Thread: Your 4WD and its crash protection

Originally Posted by Sprint

i believe Blknight.aus has a sticker on his deefer that says "YOUR car is my crumple zone"

Sadly not any more.....

Got to get some more made up

I don't have the reference with me (I am in Melbourne at present), but if you have a look round Monash Universitiy's website, they have a number of papers analysing accident statistics (in Australia and NZ) for various types of vehicle.

After reading a number of these, the only conclusion I could come to was that the type of vehicle (and its safety equipment) was one of the least important factors in the accident statistics. Size is important (which is where many four wheel drives shine!) but number of driving wheels does not seem to be important. Vehicle colour is far more important than safety equipment for example, but probably the most important factor is the driver. (For example, the driver in a fatal accident is about 30 times as likely to be drunk as a random sampling of drivers is)

It is worth noting that the major cause of deaths in motor vehicle accidents in Australia seems to be collision with fixed objects, typically trees or power poles. In a full frontal or side collision with one of these at any speed over about 60kph, no amount of safety equipment will save you. This is worth remembering when looking at accidents involving two vehicles - trees or poles are a lot more solid than any car.

It is also worth noting that if you do not wear your seat belt, collision with a solid object will kill you at speeds as low as 30kph (and trees do not have to be very big to stand impact by any car or four wheel drive), and if you get thrown out the vehicle in any type of accident, you are very likely to be killed.

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

...but probably the most important factor is the driver. (For example, the driver in a fatal accident is about 30 times as likely to be drunk as a random sampling of drivers is)....John

I reckon that over 90% of all traffic accidents I've attended in the last 13+ years as a paramedic, where serious injury or death have resulted, were caused by alcohol, drugs or crime (ie: racing off in a stolen car). This shows that the driver's mindset (or lack thereof) is the biggest contributor. For example, a 10 car pile up on the freeway with all cars initially doing close to a 100kph, results in lots of panel damage, but usually little major trauma. Why? because all the drivers have their wits about them, they know where other road users are, and they take evasive action. Mind altered drivers lack that ability and cause the most damage.


Personally, I think that drug, alcohol & crime related accidents should be in a seperate category, as they have little to do with road or vehicle design, road conditions or speed. Presenting these figures as a seperate figure to the total road toll, would show where the real dangers lie.

Originally Posted by Michael2

I reckon that over 90% of all traffic accidents I've attended in the last 13+ years as a paramedic, where serious injury or death have resulted, were caused by alcohol, drugs or crime (ie: racing off in a stolen car). This shows that the driver's mindset (or lack thereof) is the biggest contributor. For example, a 10 car pile up on the freeway with all cars initially doing close to a 100kph, results in lots of panel damage, but usually little major trauma. Why? because all the drivers have their wits about them, they know where other road users are, and they take evasive action. Mind altered drivers lack that ability and cause the most damage.


Personally, I think that drug, alcohol & crime related accidents should be in a seperate category, as they have little to do with road or vehicle design, road conditions or speed. Presenting these figures as a separate figure to the total road toll, would show where the real dangers lie.

The cynic in me says that the reason that won't happen is that it isn't politically advantageous to do so.
Since a lot of accidents involve more than one contributing factor, it probably suits governments to draw attention to the ones that give them an excuse to install more speed cameras to catch drivers doing a few ks over the limit on straight stretches of road.

I suspect that a lot of the drivers you describe with addled brains have little idea of the speed they are doing. So when they come to grief, it is convenient to categorise it a another speed related accident.

Still it would be a good idea.

Originally Posted by vnx205

The cynic in me says that the reason that won't happen is that it isn't politically advantageous to do so.
Since a lot of accidents involve more than one contributing factor, it probably suits governments to draw attention to the ones that give them an excuse to install more speed cameras to catch drivers doing a few ks over the limit on straight stretches of road.

I suspect that a lot of the drivers you describe with addled brains have little idea of the speed they are doing. So when they come to grief, it is convenient to categorise it a another speed related accident.

Still it would be a good idea.

I think you are absolutely correct, particularly about the fact that accidents almost always have multiple causes. But if you consider the statistics, it is clear that the real standout factor is alcohol. It would stand out even more if you allow for the fact that the proportion of sober drivers involved in fatal accidents includes the second driver in a two car accident, and also includes the unknown number of road deaths that are actually suicide (suspected but not confirmed in many cases, particularly those involving a sober driver and a roadside obstruction, or more commonly an oncoming heavy vehicle).

Often the driver in a fatal accident may be speeding, but as suggested, the speed is a byproduct of the driver not being in a fit state to drive - calling this accident a speeding accident may be convenient, but is not accurate. In fact the whole idea of attributing an accident to a single cause is misleading anyway.

John

HaHaHa I reckon most people would rather hit a tree than get too close to my machine, So as long as I drive safe, I'm laughing.

Originally Posted by vnx205

give them an excuse to install more speed cameras to catch drivers doing a few ks over the limit on straight stretches of road.

Surely you jest.

I believe drugs/alcohol and fatigue are the greatest contributers to collisions.

Don't know what the procedure is today however in the eighties in Queensland all fatal accidents had a tick list of causes and a percentage had to be allocated to add up to 100%. There was no none of the above option. From this information stastics were produced.

Speed was interesting as it had a minimum contribution. This was on the basis that if the vehicle was not moving it could not have had an accident. Hence they were not measuring speed excessive for the conditions just the fact that something was moving.

When looking at an stastics to make a reasoned judgement you have to fully understand what is behind them. Look at the famous curve graph that was used to justify climate change in a recent well known propoganda film. When independent researchers were finally allowed to look at the figures behind it they found that even random numbers produced the curve result.

The UK figures are only measuring death and serious injury when an accident has happened not the ability to avoid an accident in the first place.

Speed is popular as it is easy to measure, has a high media profile and an income can be obtained from enforcing it. Also the other factors below of 'alcohol, drugs or crime' all have vocal supporting pressure groups which cry long and loud in the media that the police are victimising them.