Stop Urban 4x4's .org
16 May 2005, 11:43 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason you are still in your 4WD is because there are small groups of people actively fighting against the likes of Sian Berry. However, as you can see, we might win the occasional battle but we are losing the war. Sian has Greenpeace, FoE, Transport 2000, TfL, Red Ken and large elements of the Labour Party and many EU lobbies as well all on her side. Your taxes are literally being used to force you out of your transport of choice.
There are 33 million motorists in the UK and only a very few thousand of them are actively involved in fighting to keep their access to private transport. The rest think it will never happen. In 10 years time when they are sitting on the bus with private transport beyond their reach they will have plenty of time to reflect on where they were wrong.
There are 33 million motorists in the UK and only a very few thousand of them are actively involved in fighting to keep their access to private transport. The rest think it will never happen. In 10 years time when they are sitting on the bus with private transport beyond their reach they will have plenty of time to reflect on where they were wrong.
17 May 2005, 09:33 AM
#33
[QUOTE=Drunken Bungle *****]
Being hit, even at low speeds, by a 4x4 will kill a child, whereas being hit by a standard car would 'only' result in injury (not ideal I know, but preferable under the circumstances).
QUOTE]
I'm sorry that 'statement' just doesn't wash!
Do you know the current impreza wieghs nearly 1 1/2 tonnes, 4x4s at 2 tonnes, Fiat Panda at 3 oz
Anyone see the top gear tests with test dummies that showed a MUCH safer impact at same speed with 4x4 flat front for adults...
Any stats on how many injuries are actually caused by 4x4s compared with 'normal cars' - whatever they are...
Where does a 4x4 stop being a 'Big BAD and Dangerous 4x4'?
Range Rover - obviously not... 6 million adults and 12 million children are killed or maimed every week in the UK by Range Rovers - evryone knows that - so they obviously should be banned...
Porsche Cayenne
Discovery / Shogun / X5
Freelander/ RAV4 / X3
Volvo XC90
Subaru Forester
Subaru Legacy Outback
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Impreza
Subaru Justy
Fiat Panda 4x4
Where do you draw the line?
Where will Greenpeace ***** draw the line?
Mick
Being hit, even at low speeds, by a 4x4 will kill a child, whereas being hit by a standard car would 'only' result in injury (not ideal I know, but preferable under the circumstances).
QUOTE]
I'm sorry that 'statement' just doesn't wash!
Do you know the current impreza wieghs nearly 1 1/2 tonnes, 4x4s at 2 tonnes, Fiat Panda at 3 oz
Anyone see the top gear tests with test dummies that showed a MUCH safer impact at same speed with 4x4 flat front for adults...
Any stats on how many injuries are actually caused by 4x4s compared with 'normal cars' - whatever they are...
Where does a 4x4 stop being a 'Big BAD and Dangerous 4x4'?
Range Rover - obviously not... 6 million adults and 12 million children are killed or maimed every week in the UK by Range Rovers - evryone knows that - so they obviously should be banned...
Porsche Cayenne
Discovery / Shogun / X5
Freelander/ RAV4 / X3
Volvo XC90
Subaru Forester
Subaru Legacy Outback
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Impreza
Subaru Justy
Fiat Panda 4x4
Where do you draw the line?
Where will Greenpeace ***** draw the line?
Mick
17 May 2005, 09:51 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Mick]
Mick, use your brain rather than just ranting. An Impreza weighs 1.5 tonnes, fair enough, but a Discovery weighs 2.7 tonnes. Added to that, it's usually got semi off-road tyres, which don't generate the same levels of grip. The laws of physics make it obvious which one will do the most damage.
Crucially, however, it's much taller than the average car, which means that you just won't see that 4 year-old who dashes into your way. Granted, they shouldn't run out in front of you, but the fact remains that the phenomenon of the high-consumption large 4x4 in town centres is a nonsense.
