invacar LightBulbFun's Invacar & general ramble thread, index on page 1, survivors lists on Pages 24/134 & AdgeCutler's Invacar Mk12 Restoration from Page 186 onwards, still harping on...

[High Jetter]

43 minutes ago, D.E said:

Watford.

Granada, Cresta, Dixons, Ryman, Finlays. Now turkish barbers, vape shops or tanning salons

[adw1977]

Ryman is still going

[Dick Cheeseburger]

Salford, 1977.

[danthecapriman]

 

[LightBulbFun]

1 hour ago, danthecapriman said:

 

ill raise you one better  

Claire Pendrous is one of I suppose what you would call the old-guard, she has been collecting/involved with street lighting for many decades, not only does she have an extremely impressive collection of streetlights and is extremely skilled at the restoration of them as well,  I have also had the pleasure of talking with her at a couple of the gatherings, and she even sold me some very nice and rare fluorescent tubes from her collection, as well as going out of her way to grab a box of rare fluorescent tubes that I wanted which was for sale local to her and bring them down to the meet for me, the big box of 3ft 30W Atlas Colour Natural T12 tubes (the one that says "25" on it in this shot of my Brothers Corsa, this was my haul from the October Gathering  )

 

and these are the extremely rare fluorescent tubes she kindly sold to me!, she does not explicitly collect lightbulbs in the same way she does streetlights, but she knows what they are, knows to save em, and when you have been in the game for as long as she has, you inadvertently end up with stuff like this!

 

these Military Radar Room fluorescent tubes, Radar Red, Radar Blue (still sealed in its Plessy Radar Ltd box) and Peach, all in 2ft 40W size to boot (which is not a common size at the best of times) 

(suddenly I really wish I had one of those 3 lamp 2ft 40W fixtures @Zelandeth has! that would be perfect for lighting all 3 together )

 

[Remspoor]

No comment

further down

Further down

 

[Zelandeth]

3 hours ago, LightBulbFun said:

ill raise you one better  

Claire Pendrous is one of I suppose what you would call the old-guard, she has been collecting/involved with street lighting for many decades, not only does she have an extremely impressive collection of streetlights and is extremely skilled at the restoration of them as well,  I have also had the pleasure of talking with her at a couple of the gatherings, and she even sold me some very nice and rare fluorescent tubes from her collection, as well as going out of her way to grab a box of rare fluorescent tubes that I wanted which was for sale local to her and bring them down to the meet for me, the big box of 3ft 30W Atlas Colour Natural T12 tubes (the one that says "25" on it in this shot of my Brothers Corsa, this was my haul from the October Gathering  )

 

and these are the extremely rare fluorescent tubes she kindly sold to me!, she does not explicitly collect lightbulbs in the same way she does streetlights, but she knows what they are, knows to save em, and when you have been in the game for as long as she has, you inadvertently end up with stuff like this!

 

these Military Radar Room fluorescent tubes, Radar Red, Radar Blue (still sealed in its Plessy Radar Ltd box) and Peach, all in 2ft 40W size to boot (which is not a common size at the best of times) 

(suddenly I really wish I had one of those 3 lamp 2ft 40W fixtures @Zelandeth has! that would be perfect for lighting all 3 together )

 

Nice haul there!  Do wish the meets were something I could get to, but sadly that's just never going to happen.

[LightBulbFun]

24 minutes ago, Zelandeth said:

Nice haul there!  Do wish the meets were something I could get to, but sadly that's just never going to happen.

indeed I can very much understand the problems, the first one I went to, the one I took REV too, there was was a lot more of a general social-political environment , that I dont do well with, it felt a lot more like random blokes at a pub then lighting enthusiasts if you will and I did have considerations if I really want to risk that for a second time

but thankfully this second one I went too, was much more lighting-technical focused, less random chit chat about someones local takeaway kabab shop, and more technical in-depth discussions about early fluorescent lighting on the London underground the technical specifications and development of the the electrical specifications of the 125W 8ft tube over time, and the demonstration of a fluorescent tube that someone themselves had made at home

it was much nicer for me this time around! I hope future ones I go to are more like that!

[Zelandeth]

Yeah, sadly as I am basically the walking embodiment of everything that several of the folks there have very outspokenly made it clear they see as being everything wrong with the world, that's a gamble I'm never going to be able to make.  It honestly just legitimately wouldn't feel safe.  Which yes, is why I stopped visiting TLR about a year or so back.  There's only so much I can chose to let slide - there were a couple of things said that just made me nope right out of it.

