Advocacy & Safety - This beast can also roll over 42(!) times on unsuspecting cyclist (link to article)

Be carefull:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/03/ford.rollover.ap/index.html

You need to read that again it says 4 and 1/2 not 42 But yes they are a menace



EDIT: The article has NOTHING to do with a cyclist

BTW: I think 4 1/2 should be misread as 412 times, as in it fell off a mountain and rolled four hundred times to the bottom. :p

In the industry, I face problems like this all the time, unfortunately, the basis for designs is almost always the bottom line. And if that means making a crappy ass huge car that's unstable but gives people this primal sense of safety so they'll spend big bucks for it and ruin everything that's good about this world, then so be it.

"Schoville said Ford declined to follow its engineers' suggestions to widen the Explorer's wheel track or to lower its center of gravity -- costly changes that would make the vehicle more stable. Concern about costs also kept Ford from sufficiently reinforcing the Explorer's roof to protect passengers in a vehicle "they know is going to roll over," he said."

BTW: I think 4 1/2 should be misread as 412 times, as in it fell off a mountain and rolled four hundred times to the bottom. :p

In the industry, I face problems like this all the time, unfortunately, the basis for designs is almost always the bottom line. And if that means making a crappy ass huge car that's unstable but gives people this primal sense of safety so they'll spend big bucks for it and ruin everything that's good about this world, then so be it.

"Schoville said Ford declined to follow its engineers' suggestions to widen the Explorer's wheel track or to lower its center of gravity -- costly changes that would make the vehicle more stable. Concern about costs also kept Ford from sufficiently reinforcing the Explorer's roof to protect passengers in a vehicle "they know is going to roll over," he said."
Yeah they knew they'd need the money to pay off the lawsuits

If people want something that handles like a car BUY A FREAKING CAR

Geeze I drive a lifted '90 Mitsubishi Montero (can you say narrow and tall??) and amazingly it hasn't spontaneously rolled over or burst into flames yet... and I have dodged quite a few near accidents at speed...

If people want something that handles like a car BUY A FREAKING CAR

Geeze I drive a lifted '90 Mitsubishi Montero (can you say narrow and tall??) and amazingly it hasn't spontaneously rolled over or burst into flames yet... and I have dodged quite a few near accidents at speed...

Exactly. It's all about driving skill. It seems most people don't understand basic laws of physics. An SUV requires more attention to momentum management... something it seems most drivers never learned for any vehicle much less a high CG one like an SUV. Most of us who have rock-crawled our rigs understand these basic concepts.

Not quite so straightforward in an emergency situation. And just because you are lucky enough not to roll, doesn't mean you are some elite driver. I'm sure all the people who had roll overs didn't just swerve hard right and left in a desperate attempt to roll their cars.

Not quite so straightforward in an emergency situation. And just because you are lucky enough not to roll, doesn't mean you are some elite driver. I'm sure all the people who had roll overs didn't just swerve hard right and left in a desperate attempt to roll their cars.

There are plenty of emergency situations I encounter while driving offroad and off-camber. There are basic skills that help you maintain control and wheels down in such situations. The majority of people who flip their SUVs onroad did something really stupid and/or have no idea how to recover from doing something really stupid. I have done stupid things on the road too (who hasn't?) and have gotten myself into potential rollover situations but knowing how to deal with them and treating the SUV as a different class of vehicle helped me recover. You don't need to be an elite driver to be able to handle rollover situations... just an informed and experienced one.

There are plenty of emergency situations I encounter while driving offroad and off-camber. There are basic skills that help you maintain control and wheels down in such situations. The majority of people who flip their SUVs onroad did something really stupid and/or have no idea how to recover from doing something really stupid. I have done stupid things on the road too (who hasn't?) and have gotten myself into potential rollover situations but knowing how to deal with them and treating the SUV as a different class of vehicle helped me recover. You don't need to be an elite driver to be able to handle rollover situations... just an informed and experienced one.

Yes, driving safe is the proper thing to do. You are certainly on the right track thinking on how to make your driving safer.

The problem, as it seems to me, is that the system itself is unjustifiably prone to failure. The system of relatively narrow road and multitude of cars speeding on it.

The power of one car engine is enough to move about hundred of cars with the same cruise speed. It means - cars have excessive power and consequently the ability to accelerate dangerously.

Driving is not safe. And it will never be safe. Whatever measures are taken in the frame of the current system.

It seems strange to me. Because usually when people have a problem they solve it. Here we do have the problem of systematic daily traffic accidents, some of them lethal, and nothing is done to solve the problem in principle.

Driving is not safe. And it will never be safe. Whatever measures are taken in the frame of the current system.

Agreed. This is why I did not mention the word "safe" in any of my posts. There's really very little that is truly safe. This reminds me of a conversation concerning computer system stability. I was asked if it was possible to make a system completely secure and stable. My response was to tell them, "sure, just turn it off and unplug it". By that token being dead is being safe but of course the point's moot. The key here is risk-management which is something most of us do poorly in general and even more poorly when behind the wheel of an automobile. There are various disertations on this topic in aviation publications... an industry that has always promoted "safety".

I have met many people who are very clumsy, and if they drive like they handle other things, perhaps marketing an SUV to them is a bad idea. They now make Jetski renters take a short safety class before getting on the jetski, perhaps a short driving class for an SUV driver might be inline? We make truck drivers get training before they get behind the wheel of their rigs, why not these giant SUV's and Trucks, many of which approach a diesel tractor in power these days (in fact, didn't dodge have a commercial with one of their trucks towing a trailer from a full size diesel?). Heck, even motorcyclists have a special driving test to get a stamp on their license here, why not owners of larger than average vehicles with a lower safety rating?

Did you see the big fat smile on the pig lawyers face

I have met many people who are very clumsy, and if they drive like they handle other things, perhaps marketing an SUV to them is a bad idea. They now make Jetski renters take a short safety class before getting on the jetski, perhaps a short driving class for an SUV driver might be inline?

I have been advocating this for forever. I know that both Jeep and Land Rover offer offroad courses from beginner to advanced. Both companies have done a lot to provide for proper training including training camps. Unfortunately, those courses are optional. I was told about them when I bought my Jeep but I was not required to take any of them. Actually, I think every vehicle regardless of type and class should require the driver to be qualified against it. Buy a Honda? Take a course specifically tailored to that make and model.

I found it interesting when I came across a recent article concerning modern driving tips. It stated that many of the things we were initially taught in driver's ed such as gripping the steering wheel need to be modified. For instance, they advise a three and nine o'clock hand position and definately no higher than two and ten. They also advise against wrapping the thumb or index finger around the steering wheel. These things were taught as basic procedure to offroad drivers for decades in the Jeep and Land Rover driving schools.

Huh. I read that as 41 halves or 20.5 times.

Anyway, I'm just shocked, shocked that the Ford Motor Company would knowingly refuse to make their vehicle safer in order to save a few dollars. I wonder if Richard Grimshaw is surprised too (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757 (the Pinto case)).

who here would willingly drive a bronco 2?

I have met many people who are very clumsy, and if they drive like they handle other things, perhaps marketing an SUV to them is a bad idea. They now make Jetski renters take a short safety class before getting on the jetski, perhaps a short driving class for an SUV driver might be inline? We make truck drivers get training before they get behind the wheel of their rigs, why not these giant SUV's and Trucks, many of which approach a diesel tractor in power these days (in fact, didn't dodge have a commercial with one of their trucks towing a trailer from a full size diesel?). Heck, even motorcyclists have a special driving test to get a stamp on their license here, why not owners of larger than average vehicles with a lower safety rating?
Heck, they should require this for gun owners, too, but they don't... :eek: Beware the slippery slope.... :rolleyes:

PS-I'm with you all the way :D

(in fact, didn't dodge have a commercial with one of their trucks towing a trailer from a full size diesel?).

If I recall correctly, they put a disclaimer at the bottom of that commercial, saying that your vehicle is not designed to pull a big rig.

Did you see the big fat smile on the pig lawyers face That's an inflammatory statement and insulting to pigs.

(BTW, that wasn't entirely a joke. We too often scapegoat [d'oh! I just did it myself! :) ] animals when we condemn the conduct of other humans. But that's fodder for a whole 'nother forum.)

There are plenty of emergency situations I encounter while driving offroad and off-camber. There are basic skills that help you maintain control and wheels down in such situations. The majority of people who flip their SUVs onroad did something really stupid and/or have no idea how to recover from doing something really stupid. I have done stupid things on the road too (who hasn't?) and have gotten myself into potential rollover situations but knowing how to deal with them and treating the SUV as a different class of vehicle helped me recover. You don't need to be an elite driver to be able to handle rollover situations... just an informed and experienced one.

The fundamental problem is that the average high-riding SUV lacks the on-road maneuverability of even a mediocre car, let alone a sport sedan or wagon. To driving an SUV instead of a car on-road is to compromise your most valuable crash-avoidance system, i.e., your steering, which is often more valuable than even your brakes. Adaptive and variable-height suspension technology is readily available and it would help immensely if SUVs automatically sat a few cm lower to the ground in onroad/normal/2wd mode than in offroad/low/4wd mode.

<snip> Adaptive and variable-height suspension technology is readily available and it would help immensely if SUVs automatically sat a few cm lower to the ground in onroad/normal/2wd mode than in offroad/low/4wd mode.But that would defeat the primary purpose of buying a SUV: the reptilian "I'm bigger and higher than you - so I must be safer" theory.

I found it interesting when I came across a recent article concerning modern driving tips. It stated that many of the things we were initially taught in driver's ed such as gripping the steering wheel need to be modified. For instance, they advise a three and nine o'clock hand position and definately no higher than two and ten. They also advise against wrapping the thumb or index finger around the steering wheel. These things were taught as basic procedure to offroad drivers for decades in the Jeep and Land Rover driving schools.

3 and 9 on the wheel is the stanard in racing schools, so is thumbs out. Really, I think taking a level 1 SCCA race course should be a requirement of all drivers...the things they teach you in that course will apply to highway drivng and driving in general. Most of the course is all about proper cornering techniques (the way to enter and exit a turn as well as throttle and brake technique in turn).

as far as rollovers...that's jsut someone driving their SUV like it's a Go-kart...doesn't matter how craptacular a car's handling is, you gotta drive within the car's limits.

Be carefull:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/03/ford.rollover.ap/index.html

If it meets Federal safety guideline than how can they be found guilty? I drive a 2002 but I drive it differently than my wifes Beetle. I know I may get flamed for this, but i am just so sick and tired of our sue happy society.

But that would defeat the primary purpose of buying a SUV: the reptilian "I'm bigger and higher than you - so I must be safer" theory.

We've got a new one of those "budget 4WD's" over here which has an advertising campaign that says things like 'you sit up higher in a Holden Cruze'. That's the only thing they mention about the car, the fact that it's higher up than a normal car.

If it was up to me, I'd put some sort of tax on owning one of them. The majority of people that drive them seem to think they're invincible because they have 4WD - you see them speeding around in the wet, dodging in out and out traffic and stuff. They don't realise that if anything, it's more dangerous to drive one of them.

If someone buys a 4WD because they actually want to do off-roading, then fine, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people that buy one simply for the status, and never take it off the roads or maybe once take it on a gravel road and say 'there, I've been off-road' :rolleyes: The soft-roaders (eg. RAV4) are even worse, if you try to take them offroad they won't come back in one piece, if they even come back at all.

If someone did force the car manufacturers to put some sort of variable height suspension in them so that they sit lower on the roads, it would not only make it safer in the event of an accident or emergency, but would benefit other roads users too. It's impossible to see around a 4WD when you're driving behind or next to it, you just have to hope that they know what's going on and won't crash into someone, letting you crash into them too.

out tax system actually benefits some suv owner.

We've got a new one of those "budget 4WD's" over here which has an advertising campaign that says things like 'you sit up higher in a Holden Cruze'. That's the only thing they mention about the car, the fact that it's higher up than a normal car.

If it was up to me, I'd put some sort of tax on owning one of them. The majority of people that drive them seem to think they're invincible because they have 4WD - you see them speeding around in the wet, dodging in out and out traffic and stuff. They don't realise that if anything, it's more dangerous to drive one of them.

I think a lot of that comes from the current culture of "everyone else in the world is out to get you" that is perpetuated by the media generally in this country. That is actually the main reason I stopped watching the "news". I think most people figure that if they can somehow get a bigger vehicle than anybody else, it makes them invincible, and they can get away with anything. Of course, the type of marketing these companies do doesn't do a lot to reduce this perception.

As far as the tax thing goes, it might just be about to happen the way fuel prices are apparently going at the moment. Although, knowing the culture of this country, people will probably just whinge that it's all an evil conspiracy, or somehow somebody else's fault (here in Queensland they like the phrase "southern conspiracy"), and just keep on driving their gas guzzlers. Still, at least they'll give me something else to laugh at.


If someone buys a 4WD because they actually want to do off-roading, then fine, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people that buy one simply for the status, and never take it off the roads or maybe once take it on a gravel road and say 'there, I've been off-road' :rolleyes: The soft-roaders (eg. RAV4) are even worse, if you try to take them offroad they won't come back in one piece, if they even come back at all.

I don't know about down there, but up here recently I seem to be seeing far more of these things in the city than in the country. Of course, it could just be the goat tracks that pass for "roads" around here, but to be honest I don't think very many of them ever see any kind of off-road use. Probably no more so than normal vehicles, which are probably just as practical for that purpose.


If someone did force the car manufacturers to put some sort of variable height suspension in them so that they sit lower on the roads, it would not only make it safer in the event of an accident or emergency, but would benefit other roads users too.

yes, but it wouldn't sell so well.


It's impossible to see around a 4WD when you're driving behind or next to it, you just have to hope that they know what's going on and won't crash into someone, letting you crash into them too.

This is actually one of the reasons I consider a bicycle to be a far safer option in traffic than anything else. I can get through gaps and into positions nobody else can. If my view is blocked, I just move to where it isn't. The best part about it is that nobody else in the traffic can do a damn thing about it. Even if the wanted to, the suckers are just too plain stuck. :D

Good point about how it wouldn't sell well if it sat lower on the road. That would mean that it's basically a stationwagon with 4WD, and how many people are going to want to purchase one of those.

Sadly, there probably won't be a tax put on all 4WD's (note to Americans: replace 4WD with SUV) as not all of them use lots of fuel. The first to go will probably be people who drive a powerful car to tow a boat or a caravan (ie. a legitimate reason). Next would probably be old cars which use lots of fuel since they are unrefined. Then 4WD's would be taxed. I don't think that all 4WD's should have to pay an extra tax, just the ones which are used primarily for road driving. Of course, there's no way you can do that in reality though. If you did somehow figure out how to determine if it's used for offroad driving or not, imagine the uproar it would create. People would be sueing for discrimination or something, saying it's a right to drive a big car.

People here sometimes refer to those vehicles as Toorak tractors (Toorak is one of the richest suburbs in Melbourne) because everywhere you look when over there, you see these huge things driving around. There's all sorts of ridiculous 4WD's out today, like the Porsche Cayenne, BMW X5, Mercedes something, and so on. I mean, come on, who is seriously going to buy a Porsche and go driving through remote areas in the bush? Those are the sorts of ones that will NEVER go offroad in their entire life. It's pretty sad how every day, a new model comes out. It seems that almost every manufacturer is trying to offer a car bigger than the opposition.

I drive a normal RWD family sedan, nothing fancy, no 4WD. Just a car. It's been offroad numerous times and has coped pretty well. It's gone up a ~35 degree incline on dirt with little complaining. From my experience, there is no logical reason to buy a 4WD unless you plan on doing some serious offroad driving.

People think that driving a big car will enhance their image, but it just doesn't. All it does is make other people think less of them and question if they're actually trying to compensate for something else.

I don't think that all 4WD's should have to pay an extra tax, just the ones which are used primarily for road driving. Of course, there's no way you can do that in reality though. If you did somehow figure out how to determine if it's used for offroad driving or not, imagine the uproar it would create. People would be sueing for discrimination or something, saying it's a right to drive a big car.


I dunno, in London they have a "congestion charge" for people bringing cars into the CBD that seems to be working pretty well right now. Of course, it would never be a vote winner out here, and you could never accurately determine on an individual basis whether something is used for off-road driving (which in most cases is just as bad anyway).

If someone did force the car manufacturers to put some sort of variable height suspension in them so that they sit lower on the roads, it would not only make it safer in the event of an accident or emergency, but would benefit other roads users too. It's impossible to see around a 4WD when you're driving behind or next to it, you just have to hope that they know what's going on and won't crash into someone, letting you crash into them too.

Range Rovers have had variable height suspension systems for over a decade. Granted it's taken them this long to make them reliable. I remember the horror stories of the first generation air suspension systems failing in the RR County LWBs out on the trails and their drivers coming back with their teeth shaken out as they were riding back on bare metal-to-metal. As it is many SUVs have height adjustable suspension now not only in an attempt to improve handling but also for self-levelling when towing.