5 ms·

A single anecdote is not data. I can fall by slipping on ice dressed in shorts and a tshirt, and walk away fine. But i can also do the same, but dressed in a wa

A single anecdote is not data. I can fall by slipping on ice dressed in shorts and a tshirt, and walk away fine. But i can also do the same, but dressed in a way more padded and protective winter coat, pants, boots, then fall and twist my ankle. That doesn't say much about relative safety of shorts+tshirt and protective winter gear when it comes to falling on ice. Back to the topic at hand, are you claiming that all of the safety improvements added to the cars over the past 20 years didn't make a massive positive impact on passenger safety during collisions? Arent't there agencies worldwide that issue safety ratings after performing variety of tests and studies (that are way more rigorous and quantitative than a one-off anecdote), and they show massive safety improvements over time for all cars in general? Or are you trying to claim that those agencies can't be trusted, and that their tests are not valid? I am not trying to be combative about it. I am just genuinely trying to figure out what point you were trying to make with this anecdote, but all I have right now is pure guesses.

NikolaNovak 4y ago
Not the op, but I'll note all of those tests are about what physically happens once you're in crash or specific situation. Many or most don't gauge how or why you got into that situation, or how likely you are to do so in that vehicle. I don't know how "firmware update made care less safe" or "adaptive cruise control disengaged unexpectedly" or (my personal concern) "car UI negatively impacted drivers situational awareness and reaction time" etc would show up in e.g. IIHS rating? A good 10-20 year old car may have as good crash rating as many modern cars. top or average modern cars may be better than top or average 10 year old cars. Stats are interesting thing. But then there's the average driver assistance vs average UI vs average visibility vs average handling of these cars. Bottom line, I don't feel less safe but I do feel differently safe, in my old Subaru and new Honda.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > I don't know how "firmware update made care less safe" or "adaptive cruise control disengaged unexpectedly" or (my personal concern) "car UI negatively impacted drivers situational awareness and reaction time" etc would show up in e.g. IIHS rating? What percentage of crashes can be attributed to that? Let's make it simpler, how many crashes per year as a raw number happen due to those reasons you listed? Because out of all things I would be worried about when it comes to car safety, this is the one that is least concerning to me. Especially since for most modern cars that have such a thing as "software updates" in the first place, they have the driving subsystem and infotainment subsystem entirely detached (yes, even on Teslas). Very easy to confirm yourself by force rebooting the infotainment center and seeing that the car still drives just fine.
  - zzz95 4y ago
    This is false, even more so for most Tesla models. Cars have a distributed E/E architecture where embedded software runs on several computers (called ECUs that range from anywhere between 10 and 100+). Most newer Tesla models are ahead of the curve and have a more centralized (zonal) E/E architecture with very few number of ECUs. In summary, the infotainment system and the drivetrain definitely speak to each other and unless a secure architecture comes along, I would not discount the possibility of unintended interactions due to bugs. In fact, most famous car hacks start from the infotainment system and make their way into the drivetrain.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    1. I am not a car engineer,or anywhere near it, but everything I've ever read about modern cars indicates their infotainment system and engine control unit are at very least on same bus and can and do communicate. 2. I don't have those numbers, in fact point of my post I'd that I don't know how we get those numbers. When I'm a passenger I'm terrified how distracted people can be by poor UI. I wish we had more hard data. Some studies are slowly emerging.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      I'm all for forbidding touch screens for driver interaction in vehicles and I'm honestly surprised that this hasn't happened yet. Anything that takes your eyes of the road is a risk. Where I live we're pretty hard on smartphones in the car while driving (and rightly so) and yet we accept touch screens with menus four levels deep for basic stuff.
Roark66 4y ago
The point I was trying to make is that from crash safety point of view an upper tier car(for example a well equipped golf) made 20 years ago might be a lot safer than a cheapest modern car(at least here in EU where safety standards in 2000 were pretty good already, I have no idea about other countries). Yes, this is just a single anecdote, but I seriously doubt I would be here to tell it if I was driving let's say a 2014 Fiat Punto or similar. Why do I compare an old "upper class car" with a modern "lowest tier"? Isn't this unfair? No, because that is usually the choice people have. If they can afford just the cheapest of new cars, there is likely a much better one that is not new available for the same price or a lot cheaper.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  This is pretty much on the money. Car safety with respect to the occupants is increasing over time, but it has always also increased over the budget with the time pegged to a certain point. So your 1997 high end car may well be safer than your 2015 budget car. Case in point: I've restored a Daihatsu Trevis, a small Japanese budget car, and after working on it and bringing it back up to the standard required to pass a salvage title inspection (which is a higher standard than the original one where I live, you have to book an inspection for the vehicle that takes several hours and that will have cross frame measurements and all kinds of assessments to make sure that the vehicle is safe) I decided that this is not a car that is suitable for many kilometers of highway driving. A crash in that car that would be survivable in even the cheapest Golf or Skoda would be lethal in that little car. So I ended up passing it on to people that only drive in the city and got an elderly Golf instead. And a Golf was definitely not the high end of safety at that time, but it was tons better than the much more modern Trevis.
  - Roark66 4y ago
    This somewhat reminds me of my first car. An Eastern German VW Trabant with a two stroke 600cc engine. It was a car I did drive on motorways occasionally as it was my only car (I bought it for $100 when I was 18,the car was 18 years old too at the time). That car was often a butt of many jokes as people thought its chassis was made off "recycled paper" (in fact it was one of the first composite chassis cars). It was called a plastic-soap-box, but it was so simple to repair one needed a push bike set of tools to fix anything (until once a suspension strut in a rear wheel failed). Then all it took to be able to get back home slowly was to wrap it with some steel wire... Fun little car. Unfortunately it was scrapped against my will when I was abroad (my parents weren't happy I drove it). Today many people consider it a classic and it has quite a following.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

