View Full Version : 4WD drivers really as bad as we thought
Dumbellina
10-07-2006, 11:26 AM
I know there are other threads on this topic (but not according to the search engine or its dumb user).
Anyway, any cycling commuter know this to be true: "A person behind the wheel of one is far more likely to be wielding a mobile phone while driving, and less likely to wear a seatbelt"
****************
From SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/4wd-drivers-really-as-bad-as-we-thought/2006/07/09/1152383611511.html#)
4WD drivers really as bad as we thought
FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE owners, already seen as a road menace, are more dangerous than we thought, a study of more than 40,000 vehicles has found.
A person behind the wheel of one is far more likely to be wielding a mobile phone while driving, and less likely to wear a seatbelt, researchers say. They have concluded that four-wheel-drive owners take more risks because they feel safer.
But that distorted logic is a threat to the safety of everyone on the road, says Lesley Walker, a research associate with Imperial College London's primary care and social medicine department.
Along with Australian researchers from the University of Queensland, Ms Walker observed the drivers of 38,182 cars and 2944 four-wheel-drives at three varied sites in London.
They found the 4WD drivers were almost four times more likely than car drivers to be using a mobile phone, and 26 per cent more likely not to wear a seatbelt.
Describing four-wheel-drives as "lethal weapons", Ms Walker said the findings were relevant to Australian cities, where large 4WDs were common. "There is no reason the risk-taking behaviour is not the same."
She said "breaking one law was significantly associated with increased likelihood of breaking the other". Previous studies from the US, Britain and Australia have shown that using a mobile phone while driving is associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of having an accident.
That means drivers of four-wheel-drives are 16 times more likely to have an accident than other drivers because they are four times more likely to use a mobile while driving, she said.
"Although 4WD vehicles are safer in a crash, their owners may be placing themselves and other road users at increased risk of injury," she said. "They take the risk because they are higher up, they feel they can see better … but the person in a car or the pedestrian on the road has a much worse outcome."
A member of the Bushrangers Four Wheel Drive Club in Victoria said 4WD drivers were used to the criticism, "but it doesn't sound right to me at all. I wear a seatbelt, I don't talk on my mobile while I'm driving."
scblack
10-07-2006, 11:42 AM
Hahahahahaha, thats some top-notch, super-duper in depth study right there!
Calling 4wd's "lethal weapons" - no bias from that researcher.:rolleyes:
She said "breaking one law was significantly associated with increased likelihood of breaking the other". The other what?:confused:
Previous studies from the US, Britain and Australia have shown that using a mobile phone while driving is associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of having an accident.
That means drivers of four-wheel-drives are 16 times more likely to have an accident than other drivers because they are four times more likely to use a mobile while driving, she said.What ground-breaking research - 4 times that 4 times equals sixteen times.
"Although 4WD vehicles are safer in a crash, their owners may be placing themselves and other road users at increased risk of injury," she said. "They take the risk because they are higher up, they feel they can see better … but the person in a car or the pedestrian on the road has a much worse outcome."Actually 4Wd's are NOT safer in a crash, as they lack crumple zones, and are more prone to roll-over. That shows this chick has f**k-all knowledge of what she is talking about.
4WD drive bashing by weenies. And this weenie does not know what she's crapping on about.:rolleyes:
As soon as I hear a supposed researcher call a type of VEHICLE a "lethal weapon", I can't help but think they might be either biased or even just plain full of shit.
I especially love comments like:
She said "breaking one law was significantly associated with increased likelihood of breaking the other". Previous studies from the US, Britain and Australia have shown that using a mobile phone while driving is associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of having an accident.
That means drivers of four-wheel-drives are 16 times more likely to have an accident than other drivers because they are four times more likely to use a mobile while driving, she said.
Be interested to see if 4wds DO crash 16 times more often than other types of vehicle, because I'd bet that if they actually did, people would notice, and you'd think there would be some raw data somewhere to support that. Totally flawed way of attempting to use statistics/probability, not that that's surprising.
FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE owners, already seen as a road menace, are more dangerous than we thought, a study of more than 40,000 vehicles has found.
This is only because the average demograph of the four wheel driver, has changed from farmers and adventurous/outdoors type people to mums dropping their kids off at tennis and soccer, and people living in the city.
Describing four-wheel-drives as "lethal weapons", Ms Walker said the findings were relevant to Australian cities, where large 4WDs were common. "There is no reason the risk-taking behaviour is not the same."
Lethal weapons, maybe only in the middle of the city. Exactly where these cars are not designed for, yeh good one dickhead. How about stick to your yaris', corollas and hyundais in the city and stop buying cruisers and patrols to drive up the gutter at the soccer field.
"Although 4WD vehicles are safer in a crash, their owners may be placing themselves and other road users at increased risk of injury," she said. "They take the risk because they are higher up, they feel they can see better … but the person in a car or the pedestrian on the road has a much worse outcome."
Bull, 4WD's are higher up, therefore can easily roll. They are often built more solidly at the cost of safety features such as crumple zones. In a crash between a city car and a 4WD, i think that the occupants would be equally harmed. On the news, have you ever seen a small car absolutely mangled and a 4WD with only a few dents. Often 4WD can't see better and have larger blindspots than smaller cars, once again, not suited to city driving.
A member of the Bushrangers Four Wheel Drive Club in Victoria said 4WD drivers were used to the criticism, "but it doesn't sound right to me at all. I wear a seatbelt, I don't talk on my mobile while I'm driving."
Who knows how they manipulated that information, but that is absolute crap. Did they mistake CB's and UHF's for mobile phones or something like that. With the views in this story, as if the statisticians weren't targeting 4WD. Absolute bias.
Makes me wonder, did Miranda Devine have a say in writing this story.
Dozer
10-07-2006, 12:11 PM
That is a typical SMH article, well researched and full of useless statistics.
4wd's are safer in an accident? Why would they be? Is it because the driver can jump out and ring 000 quicker because they don't wear a seatbelt and have a phone in their hands? I'd much prefer to be in a car with some structual support and some common sense about it......
What a great journo she must be.:rolleyes:
scblack
10-07-2006, 12:11 PM
Makes me wonder, did Miranda Devine have a say in writing this story.
Yep, more true quality journalism from the SMH.:rolleyes:
Cave Dweller
10-07-2006, 12:22 PM
Hahaha.... i laughed so hard when i read that 4wds are safer. This is a snipit from some of my PhD research
Vehicle crashes involving rollover in Australia are the most injurious type of collision. Rollovers cause proportionally more injuries and fatalities than any other collision type. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Crash Database for the period 1996, 1997 and 1998 shows that although 12.2% of the Australian fatal crashes involved rollover, these crashes resulted in a disproportionately high (22.8%) contribution to the road fatalities, i.e more than one in every 5 fatalities in Australia is the result of a rollover crash [102]
In the US figures for rollover are much worse given Americas love of the SUV. Based on data from the US National Center for Statistics & Analysis [104] SUV’s account for 12% of all registered vehicles in the US but account for 21.1% of all deaths involving rollovers. Even more amazing is that 61% of all SUV fatalities involve rollovers. These figures clearly show that SUV’s are much more likely to result in death if rollover occurs. This goes against the general image of SUV / 4wd vehicles being safer to drive.
102. 2004 YEAR BOOK OF THE AUSTRALASIAN COLLEGE OF ROAD SAFETY http://www.acrs.org.au/srcfiles/2004yearbook.pdf accessed 11.04.05
104. National Center for Statistics & Analysis 2002 Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle Crashes http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/2002annual_assessment/ downloaded 12.04.05
@nDr3w
10-07-2006, 01:07 PM
She's just jealous because she doesnt have duck-hunting lights:D
anywho this whole "i live in a city and have to drive my kids to soccer so i must have a 4WD" stereotype is the thing that is soiling the good reputation of 4WD's. there is simply no justification for buying a car that big when all your going to do is drive it through suburbia. maybe they just want everyone to get out of their way in traffic? maybe they want to prove their high economic status? either way its a load of crap. buy a nice mercedes or something if you must. just dont drive one when you dont need it.
(oh and yes, i own a 4WD, and use it!)
Dumbellina
10-07-2006, 01:19 PM
Yep, more true quality journalism from the SMH.:rolleyes:
Miranda's pieces are actually written by the pro-car (and pro-4WD) anti-bike lobby.
This piece has great satire - 4x4 = 16 times the likelihood that the statistics are made up.
She's just jealous because she doesnt have duck-hunting lights:D
anywho this whole "i live in a city and have to drive my kids to soccer so i must have a 4WD" stereotype is the thing that is soiling the good reputation of 4WD's. there is simply no justification for buying a car that big when all your going to do is drive it through suburbia. maybe they just want everyone to get out of their way in traffic? maybe they want to prove their high economic status? either way its a load of crap. buy a nice mercedes or something if you must. just dont drive one when you dont need it.
