Last nights TV3 doco

[martyyn 2]

Unfortunately I only got to see a small part of it, but from what I did see I noticed the following.

I was surprised at just how biased it was. I know I shouldnt have been but I almost found myself argueing in favour of 4x4's !

The stats were all American and with absolutely no qualification. What I mean is '56% of all crashes were because of blah'.....well 56% of what ? ALL crashes in the US, a particular state, Sunday afternoon outside the local burger bar, what ?

The crash test scenes they showed were all huge American 4x4's which are an awful lot bigger than the ones sold here.

But the overall part for us was a tiny piece that I almost missed but my wife pointed out. There was a short clip of how a young fella wasnt enjoying driving a Prado and having trouble parking it. They then jumped to a young woman who just lamped the thing up the curb and that was it, out she got and she walked away even though she had just blocked someone else in. She went on to say how she loved the big wheels and how she could jump over kerbs when she wanted etc.

My wife made the comment that, its not so much the vehicle thats the problem but the drivers attitude once they get into one. They 'do' because they 'can'. Never mind anyone else, Im ok and you can get stuffed.

We see it all the time in the Wellington hills. If a car is over the center line in the road (whether they need to be or not) 9 times out of 10 its a 4x4 and its that arrogance more than anything that really winds her up.

Had to switch it off when one guy said if we removed 4x4's we'd haev to remove 7 series and Mercs and Bentleys because they were just as heavy !

Edited February 8, 2007 by martyyn

[greenday-rulz21 4]

My wife made the comment that, its not so much the vehicle thats the problem but the drivers attitude once they get into one. They 'do' because they 'can'. Never mind anyone else, Im ok and you can get stuffed.

Exactly, because they've got a bigger vehicle they think they can do whatever they want.

One other thing that also causes a lot of 4x4 crashes is that most of them are actually pretty safe cars, but its when they're pushed beyond there limit by the driver, e.g. to fast around a corner etc. They don't have as good handling as cars either so you can't push them as hard.

[greenday-rulz21 4]

Bringing up cops, I was in a friends car on our way to Albany, going over constellation drive, just coming on the on-ramp a cop speeds up quite significantly to try and beat a car, fits into a tiny gap and starts to tailgate a truck. When we got off the Albany off-ramp he was still doing it, soo close that if he had seen somebody else doing that he would've pulled that person over.

But especially doing it to a truck, when on the back of most of them they have the stickers "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you", increasing the risk of a nose-to-tail accident.

The police are supposed to set an example for all other drivers to follow, and yet they don't follow road rules themselfs, and in 3pedals case thats really poor, they should follow the road lines.

Is it a law that your not allowed to cut corners if theres a clear veiw and nobody's coming?

[m325i 705]

Osama *hearts* your SUV

[bravo 34]

SUV's in city = cheapest way to get bullet-proof brat transporter for mum. Also a status symbol.

SUV's in rural areas are a totally different story. I engage 4 wheel drive on one of the 4 4x4's I drive regularly on average about 4 times a week.

In the city, for the price, mum should get a newer large station wagon or MPV as the crash protection of the newer car will outperform (in most cases) the older 4x4. 4x4's command a price premium so you WILL get a newer SW or MPV for the same money.

This debate has been raging for years.

Only way to change it is for LTNZ to either legislate or start advertising campaigns - or both.

Edited February 8, 2007 by bravomikewhiskey

[my_e36 43]

Is it a law that your not allowed to cut corners if theres a clear veiw and nobody's coming?

It's not so much that you are not allow to cut corners, it just that you should drive within your own lane regardless of visibility. That's what the lines are there for. It's a fine of $150 for failed to stay within your own lane. (From program Police 10-7)

I also quote Jeremy Clarkson, "Speed doesn't kill, it only kills when you suddenly comes to a halt."

Edit: typo

Edited February 9, 2007 by my_e36

[Mavrick 0]

In regards to the $150 fine. The police recently set up a sting through the Manawatu Gorge a bit before christmas and Dealt $150 fines to a numerous amount of people throughout the day. All they had was one cop watching the offenders then communicating with another unit at the end of the gorge slapping all the offenders with the appropriate fine.

Which is a good thing as the gorge is notorious for blind corners, which people still take on the opposite side of the road.

[bravo 34]

First rule in the Road Code? keep left. End of story.

I still cut corners - sue me. Its not just a driving technique - its a way of life.

[StylesM5 0]

About as smart as the defensive argument that goes " I pay tax for both sides of the road so I will use it all". Just F**** dumb.

Who needs to drive an SUV to have an accident when you can do it with an attitude like yours, try and understand the comment about training your self to be in the right place.

I go to call outs as a fire fighter to clean up the damage done by plonkers like you on a regular basis. There is a lot of misery caused by such a short sighted stupid attitude - grow up - it is not a way of life it is away of death

Hey man, calm down.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. If I can straight line a corner I

a) save time

save fuel *edit*, don't know why the cool dude in the sunnies showed up?

c) save tyres.

As long as I have clear line of sight, I will always cut corners. Call me a renagade in my SUV if you want, but in 25 years of driving, I've never had a head on.

Cheers, Jock

Edited February 9, 2007 by StylesM5

[cainchapman 0]

Saying 4WD are dangerous is like saying that SH2 through Maramarua is dangerous too.

Driving to the conditions and the capabilties of the driver and machine is the problem. SUV's don't just roll over.

1st rule of the road "Might is right!"

Yes, the stat on the driveway incidents is quite frightening.

I'd like to have seen a statistic on the X5 per million cars on the road versus the Honda accord (21 per million) and the Chevy SUV (122 per million), as they did state that it was the lack of Nanny state devices that contributed to the majority of roll-overs in the States. The guy that made the comment about removing S class and 7 series was making a valid point. If you are going to remove 4WD from the road because of their aggressiveness in a crash, then all large cars should be a target. i.e. 7's S class and Rollers etc.

[martyyn 2]

The guy that made the comment about removing S class and 7 series was making a valid point. If you are going to remove 4WD from the road because of their aggressiveness in a crash, then all large cars should be a target. i.e. 7's S class and Rollers etc.

I totally disagree....no surprise I guess

I dont believe the weight of the car is the problem, its the height of the 4x4 combined with the weight.

A 7's main thrust in a crash is going to be at the same height as any other car and therefore be consumed by the crumple zones and/or side intrusion bars whereas a Prado for example is way above the shoulder line of a car and has only glass to pass through before collecting any occupants.

I had one stop next to me the other day and it completely dwarfed the 7. Its shoulder line was above even the roof of the 7 and in a smash it would steam roller right over the top of me.

[cainchapman 0]

Martyn, they were comparing the SUV colliding with a Civic or the like. I'm positive a 740 would also be the winner in this instance. No disagreement that SUV do cause a lot of damage.

A distributed load would be better than a point load, as the frontal area of an SUV hitting the side of the Civic would spread the load over more of an area, it should be better.

Car manufacturers design the cars to pass the tests, not be the safest.

Safest standard road car for ages was the Fiat X1/9. Only car to pass the 50mph rollover test.

[antony 0]

3pedals - the way i see your comment is; it doesn't matter what we drive, it's how we drive.

i completely agree.

[cainchapman 0]

I agree 3pedals. It is all about kinetic energy. I'd come off worse in a collision with Anton Oliver (unless he was stationary and I hit him from behind).

I object to the statement that SUV's kill people in a collision with a smaller vehicle. A .50cal bullet will cause more injury than a .22cal in general too. So what. Being hit by either is an undesirable situation.

That chick that was driving the 4WD was a shocking driver and seemed to use the Force to get around.

Driver training should be compulsary. Vehicles seem to be the only thing that we need to learn the rules on how to use them, before it is necessary to learn how to operate them.

i.e. I was taught the road-code and then sent out in a car to prove I could follow the road rules and operating the car is of no real consequence. No one really ever taught me how to drive my car. I had to learn that on my own. Which is why I'm all for the BMWCC driver training days in your own car. Or the Auckland CC Grasskhana's the teach you car control in a relatively safe environment.

If the first experience of oversteer is on the Piha road, you lose, more often than not. SUV's are just cars that handle poorly and should be driven as such. I'm sure if they were any good at speed, someone would have entered one in Le Mans by now. A diesel won last year. Maybe we could enter a Black Pajero and see if a bunch of Kiwi's can win it this year.

[martyyn 2]

Driver training should be compulsary. Vehicles seem to be the only thing that we need to learn the rules on how to use them, before it is necessary to learn how to operate them.

Cracking idea Cain.

When I think back to getting my licence after only having 6 lessons in a car and having driven around the only 'route' the testers took for 45 mins its scary.

Never mind having a 'mini' licence to keep you off the road as peak accident times, make driver training compulsory and teach kids (because thats what you are at that age) to handle a car properly.

Its far too easy here.

3Pedals, I hadnt properly considered an 'un-square' hit, your quite right. Youve obviously seen your fair share of accidents.

Anyway, I was particularly interested in what people thought of the programme rather than the rights or wrongs of SUV's

[CaM 0]

my views - 4x4's are fine. I hate seeing them used for a road car 100% of the time though. I've thrown up buying one myself a few times, but I'd rarely use the 4x4 option so ruled it out. Bro has a 4x4 'lux which sees use (not just omg need 4wd coz i'm in a paddock, it gets pretty heavy use) on a weekly basis... given that he works huge hours I think that this is very frequent.....

people only crash them because they don't have the necessary skills in which to pedal them. bro's is rather high, and running big mud tyres etc which are all derogatory to handling in general. yet, making allowances for this it's actualy a reasonable performing vehicle on the road... keeps up with traffic very well and easily, just requires different techniques to a Car....

people need to harden the f**k up

[E30_318i 0]

people need to harden the f**k up

Too right.

I saw the ad for it on TV, and that put me off the doco altogether. Looked like some delusioned lefty trying to push their agenda on the braindead masses, too bad it works.

