How safe are ......?

[Dieter]

Hi,

Just read this in this weeks Autoexpress re: increasing anti 4 x4 sentiment.

This is a quote from Land Rover boss (Matthew Taylor):

"A US study found SUVs are 20% less likely to be involved in an accident. The high seating position and superb visibility improve the chances of spotting hazards. Larger vehicles are easier for other road users to see, making it less likely someone will pull out in front of you. Plus, thanks to their 4WD, SUVs are often better equipped to deal with poor road conditions"

I suppose the first comment will/would be 'well he would say that wouldn't he? but his first point must be backed up by data (US study) and the remaining points seem logical.

Cheers,

Dieter

 

[andy_k]

It's that old saying about lies, damn lies and statistics all over again, any set of figures can say just what you want them to say, there was even a Tory party member on the news today denying that the Hartlepool result earlier this week was a bad result for them

perhaps the guy from Land Rover should read this

http://www.suv.org/safety.html

or this from euro ncap talking about the freelander which manages a paltry 3 stars

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=10&id2=142

or the Range Rover which gets 4

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=9&id2=126.

in both tests the pedestrian certainly fares very badly and this is a trend that carries through nearly all of the large 4WD vehicles they tested.

Kind of ironic really that the vehicles that are used so often for school runs are the very ones most likely to kill or injure kids if they hit them.

Let's not start another anti 4WD thread though - the last one got closed down when people started hurling insults

Andy

 

[Shude]

It's that old saying about lies, damn lies and statistics all over again, any set of figures can say just what you want them to say...

Yep, statistics can be a wonderful thing, and can confirm or refute either side of an argument in a lot of cases

in both tests the pedestrian certainly fares very badly and this is a trend that carries through nearly all of the large 4WD vehicles they tested.

From the looks of some SUVs a pedestrian would most likely be killed if simply brushing against them!

I suppose the first comment will/would be 'well he would say that wouldn't he? but his first point must be backed up by data (US study) and the remaining points seem logical.

This statement is a classic:
"The high seating position and superb visibility improve the chances of spotting hazards. Larger vehicles are easier for other road users to see, making it less likely someone will pull out in front of you."

could also be written as:
"The high seating position and superb visibility reduces the chances of a normal-car driver spotting hazards. Larger vehicles are easier for other road users to see, making it less likely someone will be able to see the road at junctions and therefore pull out safely."

*looks left* clear!
*looks right* front end of an SUV!
*waits*

of course I'm anti-suv so naturally everything I say is massively biased

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

Fair comment and I (have already) agree(d) that in a 'crash' an SUV is more dangerous, especially to pedestrians (like vans, trucks lorries etc.).

However the major point of this friendly debate (from my point of view) is whether SUVs are, in fact, involved in less accidents (e.g. 20% less). If so is this reduction in accident rate significant i.e. are SUVs proportionately less dangerous than other vehicles?

Debate based on facts is healthy (cheers Andy_K). As the owner of an SUV I am sensitive to the building critiscisms etc. so I have a vested interest in facts (rather than rhetoric). I suppose I empathise strongly with comments re high visibilty being safe(er) for me, at least. Also we all share roads with higher vehicles (vans, lorries etc.) so we all frequently (have to) drive under these low (forward) visibility conditions etc.

Ultimately I suppose the major cause of road accidents are driver rather than vehicle based.

Cheers,

Dieter

 

[MainMan]

The SUV gets better visibility at the expense of everybody else. So it is likely to cause accidents - ones that it may not be involved in from an insurance point of view.

To slightly change the argument (because I suspect there are entrenched viewpoints on this subject) the other problem with SUVs is that they are heavy and have the aerodynamics of a brick. This means that they are only really viable, except for rich people, with a diesel engine. Diesel engines may well be OK on the CO2 emission front but, as I was trying to say in the earlier thread before it became abusive, CO2 is not the main problem. It's a naturally occurring gas and cars account for a small fraction of the total CO2 output. What diesels spew out are large amounts of oxides of nitrogen and particulates. The oxides of nitrogen are not naturally occurring and are very poisonous. They cause asthma and lung damage, just as the PM10s do. This is why I think tax should not be based on CO2. It should be based on vehicle weight.

