[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



Following up to Peter Clinch

>> we seem to agree on 4x4s, but where are all those =20 line ends
>> coming from, I wonder if its you or me?
>
>Some people seem to intermittently suffer that from Mozilla 1.4/SPARCs
>formatting, others don't... I've been using the same software with no
>modification at my end for quite a long time now!

same here, how odd!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Rooney

>That's all too general to be much use. The pedestrian safety claims
>came from a dodgy US study. Many modern SUVs will beat a fair
>proportion of the traffic on the roads when it comes to pedestrian
>safety.

Vans yes, the basic point is does it smash a pedestrian to the
road or throw them on the bonnet. Ratings here seem to be about
things like are there hard objects just under the bonnet. I asked
the euro people to clarify if they took account of knocking down
v knocking up but didn't get a reply.

>Many have good consumption figures too.

If you remove the x4 and associated features from a vehicle it
will give better consumption.

>If you're looking for a performance car, then OK, you wouldn't choose
>a 4x4 probably, but all other things considered , the only real
>difference between them and lots of other modern cars is their better
>grip and higher position.

better grip under certain conditions, cornering grip and roll
over resistance tend to be poorer. Technology can smash these
barriers, as in the Porsche Cayenne, but how sensible is that?

>As for MPVs - there are things they can't do that a 4x4 can.

There's no argument about that, but for high position they are
equal. The only justification for a 4x4 is crossing difficult
ground and snow, as far as I can see.

>I don't recall noticing they had better pedestrian safety when I was looking
>into all the details last year before deciding what to buy.

They tend to have a more sloping bonnet, but I doubt they are
much better. Pickups are worst of all BTW.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to John Laird

>but these come at the expense of causing considerably more damage
>to other vehicles in said collisions, and denying them visibility.

the only good thing about following a 4x4 is knowing I can stop
quicker.
--
Mike Reid
BMW driver
"Everybody hates us and we don't care"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
 
I noticed that Message-ID: <[email protected]>
from The Reids contained the following:

>
>you have almost talked me into it.
>My journey to work has varied from 13 to 40 miles, (one way),
>might be hard work by bike.


Well I forgot to mention that I work at two sites and have to travel
between them during the day also, with insufficient time to use a bike.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
 
On 18 Mar 2005 13:55:18 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Not everyone wants to bike to work.
>
>>>not everyone can.
>
>> I /could/ ...
><snippity>
>> If I was prepared to risk life and limb crossing some very major
>> junctions
>> etc...
>
>Just to be annoying:
><URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>
>
>Seems it'd be safer than walking for most people ;-)

Have I misread that or are you about ten times safer in a car than you
are on a bicycle?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:07:29 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:14:51 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I just posted some remarks. The four very popular SUVs (CRV, Rav4,
>>XTrail and Freelander) will equal or beat most large family cars, and
>>indeed lots of smaller cars.
>>If you look only at the larger offroaders they fare less well, but
>>still compare favourably with many popular large family cars for
>>pedestrian safety, and beat a fair number for passenger safety.
>>These facts are at variance with the common perception.
>
>Rather selective remarks, on the whole. You need to be a little careful
>with the pedestrian safety ratings which have changed and are not supposed
>to be immediately comparable. Nevertheless, in that table you will have
>noticed that just one large SUV is awarded 2 stars for ped safety. In the
>corresponding table for large family cars (or exec cars) the percentage of
>higher-rated cars is much better. Round my way, very popular SUVs are the
>BFO variety which (reading between the lines at Euro NCAP) almost seem to
>have been designed to kill. I will grant you one point - the absolute
>worst-rated car for pedestrian safety is (for some reason) the Audi TT.
>
>>If you're driving a Ka or a Polo or an Astra or a Mondeo you won't be
>>able to see over the car in front whatever it is, nor will you be able
>>to see over the hedge/wall for an advance view of what's coming.
>>As to damage - I'd like to see stats (they often contradict common
>>perceptions!)
>
>A Mondeo is the size of an old Granada, and you are probably sitting lower
>down than in a modern Polo or Astra (small-medium cars being on the taller
>side nowadays). The times I would benefit more from seeing over a wall as
>opposed to around another vehicle must be 1 in 100, which was my point.

