Buyers would rather have a cheap car than a safe car
We asked more than 400 people to pick their top three priorities when choosing a new car from 10 key buying criteria. Reliability overwhelmingly came top, chosen by 54 per cent of those polled, yet safety was second from last at 20 per cent.
This deprioritisation of safety in the minds of car buyers might be surprising if you consider the implications of driving an unsafe vehicle, but it's nothing new for the automotive industry. Safety has long been a tough sell, compared with a car's more practical or emotionally involving facets. Volvo, you could argue, is the exception to the rule, having built a large part of its brand on foundations of safety innovation.
Just ask yourself, though, how many car adverts you see based on safety, compared with those focused on design, performance, driving and value for money. Even the Swedish safety trailblazers don't overemphasise internal crash structures and blind-spot warning systems when trying to lure new customers. Skip advert Advertisement - Article continues below
Safety isn't sexy. It's the thing everyone wants their pride and joy to do well, but hopes will never be put to the test. Like an insurance policy, car buyers know safety is important, but they aren't particularly inclined to pay over the odds when, in theory, one car is much the same as another.
That's probably the great success of car safety over recent decades. Modern models in general are extremely safe and are getting more so all the time, despite this relative ambivalence from the buying public. The ever-tightening legislation governing safety standards has pushed up car prices, but it's also afforded buyers the luxury of not having to worry too much about choosing a safe model.
It's a bigger consideration for used-car buyers because an older model is more likely to bring compromises on the safety front, purely because it was sold new at a time when safety standards weren't as tight. The official crash-testing body, Euro NCAP, has continually made its tests more stringent over the years, demanding more of manufacturers who want to achieve those five-star ratings.
Safety is a great example of legislators and manufacturers working together to turn what's arguably the single most important thing about a car into something we don't have to care too much about.
Find yourself a car that's both affordable and safe! Our Find a Car service has new, used and leasing deals available right now...
Find a car with the experts Electric cars driven until they die: the truth about EV range
Electric cars driven until they die: the truth about EV range
Five EVs under £24k have joined Dacia's Spring on the UK market. How far can you go on a budget? We find out New Citroen C5 Aircross SUV undercuts the Volkswagen Tiguan by a huge £7k
New Citroen C5 Aircross SUV undercuts the Volkswagen Tiguan by a huge £7k
Citroen's revamped flagship C5 Aircross SUV is available to order now with hybrid or electric power Car Deal of the Day: Polestar 4 is a head-turning EV for a super cool price
Car Deal of the Day: Polestar 4 is a head-turning EV for a super cool price
The 'car with no rear window' is looking seriously cheap on lease right now. It's our Deal of the Day for July 28
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Lando Norris plays it very cool when asked on F1 title battle: ‘Won't matter once we're all dead'
Lando Norris has offered a remarkably philosophical take on his Formula One championship battle with McLaren team-mate Oscar Piastri, declaring that the outcome ultimately matters little because "in 200 years we will all be dead". Norris arrives at the final round before Formula One's three-week summer shutdown 16 points adrift of Piastri, whose title momentum surged after last weekend's rain-affected race in Belgium. Despite starting on pole, Norris was overtaken by Piastri in treacherous conditions. With McLaren's current superiority, it is Piastri who has emerged as Norris's primary rival for this season's crown, holding six wins to Norris's four. When asked if he needs to get under the Australian's skin to secure his maiden F1 title, Norris replied: "I don't enjoy that. In 200 years no one is going to care. We'll all be dead. "I am trying to have a good time. I still care about it, and that's why I get upset sometimes and I get disappointed and I get angry at myself. And I think that shows just how much I care about winning and losing. But that doesn't mean I need to take it out on Oscar. I just don't get into those kind of things." Historically, intra-team title battles in F1 are fraught, but Norris maintains a pragmatic view. "Yes, he (Piastri) is the guy I want to beat more than anyone else," he admitted. "But if I don't beat him, then that's just because he has done a better job. I will do it the way I believe is best for me, and just because one person did it a few years ago, it doesn't mean you have to do that, too. I don't really care about those things." At the Hungaroring on Friday, Norris demonstrated his prowess with an impressive practice double, narrowly beating Piastri by just 0.019 seconds in the first session before extending his lead to nearly three tenths later in the day. Norris has an unblemished record of never being out-qualified by a team-mate in his six previous visits to this circuit, a promising sign from his practice performance. Elsewhere, Lewis Hamilton, a record eight-time winner and nine-time pole-sitter in Hungary, struggled for pace. The 40-year-old, still seeking a podium in Ferrari colours, complained his car didn't "feel good" and ran off track after a major lock-up in the first session, ending the day sixth, three tenths and three places behind team-mate Charles Leclerc. Max Verstappen, who recently committed his future to Red Bull for at least another season, also had an uncharacteristically difficult day, finishing a distant 14th in practice, 1.1 seconds slower than Norris. "I don't know what is going on," Verstappen radioed. "It is just undriveable." He also faced a stewards' investigation for throwing a towel from his cockpit but received only a warning.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
F1 title challenger says none of it will matter ‘once we're dead'
Lando Norris adopted a philosophical stance on his Formula One championship battle with McLaren team-mate Oscar Piastri, stating the outcome ultimately matters little in the grand scheme. Piastri currently holds a 16-point lead over Norris, with six wins to Norris's four, establishing him as Norris's main competitor for the season's title. Norris emphasised his refusal to engage in mind games with Piastri, preferring to focus on his own performance: 'I don't enjoy that. In 200 years no one is going to care. We'll all be dead.' At the Hungaroring, Norris demonstrated strong form by securing an impressive practice double, outperforming Piastri in both sessions. Elsewhere, Lewis Hamilton of Ferrari and Max Verstappen of Red Bull experienced challenging practice sessions, with both drivers reporting issues with their cars and finishing well down the order.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Car finance payouts limited, but lenders aren't off the hook
There may well be a few sighs of relief from senior finance company and banking executives following the Supreme Court's ruling, but it is unlikely you will hear the champagne corks verdict does almost certainly reduce the potential compensation bill significantly. Lenders no longer face the prospect of having to pay £30bn to £40bn to aggrieved car buyers. The likelihood of the government stepping in also appears to have receded the industry is not off the hook. The Financial Conduct Authority may still open a redress scheme for cases where dealers had a financial incentive from lenders to ramp up interest rates on loans as much as possible. The Supreme Court's ruling also upheld one consumer claim, in which the commission payments were deemed unfair – and that could provide a template for others to follow. All of this means the compensation bill could still be in the Supreme Court's intervention has been eagerly awaited since October, when the Appeal Court issued a verdict in three test cases which could have triggered an avalanche of compensation each case, people who had bought cars on finance claimed they were partially unaware that the deal had involved a commission payment being made by the lender to the car dealer. They claimed that in law the commissions amounted to bribes, or secret Appeal Court judges agreed, essentially saying that commission payments made by a finance company to a dealer for arranging a car loan were illegal if the car buyer had not given his or her "informed consent".They also concluded that a car dealer had a "fiduciary duty" towards the car buyer when it came to arranging a car loan. In other words, the dealer should set his or her own interests aside, and act purely on the customer's meant that millions of car buyers could potentially claim compensation – if they could show that the dealer had not specified what commission payments they were receiving for lining up a finance deal. It was not enough for the details to be buried in small had feared that this would lead to an avalanche of claims against them – and that the same arguments could be used to challenge other kinds of consumer finance agreements as well, potentially increasing the compensation bill still the Supreme Court threw very cold water over those arguments. The President of the Court, Lord Reed, dismissed the idea that car dealers had a "single minded duty of loyalty" to their customers, and insisted they "plainly and properly" had personal interests in the finance agreements they were involved ruling clearly blocks off what could have been a very wide avenue for compensation claims. However, the court did side with one of the claimants. In the case of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker, it decided that the finance agreement was "unfair" under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act. This was because the size of the commission payment was very large, and because Mr Johnson had been misled about the relationship between the dealer and the lender. He was, they said, entitled to say this could open the doors for other cases in which the commission payments are seen to be is also a key question the Supreme Court ruling does not answer. This is what should happen in cases involving so-called Discretionary Commission Agreements (DCAs). These were finance deals in which the car dealer could set the interest rate of a loan, within a set scale. The higher the rate, the more commission they would be paid – and the customer would be unaware of the Financial Conduct Authority banned such deals in 2021. It is now considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who were affected by them. If it goes ahead, millions of car buyers could still have a claim, though it is not clear how much compensation they would to Richard Barnwell, a financial services advisory partner at accountancy firm BDO, the bill could still be substantial."We believe there is still a potential for redress, for example, if discretionary commission arrangements are deemed to be an unfair relationship, redress could still be from to £5bn to £13bn or more," he analysts agree. According to Martin Lewis, who runs the MoneySavingExpert website, "the Supreme Court has certainly narrowed the number of people who will be able to reclaim car finance. I think you're probably talking the lower end of £10bn, as opposed to £40bn."That £10bn would still be a significant figure. But the finance industry appears to have avoided the potential free-for-all rush to claim compensation the earlier verdict had threatened to spark while the Treasury says it will "work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers", the BBC understands that the likelihood of the government intervening with retrospective legislation to protect financial firms has now diminished law of bribery only applies to persons who owe a single-minded duty of loyalty and are therefore bound to have no personal interest in the matter that they are dealing the present case the car dealers plainly and properly have a personal interest in the dealings between the customers and the finance companies.
