Are modern cars too good?

[puntofan01]

Had a quick read and it was only the cheap actives that didn't have curtains but then they didn't have side impact airbags either, they just had a driver and passenger bag.

I know, those were the Actives I was referring to, lol...

UP! The mii and the citigo all rank in the cheapest uk cars as does the twingo so they are very cheap. And for the 5th time curtain airbags do not automatically mean a safer car, which bring us neatly to your next point

As I've already posted the UP!/mii/citigo all score much better than the panda for adult occupant (7% safer in the the Vag car) and child occupant safety (17% safer in the vag car) so ignoring your brand loyalty, it's an average 12% safer to crash an UP! Than a panda, which is quite. A bit!

I wasn't only referring to city cars, I was also referring to the Clio and Polo, certain variants of which could fairly be described as being rather expensive. And I never said that curtain airbags guaranteed a safer car!

I also never stated that a Panda performed as well in the ncap test, I merely meant that it doesn't do badly, and i would be happy to drive 1. Plus, it was never about Panda vs up, the Aygo, and I10 are also city cars that offer an acceptable level of passive safety.

Equipment wise the panda does terribly it got half the marks of the UP! But actual safety wises as an occupant of either vehicle the UP!/mii/citigo is quite a bit safer by NCAP standards.

I'm not bothered about driver aids...

Not sure why you keep mentioning the metro a car that's not been built for about 18 years, things have come a hell of a long way since then, it's not even remotely compatible to any modern uk car.

Airbags are not the be all and end all when it comes to safety. The idea of not buying a car just because it doesn't have an airbag that covers the back windows in an accident is just silly.

I mentioned the Metro because it's a perfect example of a bodyshell that wasn't designed to withstand a hefty impact and remain intact. I never said it was comparable to a modern car.

I know that airbags aren't the be all and end all of safety, I just said it quite surprising that in this day and age, big selling cars from a couple of the main manufacturers weren't fitted with that particular device. And as ridiculous as you think it is, I prefer to have something protecting my rear passengers' heads. That's all sir.

 

[puntofan01]

In the UK I seem to recall it was one of the first cheap cars to get an airbag and ABS (which would make you think it was safe). When the basic shell is that unsound an airbag will not save you.

They did the same with the Cavalier based Espero. When Daewoo 1st came to the UK, that was 1 of their USPs. Virtually all cars back then had weak body structure designs.

 

[AndyRKett]

I know, those were the Actives I was referring to, lol...



I wasn't only referring to city cars, I was also referring to the Clio and Polo, certain variants of which could fairly be described as being rather expensive. And I never said that curtain airbags guaranteed a safer car!

I also never stated that a Panda performed as well in the ncap test, I merely meant that it doesn't do badly, and i would be happy to drive 1. Plus, it was never about Panda vs up, the Aygo, and I10 are also city cars that offer an acceptable level of passive safety.



I'm not bothered about driver aids...



I mentioned the Metro because it's a perfect example of a bodyshell that wasn't designed to withstand a hefty impact and remain intact. I never said it was comparable to a modern car.

I know that airbags aren't the be all and end all of safety, I just said it quite surprising that in this day and age, big selling cars from a couple of the main manufacturers weren't fitted with that particular device. And as ridiculous as you think it is, I prefer to have something protecting my rear passengers' heads. That's all sir.

Just because I can't be bothered to multi quote.

1. Yes I was agreeing with you, do learn to converse.

2. You stated you would rather be in a panda than an UP! But the up is still safer if you....

3. .....take away all the driver aids, driver aids are now a big part of ncap scores but take them out of the equation and the panda still doesn't perform as well as the UP!

4. A Coke can is also not designed to take a hefty impact but you've not set that as an example. Plenty of cars designed in the 70s and 80s like the metro, were never going to perform well in crash tests. It was an idiotic point to make because it made no sense in the context of the current conversation.