That's one of the things I like best about the position - on country
roads I have a much better view of what's coming than I had in the
Focus. I do a fair number of miles on roads like these.
> It
>is becoming increasingly difficult to see past (or through, large parts of
>cars are glass, in case you'd not noticed) larger vehicles. These issues
>also affect more vulnerable road users too.

I don't recall having any problem with 4x4s blocking the view in any
significant way with any of the low cars I've had. Obviously they can
do, but given the number of vans and lorries around, it certainly
never registered with me as an issue.
>
>Consult any decent maths or physics text for basic theories on collision
>dynamics. A heavier vehicle will almost always inflict greater damage on a
>lighter vehicle. If you're unconvinced, I'm sure Conor will demonstrate
>with the help of his 44 tonne assistant ;-)

Conor will never catch me, because he will be decelerating infinitely!

But on this last point, I'm sure you are right, but then the argument
should be directed against heavy vehicles, rather than singling out
4x4s.

I'm not claiming 4x4s are the tops, but I think, when people start
their fashionable anti-4x4 tirade, that it's only fair to say that
quite a few of the big selling, popular 4x4s are no worse than most
cars around them, and some are considerably better.

Does anyone rant about the older Puntos or Kas?



--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:15:05 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>I'm sure Theo is in tune with my comments. If he isn't, he can say so
>>for himself.
>
>did you know that sig contravenes the letter of internet
>guidelines, although arguably not the spirit, as there isn't as
>much data as in my "legal" one and the separator isn't broken,
>unlike a lot of peoples.
>Or have you, just possibly, heard all this before in another
>place :)

No, I never, ever, ever heard that before!!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005 13:55:18 GMT, Mark Thompson wrote
>>Just to be annoying:
>><URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>
>>
>>Seems it'd be safer than walking for most people ;-)
>
> Have I misread that or are you about ten times safer in a car than you
> are on a bicycle?

No, not really.

The table shows deaths 'per billion passenger kilometres', which makes
it hard to compare.

The death rate for cycling (per bn p. Km) is approx 10 x the rate for
cars. This means that cars would only be 10 x safer than bikes if both
modes of transport covered the same distance over the year.

If the distance travelled by cars was 10 x the distance travelled by
bike then they would be (more or less) equally dangerous.

Since the distance travelled by cars is vastly more than that travelled
by bike, then the figures show that cars are much more dangerous to
their passengers. Even Pete C. probably covers more distance by car in
a year than he does by bike; I probably drive, in an average year,
something of the order of 500x as far as I cycle. And I'm probably
still above average for cycling miles, but _if I wasn't_, i.e. if all
the cars travelled 500x further than all the bikes in a year then the
cars would still be around 50x more dangerous. The reality is probably
somewhat higher.

This is made more complex if you consider the term 'passenger
kilometers'. A car travelling 100Km with four occupants has actually
done 400 'passenger kilometres'. The average occupancy for a bike will
be very, very slightly above 1.0, while the average occupancy for a car
is significantly above 1.0, possibly approaching 2.0 (though I'd be
surprised if it's more than 2). This further improves the bike safety
rating over cars.

Colin

PS. I don't cycle to work - I can walk it in 10 minutes, which is
probably the same time it would take to get the bike out the garage, get
the waterproof trousers on, cycle to work, lock the bike up at the other
end, and take the wp trousers off again.
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:15:06 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Geoff Berrow
>
>>>not everyone can.
>>
>>I /could/ ...
>>
>>If I had a bike.
>>If I was prepared to be hot sticky and sweaty all day
>>and if I wasn't in a job that involves close contact with people.
>>If I could figure out how to carry laptop and large boxes of stuff on it
>>If I was prepared to risk life and limb crossing some very major
>>junctions
>
>you have almost talked me into it.
>My journey to work has varied from 13 to 40 miles, (one way),
>might be hard work by bike.

I used to do 7 each way by bike for years. It just became inconvenient
(I started taking the dog with me).

