5th Gear item on Pedestrian safety
Discussion
Did anyone happen to see the article on pedestrian safety on 5th Gear last night.
They were talking about the impact a car has on your average Joe who happens to stray from the pavement and into the path of your car. For the purposes of the test they chose a Rover 800 series and a Range Rover Classic, Oh hello here we go again.
The results were astonishing to watch, they (c5) claim that for average height, average weight adult being hit by a 4x4 is better than being tossed up in the air by a normal saloon. Obviously bull bars change the results significantly!!
There the greenies can stick that up their anti 4x4 lobby!!
Richard
They were talking about the impact a car has on your average Joe who happens to stray from the pavement and into the path of your car. For the purposes of the test they chose a Rover 800 series and a Range Rover Classic, Oh hello here we go again.
The results were astonishing to watch, they (c5) claim that for average height, average weight adult being hit by a 4x4 is better than being tossed up in the air by a normal saloon. Obviously bull bars change the results significantly!!
There the greenies can stick that up their anti 4x4 lobby!!
Richard
Yes, the greens, the government who are trying to divide and rule, and the sheep who love to follow without thinking can hopefully learn something here.
A 4*4 is, in many pedestrian impact situations, a better bet because the hard and dangerous bit, the engine, is hidden further away under the bonnet.
Also, a 4*4 is surely more easily seen by a pedestrian bacause of the higher frontal area.
A 4*4 is, in many pedestrian impact situations, a better bet because the hard and dangerous bit, the engine, is hidden further away under the bonnet.
Also, a 4*4 is surely more easily seen by a pedestrian bacause of the higher frontal area.
Valid points, as long as you take stopping distance and ability to steer around the pedestrian out of the equation. As they did the test, both the Range Rover and Rover 800 hit the dummy at 30mph. In the real world, braking from 50, I would take my chances with the 800 stopping earlier or managing to get around me.
A more accurate trial would have been say a Discovery or X5 compared with a Focus or Megane, all having to hit the brakes at exactly the same starting point and at the same speed.
In the real world though, I wouldnt be in the road in the 1st place.
A more accurate trial would have been say a Discovery or X5 compared with a Focus or Megane, all having to hit the brakes at exactly the same starting point and at the same speed.
In the real world though, I wouldnt be in the road in the 1st place.
sorry guys, but these tests are all a bit pointless and academic. the idea that a 2 ton hunk of metal can be made to hit a pedestrian in a lesser manner is pretty ludicrous.
an average bloke weighs 80 -100 kg. an average car weighs about 1 tonne. IE 10 times the weight.
do you really think that anything hitting something else 10 times its weight is going to come off less damaged.
Its all akin to wearing a hard hat on a building site. if a concrete slab falls on you your skull doesn't crush, but your head is still pushed through your shoulder blades.
Its all a lot of B
cks if you ask me.
serious injury is serious injury. there are no lesser degrees to it.
Why doesn't someone design a rubber car??
Neil.
an average bloke weighs 80 -100 kg. an average car weighs about 1 tonne. IE 10 times the weight.
do you really think that anything hitting something else 10 times its weight is going to come off less damaged.
Its all akin to wearing a hard hat on a building site. if a concrete slab falls on you your skull doesn't crush, but your head is still pushed through your shoulder blades.
Its all a lot of B
cks if you ask me. serious injury is serious injury. there are no lesser degrees to it.
Why doesn't someone design a rubber car??
Neil.
heightswitch said:
sorry guys, but these tests are all a bit pointless and academic. the idea that a 2 ton hunk of metal can be made to hit a pedestrian in a lesser manner is pretty ludicrous.
an average bloke weighs 80 -100 kg. an average car weighs about 1 tonne. IE 10 times the weight.
do you really think that anything hitting something else 10 times its weight is going to come off less damaged.
I am not sure that the momentum of the vehicle, i.e. weight verses speed has any impact
when concerned with hitting something that weighs so much less i.e. an adult. What the test was displaying was that when an ordinary car, Rover 800 in the example displayed, hits a pedestrian it hits them at knee level, this pitches the unfortunate one onto the bonnet shoulder first allowing their head to hit at the base of the windscreen. The momentum of the impact allowed the lower torso to then fly up into the air, by which time the car had stopped however the victim now with broken legs and probably multiple fractures around the upper body has 30mph of forward momentum so they carry on at that speed landing on the road some 10 foot in front of the car.
Now! When the 4x4 SUV hit the pedestrian at the same speed, and I guess it is important to note that there was no Bull bar fitted, the lower torso was hit much higher up the body and although the body still landed shoulder first onto the bonnet of the car the impact was far less violent. As the car stopped the victim simply slid off the bonnet and onto the road with multiple lower body fractures. Comments were also made about the increased distance between the bonnet and the skull shattering engine components.
Now what would be interesting would be to show impact at the same speed using a Mini, Corsa etc. It is my guess that the victim would be smashing its head open at the top of the windscreen before rolling over the roof and onto the road behind.
Like you say though, probably best to keep pedestrians of the roads eh..
What ever happened to the Tuftey Club and Green Cross Darth Vader?
Richard
rover is safer, i would much rather fancy my chances of jumping over an 800 heading towards me than a 4x4.
this is my test criteria. pretty pointless? yes. what was 5th gears test criteria?
another top tip, if there is no passenger, line yourself up with the vacant seat and hope you break the windscreen (it hurts a lot less if you go through it rather than bounce off).
this is my test criteria. pretty pointless? yes. what was 5th gears test criteria?
another top tip, if there is no passenger, line yourself up with the vacant seat and hope you break the windscreen (it hurts a lot less if you go through it rather than bounce off).
skinny said:
rover is safer, i would much rather fancy my chances of jumping over an 800 heading towards me than a 4x4.
I had to jump over an MG Midget once, broadsided it on my pushbike at about 30mph when it pulled across in front off me. Fortunately the roof was down else I would have taken that with me too
. Annoyingly while lying bleeding all over the road, cars actually drove around me to carry on their way. Not one begger stopped!! skinny said:
another top tip, if there is no passenger, line yourself up with the vacant seat and hope you break the windscreen (it hurts a lot less if you go through it rather than bounce off).
Or maybe another top tip keep on the pavements
. Surely if you are likely to smash your head open when trying to exit a car through the windscreen you are just as likely to cave it in when entering the car through the same bit of glass. Just a thought
richardthestag said:
I had to jump over an MG Midget once, broadsided it on my pushbike at about 30mph when it pulled across in front off me. Fortunately the roof was down else I would have taken that with me too
it wasn't a 'summer gold' midget near oxford was it?
i never attempted the jump when a white maestro stopped in front of me suddenly in the rain to let a bus out, straight into the back of him, over the handlebars, ended up splayed out on his windscreen! he checked his mirror, gave a hopeful 'thumbs up'? i gave him one back and peeled off the back of his car as he drove off.
richardthestag said:
Or maybe another top tip keep on the pavements
Just a thought
bottom first? actually, no, that's just as bad isn't it... skinny said:
it wasn't a 'summer gold' midget near oxford was it?
No it was a white one turning from the west Ewell road into Banstead Road about 20 years ago. Young lady driver was frozen and it was up to me to sort her out.. Never got her phone number but her dad bought me a new bike..
Always wondered how being hit in the knees by a "normal" car, and then thrown up in the air, to head butt the windscreen and/or screen pillars, before flicking over the roof, landing on the road head first.... ...was going to feel better than being thumped in the stomach, and doubled over the bonnet of an offroader??
Curious, how that the facts can be so easily twisted. The lower the car, the more you are likely to end up smashing your face on the windscreen. The higher, the bonnet.
Yet buses are ok, apparently.
Curious, how that the facts can be so easily twisted. The lower the car, the more you are likely to end up smashing your face on the windscreen. The higher, the bonnet.
Yet buses are ok, apparently.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff