4WD: Some real facts
Having owned and driven a great variety of 4WD vehicles since 1969, I must admit I am biased toward this type of transport. The 4WDs have allowed me to travel to some remarkable places around the world, on ‘roads’ and tracks that would destroy a conventional sedan, or (at least) make it act like a ballerina in a boxing ring.
So, as you would imagine, I find the constant tirade from the anti-SUV groups (which is often over-amplified and broadcast by the media) frustrating and pretty tiresome. I think I am intelligent enough to realize that the anti-SUVers are well intentioned. It’s just that, in trying to create the greatest impact, they tend to ignore and/or distort the truth.
Here are some of the most-repeated claims made by anti-SUV groups:
4WDs are larger than cars, so they clog up the cities and use too much parking space.
Yes and no. If you were to crash into a solid object - like a concrete pylon – you would probably fare much better in a modern sedan than an older 4WD, such as a Landcruiser 80-Series or a Land Rover Defender. These 4WDs, with their stiff frames, and lack of engineered ‘crumple zones’, would subject the passengers to a much greater rate of deceleration – and potential injury or death.
However, the latest safety technology is rapidly appearing in new 4WDs. So much so, that, in recent crash testing, some 4WDs were well ahead of passenger cars for front and side impact protection. In March 2006, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released the results of front and side impact tests on 44 2006-model vehicles; comprising 16 passenger sedans, 19 SUVs, 4 vans and 5 pickups. Of these, the Ford Explorer, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Tucson, Mercedes Benz M-Class and the Subaru Tribeca all received a 5-star rating. None of the passenger cars achieved this rating.
Of course, as the anti-SUV spokespeople point out, in a collision between a passenger car and a large 4WD, the passengers in the car are more likely to be injured or killed. It is simple physics: all things being equal, the heavier object will exert a greater impact on the lighter object. And, on roads everywhere in the world, it has always been the case. People in a small vehicle are more likely to come off second-best in a collision with a larger vehicle. This has been happening since motoring became popular nearly one hundred years ago: Packard v Model T, Chevrolet v Austin 7, Dodge Power Wagon v Jeep, Armstrong Siddeley v Morris Minor, Ford Fairlane v MGB and Toyota Camry v Smart are just a few examples. Add to the mix all the buses, vans, pickups, trucks and articulated vehicles, and you begin to wonder what all the anti-SUV fuss is about. If you want give yourself the best chance of surviving a motor vehicle accident, make sure you are in the larger vehicle - and it is fitted with the latest safety equipment.
Some will say that the larger 4WD vehicles are an unnecessary threat to safety and should be banned. But where would you draw the line? In a collision, large cars are a threat to medium cars, medium cars to small cars and small cars to micro cars. And then there are motorcycles? Everything on the road (including pedestrians!) is a threat to the motor cyclist.
Perhaps we should ban all motor vehicles and bring back the horse and cart. I remember my great grandfather telling me about those days; when you could hardly walk in a city street without stepping in a stinking pile of horse poop, and being covered in hundreds of flies. If you broke a limb, or were desperately sick, the doctor would call to see you: eventually! Is it any wonder that, before the motoring age, the average life span was much shorter than it is today?
It is harder to see out of a 4WD; especially when reversing.
In many cases this is not true. In fact, many passenger cars are much worse than some of the 4WD vehicles. People tend to think, because a 4WD is ‘high’, it must also restrict the driver’s vision. The height of the vehicle is not a factor. Many sedans with low seating positions, high trunks (boots) and rear seat head restraints have dramatically- restricted rear vision.
IAG, Australia’s largest motor vehicle insurer, and the NRMA, the largest motoring organization, conducted the world’s first rear-visibility index. They scientifically tested 172 current makes and models, and the results were interesting – to say the least.
The Toyota Landcruiser 100-Series wagon, the best-selling large 4WD in Australia, scored 3 stars out of a possible 5. It proved to have better rear visibility than 100% of the vans, 100% of medium sedans, 93% of small vans and pickups, 92% of large sedans, 85% of luxury sedans, and 52% of sports cars. And, believe it or not, the big Landcruiser offered better rear vision than some of the darlings of the ‘safety conscious’; the little Mercedes Benz A160, VW Polo (sedan and hatch), Kia Rio, Holden Barina, Suzuki Swift, and Hyundai Accent.
Here are some excerpts from the IAG media release:
“no car type is inherently better than any other. There are good 4WDs and bad sedans; in fact, the lowest rated car was a sedan not a 4WD.” (more details, see ‘Tele-Vision Impaired’ in this section of the website). “(the) IAG Technical Research Centre has developed an objective method of measuring the visibility from the driver’s seat using a laser device. The result of these tests showed that, despite speculation in the media about poor visibility from reversing 4WD vehicles, vehicle design leads to poor reversing visibility for both sedans and 4WDs.”
“The design of many modern vehicles has resulted in significant obstacles to rearward vision. These include high rear windows and boots (trunks), rear mounted spare tyres, and rear head restraints.” |
|
“While new technology such as sensors and improved vehicle design can assist in preventing these tragic accidents, there also needs to be a change in behaviour from drivers and supervisors of young children.”
“No matter how good car design and technology might be, there is always going to be an area behind the car that is not visible to the driver. Even the very best car in this study has a blind area of around 3 metres that can easily hide a child,”
Return to Index
|
