How many years ago was this?Maybe because some people are stuck in the 1960s? Or they’re just wrong?
Most driving courses teach “Gears go, brakes slow” but once past the learning stage, sensible use of engine braking where appropriate is a good thing.
For example, don’t approach a t-junction in your 3.0 Jag S Type in the snow, ignoring your passenger’s pleas (my pleas) to slow down ages ago because the t-junction was over a brow and we didn’t know how bad the snow was over the brow… and then knock the slush-box down a gear. The back end predictably began snaking, and that was the only time in my life I’ve shut my eyes and accepted my fate.
Live and learn!
About 2014 I think. Why?How many years ago was this?
About 2014 I think. Why?
Our Merc and BMW had winter tyres on spare sets of wheels. 500Nm and rwd for the Merc… not easy on slightly worn summer tyres on snurr!Probably the last time we had snow ;-)
My FIL had a V8 S type and we live on a bit of a short hill and he could never get it up the slope if we had more than a light dusting of snow.
Think about it, how does the system know its failed? Failure to dangerous situation (the one we really should care about) is defined as a car is in the blindspot but the system can't see it. So the only true test is to place an object in the blindspot and check the system sees it. Short of this rigorous test the system can self test some parts of of its operation but not the integrity of its full function.My Passat warns me if that system fails. Window on the dash, then an orange warning icon.
I agree with you. But I have less faith in human nature, most people do what is easiest/most comfortable, and checking over their shoulder will soon be dispensed with and complete trust in a less than ideal system will become their norm for high speed lane changes. In the accident investigation the motor company will be exonerated, it was just an aid after all, driver retains overall responsibility. But that outcome doesn't prevent the accident.Yes, you should because you are the driver and responsible for the consequences. It would be no defence to say "but the computer said it was safe".
My wife's diesel SLK had about the same amount of torque and that was undrivable in any kind of snow. We did consider sticking cross climates on it but at the time they weren't available in the right size. It's since been replaced with a 4x4 as we encounter quite a lot of snow.Our Merc and BMW had winter tyres on spare sets of wheels. 500Nm and rwd for the Merc… not easy on slightly worn summer tyres on snurr!
Soon?most people do what is easiest/most comfortable, and checking over their shoulder will soon be dispensed with
Agree. I suspect that drivers who are not also motorcyclists haven't been doing this for donkeys years.Soon?
Self-monitoring systems have been around for decades. I really don’t care about the ins and outs of it all, but in the experience of me and everyone I know, a warning light pops up before the driver has even realised there was a problem.Think about it, how does the system know its failed? Failure to dangerous situation (the one we really should care about) is defined as a car is in the blindspot but the system can't see it. So the only true test is to place an object in the blindspot and check the system sees it. Short of this rigorous test the system can self test some parts of of its operation but not the integrity of its full function.
In the case of similarly functional industrial light guards (which detect hands and people entering dangerous locations) the regulations require that at the start of each shift the system is tested by inserting a test batton (simulates presence of someone's hand) into the light guard. The HSE and their standards writers know this is the only way to test such a system in its entirety. According to their safety classification these safety devices have to be fail safe, have dual channel redundancy and suitably low mean times between failure.
Somehow the car manufacturers are getting away with a lower standard of system integrity testing than what is required industry. I'm guessing now, but I think this is allowed because the blindspot system is being passed off as an aid, not a safety device. The problem is the driver will soon adapt to depend completely on the blind spot detection system and stop checking over their shoulder, just like how the hydraulic press Operator trusts the light guard to make the press safe for him to enter....
Our Merc and BMW had winter tyres on spare sets of wheels. 500Nm and rwd for the Merc… not easy on slightly worn summer tyres on snurr!
Indeed, we have winter tyres for our BMW but he never saw the point of a spare set of wheels/tyres for once every few years. Just parked at the bottom of the hill when it happenned.
I think that its all to do with preserving a nation's economy. There are enough punters willing to pay big money for an overpowered, overweight and oversized vehicle and legislators have had their cards marked - don't mess with the countries income stream.Come to think of it, if "the legislators" can decide that in the public interest car engines have to have a minimum thermal efficiency and maximum emissions, why cannot they also legislate that a car cannot be wider than 180cm, longer than 480cm, weigh more than 1500 kg. and produce more than 200HP?
One answer might be that the legislators are taking orders from the car makers, and not vice-versa.
And most EVs would be banned. A VW ID.4 is over 2,000kg.And as much as I’d love all cars to come in at less than 1,500kg, it would be an expensive rule to implement. A Golf can come in at 1,600kg, and a Pug 308 SW can hit over 1,800kg. It’s not as if you can sit in any of these cars, look around, and say “Yeah, I can remove 500kg by taking out that, that and that. They’re not needed, waste of space and money.”
Even the little Vauxhall Corsa EV is over 1,500.And most EVs would be banned. A VW ID.4 is over 2,000kg.