relating to the bluetooth function for the phone (so right now the driver cannot have a chat on the phone while the car parks itself?) - I shudder to think about buying something like this when its a few years old and out of warranty!
It has an electric and automatic handbrake. Pull up & it applies the handbrake for you. Let out the clutch and it releases it for you.
1. What a horribly complex system - when a cable handbrake is simple, reliable and does the job excellently.
2. This is just another 'ease of use' system that 'dumbs-down' the driver so that their skill level diminishes further, and they have even less responsibility and less charge of the vehicle. Sorry, but if a driver can't operate a handbrake, do hill starts etc. then they really ought to take the bus, not get a car that does it for them.
This car will also parallel park for you! Again - seeing as it has all around parking sensors to aid the driver - so a competent driver should not need this complex system. Again - if you cannot park a car with decent mirrors and parking sensors, then you should take the bus.
This new car is back in the dealer today as it has already 'lost' the entire menu relating to the bluetooth function for the phone (so right now the driver cannot have a chat on the phone while the car parks itself?) - I shudder to think about buying something like this when its a few years old and out of warranty!
GRWXJR
Guest
I don't know, but would hazard the guess that the modern 'safer' car is actually contributing to incidents and collisions, and that (assuming a suitable constant exists to make reliable comparisons) that accident rates are actually on the increase per mile travelled.
People may well be SURVIVING these shunts better, so the death-rate might show an opposite trend (and seeing as most accidents happen in congested areas and minor roads rather than M-ways, then this is entirely possible) - but that in itself is NOT the reason to say that motoring is safer.
"I crash more often, but its ok cos my Volvo is super-safe" is hardly the way forward - especially if its me on my motorcycle the clown runs into, or a bus queue, or schoolkids crossing a road or......
The amount of folks (young women in particular - who I also see as the largest growing demographic for uber-aggressive and pig-ignorant attitudes behind a wheel btw) you see texting while driving HAS to tell you that the driver is blissfully unaware of the dangers, and that their perceived risk levels are stupidly low given the fact they are moving at lethal velocity (a 30mph heavy impact is plenty enough to tear your heart away from your chest wall and disconnect the plumbing - this ain't good for you). I've seen ppl texting while driving on an 'A' road at 60mph+, while wandering about all over the road.
The idea should be not to HAVE the collision in the first place. Short of removing the driver from the equation altogether (so he/she cannot do anything rash / violent/ stupid / incompetent / aggressive etc.) then the vehicle cannot really do much to change that - in fact the tech is more likely to have the opposite effect.
A 'safe' car for me - well airbags, ABS, crumple zones etc. to increase the chance of surviving - accepted. But making cars virtually silent and isolating the occupants so well so they do not perceive the speed and the risk, and all these gadgets to fool them further into a feeling of complete safety are things more likely to get them involved in a crash in the first place IMO.
People may well be SURVIVING these shunts better, so the death-rate might show an opposite trend (and seeing as most accidents happen in congested areas and minor roads rather than M-ways, then this is entirely possible) - but that in itself is NOT the reason to say that motoring is safer.
"I crash more often, but its ok cos my Volvo is super-safe" is hardly the way forward - especially if its me on my motorcycle the clown runs into, or a bus queue, or schoolkids crossing a road or......
The amount of folks (young women in particular - who I also see as the largest growing demographic for uber-aggressive and pig-ignorant attitudes behind a wheel btw) you see texting while driving HAS to tell you that the driver is blissfully unaware of the dangers, and that their perceived risk levels are stupidly low given the fact they are moving at lethal velocity (a 30mph heavy impact is plenty enough to tear your heart away from your chest wall and disconnect the plumbing - this ain't good for you). I've seen ppl texting while driving on an 'A' road at 60mph+, while wandering about all over the road.
The idea should be not to HAVE the collision in the first place. Short of removing the driver from the equation altogether (so he/she cannot do anything rash / violent/ stupid / incompetent / aggressive etc.) then the vehicle cannot really do much to change that - in fact the tech is more likely to have the opposite effect.
A 'safe' car for me - well airbags, ABS, crumple zones etc. to increase the chance of surviving - accepted. But making cars virtually silent and isolating the occupants so well so they do not perceive the speed and the risk, and all these gadgets to fool them further into a feeling of complete safety are things more likely to get them involved in a crash in the first place IMO.
Sparks
Guest
Post Deleted
Last edited by a moderator:
GRWXJR
Guest
Coupla reasons...
1. I can drive and parallel park without the gizmos (you don't HAVE to use the park feature btw).
2. Where we live bus services ain't exactly great (massive understatement), and couldn't take us where we needed to be.
3. Friend has Terminal Cancer and standing around freezing waiting for a bus wouldn't have been the best idea for him - I had only my works van available - so we used his car.
