Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / UK Car Forums / 4x4 Cars (UK group) / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

SUV drivers are unsafe

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Marvin - 03 Jan 2007 23:34 GMT
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13560025,00.html

Owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles are more likely to be unsafe
drivers, according to a new study.

People with sports utility vehicles (SUVs) - dubbed the "Chelsea
tractors" - are more likely to drive with only one hand on the top half
of the steering wheel than drivers of regular cars, the study found.

It was conducted to counter claims from supporters of the vehicles that
the high vantage point means drivers can see further and are therefore
safer on the road.

Jared Thomas and Darren Walton, of the Opus behavioural sciences
laboratory in Wellington, New Zealand, watched 1,196 SUV and car drivers
on motorways, according to the New Scientist.

The journal says that they looked at whether they drove with their hands
at the "ten-minutes-to-two" position on the steering wheel, which is a
sign of a safe, alert driver.

More than half, 55%, of SUV drivers were more likely to drive with only
one hand on the top half of the wheel, compared to normal car drivers,
they found.

Steve Dethick of DriveTech, a driver training school in Crowthorne,
Berkshire, believes the SUV's size is the main problem.

He said: "It lulls drivers into a false sense of security that they will
survive an impact."

The vehicles are known as the "Chelsea tractors" because of their
popularity in the more affluent parts of London.

Supporters claim they are safe as well as being useful for transporting
children and animals.

But they have been criticised as bad for the environment, and
campaigners in London last year called on Mayor Ken Livingstone to
charge 4x4 vehicle owners a higher congestion charge.

The Chancellor has already said he will charge owners of the cars with
the highest carbon emissions more vehicle excise duty.
TMC - 04 Jan 2007 09:14 GMT
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13560025,00.html
>
> Owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles are more likely to be unsafe drivers,
> according to a new study.

snip

Another load of biased bollocks Marvin

In the UK the drivers most likely to have accidents are males in the 17 to
25 age group. These drivers do not drive SUV's

Drivers who drink excess alcohol are more likely to have accidents than
drivers who do not. There is no evidence that SUV drivers are more likely to
do this than other drivers

Drivers using mobile phones whilst driving are more likely to have accidents
than those who do not. There is no evidence that SUV drivers are more likely
to do this than other drivers

Most SUVs are approx 2 tons in weight have engine sizes around 2.5 to 3.5
litres and have a relatively high driving position. So how are they
different to the several million delivery vans that travel our roads every
day? Would you wish to ban all of these as well?

As many SUV's are geared lower than ordinary cars they are not able to
exceed the national speed limit by more than 20 or 30 mph nor can they
accelerate as quickly. All ordinary cars with a similar engine size can
travel at around double the national speed limit. This means that SUV
drivers are much safer doesn't it?

Tony
The Caretaker - 04 Jan 2007 14:23 GMT
> Owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles are more likely

Hmm, not too convincing then as a 'fact'.

> are more likely to ...  the study found.

See above ...

> It was conducted to counter claims

So had an agenda to fulfill rather than a study to add new information.

> Jared Thomas and Darren Walton, of the Opus behavioural sciences
> laboratory in Wellington, New Zealand, watched 1,196 SUV and car drivers
> on motorways, according to the New Scientist.

Hmm, exhaustive study then ... which has little to do with driving in
UK, or anywhere other than on motorways in New Zealand.

> believes the SUV's size is the main problem.

Belief isn't fact.

So once again someone has an agenda to follow and does a study that
finds results to fulfill that agenda.

Why am I not surprised?

Signature

The Caretaker ........

Geoff Lane - 04 Jan 2007 14:58 GMT
The Caretaker <the_caretaker@hotmail.com> wrote in news:068nh.41493
$KT2.13805@newsfe2-win.ntli.net:

> So once again someone has an agenda to follow and does a study that
> finds results to fulfill that agenda.
>
> Why am I not surprised?

You know that you can "prove" almost anything by cherry-picking what to
measure and the criteria you record, and you can make even the staples of
life seem evil:

For examples consider bread and water.

