BX how safe?

[Paul296]

Well, I think one thing we can all draw from that is that EVERYBODY has to be as observant as possible. Further, that none of us is as observant as we think we are. This makes for very interesting viewing . . .

[RobC]

Getting seriously o/t now but I guess that's my fault for bringing it up!

It's true, you can look at it in a number of ways. Thinking of cars as the descendants of carriages is indeed one. Hence the whole green laning issue (another bag of worms...). But this is problematic because this link is an evolution from a time when all vehicles on the road went at more or less animal speeds (i.e. propelled by humans or horses, with speeds of not much more than 20 mph).

A better way (imho) to look at it is that motor vehicles pay a licence (NB not 'road tax', no such thing exists) for the privilege to use the road. No other road user has to pay for this. This reflects the fact that they are more polluting and cause considerable damage to the surface - yet the whole reason our roads became smooth in the first place was because of cyclists, who cause no damage whatsoever to the surface of paved roads. Motor vehicles have been invited to use the roads that previously were only available to pedestrians, horse-drawn carts, and cyclists, on the condition that they purchase a licence. With that licence comes a responsibility to act with great care towards those who were there first.

The exception of course are motorways, which evolved after cars appeared. It is therefore quite right that pedestrians and cyclists etc are banned from such roads. But all other public highways existed before the car, and as car drivers we should be mindful that we are guests when driving there.

These are difficult concepts to stomach these days, not least because cars now vastly outnumber bicycles and horses. But I think it's a good point to remember, especially when considering how to 'share' the increasingly congested roadspace.

[MULLEY]

Modern cars are safer period, however, this stll won't stop you from potentially being killed by something much larger & heavier than the car you're in from hitting you. Therefore my view is just drive whatever you want, life is a risk etc....the safest car is no car, stay at home & never go outside

[barry badger]

This discussion has got me worried! Not for myself, i drive very defensively and probably arrogantly think i won't be involved in a crash. But concerned for my other half who is currently using the tzd but usually uses the txd. I know these cars are very lightly constructed but until now have put safety to the back of my mind. I have even been looking at buying a more modern safer car for her since reading this thread, maybe a renault scenic?
Has anyone any thoughts on strengthening a bx, welding in side impact bars ,stiffening the chassis legs under the floorpans or even cutting openings in the sills and sliding in a length of rollbar tubing, ( the sills are completely hollow ) for instance.

[MULLEY]

Trying to make a BX safer is a complete waste of time, crash protection is a very careful science, you can't just weld in side impact bars as they may infact make the car even less safe. If safety is an absolute priority, no one should be driving a car that is over 15 years old. Modern cars have to pass Euro NCAP crash tests, & most manufacturers design cars to achieve 5 stars, anything less & the buying public don't tend to buy them. Most cars have multiple airbags, 6-8 typically with more expensive cars having even more.

TBH, more people die of other reasons than in a car, have a read of this link, hopefully you'll be able to see that you may be getting worried over nothing in the scheme of things regarding car safety.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... wales-2009

[mds141]

[Paul296]

After reading this will I worry about driving my BX? No chance; drive safely and watch out, that really is as good as it gets. It seems to me we live in an increasingly risk-averse society where we think that with enough science and ingenuity everything can be made safe and sanitary; it can't. Life is inherently risky and really bloody dangerous, the only question is - are you feeling lucky? If transport safety really is an absolute priority; walk . . . preferably where there isn't any traffic (and you'll STILL be struck by lightening).

[mds141]

I started my motoring career, in the days before ABS, traction control, airbags, side impact protection and the such like.

The only thing that kept me safe, was careful driving and good observation.

Saying that though, I did spend an inordinate amount of time going sideways in Capri's and MK2 Escort's.

[Thread Bear]

Touching on the cyclist area as an interesting discussion. I always get interested when peaple start talking of rights. Few exist in reality.

I am no defender of cyclists as very often they create dangerious situations with the assumption that everyone else around will sort it out for them to pass safely. This is extraordinarly stupid, as if it all goes wrong, they are the ones who will get hurt and start squeaking. No cyclist EVER goes the wrong way down a one way street, uses the pavement, jumps traffic lights, rides two or more abreast etc etc Its never thier fault in an accident, period . The news is, yes it is. Beyond that Augustus Winsop (The oldest cyclist in the world, as I recall) would not have pedalled himself down the A420 at rush hour. As a right its up there with wearing a handgranade as an earring .

When I worked in Swindon, or walked Oxford, and a cyclist has aimed at me in a pedestrian area I have taken the great delight in shouldering him off his/her bike. In most cases the resulting argument proves these people believe they can do exactly as they like with no responsability for thier actions - until they meet an ex prop forward. The two that biffed me got a free bent bike for their trouble, as hitting them back clearly was not going to carry the correct message. Cyclists do not have a higher ground when so many flagrantly disreguard the laws of usage of pedal powered transportation full in the knowledge they are unregistered, uninsured and unlikely to be targeted by the police. They are currently not seen as a State revenue stream, lucky old them.

To each his responsibility. Horses rule and can shit on sharp corners causing accidents with no penelty. Cyclists come next. IC engined vehicle require a licence to drive, and are therefore a privalige - not a right. Privalige can be taken away if abused and should be.
A thought. On water Sail rules over Steam, save when Steam is in a bouyed carrageway, then
Sail gives way to Steam. Is a bicycle analogious to sail?

Your a truckie. Accident heading your way. Do you hit the car in the middle of the road, or brake and swerve, probably automatically, to clear the car. Cyclist goes under the rear wheel of the trailer. Should Truckie risk his health, his truck, the health of the car occupants and any third party too near beyond, or should he swerve protecting all in his immediate sight? He is going to swerve in 9 times out of 10 cases. Is the cyclists death the truckies fault then? The car that caused him to swerve is not going to hang about, probobly not even aware of what he caused. The Police may, or may not, look for him, or believe truckies tale. They are under pressure to gain the required notches on their truncheon each week, prime opertunity. These things just are not as simple as truckies mowing down every other cyclist they see. No one will ever convince me from the belief those two guys nigh on committed suicide to prove a point.

Who paid for the low countries cycleways? That is what we are missing round our connabations. Your logic suggests we have not got them as cyclists did not pay for them. I could vote for that, but it would not be green. That's as maybe, but ignoring the bill, they should exist in many areas. Shoving all things in motion into one inadiquate carraigeway means it becomes survival of the fittest. Too many people take too many risks and it ends in tears. That was one of the reasons I hated London when I worked up there. I chose to create a lifestyle avoiding population centres as they are not very pleaseant. The bonus is I tend to drive in areas less congested and less likely to find a serious accident. Ultimately, rights, or no rights, you are responsible for your own well being.

[Thread Bear]

Good vid test. Shows how selective we can be to gain relivent information at the expence of general information. Also why a group of people asked to report what they saw will give wildly differing answers, as unless all were forced to concentrate on certain things that happened, the view is coloured by individuality. A policemans problem for one. But interesting when experiencing some shared event with friends as they will enivetably have seen the action subtly different to you. A source of discussion, or friction, depending on relationship, but who is right?

[Defender110]

Whilst I admire and agree with many of your statements including the fact drivers of larger vehicles having a greater and in many instances a professional responsibility towards other road users I can't agree that roads were built specifically for cyclists

Getting seriously o/t now but I guess that's my fault for bringing it up!
It's true, you can look at it in a number of ways. Thinking of cars as the descendants of carriages is indeed one. Hence the whole green laning issue (another bag of worms...). But this is problematic because this link is an evolution from a time when all vehicles on the road went at more or less animal speeds (i.e. propelled by humans or horses, with speeds of not much more than 20 mph).
A better way (imho) to look at it is that motor vehicles pay a licence (NB not 'road tax', no such thing exists) for the privilege to use the road. No other road user has to pay for this. This reflects the fact that they are more polluting and cause considerable damage to the surface - yet the whole reason our roads became smooth in the first place was because of cyclists, I would contest this, roads used to be cobbled to allow transport of heavy loads then later smoothed out with macadam for motor vehicles plus I would imagine now that the vast majority of roads were built after the development of the motor vehicle. who cause no damage whatsoever to the surface of paved roads. Motor vehicles have been invited to use the roads that previously were only available to pedestrians, horse-drawn carts, and cyclists, on the condition that they purchase a licence. With that licence comes a responsibility to act with great care towards those who were there first.

The exception of course are motorways, which evolved after cars appeared. It is therefore quite right that pedestrians and cyclists etc are banned from such roads. But all other public highways existed before the car, and as car drivers we should be mindful that we are guests when driving there.

These are difficult concepts to stomach these days, not least because cars now vastly outnumber bicycles and horses. But I think it's a good point to remember, especially when considering how to 'share' the increasingly congested roadspace.

[Kitch]

The number of people on this thread who reckon themselves as good drivers is a bit concerning. I read somewhere that those who believe they're good are the most dangerous.

[Philip Chidlow]

I have moved on from the BX now. OK we knock about locally in a ZX three door diesel but even that is sturdier that a BX - in fact it's a solid little car... but would I carry my family long distances in it on today's roads? Populated as they are by a growing swarm of the inattentive, arrogant, aggressive and plain stupid? No.

Doing the Challenge next year, in the ZX, will be about as risky an exploit as I might want to undertake in it. A large element of road safety comes from being extra vigilant, quick-thinking and dare-I-say more attuned to your vehicle than the next road-user. I always try to maintain an 'envelope of security' around my car and position the car in a way that wherever possible gives me room for manoeuvre. But I am not a great driver. I'm OK and probably in the upper 50% in terms of what might be called 'skill', but even if I was Seb Loeb I am still going to be at the mercy of bad luck. A Audi Q7 ploughing into the side of anything is going to hurt...

I have entrusted my family to an 11 year old Rover 75 tourer. It seems to be carved out of granite compared to the BX, and it has a very good safety specification. It is comfortable too (but nothing touches hydro' suspension!). Are we safer? In most accident scenarios my guess is, marginally, yes. I say marginally because visibility is worse, and the car responds less quickly because of it's weight. But in the final analysis, it must be stronger and safer than a BX that is also twice its age.

[mds141]

The number of people on this thread who reckon themselves as good drivers is a bit concerning. I read somewhere that those who believe they're good are the most dangerous.

As a car driver, motorcyclist and for the last ten years, HGV driver, covering in excess of 150,000 miles per annum without incident, I think I can justifiably quantify myself as a 'good' driver.

[Kitch]

The number of people on this thread who reckon themselves as good drivers is a bit concerning. I read somewhere that those who believe they're good are the most dangerous.

As a car driver, motorcyclist and for the last ten years, HGV driver, covering in excess of 150,000 miles per annum without incident, I think I can justifiably quantify myself as a 'good' driver.

You crack on Mark