Good reason for driving a 4x4

I drive a disco, it costs a small fortune to run, is slow, but i love it.

Discos are apparently bad to be in during accidents, however i take that risk, when the bad weather hits I like the idea of staying mobile, and its useful for events, boot like a van!
On the driver side of life i saw soo many 4x4 last year that blatent cgelsea tractors, drivers going way to fast for the conditions, not seeming to equate the fact that 4 patches of rubber slowing from speed is still a recipe for disaster, 4wd or not!
 
I have a 4x4 because I need one, but I do drive like Miss Daisy, so all is well............:thumbs:
 
srichards said:
The A9 should be dual all the way. It is criminal for it not to have been done seeing how much of a busy road it is. etc.
Click to expand...

I understand that the mandarins in Edinburgh had a budget choice of investing in complete dual carriageway Perth to Inverness or Trams for Edinburgh. They chose the latter and the scheme is a grossly over budget mess.
 
arclight said:
I understand that the mandarins in Edinburgh had a budget choice of investing in complete dual carriageway Perth to Inverness or Trams for Edinburgh. They chose the latter and the scheme is a grossly over budget mess.
Click to expand...

I drive the A9 often, sometimes in a wagon,sometimes in a motorhome and more regularly in my Hilux, people drive at stupid speeds on that road,but I do think it needs widening where possible to avoid the impatient ones overtaking in daft places.
 
News report I read stated it was a head on, if both parties had been on the correct side of the road it would not have mattered what vehicles they had been driving.?
I drive a low sitting sports car, some 4x4 tyres are almost as high as my head, their headlights are usually above me, we wouldn't have much chance in an accident, unless we could get right below it.:lol:
 
Apparently the 10 safest cars to crash in are:

Carsafety.jpg


Quite a lot of 4x4s in there.

I guess a Landy doesn't generally go fast enough to have a big crash!
 
mj4456 said:
News report I read stated it was a head on, if both parties had been on the correct side of the road it would not have mattered what vehicles they had been driving.?
I drive a low sitting sports car, some 4x4 tyres are almost as high as my head, their headlights are usually above me, we wouldn't have much chance in an accident, unless we could get right below it.:lol:
Click to expand...

This is anecdotal I know - but some years back I was one of the first on scene after a head on between a range rover and a toyota mr2. The range rover had pulled out to overtake a wagon and didn't see the mr2 - you would think this would be game over for the mr2 driver.

The range rover was the vehicle on it's roof on the other side of the hedge - and a passenger in a 4x4 that lands on it's roof is something you definitely don't want to be. My amateur analysis was one wheel of the range rover went up the low front of the MR2 causing moderately airborne roll. mr2 driver was shaken but fine - range rover driver needed cutting free and hospital time.

Of course most accidents wouldn't be this lucky ...

dan d said:
Apparently the 10 safest cars to crash in are:

Carsafety.jpg


Quite a lot of 4x4s in there.

I guess a Landy doesn't generally go fast enough to have a big crash!
Click to expand...

Meaningless statistics without details of how they were obtained - is this based on actual crashes - or just a statistic of types of vehicles in crashes.

And a government statistic... they are never weighted to prove a point or pass a bill are the? :lol:
 
Natalie_B said:
:agree:
I have a LWB pajero,
Click to expand...

I assume you are aware of what pajero is in Spanish..........

doesn't sell very well over there......... :lol:
 
I dont see what is wrong with having a 4x4 as a fashion statement? Many people are into cars and have soft tops, high performance or modified cars. And the argument that they are polluters is flawed. Many are the same or better than many normal cars, especially if diesel.
 
Whats the difference between a hedgehog and a 4x4 full of people? With a hedgehog the ...... are on the outside!! lol :D
 
Just got rid of a LWB Paj (not because it's big and heavy, but because it was falling to bits). I have a 1400kg Caravan (cue anti-caravan rants) which we use all year round, and have to say that aside from needing a big car tyo tow it safely with, 4 wheel drive is essential when tring to get the 'van on and off muddy fields. Only at the beginning of this year did I have to tow a transit (and then his caravan) off of a field he managed to get stuck on. So with limited choice, and even more limited budget I needed to find a replacement....... Had Loads of Discos but the drive now has more oil than Saudi on and under the block paving so ruled them out. Didn't like how the pickups handled (though would have been a 'fun' car and bloody handy) couldn't afford an XC90/BMW 5/ML270 and ended up with a Volvo V70XC - 1.9 Tons of four wheel drive automobile with a nice 8 inches of ground clearance. Question is, am I still one of the antichrist's hobgoblins because I drive a big, heavy gas guzzling 4x4 or do I get redemption because it looks like a regular big, heavy gas guzzling estate car?
 
wack61 said:
You'd think they were all safe wouldn't you

[YOUTUBE]qBDyeWofcLY[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

Think again. Look at the impact and the way the Renault kicks back and how the Volvo still moves slightly forward. The guy in the volvo might have damaged legs but the G-forces on the people in the Renault would have been more than twice that of the Volvo guy and that's what kills you.

With the Renault going -10 mph after the impact, and the Volvo's bonnet being twice the length of the Renault's, the Volvo slows from 80 to 5 in twice the distance the Renault slows from 80 to 10, essentially like 90 to 0.

There was a test a couple of years ago demonstrating this exact problem. Mercedes A class I think, top NCAP ratings because the cabin wasn't too crushed, but G-force measures showed almost no chance of the occupants surviving.

In the clip he mentions the hard metal frame of the Renault as a good thing, but crumble zones are actually there for a reason and sometimes it's worth sacrificing your legs for your life.

Renault Modus: FAIL
 
For those who don't need a 4x4 but drive them anyway.... :whistling:

Big-Car-little-willy.jpg



Oh here my car btw, parked in the middle ;) :lol:

Worlds-smallest-Car-Street.jpg
 
Squeeze a quart toss-pot into a pint-pot...

[youtube]dJfSS0ZXYdo[/youtube]
 
Random info for you... the guy 3rd along from the left at the important meeting is in the pantomime im working on this year!!
 
dan d said:
Apparently the 10 safest cars to crash in are:

Carsafety.jpg


Quite a lot of 4x4s in there.

I guess a Landy doesn't generally go fast enough to have a big crash!
Click to expand...

Not too surprising that LandRover products come out well in a magazine dedicated to them... IIRC, LRW is Land Rover World.

FTR, I wrote off a Defender 90 in a low speed roll about 3 years ago and my wife and I both walked away with nothing worse than a bruise. The thing that caused the roll was the pole holding the speed limit sign up - a few yards down the road, I would have been going a bit faster and 1/2 a mile further on, I would have been on a dual carrigeway.
The Landy was a toy really - it got some off road use (even though the tyres were more road orrientated that OR and was used as a towing vehicle for a boat.
 
Small cars are a great idea - if the idea is to reduce the planet's population...

smart%20car%20crash1.jpg


smartcar_accident_01.jpg


fake-smartcar-crash.jpeg
 
Or a better illustration for the benefits of driving bigger cars:
prius-vs--touareg_460x0w.jpg


Here, the Roadster was parked behind a VW Toureg when a Prius slammed into the back of it, pushing it under the VW.

In this incident all parties were unharmed, but you can see the relative damage caused to all the vehicles...
 
Arkady said:
Small cars are a great idea - if the idea is to reduce the planet's population...
Click to expand...

Coming from the guy in the army :lol:
 
Well, I drive a big, heavy fuel guzzling 4 x 4 - because I go off road. I don't see the point of having one for road use, I have a Mercedes for that.

My Merc handles superbly, stops beautifully, can overtake when it needs to and doesn't have an autopilot that makes it pull into every petrol station it sees.

The 4 x 4 ( a real one not a poncy Chelsea Tractor) feels very safe to drive but I know that it can't go round bends as well as a car and is much more likely to roll - but off road, in deep mud, it's the only real choice. On road, I have a good view of what's ahead, and don't get dazzled by oncoming lights or blinded by spray. But it's noisy, slow and pretty basic.