For the latter, see http://www.dhmo.org/ 

For the former, assume that it is claimed that bread is the cause of much
lawlessness and many social problems. Here's the evidence:

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.

2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households
score below average on standardized tests.

3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home,
the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality
rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases
such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours
of eating bread.

5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that
as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The
average Briton eats more bread than that in one month!

6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence
of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.

7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and
given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.

8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder"
items such as butter, jam, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.

9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more
than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your
body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a
soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.

11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit!
That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.

12. Most British bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between
significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

In light of these frightening statistics, the following bread
restrictions have been proposed:

1. No sale of bread to minors.

2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, with complete celebrity
TV spots and bumper stickers.

3. A 300 percent tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we
might associate with bread.

4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to
children) may be used to promote bread usage.

5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.

BTW, Happy New Year to all :)

Signature

Geoff

lurkio - 04 Jan 2007 16:22 GMT
4*4 drivers are persecuted saints or destroyers of the Earth - nothing
inbetween is there ?
Ewan Scott - 04 Jan 2007 16:52 GMT
>http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13560025,00.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>The Chancellor has already said he will charge owners of the cars with
>the highest carbon emissions more vehicle excise duty.

Oddly, when I started driving a 4x4 in off road competitions several
people commented that my car driving had improved dramatically as a
result. Go figure.

Ewan Scott
Marvin - 05 Jan 2007 14:07 GMT
>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13560025,00.html
>>
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Ewan Scott

You know why that is? Because you actually drove your car offroad,
unlike 99% of the w.nkers that drive 4x4s on the streets of London.
Ewan Scott - 10 Jan 2007 08:34 GMT
>> Oddly, when I started driving a 4x4 in off road competitions several
>> people commented that my car driving had improved dramatically as a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>You know why that is? Because you actually drove your car offroad,
>unlike 99% of the w.nkers that drive 4x4s on the streets of London.

So the issue is not actually 4x4 vehicles or their drivers, it is 4x4
vehicles as fashion accessories.  I would tend to agree that the 4x4
simply as a fashion accessory is wasteful.

There is an argument that private inner city vehicles should be more
compact, lighter etc. However, rather than vent your spleen here, your
time might be better given to persuading politicians to provide more
incentives to buy smaller, lighter and more city friendly vehicles.
That they might provide incentives for urban car pools with metered
access and GPS controlled ranges.

There are many, many solutions available that the government does not
follow - probably because there is a cost involved and no fiscal
return in the short term. Far better to encourage the private motorist
to remain in his conventional vehicle and raise taxes through private
motoring, through Road Fund tax, fuel taxe, VAT, congestion charges
and tolls - every driver a multiple revenue stream.

Decent public transport - ie, regular, reliable, going where you want
to go, when you want to go, and clean and safe costs money. The
government will not take the lead in funding public transport renewal
- consider the reluctance to re-open rail services to burgeoning
commuter towns that were country backwaters when Beeching was around.
Consider the reluctance to fund tram systems - which work perfectly
well across europe but apparently not in the UK. Consider the
development of bigger airports - often to handle more short haul
flights. Consider the reluctance to tax pollution inefficient short
haul flights and encourage rail travel instead.

All of the above cost money. The motorist is a funding source. The
motorist is an easy target for the government, and the great British
public allows it to get away with this bullshit because iot is easier
to acept than it is to pressure the government to provide decent
alternatives.

Ewan Scott
Brian Reay - 11 Jan 2007 17:22 GMT
> So the issue is not actually 4x4 vehicles or their drivers, it is 4x4
> vehicles as fashion accessories.  I would tend to agree that the 4x4
> simply as a fashion accessory is wasteful.

Why single out 4x4s? There are plenty vehicles just as, or even more,
"thirsty".

The anti 4x4 case is all about jealousy and easy solutions. If EVERYONE in
the in UK stopped driving, the impact on (so called)  global warming would
be naff all.

The Government must know this, all this business of road charging and the
many fuel taxes are about tax collecting.

I just wish we had one party leader prepared to jump off the green
bandwagon.

Brian
Ewan Scott - 13 Jan 2007 18:01 GMT
>> So the issue is not actually 4x4 vehicles or their drivers, it is 4x4
>> vehicles as fashion accessories.  I would tend to agree that the 4x4
>> simply as a fashion accessory is wasteful.
>
>Why single out 4x4s? There are plenty vehicles just as, or even more,
>"thirsty".

Because 4x4 are  more plentiful and more obvious.  Lmborghini and
ferrari may guzzle gallons more juice but they are hardly clogging the
streets - are they? So 4x4 - which, let's be honest, if you live and
work in an urban environment are conspicious consumpion and there is
an argument against it. Just as there are against sports cars, luxury
cars etc. More of which later...

>The anti 4x4 case is all about jealousy and easy solutions. If EVERYONE in
>the in UK stopped driving, the impact on (so called)  global warming would
>be naff all.

Agreed. I believe that it is actually in insurmountable problem. What
we do here in the Uk, or Europe, or the West is negated by the
phenomenal speed of change in the economies and commercial revolutions
in the far east. If we in the west all stopped out consumption
tomorrow, the benefit would be wiped out within the year by China,
Vietnam, India and others.

The only way to stop this is to stop them developing. We probably do
have the wherewithal to bring about a complete halt to the development
of the economies of the far east - but the cost would be a nuclear
winter.

Our "green" friends have no concept of just how serious the Asian
development is and how far it has yet to go. The worst of it is that
even if China and India come in line with the latest thinking on the
environment, who is going to stop the african nations from having all
mod cons? After all, if we need air conditioning in Yorkshire, hopw
the hell do you tell people in Nairobi that they can't have a cooler
office? Or a TV, or a car? or anything else that we have in the west?

>The Government must know this, all this business of road charging and the
>many fuel taxes are about tax collecting.
>
>I just wish we had one party leader prepared to jump off the green
>bandwagon.

Oh, but we have... Bush and Blair have both said that technology will
resolve the issue. I've just come back from a briefing where a leading
1st tier automotive components supplier explained that this was what
they were working on.

The future, they said was  still bigger, still faster, still more
powerful cars - balanced with technological developments that made
them "greener".

Despite EU talk of taxing 4x4, SUV and sports cars out of the market,
despite the claimed decline in 4x4 sales, they confirmed that every
manufacturer had at least one, or two new 4x4/SUV model in preparation
for launch, not only that, but there were brands and manufascturers
not in the market with models being developed for production.

The public face of the establishment and industry may say one thing,
but behind the scenes they know that the reality is something very
different. That, I think, is a very dangerous game to play. The lies
for votes could lead to a neo-medievil state where we live like latter
day peasants and have our freedom to move removed, or restricted. A
new dark age led by lentil munching, bunny cuddling, rose tinted
spectacl wearing, tree huggers - and I've done a bit of all of those -
one of my greatest enjoyments in life is planting new trees and hedges
whenever I can :-)

BTW - If you are the Brian Reay I last conversed with, I'm still
confused about who was who and who was doing what to whom and why.

Ewan Scott
Brian Reay - 13 Jan 2007 21:43 GMT
> Agreed. I believe that it is actually in insurmountable problem. What
> we do here in the Uk, or Europe, or the West is negated by the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of the economies of the far east - but the cost would be a nuclear
> winter.

You are assuming the "global warming" is man made.

--
73
Brian
www.g8osn.org.uk
Elder - 14 Jan 2007 12:18 GMT
>Because 4x4 are  more plentiful and more obvious.  Lmborghini and
>ferrari may guzzle gallons more juice but they are hardly clogging the
>streets - are they? So 4x4 - which, let's be honest, if you live and
>work in an urban environment are conspicious consumpion and there is
>an argument against it. Just as there are against sports cars, luxury
>cars etc. More of which later...

Thing is, large family cars, large executive cars and large family
people carriers are even more plentiful, larger, and thirstier than many
4x4s.

Would my old Celica be consider a gas guzzling behemoth planet killer
monster?
Signature

Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:The Dresden Dolls-Coin-Operated Boy

Brian Reay - 14 Jan 2007 13:16 GMT
>>Because 4x4 are  more plentiful and more obvious.  Lmborghini and
>>ferrari may guzzle gallons more juice but they are hardly clogging the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Would my old Celica be consider a gas guzzling behemoth planet killer
> monster?