[Richard_FM]

5 hours ago, LightBulbFun said:

ill raise you one better  

Claire Pendrous is one of I suppose what you would call the old-guard, she has been collecting/involved with street lighting for many decades, not only does she have an extremely impressive collection of streetlights and is extremely skilled at the restoration of them as well,  I have also had the pleasure of talking with her at a couple of the gatherings, and she even sold me some very nice and rare fluorescent tubes from her collection, as well as going out of her way to grab a box of rare fluorescent tubes that I wanted which was for sale local to her and bring them down to the meet for me, the big box of 3ft 30W Atlas Colour Natural T12 tubes (the one that says "25" on it in this shot of my Brothers Corsa, this was my haul from the October Gathering  )

 

and these are the extremely rare fluorescent tubes she kindly sold to me!, she does not explicitly collect lightbulbs in the same way she does streetlights, but she knows what they are, knows to save em, and when you have been in the game for as long as she has, you inadvertently end up with stuff like this!

 

these Military Radar Room fluorescent tubes, Radar Red, Radar Blue (still sealed in its Plessy Radar Ltd box) and Peach, all in 2ft 40W size to boot (which is not a common size at the best of times) 

(suddenly I really wish I had one of those 3 lamp 2ft 40W fixtures @Zelandeth has! that would be perfect for lighting all 3 together )

 

I've been following Claire on Flickr for years, she has a lot of pictures of buses mostly in the Midlands.

[Talbot]

On 31/10/2025 at 12:59, chadders said:

Hubnut seems to be of the same opinion as Talbot.

 

On 31/10/2025 at 17:56, dollywobbler said:

Not entirely. If I lived in a city, I would definitely drive TWC more. As it is, it's fast A roads or single track lanes around here. You don't know fear until you encounter a courier on a single track lane and your front wheel starts skidded down the grass in the middle of the road. Cadence braking is possible but not easy with arm power. 

TWC was actually a joy when I drove her across London as the 0-30mph is pretty brisk, visibility is ok and the lack of clutch means jams are no issue.

Actually this was exactly my opinion.  Small city cars are all generally shit, have minimal crash protection, wobbly as hell and you wouldn't want to do a long journey in one, so an invacar is not a terrible alternative.  My entire opinion about using an invacar as a "car" in this day and age is that they are tiny, flimsy, unstable, prone to breakdown and have almost no backup.

If you break down in one in town, you're likely stopped on a slow road, which has lighting, with somewhere within walking distance that you could get to if the worst happens.

If you break down in one on a fast single-carriageway A-road on a blind bend in the dark in the pissing rain, miles from anywhere, you're screwed.

As an able-bodied competent driver and competent mechanic, I wouldn't drive one in the above circumstances if you paid me.  Even round town they are 50+ years out of date (although that matters less.

You can't tell me that if a moron in a BMW X5 clouts into an invacar at anything more than walking pace, it's not going to end up a shower of fiberglass shards with the platform "chassis" of the invacar underneath the BM, and the driver turned to mincemeat.

What amazes me here is that everyone who has significant driving experience is convinced that an invacar is fundamentally dangerous.  It's only those with minimal experience that believe it's acceptably safe.

Once you've driven any large SUV/4x4 type vehicle on the road, you then look at anything flimsy from >1980 with serious suspicion.  Driving a Mini/2CV/triumph Spitfire/anything of that size and era is very high risk.  And yes, I have done so. 

[chadders]

2 minutes ago, Talbot said:

 

Actually this was exactly my opinion.  Small city cars are all generally shit, have minimal crash protection, wobbly as hell and you wouldn't want to do a long journey in one, so an invacar is not a terrible alternative.  My entire opinion about using an invacar as a "car" in this day and age is that they are tiny, flimsy, unstable, prone to breakdown and have almost no backup.

If you break down in one in town, you're likely stopped on a slow road, which has lighting, with somewhere within walking distance that you could get to if the worst happens.

If you break down in one on a fast single-carriageway A-road on a blind bend in the dark in the pissing rain, miles from anywhere, you're screwed.

As an able-bodied competent driver and competent mechanic, I wouldn't drive one in the above circumstances if you paid me.  Even round town they are 50+ years out of date (although that matters less.

You can't tell me that if a moron in a BMW X5 clouts into an invacar at anything more than walking pace, it's not going to end up a shower of fiberglass shards with the platform "chassis" of the invacar underneath the BM, and the driver turned to mincemeat.

What amazes me here is that everyone who has significant driving experience is convinced that an invacar is fundamentally dangerous.  It's only those with minimal experience that believe it's acceptably safe.

Once you've driven any large SUV/4x4 type vehicle on the road, you then look at anything flimsy from >1980 with serious suspicion.  Driving a Mini/2CV/triumph Spitfire/anything of that size and era is very high risk.  And yes, I have done so. 

I used to regularly drive my MGB on the motorway, going all around Britain to watch ProdSports etc. racing, but am loath to do so now despite knowing it's pretty sturdy, the knowledge gained by having two crashes in it in my 20s.

[Weird Car]

45 minutes ago, Talbot said:

What amazes me here is that everyone who has significant driving experience is convinced that an invacar is fundamentally dangerous.  It's only those with minimal experience that believe it's acceptably safe.

Exactly this☝️☝️

[RayMK]

The comments regarding safety are perfectly valid.  The difficulty I have with them is that on that basis all motorcyclists, cyclists, city car drivers and often rusty classics (if not all of them) should be at the very least banned from certain roads  or perhaps banned altogether.  It is not for us to weigh the circumstances or opinions of others and judge those that choose not to own a heavy SUV as some form of idiot.  As one gets older, has gathered more experience and perhaps has the additional responsibility of a family, then of course many do reassess and change their opinions and become very safety conscious.  Many others will look at things differently and put enjoyment of life, a sense of adventure and thrills as more important than absolute safety.  An Invacar is less threatening to pedestrians and other drivers because of its vulnerability.  Common sense dictates that the driver will be more attentive and careful than a typically bored or distracted SUV driver who is fiddling with a touch screen whilst occasionally gazing past a dash cam and navigation (or social media updates!) phone which obstructs their view past the already very substantial pillars. No worries. The lane keeping, distance keeping and blind  spot monitor will disguise their lousy driving skills.  Opinions are opinions. No need to be scathing,  except when mentioning bloated SUVs 🤣.

[Andrew353w]

All very interesting! My every-day car is a Subaru Forester S.U.V. and my classic's a Daf 33; you couldn't have a greater contrast in vehicular types, although both have a C.V.T. transmission ("Variomatic" in the Daf, "Transmatic" in the Subaru) and "boxer" style engines (the Daf's one being a somewhat smaller 750cc air-cooled one, vs. the Subaru's 2,500cc water cooled one.....) 

Driving them both is great fun: the Subaru's comfortable, air conditioned, smooth, very fast and has all the "whistles and bells" you'd expect, but the Daf is just GREAT to drive around London. It's so small that it can s-q-u-e-e-z-e into gaps in traffic that would stomp the Subaru. The Daf's brakes, while meeting the requirements of the M.O.T.,  are drums, so will stop, but you have to read the road more. I've driven the Daf all over the U.K. without any problems and am aware when driving it that it IS a 50+ year old car, with brakes and performance "of its time" and drive accordingly.  In short, we ought to be able to drive what we want, when we want and where we want (subject to the usual legal provisos) and not feel inhibited when so doing. 

[IronStar]

2 hours ago, Talbot said:

 

Actually this was exactly my opinion.  Small city cars are all generally shit, have minimal crash protection, wobbly as hell and you wouldn't want to do a long journey in one, so an invacar is not a terrible alternative.  My entire opinion about using an invacar as a "car" in this day and age is that they are tiny, flimsy, unstable, prone to breakdown and have almost no backup.

If you break down in one in town, you're likely stopped on a slow road, which has lighting, with somewhere within walking distance that you could get to if the worst happens.

If you break down in one on a fast single-carriageway A-road on a blind bend in the dark in the pissing rain, miles from anywhere, you're screwed.

As an able-bodied competent driver and competent mechanic, I wouldn't drive one in the above circumstances if you paid me.  Even round town they are 50+ years out of date (although that matters less.

You can't tell me that if a moron in a BMW X5 clouts into an invacar at anything more than walking pace, it's not going to end up a shower of fiberglass shards with the platform "chassis" of the invacar underneath the BM, and the driver turned to mincemeat.

