Volvo relaunches its glow-in-the-dark Life Paint in the UK

madcarew wrote:

Fluffy Kitten.... Yeah, Nah.

The 'tongue in cheek' (not the first time it's appeared on these pages) observation was "Here are a few ways of improving safety of all." so there is no need to separate those inside from outside the vehicle (which I did anyway as far as possible, trawling through the tables mentioned). The deaths were for car inhabitants, not pedestrians, not truck drivers etc, and compared with cyclist deaths as available.

"To allow for the massive improvement in A&E care".... this is borne out in the serious injury tables, which show similar, but not the same reductions in injuries to all users... there's only so much analysis you're going to fit on a forum reply. 

Your comments regarding drink driving etc are fair, however, there is large bodies of research , not only from the car manufacturers, NCAP, government bodies, academics, which show beyond doubt that air bags, crumple zones, seat belts, and the largest single safety improvement: the collapsible steering column have made the insides and outsides of cars safer for occupants and pedestrians and have dramaticaly contributed to reduction in injury and death rates. Some things are so self evident that they really don't need reams of statistical inquiry to establish that the correlation is indeed due to causative factors mentioned.

Lastly.... you made an assumption that I hadn't allowed for the lower miles cycled (I had) vs the increased population. Both those figures are available on the tables mentioned. To be clear, it is perfectly possible to compare the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 1969 to the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 2016. It won't of course tell the whole story. 

Very simply, the added safety provided by features in cars mentioned by the OP have far out-paced the added risk due to the drivers increased sense of safety in making the motorvehicle "safer for all"

 

Do tell how collapsible steering columns, airbags and so on make cars safer for those hit by them.

You also ignore the increases in morbidity consequent upon the shift from active travel to car travel, driven at least in part by perceived danger.

timtak wrote:

WillRod wrote:

Perhaps Volvo should improve their cars first. Rear visibility from the V40 that I test-drove was terrible, perhaps they should start with drivers visibility, and then work on the pillock behind the wheel.

Good point. Volvo may have safe cars from a driver perspective but unsafe for other road users due to poor visiblity.

Of the rear visibility of a S60 (photo) an owner writes "Rear visibility is very restricted in places. Almost no view between those headrests through the large rear view mirror."

Here is the V40's rear visibility photo. " Further, rear visibility is limited due to the small rear window and the massive c-pillars. Some might find it insufficient for driving, most will find it insufficient for parking"

It's a growing trend. More dangerous are the high beltline and massive A-pillars which restrict visibility when turning. Ironically both of these things (along with domed bonnets) are designed to improve pedestrian survivability in the event of a collision. Driving position has moved back relative to the A-pillar and the dash meaning on right hand turns (for RHD cars) you actually need to move your head to see around the A-pillar. There was a pedestrian fatality in Guildford recently where the driver claimed "SMIDSY, because A-pillar" (and was acquitted)

From the manufacturer's perspective poor visibility becomes a tool to sell auto-park and pedestrian safety systems, which add to vehicle complexity and ultimately stoke the profits of their spares and workshop businesses.

madcarew wrote:

Fluffy Kitten.... Yeah, Nah.

The 'tongue in cheek' (not the first time it's appeared on these pages) observation was "Here are a few ways of improving safety of all." so there is no need to separate those inside from outside the vehicle (which I did anyway as far as possible, trawling through the tables mentioned). The deaths were for car inhabitants, not pedestrians, not truck drivers etc, and compared with cyclist deaths as available.

"To allow for the massive improvement in A&E care".... this is borne out in the serious injury tables, which show similar, but not the same reductions in injuries to all users... there's only so much analysis you're going to fit on a forum reply. 

Your comments regarding drink driving etc are fair, however, there is large bodies of research , not only from the car manufacturers, NCAP, government bodies, academics, which show beyond doubt that air bags, crumple zones, seat belts, and the largest single safety improvement: the collapsible steering column have made the insides and outsides of cars safer for occupants and pedestrians and have dramaticaly contributed to reduction in injury and death rates. Some things are so self evident that they really don't need reams of statistical inquiry to establish that the correlation is indeed due to causative factors mentioned.

Lastly.... you made an assumption that I hadn't allowed for the lower miles cycled (I had) vs the increased population. Both those figures are available on the tables mentioned. To be clear, it is perfectly possible to compare the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 1969 to the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 2016. It won't of course tell the whole story. 

Very simply, the added safety provided by features in cars mentioned by the OP have far out-paced the added risk due to the drivers increased sense of safety in making the motorvehicle "safer for all"

 

I do grant you the point about the "all" in the original post. But personally I don't care about keeping drivers safe from themselves.

Besides, the best way to achieve that would be to stop encouraging them to drive so much. Which may also help keep them safe from the more significant injuries caused by physical inactivity.

And you miss my point about the lower miles cycled. Its not enough to just show it as a ratio - you have to account for the changing demographic that goes with that decline in numbers. A mass activity engaged in by normal people as a matter of course is not the same as a self-selected minority choosing to take up a skill-demanding hobby.

And clearly a lot of other factors have changed since then, not just 'air bags' etc.

And someone's already pointed out the sillyness of claiming collapsible steering columns, airbags, and the like protect those outside the car. Even though I don't think the 'spike in the centre of the steering wheel' stuff is meant as a serious suggestion by anyone, that part of your reply just suggests you aren't thinking about what you are typing.

The insistence that something is 'self evident' rings the same alarm bells for me as a reference to 'common sense', in that it suggests someone lacks a good argument to present.