Clocky wrote:

>
> To be serious it's quite a disability he's carrying on his shoulders...
> or would be if his head wasn't so fucking big.
>
> I'm not sure I've ever come across anyone so confident in their own
> delusion while at the same time proving themselves to be so incredibly
> stupid.

It's a Trump/Morrison microcosm, with one significant difference. There
are two groups who surround T/M, 1) loonies, and 2) averagely
intelligent greed merchants who are riding along for self-gain.
Fraudster only has one of these...

alvey
Still a'waiting a credible response from a loony as to why they aren't
concerned about his lies, hypocrisy etc etc.

On 19/12/2023 11:23 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
>>> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
>>> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>>
>> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and
>> has been for some time.
>
> The point, which you seemed to have missed is that there is no testing
> of these features.

I haven't missed anything, other than you being able to show how your
old Mazda is relevant to any discussion about *new* car safety ratings.
If you have some context where it actually *is* relevant to anything
being discussed here, then I'm all ears.....

> The crap ESC in the video would have helped the RAV4
> to get 5 stars here even though it is useless.

That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not being
there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. It
*clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much difference it
makes to the car overall is something that neither you nor I can ever
say with any degree of certainly. However it is highly unlikely that it
makes *no* positive difference at all.

> The article
>
> https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/ancap-has-lost-relevance-when-it-comes-to-safety
>
> Noted this:
>
> "There’s also no actual testing of safety systems on public roads. A lot
> of the active safety systems fitted to five-star cars are appallingly
> bad to use in real life, but are required for maximum ratings."

I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan is
cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect they
deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.

The man is an *idiot* who wouldn't know if you were up him until you
pulled out and let the cold air rush in....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/12/2023 11:51 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 11:23 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
>>>> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
>>>> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>>>
>>> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and
>>> has been for some time.
>>
>> The point, which you seemed to have missed is that there is no testing
>> of these features.
>
> I haven't missed anything, other than you being able to show how your
> old Mazda is relevant to any discussion about *new* car safety ratings.
> If you have some context where it actually *is* relevant to anything
> being discussed here, then I'm all ears.....
>
>  > The crap ESC in the video would have helped the RAV4
>> to get 5 stars here even though it is useless.
>
> That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
> that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not being
> there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. It
> *clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much difference it
> makes to the car overall is something that neither you nor I can ever
> say with any degree of certainly. However it is highly unlikely that it
> makes *no* positive difference at all.
>
>> The article
>>
>> https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/ancap-has-lost-relevance-when-it-comes-to-safety
>>
>> Noted this:
>>
>> "There’s also no actual testing of safety systems on public roads. A
>> lot of the active safety systems fitted to five-star cars are
>> appallingly bad to use in real life, but are required for maximum
>> ratings."
>
> I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan is
> cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect they
> deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.

He's way more an expert than you on cars Darren. FFS, he's *driven* more
cars than you've had hot dinners. What's more, he even *completed* and
*passed* high school - *all* of high school up to year 12 and then
managed to get a degree in mechanical engineering.
You, on the other hand, *ran away* from completing year 9 FFS. You
couldn't even *qualify* for any apprenticeship ever so you should be the
absolute last person to sit in judgement of John Cadogan.
>
> The man is an *idiot* who wouldn't know if you were up him until you
> pulled out and let the cold air rush in....
>
So *why do you channel him* all the time????

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 19/12/2023 8:51 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 11:23 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
>>>> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
>>>> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>>>
>>> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and
>>> has been for some time.
>>
>> The point, which you seemed to have missed is that there is no testing
>> of these features.
>
> I haven't missed anything, other than you being able to show how your
> old Mazda is relevant to any discussion about *new* car safety ratings.
> If you have some context where it actually *is* relevant to anything
> being discussed here, then I'm all ears.....
>
>  > The crap ESC in the video would have helped the RAV4
>> to get 5 stars here even though it is useless.
>
> That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
> that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not being
> there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. It
> *clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much difference it
> makes to the car overall is something that neither you nor I can ever
> say with any degree of certainly. However it is highly unlikely that it
> makes *no* positive difference at all.
>
>> The article
>>
>> https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/ancap-has-lost-relevance-when-it-comes-to-safety
>>
>>
>> Noted this:
>>
>> "There’s also no actual testing of safety systems on public roads. A
>> lot of the active safety systems fitted to five-star cars are
>> appallingly bad to use in real life, but are required for maximum
>> ratings."
>
> I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan is
> cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect they
> deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.
>

