Are MLs that bad?

[Ser Demec]

Not really weanting to join this debate but I seem to recall Top Gear or one of the motoring programs once showing that a high fronted 4x4 (Range Rover?) caused less 'fatal' injuries to pedestrians because the force hit the torso and unlike with a lower down 'car' the pedestrian's head didn't hit the bonnet or windscreen which is the major killer.

Actually hitting the bonnet or windscreen is a good thing compared to a bumper or bonnet edge because they give more. Top Gear - not biased or anything! - also skimmed over the fact that a Range Rover is lethal for children because of a childs height.

As the number of children in RTIs are on the increase in the UK, this is highly relevant, as children have less road sense than most adults.

But any vehicle hitting anybody at over 30mph is pratically a death sentence anyway, it is just that current 4x4 design is more effective at doing this at lower speeds....

 

[Alfie]

I'll not mention this anymore.

Matt

So why are you still harping on about it? Move on.......

 

[prprandall51]

Yawnnnnnn........................

Good. You lost this debate months ago. Lets move on.

So why are you still harping on about it? Move on.......

You've got him on the ropes!

 

[Ser Demec]

The rear seats in my Mercedes are the best option for a 7 seater. True, the children are safer in the second row, but only in a rear end shunt.

From the side the vehicle has no door frame and door beam protection, but considerable wheel arch and suspension pick up points make this as protective. The occupants also sit further into the middle of the vehicle.

For frontal impact, the occupants in the third row are very safe, being pushed into the seat.

The rear end shunt is lethal for forward facing seats in the third row with head clearance on most vehicles only a few centimetres from the rear glass. The gap between rear of seat and boot door is also often quite small.

With rear facing seats the torso of the occupants is far further inside the car. The only issue is the torso, mainly the head, moving rapidly towards the rear of the car during rear impact.

Say an X5 drove into the back of my E300TD - thanks to a mismatch in bumper height - the sub-chassis rails behind the bumper would try to punch through the boot door, folding the top of the roof down as it did so.

It would therefore be wise to put as much gap in this boot area as possible. Rear facing seats, while sometimes the cause of motion sickness, are a better compromise to forward facing.

But 4x4s with wide band radar for distance control as required by law would be far better...

Matt

 

[Ser Demec]

Alfie

http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/downloads/4x4Report.doc

 

[Ser Demec]

For those not down loading the doc file, a clip:

"By law all new car models must pass key safety tests before being sold. Data from the Euro NCAP safety tests, which rate vehicles on a star rating of 0 – 5 for crash assessment and 0 – 4 for pedestrian protection, support the premise that 4x4s are dangerous to pedestrians in accidents. Here is a selection of findings from tests on 4x4s [one selected for relevance to this discussion]:

BMW X5
• Front and side impact ratings: 4/5

• Pedestrian protection: 1/4

• Assessment: “High vehicles pose problems for pedestrians, especially children, and the X-5 is no exception. Its front is unfriendly and its bonnet top little better; a poor rating.”

 

[Alfie]

Alfie

http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/downloads/4x4Report.doc

Norman Baker MP
Lib Dem Shadow Environment Secretary

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Lib Dem and credible...you are having a laugh....

I'm bored with this. I'll leave it to Dieter (ultimately qualified in this field) to take up the cudgel. I have a glass of wine in the garden waiting....

have a good weekend all.........

 

[Ser Demec]

there is just sooo much in this space:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2682-1166175,00.html

Not on the ropes, but in a different league

 

[Ser Demec]

Alfie

this one's for you after your wine in the garden

http://www.ovalmotorsport.co.uk/cpg132/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=0&pos=-276

and if Lib Dem is a poor third to Labour (hahaha) or Conservative (hahahaha) try Which? Report:

http://www.which.net/press/releases/whichmagazine/050303_pedestrian_nr.html

This could go on forever as I know I am not going to win most of you over, but then you should know I won't give up either.

I'll get on with my work now - yes really. Until next time...

Matt

 

[prprandall51]

I'm bored with this.

OK, let's have a sweepstake for when Alfie returns to the discussion. Everyone choose a time for his next post - winner takes all.

Remember just because he said he's bored with the discussion doesn't mean he won't post again soon. After all, he said this 3 pages ago:

Here is my final point on this.

Twenty minutes to drink the wine and think about the issues. I take the "half hour" ticket. I don't think he can stick it out till Monday!

Philip

 

[ddentrec]

Are MLs that bad?

Yes.

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

Just returned from a 2200 mile round trip to Scotland (carrying 3 adults, associated luggage and a large GSDog) driving on both M-ways and country lanes etc. in both good and bad driving conditions. Didn't get stressed out at all and only killed a million insects (no significant decrease in insect population then!).

More susprisingly I didn't kill a single human being either big or small although I tried quite hard. It's odd that if you drive and watch the roads and pavements etc. it's quite difficult to hurt or even get close to pedstrians etc. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong .

Returning to topic my ML is OK, 'it does what it says on the tin' but not a lot more. It can be 'chucked' about but the passengers get 'chucked" about as well. The reports on the new ML are looking good and on-road handling (especially with airmatic) appears much improved. That'll do for me cos I don't want to/or need to go off-road (costly damage etc.).

Perhaps what is more relevant to this (anti-) 4 x 4 debate is why, even as this hate campaign increases, are 4 x 4's remaining/becoming even more popular (even Jaguar has plans for a 4 x 4 in 2009 etc.). IMHO it's partly a reaction to the worsening driving conditions

i.e. the increasing popularity of 4 x 4's is a defensive reaction (feel safer, more commanding driving position etc. etc.).

Also road surfaces are deteriorating (Councils paying record sums for wheel and suspension damage etc.), driving standards are worsening (no active policing cos of total reliance on speed cameras etc.) and the numbers of uninsured/un-licensed (can't read so can't pass multiple choice test etc.)/un-taxed vehicles increasing etc.

Looking forward to new ML320CDi and couldn't give a toss what anyone else thinks about it!!!!

Cheers,

 

[glojo]

Hi,
Didn't get stressed out at all and only killed a million insects (no significant decrease in insect population then!).

Mass murderer I wish you would bump off the blooming magpies that are in my back garden.

Hi Dieter,
I like your style and as I have always maintained. Each to their own.

Good luck with the new 320CDI and I look forward to seeing some pictures when you take delivery.

Regards,
John

Edit:

Reading Dieter's post has made me think (a very difficult task)

I personally believe it is most important for a 4 x 4 to have the right tyres for the right conditions. Tyres that are suitable for high speed motorway cruising are usually totally unsuitable for 4 x 4 driving off road driving. Off road tyres are again 'dodgy' to use for high speed motorway work.

Now should there be enforced legislation to stop 4 x 4's with cross country type tyres from using our motorways or Should it only be a speed restriction?

How many Range Rover type vehicles get stuck each year on surfaces not much worse than wet grass simply because they have very expensive high speed road tyres?

I am NOT anti 4 x 4, but I do know that using the wrong tyres in the wrong conditions is dangerous.

Low profile tyres are entertaining when driving 'slightly' too fast in heavy rain, if we agree to stop 4 x 4's then why not stop high performance vehicles with extra wide low profile tyres from driving in heavy rain?

If you think I'm crackers (like I do), then don't forget that some countries have these type laws, but apply them in winter during periods of snow and icy road conditions. Tyres have to comply with national rules of perhaps being studded or having chains?

Anyway enough of my ramblings I'm off to order my new car.

http://www.rockcrawler.com/features/newsshorts/03january/smartruck.asp

Regards,
John

 

[prprandall51]

Truly off-topic:

Nice truck, but the break-over angle is dreadful (the sharpest crest over which the vehicle can ride without bottoming out in the middle). This vehicle would get stuck pretty easily.

It reminds me of the story of the first Gulf war. American Special forces rolled up in their Hum-Vees and the SAS had Land Rovers. In the end, both forces shared the LRs because the HumVees kept getting stuck!

When they returned from the Gulf, the Special Forces ordered a load of LRs and ditched their Hum-Vees.

Why does the US car industry always think that big is best?

Philip

 

[glojo]

When they returned from the Gulf, the Special Forces ordered a load of LRs and ditched their Hum-Vees.

Why does the US car industry always think that big is best?

