Originally posted by milanbenes
But who gives a feck about everyone else anyway...
-
As I've said before that is a very selfish way of looking at it, the fact is they don't accelerate, break or handle as well as a road car.
But who gives a feck about everyone else anyway...
Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson -
'As I've said before that is a very selfish way of looking at it, the fact is they don't accelerate, break or handle as well as a road car.
'
fack orf, you're talking complete twaddle
I saw clarkson race a range rover against a mercedes slk 3.2 and the range rover won AND wait for it... the range rover was on the grass and the merc on the tarmac
I request you to retract your comment as it is complete unresearched nonsense
Prey tell, with documented evidence which of the mainstream 4x4's, and I mean, Discovery III, X5, ML, GL, XC90, RangeRover etc, which of these will not brake or accelerate like a saloon car and which saloon car are you talking about ?
NEXT !
Milan.Comment
-
My question was a little flippant, but I expect you see the point behind it, which is:Originally posted by milanbenes
You put your family in a 4x4 - agreed it's safer for them.
4x4's present a singificantly higher risk of more serious injury and death to other road users (particularly pedestrians and cyclists) when in a collision
you do agree however, that for my family on the road in a vehicular collision they will be safest in a 4x4.
So people who increase their families' safety by putting them in 4x4's decrease the safety of other people's families. Now, everyone can decide for themselves whether they are prepared to do that or not. I don't have kids but I can understand the desire to protect your own.
But the result of this thinking is more 4x4's on the road as people try to protect their own family, which is great for those families, until they are pedestrians or cyclists - which is what my question was really about: more 4x4s on road means higher chance of anyone hit by one (and that could be any of our family), and consequently worse outcome for the victim.
As a society we seem to regulate the safety of cars for occupants, but we don't do a great job of looking at their safety for other road users.Comment
-
cyclists greg,
shouldn't be on the road, if the government was serious there would be the same quality of cycle routes as there are in mainland europe
and another thing, you bump into a cyclist in for example Belgium or Holland and whether or not it was the cyclists fault, it _is your_ (the car driver's) fault and you'll be in big trouble !!
Milan.Comment
-
Yes, the traffic minister in Denmark, recently had her driving license revoked and forced to do a retest for knocking a cyclist off on a corner.Originally posted by milanbenesInsanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
threadeds website, and here's my blog.
Comment
-
The point that a 4x4 does not accelerate, brake or handle as well as a road car is crap. A Range Rover (no, I don't have one..) will handle much better than say...a SMART car, which was specifically designed for town use. Anyone that has seen the Top Gear show where they tried to corner 3 small town cars will agree that most of them handle sooooo bad.Comment
-
Isn't this due to be the law in the UK, if not already? I'm sure havoc would ensue though - I can see many cyclists trying it on for the cash.Originally posted by milanbenesComment
-
No need for insults, we're all grown ups aren’t we?Originally posted by milanbenes
I am talking everyday average 4x4 and cars not some of the more up market models, all the one’s you mention are 35K+ hardly mainstream?? You know dam well that top gear picked a car that the range rover could beat, put it up against a road car in a similar price bracket like an Audi RS4 and it would be left standing and you know it.
This would be true with all the 4x4's you mention, a 5 series with the same engine would be better than an X5 in every way other than causing maximum damage when ploughing through a pile up on the motorway but then the 5 series would have stopped before it got there.
Quoting Clarkson when we're talking about safety is like quoting Brown when trying to justify outside IR35 status... ridiculous.
HTHScience isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave JohnsonComment
-
FFS how can you compare a 60K monster with a 10k Noddy mobile? Wake up!Originally posted by angusglover
Last edited by gingerjedi; 11 June 2007, 09:37.Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave JohnsonComment
-
UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.[2] Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.[3]
The RAC Foundation says, "You could blame some of the higher accident rate for 4x4s on size. Drivers who are new to these cars might not realise how wide they are. There is also psychology involved - if you feel more secure inside a big 4x4, you might drive with less care than you should."[2]
The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro-NCAP) carries out crash tests on cars available in Europe. Of the top 10 cars tested since 1998, none is a 4x4, and only three off-roaders make it into the the top 20 (see below).
Big 4x4s are right at the bottom of the class when it comes to pedestrian safety, getting an average Euro-NCAP crash test score of just 4 out of 36, compared with 10 and 13 for large and small family cars, respectively.
In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians,[10] and when new test results were released in November 2005, the only car with a zero rating for pedestrian safety was a 4x4 - the Jeep Cherokee.[11]
The UK Transport Research Laboratory released its annual report of deaths on Britain's roads in March 2005, providing hard evidence that the growth in popularity of big 4x4s is causing problems for road safety - 2004 saw the highest number of road deaths in seven years, reversing a long-term decline.[1]
The TRL blames the increasing mismatch between the size of vehicles on the road for a 1% rise in people killed in accidents in 2004. Passengers in 'super minis' were 12 times more likely to be killed than people in a 4x4 when these vehicles collided. The principal factor is the extra weight of the larger car, as well as extra height, which can override the bumpers and side impact protection on the smaller vehicle.
The Institute of Advanced Motorists in the UK has warned drivers of urban 4x4s to be more careful behind the wheel.[4]
Also in the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has described 4x4s as "totally unsuitable for the school run."
But Milanbenes says this is all bollox so he must be right.
Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave JohnsonComment
Comment