I wouldn't feel safe, it hasn't got ...

[scaryoldcortina]

I just stopped at the bottom of the hill leading to our village to offer someone a lift. Despite the wind, dark and the 1 in 4 bank she declined (politely) and said "no it's ok, thank you, but your car is very old and doesn't have airbags, I wouldn't feel safe." Ignoring the possibility that she actually meant "you look like a rapist", it strikes me as an odd thing to worry about...I mean it's half a mile and the chances of a near-fatal head on are pretty low imo. I've accepted longer lifts in the back of pickups and at least today I was driving a car with seatbelts.

 

So, what modern safety aids can you do without? I'm pretty sold on brakes and some sort of steering mechanism.....

[dollywobbler]

Well, talking of steering mechanisms, you should post some pics up of 'Mayday!' Steering column that goes right to the front of the car? Safe! (just like my Westminster - I try not to worry about it!).

 

I do like really good brakes. Citroens score well in this regard. Even the 2CV can stop VERY quickly. Paper thin doors don't bother me though.

 

I can live without seatbelts, but do accept that they do a good job. If they changed the law so I could remove them from my Citroens if I wanted, I wouldn't.

[trigger]

Ah! so it was Dollywobbler who broke the forum then this time!

[oldford]

It reminds me of a time in 1998 when I delivered a hire car to a customer, at this time airbags were becoming increasingly common. The customer asked me (it was an airbagless Fiat Punto), 'What safety features has the car got?', I replied with a list of primary safety features, like good tyres, a clean windscreen , brakes, steering etc. he looked a little confused and then said 'no airbags?', my reply was, 'why, are you planning on having an accident?, it's got seat belts, crumple zones and a collapsible steering column'.

[dollywobbler]

Balls. Sorry folks!

[j-j]

I could quite happily live without 'electronic stability control' (wtf?) and certainly 'emergency brake assist' - my CX has a braking system fit for a 20 ton truck - the pedal hardly even moves= instant response.

 

As for airbags! They are a great idea - anything big and soft to get between you and something solid can't be all bad?

 

Well, the CX has no centre to the steering wheel so there's hardly anything to collide with and if so, it's all heavily padded.

 

But modern cars are very rigid and I think there's some serious advantages to that (especially in the side - impact)

[pbottomley]

Marvin (my HA) don't have air bags, seatbelts, ABS, or any other modern tatt, its on drums all around and the nearest thing to modern equipped it has for safety are radial tyres, (and that was only because I couldn't find 6.20 x 12 crossplys ). Vauxhall did stick a nice thin dash cushion on top of the steel dashboard so at least in a crash the steel would be protected from damage ones head might cause.

 

Frankly I don't speed and I doubt I would cause an accident, but there is always that inherent risk some daft chav in a Corsa would ram me, but its my choice.

 

People today are all wrapped in cotton wool and if they feel its a risk so be it, let them carry on believing the world is dangerous and that there kids need escorting 25 yards to a bus stop, just don't fall into the same trap.

[Station]

ABS prevented me running over and killing two 16 year old females a few years ago. I slammed on, and had to weave around the two girls, and weave back in to avoid the oncoming car. I can't remember if the ABS kicked in, but probably, and without it I would've hit them and then went straight into the car.

 

I hate it when car manufacturer reinvent the wheel with things like aiming headlights.

[Albert Ross]

You mean like the Citroen DS? I love 'em.

[FredTransit]

Reminds me of two incidents.

First one was some production company looking for a Mk1 transit camper. As there was going to be child luvvies in the back, they insisted there should be seat belts fitted. As it was for some reality show about life in the 70s I pointed out

1, there would not have been seat belts fitted at the time the van was new,

2, even today side facing seats are not subject to seat belt laws,

3 there is nowhere to fit them to (see 1 and 2).

After that, I asked if, had it been set in the Victorian era, would they still want seat belts?

 

The second one was a Mk5 cortina for Ashes. A certain actress had refused to get in any chosen car if it didn't have rear seat belts. Attaching them to the cardboard rear shelf didn't seem relevant to her

[warren t claim]

Reminds me of two incidents.

First one was some production company looking for a Mk1 transit camper. As there was going to be child luvvies in the back, they insisted there should be seat belts fitted. As it was for some reality show about life in the 70s I pointed out

1, there would not have been seat belts fitted at the time the van was new,

2, even today side facing seats are not subject to seat belt laws,

3 there is nowhere to fit them to (see 1 and 2).

After that, I asked if, had it been set in the Victorian era, would they still want seat belts?

 

The second one was a Mk5 cortina for Ashes. A certain actress had refused to get in any chosen car if it didn't have rear seat belts. Attaching them to the cardboard rear shelf didn't seem relevant to her

 

It's against the law to fit belts to side facing seats anyway.

 

Who was the actress? Name and shame please!

[Tayne]

.

[FredTransit]

Clue - it was a beige Mk5.....

[autofive]

Clue - it was a beige Mk5.....

 

is that a clue?

 

beige mk5's just remind me of Bortaf

[FredTransit]

Well I can safely assure you it wasn't Bortaf!!

[pbottomley]

Ironically I had a wee HA a few years back called Cheesy (as that is what the body work looked like) anyway, I sold it to a mate in Somerset and one day on the way to work whilst following a lorry:

 

a bit of bad news… the viva is dead!!

due to a load of wood falling off a van and hitting me head on across the screen! good job for not having seatbelts, I saw the wood comming towards the screen at the last second I managed to duck and leanover to the passengers seat and luckly didnt get a face full of 6×4… bad bit is the roof is well pushed back including the door/windscreen piller a bit! so if salvage is cheep enough I may be on the lookout for a new roof..

 

The moral is seatbelts are unsafe!!!!!

 

IMG_3636 by paul.bottomley, on Flickr

[Guest]

Let's see what my Amazon doesn't have....

 

ABS - no

Brake servo - no

Power steering - no

Radial tyres - yes.

Rear seatbelts - no.

 

On that last point - the rear seatbelts thing, I had an epic argument with some daft bint from work who wouldn't get in the back 'because it hasn't got rear seatbelts'. Apparently I was 'breaking the law' by not having rear seatbelts or some such misinformed codsbollocks.

 

Me: It's a pre '82 car, it doesn't need rear seatbelts in the back. It's pissing down with rain, do you want a lift or not?

Her: Well *I* think it should have seatbelts and you're breaking the law anyway driving a car that old.

Me: Is that a no then? Best of luck, the trains aren't running today.

 

Mind you, when did having rear seatbelts become mandatory? I know front belts were '65, and wearing them became law in '83. The only reason I ask is because I can distinctly remember my mum's old Mk 2 Fiesta (B652 CTU) not having seatbelts in the back and her having to go to great expense to have them fitted. I was 4 or 5 at the time (so 1988 or 1989). The car was obviously driving around without them before them, and it was new in '84\'85.

 

I agree with Station about ABS though, I've avoided two major accidents in the C4 when various idiots pulled out at differing times at the same crossing on Palatine Road. Had I been in the 306 or Amazon, I would have gone into them. And been considerably richer as a result.

ABS is of fuck all use in the snow though - you can't triumph over the mu of the road and physics, all ABS does is give you a greater stopping margin provided the conditions are right. I disagree with these so called 'skilled drivers' who disable ABS because they reckon they can stop better without it. It's one of the few safety advances of the past 15 years that I'd consider vital equipment.

 

What was it that Alec Issigonis said? 'Give drivers margins and they use them up'.

Everything else - EBD, thicker pillars, ESP etc, has been a retrograde step in my view. If you need ESP you're driving like a twat anyway and need to slow down. I'd rather you plough your pointless VAG bollockwagen-on-tick into something solid so that you're prevented from driving up my tailpipe at every given second across every sodding road in Cheshire.

 

EBD? Balance the brakes better in the first place! Stop covering up shit design and work with physics rather than trying to beat them into submission with a spurious piece of technology that will doubtless go wrong in 5 years' time anyway. Or you could make the car lighter in the first place. Just a thought. I'd rather see the lorry that would have hit me because of a massive blind spot than have the metal around me to take a broadside from a 38 tonner. Mainly because I'd have seen the wagon, avoided it and told Warren to behave for Christ's sake

 

People drive badly these days because too much of the work is done for them. I'm not going to go on a puritannical rant here, but I would argue that I'm a better driver in my Amazon because of its comparative lack of power \ and or safety features. It must be said however that I make up for the former shortcoming by driving with my foot to the floor as much as possible, as Paul H, MM5, and whoever the hell was following me going to Cholmondeley that time.

 

Some things have been upgraded at the disbelief of the soil drinking ale brigade - the headlights for example. My car has Cibie H4s as opposed to some shite pairing of ROBO fixed beams because I like to see where I'm going at night, and I'm sick of being blinded by arseholes in RR Sports (just you wait till I get my Knick 150 spots you fuckers, I'll give you 'dazzled by one upmanship' :D )

[FredTransit]

Rear seat belts must have been 86/87 as I test the minibus with only the triple seat, making the same number of seats as a car of the same age, it's never mentioned it has no rear seat belts (its a C reg 86). Mind you, if I left all the seats in (12 seat, no belts in any of the rear) it would fail!

[Richard]

I think rear seatbelts became mandatory in 1986 or '87. There had to be anchorage points for them a long time before that though.

 

I've gone off ABS since it had a go at killing me last year. I was driving my van along a single-ish track road when I met a car around a blind corner. I pulled over to make room and braked. Because I had one side on a muddy verge the brakes were effectively switched off. I still don't know how I missed the car, it was close enough for him to stop and get out. I'll admit I was going a bit too fast for the road but it wouldn't have been a problem without ABS.

[Guest]

I think rear seatbelts became mandatory in 1986 or '87. There had to be anchorage points for them a long time before that though.

 

I've gone off ABS since it had a go at killing me last year. I was driving my van along a single-ish track road when I met a car around a blind corner. I pulled over to make room and braked. Because I had one side on a muddy verge the brakes were effectively switched off. I still don't know how I missed the car, it was close enough for him to stop and get out. I'll admit I was going a bit too fast for the road but it wouldn't have been a problem without ABS.

 

True enough on the anchorage points. My Amazon has them in the rear bench pressing.

 

As I said, ABS is good when the conditions are right. Splitting the road surface between tarmac and mud would have confused the system and made it a hinderance. I still maintain that you'll stop quicker in the dry* or moist with ABS than without it.

 

*Unless you're trying to get past an Alfa 147 on the Curborough back straight by out braking the smug little bastard and jumping on the anchors going into a dip. Cue mass ABS freak-out and the word 'CUNT!' being shouted amid a plume of smoke from the front tyres.

[Richard]

A good way to work out when safety features became mandatory is to try and remember the oldest Ford you have seen with that feature. My wife's 1986 Escort didn't have rear seat belts (or FM on the radio ffs) so it must have been after that. Following that logic I think side repeater indicators were 1986 too.

[FredTransit]

I think side repeaters are 1984. The Mk2 transit got round it by having wrap around indicators.

[Richard]

Must be later than that, the first Mk3 Granadas didn't have them.

[FredTransit]

No trust me it was, cos I looked into it when converting a phase2 to a phase1. Mk2 phase1s don't have any side repeaters, and the van I changes was an 86.

[FredTransit]

http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/index.htm

 

Sorry it's 1 April 1986 for side repeaters.