The Sudnay Times of London have released a new study about crash safety in vehicles. *YAWN* But i checked to see if it mentions my car, it doesn’t, go figure old Japanese imports aren’t really looked into in British crash tests. However two interesting things appeared. One my mum has a really safe car and two they are very PC.
The times spends a good page talking about how much better off you are in 4×4s and MPVs in a crash. Because bigger vehicles are safer. And that you are more likely to die in a small car. Now the nice PC part is at the end of the article it says that everyone would be better off crash wise if noone drove 4×4s and MPVs, if everyone drove small and medium sized cars, why? Because they weren’t sure how many deaths were caused by 4×4 and MPVs. So to be on the safe side everyone should drive unsafe cars to protect them from being hit by bigger safer cars… Isn’t that silly. They should have said that everyone should give up their little cars and buy big ones. But of course they can’t because its politically incorrect to drive 4×4s.
The safest cars in Britain for the occupants are 4×4s. It says they don’t fear so well when it comes to pedestrian and cyclist safety. My question is, what the hell are pedestrians doing on the road in the first place. If you are stupid enough to run out in front of a two tonne off roader then perhaps you shouldn’t be allowed in society in the first place. As for cyclists, unless you are under the age 15.5 buy a car and stop being so tight. Either that or use the cycle lanes, yes you know those specially reserved places for you. Not the middle of the friggin road!
I have always defended 4×4s saying they are safe and practical and that study proves my point. And if you are worried about the environment, Lexus now has a hybrid SUV. Either that or ride a horse.
David, it is sickening when I see yuppies cruising around town in their 4×4s, with the vehicle having never seen the open road or a piece of dirt. Absolutely sickening. 4×4s have a purpose and should be used for that purpose. They aint shopping carts!
By: Jacob on October 15, 2006
at 8:59 am
Ok, I agree with you to an extent. Now the one justification for having a 4×4 when you live in the city etc blah blah is if you have 4 or more children. MPVs and vans are just uncool, and try as they might noone can make a cool people carrier. If you have many children a 4×4 is the only answer, as long as the 4×4 has the capability to seat 7 or more, otherwise its a bit silly. But yes you are right people who drive them and have no kids and don’t ever venture out of the city even onto a country rd its a waste of time, unless they have a boat. You can’t tell me that people should have to buy a car for towing the boat and a car for going shopping? I will admit that most cars are more than capable of towing a boat, but the difference is how well they can do this.
By: rightmakesright on October 15, 2006
at 9:04 am
!!!
4×4’s are the bane of my driving! If they are beside you while trying to turn, you can’t see the oncoming traffic. If they are parked near an intersection, you can’t see oncoming traffic. They generally (I don’t know about cars, but I’m guessing that most people can’t afford a new Lexus hybrid) guzzle fuel, making them more expensive to run and worse for the environment. Just becuse there are new cars on the market that are more environmentally friendly doesn’t mean that the majority of people will be buying them. For one, cars are a rapidly depreciating asset andif you have enough money for a brand new Lexus, you probably should have bought a house instead.
In a crash they win. That’s pretty well established. But if people stopped buying the damn things, that wouldn’t be a problem. I’d like to argue that, designed as offroad equipment, they be limited to the offroad. This makes driving safer for the majority of road users which is what we want. To say that not investing in a 4×4 is not investing in your life is ridiculous. That’s like saying “There is no point turning up to a gun fight with a knife. Therefore, anyone who accidentally finds themself in a gun fight with a knife is foolish, and should have come sufficiently armed.” Which is foolish logic. The people shouldn’t have had the guns to start with.
As for boat-towing, we’ve had lots of boats and no 4×4s. And we’ve still managed to get to the beach.
Also, cyclists are a pain. They should use the cycle lanes. But, believe it or not, there aren’t always cycle lanes around. Also, to say that they should buy cars is foolish. Cyclists actually have the moral high ground here. They are saving the environment and saving themselves from obesity. Which really gets a double tick. Obviously, we aren’t all going to cycle everywhere, but you have to admire their dedication to a cause. The fact that it is also cheaper doesn’t actually count against them. I mean, they are only cars. A method of getting from one place to another. Who freakin’ cares! They’re only a status symbol because people (boys? mostly, I should imagine) make them a status symbol.
Saving money= Good.
Saving environment= Good.
Losing weight= Good.
Making the road more dangerous for everyone else= Bad.
Being expensive to buy + run= Bad.
Pollution= Bad.
Bicycles= Good.
4×4s= Bad.
Other cars= happy medium. We’re all too lazy to actually cycle or walk everywhere (let’s face it) but 4×4s aren’t the answer,
Because if everyone had 4×4s, machomen would need to drive something bigger. And then we would all end up driving around in literal tanks because they’d eventually be the safe option. By the logic that you’re using.
Walking gets the Heart Foundation Tick. Do you really want to take on the Heart Foundation?
By: Erin on October 15, 2006
at 9:38 pm
Well no, noone really wants to take on the Heart Foundation. I am really not advocating that everyone should go out and buy a 4×4, but I just wanted to point out that its a bit hypocritical to say that because 4×4s are the safest option people shouldn’t drive them. Also I cycle from time to time, but not as a means of transport, as a means of exercise, and I cycle on the Highway and when there are cars I pull right onto the gravel, I dont stay on the tarmac, as that is reserved for cars trucks etc.
As for your status symbol, more women buy 4×4s than men.
By: rightmakesright on October 16, 2006
at 6:44 am
“They should have said that everyone should give up their little cars and buy big ones. But of course they can’t because its politically incorrect to drive 4×4s.”
What is politically incorrect about driving 4×4s? They’re just cars. I don’t see how driving a 4×4 is offensive.
(And I think that by “status symbol” Erin meant cars in general, which boys do seem to care more about than girls IMHO)
By: Liz on October 20, 2006
at 9:15 pm
Nor do I. But apparently they are. And yes we do, you are so right
. The problem is many people bash them without having driven them. I’ve always said don’t bash it till you have tried it.
By: rightmakesright on October 24, 2006
at 1:57 am
David, your blog fans are disappointed. They are waiting for another rant.
By: Jacob on May 12, 2007
at 12:12 pm