How Safe are Cheap Cars?

So yer sayin Cars don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people.

Sounds like an old argument to me. Same one as the gun control debate. Millions of people take a car instead of public transit and many die every year as a result. I live across the street from a junior school, and every morning the scrum of cars dropping off unheeding children who "missed their bus", or maybe its helicopter moms who prefer to "drop them off instead of having them take the school bus or public transport". Either way, its a scary place in the morning!

Your stat is accurate enough for debate. One out of a hundred people in a village will die every year. This is unacceptable.

The fact is, the less you drive, the less you will put yourself at risk. And your loved ones. Obviously if you live OFF a bus route, you will need to have some form of transportation for the daily commute. This to MY mind simply pushes the limits of how far you can live from work. The car contributed to urban sprawl, and good farmland is getting gobbled up daily to accomodate it. I do not regard urban sprawl as a "good thing". But that arguement, though valid, is off topic.

For shear safety of your family, you may choose to live within the transit authority bubble.

rant off.

The flaw with the argument that the risk is directly linked to the distance or time spent in a car is a false analogy.

Not every mile you drive has the same risk. For instance, you are far safer statistically on the highway than on a busy rural road.

Everyone lives with some form of risk in life. If it is not a car, it will be something else.

My point is that with driving you have a lot of control (if you are the driver) over the risk level by how you drive and even where you drive. What you drive has far less importance that the first two factors by a wide, wide margin.

When you get into a car you accept that risk as your own responsibility.

Anyone that believes that they are entitled to a risk-free life is a fool.

No kidding! You mean risk is not directly linked to time spent in a car? Careful about what metrics you use. Risk always exists...even in public transit. Risk is a LOT lower (by a couple of significant orders of magnitude) by taking the school bus to school, or the transit to school. Or by taking the bus instead of commuting to work for that matter.

One percent of accidents (including non-fatal accidents) involve busses. Most bus accidents don't result in maiming or death. The other 98% involve idiot drivers on roads. (trucks account for the remaining 1%.) How about them metrics eh!

You can't hide from reality... cars kill. In fact they kill 11 out of 100.000 every year. They also pollute, cause urban sprawl, and will be the biggest expense of any household. Money spent on a car is NOT spent on better housing, better food, better education, or for that matter, better whiskey. (good reason!) We now exist in a time where we are car poor. (as opposed to "house poor" which we had in the eighties and ninetys.

Its time to stop the madness. That 11 out of 100000 is totally unacceptable. In Canada, its slightly lower at 6.5, down from 11 only ten years ago. Yet we twist logic and suffer more denial than Egypt (da Nile) to justify a very bad lifestyle choice. If a disease killed 11 out of 100000, we would declare it an epidemic, and eradicate it. SARS only killed 800 people. Asian flu killed two million world wide. Automobiles killed 2954 people in the US alone in 2011. 1.2 million world wide. Time to do something about the automobile.

When "unsafe at any speed" came out, the world was shamed. This article strives to point to safety features. Since that book (Unsafe at any speed) came out, the death rate plummeted by about 75%. (just my back of the envelope calc from this page.) I dont think it was smarter drivers, but rather better safety features. Idiots seem just as prevalent now as when I was wee lad.

So you don't think safety features are as important as good driving techniques? Tell that to the guy who hit a deer, or a pedestrian. 75% is a darned good, and perfectly valid metric. You suggested that "what you drive is less important than how you drive. Now that I have put that straw man to rest...lets agree to disagree on how 'orrible the family car is.

You wrote, "No kidding! You mean risk is not directly linked to time spent in a car?"

I said, it is not directly proportional to time spent in a car.

Time spent waiting in a parking lot for your wife to finish shopping is not nearly as perilous as time spent in Chicago rush hour on a busy highway (Smeed's Law).

Well, I don't know your wife, but you get my point, I hope. :-)

If you don't get my point, then I guess I can't do anything more to make you understand my point.

The only thing I suggest if you find driving unacceptable is to ban yourself and your family from using them.

The rest of us find the tradeoff acceptable.

In 2012 33,780 people died (down 4.2% from the previous year) in traffic accidents.

That's out of 240 million registered vehicles. Not every vehicle has only one passenger, but even if it did, that would mean there would be one fatality for every 7,105 vehicles in 2012.

Oh, that 1 out of 7,105 does not mean that every vehicle has a 0.014% of having a fatal accident per year. Again, it depends on who is driving it. Teens have the highest fatality rate and seasoned adults the lowest.

You wrote, "So you don't think safety features are as important as good driving techniques?"

I don't. Good driving practices are the most important by a huge margin and most responders on this forum agree with that. This is why we have driver education courses in the USA. You can drive any car carelessly and have just about an equal opportunity to have a crash. The reverse is also true.

The only thing I will agree with is how horrible so many drivers are on the road. Blame the car if you want to.

But I proved that safety features are way more important...about 75% of accident reduction came after the book came out. But I guess you don't get it. Maybe Ralph Nader's book means nothing to you. I can live with that. (guess I will have to...lots of stiff necks out there!) Insurance companies demanding air bags were a good part of that reduction. OVER the protests of the big three. Safer cars are a necessity and the technology is ongoing. It was not the jack asses who changed, the good safety stats came from padded dash boards, safety glass, crumple zones, drop out engines and air bags.

I actually own a car. I don't drive it when I can take a bus. I have it in case I have to get to the hospital in a hurry. Then the risk is worth it. The risk you take with your family is your business...you are over 18. The fact that your family is 99% more likely to be in an accident with a car instead of a bus is your cross to bear if (God Forbid) you bounce a pedestrian off your grill like I did. Or get hit by a drunk or a stunt driving idiot...um, like I did. (Is that grammatically correct? ninety nine percent are vehicle accidents. Does that make it 99 times more likely or 99% more likely?.)

I get your point, you choose to weigh the risk and take it. At least we agree that there are too many idiots on the road. All the education and training will not prevent some 16 year old idiot from plowing into a parked car. Or from sliding on ice or spinning out in the rain. Does not matter that you might be dead stopped...you can still get hit. Youtube is full of examples.

Your faith in drivers is touching, but perhaps misplaced...the bozo's will be with us always. Taking their licences away does not work. Education has limited effect at best.

Lots of likes and GA's don't make 3780 good people come back to life. Its your choice of course. Me, I prefer to look at the grass rather than the roots.

Pilot?? After watching a few episodes of "Air Disasters" it appears that many aircraft crashes are due to "pilot error". Considering the fact that commercial pilots are far better trained than all but a few drivers, I would venture a theory that most auto crashes are not accidents, but due to the loose nut holding the steering wheel.

While I agree with Yusef regarding "suburban sprawl", it will be a long time before I return to apartment, crowded, city surviving. As I haven't the resources to maintain a winter city residence, and a getaway home in "the Hamptons", I shall maintain my lifestyle at a safe hearing distance in the 'burbs.

Its not so bad....when you don't have to pay for a car, you can afford a nice place in the city. When you add the car into the mix...the parking, fuel, payments all add up to a shxxxy apartment plus a car. Without the car, you get a nice condo. Or even a single family home.

Its okay...I can't pretend that I can change lifestyle choices with a few paragraphs on an obscure forum. I just had to point out what I perceive as the obvious. The car culture was unknown to my grandfather and his father too...and they turned out all right. The car culture is such a sacred cow, its ridiculous. Dangerous AND ridiculous. Get rid of the sentimental old thing...it can cost you your life and your economic future.

Now a good chorus of "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz...all my friends they have Porches and I must make amends... to cement the reality of why we feel the need to own a car. Same reason you start smoking...peer pressure.

Not many of us are in a position where we can walk to everywhere we need to go. Cars are not an option for most of us. Bike riders and pedestrians are not immune to accidents either. At least I got rid of my motorcycle. The problem in Colorado now is the impaired drivers from marijanna. They don't yet have a test that can determine when they are "too high." My son-in-law already got hit by one (his resored classic car, no less.)

I hope your son-in-law was unscathed or at least recovered/is recovering well.

.

I'm not sure about Colorado, but DUI laws in many places cover impairment regardless of the substance causing the impairment. Impaired driving (from marijuana or otherwise) should be identifiable in a standard field sobriety test.

.

Have you seen any statistics supporting the idea that impaired driving is on the upswing in Colorado due to marijuana? Does it seem obvious from personal observation?

My son-in-law was not injured, but the car certainly was. He said the driver's eyes were glazed. The driver just got a ticket, nothing else. I haven't seen any statistics, but have seen a few cars that were not in good control. Of coarse that could be alcohol or meth, etc. The biggest problem that I see is the synthetic marijuana. It is loaded with chemicals which aren't consistent. A recent Facebook page showed a girl who now can't walk or feed herself and is blind due to brain damage from synthetic marijuana.

Seriously? Synthetic Mary Jane? Is it even worth the effort ? Like it grows easy enough.

Another opportunity to break bad I suppose.

I must Google that one....

I think there may be some confusion over things being marketed as legal substitutes for marijuana (where marijuana is still illegal) and synthetic THC.

.

Synthetic THC (Marinol) has a good rack record and has been used medicinally for decades. It is available with a prescription most places, including places where medicinal marijuana is not yet legal.

.

The concoctions that were/are being sold as legal substitutes for marijuana are not synthetic marijuana. Some of these concoctions contain some of the same things that the bath salt concoctions contained. Other concoctions contain things that are more likely to be scary than dangerous in and of themselves, for example salvia....though someone's behavior on such a chemical certainly could be dangerous.

No furry wall to land on.

Oh, and I dont want to eliminate private transportation. I want to reduce it...and prefer to see it reduced voluntarily rather than state imposed. Car pooling is not just for Blondie and Dagwood any more....simple old style car pooling will reduce fuel expenses by 3/4s. Is that not attractive enough? It will be when the price of gas goes up to 20 dollars a gallon. (give it a few years...enough time to prepare. Americans do NOT have a right to cheap gas!)

Car pooling would also reduce congestion by at least a half! The biggest complaint I hear from people is not gas prices, but that there is too much congestion. Ottawa's Queensway reduces to stop and go traffic every day between four and six. Toronto's 401 is congested to a stop every day between three and seven. The Don Valley Parkway lives up to its name every single day! Most of those cars have only one person in them! What prompts people to waste a half hour every morning and another in the evening? Wasting gas and polluting the air. A campaign to promote car pooling might help. Maybe better, cleaner, safer busses might be helpful. Light rail and watchful guards made even crowded Dublin a comfortable city to live in.

London England imposed a congestion charge for the downtown core, and reduced the problem that way, but that was state imposed. A government nearly fell over it...but anybody visiting London NOW has nothing but praise for the idea.

London England imposed a congestion charge for the downtown core, and reduced the problem that way, but that was state imposed. A government nearly fell over it...but anybody visiting London NOW has nothing but praise for the idea.

No, not everyone. I was in London not long ago. I had to rent a car as I was staying in down town for business, but also had to go to Swinedon for work. Because I was staying and would be driving in London, I had to pay the congestion fee.

While the congestion fee may have reduced congestion, I would hardly say it's no longer congested. As a matter of fact, congestion appeared to me to be worse than most any city I've been in (which is quite a few). Granted that's my observation which I realize is not a scientific comparison.

By the way I did not drive to get around London....only to get in and out.

Imagine how bad it would be WITHOUT the congestion fee...grin!

Well I suppose that at some point, the congestion itself would be a deterrent to driving. Perhaps the congestion fee just further encourages getting folks off the streets.

Congestion is not something which seems to deter driving. Nor does high gasoline prices or high costs of the ride. An automobile, unlike even the most expensive house, is a depreciating asset, and its fuel keep going up in price. Reader's Digest pointed out some 40 years ago that car costs are the highest expenditure a family can have (and pointed out some ways to reduce that expenditure by buying smaller and used cars) but I noticed that they did not at the time advocate city living. Considering cities at that time were melting down (Fort Apache New York...Die Hard...Serpico) and becoming the (mostly perceived) bailiwick of gangs, drugs and prostitution, the suburbs looked more attractive. Things have changed so much in the last forty years though. Cities are looking more and more attractive...and suburbs are where the gangs hang their hats. (A few exceptions still exist, in Detroit and Miami for instance. But they are being pushed to smaller and smaller areas) Condos are no longer acres of town houses but attractive high rise apartment condos. The only growth industry in Ottawa and Toronto the last five years was condo construction. What do the builders know that we don't? Just a guess, but the aging population would like to live close to hospitals and arts centres and their kids appreciate the university access and coffee shops.