That's not a compelling argument especially since he's a qualified
engineer and you're not qualified for anything except pushing a broom.
In any event John is absolutely right in his assessment of the situation
and you have not provided anything that shows otherwise.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 19/12/2023 11:51 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 11:23 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
>>>> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
>>>> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>>>
>>> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and
>>> has been for some time.
>>
>> The point, which you seemed to have missed is that there is no testing
>> of these features.
>
> I haven't missed anything, other than you being able to show how your
> old Mazda is relevant to any discussion about *new* car safety ratings.
> If you have some context where it actually *is* relevant to anything
> being discussed here, then I'm all ears.....
>
>  > The crap ESC in the video would have helped the RAV4
>> to get 5 stars here even though it is useless.
>
> That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
> that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not being
> there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. It
> *clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much difference it
> makes to the car overall is something that neither you nor I can ever
> say with any degree of certainly. However it is highly unlikely that it
> makes *no* positive difference at all.

Another problem on top of the lack of independent testing is the lack of
driver training with these new systems, for example many drivers have
not activated their cars ABS to know what it feels like so when it does
activate in an emergency many release pressure on the brake pedal when
they should really do the opposite.
I've never experienced stability control working on any car so I have no
way of knowing what is normal and what isn't or whether or not its
working like its supposed to.
IMHO its one thing to mandate these things on new cars but drivers
should be trained on their use and not left to assume that it will all
work in an emergency.

>
>> The article
>>
>> https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/ancap-has-lost-relevance-when-it-comes-to-safety
>>
>> Noted this:
>>
>> "There’s also no actual testing of safety systems on public roads. A
>> lot of the active safety systems fitted to five-star cars are
>> appallingly bad to use in real life, but are required for maximum
>> ratings."
>
> I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan is
> cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect they
> deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.
>
> The man is an *idiot* who wouldn't know if you were up him until you
> pulled out and let the cold air rush in....
>

LOL, I'm not a fan of theatrics in his YouTube videos and many times
he's well over the top but in this instance he does make some valid points.
I think that the current ANCAP rating system is broken especially with
their focus on electronic driver aides over actually physical crash
protection.

--
Daryl

On 19/12/2023 2:24 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 11:51 am, Noddy wrote:

>> That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
>> that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not
>> being there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. It
>> *clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much difference
>> it makes to the car overall is something that neither you nor I can
>> ever say with any degree of certainly. However it is highly unlikely
>> that it makes *no* positive difference at all.
>
> Another problem on top of the lack of independent testing is the lack of
> driver training with these new systems, for example many drivers have
> not activated their cars ABS to know what it feels like so when it does
> activate in an emergency many release pressure on the brake pedal when
> they should really do the opposite.
> I've never experienced stability control working on any car so I have no
> way of knowing what is normal and what isn't or whether or not its
> working like its supposed to.
> IMHO its one thing to mandate these things on new cars but drivers
> should be trained on their use and not left to assume that it will all
> work in an emergency.

I'm not sure that much in the way of training is needed.

From what I can tell, most people who find themselves in vehicle
emergencies do two things instinctively: They try to push the brake
pedal through the floor while white knuckling the steering wheel in
trying to steer around whatever it is that causes the emergency, and
these two natural reactions are counter productive as locking up the
brakes causes a loss of vehicle control which makes steering input
completely useless.

