Ignoring the obvious

[new2ford]

This type of accident has happened often over the years. Major contributing factor, the design of the vehicle:

http://www.news.com.au/national/vict...-1227026370033

But of course they've inevitably nominated "speed" as a possible cause.

The guy made a mistake trying to avoid a rabbit (of all things) when he should have kept straight ahead. But the biggest problem was that he was driving a Prado - a 4WD with high COG - which inevitably failed the Moose Test.

For years my dad, who was an automotive engineer, was advocating additional driver-training in the use of such vehicles for exactly this reason, but it fell on deaf ears. So naturally anybody who gets a driving licence on a bubble car is free to also drive one of these vehicles which the manufacturers, of course, load up with a veneer of car-like qualities, thus lulling the driver into a false sense of security about road-handling.

A few years ago Wheels did a series of Moose-type tests on a range of cars and 4WDs and highlighted the dangers of these high 4WDs. In fact. I recall Prado came worst in the list and they actually managed to roll a Kluger. The more car-like Territory on the other hand rated much better.

If the authorities can get off their speed fixation for a moment (and I bet the guy wasn't exceeding the speed limit in this case), they might turn their attention to Primary safety in vehicles and the need for driver education with respect to those vehicles that fall short on that front. Maybe even a special class of licence like you need for a heavy vehicle.

Primary (or active) safety is to do with the ability of the vehicle to not have an accident in the first place. Secondary (or passive) safety is the ability of the vehicle to protect you when you do have an accident (the famous ANCAP scores). Secondary safety is now quite well-addressed, with many cars now attaining "5 stars". Manufacturers, notably the Asian ones, have paid far less attention to primary safety.

Meanwhile, moral of the story: never swerve in a Prado, or its less-well-designed equivalents. They're basically trucks and should be treated with respect as such.

[zilo]

Looks to me as if the car held up reasonably well, all things considered.
Just a case of being in the wrong seat at the wrong time?

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by zilo

Looks to me as if the car held up reasonably well, all things considered.
Just a case of being in the wrong seat at the wrong time?

What typically happened in these accidents before the use of side-airbags, was that the people in the outside seats would get brained on the side bulkhead, or even partly go through the glass and come into contact with the ground. The survivor was typically in the middle back seat. Assuming everybody was wearing their belts that is. I wouldn't know whether this Prado had side airbags.

[Nikked]

just run over the rabbit?


And that model Prado doesn't have side airbags, and im sure the front airbags were optional.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Nikked

just run over the rabbit?


And that model Prado doesn't have side airbags, and im sure the front airbags were optional.

And if it's not a rabbit you have to swerve around? Like a TRUCK think you missed the whole point.


And to the op.....I agree 100%. They don't focus on real safety aspects in driving situations. Such as "cog"......or not allowing fog lights but all of a sudden far brighter distracting daytime running lights become legal. Despite research done in the uk that they're useless at best.

These COG tests should be done on OUR roads(not test Tarmac) and up to the national speed limit. Unlike a small car safety tech spruicking test I read not long ago. Apparently these new speed and crash detection systems made the cars SUPERSAfE....till you read the fine print! "Tests performed at speeds of 10 to 25klms or some rubbish

[Boza]

shoulda just hit the rabbit and ate it later or feed it to the dog.
in all seriousness I do a of of highway km's and was always, told it's always safer to hit a small object like a rabbit or bird if it's not inline with your windscreen generally smallish animals a re safer to hit than run over.
Dunno how much truth there is to that I only ever hit a bird and a possum and always came out ok. a guy a trade school hit a roo in his xw well that was a different story

[malazn mafia]

Rabbit would have gone under a prado anyway and probably be unhurt?

[Franco Cozzo]

We where wondering what happened here as thats my neck of the woods, everyone has been talking about it.

You would have to reef on the wheel pretty hard regardless of if its a 4x4 to get it to tip over? I'd imagine reef on the wheel at 110km/h, as in 90 degree turn.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

We where wondering what happened here as thats my neck of the woods, everyone has been talking about it.

You would have to reef on the wheel pretty hard regardless of if its a 4x4 to get it to tip over? I'd imagine reef on the wheel at 110km/h, as in 90 degree turn.

The saudis seem to be able to reef the wheel, get a prado on two wheels at 100kph and have another bloke stand and wave out the elevated window at the same time.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

The saudis seem to be able to reef the wheel, get a prado on two wheels at 100kph and have another bloke stand and wave out the elevated window at the same time.

Plenty of videos of this failing as well. It is not pretty.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

We where wondering what happened here as thats my neck of the woods, everyone has been talking about it.

You would have to reef on the wheel pretty hard regardless of if its a 4x4 to get it to tip over? I'd imagine reef on the wheel at 110km/h, as in 90 degree turn.

Exactly...I wonder how much "trying" the car magazines have to do to keep up their ongoing portrayal of 4x4's and dual cabs as "dangerous...so you should really go back to buying those lovely normal sedans that keep our magazines in business...".

I drive Prados every day at work...and have done some interesting swerves to avoid roos at night (big buggers) while travelling at high speed. I wouldn't swerve to avoid a rabbit even in my Celica, much less a 4x4. The thing has never felt out of control or about to roll over.
The fact is, you swerve any car of any type at high speed in the right...or more accurately wrong...way and it can lose control and roll.

[tranquilized]

The OP is spot on.

These hideous lumbering tractors masquerading as cars are a death trap if any sort of evasive action is required at high speeds. Ok so death trap is an exaggeration but the high center of gravity means they're always going to be a lot more dangerous than a normal car, it's basic physics.

The accident in question was clearly caused by a combination of a severe lack of driver skill and a severe lack of vehicle dynamics.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Exactly...I wonder how much "trying" the car magazines have to do to keep up their ongoing portrayal of 4x4's and dual cabs as "dangerous...so you should really go back to buying those lovely normal sedans that keep our magazines in business...".

"trying"? umm, maybe because they are car magazines, not truck magazines, with content written by people who enjoy driving - you know, around corners and stuff, in vehicles with enjoyable dynamic and handling characteristics.

[2011G6E]

To which the only response is: "They're not sports cars, and if you expect them to handle like one, you will get into trouble".

And that's about it in a nutshell. Any car can be "dangerous" if driven improperly, any vehicle can be dangerous in certain conditions, and if you try to do things with a vehicle that it wasn't designed for, you could end up in a world of hurt.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

To which the only response is: "They're not sports cars, and if you expect them to handle like one, you will get into trouble".

And that's about it in a nutshell. Any car can be "dangerous" if driven improperly, any vehicle can be dangerous in certain conditions, and if you try to do things with a vehicle that it wasn't designed for, you could end up in a world of hurt.

Sure, can't argue with anything you've just said - it's common sense.

But what about situations exactly like this accident in question, where emergency evasive action is required? (or more accurately, not required but exercised anyway) These 4WD/SUV/duel cab monstrosities are demonstrably inferior to a normal car in executing these kinds of maneuvers, and therefore more dangerous. Just sayin.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Meanwhile, moral of the story: never swerve in a Prado, or its less-well-designed equivalents. They're basically trucks and should be treated with respect as such.

Moral of the story with any vehicle being small or large on highway, never swerve unless you really have to!!!
As for rabbits or any small animals on roads just simply run them over if you cant avoid them.

[Ford_The_Win]

I've hit dozens of rabbits and foxes over the years. I was always taught never to swerve for animals if they suddenly come out in front of you. It's unfortunate if you hit one but it's not worth risking your life over. I have hit a kangaroo once in an old XF Fairmont, just clipped it on the front corner...there's no way I was swerving suddenly on a gravel road to avoid hitting it.

[LoudPipes]

Growing up in the bush we were always told not to swerve.

Though the truth is that avoidance is instinctive and a hard reaction to override in the fraction of a second in which you have to process the info in front of you.

Hitting a large animal doesn’t always work out well, back in ’67 our neighbour’s son hit a roo, the funeral was a few days later.

What we did do was take a lot more caution at dusk and dawn when we knew the risk of roos being around and harder to see was much higher.

[turbodewd]

How can ANCrAP not have a rollover factor in its calculations?

The local commodore/camry/falcon could have claimed a 6-star rating over SUVs!

More could have been done to keep the local industry alive...too late now.

Now unemployment is 6.2 % and were worse than the USA....things are lookin dire.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

How can ANCrAP not have a rollover factor in its calculations?

They do test the roof strength to judge what happens in roll-overs.

[SSD-85]

Funny how we now need to advocate training for something that was seen as just logical/sensible/whatever not that long ago....

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Failure

Funny how we now need to advocate training for something that was seen as just logical/sensible/whatever not that long ago....

Who is advocating training for this accident?

[Hally]

A bit like Bug Damo, I live quite close to where this accident happened, and was out in town when the local fire and police were called out to the accident scene. Due to some recent tradgedies in our tight knit community of the past few weeks evryone was concerned it might have been local kis involved.

My initial thoughts when I heard that they swerved for a rabbit was disbelief. But when I actually heard more about the demographics of the young men involved (20 year old driver, city based etc) and the fact that they were in an unfamiliar car (the Prado was borrowed I believe), it made sense they swerve.

Based on my own experience, I would hit 3 or 4 rabbits/foxes/birds a year, and still my initial reaction is to swerve but then awareness takes over and I go over the top of them.

This was a sad accident on a good piece of road. However, can anyone tell me if it is legal for a P-plater in VIC to carry that many passengers?

[Crazy Dazz]

I've driven (base model) Prado's for over a decade, on mining roads and usually on truck tyres, and haven't rolled one yet.

I can however guarantee you that to roll ANY car, speed definitely IS a factor.

The problem is idiots who think that as long as you can hold it together in a straight line, then the speed you're doing is ok. Or that some sign stuck by the side of the road guarantees your safety if your speed doesn't exceed it's magic number.
There are most definitely some roads in WA, posted at 110kph, where only a crack-head with a death wish would approach that speed.

Without knowing the details, I would speculate that this may also be the case of a young kid, who got his license doing reverse-parallel-parking in a Hyundai Getz, suddenly being let lose on the open road in an unfamiliar car.

It does highlight a fundamental problem with our driver training, that seems bloody obvious, yet nobody wants to address. To get your licence, you drive some flyweight little lunch-box, perform some useless manoeuvres, and are actually rewarded for driving slowly and daintily.

To drive on many mine-sites now, I have to routinely re-qualify in advanced (gravel) driving. One of the skills involved is driving an SUV at high speed on gravel. On a recent course my instructor was a moonlighting cop, and he kept threatening to flunk a couple of guys for not going FAST enough, because we were required to demonstrate our ability to handle the SUV on a windy road, at a sustained 80kph.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

I've driven (base model) Prado's for over a decade, on mining roads and usually on truck tyres, and haven't rolled one yet.

I can however guarantee you that to roll ANY car, speed definitely IS a factor.

The problem is idiots who think that as long as you can hold it together in a straight line, then the speed you're doing is ok. Or that some sign stuck by the side of the road guarantees your safety if your speed doesn't exceed it's magic number.
There are most definitely some roads in WA, posted at 110kph, where only a crack-head with a death wish would approach that speed.

Without knowing the details, I would speculate that this may also be the case of a young kid, who got his license doing reverse-parallel-parking in a Hyundai Getz, suddenly being let lose on the open road in an unfamiliar car.

It does highlight a fundamental problem with our driver training, that seems bloody obvious, yet nobody wants to address. To get your licence, you drive some flyweight little lunch-box, perform some useless manoeuvres, and are actually rewarded for driving slowly and daintily.

To drive on many mine-sites now, I have to routinely re-qualify in advanced (gravel) driving. One of the skills involved is driving an SUV at high speed on gravel. On a recent course my instructor was a moonlighting cop, and he kept threatening to flunk a couple of guys for not going FAST enough, because we were required to demonstrate our ability to handle the SUV on a windy road, at a sustained 80kph.

What is a moonlighting cop ?

Safety is much about experience. When I first started driving, took the EL out for a spin along some harsh deserted gravel roads at various speeds, practiced recovering from oversteer and understeer, emergency braking and modulating throttle to regain control at speeds of up to 120kph. Was probably illegal but this experience saved me numerous times, once hitting an oil slick on a wet day turning left onto a main road, another avoiding a giant wombat at 110kph with 20 metres notice.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

What is a moonlighting cop ?

A cop is a slang term for a Police Officer.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

I've driven (base model) Prado's for over a decade, on mining roads and usually on truck tyres, and haven't rolled one yet.

I can however guarantee you that to roll ANY car, speed definitely IS a factor.

The problem is idiots who think that as long as you can hold it together in a straight line, then the speed you're doing is ok. Or that some sign stuck by the side of the road guarantees your safety if your speed doesn't exceed it's magic number.
There are most definitely some roads in WA, posted at 110kph, where only a crack-head with a death wish would approach that speed.

Without knowing the details, I would speculate that this may also be the case of a young kid, who got his license doing reverse-parallel-parking in a Hyundai Getz, suddenly being let lose on the open road in an unfamiliar car.

It does highlight a fundamental problem with our driver training, that seems bloody obvious, yet nobody wants to address. To get your licence, you drive some flyweight little lunch-box, perform some useless manoeuvres, and are actually rewarded for driving slowly and daintily.

To drive on many mine-sites now, I have to routinely re-qualify in advanced (gravel) driving. One of the skills involved is driving an SUV at high speed on gravel. On a recent course my instructor was a moonlighting cop, and he kept threatening to flunk a couple of guys for not going FAST enough, because we were required to demonstrate our ability to handle the SUV on a windy road, at a sustained 80kph.

If they were coming back from Bendigo on the Calder there isn't any really sharp bends along the Calder I can think of, ita a dual lane highway in both directions in pretty good condition too.

Speed on the freeway is 110km/h

[Danny]

007 rolled an Aston swerving to miss a chick in Casino Royale. So the problem is rife and can present itself no matter what car you drive.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by Danny

007 rolled an Aston swerving to miss a chick in Casino Royale. So the problem is rife and can present itself no matter what car you drive.

not sure if serious...

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Nikked

not sure if serious...

S'ok, Danny's only peeved because James Bond drove a proper car instead of a Renault.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Danny

007 rolled an Aston swerving to miss a chick in Casino Royale. So the problem is rife and can present itself no matter what car you drive.

Hahaha this is gold