For those interested in old cars.

[boxbrownie]

2 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 I prefer to reduce the risk before there's any chance of being hit....

Staying indoors will work 

[Northmoor]

42 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Yes small vehicles do have issues…..but what do you expect from FIAT? 
 

But seriously offset barrier impacts are some of the worst, only half the frontal structure takes the force.

Assuming that's parent+child in the Seicento, it demonstrates that the child could survive the accident thanks to excellent child seats, but probably be orphaned in the process.

[MrWolf]

On 29/06/2021 at 19:38, boxbrownie said:

Staying indoors will work 

 

Unlikely. 

 

"Facts and figures - RoSPA" https://www.rospa.com/home-safety/advice/general/facts-and-figures

[alastairq]

I've discovered the most dangerous activity indoors is..doing the washing up.

[MrWolf]

On 29/06/2021 at 20:06, alastairq said:

I've discovered the most dangerous activity indoors is..doing the washing up.

 

Funny that.

 

I've found that the most dangerous indoor activity in this house is NOT doing the washing up...

[alastairq]

Washing up has landed me in casualty twice since retiring..

[PhilJ W]

20 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Washing up has landed me in casualty twice since retiring..

Sharp knives?

[MrWolf]

I remember a friend of mine ended up in A&E when she got her first flat. It taught her that when you have washed them, put the knives stabby side down in the drainer.

[PhilJ W]

I had a serious accident in my 1988 Nissan Prairie which was then 12 years old. The car was rolled over two and a half times ending up on its roof. When it was recovered almost every panel was dented and the windscreen was badly cracked (it was a write off anyway). Despite that I walked away with a cut finger and that was on the broken glass when I crawled out of the car. Despite the damage all the doors, including the sliding doors and tailgate opened and shut perfectly. No air bags, just seat belts.

1 minute ago, MrWolf said:

I remember a friend of mine ended up in A&E when she got her first flat. It taught her that when you have washed them, put the knives stabby side down in the drainer.

I have a cutlery box on my drainer that holds sharp knives handle up.

[MJI]

Do not put sharp knives into soak.

 

Either cut a hole in the bowl or you turn the water red

[PatB]

Back when I first joined Vehicle Standards, in 2001, ANCAP had just tested a group of the (extremely popular here) Japanese 4wd utes, such as the Toyota Hilux and its equivalents. All basically similar, with a hefty ladder chassis topped with a separate, non-structural cab. 

 

They all performed very poorly, giving the worst of all worlds. The frame was initially stiff, transferring lots of energy to the cab and occupants, then the chassis rail would suddenly buckle and the whole lot would just fold up, allowing lots of intrusion into the occupant space. I suspect a Defender would be similar. 

 

In spite of this, they all managed to get 2 stars. This at a time when the big Aussie sedans got about 3, and the Renault Megane was making headlines for getting the first 5 star result. 

 

The general consensus was that bare minimum compliance with the Australian Design Rules of the time was the equivalent of about half an ANCAP star. 

Edited June 30, 2021 by PatB

[PatB]

5 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Assuming that's parent+child in the Seicento, it demonstrates that the child could survive the accident thanks to excellent child seats, but probably be orphaned in the process.

The usual dummy load for ANCAP tests is adult driver and front seat passenger, and appropriately restrained 2yo and 10yo (if memory serves) in the back. 

[pH]

9 hours ago, alastairq said:

On a different tack, I was involved in a discussion the other day about 'new' cars versus 'old'...

Usual stuff came out...safety, environment, connectivity, air con, safety again, etc...

 

I have no desire to 'own' a new car, even if I could afford to buy one. [Do people actually 'buy' cars these days anyway?]

I'm not dismayed when needing to trumpet the benefits [from my personal viewpoint] of running, & using, old, [or, very old?] cars.

Make no mistake, it is a choice  I have, not a compulsion.

 

...

 

I am happier without. 

 

Which doesn't make me 'wrong', either.   

 

I am not alone in that view, I think...

 

But definitely in a minority!

 

It's not about nostalgia, either.  

 

It's probably more about not wanting to have wasted what I've got?

 

 

 

I hope you don't mind - I've rearranged some of your text, to try to comment on specific points. My comments in italics.

 

My feelings are, we have lost the plot in the rush to embrace ever-burgeoning technological advances { If indeed, they are 'advances', and not mere sidetracks?}.   We have thrown the ''baby out with the bathwater'', automotively speaking. Now, I'm not saying the vast majority of folk who want to have a new car are wrong. I agree they may have a dire need of the technologies.

 

I would agree that there is a lot of unnecessary technology in modern vehicles. It doesn't mean you have to use it. I'm sure I'm not using 50% of what's available to me in my 18 month old car. I would like to have been able to have the option of a more basic 'basic' model, with only what I feel I needed, but that possibility went years ago. I did ask in the 1990s, what a 'stripper' version of a certain car would cost, with only the features I wanted – the answer was much more than the actual basic model, since it would have to be built as a special order. I don't feel I have a dire need of the technology I do use, either. The car has all-wheel drive and ABS. I do not drive it in a way that depends on them. I drive it as I would a car without them, with the comfort of them being there if I do make a mistake and need them.

 

But when I think about it, the issue is one of 'input'. It's probably more about not wanting to have wasted what I've got.

Having driven for over 50 years, legally...and been an 'enthusiast' for many years more, I have acquired driving skills [and those associated with being a 'driver'].....of not unreasonable depth!    

Yet, sitting in a new car, I find that those skills are no longer required of a driver...the car [or the technology] is there to supplant those skills.

To the extent that my 'role' in the whole scenario of getting from A to B has been reduced to that of , almost.... a mere passenger!

So now I feel, a lifetime of experiences, mistakes, of learning, and figuring out, not forgetting the many weeks of training , and more training....course  upon course over the years..is all for nothing. All a wasted effort.

I might just as well have taken a job behind a desk, for all that the expertise gained means, once I get into a new car?

 

I could not disagree more with the bold text, as it is written. Now, if you had said 'SOME of those skills', I would agree. But the skills you (and I) learned and have practised for decades involved in staying safe on the road (observation, anticipation etc.) are at least as important now as they were when we first learned them. Roads are much more crowded (in general), and traffic moves more quickly. When we came to Canada, and had to learn to drive on the opposite side of the road, and pass a test to allow us to do that, my wife and I decided that we would only drive automatics. We gave up a skill which was not a required skill here (handling gears and clutch) in order to concentrate on those skills which were related to safety.

 

I enjoy 'driving'.....and enjoyment of driving is taken away from me, when I get behind the wheel of a new car.

I don't want to drive, where I don't need to worry about speed, or handling, or other esoterica....

I 'want' to feel worried, or concerned about the car, what it is doing, how to manage it all.  I want to have to show  vehicle sympathy....I 'want' to feel I have to make compensations in how I drive, to offset inadequacies of the vehicle being driven.

 

I don't want to be in a constant state of worry or concern about a vehicle I'm driving. I like to feel I'm comfortable with the vehicle, but not complacent. I still think I can still 'feel' how a modern car is performing and not push it beyond comfortable limits.

 

I would be quite happy to drive with two wheel brakes ... or dodgy steering, or whatever.

 

Absolutely not! I want as safe a car as possible.

[Dunsignalling]

The discussion on the complication incorporated into modern cars has so far not touched on the reason a mate of mine (retired from the trade) describes as his reason for avoiding them; "TMTGW" - too much to go wrong.

 

His experience is that, crash damage aside, in recent times, he saw far too many 8-10 year-old cars of "quality" makes in perfect mechanical and structural condition being junked due to electronics issues for which solutions were either not available (components having become obsolete) or prohibitively expensive. 

 

OK, there's an argument that's environmentally desirable, but that's no consolation to an owner who considers he/she is wasting half the serviceable life of the vehicle. 

 

Coming at it from the other end, back in the noughties, a former work colleague had a MO of buying middle-aged 7-series BMWs for peanuts, running them until something he couldn't fix himself failed, then flogging them to a specialist dismantler, on average for as much as he'd paid for the car. He reckoned to get at least 3 years "free motoring" out of each one, though he did low enough mileage for mpg not to be an issue.  

 

John 

[pH]

2 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The discussion on the complication incorporated into modern cars has so far not touched on the reason a mate of mine (retired from the trade) describes as his reason for avoiding them; "TMTGW" - too much to go wrong.

 

I would agree with that, too. That was the reason I asked about a 'basic' basic version of a car in the 1990s. It's a bit disconcerting to see a new startup display appearing when the car has been in for service - obviously a software update has been done. What new bugs has it introduced?

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am very much with those who prefer "simple" in cars. So the 70s was a halcyon era.

 

Just recently though, because it was readily available, I bought a Citroen C5 estate and it really does have all the gadgets which I detest. Have to admit though that the reversing camera and hydraulic suspension is a great combo when hitching up to a trailer.

[PhilJ W]

I used to practice 'bangernomics' as I commuted by car and alternatives in case of (a rare) breakdown. I picked a car with a long MoT and often traded it in with a months MoT. When I retired I treated myself to a brand new car which I still have  thirteen years later. The reason for buying a new car is reliability which is where the newer cars score heavily. Older cars even when brand new were never as reliable as modern cars.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

I used to practice 'bangernomics' as I commuted by car and alternatives in case of (a rare) breakdown. I picked a car with a long MoT and often traded it in with a months MoT. When I retired I treated myself to a brand new car which I still have  thirteen years later. The reason for buying a new car is reliability which is where the newer cars score heavily. Older cars even when brand new were never as reliable as modern cars.

Agree, but I still stick to the buying mantra I developed decades ago, even though the cars have improved a lot.

 

Three-five years old, one owner, FSH and no more the 40k on the clock and near to but not top-of the range (with the good options but without the gimmicks). A little over "book" I can live with if it ticks all the other boxes. Hasn't failed me yet; with a couple of exceptions, I've had 8-10 trouble free years years out of most, and my last four went on to new owners rather than the scrappie. Other tip is take a sufficiently long test drive to make sure it doesn't do anything that annoys you -  the two I bought in too much of a hurry didn't give me any trouble or cost me, but I never enjoyed them and I shifted them both on within 3 years in favour of things I did. Definitely shouldn't have traded my 206 in for a 207!

 

The one owner bit is vital, nobody keeps a lemon that long and any "new-car" bugs will have been dealt with long ago. Three (or more) owners in four years means run for the hills, and a second owner who moved it on in less than a year should really get the alarm bells ringing!

 

John

Edited June 30, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[alastairq]

6 hours ago, pH said:

'want' to feel worried, or concerned about the car, what it is doing, how to manage it all. 

 Pinched from above..perhaps I should explain?  It's about a ''more acute awareness'' of what is happening with the vehicle.  [''Worry'' seemed appropriate, oddly....for example, is that new 'noise' going to be expensive?]

 

Take ''tyres'', for example? When I drive, I don't 'rely' on the tyres to do their jobs.....but I do see what they can do, and cannot do, and don't like to push so hard that I'm going to find out what they cannot do? Not unless done !deliberately!  Thus I am quite happy to drive on Chinese ditch-finders, as folk like to call them...never having ended up in a ditch unintentionally!   I find people place far too much 'faith' on things like these.   Which, I suspect, is why some drivers end up experiencing 'issues' with tyres?  [The only time I have had 'issues' with tyres, they have been brand new, high end, ''makes'......Goodyear, and Michelin  Not impressed given how much they cost me!  ]....

 

The observation about ''2 wheel brakes'' really refers to 'limitations'.   No car is 'safe'.....if driven  in the wrong hands.   Many cars from the past only had 2 wheel brakes....perfectly adequate providing one did not expect more than they could provide?    At one time,  a heavy vehicle's braking could vary significantly depending on the weight carried.....and a driver had to compensate, or lose the whole plot.

Didn't make the vehicle 'unsafe', as such...just made the driver 'unsafe!' 

It's things like this that formed the underlying reasons for reduced LGV speed limits, warning signs on steep hills, etc etc?   Things that technology today allows us to totally ignore.   [Until, something does go wrong, then we are not capable as drivers of dealing with the situation...of ''saving the day''. Simply because, we are trying to rescue a situation from the starting point of too high a road speed! }

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The discussion on the complication incorporated into modern cars has so far not touched on the reason a mate of mine (retired from the trade) describes as his reason for avoiding them; "TMTGW" - too much to go wrong.

 

His experience is that, crash damage aside, in recent times, he saw far too many 8-10 year-old cars of "quality" makes in perfect mechanical and structural condition being junked due to electronics issues for which solutions were either not available (components having become obsolete) or prohibitively expensive. 

 

 That's probably my point regarding technology too. One can ignore technology, but in modern cars, all the technology is so integrated, that a failure of a completely unused part can adversely affect totally unconnected [in my mind] parts. A car won't start because the technology has detected I[ve got my shoe laces done up wrong?  To be fatuous!

 

I'd rather it wasn't there in the first place!

I don't 'need' ABS, because I know [and taught, to a high standard] how to deal with adverse braking situations.

I don't 'need' lane assist.

I don't 'need' collison prevention.

I don't 'need' active suspension control [I'm no longer a 17 year old, for starters!]

I don't even need power steering.  [Because I learnt, ie found out, early on , how to handle the steering wheel correctly, so as to avoid hurting myself!]

I don't need all the other gizmos....heated seats, air con, electric windows, central locking, auto this and auto that, satnags, connectivity..heck, I don't even 'need' half the warning lights....I have eyes, and, more importantly, as a driver, I use my ears! I can interpret what I feel, either through my hands, my feet, or my backside...If I want the 'option' of 4wd, I'll drive a vehicle which has that option. Otherwise I'll make do with 2wd only [preferably to the rear wheels, my 'favourite'.....]

[SInce I used to compete in trials with my 'road' cars, I' used to making do with 2 wheel drive.... But part of my driver-instructing  work involved teaching off-road driving skills anyway....and 'vehicle control' in all the conceivable conditions, aside from driving over hot lava flows!  [Skid frame instructor...as & when required]

 

I'd probably be quite happy to drive around in a WW2 jeep..which is about as basic as one can get?  I'd just wear a bigger overcoat in wintertime?

[boxbrownie]

13 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

Unlikely. 

 

"Facts and figures - RoSPA" https://www.rospa.com/home-safety/advice/general/facts-and-figures

I’m not even going to open that link……I’m indoors…….

[boxbrownie]

11 hours ago, MrWolf said:

I remember a friend of mine ended up in A&E when she got her first flat. It taught her that when you have washed them, put the knives stabby side down in the drainer.

I’m was always “reminding” Mrs BB to put the knives in the dishwasher basket sharp end down, not for all the “if you fall you’ll stab yourself” but it’s cleaner to get them out with the handle rather than the blade…..ugh…..I have to eat with that bit 

 

Doesn't matter now we got a new machine with one of those cutlery top trays…..no more moaning…..well……

[boxbrownie]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The discussion on the complication incorporated into modern cars has so far not touched on the reason a mate of mine (retired from the trade) describes as his reason for avoiding them; "TMTGW" - too much to go wrong.

He might say that but TGW is a common industry term for measurement of “things gone wrong” , which sounds simplistic but it’s used, TGW over the past 40 years* has literally plummeted so although there are indeed many more “things to go wrong” they don’t.

 

*I use 40 years as an arbitrary figure as I have been out for nearly ten years now, and started in the carburettor/pre emissions era.

[alastairq]

Oddly, I've got a whole string of [consecutive!!] ROSPA  safe driver awards.......

The awards really meant, despite being 'involved' in countless road traffic collisions, no-one has ever successfully placed any blame on me!  

Rospa refers to 'professional' driving..ie driving for a job!

 

Which meant, usually, I let them happen!  OOOOps, oh dear, look what you've gone & done now, sort-of thing.  

 

In fact, in all the 50 odd years of driving [mostly all day every day]...no-one has ever made a successful claim against me. Or even, partially successful!  [My old insurers sent me a letter to attest to that!]

 

Which is a lot more 'truthful' than trying to claim I've never had an accident in 50 years of constant driving....

An important aspect of driving is...knowing how to fill out an accident claim form!  Knowing what not to miss out. Knowing all the bits to provide information about. Being aware the form is going to be used by an assessor who is sitting many miles away at a desk.  Splendid day when they invented those throw-away cameras?

 

Even training military personnel also involved teaching them 'how' to fill out an accident claim form [FMT/3].   

[Rugd1022]

Interesting reading the above posts about design standards and safety etc, it's nothing new really but there have been one or two anomalies when it comes to these aspects of car development and testing. One which springs to mind is the Lamborghini Countach - the 1971 prototype L500 Countach which was all but destroyed when it was crash tested at MIRA near Nuneaton was very different under the skin to the production LP400 that followed it in that it was built using the 'superleggera' method of alloy panels stretched over and welded to thin tubular frames, whereas the latter was based on a separate and very strong tubular chassis, leaving the body panels as mere decoration which were not load bearing in any way.

 

The LP500....

 

 

 

The remains were shipped back to the factory at Sant Agata Bolagnese....

 

 

The LP400 onwards chassis method of construction....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boxbrownie]

10 hours ago, MJI said:

Do not put sharp knives into soak.

 

Absolutely, it ruins the edge.