According to what car
4x4s safer ? but more dangerous
27 February 2008
4x4s safer ? but more dangerous
? 4x4 drivers less likely to be in accident
? Better view of road thought to be the reason
? Chance of injury is greater in an accident, though
New research shows drivers of 4x4s are less likely to be involved in crashes, but when they are, injuries are more serious.
The survey was conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) on behalf of Transport for London (TfL).
It found that the collision rate for 4x4s was 30% lower than that for other cars. This is believed to be because 4x4 drivers are higher up and have a better view of traffic, allowing them to react to incidents quicker.
However, a TfL spokesman said the study highlighted that pedestrians, in particular children, motorcyclists and occupants of small cars, were significantly more likely to be killed or seriously injured when in a crash with a large 4x4.
The report found that, for those hit by a large 4x4, there was a 26% chance of injuries, compared with a 22% chance when hit by a smaller off-roader. When hit by a family sized car, the rate of injury was 21%.
|
|
So they ARE significantly safer overall (and that's from hate-filled TfL!), as the mean safety benefit from prevention is much higher than the disadvantage of causing more damage.
|
|
A high driver position is also a great benefit of MPVs (and something I miss no longer having one) so that must surely mean a lower accident for them too?
|
This won't do! Everyone knows 4x4s are the spawn of the devil and are the cause of global warming and killing our children. :-)
As an aside, it was reported in the DT today that China are planning 97 more airports (that's not a typo!) by 2020, with 13 about as big as Gatwick ie 30m passengers a year each. Yet we're in paroxysms of guilt over one extra runway at Heathrow.
Please tax us some more, Gordon and Darling, and save the world!
|
"It found that the collision rate for 4x4s was 30% lower than that for other cars"
If this is a comparison with ALL other cars then it may not be particularly valid. Certain types of cars may well have different accident rates to others (e.g. family hatches compared with sports cars) because of the type of buyer that the vehicle attracts. 4x4's are probably purchased mainly by middle aged family buyers who would have a lower accident rate whatever they purchase. This needs to be taken into account. Insurance groupings are a good indication perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
May be they are involved in fewer accidents because other drivers keep out of their way? A man walking down the road waving a loaded gun would be "safe" - because I'd stay indoors.
|
|
|
|
|
However a TfL spokesman said the study highlighted that pedestrians, in particular children, motorcyclists and occupants of small cars were significantly more likely to be killed or seriously injured when in a crash with a large 4x4.
For their next episode of stating the blindingly-obvious; perhaps they could prove that a car's rate of CO2 emissions is directly related to whether the engine is running....
That 30% difference is a real surprise though and worthy of some intensive investigation. Just guessing that it's better forward vision isn't enough; the restricted vision of following cars should compensate, to some degree, by increasing rear shunts.
Given the mass-increased braking length, usually sub-optimal for tarmac tyres and the near prehistoric chassis dynamics of most 4x4s; you'd expect little difference in overall accident rates - so there's a valuable lesson hidden in there, somewhere.
[And it may well have something to do with their drivers' attitude and capability.]
Edited by Screwloose on 27/02/2008 at 15:20
|
|
I think accidents are mainly down to the driver. Perhaps the demographic groups who drive 4x4s or maybe the use to which they put them are the reason for less accidents.
|
I agree with Cliff (people keep out of their way) and also with Nick, although (in my opinion) it's less to do with demographics but more to do with the stereotype of the driver, ie that they are arrogant and will tend to just drive in to anything that gets in their way.
I would imagine that if everybody drove 4x4's then the accident stats would revert back to normal.
|
|
Anyone have a reference to the TRL report? I've seen the press take on it, but I'd rather make my own mind up on what was said. Seems to contradict insurance company reports so I assume there is some caveat applied....
|
|
I assume the TFL report looked only at 4x4's in London where speeds are low and handling/braking are less of an issue. In rural areas the poorer handling and braking performance of 4x4 might lead to different results.
|
|
|
|
snipquote!For their next episode of stating the blindingly-obvious; perhaps they could prove that a car's rate of CO2 emissions is directly related to whether the engine is running....
Screwloose. I think there a quite a few 4x4 supporters who claim that they are NOT more likely to cause injury in an accident. So in that sense the information is not 'blindingly-obvious' to everyone.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 27/02/2008 at 16:54
|
Dr Duffy
Maybe all that "pedestrian-friendly" soft-front design on the [pig-ugly] latest cars is misguided then.
So they're saying what's really needed is an iron-girder bumper and front slam-rail high enough to impact at a child's head height and then deflect the casualty underneath....
I would like to see the evidence for such a claim.
|
I have seen the results of several car vs SUV collisions. In a good proportion, the damage to the car was relatively minor to one corner, but the SUV had rolled, either onto its roof or its side. A case here recently showed a photo of minor damage to the car but the SUV on its side, having ejected two children through the windows. Fortunately they landed on soft grass.
None of that adds up to them being safer, for me.
|
|
|
Utterly, utterly inconclusive - is my conclusion!
Imagine this headline: "Horse riders suffer 3.7% fewer accidents than cyclists!"
A cyclist hit by a horse doesn't stand much chance. Horses are higher up, have better all terrain capability and are thus perceived as safer. They take longer to stop, have large blind spots and are the devil to control on a wet roundabout. No matter - the argument is in full swing. There is the added prestige of higher purchase price and running costs. Horses become the latest must-have fashion accessory. People sell their bikes and buy large horses which they don't really know how to ride. The few remaining cyclists are gradually wiped out by marauding mums on Mustangs on the inevitable school-horse-run.
World sugar prices escalate. Horses consume sugar lumps at an unsustainable rate. Anti-horse lobbies get into full swing. Mayor of London waives congestion charge for hybrid carrot/sugar powered donkeys and cyclists. Horsche-Breeders GmbH goes to court to order judicial review of Congestion charge. /To be continued....
|
|
The facth at 4x4 drivers think they're safer because they site higher up explains why they tailgate so much - Range Rovers, Discoverys, and these bloomin pick-up trucks that think they're bulldozers..................
Edited by grumpyscot on 28/02/2008 at 07:22
|
It doesn't matter whether you drive a sports car, family car or 4x4, you drive it the way you drive anything (in my opinion).
I have both a 4x4 and a warm hatch and find that since getting the 4x4 driving the hatch has become like a grandad car - taking corners more slowly, less harsh acceleration leading to a 15% increase in fuel economy.
Incidentally, I should point out that I don't treat the Shogun as a bulldozer - the bodywork is too expensive to put right for that!
Life is dangerous - statistics prove nothing (only what the writer wants them to prove).
Not ignoring my comments above, but perhaps we should consider additional driving tests for people driving larger 4x4's - maybe vehicles over 2t? In the same way that to tow a trailer over 750Kg takes an additional test? It might improve the quality of driving?
|
It doesn't matter whether you drive a sports car family car or 4x4 you drive it the way you drive anything (in my opinion).
I don't. I had an MR2 as a weekend car for a while. That was enjoyable to drive and I would regularly take it to high rpm and enjoy the acceleration, roadholding and general performance.
If I take our old Pajero out then it gets driven fairly gingerly otherwise I would end up in a ditch or run into someone due to the poor roadholding and braking. The Pajero is only used when I really need to use it to tow my big trailer. Using it as a daily driver to go into town would be stupid (IMHO).
|
Research in the US a few years ago indicated that an occupant of a 4x4 was significantly MORE likely to DIE in an accident than a car occupant.
Something to do with more roll overs and the poor crash performance of 4x4s . . . ?
|
|
I'm still laughing at Bilbomans last post!...
|
|
|
|
The facth at 4x4 drivers think they're safer because they site higher up explains why they tailgate so much -
No, they are not tailgating you, they are following a safe distance behind the car infront of you.... they can't actually see you for the large, high bonnet in front of them! ;-)
|
When I had my old Land Rover 90 I was always aware of how close one's head was to hard things like the windscreen, side windows etc. I don't think the seatbelts would have kept one's head from hitting the screen in a bump.
It didn't take a detailed examiation to reveal that it was built like a tank but that meant if you hit something, most of the shock was transferred to the occupants.
Re: modern 4x4s. Even if they are well designed, they are generally more likely to overturn than an ordinary car simply because of the higher centre of gravity. If you are trapped even for a few seconds in a 4x4 lying on its side on a motorway, the consequences of another vehicle hitting your roof don't bear thinking about.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 28/02/2008 at 23:31
|
"Re: modern 4x4s. Even if they are well designed, they are generally more likely to overturn than an ordinary car "
I agree but I suppose the same can also be said for the higher people carriers too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