If it was about the dangerous qualities such as poor energy absorption (is this only confined to ladder/cab chassis?), I suppose they have a case but as the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people do.

Toyota have put a 200kw V6 into their 1900kg Previa in overseas markets. Will this get the same reaction from typical greenie anti SUV crowd? Doubt it, as they're all hypercritical f**kwits with inconsistent arguements that cannot apply to one type of vehicle (SUVs).

[kerrynzl 3]

Safest standard road car for ages was the Fiat X1/9. Only car to pass the 50mph rollover test.

It all depends on how you interprete the statistics!

At one stage the safests cars were the Mark III Zephyr, and the HQ Holden [they were responsible for the increase in the population]

Remember, [Play Safe! "Accidents Cause People"]

[kiwi535 538]

The program a boring just regurditated statstics

The guy observing thir driving was the bet bit

the full ladder chassis doesnt deform and absorb the energy.... Occupants of a truck or SUV will suffer huge impact force if they hit a similar sized vehicle or some immoveable object and their dynamics will ofteen turn evasive action into a rollover...so they arent "safe" at all,they just seem it and with the big wheels and bumpers etc every body seem to think they are the bees kneees.I would have a subie or something if i needed 4wd traction,and and a mpv if i needed the room.The only vehicle i would rate behind a suv is a forward control van.

The other thing i hate about suvs(was this mentione in the program?) is the way they block your view

[OLLIE 26]

We can analyse accidents, driving style, vehicle choice, driving ability etc as much as we like ... all it really comes down to is common sense. I feel misfortunate that i am perhaps more intelligent than half of the retards i see on our roads because if i was as brain f**ked as them when it came to driving i would'nt get as worked up as i do.

My point is ... I am appalled at the amount of stupidity i see on the roads, you might as well give a loaded gun to a family of chimpanzees. we don't have to all be michael schumacher but we need to know our limits and understand logically how roads, traffic, intersections, carparks and indicators work!!

The solution....

Better driver education

Much much much scricter licensing (i.e less retards/muppets get awarded a license)

An extended learner period and possible higher legal driving age

less pathetic traffic cops and more cops with common sense that want to make our roads safer and ot just gather revenue from sitting on their ass with a radar gun eating donuts

A policy where by the sale of SUVs and the like are only sold to those who meet a certain criteria (or something to that effect)

guns for me to shoot dickheads who can't drive yet think they can

Camels

[Gus 5]

We can analyse accidents, driving style, vehicle choice, driving ability etc as much as we like ... all it really comes down to is common sense. I feel misfortunate that i am perhaps more intelligent than half of the retards i see on our roads because if i was as brain f**ked as them when it came to driving i would'nt get as worked up as i do.

My point is ... I am appalled at the amount of stupidity i see on the roads, you might as well give a loaded gun to a family of chimpanzees. we don't have to all be michael schumacher but we need to know our limits and understand logically how roads, traffic, intersections, carparks and indicators work!!

The solution....

Better driver education

Much much much scricter licensing (i.e less retards/muppets get awarded a license)

An extended learner period and possible higher legal driving age

less pathetic traffic cops and more cops with common sense that want to make our roads safer and ot just gather revenue from sitting on their ass with a radar gun eating donuts

A policy where by the sale of SUVs and the like are only sold to those who meet a certain criteria (or something to that effect)

guns for me to shoot dickheads who can drive yet think they can

Camels

hear hear..cull the retards...practical driver training where drivers actually learn how to drive!

[bravo 34]

About as smart as the defensive argument that goes " I pay tax for both sides of the road so I will use it all". Just F**** dumb.

Who needs to drive an SUV to have an accident when you can do it with an attitude like yours, try and understand the comment about training your self to be in the right place.

I go to call outs as a fire fighter to clean up the damage done by plonkers like you on a regular basis. There is a lot of misery caused by such a short sighted stupid attitude - grow up - it is not a way of life it is away of death

chill out dude. tongue was in cheek - I didn't mean a poor driving style was a way of life, I meant cutting corners was - ie I was promoting being a lazy f**k.

If you read my post I was actually defending your view by stating the law says keep left, so keep f**king left.

Agree with most points brought up here by you et al re: 4x4's their relative safety, the poor driving ability of many road users, the failings of the licensing system and the need for practical driver education and more efficient cops.

I was making a lame joke - I guess you missed it. No wucking forries.

Edited February 12, 2007 by bravomikewhiskey

[Carl 3]

Treat large SUV's like a class 1 truck so people require the license to use one whereby the test would be an actual offroad course - that'd definitely remove their use as suburban taxis.

E: and while they're at it they need to do what they do in europe and introduce compulsory insurance that is structured on power output and age.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Carl

[kerrynzl 3]

hear hear..cull the retards...practical driver training where drivers actually learn how to drive!

Don't have to bother mate! They're culling themselves off.

Hey I neither saw the program, But I heard it was made in the USA [The country that runs on fast-food, then they built the Hummer so they can take their fat kids to school] Then the poor disillusioned sods think we all want to be like them

Don't take those stupid pricks as gospel!

[bravo 34]

Sweet as 3pedals.