What amazes me here is that everyone who has significant driving experience is convinced that an invacar is fundamentally dangerous.  It's only those with minimal experience that believe it's acceptably safe.

Once you've driven any large SUV/4x4 type vehicle on the road, you then look at anything flimsy from >1980 with serious suspicion.  Driving a Mini/2CV/triumph Spitfire/anything of that size and era is very high risk.  And yes, I have done so. 

I don't think anyone on here (or in their right mind) would argue that Invacar is safe. It really isn't. However, what other people argue is that it's in the safety ballpark of the original Mini, various Reliants, Fiat 500, and various similar 4-wheeled city car contraptions manufactured from 50s to the late 70s.

In spite of that, we had, on this very forum, as a recent example, people doing NC500 in Reliant 3 wheelers. People didn't stop tuning, supercharging, turbocharging, K-swapping, and generally making Minis stupidly fast and driving them on A/B roads, despite having all the safety features and integrity of a cardboard box in a crash. I can keep listing the things people do for fun with cars with no safety protection.

Does it make it safe because other people are doing it? Absolutely not. Do I do it? Yes. Would I be doing it if I were Dez? Probably not. I can push my car out of harm's way, and if it breaks down in the most unfortunate spot, bail out to safety and leave the car.

31, able-bodied, incompetent mechanic, driving for almost 14 years, living in a country with the most road deaths per 100k in Europe this year, commonly caused by people in huge SUVs crashing into smaller cars. Living in a city of 2.5 million, with shit public transport. Driving daily. 

[chadders]

In terms of safety one of my cars is probably about as unsafe as a AC trike if I look at it logically. My feet are in front of the front axle, the rest of me is 'protected' by a wafer thin sheet of steel, it doesn't handle, it's horrendously slow, blown about by mild sidewinds and so on and so forth.

There's no way on earth that I'd argue that's it's safe but I like it and driving it and I drive it in what I consider the right circumstances, out of town and not on 'fast' roads, just bimbling along.  

[barefoot]

24 minutes ago, IronStar said:

I don't think anyone on here (or in their right mind) would argue that Invacar is safe. 

There's one person on here who would argue that it is. I don't even think that it's as safe as my Trabbie used to be, but I drove that as my daily for six years and many miles. Now, I drive a T2 like the lad above, and a 850kg Scirocco, but at least they've got a wheel on each corner and a vague chance of stopping on a wet road or going around a corner at speed.

[LightBulbFun]

6 hours ago, IronStar said:

I don't think anyone on here (or in their right mind) would argue that Invacar is safe. It really isn't. However, what other people argue is that it's in the safety ballpark of the original Mini, various Reliants, Fiat 500, and various similar 4-wheeled city car contraptions manufactured from 50s to the late 70s.

this is exactly what I argue, obviously I understand that compared to *todays* vehicle the Invacar is not considered a safe vehicle, but I dont agree with how people called them deadly even for back in the day, that there was no concessions made to safety, when they where certainly no worse then any of the other vehicles listed above, and there was active concessions made to crash safety, for example the strengthing of the chassis and addition of a rollover bar to protect the driver in the case of a rollover crash, how many cars of the 1970's, had rollover protection?

and I still maintain that *for the time* the Model 70 was quite a robust vehicle

here is the chassis of a Model 70

and compare that with that of a Reliant Robin

as you can see the Model 70 is quite a bit more substantial and you can tell this just by the vehicle weights alone

both are 410Kg vehicles, but one is a single seater 2 cylinder, while the other is a 4 Cylinder 4 seater

as I often say, the Model 70 was built up to a specification, not down to a price  

[Sheefag]

How old are your tyres?

[D.E]

@LightBulbFun, in the Motability thread you and others have shown some interesting stats about the number of accidents that involved Invacars, but do you have any info about the type of roads (city, country roads, motorways, etc) on which they happened? 

[LightBulbFun]

as an aside, it is kind of amusing this whole topic has come up again, almost exactly a year since it did last time, its like clockwork LOL

 

what does tickle me, is there was all the big concern and serious doubt about if I would be able to even keep REV going, let alone, getting splattered by a SUV, and which @Talbot sums up

On 04/10/2024 at 12:00, Talbot said:

Also... you've made the point that Ian has never been left stranded by his.  Fair point, but how many times has he had to do running repairs at the roadside to keep going?  And he has a workshop to maintain it.  You're planning to keep it on the road, and (please correct me if I am wrong) have never even jacked up a car and taken a wheel off?

