Modern progress

[Petrus]

The Volkswagen E-Golf weighs 1600 kg and accellerates from 0-100 km/h in just over 7 seconds. 
Probably ´safe´ for the inhabitants when it crashes.
Would be easier to avoid a crash when weighing 1000 kg. so a lot less damaging to what it would crash into íf it would. But weight a moment (bb); stop shorter too, so not crashing into it at all again.

I am very sorry for the believers but you are sold a literally massive con under the flag of safety.

[Ardent]

Just a thought.

Do modern braking systems stop a 1600kg projectile as well as, or better, than older technologies do a 1000kg projectile.

[tomaky]

Just a thought.

Do modern braking systems stop a 1600kg projectile as well as, or better, than older technologies do a 1000kg projectile.

I'd put money on the modern systems stopping quicker...

[Dev]

Just a thought.

Do modern braking systems stop a 1600kg projectile as well as, or better, than older technologies do a 1000kg projectile.

I would imagine it depends on two factors. Four wheel disk brakes and improvements in tires.The majority of older passenger cars used some form of drum brakes in the rear. 
It's not just braking force it's also stability control which is a big innovation for accident avoidance. Panic from the loss of control is usually what gets people in trouble making the situation worse. 

[Petrus]

Tyres anyone?

Once cars get an hydraulic system the limit is the tyres.
With repeated braking it becomes the heat dissipation.

Drum brakes are autoservo which is both an advantage and disadvantage. They can brake VERY hard but are not fool resistent as they can also lock up.

Overall, with modern rubber and friction material in the oldie I would most definitely not put my money om moders lardies.
I am a bit at an avantage here though, having competed with oldies using modern stuff.

We are however not comparing oldies with lardies are we?! I am questioning the wisdom of lardies versus applying modern tech/knowledge to manufacture a modern equivalent of the R4 or Golf. Those need not weigh more than the originals, be more frugal, cleaner and safer for all. Cheaper than de lardies too and thát is the con.

[Dev]

Given a choice between my Roadster and my other car that weighs 1920 kg I would rather be in the larger car in a potential accident situation. The larger car has stability control that keeps it straight and the suspension forgiving to regain control. It has airbags everywhere and modern tech to absorb the sudden impact. It is the sudden deceleration from older cars that is far more harmful.
 
 It's really not about the cars weight or what kind of breaking system it has. The real reality is a lot of times its not about what you drive because its out of your control when someone hits you unexpectedly in a matter of seconds, therefore it's better to be in a safe car that you can walk away from. If someone hits you in a vintage car you are for certain going to the hospital or worse.
 Saying accident avoidance without any of these aids is not for a majority of drivers  because most do not posses skills to regain control in a panic situation. It is a very hard thing to do when your first reaction is to slam the brakes and overcorrect making it worse.

[Petrus]

Again the easy brain short cut to the feel safer in a bigger tin Dev: Your starting point of being in a crash already skews any argument.

No, indeed, ´it´ is not áll about weight. Weight does shoot safety and mondern tech in the feet though.

Ah and then again the argument of the modern tech allowing drivers who should not drive to drive. Not sure that is a positive argument; at best it stands on a slippery slope.

[Dev]

Again the easy brain short cut to the feel safer in a bigger tin Dev: Your starting point of being in a crash already skews any argument.

No, indeed, ´it´ is not áll about weight. Weight does shoot safety and mondern tech in the feet though.

Ah and then again the argument of the modern tech allowing drivers who should not drive to drive. Not sure that is a positive argument; at best it stands on a slippery slope.

I never said the car that weighs more is safer because of weight. I think a lot of older SUVs are unsafe.
Its not about the weight its about the safety implementations in a modern car that are king starting with stability control. The way they are designed to absorb an impact without having any intrusions into the cabin along with the all of the air bag tech is not just saving lives its also allowing people to walk away with barely any injury. 

[Petrus]

Again the easy brain short cut to the feel safer in a bigger tin Dev: Your starting point of being in a crash already skews any argument.

No, indeed, ´it´ is not áll about weight. Weight does shoot safety and mondern tech in the feet though.

Ah and then again the argument of the modern tech allowing drivers who should not drive to drive. Not sure that is a positive argument; at best it stands on a slippery slope.

I never said the the car that weighs more is safer because of weight. I think a lot of older SUVs are unsafe.
Its not about the weight its about the safety implementations in a modern car that are king starting with stability control. The way they are designed to absorb an impact without having any intrusions into the cabin along with the all of the air bag tech is not just saving lives its also allowing people to walk away with barely any injury. 

You see the problems with this?

But I think we will keep going in different cicles. I dó get the advances in car tech., even the passive safety. Also why the average public is not made any the wiser about the down sides including in safety. Without a doubt some more do but alas, we will get what they, State/ manufacturers/ power players, want us to buy.

[Dev]

Again the easy brain short cut to the feel safer in a bigger tin Dev: Your starting point of being in a crash already skews any argument.

No, indeed, ´it´ is not áll about weight. Weight does shoot safety and mondern tech in the feet though.

Ah and then again the argument of the modern tech allowing drivers who should not drive to drive. Not sure that is a positive argument; at best it stands on a slippery slope.

I never said the the car that weighs more is safer because of weight. I think a lot of older SUVs are unsafe.
Its not about the weight its about the safety implementations in a modern car that are king starting with stability control. The way they are designed to absorb an impact without having any intrusions into the cabin along with the all of the air bag tech is not just saving lives its also allowing people to walk away with barely any injury. 

You see the problems with this?

But I think we will keep going in different cicles. I dó get the advances in car tech., even the passive safety. Also why the average public is not made any the wiser about the down sides including in safety. Without a doubt some more do but alas, we will get what they, State/ manufacturers/ power players, want us to buy.

 I can meet you half way. I do not think all of that lane departure and the car braking on its own to avoid hitting something head on is a good thing because it creates distracted driving and taking the car for granted.   
 
However stability and traction control when activated becomes a drivers aid when the car is out of control to keep the car steady enough for the driver to regain control or to reduce the speed of the unavoidable impact by keeping the tires griping. No driver can do what stability control does since its able to activate each caliper separately and do it in fractions of a second.
This is important not just for one driver but the other driver involved that has also lost control. Many have benefited from this system but you never hear about it because it never really gets recorded as a statistic since the accident has been avoided. 
 

[1979scotte]

Again the easy brain short cut to the feel safer in a bigger tin Dev: Your starting point of being in a crash already skews any argument.

No, indeed, ´it´ is not áll about weight. Weight does shoot safety and mondern tech in the feet though.

Ah and then again the argument of the modern tech allowing drivers who should not drive to drive. Not sure that is a positive argument; at best it stands on a slippery slope.

I never said the the car that weighs more is safer because of weight. I think a lot of older SUVs are unsafe.
Its not about the weight its about the safety implementations in a modern car that are king starting with stability control. The way they are designed to absorb an impact without having any intrusions into the cabin along with the all of the air bag tech is not just saving lives its also allowing people to walk away with barely any injury. 

You see the problems with this?

But I think we will keep going in different cicles. I dó get the advances in car tech., even the passive safety. Also why the average public is not made any the wiser about the down sides including in safety. Without a doubt some more do but alas, we will get what they, State/ manufacturers/ power players, want us to buy.

 I can meet you half way. I do not think all of that lane departure and the car braking on its own to avoid hitting something head on is a good thing because it creates distracted driving and taking the car for granted.   
 
However stability and traction control when activated becomes a drivers aid when the car is out of control to keep the car steady enough for the driver to regain control or to reduce the speed of the unavoidable impact by keeping the tires griping. No driver can do what stability control does since its able to activate each caliper separately and do it in fractions of a second.
This is important not just for one driver but the other driver involved that has also lost control. Many have benefited from this system but you never hear about it because it never really gets recorded as a statistic since the accident has been avoided. 
 

I don't think @Petrus does meeting people half way ( not men anyway )
It's his way or the high way.

[Dev]

Again the easy brain short cut to the feel safer in a bigger tin Dev: Your starting point of being in a crash already skews any argument.

No, indeed, ´it´ is not áll about weight. Weight does shoot safety and mondern tech in the feet though.

Ah and then again the argument of the modern tech allowing drivers who should not drive to drive. Not sure that is a positive argument; at best it stands on a slippery slope.

I never said the the car that weighs more is safer because of weight. I think a lot of older SUVs are unsafe.
Its not about the weight its about the safety implementations in a modern car that are king starting with stability control. The way they are designed to absorb an impact without having any intrusions into the cabin along with the all of the air bag tech is not just saving lives its also allowing people to walk away with barely any injury. 

You see the problems with this?

But I think we will keep going in different cicles. I dó get the advances in car tech., even the passive safety. Also why the average public is not made any the wiser about the down sides including in safety. Without a doubt some more do but alas, we will get what they, State/ manufacturers/ power players, want us to buy.

 I can meet you half way. I do not think all of that lane departure and the car braking on its own to avoid hitting something head on is a good thing because it creates distracted driving and taking the car for granted.   
 
However stability and traction control when activated becomes a drivers aid when the car is out of control to keep the car steady enough for the driver to regain control or to reduce the speed of the unavoidable impact by keeping the tires griping. No driver can do what stability control does since its able to activate each caliper separately and do it in fractions of a second.
This is important not just for one driver but the other driver involved that has also lost control. Many have benefited from this system but you never hear about it because it never really gets recorded as a statistic since the accident has been avoided. 
 

I don't think @Petrus does meeting people half way ( not men anyway )
It's his way or the high way.

I see it more of a question of mental gymnastics. There are somethings I want badly to work in my favor but the available information which is rooted in hard facts not only on the data driven but also no dissenting opinion from the industry to give you another point of view makes it moot. There are exceptions where some of the safety devices do kill people but on the whole they consistency save more lives and they get increasingly better.
 
However on the flip side the industry and science  does get it wrong. They were promoting daytime running lights as decreasing the number of accidents but as they examined further they realized that wasn't the case.  Absolutism and quoting stats, consensus and when people say the science is clear is also a kind of fatalism than actual science that should always be questioned.

[Petrus]

A nice perspective concerning the UK gvt set goals.
Despite the sales of e-vehicles: ´ the growth of SUVs over the past decade has actually been detrimental to the UK's carbon emissions target. While CO2 emissions have fallen 1 percent since 2011, this is less than the Department for Transport expected – and rising SUV sales are partly to blame.´

Mind, ´1 percent since 2011´ and that is including last years Covid19 limited mileages.

Way to go, yeahhh!