Thanks for asking though.
Sparks
Guest
Post Deleted
Last edited by a moderator:
hextal
Full Member
- Posts
- 2,188
- Likes
- 2,157
One if the potential issues is risk compensation.
I used to abseil professionally and it was one of the safest areas of construction. despite it being technically one of the most risky. Predominantly because the risk was so high it was always your focus. Now look at the number of accidents on low risk stuff.
I got chatting to one of the safety consultants a while back who had been called in to review an issue with the Hong Kong police. Basically, in the one year period following introduction of bullet proof vests the incidents involving officers getting shot doubled.
The vests were leading them to take more risks than they did before.
I worry cars will do the same
I used to abseil professionally and it was one of the safest areas of construction. despite it being technically one of the most risky. Predominantly because the risk was so high it was always your focus. Now look at the number of accidents on low risk stuff.
I got chatting to one of the safety consultants a while back who had been called in to review an issue with the Hong Kong police. Basically, in the one year period following introduction of bullet proof vests the incidents involving officers getting shot doubled.
The vests were leading them to take more risks than they did before.
I worry cars will do the same
Teutone
Guest
so you say remove the seat belts to make driving safer because drivers would be **** scared without belts and drive slower? I can see the traffic jams doubling with everybody driving over defensice.
In the past we didn't need such a lot of safety stuff because there was a lot less traffic about and people didn't need to commute such long distances just to make a living. I clock 20k miles up a year easily just to earn my money.
As much as I agree that there is a lot of stuff about these days we don't really need, but for all of you which just can't let go of the good old days with these nice simple cars, would you feel happy to let your offspring loose in one off them in todays traffic??? I wouldn't feel comfortable cloking my miles up in todays traffic in a 40 year old car.
In the past we didn't need such a lot of safety stuff because there was a lot less traffic about and people didn't need to commute such long distances just to make a living. I clock 20k miles up a year easily just to earn my money.
As much as I agree that there is a lot of stuff about these days we don't really need, but for all of you which just can't let go of the good old days with these nice simple cars, would you feel happy to let your offspring loose in one off them in todays traffic??? I wouldn't feel comfortable cloking my miles up in todays traffic in a 40 year old car.
Smaug
Guest
Defensive driving doesn't create traffic jams or congestion, but it can improve traffic flows as people create space around themselves & traffic streams can filter easier. Defensive doesn't mean slow or hesitant, it means not leaving yourself exposed to the mistakes others may make, it means leaving extra stopping distance in front if the dope behind is up yer bum(per), it means looking & adjusting your speed on approaching a roundabout so you can merge with teh flow rather than stopping & then looking. Lots of other examples, I'm sure you get my drift tho.
Teutone
Guest
I wrote OVER defensive.
I fully agree with what you wrote and it would be such a nice thing if this would the reality.
I might print it off and show it to the idiot who always pulls in front of me on a rainy motorway as soon as I leave just the hint of a safety gap.
hextal
Full Member
- Posts
- 2,188
- Likes
- 2,157
At the risk of going off topic my concern is that we humans have recently become so risk averse that it is leading to us loosing the skills that we need to survive.
It's natural to worry and be scared for the safety of others:-
I better not leave my baby in her new room for the first time tonight, something terrible may happen
I better not let my child out of my sight, they may get hurt/kidnapped/run-over
I better not let my kid go to school, they may not get the correct education
I better not let them go to university, they may get into drugs
etc etc
These are all natural thoughts, but if you acted on them all to extremes in order to alleviate all risk to that person, then they won't develop the skills they need to cope on their own.
I think modern gadgets are doing the same.
Seriously, look around and tell me people arent getting more stupid and helpless these days (or perhaps i'm mixing with the wrong crowds).:lol-053:
It's natural to worry and be scared for the safety of others:-
I better not leave my baby in her new room for the first time tonight, something terrible may happen
I better not let my child out of my sight, they may get hurt/kidnapped/run-over
I better not let my kid go to school, they may not get the correct education
I better not let them go to university, they may get into drugs
etc etc
These are all natural thoughts, but if you acted on them all to extremes in order to alleviate all risk to that person, then they won't develop the skills they need to cope on their own.
I think modern gadgets are doing the same.
