Electricity....why is it still called CLEAN energy?

[Rave]

Roads are for road vehicles, and pavements are for pedestrians.

Tell that to the 4x4 driver who's just mounted the pavement and taken out a bus queue because their vehicle handles like a greased pig. QED.

Anyway: Flibb- tyre width makes basically no difference to overall grip levels except possibly when it's raining heavily (assuming all else e.g. tyre compound is similar). G4z- the impact force of the vehicle makes very little difference to pedestrian safety, since unless they're hit by a sinclair C5 the pedestrian is always going to weigh an order of magnitude less than the car and hence are going to get accelerated very hard when they're hit. It comes down to the shape of the front of the car.

[rajagra]

Tell that to the 4x4 driver who's just mounted the pavement and taken out a bus queue because their vehicle handles like a greased pig. QED.

I'm not going to stick up for bad handling vehicles or bad driving. But...

I lost interest in that link where the Consumers Union "expert" said "We do the test without brakes or throttle, so we can just look at handling" Errr... right. Scientifically isolating factors is one thing, but deliberately driving a vehicle in a way it will never be used in real life is another. Brakes and throttle affect handling. They are part of handling to some extent.

They use an 8 foot wide path and say "The idea is to see how fast you can drive through the course" That isn't a test of safety. It's a test of how badly you are willing to drive. On a real road like that, a wider vehicle would have to travel slower. In fact, on a road like that the SUV would be safer - because it's width acts as a built-in traffic calming feature, it should be driven slower and accidents with pedestrians will be more survivable!

Since you mention a bus queue - how would a bus have fared in that test? Same road, same test should apply.

What was Top Gear's worst handling car of 2004? The Smart Car, the antithesis of the SUV. Did you see where they tested the cornering ability? It had no real control at all. They turned the wheel, the car continued straight forward off the track. Where are the screams of outrage crying "these things are dangerous, they must be banned!"?

I don't much like so-called SUVs (by definition a Sports Utility Vehicle should handle well, not just go fast.) But nor do I like people using false arguments to support them saying "I don't want one of those so you shouldn't be allowed to have one."

All I really want to say is that people should never discuss secondary safety features (accident survivability) in isolation. There's a reason they're called secondary. It's because primary safety (accident avoidance) is more important. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

[G4Z]

built in traffic calming..?

Are you for real?

Rave, I take your point that shape is a factor but how you can say impact force doesnt have any real effect amazes me, so the average person is several times lighter than a car but surely they are even lighter again compared to an SUV so damages sustained will be more.

[Rave]

I lost interest in that link where the Consumers Union "expert" said "We do the test without brakes or throttle, so we can just look at handling" Errr... right. Scientifically isolating factors is one thing, but deliberately driving a vehicle in a way it will never be used in real life is another. Brakes and throttle affect handling. They are part of handling to some extent.

True. Thing is though, the instinctive reaction of anyone who's not had a lot of practice driving a car to the limit (me included TBH, even though I consider myself a good driver in other respects) is to lift off the throttle at the first sign of trouble, so I'd say it is in fact a representative test for 95% of drivers.

They use an 8 foot wide path and say "The idea is to see how fast you can drive through the course" That isn't a test of safety. It's a test of how badly you are willing to drive. On a real road like that, a wider vehicle would have to travel slower.

I think you're missing the point, the avenue of cones is meant to represent a lane in a road; the actual swerving section is only coned at the entry and exit points.

In fact, on a road like that the SUV would be safer - because it's width acts as a built-in traffic calming feature, it should be driven slower and accidents with pedestrians will be more survivable!

In practice though, they are usually not driven like that. I spent an hour or so driving down narrow country lanes today and the 4x4s were a bloody menace.

Since you mention a bus queue - how would a bus have fared in that test? Same road, same test should apply.

Buses don't really 'handle' in any meaningful sense of the word, but every bus is driven by a trained professional. The same is not true of 4x4s.

What was Top Gear's worst handling car of 2004? The Smart Car, the antithesis of the SUV. Did you see where they tested the cornering ability? It had no real control at all. They turned the wheel, the car continued straight forward off the track. Where are the screams of outrage crying "these things are dangerous, they must be banned!"?

<shrugs> I wouldn't drive one. They are however slow, and unlikely to severly damage anything they run into (pedestrians excepted). But then I've never said I'm in favour of banning 4x4s.

I don't much like so-called SUVs (by definition a Sports Utility Vehicle should handle well, not just go fast.) But nor do I like people using false arguments to support them saying "I don't want one of those so you shouldn't be allowed to have one."

I quite agree. I do however think that the punishment for causing an accident should be more serious if that accident is made more serious by your choice of vehicle.

All I really want to say is that people should never discuss secondary safety features (accident survivability) in isolation. There's a reason they're called secondary. It's because primary safety (accident avoidance) is more important. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

Well I hope you did carry on reading the article past the comment about the handling test because the table showing the number of deaths per million vehicles is quite illuminating.

[Theo]

There's alot of stuff in this thread that is just flying right over my head... but seeing as I can see the words "cars", "energy" and "clean", how about Biodiesel?

http://www.hempcar.org/

[rajagra]

Well I hope you did carry on reading the article past the comment about the handling test because the table showing the number of deaths per million vehicles is quite illuminating.

Yes, it makes more sense from that point on.

[Brodieman]

I agree that electricity is a big producer of pollution... People think that buying an electric car they are doing their bit for the enviroment.. where imho all they are doing is relocating the source of pollution to the areas of the country that produce the power.

Wind power is a great idea, and from what I have read is quiet successful where it has been adopted, but it has it's limitations as they have to be put in areas that have a fair bit of wind (like the yorkshire moors, or just of the coast). The problem with that is people will complain that they obstruct their views or reduce the value of their houses.. (typical example of people not taking responsibility for the enviroment), but to an extent I agree, I wouldn't want to buy a house for £100k, and a wind farm built and they try and sell it and get only £80k...

HEP is also a great idea, but in this country we don't have the landscape to accomadate it (imho), yes we have vast rivers, but do we actually have the correct landscape to actually be able to get a large enough systems? I know some people have their own HEP systems on their property and sell off the power to the national grid, but these are small independant companies of individuals.

The user of concrete or equivilant is always at the moment going to be a source or pollution... it may create vast amounts of CO2, but what else are we going to use for foundations etc etc, yes I know about some other methods used, but they are not fesable in all situations. And yes I agree building regulations should be updated to enforce a strick rule of thermal and energy efficency.

When it comes to cars, personally I do have a car with a large engine (2.8L). People complain that they produce vast amounts of CO2, granted I agree partly.... large engine cars in towns do... regardless of type. I probably get aound 20MPG when driving in town.... but when it comes to motorway use my car comes into it's own. At a constant speed of around 70MPH i normally get somewhere between 40 - 50 MPG which I think is acceptable, and as I drove a lot of long journeys last year I think this is okay..

The whole lets charge people with bigger engine cars loads of money for road tax... That will never get though (unless the green party get in at the elections) Big John 4 motors (or is than chins) likes it large engined cars...

Anyway I know petrol companies dont want alternative fuel source cars but that hasn't stopped BMW developing a hydrogen powered car, whether it gets released is another story all together..

(lets see if anyone spots any potential issues with hydrogen power)

[Tumble]

Well my big old diesel burning smoky beast of a 4x4 only has 2 seats... and I don't have any kids.. gonna ban me from driving it? I actually know how wide it is you see, and don't take the whole road up in it. hmpf.. All for nuclear power tho - the Heysham plant, 2 reactors, 690MW EACH.. stable constant power. Nice.