This is the very reason why ABS came into being. Researchers at Mercedes
Benz realised that trying to change instinctive human behaviour is a
*far* more complex problem than it is to change the way a vehicle
responds to it. You can educate people on what needs to be done and
train them to react in certain ways, but in unexpected emergency
situations such training generally goes out the window as people panic.
Hence the invention of a braking system that permits steering control to
be maintained without the need for the human element to be different in
any way.

Same with every active vehicle safety feature that followed in ABS's
path. Things like autonomous braking, active lane guidance, collision
mitigation systems, Active Stability Control, Traction Control, trailer
sway control, electronic brake force distribution, etc, etc, are all
driver "aids" which, like ABS, are designed to react quicker and have a
more controlled effect than the average driver would, and the effect of
all these "aids" has been to create vehicles that are safer today than
at any other time in vehicle history.

Yet some people see their inclusion as "unnecessary". Some people think
they "dumb down" drivers and promote a false sense of security. Some
think the role they play is over stated with too much importance placed
on their presence without having any real idea of how effective their
presence actually is.

What do *I* think?

I think *some* of these arguments are a nonsense, but more importantly I
think that society has generally been dumbed down regardless of how
technically advanced vehicles have become, and if having these devices
in new vehicles means that some inattentive retard is less likely to
take *me* out as a result of their presence then I'm all in favour of
every new car having them.

>> I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan is
>> cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect they
>> deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.
>>
>> The man is an *idiot* who wouldn't know if you were up him until you
>> pulled out and let the cold air rush in....
>>
>
> LOL, I'm not a fan of theatrics in his YouTube videos and many times
> he's well over the top but in this instance he does make some valid points.

To be honest I never watched the video. I scrolled through the page
reading the text and as soon as I saw Cadogan being cited I left. The
man is a fucking dickhead who makes Commodore driving munts look like
brain surgeons.

> I think that the current ANCAP rating system is broken especially with
> their focus on electronic driver aides over actually physical crash
> protection.

As I said in another post, there is more to vehicle safety than just how
well it protects you once you're in an accident.

Here's the thing. There are currently 11 or 12 organisations around the
world who carry out new vehicle crash tests, and each one has their own
specific metrics that produces test results that are different to those
produced by every other organisation. So much so that you can run the
exact same car through each organisation's barrage of tests and get
quite remarkably different results in every case.

ANCAP is no different in that they have their own method of testing
which produces unique results, and while some would suggest that there
needs to be a "global standard" that idea will never fly as long as
different versions of the same car are sold in different markets. Global
manufacturing is certainly taking us in that direction, but we're not
there yet.

For what it's worth, my problem with ANCAP is not on how much importance
they place on particular devices, but in how they advertise their
scores. The whole star rating system is a joke and has been for years.
We've had quarter star ratings on dishwashers and fridges for years, but
we can't have them on cars presumably because we're not able to work out
that a 4 and a half star rating isn't as good as a 5 star rating when it
comes to vehicles, yet the different between a "4 star" vehicle rating
and a "5 star" rating could be something as trivial as a front seat
passenger's seat belt warning light which is *exactly* what it was some
years ago with the Ford Territory.

I think it's important for driver aids to be considered in overall
vehicle safety ratings as vehicle safety is as much about accident
avoidance as it is accident protection, but their needs to be a more
clearly defined scoring system so people get a better idea of
differences *between* vehicles.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/12/2023 4:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 2:24 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 11:51 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
>>> that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not
>>> being there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that.
>>> It *clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much
>>> difference it makes to the car overall is something that neither you
>>> nor I can ever say with any degree of certainly. However it is highly
>>> unlikely that it makes *no* positive difference at all.
>>
>> Another problem on top of the lack of independent testing is the lack
>> of driver training with these new systems, for example many drivers
>> have not activated their cars ABS to know what it feels like so when
>> it does activate in an emergency many release pressure on the brake
>> pedal when they should really do the opposite.
>> I've never experienced stability control working on any car so I have
>> no way of knowing what is normal and what isn't or whether or not its
>> working like its supposed to.
>> IMHO its one thing to mandate these things on new cars but drivers
>> should be trained on their use and not left to assume that it will all
>> work in an emergency.
>
> I'm not sure that much in the way of training is needed.
>
> From what I can tell, most people who find themselves in vehicle
> emergencies do two things instinctively: They try to push the brake
> pedal through the floor while white knuckling the steering wheel in
> trying to steer around whatever it is that causes the emergency, and
> these two natural reactions are counter productive as locking up the
> brakes causes a loss of vehicle control which makes steering input
> completely useless.
>
> This is the very reason why ABS came into being. Researchers at Mercedes
> Benz realised that trying to change instinctive human behaviour is a
> *far* more complex problem than it is to change the way a vehicle
> responds to it. You can educate people on what needs to be done and
> train them to react in certain ways, but in unexpected emergency
> situations such training generally goes out the window as people panic.
> Hence the invention of a braking system that permits steering control to
> be maintained without the need for the human element to be different in
> any way.
>
> Same with every active vehicle safety feature that followed in ABS's
> path. Things like autonomous braking, active lane guidance, collision
> mitigation systems, Active Stability Control, Traction Control, trailer
> sway control, electronic brake force distribution, etc, etc, are all
> driver "aids" which, like ABS, are designed to react quicker and have a
> more controlled effect than the average driver would, and the effect of
> all these "aids" has been to create vehicles that are safer today than
> at any other time in vehicle history.
>
> Yet some people see their inclusion as "unnecessary". Some people think
> they "dumb down" drivers and promote a false sense of security. Some
> think the role they play is over stated with too much importance placed
> on their presence without having any real idea of how effective their
> presence actually is.
>
> What do *I* think?

As you have shown on occasions too numerous to mention - not a lot!
>
> I think *some* of these arguments are a nonsense, but more importantly I
> think that society has generally been dumbed down regardless of how
> technically advanced vehicles have become, and if having these devices
> in new vehicles means that some inattentive retard is less likely to
> take *me* out as a result of their presence then I'm all in favour of
> every new car having them.

I'm in favour of every car you drive having all the driver aids
possible. After all, you have the broken body to prove your driving
skill level - or lack thereof!
>
>>> I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan is
>>> cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect they
>>> deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.
>>>
>>> The man is an *idiot* who wouldn't know if you were up him until you
>>> pulled out and let the cold air rush in....
>>>
>>
>> LOL, I'm not a fan of theatrics in his YouTube videos and many times
>> he's well over the top but in this instance he does make some valid
>> points.
>
> To be honest I never watched the video. I scrolled through the page

You? Honest? Hahahahahhaha

Don't lie Darren, you watch everything John puts up - and you channel
his words.

> reading the text and as soon as I saw Cadogan being cited I left. The
> man is a fucking dickhead who makes Commodore driving munts look like
> brain surgeons.

I suppose that's fair. Not having any substantive education yourself,
you cannot recognise an educated person when you see one. The very
epitome of the saying, "you don't know what you don't know".
>
>> I think that the current ANCAP rating system is broken especially with
>> their focus on electronic driver aides over actually physical crash
>> protection.
>
> As I said in another post, there is more to vehicle safety than just how
> well it protects you once you're in an accident.
>
> Here's the thing. There are currently 11 or 12 organisations around the
> world who carry out new vehicle crash tests, and each one has their own
> specific metrics that produces test results that are different to those
> produced by every other organisation. So much so that you can run the
> exact same car through each organisation's barrage of tests and get
> quite remarkably different results in every case.
>
> ANCAP is no different in that they have their own method of testing
> which produces unique results, and while some would suggest that there
> needs to be a "global standard" that idea will never fly as long as
> different versions of the same car are sold in different markets. Global
> manufacturing is certainly taking us in that direction, but we're not
> there yet.
>
> For what it's worth, my problem with ANCAP is not on how much importance

If you're making the comment - not worth much at all.