(oh and yes, i own a 4WD, and use it!)
Whilst I somewhat agree with your sentiments, there has to be more to the popularity of 4wds than socio-economic status or wanting people to get out of your way (who sees a 4wd in their mirrors and goes "uh oh, better change lanes and let this guy through because his car is bigger than mine" anyway?). They are, in many senses, extremely practical vehicles for anyone who wants to be able to carry around plenty of luggage (or bikes!) and/or cram 7 kids in the back of, and/or tow stuff, and still have plenty of space/comfort. You get good visibility in them too - the idea that they somehow have blind spots that normal cars don't is just BS, you can see over/through traffic much better being that extra 8" higher up, and they generally have plenty of glassware too. Maybe if you commonly drive through creches or something where the 3 feet in front of you is the critical part of your visibility then that would be a valid concern, but otherwise it's irrelevant to general road safety IMO (pretty sure I dug up some statistics a while ago that showed that 4wds are actually less likely to hit pedestrians anyway, although more likely to cause injury when they do). But back to the point - I think there has to be something (or a series of things) we're missing here, if people are willing to put up with $1.40/litre petrol prices in something that now costs $2.80 every 10km you drive it. There really has to be a pretty solid motivator to cause people to pay that kind of money to run them, instead of half that for an Odyssey or a Tarago or pretty well any kind of family car/sedan.
I am having the strangest sense of De ja vu reading this thread...
gravelclimber
10-07-2006, 02:54 PM
Anyway, any cycling commuter know this to be true: "A person behind the wheel of one is far more likely to be wielding a mobile phone while driving, and less likely to wear a seatbelt"
Not this cycling commuter - Commodores are my sworn enemy, not 4wds.
Maybe they're counting WRXs as 4wds in the study. Then it'd all make sense. :)
cam-o
10-07-2006, 03:06 PM
Quite possibly the first rational statement on the whole Soccer Mom SUV thing I've seen
S. is on the money, there are many people out there who buy 4x4s for reasons other than the fact they sit up high. I've got a Soccer Mom 4x4 (Territory) and dig it for a number of reasons.
1) I can carry heaps of stuff
2) I can put my dog in the back and know it's not likely to go through the windscreen (cargo barrier)
3) It's really nice to drive
4) Viz is great - front and rear
OK, at this point there's no benefit over a falcadore, so lets move on to
5) I can tow the CORC trailers up Big Bit without a second thought
6) I can tow my dirt bike up a wet greasy dirt road to the moto club without hassles
7) Snow - no lying in muddy crap to fit chains
8) To get to my back yard with a tonne of bricks can't be done without AWD (I tried, bogged the ute :( )
As S. said, they are a pretty pricey thing to run, so if I just wanted to look cool I'd go buy a beemer or a lexus. Fact is, I use the AWD capabilities at least once a fortnight and I doubt I'm that unusual.
Venciferus
10-07-2006, 03:33 PM
anywho this whole "i live in a city and have to drive my kids to soccer so i must have a 4WD" stereotype is the thing that is soiling the good reputation of 4WD's. there is simply no justification for buying a car that big when all your going to do is drive it through suburbia. maybe they just want everyone to get out of their way in traffic? maybe they want to prove their high economic status? either way its a load of crap. buy a nice mercedes or something if you must. just dont drive one when you dont need it.
1) I can carry heaps of stuff
2) I can put my dog in the back and know it's not likely to go through the windscreen (cargo barrier)
3) It's really nice to drive
4) Viz is great - front and rear
OK, at this point there's no benefit over a falcadore, so lets move on to
5) I can tow the CORC trailers up Big Bit without a second thought
6) I can tow my dirt bike up a wet greasy dirt road to the moto club without hassles
7) Snow - no lying in muddy crap to fit chains
8) To get to my back yard with a tonne of bricks can't be done without AWD (I tried, bogged the ute )
Soccer mum theory is clearly wrong in lots of cases and it annoys me (and others) a whole lot when people say that the soccer mum theory is the ultimate truth, maybe in some cases it's right but most it's not. (And yes my family has a 4WD)
That means drivers of four-wheel-drives are 16 times more likely to have an accident than other drivers because they are four times more likely to use a mobile while driving, she said.
That is jsut about the worst use of statistics i have ever sean
olly1oo6
10-07-2006, 03:36 PM
In a crash between a city car and a 4WD, i think that the occupants would be equally harmed.
Umm, that is totally wrong. There is no way you could look me straight in the face and say a head-on between a Landcruiser with a bull-bar and a Toyota Yaris will result in the same amount of harm done to the occupants in both cars.
The reason it is more dangerous for the occupant in the Yaris is for a few reasons:
1. Bull bars are big, heavy chunks of metal, designed to stop a roo totalling your car.
2. The higher position of the car means that instead of the front of the car smashing straight through the bonnet, it will impact further up; meaning more likelihood of head/torso injury.
3. Increased mass, harder to stop, more impact will be transferred to the driver of the Yaris.
Apart from that I do agree that 4wds are not designed for city use.
Venciferus
10-07-2006, 03:45 PM
Apart from that I do agree that 4wds are not designed for city use
Just because they aren't designed for city use it doesn't mean you can't use them in the city, they may not be practical for the city but who cares it's not you driving/paying.
Does anyone else think it's just a sign of an anally retentive country/society when we even have to have arguments like these? Who really cares what someone else drives anyway.
TonyG
10-07-2006, 04:02 PM
Just because they aren't designed for city use it doesn't mean you can't use them in the city, they may not be practical for the city but who cares it's not you driving/paying.
i'd say the dead peoples family who get hit by them.
I own a 4wd. I feel I have a right to it as I tow a boat and go off road driving fairly regularly (not for fun, I just need it for fishing). I do agree there is probably 40% if not 50% (I'm just making up my statistics, it seems like the thing to do in this thread) that are never taken off road, making your chance of getting hit by one over 100%.
There is no need for these cars, and in all seriousness they are a risk, particularly around schools.
I don’t think there is much you can do to police it, but I think for those owners who own a largish 4wd that is never used off road, they should perhaps reconsider their options. There has to be more practical cars for them out there.
cam-o
10-07-2006, 04:05 PM
Does anyone else think it's just a sign of an anally retentive country/society when we even have to have arguments like these? Who really cares what someone else drives anyway.
I think it's a symptom of 'everyone else's fault' syndrome.
Maybe fourbies are the easiest group to pick on now that women and minorities are off limits for most people :)
McBain
10-07-2006, 04:14 PM
Who really cares what someone else drives anyway.When it is potentially making our roads/schools/whatever more dangerous, and also helping to fuck up our planet faster.
I hate urban 4WDs so yes my POV is very biased. Flame away.
gravelclimber
10-07-2006, 04:15 PM
I don’t think there is much you can do to police it, but I think for those owners who own a largish 4wd that is never used off road, they should perhaps reconsider their options. There has to be more practical cars for them out there.
Fuel prices are doing that for them.
Still, it's the driver that causes the accident rather than simply having your front and rear wheels connected to the engine. A good, safe 4wder is still safer then a crap, dangerous mini driver and vice versa. My car's not in the least 'practical' but I see no need to reconsider my options for this reason. I don't see why people who drive large 4wds should have to either (I drive a smallish 4wd).
scottmeister
10-07-2006, 04:23 PM
Regarding rollovers- is there any circumstances surrounding the figures: ie. if 61% of fatalities involved with SUVs are a result of rollovers, what percentage of that figure occur in suburban areas? I'd hedge a good bet that most of those rollovers occur out on open country roads at night time in adverse conditions, and don't generally involve other vehicles or pedestrians. In the cities of Australia, is pedestrian death by 4WD really that common? Moreover, how many large sedans, vans or tracks kill pedestrians compared to 4WDs? I'd imagine it wouldn't be massively disproportionate, in fact, I could almost without doubt assume that being hit by a small truck would be more likely to kill than a 4WD. So, let's ban all trucks in CBDs or from within a 500m radius of any school, kindergarten, public playground, elderly home, residential houses...ooh...wait.. :rolleyes: It's just another thing for people to bitch about.
For what it's worth, it costs me less to run my Landcruiser than it costs to run most "economical" smaller sedans. :p
tnankie
10-07-2006, 04:27 PM
What ground-breaking research - 4 times that 4 times equals sixteen times.
Actually 4Wd's are NOT safer in a crash, as they lack crumple zones, and are more prone to roll-over. That shows this chick has f**k-all knowledge of what she is talking about.
4WD drive bashing by weenies. And this weenie does not know what she's crapping on about.:rolleyes:
yeah i don't get the 16 times either.
I think the point they were trying to make was the safer when crashing into another road user (other car, pedestrian, cyclist) as opposed to pileing into a solid object (brick wall telegraph pole, tree)
olly1oo6, not all 4WD's have bull bars, especially these supposed "soccer mum" 4WD's that are swarming in the cities. Also, corolla's, camry's, yaris', falcons, commodores etc would generally have greater safety features such as more air bags, side impact protection. Newer "soccer mum" 4WD's also have these safety features, and since we are talking about city driving, a t-bone or pile-up type crash is much more likely than a head-on. Therefore, roughly the same damage done to the occupants, not the cars.
Now, a lot of 'soccer mum' 4WD's, are really only called 4WD's because they are powered through 4 wheels, not 2. These type of 4WD's that i'm talking about are ones like: BMW X5, Ford Territory, Mercedes M-Class, Toyota Kluger, Toyota Rav-4, Nissan X-Trail and the Honda CR-V. In my opinion, all these are more your city type 4WD's.
While i class true 4WD's as cars such as: Nissan Patrol, Toyota Landcruiser, Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi Pajero. Ones that you would see out in the bush, covered in mud or dust.
I checked out www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au to have a look at the results between small city cars, 'soccer mum' 4WD's and 'true' 4WD's.
• Results for 2005 Yaris: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/ancap_detail.php?IID=3940
• Results for 2003 BMW X5: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/ancap_detail.php?IID=1736
• Results for 2004 Nissan Patrol: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/ancap_detail.php?IID=1837
Using their safety rating system, they scored;
Yaris = 34.95 out of 37
X5 = 32.66 out of 37
Patrol = 22.17 out of 37
They also had a pedestrian rating, to estimate injuries to a pedestrian hit at 40km/h. The more stars, the better off the pedestrian.
Yaris = 2 out of 4 stars
X5 = 1 out of 4 stars
Patrol = 1 out of 4 stars
In a 'frontal offset crash test' the Yaris and BMW X5's cabin held their shape, the patrol did not, and needed tools to open the drivers door after the crash.
So, the Yaris was the safest (completely designed for the tarred road), followed by the X5 (a 'soccer mum' 4WD, giving the looks of a tough truck, while shining in performance on the tarred road), followed by the Patrol (designed to be driven offroad).
From these results it looks like 'true' 4WD's arn't very safe at all, proving the SMH journo wrong. The only way i can see '4WDs' being considered safe is if you include 4 wheel driven cars, such as subaru's and volvo's.
I wonder if they included Subaru's and Volvo's in the cars they tested for that SMH article, some of the safest cars out there. That would truely distort the results.
NCR600
10-07-2006, 04:39 PM
Personally I can't wait until they tax the bastards off the road.
I own rifles. To maintain my legal status I have to be a member of a shooting club and attend the range 4 times a year, or be a primary producer, or have a genuine reason (i.e. a letter from a landowner or business saying I'm involved in destruction of feral pests etc.)
I have no statistical proof, but I'd be pretty sure that 4 wheel drives kill many more people per year than rifles do so I propose:
Anyone wanting to own a 4x4 must provide a genuine reason to own one. Acceptable reasons could include work, living in a remote location or being a primary producer. People who want a 4x4 for recreation MUST be a member of an approved 4wheel drive club or association, and must attend at least 4 driving activities per year.
A new class of licence will also be required.
Everyone wins here. The people that really want or need them can have them, the clubs will love it because it will increase membersip subscriptions, and everyone else will be safer because the North Shore mums won't have them, and the people who do have them will gain a better insight into the abilities of their vehicles due to participation and education via the 4x4 clubs.
Cave Dweller
10-07-2006, 04:49 PM
Regarding rollovers- is there any circumstances surrounding the figures: ie. if 61% of fatalities involved with SUVs are a result of rollovers, what percentage of that figure occur in suburban areas? I'd hedge a good bet that most of those rollovers occur out on open country roads at night time in adverse conditions, and don't generally involve other vehicles or pedestrians.
I don't know, check through the links if you can be bothered.
The point is that SUV's are involved in more fatal accidents involving rollovers as a percentage. These are not facts you can fudge, there is no ambiguity in death.
SUV's and 4wd's have a higher center of gravity and almost the same wheel base as a car making then rollover more easy, thats a fact, check up on it. This creates a larger moment of inertia which can easily make the car tip when a sharp steering input is made, ie like is made to avoid an accident. There has been lots of research done on this.
Nice pic of what happens :D
Personally I can't wait until they tax the bastards off the road.
I own rifles. To maintain my legal status I have to be a member of a shooting club and attend the range 4 times a year, or be a primary producer, or have a genuine reason (i.e. a letter from a landowner or business saying I'm involved in destruction of feral pests etc.)
I have no statistical proof, but I'd be pretty sure that 4 wheel drives kill many more people per year than rifles do so I propose:
Anyone wanting to own a 4x4 must provide a genuine reason to own one. Acceptable reasons could include work, living in a remote location or being a primary producer. People who want a 4x4 for recreation MUST be a member of an approved 4wheel drive club or association, and must attend at least 4 driving activities per year.
A new class of licence will also be required.
Everyone wins here. The people that really want or need them can have them, the clubs will love it because it will increase membersip subscriptions, and everyone else will be safer because the North Shore mums won't have them, and the people who do have them will gain a better insight into the abilities of their vehicles due to participation and education via the 4x4 clubs.
Where do you draw the line?
What about people with performance cars? to own a porsche, STi, Evo, lotus, ferrari etc you have to be a member of a club? attend race meetings?
I notice how everyone on here who owns a 4wd has said how they use it for what it was made for, yet its ok to judge other people who have one. What makes you think they are any different then you in what they bought the vehicle for?
Nice pic of what happens :D
I dont see the problem, it landed back on its wheels :D
Personally I can't wait until they tax the bastards off the road.
The price of diesel is doing that quite easily.
I have no statistical proof, but I'd be pretty sure that 4 wheel drives kill many more people per year than rifles do
I'm sure cars in general kill more people than rifles, therefore taking your approach, restrict cars and make people walk, ride bikes or use public transport.
I quite like your proposal that 4WD owners should have to give a reason for their use and to join a 4WDing club or Australia-wide association.
Another idea would be to charge greater registration for 4WD's that are being registered in capital cities, or toll more heavily on 4WD's driving on toll ways, which are in the city, or just the city parts of the tollway.
Does anyone else think it's just a sign of an anally retentive country/society when we even have to have arguments like these? Who really cares what someone else drives anyway.
Obviously SMH journo's and Naomi Robson from Today Tonight do.
scottmeister
10-07-2006, 05:04 PM
I don't know, check through the links if you can be bothered.
The point is that SUV's are involved in more fatal accidents involving rollovers as a percentage. These are not facts you can fudge, there is no ambiguity in death.
SUV's and 4wd's have a higher center of gravity and almost the same wheel base as a car making then rollover more easy, thats a fact, check up on it. This creates a larger moment of inertia which can easily make the car tip when a sharp steering input is made, ie like is made to avoid an accident. There has been lots of research done on this.
Not disputing that whatsoever. I didn't say I disagreed with the physics aspect. I simply pointed out that the amount of rollovers in suburban/CBD areas of 4WDs is most likely to be similar to the chance of a car rolling. In fact, I've seen a few taxis on their roofs in the CBD after making contact with tram stops and other road objects. My point being, a 4WDs likeliehood to roll has little relevance to collision at low speeds (ie. under 60kmh) with pedestrians or vehicles in suburban areas. I dunno about other drivers, but I was taught NOT to maniacally stab the brakes and swerve as hard as I can when confronted with imminent collisions.
olly1oo6
10-07-2006, 05:08 PM
olly1oo6, not all 4WD's have bull bars, especially these supposed "soccer mum" 4WD's that are swarming in the cities. Also, corolla's, camry's, yaris', falcons, commodores etc would generally have greater safety features such as more air bags, side impact protection. Newer "soccer mum" 4WD's also have these safety features, and since we are talking about city driving, a t-bone or pile-up type crash is much more likely than a head-on. Therefore, roughly the same damage done to the occupants, not the cars.
Now, a lot of 'soccer mum' 4WD's, are really only called 4WD's because they are powered through 4 wheels, not 2. These type of 4WD's that i'm talking about are ones like: BMW X5, Ford Territory, Mercedes M-Class, Toyota Kluger, Toyota Rav-4, Nissan X-Trail and the Honda CR-V. In my opinion, all these are more your city type 4WD's.
