Slightly OT: one for the anti 4x4s?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
P

Pacman

Guest
Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a
Shogun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6063978.stm

Fortunately the girl survived and is recovering well, but I wonder if
the anti 4x4 lobby will pick up on this, especially being outside a
school in the middle of London. Not helped by the fact that 2 of the
occupants decided to run off!

Glad to see the BBC haven't played on the anti 4x4 rubbish, looks as if
they have listened to John Pearson's (editor of LRO) recent comments
about the bias they show towards anti-4x4-ness...

--
Thanks,
Paul

 
On or around 19 Oct 2006 02:57:06 -0700, "Pacman" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a
>Shogun.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6063978.stm
>
>Fortunately the girl survived and is recovering well, but I wonder if
>the anti 4x4 lobby will pick up on this, especially being outside a
>school in the middle of London. Not helped by the fact that 2 of the
>occupants decided to run off!
>
>Glad to see the BBC haven't played on the anti 4x4 rubbish, looks as if
>they have listened to John Pearson's (editor of LRO) recent comments
>about the bias they show towards anti-4x4-ness...

yeah, nicely unbiassed.

Mind you, it was probably one of the parents - schoolmums taking off from
outside school at 3pm have nothing on the old-fahioned Le Mans starts...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 

Austin Shackles wrote:
> yeah, nicely unbiassed.
>
> Mind you, it was probably one of the parents - schoolmums taking off from
> outside school at 3pm have nothing on the old-fahioned Le Mans starts...

Could it be that the girl's injuries weren't worse because she was hit
by a big, blunt 4x4 and not a sharp-fronted family hatchback? It
punted her through the air, it seems - which, although it can't be much
fun, is a whole lot better than being sliced off at the knee or run
over.

DaveP

 
On 2006-10-19, Dave P <[email protected]> wrote:

> Could it be that the girl's injuries weren't worse because she was hit
> by a big, blunt 4x4 and not a sharp-fronted family hatchback?

Probably not, given that cars tend to hit the legs, where the vital
organs aren't located, whereas with a 4x4 the impact area is much more
likely to hit the abdomen where all the messy squidgy stuff is.

Being hit by a 4x4 is almost always going to be worse than being hit
by a car at the same speed just because of that, I know that people
batter on about "common sense" in this group a lot and I tend to sneer
at the idea, but sometimes a dose of it can be useful.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
In message <[email protected]>
Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-10-19, Dave P <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Could it be that the girl's injuries weren't worse because she was hit
> > by a big, blunt 4x4 and not a sharp-fronted family hatchback?
>
> Probably not, given that cars tend to hit the legs, where the vital
> organs aren't located, whereas with a 4x4 the impact area is much more
> likely to hit the abdomen where all the messy squidgy stuff is.
>

But having your legs taken out from underneath you is going to
cause the head to hit the car instead, and while that bit isn't
squidgy (beforehand), banging it with a large blunt instrument
is generally regarded as a Bad Thing.

> Being hit by a 4x4 is almost always going to be worse than being hit
> by a car at the same speed just because of that, I know that people
> batter on about "common sense" in this group a lot and I tend to sneer
> at the idea, but sometimes a dose of it can be useful.
>

Indeed.......

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
In message <[email protected]>
"Dave P" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Austin Shackles wrote:
> > yeah, nicely unbiassed.
> >
> > Mind you, it was probably one of the parents - schoolmums taking off from
> > outside school at 3pm have nothing on the old-fahioned Le Mans starts...
>
> Could it be that the girl's injuries weren't worse because she was hit
> by a big, blunt 4x4 and not a sharp-fronted family hatchback? It
> punted her through the air, it seems - which, although it can't be much
> fun, is a whole lot better than being sliced off at the knee or run
> over.
>

That sounds dangerously like common sense, which isn't allowed
in 4x4 debates.

> DaveP
>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
On 2006-10-19, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> But having your legs taken out from underneath you is going to
> cause the head to hit the car instead, and while that bit isn't
> squidgy (beforehand), banging it with a large blunt instrument
> is generally regarded as a Bad Thing.

This will also happen if you get smacked into by a 4x4 though.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On 2006-10-19, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> That sounds dangerously like common sense, which isn't allowed
> in 4x4 debates.

This applies to both sides of course.

I expect you'll be able to tell us all how a heavy 4x4 can stop much
faster than a more conventional car too.

I appreciate that 4x4s are more dangerous to pedestrians than most
normal cars, I just don't care. Why bother trying to fool yourself
with pseudo-science arbitrarily labelled as "common sense"?

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 

"Pacman" wrote...
> Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a
> Shogun.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6063978.stm
>
> Fortunately the girl survived and is recovering well, but I wonder if
> the anti 4x4 lobby will pick up on this, especially being outside a
> school in the middle of London. Not helped by the fact that 2 of the
> occupants decided to run off!
>
> Glad to see the BBC haven't played on the anti 4x4 rubbish, looks as if
> they have listened to John Pearson's (editor of LRO) recent comments
> about the bias they show towards anti-4x4-ness...
>
Some years ago I was trying to pull out of an entrance to a Garden Centre
when a young lady ran past me and we watched in horror as she continued
straight across the main road, she was hit by a normal car and flew through
the air just as this girl did. (she was from Greece and looked the wrong
way!)
I've also had someone run across the road from behind a stationary vehicle
into the side of my car and they too somersaulted back across the road I was
told.
What does it matter it was a 4x4, the body will fly and somersault no matter
what hits it.

--
Regards
Bob H
1986 90 hardtop 2.5 petrol
330i sport.


 
On 2006-10-19, Bob Hobden <[email protected]> wrote:

> What does it matter it was a 4x4, the body will fly and somersault no matter
> what hits it.

Indeed, I was tempted to rattle off a letter to the beeb about it,
given that they know full well that there's an anti-4x4 lobby out
there and that any shot of a 4x4 causing damage that cars also cause
is just throwing fuel on the fire.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
In message <[email protected]>
Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-10-19, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That sounds dangerously like common sense, which isn't allowed
> > in 4x4 debates.
>
> This applies to both sides of course.
>
> I expect you'll be able to tell us all how a heavy 4x4 can stop much
> faster than a more conventional car too.
>

It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are
usually a softer compound than car tyres, and therefore have a
higher friction coeficient - and, of course, the braking system
is designed (on proper 4x4's) with towing in mind. The braking
ability is designed in, not an accidental outcome.

A partly loaded 44 ton truck (i.e. loaded enough to stop the
trailer wheels locking up) will out-stop most cars. Easily.

> I appreciate that 4x4s are more dangerous to pedestrians than most
> normal cars, I just don't care. Why bother trying to fool yourself
> with pseudo-science arbitrarily labelled as "common sense"?
>

I'm fooling no one, it's the driver and the pedestrian that makes
a vehicle dangerous or not, whether it be a Micra or a 44 tonner.
The drive train configuration has nothing to do with it (well,
actually if probably does, but in the 4x4's favour).

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-10-19, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > But having your legs taken out from underneath you is going to
> > cause the head to hit the car instead, and while that bit isn't
> > squidgy (beforehand), banging it with a large blunt instrument
> > is generally regarded as a Bad Thing.
>
> This will also happen if you get smacked into by a 4x4 though.
>

Or a bus, lorry or Transit-type van, of which I would hazard a guess there
are as many if not considerably more than 4x4's. Strange how none of the
bus/lorry/transit van types attract as much - if any - attention compared to
that focused on 4x4's. One would almost think that there's an agenda out
there somewhere....

Steve


 
Steve <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny
about:

> Or a bus, lorry or Transit-type van, of which I would hazard a guess
> there are as many if not considerably more than 4x4's. Strange how
> none of the bus/lorry/transit van types attract as much - if any -
> attention compared to that focused on 4x4's. One would almost think
> that there's an agenda out there somewhere....
>
> Steve

I doubt this one would have made the press but for the CCTV image and the
blood-thirsty press.

I'm pleased she came off with relatively minor injuries, and sickened yet
again that the press feel the need to glorify the story with such imagery.

I constantly have dealing with the press and unless I'm working nights
generally get four or five calls a day, the levels that some of them will
stoop to to get what they deem to be a "scoop" is sad to say the least.
There are some that will do a cracking job with an article and others who
have mis-quoted me to the point that they are now on my list of peeps who
get jack.

I'm all for news, just not political biased crap which pretty much rules out
most Newspapers apart from the TV listings and Classified's which is
probably the only reason I let our local rag cast a shadow on my door
mat..... Oh then again I'd be stuffed for masking off too.

Lee D


 
On 2006-10-19, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are
> usually a softer compound than car tyres,

They don't have stipes, they have solid blocks instead, which grip the
road less as the blocks have much less give in them. This of course
refers to mud tyres, not road tyres like ATs. Most ATs will put less
rubber down than a proper road tyre of course, which will lessen grip.

> and, of course, the braking system is designed (on proper 4x4's)
> with towing in mind. The braking ability is designed in, not an
> accidental outcome.

The same is true of cars, which on average are lighter, more
dynamically stable and have a lower centre of gravity so I doubt that
the average car would be out-stopped by the average 4x4.

> A partly loaded 44 ton truck (i.e. loaded enough to stop the
> trailer wheels locking up) will out-stop most cars. Easily.

Naah. HGV braking systems are ****e compared to cars, the government
even paid shedloads of loot some time ago to investigate why this is,
URL below (it's a summary);

http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.asp?intProjectID=7944

Accidents involving lorries smacking into the back of queues are
pretty common too because of the long stopping distances of lorries,
coupled with lorry drivers not paying attention.

Given however that you've stated that lorries can stop faster than
cars, can you provide any figures? I tried to find some but can't
find anything which was surprising as I thought driver training
information would have something, although it's going to change so
much from one vehicle to the next.

However a dynamically unstable vehicle like a lorry isn't going to
like stopping, the rear tyres for a start are going to lose most of
their grip due to the high centre of gravity shifting the weight so
far forwards. Then there's the load moving, and the ****E tyres
lorries use!

> I'm fooling no one, it's the driver and the pedestrian that makes
> a vehicle dangerous or not,

That's not what I was talking about, it was the bit about being hit by
a car being worse than being hit by a 4x4. On average that's not the
case, although you could of course compare a volvo V90 or whatever
versus an old Jag XJS. Like for like though it's better to be hit as
low as possible.

> The drive train configuration has nothing to do with it (well,
> actually if probably does, but in the 4x4's favour).

Ah yes, having four-wheel drive gives the tyres more grip eh! Hmm....

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On 2006-10-19, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> Or a bus, lorry or Transit-type van, of which I would hazard a guess there
> are as many if not considerably more than 4x4's. Strange how none of the
> bus/lorry/transit van types attract as much - if any - attention compared to
> that focused on 4x4's. One would almost think that there's an agenda out
> there somewhere....

Steve, are you suggesting that the media in this country is packed
with lying tosspots sensationalising everything as much as they can so
that they can sell more copies which they need to do in order to try
to sell more advertising because the cover price that the punter pays
doesn't cover the cost of the paper and even then most papers make a
loss which is why they're owned by media tycoons who use them to pedal
opinion and infuence by distorting and selecting stories to further
their own aims and not to inform the people who read the things but
instead to try to push those people to whinge about this or that
depending on what business interest or political interest is uppermost
in the owner's and therefore editor's and therefore journalists mind
and so they pack the paper with woe stories to keep people thinking
that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and that the paper is
on their side and will help them and tell them the only real truth
while the rest of the world is being fooled like some kind of bonkers
religion?

Sorry all, need to drink weaker coffee I think.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
>Steve, are you suggesting that the media in this country is packed
>with lying tosspots sensationalising everything as much as they can so
>that they can sell more copies which they need to do in order to try
>to sell more advertising because the cover price that the punter pays
>doesn't cover the cost of the paper and even then most papers make a
>loss which is why they're owned by media tycoons who use them to pedal
>opinion and infuence by distorting and selecting stories to further
>their own aims and not to inform the people who read the things but
>instead to try to push those people to whinge about this or that
>depending on what business interest or political interest is uppermost
>in the owner's and therefore editor's and therefore journalists mind
>and so they pack the paper with woe stories to keep people thinking
>that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and that the paper is
>on their side and will help them and tell them the only real truth
>while the rest of the world is being fooled like some kind of bonkers
>religion?
>
>Sorry all, need to drink weaker coffee I think.
>


Very eloquently put Ian, it's gone into my keep file.
--
John Lubran
 
On or around Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:02:09 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Naah. HGV braking systems are ****e compared to cars, the government
>even paid shedloads of loot some time ago to investigate why this is,
>URL below (it's a summary);

ferfexache. it's 'cos the ****in' thing weighs about 30 times as much....

duhhh!

but yes - someone staged it on telly, cooking VW glof compared with 38T
artic (note that 44T is only allowed on certain routes in the UK, AFAIK)
and from 40 the artic takes about twice the distance to stop.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)
 
Pacman wrote:

> Found this story today regarding a 12 year old girl who was hit by a
> Shogun.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6063978.stm
>
> Fortunately the girl survived and is recovering well, but I wonder if
> the anti 4x4 lobby will pick up on this, especially being outside a
> school in the middle of London. Not helped by the fact that 2 of the
> occupants decided to run off!
>
> Glad to see the BBC haven't played on the anti 4x4 rubbish, looks as if
> they have listened to John Pearson's (editor of LRO) recent comments
> about the bias they show towards anti-4x4-ness...
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Paul

Interesting one on anti-4x4 that you may not have got over there. Here
(Australia) there has been a lot of bad press about suburban 4x4s backing
over small children in the driveway (usually the driver's kids). And
"everyone knows that 4x4s have worse rear vision than ordinary cars". This
has now pretty much gone quiet after a local motoring organisation carried
out some scientific testing - and showed that (as you would expect) rear
visibility has nothing to do with how many wheels are driving; in fact,
while there is no real correlation, with good and bad in all types, nearly
all four wheel drives are better than the top selling family cars,
Commodore and Falcon (a tribute to current styling fashions!) and the top
car with perfect rear visibility is a four wheel drive (Lexus I seem to
remember) thanks to a reversing camera. Now there is a proposal in my state
(NSW) to make these compulsory on all new vehicles.
JD
 
On 2006-10-19, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> ferfexache. it's 'cos the ****in' thing weighs about 30 times as much....

I don't think it was that simple. The technology for HGVs hasn't come
on much, many use drum brakes and the pneumatic actuators add about
0.2 seconds to the response time.

However I think that the weight is more likely to be the cause, but
Richard seems to think that an HGV can out-brake a car, which I didn't
think he'd go for but now he has, I'm trying to winkle out of him just
exactly why that is.

> but yes - someone staged it on telly, cooking VW glof compared with 38T
> artic (note that 44T is only allowed on certain routes in the UK, AFAIK)
> and from 40 the artic takes about twice the distance to stop.

I'd read that it takes up to 3 times longer for a truck to stop than
it does for a car, but no idea on what conditions that "test" was done
so the 3x figure is a bit up in the air really.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:26:11 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's highly probable that some can, since off-road oriented tyres are
>usually a softer compound than car tyres, and therefore have a
>higher friction coeficient - and, of course, the braking system
>is designed (on proper 4x4's) with towing in mind. The braking
>ability is designed in, not an accidental outcome.

There is a big tyre test in one of the old landy mags currently in my
excremeditation chamber.

I'm pretty sure it shows that the best offroad tyres had the longest
stopping distance. I think there was quite a bit in it and the
knobbliest one was close to double the distance of the most 'road'
one.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top