|
Quite possibly, but as those vehicles are on the road whether you like it or not, it seems a 4x4 is the safest.
|
|
|
Land Rover Defender
As previously stated you are my crumple zone !
|
it seems a 4x4 is the safest
Unfortunately the mindset of most people who buy one. They are by far the least safe vehicles for other road users, cyclists, pedestrians & the environment, but they cocoon the occupants so it's OK then.
|
Unfortunately the mindset of most people who buy one. They are by far the least safe vehicles for other road users, cyclists, pedestrians & the environment, but they cocoon the occupants so it's OK then.
>>
I suppose many would say 'yes it is ok' when considering the safety of their child or someone else. I make no comment on whether that is right or wrong but I understand many would take that decision.
|
thought it was about time the knock the 4x4 brigade had another pop at us.
|
There are some strange results, for instance the the Jag X-Type and early 90's Saab 900 are by far the safest medium cars, this makes me think that figures are not very well corrected for statistcal anomalies. Also the Legacy comes out poorly, one major fatal involving a Legacy might be enough to cause a blip.
Another strange one is that the Mondeo is featured as one listing from 93 to 04, though the Accord has three seperate listings over much the same period.
|
Its a pile of rubbish
It has the note. This figures do not represent the advances made in modern vehicle safety.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
For most of the models listed the 95% confidence interval is very wide indeed. Moreover the stats only cover two-vehicle accidents.
|
|
Having crashed a Defender I can't say I would want to hit anything solid like a post or wall, as is mentioned above there are no crumple zones and the shock goes right through the cabin. You are however very high up and most collisions with cars would result in the car going underneath which is just as well as 5mm of aluminium with no anti intrusion bar and a small thickness b post would spell disaster.
|
|
Defenders are absolutely lethal things IMHO (both for occupants and other road users) - the interior has not been designed with crash safety in mind and the roadholding and handling are rudimentary, to say the least.
|
This discussion was on here recently and I was criticised by my comments of larger cars being more safe than smaller cars regardless of what ncap ratings showed etc.
The more substantial body work there is in front of you, the less likely you are to be injured in this type of accident.
If only we could choose what type of accident and vehicle was to happen to us!
|
Of all the vehicles I've seen upside down in hedgerows and ditches over the last few months in East Yorkshire, it does seem to be the 4x4's in the majority - and that's straight roads as well as in the twisties. One in North Lincs you could tell it was a 4x4 because only the wheels and diffs were sticking out of the water.
|
I was once involved in an accident between a fiat uno and a landrover. The Uno T-Boned the landie suffering major front end damage suffficient to write it off. the landrover suffered scuffed paintwork below the passenger door.
If i was going to have to be involved in an RTA i would choose to be in the landrover.
|
Defenders are absolutely lethal things IMHO (both for occupants and other road users) - the interior has not been designed with crash safety in mind and the roadholding and handling are rudimentary, to say the least.
Defenders are just big Ladas really, in engineering quality terms as well as safety.
Car comes off with a few minor scratches, occupants are squashed by the G-forces and hard edges.
|
I once saw a picture of a 110 defender that an electric board had managed to roll down a mountain, the damage was shocking but the two occupants were alive .
Are Tractors designed with road safety in mind?, before Landrovers became Yuppy toys they were work vehicles and the designed has not changed much since (defender).
It seems this day of belting around everywhere at top speed that we expect not to improve our driving standards but to cocoon ourselves in safety gimmicks and go like hell.
Roll on the Transporter al la Star Trek and you safety freaks can moan about materialising accidents or orange peeling.
|
|
I suppose many would say 'yes it is ok' when considering the safety of their child or someone else.
That kind of attitude makes my blood boil. It makes me wish that someone would come along with a Hummer and wipe the selfish little bleeders out, as that is the logical conclusion of this way of thinking, bigger and bigger cars because they're "safer" for the occupants and to heck with the rest of society.
Sadly far too many people hold this attitude.
|
I may have missed a previous comment above:
BUT the study only relates to DRIVERS and not occupants.
So Mrs 4x4 may be allright driving little Miss and Master 4x4 to school and involved in a crash ... but that is no use if all the occupants are obliterated.
So imo the study is interesting and of ZERO value to those who want to know the overall safest vehicle for ALLoccupants..
Which just about sums up most government statistics...
So all the comments about child safety are irrelevant : the sudy does not cover them!
madf
|
Am I right that they have only taken the driver stats because each accident has (usually!) to have a driver but may or may not involve passengers... also that they have used car-car stats only (ie. not cars flying into trees) to give a level of consistancy of what the vehicle is hitting?? Broadly speaking an attempt at as level playing field as you can get??
So if the 4x4s are overall far safer it is perhaps because they are hitting smaller vehicles but maybe more importantly they are being driven slower and the drivers are better at minimising the actual impact once a contact accident is inevitable.
This may be confirmed by just looking at the Land Rover stats. Despite what has been said about the Defender with its lack of modern design and sharp edges it is the safest. The Discovery is the next best and the Freelander the least safe. I would say the fact that the Freelanders are often used and driven like ordinary cars is what makes them dangerous compared to the other two.
David
|
So if the 4x4s are overall far safer it is perhaps because they are hitting smaller vehicles but maybe more importantly they are being driven slower and the drivers are better at minimising the actual impact once a contact accident is inevitable.
What a strange statement!
|
One of the major reasons for accidents is loss of control of a vehicle.
Long time BR's may recall that a friend of mine was killed in an accident with a 4x4. He was just setting up as an independent trader after years working for one of the big dealer chains.
He was out road-testing a potential 'stock' vehicle when he was hit by an oncoming Mitsubishi 4x4. The 4x4 driver lost control on a bend and came onto the wrong carriageway, flipping over and hitting my friend in the Clio. My friend was killed and the 4x4 driver quite badly injured.
Some may say this shows that 4x4's are safer. The problem is that the accident would probably never had happened in the 4x4 driver had bought a Mondeo instead. The driver had only had the 4x4 (his first) a week or so and the police accident investigators concluded that he was probably not familiar with the handling characteristics of the vehicle and had lost control on the bend (it was the last in a series of S-bends, so there would have been a strong 'pendulum' effect).
The design of most larger 4x4's is not conducive to good handling; i.e. high CofG, high roll-centre, compliant and long-travel suspension etc mean that it is much easier to lose control of these vehicles and stability is poor under hard braking - you can't deny basic physics. One of my most frightening experiences ever was driving a Frontera without ABS on a wed road with M+S tyres. The braking and handling made a 1970's Moskvich feel like a sports car in comparison. I also once had a Range Rover 3.9 for a while as a company car (this was around 10 years ago) and it was a pretty lethal-handling thing - my confidence in it was not enhanced by seeing a police Range Rover on its side by a motorway slip road one day!
Makes my blood run cold when I hear people say that Range Rovers have good handling!
|
Not a strange statement at all.
What I am saying is that the stats are not giving results based on known impacts at known speeds/directions like lab crash tests. They are giving some real life results which include the variables of speed and impact type/direction. So it could be argued that the driver profile of a particular vehicle type is a big factor in these stats.
Actual example from yesterday...
We live on a country main road that is typical of the Fens in being straight for miles. It is a mixture of open fields and small housing groups to the roadside. The surface is bumpy and in places has major humps/dips.
So yesterday afternoon I am tidying the roadside verge and from a good distance away I hear a whoosh of wind and tyre noise of a car approaching at great speed. Then a hundred yards or so away is a prolonged sound of metal on tarmac as underbody parts of this car have major contact with the road where there is a deep hump/dip. I would say that puts his speed in excess of 90mph as he passes the nearly blind drive exits opposite to our place. A newish medium size BMW with big alloys and the driver chatting/laughing with passenger.
A little later I happened to travel the same road in the Discovery. A gentle 50mph was appropriate at the same point and I was able to see into folks front gardens/drives from a higher viewpoint.
I would say that had a car backed off a drive into the path of both of us I would have probably stopped in time or at least lost all bar 20mph. The BMW would probably not have had time to brake and made contact at neat his full 90mph.
So the driver injury/death stats would have fitted the rersults they are finding.
Round here it is the 4x4's (by and large) that are driven with thought and consideration... it is the nimble small cars that are going round crashing into each other. Driver profiles you see.
|
Round here it is the 4x4's (by and large) that are driven with thought and consideration... it is the nimble small cars that are going round crashing into each other. Driver profiles you see.
Well we could do with some of you blokes around here - the lady in the Jeep Cherokee that smacked into the back of my last Merc wasn't too considerate. I live in a fairly rural area which has been blighted by the 'green welly' brigade. Typically they move into the area with a BMW or Merc saloon and then decide its not 'rural' enough for their new lifestyle and so buy a RR, Disco or whatever. This is normally driven well out into the centre of our narrow lanes (the driver's seem to think they're about 2 feet wider than they actually are), which means I spend a lot of time up against the verge. There is a 'blue rinsed' lady who lives not too far from me and races around in a RR with no consideration for other road users whatsoever and seems to drive bang down the middle of the road at high speed. I couldn't count the number of times I've had to dodge her - I am really getting sick of it.
|
|
I agree with you both, big Soft Roaders are driven with an esprit that belies their stopping and handling abilities, whilst Defenders are driven with a bit more care, lack of passive safety does make you more careful !
|
I agree with you both, big Soft Roaders are driven with an esprit that belies their stopping and handling abilities, whilst Defenders are driven with a bit more care, lack of passive safety does make you more careful !
Defenders are great for the job they do - real working vehicles, which is what 4x4's are designed to be. Where I live the Defenders are mostly driver by farmers and 'country tradesmen' who are bit less tied up with the 'status' of their vehicle. The problem drivers are those who have jumped out of an E-class or 5-series or whatever into some 'upmarket' 4x4 and then don't adapt their driving style to suit the more modest abilities of their new ride.
|
The design of most larger 4x4's is not conducive to good handling; i.e. high CofG, high roll-centre, compliant and long-travel suspension etc mean that it is much easier to lose control of these vehicles and stability is poor under hard braking - you can't deny basic physics.
It's a massive generalisation, IMHO - improvement in handling, grip and stability of new SUVs and 4x4s - X5s, Tuaregs, RAV4 etc compared to 10-15 year old japanese import counterparts is about as massive as difference between handling, grip and stability of Mondeo, or Focus vs 10-15 year old Daewoo Espero or Ford Escort.
4x4s can be perfectly safe, but in hands of bad driver they are just large car that will do a lot of damage. Such driver probably wouldn't be that much less of risk to other road users if he drove a VAN, pickup or MPV.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
It's a massive generalisation, IMHO - improvement in handling, grip and stability of new SUVs and 4x4s - X5s, Tuaregs, RAV4 etc compared to 10-15 year old japanese import counterparts is about as massive as difference between handling, grip and stability of Mondeo, or Focus vs 10-15 year old Daewoo Espero or Ford Escort. 4x4s can be perfectly safe, but in hands of bad driver they are just large car that will do a lot of damage. Such driver probably wouldn't be that much less of risk to other road users if he drove a VAN, pickup or MPV.
Not a massive generalisation at all. The Mitsubishi involved in the crash I described was actually a recent model. I have driven a lot of 4x4's, including X3, X5, Range Rover and MB ML. The difference in 'handling, grip and stability' between old and newer 4x4's is actually small, simply because the basic design concepts are very similar - any improvement is virtually all down to improved tyres and features such as ESP.
Almost by definition any 4x4 that is good off-road will handle poorly (relative to a normal saloon car) when on-road. The reasons for this are pretty elementary and any reading of decent book on automotive suspension design will explain why. Bascially a good off-road performance requires compliant suspension (high ground clearance) with long travel and high unsprung mass - this is not what you want for good on-road handling. This is really at the root of my argument against large 'SUV's' - they are poorly suited to the task they are mostly used for and respresent a backward step in design.
|
|
Which is exactly why you don't drive a Defender like a Mondeo, youjust know that you'll have to slow down for a bend that you normally accelerate into !
|
I have driven a lot of 4x4's, including X3, X5, Range Rover and MB ML. The difference in 'handling, grip and stability' between old and newer 4x4's is actually small, simply because the basic design concepts are very similar - any improvement is virtually all down to improved tyres and features such as ESP. Almost by definition any 4x4 that is good off-road will handle poorly (relative to a normal saloon car) when on-road.
Come on Aprillia, "a little improvement over old 4x4s"? Try to take sharp corner at 60mph in Hilux Surf or LWB Shogun and body roll will throw you against passenger window if it won't flip like proverbial A-Class at elk test. But try to take it with X5 and you can only hope one day most saloons will be able to match X5s grip and behaviour. What some of the modern SUVs do onroad is so far from agricultural ladder chasis like wobblyness and of old 4wds it's not even part of the same tale.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
.Come on Aprillia, "a little improvement over old 4x4s"? Try to take sharp corner at 60mph in Hilux Surf or LWB Shogun and body roll will throw you against passenger window if it won't flip like proverbial A-Class at elk test. But try to take it with X5 and you can only hope one day most saloons will be able to match X5s grip and behaviour. What some of the modern SUVs do onroad is so far from agricultural ladder chasis like wobblyness and of old 4wds it's not even part of the same tale.
Sorry, but I disagree.
In fact last year (or maybe early this year) I nearly saw an X5 come to grief (I posted details of the incident on here at the time). X5 passed me on a dual carriageway and then pulled in front of the lorry that was in front of me. X5 did a tremendous 'twitch', back end slewed round a bit and he went up the embankment with mud and grass spraying all over the place. Fortunately it stayed upright.
Amazingly, about two miles further up, the X5 came past me, with mud all splattered up it sides!
It was a very windy day and I suspect that the slipstream of the lorry, coupled with a guest of wind, destabilised the X5 and once it started to drift a bit the driver couldn't hold it. There are plenty of saloons that would behave a lot better - I would much sooner take a corner at 60mph in a Mondeo than in an X5 - and I've actually done both. Its overconfidence in 4x4 handling that gets their drivers into serious trouble.
|
|
IMHO the safest vehicle is a modern medium-to-large saloon with lots of airbags and electronic stability aids. Accident avoidance is as important as performance in an accident, so a nimble, controllable car is best. In the example above of the uno t-boning a landy, it looks like the crumple zones did their job so although the car was a write-off the occupants would probably have been better off than if they were in a defender t-boning another.
Regarding the safety of occupants, I would imagine a child strapped in the correct seat in the centre of the rear seat of a new Land Cruiser Amazon would be about as safe as it is possible to be, unless you rolled the thing into a dyke. I wouldn't want to be hit by one though.
|
I'm bound by embargo not to say more, but next year's Honda CRV drives and handles sensationally well for a car, never mind an SUV. It is possible to make them work well. But of course. the new CRV is more a part-time four wbeel drive MPV than what we think of as a 4x4.
The CRV, RAV-4, Forester etc are really just somewhat oversized estate car/MPV's - I have never driven one off road by I suspect that wouldn't really challenge a 'proper' 4x4 SUV, not enough ground clearance or suspension travel. Whatever anyone says you are not going to beat the laws of physics and its foolish to try.
|
I drove a Forester - reputed to be one of the best handling 4x4s.
Hmm: roll, understeer..
I would hate to drive the worst...
Far more useful would be the statistics of no of crashes per 1,000 cars by type... then we could see which were the most likely to be involved in an accident: and give a wide bearth.
In N Staffs/Derbyshire where I live, large 4x4s are undriveable imo along the country lanes due to their width:-))))
madf
|
|
I think that Admiral did an analysis of accidents and felt that the larger 4x4's were 25% more likely to be involed in an accident than all other vehicles. Other than the people using 4x4's for their original purpose off-road, I'd imagine that the majority of users are fashion victims.
|
|
Our facilities manager has a Focus as a company car and a Disco to tow a caraven. He describes driving the Disco as an advance planning exercise - planning the braking and cornering well in advance. Looks as if many 4x4 drivers do not.
|
"I'd imagine that the majority of users are fashion victims"
Unlike all other road users of course?
Me, I imagine that the majority of 4x4 users are also fully-insured, road-legal, law-abiding, upstanding citizens who have invested a substantial amount of money in a vehicle of their choosing and use them to drive considerately from their place of residence to their place of work/school/shopping centre. Which is what I do with my car.
Not of mine or anyone else's business whether they go off road really, I've never taken my 24v V6 on a track day.
And how can you possibly think any less of a man who wants to put his family in the safest vehicle he can?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
