|
Driving a 4x4 on the road, even a Land Rover Defender, hardly differs from driving a car or light van. OK, in the back of your mind there's an awareness that it doesn't handle as well and is slightly more likely to overturn. But driving an HGV is a different kettle of fish - the scale of everything on the road looks smaller until you get used to it.
|
Driving a 4x4 on the road even a Land Rover Defender hardly differs from driving a car or light van. OK in the back of your mind there's an awareness that it doesn't handle as well and is slightly more likely to overturn. But driving an HGV is a different kettle of fish - the scale of everything on the road looks smaller until you get used to it.
I disagree, modern 4x4s are completely different to driving a car or light van. Compared to a car the handling is completely different. Compared to a light van the performance is the difference.
|
|
|
|
have had them for years and none to my knowledge has ever rolled over killed a pedestrian caused a sheep to go into premature labour or even had a meaningful accident that I've heard about.
Wasn't there some stuff posted on the 4x4 bashing thread about research showing that 4x4s are more dangerous?
Andy the Great or Andy the Troll?
No need to start name calling, just asking a question and looking for sensible discussion. If anything your reply is troll-like.
|
Interesting idea with some merits but I'd have thought unenforceable. My wife has a Freelander which I drive once every month or so I suppose for a few miles. Would I need a test?
I have a Legacy which is a 4x4 but essentially a normal car, but my neighbour has a Honda something which is raised up like a 4x4 but is a two wheel drive car. Too many shade sof grey for accurate legislation
|
|
|
I apologise if I have caused offence. Nothing wrong with a bit of trolling is there?
You have innocently (I infer) posed your somewhat controversial question during the currency of another thread containing pages of tribal hatred directed at users of a particular style of vehicle that shares 99% of its genes with the rest of the cars on the road. Good sport I say.
|
I apologise if I have caused offence. Nothing wrong with a bit of trolling is there?
No offence taken - the whole point of a forum is to hear other points of view. In fact this place would be a bit dull and boring if we all agreed. Thats why some people like paul2007s posts - they generate a lively discussion, plus everyone loves to kick the dog sometimes, if you know what I mean.
You have innocently (I infer) posed your somewhat controversial question during the currency of another thread containing pages of tribal hatred directed at users of a particular style of vehicle that shares 99% of its genes with the rest of the cars on the road. Good sport I say.
I purposely started a new thread to distance this from the 4x4 bashing thread.
PS - we share 98% of our genes with chimps, but I like to think we are somewhat different to chimps, although I do wonder sometimes...
|
|
....and fifty percent with a banana apparently.
|
What about a suzuki jimny?
Or a BMW 740iL? - weighs the same as an X5, slightly longer, same width.
As mentioned above too many shades of grey.
Also, more legislation? I think thats the last thing this country needs with all the misguided legislation brought in over the past 10 years or so.
I know 4x4s are in the forefront of the public's mind, but what are the actual facts. Like how do accidents compare with say ford transit type vans?
Is there any evidence that tuition (or even tests to prove competence) will improve anything? Specifically what?
How much would it cost to research & implement such a scheme? How many new schools or hospitals would the equiv expenditure buy?
I think we generally do ok in this country with 4x4s. I don't own one, but i don't think i fear their drivers any more than white van man and his baldy tyres on the outside lane.
|
Or a BMW 740iL? - weighs the same as an X5 slightly longer same width.
Fair point, but there are a lot more 4x4s on the road than 740s. With 4x4s it also the size and hieght that is an issue.
Also more legislation? I think thats the last thing this country needs with all the misguided legislation brought in over the past 10 years or so.
Cant argue with that!
Is there any evidence that tuition (or even tests to prove competence) will improve anything?
I think we can work on the assumption that it would. Thats why we have a driving test and a HGV test.
How much would it cost to research & implement such a scheme? How many new schools or hospitals would the equiv expenditure buy?
I dont think it would cost much, if anything. A fee would due for the test.
|
I dont think it would cost much, if anything. A fee would due for the test.
I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as that :-(
Consider that current normal driving tests, are a loss making activity for the government budget -- over and above the fees candidates pay, the treasury has to pump in a significant amount of money to support the driving tests.
This paper linked below only covers the ADI side of things, i cant find the memo which accompanied the last hike in normal test prices, but it was the exact same story -- a multi year plan to increase fees to try and reduce the deficit of running driving tests.
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/em/uksiem_20090844_en.pdf
Even if it were priced so high as to be a bread winner, fee's only come in to play after all the research & implementation has been completed. We need to find an awful lot of money, an awful awful lot of money, up front, before the first person pays for their exam.
Any money we allocated for this, we can measure in reduction of public services, public healthcare (less people getting expensive cancer drugs which would keep them with their families longer), job losses (department for work & pensions all over again :-( ) the list goes on.
I'd need to see all the facts to make a decision, maybe even pay to commission new research where the facts just don't exist yet.
My gut feeling is that i'd rather have the money spent on proven needs and leave the market forces (specifically the insurance companies) to regulate fair premiums to be imposed on 4x4 drivers for any excess damage they cause over drivers of other vehicles
|
|
|
|
>>I know 4x4s are in the forefront of the public's mind, but what are the actual facts
Who wants facts to get in the way of a good prejudice?
I'll select some for a change.
Here's a bit of reportage from a well known car magazine of some TRL research. The report is from 2008 and presumably doesn't refer to Australian kangaroo fatalities or crude US-type tanks.
"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%."
However, it also says 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."
Apply the 30%, and by my reckoning on these data, ceteris paribus, the average 4x4 driver has 87% the odds of injuring someone than the driver of family sized car.
So you have no reason there at least to fear 4x4 drivers more than family car man, let alone WVM on his baldy tyres.
The research was apparently done for TfL - I bet they weren't expecting (or wanting) that result.
Incidentally, the only vehicle to have injured me was a baldy-tyred Marina whose driver lost control on a bend and wrote off my treasured Hunter GLS.
FWIW, I don't think there's material difference between 87% and 100% in this context, so I'm not arguing that 4x4s are safer. Neither do I think some other research that says 4x4s are 13% less safe makes their drivers anti-social morons as some here seem to do.
Be careful out there.
|
Who wants facts to get in the way of a good prejudice?
I agree, so just to add some balance, heres some more facts:
www.brake.org.uk/facts/4x4s-the-risks
A PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A LARGE 4X4 VEHICLE IS MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY TO BE KILLED THAN IF HIT BY A NORMAL SIZED CAR
www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article...4
Four-wheel drive vehicles are 25% more likely to be involved in accidents than ordinary family cars. And when the crunch comes, 4x4s do more than their fair share of damage.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/tm_method=full&o...l
LARGE 4x4 vehicles are at risk of overturning when they crash into motorway barriers, a report warned yesterday.
www.autotrader.co.uk/EDITORIAL/CARS/news/AUTOTRADE...l
Four wheel drive cars have been branded 'unsafe' by Government road safety experts.
I could also throw in some of the environmental arguements, but thats probably best left for another day!
|
Oh for goodness sake Andy. Your first "fact" in caps was a result of research titled...
**The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States?, Devon E. Lefler and Hampton C. Gabler, Department of mechanical Engineering, Rowan University, USA.**
Lets get something nearer to home circumstances... a source close to Katie Price might be more reliable!
Edited by M.M on 16/01/2010 at 20:38
|
The caps in the first post was cut-n-paste from the website - too lazy to re-type it all.
Lets get something nearer to home circumstances
I dont think the location of the research automatically discredits it. At least I am posting my sources of information to allow people to look at for themselves.
For example note that Manatee for some reason did not quote the following facts from the research he refers to:
"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."
I think its only fair to quote sources, its very easy to cherry pick facts or quote out of context.
|
For example note that Manatee for some reason did not quote the following facts from the research he refers to: "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."
No, I did better than that quoted the actual figure - 26% chance for large 4x4s, 22% for smaller 4x4s, and 21% for family sized cars. Methinks you protest too much.
The magazine link gets zapped by the swear filter - but as you have already discovered, it's easy to find by googling a string.
EDIT - drat, still haven't booked the holidays.
Edited by Manatee on 16/01/2010 at 20:57
|
|
Do you not think the balance of selective argument on this forum on already heavily on your side?
Your sources -
Brake - campaigning organisation with an axe to grind. The research they cite is mostly US origin or old.
Daily Mail - 2004 (and it's the Daily Mail).
Daily Mirror - no actual numbers in that one, just a warning that 4x4s are "at risk" of overturning when they hit motorway barriers, and "prone to be unsafe if drivers swerved suddenly at speed". I believe the Pope is a Catholic, and that motherhood and apple pie are generally seen as a good thing.
Autotrader - you missed off the last paragraph of the very article you are using to support your argument -
"But not everyone is convinced by the report.
Christopher Macgowan, Chief Executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said: "We need to reassure 4x4 owners. Researchers at TRL have demonstrated that drivers of 4x4s and MPVs are less likely to be involved in collisions with safety barriers and that occupants are less likely to be killed or seriously injured in all types of accident."
I will rest my case, I need to book my holidays ;-)
|
I will rest my case
hilarious!!!!
All you have done is to confirm the point I was making.
You quoted some 'facts'.
In response I quoted some 'facts' and pointed out that things can be taken out of context or cherry picked.
You then go on to agree that facts can be selectively reported.
I think, that I will rest MY case :)
|
I think it was my point that the evidence of the knockers is selective, and said up front that I would select (i.e. cherry pick if you wish) some of my own.
As it happens I didn't need to edit out unhelpful parts as you did; you then went on to accuse me wrongly of doing what you had done yourself, dishonestly suggesting that I had glossed over a point that I had actually quoted figures for.
I really have to go.
I give in. You, Gordon, and that Russian-sounding bloke are right. I'll ask to be beaten extra hard with the wet celery tonight and advertise my 4x4s in the morning.
|
Eh? So we agree then?
I think maybe it would have been better posted in the 4x4 bashing thread.
What you and the missus get up to with wet celery is no concern of mine, but hope you enjoy it none the less :)
How much do you want for yer 4x4?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
