Did anyone see tonights 5th Gear? They conducted pedestrian impact tests using a Range Rover and a Rover 800. Basically the results indicated that you are better off being hit by the Range Rover. The large frontal area spread the force of the impact causing less severe injuries. The saloon car scooped the dummy up throwing it onto the windscreen and then onto the road.
This seems to fly in the face of the current anti 4X4 lobby.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
It's a bit like the old bull-bar controversy. Safety experts claimed that bull-bars presented a higher risk of injury to pedestrians, until it was discovered that there was absolutely no evidence of any cases where a bull-bar had been responsible for increasing the seriousness of injury in any accident.
However I don't like bull-bars as they spoil the look of any vehicle they're fitted to and add unneccesary weight. If a Fiesta or Polo can get by without bull-bars, then surely a big, tough 4x4 can! And once your pride and joy 4x4 has been fitted with its bull-bar to protect its precious paintwork you can worry instead about whether someone will scratch the bull-bar.
cheers, Sofa Spud
|
Apparently it is 2-3 fatalities a year that might have been caused by bull bars (metal variety). Seems like an over reaction for all of 2 people that probably stepped straight into the road without looking/were drunk like 80% of thereabouts of all pedestrian fatalities.
The TRL also stated that the plastic bull bars were indeed better for pedestrians than not having them on the vehicle at all.
I also read somewhere that white vans killed the fewest number of pedestrians even though the drivers are prone to driving like nutters. A lot of pedestrians are killed by buses and lorries rather than cars or 4x4s.
teabelly
|
"I also read somewhere that white vans killed the fewest number of pedestrians even though the drivers are prone to driving like nutters"
Probably because most white van drivers have enough miles under their wheels to be pretty good drivers. Experience counts.
V
|
|
|
|
Oh good, so when I fit the bullbars I got for the Discovery, which are wider than the front of the vehicle, then I can class this as a safety device?
H
|
I dont want bull bars on my Rangie because they spoil the looks and according to the handbook they upset the airbag sensors.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
|
then I can class this as a safety device?
Yes,Probably using the same logic that the Authorities use to justify S...... Cameras.
|
then I can class this as a safety device? Yes,Probably using the same logic that the Authorities use to justify S...... Cameras.
I really must use the smileys when I put a TIC comment up :)
H
|
|
|
|
Why the Rover 800 and not a more modern design?
|
I didn't see the programme but maybe they compared it to a RR of the same era?
It has to be said that the thinking I heard was different. I understood that the risk was greater with a RR or such vehicle with a high bonnet (even the discovery) as the pedestrian could get trapped underneath, whereas the saloon car would 'clear' people out of the way, a bit like a cattle guard on a western steam train.
Hugo
|
whereas the saloon car would 'clear' people out of the way, a bit like a cattle guard on a western steam train.
ok, as analogies go, that may need some work.
::waits for NoWheels to come steaming in protesting that we should all have pillows on our bonnets.::
|
::waits for NoWheels to come steaming in protesting that we should all have pillows on our bonnets.::
>>
Pillows, bonnets, cars???? Nah we'll all be catching those buses and trains that are full to bursting with eco friendly commuters!
Those old London Transport buses do pump out some smoke though!
H
|
|
|
::waits for NoWheels to come steaming in protesting that we should all have pillows on our bonnets.::
Well, that'd be a good start :) Much better, though, to take the airbag out of your steering wheel, and place it at the front of the car ... and put the bullybars inside, in front of driver's head.
|
|
|
|
|
They had a modern car as well.
anyway bull bars or no - dead is dead, does it matter how dead?
|
|
|
|
Basically the results indicated that you are better off being hit by the Range Rover.
Not exactly true.
If you are an adult, then yes, bluff front and likely crumple area between the top of the engine and the bonnet may help reduce the effect of an impact.
Pity children though - who are probably the most likely of all people to run out in to the road in the first place - and who get totally wiped out by the same bluff front.
In truth though, any car/pedestrian impact above a very low speed is going to be messy.
|
|
|
Did anyone see tonights 5th Gear? They conducted pedestrian impact tests using a Range Rover and a Rover 800. Basically the results indicated that you are better off being hit by the Range Rover. The large frontal area spread the force of the impact causing less severe injuries. The saloon car scooped the dummy up throwing it onto the windscreen and then onto the road. This seems to fly in the face of the current anti 4X4 lobby. -- \"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
A load of nonsense.
