Prove it!

I used to believe this too. But now I'm asking "prove it". Peter Barnwell at Carsguide
suggests that "a car like this," meaning a Renault Clio Cup - an overpowered pocket rocket "is inherently safer than a mere hatchback econobox due to its dexterity, responsiveness and high quality components such as the Michelin tyres and sophisticated electronic controls that include ABS and electronic stability program (ESP)." And the evidence?

OK, I would accept that the "sophisticated electronic controls that include ABS and electronic stability program" provide some extra margin for safety over no such aids, but why would we expect that "dexterity, responsiveness and high quality components such as the Michelin tyres"
would make a measurable positive difference? Surely a car and its tyres either meet the road-worthiness standards or they don't, irrespective of brand of tyre. A "better" brand of tyre may have a higher speed rating - but then again we are talking of a highly stressed high-output 2.0 litre motor in a small, relatively low-weight vehicle, so it needs a higher rated tyre. As for dexterity, what the hell is that? To make a car more nimble and responsive means to take away some built-in understeer and
probably build in some oversteer. Why would this be safer for the average Joe or Josephine? Why would "responsiveness" be an aid? All cars respond, so they are all responsive. I assume Peter is claiming a greater degree of responsiveness in Steering, braking and acceleration. And the correlation with safety is...? Again we must take a leap and assume that he reasons that the thing can steer out of trouble with greater ease: if you are watching and have the skill to avoid oversteer(ahhh, but the stability program cuts in!). And again that it stops shorter: if you are watching and know how to brake hard (and turn to avoid). And the acceleration is great for those times when you must hit the throttle to get out trouble: like when, ummm, you are on the wrong side of the road overtaking? Maybe you just didn't plan that overtaking manoeuvre very well in the first place!

Yes, I am being a bit harsh, but really - let's be honest - we buy these cars (and I mean hot hatches or any car with an enhanced power to weight
ratio) to go faster than an econobox. To accelerate harder. To take corners faster. To overtake those econoboxes more often. To take more risks. To enjoy the cut and thrust of driving. Unless we really drive the thing just like an econobox, and a well-driven one at that. But in fact (and you only have to look around you to see evidence) we are choosing to reduce our safety margin with such a purchase, not increase it. Throwing in wider tyres, stiffer suspension and stability control simply helps the manufacturer match the performance increase (and the higher price) with necessary upgrades and make you feel as though you have something 'better' than standard. Which of course is true. And it's more fun. But it's not "inherently safer". Let's not kid ourselves!

Disclaimer

Folks, please tread warily whilst travelling the Internet. It's hard to separate truth from fiction or opinion from science wherever you are - but it's worth getting a second opinion, irrespective. When you chance upon an impressive website "in print" (as it were) it can easily seem like the last word on a subject. In fact we have no final judgement on anything, anywhere - only fallible human opinions. And this blog is all about sharing those opinions.

I will quote published research that seems relevant (to me) on particular subjects. You can then read my opinion, my take on the matter presented. I don't always have a relevant degree in the field - my degrees are in business administration and human resource management - but I do often have relevant experience and I will share that experience with you. It's not prescriptive, it's not advice. Hopefully, though, it's interesting and thought-provoking. Please read widely and examine claims critically. And don't forget to comment.

Cars and what really matters, part 3 or 4, depending on the blog

Righto, so we are still burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide and
changing the atmosphere. Cars play a part here, but my biggest beef is that
cars wreak havoc with the community. Think it through. When we walk around
we do ourselves some good and help to populate the streets with people.
People we can see, get to know and talk to. When we ride a bike we again do
ourselves some good and have a low impact on the environment. We aren't as
stoppable and easy to chat with but we are visible and usually able to
raise a cheery wave. Now seal yourself in a car.

I've said it before, I love the freedom and the thrill of driving. I own an
'82 Alfa GTV and occasionally pollute the environment with smoke and noise.
But I take care to go slowly through the local community and only light the
wick when I'm well away from causing undue hazard. And the GTV only gets a
run once or twice a week, if that. Other times I have more recent,
lower-polluting small-footprint hatchbacks at my disposal.

But no matter what I do I'm sealed in my tin can. I'm isolated from the
community behind glass and steel. I can further isolate myself with loud
music. I can aircondition my car's interior and further step away from
contact with "the outside". I have divorced myself from the people on the
streets. Just like everyone else. So I can hide. I can do what I want and
take liberties. I can forget about the impact that I make when I proceed -
legally - at 50, 60, 70 or even 80kmh between houses, past driveways,
schools, shops, through intersections and so on. I'm aware of the traffic,
the pedestrians, the kids, the dogs and other objects that may leap out at
me but essentially they have become objects - just something to look out
for, a slight impediment to forward motion. I have convinced myself that
passing between lines of houses at 60kmh is my right. It's safe - no one
dies. Well, maybe occasionally, but most deaths occur on country roads so
we must have the city driving thing licked, eh?

Well yeah, sure. Because we have scared people off the streets. We can
drive at 60kmh or thereabouts within a couple of metres of the footpath and
just swish past intersections, houses, shops and kids because the
'obstacles' have learned to back away. Kids are trained to look right, left
and right again (or whatever way you do it in your country). Pedestrians
have learnt to wait for a gap before crossing, or to give up and drive. It
looks safe statistically but what we actually have in our pleasant suburbia
is a background of noise and fear that we simply accept. Maybe you are
happy with the trade off. I think we can do better!

Gotta go - must jump in the car again and drive that massive 1.1km to the
shops!


Cheers


Rob.