Personally the "biggest expenditure a family can have" is, in MY books should be a University education for my kids, a paid for nice home with a burnt mortgage, a cellar full of Port and fine expensive whiskey, and a workshop which I can indulge my delusions of running a business. Not a damned piece of tin which I have to run an hour twice a day just to get to a job which barely covers the cost of gas and rent. If I have to commute...a nice book or a laptop can make that wasted time into more or less productive time. Can't do that while doing the stop-and-go waltz down the Queensway every day.

But others prefer the commute to paying down the mortgage. Well..they are free and over 21, so I guess they make their choices in whatever manner is suitable for them. I made my choice and as smug as I know I come across, I respect other's choices. Even when they raise my property tax by triple to pay for a wider access road to my subdivision. grrrr....

As a matter of fact, congestion appeared to me to be worse than most any city I've been in (which is quite a few)

Then you still have some more cities to experience sport. Bangkok, Phnom Penh, Ho Chi Minh City, Manilla and probably most of South Asia as well would be worse than London.

Jump on a flying bus mate and taste it for yourself!

Personally I hate it.

You're right, I've not been to those cities, and have no desire to. It's a different flavor of congestion. Not that I like congestion of any flavor.

There is more to do in these cities than just drive you know...

No doubt. But if congestion is so bad, then much of your time is spent sitting in traffic waiting to do it.

Walking is still an option in some of those cities.

"....Germany has 2.36 times less fatalities per person than the USA. Germany has 2.17 times less fatalities per vehicle than the USA....."

.

If you consider some of the contributing factors, these statistics become far less shocking.

.

The US has ~40% more vehicles on the road per capita than Germany.

.

Per capita vehicle miles traveled in the US is ~44% greater in the US than in Germany.

.

It would be an oversimplification to suggest that this equates exactly to a 40% additional chance of impacting another vehicle per distance, and 44% additional chance of having an impact due to increased mileage (which does arrive rather neatly in the vicinity of your ~2 times lethality comparisons), so it isn't something I'd hang my hat on as a definitive explanation. Those two factors are bound to have significant influence in the statistics you sited, though.

I don't think anyone (even AH) is saying safety features are not beneficial. But in the end it's not the cars that kill, it's the folks operating them. As AH pointed out, not every hour spent behind the wheel carries the same risk.

Most of the driving my wife does is on local community (suburb) roads and rarely has to go above 40 mph. While she spends many more minutes in her vehicle than I do throughout the day, my commute is probably much riskier as I'm on the highway (50-70 mph) during rush hour and also driving through densely packed parts of the city for a portion of my commute.

According to a 2013 study in Research in Transportation Economics, "Comparing the Fatality Risks in United States Transportation Across Modes and Over Time," :

• half of all deaths in car and light trucks were not wearing their seat belts or in a child safety seat.
• Alcohol played a role in approximately a third of all highway fatalities, with at least one of the involved parties having a blood-alcohol level above 0.8 grams per deciliter

Also, what is the fatality rate in the statics you quote occurred between 6 AM and 6 PM? What is the fatality rate between 6 PM and 6 AM? I don't know the answer, but I suspect they are not the same and that more occur between 6 PM and 6 AM. I admit that I may be quite wrong.

Actually, I just took a moment and did a quick bit of internet surfing on the subject and came across this study by the NHTSA. Data from 2005 indicate that just less than half (49%) of fatalities occurred at night. However, less than 25% of travel occurs at night resulting in the fatality rate at night being 3 times that during the day. The study also goes into whether the occupants used restraints or not.

It seems that by avoiding driving at night when more folks are inebriated and by wearing your seat belt, you are at a much lower risk of being killed via traffic accident.....which I believe supports the point AH was making.

Yes it does.

However, twisting statistics is a mugs game, and you know it. I can twist them right back. Thats what lawyers do. An engineering forum is more rooted in reality.

Since we are provisionally agreed that its people who kill people, not cars that kill people...we must get people off the roads. Only way to do that is to provide a viable alternative. The less people driving, the less tragedy.

In a university town in New Brunswick Canada, they provided taxi passes to students as part of their tuition. The accident rate dropped to a tenth of what it was before. Drunkenness was rampant (hey, its a University town!) but driving was VERY discouraged with sidewalk sobriety tests. (or so I heard) Many parents did not have to attend their kids funeral, and the city spent no more than they would have were they to widen the road...no more congested streets and parked cars on the sidewalks. Less policing too.

They do the same at Carleton University...but with bus passes. Canadian cities are awfully big to walk around in...they are really spread out because of the car culture. You need some way to get around. I applaud Carleton U for its sensible response to four drunk students who hit a light standard at Riverside and Baseline road back in 04...there have been very few incidents since. And in the face of angry letters about high tuition too!.

I don't see how I'm twisting statistics. The data are more supportive of AH's and my point of view than yours.

You were the one who put out general statistics and then used it to support your desire to eliminate private transportation.

The fact is DUI plays a significant role in traffic fatalities. Wouldn't it make more sense to do away with alcohol? Of course, that was tried long ago and I'm not saying it should be the course of action now, but it would make more sense than eliminating cars. As would requiring all cars to not be allowed to move until all the passengers were wearing their seat belts.

Yes, it's people who kill people, but more specifically it's people's behavior. I don't say we get people off the roads...we get the people on the roads to behave more safely, considerately of others and get them to be more responsible and get the ones who are not willing to off the roads. I'm not opposed to strict penalties for DUI and even significant policing of drivers to ensure they are not DUI prior to accidents happening.

I'm not opposed to other modes of transportation either (walking, buses, taxis, trains, etc.). I think it would be wiser use of resources to educate and train the drivers than eliminate cars.

Good for the university in New Brunswick and the folks that live around there (I'm quite sincere when I say that, not sarcastic). I'd be happy to be subjected to sobriety checks if it leads to non-DUI around me and others.

You mention dealing with root causes. Let's look at the real root cause. So far, not much has been mentioned about why are drivers engaging in dangerous driving behaviour in the first place. I'm sure there is more than one single root cause but two that come to mind are:

• decay in personal responsibility (more and more society provides safety nets or excuses for those not taking responsibility for their actions) which bleeds over into other areas of individual's lives
• decay of personal moral responsibility - individuals putting their personal desires above doing what is safe for others

Certainly there are root causes to those behaviours too, but that's maybe for an off-topic thread.

"...So far, not much has been mentioned about why are drivers engaging in dangerous driving behaviour in the first place.....

...

• decay in personal responsibility (more and more society provides safety nets or excuses for those not taking responsibility for their actions) which bleeds over into other areas of individual's lives
• decay of personal moral responsibility - individuals putting their personal desires above doing what is safe for others..."

.

Has there been an increase in dangerous driving behavior relative to the size of the driving population? Your 'decay' explanations certainly seen to suggest it. It would be appropriate to first establish the existence of the trend before you go about providing reasons for it. Beyond that, you haven't really provided any support for the reasons you propose.

.

.

"....The data are more supportive of AH's and my point of view than yours...."

.

It isn't clear to me that AH and you share very similar view points. You seem to be advocating safety equipment, like things '...requiring all cars to not be allowed to move until all the passengers were wearing their seat belts....' and possibly things that would monitor for BAC prior to allowing a car to move. Those seem to be pretty clearly in the camp of 'safety equipment'.

.

.

"....I'd be happy to be subjected to sobriety checks if it leads to non-DUI around me and others...."

.

Willing to trade a little liberty for your security, are you? You make it sound so inviting. I'm not opposed to safety equipment that requires you to blow a breathalizer to start a car. I am opposed to warrant-less and specific reason-less stops for the supposed sake of making sure everyone is safe.