Not the op, but I'll note all of those tests are about what physically happens once you're in crash or specific situation. Many or most don't gauge how or why you got into that situation, or how likely you are to do so in that vehicle. I don't know how "firmware update made care less safe" or "adaptive cruise control disengaged unexpectedly" or (my personal concern) "car UI negatively impacted drivers situational awareness and reaction time" etc would show up in e.g. IIHS rating? A good 10-20 year old car may have as good crash rating as many modern cars. top or average modern cars may be better than top or average 10 year old cars. Stats are interesting thing. But then there's the average driver assistance vs average UI vs average visibility vs average handling of these cars. Bottom line, I don't feel less safe but I do feel differently safe, in my old Subaru and new Honda.

filoleg 4y ago
> I don't know how "firmware update made care less safe" or "adaptive cruise control disengaged unexpectedly" or (my personal concern) "car UI negatively impacted drivers situational awareness and reaction time" etc would show up in e.g. IIHS rating? What percentage of crashes can be attributed to that? Let's make it simpler, how many crashes per year as a raw number happen due to those reasons you listed? Because out of all things I would be worried about when it comes to car safety, this is the one that is least concerning to me. Especially since for most modern cars that have such a thing as "software updates" in the first place, they have the driving subsystem and infotainment subsystem entirely detached (yes, even on Teslas). Very easy to confirm yourself by force rebooting the infotainment center and seeing that the car still drives just fine.
- zzz95 4y ago
  This is false, even more so for most Tesla models. Cars have a distributed E/E architecture where embedded software runs on several computers (called ECUs that range from anywhere between 10 and 100+). Most newer Tesla models are ahead of the curve and have a more centralized (zonal) E/E architecture with very few number of ECUs. In summary, the infotainment system and the drivetrain definitely speak to each other and unless a secure architecture comes along, I would not discount the possibility of unintended interactions due to bugs. In fact, most famous car hacks start from the infotainment system and make their way into the drivetrain.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  1. I am not a car engineer,or anywhere near it, but everything I've ever read about modern cars indicates their infotainment system and engine control unit are at very least on same bus and can and do communicate. 2. I don't have those numbers, in fact point of my post I'd that I don't know how we get those numbers. When I'm a passenger I'm terrified how distracted people can be by poor UI. I wish we had more hard data. Some studies are slowly emerging.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    I'm all for forbidding touch screens for driver interaction in vehicles and I'm honestly surprised that this hasn't happened yet. Anything that takes your eyes of the road is a risk. Where I live we're pretty hard on smartphones in the car while driving (and rightly so) and yet we accept touch screens with menus four levels deep for basic stuff.

Roark66 4y ago

The point I was trying to make is that from crash safety point of view an upper tier car(for example a well equipped golf) made 20 years ago might be a lot safer than a cheapest modern car(at least here in EU where safety standards in 2000 were pretty good already, I have no idea about other countries). Yes, this is just a single anecdote, but I seriously doubt I would be here to tell it if I was driving let's say a 2014 Fiat Punto or similar. Why do I compare an old "upper class car" with a modern "lowest tier"? Isn't this unfair? No, because that is usually the choice people have. If they can afford just the cheapest of new cars, there is likely a much better one that is not new available for the same price or a lot cheaper.

jacquesm 4y ago
This is pretty much on the money. Car safety with respect to the occupants is increasing over time, but it has always also increased over the budget with the time pegged to a certain point. So your 1997 high end car may well be safer than your 2015 budget car. Case in point: I've restored a Daihatsu Trevis, a small Japanese budget car, and after working on it and bringing it back up to the standard required to pass a salvage title inspection (which is a higher standard than the original one where I live, you have to book an inspection for the vehicle that takes several hours and that will have cross frame measurements and all kinds of assessments to make sure that the vehicle is safe) I decided that this is not a car that is suitable for many kilometers of highway driving. A crash in that car that would be survivable in even the cheapest Golf or Skoda would be lethal in that little car. So I ended up passing it on to people that only drive in the city and got an elderly Golf instead. And a Golf was definitely not the high end of safety at that time, but it was tons better than the much more modern Trevis.
- Roark66 4y ago
  This somewhat reminds me of my first car. An Eastern German VW Trabant with a two stroke 600cc engine. It was a car I did drive on motorways occasionally as it was my only car (I bought it for $100 when I was 18,the car was 18 years old too at the time). That car was often a butt of many jokes as people thought its chassis was made off "recycled paper" (in fact it was one of the first composite chassis cars). It was called a plastic-soap-box, but it was so simple to repair one needed a push bike set of tools to fix anything (until once a suspension strut in a rear wheel failed). Then all it took to be able to get back home slowly was to wrap it with some steel wire... Fun little car. Unfortunately it was scrapped against my will when I was abroad (my parents weren't happy I drove it). Today many people consider it a classic and it has quite a following.