Chelsea Tractors are Safest

In an accident , would you rather be ...

  • In a 4x4 hitting a car

    Votes: 30 96.8%
  • In a car being hit by a 4x4

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • Total voters
    31

prprandall51

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
2,278
Location
In hiding
Car
Audi
It is just a load of disconnected statistics. You can get statistics to say anything you want - including rubbish like "4x4s are safer".
 

grober

MB Master
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
29,251
Location
Perth, Scotland
Car
W204 C200CDI Estate
Behaviour of SUV and MPV-type vehicles in collisions with roadside safety barriers
Roadside safety barriers are designed to deflect errant vehicles back onto the carriageway, preventing them from encountering potentially dangerous off-road hazards or from crossing into the opposing carriageway on dual carriageways. However, in recent years there is a perception that the numbers of so-called Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and of Multi-Purpose Vehicles (MPVs) on UK roads has increased significantly, and there are concerns that these vehicles, by virtue of their greater mass and height, may not be well catered for by the current design of safety barrier, which is tested to withstand an impact with a 1500kg standard car only. Motor caravans also give cause for concern in this respect. This report describes a simple criterion which could be used to differentiate between SUVs, MPVs and motor caravans on the one hand, and standard cars on the other. The perceived increase in numbers of SUVs and MPVs on UK roads is also confirmed to be real. An analysis of UK National accident statistics is presented, which indicates that the occupants of these larger vehicles generally incur less severe injuries than occupants of standard cars, though this may well change as the growth in numbers of SUVs and MPVs changes the composition of the vehicle fleet. Only a small proportion of road accidents involve barrier strikes, and the involvement of a barrier is associated with increased likelihood of rollover and increased injury severity for occupants of all vehicle types. However, the increases in rollover incidence and in injury severity are found to affect SUVs and MPVs to a much greater extent than standard cars. Detailed information on a small number of barrier strike accidents involving SUVs or MPVs taken from TRL’s specialised accident databases and from police accident reports held at TRL indicate that the barriers themselves are unlikely to be responsible for the observed increase in injury severity. The barriers are found to exceed their design specification in a number of cases, and the cause of the accident is found in several cases to be difficulty in controlling these larger vehicles in extreme situations. Speed and height of vehicle are found to be the best predictors of rollover incidence from the small number of cases where sufficient detail is available.

WARRANTY DIRECT didn't read this TRL report then?:confused:
 

Shude

Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
13,882
Location
Cheshire
Car
CLK55 AMG
It is just a load of disconnected statistics. You can get statistics to say anything you want - including rubbish like "4x4s are safer".
I think if the stats were more specific or properly analysed you might get more interesting results.

How many "boy-racers" are involved in collisions as a percentage and how many of them drive SUVs?

Electric cars are safer than anything else on the road, how many milk floats are involved in collisions?
 

Gucci

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
1,951
Location
London
Car
Jaguar XF 3.0 Ultimate Black
You see? My ML purchase is being fuelled everytime I look at the forum. The barriers may not be designed to take a hit, but they're less likely to do it in the first place.
 
OP
OP
S

spitzkop

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
117
Behaviour of SUV and MPV-type vehicles in collisions with roadside safety barriers
Roadside safety barriers are designed to deflect errant vehicles back onto the carriageway, preventing them from encountering potentially dangerous off-road hazards or from crossing into the opposing carriageway on dual carriageways. However, in recent years there is a perception that the numbers of so-called Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and of Multi-Purpose Vehicles (MPVs) on UK roads has increased significantly, and there are concerns that these vehicles, by virtue of their greater mass and height, may not be well catered for by the current design of safety barrier, which is tested to withstand an impact with a 1500kg standard car only. Motor caravans also give cause for concern in this respect. This report describes a simple criterion which could be used to differentiate between SUVs, MPVs and motor caravans on the one hand, and standard cars on the other. The perceived increase in numbers of SUVs and MPVs on UK roads is also confirmed to be real. An analysis of UK National accident statistics is presented, which indicates that the occupants of these larger vehicles generally incur less severe injuries than occupants of standard cars, though this may well change as the growth in numbers of SUVs and MPVs changes the composition of the vehicle fleet. Only a small proportion of road accidents involve barrier strikes, and the involvement of a barrier is associated with increased likelihood of rollover and increased injury severity for occupants of all vehicle types. However, the increases in rollover incidence and in injury severity are found to affect SUVs and MPVs to a much greater extent than standard cars. Detailed information on a small number of barrier strike accidents involving SUVs or MPVs taken from TRL’s specialised accident databases and from police accident reports held at TRL indicate that the barriers themselves are unlikely to be responsible for the observed increase in injury severity. The barriers are found to exceed their design specification in a number of cases, and the cause of the accident is found in several cases to be difficulty in controlling these larger vehicles in extreme situations. Speed and height of vehicle are found to be the best predictors of rollover incidence from the small number of cases where sufficient detail is available.

