L-R Discovery vs Renault Espace

[Lutz]

So, it all boils down to the question whether an experienced and careful driver in a Disco is less likely to sustain injury than an untrained Espace driver. But unfortunately sometimes neither the one nor the other has control over the situation with the opportunity to intervene.

 

[CliveV]

No that is not what I am saying at all Lutz. If we ALL drove according to the guidelines of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (of which I am NOT a member I hasten to add in case anyone thinks I am) then no accidents whatsoever would happen. You miss the point entirely by referring to the two car types again - thereby inferring that one is inherently safer than the other.

OK - driving 100% defensively as per the IoAM guidelines may be a Utopian dream - but no less a utopian dream than trying (and inevitably failing) to make cars that will not hurt people in accidents.

The common denominator is the accident - NOT how the car was made.

We seem to be accepting that accidents will happen and accept bad driving. But we have to have cars that allow us to survive!

Cannot help thinking the logic is skewed. Why not ensure that fewer accidents happen in the first place?

The head of Peugeot was heavily criticised recently at a supposedly "Green Transport" seminar for saying that all vehicles over ten years old should be scrapped and people forced to buy newer, safer, less polluting cars.

Trouble is that getting rid of the old and manufacturing the new is VERY costly to the planet and whilst more safety features could undoubtedly be factored into the mix, this idea would still do nothing to reduce the number of accidents - just sell more cars.

Discussing what car you would like to be in for a serious accident is a bit like having a polite discussion with your executioner on the relative merits of a sword or a bullet.

From my personal experience - I have only had one accident in a Land Rover and that was when a van driver in a 206 van ran into the back of me when I was stationary in Salisbury traffic (situation normal) the van was a total write off. I had a new tow bar fitted (just in case) and rear exhaust box.

A

 

[Lutz]

I'm sorry but I can't see the logic of your argument, Clive. I'm not saying that there is any correlation between the type of car and the probability of having an accident (although statistics will no doubt prove me wrong). All I am saying is that the likelihood of personal injury is higher with a car with poor energy absorption performance. Safety has nothing to do with the cost of repair but with injury criteria.

This is where the 4x4 issue comes in. Either, in minor accidents, they suffer relatively little material damage themselves or as soon as the accident is more severe, the occupants are by virtue of their design more likely to be injured than in a car with better crash energy management. The same also applies to occupants of the third party involved.

To say that all accidents would be avoided if all drivers were appropriately trained is rather utopian.

ps: For the same reason as above, German insurance companies insist that if you have a detachable towbar, you MUST remove it if you are not towing. The towbar will provide a certain degree of added protection for minor rear end accidents but once this threshold is exceeded, they cause even more damage, especially to the other vehicle.

 

[cliff_5040076]

I think Lutz has hit the nail right on the head.

I try and choose a vehicle with at least a 4* ncap rating purely for the reason that if in an accident, I give myself and my family the best chance of survival. I really couldn't care less if the car is badly damaged in a collision - thats what I pay Insurance for.

I would never buy a car on image alone but buy the safest vehicle I can for the money. Of course other criteria are taken into account, reliability, fuel consumption etc.

Image counts for nothing on the morticians slab!

Happy motoring

 

[CliveV]

Hi Lutz:-

"OK - driving 100% defensively as per the IoAM guidelines may be a Utopian dream - but no less a utopian dream than trying (and inevitably failing) to make cars that will not hurt people in accidents."

From my previous post - I think you missed that!

My point is that in the UK we seem to be allowing poor driving - in particular youngsters that drive like idiots - (in case you are not aware recent statistics showed that whilst the number of 17 to 21 year old drivers had fallen by 26% the fatalities for this age group was up 40%)

Two young drivers have just been jailed for eight years each for their part in the deaths by dangerous driving of four young girls.

There cars were not 4x4's - nor were they old bangers whatever crumple zones were built into the cars was irrelevant.

The point is that if we all drive DEFENSIVELY - and never put ourselves or our families in harms way we could be driving anything from a bicycle to a Tank!

Your argument only works once you have had the accident. If you never get into an accident then what you drive is irrelevant.

