I think I'm somewhere in between here.
I wouldn't pay extra to have pedestrian airbags fitted to my car if they were on the options list at £1k or however much. I wouldn't have been in the 1% to pay extra for ABS in 1986 or airbags in 1992 on that basis, either.
That said, if I were spending £10k or whatever, the extra couple of hundred in the manufacture cost wouldn't faze me - just like airbags, ABS and the like wouldn't concern me now. I just don't feel short changed that I can't get an airbag, ABS and crumple zone free C4 for £8,500 for example, instead of kitted out for £9k.
Having seen the scenes of crime going over a pedestrian-vehicle RTA today (an S plate Golf GTi with a human sized hole in the windscreen) I'd gladly pay £250 or whatever to avoid having to experience that as a driver - and naturally far, far more never to have to go through that as the pedestrian.
|
Pedestrian safety rating has no effect whatsoever on the choice of car i drive. If i hit a pedestrian and i have done nothing wrong ie. not driving dangerously or without due care, i would feel no different sense of responsibility whether i was driving a bus or a Smart car.
Driver safety, however, does feature. Although my current car is 10 years old and has no crumplezones or ABS etc, i am grateful that in the event of a bad accident, i do have a drivers airbag to hopefully stop me head-butting the steering wheel.
I wouldn't pay more for the safety features, but if there were two comparably priced, liked and specced cars, i'd probably opt for the safer one over say a nicer colour.
|
[tic]Anyone know where I can get bull-bars for an Alfa 156? THAT would be a pedestrian safety feature. I'd paint them day-glo yellow so all pedestrians can see them. Being a 5cy diesel they can't complain that they didn't hear me, now they won't be able to say they couldn't see me.
Anyone choosing to offer themselves up for sacrifice on the bull-bars is, I would argue, inherently unsafe and other pedestrians are probably safer for them not being around.[/tic]
There, thought I'd get that one in before anyone else starts the usual argument.
ND
|
I was once able to stop an accident occurring. I was walking in Manchester city centre, waiting for the lights to change in my favour before I crossed the street. For some reason, I can?t remember what, a young woman who was crossing against the lights towards me, couldn?t see a 15 cwt tradesman?s flatback which was coming quite legitimately towards the crossing. The driver, a young man about the same age as the woman, was batting along to get across before the lights changed. Neither could see the other. I held up my hand to the woman, just like a policeman on point duty, and she stopped sharply. The driver was fully alert, and he stopped too with a great noise and tyre smoke. The two parties, young woman - young man, looked at each other, and then the woman carried on and walked by without a backward glance.
Think about it. If I hadn?t held up my hand and the two parties responded immediately there would have been a death. The driver would have been held responsible, and a quite pretty young woman would have been on his conscience for the rest of his life.
In general I?m very disappointed, to say he least, at the flippant answers to the question of whether the BRs would pay for pedestrian protection. All the wisdom of Solomon, expressed in all the languages will not persuade some people until they have experienced it themselves, and then it?s too late.
|
I wasn't at all flippant.
If I saw an optional extra of a pedestrian friendly bonnet/bumper with airbag or whatever and it was an extra £1000 then there is no way I would pay for it. Even if it was on the option list for £100 I probably wouldn't either.
If that (whichever car it is) with 8 airbags at £500 each was available at a discount without them, I would not hesitate to buy without them.
|
|
I agree, for the same reason I don't drive around wearing a £200 crash helmet.
|
|
|
This isn't directed at anyone but it seems that society these days is a bit of a "stuff everyone else" place to be.
If you & your family are unfortunate enough to be squashed by my WallyWagon perhaps you should have worked harder at school and had one of your own for protection.
I think the only way this will happen is legislation - people just don't give a monkeys about everyone else using the road as long as they're OK. Look at the amount of road rage and lack of curtosey these days. All symptoms of the same problem.
-- Lee .. A festivus for the rest of us.
|
|
Spot on, Citroenian. You'd think from some of the responses beforehand that they were never out on foot, so didn't experience the near-misses, or the belligerence of a minority of drivers. Anyway, the die is cast: mfrs have to think of solutions, and some have already done a great deal towards this. No wonder we have a nanny state.
|
The thing is, there's only so much that can be done before the nanny state situation gets out of control. Regarding pedestrian safety - not wanting to be too pedantic but if you don't want the fear of knocking someone down, possibly killing them, then don't drive at all.
I won't pay more for pedestrian safety features when i already have some in my car: an attentive driver who is able to anticipate hazards ahead and adjust my driving according. In addition to this, the majority of new cars are fitted with anti-lock brakes, to help prevent the likelyhood of a collision with another car OR pedestrian if a hazard does arrive unexpectedly.
