Safe Speed Forums

According to the propaganda there is no way the Police Officer should have survived this 55 mph impact with an SUV....just goes to show, maybe SUVs are safer then they make out.....check this amazing footage for yourself

http://www.kare11.com/player.aspx?aid=14630&bw=

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

From the looks of things he was punted into a bush, out of the way of the pickup. Of course, if the driver was driving something with a lower centre of gravity then maybe he wouldn't have lost control in the first place?

SUV = more selfishness writ large.

Tc.

When you think about it if you are hit by a 4x4's high and square front end you are going to be pushed out the way fairly evenly and squarely as the trooper was and more of the car is in contact with you meaning the kinetic energy is dispersed more than being concentrated on one area.

Being hit by a low front end, which means most cars nowadays, will flick you up and back-similar to having your ankles tied to a car that is passing, so you end up falling on to the car and striking the roof/pillar/windscreen area then possibly flicked round again by that area and off the back, it might not be finished at the back of the car though the driver could have some bicycles tied to the roof or back end meaning a horrible impact with all the jagged gear wheels and spokes, which will probably do you more damage than the car especially as they are mounted perpendicular to the motion of the car.


When you think about it maybe 4x4s are the safest thing to get hit by and bikes the worst! And here's me thinking 4x4s were great hulking killers...


Regards

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

A few wild assumptions there!



I agree, the trend for wedge shaped cars mean you get hit on the knee and flipped over, this has been shown on film.

But then we can't possibly be alowed to think SUVs are safer....not PC is it.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

"Fifth Gear" on Channel 5 did a test in last series. A child size crash test dummy was knocked over by a modern car with good pedestrian safety rating, and also a Range Rover.

The injuries from Range Rover were less severe because of square front pushing dummy forward, whereas other car took the legs away and threw dummy further.

It's got nothing to do with PC!

They are larger vehicles with higher centres of gravity, hence more difficult to control in terms of evasive maneouvering (the cause of this accident, if the video footage and commentary is anything to go by). This makes them inherently less safe. They chew through our severely limited supply of petrol at an astronomical rate compared to an car that can carry the same number of people. And they protect occupants in front, rear and side collisions, but at the expecse of those they hit, either in or out of their vehicles.

Now- the reason they are popular in the States (aside from the lingering 'bigger = better' mentality) is because they are classed as 'light trucks' rather than cars - so the auto manufacturers can subject them to less stringent saftey and emissions checks, thus making them cheaper to produce and allowing for a greater R&D profit margin. Unfortunately it makes them less safe than your average car if you try to drive them like one. The other result of this is that commercial vehicles have less tax levied on them - so essentially the SUV boom is a scam in the name of greater profits in Detroit.

Tc.

You don't expect the big players to sit back and watch an opportunity to make big bucks float merrily past do you? The trick is to either creat the conditions to let these opportunities come to fruition then slap big taxes on them-you watch in a couple of years time we will have a tax levied on 4x4s and anything else that is deemed evil and polluting by the greens.

Politicians don't agree with greens just out of kindness because they know that each and every concern (viable or not) is an opportunity to create fear, panic and hatred and thus tax rises on any number of everyday items as we are now seeing and hearing.

regards

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

During a pre election debate a liberal chap I think it was matthew taylor came out with the pearler 'These 4x4's are killing our planet and literally killing our children'

Fit for government??? yeah right!

To be honest the more people bang on with that type of nonsense the more inclined I am to get one! Probably with bull bars!

I'm sure I'm not alone!

Look on the bright side, at least I'll be driving more slowly than in my current car!

So what's your theory on the Kennedy assasination.....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Well that's it then - if they travel more safely they must be safer!

How could anyone ever have thought otherwise?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

check the facts out and stop guessing.....

http://www.highwaysafety.org/srpdfs/sr4003.pdf

There are several cars in there with SUVs in the worst list.

You also have to remember that in the US they have a lot of gravel roads, not something you get over here. Also more extreme climate in many states (+40 to -40 summer to winter). In much of the mid west and northern states a 4x4 is an essential for 4+ months of the year.

In any case If I lived over there I would probably have a F150 on my driveway, complete with gun rack. Right next to the Roush Mustang and The Harley Davidson Fat Boy....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Supping a Bud

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

You never hear a clamour for the banning of caravans on environmental or safety grounds, I would have imagined that a vehicle towing a caravan is inherrently less safe, and given that its working harder will be polluting more.

Is this because 4x4 haters percieve caravans to be more 'working class' ? Thus betraying the politics of envy that tend to lie behind a lot of these people?

Also coincidental that environment secretary (Beckett) is something of a keen caravanner herself?

Mind you, they do drive more slowly, so...

actually thats pretty much the case.
US car makers had a large part in ensuring SUVs werent put under the same legislation as passenger cars.

but then if they're sold in europe they'll have to meet euro crash regs anyway. in fact i recall range rovers had different trim by the drivers knees for the US market as the requirements were different (euro to avoid crushing the drivers' knees, US to stop intrusion into the cabin)

It's a class war-nothing to do with pollution or safety, all these arguments are just being profited from to instill fear. You could pick any subject out the blue and make people fear it.

For instance lets look at a kettle, you have 4 litres of water sitting around 250V and the potential to scald yourself, but why aren't we banning them.

It's easy to portray something as inherently dangerous to suit biased interests when it really isn't dangerous unless you want it to be-that is what these idiots are doing with 4x4's.

Personally I don't have much time for 4x4s but I don't want them banned to suit some warped dream of everyone on buses and trains and a giant 4x4 bonfire.



Regards


Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Colonel Mustard, in the Kitchen, with the Candlestick.

(Sorry, it's Friday! )

Tc.

- We are going to run out of oil in 50 years at *current* rates of consumption - Fact.
- Consumption is in fact increasing exponentially - Fact.

Ergo we -are- screwing things up for the next generation - no nonsense. How can you be so selfish?



How is it a class war? It's only the wealthy who will be able to afford to drive them in Europe in any case!



The point is that people are quite aware of the hazards involved in boiling a kettle. The vast majority of people aren't aware of the effect of a high centre of gravity as regards torsional stability in a motor vehicle - many believe that the weight of the vehicle will make up for it, when in fact the opposite is true.



It's the same thing with the gun control argument. People buy the huge great f**k-off gas-guzzlers for a perceived sense of safety which is in fact erroneous and only puts the road user on foot, on bicycle and in regular cars in more danger. So the other drivers all up-size and we're in a nightmare situation for those who can't afford an SUV, to say nothing of the extra pollution involved.



Why do you perceive such dreams as warped? Don't you believe in equal opportunity for all?



The point is that such vehicles designed over here (such as the Range Rover) are actually engineered for both on and off-road use and at least pay lip-service to doing it economically. The Stateside monsters are simply MPV bodies bolted to the runnign gear of large pickups. The H2 is actually a Chevy Tahoe chassis with a Humvee-esque body shell bolted to it. These things were designed to carry industrial loads long distances - not taking the kids to school. I wouldn't want someone who, say, learned to drive in a Nissan Micra and pootled around in an Escort for the next few years trying to drive one - they'll turn over if you try what would be a relatively mild evasive maneouvre in a car.

Incidentally, thanks for the corroboration.

Tc.

End of the party political broadcast by the green party.

Ergo you should try finding out for yourself and stop spouting enviro b*llocks from the tree huggers guide to the galaxy

If you were up to speed with Automotive development you would realise that we will not be running cars and trucks on oil by 2050

We will have
Ethanol...available now
CNG...available now
Bio diesel...available now
Hydrogen...infrastructure in place by 2010. Geothermal and hydroelectric generation of hydrogen is already in the construction stage.

All will run on conventional internal combustion engines.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

All are too expensive, and the oil companies will do their best to keep them that way.

Tc.

Back to the conspiracy theory.....

Its only expensive because of the Tax...but then the tax is now a polution tax isn't it. When there is no polution there is no need for the tax...no problem.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills