Agreed. That's why I like my old 4/4. No gimmicks, no assistance, no airbags,no power brakes, no power steering etc. Man and machne in its purest form. Same with my bikes. I removed the ABS system from the only bike that had it.

When I get to the stage when I feel I need all the bells and whistles, I'll probably retire my driving licence........

More than depressing, I find it a sensible recognition of that we are humans with our inborne flaws, that mishaps are inevitable and that there is a price to pay both for the individual and the society if we rely on only personal skills and responsibility. Rather well known truth, I must say. So if safety devices and regulations contribute to less deaths, mutilations, health care expenses and personal tragedies, I have difficulty seeing that as a problem. Of course there is a limit to everything, and there is personal freedom and the right of individual choice to consider. Still, if I get killed or injured in traffic, I am surely not the only one that gets affected.
I remember my father objecting intensely when wearing safety belts became mandatory in the early sixties. He said that it would create a new sense of security and make people drive more reckless, creating more accidents. So the "dumbing down" argument has been heard before. Anybody agree with my father's opinion today?

Another factor is that modern cars encourage a lack of participation .... ABS, traction control , lane keeping, auto braking .... combined with ever increasing infotainment screens distance the driver from the driving .... as do the levels of ride and sound proofing .... seems that many drivers waft along only partly aware they're actually in charge of a ton or two of metal travelling at speed.... none of the above help if you pull out of a junction in front of a biker unfortunately.

K

Your Dad sounds like a wise man. In the bike world we always used to be very wary of Volvos - the owners were so well protected they were often less careful with their driving. I wonder if they had to introduce airbags as the number of accidents were increasing when people put seatbelts on.....

Yep, it's called Risk Compensation Theory, well known and understood in insurance actuarial circles. If we think we're safer, we take more risks.

40 years ago my father in law taught me how to use a chain saw safely. He knew what he was doing, he was MD of the UK's only chainsaw manufacturer at the time (Danarm). He took a very dim view of safety equipment. He felt that knowing that the slightest error could cause horrible injury or death was the best way to avoid becoming blasé about their use. I still don't use any safety kit today when using a chain saw.

As for cars, imagine how safe they'd be if brake lights were outlawed and there was a solid steel spike. in the centre of the steering wheel, aimed at the driver's chest.

My point here is was he right when he postulated "creating more accidents"? Or injuries/deaths, if you like? From experience, which is best/safest - with or without safety belt? And also from experience, what group suffers more injuries using chain saws? With or without safety equipment? Crash helmets on a bike? Hard hats on a construction site? Protection gloves? Do you think we should discard safety devices in order to get less accidents? Do we have any historical proof of possible benefits of such a theory?

I was very slow to seat belts, always thought it was better to get thrown out.untill I heavily crashed my MGA on a night rally...you soon change your mind on safety.

We may look back and think things were better in the 'good old days' but In 1930 the number cars on the road in the UK topped one million.

There were 7305 road deaths in the UK in 1930. Cars had no safety features, and there wasn't any driver training.

Due to the number of deaths controlling traffic became a top priority and the Road Traffic Act was created in 1930, The Highway Code 1931 and The Driving Test 1935.

In comparison in 2019 we had over 30 million vehicles on the road in the UK. There were 1870 road deaths in the UK in 2019. That's a quarter of the 1930 figure with 30 times the number of vehicles on the road.

Worldwide the safest roads in the world are the 'SUN' countries. Scandinavia, Switzerland, The UK and Netherlands.

The risk of dying as a result of a road traffic injury is highest in the African Region (26.6 per 100 000 population), and lowest in the European Region (9.3 per 100 000).

Adults aged between 15 and 44 years account for 59 percent of global road traffic deaths. 77 percent of road deaths are males.

UK Statistics

Exactly. That finishes the discussion for my part. I sincerly hope the airline companies do not adapt the philosophy of "the fewer safety devices and routines, the safer the conduct and less accidents". I rest my case.

For what its worth Robbie, Norway has the safest roads in the world with a death rate of 3 persons per 100,000 population.

And I was wrong there are 31 million cars on the road in the UK but over 40 million vehicles in 2020 compared to 1 million vehicles in 1930