Seriously, look around and tell me people arent getting more stupid and helpless these days (or perhaps i'm mixing with the wrong crowds).:lol-053:
GRWXJR
Guest
When I was a teen and wanted to learn to drive a car - I was lucky with a good head-start in that I already rode m-cycles, and had also driven tractors & land-rovers quite a bit helping out at hay-time on local farms - when you were big enough to press down the clutch, but too small to throw the bales high enough - you got to drive the tractor & trailer round the fields so there was an extra adult to load/stack. There was also the 'Silage Grand-Prix', where ferrying silage from the Forage Harvester to the Silage Pit had to be finished once started, so 'getting on with it' was necessary - great fun. All this on hills where marginal (if that) brakes and big weight meant using the machinery properly to keep it and you in one piece.
I can only imagine what today's 'risk-averse' society & H&S nannies would make of such things now!
The stuff I learnt to drive in (on the road) was shonky old crap - a matter of it being a) economic necessity and b) parents not wanting to risk their more decent car & essential car in the hands of a 17-year-old - so I had to get my own.
Instead of looking at this a bad thing, I was told - "Learn to drive in a banger, which requires much more input and effort, and you will learn so much more and be able to drive ANYTHING. Learn in a new car and the reverse is certainly NOT true.
And so it was. I was never concerned moving vehicle to vehicle, different types, sizes and so on.
Now a lot of folks on here may well have a nice modern motor with all the Gizmo's - but the chances are (like me), you learnt a long time ago on stuff a LOT more basic, with more marginal brakes and suspension, steering etc. which forced you to watch the road more attentively, to learn to feel what the vehicle and road surface are doing - to understand understeer and oversteer, what happens when you lose traction etc. and how to compensate/correct it.
The concern is - the more recent generations of drivers have none of these skills - most learner cars in the last God knows how long have been diesel - so you don't even need decent clutch control not to stall it. The drivers have no clue about what happens if they encounter a situation where their car cannot 'do it for them'.
So they don't possess the basic road-reading and machine control skills, are blissfully ignorant of the fact, and the 'safe' environment and marketing of the vehicle they drive actually entices them into a false sense of security so they put less input into what they are doing.
Seems like it's a sensible conclusion that all of the above is a recipe for MORE accidents to me - and how can MORE accidents mean 'safer'?
The Scandinavians have always had a thing about 'safe' cars (think Saab & Volvo). Yet their new drivers have to undertake off-road skills tests and learn to drive on skid-pans and gravel etc. to gain their licence - i.e. they instill in their road users a necessary skill level before they let them loose.
UK cars have a weak link - and that is the nut behind the steering wheel - the squashy organic thing that's supposed to be in charge of it. The quality of this essential component is often alarmingly poor.
I can only imagine what today's 'risk-averse' society & H&S nannies would make of such things now!
The stuff I learnt to drive in (on the road) was shonky old crap - a matter of it being a) economic necessity and b) parents not wanting to risk their more decent car & essential car in the hands of a 17-year-old - so I had to get my own.
Instead of looking at this a bad thing, I was told - "Learn to drive in a banger, which requires much more input and effort, and you will learn so much more and be able to drive ANYTHING. Learn in a new car and the reverse is certainly NOT true.
And so it was. I was never concerned moving vehicle to vehicle, different types, sizes and so on.
Now a lot of folks on here may well have a nice modern motor with all the Gizmo's - but the chances are (like me), you learnt a long time ago on stuff a LOT more basic, with more marginal brakes and suspension, steering etc. which forced you to watch the road more attentively, to learn to feel what the vehicle and road surface are doing - to understand understeer and oversteer, what happens when you lose traction etc. and how to compensate/correct it.
The concern is - the more recent generations of drivers have none of these skills - most learner cars in the last God knows how long have been diesel - so you don't even need decent clutch control not to stall it. The drivers have no clue about what happens if they encounter a situation where their car cannot 'do it for them'.
So they don't possess the basic road-reading and machine control skills, are blissfully ignorant of the fact, and the 'safe' environment and marketing of the vehicle they drive actually entices them into a false sense of security so they put less input into what they are doing.
Seems like it's a sensible conclusion that all of the above is a recipe for MORE accidents to me - and how can MORE accidents mean 'safer'?
The Scandinavians have always had a thing about 'safe' cars (think Saab & Volvo). Yet their new drivers have to undertake off-road skills tests and learn to drive on skid-pans and gravel etc. to gain their licence - i.e. they instill in their road users a necessary skill level before they let them loose.