Utopian? - Of course - I have said that - but I say again it is no less utopian than trying to protect all drivers by car design.

What are we trying to train? - good safe drivers or drivers that treat the roads like fairground bumper cars?

It saddens me to say that both my sons when they first started driving tended to do it like they were playing on a PS2 game.

It came as a shock when one of them curbed their car and the other mounted a verge that the car didn't magically right itself and put itself back on the road.

No dig at German road laws but having detachable towbars seems only marginally better than the law that says motorcycles cannot overtake cars in traffic.

So does this means that if I lived in Germany I would have to remove the entire tow bar assembly or just the tow ball?

If the latter - what a joke as all the mounting assembly on any detachable tow bar unit is still attached to the car. It is only the towball unit that is removed.

 

[Lutz]

Hi Lutz:-

"OK - driving 100% defensively as per the IoAM guidelines may be a Utopian dream - but no less a utopian dream than trying (and inevitably failing) to make cars that will not hurt people in accidents."

From my previous post - I think you missed that!

My point is that in the UK we seem to be allowing poor driving - in particular youngsters that drive like idiots - (in case you are not aware recent statistics showed that whilst the number of 17 to 21 year old drivers had fallen by 26% the fatalities for this age group was up 40%)

Two young drivers have just been jailed for eight years each for their part in the deaths by dangerous driving of four young girls.

There cars were not 4x4's - nor were they old bangers whatever crumple zones were built into the cars was irrelevant.

The point is that if we all drive DEFENSIVELY - and never put ourselves or our families in harms way we could be driving anything from a bicycle to a Tank!

Your argument only works once you have had the accident. If you never get into an accident then what you drive is irrelevant.

Utopian? - Of course - I have said that - but I say again it is no less utopian than trying to protect all drivers by car design.

What are we trying to train? - good safe drivers or drivers that treat the roads like fairground bumper cars?

It saddens me to say that both my sons when they first started driving tended to do it like they were playing on a PS2 game.

It came as a shock when one of them curbed their car and the other mounted a verge that the car didn't magically right itself and put itself back on the road.

No dig at German road laws but having detachable towbars seems only marginally better than the law that says motorcycles cannot overtake cars in traffic.

So does this means that if I lived in Germany I would have to remove the entire tow bar assembly or just the tow ball?

If the latter - what a joke as all the mounting assembly on any detachable tow bar unit is still attached to the car. It is only the towball unit that is removed.

If you have a bolt-on towball, as common in the UK, this is not considered as detachable within the terms of German law. This is because the equivalent of the MOT here checks the torque on the bolts after the towbar is installed and the owner is not allowed to touch them afterwards. If the seal is broken, the roadworthiness certificate is declared null and void. The car will need to be retested for this item.

 

[Lutz]

Hi Lutz:-

"OK - driving 100% defensively as per the IoAM guidelines may be a Utopian dream - but no less a utopian dream than trying (and inevitably failing) to make cars that will not hurt people in accidents."

From my previous post - I think you missed that!

My point is that in the UK we seem to be allowing poor driving - in particular youngsters that drive like idiots - (in case you are not aware recent statistics showed that whilst the number of 17 to 21 year old drivers had fallen by 26% the fatalities for this age group was up 40%)

Two young drivers have just been jailed for eight years each for their part in the deaths by dangerous driving of four young girls.

There cars were not 4x4's - nor were they old bangers whatever crumple zones were built into the cars was irrelevant.

The point is that if we all drive DEFENSIVELY - and never put ourselves or our families in harms way we could be driving anything from a bicycle to a Tank!

Your argument only works once you have had the accident. If you never get into an accident then what you drive is irrelevant.

Utopian? - Of course - I have said that - but I say again it is no less utopian than trying to protect all drivers by car design.

What are we trying to train? - good safe drivers or drivers that treat the roads like fairground bumper cars?

It saddens me to say that both my sons when they first started driving tended to do it like they were playing on a PS2 game.

It came as a shock when one of them curbed their car and the other mounted a verge that the car didn't magically right itself and put itself back on the road.

No dig at German road laws but having detachable towbars seems only marginally better than the law that says motorcycles cannot overtake cars in traffic.

So does this means that if I lived in Germany I would have to remove the entire tow bar assembly or just the tow ball?

If the latter - what a joke as all the mounting assembly on any detachable tow bar unit is still attached to the car. It is only the towball unit that is removed.

ps: the need to remove detachable towbars when not towing is not law. It is only a condition set by the insurance companies.

 

[mcghee]

There is a great deal of truth in what you say Clive. Consider this; do airbags and other restraint systems make you a safer driver? Would you drive more safely with a big spike fitted to your steering wheel rather than an airbag? A radical thought , but maybe if everyone drove cars in which they knew they stood no chance in an accident the roads would be a safer place.

 

[MONKEY1]

Lets me as objective here and as truthful as possible whether you choose a Land Rover or Renault, each accident will result in a different outcomes. As I've stated before the key thing is the variables of any accident and how they come together (and in what order)

For instance if you hit a car head on and then say get deflected into a tree then your would have a different result to if you hit a tree head on and deflected into a car head on. Equally each car would come out of the accident differently.

To be really definitive here you cannot state my car is better than yours it may have more N cap stars it may be heavier but these are just factors. I,ve seen a Range Rover hit by a tractor and completely rolled over - the driver came out unscathed but the car was written off equally a Volvo V70 Police car hit the central reservation barrier at 113 mph and the cost of the repair was under

 

[CliveV]

Hi Lutz:-

"OK - driving 100% defensively as per the IoAM guidelines may be a Utopian dream - but no less a utopian dream than trying (and inevitably failing) to make cars that will not hurt people in accidents."

From my previous post - I think you missed that!

My point is that in the UK we seem to be allowing poor driving - in particular youngsters that drive like idiots - (in case you are not aware recent statistics showed that whilst the number of 17 to 21 year old drivers had fallen by 26% the fatalities for this age group was up 40%)

Two young drivers have just been jailed for eight years each for their part in the deaths by dangerous driving of four young girls.

There cars were not 4x4's - nor were they old bangers whatever crumple zones were built into the cars was irrelevant.

The point is that if we all drive DEFENSIVELY - and never put ourselves or our families in harms way we could be driving anything from a bicycle to a Tank!

Your argument only works once you have had the accident. If you never get into an accident then what you drive is irrelevant.

Utopian? - Of course - I have said that - but I say again it is no less utopian than trying to protect all drivers by car design.

What are we trying to train? - good safe drivers or drivers that treat the roads like fairground bumper cars?

It saddens me to say that both my sons when they first started driving tended to do it like they were playing on a PS2 game.

It came as a shock when one of them curbed their car and the other mounted a verge that the car didn't magically right itself and put itself back on the road.

No dig at German road laws but having detachable towbars seems only marginally better than the law that says motorcycles cannot overtake cars in traffic.

So does this means that if I lived in Germany I would have to remove the entire tow bar assembly or just the tow ball?

If the latter - what a joke as all the mounting assembly on any detachable tow bar unit is still attached to the car. It is only the towball unit that is removed.

Hi Lutz - OK - I can see how it works now - a "permanent" item like on my Discovery would stay in place whilst a detachable one (they do stick out a way) has to be removed when not in use.

Seems sensible

 

[Lutz]

Hi Lutz:-

"OK - driving 100% defensively as per the IoAM guidelines may be a Utopian dream - but no less a utopian dream than trying (and inevitably failing) to make cars that will not hurt people in accidents."

From my previous post - I think you missed that!

My point is that in the UK we seem to be allowing poor driving - in particular youngsters that drive like idiots - (in case you are not aware recent statistics showed that whilst the number of 17 to 21 year old drivers had fallen by 26% the fatalities for this age group was up 40%)

Two young drivers have just been jailed for eight years each for their part in the deaths by dangerous driving of four young girls.

There cars were not 4x4's - nor were they old bangers whatever crumple zones were built into the cars was irrelevant.

The point is that if we all drive DEFENSIVELY - and never put ourselves or our families in harms way we could be driving anything from a bicycle to a Tank!

Your argument only works once you have had the accident. If you never get into an accident then what you drive is irrelevant.

Utopian? - Of course - I have said that - but I say again it is no less utopian than trying to protect all drivers by car design.

What are we trying to train? - good safe drivers or drivers that treat the roads like fairground bumper cars?

It saddens me to say that both my sons when they first started driving tended to do it like they were playing on a PS2 game.

It came as a shock when one of them curbed their car and the other mounted a verge that the car didn't magically right itself and put itself back on the road.

No dig at German road laws but having detachable towbars seems only marginally better than the law that says motorcycles cannot overtake cars in traffic.

So does this means that if I lived in Germany I would have to remove the entire tow bar assembly or just the tow ball?

If the latter - what a joke as all the mounting assembly on any detachable tow bar unit is still attached to the car. It is only the towball unit that is removed.

Correct, that's exactly how it is.

 

[CliveV]

Hi Craig

Could not agree with you more! All the safety devices in the world do not make you a safer driver - they just allow you, your passengers and pedestrians to survive the crash.

My argument is not my own - it is the result of attending a risk assessment seminar that turned our pre-conceived ideas on their heads.

Interestingly in Holland some of these ideas are being put into action. In some town centres they have removed all the signs and allow cars and people to intermix. The theory is that BECAUSE both car drivers and pedestrians are aware that both are using the same space at the same time ALL users take more care. From what I have read - so far it is working!

At the seminar I attended this chap said much the same but went on to say that the number of aircraft in the air at any one time is such that if they were allowed to fly by whatever route they wanted, statistically a collision would be far less than it is now.

Why? - because we dictate that all aircraft fly in "lanes" therefore making them fly far closer to the next aircraft. This means that a whole infrastructure of Air Traffic Controllers and all the techy bits that go with it are required.

I think that bit of logic is maybe an extrapolation too far! - but it does make the point that as soon as you start "organising" - you change the rules and peoples perceptions.

Mind you - if we could rid the world of the French Air Traffic Controllers - that at least would be a welcome start.

 

[CliveV]

I agree with what you say MH - but my point is more along the lines that better driving COULD prevent ALL accidents.

The removal of all road signs in some Dutch towns does seem to be working - If cars and pedestrians mix and each know the other has every right to be there - each proceeds with more care and attention. Result car pedestrian accidents have fallen.

Do you not find it bizarre that we are spending so much time and effort to make it possible to hit someone with a car at ever increasing speeds and let them survive?

Would it not be better to train the individuals that use and interact with the car to be more aware of the dangers and so avoid the possibility of a collision?

 

[Icemaker]

Its a bit like the woman who drove straight on to one of our unmanned level crossings at the oaks in bolton, she aproached the crossing and saw that somebody had left the gates open (again) so instead of getting out of her car and telephoning the signaller to check no trains where coming she just drove straight across, unfortunately for her one of my colegues was coming down the line with 150 tonnes of train at 60 mph and hit her car full on. this stupid woman was lucky not to be killed and she had just dropped off her son who was also very lucky not to be killed, her car was ripped in half. she was fined

 

[CliveV]

I agree Icemaker - I suppose my only concern with all this "protection" is that people do not take care.

The lady in your example is a classic! - The gates are open so it is safe to cross a Railway Line without looking!!

A bit like Jasper Carrots wonderful insurance report gags -

"I drove onto the wrong driveway and colided with a tree I havn't got!"

Is still my favourite!

I actually think craigs point (no pun intended) where he suggests that we should all drive with a SHARPENED steering column aimed directly at our chests, has great merit.

For all those pontificating about how one car is safer than another! Just think how safe the roads would be if we all KNEW we would die or be seriously injured if we EVER had a crash?

 

[CliveV]

I agree Icemaker - I suppose my only concern with all this "protection" is that people do not take care.

The lady in your example is a classic! - The gates are open so it is safe to cross a Railway Line without looking!!

A bit like Jasper Carrots wonderful insurance report gags -

"I drove onto the wrong driveway and colided with a tree I havn't got!"

