G-Whiz Accident

[Perra]

galro said:

Perra said:

When people get into these things they think "Ooooh a door to my left and right and a roof, I'm all enclosed, nothing can hurt me in my dent proof panels."

They do?

Dooooo theeeeeey!

[roachcoach]

Perra said:

When people get into these things they think "Ooooh a door to my left and right and a roof, I'm all enclosed, nothing can hurt me in my dent proof panels."

They should just be asked to watch this before purchase:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NhuIS1RAE

It's all about having knees for crumple zones lads!

Basically, yeah. And most other cars will assume the same. Loosely.


Most drive differently around motorbikes, cyclists and proper quads. Around one of these, most would just see a 'car'. Shunt a car at 30, some body work, shunt this POS at 30 and if you're lucky, it's an A&E job, more likely the mortuary.

I just had a quick look at a quad retailer

Quad retailer said:

Q: Are they safe for on road use?
A: Yes all quad bikes meet with DOT safety requirements and are fully legal for on road use. We do however advise extreme caution


<snip>
we strongly recommend that you fully read the owners manual, familiarise yourself with the importance of all warning labels displayed on your ATV, take proper notice of the machines controls during the dealer handover procedure and undertake a training course on Quadricycle handling and operation.

And that's the difference, they make it clear what it is and your responsibilities.

The g-wiz, on the other hand....does the exact opposite, if anything it engenders a false sense of security.

People have a right to know what they're getting into.

[supersingle]

roachcoach said:

A middle ground would be easy - make quads require a crash helmet if capable of over X mph.

Are you a politician?

[roachcoach]

supersingle said:

Are you a politician?

Pffft. I hate them.


I'm trying to get a middle ground between banning them and making people aware. Right now I'm leaning towards slapping the manufacturers.

Besides, do people really ride quads quickly without lids these days?

[galro]

roachcoach said:

People have a right to know what they're getting into.

And how come you know how unsafe these are? Do you have super power or have you just found the information that is acceptable for everyone?

[Perra]

turbobloke said:

Perra said:

When people get into these things they think "Ooooh a door to my left and right and a roof, I'm all enclosed, nothing can hurt me in my dent proof panels."

They should just be asked to watch this before purchase:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NhuIS1RAE

It's all about having knees for crumple zones lads!

Frightening stuff.

Very revealing once you get past the typical Top Gear naff editing at the start, cutting to a different vantage point so rapidly you can't see what's happening, presumably for those with attention spans to match. After about 30s in the views are devastating for a simulation of two cars crashing at 30mph.

General G-Wiz and quadricycle safety said:

The G-Wiz is a breakthrough product in the fight against climate change and pollution. Designed, marketed and used as a light, low speed urban commuter vehicle in London the G-Wiz has an exemplary safety record, with over 100 million customer miles driven and 5,000 years of ownership globally with no reported serious injuries. (source: RECC)

Might need to change their website.

General G-Wiz and quadricycle safety said:

The G-Wiz has a tubular steel space frame which surrounds the driver and passengers. This includes side impact bars and a front crumple zone designed to protect passengers in low speed collisions.

In the video I posted I can't see any spaceframe for frontal impacts, shouldn't it at least have a cuboid shape on the front, up to the bumper?

[roachcoach]

I assume you haven't noticed the videos, or the fact one was totalled at a low speed collision, doing damage the coroner had never seen before in his career?


edit: @ Perra: The problem I think, is their idea of 'low speed' collision, is about a moderate running pace. (10mph)

Edited by roachcoach on Thursday 1st September 19:01

[galro]

roachcoach said:

I assume you haven't noticed the videos, or the fact one was totalled at a low speed collision, doing damage the coroner had never seen before in his career?

I have. I also assume that if you and I could find them, then these "people" should also be able to find the information if they are interested.

[roachcoach]

You edited/delete the original post I replied to

I believe the retailers are very misleading and not very honest. These are piss poor in any sort of collision but offer the illusion of a car level of safety.

[JaybirdUK]

Still, its a bit safer than one of these

[turbobloke]

roachcoach said:

I assume you haven't noticed the videos, or the fact one was totalled at a low speed collision, doing damage the coroner had never seen before in his career?

For my part I hadn't seen a G-Wiz crash test video before. Then again I would never, ever, be in the market for one and until this incident had only read reports about the safety angle, not including the manufacturer's blurb since as already stated, I'm not remotely interested.

As it happens I'm usually one for the 'never say never' line but in this case I've made an exception.

[galro]

roachcoach said:

You edited/delete the original post I replied to

I haven't deleted a thing and the only edit I have done was to add "if they are interested" in my last post.

roachcoach said:

I believe the retailers are very misleading and not very honest. These are piss poor in any sort of collision but offer the illusion of a car level of safety.

The retailers should be allowed to paint their product in the best possible light. Of course they shouldn't downright lie or present wrongs facts (they can no longer use their "no injuries" claim for example), but as long as this is fulfilled then I don't see the problem.

[roachcoach]

turbobloke said:

roachcoach said:

I assume you haven't noticed the videos, or the fact one was totalled at a low speed collision, doing damage the coroner had never seen before in his career?

For my part I hadn't seen a G-Wiz crash test video before. Then again I would never, ever, be in the market for one and until this incident had only read reports about the safety angle, not including the manufacturer's blurb since as already stated, I'm not remotely interested.

As it happens I'm usually one for the 'never say never' line but in this case I've made an exception.

Basically the same as me.

Crash tests aren't something I much look at since there are standards etc adhered to.

[roachcoach]

galro said:

roachcoach said:

You edited/delete the original post I replied to

I haven't deleted a thing and the only edit I have done was to add "if they are interested" in my last post.

roachcoach said:

I believe the retailers are very misleading and not very honest. These are piss poor in any sort of collision but offer the illusion of a car level of safety.

The retailers should be allowed to paint their product in the best possible light. Of course they shouldn't downright lie or present wrongs facts (they can no longer use their "no injuries" claim for example), but as long as this is fulfilled then I don't see the problem.

Quote wasn't there originally and wording was slightly different, doesn't matter much but I'd have replied differently the first time.

You're right and that is fine, however where they step over the line into misleading, they can be (and many companies have been) censured. Broadband providers have been slapped for stuff much less serious for example.

[galro]

If you feel they are misleading and you have laws against it, why don't you report it?

[roachcoach]

Trying to work out what came of the DfT review. I suspect lost in a mire of red tape and EU regs. They wanted the quad rules changed iirc

[galro]

galro said:

If you feel they are misleading and you have laws against it, why don't you report it?

Here's even the opportunity to do it online:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints/How-to-complain.a...

[roachcoach]

Its not an 'advert'. Though the site seems to imply trading standards could be involved. DfT is the closest I think we can get to a 'regulator' and since they're already looking, might as well find out where they got to

[galro]

This what they regulate according to their own site:


Magazine and newspaper advertisements
Radio and TV commercials (not programmes or programme sponsorship)
Television Shopping Channels
Posters on legitimate poster sites (not fly posters)
Leaflets and brochures
Cinema commercials
Direct mail (advertising sent through the post and addressed to you personally)
Door drops and circulars (advertising posted through the letter box without your name on)
Advertisements on the Internet, including banner and display ads and paid-for (sponsored) search
Marketing communications on companies’ own websites and in other, non-paid-for space under their own control
Commercial e-mail and SMS text message ads
Ads on CD ROMs, DVD and video, and faxes
We regulate sales promotions, such as special offers, prize draws and competitions wherever they appear.


Surely this goes under the bolded part?

[thinfourth2]

Perra said:

When people get into these things they think "Ooooh a door to my left and right and a roof, I'm all enclosed, nothing can hurt me in my dent proof panels."

They should just be asked to watch this before purchase:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NhuIS1RAE

It's all about having knees for crumple zones lads!

Agreed but while we are at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3FdnWU5ecg&fea...
Saxos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRbwTutw-Hk&fea...
Classic beetles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05B1V6W4jcs&fea...
Ford Fiesta Mk1s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6JxqeSkd20
Renault 5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIs1DaxEcfs&fea...
Rover 100s

Running into stuff in small cars is a bad idea

But they have petrol engines so it is okay to die in them