Are MLs that bad?

[Dieter]

Hi Sir Dimec,

All 4 x 4's do not require nor do they have ladder frame chassis', e.g. X5 and XC90 and the forthcoming new ML etc.

Apart from the usual diatribe re pedestrian safety etc. you present no real evidence that 4 x 4's are 'decimating' other road users etc.. They can be no more, nor less dangerous than People Carrier's,Taxi's, Vans, Bentley's, RR's etc. etc. etc. which are as big, as heavy and far less controllable (due to lack of 4wd, esr etc. etc.).

"Stopping distance from 70 mph of just 167 ft. for an X5 4.4i with Sport Package - virtually identical to the stopping performance of a 740iL passenger car! BMW ..." see www.hispanianews.com/archive/2000/July21/07.htm - 33k

So you got that wrong as well.

What happens to the child who is hit by a sports car at 30 mph and gets hurled into the windscreen etc. etc.. Sports cars, hot hatches etc. are more likely to be 'whizzing' around the streets as compared with 4 x 4's which by their very nature tend to be driven more sedately etc.

I agree, absolutely, that bull bars ought to be banned.

I suppose it was transport research 'specialists' who championed the use of speed cameras etc. which have had little or no impact on overal accident rates etc. but have certainly succeeded in raising extra revenue etc. Are these same people that have kept our roads in the worse state in Europe such that many of them more resemble off road rather than on road conditions?

Please, please, please show me the evidence that 4 x 4's are proportionately more dangerous than other vehicles, not the hypothetical diatribe that if you were involved in an accident etc. I agree that the potential for harm is a function of mass (and speed and shape etc.) but this includes other vehicle types (people carriers etc. etc. see above) and not just 4 x 4's.

For example you quote "If I hit a child or pedestrian at 30mph they have some chance (~70%) of living. In a 4x4 they will almost certainly (~95%) be killed". I don't dispute this fact (but would like to know equivalent figure for a Porsche 911 etc.) but what is the real (audited figures) 'kill rate' for 4 x 4's?

In general accidents are caused predominantly by either driver failure (inattention etc.) or victim failure (running into road etc.) so I don't see how you can apportion so much 'blame' to a single class of vehicle which is just one of a whole range of vehicles. It's like saying that of all the big cats only the Lion is dangerous.

And by the way I listened to your post and 'heard' nothing. I read it and learned nothing.

Cheers,

 

[glojo]

Please, please, please show me the evidence that 4 x 4's are proportionately more dangerous than other vehicles, not the hypothetical diatribe that if you were involved in an accident etc. I agree that the potential for harm is a function of mass (and speed and shape etc.) but this includes other vehicle types (people carriers etc. etc. see above) and not just 4 x 4's.

Hi Dieter,
I am as guilty as the worst offenders of not being able to bite my own tongue when I passionately believe that someone is wrong, but recently I came to the decision that the forum rules (suggestions) are correct. We are not going to change views on this very hot potato and its far better to read, and then 'file' the message.

Take care and hopefully war is averted for another five minutes

Regards,
John

 

[RSAmey]

I have to agree on the bull bar issue. Ask yourself this, would you rather be hit by a 4x4 with a stell bar at the front or land on the deformable bonnet?
there is no need. If you want to "protect" your vehicle then I would put a tow bar on the back. There is no excuse for driving into the back of some one.

 

[Alfie]

Hi Sir Dimec,

All 4x4's ...........................................................................................................And by the way I listened to your post and 'heard' nothing. I read it and learned nothing.

Cheers,

Excellent Dieter, well said have a bannana :bannana:

I for one am getting bored with all the anti 4x4 brigade. All they say is the same old thing. Blah blah blah blah. Yawn............. Why dont they pick on white transits instead if they want something to pick on. Now they are a far greater danger to a far greater section of the community than pretty much anything else on the road.

Come on guys, move on, you all consistently lose the debate every time we have this subject pop up.

 

[Dieter]

Hi John,

There are very few absolutes so right and wrong are just opposite ends of the spectrum e.g. murder is wrong but what if there's a war? (it's still wrong but...). By definition each of us has a subjective viewpoint (because it's our own) and, therefore, it should be respected (even if not understood) i.e. 'agree to differ'. Objectivity resides in provision of supporting data and diatribe and 'shouting loudly' (both written and verbal) is not supporting data.

This approach to rational debate is (more) difficult to respect and should not go unchallenged.

