Department for Transport says 4x4’s are safest – fact!
Discussion
The Crack Fox said:
Defender on the Motorway ? I suspect, as usual, you're in a tiny minority there 
You asked, I answered. Seeing a Defender on the road, be it m-way or dual carriage way major A road is not uncommon. Sure, you don't see 100's in a single journey, but that's more the fact they don't sell 100,000 of them a year.If you don't see any, maybe the phrase "should have gone to spec savers" would seem appropriate.
The Crack Fox said:
Looking at the list, there are 'lifestyle' boxes galore on that list
Meaning what?And to be fair, reading your comment between the lines - wtf?? I suspect most are used as family vehicles, the Defender really is the most odd ball out of the 4x4's, but a Disco certainly isn't.
The Crack Fox said:
, if the stats are based on insurance claims then I bet they're all the most likely vehicles to be scuffed in a carpark (and therefore unlikely to injure the driver).
A Defender 90 is about the same length as a Pug 106, but much easier to park due to being able to see all the corners very easily. And any scuff in a car park is unlikely to even leave a mark, let alone the need of an insurance claim 
Besides, don't be a prat and shoot the messenger, if you have an issue with the data gathering and presentation - well it's pretty simple.
Speak to the DfT!!!!
cptsideways said:
Young drivers rarely have one as they're first car, statistics are rather crap at showing that!
I had a 300Tdi D90 as my first vehicle at 17, know of a lot of others who've had Landy's as a first cars too.
And to be fair, for this logic to stand up, you'd expect supercars and top spec luxo barges to also dominate the list.
Don't know of many 17 years olds driving a new Porsche 911 or Mercedes S class.
300bhp/ton said:
cptsideways said:
Young drivers rarely have one as they're first car, statistics are rather crap at showing that!
I had a 300Tdi D90 as my first vehicle at 17, know of a lot of others who've had Landy's as a first cars too.
And to be fair, for this logic to stand up, you'd expect supercars and top spec luxo barges to also dominate the list.
Don't know of many 17 years olds driving a new Porsche 911 or Mercedes S class.
ZesPak said:
300bhp/ton said:
cptsideways said:
Young drivers rarely have one as they're first car, statistics are rather crap at showing that!
I had a 300Tdi D90 as my first vehicle at 17, know of a lot of others who've had Landy's as a first cars too.
And to be fair, for this logic to stand up, you'd expect supercars and top spec luxo barges to also dominate the list.
Don't know of many 17 years olds driving a new Porsche 911 or Mercedes S class.
%age of drivers...so what happened to the passengers! 
There are all sorts of factors that could affect these stats. You'll drive with a different style in a Defender compared to a Focus RS, and that might be safer. You don't often see a Defender really pushing on pulling questionable overtakes at 90mph do you. So the accidents they expose themselves too might be slower and "easier" to survive.
It'd be more interesting to see the stats on occupant death/serious injury in multiple vehicle accidents involving 4x4s compared to multiple vehicle accidents in general.
There are all sorts of factors that could affect these stats. You'll drive with a different style in a Defender compared to a Focus RS, and that might be safer. You don't often see a Defender really pushing on pulling questionable overtakes at 90mph do you. So the accidents they expose themselves too might be slower and "easier" to survive.
It'd be more interesting to see the stats on occupant death/serious injury in multiple vehicle accidents involving 4x4s compared to multiple vehicle accidents in general.
Am i being dim, how are these stats caculated? Is there any consideration for the number of those vehicles on the road relative to the number of those involved in crashes?
Is the purely suggesting that after looking at a load of crash data and insurance claims that a big 2T 4x4 vs a small 1T car the 4x4 is the saver place to be for its passengers but those of the smaller car are at a far higher risk not because their car is at fault its just being wiped out by something twice its size.
Is the purely suggesting that after looking at a load of crash data and insurance claims that a big 2T 4x4 vs a small 1T car the 4x4 is the saver place to be for its passengers but those of the smaller car are at a far higher risk not because their car is at fault its just being wiped out by something twice its size.
aka_kerrly said:
Am i being dim, how are these stats caculated? Is there any consideration for the number of those vehicles on the road relative to the number of those involved in crashes?