The Top Gear tests are fine, but as you've pointed out, they're on adults. Does the same apply to children, do you think? Probably not.
Personally, I think that urban 4x4s are stupid, but that 'Stop 4x4' campaign is going about it the wrong way; a better way would be to remove road tax but increase fuel duties. That way, those who use the most fuel pay the most in terms of tax, which seems eminently fair. Still wouldn't get around the fact that these cars are just silly in town centres, but it might make them think a little more. Oh, and slap a gas-guzzler tax on them as well, at the time of purchase.
Originally Posted by Drunken Bungle *****
Being hit, even at low speeds, by a 4x4 will kill a child, whereas being hit by a standard car would 'only' result in injury (not ideal I know, but preferable under the circumstances).
QUOTE]
I'm sorry that 'statement' just doesn't wash!
Do you know the current impreza wieghs nearly 1 1/2 tonnes, 4x4s at 2 tonnes, Fiat Panda at 3 oz
Anyone see the top gear tests with test dummies that showed a MUCH safer impact at same speed with 4x4 flat front for adults...
Any stats on how many injuries are actually caused by 4x4s compared with 'normal cars' - whatever they are...
Where does a 4x4 stop being a 'Big BAD and Dangerous 4x4'?
Range Rover - obviously not... 6 million adults and 12 million children are killed or maimed every week in the UK by Range Rovers - evryone knows that - so they obviously should be banned...
Porsche Cayenne
Discovery / Shogun / X5
Freelander/ RAV4 / X3
Volvo XC90
Subaru Forester
Subaru Legacy Outback
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Impreza
Subaru Justy
Fiat Panda 4x4
Where do you draw the line?
Where will Greenpeace ***** draw the line?
Mick
QUOTE]
I'm sorry that 'statement' just doesn't wash!
Do you know the current impreza wieghs nearly 1 1/2 tonnes, 4x4s at 2 tonnes, Fiat Panda at 3 oz
Anyone see the top gear tests with test dummies that showed a MUCH safer impact at same speed with 4x4 flat front for adults...
Any stats on how many injuries are actually caused by 4x4s compared with 'normal cars' - whatever they are...
Where does a 4x4 stop being a 'Big BAD and Dangerous 4x4'?
Range Rover - obviously not... 6 million adults and 12 million children are killed or maimed every week in the UK by Range Rovers - evryone knows that - so they obviously should be banned...
Porsche Cayenne
Discovery / Shogun / X5
Freelander/ RAV4 / X3
Volvo XC90
Subaru Forester
Subaru Legacy Outback
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Impreza
Subaru Justy
Fiat Panda 4x4
Where do you draw the line?
Where will Greenpeace ***** draw the line?
Mick
Crucially, however, it's much taller than the average car, which means that you just won't see that 4 year-old who dashes into your way. Granted, they shouldn't run out in front of you, but the fact remains that the phenomenon of the high-consumption large 4x4 in town centres is a nonsense.
The Top Gear tests are fine, but as you've pointed out, they're on adults. Does the same apply to children, do you think? Probably not.
Personally, I think that urban 4x4s are stupid, but that 'Stop 4x4' campaign is going about it the wrong way; a better way would be to remove road tax but increase fuel duties. That way, those who use the most fuel pay the most in terms of tax, which seems eminently fair. Still wouldn't get around the fact that these cars are just silly in town centres, but it might make them think a little more. Oh, and slap a gas-guzzler tax on them as well, at the time of purchase.
17 May 2005, 10:16 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newcastle-under-lyme
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their website says that half of the pollution from a 4x4 in its lifetime is attributable to its construction and disposal.
Does this mean that as over 50% of all Land Rovers ever produced are still in existence, that a Land Rover is the lowest polluting vehicle in the world????
If they all burn fossil fuels in their homes, they have no right to comment on pollution grounds.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Steve W
Does this mean that as over 50% of all Land Rovers ever produced are still in existence, that a Land Rover is the lowest polluting vehicle in the world????
If they all burn fossil fuels in their homes, they have no right to comment on pollution grounds.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Steve W
17 May 2005, 10:17 AM
#36
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by the moose
Oh, and slap a gas-guzzler tax on them as well, at the time of purchase.
17 May 2005, 10:35 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hitting a kid at low speed while doing a 3 point turn (for example) wont make much difference if you are in a tank, a car, a brick wall or a horse......all of them will knock the kid flying - death will come down to what they bash into next and the scoop on a scoob could be as deadly as (if not worse than) the flat front of a range rover.
17 May 2005, 10:41 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I used to know 'activists' they would have just slashed your tyres or keyed the **** out of your vehicle rather than sticking some twattish sticker on it. These lot sound like softies to me.
The only use I can see for stickers if they are hard to remove and they affix them to the windscreen.
The only use I can see for stickers if they are hard to remove and they affix them to the windscreen.
17 May 2005, 10:45 AM
#40
Originally Posted by the moose
Mick, use your brain rather than just ranting. An Impreza weighs 1.5 tonnes, fair enough, but a Discovery weighs 2.7 tonnes. Added to that, it's usually got semi off-road tyres, which don't generate the same levels of grip. The laws of physics make it obvious which one will do the most damage.
Crucially, however, it's much taller than the average car, which means that you just won't see that 4 year-old who dashes into your way. Granted, they shouldn't run out in front of you, but the fact remains that the phenomenon of the high-consumption large 4x4 in town centres is a nonsense.
Personally, I think that urban 4x4s are stupid, but that 'Stop 4x4' campaign is going about it the wrong way; a better way would be to remove road tax but increase fuel duties. That way, those who use the most fuel pay the most in terms of tax, which seems eminently fair. Still wouldn't get around the fact that these cars are just silly in town centres, but it might make them think a little more. Oh, and slap a gas-guzzler tax on them as well, at the time of purchase.
Crucially, however, it's much taller than the average car, which means that you just won't see that 4 year-old who dashes into your way. Granted, they shouldn't run out in front of you, but the fact remains that the phenomenon of the high-consumption large 4x4 in town centres is a nonsense.
Personally, I think that urban 4x4s are stupid, but that 'Stop 4x4' campaign is going about it the wrong way; a better way would be to remove road tax but increase fuel duties. That way, those who use the most fuel pay the most in terms of tax, which seems eminently fair. Still wouldn't get around the fact that these cars are just silly in town centres, but it might make them think a little more. Oh, and slap a gas-guzzler tax on them as well, at the time of purchase.
I have a brain and an auto engineering background - my objection was to the comment that a 4x4 WILL kill a child at a low speed impact - whereas a 'normal car' will 'only' injure - that is just a ludicrous comment!
As it happens - you get a pretty good forward view from being higher up in a 4x4 picture the scene for shorter drivers peering over the Subaru bonnet scoop... - reversing is a problem - but then it would be with many estate vehicles. Rear parking sensors are very useful here and I think they should be fitted to all vehicles with poor rear visibility. How is an MPV any better in this respect?
Those who use the most fuel DO pay the most TAX! We fund the govt with 80% of the cost of fuel - had you forgotten?
As I said before should people who use a 4x4 out of the city then have to buy another car for city use - or hire one - or use the dreadful public transport system?
These cars are very useful in town centres and traffic jams - you get to se what is going on ahead and can anticipate problem and give people a little space to ease congestion or otherwise unforeseen sudden braking etc.
I didn't know why people liked them until I drove one in OZ to go driving on a sand island - It struck me driving back to the city on the tarmac why they were so much loved.
If you haven't tried an off-road 4x4 I recommend taking one for a test drive you may find you change your tune! - Do you know the kids story book 'Green Eggs and Ham' - that was me I'm a convert from a Motorbike and Subaru Impreza Turbo... I still love them both - but my favourite drive is the Land Rover Discovery V8!
You can find out more about them here... http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehicles/overview.htm
Love & muddy hugs...
Mick
17 May 2005, 10:52 AM
#41
Originally Posted by Steve PPP
Their website says that half of the pollution from a 4x4 in its lifetime is attributable to its construction and disposal.
Does this mean that as over 50% of all Land Rovers ever produced are still in existence, that a Land Rover is the lowest polluting vehicle in the world????
If they all burn fossil fuels in their homes, they have no right to comment on pollution grounds.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Steve W
Does this mean that as over 50% of all Land Rovers ever produced are still in existence, that a Land Rover is the lowest polluting vehicle in the world????
If they all burn fossil fuels in their homes, they have no right to comment on pollution grounds.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Steve W
Just developing exhaust systems - we had to run engines on full power sometimes for weeks on end on a dyno - for durability assesment - imajine that happening for every variant of car and engine and obviously for many different components...
Mick
17 May 2005, 11:06 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drive a Forester!! 
Best shoot me now!!! 
I did not want an Impreza due to the negative image that is associated with them, especially as it will be my wife who drives it for the majority of the time!
I did not want a Legacy as it doesn't have a turbo!! (Well not one that I could insure easily... no JDMs for me)
MPVs lack the boot space I needed from a car, although I see the merits of owning one if you have a baby factory between your legs!
I didn't want a wide car (and by wide I lump things like Mondeos) as I hate getting dinks in the car park.
Although I'm not that tall, I wanted head room due to my upright driving style.
I didn't want a 'typical' 4x4 such as a CRV (Have you seen the height on them, or even driven one?)
The Forester made sense, with it's turbo, automatic gearbox and as a downside the gas guzzling ability.
Compare it to a Volvo and the bumpers are at a similar height, but I have the advantage of more headroom.
Compare the length and it's similar to a WRX wagon.
Compare the width and it's similar to an Impreza, but due to the seating position I don't have to open the doors as wide (saving me and the cars I park next to dinks)
Another arguement is the handling of the 4x4s around town. Although with my Impreza ARB and drop links, I would say it handles better than some of the hatchbacks and people carriers out there.
Having just become a parent safety ratings are very important to me, as I care about the cotents of my car, not those outside of it. I know plenty of new cars have good ratings, but when you look at the older cars (and ones in my budget) they can be terrible. Thankfully for me although the Forester does not have a EuroNCAP rating, in the States, its a 5 star car.
My car still has both it's cats in place (which I know are in full working order) and only uses NUL petrol, so none of the expensive SUL or smokey diesel.
I've justified my car choice, not that I should have to!!
Do you know what?....
I still blame Tony Blair!!
Best shoot me now!!! I did not want an Impreza due to the negative image that is associated with them, especially as it will be my wife who drives it for the majority of the time!
I did not want a Legacy as it doesn't have a turbo!!
(Well not one that I could insure easily... no JDMs for me)MPVs lack the boot space I needed from a car, although I see the merits of owning one if you have a baby factory between your legs!
I didn't want a wide car (and by wide I lump things like Mondeos) as I hate getting dinks in the car park.
Although I'm not that tall, I wanted head room due to my upright driving style.
I didn't want a 'typical' 4x4 such as a CRV (Have you seen the height on them, or even driven one?)
The Forester made sense, with it's turbo, automatic gearbox and as a downside the gas guzzling ability.
Compare it to a Volvo and the bumpers are at a similar height, but I have the advantage of more headroom.
Compare the length and it's similar to a WRX wagon.
Compare the width and it's similar to an Impreza, but due to the seating position I don't have to open the doors as wide (saving me and the cars I park next to dinks)
Another arguement is the handling of the 4x4s around town. Although with my Impreza ARB and drop links, I would say it handles better than some of the hatchbacks and people carriers out there.
Having just become a parent safety ratings are very important to me, as I care about the cotents of my car, not those outside of it. I know plenty of new cars have good ratings, but when you look at the older cars (and ones in my budget) they can be terrible. Thankfully for me although the Forester does not have a EuroNCAP rating, in the States, its a 5 star car.
My car still has both it's cats in place (which I know are in full working order) and only uses NUL petrol, so none of the expensive SUL or smokey diesel.
I've justified my car choice, not that I should have to!!
Do you know what?....
I still blame Tony Blair!!
17 May 2005, 11:20 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Turboland
Posts: 5,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy Tang
I did not want an Impreza due to the negative image that is associated with them, especially as it will be my wife who drives it for the majority of the time!
17 May 2005, 11:22 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wycomite living in Sydney for now
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have to agree with the tree huggers NOT
Got rid of the TD5 discovery, and got a forester instead because its not a 4x4, its AWD and of course its more economical, b*ll*x it is, my wifes disco was at least 10 mpg better to the gallon than my XT 
Its all crap, you get hammered on the petrol duty anyway, so 4x4 drivers are already paying through the nose, its there choice.
Seems the tree hugging/bunny cuddlers will not be happy until we are all on push bikes, and if red Ken agrees with them, thats a good enough reason for me to take a complete opposite view on principal
NOTGot rid of the TD5 discovery, and got a forester instead because its not a 4x4, its AWD
and of course its more economical, b*ll*x it is, my wifes disco was at least 10 mpg better to the gallon than my XT Its all crap, you get hammered on the petrol duty anyway, so 4x4 drivers are already paying through the nose, its there choice.
Seems the tree hugging/bunny cuddlers will not be happy until we are all on push bikes, and if red Ken agrees with them, thats a good enough reason for me to take a complete opposite view on principal
17 May 2005, 11:24 AM
#46
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Andy Tang
By the way I live in the stereotypical suburban setting of Surbiton!
Those speed humps are a nightmare!
Those speed humps are a nightmare!
Night out in Kingston when you got to Surbiton you were just about half way home to Tolworth (Walking in a zig zag stylee).
.Back on Topic - Ban all cars driven by fat arsed women - Solve 90% of the problems on the road (And might actually reduce the amount of fat arsed women out there)
Now to set up a website StopUrbanFatArsedBitches.com
17 May 2005, 12:11 PM
#48
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Scotchland
Posts: 6,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brendan Hughes
jasey, you're not ex-Kingston Poly as well are you?
Ex-Rivermead School (was a nice place a bit like a borstal but with a tougher regime
17 May 2005, 01:09 PM
#49
17 May 2005, 02:04 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by paul-s
what is this "negative image" then ?? you think all impreza owners are something in particular ?
The negative image is that every tw*t and monkey will try to race an Impreza! As well as car jackings (two that I know have been local to me) as well as break ins for car keys, all coupled with the fact I don't have a useable garage.
With all of that in mind, would you own an Impreza if you know that the main users of the car will be your wife and child?
Just covering old ground, as I'm sure these comments are made at least once a week in the general forum!
It's not a slant on people who do own Imprezas, as some of my best friends own Imprezas!
17 May 2005, 02:07 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The land of Daisies and Bubbles!
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the statement that the greens are going about things all wrong and generally just p1ssing people off. Everyone is free to drive exactly what they want to drive - but we have to understand that fossil fuels are a finite resource and will one day run out. We can think about how we use them now, or guzzle the lot up and leave it to our kids and grand kids to worry about. (Never mind the pollution issues)
My own car is a WRX and I enjoy driving it - but my next company car will most likely be a Toyota Prius - dual fuel. Not perfect but a big step in the right direction. It's a personal choice and I don't expect to get a slagging for it (though most probably will) any more than I've given anyone else a hard time for what they drive.
I had no intention of starting fight with my earlier comments on safety - I was just asking a question - how silly of me to expect a rational answer....
My own car is a WRX and I enjoy driving it - but my next company car will most likely be a Toyota Prius - dual fuel. Not perfect but a big step in the right direction. It's a personal choice and I don't expect to get a slagging for it (though most probably will) any more than I've given anyone else a hard time for what they drive.
I had no intention of starting fight with my earlier comments on safety - I was just asking a question - how silly of me to expect a rational answer....
17 May 2005, 02:11 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zilch
Seems the tree hugging/bunny cuddlers will not be happy until we are all on push bikes, and if red Ken agrees with them, thats a good enough reason for me to take a complete opposite view on principal
17 May 2005, 02:12 PM
#53
Originally Posted by Drunken Bungle *****
I had no intention of starting fight with my earlier comments on safety - I was just asking a question - how silly of me to expect a rational answer....
It's just data...
such as Range Rover 2003 model gets * for pedestrian safety... BUT so does Audi A3 2003 MY
So extrapolating, if a Range Rover... Well lets not go there, but you understand where I'm coming from?
Big hug to make up...
Mick
17 May 2005, 02:22 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The land of Daisies and Bubbles!
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries Mick - I have green tendancies so scare quite easily!
I've been onto the guys at TRL (Transport Research Labs) who I do a lot of work with - they do all the NCAP tests and major accident investigations etc. They also hold the accident databases from police forces around the country and have recently done some more research into the subject of pedestrians -v- 4wds. They're going to get back to me with some stats around the safety of 4WDs - and they're completely independent - not funded by the government, the greens or anyone.
I shall leave it to them to tell me how safe/ dangerous they really are.
I've been onto the guys at TRL (Transport Research Labs) who I do a lot of work with - they do all the NCAP tests and major accident investigations etc. They also hold the accident databases from police forces around the country and have recently done some more research into the subject of pedestrians -v- 4wds. They're going to get back to me with some stats around the safety of 4WDs - and they're completely independent - not funded by the government, the greens or anyone.
I shall leave it to them to tell me how safe/ dangerous they really are.
17 May 2005, 02:33 PM
#56
Hmmm... Being a motorcyclist I'm very wary of the 'independant' TRL - They were at one point recommending compulsory 'leg-protectors' for motorcyles - Huge uproar over that one
Cheers
Mick
Cheers
Mick
17 May 2005, 02:36 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Mick, nice site. One final argument I get is the people who say "these things have the potential to cause lots of serious accidents." And that's been on here. Considering that the people who drive imprezas are often mid-20s and desperate to drive at the highest speeds they possibly can, and considering the number which have been written off, I think it would be nice to do a comparison "No. of cars in country / No. of accident claims / [therefore] % of cars which have accidents". I've little doubt that, despite the potential, it's actually the sports car owners which have the most accidents pro rata.
BTW, I still disagree with 4 litre Land Cruisers on the school run though
BTW, I still disagree with 4 litre Land Cruisers on the school run though
17 May 2005, 02:47 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The land of Daisies and Bubbles!
Posts: 5,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - chaps at TRL got back to me. Here's the site with all the NCAP results:
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safe...troduction.php
Now, we got into discussion about the fact that 4WDs don't really show up as being that much worse than many other cars. Obviously I can't get access to their private data bases, but they assure me the personal injuries to pedestrians from accidents involving 4WDs are much worse.
The reason is this - the NCAP tests check things like crumplzones etc, what they don't take account of is the shape of the front of the vehicle. So in a normal car the bumber is angled so when it hits a pedestrian it takes their legs away and throws them up onto the bonnet (even the scoop on a scoob doesn't cause any major problems apparently.)
The problem with a 4WD is that it's much higher and flatter at the front, so rather than being thrown onto the bonnet (which though painfull, will reduce the overall injury) pedestrians are knocked flat - rather like being hit by a brick wall. The effect is far worse for children because their heads are lower down - we're likely to get smacked in the torso and they're going to take much more of the impact on the head.
I'm sure there'll be more discussion around this subject, but as far as I'm concerned TRL are the experts (www.trl.co.uk) this is what they spend their lives doing so this is who I choose to listen to.
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safe...troduction.php
Now, we got into discussion about the fact that 4WDs don't really show up as being that much worse than many other cars. Obviously I can't get access to their private data bases, but they assure me the personal injuries to pedestrians from accidents involving 4WDs are much worse.
The reason is this - the NCAP tests check things like crumplzones etc, what they don't take account of is the shape of the front of the vehicle. So in a normal car the bumber is angled so when it hits a pedestrian it takes their legs away and throws them up onto the bonnet (even the scoop on a scoob doesn't cause any major problems apparently.)
The problem with a 4WD is that it's much higher and flatter at the front, so rather than being thrown onto the bonnet (which though painfull, will reduce the overall injury) pedestrians are knocked flat - rather like being hit by a brick wall. The effect is far worse for children because their heads are lower down - we're likely to get smacked in the torso and they're going to take much more of the impact on the head.
I'm sure there'll be more discussion around this subject, but as far as I'm concerned TRL are the experts (www.trl.co.uk) this is what they spend their lives doing so this is who I choose to listen to.
17 May 2005, 03:00 PM
#59
Safety 'experts' in Australia decided that head injuries amongst cyclists would be darastically reduced if all cyclist not just kids had to wear cycle helmets...
They were absolutely correct! - Head injuries amongst adult cyclist were reduced by 75%! - astounding! - as was the fact that the number of adults cycling was also reduced by 75%
An interesting story my wife read to me out of the BMJ a few years ago...
Not sure how relevant that is - just thought I ought to share it with you
Mick
They were absolutely correct! - Head injuries amongst adult cyclist were reduced by 75%! - astounding! - as was the fact that the number of adults cycling was also reduced by 75%
An interesting story my wife read to me out of the BMJ a few years ago...
Not sure how relevant that is
- just thought I ought to share it with you Mick
17 May 2005, 04:58 PM
#60
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You sad little g*ts
Just cause you got a Subaru you think you can take on the world!!
Cant afford a Ferrari hey??
One day (keep playing the Lotto)
In the mean time
stay out of the anti 4x4 debate
if they ban 4x4's(and they wont, what would Tony Blair drive let alone the queen) the next thing will be cars with more than 100bhp and stereos that go louder than 40db
I'd get behind any debate that supports cars (being as this is a car forum)
DONT GET INVOLVED OR I'LL COME TO YOUR HOUSES AND DRIVE OVER YOUR SAD LITTLE 'FAKE' 4X4'S
Ps i drive 2 Land Rover Discoverys
1 LPG v8i which has no emissions, no Co2 problems and does'nt pay congestion charges (because red Ken understands that its better than a new mini for pollution)
2 TDi 35mpg = what does your car do?? bet mines better than yours and its got a cat (where's yours gone?)
Just cause you got a Subaru you think you can take on the world!!
Cant afford a Ferrari hey??
One day (keep playing the Lotto)
In the mean time
stay out of the anti 4x4 debate
if they ban 4x4's(and they wont, what would Tony Blair drive let alone the queen) the next thing will be cars with more than 100bhp and stereos that go louder than 40db
I'd get behind any debate that supports cars (being as this is a car forum)
DONT GET INVOLVED OR I'LL COME TO YOUR HOUSES AND DRIVE OVER YOUR SAD LITTLE 'FAKE' 4X4'S
Ps i drive 2 Land Rover Discoverys
1 LPG v8i which has no emissions, no Co2 problems and does'nt pay congestion charges (because red Ken understands that its better than a new mini for pollution)
2 TDi 35mpg = what does your car do?? bet mines better than yours and its got a cat (where's yours gone?)
Last edited by mines bigger than yours; 17 May 2005 at 05:09 PM.