Philip

Totally 100% agree, my link was very much tongue in cheek. The thing is totally armour plated, the vehicle has buttons to pour oil from the rear pipes. Buttons to electrify the door handles, buttons to turn on, bright, dazzling strobe lights, buttons.......... etc etc. In fact it is a totally USELESS vehicle. and and don't forget the rotating periscope with full night vision??? This 'thing' is produced for the general public!!!!!

Note the first two letters of useless?????

But then again, each to their own, if someone wants one, then go for it.

John

Edit
I thought the Hum Vee's were unsuitable for the task because they were simply to wide and toooo big and not manouvreable enough?

 

[Alfie]

OK, let's have a sweepstake for when Alfie returns to the discussion. Everyone choose a time for his next post - winner takes all.

Remember just because he said he's bored with the discussion doesn't mean he won't post again soon. After all, he said this 3 pages ago:


Twenty minutes to drink the wine and think about the issues. I take the "half hour" ticket. I don't think he can stick it out till Monday!

Philip

Well, it looks like you were wrong. As I have more important things to do at the weekend (spending time with my family), I have just re-visited the thread.

As some say, this could go on forever...

What seems paramount to me in this whole debate is that there is a group of people who like to target individual choice. Now the argumants for that targetting, whatever the justification, are very clear. It is jealousy and here is why;

These trendy lefty touchy feely people who spout on about 4x4's being a danager to other road users and pedestrians have picked a group which represents in the main, richer than average people. I say this lightly as not all those who drive these vehicles are rich but in the main these vehicles cost quite a lot to buy and run. So, if their argument is to hold any weight why dont we ban cars from the roads as they cause the most serious and often fatal injuries to motorcyclists and cyclists. Far more injuries in fact than 4x4's cause. Take this further, why dont we ban White van man. Here is a vehicle that is often driven recklessly and is large with minimal vision, heavy and potentially far more lethal than any 4x4. And then what about articulated lorries and coaches? We could go on forever here. So why pick on 4x4 owners? Because they represent the evil ruling middle classes. This is prejudice pure and simple, born out of envy.

I've read all the points raised in this forum and it is clear that it will rage on ad infinitum. That said, I have to applaud Dieter for his concise, articulate and well informed comments.

Finally, I couldnt give a stuff about any statistics because we all know that statistics are meaningless unless looked at in the far wider picture (including all road users and all types of transport). So, I will continue to choose whatever vehicle I like based on my own judgement and to hell with those who are prejudiced or jealous.

 

[OGiii]

More trouble at Mill.......

BBC News - tree huggers Vs Land Rover

One report says how they only do between 17.4 and 25 to the gallon - sounds good to me, lots of cars do less!

 

[Alfie]

More trouble at Mill.......

BBC News - tree huggers Vs Land Rover

One report says how they only do between 17.4 and 25 to the gallon - sounds good to me, lots of cars do less!

To quote the BBC; "Stephen Tindale, executive director for Greenpeace in the UK and a former New Labour environment adviser, was one of the protesters who chained themselves to half-built chassis."

Clearly Mr Blair listened to him then when he opted for his Range Rover. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

[prprandall51]

So why pick on 4x4 owners? Because they represent the evil ruling middle classes. This is prejudice pure and simple, born out of envy.

If that were true it would be Ferrari owners that were the subject of this debate, not 4x4 owners.

Cars like the Kia thingummy and the Ssangyong whatsit are in there with the MLs and X5s. Both are as cheap as chips and as deadly as an ML.

Philip

 

[del320]

It's nonsense like this that gives Greenpeace a bad name and generally undermines the 'Greens' ethos....
"Making cars like this for urban use is crazy when 150,000 people are dying every year from climate change," said Greenpeace's Ben Stewart. - and how many of these good folk have choked on the exhaust of a 4x4?

"Range Rover do less (sic) miles to the gallon than the model T Ford." ...and your point is, caller?????

Until there is an attempt to curtail the proliferation of air travel, folk will jump up and down casting blame on on any soft target - stop driving 4x4s, compost your newspapers and drink your own pee...

BTW, I'm no fan of urban 4x4s - I had a smile at someone executing a 3 point turn at the end of our street just now, in a BMW X5, and - oooooh, he had to bump o-h-h s-s-s-o-o-o c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-l-l-y onto the kerb to complete this tricky manoevre