BX how safe?

Anything about BXs
User avatar
Kitch
Over 2k
Posts: 6373
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:36 pm
Location: Fareham, Hants
My Cars: Too many to list
x 74

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Kitch »

I don't think you can argue with ABS on the whole. Sure cadence braking will achieve a similar outcome, but ABS will always be able to do it better, as such. It can react and think quicker than the driver.

The point I disagree on is that ABS isn't the be-all and end-all, because you can still drive a non-ABS equipped car and be 95% as safe as an ABS-equipped one. Other advances such as seat-belt pre-tensioners, side impact bars, safety cells etc.....that's what makes the difference. Have a collision and there is no variable there; you can't recreate what a side-impact bar does by pumping your foot quickly :lol: Suppose you could lean into your door just before you get T-boned and try to brace it.......



#-o
CCC BX monthly column writer bloke thingy - bx@citroencarclub.org.uk

The national BX register - click to submit a car!

1983(A) 16TRS (Rouge Valleunga) - 1987(E) GTi 16v (Noir) - 1990(H) 16Valve (Rouge Furio)

adamskibx
BXpert
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:26 pm

Re: BX how safe?

Post by adamskibx »

Yes. The old days of cadence braking make for very good drivers which drivers of new cars will never understand, but I can't help thinking that the ABS v's non-ABS brakes debate is far too easy to subscribe to macho pub talk. I admit that I can't do anything near as clever as ABS can, but yes, I can see it being a problem in the snow. There should be a switch to turn it off in the snow, but if it's snowing, which it rarely does in this country, you either don't drive or drive at a snails pace. When I had a company Citroen C2 with modern ABS, I found that the ABS system was incredible, unlike the rest of the car; It could stop in half the distance that a BX could, and automatically put the hazards on at the same time.

Side impact protection bars are a very good idea as they prevent the doors from caving in, so if you like classics, buy a Volvo with SIPS (Side Impact Protection System), which I suspect was labelled as such because Volvo were the first to do it and set the trend.

User avatar
Vanny
Merseyside resident
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:48 pm
Location: BXProject
My Cars: BX 16v Ph2 - Jazz
BX 16v Ph2 - XPO
x 50

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Vanny »

ABS is for people who weren't paying enough attention, and for that, it's brilliant, gets you out of the danger zone pretty well, until you get shunted in the rear mind. But bar top of the range 4x4s and very high end high power cars, I've never found an ABS system that can out brake me. Would I want to do without ABS on the BX, absolutely, it's terrible and why mine is on a switch. On a modern car I'm glad it's there for when I balls up, but I don't think ABS makes me safer

User avatar
Vanny
Merseyside resident
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:48 pm
Location: BXProject
My Cars: BX 16v Ph2 - Jazz
BX 16v Ph2 - XPO
x 50

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Vanny »

adamskibx wrote: Side impact protection bars are a very good idea as they prevent the doors from caving in, so if you like classics, buy a Volvo with SIPS (Side Impact Protection System), which I suspect was labelled as such because Volvo were the first to do it and set the trend.
No they weren't. Not by a long stretch. First company to do it on mass I think was MG. Volve where just the first to use it as a gimmick

User avatar
Paul296
Over 2k
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:39 pm
Location: Newark Nottinghamshire
My Cars: Citroen BX 17 TZD Hurricane
Citroen BX 17 TGD

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Paul296 »

I know nothing about air bags, crumple zones, side impact protection systems and all that stuff that makes modern car drivers think that if they get twatted driving at 95 mph they'll somehow be OK. In modern terms I suspect the BX is a bit of a death trap, so I just drive safely and assume that every other road-user is a homicidal maniac; and let's face it, many of them are. :D

adamskibx
BXpert
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:26 pm

Re: BX how safe?