There have been numerous studies around the world (including one released to the industry this year by our own MIRA) which quantify the injurious effects of 4x4's vis a vis saloon cars. The MIRA report is being used as a basis for the introduction of new EU regulations on vehicle design due to come into effect next year in an effort to reduce pedestrian fatalities. All of the evidence is overwhelmingly that 4x4's cause greater injury in most types of impact with pedestrians, cyclists and other car drivers.
The ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Board) has done a lot of research into the effect of bullbars in an impact and concluded that they significantly increase injury in accidents. They quantify this in terms of many 10's of extra deaths to pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers in Australia (I can't remember the exact figures).
Like it or not, you 4x4 lovers better enjoy them while you can. I reckon that in 10 years time there will be far fewer 4x4's around and they will look a lot different to those sold at the moment.
My own dislike of 4x4's comes not simply from the fact that they cause additional injury but mainly from the fact that (as an engineer) I regard them as a retrograde step in automotive evolution. They are mostly crude designs; inefficient, with significantly poorer handling and braking than saloon cars. We shouldn't be going in this direction.
|
I can't see how being hit by a 4x4 can be anything other than about a billion times worse than being hit by a more normally sized car.
I've not hit a person, but I have hit a car. I ran into the back of a Subaru estate thingy. I got all the way to the back of the back seats, if you see what I mean, and scratched the bumper on my car.
If you drive one of these things, then work out a safe distance between you and the car in front, and then consider doubling it.
Driving a large 4x4 is a skill. Or at least, doing it safely is. Bring in extra licence requirements and training. BEcause frankly, if you ban 4x4s then the dangerous fools will just start driving something else. And sooner or later they're going to need addressing, however many vehicles we ban in the meantime.
|
An extra licence category is a fine idea in principle, but where do you draw the line? You can drive up to 7.5 tonnes on your car licence, so you would need to address all these aspects as well.
The problem is trying to find the correct or most appropriate defenition to be covered by the extra licence.
If you insert Discovery and Freelander for example, what about cars such as the Renault Scenic 2wd or 4wd and the Grande Espace. Or do you just include off road vehicles, not all 4 x 4s.
Extra Training, yes a great idea, if only to understand what one of those beasts can do. However, the £150 for 3 hours I spend with the LR Experience centre in Dunkeld, did not include highway driving.
Experience is a great thing, but as you have found out, when you had your accident you didn't have enough of it!
An insurance reduction for 4 x 4s may be a good carrot for a specialist on road training session and assessment session, with the option of off road training at extra cost IMO. This would be my preferred option as opposed to an extra licence category.
|
Surely the main issue with SUVs and 4x4s is the weight. There is good reason why a special licence should be required for any vehicle over say 2 tonnes. This would have several benefits: -
Manufacturers would design vehicles to be under this weight, saving fuel and ensuring better handling and braking.
Very large saloons (e.g. Rols Royce, Maybach etc)would fall into this category as I bet their braking performance isn't much better than a Range Rover.
Ensure that people are suitably qualified to drive larger vehicles and they can transpose this knowlege onto smaller vehicles, making the roads safer. Motorway or fast A road training is vital to this.
Insurance reductions for smaller cars could be available for those with the special licence and if larger vehicles could demonstrate braking and handling characteristics more akin to smaller vehicles, then they would be exempt from the special licence requirement.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
|
|
If you drive one of these things, then work out a safe distance between you and the car in front, and then consider doubling it.
Good advice, but like most good advice, lost on the people who most need it. I see the same problem with people who drive the larger vans, but who have not had any further training.
It amazes me the drivers who tailgate huge 4x4s and vans in their tiny cars placing all their faith in the tail lamps of the vehicle in front.
|
I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the programme. It was of interest to me as I own a Rangie. I agree with many of the above points, but surely the answer is to seperate pedestrians and vehicles. Personally, I do not want to be hit by any type of vehicle!
Espada - your reference to the brakes on large vehicles does not make sense. Large cars and trucks have proportionaly larger brakes. Manufacturers don't fit Fiesta brakes to Range Rovers!
For the record, I have run someone down in a saloon car. He was drunk and ran out from a pub into my path late at night. Instead of going over the bonnet he went under the car. Fortunately he lived but it was 3 months before I could get behind the wheel again.
I also think that all motorists should undertake advanced training, not just 4X4 drivers. The standard test is too easy and there is no compulsory motorway training - unbelievable really. The general standard of driving I witness every day is dire from supermini to HGV.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
I'd say the standard licence should be made a darn sight more difficult. Then all qualified drivers would be able to cope with an SUV. There would just be fewer of them.
v8man - a far more minor accident in which no-one was hurt gave me the shivers. I'm sorry to hear of your experience - I can't imagine how that must have felt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
