A "safety feature" too far?

[spunkymonkey]

Just saw a review in our local free rag of a Mazda which includes an overtaking warning as a safety feature. Apparently it warns you if you're being overtaken and warns you louder if you put your indicator on while (it thinks) you're being overtaken. Seems to me that there are a few pitfalls in this:

• How early does it recognise the nutter coming out of nowhere at 130 mph?
  
• How long before you put a hammer through the computer when you're being passed by a regular stream of cars?
  
• What happens when the computer malfunctions and doesn't give you the warning you've come to rely on?
  
• What the hell happened to the idea that a driver should be aware of what's happening and look before manouvering?
  

Shouldn't there be some point where new "safety features" that will clearly encourage drivers to be less aware become a reason for refusing type approval on the basis that, no matter how good they look, they're going to be counter-productive in reality? Personally I'd include airbags, ABS, HID lighting and even seat-belts on the "wrong" side of that line.

I'd also bring in a new law that any new driver (including driving school cars) is limited to cars with 55% braking, ineffective shock absorbers and minimum 2 inches play in the steering. Once they've driven safely in that for 5 years they can have something a little more forgiving :twisted:

[Patrick]

There's always Sir Alec Issigonis idea that cars ought to come with a four inch sharpened spike sticking out of the steering wheel.

He also thought that the driving position of cars should never be completely comfortable in order to keep the driver alert - and he never designed a place for radios in the car because he didn't think there should be any distraction whatsoever.

Trouble is of course - The way car design has been going - the 'blind spots' on some have been getting bigger - It's probably what this idea has been designed for. I don't know whether it still stands, but in Japan they legislated that cars should still have wing mounted mirrors for many years. I wonder if that wouldn't be a cheaper alternative.

[33grinder]

My father has this overtaking warning on his Mazda. I'm pleased that he uses it as a last resort back-up but still uses his mirror anyway so shouln't be relying on it. Personally I use my mirrors all the time to look out for unmarked rozzers! ;D

There's a lot to be said about these safety features. I'm not denouncing crumple zones and collapsable steering columns etc, but I think this false sense of security these features install in those driving moderns just makes these drivers feel that can drive even faster.

Whilst airbags are all well and good, there's not yet designed a safety feature to protect against the worst killer of all - internal body organs slamming against the ribcage under sudden decelleration causing instant hemoraging. Drivers of moderns will do well to remember this!

[dafdaffer]

a roof on a car was the start followed by seatbelts, not that i am against them its just the feeing of being all strapped in and cocooned gives a false sense of security.

my pug has auto lights and wipers, this is fine untill i go back to the DAF and have flattened the battery because i have left the lights on ;D

[Richard DAF Webmeister]

Funnily enough, there was an article along these lines in today's Daily Telegraph - suggesting that new young drivers should drive classics such as Morris Minor/Ford Anglia etc instead of modern hatchbacks to help get a real understanding and appreciation of the challenges and danger of motoring, without the mod cons.

The Mazda overtaking warning thing is related to its cousin Volvo's blind spot door mirror system.

[howard]

Almost as worrying as Citroen's warning system sensors to alert when you are going over white lines.....

If you think you need it, should you be driving?!!

I would welcome a sensor for other car drivers to point out that it is NOT a good idea starting to come through a gap when the obstruction is on your side and there is already a car coming through!!!

[Bob Scrivens]

Hi folks I reccon a better safety system would be for an onboard check list like in aircraft, where it goes through the various systems to check serviceablity, like brakes, engine controls and warning light, and would not let you start off till all the checks where completed.
Most cars now have the sensor in place to do this.
Might cause some people to be late by 10 minutes some mornings, but at least they would get there safely.

[howard]

Or, better still Bob, get people to follow their instruction booklets as regards to checking fluids, tyre pressures etc. Again, people would rely on these lights too much and not check things for themselves!

You only have to read peoples views on garages on BBC's "Have Your Say" to realise how some poeple operate these days.

eg "My garage is shocking - I took it for an MOT and it passed without problem, but three days later the cambelt snapped"

"They didn't check my tyre pressures and they let me drive out of their premises. I could of (sic) crashed"

The only way you can be happy with ANYTHING is to CHECK IT YOURSELF and if in any doubt, for example, don't do anything daft like overtaking just because some computer that cannot drive says it's OK for you to do so....

I still get told off at work because I sometimes check the oil/water - you get the usual smug person saying "Problems?" because it's an old car.

"No just checking my oil and water, like you're meant to every week".

"Oh, I let the garage do that for me"......and no doubt they go there once a bloomin' year....