4x4's 50 times safer says DOT
Discussion
The figures were published on the DoT's website but the study has not been publicised.
Size matters with car safety...
Drivers of 4x4s or people carriers are 50 times less likely to be killed in crashes with another car than those of small and medium-sized cars, according to the Department of Transport.
The safest cars for drivers are the Land Rover Defender, Mercedes ML class, Toyota Landcruiser and Isuzu Trooper.
The cars with the worst records for driver deaths and serious injuries are the old-style Mini, the Fiat Panda, pre-1993 Nissan Micra, Daewoo Matiz and Suzuki Swift.
The DoT looked at police reports of more than 138,000 crashes from 2000 to 2004. Drivers of small and medium-sized cars involved in collisions with another car had a one in 200 chance of being killed, compared with fewer than one in 10,000 for drivers of people-carriers and 4x4s.
Just three per cent of 4x4 drivers were killed or seriously injured in collisions, compared with seven per cent of small-car drivers.
The figures were published on the DoT's website but the study has not been publicised. Some small cars bucked the trend and showed it was possible to combine fuel efficiency with safety.
The Citroen C3, which weighs less than a tonne and travels 48 miles to the gallon, is twice as safe as the Honda CRV 4x4 which weighs 1.5 tonnes and gives 31mpg.
Some models have improved markedly over the past 15 years as makers have added features such as air bags and side-impact protection.
The Mini showed the biggest improvement with 14 per cent of drivers killed or seriously injured in collisions involving the original model, compared with five per cent of the new, BMW-produced version. The new Mini is twice as heavy, as well as taller, wider and longer.
Other models, such as the Nissan Sunny, Vauxhall Astra and Rover 200/400 and 25/45, improved little or not at all over the years.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said that the figures did not take account of how a car was driven.
The council's director, Rob Gifford, told The Times: "Younger drivers, who take more risks and have more crashes, are more likely to drive smaller, older cars.
"The big problem arises when a large and small vehicle collide. The high bumper of a 4x4 may override the structural reinforcement of a small car and smack into the interior where the occupants are sitting.
"We would all be safer if we all drove around in small or medium-sized cars. But the total car fleet is becoming more incompatible, with sales growing fastest in the biggest and smallest categories."
I particularly dislike the last two paragraphs, what about if the large and small vehicle collide with something other than each other? Would we still be safer in small or medium sized cars? Of course not! But lets tax 4x4's to death anyway!
Size matters with car safety...
Drivers of 4x4s or people carriers are 50 times less likely to be killed in crashes with another car than those of small and medium-sized cars, according to the Department of Transport.
The safest cars for drivers are the Land Rover Defender, Mercedes ML class, Toyota Landcruiser and Isuzu Trooper.
The cars with the worst records for driver deaths and serious injuries are the old-style Mini, the Fiat Panda, pre-1993 Nissan Micra, Daewoo Matiz and Suzuki Swift.
The DoT looked at police reports of more than 138,000 crashes from 2000 to 2004. Drivers of small and medium-sized cars involved in collisions with another car had a one in 200 chance of being killed, compared with fewer than one in 10,000 for drivers of people-carriers and 4x4s.
Just three per cent of 4x4 drivers were killed or seriously injured in collisions, compared with seven per cent of small-car drivers.
The figures were published on the DoT's website but the study has not been publicised. Some small cars bucked the trend and showed it was possible to combine fuel efficiency with safety.
The Citroen C3, which weighs less than a tonne and travels 48 miles to the gallon, is twice as safe as the Honda CRV 4x4 which weighs 1.5 tonnes and gives 31mpg.
Some models have improved markedly over the past 15 years as makers have added features such as air bags and side-impact protection.
The Mini showed the biggest improvement with 14 per cent of drivers killed or seriously injured in collisions involving the original model, compared with five per cent of the new, BMW-produced version. The new Mini is twice as heavy, as well as taller, wider and longer.
Other models, such as the Nissan Sunny, Vauxhall Astra and Rover 200/400 and 25/45, improved little or not at all over the years.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said that the figures did not take account of how a car was driven.
The council's director, Rob Gifford, told The Times: "Younger drivers, who take more risks and have more crashes, are more likely to drive smaller, older cars.
"The big problem arises when a large and small vehicle collide. The high bumper of a 4x4 may override the structural reinforcement of a small car and smack into the interior where the occupants are sitting.
"We would all be safer if we all drove around in small or medium-sized cars. But the total car fleet is becoming more incompatible, with sales growing fastest in the biggest and smallest categories."
I particularly dislike the last two paragraphs, what about if the large and small vehicle collide with something other than each other? Would we still be safer in small or medium sized cars? Of course not! But lets tax 4x4's to death anyway!
I believe Robert Gifford is the road safety "Expert" who stated that advanced rider training for motorcyclists was pointless because it would only cause bikers to "Kill themselves more skillfully".
He's a dangerous new labour stooge.
He's a dangerous new labour stooge.
Edited by supersingle on Sunday 15th October 01:05
deeps said:
I particularly dislike the last two paragraphs, what about if the large and small vehicle collide with something other than each other? Would we still be safer in small or medium sized cars? Of course not! But lets tax 4x4's to death anyway!
I'm not sure that's entirely true!
So, 4*4s are safer for occupants and no worse than many non-4*4s for pedestrian safety. And they last longer than most other cars and are less polluting than even some hybrids like the Toyota Prius. Their only difference, which is what simplistic people really dislike, is that they are higher off the ground and thus offer the occupants a better view and the driver a more advanced forward view of the road ahead. All in all, they're a winner much to the dismay of the chip on shoulder lefties. 
herewego said:
turbobloke said:
4x4 is the safety choice?
Hummer H3 4x4 also more environmentally friendly than a Prius
Hummer H3 4x4 also more environmentally friendly than a Prius
Can you give us some evidence for that?
CNW Marketing Research performed the relevant vehicle lifecycle energy consumption calculations, relating to carbon dioxide emissions and 'carbon footprint'
of vehicles including the Hummer and Prius. Although pointless and bogus these are the eco-credentials in commonn use so... That calculation appropriately includes manufacturing, maintenance and repair plus vehicle end-of-life decomissioning energy costs as well as mileage while in use.
Because of the complexity of the dual source powertrain and other factors the total life cycle energy cost of a Prius and other hybrids is very high. The Hummer H3 comes in 40% below the Toyota and Honda hybrids.
As to be expected, the so-called green case is a no brainer. Politically correct, scientifically incorrect. Go green drive a Hummer.
james_j said:
So, 4*4s are safer for occupants and no worse than many non-4*4s for pedestrian safety. And they last longer than most other cars and are less polluting than even some hybrids like the Toyota Prius. Their only difference, which is what simplistic people really dislike, is that they are higher off the ground and thus offer the occupants a better view and the driver a more advanced forward view of the road ahead. All in all, they're a winner much to the dismay of the chip on shoulder lefties.
I agree with most of this, except whilst they may be safer for their occupants, they are less safe for the occupants of other cars
mave said:
james_j said:
So, 4*4s are safer for occupants and no worse than many non-4*4s for pedestrian safety. And they last longer than most other cars and are less polluting than even some hybrids like the Toyota Prius. Their only difference, which is what simplistic people really dislike, is that they are higher off the ground and thus offer the occupants a better view and the driver a more advanced forward view of the road ahead. All in all, they're a winner much to the dismay of the chip on shoulder lefties.
I agree with most of this, except whilst they may be safer for their occupants, they are less safe for the occupants of other cars
Possibly, but unless we all want to live in a state-controlled "utopia", where we all drive the same state-approved vehicles, we'll be able to choose different vehicles and that means that some are bound to be stronger, tougher, faster, taller etc than others.
deeps said:
Drivers of 4x4s or people carriers are 50 times less likely to be killed in crashes with another car than those of small and medium-sized cars, according to the Department of Transport.
Well I go to the foot of our stairs, who would have thought it. Big cars hitting small cars kills the people in the small car.
I wonder how much public money they spent to come up with the
ing obvious. If 90% of people drove 40 ton trucks I bet they would realize that people in LandRovers were the one who came of worse. Somebody has too much time on their hands (at our expence). John
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff