good forum people. been following it for last 6 months.
I'm in the process of buying a motor for my fair lady. I've heard statistically that you've a lower risk of injury in a larger car. Obvious I guess, so I've decided on a (small) 4x4. First of all, am I right in thinking that she'd be safer in a say Suzuki Grand Vitara, than a Golf? And also importantly would this still apply if it was the 3-door Grand Vitara/Rav4 say. Important 'cos the shorter length would be easier for her to cope with, living in Laaandan.
My budget is 4000grand. Could buy old Grand Vitara, but Rav4 out of reach I think. Honda CR-V to big. HR-V too expensive still. Freelander unreliable right? Any other ideas.... thanks in advance. And steer clear of a small 4x4 with P plates soon...
{Subject header amended. DD}
|
Flawed argument
A small 4x4 will get you INTO trouble. The handle badly and are unpredicatble at speed when "diverted" (ie by a side swipe etc)
Small 4x4s are not better in a crash than any other similar sized vehicle.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
I can't help thinking there's a more fundamental flaw in the starting line "I've bought you a car - you ought to be safe in this".
Safety comes from a lot of things, but mainly from the attitude of mind and behaviour of the driver. I'm not sure that the feeling, I'm OK because I'm in a big car, is actually a very safe attitude.
BTW, am I very out of date in thinking the subject line of this thread is actually rather rude? Moderators? {I've now amended it to something else. DD}
|
Agreed. Very rude Americanism.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
|
For short and safe how about a Clio?
|
|
Agreed, the Clio has good NCAP ratings, might be the best option with safety in mind, on the other hand you can buy an ex fleet Laguna II for 4 grand, larger and also with 5 stars so safer still (just ask TVM) though a 4 grand Laguna might be problematic.
|
|
|
|
Without being in the least bit old-fashioned, and strongly agreeing in principle with Cliff and GWS about the possible impropriety of the title (as a quick "Google" would reveal I'm sure), it would be revealing to know first what Zen thought he meant by it - before anyone hits the Offensive message button and the thread is lost.
Jack
|
|
|
|
|
Small 4x4s are not better in a crash than any other similar sized vehicle.
TVM is right, but in some ways a 4X4 is worse for the occupants, because of their tendency to roll. Also, some of them don't have proper crumple zones, leaving the occupants to take the full force of any impact.
Because of the height and the lack of crumple zones a 4X4 is likely to cause more damage to anything it hits than would be caused by an ordinary car. (That doesn't make the 4X4 safer, it just increases the damage all round)
Some of these points apply less to the newer type of 4X4 such as a Honda CR-V, which isn't quite so high and doesn't have a rigid chassis. But it still has safety problems which an ordinary car lacks.
The most important point, though is Cliff Pope's comment elsewhere in this thread: "Safety comes from a lot of things, but mainly from the attitude of mind and behaviour of the driver."
A car made of egg-boxes and driven with care is safer than a badly-driven one with all the crash-protection imaginable.
|
Living in London, the obvious benefit of the 4x4 is to cope with speed bumps.
My concern would be what I would get for 4 grand.
|
|
|
If it's for driving around London, you'll never get over 30mph, so you're not really at risk of injury in an accident. Remember a child can be hit by a car at 30mph and will probably live. So if you're in a car in an accident at 30mph you should have few worries.
Make it a 4x4 hitting the child and the chances of survival are reduced. So do you not think it selfish, OP, to increase the risk of your wife's killing a child if she has an accident. She will have the child's death on her mind for the rest of her life - in the certain knowledge that the child would have had a better chance if you'd bought her a Panda.
As NW points out, it's the driving that makes you safe, not the car. There is a strong argument that the best safety feature on a car would be a big spike attached to the centre of the steering wheel pointing towards the driver.
It's your money, do what you want with it, it's a free world. There are plenty of reasons for wanting a 4x4. But to want it for town driving to make you safer is not, IMHO, a sensible reason for spending your money.
|
>>My budget is 4000grand<<
Mind you he does have a £ 4Million budget so could buy & run anything!!!!!
This buy a bigger motor is why we're where we are today. It's a bit like the arms race just keep buying bigger & bigger!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting and important points. I just feel that there is only so much I can do to help her learn to drive. And if i'm not with her in the car, the one major thing i can do is give her a vehicle in which she feels safe. I believe that in itself may give her more confidence, and thereby improve her driving ability/awareness. The skills and awareness will only come with experience, when we will then be free to choose whatever car we like. That's why we have NCAPs no? (should check those out now i mention it). I definitely read somewhere in last couple of weeks (maybe Times Driving) that some road safety organisation reports lower injury rates the larger the car. No fun sitting in cinquecento looking up at trucks,vans,large 4x4s and buses.
However, yes, risk of roll, handling, risk to others are factors to consider. Maybe I'll stick to small family hatchback afterall. Size is not everything is it!
P.S.
I reassure you header only referring to my first time posting. i think one of those phrases whose meaning evolved over time, certainly for my generation (late 20s)...
|
I definitely read somewhere in last couple of weeks (maybe Times Driving) that some road safety organisation reports lower injury rates the larger the car.
In general, that is probably true: the larger car can have a stronger safety cage and more efficient crumple zones. But in general a 4X4 will do worse on crash safety for its occupants than a similar-sized car, and that's before you count the risks from the reduced stability or the increased risk to other road-users.
As mapmaker pointed out, an increase in perceived safety doesn't necessarily make the occupants safer -- drivers may just use up the increased safety margin.
Maybe I'll stick to small family hatchback afterall. Size is not everything is it!
Probably wise :)
|
|
|
Zen
I got T-Boned (square into "A" post) by a single deck 38 seat bus traveling at 40 miles an hour. I was in a Laguna2.
Now that was a classic case of BIG verses SMALL (in relative terms) The fact I am still here is testament to cars with crash worthiness. Not normally a feature of small/medium 4*4's
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
If she is a novice, and driving in London, then she needs a small car with a bit of zip.
You need a bit of zip to avoid holding up the traffic.
And a small car will be much easier to park/drive etc.
Something where you can see the corners. Something like a Mk II or III Polo is superb.
|
|
Apart from being safer, cheaper and more economical to run than 4x4s, cars are better looking and more comfortable. If anyone feels safer in a small 4x4 than a small or smallish car, they have got something badly wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