 

[Apial]

Re pollution,

domestic heating creates far more pollution than all the transport put together.

If you cut the poplulation size by 20%, then you will cut pollution by 20% too. A vasectomy for Mr Blair?
Alternatively you might persuade the Americans to sign up to the Kyoto Agreement, seeing as they produce as much CO2 as all the rest of the World put together!

 

[Satch]

Putting fuel/CO2/size issues to one side for the moment, in general the safety or otherwise of any vehicle is linked to the experience and skill level of the person behind the wheel.

Inxperienced driver + high centre of gravity+ drive it like a road car = Problem going to happen. There is absolutely no question: do not need to be a genius to work that out and indeed this is very clearly set out in the Owners Handbook of my Toyota Land Cruiser along with dire warnings.

Now, my wife or myself happen to use this 4x4 on a daily basis for a number of practical reasons. No shortage of 4X4's in our area but ours is one of the few mud splattered & dog infested ones. (What is more, we do not even have to go looking for the mud. It find us)

But most 4x4's we see tend to pootle about looking very, very pretty indeed. Most will perhaps only have the low range or diff. locks used in anger a few times and certainly not whilst negotiating tricky ground. So inappropriate and unnecessary perhaps, but it is a matter of free will and choice.

Thus we drive a vehicle which is large, slow, handles relatively poorly and is more likely to fall over than conventional cars if used at speed or driven badly. But it does not matter because along with many others we know that and drive accordingly.

But I am sorry to say that far too many people with SUV's or 4x4's appear not to understand or maybe are in some form of denial. But that is a case for education, not legislation.

Who knows what else would then be capable of being legislated against on grounds of "road safety"?

 

[Will]

Not that I am anti-suv/4x4/soft-roaders or whatever (in fact, I have owned a couple and my father drives one!), but I note with interest this 20% figure.

What springs to mind is that the 'increased visibility' that is offered with a 4x4 or other high vehicle. Surely if everybody owned and drove a 4x4 or similar, the benefit of increased visibility will be diminished. Ie, you will be no higher up than anybody else!

Another point I remember hearing about was relating to some sort of proposed increased tax for large 4x4 type vehicles. IIRC, it was something like 4 times as much as other cars. Surely this would lead to £50K Range Rovers etc becoming an even greater symbol of status. Ie, I can afford to buy a £50K car, can afford the fuel and insurance costs, and still have plenty spare to pay this 4x tax charge!

Oh, and if by chance it was a 4x tax increase, the name '4 x 4' would be quite fitting

Just food for thought.

Cheers,

Will

 

[Richard W]

Anyone thought of the obstruction of visibility that 4x4s cause for the rest of the world....?

We've agreed that they're bigger heavier and slower than most other passenger cars on the road, so when they're in the outside lane of the motorway (and this applies to MPVs too) the car following has a much reduced view ahead thus decreasing their hazard perception and increasing their risk of accident. So the 4x4 driver gets all ars*y when the car behind moves over to try and look round it to see what's infront... (noit sure I've explained myself well here but those of you who've sat behind 4x4s MPVs vans etc will know what I mean). The other hazard is juctions, there may be a motorbike behind the 4x4 that screens the bike from the car, car doesn't see bike, pulls out and whack it's the car drivers fault again.

So the fault of the accident then becomes the car that's affected by the sheer size of the 4x4 and it's a case of 'never been in an accident but seen loads!'

It's not that I don't like 4x4s (I'd quite like an X5 actually) it's just the attitude (and in many cases, incompetance) of most of those who drive them.

I also think it's sad that manufacturers such as MB are shifting towards this 'big vehicle' design with psuedo 4x4/MPV crossover styling. Shouldn't they be finding safer designs that are more space efficient... Oh sorry, I forgot that's not trendy and there isn't much profit in that....!

 

[MainMan]

domestic heating creates far more pollution than all the transport put together.

That may be true but it's still mainly CO2 - not the extremely poisonous oxides of nitrogen and damaging PM10s. These are what diesels spew out and they kill people. Diesel fuel should be taxed to the extent that it's no cheaper to run them than petrol vehicles.

On the subject of SUVs, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the whole thing begin in America as a way of getting round the required manufacturer's mpg averages? Commercial vehicles are exempt and SUVs were regarded as commercial vehicles. Nobody expected them to become so popular.

 

[PJH]

Got my 2p worth ready, then read Richard W post and put it away again.
Yes, you're right.

The argument about better visibility only applies if the vehicle is front is smaller than yours. If we all drove taller vehicles we would be back to square one.

Someone we knew a few years back changed from a Range Rover to a BMW car. He realised how calmer he was driving the car. The so called advantage of better visibility had made him more impatient.

Some people have argued that 4x4 don't take up more road space than cars saying that the 4x4 'footprint' is the same. The 'footprint' may be the same as an E Class, but the aren't many Fiesta sized 4x4/SUV. Any anyway, if you are near a BIG vehicle do you give it more space because it needs it?
If you do allow bigger vehicles more 'safety space' around them then the 'footprint' becomes a lot bigger.

 

[Flyer]

My 2p:

Take them or leave them. If I had the money, I would definitely have one on the drive (too big to fit in the garage ). They are extremely useful and as a keen mountain biker and useless sailor, the ability to load up with all the kit for a weekend away doing both is very attractive. But I don't think I could cope with one as my only car ...

Can't say that I have ever been bothered about the size of one in front/behind/to the side of me. After all, there are enough vans and trucks on the road who occupy the same road space.

No, I'm firmly in the camp that we should resist all attempts by the government to charge differently for 4x4s, SUVs, whatever, on the basis that they are "unnecessary"; my CLK has a 3200cc V6 engine which somebody, somewhere will be saying is unnecessary. I get 25 mpg on a good run which somebody, somewhere will be saying is terrible and that I have no need to have such an inefficient engine. My car only has four seats and somebody, somewhere .... you get the picture.

Before we know it, we'll all be driving in those Ford shoeboxes at precisely 29.9 mph ...

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

So if I understand the above correctly if, at a junction, 'you' hit a bike which has been following a van/truck/lorry etc. then it's not 'your' fault . I generally wait till the road is clear before pulling out!!

Overall I agree wholeheartedly with Flyer. 4 x 4's are just one of a great many 'dislikes' on the road. Ban all middle lane hoggers/tail gaters (who can't see in front of me cos they're too close) etc. etc.

As a 4 x 4 driver who's not had/caused or even remotely enabled an accident I shall continue to enjoy the varied benefits of my two ton monster .

Is it true that modern diesels are as bad as suggested? I'm sure that before the advent of common rail etc. they were, but with modern engines/low sulphur fuel and especially particulate filters (Euro IV compliant) etc. I'm not so sure they are now.

Bath University site compares petrol/diesel emmisions:

http:/www.bath.ac.uk/~en2djl/diesel.htm

Anyway I agree with all of you that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Cheers,

 

[Apial]

Perhaps we should ban motorbikes too? It is obvious to the antics I see around here that the riders are not safety conscious or they woudn't get on them in the first place. Motorbikes have 7X the death rate of other road users, perhaps not their fault, but still a fact. If they had been driving a SUV 88% of them might be alive today.

The general thing though is people just love to ban anything that is different from them.

 

[MainMan]

The trouble with these particulate filters is that I suspect they stop working fairly quickly and they're not covered by the MOT. But the main benefit to clean air would be if the 10% of vehicles that pour out smoke - both petrol and diesel - were put off the road. But then I guess there wouldn't be any buses left.

 

[Shude]

Is it true that modern diesels are as bad as suggested? I'm sure that before the advent of common rail etc. they were, but with modern engines/low sulphur fuel and especially particulate filters (Euro IV compliant) etc. I'm not so sure they are now.

Diesels are the latest popular enemy in the global warming argument! Diesels produce soot, not just cars but anything burning diesel. The soot has darkened the snow and ice at the ice-caps and due to the reduced reflectivity of the snow and ice they're soaking up more sun, getting warm, and melting! Try searching the web for this! Diesel is evil!

 

[anarchy-inc]

Diesels are the latest popular enemy in the global warming argument! Diesels produce soot, not just cars but anything burning diesel. The soot has darkened the snow and ice at the ice-caps and due to the reduced reflectivity of the snow and ice they're soaking up more sun, getting warm, and melting! Try searching the web for this! Diesel is evil!

