:: Yawn ::
Came across this article while reading the news this morning....
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4315784.stm
A valid point but pretty obvious I would have thought....
:: Yawn ::
|
|
My BMJ doesn't arrive until tomorrow but I am keen to read the full article and see what evidence they have based their findings on. I find that when medical research strays into the field of motoring the pronouncements made are often rather outrageous and a bit loony.
|
"A recent study in America found that, for the same collision speed, the likelihood of a pedestrian fatality is nearly doubled in the event of a collision with a large SUV compared with a passenger car. "
If the Americans are calling it a large SUV I suspect it's the size of a Kenworth. Usual trash journalism of a trash "study" by someone with an axe to grind.
Dig around enough and you'll find a study that conclusively proves that driving an SUV saves squirrels as the squidgy little critter doesn't have to duck to avoid the tailpipe.
Probably.
|
|
|
|
A valid point but pretty obvious I would have thought..
Just to clarify the point, I'm referring to - I'd rather not get hit by a car* at all but if I had to, I'd prefer to get done by SWMBO's Yaris than by my Landcruiser.
I think most people would agree with that....most of the other stuff in the article seems to be the standard anti-4X4 rubbish.
* If you considered my Landcruiser to be a car, which I personally don't.
|
|
|
Here we go again, and no doubt again in another six months.
Take a look at www.euroncap.com/ and you will find that if you must be hit by something a Honda CRV is a better bet for surviving than a Toyota Prius!
To quote Benjamin Disraeli (probably!): ""There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."
I'm yawning too and off to look at some pictures of a Land Cruiser.
|
|
Chad R is right, the results of this research on SUVs should have been obvious. It would have been more interesting to research the psychology of the people who drive them - though, again, some would say that's pretty obvious also.
|
"It would have been more interesting to research the psychology of the people who drive them - though, again, some would say that's pretty obvious also"
Well it's been said here, many times before, so rather than upsetting half the BackRoom again let's leave that to one side in this discussion can we?
Thanks
smokie, BR Moderator
|
|
|
|
Take a look at www.euroncap.com/ and you will find that if you must be hit by something a Honda CRV is a better bet for surviving than a Toyota Prius!
The NCAP site is well worth a read, particularly the pages which explain how the tests work. If you read them, you'll find that EuroNCAP does not actually test for the features which make 4X4s more dangerous to pedestrians.
The pedestrian tests are useful, but quite limited, and they do not actually prove that a pedstrian's overall chances are better with a CRV than a Prius ... thiugh they do show that in many respcts the CRV is one of the most pedestrian-friendly 4X4s.
|
>> Take a look at www.euroncap.com/ and you will find that if >> you must be hit by something ....
::[yawn]::
::[deja vu]::
|
::[yawn]:: ::[deja vu]::
Surely that should read "deja vu all over again" ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I reckon most Nissan Micra/Punto/KA etc drivers, given the choice, dont really want to be in a collision with a Range Rover/Landcruiser etc !
|
I reckon most Nissan Micra/Punto/KA etc drivers, given the choice, dont really want to be in a collision with a Range Rover/Landcruiser etc !
As a Ford Ka owner i dont really want to crash into one myself, imagine one going into my backside??? not worth thinkin about!!!
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
Yawn, snore ZZZZZZZZZ!!
If you're a pedestrian you don't want to get hit by any type of car.
If you drive a Yaris you don't want to get hit by a Range Rover.
If you drive a Range Rover you don't want to get hit by 17 tonne truck. Etc etc etc
Get my drift?
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
Get your point v8man, but then if you're in a 17 tonne truck you dont want to be hit by a 40 tonne juggernaut!!!!
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
I heard a discussion on the radio (5Live I think) about this report.
It was alleged that the report was based on statistics gathered in the USA where there are many more large SUVs, so was less relevant to Europe where 4x4's are car-based (this is not strictly true e.g. Land Rover Defender, Toyota Land Cruiser and all those double cab pick-ups.
To my mind the only argument against SUVs is the 'gas guzzler' one - that they are using up more than their fair share of a finite resource. Once again this is only partially true as some 4x4s are reasonably economical and many normal cars aren't.
Cheers, SS
|
|
|
|
many years ago i was in a collision with a land rover . it was not that badly damaged however the vehicle i was driving was a total wreck . what vehicle was i driving .... a 7.5 ton ford cargo. there wasnt much left and it wasnt driveable...cheers...keo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