5. The point about car design is such that a well designed car doesn't necessarily need curtain airbags as though design they can reduce the likelihood of a passengers head making contact with anything. These are all things that ncap don't test for but the manufacturers do. They don't remove these things without assessing the risks.

Airbags can injure as well as protect and if your rear seat passenger is sitting with their head against the window or sleeping then there is a good chance a curtain airbag can do serious harm. You're making a judgement based on opinion where as the manufacturers will be making decisions on research accident data and car design as well as looking at all the market research about the people who buy and use their cars. If that market research says that 3% of panda owners regularly carry adult rear seat passengers then fitting expensive airbag systems to every car is completely not cost effective.

You might prefer to have these safety systems but if you had to pay an extra £800 for to have them fitted when buying a new car would you be able to justify the expense, how often do you carry adult rear seat passengers?

I never carry anyone in the back of any of our cars so couldn't care less about curtains, our mini has them the golf doesn't (for obvious reasons) but reading the data ncap rates the golf higher than even the latest 2014 mini.


Basically what you're not getting no matter how many ways it's said by different people is IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY AIRBAGS YOU HAVE.


Also... THE PRESENCE OF CURTAIN AIRBAGS DOES NOT MEAN YOUR REAR SEAT PASSENGERS WILL BE SAFER.

The rest of us understand that but you carry on with your usual weird beliefs.

 

[puntofan01]

Just because I can't be bothered to multi quote.

1. Yes I was agreeing with you, do learn to converse.

2. You stated you would rather be in a panda than an UP! But the up is still safer if you....

3. .....take away all the driver aids, driver aids are now a big part of ncap scores but take them out of the equation and the panda still doesn't perform as well as the UP!

4. A Coke can is also not designed to take a hefty impact but you've not set that as an example. Plenty of cars designed in the 70s and 80s like the metro, were never going to perform well in crash tests. It was an idiotic point to make because it made no sense in the context of the current conversation.

5. The point about car design is such that a well designed car doesn't necessarily need curtain airbags as though design they can reduce the likelihood of a passengers head making contact with anything. These are all things that ncap don't test for but the manufacturers do. They don't remove these things without assessing the risks.

Airbags can injure as well as protect and if your rear seat passenger is sitting with their head against the window or sleeping then there is a good chance a curtain airbag can do serious harm. You're making a judgement based on opinion where as the manufacturers will be making decisions on research accident data and car design as well as looking at all the market research about the people who buy and use their cars. If that market research says that 3% of panda owners regularly carry adult rear seat passengers then fitting expensive airbag systems to every car is completely not cost effective.

You might prefer to have these safety systems but if you had to pay an extra £800 for to have them fitted when buying a new car would you be able to justify the expense, how often do you carry adult rear seat passengers?

I never carry anyone in the back of any of our cars so couldn't care less about curtains, our mini has them the golf doesn't (for obvious reasons) but reading the data ncap rates the golf higher than even the latest 2014 mini.


Basically what you're not getting no matter how many ways it's said by different people is IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY AIRBAGS YOU HAVE.


Also... THE PRESENCE OF CURTAIN AIRBAGS DOES NOT MEAN YOUR REAR SEAT PASSENGERS WILL BE SAFER.

The rest of us understand that but you carry on with your usual weird beliefs.

I have also lost inclination to multi-quote.

1: You can forgive me for thinking that you were trying to talk to me like I'm an idiot, as you like to do it so often.

2 & 3: Yes, I WOULD rather drive a Panda. I like the Panda, and whilst it's ncap rating may not be as high as an up, I still consider it to offer an acceptable level of passive safety. And yes, I'm also well aware that driver aids will continue to form an ever increasing part of the ncap test. I will still continue to buy the car that meets my needs, offers acceptable passive safety, and that I actually like.

4: The metro and Voyager made good examples in the context of the conversation, as it was relating to ncap testing and weak bodyshells: both those cars had weak shells, and as such, performed horrifically in the ncap test.

5: Whenever I have rear seat passengers, they are nearly always adults.