Post by adamskibx »

Vanny wrote:
adamskibx wrote: Side impact protection bars are a very good idea as they prevent the doors from caving in, so if you like classics, buy a Volvo with SIPS (Side Impact Protection System), which I suspect was labelled as such because Volvo were the first to do it and set the trend.
No they weren't. Not by a long stretch. First company to do it on mass I think was MG. Volve where just the first to use it as a gimmick
Even more classic - Okay - buy an MG then :) I am actually surprised it wasn't an American firm that did this first, or Volvo being the most famously safety concious car company.

adamskibx
BXpert
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:26 pm

Re: BX how safe?

Post by adamskibx »

Anyone fancy correcting Wikipedia? I only checked just now and it says Volvo developed it, but this is most likely a mistake. In fact, I am not so sure. It looks as though SIPS was much more sophisticated than having strong beams in the door. You could call a door a side impact protection system, but you couldn't call it SIPS.

Defender110
Over 2k
Posts: 5917
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:02 pm
Location: Harwood, Bolton
My Cars: Land Rover Discovery Series 1 200tdi 3 door
Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5
2020 Fiat Panda cross 4x4 twin air.
x 26

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Defender110 »

Thanks for the replies chaps, lots to think about but think Kitch has nailed it for me.

Ref. SIPs, If I recall correctly Jaguar were the first to fit sips in the Series 1 XJ6/ Daimler Soveriegn range from 1969.
Kevan
1997 Mercedes C230 W202
2003 Land Rover Discovery Series 2 Facelift TD5 - Daily driver / hobby days and camping.
1993 Land Rover Discovery 200tdi Series 1 3 door - in need of TLC
2020 Fiat Panda 4x4 Cross Twin Air.

User avatar
citsncycles
Over 2k
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: Dursley, Gloucestershire

Re: BX how safe?

Post by citsncycles »

Side impact protection, how about the VW type 2 or Citroen type H, where you sit above the front wheel?

I've no doubt that a BX (particularly one in the state Timex is in) is not as safe as a more modern vehicle, but all safety features are limited, either by their inability to work in all conditions, or by the different actions of the driver as a result of their driving a car with safety features.

Prime example is when I saw someone I know pull onto a main road then stop, all in front of a lorry, that had to brake hard and swerve round them in order to avoid hitting them. When I commented on the stupidity of their manuevre, the reply I got was that their car had a high level brake light, making it safe to do what they did because the traffic behind could see they were stopping!

And no amount of safety features can protect you from the likes of one of my neighbours, who regularly drives to work holding a bowl of cereal, or a transport manager I used to deal with who once I realised half way through a phone call he was writing the collection details down while driving a milk tanker!
Mike Sims
BX 19RD Estate Mk1 - Timex!
BX 4X4 Estate - Oh god, I've done it again!
BX 17RD MK1 - it called to me!
BX14 TGE, - SOLD
XM Turbo SD,GS Club Estate,Visa 17D Leader,HY Pickup,Dyane Nomad,Dyane 6,2CV AZL,Falcon S,Trabant P50,3x Land Rovers (88" series 1,109" series 2a FFR,series 2a Marshall ambulance),DKW F7, Lambretta LD150 x 1.5,Mobylette SP93,Ural Cossack,Ural M63,CZ 250 Sport,Honda Varadero 125,lots of bicycles & tricycles including (but not only) Sunbeams,Higgins & Bates!

User avatar
maxgreenwood
BXpert
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:44 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: BX how safe?

Post by maxgreenwood »

The fact the BX is so light and can 'stop on a sixpence' as I heard someone say helps. Good tyres too. Uniroyal rain experts as fitted to our Saab are unbelievable. And that is a heavy car.

Yes if someone hits you you're in trouble, and I veer towards the modern motors carrying the kids, having said that the Saab is pretty solid and certainly fares well dropped on its roof as shown in the Top Gear retrospective!

