 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / September 2005NCAP pedestrian protection observation
I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star ratings for pedestrian protection. Predictibly the 4x4's (which I have no problem with as a vehicle personally) and also BMW's have very poor pedestrian protection features. BMWs were called 'dissapointing', 'poor' and 'dire'. Sods law I thought (generalising...) these are sorts of vehicles driven by people likely to collide with peds ;)  Signaturewww.pickuptruckracing.com - UK's closest race series Spotter for the PWR truck #9 Watch us here: http://tinyurl.com/79xxg "¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤" wrote in message > I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star > ratings for pedestrian protection. Predictibly the 4x4's (which I have no > problem with as a vehicle personally) and also BMW's have very poor > pedestrian protection features. BMWs were called 'dissapointing', 'poor' > and 'dire'. Sods law I thought (generalising...) these are sorts of > vehicles driven by people likely to collide with peds ;) NCAP looks at the amount of damage done to peds if a collision occurs. What would be interesting is to find some figures for the chances of a particular type or model of vehicle to have a collision in the first place. For example, does the elevated view of the road from a 4x4 make them less likely to have collisions or is this a fallacy? There is more to reducing the incidence of death or serious injury on the roads than just making a vehicle 'pedestrian friendly' when a collision occurs. Ian > NCAP looks at the amount of damage done to peds if a collision > occurs. What would be interesting is to find some figures for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when a collision occurs. > Ian Yeah, but this relies on the school run mum actually looking beyond the end of the bonnet in the first place... Signaturewww.pickuptruckracing.com - UK's closest race series Spotter for the PWR truck #9 Watch us here: http://tinyurl.com/79xxg >> NCAP looks at the amount of damage done to peds if a collision >> occurs. What would be interesting is to find some figures for the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yeah, but this relies on the school run mum actually looking beyond the > end of the bonnet in the first place... And the vehicle being able to stop/swerve... high vehicles such as SUVs are notorious for handling like a turd on an ice :-P "d" wrote in message > "¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And the vehicle being able to stop/swerve... high vehicles such as SUVs > are notorious for handling like a turd on an ice :-P But are they more or less likely to have an accident in the first place? There must be some statistics out there somewhere. Ian > But are they more or less likely to have an accident in the first place? More. The vastly increased stopping distance has a big bearing on it. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. "Conor" wrote in message > In article <Ian says... > >> But are they more or less likely to have an accident in the first place? > > More. The vastly increased stopping distance has a big bearing on it. And that is based upon what factual information? According to dft_transstats_024328 the rate for fatal or serious accidents per 100 million vehicle miles is twice as much for cars compared to light goods vehicles. The latter are usually slightly heavier than a car, especially when they are laden and have a higher driving position a bit like a 4x4. Does the same apply to 4x4s? Without figures we are relying on prejudice and opinion. Ian > "Conor" wrote in message > > In article <Ian says... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And that is based upon what factual information? Testing on 5th Gear showing just how much more stopping distance a SUV has over a car. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. "Conor" wrote in message > In article Ian says... >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Testing on 5th Gear showing just how much more stopping distance a SUV > has over a car. Which doesn't mean that 4x4s are more likely to hit something if the higher driving position means they brake earlier due to a better view of what is happening around them. Only actual crash data which measures the accident rate per vehicle per unit distance will show which is the more dangerous type of vehicle in any given type of accident. NCAP just shows the likely degree of damage if a collision occurs not the likelihood of a collision occurring. Ian >Which doesn't mean that 4x4s are more likely to hit something if the higher >driving position means they brake earlier due to a better view of what is >happening around them. You don't brake earlier because of better visibility. You brake earlier if you're paying attention. "Laurence Payne" wrote in message >>Which doesn't mean that 4x4s are more likely to hit something if the >>higher [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You don't brake earlier because of better visibility. You brake > earlier if you're paying attention. True but we don't know if 4x4 drivers pay more or less attention than anyone else. LGVs are also heavier than most cars and yet they have 50% less accidents. I doubt that their braking distance is as good as a car or even many 4x4s. So why are they so much safer? NCAP doesn't seem to test them so we don't know how safe they are in an accident, just that they have far less accidents. Being pedestrian friendly in an accident is irrelevant if you never hit one. Ian > LGVs are also heavier than most cars and yet they have 50% less > accidents. I doubt that their braking distance is as good as a car or > even many 4x4s. So why are they so much safer? NCAP doesn't seem to test > them so we don't know how safe they are in an accident, just that they > have far less accidents. Being pedestrian friendly in an accident is > irrelevant if you never hit one. Perhaps partly because LGVs don't spend as much time on residential roads as cars/4x4s >> LGVs are also heavier than most cars and yet they have 50% less >> accidents. I doubt that their braking distance is as good as a car or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Perhaps ... And perhaps not. The point being that you don't know. Signature"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse." [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk] > "DavidR" <davNiOdSoPrAoMb@cwcom.net> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The point being that you don't know. Is it not permitted to post without providing definitive information? Oh hang on, you don't. > Perhaps partly because LGVs don't spend as much time on residential > roads as cars/4x4s Really? PLENTY of 7.5tonners doing residential deliveries - and larger, especially delivering building materials - we've got a couple of new houses being built just down the road, and there's a daily cement mixer at about 7.30am, together with all the brick wagons etc etc etc. The artic low-loaders bringing the demolition stuff in and out were entertaining... > DavidR (davNiOdSoPrAoMb@cwcom.net) gurgled happily, sounding >> Perhaps partly because LGVs don't spend as much time on residential >> roads as cars/4x4s [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 7.30am, > together with all the brick wagons etc etc etc. Obviously they will be going in as the houses are being built. Given that the whole range of LGVs covers 3.5 to 44t, it would be hard to accept that the proportion of car/all LGVs going through residential areas is similar to major roads. It is extremely rare for a 30t+ to go past my house and when they do they tend to crawl. > The artic low-loaders bringing the demolition stuff in and out were > entertaining... I am sure it was. >> DavidR (davNiOdSoPrAoMb@cwcom.net) gurgled happily, sounding > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Obviously they will be going in as the houses are being built. Given that > the whole range of LGVs covers 3.5 to 44t, The government figures I mentioned divide goods vehicles into light and heavy. The accident rate for light goods vehicles includes all goods vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight, but excludes car derived vans under 2 tonnes MLW (along the lines of the different speed limits for these vehicles) is half that for cars. The fatality rate for heavy lorries (over 7.5 tonnes) is double that for cars, but the rate for serious and fatal accidents is the same as that for cars. Thus everything from a Transit van to a small lorry of under 7.5 tonnes is safer than a car per unit distance. So far as I know they aren't tested by NCAP, so why do they have a better accident record? If the car category was broken down by type we might see some surprising results. As I have said before, pedestrian friendliness doesn't matter unless a vehicle hits someone. Ian > "DavidR" wrote in message > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote ... >>> DavidR (davNiOdSoPrAoMb@cwcom.net) gurgled happily, sounding [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > heavy. <snip> Thus everything from a Transit van to a small lorry of > under 7.5 tonnes is safer than a car per unit distance. The raw figures cannot be denied, obviously. > So far as I know they aren't tested by NCAP, so why do they have a better > accident record? If the car category was broken down by type we might see > some surprising results. The validity of unit distance relies on identical patterns of use. If usage is different, the figures lack any meaning. "DavidR" wrote in message >> "DavidR" wrote in message > "Adrian" wrote ... >>>> DavidR gurgled happily, sounding [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > usage > is different, the figures lack any meaning. So how would you measure the difference between the risk posed by different types of vehicle? The government figures are based on the rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres by vehicle type. The death rate for light goods vehicles is 0.5 , cars is 1.0, and heavy goods vehicles is 2.0. Why are light goods vehicles (including white transit van man) twice as safe as a car? For drivers who passed their car driving test before 1 Jan 97 they would automatically be entitled to drive light goods vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes. Most drivers of those vehicles haven't taken any compulsory further tests or training since passing the car driving test. The accident rates in the figures I used are both pre and post 1997 and show no great difference. In 1997 the rates were 0.6 and 1.1. The figures I gave before were for 2002. So light goods vehicles aren't tested for pedestrian friendliness by NCAP, they are driven mostly by people with a standard driving licence, they have a poorer stopping distance than most cars, are bigger and heavier than cars, have less safety features than cars; yet they are twice as safe as cars over any given distance in terms of causing death or serious injury. Why? The elevated driving position seems to be the only thing going for them which they share with 4x4s, hence my interest in finding accident figures by type of car to see if that applies to them too. Ian [49 lines snipped] >So light goods vehicles aren't tested for pedestrian friendliness by NCAP, >they are driven mostly by people with a standard driving licence, they have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >they share with 4x4s, hence my interest in finding accident figures by type >of car to see if that applies to them too. What a pity that's too big for a sig. Signature"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse." [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk] > So how would you measure the difference between the risk posed by > different types of vehicle? Unit distance seems reasonable as long as conditions are genuinely like for like. The links Nick Finnigan gave suggests conditions are not too dissimilar then. However the reason for my scepticism about vehicle distance comes from looking at French data at http://rp.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/onisr/accueil.srv where the data is broken down by department. We are not told about vehicle types but we get 100 data points varying between rural, lightly populated areas where people drive a lot to densely populated urban areas where distances are less. Plot things and a few things stand out. When looking at data for all road users, fatalities increase as people drive further. Yet SI remain constant at between 2k-3k /million head over more than a 4 to 1 vehicle-distance range Looking at pedestrians, fatals are a steady 10-20 /million head even though vehicle distance varies over the same range. So I think it is necessary to home in closely to where the pedestrians are, not just where vehicles go. <snip> > So light goods vehicles aren't tested for pedestrian friendliness by > NCAP, they are driven mostly by people with a standard driving licence, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in finding accident figures by type of car to see if that applies to them > too. It is plausible that a head position the same height as the standing person provides some advantage. Bus & coach figures don't look too good though but I quess one unfortunate bus queue adjusts figures significantly. But it is just one hypothesis. Another could be that pedestrians are less likely to linger in front of something large and intimidating. >>>>DavidR (davNiOdSoPrAoMb@cwcom.net) gurgled happily, sounding >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The validity of unit distance relies on identical patterns of use. If usage > is different, the figures lack any meaning. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transsta ts_031424.pdf gives the stats by type of road. Usage can matter, and does for HGV involvement in serious injury accidents; for each road class they are worse than cars, but overall they are better, because they spend more miles on motorways. Light goods are consistently half the rate of cars, as they are for accidents with pedestrian involvement (given in slightly less detail at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transsta ts_031379.pdf - 2004 stats due out tomorrow). "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transsta ts_031424.pdf > gives the stats by type of road. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transsta ts_031379.pdf > - 2004 stats due out tomorrow). Thanks for the links. But why are light goods vehicles less dangerous than cars as most drivers of both hold the same licence ( only since 1 Jan 97 has Class C1 for goods vehicles 3.5 to 7.5 tonnes required a different test for new licence holders)? Ian > Thanks for the links. But why are light goods vehicles less dangerous than > cars as most drivers of both hold the same licence ( only since 1 Jan 97 has > Class C1 for goods vehicles 3.5 to 7.5 tonnes required a different test for > new licence holders)? Looking at various transport statistics on dft.gov.uk there are: 23 million private cars, 2.7 million vans, 1.8 million company cars respective average mileage each year: 9,000 ; 14,000 ; 20,000 -which means roughly equal total miles for vans and company cars Insurance claim frequency (per year) is 17% for private cars, 20% for commercial (4.5 million vans + company cars). Company drivers have about 15% more accidents per year, but drive about 80% more miles per year, so have about 60% of the accidents per mile; whether they drive a van or a company car. "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message >> Thanks for the links. But why are light goods vehicles less dangerous >> than cars as most drivers of both hold the same licence ( only since 1 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 80% more miles per year, so have about 60% of the accidents per mile; > whether they drive a van or a company car. From which we conclude that there would be a significant drop in road accidents if only companies were allowed to own cars. This would also help reduce road congestion as only people in employment would have access to cars. This would give a big incentive for the unemployed to get jobs and mean that people would never want to retire. Both inline with government policy of reducing the benefit culture. Ian > "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > From which we conclude that there would be a significant drop in road > accidents if only companies were allowed to own cars. Only if you conclude the ongoing increase in mileage reduces accidents. >This would also help > reduce road congestion as only people in employment would have access to > cars. Nope. >This would give a big incentive for the unemployed to get jobs and > mean that people would never want to retire. Nope >Both inline with government policy of reducing the benefit culture. Nope. "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message >> "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Only if you conclude the ongoing increase in mileage reduces accidents. That is the conclusion from your figures. People who drive further have fewer accidents per mile and they are company drivers. They get more practice than someone doing less driving. >>This would also help reduce road congestion as only people in employment >>would have access to cars. > > Nope. If company car drivers have significantly less accidents per mile than private motorists then why not ban private motorists? >>This would give a big incentive for the unemployed to get jobs and mean >>that people would never want to retire. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope. Increasing the retirement age for women from 60 to 65 suggests the government wants them to work longer. There are suggestions that retirement age for men and women should increase to 69 or even 70. The rules for unemployment benefit have been changed over the years to encourage people to work and we now have more people in work than ever before. So it is government policy. Ian >"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message >>> "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >fewer accidents per mile and they are company drivers. They get more >practice than someone doing less driving. It's a reasonable hypothesis. More research would need to be done before reching a firm conclusion. But even if it is true that people who drive further have fewer accidents per mile because they are more experienced, it doesn't follow that baning private ownership would help. People would simply rent cars instead of owning them, and continue to have as many accidents as at present. >>>This would also help reduce road congestion as only people in employment >>>would have access to cars. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If company car drivers have significantly less accidents per mile than >private motorists then why not ban private motorists? Pretty much anyone who drives in the course of their employment also drives privately. If you ban them from driving privately, then they have fewer opportunities to gain the experience they need to become a good driver. Mark Signaturehttp://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google! "I'm so tired of acting tough" "Mark Goodge" wrote in message >>"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message >>>> "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > help. People would simply rent cars instead of owning them, and > continue to have as many accidents as at present. If they rented a car they might think twice about the best way of making the journey. They would be more likely to consider PT or even whether the journey was necessary at all. If they did decide to hire a car they would tend to rent the best car for that journey rather than buy one big enough for most journeys as happens with private car ownership. The cars would tend to be much newer which would mean they would have better safety features and better emmissions. >>>>This would also help reduce road congestion as only people in employment >>>>would have access to cars. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have fewer opportunities to gain the experience they need to become a > good driver. Someone who had a car provided by their employer would be able to make private journeys as company car drivers do now. They just wouldn't own the car and their employer could impose restrictions and ensure drivers were medically fit to drive using Health and Safety laws. Ian > "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fewer accidents per mile and they are company drivers. They get more > practice than someone doing less driving. And they have more accidents per year. >>>This would also help reduce road congestion as only people in employment >>>would have access to cars. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If company car drivers have significantly less accidents per mile than > private motorists then why not ban private motorists? Because they have more accidents per year. Not that that is related to only people in employment having access to cars. >>>This would give a big incentive for the unemployed to get jobs and mean >>>that people would never want to retire. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > work and we now have more people in work than ever before. So it is > government policy. In employment as a child minder and claiming working tax credit, family tax credit and child benefit is not 'reducing the benefit culture'. >Insurance claim frequency (per year) is 17% for private cars, 20% for >commercial (4.5 million vans + company cars). > > Company drivers have about 15% more accidents per year, but drive >about 80% more miles per year, so have about 60% of the accidents per >mile; whether they drive a van or a company car. Are you equating accidents with claims ? Co car drivers have many more accidents than claims (compared to private individuals) because the excesses are usually enormous (4 figures is not uncommon). The lower rate of something per mile probably reflects high motorway use. SignatureThis tagline wouldn't voom if you put 4 million dots in it > "Conor" wrote in message > > In article Ian says... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > driving position means they brake earlier due to a better view of what is > happening around them. Assuming of course that they take advantage of the better view which most don't. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. >> "Conor" wrote in message >> > In article Ian says... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Assuming of course that they take advantage of the better view which >most don't. Hey, Turdton, is there *no* subject about which you know nothing and are prepared to pontificate? Signature"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse." [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk] > Hey, Turdton, is there *no* subject about which you know nothing and are > prepared to pontificate? Hey, "knob who hides behind a nick", are you f.cking thick? SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. > I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star ratings > for pedestrian protection. Predictibly the 4x4's (which I have no problem > with as a vehicle personally) and also BMW's have very poor pedestrian > protection features. BMWs were called 'dissapointing', 'poor' and 'dire'. > Sods law I thought (generalising...) these are sorts of vehicles driven by > people likely to collide with peds ;) Beamers...further to my previous post, they are another menace of SE London - seems to be an 'attitude' status symbol. If you have a chip on your shoulder about yourself and your place in society, you seem to be drawn to them. Crappy old beamers for the attitude yoof, and expensive new beamers for the chavscum who got decent jobs but remain nasty people. Put them together and you have the BMW X5 or whatever it is - 4x4's that round here have never been within a mile of mud or bad terrain and are used by the most insecure, 'superior' school-run mums. I am not making it up! Thinking ahead 10 years and we will have scumbags driving the old ones at 60 down terraced rat-runs and causing even more accidents. In the defence of the beamer though, there was one time a few months ago when I cam across a courteous BMW driver. Only the once though in 15 years in London. In message <hIKdnVRpX6wPXq7eRVnyrw@pipex.net>, joe <joe@joe.com> writes >In the defence of the beamer though, there was one time a few months ago >when I cam across a courteous BMW driver. Only the once though in 15 years >in London. Courteous driving in London *and* in a BMW? That's improbable squared, no wonder you've only seem it once. Saw some twat in a new shape M3 giving it some beans through the village high street yesterday. Unusual because it's usually only the chav-mobiles and the bikers who do that. Did sound nice, mind, I just wish he'd waited for the NSL sign at the end of the street. SignatureSteve Walker > Courteous driving in London *and* in a BMW? That's improbable squared, > no wonder you've only seem it once. Saw some twat in a new shape M3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Did sound nice, mind, I just wish he'd waited for the NSL sign at the > end of the street. Hehe, reminds me of the Infinite Improbability Drive from HHGTTG, perhaps if society degraded so far and courtesy in a BMW becomes so improbable, that it would happen all the time? Thinking of it, isn't that what happens in the US now? When I was over there, everyone drove like a sedated grandad and nobody would dare to give it any rage or attitude in case the other guy had a gun and would shoot him. So, to extrapolate, if guns became the norm over here, then people would drive more courteously, BMW's included, due to the fear of lethal violence from the 3rd party? > I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star ratings > for pedestrian protection. Predictibly the 4x4's (which I have no problem > with as a vehicle personally) and also BMW's have very poor pedestrian > protection features. Most recently tested cars, in any group, only manage 1 green star. Some of the 'small off road' do better. BMWs pretty much retain the traditional three-box car shape. They don't all look like minibuses, as other manufacturer cars do. The minibus shape is better at protecting pedestrians. > BMWs pretty much retain the traditional three-box car shape. They don't > all look like minibuses, as other manufacturer cars do. The minibus > shape is better at protecting pedestrians. The only 3 green star cars for pedestrian protection are: Jazz, Swift, C4, Golf, TF, CR-V, FR-V, Altea, Touran. A TF may not be TTB , but it certainly isn't a minibus. [...] > The only 3 green star cars for pedestrian protection are: > Jazz, Swift, C4, Golf, TF, CR-V, FR-V, Altea, Touran. > > A TF may not be TTB , but it certainly isn't a minibus. A TF has no hard engine at the front. A > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A TF has no hard engine at the front. But a BMW with RWD, a 1.8 engine and a standard height bonnet should be able to do as good a job as a TF. [...] >> A TF has no hard engine at the front. > > But a BMW with RWD, a 1.8 engine and a standard height bonnet should > be able to do as good a job as a TF. There is still a tall, hard motor close under the bonnet rather than a void. Limiting peak G is what reduces the severity of injury, hitting an engine block is a high G event. A >A TF has no hard engine at the front. A double decker bus doesn't either. SignatureClive > I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star > ratings for pedestrian protection. Slight diversion... The forthcoming new Jag XK has a pyrotechnic bonnet that pops up on impact with a ped, with a force of about 50G, in order to provide more space betwixt bendable flesh, bendable panel skin and non-bendable engine. It'd be cool to activate it and use as a catapult >> I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star >> ratings for pedestrian protection. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with a ped, with a force of about 50G, in order to provide more space > betwixt bendable flesh, bendable panel skin and non-bendable engine. That's a great idea. I've seen it demonstrated, and it seems to be really effective. Kind of like an airbag, but viable for placement on the front of a car. >>> I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star >>> ratings for pedestrian protection. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > effective. Kind of like an airbag, but viable for placement on the front > of a car. Whats that like for forward visibility? Mind you I do like the idea of batting a ped with an oversize tea tray. I take it it opens from the rear not the front ? ;-) >>> The forthcoming new Jag XK has a pyrotechnic bonnet that pops up on >>> impact with a ped, with a force of about 50G, in order to provide more >>> space betwixt bendable flesh, bendable panel skin and non-bendable >>> engine. >> That's a great idea. I've seen it demonstrated, and it seems to be >> really effective. Kind of like an airbag, but viable for placement >> on the front of a car. > Whats that like for forward visibility? Mind you I do like the idea > of batting a ped with an oversize tea tray. I take it it opens from the > rear not the front ? ;-) No, the whole bonnet skin pops up on the frame a bit - not much, an inch or two - and not at all UNTIL the sensors detect that you've hit a ped. At which point, it's just a **little** bit late to be worrying about forward visibility... > No, the whole bonnet skin pops up on the frame a bit - not much, an inch > or > two - and not at all UNTIL the sensors detect that you've hit a ped. At > which point, it's just a **little** bit late to be worrying about forward > visibility... Ahh, makes much more sense. Pity really, I did like my mental image of the lid flipping up... >>>> I've been looking at the NCAP website recently and noticed the star >>>> ratings for pedestrian protection. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > batting a ped with an oversize tea tray. I take it it opens from the rear > not the front ? ;-) When activated, it looks like you've popped the bonnet. It instantly springs up 2 or so inches, so it doesn't block any view of the road/person/smear. >> Whats that like for forward visibility? Mind you I do like the idea of >>batting a ped with an oversize tea tray. I take it it opens from the rear >>not the front ? ;-) This sounds like a Robot Wars flipper |
Reply to this Message |
 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.