WARRANTY DIRECT didn't read this TRL report then?:confused:
Now then, is this a direct reprint of the Dtf report or a managed quotation specifically highlighting the points suitable to the opinion which is being put forward? Like statistics, reprints are there only for a point of view unless reprinted in its entirety!

One point of note, the Warranty Direct link states 23rd February 2007 as its posting date.... have I lost 2 days??
 

Dieter

Active Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
457
Location
Kent
Car
2009 Jaguar XF 3.0D 'S'
Hi,

This is an independent report that claims 4 x 4's are both involved in less types of some accidents and that occupants are 'safer'

How can that be "just a load of disconnected statistics"?

Ultimately the rise in sales of 4 x 4's continues because people do feel safer in them and you would think, that by now, if there was good evidence to the contrary it would be forthcoming/obvious.

So all you 4 x 4 haters 'put up or shut up' ;)

Cheers,
 

prprandall51

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
2,278
Location
In hiding
Car
Audi
Hi,

This is an independent report that claims 4 x 4's are both involved in less types of some accidents and that occupants are 'safer'

How can that be "just a load of disconnected statistics"?

Ultimately the rise in sales of 4 x 4's continues because people do feel safer in them and you would think, that by now, if there was good evidence to the contrary it would be forthcoming/obvious.

So all you 4 x 4 haters 'put up or shut up' ;)

Cheers,

Ah, Mr Dieter, we meet again. And the subject is.... 4x4s!

But Dieter, it is a load of unconnected statistics. I am sure that people do feel safer in their 4x4s. I know I feel incredibly safe in my Land Rover. But I, like every other 4x4 driver, am just kidding myself. It's a combination of physics, research and common sense. I think we have covered it all before on other threads, I only posted here because the Warranty Direct article was surprisingly muddled and misleading.

I don't hate 4x4s (I own 2) thus eliminating envy and hate from the range of possible motivations for my opinions.

Philip
 

fuzzer

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
7,939
Location
Glasgow
Car
F25 X3 20d SE
poll added , i want to manipulate the stats myself a little and see where we get to :)
 

prprandall51

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
2,278
Location
In hiding
Car
Audi
Until this poll, I had believed that the Human Rights Legislation was the ultimate exprssion of the self-interested obsession of the society in which we live.
Did I miss a joke in here somewhere?

EDIT: I assume I have, so I retract this post and apologise to Fuzzer.
 
Last edited:

blue190

Active Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
120
Location
Crowthorne, Berks
Car
Birthday present - 94L 190e 2.0 in Black, 88F Volvo 740 auto estate (only for towing!!)
If you want to know what being hated by every other road user is like try driving real tractors for a living. I do, but i revel in the scorn put upon me by everyone else on the road. Once i go off duty i make up for lost speed in my car though. Well I will do once its back from having its head gasket fixed.
 

fuzzer

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
7,939
Location
Glasgow
Car
F25 X3 20d SE
no offence intended, i was just playing with the poll figures to prove a point. Didnt mean to get morbid if thats the slant. I just wanted to show as was saying its how you ask the question that gives the results.
 

Alfie

Authorised Forum Sponsor
SUPPORTER
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
8,057
Location
Surrey/Cotswolds
Car
W169 A, W205 C, W451 smart
I think if the stats were more specific or properly analysed you might get more interesting results.

How many "boy-racers" are involved in collisions as a percentage and how many of them drive SUVs?

Electric cars are safer than anything else on the road, how many milk floats are involved in collisions?

Milk floats are not in accidents because they are on the road when no-one else is!

I'd rather hit a petrol car than an electric one. All that acid spilling out everywhere is not a nice thought.
 

hawk20

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
4,344
Location
Lymington, Hampshire
Car
ML250 BlueTEC Sport Jan 2013
People in 4x4s are 50 times less likely to be killed in crashes with another car than those of small and medium-sized cars, according to the Department of Transport.
The safest cars for drivers are the Land Rover Defender, Mercedes ML class, Toyota Landcruiser and Isuzu Trooper.
The cars with the worst records for driver deaths and serious injuries are the old-style Mini, the Fiat Panda, pre-1993 Nissan Micra, Daewoo Matiz and Suzuki Swift.
The DoT looked at police reports of more than 138,000 crashes from 2000 to 2004. Drivers of small and medium-sized cars involved in collisions with another car had a one in 200 chance of being killed, compared with fewer than one in 10,000 for drivers of people-carriers and 4x4s.
Just three per cent of 4x4 drivers were killed or seriously injured in collisions, compared with seven per cent of small-car drivers.
The figures were published on the DoT's website but the study has not been publicised. Some small cars bucked the trend and showed it was possible to combine fuel efficiency with safety.
The Citroen C3, which weighs less than a tonne and travels 48 miles to the gallon, is twice as safe as the Honda CRV 4x4 which weighs 1.5 tonnes and gives 31mpg.
Some models have improved markedly over the past 15 years as makers have added features such as air bags and side-impact protection.
The Mini showed the biggest improvement with 14 per cent of drivers killed or seriously injured in collisions involving the original model, compared with five per cent of the new, BMW-produced version. The new Mini is twice as heavy, as well as taller, wider and longer.
Other models, such as the Nissan Sunny, Vauxhall Astra and Rover 200/400 and 25/45, improved little or not at all over the years.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said that the figures did not take account of how a car was driven.
The council's director, Rob Gifford, told The Times: "Younger drivers, who take more risks and have more crashes, are more likely to drive smaller, older cars.
"The big problem arises when a large and small vehicle collide. The high bumper of a 4x4 may override the structural reinforcement of a small car and smack into the interior where the occupants are sitting.
"We would all be safer if we all drove around in small or medium-sized cars. But the total car fleet is becoming more incompatible, with sales growing fastest in the biggest and smallest categories."
 