"Two Jags" aren't, even if one is just used for a short taxi ride to keep
someone's hair in place.

;-)

Brian
Ewan Scott - 15 Jan 2007 10:01 GMT
>>Because 4x4 are  more plentiful and more obvious.  Lmborghini and
>>ferrari may guzzle gallons more juice but they are hardly clogging the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>people carriers are even more plentiful, larger, and thirstier than many
>4x4s.

Indeed, but they are much less obvious. First pick the obvious (and
the minority) and then move on to deal with the next target. It is
creeping control that is being sought.

>Would my old Celica be consider a gas guzzling behemoth planet killer
>monster?

I guess so. Not to mention my Austin Champ :-)

Ewan Scott
Ian Rawlings - 15 Jan 2007 16:53 GMT
> I guess so. Not to mention my Austin Champ :-)

So far I've not had any anti-4x4 types moan about my pinzgauer, if
they did I'd point out that it's not a 4x4, it's a 6x6 ;-)

Signature

Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Steve Firth - 14 Jan 2007 18:01 GMT
> Because 4x4 are  more plentiful and more obvious.  Lmborghini and
> ferrari may guzzle gallons more juice but they are hardly clogging the
> streets - are they?

Neither are 4x4s "clogging the streets". That's simply the lying propaganda
put out by the melons.

We appear to have the policies of the madhouse in place. Aviation and 4WDs
use relatively tiny amounts of fuel, yet the melons choose to focus on
these two areas of fuel use. The *real* big use of fuel is power generation
and domestic space hearing.

The *real* cause of congestion on the roads is not the number of 4x4s it's
the number of planks driving around in small cars.

If you took every car that wasn't a 4x4 off the road it would solve
congestion at a stroke. If every 4x4 was taken off the road, no one would
notice the difference.
Brian Reay - 14 Jan 2007 21:59 GMT
>> Because 4x4 are  more plentiful and more obvious.  Lmborghini and
>> ferrari may guzzle gallons more juice but they are hardly clogging the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> propaganda
> put out by the melons.

Indeed, the "foot print" of my CRV isn't much more than my wife's Civic.
Both are smaller than a Prescott Jag or Tony's people carrier.

This anti 4x4 nonsense is about tax and people allow it to pervade because
of envy.

Then, of course, we have bus lanes for infrequent, half empty, buses. Bus
lanes take up half a road are effectively transporting a small fraction of
the people who use the road.
Signature

73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

Elder - 15 Jan 2007 15:07 GMT
>Indeed, the "foot print" of my CRV isn't much more than my wife's Civic.
>Both are smaller than a Prescott Jag or Tony's people carrier.

Yup. When I was looking at Daewoo/Ssangyongs as my first 4x4, it was for
two reasons,
They are dirt cheap, and 2nd, because the Musso was about the same size
as my current Octavia, and the Korando was a lot shorter.

Even a Discovery is probably about the same size, with the Rangie being
a little bigger.
Signature

Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Frank the Baptist-Queen Frostine

Ewan Scott - 15 Jan 2007 10:23 GMT
>> Because 4x4 are  more plentiful and more obvious.  Lmborghini and
>> ferrari may guzzle gallons more juice but they are hardly clogging the
>> streets - are they?
>
>Neither are 4x4s "clogging the streets". That's simply the lying propaganda
>put out by the melons.

Of course not, but the perception is that they are and that is what PR
and lobbying is all about, perception. If something is not perceived
as a problem then no-one gives a tos until it sh.ts on them. So those
who don't like 4x4 or car drivers have to make the rest of us perceive
that 4x4/suv are a problem, then they can do something about getting
rid, then the sports cars, then the luxury cars, etc., etc., etc..

>We appear to have the policies of the madhouse in place. Aviation and 4WDs
>use relatively tiny amounts of fuel, yet the melons choose to focus on
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>The *real* cause of congestion on the roads is not the number of 4x4s it's
>the number of planks driving around in small cars.