Cheers,

 

[Ser Demec]

The late response is due to exams. Exams for an MSc in Transport Engineering and Sustainable Development at Imperial College London.

Most people who have an addiction, when presented with cold evidence of the harm of their addiction both to themselves and others, go into denial.

With 4x4's, those who have spent £30,000+ on one are hardly going to listen to reports which show again and again those vehicles which are harder to control, worse for everybody outside the vehicle, and which pump out huge amounts of CO2.

I did clearly state in my first mailing that I have no problem with 4x4 use where they are needed; farms, Scottish mountain tracks to a home, etc. What I object to is their use as a status symbol.

Regarding data to prove that 4x4's are worse for killing pedestrians than a saloon car (with very few exceptions) I think we all know I could swamp this forum with URLs of reports.

It actually doesn't matter if a 4x4 can stop in the same distance as a saloon car, it is the high bumper and bonnet profile which kills. This is the same for vans and trucks, but there are some (poor) reasons why they are being used - for goods transit.

I read an advert for a car the other day, which had 80,000 miles on the clock from 'school runs'. A scary thought in its own right considering our obeseogenic culture, but what was remarkable was what type of vehicle it was. A 2.5L diesel Volvo 7 seater? A 1.9L VW Sharan TDi? What sort of vehicle is needed to transport children to school these days then.

It was a 2 tonne 4.3L petrol 4x4 - a Range Rover HSE. It was spotless. Never been off road.

I have to ask - why?

Once you have seen what I have seen about the impact of 4x4 design on our roads you would wonder why I am so calm about this. But for know, enjoy your denial. One day we will look back and think 'we were all bonkers'.

Please - recognise your vehicle is a lethal weapon around children, pedestrians and cyclists. Believe me - you do not want to see want happens when your 4x4 hits someone.

Enjoy your responsible motoring,

Matt

 

[Alfie]

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

 

[andyw]

I think a 4x4 is pretty harmless around children, pedstrians etc, I haven't seen the one parked around here selling drugs/offering "lifts" or being generally menacing

A gun is a weapon - harmless until someone uses it
So is a knife....
so is a car....
so is a 4x4....

change the record - people are the danger - not the tools of choice

 

[prprandall51]

Watch out Matt (Ser Demec)!

When I first joined this forum and contributed to a 4x4 debate along the same lines as you, one contributer - clearly overcome by the level of articulation required to argue their point - resorted to posting a "Negative feedback" that simply said "Envious rubbish".

Three months later I am still not sure what was meant by that. Clearly, if I wanted an ML I would have bought one. So what I am supposed to be envious of, I don't know.

Bet I get another "Negative feedback" for this, too...

 

[Mike ML]

Walked past my ML this morning – the evil, devil worshiping thing growled at me and hissed “let me loose, let me loose”

Matt ????????? – Common mate

 

[glojo]

Please - recognise your vehicle is a lethal weapon around children, pedestrians and cyclists. Believe me - you do not want to see want happens when your 4x4 hits someone.

Enjoy your responsible motoring,

Matt

Hi Matt,
First off as a civilian, I have never owned a 4 x 4, but learnt to drive in a Landrover and then spent a number of years being driven, or chaffuered in them, so I am not biased either way.

I found your message to be both constructive and informative, BUT I am totally against banning, or restricting 4 x 4 type vehicles, purely on the issue of freedom of choice.

I note your signature contains a picture of a very nice Mercedes-Benz estate car, why not ban those, they are big, uneconomical and not really practical for most applications! I also own one and think they are brilliant.

What would you define as a 4 x 4? A little Fiat Panda is a 4 x 4 with a big front (relative to size) What about the Sierra 4 x 4? Subarau etc etc. Where do you start?

The economy arguement is plain and simply STUPID, government ministers use gas guzzling V8 powered cars just to drive 200 - 300 yards!!!! Does a V8 powered car burn more fuel than the ML270CDI?

The safety issue of the large 4 x 4 jeeps, 'terrorist' type pick-up trucks cannot be defended, but that is a matter of education and again sadly, peoples choice. Vans, trucks buses are all potential threats to road users, yes they are vehicles used for the job they are designed for, but we do not live in a Police state that dictates the type, colour of vehicle we must own.

Sorry to disagree but I enjoyed reading your message and good luck with the exams.

John

 

[Ser Demec]

From all these replies, no one has said why they bought a 4x4, or why they support their sale. The only sane answer is off road/very poor track use most of the time.

