Northland 80 km limit?

[Brett]

I was in China a couple of weeks ago - and it opened my eyes how co-operation and patience can work.
Kiwi drivers/riders could learn a lot by adopting their attitude.

But it won't work - after all in NZ "It's my bit of road and I ain't moving over or slowing down one tiny bit and if you're going slower than me well ya better get out of my way".

And before a soap-box jockeys get going there wasn't bugger all (2) crashes that I saw. And no injury.

Maybe the 'big gives way to small' might have been part of it???

Yeah, this is very true...and until such time as the ATTITUDE is changed I don't believe there will be any behaviour change.

There is one other factor to consider, and that is the age of many of the vehicle on our roads. We have too many aged cars with technology 2 or 3 decades old that, realistically, cannot be expected to be as safe as the modern cars. I know this because I have personally have three vehicles that I drive on a daily basis:

1) 1996 diesel Toyota Prado. Has ABS (very rudimentary) and air bags for driver and passenger. None of the new tech that you get in many much newer 4x4's like roll-over sensors, traction control & electronic stability systems etc. (because I didn't want all of that shit).

2) 2002 VW Passat 4motion: Older technology, reasonably good ESP & ABS system, "normal" car handling - ie a family wagon, not a sports car.

3) 2007 Audi RS4 which has the full raft of safety aids from all round air bags to, ESP etc. plus BRILLIANT acceleration, suspension and insane brakes.

I have driven all of these vehicles to the ragged edge at one time or another, ranging from on the race track to select, safe back country roads. The Passat can easily and safely go about 30% harder than the Prado and the RS4 is probably SAFER at TWICE the pace of the of the Prado. The prado takes about 35m to stop from 80kph whereas the RS4 takes about 16m. Acceleration obviously isn't even close to comparable.

With such a differential in the majority of cars, trying to get all drivers to drive to the limits of their vehicles would be a nightmare.

[Moi]

When I was taught to drive - cars had chokes, crossply tyres, drum brakes and either "three or four on the tree" - several things were drummed in: Keep Left, watch your rear-vision mirror, drive to the conditions, be courteous to others... and other things like "don't slip the clutch, use the handbrake for a hill start!"

Driving in those days seemed far more enjoyable primarily because of the courtesy shown by all road users... today it seems to be dog-eat-dog and get out of my way cause I have a wank-mobile and I'm really important... are you a doctor going to save someone's life or a mortgaged-to-the-hilt-driving-a-company-car wally?

As for tail-gaters... don't get me started on them...

[R650R]

I have driven all of these vehicles to the ragged edge at one time or another, ranging from on the race track to select, safe back country roads. The Passat can easily and safely go about 30% harder than the Prado and the RS4 is probably SAFER at TWICE the pace of the of the Prado. The prado takes about 35m to stop from 80kph whereas the RS4 takes about 16m. Acceleration obviously isn't even close to comparable.

With such a differential in the majority of cars, trying to get all drivers to drive to the limits of their vehicles would be a nightmare.

I see your suffering from Risk Compensation there which is probably why so many people still crash modern cars. While all that sounds good I'd rather be in your Prado 4wd when the reaper comes knocking. It's higher up so better view of road ahead for starters and has a heavier mass for competing with who goes backwards first in a head on crash. The Audi might stop better because of its better brakes and lighter weight. But that lighter weight comes from making a less stronger body which is alright until your sideways into a powerpole or tree.
I've been in a proper head on crash in a truck. It all happened so fast that even in the car or bike I'd prob not be able to miss being hit either. Did some serious braking but the DUI in ute was still doing 120ish...
Now if we take a trip in your RS4 that's 'just as safe' at twice the prados pace and meet mr ute like I did and your fancy brakes mean nothing as at the higher speed your reaction time is going to blow out that 'extra' perceived safety margin as at higher speed you might not even engage them in time.
When the reaper comes knocking (and he cold calls, no appointments) all the fancy specs matter little, just your impact velocity and where you are pointed. If you are going to drive/ride fast and survive you need to acknowledge there is a higher risk and driver behaviour/speed is more important than the fancy gear.

[yevjenko]

I see your suffering from Risk Compensation there which is probably why so many people still crash modern cars. While all that sounds good I'd rather be in your Prado 4wd when the reaper comes knocking. It's higher up so better view of road ahead for starters and has a heavier mass for competing with who goes backwards first in a head on crash. The Audi might stop better because of its better brakes and lighter weight. But that lighter weight comes from making a less stronger body which is alright until your sideways into a powerpole or tree.
I've been in a proper head on crash in a truck. It all happened so fast that even in the car or bike I'd prob not be able to miss being hit either. Did some serious braking but the DUI in ute was still doing 120ish...
Now if we take a trip in your RS4 that's 'just as safe' at twice the prados pace and meet mr ute like I did and your fancy brakes mean nothing as at the higher speed your reaction time is going to blow out that 'extra' perceived safety margin as at higher speed you might not even engage them in time.
When the reaper comes knocking (and he cold calls, no appointments) all the fancy specs matter little, just your impact velocity and where you are pointed. If you are going to drive/ride fast and survive you need to acknowledge there is a higher risk and driver behaviour/speed is more important than the fancy gear.

Actually you're a bit off there. Don't confuse strength of body to survivability in an accident - the driver of an rs4 will have much higher chance of surviving an accident than the prado due to the crumple zones and energy absorbing nature of the body with designed in safety cell in the Audi.

I do concede your point of enhanced visibility to avoid the accident in the prado though

[Brett]

I see your suffering from Risk Compensation there which is probably why so many people still crash modern cars. While all that sounds good I'd rather be in your Prado 4wd when the reaper comes knocking. It's higher up so better view of road ahead for starters and has a heavier mass for competing with who goes backwards first in a head on crash. The Audi might stop better because of its better brakes and lighter weight. But that lighter weight comes from making a less stronger body which is alright until your sideways into a powerpole or tree.
I've been in a proper head on crash in a truck. It all happened so fast that even in the car or bike I'd prob not be able to miss being hit either. Did some serious braking but the DUI in ute was still doing 120ish...
Now if we take a trip in your RS4 that's 'just as safe' at twice the prados pace and meet mr ute like I did and your fancy brakes mean nothing as at the higher speed your reaction time is going to blow out that 'extra' perceived safety margin as at higher speed you might not even engage them in time.
When the reaper comes knocking (and he cold calls, no appointments) all the fancy specs matter little, just your impact velocity and where you are pointed. If you are going to drive/ride fast and survive you need to acknowledge there is a higher risk and driver behaviour/speed is more important than the fancy gear.

Sorry mate, that is incorrect. Modern cars, especially high end cars, have things called crumple zones and other built in engineered safety designs - areas that are sacrificial to ensure the integrity of the vehicle cabin. Just google crash test video's on youtube and compare the results yourself. Secondly...yes the truck might be heavier, that doesn't mean that it is built more "solidly". I had the very unfortunate opportunity to be one of the first upon the scene of a landcruiser accident with serious injuries to various of the occupants including one fatality. Yes, the structure had absorbed the blow of the head on extremely well, however MUCH of that energy had simply been transmitted through to the occupants. This is exactly why some of those old "yank tanks" and similarly designed vehicles from that era, while being incredibly solid, are not very good in a crash.

The rules of momentum indeed cannot be changed. P=mv2 is never going to change. However, how energy is absorbed and how the energy is dissipated around the occupants is equally important. I have also spent more than enough time at the race track to know that enhanced equipment with better specs makes a very big difference to ones safety.

[Brett]

I do concede your point of enhanced visibility to avoid the accident in the prado though

I also agree with you on this point...one of the reasons that I love driving the Prado. Also...I love that you never really feel like you want to go anywhere fast in it, I tend to enjoy road trips more in the truck than any of our other vehicles. But yeah, modern cars ARE light years ahead in terms of handling and safety.

[scumdog]

There is one other factor to consider, and that is the age of many of the vehicle on our roads. We have too many aged cars with technology 2 or 3 decades old that, realistically, cannot be expected to be as safe as the modern cars. I know this because I have personally have three vehicles that I drive on a daily basis:

Pfft, I laugh in the face of danger!

I drive a '79 Morris Marina ute - no ABS, ESC, traction-control, air-bags blah-blah-blah...just good old single-circuit drum brakes, one speed windscreen wipers, non-collapsibe steering column and a grunty 1275cc motor!

[Brett]

Pfft, I laugh in the face of danger!

