I am all for car safety systems.

Whilst I am currently without a car (my lease came to an end in February and I didn't see a need to renew at the time), my last car - a Hyundai Tuscon had a couple of systems that saved me or someone else...

1. Blind Spot Information System. I looked over my shoulder. The biker was invisible - right in the blind spot. The little orange light that I caught in the wing mirror and major bleeping when I put the indicators on probably saved his life.

2. On a motorway junction roundabout a car pulled off the slip road at full speed without seeing me already on the roundabout. The systems in the car brought the vehicle to a stop before I managed get my foot on the brake. Hazard lights all flashing too.

As to cost - these systems are expensive. BLIS uses rear mounted radar units at about £400 and that's added to the cost of a front unit.

Edited by Zippy123 on 10/06/2020 at 13:31

It's probably true that most drivers don't know the technical do-dahs, but most know that, by virtue of the sales patois, that their car is 'safer', and not just because of a stronger bodyshell or airbags, but because of 'systems' that can 'help you get out of' or avoid an accident.

Rather like with Andrew-T's steering wheel spike, would drivers take a risk when driving, knowing some three-lettered acroynm safety device (even if they didn't know what it was) would 'come to their rescue', especially as many (e.g. stability control) appear to be used by many car manufacturers to reduce or 'cure' poor handling (e.g. in the 'elk' or slalom tests), epsecially for higher sided cars like SUVs and crossovers.

I remember reading (perhaps here) that the Ford Fusion's handling characteristics were transformed at having ESP (on upper spec models).

My fear is that when a car gets out of its warranty period, many of the 'safety features' may not be kept roadworthy and through age may fail even after passing an inspection (where applicable at an MOT), meaning someone in a potentially poor handling car chucks it around, not realising the ESP is going to or has failed, just when it's most needed.

Most of these systems are electronic in nature and, as we constantly see with modern cars, have a far less predictable lifespan and reliability window, with little to no warning of failure, not helped by many drivers' not realising what the system does. In older cars, a broken warning light on the dash may mean a failed part isn't picked up for months, maybe years/never.

I agree that many safety systems are indeed useful if the car is driven correctly, but I'd much rather have a dependable, decent handling car by virtue of its general design/mechanical components than a poor one that artifically looks good until that all-important safety system fails.

The significant improvement in tyre technology is also a big factor too.

The problem is that a LOT of people do not drive very differently from one car to the next, especially if they look reasonably similar.

For example, an average box-standard hire will be a lower-spec model (especially a loan car from a car dealership) which will have far fewer 'safety features' than a upper spec model, but would the driver likely forget that when pushing on to get to their destination?

I also see people who drive a van for work and a car for home use drive both in the same way, even though the van has nowhere near the handling (or likely safety) capabilities and features of their car.

It's a bit like the relative quietness of the modern car at speed, not realising that you're doing well over the speed limit because of the lack of noise and power of the engine, as opposed to an older car that told you when you were at that limit.

I still believe that many modern cars give drivers, especially those used to driving previous generation cars only, a false sense of security, leading some (not all) to take way too many risks when behind the wheel.

It's why I won't buy a car that, when tested, handles poorly when the tester turns the ESP (and similar) off - if they failed in use, you'd suddenly have a car that handled far worse, and you might not have time to make the necessary adjustment, or to know what level of adjustment was needed.

....I have missed other vehicles in blind spots before, luckily without any consequences and the Puma takes this risk away.

Do you know this for an absolute fact, or are you convinced by the tech ? It's that kind of conviction which persuades drivers to up their risk-taking tendencies. Of course cars are far more crashproof than they were, which is probably the main reason why accident stats have improved over the years.

I still say it is a retrograde step to shrink or darken the area of glass in a car, simply for style reasons, and then add another gizmo to offset the loss in visibility. If that gizmo fails it won't fail safe, will it ? The warnings will just stop. Presumably it needs to be checked in the MoT ?