Thread: 4WD's "as safe as cars" - SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...817034559.html

Safe as cars, 4WDs escape green slip rise

Tim Dick
September 1, 2006

FOUR-wheel-drives have won a surprise safety clearance from the State Government after an insurance survey found they caused fewer crashes than cars and were no more likely to cause severe injuries than other vehicles.
The Government has relied on the findings to rule out a higher green slip premium for 4WDs, contrary to a parliamentary committee recommendation two years ago.

They inflict less expensive damage in city crashes, according to the study by the NSW Motor Accidents Authority, to be released today.
The study reviewed nearly 50,000 claims made against the green slip scheme between 1999 and 2004. It found the proportion of accidents caused by 4WDs was lower in Sydney than their share of the vehicle fleet, and the average cost of subsequent claims was less.

In the rest of NSW, 4WDs caused slightly more expensive claims, which cover medical and compensation costs.

There was little difference between the severity of injuries caused by 4WDs and those caused by other cars.

Sales of 4WDs grew by 61 per cent between 2000 and 2003. They now account for more than one in 10 passenger cars in NSW.

The Minister for Commerce, John Della Bosca, said the findings meant there was no justification for imposing a special premium on 4WDs, though that might change. While the authority recommended no immediate change in premiums, it said the study should be repeated to see if an expanding second-hand market in 4WDs altered the figures.

A spokesman for Mr Della Bosca said the Government would look at a special premium if future statistical evidence showed other drivers were subsidising those in 4WDs.

Insurers may only vary the cost of green slips according to criteria set by the Government, such as the age of the driver and the car being insured.
In 2004, an upper house committee recommended the Government look at allowing insurers to increase premiums for 4WDs, after Bicycle NSW proposed higher premiums for more "dangerous" cars.

Stuart Newstead, senior research fellow at Monash University's Accident Research Centre, yesterday cautioned against interpreting the study's results as a safety tick for 4WDs.

Their drivers were more likely to be older men, he said, and the recent sharp increase in sales meant 4WDs were, on average, newer than other cars. Newer cars and older drivers tend to be safer, significantly altering the effect on claims.

Dr Newstead also cautioned that the study looked only at two-vehicle crashes, excluding accidents such as roll-overs. 4WDs typically have a higher centre of gravity and are more susceptible to rolling over than other cars. The centre's studies have consistently shown large 4WDs are better at protecting their drivers than other road users when they crash.
"They are twice as likely to cause death or serious injury to people in other cars," Dr Newstead said.

But he said smaller, newer models, such as the Toyota RAV4 or Honda CRV, had improved the safety and reputation of 4WDs.

Jack Haley, the NRMA's vehicle policy specialist, said if owners wanted safe cars and did not need to go off-road, large cars were as safe as 4WDs, and cost much less to operate.

Originally Posted by p38arover

I heard Scruby on radio this morning complaining the results are not in line with overseas figures and that the results probably lump AWD vehicles with 4WD.

Ron

I don't see any reason why figures should agree with overseas ones - the fleet mix here is different to anywhere else, and as I previously said, it depends more on the driver's choice than the actual vehicle.

Can someone explain the difference between AWD and 4WD? As far as I am aware there is no agreed difference. AWD is used as a synonym for "full time four wheel drive" or to include 6x6 as well as 4x4, but I am not aware of any consistent usage. Probably first popularised by Subaru to emphasise that they drove all wheels all the time, but maybe Rover used it first with the Rangerover. Anyone know?

As I said in the earlier post, grouping (for road safety purposes), for example, a Ford Territory (2wd or 4wd) with a Freelander probably makes more sense than grouping either with a Suzuki Sierra, or for that matter a 130 traytop. And neither grouping has much to do with how many wheels drive.
John