While i class true 4WD's as cars such as: Nissan Patrol, Toyota Landcruiser, Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi Pajero. Ones that you would see out in the bush, covered in mud or dust.
I checked out www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au to have a look at the results between small city cars, 'soccer mum' 4WD's and 'true' 4WD's.
• Results for 2005 Yaris: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/ancap_detail.php?IID=3940
• Results for 2003 BMW X5: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/ancap_detail.php?IID=1736
• Results for 2004 Nissan Patrol: http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/ancap_detail.php?IID=1837
Using their safety rating system, they scored;
Yaris = 34.95 out of 37
X5 = 32.66 out of 37
Patrol = 22.17 out of 37
They also had a pedestrian rating, to estimate injuries to a pedestrian hit at 40km/h. The more stars, the better off the pedestrian.
Yaris = 2 out of 4 stars
X5 = 1 out of 4 stars
Patrol = 1 out of 4 stars
In a 'frontal offset crash test' the Yaris and BMW X5's cabin held their shape, the patrol did not, and needed tools to open the drivers door after the crash.
So, the Yaris was the safest (completely designed for the tarred road), followed by the X5 (a 'soccer mum' 4WD, giving the looks of a tough truck, while shining in performance on the tarred road), followed by the Patrol (designed to be driven offroad).
From these results it looks like 'true' 4WD's arn't very safe at all, proving the SMH journo wrong. The only way i can see '4WDs' being considered safe is if you include 4 wheel driven cars, such as subaru's and volvo's.
I wonder if they included Subaru's and Volvo's in the cars they tested for that SMH article, some of the safest cars out there. That would truely distort the results.
Ah no, I have no argument against the fact that 4wd's are/are not safer. My point is that when TWO cars are involved in an accident, if one of them is a 4WD, even a "soccer mum" 4WD, the occupant in the other car will be worse off. Regardless of all the safety features, one car is going to take a bigger beating, and it sure won't be the 4WD.
Sure most urban accidents are pile ups. etc, but those do not tend to seriously injure or kill the occupants. I am specifically talking about the damage a 4WD would do to another car, vs. the damage a sedan would do to another car, in a serious accident.
4WDs are not safe. They are very easy to roll, weigh more and do not handle in the same way as normal sedans.
darth rider
10-07-2006, 05:15 PM
2 of my family members were in a 4by involved in an accident last year. The driver of the old pulsar they hit was badly injured (she was also very pissed, no seat belt and driving on the wrong side of the road late at night) and they mainly had things like whiplash, chest bruising etc. Yes they had a big bullbar on the front, and it definitely saved them from being injured worse.
I think the only way to have better figures on what people use their 4WD's for would be to ask them all, and it's the type of subject in which people love to get on the bagging bandwagon. Stats for this subject are always fudged, as they are for most subjects with safety concerns. I drive a smaller 4wd and mainly use it to shuttle & for the snow etc. Being a turbo / D it has comparable or better fuel consumption to most sedans / wagons of its age, and is much better than my old van was (yeah diesel is more expensive, but you use less). I've recently started using bio diesel and read a stat ;) that it produces 60 - 70% less greenhouse emissions than the fossil type. Dunno how that compares to petrol though.
cam-o
10-07-2006, 05:23 PM
Not disputing that whatsoever. I didn't say I disagreed with the physics aspect. I simply pointed out that the amount of rollovers in suburban/CBD areas of 4WDs is most likely to be similar to the chance of a car rolling. In fact, I've seen a few taxis on their roofs in the CBD after making contact with tram stops and other road objects. My point being, a 4WDs likeliehood to roll has little relevance to collision at low speeds (ie. under 60kmh) with pedestrians or vehicles in suburban areas. I dunno about other drivers, but I was taught NOT to maniacally stab the brakes and swerve as hard as I can when confronted with imminent collisions.
Think you are on the money there. Nobody disputes 4x4 are involved in more rollovers, but involved in more accidents full stop? I think not.
I saw some stats from AAMI in a recent MOTOR magazine with the top ten crashed cars. I'll look it up later but the thing I noticed was that:
1) There were no performance cars
2) I need to check but don't remember seeing any 4x4s
The most dangerous thing on our roads today are dickheads that have been brainwashed into thinking that wearing a seat belt and driving at or below the posted speed limit absolves you of all other responsibilities.
Edit: Found the list, there is one 4x4 in it
1) 2004 Lexus RX330
2) 2003 Subaru Impreza RX
3) 2004 Camry Sportivo
4) 2004 Astra
5) 1999 Maxima
6) 2004 Falcon
7) 1999 Mazda 626
8) 2002 Mazda wagon (I assume 6, they don't specifiy)
9) 2003 Honda Odyssey
10) 2002 Mazda 626
Venciferus
10-07-2006, 05:49 PM
4WDs are not safe. They are very easy to roll, weigh more and do not handle in the same way as normal sedans.
I think you'll be suprised how much BETTER the BMW X5 handles against lots of "normal" sedans.
There is no need for these cars, and in all seriousness they are a risk, particularly around schools.
I don’t think there is much you can do to police it, but I think for those owners who own a largish 4wd that is never used off road, they should perhaps reconsider their options. There has to be more practical cars for them out there.
If 4WD owners wanted a more practical car they would get it, but they don't want a more practical car so you have to bite your tongue and live with it.
I'm all for people having their own opinion but really this is the same as CBD commuter (bicycles) issues, people complaining about how dangerous they are and bicycle supporters saying how not dangerous they are. Yes there is acccidents involving bikers but there is more accidents involving cars, same goes for 4WD's and cars (but a bit more balanced).
4WD supporters are going to stick up for 4WD's, people that aren't supporters are going to acuse and deter 4WD's.
Lot's of causes of school area accidents are caused by careless parents, plain stupid kids and oldies.
Oldies are most likely one of the biggest causes of accidents.
I think S. and I are thinking fairly alike on this matter, it's habitual whingers, the type of people that complain about MTB'ers, the type of people that complain about road motorcycles, the type of people that have to have absolutely no bacteria in their house (just saw a 99% no bacteria ad), the type of people that blew Beaconsfield out of proportion (they are men not babies they won't just give up), the un-Australian Australians, people that cry when their child slips over and grazes their knee.
EDIT:
Normal sedans of the same price? You can't compare the handling of a hyundai to that of a lamborghini, 4WD or not. Some of the more upmarket 4WD's are safer, yes but the simple concept of a 4WD makes creating one that is just as safe as a normal sedan almost impossible
Your good, never thought of that but it was a general comment not related to price. (just as you said nothing of price in your comment which I was quoting) So you could compare the BMW X5 to a Hyundai just as you could compare a BMW M5 to a burnt out, old, rusty Nissan Patrol (Both 4WD and sedan can win)
olly1oo6
10-07-2006, 06:03 PM
I think you'll be suprised how much BETTER the BMW X5 handles against lots of "normal" sedans.
Normal sedans of the same price? You can't compare the handling of a hyundai to that of a lamborghini, 4WD or not. Some of the more upmarket 4WD's are safer, yes but the simple concept of a 4WD makes creating one that is just as safe as a normal sedan almost impossible
Arete
10-07-2006, 08:12 PM
There are far more qualified people in physics than me, but I always figured that if two objects collide with each other at the same speed, and one is larger than the other, a proportionally larger degree of force is transferred tot he smaller object.
I dislike unecessary 4wd use. The benefits offered in the urban evironment (improved safety, improved vision, "intimidation" factor...) they all come at the expense of other road users. I do feel more intimdated by a 100 series right up my arse than I do by a small car (though my "lift off and gradually go slower and flip them off" response remains the same ;) ). They block my forward vision, and the safety they offer to their passengers is offset by their lack of safety toward the other object they hit (I'm not going to bother digging up the stats, there's been enough stat abuse in this thread already).
I agree with NCR's comments. I do believe that those who need them and legitimately use them as recreational off road vehicles should have access to them. However I think their use as family station wagons should be discouraged.
As for the article... hmmm, crap journalism really, no matter what point you're trying to argue
NCR600
10-07-2006, 08:49 PM
Where do you draw the line?
What about people with performance cars? to own a porsche, STi, Evo, lotus, ferrari etc you have to be a member of a club? attend race meetings?
I notice how everyone on here who owns a 4wd has said how they use it for what it was made for, yet its ok to judge other people who have one. What makes you think they are any different then you in what they bought the vehicle for?
The thing is, there isn't a plague of Lotus' (Loti?)
And if there was, it wouldn't cause anywhere near the problems that the hoardes of mock off-roaders create, especially around schools at home-time.
