Health and Safety Rant

[prizrak]

Not by law, but Euro-NCAP requires such safety equipment, they'll test the lowest spec car they can find and rate all cars of that model according to that which is an efficient way of getting the manufacturers to not skimp on safety, even on cheap cars. ESP is always needed, regardless of which wheels drive your car as it helps you maintain control over your vehicle.

In my experience ESP is very rarely useful on an AWD. The only time it ever kicks in for me is in the snow or when I'm being a complete cock like the one time I took a 90 degree bend at 50 in pouring rain. It does make sense on 2WD vehicles where there is no way to offload excess torque to wheels with more grip.

 

[Brian]

BS. Your seats will make much more difference. My half ass tiny side bolsters and leather seats don't hold me in very well during hard cornering while my friend's 240sx with cloth seats and slightly bigger bolsters hold me in quite nicely. Wearing a seatbelt in both, I have also never been in a situation where the seatbelt would stop me from going forward under heavy braking. Most cars just don't have powerful enough brakes to do it. The only seatbelts that keep you in are the 5 point harnesses, which are not found in modern cars....
!

Yes, trash-talk the logic of the person who runs a Schroth harness in tandem with a one-piece Recaro seat in his car. Brilliant. Bolsters are great for dealing with lateral acceleration. You seem to have forgotten the other two axis of motion your body can move along. A seatbelt (even OEM) will help keep you in the drivers seat and in front of the controls in an extreme situation. They will also keep your passengers from potentially colliding with you and disabling you in an extreme situation. Your comment about most cars not having powerful enough brakes also reeks of ignorance. Any modern car has powerful enough brakes to lock its wheels (and thus invoke federally-mandated ABS). Bigger brakes, more swept area, more pistons in the caliper do almost nothing for stopping distances or deceleration ability. They simply offer repeatability.

In my experience ESP is very rarely useful on an AWD. The only time it ever kicks in for me is in the snow or when I'm being a complete cock like the one time I took a 90 degree bend at 50 in pouring rain. It does make sense on 2WD vehicles where there is no way to offload excess torque to wheels with more grip.

Rarely useful != never useful. The limits of modern cars are higher than ever. Driver skill hasn't improved significantly. ESP can be useful on any type of car, no matter the drive configuration, so I personally don't have an issue with it being included on all new cars (as long as it can be completely disabled for track use). It will help prevent people from getting into situations they are unable to handle.

 

[prizrak]

Yes, trash-talk the logic of the person who runs a Schroth harness in tandem with a one-piece Recaro seat in his car. Brilliant. Bolsters are great for dealing with lateral acceleration. You seem to have forgotten the other two axis of motion your body can move along. A seatbelt (even OEM) will help keep you in the drivers seat and in front of the controls in an extreme situation. They will also keep your passengers from potentially colliding with you and disabling you in an extreme situation. Your comment about most cars not having powerful enough brakes also reeks of ignorance. Any modern car has powerful enough brakes to lock its wheels (and thus invoke federally-mandated ABS). Bigger brakes, more swept area, more pistons in the caliper do almost nothing for stopping distances or deceleration ability. They simply offer repeatability.

Point out trash talking please because I obviously missed it. I have driven a few cars in my lifetime including a 550 with very powerful brakes. I also happen to know alot of people who modify their cars, none of those cars ever stop hard enough without hitting something for your seatbelts to actually stop you. You seem to be forgetting that you are the one making the change in your car's speed. I have been in emergency stopping situations where I stayed fully upright and functional and my passenger would lean forward quite a bit (seatbelts didn't stop them btw) because I KNOW I'm going to stop so my body reacts preemptively to keep my upright. Unless of course you think that my car is not modern enough....

I have taken hairpins, long sweeping turns, u-turns, 90 degree turns and everything in between in my current car and I slide in my seat all over the place despite my seatbelts being on.

I also have a very close friend who is getting into drifting, predictably he has the S13 240sx with an SR swap in it. In order to stop himself from sliding much he put in Z33 (350z) seats that have better side bolsters and he still moves around much more than he is comfortable with with stock seatbelts. He drove another car (same make/model) with a 5 point harness and STOCK seats and said that it makes a huge difference in how he was held in a seat.

The seatbelt was developed mainly to stop driver/passanger from going through the windshield/hitting the dashboard in a collision. They also do fairly well at keeping one from smashing one's head on the roof in a rollover. Normal 3 point seatbelt is just not designed to limit lateral movement that is what side bolsters are for.

