Posted By Jeffrey Watt
According to Folksam, the Swedish insurers, the humble ford mondeo is the 3rd safest car in Europe after the Saab 95 and Volvo V70, based on over 90,000 car on car crashs.

Turns out they have been feeding this info back to Saab and Volvo for years, possibly why they are so safety orientated from a design point of view. Volvo are now owned by Ford so I imagine Ford got a lot of expertise with that acquisition.

Just a point of interest I came across, thought some might find it useful.

AUG means I cannot post a link in the first post of a new thread so if you are interested just google "Folksam How safe is your car"

Kind regards

Jeff

Posted By Andy Walker
Ignore the 2nd andy it was a typo

Posted By Dave Dowan
Hi I have just looked at the site and I cannot find any information stating that the Mondeo is the 3rd safest car?
Dave

Posted By Stephen D. Clarke
I drive a landrover discovery for me it is simply the most comfortable drive, I wouldn't drive anything else. At 6ft4in when my back went 10 years ago it was the only vehicle I could sit in and I tried hundreds. Now I know I can drive all day and then get out and be able to walk upright. Speed doesn't interest me so its handling isn't an issue. I get 32mpg diesel and its regularly serviced but environmentally its something of a pariah but I would have thought that the manner in which a vehicle is driven is equally important when calculating harmful emissions.

Posted By Brett Day

Jeff, the Citroen Xsara had a one piece fold down back that could be 'locked'. Unfortunately the C4 which has very good Euro NCAP ratings doesn't have the same.

Posted By Andy Walker
You misunderstand Jeff I'm not talking about a big 4x4 I'm talking about a freelander sport which does handle just like a car, in fact better than a lot of cars I've owned and driven. It averages 32 mpg plus has the height advantage allowing far better visibility so despite the poor ncap score gut feeling says in general it is safer than the fiesta I drive daily.

Andy W

Posted By Zaphod
Don't get me started on 4x4s!! - too late you already have!

What about the poor pedestrians? What about lovely little children - who do not stand a chance on impact because of the high vertical front - and even worse the ball bars that you still see on many second hand 4x4s.

Then there is the environment. My Vauxhall Meriva does about 50 mpg diesel - so I do not regard 32mpg as impressive - and is probably way over what most 4x4s could achieve - especially the new breed of super-sized 4x4s

Finally, regarding the post about being tall and justifying a 4x4, I have a friend who is 6' 4" and loves driving mini's - I am a little person myself but I would question the argument that being 6'4" justifies having a child killing gas guzzler. If you were to hit a child, the consequences of that has to out-weigh your quest for a comfortable seat?

Rant over!

Posted By Andy Walker
Zaphoid

Child killing gas guzzler? I find this a little strong.

Considering the increased useage of LGV/HGV vehicles, people carriers, (of which you admit you own a Meriva) and pick ups used as daily transport. I feel your targeting purely of 4x4 drivers a little bemusing as all the aforementioned vehicles have a high vertical front, and most are not particularly economical. How many 'luxury' saloons struggle to reach 25mpg but are they considered pariahs of the roads?

I haven't had chance to study any statistical data regarding type of vehicle and fatality causation but my gut feeling says that normal everyday saloons would be number 1 due to their popularity and the speed they are driven at. I may be proved wrong.

As for bull bars, due to never having had to avoid either a bull or kangaroo (the purpose for which they were originally designed) in yorkshire I've never seen the need.

Andy W

Posted By Darren J Fraser
It does not matter if it is a 4x4, MPV or a mini, all vehicles are only as safe as the person driving them, how many people would pass a modern day driving test???? not many with all the bad habits we all pick up, I notice bad driving more than the average car driver, due to riding a motorbike and having passed the advanced driving test (insurance a bit cheaper).

4x4's had a reputation for causing injuries, mainly in part to the fact that when they first went into the mass market, people tried to drive them like a family car, and did not understand that the higher centre of gravity made them inherently more unstable. You try taking one round a corner at the same speed as a car and you will crash (it really is that simple - just think of the Suzuki Rhino when that first come out, if you went round a corner in anything but 1st / 2nd gear the thing tipped over).
As for bull bars, if a factory fitted item, the majority are of the same construction as bumpers (plastic coated impact foam), yet you buy after market and they are likely to be metal.

I am not knocking anyones choice of vehicle, but remember that it has been chosen for a reason..............

As for MPG figures, unless the vehicle is serviced regularly, constant speed maintained, equal amount of long / short journeys, that will change. If quoting from the manufacturers spec, forget it, that is under ideal test conditions and no two vehicles the same will ever produce the same results, why?????? engine tolerences, manufacturing issues, driver style, road / weather conditions at the time of the test etc.

Monday rant over.........

And I no longer own a 4X4 due to wife working at same company and therefore 2 vehicles no longer required.

Posted By Andy Walker
Ah but John I mean the industrial heartland of South Yorks where the largest wildlife encountered on our highways are usually small and furry or small and spiky (with the exception of the odd large dog or escaped horse) to use a bull bar would be overkill!!

Andy W

Posted By Merv Newman
Can't offer kangeroos, but I believe there is still a wild colony of wallabies in Bedfordshire.

Last time I visited the Renault test center I think they were throwing Scenics against the wall. Eventually the first family car to get a 5 star rating.

There is a current movement at european level to go for more "pedestrian friendly" car designs. A part of this is to continue the movement towards sloped bonnets that "scoop" rather than smash. Roo bars are already a no-no in some countries.

Peugeot are also demonstrating a "reactive bonnet" - When detectors indicate that collision with a pedestrian is imminent a sort of air bag system goes off to prevent said pedestrian's head from colliding with the windscreen. God knows how that one works.

Final note : French senior school kids have to acquire a certificate of road competence. Teaching includes wheelchair talks from victims.

And lastly, on a BBS note, isn't it a shame nobody ever congratulates you on how well you drive ? Not even your wife/husband/significant other. Actually, mine has been known to do it. Rarely.

Merv (Rover 75 diesel, 6 litres to 100 Km, 45 mpg it says)(wife drives a classic mini which has NONE of the modern safety features)

Posted By Darren J Fraser
Like the idea of a reactive bonnet - just imagine walking through a car park, bit to close to a parked car and bang the bonnet airbag has activated.
Bit like the automatic braking system from one of the German manufacturers - will stop you before you have an accident, and you do not need to touch the brake pedal - only works if turned on.

Prefer the old cars - handling was rubbish, kept breaking down but easy to work on (did not need a degree in computer science), limited safety features (seat belt),wind up windows, water leaks from the sunroof that never did fit properly, but they had character, aaaaahhhhhhhhh the good old days.

Posted By Zaphod
Sorry Jeffrey - I know this has moved away from your original post but as 4x4s have come up and been defended, I feel obliged to educate the drivers of these dangerous gas-guzzling child killing machines.

Here is a link to the Brake web site:
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=267

Posted By Alan Woodage
Personally I agree and disagree with the majority of these points. I know that doesn't make sense but neither do alot of these postings. I whole heartedly agree with getting rid of the chelsea tractor brigade dropping tarquin off 300 yards down the road to school. But get angered by being bundled in the same category because i drive a 4x4. unfortunatley a toyota prius hybrid or some other green eco safety bubble is not practical on large construction sites and civils sites as it tends to get stuck in the site entrance and never gets onto the job. Basicaly the correct vehicle for the job should be the policy not just shoot anyone who drives a 4x4. Actually there are more eco freindly ways of disposing of them.
Anyway as for the child killing etc where is white van man and the mondeo driving sales exec in all this doing 50 mph past the school to get to the next job / meeting. My new nissan is so soft at the front that i dented the bonnet the first tim i closed it.
Finally when you are 6ft+ try driving a smart car or other small plastic squidgy eco mentalist machine, bet you can't walk at the other end.
Needed a good rant having a bad day. thanks

Posted By Zaphod
Alan

I think we are aggreeing with each other - at least on first point about 'Tarquin'. I have no problem with 4x4s when they are bought for off-road usage - such as farms or construction sites. It's the worrying increase in their use for people that don't take them off-road that annoys me. As the link I posted said, they are more likely to kill children and have reduced visibility of small pedestrians.