grober

MB Master
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
29,251
Location
Perth, Scotland
Car
W204 C200CDI Estate
Now then, is this a direct reprint of the Dtf report or a managed quotation specifically highlighting the points suitable to the opinion which is being put forward? Like statistics, reprints are there only for a point of view unless reprinted in its entirety!
One point of note, the Warranty Direct link states 23rd February 2007 as its posting date.... have I lost 2 days??

In answer to your enquiry the text I posted is a verbatim copy on the report summary as published by the TRL on their web site . You can check it here.
http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=6137&pid=220

The report is entitled.---
Behaviour of SUV and MPV-type vehicles in collisions with roadside safety barriers which I believe is the report the warranty direct is referring to?
Ironically if anyone is guilty of selectively extracting information its people who wrote the "NEWS RELEASE" issued by Warranty Direct. In one place they specifically introduce a statement from the SMMT who had nothing to do with the TRL'S report. The general tenure of the release is that SUV,s are "safer" vehicles and have had a bad press.
However if you read both texts carefully the message that emerges is that yes indeed you will as driver or passenger be "safer" in 4x4 / SUV type vehicle. HOWEVER as a driver or passenger in conventional car in a 2 car impact with a 4X4/ SUV you are twice as likely to be killed or seriously injured than those in the larger heavier vehicle. AND YOU STILL WONDER WHY many drivers of conventional cars have an "irrational" dislike them.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
S

spitzkop

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
117
In answer to your enquiry the text I posted is a verbatim copy on the report summary as published by the TRL on their web site . You can check it here.
http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=6137&pid=220
.
The report you posted was a managed reprint designed to highlight your opinion to the unbiased mind. The report on the link may contain similar wording but would have a different impact on a reader. Politicians love this trick, called Propaganda! Wether you intended it or not (propaganda) the damage has been done, as anyone reading this thread would encounter your version, then the link, would have there minds pre-biased to the initial highlighted wording.

EDIT: The TRL link is for the sale of the report, therefore what you are reading is a pre-text of what the Salesman wants his/her/its particular target audience to read. Ever seen a movie trailer, gets you all excited and you wait for the 'trailer action' to occur in the movie... and it doesnt or its a let down.... same thing!
 
Last edited:

Dieter

Active Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
457
Location
Kent
Car
2009 Jaguar XF 3.0D 'S'
Hi,

Poll is a 'tad' biased? I would certainly rather be in a lorry than a 4 x 4 in an accident (although I'd rather not be in an accident at all :eek: ).

As for implied 'poor' handling of 4 x 4's (Philip's physics, common sense and research) this may be true for 'older' off-roaders (Land Rovers etc. ;) ) but (at legal speeds) I don't believe it is true for the latest generation of electronically supported 'soft roaders'.

Having been able to abuse :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: the new ML @ Castlecombe (courtesy of MB) I'm certainly don't think I'm "kidding myself" about my safety :) .

I thought there was a big push over the years to get people to buy vehicles based on safety rather than speed. In the case of uptake of 4 x 4's this policy has certainly succeeded.

Please don't be scared of me ;) , I won't crash into you or topple over but if you crash into me, that's tough ;) .

Cheers,
 

BlackC55

Authorised Forum Sponsor
SUPPORTER
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
19,741
Location
Portsmouth, Hampshire.
Car
E55K SL500 E300Hybrid E250X3 Viano C55 E450Cab A180 Smart 44 Brabus
I like driving my Range Rover because of the big engine, the overall size of it, it tows a horsebox and its two fingers up to convention. I love driving it because I like the feeling it gives me not because its supposed to be safer.
 
OP
OP
S

spitzkop

Active Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
117
Poll is a 'tad' biased? I would certainly rather be in a lorry than a 4 x 4 in an accident (although I'd rather not be in an accident at all :eek: ).
Not my poll, makes a bit of a mockery of a forum when threads can be modified ad-lib.
 

Benzowner

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
Location
Bristol
Car
Qashqai Acenta Premium 1.6Diesel
Surely all this goes to prove is that the bigger the vehicle the safer you are. That is according to statistics. So why don't we all pass our HGV and drive lorries, 56mphon motorways 40/50mph on A roads/dual carriageways, obviously much fewer accidents. Maybe not the size of the vehicle, might be the speed:p :D :D On another note, what is the survival rate on SUV to SUV collision, unstopable mass imoveable object:D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom