Are MLs that bad?

[glojo]

Hi Bobby,
I am sure that everyone that has taken an advanced driving course will come away with something that will remain with them for life.

I respect and understand your decision and am pleased that we are not 'getting down and dirty'.

Advanced driving should not be seen as FAST driving. If we must go down any of those routes, I would describe it as learning to 'Make progress safely' but Plodd would be in a better position to comment on this issue.

Advanced driving courses are NOT for everyone and there is no way we should try to force this issue, BUT if your wife shows the slightest interest then I would encourage her to take the plunge.

My old Royal Marine Sergeant once said, "TSon!!!! (He was NOT my father). The day you pass your test, is the day you start learning bad habits!" I rarely see anything that contradicts that, and it would be a far safer place if we ALL looked at our own standard of driving and NOT at otheres.

Have I gone off topic or what!!

Regards,
John

 

[prprandall51]

I'm shocked. You own two 4x4's and yet you argue the point against them

As I said, I am not blind to their potential as killing machines.

Look at my signature again and you will see that I have owned a 4x4 until very recently in fact.

I know, I couldn't resist ithe opportunity to taunt you, though.

Last sentence doesnt make sense. Shouldnt it read '..since you own nothing that I covet'

I am being a pedant. We spoil-sports are like that

You said I was jealous but in fact I can only be jealous of something I own, in this case I could have been envious of you, but not jealous.

For example, were I going out with Abi Titmuss ( ) I might well be jealous of all the blokes from whom she gets attention bacause she was supposed to be mine. But I am not going out with her so she isn't mine and therefore I am envious of all the blokes on Celebrity Love Island since I would like to be there instead of them.

In fact (off-topic) I bet she is a living nightmare so I am neither jealous or envious. Well, a teeny bit...
Gotta go now, here comes the wife - she thinks I am working and here I am thinking about driving a 4x4 all over Celebrity Love Island with Abi at my side.

 

[Alfie]

I will discuss the literal meanings of these words with my wife (who holds both a latin degree and an english degree amongst her qualifications), over lunch and a bottle of wine!

More later............

 

[Mr E]

I posted this a while ago, but no comments........would be interested in replies as I'm working with an OEM on the "softer" factors around automotive safety, difference between active and passive safety systems and how telematics can help (if poss):

--------------------
One interesting piece was taking groups of people to a track and showing them an SUV (Explorer, iirc) and a Boxster. They were asked what the safer vehicle was - most (75%+) pick the SUV.

Each person then has to execute a number of maneuvers at highway speed - braking, evasion, lane changing, etc, in both vehicles.

Ask the same question - 75%+ say Boxster.

Then each person is taken through the same moves by a pro driver........

Ask the same question - 95%+ say Boxster.


The US research points to the psychological "safety" factors - it's a bigger car and therefore must be safer (seen in the stats for larger US cars as well). The other factor seems to be "comfort" - big seats, cupholders and good quality sound systems remove the driver from the "driving" experience and put them in to a "home" environment, with the subsequent loss of hazard-awareness.

The Boxster / SUV equation is more difficult, but the psychology seems to play a big part again - the SUV comes with (highly advertised) safety features such as airbags, ABS, stability control, etc, etc, etc, and therefore must be safer than the sports car - even though the sports car has been designed from the outset for good handling and dynamic performance.

There's a bunch of research on active vs passive safety features and how passive features are more effective at accident and injury prevention, but active features are the ones that consumers pick up on.

The main SUV / 4x4 problem I come across (and I live in the sticks) is that most owners do not know the capabilities of their vehicle. "4x4 = more grip = safer = drive as fast in the rain / ice / snow as in the dry". I quite often borrow next door's old landcruiser to tow modern 4x4s out from the ditch on a cold morning.......

The worst one was a collision between a Jeep Cherokee and a Mondeo - after the collision the Jeep demolished a garden wall, 3 Leylandii (perhaps not so bad ) and stopped short of the house by about 6 inches. The three occupants in the Mondeo had to be cut out and airlifted to hospital. Caused by not understanding the capabilities of the car ("I thought with 4-wheel drive I could stop in time........)

 

[glojo]

Then each person is taken through the same moves by a pro driver........

Ask the same question - 95%+ say Boxster.

I think I understand what you are saying but the whole idea is surely flawed when the real world kicks in.

If that group were all car drivers and you took their cars off them. What vehicle would they ACTUALLY go out and physically buy just out of those two that were demonstrated?

I cringe whenever I see the 'Car of the Year' Sometimes common sense kicks in and a worthy vehicle is selected, but usually it is something completely out of left field. Fiat Multipla??? (can't remember the spelling) Springs to mind. Ask people questions and the answers you get are not really a true indication of the real World.

How many members love the CLS and say they would buy one? Then look at how many people actually put their money where there opinion is!

Booby Dazzler perhaps highlights your point. Take him to the situation you have just described and no doubt he will answer in exactly the way you have outlined, but I gaurantee he will still buy his wife exactly the same vehicle as he previously decided.

I hope I have managed to put my words into some sort of sense.

If I have we will have to discuss consultancy fees!!!

Regards,
John

 

[Alfie]

You said I was jealous but in fact I can only be jealous of something I own, in this case I could have been envious of you, but not jealous..

Short lunch today .

Sir, I defer to you on the point of definition. She who must be obeyed and rules on all matters in our house agrees with your definition.

Have a good weekend whichever vehicle you choose.

 

[Mr E]

Hi John,

That's precisely the point - when you take the emotion, etc, out of it and present "reality" (as much as you can do in these type of exercise) then persons tend to come to a rational conclusion - that is, the car with the better passive features is actually the safer vehicle to be in.

What happens is that when you come out of the sterile world of the "lab", all the other non-rational things start to kick in.

So, in the real world (where what you actually need is a car that grips, stops, accelerates, changes direction, etc, in a safe and controlled manner) we get trapped by all the other things (which is why ad men get paid a shed-load of money in order to manipulate our decision-making process).

What is safer - a vehicle that will safely change direction and collide/deform in a controlled manner to minimise decceleration injuries, or an army of airbags in a more wobbly platform?

Our perception (inbuilt or manipulated - doesn't matter) tells us that bigger is safer - so the big car is better than the small car, and the big SUV is king. Once you get that idea, you "relax" in your big, safe vehicle because the subconscious says that "hey, this is nice and safe, enjoy yourself". You begin to wind down the concentration..........and the research (in cars, planes, boats, armchairs, etc, all show this to be the case in controlled conditions and the real world) backs this up.

Another classic example of this is ABS - great stuff (I've even taken my hands off the wheel and emergency-braked at over 100 mph on a track and it stops in a straight line! Also half-tarmac, half gravel at over 70 - no hands). The common misconception is that ABS stops you quicker - wrong, it's stops the wheels from locking and enables the car to stay under control. The upshot is that you MAY stop quicker, but the lifesaver is that you can avoid whatever it is in front, or at least position your car so that it poses least danger to you and the other party. But how many people think that ABS will stop me in time 'cos that is what it does and so they become blissfully unaware of how long it does take to stop.

Before anyone gets too defensive , we're probably all aware of how these things work - we're on a motoring forum and would never dream of tailgating anyone.............

Anyway - this is going way off-topic - but to finish up, I have the same problem with most SUV drivers as I do with Volvo drivers.......they think they have bought a safe vehicle and so they begin to shut down, even when they are not aware of it.

Can always rely on you, John, to keep these interesting topics going

 

[Mr E]

BTW - Fiat Multipla......not my cup of tea, but some friends have one. Fabulous car, very practical, plenty of space, economical. Pig-ugly (or unique, as they say).

At least they dared to be different...............

 

[glojo]

At least they dared to be different...............

That might not be the word I would choose..

I think it was 5th Gear or maybe Top Gear?? that demonstrated the safety features of the Smart car. I was truly impressed, but there is no way I would ever convince my family to buy one.

Regards,
John

 

[prprandall51]

BTW - Fiat Multipla......not my cup of tea, but some friends have one. Fabulous car, very practical, plenty of space, economical. Pig-ugly (or unique, as they say).

At least they dared to be different...............

Ok, the argument is starting to swing back in favour of the 4x4

 

[glojo]

Ok, the argument is starting to swing back in favour of the 4x4

I think Mr E's message kinda shoots that theory in the foot.... but in the most subtle of ways. The pendelum swingeth (Doesn't this topic usually get the old heave-ho??)


Did anyone see the horrible collision between the 4 x 4 and the Police Officer. When I slowed the footage down you actually see a woman Police Officer crouching down, she see's the pick-up truck coming and just moves her body out of the way, but the casualty get struck just as he starts to turn. How on earth he was not killed is truly amazing. I think he should have bought a lottery ticket instead of going to work though.


John

 

[prprandall51]

Can't find the footage on the Sky website, John. It looks like I will have to hand this one over to your superior surfing skills....

Have a good weekend everyone

Philip

 

[glojo]

Can't find the footage on the Sky website, John. It looks like I will have to hand this one over to your superior surfing skills....

Have a good weekend everyone

Philip

Just been on the BBC1 National News. They had better footage and it looks like it was the female driver of a crashed car that just avoided being struck and not as I first suggested a woman Police officer. The Police officer that was hit is now giving interviews and is hailed as a 'hero'. The footage might be shown later tonight, but by crikey is turns your stomach.

Havea nice week-end,

John

 

[Dieter]

"Here's an idea: lets forget this is about MLs and imagine the government is going to legislate all 4x4s off the road (not so unbelievable, is it?). What would your arguments be to your MP to sway him to your case?"

Hi all,

How would the Porsche, EVO, Impreza, S-class 7-class etc. defend their position to be on the road?

There are many vehicles, which for many (different) reasons would have trouble justifying their existence. SUV's/4 x 4's are flexible vehicles etc. and thus can just as well be used for the school run and (fully laden) trips to Scotland etc. etc. If these are your requirements then this is the (type of) vehicle you may choose. Alternatives are to run two cars, hire vehicles for specific occasions etc. etc.but is this practical?

Frankly I can't see the point of 'superfast' SUV's (but I'm not bothered that people choose them ) but, in general the majority of SUV's purchased (as with most vehicles) are not these flagship models and in the case of 4 x 4's are predominantly diesel (where that's an option). As for the global warming/CO2 arguement this relates both to mpg (which varies as to your driving style) AND miles travelled etc. Thus 'pollution' is a function of total fuel burnt (includes distance travelled) and this is why we (UK) have the highest fuel tax in Europe (the World?) due to the fuel/carbon tax escalator only recently abandoned by this Government.

Where did this carbon tax go? Certainly didn't go to reduce/trap CO2 from power stations nor fund renewable energy sources etc. etc.

Global warming is an extremely complicated phenomenon which is a result of both increased CO2 output (energy production) and decreased CO2 sinks (Brazillian rain forests etc.). One jumbo jet flight, on average, produces as much CO2 as 77,000 cars!!!! i.e. 13 jumbo jet flights is equivalent to 1,000,000 cars. However flight also contributes to global dimming (contrails) which, has to some extent, ameliorated global warming. Banging on about 4 x 4's may make you feel eco-friendly, but frankly without a global approach (output down AND sinks up), it's just pi...ng in the wind.

One other major gripe againt 4 x 4's is that they reflect the excesses of our Society i.e. there really are no real reasons against them (cf many other vehicles) but they represent something extravagant about our society etc. and thus may be frowned upon (by those more holier than us).

Most of the accident statistics relating to 4 x 4's are from the States where even their sports cars handle like blancmages . I have not seen any reliable statistics that show 4 x 4's cause proportionately more accidents than other vehicles. This is consistent with the relatively constant road death rates (1 casualty is 1 too many but we live in a real world) seen over the last 10 years (i.e. since the introduction of speed cameras ) in which time 4 x 4 ownership has significantly increased.

Overall this argument is not about winning or losing it's about being objective and being able to choose the vehicle most suited to one's requirements. Else shouldn't we all be driving UK Lada equivalents?

The basic fact is that the 4 x 4 arguments appears to be 'black or white'. I'm just trying to inject a shade of grey .

Cheers,

 

[del320]

Go read State of Fear and its references then come back and talk about "global warming"

Global warming is an extremely complicated phenomenon ....

...thank goodness someone has read Michael Crichton's indispensable techno-thriller...

 

[Dieter]

Hi Del,

No I haven't.

Cheers,

 

[gary350]

Back to the M Class topic I just posted results of the latest JD Power Owners Survey on the Quality thread, it goes something like this, the M class finished in 120th position out of 124 cars this was cars from Aug 2002 to Sep 2005, published in Jun 2005 What Car. The newer versions are supposed to be better lets face it they could not be much worse.

gary

 

[peterchurch]

...thank goodness someone has read Michael Crichton's indispensable techno-thriller...

No the books crap but the bibliography at the back makes some interesting reading. The larger mostly forgotten point that information is only as good as its source... most people will happily adopt views without understanding the motives...

 

[IanA2]

Hi Alfie,
Thanks for the reply. It is certainly sounds a nice looking vehicle. Has yours got the 'humps' on the bonnet?
Regards,
John

Ah hm...Humps?.... HUMPS? I'll have you know these works of Art are named "Power Domes"
Quite why I can't say, her indoors fell about laughing when I told her. She says a car called Tinkerbell can't have Power Domes!!

PS. They don't make it go any faster.....!!

 

[del320]

Ah! But Chrome Pedals Will!!!