Getting there Safely !

[cris_408518]

May be "Steve-" will let this new post stand and Lol and others could read and not go off on one.

I've not said that SUV's are dangerous as Lol seems to think and before Brian gets excited no doubt he has heard of the TRL.

I think "world renowned" Transport Research Laboratory at Nine Mile Ride, Wokingham.

Their report that was released in the press in the past few weeks with various parts edited to suit the editorial needs of some papers and has also been on the net and TV.

It actually said that The TRL research had shown that you are safer in SUV's. but partly because SUV's have less accidents with crash barriers!

"SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders)responded saying scrutiny of TRL's report on roadside safety barriers and 4x4s and MPVs showed that only 2% of strikes involved 4x4s/MPVs, while these vehicles make up 10.1% of the total fleet, hence 4x4s and MPVs are five times less likely than other types to be involved in this type of collision. Britain's car fleet currently totals in round figures 30,378,000 cars, of which MPVs/4x4s account for 3,080,000.

The SMMT says this below-average involvement of SUVs with collision barriers is probably because more of these vehicles are fitted with accident avoidance technology like Electronic Stability Programme."

TRL research found - "Drivers and passengers in 4x4s or SUVs are more likely to be seriously injured in collisions with safety barriers than other cars because they are more prone to overturning, researchers have reported"

TRL's "Roy Minton and Tristan Brightman, the TRL report's authors, found that SUVs were more likely than cars to overturn during an accident. However, MPVs were slightly less likely to overturn and "distinctly less likely" to leave the road than cars."

TRL's report said that in one period "The report said among 220 barrier strikes in 2004, occupant injuries were disproportionately worse for SUVs, which had also had a disproportionately higher risk of rollover"

The research also found - "The Transport Research Laboratory said SUVs were more difficult to control than other vehicles in extreme situations, such as striking barriers, and although proportionately fewer of their occupants were killed or seriously injured than those in cars.

"The increases in rollover incidence, and in injury severity, are found to affect SUVs to a much greater extent than standard cars," say researchers."

The TRL report followed on from a "Department for Transport " report released in October 2006 that said "This examined 2004 accident data and indicated that occupants of a 4x4/SUV were around half as likely to be killed or seriously injured in a two-car impact as those in other types of car."

Now I'm SORRY if anyone got the wrong idea, but SUV's are not sports cars and their height and C of G do not make them good for racing the same way many People Carriers or MPV's height does not lend itself to scratching around the bends at high speed.

Interstingly, there is another post on here about handling of a car and a reply.

Numerous caravan Accidents end up with car and caravan and crash barriers involved. Draw you own conclusions but be aware that straight lining and ressistance to lateral forces combined with even minimal lower C of G etc on the towed vehicle is a benefit !

 

[Lol1]

You really want this 4x4 debate to go on, don't you cris?

Why's that?

 

[Lutz]

Well, contrary to the discussion on the merits or otherwise of twin axles, at least we've got some data worth looking at here.

First reading would indicate that there is already disagreement between the experts. The SMMT says "this below-average involvement of SUVs .... etc., etc." whereas the TRL report says "Drivers and passengers in 4x4s or SUVs are more likely to be seriously injured .... etc." but later "proportionately fewer of their (SUV) occupants were killed or seriously injured than those in cars". Firstly, the SMMT was talking about accident rate and the TRL about rate of injury. There need not necessarily be any direct correlation between the two. Secondly, the TRL also appears to be contradicting itself with the two statements mentioned above. Besides, the report only appears to analyze what happens if there is a collision with the barrier but not the probability of such an accident happening in the first place.

Statistics can be presented in a way to suit the message one is trying to get across so one has to be very careful in interpreting the findings when reading reports. One would therefore have to read the whole report in order to be able to come to a sensible conclusion.

 

[BrianStAlbans]

cris , why would I get excited ? my comments on the other thread were to agree with Berty not to join in with your ongoing mission to disagree with everyone on this Forum.Give it a rest cris your tales and "knowledge" about every subject are turning this Forum into a very boring place.

 

[BigRoy]

agree 100% Brian, If I posted on the forum that I knew someone with two heads, cris would know someone with three 8o)

 

[colin-yorkshire]

personally I dont like 4x4s for road use, they were built for off road use and poor road conditions neither of which apply to british motorways just as motor cross motorcycles are not.

but of course thats just my opinion :

having said that, as vans get bigger and heavier more are used for towing as these are really the only vehicles up to the job.

wether they are safer or not is open to question depends how you look at it undoubtly the higher center of gravity would tend to make them more likely to tip over in a accident but as they are built stronger in the first place this is likly to be less of a problem than say rolling over a punto.

secondly rate of accidents.

as less are involved in accidents in theory they are safer its a bit like saying aircraft crashes are allways fatal so flying is unsafe utill you realise that(in theory) only one flight in 1000 has a problem and only one problem out 100 results in a crash so that would be 1/100,000 chance of being killed in a aircrash

that would make flying very safe if you see what I mean

its a matter of how you look at it

colin

 

[Lutz]

There's clearly the need for further technical developments which would allow lighter vehicles to tow heavier caravans safely. The two do not necessarily contradict each other. After all, solutions were found for HGV's so why not for cars, too?

 

[alanlmc]

agree 100% Brian, If I posted on the forum that I knew someone with two heads, cris would know someone with three 8o)

or if you had a black cat.they woud have a bigger.blacker one there is one in every pub. canteen.airport lounge.camp site.....

 

[Berty3]

I think what happened with HGV's Lutz, is that they reduced the unladen weight of the tractors & trailers, by extensive use of aluminium (even for the wheels) so that they could therefore have a higher pay load, but still remain with the same gross vehicle weight.this is now a contributing factor as to why we see so many overturned unladen HGV's in windy conditions.

Berty... (on best behaviour)

 

[giovanni_5060838]

Well done chris, for sticking to your guns, whilst i do not

agree with all of your posts, the fact that when it comes to

caravaning, and safety alot of people do it by ear.

Whilst because of the size of some vans large vehicles are needed

typically they have 4wd, never the less if they do have any short

comings it is essential that the inexperience know of them

[a little bit like the fact fwd could have problem on wet grass/

slopes because of there drive system]

I once tried to point out that because a large amount of 4x4

have a high c of g and long softish suspension travel that there

were circumstances where this could led some into difficulties.

The only response was as usually 4x4 owners getting up in arms

because to piont out any negatives on these vehicles is to be

an "anti". Hopefully one day they will shut up long enough to

take note and not confuse those of less experience for the sake

of everyones safety....

 

[Garfield]

Whilst 4x4's make up 10.1% of all cars or is it 10 % of all vehicles? what is their proportion on motorways where mondeo man repmobiles and HGV's may be disproportionally higher, i.e. is the proportion of 4x4's on motorways only 2%?. A basic statistician could make these results say whatever they wanted to.

 

[Berty3]

At the end of the day it is down to individual choice, and needs. I would never personally slate any one for using a 4x4, I used to Tow a t/a with a Mitsubishi pajero 2.5 turbo diesel, and to be quiet honest it was totally rubbish compared to the salon car I used to tow it with @ around 95%, but performance aside, it was very reassuring to know that the tail stood no chance of waging the dog.Now days I tow a Bailey senator Arizona with a V70 D5, brilliant performance and good economy @ around 92% if I was to load to the max 1500kg, the most important fact being that it suits my needs.

Whatever you are happiest with, providing it is not to much of a burden on your

Purse strings, & above all it is safe on the road.

Berty... (On best behaviour)

 

[Lutz]

I was thinking of the relationship between the weight of tractor units and semi-trailers, Berty. They must have a weight ratio somewhere in the order of 200-250% so surely it must be possible to make improvements to cars and caravans which would safely allow over 100%.

 

[Lol1]

I was thinking of the relationship between the weight of tractor units and semi-trailers, Berty. They must have a weight ratio somewhere in the order of 200-250% so surely it must be possible to make improvements to cars and caravans which would safely allow over 100%.

Not when they are hooked up Lutz. The pivot point is almost central, meaning the weight transfered to the tractor makes it heavier than the load.

 

[Berty3]

Quite agree with you on that Lutz, I think the main area for them to look at must be stability, and the braking system that we use in europe, totally diferent to those used in America & baned over there I belive, and look at the size of the things they tow.

Berty.......

 

[Lutz]

I was thinking of the relationship between the weight of tractor units and semi-trailers, Berty. They must have a weight ratio somewhere in the order of 200-250% so surely it must be possible to make improvements to cars and caravans which would safely allow over 100%.

You're right, Lol, my mistake, but it would still apply to rigid lorries towing close-coupled trailers and these are becoming increasingly popular.

 

[Lol1]

I was thinking of the relationship between the weight of tractor units and semi-trailers, Berty. They must have a weight ratio somewhere in the order of 200-250% so surely it must be possible to make improvements to cars and caravans which would safely allow over 100%.

Personally, I think it's the responsibility of the caravan industry to lighten things up. The chassis has gone just about as far as its going to go, without it becoming incorporated within the body itself. The walls are just about as light as they can be anyway, leaving the equipment within the caravan itself. That is where the big improvements can be made. But once again, it's down to cost and familiarity.

 

[Lutz]

I was thinking of the relationship between the weight of tractor units and semi-trailers, Berty. They must have a weight ratio somewhere in the order of 200-250% so surely it must be possible to make improvements to cars and caravans which would safely allow over 100%.

When one compares the design of caravan chassis with those of modern cars with all their ABS, ESP and what have you, caravans seem positively archaic.

 

[Lol1]

You do get around though.