In volume terms, yes. But if they all drove 4x4....  or do you suggest
that only some people should be allowed to drive?

>If you took every car that wasn't a 4x4 off the road it would solve
>congestion at a stroke. If every 4x4 was taken off the road, no one would
>notice the difference.

Oh, if you took away the 4x4 driver's ability to drive, it would
remove something like 5% of the vehicles from the road. However, most
would just buy a different vehicle so there would be no impact.

FWIW, statistics from the SMMT suggest that the UK vehicle parc is
stagnating. There are different ways of reading that.

It could mean that the end of life vehicles are balancing the new
vehicle sales. It could also mean that there are fewer new cars being
sold and people are keeping them longer. Or, people are scrapping cars
earlier and buying more newer cars (which are apparently less
polluting ( although that may not be the case)).

If the latter is the case then all that is being gained is a move
towards the automitive industry goal of a set 10 year life span. The
shorter the lifespan of the vehicle the greater its carbon footprint.

Better that we driver vehicles for as long as possible and make the
most of of their initial production cost to the environment.

Old cars are greener :-)

Ewan Scott
Steve Firth - 04 Jan 2007 17:23 GMT
> Jared Thomas and Darren Walton, of the Opus behavioural sciences
> laboratory in Wellington, New Zealand,

So they would be looking at drivers in New Zealand, yes?

Are you aware of just how crap drivers are in New Zealand? And of course
most 4x4 drivers in NZ tend to be the straw in their hair types, not
Chelsea Tractor owners taking Jocasta and Adam to the gymkhana.
Elder - 04 Jan 2007 19:29 GMT
>So they would be looking at drivers in New Zealand, yes?
>
>Are you aware of just how crap drivers are in New Zealand? And of course
>most 4x4 drivers in NZ tend to be the straw in their hair types, not
>Chelsea Tractor owners taking Jocasta and Adam to the gymkhana.

Have you seen one of the few makes of car to be make in New Zealand? The
Trekka.

It was essentially a Land Rover type vehicle but 2WD based on the very
old very original Skoda Octavia. And I don't mean the Golf IV platform
clone.
Signature

Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Balaam And The Angel-15th floor

Steve Firth - 04 Jan 2007 20:04 GMT
> Have you seen one of the few makes of car to be make in New Zealand? The
> Trekka.
>
> It was essentially a Land Rover type vehicle but 2WD based on the very
> old very original Skoda Octavia. And I don't mean the Golf IV platform
> clone.

Never fortunately. A kid I was at school with had a father who owned a
company making off roaders sold to NZ, they were the Yak, based on a Sherpa
van.

Complete pants.
Elder - 05 Jan 2007 14:36 GMT
>> Have you seen one of the few makes of car to be make in New Zealand? The
>> Trekka.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Complete pants.

http://www.geocities.com/trekkaproject
There you go.
It was submitted to my Skoda Fan site that is pretty dormant a couple of
years ago.
Signature

Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Now Playing at home:Christian Death-Desperate Hell

Trefor - 13 Jan 2007 10:06 GMT
> Have you seen one of the few makes of car to be make in New Zealand? The
> Trekka.
>
> It was essentially a Land Rover type vehicle but 2WD based on the very
> old very original Skoda Octavia. And I don't mean the Golf IV platform
> clone.

Actually, it was very popular with farmers etc. It was so cheap, compared to
a Landrover, you could buy a new one, thrash it for a year or so, then dump
it and buy another new one.

Can't remember why they stopped making them.

It's also true that most kiwis buy a vehicle for a particular use. There has
never been any snob value in driving a 4WD

Trefor (from NZ)
Steve - 04 Jan 2007 21:15 GMT
No where does it say the % of car drivers that do the same.

Maybe that was 54% and so wouldnt be quite the headline as it first seems
eh?

Yet more shite from the media bandwagon.

Print facts not opinions followed up with edited surveys and other pish.

Steve
Justin - 05 Jan 2007 14:23 GMT
"Marvin" <kilauea3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

| Owners of four-wheel-drive vehicles are more likely to be unsafe
| drivers, according to a new study.

<Bullshit Snipped>
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.