Thread: 4wd safer for pedestrians than a sedan

The other night I was watching another British motoring show called Fifth Gear. Each week they have been taking a look at safety of vehicles and road users. I will state that this show was filmed in 2007, and were looking at pedestrian safety when hit by a vehicle.
It was concluded that in testing you were better off getting hit by a 4wd than a sedan (if you were an average adult) for the following reasons 1) the square front of the 4wd had a larger inpact area when compared to the sedan, spreading the impact over a greater area 2) There is traditionaly more space under the compartment between the bonnet and engine giving the bonnet more room to deform when your head hit it 3) the 4wd was more likely to throw you away from the vehicle where as a sedan has a lower impact zone meaning it is most likely to strike you legs knocking you into and ontop of the sedan resulting in hitting both the bonnet and windscreen resulting in more injuries.
One last point the 4wd did not have a bull bar and they used an RR classic in its comparission with the sedan.
Tests were performed at 2 different speeds one braking which I think were from 70mph hitting at around 40mph and another strike with around a 25mph.
I do realise that in the past 3 years manufactures have taken a more serious look at pedestrian safety
Some food for thought.

Can't say I agree with their conclusions

For a very low speed, perhaps multiple points of impact would be better, but otherwise it is going to be better for a pedestrian to be deflected than absorb the impact energy. 25 mph is going to inflict serious damage, 40 mph is .....