UK cars have a weak link - and that is the nut behind the steering wheel - the squashy organic thing that's supposed to be in charge of it. The quality of this essential component is often alarmingly poor.
ricc
Full Member
- Posts
- 2,296
- Likes
- 2,733
i started driving on roads at 16 years old some 40 odd years ago...on a tractor where standing up and jumping up and down on the brake pedal had little discernable effect on velocity... it taught forward thinking and use of engine braking....not easy to double declutch and change down a gear either.
seat belts in cars held you in the seat so you felt safer cornering at higher speeds.
comprehensive insurance has led to a dont matter if i bend it culture.
clarkson and top gear has produced a generation of drivers who dont think beyond speed and acceleration.
back in the late 70's i clocked up mega miles in the company escort van.... home in somerset to head office near cambridge was a regular 200 mile run , the difference in time between driving like an idiot and fast but sensible was negligible...you picked up more time by looking ahead and picking lanes at roundabouts in slow moving traffic than by marginal overtaking at speed on the open road.
my first brand new company car was a mk 5 cortina estate... in the early eighties... to be honest i dont think a new car today is much of an improvement in real everyday driving terms. the cortina would get to seventy briskly , sit at 85 on the motorway all day and do low thirties mpg
my current vw sharan does basically the same..but .uses a bit less fuel and probably safer in a smash. but all the goodies like leccy mirrors, heated seats, etc even aircon are rarely if ever used. the only time ive ever felt abs working was in a test stop on a snow covered road.
seat belts in cars held you in the seat so you felt safer cornering at higher speeds.
comprehensive insurance has led to a dont matter if i bend it culture.
clarkson and top gear has produced a generation of drivers who dont think beyond speed and acceleration.
back in the late 70's i clocked up mega miles in the company escort van.... home in somerset to head office near cambridge was a regular 200 mile run , the difference in time between driving like an idiot and fast but sensible was negligible...you picked up more time by looking ahead and picking lanes at roundabouts in slow moving traffic than by marginal overtaking at speed on the open road.
my first brand new company car was a mk 5 cortina estate... in the early eighties... to be honest i dont think a new car today is much of an improvement in real everyday driving terms. the cortina would get to seventy briskly , sit at 85 on the motorway all day and do low thirties mpg
my current vw sharan does basically the same..but .uses a bit less fuel and probably safer in a smash. but all the goodies like leccy mirrors, heated seats, etc even aircon are rarely if ever used. the only time ive ever felt abs working was in a test stop on a snow covered road.
Byronic
Guest
Those new fangled electric windscreen wipers, just another thing to go wrong.
Those good old vacuum "powered" wipers they never went wrong, the side valve ohv engines that could sometimes make an icredible 20,000 miles without a decoke or head gasket replacement, those long lasting bodies that never rusted, the bodywork hand crafted with a lead filler finish, so precise was the panel fit, the cross ply tiyres that hardly ever sustained a puncture, the marvellous push button tune-in radios, steering joints that needed a greasing every 1, 2, or 3000 miles or else they'd be worn out at 8000 (think kingpins) great for keeping you fit. Low tech oil, grease, rubber, coolant , God how I miss them.
You can keep the modern technology I want all the above, next year I'll possibly privately import an Indian Hindustan. I'm sure it'll have at least some of those wonderful advantages. Or perhaps I'll go for an old Cortina. They were so long lasting there's bound to be thousands to pick from. Somehow I think I'll be in a very short queue!!
Last edited:
GRWXJR
Guest
Ah - the wonderful sport of 'extreme sarcasm' eh?
There is a 'happy medium' y'know. No-one is suggesting a return to vacuum wipers, or acetylene lights come to that.
But... 'rain sensitive wipers'? If your eyesight and brain isn't capable of registering that there is rain on the windscreen, and then turning on and adjusting the rate of your wipers, then should you really be driving anyway?
The point is that there is reliable, effective systems that are being over-complicated and compromising reliability and sustainability for a tiny 'gain' in user-friendliness.
People get led by the nose by the marketing to believe that they want and need this stuff. And when it goes wrong at the roadside? An automatic parking brake? Give me a break - how complex is the system and electric motors, with the weight and complexity (plus its connected to the computer and dash so I'm guessing the 'brain' can shut down the car if it fails?). I will never buy a car with such a handbrake system as long as there is a conventional cable-braked alternative available instead.
The potential bills for ancillary equipment such as handbrake, wipers, and other electronics that take away simple tasks from the driver mean that cars like my mate's uber-complicated VW Tiguan are likely to mean it'll be written-off as too costly to keep on the road a lot sooner than if it was less complex. This will suit the car-maker as folk will be forced to buy more cars, while we'll all have to spend a lot more wedge to stay mobile.
Any minor issue with a car can now have you ringing for the Breakdown Truck, instead of being able to get home - you can't make a judgement call - the car goes into 'Limp-mode' or something stupid, or just won't go. So you have to take it to the 'nearest' dealer and get our wallet out.