Rarely useful != never useful. The limits of modern cars are higher than ever. Driver skill hasn't improved significantly. ESP can be useful on any type of car, no matter the drive configuration, so I personally don't have an issue with it being included on all new cars (as long as it can be completely disabled for track use). It will help prevent people from getting into situations they are unable to handle.

You seem to think that I am arguing against ESP/TC. I am not I am simply stating that for most modern AWD systems (not 4WD) ESP/TC is of limited use and activates very rarely because of how good these systems are at shuffling the torque around to give you best grip available. Basically all I am saying is that ESP/TC makes more difference on a 2WD as opposed to AWD. I'm sure you will find it very hard to disagree with this.

 

[Brian]

Point out trash talking please because I obviously missed it. I have driven a few cars in my lifetime including a 550 with very powerful brakes. I also happen to know alot of people who modify their cars, none of those cars ever stop hard enough without hitting something for your seatbelts to actually stop you. You seem to be forgetting that you are the one making the change in your car's speed. I have been in emergency stopping situations where I stayed fully upright and functional and my passenger would lean forward quite a bit (seatbelts didn't stop them btw) because I KNOW I'm going to stop so my body reacts preemptively to keep my upright. Unless of course you think that my car is not modern enough....


The seatbelt was developed mainly to stop driver/passanger from going through the windshield/hitting the dashboard in a collision. They also do fairly well at keeping one from smashing one's head on the roof in a rollover. Normal 3 point seatbelt is just not designed to limit lateral movement that is what side bolsters are for.


You seem to think that I am arguing against ESP/TC. I am not I am simply stating that for most modern AWD systems (not 4WD) ESP/TC is of limited use and activates very rarely because of how good these systems are at shuffling the torque around to give you best grip available. Basically all I am saying is that ESP/TC makes more difference on a 2WD as opposed to AWD. I'm sure you will find it very hard to disagree with this.

Stability control, all other variables kept the same, will work more often in under than same conditions on a 2WD car than an AWD car, we agree on that. I still fail to see your point on the seatbelts, what do you mean by a car not decelerating hard enough for a seat belt to stop you? The inertial reel has to pay out some slack before it locks, so passengers will lean forward some. Are you arguing that someone not wearing their seatbelt has the same control as someone who is wearing their seatbelt? No matter the situation?

 

[prizrak]

Stability control, all other variables kept the same, will work more often in under than same conditions on a 2WD car than an AWD car, we agree on that. I still fail to see your point on the seatbelts, what do you mean by a car not decelerating hard enough for a seat belt to stop you? The inertial reel has to pay out some slack before it locks, so passengers will lean forward some. Are you arguing that someone not wearing their seatbelt has the same control as someone who is wearing their seatbelt? No matter the situation?

I am arguing that the seatbelt does too little to keep the driver in control of the car no matter the situation to the point where it makes no difference. Passengers are another story simply because they cannot anticipate changes in the attitude/speed of the vehicle.

I've had the seatbelt lock up on me under heavy braking but it was never to the point where I felt that if it wasn't there I wouldn't have been able to keep myself upright, I might have leaned forward an extra inch but most cars just don't decelerate quickly enough under braking to make a difference. Obviously I'm not talking about something crazy like a Veyron going from 242 to 0 in 10 seconds I'm talking about cars that most people would drive. In my experience suspension and seats makes much more of a difference in how well you stay in your place when driving.

 

[MXM]

I sort of agree with prizrak here, but also not entirely. The shoulder strap does not do very much before the impact indeed, but the waist strap makes a noticeable difference. The shittier the seats, the more difference.

 

[prizrak]

^Maybe its just my slippery ass leather seats IDK...

 

[Ladamaha]

Back on topic:

Listen what you are saying. Safety laws are good, but some cars should get away with them because they are cool? Anyone buying an Aston Martin is cool as Steve McQueen so surely they can handle them. If Aston can slip by the safety regulations, surely we must allow some of these fine cheap Chinese cars. Not safe, but hey, not everyone can afford an Aston.

Do you want those Chinese pieces of crap on your roads? I really don't.

 

[prizrak]

Back on topic:

Listen what you are saying. Safety laws are good, but some cars should get away with them because they are cool? Anyone buying an Aston Martin is cool as Steve McQueen so surely they can handle them. If Aston can slip by the safety regulations, surely we must allow some of these fine cheap Chinese cars. Not safe, but hey, not everyone can afford an Aston.

Do you want those Chinese pieces of crap on your roads? I really don't.

You obviously missed the point.... It's not about safety regulations its about STUPID safety regulations that are FORCED on people. Something like the requirement to have a seat mounted airbag. Why does it have to be seat mounted? Why does it have to be an airbag at all? Why is there regulation to begin with?

Look at most modern cars.
Most of them have ESP/TC systems they are not mandated by the government. The more expensive ones have radar assisted brakes, systems that move your seats closer to the middle when accident is inevitable, pretensioners, side impact and curtain airbags.

AFAIK none of this equipment is mandated by safety standards. Reason why they all have it is because people won't be buying a car that is not safe and doesn't have a million things that will let you walk away from 100mph crash.

For cars like Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lamborghini and so on safety is not very important because people who buy them do not buy them for safety and are generally well aware of the risks. As long as there is a clear statement as to the safety (or lack thereof) I see no reason why the car should not be sold to the public.

The government seems to assume that people are complete idiots and are unable to make their own decisions....

 

[Ladamaha]

You obviously missed the point.... It's not about safety regulations its about STUPID safety regulations that are FORCED on people. Something like the requirement to have a seat mounted airbag. Why does it have to be seat mounted? Why does it have to be an airbag at all? Why is there regulation to begin with?

Look at most modern cars.
Most of them have ESP/TC systems they are not mandated by the government. The more expensive ones have radar assisted brakes, systems that move your seats closer to the middle when accident is inevitable, pretensioners, side impact and curtain airbags.

AFAIK none of this equipment is mandated by safety standards. Reason why they all have it is because people won't be buying a car that is not safe and doesn't have a million things that will let you walk away from 100mph crash.

For cars like Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lamborghini and so on safety is not very important because people who buy them do not buy them for safety and are generally well aware of the risks. As long as there is a clear statement as to the safety (or lack thereof) I see no reason why the car should not be sold to the public.

The government seems to assume that people are complete idiots and are unable to make their own decisions....

No, I was arguing the opening post about how some cars should get trough the safety test because they are nice cars. Because you can't have double standards based on the brand value of the car. Allowing minor faults would mean that all Chinese cheap death traps could be driven on the road. Sure it's fine if the people know they are buying an unsafe car, which is in a case of sport car is probably acceptable given the testosterone and manliness and stuff.

But if those crooked Chinese businessman can get their cheaper than a bottle of milk car on sale next to safer ecoboxes, someone will buy one. And because people are idiots someone will get killed, because all people are idiots.

I mean, at least good part of the world is plain stupid most of the time. Or maybe it's just the legal system in some cases, considering you can sue for everything in the US for example. Have you ever read the warnings in any user manual (oh well, real men don't read manuals) for any device? My personal favorite was on my Nikon D60 which warned not to point the camera towards sun because it might catch fire! It's because legal reasons and because people are stupid.

Anyway point is that people really are stupid, and the society thinks it's better to make stuff safe because we are not comfortable with death and it's cheaper than treat the stupid people who get hurt.

I really don't like that safety nonsense either, but arguing against it is hard because I can see what the reasons are. I hate the pedestrian safety rubbish softening car design quite radically, but it's the choice of the manufacturers to get higher rating and improve sales, and they will oh la-laa, because people are stupid!

Of course, how these "safer" cars affect on people's driving is another can of worms, but I just don't want to go there. Sorry if my rambling wanders a bit, but it's not my native and I'm a really poor with writing in general.

 

[Spectre]

But if those crooked Chinese businessman can get their cheaper than a bottle of milk car on sale next to safer ecoboxes, someone will buy one. And because people are idiots someone will get killed, because all people are idiots.

I am failing to see what the problem is here. How is letting stupid people kill themselves off bad? I can't see a downside.

 

[GRtak]

Amen^

 

[Ladamaha]

I am failing to see what the problem is here. How is letting stupid people kill themselves off bad? I can't see a downside.

Knew I shouldn't have left out the evolution part! Knew it.

 

[prizrak]

I mean, at least good part of the world is plain stupid most of the time. Or maybe it's just the legal system in some cases, considering you can sue for everything in the US for example. Have you ever read the warnings in any user manual (oh well, real men don't read manuals) for any device? My personal favorite was on my Nikon D60 which warned not to point the camera towards sun because it might catch fire! It's because legal reasons and because people are stupid.

That's nothing at least you can damage a pretty expensive camera with direct sunlight to the sensor. How about a warning on a chainsaw "Do not attempt to stop with hands?" How fucking dumb do you have to be?

I think that's the problem government pushes standards people come to expect the government to take care of them so that anytime there isn't a warning or some stupid law and someone gets hurt people go "well how come the gov't/manufacturer didn't make sure it doesn't happen?" and the gov't/manufacturer introduce more and more regulations/safety/whatever. The problem is that even stupid people have families and someone who cares for them and in turn those people have someone else who cares for them and before you know it there is a fairly large number of vocal people.

 

[Spectre]

I am sick and tired of having to put up with restrictions intended to save stupid people from themselves. We need to stop this idiotic policy - it helps nobody and cripples those who actually do know what they are doing.

I am also tired of co-dependent people who want someone else to do all their thinking for them. They are apparently now the majority in this country, though.

 

[Cobol74]

There should be a world wide standard - best practice unless local conditions are so exceptional that special requirements should be accepted - I do not think that the US qualifies.

When US manufacturers went global it became a real issue for them to import stuff they themselves made elsewheare in the world, whilst the Japanese had this issue cracked. More fool them for lobbying into the arms of their own competition.

The US version of the Euro Focus 1 looks like a pantomime compared with the original and there is very little benefit to the additional bumpers they have had to fit, it just reduced the desireability of the design as it was not designed in from the start for instance.

Mercedes has a lot to answer for too me thinks.

 

[yeeha]

AFAIK none of this equipment is mandated by safety standards. Reason why they all have it is because people won't be buying a car that is not safe and doesn't have a million things that will let you walk away from 100mph crash.

People who have the money to spend on extra safety features will pay for it. Poor people on the other hand are far more limited in their options.

I am failing to see what the problem is here. How is letting stupid people kill themselves off bad? I can't see a downside.

Everyone else ends up paying for it. Through higher insurance rates, time for police, paramedics, longer road closures which means your sitting in traffic longer etc.

To a degree it is my self interest to protect stupid people from killing themselves. It is to which degree that is tricky to figure out and will never be agreed upon by everyone.

 

[Spectre]

Everyone else ends up paying for it. Through higher insurance rates, time for police, paramedics, longer road closures which means your sitting in traffic longer etc.

To a degree it is my self interest to protect stupid people from killing themselves. It is to which degree that is tricky to figure out and will never be agreed upon by everyone.

You mean like the longer road closures we have already because the stupid people crash anyway, the time for police and paramedics we have already for the same reason and the higher insurance rates we have for the same reason?

It would actually be cheaper if these people died.

 

[Brian]

I am arguing that the seatbelt does too little to keep the driver in control of the car no matter the situation to the point where it makes no difference. Passengers are another story simply because they cannot anticipate changes in the attitude/speed of the vehicle.

I've had the seatbelt lock up on me under heavy braking but it was never to the point where I felt that if it wasn't there I wouldn't have been able to keep myself upright, I might have leaned forward an extra inch but most cars just don't decelerate quickly enough under braking to make a difference. Obviously I'm not talking about something crazy like a Veyron going from 242 to 0 in 10 seconds I'm talking about cars that most people would drive. In my experience suspension and seats makes much more of a difference in how well you stay in your place when driving.

If you're bracing your decelerating weight on the wheel, and my seatbelt is holding part of my decelerating weight, I'm in a better position to actually move the steering wheel (and operate the shifter). The Veyron comment doesn't hold any water either:

Veyron:
252 - 0 mph in 10 seconds = -11.265 m/second^2
1g = 9.8 m/second^2
thus average deceleration is 1.149g (which is biased, because from 60-0 has almost no air drag advantage compared to the 252-0, thus in a 60-0 stop the deceleration rate would be lower)

Still, if we keep this value, in conjunction with published Veryon braking figures of: 60-0 = 104ft
the vaunted Veyron takes ~2.39 seconds to pull up from 60 at -1.149g

Audi A4:
60-0 = 107ft

Yes, the Veyron has incredible fade-free brakes, but they don't result in shorter stopping distances from normal speeds on the first try than plenty of average machinery. Even if we assume differences in testing venues skewed wildly in favor of the Audi (unlikely), there might be at most a 5-10% difference in the decelerative forces possible from 60-0 that a Veyron can produce compared to your car. Most modern cars have incredible brakes, and most people don't realize it.

I can't believe the government lets me ride a motorcycle. It doesn't get much less safe than that (even in full leathers + helmet + back protector)

 

[thedguy]

People who have the money to spend on extra safety features will pay for it. Poor people on the other hand are far more limited in their options.




Everyone else ends up paying for it. Through higher insurance rates, time for police, paramedics, longer road closures which means your sitting in traffic longer etc.

To a degree it is my self interest to protect stupid people from killing themselves. It is to which degree that is tricky to figure out and will never be agreed upon by everyone.

Insurance rates are getting worse and worse now because cars are becoming so damn expensive to repair largely due to designs for safety.