> they place on particular devices, but in how they advertise their
> scores. The whole star rating system is a joke and has been for years.
> We've had quarter star ratings on dishwashers and fridges for years, but
> we can't have them on cars presumably because we're not able to work out
> that a 4 and a half star rating isn't as good as a 5 star rating when it
> comes to vehicles, yet the different between a "4 star" vehicle rating
> and a "5 star" rating could be something as trivial as a front seat
> passenger's seat belt warning light which is *exactly* what it was some
> years ago with the Ford Territory.
>
> I think it's important for driver aids to be considered in overall
> vehicle safety ratings as vehicle safety is as much about accident
> avoidance as it is accident protection, but their needs to be a more
> clearly defined scoring system so people get a better idea of
> differences *between* vehicles.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 19/12/2023 4:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 2:24 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 11:51 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
>>> that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not
>>> being there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that.
>>> It *clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much
>>> difference it makes to the car overall is something that neither you
>>> nor I can ever say with any degree of certainly. However it is highly
>>> unlikely that it makes *no* positive difference at all.
>>
>> Another problem on top of the lack of independent testing is the lack
>> of driver training with these new systems, for example many drivers
>> have not activated their cars ABS to know what it feels like so when
>> it does activate in an emergency many release pressure on the brake
>> pedal when they should really do the opposite.
>> I've never experienced stability control working on any car so I have
>> no way of knowing what is normal and what isn't or whether or not its
>> working like its supposed to.
>> IMHO its one thing to mandate these things on new cars but drivers
>> should be trained on their use and not left to assume that it will all
>> work in an emergency.
>
> I'm not sure that much in the way of training is needed.

Overall I think that current driver training standards are pretty low
but the problem is how to improve, certainly not easy which is probably
why its the way it is.
I'd like to see dealers compelled to explain and demonstrate car safety
systems when they are delivering a new car but I'm afraid that with many
buyers the information would go in one ear and out the other, it would
also be very difficult to demonstrate safety systems live, maybe a video
would be useful.
>
> From what I can tell, most people who find themselves in vehicle
> emergencies do two things instinctively: They try to push the brake
> pedal through the floor while white knuckling the steering wheel in
> trying to steer around whatever it is that causes the emergency, and
> these two natural reactions are counter productive as locking up the
> brakes causes a loss of vehicle control which makes steering input
> completely useless.
>
> This is the very reason why ABS came into being. Researchers at Mercedes
> Benz realised that trying to change instinctive human behaviour is a
> *far* more complex problem than it is to change the way a vehicle
> responds to it. You can educate people on what needs to be done and
> train them to react in certain ways, but in unexpected emergency
> situations such training generally goes out the window as people panic.
> Hence the invention of a braking system that permits steering control to
> be maintained without the need for the human element to be different in
> any way.
>
> Same with every active vehicle safety feature that followed in ABS's
> path. Things like autonomous braking, active lane guidance, collision
> mitigation systems, Active Stability Control, Traction Control, trailer
> sway control, electronic brake force distribution, etc, etc, are all
> driver "aids" which, like ABS, are designed to react quicker and have a
> more controlled effect than the average driver would, and the effect of
> all these "aids" has been to create vehicles that are safer today than
> at any other time in vehicle history.
>
> Yet some people see their inclusion as "unnecessary". Some people think
> they "dumb down" drivers and promote a false sense of security. Some
> think the role they play is over stated with too much importance placed
> on their presence without having any real idea of how effective their
> presence actually is.
>
> What do *I* think?
>
> I think *some* of these arguments are a nonsense, but more importantly I
> think that society has generally been dumbed down regardless of how
> technically advanced vehicles have become, and if having these devices
> in new vehicles means that some inattentive retard is less likely to
> take *me* out as a result of their presence then I'm all in favour of
> every new car having them.
>
>>> I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan is
>>> cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect they
>>> deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.
>>>
>>> The man is an *idiot* who wouldn't know if you were up him until you
>>> pulled out and let the cold air rush in....
>>>
>>
>> LOL, I'm not a fan of theatrics in his YouTube videos and many times
>> he's well over the top but in this instance he does make some valid
>> points.
>
> To be honest I never watched the video. I scrolled through the page
> reading the text and as soon as I saw Cadogan being cited I left. The
> man is a fucking dickhead who makes Commodore driving munts look like
> brain surgeons.
>
>> I think that the current ANCAP rating system is broken especially with
>> their focus on electronic driver aides over actually physical crash
>> protection.
>
> As I said in another post, there is more to vehicle safety than just how
> well it protects you once you're in an accident.
>
> Here's the thing. There are currently 11 or 12 organisations around the
> world who carry out new vehicle crash tests, and each one has their own
> specific metrics that produces test results that are different to those
> produced by every other organisation. So much so that you can run the
> exact same car through each organisation's barrage of tests and get
> quite remarkably different results in every case.
>
> ANCAP is no different in that they have their own method of testing
> which produces unique results, and while some would suggest that there
> needs to be a "global standard" that idea will never fly as long as
> different versions of the same car are sold in different markets. Global
> manufacturing is certainly taking us in that direction, but we're not
> there yet.
>
> For what it's worth, my problem with ANCAP is not on how much importance
> they place on particular devices, but in how they advertise their
> scores. The whole star rating system is a joke and has been for years.
> We've had quarter star ratings on dishwashers and fridges for years, but
> we can't have them on cars presumably because we're not able to work out
> that a 4 and a half star rating isn't as good as a 5 star rating when it
> comes to vehicles, yet the different between a "4 star" vehicle rating
> and a "5 star" rating could be something as trivial as a front seat
> passenger's seat belt warning light which is *exactly* what it was some
> years ago with the Ford Territory.
>
> I think it's important for driver aids to be considered in overall
> vehicle safety ratings as vehicle safety is as much about accident
> avoidance as it is accident protection, but their needs to be a more
> clearly defined scoring system so people get a better idea of
> differences *between* vehicles.
>
>