Willing to trade a little liberty for your security, are you? You make it sound so inviting. I'm not opposed to safety equipment that requires you to blow a Breathalyzer to start a car. I am opposed to warrant-less and specific reason-less stops for the supposed sake of making

I'm not opposed to safety equipment requiring one to breathalyze in order to start a vehicle, either, although that then puts a cost on all car owners whether we drink or not. Yes, being stopped on the highway for a Breathalyzer check also adds a cost, but to a much smaller segment of society. While not all those driving at night are drinking, it would impact a smaller portion of society.

While I don't particularly like the idea of such a trade off (liberty/security), it's a matter of degree. What are the most effective ways to deal with fatalities due to DUI?

• Outlaw intoxicants or eliminate private driving (both are extremes, unlikely to ever be implemented)
• Make cars more sophisticated (more safety features, self driving)
• Increase enforcement
• ?

In a few years, it may all be a moot point as autonomous vehicles advance and become the norm.

I lived in South Korea for approx a year and a half. They would frequently set up random traffic stops to check the driver's breath. The penalty was quite high (thousands of $). While most of the checkpoints I observed were at night, I was once stopped at 7 AM on my way to work one morning. It's fairly common for the Koreans to be out late drinking during mid week and still be rather drunk by the time they are on their way to work the next morning.

I do not see being stopped on a public road and being asked to submit to a Breathalyzer test as a warrant-less search nor a significant impediment to liberty (other than the liberty to drive while intoxicated). One could argue that it impedes one's liberty to drive freely without being stopped, but then doesn't the same reasoning apply to stop signs and stop lights?

As a matter of fact, our federal government is doing a similar thing with the TSA and flying. Only instead of targeting the time of day, they target everyone getting on a plane in the USA. My suggestion could be implemented at the local, not federal, level, not require expensive technology and not everyone has to be stopped, law enforcement could choose to stop every 10th or 20th vehicle. Coupled with it should be a stiff penalty if guilty.

Let me clarify, it's not that I'm pushing for this type of action, but in the context of the discussion of lowering traffic fatalities where Yusef is anti-car and pushing safety feature. I suggest targeting what's causing the majority of the fatalities (DUI). Yusef brings up an interesting stat regarding safety features pointing to "Unsafe At Any Speed" as a crucial inflexion point in saving lives. While I don't dispute the importance of that book or the safety features, I don't see a huge drop (year over year) in fatalities since the book came out. Fatalities steadily decline from 1920's to present day.

You wrote, "In a few years, it may all be a moot point as autonomous vehicles advance and become the norm."

Withe 254 million cars already on the road I think it will take much more than a few years before even 1/10th of those are replaced with new cars. New car sales are only around 7 to 8 million per year in the US.

I know that I have absolutely no interest in buying a new car when both of our cars serve us well. We may replace my fiancée's car, but it will not be anything new.

The phrase 'a few years' was not meant to imply the next 2 or 3 years. Perhaps a few decades would have been a better choice of words.

"....One could argue that it impedes one's liberty to drive freely without being stopped, but then doesn't the same reasoning apply to stop signs and stop lights?...."

.

False dichotomy. Stop signs and traffic lights are part of normal traffic control necessary calm traffic flow. Traffic lights and stop signs do not ask every 20th person or every 5th person or every person "Where are your papers!".

.

People have a right to be secure in their person and their effects. Without reasonable cause it is unreasonable to breach that security. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights do not grant rights like these. These rights are merely enumerated therein.

.

It a person is impaired it is not had to tell whether they are walking or driving. If they are walking in a way that suggests they are impaired and then get in to the driver's seat, that is probably cause for conducting a closer inspection. If a car is being driven in a way that suggests impairment, that is also probable cause. Passing a certain point on a regular road way, or being the 10th or 20th person to pass an arbitrary point is certainly not probably cause.

...or maybe its helicopter moms who prefer to "drop them off instead of having them take the school bus or public transport.