Modern traffic is definitely faster which is a big factor, especially round here with less speed traps
'92 16TXS (m), Dark metallic green, 74k
'90 16TZS (m), White, 86k
'89 19TRS auto, Olympic Blue, 133k
'88 Saab 900 8v Turbo (auto) 107k Red with Tan leather, lovely drive and well maintained.
'07 Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 CRDi 85k (m). Practical family wagon

User avatar
Thread Bear
1K Away
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:47 am
Location: Longcot, near Faringdon, Oxfordshire
x 1

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Thread Bear »

Paul296 wrote:I know nothing about air bags, crumple zones, side impact protection systems and all that stuff that makes modern car drivers think that if they get twatted driving at 95 mph they'll somehow be OK. In modern terms I suspect the BX is a bit of a death trap, so I just drive safely and assume that every other road-user is a homicidal maniac; and let's face it, many of them are. :D
That is my exact philosophy. I am proven right regularly and also have friends for ever argueing over nerfs, and worse, with other parties or thier insurers over damages, who I know to have poor driving habits, like holding cups of coffee while in motion. ABS and such Driver Safety additions do not make cars safer in an accident, they make some more likely to create one, as there are those arrogent or negligent idiots who will always drive beyond the limit of the cars capabilities. The trick is to learn to see them coming. Only years of experience does this, which is why old farts with clean driving records get cheap insurance. Defencive driving is formost the most important element of not getting envolved in an accident, and yes, that does mean not using certain streches of road at a certain time and getting tailgaters to overtake you (It amazes me how slow you have to go before some will bugger off).
Case in point, of a difference. Two cyclists who insisted it was there right to cycle down the A420 pre speed limit. They could not get it, that we did not deny thier right to do this, but it was highly inadvisable. Both proved they were right by doing this ride regularly, until indevidually both went under a truck who missed seeing them. You can blame the truck driver but why on earth would a cyclist put himself in that position, unless he was happy to disreguard his safety for a more pleasent and marginaly longer alternative route? When your mangled rights do not enter into it. I have minimal sympathy for either really, despite that one of them was a really nice guy. They were in fact selfish and threw away thier lives, mucked up the truckers and their families lives, blocked the road for several hours, all for what? To prove they were right. Not worth it, give a bit and move on.

My feeling is that modern cars offer many benifits to those that like them. Among the more conriversial is that they insulate you from the road and feedback. Add radios, telephones and other distractions and you have something akin to a drone. Drones natrually move on autopilot. Only an advanced intelligence on board is going to negate the lack of instant feedback from the controls to the remote operator. To combate this and the huge power of even quite humble cars, I think learners should be made to use under 1000cc basic cars of limited BHP for two years, possibly always painted orange, and then take a second exam to prove they have learned the full menu of driving skills, like night and motorway driving. They might then be better drivers, learn not every car in the world accelorates like a bullet, stops on a sixpence and that driving in busy areas is about looking ahead while dealing with the current action, keeping up a steady progress, not roaring around in a series of drag races behaving like an arsehole.

Currently I have a rental Iveco Dailey van. It is a horrible drive as no control has any feel to it, the seats no side support and the whole has half the controls, or seat, in the wrong position. You cannot see the important elements of the dash display like speed, untill your doing 80 mph. I am sure it is one of the safest vans ever made, but I think it is a dangeriously badly built vehicle. It should be rejected as unroadworthy until these issues are corrected, so it can be made to fit the driver who can see, reach and operate all the controls in an unstressed environment. That includes a gear change with some feel to it, or a light telling which of 7 gears you are in on the tiny stick sprouting out of the dashboard. None of this is difficult. I wonder if they ever got a few hundred van drivers and let them use the prototypes for a few weeks. I bet not, it would be company men who needed to protect their jobs and gave a politically correct answer to a computer generated solution. I would not buy one of these vans, crap. My old Duccato might have been crude but with a better engine would be far more preferable - with a better payload as it was not full of geezmos. It's a van, not a Rolls Royce!

The latest trend seems to be new Range Rovers driven by very angry people. Well I am sorry if the bought the wrong vehicle on finance, I agree they are overblown crappers from Tonka, but do not take it out on me. I am giving these vehicles a very wide birth, but also no quarter in the the driving tactics stakes, as the drivers are stupid and if you give them space, they will dive in and create some great passing entertainment. I am evil enough to offer folk free agrivation, as long as it does not envolve me. Helps pass the time on a drive, don't you know?
Miguel - 16 TRS Auto S, light blue, 43k miles - £450
Pluto - 14 E S, White, 105k Miles - in work
Egbert - 19 16v Gti, White, A/C & Leather, - Keeper
Walt - 17 TZD Turbo S, graphite, 70k miles, good op extras - Keeper
Scraper- 17 TZD Turbo E, blue, 208k miles - parts
Homer - 19 TXD E, Red, 189k miles - £250
Gary - 17 TZD Turbo E, 118k miles - in work

'87 Trooper, Borgwards, Saabs, MG ZB, Bellamy Trials, Fiat Jolly & Bianchina, Goggo Dart, Messerschmitt, Heinkel, Bubblecars

RobC
BXpert
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:15 am
Location: East London
My Cars: 1991 Citroen BX 16v
x 26

Re: BX how safe?

Post by RobC »

Thread Bear wrote:...until indevidually both went under a truck who missed seeing them. You can blame the truck driver...
Yes, and damn right you should blame the truck driver. NO EXCUSES. I know this is getting a bit off topic, and I'm afraid it's one of my hobby horses as a very keen everyday cyclist as well as a BX driver, but it absolutely bloody infuriates me when drivers of motor vehicles claim they 'didn't see' a cyclist. You didn't see because you weren't looking properly and weren't driving at a speed at which you were able to take evasive action in time. Full stop. It is entirely your fault if they died, and you should be up for manslaughter or worse. It is high time we changed the culture in this country such that those in charge of lethal weapons have the greater share of responsibility for their driving behaviour compared with vulnerable road users - who have a far greater right to be in the road than you in the first place.

(sorry, rant over).

As regards BX safety, of course they're not that safe (for the occupants) compared with modern cars. But you drive them accordingly. Just as I ride my 1940s Raleigh 3 speed with smooth chrome rims and weak caliper brakes differently to my modern road bike with disc brakes.
1991 Citroen BX 16v

Dollywobbler
Over 2k
Posts: 3940
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: Wales

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Dollywobbler »

I think that rant is a bit ridiculous. It's easy for the cyclist to blame the trucker for 'not seeing' them, as the truck is very obvious to see. Until you've driven a truck, and understood just how enormous the blind spots are, you really can't complain. A truck driver cannot see everywhere all at once, and often can't see people when they assume they can be seen. Cycling down the inside of a truck for instance, is like putting your arm in the mouth of a lion, then blaming it when it eats you.

RobC
BXpert
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:15 am
Location: East London
My Cars: 1991 Citroen BX 16v
x 26

Re: BX how safe?

Post by RobC »

Fair point - of course, the rant assumes that the cyclist in question was behaving in accordance with the laws of the road. I should have made that clear.

But even having said that, there is a good argument for those in control of larger vehicles to have a duty of care above and beyond that expected of others, because they have the greater potential to cause harm related to the impact of their 'mistakes'. Anyway, probably a discussion for another forum entirely so I shall stop there...
1991 Citroen BX 16v

User avatar
Way2go
Over 2k
Posts: 7280
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: RCoBerkshire
x 2

Re: BX how safe?

Post by Way2go »

RobC wrote:vulnerable road users - who have a far greater right to be in the road than you in the first place.
That statement seems very odd in the extreme. Roads were initially built for carts/carriages which then developed into motor vehicles, which is why to this very day roads are described as having carriageways!

Would you like to share with us your rationale for your statement? :?
1991 BX19GTi Auto