These cars are now filtering down to the people who can't afford new, warranted cars - and they are failing all over the place. The motor that preceded my mate's new VW Tiguan was a 2007 Ford Mondeo - which 'developed' a ECU fault so it'd drain the battery - over £1K for the ECU plus labour, which they could not be sure would fix the problem. The car was deemed worth £1700 at trade-in - with 43K miles on it.
Look out on the roads - a lot of the cars still doing well on the roads reliably are often smaller hatchbacks & the like - stuff around 2001-ish. Well-engineered, new enough to be good, economical enough, and old enough to have reasonably simple and reliable electricals, and cheap enough new not to be loaded with gadgets, which makes them reliable and affordable runabouts. I think there is the happy medium and the example of a good compromise right there.
My daughter runs a late- 1990's Nissan Micra. Its kept going while many of her friends 'better' newer cars have been off for repair bills that she simply couldn't afford. But these sorts of vehicles are being taken away steadily by 'progress'.
The modern car like a Golf weighs double what the first generation did - loaded with all kinds of crap that we don't actually need. Sure some of its useful (ABS) and some of it is nice to have and does make it 'nicer'. But its gone way beyond practicality, sustainability and sense into the realms of the ridiculous IMO.
There is a 'happy medium' y'know. No-one is suggesting a return to vacuum wipers, or acetylene lights come to that.
But... 'rain sensitive wipers'? If your eyesight and brain isn't capable of registering that there is rain on the windscreen, and then turning on and adjusting the rate of your wipers, then should you really be driving anyway?
The point is that there is reliable, effective systems that are being over-complicated and compromising reliability and sustainability for a tiny 'gain' in user-friendliness.
People get led by the nose by the marketing to believe that they want and need this stuff. And when it goes wrong at the roadside? An automatic parking brake? Give me a break - how complex is the system and electric motors, with the weight and complexity (plus its connected to the computer and dash so I'm guessing the 'brain' can shut down the car if it fails?). I will never buy a car with such a handbrake system as long as there is a conventional cable-braked alternative available instead.
The potential bills for ancillary equipment such as handbrake, wipers, and other electronics that take away simple tasks from the driver mean that cars like my mate's uber-complicated VW Tiguan are likely to mean it'll be written-off as too costly to keep on the road a lot sooner than if it was less complex. This will suit the car-maker as folk will be forced to buy more cars, while we'll all have to spend a lot more wedge to stay mobile.
Any minor issue with a car can now have you ringing for the Breakdown Truck, instead of being able to get home - you can't make a judgement call - the car goes into 'Limp-mode' or something stupid, or just won't go. So you have to take it to the 'nearest' dealer and get our wallet out.
These cars are now filtering down to the people who can't afford new, warranted cars - and they are failing all over the place. The motor that preceded my mate's new VW Tiguan was a 2007 Ford Mondeo - which 'developed' a ECU fault so it'd drain the battery - over £1K for the ECU plus labour, which they could not be sure would fix the problem. The car was deemed worth £1700 at trade-in - with 43K miles on it.
Look out on the roads - a lot of the cars still doing well on the roads reliably are often smaller hatchbacks & the like - stuff around 2001-ish. Well-engineered, new enough to be good, economical enough, and old enough to have reasonably simple and reliable electricals, and cheap enough new not to be loaded with gadgets, which makes them reliable and affordable runabouts. I think there is the happy medium and the example of a good compromise right there.
My daughter runs a late- 1990's Nissan Micra. Its kept going while many of her friends 'better' newer cars have been off for repair bills that she simply couldn't afford. But these sorts of vehicles are being taken away steadily by 'progress'.
The modern car like a Golf weighs double what the first generation did - loaded with all kinds of crap that we don't actually need. Sure some of its useful (ABS) and some of it is nice to have and does make it 'nicer'. But its gone way beyond practicality, sustainability and sense into the realms of the ridiculous IMO.
Byronic
Guest
GRWXJR, I am in total agreement with you. Things are now overcomplicated with many gadgets and gizmos of dubious benefit. But some people seem to refer to a past where all or at least most aspects of vehicle construction was or were better than now. I'm pointing out a short list of what I consider to be of a significantly bettered standard nowadays, following on the theme from the Mark61 "vacuum wiper" post.
Further, I'd agree that possibly the 90's saw cars being produced with just about the right balance between practicality and use of electronic technology and modern materials.
I also practise what I believe, my M/H is non electronic, and as simple as myself.
Further, I'd agree that possibly the 90's saw cars being produced with just about the right balance between practicality and use of electronic technology and modern materials.
I also practise what I believe, my M/H is non electronic, and as simple as myself.