BTW, I've just found out why it has such good grip even when in 2WD... I took the spare wheel off the back door today and could just about lift it:)
 
tdcist said:
Random info for you... the guy 3rd along from the left at the important meeting is in the pantomime im working on this year!!
Click to expand...

Is Tom Shakespeare an actor, too? :thinking:
 
morsing said:
In the clip he mentions the hard metal frame of the Renault as a good thing, but crumble zones are actually there for a reason and sometimes it's worth sacrificing your legs for your life.

Renault Modus: FAIL
Click to expand...

With that level of damage the Volvo driver would have bled to death by the time he'd been cut out of the car
 
While the fifth gear test was valid, it wasn't a fair test. It's possible that a new Modus would be involved in a head on with a ten year old Volvo with no air bags etc. but not likely and to use that example to 'prove' that a Modus is safer is disingenuous. Newer model Volvos have pretty much the same additional safety gear as the Renault and with the added weight/engine compartment size they are probably much safer in a head on crash.
 
wack61 said:
With that level of damage the Volvo driver would have bled to death by the time he'd been cut out of the car
Click to expand...

In an accident like that he would more likely have been decapitated by his step-ladder, flying paint pots or toolbox (or whatever else he was lugging around in the cavernous boot.....
 
yoby said:
In an accident like that he would more likely have been decapitated by his step-ladder, flying paint pots or toolbox (or whatever else he was lugging around in the cavernous boot.....
Click to expand...

And that ladies &Gents is the kicker!

An object in the rear of the car turns into a high velocity missile when the car hits something and stops!
Hence most panel vans either have a bulkhead or a frame to protect the driver from stuff in the back.

I trashed a works defender in Bosnia years ago, lost it on some ice, bounced about a bit between the mountainside and the safety barrier before coming to a stop against the mountain. Hard.
An item of radio kit travelled from the back of the LWB to the front and smacked me in the back of the head, knocked me out.

I was wearing an issued ballistic helmet at the time, just as well really!

Like most people I dont really consider an accident when packing the car for holiday or work, especially for events, the back end is full of heavy boxes and stands etc
 
I consider an accident every time I load my cavernous Volvo.
The stuff behind the front seats is there to stop the other stuff from clonking us in the back of the head. Spears go down the middle so all they're going to kill is the radio. ;) Really.
 
I load my camera bags either into the boot, or if in the back they're secured by the rear-passenger seatbelts.
Like Scotty, I have first hand experience of things 'from the back' doing permanent damage to the driver and commander of a Defender...funnily enough that was in Bosnia too: up near Mrkonjic Grad in RS...
 
ones saftey is much improved if you dont drive around like a xxxx

Avoiding the crash in the first place is much more preferable than knowing you only have a 60% chance of not being injured

FWIW - Avoiding the crash generally involves driver skill, and a car with great visibility

While you can only partially factor in what the other muppets do, you can improve your chances by driving properly. most accidents happen within 3 miles of your home, that's because "you know the roads", and doodle along too fast on auto-pilot
 
I always put my tripod in the boot, and if my camera bag is too well stuffed to wedge behind the passenger seat that goes in the boot too. Nothing sits on the back seat, not even my walking boots.

I saw a test where a fairly standard bag was on the back seat in a 50mph crash and the damage it did to the front seats was phenomenal.
 
Rob, mine was on Parrot between Sipovo & Kupres, 1996, 1st NATO tour.
Wrote off a FFR, got case admonished and a well done for not going over the edge!
 
SK617 said:
Rob, mine was on Parrot between Sipovo & Kupres, 1996, 1st NATO tour.
Wrote off a FFR, got case admonished and a well done for not going over the edge!
Click to expand...

I know it...can't remember the Route-name we were on, but it was on that nasty switch-back viaduct somewhere between Jajce, Donji Vakuf and Bugojno on the way to Sarajevo...the one that's about a 1-in-4 gradient and lovely and icy in the winter...lol
No safety-rails and a 100m drop either side...pucker-up!

Female RLC driver not listening to the commander, me or the Terp in the back screaming at her to slow down - she didn't believe it was ice we were driving on, with predicatable results...

She didn't get the case dismissed...she got deservedly hammered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top