OP
OP
I've just got myself some body armour to drive in, whoever sees me will think i'm American 
Which is safer?
- Thread starter AnthonyH
- Start date
Currently reading:
Which is safer?
The Panda Nut
Nutty about Pandas Infected by Panda virus and OPD
Get some platform soles on your shoes to complete the MASSIVE-Fiat-driver look.
Good evening officer....
Would you just min stepping out of the car SIr.
The Panda Nut
Nutty about Pandas Infected by Panda virus and OPD
Insurance.... AH that what posh people have innit
We need a smiley wearing a baseball cap backwards. lol
OP
OP
Raises another question, safer for who?
www.autocar.co.uk
SUVs significantly more likely to cause pedestrian deaths, study finds | Autocar
High-riding vehicles increase the risk of fatal injury by 44% for adults and 130% for young children
www.autocar.co.uk
OP
OP
This does stand to reason. With a saloon a pedestrian will get hit in the lower body and their top half goes over the bonnet. With a SUV a pedestrian will get hit in the upper and lower body and it'll hurt more.
There's probably a similar difference for cyclists.
There's probably a similar difference for cyclists.
The other unrepresented portion here as well is if you have a higher window line someone next to the car can disappear, higher the line, taller the person can be.
Think this illustrates it nicely this is not a tall car..but if a child gets away in a car park SUVs make this situation far worse.
If the car was reversing there's not enough speed for the child to go anywhere but under the wheels...the Style of the SUV with a long flat high bonnet adds an additional blind spot straight ahead a child could disappear into.
This is why all my cars have cameras and rear sensors because I absolutely do not ever want to be in a situation like this, he'd be invisible to conventional mirrors and looking over your shoulder.
Think this illustrates it nicely this is not a tall car..but if a child gets away in a car park SUVs make this situation far worse.
If the car was reversing there's not enough speed for the child to go anywhere but under the wheels...the Style of the SUV with a long flat high bonnet adds an additional blind spot straight ahead a child could disappear into.
This is why all my cars have cameras and rear sensors because I absolutely do not ever want to be in a situation like this, he'd be invisible to conventional mirrors and looking over your shoulder.
OP
OP
Aye. Cars are the number one accidental killer of people. My son is 16 now and says i traumatised him into being careful crossing the road and avoiding cars. Oh well, he didn't get run over lol
There are some really awful drivers in shopping car parks, its there you want to be super careful, because pedestrians and drivers are in the same space.
There are some really awful drivers in shopping car parks, its there you want to be super careful, because pedestrians and drivers are in the same space.
There is a slight contradiction in that article in that they say accidents involving SUVs are more likely to result in death or serious injury while also saying there is no definition of what an SUV is, so how are they categorising SUVs in their study??
That aside, it’s one of those studies to create evidence for what was already obvious to everyone.
This is why I am a big fan of parking sensors over cameras. A camera is dependent on someone looking at the screen which seems unlikely if they can’t be bothered to look out the windows. At least parking sensors will sound an audiable alarm if there is an obstruction such as a small child.
About 10 years ago someone I know lost a child in an accident involving a builders truck reversing off a drive way straight over their 3 year old, totally horrific and totally avoidable
There all puntos
Member
Crash zones have improved survival of humans, both in the zone (broken bones) of upper limbs, lower limbs, ribs, some spinal 'in head on collisions'.
Pedestrians not much, as they get killed, maimed by being like occupants of crash zones, (skeletons in a muscle and flesh overalls).
That's if your under 45 years, over this, it's a sliding scale (down) on permanent disablement.
If over 65, death for occupants/pedestrians at anything above 25, like usual.
As much as crash zones have improved injuries, human biology hasn't changed!!!!!!!
Better wrap yourself, in a train carriage or local bus. The bus is better built, if only passengers would have seatbelts in those.
Pedestrians not much, as they get killed, maimed by being like occupants of crash zones, (skeletons in a muscle and flesh overalls).
That's if your under 45 years, over this, it's a sliding scale (down) on permanent disablement.
If over 65, death for occupants/pedestrians at anything above 25, like usual.
As much as crash zones have improved injuries, human biology hasn't changed!!!!!!!
Better wrap yourself, in a train carriage or local bus. The bus is better built, if only passengers would have seatbelts in those.
Last edited:
The bus has more metal, for sure, and if it stays upright* most people most of the time will walk away, or be carried away. A double decker meets low bridge, as happens most years, exposes the fragility of the superstructure.
*You're on your own if it flips, either fully, or onto its side.
*You're on your own if it flips, either fully, or onto its side.
OP
OP
I was in a single decker bus when it crashed many years ago, no one was hurt. The bus was a mess and the car it hit a lot worse.
Ah, that incident we don't mention when you lost your PSV Licence eh?
Buses are generally protected by being Slow...and very heavy, there's very little out there that can stop a bus suddenly so the force is shed more gently than a car accident.
Yes but there's an element of you can say common sense things and people will turn round and say "based on what evidence? That's just the politics of envy etc." so doing these studies removes the element of "your anecdote is only proof of an anecdote".
Camera wise I like the combination as parking sensors tend to go off a lot for no good reason. Usually as most systems pick up 2-3 feet either side so there's pretty much no way of reversing into a bay without them crying wolf at least once.
Yes, if you don't use your mirrors or look out the window the camera is likely wasted as well.
The last bit is something I hear about slightly too often and I'm sure you like me have to attend various things where the end is inevitably 40 odd sugared up kids charging to their parents cars while their parents stand on the phone..
Yes but there's an element of you can say common sense things and people will turn round and say "based on what evidence? That's just the politics of envy etc." so doing these studies removes the element of "your anecdote is only proof of an anecdote".
Camera wise I like the combination as parking sensors tend to go off a lot for no good reason. Usually as most systems pick up 2-3 feet either side so there's pretty much no way of reversing into a bay without them crying wolf at least once.
Yes, if you don't use your mirrors or look out the window the camera is likely wasted as well.
The last bit is something I hear about slightly too often and I'm sure you like me have to attend various things where the end is inevitably 40 odd sugared up kids charging to their parents cars while their parents stand on the phone..
OP
OP
Ah, that incident we don't mention when you lost your PSV Licence eh?
Oh this accident... I hit a pothole so not my fault. Reports of my speeding were greatly exaggerated
One for the Bad Parking thread I think
OP
OP
I would never admit in that crash i was practising getting into a tight parking space. But lets just say i've now perfected itOne for the Bad Parking thread I think
My problem with this, it’s an obvious hypothesis however if they’re unable to define what an SUV is as part of their study then the results are invalid.
So they did the study to prove a point which is a fair and reasonable thing to do, but failed to define their dependent variable, ‘it what an SUV actually is’ so what did they actually study ?
Also these days the conversation goes “what’s your proof” you provide the proof and then the other party claims fake news and smashes up the room.
l don't particularly think accidentally including some crossovers for example would invalidate the Study. Given it was mainly on the impact of vehicle height and shape on pedestrian survival in this case if it walks like a duck and Quacks like duck...it can be considered a duck.
Last point valid but these are the sort of studies that tend to lead to things like changes in type approval rules. It might be you end up with maximum bonnet height rules or to get Ncap stars your front grille now needs to be a whoopi cushion..
Last point valid but these are the sort of studies that tend to lead to things like changes in type approval rules. It might be you end up with maximum bonnet height rules or to get Ncap stars your front grille now needs to be a whoopi cushion..
Last edited:
The irony is that NCAP test for pedestrian impacts and so any data needed for their study could have just been a literature review of NCAP results
