Survey Finds ‘Vehicle Safety’ Not Top Priority Of BC Buyers
Prince George, BC – Price and fuel efficiency outrank safety when it comes BC buyers’ top considerations in purchasing a new vehicle, according to a survey conducted for ICBC.
The Ipsos Reid survey found that 48-percent of buyers says price is one of their top considerations, followed closely by fuel efficiency and consumption at 42-percent, while safety is third in the standings with just 32-percent of respondents saying its one of their top considerations.
The survey further revealed that most car buyers primarily take standard safety features into consideration, rather than newer, cutting-edge technologies. When asked which safety features are most important when buying a vehicle, 57-percent said airbags, 23-percent said anti-lock brakes, 18-percent said brakes in general, and 10-percent said various seatbelt features.
ICBC says while all of these are important safety features, there are newer technologies that also help reduce crashes and injuries, such as electronic stability control (ESC). Only one-percent of respondents named ESC as a important feature, but the insurance corporation points out that a recent study by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety found ESC reduced the risk of being involved in a single-vehicle fatal crash by 49-percent.
With more than half-a-million vehicles sold in BC each year, ICBC is reminding buyers they could likely get a lot more protection, while staying within their budget, if they made safety a higher priority – looking past the standard safety features, to more specialized ones, like ESC, warning systems, active head restraints, three-point seatbelts, and new airbag technology.
Comments
Beginning in November 2011, all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, trucks and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4536 kg or less manufactured in Canada will have to be equipped with Electronic Stability Control (ESC). I don’t know if vehicles imported into Canada (built somewhere else) have to meet the same requirement. If not, our government should make that mandatory. ESC is a great feature. It should be standard like seatbelts, ABS, Traction Control and airbags.
In my view, there are proactive and reactive safety features. One works to reduce crashes, the other to reduce injuries when crashes occur.
I think crash prevention is the most important thing. ABS brakes and ESC are the computerized assists in crash prevention.
Then there are those things which deal with vehicle design such as tires, lights, 360 degree visibility from driver’s seat, wide stance of the wheelbase, low centre of gravity, all wheel drive, etc.
Those are all human engineered safety features.
If one has an inadequate tool from the point of view of safety, then more crashes will occur unless we compensate for it by driving more carefully.
Then there are the human driver factors which are voirtually endless. But the ergonomic ones deal with the human/machine interface such as the number of controls, the ease of using controls, the number of adjustments to position oneself for optimum control access, bringing controls that used to require a reach closer to the driver and even onto the steering wheel, providing voice activated control options, true heads up displays, providing voice monitoring options, etc. etc.
Finally, getting rid of overkill. Providing the option to turn some of the monitoring options off for both visual and auditory purposes. I find several of those options are nice to have but not necessary and definitely new distractions while driving.
Dirver distraction is likely turning out to be the number one caue of accidents as cars get safer. The thing is, accident reconstruction has not progressed enough yet to be able to determine that to any degree of accuracy.
BTW, I just went through the process of buying a new 2012 car.
The considerations I had were all integrated. I had an upper affordability limit and a minimum vehicle compartment volume limit for passengers and other payload.
With those as the limiting parameters (it is intereting that payload was not one of the top three in the survey) all other characteristics were integrated in the decision making process such as low CG, fuel economy, power for highway driving, power distribution system to the wheels, wheel size, driver seat adjustability, control reach, visibility, warrantees, manufacturer reliability record, local serviceability, service costs, etc.
Oh, all the cars I looked at had seatbelts and many more airbags than I ever knew existed. The one I got even has one for the knees. That is NOT why I bought the car.
I bought a new vehicle recently as well. A lot of these standard safety features and other technologies have driven the prices way up. I didn’t have an option to remove any of the safety feature to save money (not saying that I should have).
So yes, I would agree with the list above. Price and fuel consumption were the main factors for me.
I think they should take away airbags and seatbelts and but a knife on the steering wheel. People might drive a little more carefully then.
Seriously though Gus is right – I will take accident avoidance over injury prevention after the fact. What did you end up buying out of curiosity Gus?
Actually Gus don’t answer that – we will have 20 posts about what a great vehicle it is mixed with 20 posts about how stupid your decision was – lol
A Subaru Impreza Sports hatchback. Mainly city driving, with occasional highway driving, true AWD (100% power can actually go to any one of the 4 wheels and no limitation on front to back ratio of power distribution), low sitting boxer engine, CVT which I absolutely love with paddles or stick shift option to 6 preselected ratios.
It is point and go driving. The danger I see is the improved feeling of safety, that the car will do the real driving for you. Everyone has an acceptable risk level. Mine has certainly gone down as I have grown older, but my fear is that once I get to a better comfort level with this type of car, I might actually get myself into riskier situations.
This replaces a front wheel drive Camry 4 cyl. This thing is actually more responsive in those highway speed passing situations, and definitely far superior cornering.
I have always loved driving. Absolutely dislike larger SUVs from the handling point of view and driving enjoyment point of view.
Two of us use the car with dogs in the back; back seat go down flat so we really use it as a two seater with storage.
Has brought the joy back into driving.
“we will have 20 posts about what a great vehicle it is mixed with 20 posts about how stupid your decision was”
You are absolutely right on that. Then again, that is part of the fun of this site. People without broad shoulders should not post …. LOL.
BTW, now that I have posted it, a few more people will put two and two together … :-)
“I think they should take away airbags and seatbelts and but a knife on the steering wheel. People might drive a little more carefully then”
I totally agree with that.
Good one, Interceptor!
It’s a Subaru!
Great choice, Gus! Nothing beats AWD/4WD in the North! Is that Subaru assembled in the US of A? Subaru and Toyota are working closely together, as witnessed by the sports car they developed together and which they market under both the Subaru and Toyota name, looking slightly different. Almost bought a Subary Forester a few years ago, but decided on a Toyota SUV instead.
People dont buy a car anticipating a crash just like people dont buy a home anticipating it to burn down. Anybody who needs to be surrounded by airbags, roll bars, etc should probably reconsider whether they are capable of driving.
Canadian Imprezas come assembled from Japan. The 2012 is a new model and, of course, was slow in coming off the line due to the earthquake/tsunami.
The US built version has a couple of minor differences – fixed roof longitudinal roof racks and tire pressure guages which is a requirement in some of the states, such as California.
We looked at the Forester, which was in the price range, but we did not need to lug that much metal around, had a higher CoG, but a wonderfully large “sun/moonroof”.
well said gamblor.make it a bit tougher to obtain a driving license and have some means of cancelling out cell phones etc as soon as the engine is turned on.
concentrate and anticipate while driving.
“Anybody who needs to be surrounded by airbags, roll bars, etc should probably reconsider whether they are capable of driving.”
You are forgetting one important thing. The other jerks on the road. :-)
Get on a plane, and what do you have in case of an emergency? Oxygen, a floatation device (which a lot of people do not know where it is located) a seat belt and crossed fingers.
Oh, one more thing, people who know how to fly and use flightpaths that are regulated and monitored.
Get on the Skytrain and what do you have as a passenger? Nothin’. In fact, you don’t even have a driver.
So, have we figured out yet what we need to do to make how driving safer. Yes. Control the roads, not the drivers. We have seen that in futuristic projections for decades.
Have we gotten there yet. Nope.
Will we get there in the next decade? Nope.
The next 20 years? Maybe.
30? Possibly.
Is anyone seriously working on it? Who knows.
Will it take the fun out of driving? Probably.
Will Palopu support it? Nope.
;-)
“Control the roads, not the drivers.”
I would say control both. Our roads leave a lot to be desired. What is the excuse for NOT having a safe four lane highway at least from here to Cache Creek? It’s the only one in the whole province going in the north/south direction!
We have money for all kinds of other stuff, like building roads and bridges in countries like Afghanistan…sorry, it’s not cool to point out that the emperor has no clothes, I know. So I’ll sign off without saying more.
We do not have enough money for truly “safe” (I prefer “safer”) roads.
The recent crash happened on a three lane section of road with the SUV travelling in a 2 lane section going uphill. The only thing missing in that section of road was a no post guardrail or some softer centre line divider between opposing traffic directions.
http://p.twimg.com/AlQNrv8CMAA4QCh.jpg
On a section like that no one is supposed to pass over the double yellow centre line anyway, so adding a physical divider would not impede traffic flow. Having tons of gravel in the passing lane at that point, as it seems to appear, is not exactly a safe road surface. The gravel (I call it that because the sand disappears relatively quickly with traffic) can be almost as treacherous as ice.
I am not commenting on the cause of the accident, I am merely commenting on road conditions which I find less than perfect due to weather and maintenance quality, even though intentions are good. The same goes with the Coquihalla, of course. There are no sections like that on the Coquihalla. A bit closer to an Autostrada, but not quite there yet.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Autocamionabile_Cisa.JPG
http://p.twimg.com/AlQNrv8CMAA4QCh.jpg
Get rid of curves like that and build a road like the Autostrada in Italy and similar highways in other countries which have hilly and mountainous geography. It’s easy. Pick two points, run as straight a line between the two points as possible, keep the grade to no more than 4% or so, keep the horizontal curves to a radius of 500m, cut or tunnel where needed and fill or bridge over gullies.
They could start with Peden Hill, since that is a secondary Trans Canada interprovincial highway just to show us how it is done. :-)
This just in …
[url]http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/no-more-snowplows-or-icy-roads/article2287667/?service=mobile[url]
This year, U.S. inventor Scott Brusaw will build a small prototype of the worldâs first solar-powered, electronically controlled, glass-surfaced highway on a parking lot near his lab in the small community of Sagle, Idaho.
The U.S. government will fund the experiment, which will cost a mere $750,000
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/no-more-snowplows-or-icy-roads/article2287667/?service=mobile
Those pesky little /////////s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI
I have to ask myself …. will this stand the Palopu test … :-)
Would Kitty Hawk have passed the Palopu test? …. ;-)
Comments for this article are closed.