Good thing our 4x4 is petrol!!!!

Just my 2p. I'm really sick of all these people in the media trying to ban 4x4's and cars with engines bigger that 1L (exageration). We already have a fuel tax which clobbers those, like me, who either drive loads of miles or a 4x4 or both. (in my case)

To pick on 4x4s and SUVs on the grounds of reduced visibility at junctions is just plain rediculous as you'd have to ban all comercial vehicles too. The argument that they cause more damage to pedestrians is a bit strange to me, maybe because I grew up in California where all cars were huge.

Our 4x4 is used as a "Mommy Taxi" during the week (but yes my kids walk to school) and a transport for guitar amps at the weekend. Without our 4x4, I could not do many of the things I do for fun but I pay the price.

Ever tried getting a Marshall half-stack in a CLK?

 

[Dieselman]

I don't want to hijack this thread but the diesel bashing is ill informed and out of date.

Co2 is a major problem for global warming as it makes up only 2% of the Earths atmosphere. Due to the low percentage this can readily be increased with bad results.

It is true that diesel engines produce more NOX when new but this gradually reduces as the engine beds in and the the value of NOX produces by petrol starts low but then increases, past the level out put by diesel engines. In addition there are now sophisticated means of dealing with NOX production, such as EGR and catalysts.

Particulates is a buzz word that all anti-diesel protesters use t substantiate their argument.
Firstly the amount of particulates produced is now so low that they are of little consequence. This is the view of Bosch and VW.

Secondly PM10s are now out of the spotlight as it has been found that they are too large to pass through the lung wall so are expelled by breating out. PM2.5s are the particulates now thought to cause respiritory problems. Note the report relating to particulates was carried out in a small North American town which found that people with respiritary problems foung them to be increased due to particulates. Strangely there were no diesel vehicles operating within the town?????????

As mentioned PM 2.5s are now believed to be the particulate issue as these are fine enough to pass through the lung wall into the blood stream. Guess which fossil fuel source produces more PM 2.5s, petrol or diesel? Ok you get the Gold Star.
Don't forget that vehicular transport in the Uk produces in the region of 2% of the particulates in the air, while central heating produces 50%.

Another reason why petrol engines produce more particulates over time is that they burn more oil as the engine ages. Be honest we have all seen blue smoke from petrol engined cars. Why do you think 2 stroke petrols are now banned.

Soot on the polar ice caps has been mentioned. Ok diesel engines running on poor, high sulpher (USA) fuel produce smoke, but a modern diesel running on quality fuel shouldn't. Cars are lagging behind commercial vehicles on quality of combustion so produce more smoke. If you see a smokey diesel then phone the smoke line, the owner wil be served a fix it or scrap it notice.

Returning to smoke it shouldn't be forgotten that we have had a worldwide industrial revolution in the last 150 years and an awful lot of smoke was and still is produced. Remember the smogs in London and currently L.A. Not many diesel vehicles in either at the prevailing times. Maybe industrial smoke is what is on the ice caps?

More pressing is that we are going to run out of oil sometime so shouldn't we try to conserve what we have for as long as possible by using the most efficient fuel available to us?


The HSE has carried out a 50 year study into the concequences of diesel fumes and health. They have found no link between ill / good health and diesel fumes. In case this makes depressing reading remember you can't gas yourself in the garage with a diesel car!!!

 

[MainMan]

Ever thought of a career in politics Dieselman? You seem to have the main qualifications.

 

[Alfie]

There really is some rubbish being spouted in this thread by some.

The argument for banning 4x4's based on their size is pointless. We all drive on the roads with vans, lorries, coaches, cyclists, pedestrians and mototcyclists. So are we to ban anything larger than an average car? If so we must ban the car aswell as it is larger than a motorcycle and might (often does) cause an injury to a rider.

If you really want to ban something from the road, try horses. No insurance/road tax, crap on the road causing a hazard which kills motorcyclists and traffic congestion. Superceded by the tractor and should be left in fields to eat grass.

Oh, yes someone suggested a vasectomy for Mr Blair. Good idea provided the operation is carried out with his entire goverment, via their necks.

Not so much 2p worth more like a quid's worth!