NW, although I suspect our views on this subject aren't in great alignment, I do tend to agree with your analysis of the article; particularly this conclusion:-
>>Worthy of the Daily Mail.
Number_Cruncher
|
Why don't people just say they have a problem with SUV's rather than 4x4's? Seems easy enough to me...
Impreza - Yes please
X5 - Wouldn't have one if you paid me.
|
|
It seems clear that this is what they meant by 4x4. The article in question was wilfully misunderstanding that by my reading.
|
|
|
>>Impreza - Yes please
>>X5 - Wouldn't have one if you paid me.
I would have neither. Shame our impartial researcher didn't provide the "phone in hand" figures for Imprezas and X5s...
|
>>Impreza - Yes please >>X5 - Wouldn't have one if you paid me.
I'd like both please.Doesn't bother me what other people drive.If its for sale then anyone has the right to buy it.A little less preaching would be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
...I do tend to agree with your analysis of the article ...
>.
which one, the original bmj study or the "spike-online" one, or both ?
|
|
|
...I do tend to agree with your analysis of the article ...
>.
which one, the original bmj study or the "spiked-online" one, or both ?
|
Unless I've misread NW's post, I understood her analysis to refer to the spiked article.
|
... I understood her analysis to refer to the spiked article
>>
ok, so do you and nowwheels agree with the flawed (imo) bmj article?
|
|
|
|
|
NW, as usual on this subject your analysis is basically the case for the prosecution.
Quote: " It doesn't alter the finding that there is a type of vehicle who driver is four times as likely to be selfish enough to phone while driving."
It's not the vehicle that's the problem; it's the drivers - and they are found in all vehicle types. If you took the 4x4's off those bad eggs who choose them, would they change? And wheher is the analysis of other arbitrary categories - MPVs, Audi TTs, newer cars, older cars, bigger cars, smaller cars, red cars, silver cars? And what about the 92% of "off road 4x4" drivers who were not observed on the phone? Are they damned also?
The article cited by Spiked does a poor job of debunking the so-called study, but as a piece of research it sounds pretty ropey to me, even if we take the data as being accurate.
99% of statistics, if not actually made up, are misused, and otherwise intelligent people are taken in every time (vide the Sally Clark trial travesty). I would be amazed if the report in BMJ (no I haven't read it, only heard the incompetent BBC reporting) stands up to scrutiny in design, data collection, or conclusions.
No case to answer m'Lud.
|
It's not the vehicle that's the problem; it's the drivers
Hmm. I think we may differ on whether the vehicles are a problem, but this report wasn't about the vehicles -- it was about the drivers.
- and they are found in all vehicle types.
True, but what this study showed was that they were disproportionately found in this particular type of vehicle.
|
>>True, but what this study showed was that they were disproportionately found in this particular type of vehicle.
Good grief. NW. Do you think it's driving a 4x4 that makes people use the phone that? Stupid question - I know you do...enough already.
|
>>True, but what this study showed was that they were disproportionately >> found in this particular type of vehicle. Good grief. NW. Do you think it's driving a 4x4 that makes people use the phone that? Stupid question - I know you do...enough already.
No, of course I don't think that.
I think it's interesting that people who choose a dangerous and anti-social vehicle are more likely to drive in a dangerous and anti-social way. Not suprising, but still interesting to see the correlation confirmed.
|
"since road accidents are one of the biggest causes of accidental death" Not true.
"a dangerous and anti-social vehicle" your opinion not based on fact.
You may have changed your name but not your attitude or your habit of stating your own anti car views as fact.
You were the reason I stopped visiting the backroom for a while. Looks like another absence beckons.
Why can't you live and let live.
My final words on the subject, I shall not answer any more of your posts, I have a life
--
Alyn Beattie
I\'m sane, it\'s the rest of the world that\'s mad.
|
"since road accidents are one of the biggest causes of accidental death" Not true.
Maybe you don't trust National Statistics as a source on this issue? Try Table G in www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/DH4_2...f
"a dangerous and anti-social vehicle" your opinion not based on fact.
There's plenty of evidence on the dangers of off-road 4X4s, to pedestrians, to other vehicle users, and to their own occupants. Not everyone likes to look at that data, but it's there.
You may have changed your name but not your attitude or your habit of stating your own anti car views as fact.
There are some facts here. You may choose to class them as "opinion", but that's your choice.
You were the reason I stopped visiting the backroom for a while. Looks like another absence beckons.
Bye then! Some people don't like talking to people who they disagree with. It's your choice.
Why can't you live and let live.
I have no problem with things that don't do harm to other people.
My final words on the subject, I shall not answer any more of your posts, I have a life
As you please :)
|
>> "since road accidents are one of the biggest causes of accidental death" Not true.
Maybe you don't trust National Statistics as a source on this issue? Try Table G in www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/DH4_2...f
Table G says 3327 land transport accidents, 3794 other causes, 3462 self harm.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
There's plenty of evidence on the dangers of off-road 4X4s, to pedestrians, to other vehicle users, and to their own occupants. Not everyone likes to look at that data, but it's there.
You are so selective in your little wars it's not even funny. Any large vehicle has potential impact on smaller cars and pedestrians. Any strong vehicle has potential impact on safety of smaller, older, weaker cars and vehicles. Take recent Fifth Gear test of Grand Espace crash tests as example - it would literally drive through old Espace and it would drive through LR Discovery like tank trough a wooden cart. It might have 5 stars for protecting its own occupants but at what cost? There aren't that many vehicles out there capable of making complete mash out of Discovery killing all three passengers in process. If it does it to Landie, just think what would be left from a Micra after accident. And this car has 5 NCAP stars!
Similar situation with vans - also high centre of gravity vehicles, flat, high front which is dangerous to pedestrians, not tested for town impacts, when loaded also much more difficult to stop and release much bigger punch to third party. Often seen with bullbars, often found in questionable technical state. Not a day goes by without one of these overturning and blocking M25. And yet every tree hugger will rise their claws to scratch eyes out of 187,392 new SUVs and 4x4 owners that bought their cars in 2005 but in the same time they are willing to completely, blatantly ignore 322,920 new VANs brought onto the roads. Not dangerous enough? Does it has to have second gear level to be dangerous enough to bad mouth it or something?
Get a grip people, just because something looks massive and dangerous it doesn't mean it hunts people at night. Effectively unless you bring some kind of statistics that clearly show 4x4s are responsible for more accidents that any other car type you have nothing to fight with except your own prejudice.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
Perhaps people see the difference between vans and 4x4's because a van is a functional vehicle rather than a status symbol.
|
Perhaps people see the difference between vans and 4x4's because a van is a functional vehicle rather than a status symbol.
Why is 4x4 not functional? It often sits 7 people on a footprint smaller than Mondeo Estate, can carry extra weight of cargo without laughable 400kg limit of normal cars and won't rip its tailpipe if you drive through country paths to take your kids horseriding. Van on the other hand, could as well be a status symbol - most self employed people will buy it just because it has higher tax benefit than buying estate. Most of van men could do with small corsa really. But what kind of tradesman would drive a corsa, right? It's all about who has the longest one (wheel base) and who's stands tallest (high roof) ;)
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
|
|
|
The 'Spiked' article is nonsense - the author has clearly not read the BMJ paper. I find his comments on 'serious accidents' to be rather bizarre also. The paper's authors clearly state that they define a '4x4' as a vehicle designed for off-road use - hence an Imprezza would be classed as a 'car' and not a '4x4' (perhaps it would have been better if they'd stated 'off road vehicle' rather than 4x4).
The BMJ paper is another one of many which reinforces 'Peltzman's Theory of Risk Taking' - which says that if a driver feels safer (due to the use of seat belts, ABS, airbag, vehicle type etc) then s/he will be inclined to take more risks. This is well established through numerous studies including studies into the availability of ABS (published by the SAE about 10 years ago), many studies on the wearing of seatbelts in the UK, US, Germany etc etc. This theory is well known to engineers who work on vehicle safety systems. More 'obvious' safety features (such as seat belts) tend to have a bigger impact on driver behaviour than hidden features such as side airbags. Clearly if someone buys a 4x4 because they think its safer then they may be inclined to more risky behavour. Insurance company statistics in the UK and US show that 4x4 drivers are about a factor 1.25 more likely to be at fault in an accident than drivers of non-SUV vehicles.
|
Since purchasing a large 'proper' 4x4 last July, my driving style has changed beyond all recognition. I now no longer race people from the traffic lights, drive along the motorway in 3-figure speeds or throw my vehicle excessively round roundabouts on two wheels.
I am more than aware that the 2 ton 'van' that I am driving can do immense damage, should any form of accident happen, especially should it be with a Fiat Cinquento etc.. Therefore, I find myself thinking before overtaking, or pulling out and generally being more courteous.
Just me personally!
------------------------------------------------
Drive Your Way - If anything can, TerraCan
-----
|
|
|
The BMJ paper is another one of many which reinforces 'Peltzman's Theory of Risk Taking' - which says that if a driver feels safer (due to the use of seat belts, ABS, airbag, vehicle type etc) then s/he will be inclined to take more risks.
I wonder how much having an automatic gearbox would contribute towards "Peltzman's theory" - not necessarily a safety feature but certainly one that may cause driver to be a bit more "complacent" (I use the term loosely). I also wonder how many of those so called 4X4s were automatic.
I think the answer to both may be "quite a lot".
What may also be interesting to see is phone calls made by automatic drivers versus manual drivers.
|
I wonder how much having an automatic gearbox would contribute towards "Peltzman's theory" - not necessarily a safety feature but certainly one that may cause driver to be a bit more "complacent" (I use the term loosely). I also wonder how many of those so called 4X4s were automatic.
There have been lots of studies done over the years on auto vs. manual transmission. Results have appeared in auto industry 'trade journals' like AW. I can't quote references off the top of my head, but in general they've shown that auto transmission vehicle variants are less likely to be involved in accidents than their manual counterparts. This may have something to do with buyer demographics, of course. There is also much published research on driver stress and 'workload' auto vs. manual. Typically this involves drivers being wired for heartrate, perspiration etc and then setting out on a fixed, but unfamiliar, route. Typically the auto drivers exhibit lower levels of stress.
|
I'm sure that the auto box has a lot to do with this. Most SUVs will have auto (generalisation I admit), and if you've got an auto, then it's suddently feasible to be in the phone round town. Without a handsfree, I simply couldn't work my car in traffic while on the phone.
It would be interesting (but probably not practical) to see how well the correlation survived if applied to vehicles with automatic transmission, rather than SUVs.
For the record, I detest the majority of SUVs that are pointless and dangerous to others. However, I don't think that they could or should be banned in a free society.
|
|
|
|
I agree with Aprilia's summation of the Spiked article. Nevertheless I mistrust the reportage's interpretation of the research study, even if said study was properly conducted.
Aprilia's 1.25 SUV factor is congruent with others I have seen quoted in respect of blame accidents and insurance claims generally. Nevertheless, that puts in within chucking distance of the mean and doesn't really mean much unless we have some context, such as the comparable factor for convertibles, MPVs, performance cars, etc etc. - I would expect a fairly wide spread of rates across different categories.
A less punctilious person (and there's one not far away) might conclude that a 1.25 rate for blame accidents is reason to proscribe a vehicle type - as if everything should be at least as good as the average, Lake Wobegon style.
At some stage I sincerely hope that our masters, if they cannot leave this subject alone, will at least take a comprehensive and rational view rather than treating it as a debate, where the outcome depends on the availability of emotive arguments and the filtering of the surrounding facts.
This is not a defence, or otherwise, of SUVs BTW - I'm just tired of hearing bilge on both sides of the argument - the following article by the SMMT chief is a nice piece of rhetoric but is no more valid than Ken Livingstone's rabble rousing vitriol:
motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article1157832....e
|
|
|
|
I think it's interesting that people who choose a dangerous and anti-social vehicle are more likely to drive in a dangerous and anti-social way. Not suprising, but still interesting to see the correlation confirmed.
I normally find your arguments quite logical, but I'm not sure in this case. Seems to me (without reading the article, I stress) that the BMJ article has shown only a correlation between 4x4 usage and phone usage. That correlation *could* be due to the level of 'selfishness' of the drivers, but equally it could be due to a number of other factors. For example, it could be that 4x4 drivers are more likely to be wealthy (4x4s are expensive to buy and run), and that wealthy people are more likely to use the phone (for their jobs, for example) than poorer people. So it could simply be that 4x4 drivers use the phone in general more (due to their typical occupation). In which case the non-4x4 drivers aren't using the phone less because they're less selfish, but merely because they make/take less calls.
Bottom line - a correlation is easy to demonstrate, but on its own provides little more than guidance for future research. Without isolating all the variables involved, there is no way to determine the *reason* for the correlation.
|
... the BMJ article has shown only a correlation between 4x4 usage and phone usage ..
>>
dylan - i agree with your views.
here is the bmj article.
bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/333/7558/71?e...m
note that it is described as "This study formed part of the honours degree of JW at Imperial College".
as far as i can see, this study showed that on the days and locations he carried out this experiment, he found that drivers of 4x4s (as defined by him) were more likely to break seat-belt and mobile-phone laws. this could be taken as proof that the people who couldn't care less about obeying traffic laws were more likely to own 4x4s than "normal cars" irrespective of what their perceived safety of any particular vehicle. without conducting interviews of the drivers who were flouting the rules, it is not possible for me to jump to the conclusion that this undergraduate did.
|
here is the bmj article. bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/333/7558/71?e...m
Thanks for the article link. Having read the article I stand by my comments. Of particular note is this part of the "Limitations and strengths of our study" section:
"The theory of risk compensation predicts that drivers of four wheel drive vehicles would take more risks when driving. Our findings that drivers of four wheel drive vehicles are more likely to use mobile phones and not to use seatbelts while driving strongly support this hypothesis."
I disagree with the use of 'strongly support' in this context. I think the phrase 'is consistent with' would be more appropriate. Indeed, the conclusion section uses the term consistent:
"Drivers of four wheel drive vehicles were more likely than drivers of cars to break both laws, consistent with the theory of risk compensation"
There is a huge difference between 'strongly supports' and 'is consistent with'. For them to be used interchangibly in this way casts doubt on the credibility of the authors in my mind.
Also the potentil issue I raised of variable phone use is dodged somewhat in this paragraph, again from the "Limitations and strength" section:
"Our findings that use of hand held mobile phones was higher in drivers of four wheel drive vehicles than drivers of normal cars are unlikely to be explained by differential ownership of mobile phones"
This is a reasonable statement - I agree with the assertion. However it's not the *ownership* that's signficiant - it's the frequency of and duration of calls that counts. That issue is not discussed, meaning either the author didn't think of it, or he wanted to side-step it. I'd guess the latter.
Overall an interesting study with some interesting raw data, but (as with many academic papers) you have to draw your conclusions, not rely on those of the authors.
|
|
|
|
|
Hear hear Dylan - I interpret your comments as rejection of bias rather than support for 4x4s.
|
|
|
>>> I normally find your arguments quite logical, but I'm not sure in this case.
Dylan, I think that we seem to be in agreement on the correlation, though maybe not on the dangers of 4X4s and mobile phones while driving. I think that the BMJ article may have somewhat over-reached itself in explaining the reasons for the correlation, and as you say, more research is needed.
Whatever the reasons, though, a police officer looking to catch those driving with mobiles would appear to be well-advised to target 4X4s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