Exactly and that's pretty much what Cadogan also said, a much more
comprehensive system is needed, the current rating system is flawed to
the point that its nearly meaningless.

--
Daryl

On 19/12/2023 5:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 4:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 2:24 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 19/12/2023 11:51 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> That statement would only hold water if you were able to demonstrate
>>>> that it's presence made little or no difference compared to it not
>>>> being there at all, and I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that.
>>>> It *clearly* doesn't perform as well as others, but how much
>>>> difference it makes to the car overall is something that neither you
>>>> nor I can ever say with any degree of certainly. However it is
>>>> highly unlikely that it makes *no* positive difference at all.
>>>
>>> Another problem on top of the lack of independent testing is the lack
>>> of driver training with these new systems, for example many drivers
>>> have not activated their cars ABS to know what it feels like so when
>>> it does activate in an emergency many release pressure on the brake
>>> pedal when they should really do the opposite.
>>> I've never experienced stability control working on any car so I have
>>> no way of knowing what is normal and what isn't or whether or not its
>>> working like its supposed to.
>>> IMHO its one thing to mandate these things on new cars but drivers
>>> should be trained on their use and not left to assume that it will
>>> all work in an emergency.
>>
>> I'm not sure that much in the way of training is needed.
>
> Overall I think that current driver training standards are pretty low
> but the problem is how to improve, certainly not easy which is probably
> why its the way it is.

To find out the problem with driver training in Victoria, you need to go
right back to the Kennett era. You see, Jeff totally deregulated the
driver training industry so anyone could become a driving instructor,
and anyone did. The untrained driving instructors undercut the
professional instructors causing them to leave the industry. All that
remains in the driving training industry are a bunch of unqualified and
unprofessional shonks. Luckily my wife was trained by one of those
properly qualified driving instructors before they went the way of all
flesh.

> I'd like to see dealers compelled to explain and demonstrate car safety
> systems when they are delivering a new car but I'm afraid that with many
> buyers the information would go in one ear and out the other, it would
> also be very difficult to demonstrate safety systems live, maybe a video
> would be useful.
>>
>>  From what I can tell, most people who find themselves in vehicle
>> emergencies do two things instinctively: They try to push the brake
>> pedal through the floor while white knuckling the steering wheel in
>> trying to steer around whatever it is that causes the emergency, and
>> these two natural reactions are counter productive as locking up the
>> brakes causes a loss of vehicle control which makes steering input
>> completely useless.
>>
>> This is the very reason why ABS came into being. Researchers at
>> Mercedes Benz realised that trying to change instinctive human
>> behaviour is a *far* more complex problem than it is to change the way
>> a vehicle responds to it. You can educate people on what needs to be
>> done and train them to react in certain ways, but in unexpected
>> emergency situations such training generally goes out the window as
>> people panic. Hence the invention of a braking system that permits
>> steering control to be maintained without the need for the human
>> element to be different in any way.
>>
>> Same with every active vehicle safety feature that followed in ABS's
>> path. Things like autonomous braking, active lane guidance, collision
>> mitigation systems, Active Stability Control, Traction Control,
>> trailer sway control, electronic brake force distribution, etc, etc,
>> are all driver "aids" which, like ABS, are designed to react quicker
>> and have a more controlled effect than the average driver would, and
>> the effect of all these "aids" has been to create vehicles that are
>> safer today than at any other time in vehicle history.
>>
>> Yet some people see their inclusion as "unnecessary". Some people
>> think they "dumb down" drivers and promote a false sense of security.
>> Some think the role they play is over stated with too much importance
>> placed on their presence without having any real idea of how effective
>> their presence actually is.
>>
>> What do *I* think?
>>
>> I think *some* of these arguments are a nonsense, but more importantly
>> I think that society has generally been dumbed down regardless of how
>> technically advanced vehicles have become, and if having these devices
>> in new vehicles means that some inattentive retard is less likely to
>> take *me* out as a result of their presence then I'm all in favour of
>> every new car having them.
>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but if you're going to quote articles were John Cadogan
>>>> is cited as an "expert" then I'm going to show them all the respect
>>>> they deserve which is absolutely fuck nothing.
>>>>
>>>> The man is an *idiot* who wouldn't know if you were up him until you
>>>> pulled out and let the cold air rush in....
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL, I'm not a fan of theatrics in his YouTube videos and many times
>>> he's well over the top but in this instance he does make some valid
>>> points.
>>
>> To be honest I never watched the video. I scrolled through the page
>> reading the text and as soon as I saw Cadogan being cited I left. The
>> man is a fucking dickhead who makes Commodore driving munts look like
>> brain surgeons.
>>
>>> I think that the current ANCAP rating system is broken especially
>>> with their focus on electronic driver aides over actually physical
>>> crash protection.
>>
>> As I said in another post, there is more to vehicle safety than just
>> how well it protects you once you're in an accident.
>>
>> Here's the thing. There are currently 11 or 12 organisations around
>> the world who carry out new vehicle crash tests, and each one has
>> their own specific metrics that produces test results that are
>> different to those produced by every other organisation. So much so
>> that you can run the exact same car through each organisation's
>> barrage of tests and get quite remarkably different results in every
>> case.
>>
>> ANCAP is no different in that they have their own method of testing
>> which produces unique results, and while some would suggest that there
>> needs to be a "global standard" that idea will never fly as long as
>> different versions of the same car are sold in different markets.
>> Global manufacturing is certainly taking us in that direction, but
>> we're not there yet.
>>
>> For what it's worth, my problem with ANCAP is not on how much
>> importance they place on particular devices, but in how they advertise
>> their scores. The whole star rating system is a joke and has been for
>> years. We've had quarter star ratings on dishwashers and fridges for
>> years, but we can't have them on cars presumably because we're not
>> able to work out that a 4 and a half star rating isn't as good as a 5
>> star rating when it comes to vehicles, yet the different between a "4
>> star" vehicle rating and a "5 star" rating could be something as
>> trivial as a front seat passenger's seat belt warning light which is
>> *exactly* what it was some years ago with the Ford Territory.
>>
>> I think it's important for driver aids to be considered in overall
>> vehicle safety ratings as vehicle safety is as much about accident
>> avoidance as it is accident protection, but their needs to be a more
>> clearly defined scoring system so people get a better idea of
>> differences *between* vehicles.
>>
>>
>
> Exactly and that's pretty much what Cadogan also said, a much more

Which shows just how much Darren was able to comprehend in John's video
- nothing. FFS, even when John Cadogan uses turns of phrase that Darren
is familiar with, he still misses the point.

> comprehensive system is needed, the current rating system is flawed to
> the point that its nearly meaningless.
>
>
>

On 19/12/2023 5:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 4:02 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> I think it's important for driver aids to be considered in overall
>> vehicle safety ratings as vehicle safety is as much about accident
>> avoidance as it is accident protection, but their needs to be a more
>> clearly defined scoring system so people get a better idea of
>> differences *between* vehicles.

>
> Exactly and that's pretty much what Cadogan also said, a much more
> comprehensive system is needed, the current rating system is flawed to
> the point that its nearly meaningless.

I don't know if it needs to be more comprehensive. Detailed information
is already out there *if* you want to go to the ANCAP site and read it,
but I expect too few people actually do because it becomes a bit of a
case of information overload.

Most people seem to want simple detail which is why the "Star" system
has been popular, but the Star system itself is pretty vague. I think a
better "quick and dirty" system would be something as basic as points
out of one hundred.

Do away with the stars altogether and have a basic number like "87/100"
so people could see a more accurate difference between models rather
than a difference not being reflected by the same number of stars.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 19/12/2023 5:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 5:20 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 4:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> I think it's important for driver aids to be considered in overall
>>> vehicle safety ratings as vehicle safety is as much about accident
>>> avoidance as it is accident protection, but their needs to be a more
>>> clearly defined scoring system so people get a better idea of
>>> differences *between* vehicles.
>
>>
>> Exactly and that's pretty much what Cadogan also said, a much more
>> comprehensive system is needed, the current rating system is flawed to
>> the point that its nearly meaningless.
>
> I don't know if it needs to be more comprehensive. Detailed information
> is already out there *if* you want to go to the ANCAP site and read it,
> but I expect too few people actually do because it becomes a bit of a
> case of information overload.
>
> Most people seem to want simple detail which is why the "Star" system
> has been popular, but the Star system itself is pretty vague. I think a
> better "quick and dirty" system would be something as basic as points
> out of one hundred.
>
> Do away with the stars altogether and have a basic number like "87/100"
> so people could see a more accurate difference between models rather
> than a difference not being reflected by the same number of stars.

No Darren, that is not the answer. After all, you know what you're like
with *numbers* - you get confused. Then there are *concepts* that you
don't understand - like inflation. You have suggested percentages as the
answer but that would be a concept too far for you since you are still
in the concrete operations stage - So the star system is good! More
stars is better but limit it to 5 so you can count it up *on one hand*
leaving the other hand free so you can keep on wanking!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Noddy wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 11:23 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
>>>> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
>>>> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>>>
>>> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and
>>> has been for some time.
>>
>> The point, which you seemed to have missed is that there is no testing
>> of these features.
>
> I haven't missed anything, other than you being able to show how your
> old Mazda is relevant to any discussion about *new* car safety ratings.

He's getting noticeably stupider.

snip unread

alvey
Observing that the Fraudster only 'argues' against those he believes he
can 'beat'.

alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 19/12/2023 11:23 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 19/12/2023 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things
>>>>> but don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit
>>>>> like the RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>>>>
>>>> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and
>>>> has been for some time.
>>>
>>> The point, which you seemed to have missed is that there is no
>>> testing of these features.
>>
>> I haven't missed anything, other than you being able to show how your
>> old Mazda is relevant to any discussion about *new* car safety ratings.
>
> He's getting noticeably stupider.
>
> snip unread
>
>
> alvey
> Observing that the Fraudster only 'argues' against those he believes
> he can 'beat'.
>

everyone else he blocks, except for his acolytes

--
Have a nice day!..