I drive a '79 Morris Marina ute - no ABS, ESC, traction-control, air-bags blah-blah-blah...just good old single-circuit drum brakes, one speed windscreen wipers, non-collapsibe steering column and a grunty 1275cc motor!

You're a mad bastard anyway though

[Moi]

...I drive a '79 Morris Marina ute ... just good old single-circuit drum brakes, one speed windscreen wipers, non-collapsibe steering column and a grunty 1275cc motor!

Yes, but does it have a manual choke??

[R650R]

You risk compensators are missing the point, those crumple zones are only good in head on crash and if both of you are at or below the speed limit.
Should you or the other vehicle be substantially above the speed limit due to your percieved better safety that factor is negated by the higher impact energy.
But in the real world your likely to panic and do the big swerve or have a partial impact and spin into other oncoming traffic or roadside furniture. In which case there are no modern vehicles that fare particularly well in a major side impact to tree or pole.
My 44ton truck was doing 65-70 exiting a small town when hit my a ute 1.5ton doing 120ish. The impact energy felt on my side of the equation was still massive.
I would not want to be in any car or 4wd for a similar crash and believe its completely foolish to drive faster because you think the technology will save you...

[yevjenko]

You risk compensators are missing the point, those crumple zones are only good in head on crash and if both of you are at or below the speed limit.
Should you or the other vehicle be substantially above the speed limit due to your percieved better safety that factor is negated by the higher impact energy.
But in the real world your likely to panic and do the big swerve or have a partial impact and spin into other oncoming traffic or roadside furniture. In which case there are no modern vehicles that fare particularly well in a major side impact to tree or pole.
My 44ton truck was doing 65-70 exiting a small town when hit my a ute 1.5ton doing 120ish. The impact energy felt on my side of the equation was still massive.
I would not want to be in any car or 4wd for a similar crash and believe its completely foolish to drive faster because you think the technology will save you...

No, we got your point. But if you are comparing things you need to compare apples to apples.

You should Google pole impacts or side impacts of modern cars vs elderly 4 wheel drives though - think you'll find the safety cell still plays an important role.

At the speed limit? Whose limit, not ours that's for sure...

[Brett]

You risk compensators are missing the point, those crumple zones are only good in head on crash and if both of you are at or below the speed limit.
Should you or the other vehicle be substantially above the speed limit due to your percieved better safety that factor is negated by the higher impact energy.
But in the real world your likely to panic and do the big swerve or have a partial impact and spin into other oncoming traffic or roadside furniture. In which case there are no modern vehicles that fare particularly well in a major side impact to tree or pole.
My 44ton truck was doing 65-70 exiting a small town when hit my a ute 1.5ton doing 120ish. The impact energy felt on my side of the equation was still massive.
I would not want to be in any car or 4wd for a similar crash and believe its completely foolish to drive faster because you think the technology will save you...

I still disagree with you. However, yes it is foolish to drive faster simply because you have a safer car. A car is only one half of the equation, the driver and the conditions are also to be considered. You also cannot argue that newer vehicles in GENERAL are safer than those that are older.

According to your view, albeit the scenario is hyperbolized a bit...having a crash in a race prepped touring car with roll cage etc. etc. that weighs say 1100kg and an old Dodge Charger that weighs about double should result in the Dodge driver being better off given the same speed. I would suggest that this is never going to compare.

[awayatc]

Pfft, I laugh in the face of danger!

I drive a '79 Morris Marina ute - no ABS, ESC, traction-control, air-bags blah-blah-blah...just good old single-circuit drum brakes, one speed windscreen wipers, non-collapsibe steering column and a grunty 1275cc motor!

A write off would be a blessing......

one you walk away from of course......

[awayatc]

Pfft, I laugh in the face of danger!

I drive a '79 Morris Marina ute - no ABS, ESC, traction-control, air-bags blah-blah-blah...just good old single-circuit drum brakes, one speed windscreen wipers, non-collapsibe steering column and a grunty 1275cc motor!

Beats me why you wouldn't want to crash that........

[R650R]

No, we got your point....

That's good

We have too many aged cars with technology 2 or 3 decades old that, realistically, cannot be expected to be as safe as the modern cars... The Passat can easily and safely go about 30% harder than the Prado and the RS4 is probably SAFER at TWICE the pace of the of the Prado

You also cannot argue that newer vehicles in GENERAL are safer than those that are older.