I don't get your point about white van man. The fact that there are mad drivers on the road does not make any difference to the debate around whether 4x4s are safe. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Also, I think it's a shame you are quite derogatory about eco-friendly cars. I appreciate that cars are only a minor part of global warming equation - but any steps to impact on global warming has to be a good thing. It's a catch 22. Until buyers take an interest in eco-friendly cars, manufacturers are not going to invest the large sums of money to improve them.

Posted By Zaphod
Stupendous Man

Thanks for pointing out my 'complete ignorance' of road risk. I presume you believe the road safety charity 'Brake' are also ignorent - because they also criticize 4x4s.

Secondly, as I said to Alan, Two wrongs do not make a right. All you are doing in your argument is slingling a whole load of wrongs to justify 4x4s. I despise reckless driving what ever the vehicle. however, raising the issue of mad driving of other cars does not somehow magically make 4x4s safe by design.

Posted By J Knight
Alan,

I think the answer for why I blame the driver almost always is to do with power; any discourse about power is almost taboo in the UK, but that's the way it is. If a driver hits a child the child stands to die; the driver feels upset, loses no claims, and may get a fine if they have driven extraordinarily badly. In the words of the playground; that's just not fair,

John

Posted By J Knight
Stupendous Man,

I agree wholeheartedly with your summary; cars are dangerous but they ain't going to go away. Maybe what we need is to convince the general public just how dangerous their cars are. Most people in this country will tell you they feel safe in their car; yet 1 in 200 of them will die because of a vehicle collision. This perception of safety is, paradoxically, a lot to do with just how dangerous cars are; if people thought cars were dangerous they would be a lot safer because they would be driven more carefully. Back to the spike in the steering wheel, I suppose,

John

Posted By Philby'
Havent been here for a while as tend to respond direct to posters these days, saves upsetting folk....but, i just thought 'Ohh time for my bit of treacle to the 4x4/safety/environment debate

Anyone seen the panda advert, the 4X4 for people who DONT have kids called Tarquin....

well wife bought one, its better on and off road than the 2 Jimnys that preceded it, the Vitara, and the two Dihatsu (fourtak and sportrak) and better on road than the Suzuki 416 samurai...and wiped the smile of the volvo 'cross country' and BMW X5 following me the other day.

for what wife needs it for, the 100m round trip to York, visiting the two rescued horses she tends and the occassinal blasts up off road tracks to do some real mudplugging (alright not in the Panda but other cars cant make it up the track and freelanders, Ravs, etal, Volvos and Audis arent even allowed on the track..they class them all as softroaders) and still returns 45mpg off road, has secure locking for loads, is one of the class leaders for safety, and its actually very very competent compared with even much bigger 'on roaders'.

and, with all its incumbent features, it can safely go round the moose/child/accident...and you dont look a fool taking the daughter to school in an oversized superiority complex/sense of your own importance

hope I havent upset anyone with the last statement but we buy cars for the job they are to do..ergo..to and from work and on the farms/tracks etc

lecture over

Philby'

Posted By J Knight
Andy,

Afraid the 'nervous driver' bit is based on research carried out by insurers, as I recall; can't say about the rest of Brakes' page, but to restate an opinion, there is all the difference in the world between viewing the car as a tool, in which case a 4x4 may be the most appropriate, and seeing it as a fashion statement/vanity purchase which is what a large number of people make their car purchase decisions on.

The Land Rover brochure is advertising, don't believe it :-)

John