It simply isn't feasible to go to extremes on issues such as this, and i assure you that myself and earlier contributers to this thread were not being coldhearted in our statements, just honest and realistic.
|
|
All mature drivers intend to limit risks, but even so anyone with driver training realises that despite using observation skills etc, an incident may occur. Who has not made an error of judgment? Why then the feigned resistance to a feature aimed at reducing injury, should an incident occur? Similar arguments were made about seatbelts and ABS, crumple zones etc. They all cost money. Adopting measures to reduce (nothing completely eliminates) pedestrian injury is hardly extreme. As some manufacturers have already taken steps are you going to avoid buying Honda, for example?
|
If I killed someone and it was entirely their fault I wouldn't be jumping up and down excitedly pointing out that it was there fault and therefore I didn't care.
It might be true that it is the child's fault for running in front of my car, but I think I'd still rather not kill them. Its a bit of a strong punishment for a child [or anyone else] making a mistake.
I love the idea that I'd pay £300 for a speed camera detector to avoid points on my licence, but I wouldn't pay £300 for pedestrian protection because that is their problem, not mine.
I don't really understand when society got like this, but I don't like it. Surely we have a duty of care to others in our society, even when it is their fault and we can't be sued ? Or does it only matter when someone can prosecute or sue us for being at fault ?
If I could afford whatever the latest pedestrian protection was, then I'd have it. Not being able to have it wouldn't stop me buying the car, but I'd rather have it than not.
|
I'm struggling to reconcile the willingness of the BR to help one another on a wide variety of topics with this "not my problem" attitude to pedestrian safety.
I can't say that it's something I think about hard when picking a car either, but that's not something to be proud of.
|
My own personal position is that I would not pay extra in order a car with a better NCAP score - for myself, or pedestrians. (The last new car I bought, 2 years ago, did not even have ABS.)
There are 3 reasons for this.
1) I'm tight-fisted
2) I spent the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, even 1990's travelling around in cars which fall well short of 2005 safety standards. It didn't worry me much then, so I'm not going to worry about it now.
3) I see the safety of a car as relative. If I could pay extra and get a car which would never crash, I would. If I could pay extra and get a car that would not hurt pedestrians I hit, I would. If I could pay extra and get a car that would mean that I would walk away from any crash unhurt, I would. But current car safety measures merely make crashes a little less likely and injuries a little less severe.
|
If killing pedestrians is such a terrible crime (and it is) why is not every driver who does it in jail for 15 years?
madf
|
"If killing pedestrians is such a terrible crime (and it is) why is not every driver who does it in jail for 15 years?"
The difficulty is the "there but for the grace of God go I" factor.
I agree that **in some cases** it's a terrible crime (too fast in an urban area, racing, drink drive etc.).
But many other accidents result from a variety of factors and are much less clear cut. For example a fatility could be caused by a combination of: driver fiddling with the stereo + rain + pedestrian talking on mobile. If you were to take away one or two of these factors our notional fatality becomes a near miss.
|
I agree that **in some cases** it's a terrible crime (too fast in an urban area, racing, drink drive etc.).
Certain vehicles are more inherently dangerous to pedestrians than others.
That is fact. And if manufacturers choose to build vehicles which are an increased danger to pedestrians than it's only fair both they & the purchaser of that vehicle pays the price for doing so.
Most 4X4's are never used off road & even fewer are used regularly off road. The cost in pedestrian lives of these vehicles being driven in urban area's is something that no one but the drivers & manufacturers of these vehicles should pay.
|
Certain vehicles are more inherently dangerous to pedestrians than others. That is fact. And if manufacturers choose to build vehicles which are an increased danger to pedestrians than it's only fair both they & the purchaser of that vehicle pays the price for doing so.
You want people to pay more for less safe cars?
Most 4X4's are never used off road & even fewer are used regularly off road. The cost in pedestrian lives of these vehicles being driven in urban area's is something that no one but the drivers & manufacturers of these vehicles should pay.
Oh excuse me whilst I change my pants. I appear to have peed my last pair whilst laughing at that fatuous load of twaddle. Let's just take the second point (now bold), that many 4x4s are rarely used regularly off road. So we agree that these vehicles are sometimes used off road. Are you suggesting we ditch these and replace them with 2wd cars that can never go off road or that we apply some levy to the 4x4s? If the levy is your option (and it appears to be), how do we assess the level of off road use and agree a price? Those vehicles that are used solely offroad are already discounted as they are entitled to use red diesel, so their on-road use is already factored into the current tax regime.
As for your singling out of 4x4s, have you viewed the NCAP pedestrian safety figures for the current batch of popular family cars?
Oh look, most of them are no better than some of today's SUVs.
Now I don't mind a good debate, but I appreciate it when the other parties suspend emotion and stick to facts.
|
The thing is, on this site we often see threads started where someone would like help/advice/opinions on which car they should buy.
Often these people have a list of priorities, such as
Performance
Reliability
Handling
Ride Quality
Space
Image
Low Depreciation
Safety (Occupant)
...and so on
Now in around two years browsing this site, i can't remember anyone choosing a car based upon it's enhanced pedestrian safety features.
Unfortunately it just isn't an important enough factor to most of us, myself included. As i mentioned earlier, if a car i liked happened to have excellent pedestrian safety, then great, as long as it was still competitively priced with it's rivals in all other aspects.
|
|
|
|
