How Much Auto Safety Can You Afford?

The problem is that some, if not all of the safety devices in a vehicle are made mandatory by the government of a country, that way if you want to drive a car in that country you have to accept the costs or not drive, simples!

Want something really controversial? Stop requiring all these safety devices. In other words, let the people kill themselves (and others.) Call it population control. (I'll still be wearing my seat belt though!)

Surely we can virtually eliminate all vehicular deaths and greatly reduce injuries by simply mandating a national speed limit of 15 m.p.h.

No need for expensive technologies.

The sad fact is that Sir Robin is correct, in that all of the safety devices ever invented will only inconvenience the majority, while letting the thoughtless continue to cause mayhem. The thoughtless minority will always be able to impede the thoughtful majority. The unfortunate reality is that most safety devices are set to function in one individuals choice of response to a situation, and they can not handle any alternative actions. Traction control systems do not allow the skilled driver to drive out of a skid, anti-lock brakes will not allow the preferred method of stopping on loose gravel, nor on a number of other surfaces. The truth stands that safety systems are marketed to make money for the provider, and the only way to sell a lot of them is to convince the lawmakers to make them mandatory. This was explained to me when I was an employee of a company that is a large manufacturer of safety system components.

How much auto safety can I afford? Here's my list:

1. Principle systems, propulsion, steering, braking, handling and body/frame structural integrity that DO NOT FAIL WITHOUT SOME ADVANCE WARNING under normal driving conditions. Warnings in fine print in some instruction manual are not sufficient.

2. Functional headlights, tail lights, brake lights, directionals, windshield, w/s wipers, horn, mirrors and front window defroster. Windows that are "shatterproof" at the current (2011) level of technology. Mechanically functional door handles inside and outside that require only hand actuation by the average licensed drive to open or close.

3. Seat and shoulder belts, securely anchored passenger compartment components especially the seats. Rated working loads of these components to be based on exceeding "g" loads fatal to properly belted in human body under foreseeable accident conditions. Absence of hard sharp edges and other objects in passenger compartments. (this one is fairly subjective)

4. Adequate safety shielding and fire retardant insulation to prevent fires. Protective covers or shields on mechanical propulsion systems to prevent injury to operators or maintenance people. Passenger compartments adequately sealed or isolated against entry of exhaust gasses. Leak free fuel storage and fuel lines

5. Working fluids that are not hazardous in small quantity exposures or are completely sealed against discharge up to the 95th percentile of reportable vehicle accidents. (one in 20). Battery fluids and other highly toxic substances isolated to the 99th percentile (one in 100).

6. A propulsion system "emergency stop" control readily accessible to the driver that isolates the propulsion system from stored or generated electrical and chemical fuel energy sources within a period of 2 seconds of actuation. This system would be sufficiently isolated from and supercede all other vehicle control systems so that any condition in those systems will not prevent the shutdown command from being effective. During the shutdown sequence steering and braking systems would not require more energy than that which can be applied by physical movement of the average licensed driver to maintain control of the vehicle under normal dry roadway conditions. In other words none of this trick "fly by wire" stuff is going to prevent safely stopping the vehicle.

7. Sufficient structural integrity in the body structure to prevent entry of any outside part of the automobile into the passenger compartment up to the 98th percentile of reportable vehicle accidents. (one in 50)

Ed Weldon

Such safety is probably achievable for you; most of us can't afford it. Here's my suggestion to assuage your fears:

(1) Don't drive, hire others to deliver your daily needs. Make sure they park a safe distance away, but not so far as to expose you to liability along their path to your door, entrance hatch, vault-entry, whatever.

(2) Stay away from windows, doors, and other elements of your structural surroundings which represent weakness with respect to the carelessness of others, those who might hit their accelerator instead of their brake in that one life-shattering moment of dementia.

(3) Get off the grid. Energy delivered is potentially deadly; why risk it? Not auto related, but hey - you can never be too careful, right?

(4) Check flight paths. You might find yourself unknowingly exposed to the odd falling aircraft, it's passengers, and/or it's cargo.

(5) Learn from the Japanese experience of the last few days: Engineering, no matter how profound, is no match for happenstance. Trust no one, nothing; hide. Stay away from coastlines and potential Chernobyls.

The blog title is "How Much Auto Safety CAN YOU AFFORD?" with emphasis mine, the apparent "I can afford more than most" an inference, also mine. With all due respect.

Many cannot afford more than an early model - what, death trap by your definition? - and they could be aiming for YOU! BEWARE! Buying all the safety features you can afford won't protect you from them!

Live in fear. Otherwise, you might die. There goes the chance to be the only one who doesn't...

Otherwise, you might just have to skirt all that excess horse poop generated by most of us who - being unable to afford the whimsical "perfectly safe" automobile - will have to rely on the previously proven method.

So as not to be OT: Q - How much auto safety can I afford? A - None that would be beneficial if I cannot afford the safe auto, and must therefore walk or ride a horse.

euhodos - You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote. My 1972 Ford Pinto station wagon met most of the requirement I stated in reply #4. It cost me $2800 and finance payments a young engineer of the time could afford. When 3 weeks old it was nearly totaled (just $50 shy of new cost) in a rear end collision that did nothing to me but throw my glasses onto the dashboard and ruin a nice weekend's outing.

All but one of my above mentioned requirements could have been met by the Pinto with expenditure of less than $50 for simple parts and materials and an afternoon's worth of time. The one that couldn't meet my no.1 was the rubber timing belt in the engine, a feature of modern automobiles I regard as totally unacceptable. I bought a Toyota pickup, my latest ride, that has a timing chain. Unfortunately this vehicle has an electronic control that once left me sitting at the side of the road for absolutely no explainable reason (per a Toyota service manager.). So in my opinion, much as I like the 2000 Tacoma 4 cylinder truck it too fails my minimum vehicle competence test.

Ed Weldon

Ed:

Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you.

I read what you wrote, but obviously I did not understand it in the context you meant - and I apologize once again for having done so (CONTEXT of "again" is not this thread).

However, I sense a reluctance on the part of knowing and caring professionals to recognize or admit the infallibility of other knowing and caring professionals: "Is the whole world pucked-up but me? If I'd just designed those Japanese nukes, I'd have..."

I don't intend to extend that reasoning to your Pinto, or the type in general; perhaps the Crown Vic so preferred by police forces - what, 10 years ago now? - yet also NOW proven not-quite-so-safe for them. After xxx,xxx,xxx patrol-miles... Yeah, perhaps. I wish I still had mine, but it was a Bureau ride.

Anyway, just so you'll know, I spent a decade blowing-off-the-boat (Naval Aviator), another 5-years trying to reason with Tom Cruse wannabees in order to keep them safe ("Top Gun" ruined MY NavAir) , and yet another 5 pushing papers to complete bureacratic checklists that included why Tom Cruse wannabees were inherently unsafe NO MATTER THE ENGINEERING on "our" end.

I was in only one "incident" after all that exposure that truly threatened my life: a private aircraft crash resulting from a moment's inattention by a (formerly) highly-respected and thoroughly experienced charter pilot. That was AFTER I retired the first time. The FAA puke asked how I'd been unscathed by the crash - having 5 other victims in various states of traction, surgery, and 1 in ultimately suicidal self-admonishment - and I responded rote:

"Because the Navy taught me how to crash, how to live to fly another day." Forgive me, if you must but I truly believe that that concept is ON THREAD and possibly EARTH-SHATTERING!

Incidentally, the charter pilot happened also to be my best friend, before and after; but he was ultimately too aggrieved by his "failure" to protect his friends on that flight that, well...

My OT point (your choice with the "O", on or off) - perfection is elusive with complicated devices; kind of a Safety Heisenburg Principle. Attempts to achieve it by increasing the complication will be counterproductive for all but the finance companies and the undertakers.

Ultimately, if we don't know how to crash, we are victims in search of an opportunity to be lamented.

How much Auto Safety can I afford? Obviously, if all the wimps and wannabees stayed off the road, I could afford a lot because it would be cheaper than dirt. But they won't, so I can't, and being the best-trained, being the best-armed with KNOWLEDGE, and being the LEAST-ACCEPTING OF ULTIMATE SAFETY CLAIMS by well-intended but not infallible automotive engineers is, well, not going to be good enough for me when I'm on horseback because that is all I can afford.

Give me an Abrams, and I'll cruise I-5 with no fear! Just don't ask me to buy one, okay?

Truly, sir, Regards

Gene