There are a number of reasons mom's drop them off kids instead of allowing them to take the bus. It's a sad reality but 6th and 7th grade kids are having sex on the bus. I trust that my daughter would not engage, however, do not want her exposed to it.

We consider the few miles in the car at no more than 35 mph vs. a much longer commute in the vulgar atmosphere of the school bus a good trade off.

Sounds like an urban legend to me...but you have made your choice.

Urban legend? I'm not talking about hearing about it happening in some other state. This goes on in the community I live in...and it's not hear say.

I'm sure I'd have a different perspective if I were still a teenage boy.

I would ride the bus with my daughter. Fix that little red wagon pronto. Don't you have adult bus monitors to prevent bad behavior? Mine did.

Don't you have adult bus monitors to prevent bad behavior? Nope...only the bus driver who isn't able to watch all activities in the back of the bus and drive too.

Parents are not allowed to ride the bus.

Oooooh. Bummer. Up here, teachers supervise recesses and we have bus monitors, though not enough, their use is complaint driven. And they are private yellow school buses with bars in the front to prevent kids from walking in front of the bus below the driver's sight lines.

I don't imagine such safety features as safety bars and padded seat backs really infringe on the kids' human rights though....grin! Can't quite see that connection. Nobody here whinges about seat belts being a requirement in motorcars, at least not anymore. Oh, once in a while you hear a "human rights" whine....but really nobody takes them seriously anymore...the stats are just SO obvious. Had two of my friends on separate occasions get ejected out of their cars in the last ten years.... not wearing seat belts is clearly a stupid act. You never know when a mountain goat is going to come around the corner! Or when you are going to doze off. Lost a couple of good friends there.

Safety features came seriously in effect in about '65 and up. I have already posted a good link which shows that clearly. Whether Ralph Nader had anything to do with it or not....its a good thing. Safety features reduced the accident rate by 75%, though some have suggested education and better lighting might contribute. Could be...would not want to rule it out. But we all agree that there are just as many idiots and bozo's out there as there was when I was a kid, maybe even more. So what resulted in the reduction? What brought a possible 13hundred death rate in '65 down to 3 grand in 2014? Better drivers? Really? I see no evidence of that. No sir, more safety features please. (maybe a billy goat roll bar? A head mounted sensor which detects when you are falling asleep? Come to think of it, I think they already have those)

If I had a point, I think I have made it. Oh, one more... I was counting cars yesterday and during the commute the vast majority of cars only had one driver. The commute was on a route well served by public transit and by commuter parking lots. The west is running out of oil? Double or triple or fourple up the commuters damn it! I think it would reduce demand for oil by at least two thirds! Is that bad for the economy? Well, maybe bad for MY country's economy. Think of the tuition you could give your kid if you saved three quarters of your gas bill every year as they were growing up!

Yusef1

School buses around my area also have safety bars and padded seat backs. Those features provide for safety should there be an accident. However, my opposition to my daughter riding the bus has more to do with behaviour on the bus.

"...Fix that little red wagon pronto...."

.

There seem to be significant differences between school busing systems in the US and Canada.

.

In the US, 'school bus' is what we call our 'little... wagon'; and it serves the purpose of ferrying children in elementary and middle school to and from school as well as performing some sort of strange traffic enhancing ritual dance around high schools mostly empty off passengers.

.

Also our 'school buses' are almost always yellow, never red. Red is reserved for older fire trucks, older ambulances, and fast vehicles of older citizens who pride themselves in the number of speeding tickets they can acquire.

You funny guy! GA just for the grin!

you have apparently seen my driving record...

This red one can also exceed the speed limit...

....your life's passion can be realised without a huge investment.

The bikes here are mostly in quite good running order. Hardly any 2 strokes to smoke the place up...my son rides a 2 stroke motorcross bike on the road here (CRM250) yes it is smoky but it is also very fast....we were all young once. He lives in the bush so his vehicle choice does make sense except when he comes home to visit.

I remember one day he came home, borrowed Mrs Wal's bike, quite shocked after witnessing a serious accident adjacent to him in the traffic..."like the guy's chin was where the back of his head should have been..." He wore his helmet without protest after seeing that.

I'm considering giving my bigish car, Ford Ranger diesel, to him to use in the bush and getting myself a smaller car for the city...maybe. Folk keep clear of a big bullbar which helps. I wonder if I could fit some sort of exoskeleton to say a Mini Cooper?....

There is no crash report about Nano in the link provided by you. Any how Nano is practically not selling here in India. Tatas are modifying whole car design not keeping in mind the price as basic factor but safety as one of the important factor.

Mini Coopers really aren't that small (have you seen one in person?). I remember when I was in Italy, a Mini was one of the largest common cars on the road. There are probably many other small cars that are more in need of an exoskeleton.

I think you haven't been to a car dealer lately. I went to a Chevy dealer to get a part for my son. In the showroom was a $48,000 car and a $37,000 car. The cheapest was $12,000 and it looked like junk.

Re-phrased: How Cheap are Safe Cars?

I have had good luck with used cars. I don't know about current pricing, but a few years ago you could get a 3-year-old car with 40,000 miles for about half its original price. Nowadays, most cars with 40-50,000 miles are like new. You can often drive them an additional 150,000 miles with reasonable luck & care. I have also had pretty good luck with beaters. Cheap insurance, no car payments... so you don't mind sinking a few bucks into them and you don't feel so bad when they get a scratch or ding.

When I was growing up in the '60s, my dad refused to buy used cars for good reason. They were ready for the junk-yard after 100,000 miles. Those days are thankfully gone.

All other things being equal, a bigger(~more expensive) car can generally offer more security, specially when it is challenged by a crash with another vehicle. This does not apply for example when you crash on a road side monolith. But then, all other things are also not... equal, so I do justify the use of smaller (cheap) cars for economy reasons, when the main use is at relatively low speeds like in the city. Just don't try to make me get into one of those and drive on highway. You're out of luck. (lol) S.M.

When I got married I had a new car. While we struggled to raise our 3 kids we had used cars. Most didn't cost me more than $100. It was a big jump when we could finally afford a $1000 car! When all 3 of the kids college education was paid for, I bought my first new car since we were first married. I was 50 at the time. The only way we could do with the really cheap cars was because I was knowledgeable in cars and could do ALL of the maintenance and repairs my self. Today that's not as easy to do with modern technology. So I agree that the best tool is the good driver, but I think being knowledgeable about your vehicle is just as important. How many times do we see questions on here about someone's brakes that are obviously bad and they are still driving the car?!

I don't read any disagreements in this discussion.

Seems we all agree that the driver's competence and attention are paramount, and that safety features make operator error incidents more survivable.

Yusef wants everyone on a bus....but doesn't dispute the other tenets. The driver of the school bus on The Simpsons is an exemplary driver.

I'm sure that driver competence could be medicinally enhanced...how's the Colorado experiment going?

The ultimate Green Vehicle is a used car, two years old, sorted out and broken in!

Buy Used!

My idea of a cheap small motor vehicle though is a motorcycle. Many of the new ones are approaching 80 mpg with fuel injection.

Completely eliminates all driver errors and distractions and you drive defensively ALL the time or you die.

My car is small too tho, very efficient @ 30+ mpg, fun, darn good looking, and the smell of the leather even after 15 years is very hard to describe in engineering terms but better than fresh baked bread. :)- I paid $7500 for it last year. I will keep this one forever, knock on wood.

The inherent efficiency of those things makes up for my work truck which is a dinosaur but a necessary evil of my trade.

Sweet ride for $7.5

Agree that the truly green way to go is to not buy brand new cars....embedded energy and all that.

The green police will get you either way.

More to the above....

Looks like I am not the only one who has heretical thoughts!

I'm on the same page as you Yusef.

One of the reasons I escaped the "west" was to not spend my life commuting.

This comment, when viewed in the context of your professed 'donk-love', paints a picture suggesting quiet the complex character, Wal.

Commuting is not the same as driving and cars aren't the only machines with nice donks.

Complex character.....no too much more than the other characters here.

"...cars aren't the only machines with nice donks..."

.

In light of the definition you previously offered for 'donks', my analysis appears to have merit.