My original comment was 1 made out of casual surprise, as part of the particular thread topic. Once again, you have taken it upon yourself to attempt to enforce your opinions upon me, and lecture me as my opinions differ from yours.

I would appreciate it if in the future, you could at least attempt to accept the fact that not everyone thinks the same as you, and if I make a comment on a thread, try to resist the urge to dissect it and abuse me for it. I always try and respect your views, (the 1s not aimed at me, that is,) so please return the favour.

 

[AndyRKett]

My original comment was 1 made out of casual surprise, as part of the particular thread topic. Once again, you have taken it upon yourself to attempt to enforce your opinions upon me, and lecture me as my opinions differ from yours.

I would appreciate it if in the future, you could at least attempt to accept the fact that not everyone thinks the same as you, and if I make a comment on a thread, try to resist the urge to dissect it and abuse me for it. I always try and respect your views, (the 1s not aimed at me, that is,) so please return the favour.

Before you reply do be sure to read and understand what i've said and if you are replying address all the points raised.... Ok

This isn't an attempt to force an opinion or 'lecture' you on your ideas, but you need to understand some things about these things we call a forum...

If you make a comment on a forum then "attempt to accept the fact" that the whole idea of a forum is a discussion

Forum :definition
noun
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
"we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"

When you post a comment about being supprised that something isn't offered and someone offers you an explanation of why that is then; do try and listen and take note and don't get argue then get offended if you don't like the explanation offered.

Now I hadn't "abused" you for anything simply tried to explain the things you didn't appear to understand but because its me, the more a situation is explained the more you dig in and become completely incapable of logical or reasoned thought.
The prime example of this would be one minute claiming that all you worry about is safety of you and your passengers but then you'd still rather drive the 4 star panda over a 5 star car despite the data showing you that the other car is safer in every aspect of occupant safety. A normal person might say "yeah ok that other car is safer I take your point, but I do prefer the panda, because I like the panda" You don't do this, you appear to lack all normal ability to converse, debate or share ideas normally and you take umbridge if anyone questions anything you believe in no matter how idiotic or stupid that belief is.

The fact of the matter in the context of this discussion is; If you claim safety is your most important concern in the discussion and car B is safer than car A but then you start to claim that car A is better then don't expect anyone in that conversion to respect your views as you clearly completely lack integrity.
How many times and how many ways can it be explained that the presence of curtain airbags does no mean that a car is any safer than a car without them, and other factors such as car design can mean that these things aren't needed. The example of poor car design that you offered up the metro about was that some cars are filled with airbags but that doesn't mean they are in anyway safe. The metro does not fit this example so it irrelevant in the context of the discussion.

Now please do show some evidence that you respect my views, as you boldly claim. As far as I see it, anything I say you have to argue with, no matter what it is or who i'm talking/replying to at the time.

We keep returning to this point time and time again not because i'm picking on you or disrespecting you in anyway shape or form, but because you reply to my posts constantly, and say one thing one minute, then completely switch tact or change the conversation when anything you say is questioned. So do try and show some maturity actually read what's being said and try and listen/read and understand the things that are being discussed, basically if you ask a question do listen to the answer and stop fighting every answer you're given just because you don't like it.

 

[andydiver]

I would still feel safe in a Panda, from what I understand, most of the difference in the ratings is because the Panda has less driver aids as standard.

For an example of the importance of body structure design, look no further than the Rover Metro or previous shape Chrysler Voyager! Truly terrifying safety cell collapse!

Echo all. Feel even safer in the new model Panda of course. High seat, excellent visibility. Always prefer the most powerful engine something not yet discussed. Do a lot of dual carriagway driving and you need poke to keep out of the way of lorries and to preserve braking distance to the front or for the idiot behind. The Panda seems a more visible car somehow (it is tall) which helps with crash avoidance though can't prove that with evidence.

Cars are good at billiards these days and a low self weight helps in standard tests. But a crush event is something only mass of metal can help with. .or avoidance. Some of the tiny cars mentioned here might not fare so well. . .

