Monday 18th March 2002
4WD Kills
Now the Austrailian Government has found that four wheel drive vehicles are lethal. Its investigations reveal that 4WDs are 9 times more likely to kill other road users than the driver of the 4WD. Time to reflect upon road safety strategy in the UK?
Full story on http://www.drive.com.au/news/article.asp?article=http://drive.fairfax.com.au/content-new/news/general/2002/03/18/FFXK9ER5XYC.html
Discussion
Thats an odd finding. Here in the US they are putting pressure on the car industry to make all cars more efficient. There's uproar among joe public because they see it as the begining of the end of SUvs. The uproar, as stated by a democrat in one of the houses, is based on the fact that "1000s of Americans will be killed" if SUVs are phased out since they are (allegedly) so much safer than other cars.
Up the grand vitara....
Up the grand vitara....
Depends what you mean by safer. If you are planning to drive into a tree, I'd recommend driving something big like an SUV.
However if you have any consideration for other road users (horses excluded...) , or indeed pedestrians, then (a) SUVs are heavier (bad for other vehicles) (b) they are higher at the front which is much worse for a pedestrian.
As to the idea that bull bars are a valid safety feature ... If your car needs reinforcing at the front, then design the thing properly in the first place. That kind of reinforcement should not be allowed to interfere with the way some poor bastards body is going to react when hit by the front of the car.
If I had my way I'd take the bull bars and novelty bolt-on frogs off every car I saw and shove them right up their owner's fat *rse. They might then get some idea what they'd do to a pedestrian ... or maybe not, but it would make me laugh.
However if you have any consideration for other road users (horses excluded...) , or indeed pedestrians, then (a) SUVs are heavier (bad for other vehicles) (b) they are higher at the front which is much worse for a pedestrian.
As to the idea that bull bars are a valid safety feature ... If your car needs reinforcing at the front, then design the thing properly in the first place. That kind of reinforcement should not be allowed to interfere with the way some poor bastards body is going to react when hit by the front of the car.
If I had my way I'd take the bull bars and novelty bolt-on frogs off every car I saw and shove them right up their owner's fat *rse. They might then get some idea what they'd do to a pedestrian ... or maybe not, but it would make me laugh.
"If I had my way I'd take the bull bars and novelty bolt-on frogs off every car I saw and shove them right up their owner's fat *rse. They might then get some idea what they'd do to a pedestrian ... or maybe not, but it would make me laugh."
Nice one
I hate SUVs law bending death traps.
Nice one
I hate SUVs law bending death traps.
Ok ok I misunderstood the story but reading it again, I think you lot have too"
"Now the Austrailian Government has found that four wheel drive vehicles are lethal. Its investigations reveal that 4WDs are 9 times more likely to kill other road users than the driver of the 4WD"
All that means is that the driver of the 4WD is more likley to survive than the person they hit. It says nothing about whether a 4WD is more likley to kill than an ordinary car. The kill rate could be the same but the 4WD just protects the driver better.
Are there any reliable statistics on the relative safety of 4WDs and other cars? (ie for other road users).
Im not talking about bull bars here - we all know they are lethal even if no-ines managed to prove it yet.
"Now the Austrailian Government has found that four wheel drive vehicles are lethal. Its investigations reveal that 4WDs are 9 times more likely to kill other road users than the driver of the 4WD"
All that means is that the driver of the 4WD is more likley to survive than the person they hit. It says nothing about whether a 4WD is more likley to kill than an ordinary car. The kill rate could be the same but the 4WD just protects the driver better.
Are there any reliable statistics on the relative safety of 4WDs and other cars? (ie for other road users).
Im not talking about bull bars here - we all know they are lethal even if no-ines managed to prove it yet.
quote:
Depends what you mean by safer. If you are planning to drive into a tree, I'd recommend driving something big like an SUV
Actually I reckon an SUV (Ancient ladder frame design)would cause more injuries to its passengers hitting a generally immovable object (a large tree for example) than a modern car with proper crumple zones/safety cell. i.e. the 4wd doesn't protect it's passengers better, it just rides over the normal car's crumple zone so that it takes less of the impact - bang 2 SUVs together and the occupants are F*cked.
Then again, if you're planning on going round driving into trees, I would recommend an M1 Abrams (hard as nails) or a motorized sponge (nice and comfortable in the event of tree contact)
>> Edited by Fatboy on Monday 25th March 16:12
quote:
All that means is that the driver of the 4WD is more likley to survive than the person they hit. It says nothing about whether a 4WD is more likley to kill than an ordinary car. The kill rate could be the same but the 4WD just protects the driver better.
The people that crash cars have actually pointed out that the SUV is a lethal car for other road users in other cars. The reason is that the SUV does not have to comply with the bumber height laws due to it being an off road vehicle (its a loop hole in the law).
If you built a road going car with the same lights, bumber height and crash protection as a kit car it wouldn't pass the SVA test.
Be under no illusion an SUV is a really bad thing to be hit by.
I'm more and more fearful of these cars. On my travels last week there were many occasions where whilst on the motorway I was surrounded on three sides by 4x4s. With my car being particularly low too, any shunt on the motorway would result in the numpty in the truck decapitating me. Perhaps you understand my discomfort with these oversized killing machines then.
All the work done over the last couple of decades regarding pedestrian safety seems to have gone down the pan too. Bumpers designed to flip people over the bonnet are increasingly a waste of time when these trucks with or without bull bars will just slam into your arms and torso. Small kids will have no chance. Never mind lowering your speed, how about lowering your impact point?
All the work done over the last couple of decades regarding pedestrian safety seems to have gone down the pan too. Bumpers designed to flip people over the bonnet are increasingly a waste of time when these trucks with or without bull bars will just slam into your arms and torso. Small kids will have no chance. Never mind lowering your speed, how about lowering your impact point?
Only in the last 12-18 months have crash ratings for SUVs improved to near acceptable levels. The respectable US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports:
www.highwaysafety.org/news_releases/2001/pr121101.htm
A typical example of how bad even recent models can be in an 'offset frontal' is illustrated here with the Isuzu Rodeo (Vauxhall Frontera in the UK):
www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/96004.htm
www.highwaysafety.org/news_releases/2001/pr121101.htm
A typical example of how bad even recent models can be in an 'offset frontal' is illustrated here with the Isuzu Rodeo (Vauxhall Frontera in the UK):
www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/96004.htm
I think unfortunately the SUV instills a feeling of safety which means that the drivers tend to know that mr average car will come off worse in a shunt and so drive like complete p***s. I have many times had one right up my tailpipes with full beam on cause I am only doing 40mph in a 40mph limit, and that is too slow for mr SUV. Full beam from that height into my car means I can be completely blinded..
I have also had about three road rage incidents where SUV drivers decided they have right of way or whatever and tried to ram me off the road. W****ers the lot of them.. Except the women who use them on the school run with the bullbars to nail any other scrote in the road ( Dumb and hypocritical and completely unable to drive as a rule)
I have also had about three road rage incidents where SUV drivers decided they have right of way or whatever and tried to ram me off the road. W****ers the lot of them.. Except the women who use them on the school run with the bullbars to nail any other scrote in the road ( Dumb and hypocritical and completely unable to drive as a rule)
I agree with much of that below although it looks as though there is not much in the way of hard data to back up what are largely intuitive arguments. That doesnt make them wrong but i do have a job believing that the nanny state in the UK would allow a "loop hole" to persist which routinely kills occupants of SUVs and other road users.
One point though... Ted - you say that you feel vulnerable because these SUVs are so high up. There's a hard reality here: You've made a choice to drive a low profile carbon fibre performance car. That must put you in the highest risk category on 4 wheels. Thats your choice, and if the driver of a J Sainsbury's lorry has a problem stopping, you are more likley to be killed than most others. That doesnt automatically mean that lorries should be redesigned or banned.
The same goes for SUVs - if there are data which prove that lives are being lost unnecessarily then something has to be done. However if hypothetically (but our US cousins do believe this) SUVs are actually safer, but it were also shown that certain sports car drivers are at high risk of being decapitated by SUVs..... whats going to be banned?
Unfortunately, not the SUV - it would be politically impossible to ban a car perceived as "safer than most". Instead the nanny state will just clear the roads of the highest risk sports cars.
One point though... Ted - you say that you feel vulnerable because these SUVs are so high up. There's a hard reality here: You've made a choice to drive a low profile carbon fibre performance car. That must put you in the highest risk category on 4 wheels. Thats your choice, and if the driver of a J Sainsbury's lorry has a problem stopping, you are more likley to be killed than most others. That doesnt automatically mean that lorries should be redesigned or banned.
The same goes for SUVs - if there are data which prove that lives are being lost unnecessarily then something has to be done. However if hypothetically (but our US cousins do believe this) SUVs are actually safer, but it were also shown that certain sports car drivers are at high risk of being decapitated by SUVs..... whats going to be banned?
Unfortunately, not the SUV - it would be politically impossible to ban a car perceived as "safer than most". Instead the nanny state will just clear the roads of the highest risk sports cars.
quote:
I agree with much of that below although it looks as though there is not much in the way of hard data to back up what are largely intuitive arguments. That doesnt make them wrong but i do have a job believing that the nanny state in the UK would allow a "loop hole" to persist which routinely kills occupants of SUVs and other road users.
Believe it look up the SVA laws for kit cars its all there in black and white. Legal limits for bumpers, lights, external pertrusions the lot. SUVs do not abide by these rules because they are exempt. Just as a short note in fact Sports cars abide by these rules the Elise S160 had to, thats how they got the first few through.
quote:
Believe it look up the SVA laws for kit cars its all there in black and white. Legal limits for bumpers, lights, external pertrusions the lot. SUVs do not abide by these rules because they are exempt. Just as a short note in fact Sports cars abide by these rules the Elise S160 had to, thats how they got the first few through.
Something in my poor addled brain seems to think that Bull Bars have been banned on new cars - Hooray - But can be fitted as an aftermarket 'option' - Boo
So seems to be another law to be seen to be doing something whilst in fact doing F***all for safety.
No one will ever persuade me that these things are necessary for 90% of vehicles that have them, and they are a complete menace to all over vehicles and pedestrians
Regarding the car choice: A driver in a high performance sports car can often avoind an accident because his car is capable of extreme maneuvres, whereas the SUV driver has no choice but to pile into the accident as his gentrified pick-up cannot change direction or stop easily. Again, you are right in the data needed, but IIRC SUVs have much longer braking distances than cars (boggo saloons, let along sports cars), much higher centre of gravity and much softer suspension, a garuanteed recipe for disaster. (especially in the hands of the numpties you usually see 'driving' them)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff