How safe are ......?

[John Peerce]

It says here the W203 Mercedes C-Class was the second car EVER to get a five star safety rating !

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/details.php?id1=3&id2=127

Go Merc Go :bannana:

 

[glojo]

Another interesting thread where no one is getting overly excited whilst debating an interesting subject. I have a personal hatred (with a vengeance) of statistics and their authors. Grrrrrrr
Another interesting thread where no one is getting overly excited. I have a personal hatred (with a vengeance) of statistics.

20% safer than what???? Motor bikes, sports cars? saloons? 5ltr saloons?

1.6ltr SUVs, 4.2ltr? It is a crazy statement. 100 SUV owners compared to 100 what?

If you like an SUV or 4x4 then good luck to you. We considered the ML, but for our own personal use there was simply NOT enough interior space. The estate car gives us the space we require. However I wouldn't want to go off road with my car. Each to his own.

Diesel pollution, are these figures taken from old HGV engines, buses etc? or are they taken from the latest CDI common rail direct injection engines with catalytic converter particle 'thingie'and crikies knows what else (I do but it gets boring)

As a professor once said, "Statistics make liars out of experts, and experts out of liars"

Is the 4Matic E-class Mercedes-Benz a 4x4 or SUV? or an Audi Quattro? Should they be banned?

I am a great believer in freedom of choice, go with the flow and enjoy your ride.

Ban horse riding from all 'A' roads prosecute EVERY horse rider that doesn't use a 'pooper scooper' whenever there 'ride' unloads a mountain of 'eco' friendly dung (wonder if that will get censored??) Freedom of choice pooooh!!!!


Regards to you all,
John

 

[tim.100]

Weight - simple physics

See the Driver Death Rate site: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/deathrate/idx.htm

It says somewhere that, if your car weighs twice as much as another (which you collide with) you have 6 times the chance of survival as he does.

So I drove a Land Rover for 9 years. It used less diesel fuel (29mpg) than an powerful petrol Honda Accord (26-28mpg), and happily reached Asia and Africa.

In Bulgaria, it proved its solidity by destroying a Lada without panel damage. It also hit lamp posts (unmanned) and motorway crash barriers (oops) without much consequence.

However, as I have detailed elsewhere on this site, when an HGV driver did something criminally stupid, it rolled over in an avoidance manouevre. It is to be replaced this month by a W202 C250td. In most car-to-car collisions, I suspect I'd be better off in the 2.2 ton Land Rover. But the W202 might keep me out of accidents.

 

[marcos]

All this crap about global warming really pi#### me off!

Yes we do have problems with greenhouse gases, CO2 and the like but the main problem with global warming is that we are still in the tail end of a bloody ice-age! Just look through history and this warming happens every few million years, anywhere with snow and ice on a big scale, Antartica for instance, should normally be free of ice. Therfore we are still in an ice-age, simple really, so things are going to get hotter naturally whether we help or not.

No I'm not a bloody scientist either.

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

Statistics are just a way of attempting to compare populations of 'data' and this is done by assigning probabilities of the 'data' populations being significantly different from one another. Hence interpretations can vary as probabilities, not absolutes are being compared
e.g based on statistics the statement is made that smoking causes cancer but we know that not all smokers get cancer (not that I'm condoning smoking).

However statistical analysis is far superior to simple 'rhetoric' or 'jumping on to bandwagons' etc.

Therefore, the 20% figure simply relates to proportionality i.e. for all groups (for which data was collected) this (specific) group is (appears to be) 20% safer. A similar conclusion may, or may not, be reached in different studies (comparing the same parameters) as different populations (probably) would be being compared . An(the) obvious comparator for this kind of study would be 'the' car (as the most common vehicle on the road it would be the benchmark against which other vehicle groups would have be compared).

So the assumption in the original statement is that SUVs "are 20% less likely to be involved in an accident" compared with the most common vehicle on the roads ( cars). .

It also appears that 'Ken' has failed in his bid to double the congestion charge for SUVs :bannana: . (I commute by train by the way).

Cheers,

 

[anarchy-inc]

Just remember that 50% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Mozzer]

I bought a Series II, Landrover to pootle about in and take the dog from home to decent walks. The car was taller than all standard road cars (if a little thinner generally) and drove at a bone shaking, filling loosening, 80 miles an hour if you had had your foot to the floor for the last 10 minutes The only reaction I got on the motorways, was smiles. On any other road, occasionally I would get the frustrated driver who, because of me, would get to or from work about 1 minute later, but again mostly smiles.

I was then given the chance to buy a 4L V6 Ford Exploder for transporting the dog. Since then, my driving style has changed little, my car is not really higher (a bit wider maybe) and the attitude from other drivers has been nothing but negative.

Now I admit this is a vanity 4x4 - there is only me, my fiancee and the dog. We both have our own cars and the 4x4 is considered the dog's. But my SLK does around 29 mpg, the Exploder does 17 mpg - I pay more per mile than most other motorists.

If you want to make things fairer, if you want to make the 4x4 extinct for pollution reasons or other - eliminate road tax and put the tax on petrol and see how long I drive the Exploder at £1.50 per litre - but there will be some who will be able to afford it and are prepared to take the hit - we are here to stay - like it or not

On the "can't see past a 4x4" issue, that's down to poor driving - if the 4x4 won't pull over - that's his fault, if you want him to move over where he can't, that's your fault.

On the "4x4s are too tall" issue - my landrover was 44 years old - you have taken your time to complain.

S

That's got to be 4ps worth
(which is about 4.5 yards worth of petrol in my car)

 

[Shude]

On the "4x4s are too tall" issue - my landrover was 44 years old - you have taken your time to complain.

Yeah but how many defenders do you see on the road? They're mostly in rural areas or on the farms etc like they're supposed to be! The Landie Defender is an ugly, uncompromising, agricultural, practical proper-off-roader. It's way too unfashionable to be owned by the SUV-fans!

 

[Apial]

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


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!

Oi! My horse is insured. If a motorcyclist falls off its not the horses fault, but the bike designer who forgot to add an extra 2 wheels to his invention. The horse was invented long before the wheel, its fuel is not yet taxed, and its manure makes the roses smell beautiful!

And it was me who suggested Mr Blair should go for the chop!

 

[Apial]

Yeah but how many defenders do you see on the road? They're mostly in rural areas or on the farms etc like they're supposed to be! The Landie Defender is an ugly, uncompromising, agricultural, practical proper-off-roader. It's way too unfashionable to be owned by the SUV-fans!

G-wagens are even rarer, so lets have a cheer for G-wagens! They are too cool for most SUV drivers to appreciate.

 

[glojo]

if you want to make the 4x4 extinct for pollution reasons or other - eliminate road tax and put the tax on petrol and see how long I drive the Exploder at £1.50 per litre - but there will be some who will be able to afford it and are prepared to take the hit - we are here to stay - like it or not

That's got to be 4ps worth
(which is about 4.5 yards worth of petrol in my car)

Reading this very interesting thread I so far cast my votes to both 'Dieter' and 'Mozzer'. I still hate statistics with a vengence, but I agree with every word of what both contributors have wrote.

If questions are worded in slightly different ways the response will be completely different. However I suppose I must agree that statistics 'might' be better than nothing???

The Government has produced figures demonstrating that Health waiting lists are down, but they don't say that you now perhaps have a waiting list to actually go on the list to see a consultant, who then refers you to another consultant, and then another waiting list. He in turn puts you onto another waiting list etc. etc. Your wait is either as long, or even longer, but statistics will show only the first waiting time which is down?????? (enough of my ramblings)

I like the looks of the Defender and other 4x4's (they are just not practical vehicles for my own personal use) just do away with the road fund licence and tax fuel. Freedom of choice is what this must surely finally be all about.

Regards,
John

 

[MainMan]

Continuing the NHS analogy, another good accounting trick that the Govt have is that when they sell off a hospital and its grounds for "redevelopment" (i.e. so that some friend of fatty Prescott can build a nasty block of flats) the money that they get from the developer is regarded as a net investment into the NHS. So if they knocked down all the hospitals "New" Labour's investment into the NHS would be huge.

 

[glojo]

Oi! My horse is insured. its fuel is not yet taxed, and its manure makes the roses smell beautiful!

And it was me who suggested Mr Blair should go for the chop!

Glad to hear your horse is insured. If you could leave those details on the Gi-normous!!!!! mounds of rose conditioner that sometimes gets deposited on our highways that would also be appreciated.

Gardeners might appreciate this beautiful aid to the growth of their plants, BUT motorcyclists and other road users certainly do not. What about securing some sort of container to the rear of your quadrupede, collect all the droppings and then sell them to all your friendly horticulturists???

Modern roads need constant repair and motorists pay an excessive amount towards this. I have yet to see a horse on a highway display a road fund licence??? I accept that horses were here before motor vehicles but that is just part of history. They do not pay to use the modern highway and take up a good proportion of the road (unlike skinny bicycles)

Most important for this tread...... A horse is a 4x4 BAN THEM ALL.....

No I am not being tooo serious, yes I would appreciate some light hearted response.

Hi to you all,
John

 

[Apial]

Modern roads need constant repair and motorists pay an excessive amount towards this. I have yet to see a horse on a highway display a road fund licence??? I accept that horses were here before motor vehicles but that is just part of history. They do not pay to use the modern highway and take up a good proportion of the road (unlike skinny bicycles)


Hi to you all,
John

Horses actually dislike tarmac metalled roads. In fact were it not for tarmac, a lot of horses would not cost their owners £40 every 6 weeks on farrier bills for shoes, ie £400 a year. Horses do not need an expensive road, but cars do. Long before tarmac was invented, horses travelled along roads that were just dirt tracks. If you want nice smooth roads with good drainage then you can pay your £165, but you are getting it cheap compared to the extra expense incurred by horse owners since the construction of tarmac roads for motorised traffic. Perhaps horse owners should be able to claim a rebate for the unsuitable road surfacing?

Help youself to all the free manure too! It does nicely splodge as you drive over it ! However if you do have a valid grouse, it would be with some farmers who are trying to reclaim the roads back to field status around this time of year. Trails of mud, sometimes miles long , with massive boulders of stone filled clay boulders, straggle across the nations roads making them more slippery than a :bannana: .The only safe way to travel down these roads is of course in a large wheeled, large sized 4X4.

 

[glojo]

The only safe way to travel down these roads is of course in a large wheeled, large sized 4X4.

Don't you mean:
"""The only safe way to travel down these roads is of course on a long legged, large sized 4X4"""

Nice speaking to you
John

I believe the horse shoes have rubber inserts to help traction when 'pounding the beat' (roads)

 

[andy_k]

nice to see all the interesting points being made and I appreciate we are never going to get these vehicles off the road until the last drop of fossil fuel has been drained from the planet.

It's the mentality of "needing" one that amazes me - look at old Land Rovers and new Defenders, they are farm vehicles, agricultural utility vehicles and they are usually up to their axles in mud, their owners genuinely do need a 4WD vehicle and use it for what it was intended.

On the other hand nobody in this country needs a Toyota Amazon to drive 400 yards down a perfectly flat country lane to drop their kids at school in a morning and collect them in the evening - I'm not kidding there is a mother at the school where our kids go that does this every morning and evening. For the motorist who does all of their mileage on A and city roads (in my opinion) there is absolutely no justification for owning such a vehicle.

Not many people need a 4WD to go anywhere and only a minute number of those that we see on the road every day are used for what they were designed for - Even the Range Rover was originally offered as a vehicle the farmer could use all day on his land then clean out with a hosepipe before using it as a means of road transport.

I don't really care that the majority of them are poorly designed uneconomical dinosaurs when compared to cars, that they represent a clear and obvious hazard to other road users and pedestrians (despite what the latest interpretation of figures by the pro 4WD groups may be ).

My "problem" is I don't see the point of them, are they a fashion statement? If so what do they say about their owners? (best not answer that one ), are they a lifestyle statement? Or are they simply a vehicle originally designed for farm use that due to the dishonesty of one American president and the duplicty of the car industries we have had dumped on us in one of the greatest car scams of all time?

Any colour you like as long as it's black or any vehicle you like as long a it's cheap to manufacture and sells at a premium because it's trendy.

To take a line from a song

"Any way you look at this you lose"

Andy

 

[glojo]

On the other hand nobody in this country needs a Toyota Amazon to drive 400 yards down a perfectly flat country lane to drop their kids at school in a morning and collect them in the evening - I'm not kidding there is a mother at the school where our kids go that does this every morning and evening. For the motorist who does all of their mileage on A and city roads (in my opinion) there is absolutely no justification for owning such a vehicle.

One of my neighbours owns a Mercedes-Benz ML55AMG, and another owns a blooming great big Porsche 'Thingy ma jig' (can't spell Cayenne or similar sounding name) Neither of these vehicles will ever go off road. BUT, surely it is their choice. Yes they are 'gas guzzlers' but so is another neighbours Bentley Arnage. No one is saying ban large engined cars are they??

It all boils down to freedom of choice. How could I justify owning my vehicle? Should we all be driving the smallest most fuel efficient car produced???

Banning a certain size, style of vehicle to me is just 'wrong'

Regards
John

Who watched the Malaysian GP?? what a race!

 

[anarchy-inc]

nice to see all the interesting points being made and I appreciate we are never going to get these vehicles off the road until the last drop of fossil fuel has been drained from the planet.

Well, hopefully, we will have an alternative fuel like hydrogen before then, so we can keep our 4x4s!

It's the mentality of "needing" one that amazes me - look at old Land Rovers and new Defenders, they are farm vehicles, agricultural utility vehicles and they are usually up to their axles in mud, their owners genuinely do need a 4WD vehicle and use it for what it was intended.

Given the choice between a van or a 4x4, I'll take the 4x4 any day. I don't need a 4x4 but I CHOOSE to over a van because I DO NEED the space it offers.

On the other hand nobody in this country needs a Toyota Amazon to drive 400 yards down a perfectly flat country lane to drop their kids at school in a morning and collect them in the evening - I'm not kidding there is a mother at the school where our kids go that does this every morning and evening. For the motorist who does all of their mileage on A and city roads (in my opinion) there is absolutely no justification for owning such a vehicle.

I agree that the "school run mommy taxi" is a bad idea and this should be tackled but why confuse this issue with 4x4s? I believe that the two ideas are not linked in any way, except when, like the example you give, the school run takes place with a 4x4. In the US we had BIG yellow school busses, so no need to do the "school run". If we had that here, the problem would be solved.

Not many people need a 4WD to go anywhere and only a minute number of those that we see on the road every day are used for what they were designed for - Even the Range Rover was originally offered as a vehicle the farmer could use all day on his land then clean out with a hosepipe before using it as a means of road transport.

Hmmm, I seriously doubt the modern Range Rover would take kindly to being hosed out. The Defender maybe . . .

I don't really care that the majority of them are poorly designed uneconomical dinosaurs when compared to cars, that they represent a clear and obvious hazard to other road users and pedestrians (despite what the latest interpretation of figures by the pro 4WD groups may be ).

No one from the "anti-4x4" brigade has yet to clearly answer how they are anymore of a hazzard than a truck. Do you advocate getting trucks off the road too? EVERY driver, regardless of the type of vehicle driven, must take care and be observant on the roads. When faced with a larger vehicle, whether it be a truck or 4x4, you need to take appropriate care due to the limited visibility . . . . how about backing off so you can see more of the road ahead? Ever see a sticker on the back of a truck that reads, "if you can't see my mirrors, then I can't see you"?

My "problem" is I don't see the point of them, are they a fashion statement? If so what do they say about their owners? (best not answer that one ), are they a lifestyle statement?

Who really cares if it is a fashion statement? I bet a large proportion of Merc drivers bought their car for some of those reasons. (some more than others) Does this mean that any car chosen purely on looks, or on what their friends think should be banned? How is a 4x4 different or special in this regard?

Or are they simply a vehicle originally designed for farm use that due to the dishonesty of one American president and the duplicty of the car industries we have had dumped on us in one of the greatest car scams of all time?

What? Which president? And what did he do that makes you think this? Please tell me you're not one of those people that think the US Goverment, the American car industry and OPEC conspire to keep us buying more fuel? Wow, now that is crazy.

The car makers only build what they can sell and if we stop buying 4x4s, they will stop making them. Pure and simple. As soon as scientists develop fuels that are more efficient and less costly, we can move on.

 

[andy_k]

Well, hopefully, we will have an alternative fuel like hydrogen before then, so we can keep our 4x4s!

hopefully but only if massive amounts of money are poured into it's development

Given the choice between a van or a 4x4, I'll take the 4x4 any day. I don't need a 4x4 but I CHOOSE to over a van because I DO NEED the space it offers.

with 2 kids, a dog and me being a musician I NEED the space but I choose to drive an estate car

I agree that the "school run mommy taxi" is a bad idea and this should be tackled but why confuse this issue with 4x4s? I believe that the two ideas are not linked in any way, except when, like the example you give, the school run takes place with a 4x4. In the US we had BIG yellow school busses, so no need to do the "school run". If we had that here, the problem would be solved.

a quick count up at our kids school on Friday showed 9 "normal cars" and 14 medium to large 4WD (including the aforementioned Toyota) - all bar one absolutely spotless and sporting road tyres and all diesels none having travelled more than 5 miles along the roads - now I fully take on board all of the pro diesel comments but are even modern diesel engines as clean when they are cold? or are the figures we are quoted for an engine at operating temperature?

Hmmm, I seriously doubt the modern Range Rover would take kindly to being hosed out. The Defender maybe . . .

That's kind of the point I was making - these vehicles are not being used for what they were designed for

No one from the "anti-4x4" brigade has yet to clearly answer how they are anymore of a hazzard than a truck. Do you advocate getting trucks off the road too? EVERY driver, regardless of the type of vehicle driven, must take care and be observant on the roads. When faced with a larger vehicle, whether it be a truck or 4x4, you need to take appropriate care due to the limited visibility . . . . how about backing off so you can see more of the road ahead? Ever see a sticker on the back of a truck that reads, "if you can't see my mirrors, then I can't see you"?

They are not more of a hazzard than a truck - because they are a truck, trouble is trucks are normally driven by professional drivers and not used as weapons by their owners because they feel "safe" in them.

We have had mentioned in this thread and others

longer stopping distance than cars

potential roll over in accident/impact

poor handling

larger blindspots

etc etc

backing off is all well and good but what about when you've got one of them tailgating you?

Who really cares if it is a fashion statement? I bet a large proportion of Merc drivers bought their car for some of those reasons. (some more than others) Does this mean that any car chosen purely on looks, or on what their friends think should be banned? How is a 4x4 different or special in this regard?

it's different in as much as a pair of functional shoes designed to protect your feet are different to a pair of 8" platform sole boots

What? Which president? And what did he do that makes you think this? Please tell me you're not one of those people that think the US Goverment, the American car industry and OPEC conspire to keep us buying more fuel? Wow, now that is crazy.

hmmmmm that one was pretty well documented and has been the subject of at least one major documentary. Suddenly it doesn'y look quite so crazy does it?

I would have thought that it made the news in America as well

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/nixon/

The car makers only build what they can sell and if we stop buying 4x4s, they will stop making them. Pure and simple. As soon as scientists develop fuels that are more efficient and less costly, we can move on.

No....the car makers only build what they want you to buy, a product with a limited life expectancy and that needs to be renewed every few years. They spent billions advertising 4WD SUVs as a lifestyle thing because the vehicles were relatively cheap to make (originally built on the truck production lines), required little or no safety measures (see the Richard Nixon article and many similar ones), basically they carried a huge per vehicle profit and nobody and nothing was going to get in the way of sales

EuroNcap has tested these vehicles and nearly all of them have been given a "dire" mark in respect of pedestrian safety in the case of an impact - maybe that's planning for the worst and it will NEVER happen to you as these things only ever happen to other people (please note the "you" here is not aimed at any one person just being used as a figure of speech) but shouldn't that give cause for concern or isn't it something that anyone looks at or considers when buying a truck?

If I were to drive a tank - I'd feel very safe and there was at one time a guy in Croydon who did exactly that - he was prosecuted on the grounds that his presence on the road was a clear hazard to other road users (obstruction, driving an innapropriate vehicle on the queens highway and a few others) despite the fact that the vehicle was street legal.

Andy

 

[Shude]

Classic:

with 2 kids, a dog and me being a musician I NEED the space but I choose to drive an estate car

One of the biggest misconceptions about SUVs is that "they have a lot of room in them"! As Top Gear pointed out recently, estate cars are cheaper and have more room in them. SUVs might have more VERTICAL room so the stats make it look like it's roomier, but in fact most stuff needs the HORIZONTAL dimension and that's where the SUVs tend to lose out. Once you peel away the chrome bars, the huge bumpers, the chunky wheel arches and the exterior spare wheel what you find is an average-sized car on stilts!