I absolutely applaud your enthusiasm, but am genuinely concerned that you just don't appreciate what you're trying to achieve.

I look at it from the point of view of being a 30+ year experienced driver, a time-served mechanic and a very experienced engineer, and I would not even remotely consider trying to do what you are planning.

and what tickles me about that, is here we are, a year later, and No, I have never jacked up a car and taken a wheel off  

 

 

 

 

 

 

but I have jacked up a car, to change major components of its driveline 

 

has it been easy for me to do work like this?, haha fuck no, has it left me crippled for days afterwards, Oh yeah, but, I have managed it have I not?  which is exactly what I predicted at the time, it wont be easy, but I am sure, I could make it work, and sure enough, I have made it work  

its something I am quite proud/pleased about, despite everything life has chucked at me, I have *at least* managed to have my Invacar  

[LightBulbFun]

30 minutes ago, D.E said:

@LightBulbFun, in the Motability thread you and others have shown some interesting stats about the number of accidents that involved Invacars, but do you have any info about the type of roads (city, country roads, motorways, etc) on which they happened? 

that I am afraid I dont know sadly, it is one I was wondering about myself actually, I might have a trawl through the Hansard reports again to see if theres any mention of it, but I dont recall seeing much about the types of roads etc they happened on

[High Jetter]

1 hour ago, MrGTI6 said:

It all comes down to risk versus reward. I enjoy going out on my motorbike. I'm very much aware of my vulnerability when doing so, but I accept the risks because I enjoy it. 

It seems fairly obvious to me that the same applies to @LightBulbFun and his Invacar. 

If safety was his number one priority, he'd be swanning around in a Renault Grand Espace.

Yup, I pillioned on a scooter, in my early teens, gravelled church car park. Never again. Drove a Sinclair C5 round Bexhill, no bother.  I'd take an Invacar out locally, would need to build more confidence to emulate Dez tho

[Talbot]

10 hours ago, LightBulbFun said:

as an aside, it is kind of amusing this whole topic has come up again, almost exactly a year since it did last time, its like clockwork LOL

what does tickle me, is there was all the big concern and serious doubt about if I would be able to even keep REV going, let alone, getting splattered by a SUV, and which @Talbot sums up

and what tickles me about that, is here we are, a year later, and No, I have never jacked up a car and taken a wheel off  

but I have jacked up a car, to change major components of its driveline 

 

has it been easy for me to do work like this?, haha fuck no, has it left me crippled for days afterwards, Oh yeah, but, I have managed it have I not?  which is exactly what I predicted at the time, it wont be easy, but I am sure, I could make it work, and sure enough, I have made it work  

its something I am quite proud/pleased about, despite everything life has chucked at me, I have *at least* managed to have my Invacar  

This is a perfect example of survivor bias.  You're able to crow about having achieved what you wanted to achieve because you've been lucky.

It's the same argument made by people who say that "cars of the 1960s were perfectly safe.  I travelled in them all the time and I'm still here".  Yes, because anyone who was killed due to zero crash protection, no seat belts and horrible design isn't here to counter your argument.  The comparison to a Robin is quite funny in that respect:  They are ridiculously vulnerable too, and fall into the same category.

This is mirrored by your contstant argument that "many people wanted to keep their invacars".  I am sure they did, but that's primarily due to resistance to change and the need for independence.  For every person who wanted to keep their invacar, I am sure there was someone who thought they were dangerous and wanted rid of it ASAP.

One thing that hasn't been disucssed is the difference between primary and secondary safety here:
Primary safety is things like visibility, good headlights, good handling, good ABS brakes etc.  Everything that avoids you having a crash in the first place.
Secondary safety is things like structural rigidity, crash protection, airbags, head restraints, collapsable steering columns etc.  Everything that protects you when you're having a crash.

I'd suggest the invacars primary safety is poor, but fairly normal for a 3-wheeler of the era.  it's secondary safety is non-existant.

Also, this subject has come up because I was tagged as having a similar-ish opinion to Ian when describing his invacar for sale.  Nothing to do with the time of year.

[Weird Car]

28 minutes ago, Talbot said:

This is a perfect example of survivor bias.  You're able to crow about having achieved what you wanted to achieve because you've been lucky.

It's the same argument made by people who say that "cars of the 1960s were perfectly safe.  I travelled in them all the time and I'm still here".  Yes, because anyone who was killed due to zero crash protection, no seat belts and horrible design isn't here to counter your argument.  The comparison to a Robin is quite funny in that respect:  They are ridiculously vulnerable too, and fall into the same category.

This is mirrored by your contstant argument that "many people wanted to keep their invacars".  I am sure they did, but that's primarily due to resistance to change and the need for independence.  For every person who wanted to keep their invacar, I am sure there was someone who thought they were dangerous and wanted rid of it ASAP.

One thing that hasn't been disucssed is the difference between primary and secondary safety here:
Primary safety is things like visibility, good headlights, good handling, good ABS brakes etc.  Everything that avoids you having a crash in the first place.
Secondary safety is things like structural rigidity, crash protection, airbags, head restraints, collapsable steering columns etc.  Everything that protects you when you're having a crash.

I'd suggest the invacars primary safety is poor, but fairly normal for a 3-wheeler of the era.  it's secondary safety is non-existant.

Also, this subject has come up because I was tagged as having a similar-ish opinion to Ian when describing his invacar for sale.  Nothing to do with the time of year.

Hit the nail on the head again ☝️

[Dyslexic Viking]

I don't want to argue with anyone but just want to mention a few things about old cars and safety. Mercedes Fintails like mine were among the first cars to be designed with safety in mind. They were heavily crash tested during development and had things like crumple zones long before others had them. The Volvo 100 series is another example of a car that was years ahead of its time in terms of safety. Yes they won't stand up to a modern car in a crash but they are miles ahead of other cars even decades newer. So not all old cars are death traps.

Will add this for the few intrested.

As part of the Mercedes-Benz Interest Group's annual meeting in June 2010, the Ponton model underwent a crash test at the ADAC crash test facility in Landsberg am Lech.

One of the highlights of the 2010 annual meeting of the Mercedes-Benz Interest Group (MBIG) in Munich was the world's very first crash test of a Ponton model according to the current Euro NCAP standard – a procedure that imposes significantly stricter requirements than the regular type approval test. The intriguing question was: How would a model from 1957 perform in a crash test that wasn't introduced until 40 years later, in 1997?

The test configuration involved driving a vehicle at 64 km/h with a sideways offset against a deformable barrier – an extremely high stress on the body structure. This realistically simulates a sideways offset frontal collision with oncoming traffic. The small Ponton (W180) also had to meet these requirements.

Unlike the usual EuroNCAP procedure, the driver and passenger seats were not occupied by dummies equipped with sensors. This was because the risk of damaging the extremely expensive test dummies was considered very high – not least because the pontoon was not equipped with seat belts. Therefore, no data on the severity of the occupants' injuries could be recorded.

 

There is a bit on wiki about the safety of the Ponton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_Ponton

[Talbot]

It has to be said that the Merc Ponton above performed remarkably well regardless of it's age.  I always look for deformation of the passenger cell around the driver's door, and it looks like that held up astonishingly well.  Better than a lot of more modern things.  Mercedes-benz has always been at the forefront of secondary safety aspects of cars, it's part of the reason I'm happy to do the mileage that I do in a 35-year-old-design Merc.. it still stands up to modern scrutiny.  In comparison to a lot of much more modern metal, I think I'd rather be in the Ponton.

Until you've been involved in a high-speed crash, it's almost impossible to imagine the forces involved and the energy that has to be dissipated while keeping the soft squidgy human in the middle safe.

[Dyslexic Viking]

Sorry LBF for continuing the derailment but have to share this.

German documentary back in the day with English subtitles with crash testing at Mercedes. A Fintail is driven into a bus at 100kmh and the driver's door can still be opened, it's really impressive. @Talbot you might find this intresting.

 

[dave j]

On 03/11/2025 at 14:44, chadders said:

In terms of safety one of my cars is probably about as unsafe as a AC trike if I look at it logically. My feet are in front of the front axle, the rest of me is 'protected' by a wafer thin sheet of steel, it doesn't handle, it's horrendously slow, blown about by mild sidewinds and so on and so forth.

There's no way on earth that I'd argue that's it's safe but I like it and driving it and I drive it in what I consider the right circumstances, out of town and not on 'fast' roads, just bimbling along.  

VW camper? Definitely describes mine well!