Whilst my propasal was made with tongue firmly in cheek (far be it from ME to try to prevent a responsible majority from enjoying their hobby or lifestyle because of the actions of a few), I do believe urban 4 wheel drive use should be discouraged. Along with the use of caravans. Anywhere.
Why does anyone NEED to pick the kids up from school in an Armoured Personel Carrier? The recreation argument loses here simply because most of the 4x4's you see around are fairly limited in their offroad capacity. My old XG Falcon ute was more than capable of going up rough, rutty bush roads. I didn't need a 4x4 to get where I wanted to go, and neither do the vast majority of 4 wheel drive owners.
When I see Ferrari's in the same proportion as I do Turramurra Tractors, I'll probably complain about that too!
Drizz
10-07-2006, 09:47 PM
.......They block my forward vision, and the safety they offer to their passengers is offset by their lack of safety toward the other object they hit (I'm not going to bother digging up the stats, there's been enough stat abuse in this thread already).
Its totally in-line with the Liberal voter's mentality, coincident perhaps?;)
Never follow a 4WD too close, you can never see whats in front of him/her. My friend rear-ended another car because the 4WD he was following pull out to avoid a broken down car, he has no time to react. :( It was only a minor prang but if hes following a standard car he would have seen the broke down car through the windscreen.
Also when are we going to raise the Tariff on 4WD in line with other passenger vehicle? They only being charge a 5% because the original initatives was used to support farmers buying cheap 4WD, not your average city dwellers with weekend off road pursuit.
I have no problem with people buying 4WDs, as long as they are charged for the cost incurred on the rest of the society.
scblack
11-07-2006, 08:12 AM
I dislike unecessary 4wd use. The benefits offered in the urban evironment (improved safety, improved vision, "intimidation" factor...) they all come at the expense of other road users. I do feel more intimdated by a 100 series right up my arse than I do by a small car (though my "lift off and gradually go slower and flip them off" response remains the same ;) ). They block my forward vision, and the safety they offer to their passengers is offset by their lack of safety toward the other object they hit (I'm not going to bother digging up the stats, there's been enough stat abuse in this thread already).
Arete - guess what? A semi trailer will block your vision FAR MORE than a 4WD ever will. Do you want to ban them too?
scblack
11-07-2006, 08:19 AM
The thing is, there isn't a plague of Lotus' (Loti?)
And if there was, it wouldn't cause anywhere near the problems that the hoardes of mock off-roaders create, especially around schools at home-time.
Whilst my propasal was made with tongue firmly in cheek (far be it from ME to try to prevent a responsible majority from enjoying their hobby or lifestyle because of the actions of a few), I do believe urban 4 wheel drive use should be discouraged. Along with the use of caravans. Anywhere.
Why does anyone NEED to pick the kids up from school in an Armoured Personel Carrier? The recreation argument loses here simply because most of the 4x4's you see around are fairly limited in their offroad capacity. My old XG Falcon ute was more than capable of going up rough, rutty bush roads. I didn't need a 4x4 to get where I wanted to go, and neither do the vast majority of 4 wheel drive owners.
When I see Ferrari's in the same proportion as I do Turramurra Tractors, I'll probably complain about that too!
I REALLY hope I get you trundling behind me, with my 4WD and one tonne camper trailer FULLY blocking your way NCR, the next holidays.:D In fact I would be far from blocking you, I am amazed that I overtake the same with the camper on the back on holidays as without it. People just get in their car and put it in D for Dumb.
People having a go at 4WD's is missing the true point.
Just like guns, NCR600, PEOPLE kill people, not the gun or the 4WD. Blaming the tool is missing the point.:cool:
Dozer
11-07-2006, 08:19 AM
Arete - guess what? A semi trailer will block your vision FAR MORE than a 4WD ever will. Do you want to ban them too?
Don't ban semi's SC, that means I'll have to work underground and sell trucks and trailers on the black market. The tax man will hate me!:rolleyes:
TonyG
11-07-2006, 08:23 AM
Arete - guess what? A semi trailer will block your vision FAR MORE than a 4WD ever will. Do you want to ban them too?
I understand your point, but I think that they would be classified as a necessary evil. And you will have much less chance of trying to pull out of a side street and have to inch out blind to traffic until your vision is clear because they are mainly on main roads.
I can understand the anti-4wd argument. However, some of us do have legitimate reasons for having them. Petrol prices will ruin the resale value of all your petrol and Land cruiser and Petrol models. I'd say in 5 years time when petrol prices have continued to rise these cars will be as popular as VD at an orgy. A mate of mine had a Pajero as there kid’s car and they just sold it and bought a station wagon because the fuel bill was just ridiculous.
I own a Turbo Common rail diesel, and it is as economical as a medium sized car. I get close to 900ks out of 65 ltrs. Which isn’t too bad.
scblack
11-07-2006, 08:31 AM
I understand your point, but I think that they would be classified as a necessary evil. And you will have much less chance of trying to pull out of a side street and have to inch out blind to traffic until your vision is clear because they are mainly on main roads.
Alright, make my example vehicle a Vito LWB delivery vehicle..........MUCH bigger than a 4WD, and slab sided thing you can't see through. THEY are everywhere.
I have a 4WD, mid size, it's a Ford Escape.
It's not the vehicle thats the problem, as someone said before, a shitty driver in a Mini is far more dangerous than ANY decent 4WD driver.
I have crapped my pants from fear around a Camry MANY more times than a 4WD ever scared me.
toodles
11-07-2006, 08:35 AM
There are far more qualified people in physics than me, but I always figured that if two objects collide with each other at the same speed, and one is larger than the other, a proportionally larger degree of force is transferred tot he smaller object.
Nope. Equal and opposite amounts of force. What is the difference is how each objects inertia is affected by the force. The more solidly built objects experience a harsher transmission of force than the more malleable objects as they are unable to dissipate the energy. Then there's the ability of the object to change direction (or in the case of a solid immovable object) it's ability to yield.
It's funny listening to MTBers whine about 4WDs being "unnecessary" creature comforts while at the same time justifying running the same suspension and braking technology that WC downhillers use. Get a grip people, if anything is going to kill you it's likely to be heart disease or stress from worrying about whatever "flavour-of-the-month" public menance the current affairs/sensationalist tabloids are feeding you.
TonyG
11-07-2006, 08:42 AM
Alright, make my example vehicle a Vito LWB delivery vehicle..........MUCH bigger than a 4WD, and slab sided thing you can't see through. THEY are everywhere.
I have a 4WD, mid size, it's a Ford Escape.
It's not the vehicle thats the problem, as someone said before, a shitty driver in a Mini is far more dangerous than ANY decent 4WD driver.
I have crapped my pants from fear around a Camry MANY more times than a 4WD ever scared me.
Very good points. The old delivery vans can be quiet the menaces here in town. So can those bloody MTB riders!
I drive the Jeep Cherokee (the smaller one) and like the drive. There are several arguments against large 4wds though, and one is if you don’t need it, you are burning a lot of green house gasses for nothing. I agree with this, and that's why I hope petrol prices rise still. It will be the best thing for the environment.
scblack
11-07-2006, 08:54 AM
There are several arguments against large 4wds though, and one is if you don’t need it, you are burning a lot of green house gasses for nothing. I agree with this, and that's why I hope petrol prices rise still. It will be the best thing for the environment.
Yep, I fully agree.
cam-o
11-07-2006, 08:56 AM
I'm finding the whole petrol prices will kill 4x4s argument pretty amusing.
The motoring industry will always find a way to give the people what they want.
The 4x4/SUV will not die, sure the gas guzzlers will fade away but they will be replaced by a new generation of low emission, lower consumption vehicles. They'll still be big, they'll still be toorak tractors, and they'll still shit many of you to tears.
Here (http://www.lexus.com/models/rx_hybrid/) is the future of the SUV. I'm excited!
scblack
11-07-2006, 09:16 AM
I'm finding the whole petrol prices will kill 4x4s argument pretty amusing.
The motoring industry will always find a way to give the people what they want.
The 4x4/SUV will not die, sure the gas guzzlers will fade away but they will be replaced by a new generation of low emission, lower consumption vehicles. They'll still be big, they'll still be toorak tractors, and they'll still shit many of you to tears.
Here (http://www.lexus.com/models/rx_hybrid/) is the future of the SUV. I'm excited!
The Lexus hybrid vehicles, in real life are little more than a marketing ploy. I read a comparison of a mid size lexus sedan to a Mercedes sedan. In real life driving the Lexus got consumption of approx. 12-13 l/100k, and the Merc had 13-14l/100k. But the Merc was significantly quicker to offset consumption. (I couldn't find the article to link). Not much difference.
cam-o
11-07-2006, 09:25 AM
The Lexus hybrid vehicles, in real life are little more than a marketing ploy. I read a comparison of a mid size lexus sedan to a Mercedes sedan. In real life driving the Lexus got consumption of approx. 12-13 l/100k, and the Merc had 13-14l/100k. But the Merc was significantly quicker to offset consumption. (I couldn't find the article to link). Not much difference.
I suspect you're right today, however the possibilities are pretty exciting. I read an article about the Toyota Prius recently and it's getting high 4s around the city yet still has 400nm of Torque. It's not really my taste but give the concept a few years and I reckon you'll see it in applications that ARE my taste. The vehicles themselves may not be amazing yet, but they represent a shift in thinking that it is possible to have performance AND economy.
Audi are running a Diesel at Le Mans this year (and it's a stormer!) Lexus, Toyota and Honda all have hybrids.
Ford are toying with the idea of a diesel Territory.
Mercedes have triple turbo diesel SL class prototypes
The times they are a changing, and that can only be a good thing. I can't wait until I can have 300kw and 6L/100 in the same car.
Arete
11-07-2006, 11:02 AM
Arete - guess what? A semi trailer will block your vision FAR MORE than a 4WD ever will. Do you want to ban them too?
I never said anything about banning anything.
Semi trailers have a specialised systems of licencing, registration and I'm guessing insurance as well. Hence anyone who doesn't need to drive one, won't be.
A similar fashion of restriction on large 4wd's to discourage bullbar equipped Landcruisers and Patrols being used as family station wagons is what I would support.
floody
11-07-2006, 11:18 AM
Where do you draw the line?
What about people with performance cars? to own a porsche, STi, Evo, lotus, ferrari etc you have to be a member of a club? attend race meetings?
If you want a car which can only comply to race/rally rego, or many specially imported versions, then thats already the case....
But for everything else I'd suggest the big difference is that in general the only dangerous thing about those cars is the loud pedal; and thats entirely modulated by the driver. I'd suggest someone can learn not to stomp the pedal in a fast car easier than they can learn how to adhere to the laws of physics which make most large 4x4s so bloody dangerous.
You're territorys, foresters, lexii, MLs, X5s,rodeos, navaras, tritons etc are not the focus of my rage; while they are big and heavy, they do stop, turn , accelerate quite like a car and most have up to date safety feature.
However, drive a non IFS Hilux, Patrol, Landbruiser etc, they are about as safe as a light truck. Those are the sort of vehicles which are patently ridiculous to be seen a) in suburbia and b) driven by people who are not sufficiently skilled to handle such behemoths. Bigger and more powerful than ever, still with 1950's handling dynamics.
There would be little reason why a specialist licensing and registration scheme couldn't work. You need a full on 4X4 because you are an offroad enthusiasy/tour/tow a caravan/tow a boat/shuttle DH bikes/have to work on the land/live in a remote area/need the space/have to get in and out of muddy job sites etc etc; fine, so you do a course on driving one properly, get your large 4X4 license. No problem.
You're an accountant who has never seen a dirt road/soccer mum who drives solely between cafe, bar, school, leafy suburbs/tosser who just wants to sit above everyone else/idiot who feels the big car is a mechanised security blanket and so forth; f#ck off and buy something else, you have no need for it.
Alternatively, this might be attractive to the government, simply slap all the blatantly non-commercial 4x4s with the regular imported luxury vehicle tariff instead of the current cut rate commercial vehicle one; watch the prices jump $10k or so, watch sales plummet.
TonyG
11-07-2006, 12:46 PM
If you want a car which can only comply to race/rally rego, or many specially imported versions, then thats already the case....
But for everything else I'd suggest the big difference is that in general the only dangerous thing about those cars is the loud pedal; and thats entirely modulated by the driver. I'd suggest someone can learn not to stomp the pedal in a fast car easier than they can learn how to adhere to the laws of physics which make most large 4x4s so bloody dangerous.
You're territorys, foresters, lexii, MLs, X5s,rodeos, navaras, tritons etc are not the focus of my rage; while they are big and heavy, they do stop, turn , accelerate quite like a car and most have up to date safety feature.
However, drive a non IFS Hilux, Patrol, Landbruiser etc, they are about as safe as a light truck. Those are the sort of vehicles which are patently ridiculous to be seen a) in suburbia and b) driven by people who are not sufficiently skilled to handle such behemoths. Bigger and more powerful than ever, still with 1950's handling dynamics.
There would be little reason why a specialist licensing and registration scheme couldn't work. You need a full on 4X4 because you are an offroad enthusiasy/tour/tow a caravan/tow a boat/shuttle DH bikes/have to work on the land/live in a remote area/need the space/have to get in and out of muddy job sites etc etc; fine, so you do a course on driving one properly, get your large 4X4 license. No problem.
You're an accountant who has never seen a dirt road/soccer mum who drives solely between cafe, bar, school, leafy suburbs/tosser who just wants to sit above everyone else/idiot who feels the big car is a mechanised security blanket and so forth; f#ck off and buy something else, you have no need for it.
Alternatively, this might be attractive to the government, simply slap all the blatantly non-commercial 4x4s with the regular imported luxury vehicle tariff instead of the current cut rate commercial vehicle one; watch the prices jump $10k or so, watch sales plummet.
Go easy on Accountants! Both SCBLACK and myself are qualified accountants and may take offence to that, especially as both of us have 4wds.
I cant stand it when people stereo type people, it makes me want to come down to Tasmania and pull off one of your heads! (That was just a joke)
scblack
11-07-2006, 01:02 PM
If you want a car which can only comply to race/rally rego, or many specially imported versions, then thats already the case....
But for everything else I'd suggest the big difference is that in general the only dangerous thing about those cars is the loud pedal; and thats entirely modulated by the driver. I'd suggest someone can learn not to stomp the pedal in a fast car easier than they can learn how to adhere to the laws of physics which make most large 4x4s so bloody dangerous.
There would be little reason why a specialist licensing and registration scheme couldn't work. You need a full on 4X4 because you are an offroad enthusiasy/tour/tow a caravan/tow a boat/shuttle DH bikes/have to work on the land/live in a remote area/need the space/have to get in and out of muddy job sites etc etc; fine, so you do a course on driving one properly, get your large 4X4 license. No problem.
You're an accountant who has never seen a dirt road/soccer mum who drives solely between cafe, bar, school, leafy suburbs/tosser who just wants to sit above everyone else/idiot who feels the big car is a mechanised security blanket and so forth; f#ck off and buy something else, you have no need for it.
The licensing thing would be a great idea for those kind of people who buy grey import Skylines etc, only to go and wrap themselves around a telegraph pole. THAT is a stereotype that needs attention, as clearly anyone who buys a Skyline can't drive.
But hey at least they are mostly only killing themselves.:rolleyes:
Cave Dweller
11-07-2006, 01:42 PM
Why shouldn't you need a special license and hence undertake special driver training to drive 4wds on the road?
You need a special license to drive a truck, bus, motor bike, fork lift plus others. I fail to see what the problem is. I don't care if you drive one (well, i do but its a free pollution filled world) and most people who buy them have at least semi-valid reason, but it would be a great comfort to know they can handle its 2 tonne mass should something happen.
Why shouldn't you need a special license and hence undertake special driver training to drive 4wds on the road?
You need a special license to drive a truck, bus, motor bike, fork lift plus others. I fail to see what the problem is. I don't care if you drive one (well, i do but its a free pollution filled world) and most people who buy them have at least semi-valid reason, but it would be a great comfort to know they can handle its 2 tonne mass should something happen.
As compared to the 1.8 tonne mass of the family stationwagon commodore or falcon...
yes yes i know, higher of the ground etc etc.
TonyG
11-07-2006, 02:33 PM
Why shouldn't you need a special license and hence undertake special driver training to drive 4wds on the road?
You need a special license to drive a truck, bus, motor bike, fork lift plus others. I fail to see what the problem is. I don't care if you drive one (well, i do but its a free pollution filled world) and most people who buy them have at least semi-valid reason, but it would be a great comfort to know they can handle its 2 tonne mass should something happen.
I dont have a problem with this. My 4wd mind you would weigh less than a rolls or any other large sedan though, and being a diesel would not travel near as fast.
gravelclimber
11-07-2006, 03:07 PM
Yep, just what we need. More laws, regulations and bureaucracy. Not nearly enough of them.
Considering 4wds aren't involved in more accidents, what difference does it make if drivers have to do additional courses and have a special licence. Is it somehow going to make 4wds easier to see around or something?
Most people who have been to SE Asian cities would have seen how a majority of the population gets by with mopeds. So why aren't people applying these anti-4wd arguments to cars in general as, really, they're all just a luxury? Mopeds are more fuel efficient and are safer for the rest of the population then a small sedan so, therefore, people who drive small sedans should be taxed to oblivion?
I completely fail to see how 4wds are some big bad evil and but sedans are fine. Me thinks lots of hypocrisy going on here.
scottmeister
11-07-2006, 03:22 PM
Keep in mind some familes can only afford one car- hence a wife picking up the kids from school in the landcruiser. More likely than not, the family will go out 4WDing on weekends and whatnot. Sure, many X5s, MLs and Range Rovers may never be taken offroad, but just looking at one and saying they never have or will be is idiocy.
How about some of you go onto the overlander forums, for example, and try to spout shit about how most 4bys are used by soccer mums and never leave suburbia.
Oh and licensing- Bear in mind trucks, forklifts, buses and the like are almost always commercial vehicles, requiring specialised training to drive. Motorbike require extremely specialised training due to the fact they have TWO wheels, hence are a separate license to a 4 wheeled vehicle which has a GVM under the limit defining a light truck/commercial vehicle. Whereas, I think that you'll find most landcruisers drive quite similar to big sedans- just heavier steering and more body roll. Hardly the same as driving a 15 metre long truck with no centre rear vision and a 20m LTL turning radius.
Bah, the absolutely hypocritical statements being said by people is astounding. If somebody was bending statistics to suit an anti-MTB agenda you'd all be crying bloody murder. Get over trying to police other people's lifestyles and hobbies.
Very good points scottmeister.
I find it funny there are so many 4 wheel drivers on this site who are happy to say that they own one and 'use it for what it was made' so its ok for them to own one, but are then happy to pass judgement on everyone else because they once saw the driver drop some kids off at school. Maybe the mum driving the kids to school thought they may need the extra room for when the kids have friends over and they need to carry extra gear, or was thinking about going camping... or... What makes you think anyone else is different to you?
As for road safety, it comes down to paying attention to what is going on around you, knowing your limits, and being sensible on the road. I have seen bad drivers in WRX's, commodores, falcons, 4wd's, camry's, trucks, busses... Bad drivers are not limited to one type of motor vehicle, and stereotyping these sorts of things i just stupid.
My point about the high performace cars, is why do people need to own a car that can do 0 - 100 in under 6 seconds. That posses a danger that is just as great as a big 4wd if its not driven sensibly, and the owner starts to get cocky and drives beyond their skills.
It all comes down to choice, if someone wants to own a 4wd then that is their choice and the motives behind wanting to own one is their decision.
There doesn't need to be more trianing or special licenses for 4wd'ers, there needs to more training for everybody.
scblack
11-07-2006, 03:41 PM
I find it funny there are so many 4 wheel drivers on this site who are happy to say that they own one and 'use it for what it was made' so its ok for them to own one, but are then happy to pass judgement on everyone else because they once saw the driver drop some kids off at school. Maybe the mum driving the kids to school thought they may need the extra room for when the kids have friends over and they need to carry extra gear, or was thinking about going camping... or... What makes you think anyone else is different to you?
Show me one 4WD owner in this thread who is passing judgement on other 4wd users.:confused:
I have no problem with people buying 4WDs, as long as they are charged for the cost incurred on the rest of the society.
Drizz, I dont entirely agree with you on this one. This will filter down the line to the 'average joe' anyway.
example: you want a little renovation, pool or alike put in your average home. The bobcat or mini digger will need diesel. If the reno' or pool needs piling, shoring or support ? 99% of these trades use large 4WD's a) to carry the gear / equipment / diesel to do the job correctly. b) not all of the jobs are on sealed roads (alot of 'green field' jobs.)
I have just gotten rid of the Landcruiser Ute, as I am back into more construction than excavation. If I was hit with a tax, it would just filter down to the client at the end of the day.
There is no 'car' on the market that can carry 550 litres of diesel, 15t excavator bucket, tools, and get across any green field site I've been on. City or Rural jobs. Oh, and still carry 5 MTB's on the weekend, or get onto the beach for a fish.
However, drive a non IFS Hilux, Patrol, Landbruiser etc, they are about as safe as a light truck. Those are the sort of vehicles which are patently ridiculous to be seen a) in suburbia and b) driven by people who are not sufficiently skilled to handle such behemoths. Bigger and more powerful than ever, still with 1950's handling dynamics.
Doing well over 60'000 km's a year around Sydney from job to job, as far as Lithgow, Kiama, and Kempsey qualifies me to sufficiently handle my 'behemoth' floody. Fully loaded I can carry up to 2.5 tonne + Trailer at times. Do you no how many 'no idea' punters in their little WRX's or Skylines will pull infront of you when your slowing down for traffic lights just to be first at the lights ? Wet or Dry ?
My old cruiser wouldn't speed if you put a rocket under it, and in the years that I drove it I never had an accident. Work or recreation.
It's not the vehicle floody, its the dick behind the wheel.
Show me a 2WD car / ute that will fit my needs, and I'll buy it.
Dumbellina
11-07-2006, 03:56 PM
If its less laws and bureaucracy you want, just plain ban 4WD from cities.
If country folk want to drive their 4WD, make them stop on the outskirts (say Emu Plains and Campbelltown for Sydney on the western approach) and pick up one of those microscopic Smart cars.
microscopic Smart cars.
microscopic Smart cars = starter motor for a Landcruiser Ute ;)
cam-o
11-07-2006, 04:03 PM
If its less laws and bureaucracy you want, just plain ban 4WD from cities.
I'm curious Dumbellina, what do you drive?
Reason I ask is such a strong sentiment should come from someone in a strong moral position on said issue.
I assume you either don't drive at all, or drive something extraordinarily safe/ecologically friendly?
scblack
11-07-2006, 04:10 PM
If its less laws and bureaucracy you want, just plain ban 4WD from cities.
If country folk want to drive their 4WD, make them stop on the outskirts (say Emu Plains and Campbelltown for Sydney on the western approach) and pick up one of those microscopic Smart cars.
Bahahaha - all 4WD owners are country folk.:rolleyes:
You're plain losing credibility in this thread dumbellina. If you want to try to make an attack on 4WD owners/drivers, do not use such a pathetically shithouse SMH article as the start of your piece.
THEN do not carry on with such meaningless stereotypes as the above. So your thinking is that people who have work vehicles should never enter Sydney?
Show me one 4WD owner in this thread who is passing judgement on other 4wd users.:confused:
If I have to… Its not just these, it’s the feeling I get from a lot of other posts on here as well.
i'd say the dead peoples family who get hit by them.
I own a 4wd. I feel I have a right to it as I tow a boat and go off road driving fairly regularly (not for fun, I just need it for fishing). I do agree there is probably 40% if not 50% (I'm just making up my statistics, it seems like the thing to do in this thread) that are never taken off road, making your chance of getting hit by one over 100%.
There is no need for these cars, and in all seriousness they are a risk, particularly around schools.
I don’t think there is much you can do to police it, but I think for those owners who own a largish 4wd that is never used off road, they should perhaps reconsider their options. There has to be more practical cars for them out there.
She's just jealous because she doesnt have duck-hunting lights:D
anywho this whole "i live in a city and have to drive my kids to soccer so i must have a 4WD" stereotype is the thing that is soiling the good reputation of 4WD's. there is simply no justification for buying a car that big when all your going to do is drive it through suburbia. maybe they just want everyone to get out of their way in traffic? maybe they want to prove their high economic status? either way its a load of crap. buy a nice mercedes or something if you must. just dont drive one when you dont need it.
(oh and yes, i own a 4WD, and use it!)
Never follow a 4WD too close, you can never see whats in front of him/her. My friend rear-ended another car because the 4WD he was following pull out to avoid a broken down car, he has no time to react. :( It was only a minor prang but if hes following a standard car he would have seen the broke down car through the windscreen.
Never follow any car too close that would have to be one of the most basic safety principles to driving. Blaming your friends car accident on the 4wd in front of him is a bit dumb.
Cave Dweller
11-07-2006, 04:21 PM
Oh and licensing- Bear in mind trucks, forklifts, buses and the like are almost always commercial vehicles, requiring specialised training to drive. Motorbike require extremely specialised training due to the fact they have TWO wheels, hence are a separate license to a 4 wheeled vehicle which has a GVM under the limit defining a light truck/commercial vehicle. Whereas, I think that you'll find most landcruisers drive quite similar to big sedans- just heavier steering and more body roll. Hardly the same as driving a 15 metre long truck with no centre rear vision and a 20m LTL turning radius.
I think you answered your own question there.
scblack
11-07-2006, 04:23 PM
If I have to… Its not just these, it’s the feeling I get from a lot of other posts on here as well.
Bugger, thanks for that - I glossed over them.:o
gravelclimber
11-07-2006, 04:23 PM
it’s the feeling I get from a lot of other posts on here as well
Maybe your feelings are wrong. My feeling is most 4wders are like me and don't give a shit what other other people drive. I care about how they drive.
On the rollover topic - the rating of my 4wd death-beast:
NHTSA ROLLOVER RESISTANCE RATING: ****
The Rollover Resistance Rating is an estimate of your risk of rolling over if
you have a single vehicle crash. It does not predict the likelihood of that
crash. The Rollover Resistance Rating utilizes a "fishhook" maneuver which
is a series of abrupt turns at varying speeds to see how "top-heavy" a vehicle
is. The more "top-heavy" the vehicle, the more likely it is to roll over. The
lowest rated vehicles (1-star) are at least four times more likely to roll over
than the highest rated vehicles (5-stars).
Not too shabby
Simon B
11-07-2006, 04:25 PM
4wd's are a safe vechicle and blindspots on my dual cab hilux are alot less than your standard commodore. any vechicle that is on the road is only as good as the person driving it the bigger the population = more idots on the road, cars through to semi trailers.
cam-o
11-07-2006, 04:27 PM
I think you answered your own question there.
Or started a whole new question....if body roll and heavy steering are your concern, then special licensing is a must for any old car.
They produce more emissions, no ABS, no power steering, drum brakes, NO CRUMPLE ZONES.
If you to want ban any segment of the car market, then old shitters are the pick! Relatively speaking, drivers of modern 4x4s are saints.
TonyG
11-07-2006, 04:27 PM
I'm quiet happy to pass judgement on other people, in fact it's one of my favourite activities. I thought it was my right in a democratic society???? I also thought in a debate you were to put across your thoughts, these were/are my thoughts.
Now hijacking this thread as I think we can safely say we have flogged it to death.
I'm going to put new suspension and bull bar on my new 4wd, does anyone have any experience in after market operators. I'm looking at going ARB, but would be open to any suggestions.
And to those of you who are about to jump on your keyboards and have a whinge, allow me to offer you a freckle to kiss. I'll let you guess which one
it is.
Maybe your feelings are wrong. My feeling is most 4wders are like me and don't give a shit what other other people drive. I care about how they drive.
Huh? That was about how there are a fair few people who think that all 4wd'ers just buy them to be in a big vehicle, not because they need a big vehilce.
I agree, I dont care what someone is driving (to a certain extent, newer cars have better brakes, better suspension, better chasis, better steering characteristcs to older cars. So it would be great if we had a car fleet that was on average only a few years old, i also get a bit nervous when someone is driving a car that has bad brake squel due to badly worn pads, and have bald tyres..), more so how they are driving as you said.
I'm quiet happy to pass judgement on other people, in fact it's one of my favourite activities. I thought it was my right in a democratic society???? I also thought in a debate you were to put across your thoughts, these were/are my thoughts.
Now hijacking this thread as I think we can safely say we have flogged it to death.
I'm going to put new suspension and bull bar on my new 4wd, does anyone have any experience in after market operators. I'm looking at going ARB, but would be open to any suggestions.
And to those of you who are about to jump on your keyboards and have a whinge, allow me to offer you a freckle to kiss. I'll let you guess which one
it is.
Nope, haven't got a problem with your point of view/opinion. Just pointing out that it can be a bit hypocritical to say that its ok for you to own something, but not for the other person because it doesn't *appear* as though they are using it for what it was designed for/reason for buying it wasn't because of its capabilities as a car.
gravelclimber
11-07-2006, 04:36 PM
Huh? That was about how there are a fair few people who think that all 4wd'ers just buy them to be in a big vehicle, not because they need a big vehilce.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about 4wders on this forum discouraging mum's picking up their kids etc. in 4wds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scblack
Show me one 4WD owner in this thread who is passing judgement on other 4wd users.
If I have to… Its not just these, it’s the feeling I get from a lot of other posts on here as well.
Cave Dweller
11-07-2006, 04:53 PM
Or started a whole new question....if body roll and heavy steering are your concern, then special licensing is a must for any old car.
They produce more emissions, no ABS, no power steering, drum brakes, NO CRUMPLE ZONES.
If you to want ban any segment of the car market, then old shitters are the pick! Relatively speaking, drivers of modern 4x4s are saints.
Effectively they are with super petrol being fazed out, costing more to buy, and the massive premiums you pay for insurance and such.
4wd's are subsidised with low import tarrifs compared to cars. Anyway.......
Tony G, what type of 4wd do you have. If you have the money check out the stuff that kinetic suspension make, it grealt reduces body roll and allows massive articulation for off road driving while maintaining a super flat ride. Check out this pic sequence, this guy hits it at about 30km/kr+
TonyG
11-07-2006, 04:57 PM
Nope, haven't got a problem with your point of view/opinion. Just pointing out that it can be a bit hypocritical to say that its ok for you to own something, but not for the other person because it doesn't *appear* as though they are using it for what it was designed for/reason for buying it wasn't because of its capabilities as a car.
I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not passing judgement on anyone’s "appearance". If I pointed out an actual person and said "they don’t use their 4wd, they shouldn’t have one", then I would agree with you. What I said is there was a percentage of people who own 4wds for no apparent reason other than aesthetics and it would be better if they bought a more practical car. I still stand by this comment, as I still believe there are people out there who have cars that are not practical.
TonyG
11-07-2006, 05:00 PM
Effectively they are with super petrol being fazed out, costing more to buy, and the massive premiums you pay for insurance and such.
4wd's are subsidised with low import tarrifs compared to cars. Anyway.......
Tony G, what type of 4wd do you have. If you have the money check out the stuff that kinetic suspension make, it grealt reduces body roll and allows massive articulation for off road driving while maintaining a super flat ride. Check out this pic sequence, this guy hits it at about 30km/kr+
Thansk Cavedweller, I'll have look into those guys.
I have the Jeep Cherokee CRD. 2.8td. I'm not sure I will go after market as the suspension is pretty good, but I am considering it. I think if you are going to do it, it is best value to do it straight away.
scottmeister
11-07-2006, 05:36 PM
I think you answered your own question there.
You missed the point: Most 4WDs drive so similar to large sedans there is hardly any real need for separate licensing hassles.
How about compulsory driver education and skills training to acquire any car license- something at least similar to required motorcycle training for licensing. Any vehicle is deadly in the hands of unskilled, ignorant, or arrogant driver...
A study was recently conducted in the city of melbourne, surveying the attitudes of local mountain bike riders, the results show that more than 50% of them admit to having trespassed illegaly to ride their bikes, causing massive damage to the environment and peoples property. Melbourne cyclist John Smith commented that whenever riding near mountainbike riders he trys to keep his distance, he describes their riding style as "erratic and dangerous".
Harold Scruby, president of the pedestrians society in Australia told us in our interview, that mountain bikes need to be strictly policed, if not banned throughout Melbourne CBD and other busy areas; these bicycles are much more unstable and harder to control on sealed surfaces, due to their extremely large amount of suspension travel and offroad tires. A survey indicates that more than 95% of mountainbikers are riding dangerous bikes, which they assembled on their own, without consulting a qualified bicycle mechanic, which by law they are expected to do so. There is no current enforcement of bike standards, but statistics show that mountain bike riders are 20% more likely to not wear an approved helmet while riding, and often engage in risk taking behavior.
Does any of this paragraph apply to you? I made the whole thing up, but it could very easily be done, i'm pretty sure none of you would be to happy. It is the EXACT position 4WD's are in at the moment, so many people with biased oppinions, many of whom are extremely good at manipulating the media. Almost all the arguments people have made against them also apply to larger people movers such as the toyota tarago, and any van.
Most of the Anti-4WD publications are propaganda. It is insanely easy to build surveys and use statistics around the answer you want.
EDIT - It just so happens that an incident where a cyclist was hit and killed a pedestrian, I heard about it after having written my original post, but it goes to show, bikes could have the exact same bad publicity as 4wd drivers, it's just 4wd drivers are a minority, making them an easier scapegoat.
Sorry to gravedig, but...
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b221/rcoh/f6501.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b221/rcoh/f6502.jpg
http://www.f650pickups.com/indexb.html
Doggy
19-07-2006, 08:18 PM
:eek: thats not a 4wd....thats a wank factor mobile
http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/12719/DSCF0027.JPG
It may not be the prettiest but at least my road hogging, diesel chewing, roll over, side swiping, mobile phone talking soccer mum driving gets taken off road:D
TonyG
20-07-2006, 08:27 AM
Sheesus! I could feel my neck going red just looking at those to monster trucks!
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.