Is still my favourite!

I actually think craigs point (no pun intended) where he suggests that we should all drive with a SHARPENED steering column aimed directly at our chests, has great merit.

For all those pontificating about how one car is safer than another! Just think how safe the roads would be if we all KNEW we would die or be seriously injured if we EVER had a crash?

 

[Icemaker]

just noticed in the write up on this disco / espace test that the testers knew the disco had a faulty suplementary restraint system, non of the airbags where working yet they still thought it was a fair test ?. also they admit that the test does not prove the disco is an unsafe car infact they quote quite the oposite, they also admit that the espace was a euro ncap 5 star rated one and the disco was a series 2.

strange how after the hype the truth eventually comes out. what a waste of two reasonably good cars for some sesationalised tv.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

What was the point of the test??? What did it achieve???

 

[sparkes]

I agree Icemaker - I suppose my only concern with all this "protection" is that people do not take care.

The lady in your example is a classic! - The gates are open so it is safe to cross a Railway Line without looking!!

A bit like Jasper Carrots wonderful insurance report gags -

"I drove onto the wrong driveway and colided with a tree I havn't got!"

Is still my favourite!

I actually think craigs point (no pun intended) where he suggests that we should all drive with a SHARPENED steering column aimed directly at our chests, has great merit.

For all those pontificating about how one car is safer than another! Just think how safe the roads would be if we all KNEW we would die or be seriously injured if we EVER had a crash?

"I saw a sad faced, slow moving old gentleman as he bounced off the bonnet of my car"

 

[CliveV]

Well it got us all talking about it and it gives the "Anti's" a bit more dodgy information which they will no doubt be slobbering over in anticipation of using said silly data to further their own warped Politically Correct agenda.

 

[Lol1]

Am I missing something here? I thought that the big, bad old 4x4 just killed people willy nilly while the occupants walked away with a clear conscience. Surely what's being stated is that we can't go around using them as a huge dodgem car?

Perish the thought, my car has a poorly mud flap, it's going straight into the garage tomorrow. If only the NHS took as much care....

 

[CliveV]

Oh you poor thing Lol! - Still at least you can rest assured that the garage is probably cleaner than the average NHS Hospital.

I am not having a dig all NHS employees!

Unless you are the management team that thought that cleanliness can be farmed out to the lowest bidder and why bother with barrier nursing when we have antibiotis?

I have recently seen some marketing data from a Polish Hospital Group that is about to offer very good value "Health Tourism" packages. One of the points they emphasise - the fact that they as a group consider cleanliness and barrier nursing so important that they only employ their own staff and take samples regularly - the data of which is available.

What this has to do with the Espace & Discovery I have no idea.

I blame Lol - he started it!!!

 

[CliveV]

Oh you poor thing Lol! - Still at least you can rest assured that the garage is probably cleaner than the average NHS Hospital.

I am not having a dig all NHS employees!

Unless you are the management team that thought that cleanliness can be farmed out to the lowest bidder and why bother with barrier nursing when we have antibiotis?

I have recently seen some marketing data from a Polish Hospital Group that is about to offer very good value "Health Tourism" packages. One of the points they emphasise - the fact that they as a group consider cleanliness and barrier nursing so important that they only employ their own staff and take samples regularly - the data of which is available.

What this has to do with the Espace & Discovery I have no idea.

I blame Lol - he started it!!!

Samples from the ward floors etc - Not samples from those that work there!

 

[Damian]

Lord B asked the question as to why was the test carried out.

The answer is it is Fifth Gears attempt to outdo Top Gear, and stage totally worthless tests in the name of good TV!!!

At the end of the day, an accident is an accident, and the only thing to hope for is that all occupants get out alive and well.

Personally I find both shows to be of little use to the "average" motorist. They both tend to concentrate on extremes, of which most people will never have the opportunity to indulge in, thankfully.

 

[BrianStAlbans]

I dont want to get involved with the debate on this subject but just had to say that in 10 years of selling cars I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the amount of people who have asked about a cars safety history when buying one.

Brian.