 

[AndyRKett]

andydiver I would buy a new panda over an UP! or Mii or Citigo or Twingo any day, its a much nicer looking little car, I must admit that the concerns over the safety of a car especially back seat passenger safety, is really not that important to me. In the conversation above the other cars mentioned do rate higher on the safety stakes. The argument that puntofan01 is making is that car A is more safe for having curtain airbags, despite car B scoring better on NCAP testing but not having curtain airbags, its a simple case of preference bias in face of other scientific data to refute his claims.

A lot of german and sweedish cars now use a lot of boron steel across their whole range of cars. Fiat only use this material in the american Fiat 500 to meet american safety standards. Having a good engine under the bonnet is important to get you out of trouble Bigger engines tend to go hand in hand with better brakes as well.

Cars are a lot like conkers when it comes to safety these days. No matter how safe your car is, if you're hit by a bigger car with even more safety features and better designs then the lesser car isn't going to fair as well.

 

[puntofan01]

Before you reply do be sure to read and understand what i've said and if you are replying address all the points raised.... Ok

This isn't an attempt to force an opinion or 'lecture' you on your ideas, but you need to understand some things about these things we call a forum...

If you make a comment on a forum then "attempt to accept the fact" that the whole idea of a forum is a discussion

Forum :definition
noun
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
"we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"

When you post a comment about being supprised that something isn't offered and someone offers you an explanation of why that is then; do try and listen and take note and don't get argue then get offended if you don't like the explanation offered.

Now I hadn't "abused" you for anything simply tried to explain the things you didn't appear to understand but because its me, the more a situation is explained the more you dig in and become completely incapable of logical or reasoned thought.
The prime example of this would be one minute claiming that all you worry about is safety of you and your passengers but then you'd still rather drive the 4 star panda over a 5 star car despite the data showing you that the other car is safer in every aspect of occupant safety. A normal person might say "yeah ok that other car is safer I take your point, but I do prefer the panda, because I like the panda" You don't do this, you appear to lack all normal ability to converse, debate or share ideas normally and you take umbridge if anyone questions anything you believe in no matter how idiotic or stupid that belief is.

The fact of the matter in the context of this discussion is; If you claim safety is your most important concern in the discussion and car B is safer than car A but then you start to claim that car A is better then don't expect anyone in that conversion to respect your views as you clearly completely lack integrity.
How many times and how many ways can it be explained that the presence of curtain airbags does no mean that a car is any safer than a car without them, and other factors such as car design can mean that these things aren't needed. The example of poor car design that you offered up the metro about was that some cars are filled with airbags but that doesn't mean they are in anyway safe. The metro does not fit this example so it irrelevant in the context of the discussion.

Now please do show some evidence that you respect my views, as you boldly claim. As far as I see it, anything I say you have to argue with, no matter what it is or who i'm talking/replying to at the time.

We keep returning to this point time and time again not because i'm picking on you or disrespecting you in anyway shape or form, but because you reply to my posts constantly, and say one thing one minute, then completely switch tact or change the conversation when anything you say is questioned. So do try and show some maturity actually read what's being said and try and listen/read and understand the things that are being discussed, basically if you ask a question do listen to the answer and stop fighting every answer you're given just because you don't like it.

I am not the only person on this forum who has noticed you being abusive. The fact that you feel the need to use words like idiotic and stupid don't really help your cause.

1 casual observation: you focused intensely on the Panda and up. I originally mentioned a couple of Renaults too, but you seem to barely acknowledge that. You accuse me of brand loyalty, yet if someone on here points out an area where vw are perhaps less than perfect, you brush it aside.

I have always said about acceptable levels of passive safety, I never said I want the very safest car money can buy.

If you're not picking on me personally, then why is it always you that comes across as being argumentative and opinionated? I don't notice it with any other users.

 

[AndyRKett]

1 casual observation: you focused intensely on the Panda and up. I originally mentioned a couple of Renaults too, but you seem to barely acknowledge that. You accuse me of brand loyalty, yet if someone on here points out an area where vw are perhaps less than perfect, you brush it aside.

The Clio, Twingo, Polo, Up, Ibiza and Fabia, All perform equally or better than the panda despite the panda having curtain airbags and all the others not having curtain airbags. So go back and substitute the word UP! For any of the other cars listed. Brand loyalty wise aside from the Clio and twingo all the other cars you mention are VAG cars. The Clio outshines the, all and still does not have curtain airbags as standard.
VW cars are far from "perfect" but in this argument the Vag car perform better than the panda. The panda being the only comparable small fiat car that has been tested under post 2009 ncap tests, hence the emphasis on the panda.

Now I'm not going to deny I've used the terms idiotic or stupid, however as much as you say you're not the only one who has noticed be "being abusive" I'm not the only person who has used these terms in respect to you.

In the discussion you question the safety of a group of cars, so I put it to you that if the panda has the curtains and doesn't perform as well as the majority of the group of cars discussed then in the context of "acceptable levels of safety" and you dealing the panda "acceptable" then all the other cars are equal to or better and thus "acceptable" making the whole discussion pointless.

You may not notice the arguments or opinions of other but they are there and much like a well reasoned or structured argument or discussion you turn a blind eye and focus on more troll like behaviours.

Now please go back and actually address or acknowledged the points I made in my previous post to you.

 

[puntofan01]

The Clio, Twingo, Polo, Up, Ibiza and Fabia, All perform equally or better than the panda despite the panda having curtain airbags and all the others not having curtain airbags. So go back and substitute the word UP! For any of the other cars listed. Brand loyalty wise aside from the Clio and twingo all the other cars you mention are VAG cars. The Clio outshines the, all and still does not have curtain airbags as standard.
VW cars are far from "perfect" but in this argument the Vag car perform better than the panda. The panda being the only comparable small fiat car that has been tested under post 2009 ncap tests, hence the emphasis on the panda.

Now I'm not going to deny I've used the terms idiotic or stupid, however as much as you say you're not the only one who has noticed be "being abusive" I'm not the only person who has used these terms in respect to you.

In the discussion you question the safety of a group of cars, so I put it to you that if the panda has the curtains and doesn't perform as well as the majority of the group of cars discussed then in the context of "acceptable levels of safety" and you dealing the panda "acceptable" then all the other cars are equal to or better and thus "acceptable" making the whole discussion pointless.

You may not notice the arguments or opinions of other but they are there and much like a well reasoned or structured argument or discussion you turn a blind eye and focus on more troll like behaviours.

Now please go back and actually address or acknowledged the points I made in my previous post to you.

Why are you still focusing on the Panda?

 

[AndyRKett]

Why are you still focusing on the Panda?

I actually explained that in the post above, why are you avoiding answering my post further up?

If you like change panda for Hyundai i10 still a 4 star car and still has curtain airbags and still doesn't perform as well as the other cars mentioned, for adult safety it's even worse than the panda.

 

[puntofan01]

I actually explained that in the post above, why are you avoiding answering my post further up?

Quite frankly, I cannot be bothered to try and explain my opinions to you. You should be aware by now that I like the Twingo, I like the Vauxhall Viva. I like the previous model Fabia and Clio. I like the Corsa and Suzuki Swift. Yet still, you keep persisting with the Panda in this thread...

End of.

 

[AndyRKett]

Quite frankly, I cannot be bothered to try and explain my opinions to you. You should be aware by now that I like the Twingo, I like the Vauxhall Viva. I like the previous model Fabia and Clio. I like the Corsa and Suzuki Swift. Yet still, you keep persisting with the Panda in this thread...

End of.

So you complain that someone sets there viewpoint and it goes against your views but you don't want to explain your views..... ?

the cars you mentioned not having curtain airbags (which you claim are all important in protecting back seat passengers) includes the twingo, clio and the fabia, so clearly from what you've already said in this thread you would rule them out as a car you would buy on the grounds of not having curtain airbags. You didn't mention or viva, corsa or swift. The corsa like the panda or the i10 does not perform well (4 star) yet has curtain airbags. The swift performs very well and has a huge amount of equipment and as a result is much more expensive than a lot of the other cars. The Viva has yet to meet NCAP....

Do you want to stop clutching at straws and accept that curtain airbags do not automatically mean a safer car, which after all was your original point.



Edit: the Viva (or opal Karl) has been tested by NCAP and despite having curtain airbags as standard has the worst safety rating of all cars mentioned so far and only just scrapped 4 stars on NCAP....

 

[puntofan01]

So you complain that someone sets there viewpoint and it goes against your views but you don't want to explain your views..... ?

the cars you mentioned not having curtain airbags (which you claim are all important in protecting back seat passengers) includes the twingo, clio and the fabia, so clearly from what you've already said in this thread you would rule them out as a car you would buy on the grounds of not having curtain airbags. You didn't mention or viva, corsa or swift. The corsa like the panda or the i10 does not perform well (4 star) yet has curtain airbags. The swift performs very well and has a huge amount of equipment and as a result is much more expensive than a lot of the other cars. The Viva has yet to meet NCAP....

Do you want to stop clutching at straws and accept that curtain airbags do not automatically mean a safer car, which after all was your original point.



Edit: the Viva (or opal Karl) has been tested by NCAP and despite having curtain airbags as standard has the worst safety rating of all cars mentioned so far and only just scrapped 4 stars on NCAP....

I cba to explain because it's perfectly clear you only accept your own views. You're not just like that with me either, it doesn't go unnoticed in other threads that you fail to accept the opinions of others.

I said I like the PREVIOUS model Fabia and Clio, the 1s that aren't ugly.

And I never said that curtains automatically guaranteed a safer car, that's just how you interpreted it.

Personally, I consider a 4 star rated car to be safe enough.

 

[AndyRKett]

Your replies all very much depend on the argument you want to make at the time and who you are arguing with, which is why you are a troll.

You say

And I never said that curtains automatically guaranteed a safer car, that's just how you interpreted it.

But not so far back in this thread you also say, in talking about having to pay for curtain airbags...

It's a price I personally am happy to pay though, if it means better protection for friends and family sitting in the back.

The implication is that you believed at that point at least, that curtain airbags make a car safer than those without. There is no misinterpretation, there that's what you said....

Then you say.

Personally, I consider a 4 star rated car to be safe enough.

But again in the past you say things like

Personally, I would feel far safer in a car with a higher NCAP crash test result than 1 with a lower rating, because I know that the body structure was designed and proven to be able to withstand a hefty impact.

So by your own statement you would "feel safer" in an UP! Or a new Clio or a fabia or a polo than in a panda or an i10 or a corsa or a viva. Despite the former not having curtain airbags and the latter having curtain airbags but worse ncap ratings.

It just all goes to show how you constantly twist your arguments to continue arguing about things.... Much like a troll

You're not going to get any respect from me when you can't even stand by or agree with your own opinions.

Looking back you've argued will all manor of people all over the forum, I'm not in some exclusive club. The difference is while other people let it go, I point out every time you contradict yourself which you don't like because it makes you look stupid.

 

[chr1s]

The design of the tin can has as much bearing on your safety as the cushioning inside it and if there are floors in the design of the car then no amount of cushioning is going to help.

If there are no floors in the design of the car then no amount of cushioning is going to help !

Before you reply do be sure to read and understand what i've said and if you are replying address all the points raised.... Ok

To be fair, it's sometimes difficult. :devil:

 

[AndyRKett]

If there are no floors in the design of the car then no amount of cushioning is going to help !







To be fair, it's sometimes difficult. :devil:

Apparently so, even you got it wrong

 

[puntofan01]

Your replies all very much depend on the argument you want to make at the time and who you are arguing with, which is why you are a troll.

You say



But not so far back in this thread you also say, in talking about having to pay for curtain airbags...




The implication is that you believed at that point at least, that curtain airbags make a car safer than those without. There is no misinterpretation, there that's what you said....

Then you say.




But again in the past you say things like



So by your own statement you would "feel safer" in an UP! Or a new Clio or a fabia or a polo than in a panda or an i10 or a corsa or a viva. Despite the former not having curtain airbags and the latter having curtain airbags but worse ncap ratings.

It just all goes to show how you constantly twist your arguments to continue arguing about things.... Much like a troll

You're not going to get any respect from me when you can't even stand by or agree with your own opinions.

Looking back you've argued will all manor of people all over the forum, I'm not in some exclusive club. The difference is while other people let it go, I point out every time you contradict yourself which you don't like because it makes you look stupid.

Ok then, I shall explain things more clearly for you.

Whilst side and curtain 'bags will not guarantee increased safety, I would be willing to pay extra for them, because I find their presence reassuring, hence I feel safer.

Fair enough, I could've explained that better. I feel safer in a car with a higher ncap rating, upto a point. I think a better way of explaining things is with examples:

I was recently a rear seat passenger in a Citroën Saxo, and because I know it has a 2 star result, combined with the very thin B-pillars, I felt very vulnerable there. I feel far safer sitting in the back of my mums' 4 star mk2 Corsa. However, when sitting in the front, I prefer to be in my dads' likewise 4 star mk2 Clio, because it has side airbags: knowing they are there makes me feel safer.

With regards to the current Clio, etc, whilst the official ratings are higher, due to the way the current ncap system works, I would not necessarily feel safer. I would ignore the actual rating, and examine the crash test results instead. The odd point difference doesn't bother me, however, if we're talking about a larger difference in crash test performance (for example, the difference between the previous Panda and a similarly aged Grande Punto,) then that would be more likely to affect my choice of car. With the example you use of the Panda and up, the difference in crash results is less than 10% so the reassurance provided by the extra airbags would lead me to feel safer.

Yes, I have disagreed with other people on here in the past, however, if I agree with things they have said, I make that clear, so I don't come across as being argumentative. The difference between me and yourself is I try to avoid using personal insults, and I have never ridiculed a user whose opinions differ from my own, and I certainly don't tag other users in comments in order to humiliate a particular user for their views.

 

[Gavv8]

You two really need to get a room....:shakehead:

 

[andydiver]

It appears the forum likes a debate

We all know modern cars are scientifically better than old ones in every measurable way.

So why is a driving no longer the event it once was?

If the bottom of the range has limits so high you need to actively provoke the car with stupid driving to get a reaction then the limits at the top range must be ridiculous.

So when you come to power would you go back to the old days? Or are you happy with measurably brilliant if a bit dull? Am I talking drivel? If not what was the sweet spot between modernism and the old days?

Above quote has had chunks cut out and is taken from the origin of this thread. . Right about the debate!!

The boring bit: Having crash tested 2 premier roadworthy cars in their day there is no way that I would have my family in the Qubo without the modern safety advances, steels and driver aids backed up by a study of the Euro N cap results.

The fun bit is why the Qubo was our choice: excellent value for money, it makes me smile, not quite up to the charm of the Panda but close in my eyes (they need to do a Panda about 8 inches longer and stop making bloated looking 500s). We test drove a Mitsubishi ASX which on paper is one of the safest out there and I liked it online. Really was ready to pay for it and the test drive should have been a formality. It was awful to drive. Wallow and no feel. I would ditch it late one night for sure.

Rather annoyed drove past the Fiat garage on the way out of town so to cheer up went in to make sure the Panda had not grown overnight .. and under the wife's influence bought a Qubo. Sure works well with a car seat. On paper rubbish compared to many but we find it works for us. Needs modern active control to pass the elk test too. .