You lot c'mon! I've spent years in this space - you think I'd say something like this without being able to back it up?

Even Fifth Gear did a demo about bumper mis-match the other day...

Perhaps you would like to see some pictures of 4x4 'incidents'?

Matt

 

[OGiii]

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.

 

[OGiii]

Even Fifth Gear did a demo about bumper mis-match the other day...

They did. They also did one about a new 5* Espace hitting an old Espace head on at ~30mph, everybody in the old car would have died, those in the new car would have walked away.

Strictly speaking then all 5* cars should be banned, or all cars should be 4 or 5* and everything else should be scrapped.

 

[soofsayer]

I bought a new ML270 a couple of years ago, within weeks the dashboard was squeaking. Got rid of it after 6000 miles because the ride was all over the place and for £36k it didnt feel that special (I dont think i have been so disappointed by a car/4x4). Then bought a X5 Diesel - great ride, good cabin, bit hard on the suspension, held its money well.

My new ML is due in September, if old ML prices aren't low enough already, they will plummet further after the summer. Cheap second hand MB - lots of metal for your money - but for good reason - not a great vehicle.

If you are going to buy one - wait a few months - prices will drop further.

 

[prprandall51]

Walked past my ML this morning – the evil, devil worshiping thing growled at me and hissed “let me loose, let me loose”

There you go. Argument closed. This guy owns an ML and has admitted on this forum that the car is actually egging him on to set it free to cause chaos.

If MLs are actually doing this I cannot see how their owners can continue to defend them.

Philip

 

[peterchurch]

I have to say when the missus wanted a battletank. We did the rounds and Ended up with a CRV. They took 13th place over all, in the JD power this year, the 2nd highest ranked 4x4. (1st was a sanyong or something)
Looking at the two cars it shows why they got the places they did. The only thing I wish honda had was the more expansive range of engines that the ML has, and cruise control...

 

[Ser Demec]

I should add that my definition of 4x4's is the traditional view, sorry but I was not very specific. Of course there are Subaru's and 4-Matics etc out there. This strengthens my case against my definition of current 4x4 design - for added traction you don't need massive axle articulation except in extreme terrain. 'Traditional' 4x4s suffer from (including X5s):

-bumper/chassis mismatch with saloon type (being addressed by EU / NCAP Legislation)
-pedestrian protection (being addressed by EU / NCAP Legislation)
-rear blind spot (sensors locking out rear gear selection in trials)
-high CoG stability problems (electronics helps to a point)
-lethality of bull bars just for fashion statement (feeble progress)

As one reply said - yaaawwwn - yes it is boring. I get bored reading about death and serious injury caused by drivers who have lost all sense of social responsibility. If a jumbo jet crashed and killed everyone on board once a month in the UK you would be shocked and demand action.

But this is the level of carnage we get from motor traffic. I don't think this is right, neither does the World Health Organisation. There are many motoring issues which the general public seems to accept which I don't. I can't understand why so much death and injury is acceptable. Perhaps I am the odd one out and none of you agree with me.

I bought a Mercedes because of innovation in safety features. This is one of the cheapest 7 seaters to run. The 'old' in-line six is perfect for running on bioDiesel.

Maybe these subjects are a bit too intense for this forum, and seems to spoil the fun of ownership? I am not opposed to this fun, just recognise your total impact on society.

I'll not mention this anymore.

Matt

 

[Alfie]

I'll not mention this anymore.

Matt

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

 

[glojo]

I'll not mention this anymore.

That would be sad. If we cannot speak freely then it is a great shame. Using sarcasm or bad language does not help win any arguement. I for one am enjoying reading your posts. It seems okay to blast the 'idiot' bike riders, but woe betide anyone for speaking out about 4 x 4's. You are speaking out about something that you have a strong opinion on, don't be brow beaten.

I see you are having difficulty defining a 4 x 4. That is the major hurdle with any attempted legislation. As soon as a definition is created, manufacturers will simply build around it.

I find it strange how you are against 4 x 4's on grounds of safety, but have a Mercedes-Benz estate car that you use as a 7 seater. What are your views on those rear seats that only have the rear tailgate as an exit point? """Most people who have an addiction, when presented with cold evidence of the harm of their addiction both to themselves and others, go into denial.""""

Incidentally I used to have a folder full of very graphic fatal road accidents involving motor cycles which I always showed my students. All vehicles are potential killers, it is the drivers though that pull the trigger.

Keep up the debate,
John