- You are currently viewing DISCO3.CO.UK as a guest - Register to take part or Log In
zig
Member Since: 09 Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 648
|
The statement "Pedestrians hit by 4x4 vehicles are twice as likely to die than those hit by hatchback or saloon cars according to recent research from Trinity College, Dublin" refers to the British Medical Journal article titled “Sport Utility Vehicles And Vulnerable Road Users†by Ciaran Simms and Desmond O’Neill.
However, this article has 2 major flaws:
Firstly, it use American statistical data relating to a group of vehicles “classified as light trucks or vans (many of which are SUV’s)â€. Light trucks as a body type in the US that in addition to SUVs includes pickup trucks, minivans and vans, After the initial statement about Light Trucks the article then goes on to refer to this body type as SUVs, even although they are only a subset of the Light Truck body type.
Secondly it does not take account of the probability of accidents occurring in the first place. However, 4x4s have a higher level of Primary Safety than average, which mean that they are very good from the point of view of preventing accidents happening in the first place.
|
14th Jun 2007 7:32 pm |
|
|
dick dastardly
Member Since: 29 May 2007
Location: wiggleigh bottom
Posts: 1112
|
Firstly, it use American statistical data |
|
Lies, damn lies and statistics. Then there's politicians and journalists quoting statistics (don't know which is worse, they're all in cahoots, wherever that is.). The trouble is the majority of people are icking fudiots and democracy is built on this Using fear and/or hatred you can manipulate them all There's one wheel on my wagon, but i'm still rollin' along, it's the cherokee, they're after me, but I'm singing a happy song
|
14th Jun 2007 9:05 pm |
|
|
randalls
Member Since: 02 Mar 2006
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 703
|
BarryG wrote:"Pedestrians hit by 4x4 vehicles are twice as likely to die than those hit by hatchback or saloon cars according to recent research from Trinity College, Dublin"
Very clever people there in Trinity ,how did they ever figure that one out.
(well done lads , )
I looked through the NCAP test results on pedestrian safety & cars - its a mixed bag, but generally the bigger the vehicle the more damage to the pedestrian. But this is no linear neat chart, many medium/smaller SUV's have better pedestrian safety scores than some saloon & other cars, and most low slung sports cars are generally appalling for pedestrian safety.
Ford were also publicly lambasted by NCAP for pedestrian safety on their Fiesta or Focus - cant remember which - and Ford had to offer several improvements to get the car re-tested again. 2007 TDV6 HSE 'Silver Lady'. With 'free' privacy glass LOL.
Taking the greenpi$$ is: Green taxing your citizens more & using some of the money to buy nukes.
|
14th Jun 2007 9:11 pm |
|
|
zig
Member Since: 09 Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 648
|
The problem with NCAP is that it only considers secondary safety i.e. what happens when an accident occurs. It does not consider primary safety i.e. features that prevent accidents happening in the first place.
The UK Transport Research Laboratory in report TRL 663 generated under contract for the Department For Transport and issued earlier this year, shows that for 4x4s and people carriers (unfortunately the 2 are grouped in the report):
a/ The pedestrian fatality rate is 27% lower than average
b/ The pedestrian killed and seriously rate is 38% lower than average
|
14th Jun 2007 9:44 pm |
|
|
randalls
Member Since: 02 Mar 2006
Location: aberdeenshire
Posts: 703
|
Can you unpack that a bit further ? - where was the data drawn from etc 2007 TDV6 HSE 'Silver Lady'. With 'free' privacy glass LOL.
Taking the greenpi$$ is: Green taxing your citizens more & using some of the money to buy nukes.
|
15th Jun 2007 4:13 pm |
|
|
Wex
Member Since: 16 Apr 2007
Location: Knackeragua
Posts: 5173
|
Brendan , as far as I know a law comparable to the Yanks " jaywalking" as you refer to was passsed here a few years ago as far as I can remember . I've never seen it being enforced though.Don't know about the UK.
|
18th Jun 2007 7:18 am |
|
|
zig
Member Since: 09 Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 648
|
Quote:Autoglass continue to put around there anti-4x4 research...this time in Ireland
It is not as Dublin People says “new research†it is just a repeat of information that first appeared in the media 9 months ago. They have not even gone back to the original source of the information but have just repeated and added to what what others in the media have said.
The closest I have managed to get to the original source for this article is:
http://www.roadsafe.com/magazine/winter2006/page_40.html
It seems that each time the information appears in the media a little bit more anti 4x4 propaganda is added to spice it up. I can only assume that it is the anti 4x4 brigade who are using their influence to once again get it raised in the media.
In the roadsafe article it states "for MPVs it was 3.4m and for 4x4s it was 3.6m" i.e. not much of a difference. Interestingly the Citroën Xsara Picasso was measured as 3.7m and the Land Rover Discovery was 3.4m. However, in the recent reincarnation in the Dublin People, which shows a picture of a Discovery, there is no mention of MPVs.
|
18th Jun 2007 10:58 pm |
|
|
relaxed
Member Since: 16 Jun 2006
Location: essex
Posts: 28
|
Hi I posted this to autoglass
"your anti 4x4 comments are pointless i drive a van with worse vision than my 4x4 as do many vans,lorries ,coaches,buses ...etc. This company has lost any future busines with me.
Try leading the way instead of following trends like sheep"
The reply was......
Dear Mr Jackson,
We’re sorry that you are upset by our latest consumer safety campaign. Far from trying to be anti 4x4 drivers, the campaign intends to highlight the potential dangers of obscured vision caused by A Pillars and educate people to ‘look and look again’ when at junctions.
The research was totally independent and compared a wide range of vehicles including 4x4s and saloons. At this stage, the testing has not run to any other vehicles such as vans, coaches or buses, but it could be something that we extend the tests to in the future.
I attach a copy of the full press release, which includes a break down of the results for your information. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0044 121 711 5000.
Kind regards,
Claire Jennings
On behalf of Autoglass®
Do you fancy ringing / mailing claire ????
|
19th Jun 2007 1:56 pm |
|
|
Wex
Member Since: 16 Apr 2007
Location: Knackeragua
Posts: 5173
|
nice one Relaxed
|
19th Jun 2007 5:13 pm |
|
|
zig
Member Since: 09 Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 648
|
Researching the issue of “A†pillar blind spots I have come up the the following, which I am sure has not been highlighted in the media:
In striving to achieve high Euro NCAP crash ratings, changes to car design to improve the structural integrity have resulted in the front roof supports and front door frames (“A†pillar) being thickened.
However, this raised concerns that this effected drivers’ field of vision which were then highlighted by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
As a consequence the Department of Transport placed a contract on the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to perform a study to investigate the issue.
TRL performed a study using real life accident data which was then reconstructed using “computer generated video clips showing scaled road and vehicle details, along with the ‘A’ pillar sight obscuration area matched to both the vehicle and driver in monocular vision (i.e. one eyed drivers) to give a ‘worst possible scenario’ of the drivers field of visionâ€. It should be noted that one eyed drivers are included in the ‘worst possible scenario’.
On 09/08/2006 TRL issued report titled PPRT/090/06. Investigation Into 'A' Pillar Obscuration - A Study to Quantify the Problem Using Real World Data (TRL ref PPR159).
The finding of the study were that “ whilst ‘A’ pillar obscuration can occur, there is rarely only one factor that contributes to an accident and at this stage there is not enough evidence to suggest that changes to the current legislation regarding ‘A’ pillar design would be of benefit.â€
|
19th Jun 2007 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
DISCO3.CO.UK Copyright © 2004-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
|
|