Is the purely suggesting that after looking at a load of crash data and insurance claims that a big 2T 4x4 vs a small 1T car the 4x4 is the saver place to be for its passengers but those of the smaller car are at a far higher risk not because their car is at fault its just being wiped out by something twice its size.
Good point. Safest car in an accident doesn't question why the accident happened in the first place. If all the safest cars are the ones causing the accidents then it makes the stats pretty pointless.Is the purely suggesting that after looking at a load of crash data and insurance claims that a big 2T 4x4 vs a small 1T car the 4x4 is the saver place to be for its passengers but those of the smaller car are at a far higher risk not because their car is at fault its just being wiped out by something twice its size.
It all goes back to the argument that if we all drove 600kg cars the roads wouldn't be any more dangerous because you'd only ever hit other 600kg cars (excepting lorries and buses, but we'll ignore that for now). Put 600kg minis and 2000kg 4x4s on the same roads and suddenly everyone needs a 2 ton car to be safe.
I am surprised how well the Defender fairs in this though- there's no logical reason why it would be any safer than a Disco, Range Rover etc. Must be some anomaly in the statistics due to typical driver profiles and stuff.
I suspect if you crash ( scratch a bumper,wing etc etc) you dont claim if you are driving a defender mine has more dents than straight pannels.
Also most people do tend to avoid crashing into defenders and move out of the way, I have used mine 300tdi on the motorway for a month every day now ( in between cars) and there are loads about.
Not sure I would want to roll mine in a hurry ( it does have a roll bar though) added to that it only does 70mph tops down a hill witha a tail wind.
You also dont get road rage in a battered and dented defender !!!
Phib
Also most people do tend to avoid crashing into defenders and move out of the way, I have used mine 300tdi on the motorway for a month every day now ( in between cars) and there are loads about.
Not sure I would want to roll mine in a hurry ( it does have a roll bar though) added to that it only does 70mph tops down a hill witha a tail wind.
You also dont get road rage in a battered and dented defender !!!
Phib
phib said:
I suspect if you crash ( scratch a bumper,wing etc etc) you dont claim if you are driving a defender mine has more dents than straight pannels.
umm that would make the stats worse in this case... No claim no record of the accident. What it would mean is you're more likely to report an accident where someone is hurt compared to any old accident. So the %age of injuries to drivers of 4x4s involved in accidents would look worse.Munter said:
phib said:
I suspect if you crash ( scratch a bumper,wing etc etc) you dont claim if you are driving a defender mine has more dents than straight pannels.
umm that would make the stats worse in this case... No claim no record of the accident. What it would mean is you're more likely to report an accident where someone is hurt compared to any old accident. So the %age of injuries to drivers of 4x4s involved in accidents would look worse.Phib
aka_kerrly said:
Am i being dim, how are these stats caculated? Is there any consideration for the number of those vehicles on the road relative to the number of those involved in crashes?
Is the purely suggesting that after looking at a load of crash data and insurance claims that a big 2T 4x4 vs a small 1T car the 4x4 is the saver place to be for its passengers but those of the smaller car are at a far higher risk not because their car is at fault its just being wiped out by something twice its size.
I have no idea how the stats are calculated - ask the Department of Transport!!Is the purely suggesting that after looking at a load of crash data and insurance claims that a big 2T 4x4 vs a small 1T car the 4x4 is the saver place to be for its passengers but those of the smaller car are at a far higher risk not because their car is at fault its just being wiped out by something twice its size.
And as far as I can tell, this article doesn't once mention insurance claims.
What it does highlight, is there has been research of some significant level by a government agency, that one, would presume due to the verdict not tallying with what they wanted, hasn't been fully publicised as per many other similar natured works.
I too would be very interested in how this information was gathered and generated.
Maybe one of the PH bods (Paul, Chris....) would be able to dig up some more information, or even the original report containing all pertinent information.
This report was first published in 2006 and it's been discussed on here before. I have a copy of the actual report. It only considers collisions with other vehicles rather than all collisions. It does however indicate a very clear correlation between the incidence of driver injury / death when involved in a collision with another vehicle and the size of the driver's vehicle.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff