Fore buy for.

[denny]

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

http://www.4x4prejudice.org/

PRACE BETS NOW!

I have to say, the second lot have a better web design team.

Comments

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

of course speeding on a motorway could never cause a pile up and death could it?

The lower bonnet height doesn't do it for me - what about children? which are the ones that are more likely to end up the the road...

It's all a bit TOO tenuous really, as the most relevant bit is the driver and their awareness, and the next bit is speed, and then perhaps car weight/bulk safety (which you don't have to be a 4x4 to have) and finally, if you are unaware, stupid driving to fast and hit something, then the dimensions of the car become relevant.

http://www.4x4prejudice.org/safety.php

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this, if you have read the websites etc and come up with a different point of view.

No people shouldn't drive tanks when they don't need to, no people shouldn't drive fuel inefficient cars when they don't need to, yes people should use public transport as much as possible, yes people should always drive safely and be aware of other road users and pedestrians at all possible times. Yes different cars have different statistics for different safety things and enviromental things, but pigeon holing them into broad groups is not fair on the individual cars and drivers.

Maybe we should all drive 2cvs or motorbikes, and it'd be great if there were no lorries or white vans or 4x4s and all bulk was transported by train, and mule, but there are a range of vehicles, and whilst it's fine to encourage people not to use them for the wrong reasons, and not to have a bigger vehicle than necessary, or a more enviromentally damaging vehicle than necessary, it is NOT fine to do a 'them and us' judging people on an image rather than on anything more concrete.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

of course speeding on a motorway could never cause a pile up and death could it?

Are you being silly, or do you really not know anything about road safety statistics? Motorways have a vastly better safety record than any other type of road.

The lower bonnet height doesn't do it for me - what about children? which are the ones that are more likely to end up the the road...

The point is all the more relevant for children... they're going to be hit IN THE HEAD by a Range Rover.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this, if you have read the websites etc and come up with a different point of view.

I've done a lot more than read those two websites - I've been doing road and traffic related political campaigning for over 11 years now, mostly from the point of view of vulnerable road users (motorcycles being my main interest, but cyclists and pedestrians too, as they're all inter-related and for the large part, similarly vulnerable).

it is NOT fine to do a 'them and us' judging people on an image rather than on anything more concrete.

You don't think the figures from the insurance companies constitute "something more concrete"?

* "Churchill compared the insurance records of 4x4s with family cars, including the Ford Focus, Vauxhall Astra and Renault Clio. It found that owners of four-wheel drives were 25% more likely to make a claim for accidents and that their claims cost 30% more than average"

* “Drivers of 4X4s are more likely to have convictions for dangerous driving, speeding and driving without due care than other motorists. They are also more likely to be at fault in an accident, according to a survey by Admiral, the insurance company. Admiral looked at the driving records of 38,000 4X4 owners and compared them with those of other motorists on its database of more than one million policy holders. 4X4 drivers were found by the survey to be 27 per cent more likely to be the ones at fault in an accident and 15 per cent more likely to be convicted of driving without due care and attention. Convictions for speeding and dangerous driving were 11 per cent more common among 4X4 owners.”

I dunno about you, but I think that's fairly clear evidence that a disproportionate problem exists with one class of vehicle.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

you're back to using the 4x4 terminology. Or do you still mean larger poncier vehicles? Or was it heavier ones, or just taller ones?

I maintain that the four wheel driveness has nothing to do with the stats, though the type of driver may well do, but if you shove them in a different car they'll probably still have accidents, though the killing pedestrian rate may well be lower if the bonnet is lower...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Well, those are both quotes from the reports about the insurance companies' findings - it's not my choice of terminology. I don't know which vehicles the insurers included in their sample of '4x4s'... it would be interesting to find out actually.

Four wheel drive in and of itself should be a safety feature if anything - better traction and control - although it does carry a weight penalty.

Your theory that the drivers would still have accidents if you put them in a different car is indeed probably correct, but it's interesting that given the choice, they choose 4x4s. I guess they'd probably move to Volvo estates if their 4x4s were taken away :)

In sort-of related and good news, there's currently new driving license legislation going through EU Parliament which would require compulsory re-tests every 10 to 15 years, which is something me (and a lot of other people I know) have been hoping for for the last 15 years or so. As you've already said in this thread (and I totally agree), getting the bad drivers off the road (or getting them to be better drivers) would be the ideal solution to many safety-related issues.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

*nods*

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this

As recently pointed out in my Rules of Engagement post, I do like to debate issues - it forces me to examine my beliefs and make sure they're on solid ground. I have to say, the more I read on this issue, the more convinced I am that the problem is real rather than just being the latest media fad. 27% more likely to be at fault? That's a hefty statistical bias.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

mm 27% is high, I grant you that!
but again, that is the owner of the car at fault, not the car itself!! and those people will still be out there driving!

And Not All owners will be bad ones. (lies damn lies and statistics. Like the (flaws in IQ tests aside) black people STATISTICALLY score lower in IQ tests than white people, who score lower than asians - that doesn't tell you anything about an individual, likewise women vs men. It doesn't mean all women or all black people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed jobs, neither does this stat mean All 4x4 drivers are evil and wrong and should be banned from the road. If they drive unsafely they should be punished accordingly...

And the four wheel driveness is a stupid way of judging bad drivers!


So far good points:

Bonnet height more likely to kill - fair enough, also applies to busses, some vans, trucks though.

Weight - maybe, also applies to the above, and some larger/older cars, a somewhat tenuous argument I feel, compared to say, frequency of road use, but I come from a point of ignorance here.

Fuel economy - completely depends on the car, and fuel tax is the fairest way of penalising this one.

Stupid drivers - going to be the same in any car they drive.

Stupid drivers because they feel safer - going to be the same in a Range of vehicles, not just 4x4s (volvos are the other pet hate aren't they?), maybe we should remove the seatbelts to maket them feel less safe in all these vehicles?


I'm still really struggling to find your arguements reasonable or fair.

blanket gerneralisations and judgements bother me.


Having said that I don't really see why people need to drive in london at all unless they're delivering something big, as the public transport system is good enough to take you to within a short walk of anywhere, except in the middle of the night when people tend to be out on the piss, and not in a fit state to drive. But then people are individuals and I'm sure there are good reasons...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

For instance, I don't drink, so my car is the most sensible option for getting me home after late-night clubbing :) I'm not sure what I'd do if the tube was open all night... I might be tempted to use the tube, to save the hassle of parking in the center.

Removing seatbelts (and airbags) is a running joke with people who know about risk compensation. It's a tempting extrapolation of the theory, but of course it's not going to happen - even if it could be proven to save lives overall, I still doubt it would get done.

Discouraging the 'fortress' mentality in vehicles in general would be good - more effort put into safety features that protect those around you (ABS, impact crumple zones, etc) and less into features that protect the person inside (SIP, airbags, etc). The only way I can see this happening is if insurance premiums for cars with poor CAP ratings start getting higher. Presumably if 4x4s are causing more accidents than they should then their insurance premiums must be climbing already.

Again, I'll point out that buses, lorries and (most) vans are working vehicles - they have a reason to be that large and that heavy, it's so they can fit all the [whatever] inside them that they're meant to be moving around. A Range Rover being driven around London is unlikely to have any such justification for its height - unless you count being able to go over speed ramps faster as a good reason for having extra ground clearance :)

I'm not sure that "4x4 drivers are more likely to cause accidents" is a blanket generalisation - I think it's a statement of probability analysis, or something like that :) and if it is a generalisation then it's certainly not an unjustified one given the statistical evidence from the insurance companies.

[olithered.livejournal.com]

Weight is not at all tenuous:

Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight.

That means that if a 4x4 was twice as heavy as a car it would cause sixteen times more road wear.

Since fuel tax already covers the environmental aspect, I think it would be reasonable to link road tax (for private vehicles) to the fourth power of their weight.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

how significant is the wear on the road? and surely the amount you drive on the road is relevant for this.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

how significant is the wear on the road?

Road wear is blanket term used to refer to any destruction, due to use, of a road surface, including but not limited to erosion, vibrational damage (causing the surface to crumble into potholes), and the sagging patched areas of tarmac (such as the ones made by utility companies after laying pipes/cables). Potholes, sagging patched areas, and other irregularities in the road surface cause mere discomfort for car drivers, but can throw a rider off their two-wheeled vehicle, which, of course, can be fatal. Such irregularities are not always immediately visible to the rider and so cannot always be avoided; also sometimes stopping/slowing or swerving to avoid them can put a rider at risk in heavy traffic.

As Oli says, doubling a vehicle's axle weight increases the road wear it causes sixteen-fold, meaning that repairs need to be carried out sixteen times more often in order to keep the roads safe for motor- and pedal cyclists to use. In short, if you drive a vehicle with a heavy axle weight, you'd better like being held up by roadworks.