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:15:09 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>That's all too general to be much use. The pedestrian safety claims
>>came from a dodgy US study. Many modern SUVs will beat a fair
>>proportion of the traffic on the roads when it comes to pedestrian
>>safety.
>
>Vans yes, the basic point is does it smash a pedestrian to the
>road or throw them on the bonnet. Ratings here seem to be about
>things like are there hard objects just under the bonnet. I asked
>the euro people to clarify if they took account of knocking down
>v knocking up but didn't get a reply.
>
>>Many have good consumption figures too.
>
>If you remove the x4 and associated features from a vehicle it
>will give better consumption.
>
>>If you're looking for a performance car, then OK, you wouldn't choose
>>a 4x4 probably, but all other things considered , the only real
>>difference between them and lots of other modern cars is their better
>>grip and higher position.
>
>better grip under certain conditions, cornering grip and roll
>over resistance tend to be poorer. Technology can smash these
>barriers, as in the Porsche Cayenne, but how sensible is that?

I don't like the look of it anyway.
>
>>As for MPVs - there are things they can't do that a 4x4 can.
>
>There's no argument about that, but for high position they are
>equal.

I'm not so sure about that. I reckon they tend to be a bit lower -
I'll have to have a look when i go out.

> The only justification for a 4x4 is crossing difficult
>ground and snow, as far as I can see.

Versatility. I can take six passengers (and I'm one of the few people
on the school runs that I do who has anything like a full car), I can
sleep in it, cook in it with the doors shut, put two dogs in it, tow
two heavy horses over rough ground, put a shedload of shopping in it,
and, of course, get offroad to some rather nice car-camping spots!
I could do some, but not all, those with an MPV.

>>I don't recall noticing they had better pedestrian safety when I was looking
>>into all the details last year before deciding what to buy.
>
>They tend to have a more sloping bonnet, but I doubt they are
>much better. Pickups are worst of all BTW.

One other point is that I seldom see the larger 4x4s tearing around
like boy racers - people tend to drive them a bit more sedately ime.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:24 GMT, Colin MacDonald
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2005 13:55:18 GMT, Mark Thompson wrote
>>>Just to be annoying:
>>><URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>
>>>
>>>Seems it'd be safer than walking for most people ;-)
>>
>> Have I misread that or are you about ten times safer in a car than you
>> are on a bicycle?
>
>No, not really.
>
>The table shows deaths 'per billion passenger kilometres', which makes
>it hard to compare.

<snip interesting stuff>

But aren't all these comparisons done per mile (or km, or billion km -
makes no difference)? Eg. air and car, etc?

Surely that makes it easier to compare: I'm going to the village, a
journey of two miles, whether I walk or bike or drive. What's safest?
It looks to me like, *per given journey*, the car is 10 times safer
than the bike?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Following up to John Laird

> the absolute
>worst-rated car for pedestrian safety is (for some reason) the Audi TT.

which shows they are not logical tests? (I think its because
there's sharp metal just under the bonnet or something)
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:33:12 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>(collisions)
>But on this last point, I'm sure you are right, but then the argument
>should be directed against heavy vehicles, rather than singling out
>4x4s.

Yes, but most heavy vehicles can't help being heavy. Neither, to some
degree, can a 4x4, but many must be toting heavy equipment that the owner
will never use.

>I'm not claiming 4x4s are the tops, but I think, when people start
>their fashionable anti-4x4 tirade, that it's only fair to say that
>quite a few of the big selling, popular 4x4s are no worse than most
>cars around them, and some are considerably better.

In general, all vehicles are increasingly featuring improved safety. It
would be equally true (maybe more so) to say that most of the big selling,
popular traditional cars are a lot better than most of the cars around them,
simply because they are new. This doesn't detract from a general view that
4x4s are as a class less friendly to other vehicles or road users. Their
basic design needs dictate this will be hard to overcome, but it is good to
see some manufacturers trying (Honda and Volvo, for example). I would
imagine even Honda would agree they might never get a CRV or its successor
to better the likes of a Civic, however (wot I drive).

>Does anyone rant about the older Puntos or Kas?

Only their unfortunate owners ;-)

--
If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll do it for you!

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
Rooney wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:24 GMT, Colin MacDonald
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Rooney wrote:
> <snip interesting stuff>
>
> But aren't all these comparisons done per mile (or km, or billion km -
> makes no difference)? Eg. air and car, etc?
>
> Surely that makes it easier to compare: I'm going to the village, a
> journey of two miles, whether I walk or bike or drive. What's safest?
> It looks to me like, *per given journey*, the car is 10 times safer
> than the bike?

But the point is that it _isn't_ per given journey. It's the
accumulation of all car journeys and bike journeys.

For example...

Let's say that the populace in general covers 1 billion Km by bike every
year. This would result in 29.5 deaths (half a death? never mind...).

If the populace is travelling 1bn Km by bike, then it's going to be
travelling much further by car. Let's say 500bn Km. The rate for cars
is 2.8 deaths per bn Km, giving us 1400 deaths.

On that basis, and bear in mind that my figure of 500 car Km for each
bike Km is purely a guess, there are 29.5 deaths by bike compared to
1400 deaths by car. This would make car journeys around 47 times more
dangerous than bike journeys.

Turning this around, though...

You _can_ say that, based on the official figures, if, in the course of
a year, a person cycles 10Km and also drives 10Km, then that person is
10x more likely to die while on the bike than in the car. And I suspect
that this is where you're getting your 'per journey' notion from, but it
only applies if that's all the travelling this person does in the year.

You can also say that, for a fixed distance that must be covered, e.g. a
daily commute of 10Km, if you travel that distance by bike each day then
the danger is 10x that of driving the same distance by car each day.

So... (is anyone still reading this??)

One could argue that the figures don't say anything that's of much interest.

They say that, for equal distance covered, cars are ten times safer than
bikes. Well, yes, that makes sense - bikes don't have a protective
metal shell and they are very vulnerable to other traffic.

We can infer, because the populace drives much, much more than it
cycles, that cars are more dangerous. And this is true, because approx
10 people per day die in car accidents, while the figure for cyclists is
(and I say this with no figures to back me up) surely very much lower.
But then we risk saying "lots of people die in car crashes because lots
of people drive cars". Well, duh! It becomes a self-fulfilling
argument, like when people say "it's always in the last place you look".

Colin
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:40:54 GMT, Colin MacDonald
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:24 GMT, Colin MacDonald
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Rooney wrote:
>> <snip interesting stuff>
>>
>> But aren't all these comparisons done per mile (or km, or billion km -
>> makes no difference)? Eg. air and car, etc?
>>
>> Surely that makes it easier to compare: I'm going to the village, a
>> journey of two miles, whether I walk or bike or drive. What's safest?
>> It looks to me like, *per given journey*, the car is 10 times safer
>> than the bike?
>
>But the point is that it _isn't_ per given journey. It's the
>accumulation of all car journeys and bike journeys.


No - it's per unit distance (it doesn't matter what unit you take).

>For example...
>
>Let's say that the populace in general covers 1 billion Km by bike every
>year. This would result in 29.5 deaths (half a death? never mind...).
>
>If the populace is travelling 1bn Km by bike, then it's going to be
>travelling much further by car. Let's say 500bn Km. The rate for cars
>is 2.8 deaths per bn Km, giving us 1400 deaths.
>
>On that basis, and bear in mind that my figure of 500 car Km for each
>bike Km is purely a guess, there are 29.5 deaths by bike compared to
>1400 deaths by car. This would make car journeys around 47 times more
>dangerous than bike journeys.
>
>Turning this around, though...
>
>You _can_ say that, based on the official figures, if, in the course of
>a year, a person cycles 10Km and also drives 10Km, then that person is
>10x more likely to die while on the bike than in the car. And I suspect
>that this is where you're getting your 'per journey' notion from, but it
>only applies if that's all the travelling this person does in the year.
>
>You can also say that, for a fixed distance that must be covered, e.g. a
>daily commute of 10Km, if you travel that distance by bike each day then
> the danger is 10x that of driving the same distance by car each day.

Well, that's what we're interested in isn't it? I want to go to the
shops, 2 miles away. If I go by bike I'm ten times more likely to be
killed, on the figures quoted. I'd feel safer in the car!
>
>So... (is anyone still reading this??)
>
>One could argue that the figures don't say anything that's of much interest.
>
>They say that, for equal distance covered, cars are ten times safer than
>bikes. Well, yes, that makes sense - bikes don't have a protective
>metal shell and they are very vulnerable to other traffic.
>
>We can infer, because the populace drives much, much more than it
>cycles, that cars are more dangerous. And this is true, because approx
>10 people per day die in car accidents, while the figure for cyclists is
>(and I say this with no figures to back me up) surely very much lower.
>But then we risk saying "lots of people die in car crashes because lots
>of people drive cars". Well, duh! It becomes a self-fulfilling
>argument, like when people say "it's always in the last place you look".


That's why you have to compare the per mile (or whatever) figures.
What I'm interested in is this: is it safer to make this journey by
bike? The answer appears to be a resounding No!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:22:16 +0000, John Laird
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:33:12 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>(collisions)
>>But on this last point, I'm sure you are right, but then the argument
>>should be directed against heavy vehicles, rather than singling out
>>4x4s.
>
>Yes, but most heavy vehicles can't help being heavy. Neither, to some
>degree, can a 4x4, but many must be toting heavy equipment that the owner
>will never use.
>
>>I'm not claiming 4x4s are the tops, but I think, when people start
>>their fashionable anti-4x4 tirade, that it's only fair to say that
>>quite a few of the big selling, popular 4x4s are no worse than most
>>cars around them, and some are considerably better.
>
>In general, all vehicles are increasingly featuring improved safety. It
>would be equally true (maybe more so) to say that most of the big selling,
>popular traditional cars are a lot better than most of the cars around them,
>simply because they are new. This doesn't detract from a general view that
>4x4s are as a class less friendly to other vehicles or road users. Their
>basic design needs dictate this will be hard to overcome, but it is good to
>see some manufacturers trying (Honda and Volvo, for example). I would
>imagine even Honda would agree they might never get a CRV or its successor
>to better the likes of a Civic, however (wot I drive).

I saw a new, discounted Civic Type R, before I got this - but I'd
probably have crashed it!
>
>>Does anyone rant about the older Puntos or Kas?
>
>Only their unfortunate owners ;-)

Ha ha!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:
> That's why you have to compare the per mile (or whatever) figures.
> What I'm interested in is this: is it safer to make this journey by
> bike? The answer appears to be a resounding No!

Yes, but so what?

Did someone say that cycling was, on a per-distance comparison, safer
than driving?

Colin
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:52:59 +0000, The Reids <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Following up to John Laird
>
>> the absolute
>>worst-rated car for pedestrian safety is (for some reason) the Audi TT.
>
>which shows they are not logical tests? (I think its because
>there's sharp metal just under the bonnet or something)

I suspect there must be a little more to it than that, but yes their tests
do include marking out areas of the car likely to be impacted by pieces of
human anatomy, and then they thump those areas with dummy body parts.
Anything that doesn't "give" gets no marks. So, either the bonnet is rigid,
or the gubbins underneath it is too close and prevents deformation.

It is a "smooth" looking car, which makes it all the more surprising (it
being generally better to sweep pedestrians off their feet and let them
tumble over without encountering hard edges, stupid Top Gear stunt video
notwithstanding).

--
He who laughs last thinks slowest!

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:24:49 GMT, Colin MacDonald
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>> That's why you have to compare the per mile (or whatever) figures.
>> What I'm interested in is this: is it safer to make this journey by
>> bike? The answer appears to be a resounding No!
>
>Yes, but so what?
>
>Did someone say that cycling was, on a per-distance comparison, safer
>than driving?
>

Just 'safer'.

But it's what 'safer' means, isn't it? Even if you just say 'it's
safer than driving' the assumption has to be that you're talking per
unit distance - otherwise the claim makes little sense. Obviously, if
you drive millions of miles but hardly ever use a bike, you're more
likely to be killed in the car. But that's not the same as cycling
being safer!
The only sensible way we can compare the safety of different modes of
transport is on a per unit distance basis, as far as I can see. The
other approach would mean that the safest forms of transport were the
ones you never used!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Following up to Colin MacDonald

>If the populace is travelling 1bn Km by bike, then it's going to be
>travelling much further by car. Let's say 500bn Km. The rate for cars
>is 2.8 deaths per bn Km, giving us 1400 deaths.

Isn't the point, i'm at A, B is twenty miles away. Do I go by
bike or car, which is more dangerous? There's no point in saying
i'm not in danger of a bike crash because I don't use one hardly.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back