Ignoring the obvious

[Nikked]

Did wheels roll a territory?

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Did wheels roll a territory?

Exactly - a Kluger. Higher centre of gravity, so less stability in sudden changes of direction. Not all vehicles are the same. The higher the COG the easier it is to put it outside one of the front wheels in a sudden manoeuvre. Don't have to hit the dirt to do this, it can happen on hard surface. Twitch the wheel too much and too quickly and the force of physics will take the wheel out of your hands and you're unable to correct. That's what this young driver would have found.

They should address the dynamics of higher vehicles on the open road in driver training since a basic licence allows you to drive these. Learning on a Getz or whatever on suburban roads isn't enough.

[Olbucko]

The only thing that you that you should risk swerving for is a person, far better to risk damaging your car and injuring yourself than killing someone.
Many people in the bush deliberately run over feral animals such as foxes and rabbits, as a landowner you are obliged to kill the if they are on your land.

I find that 80kph is about the fastest that you can go on a narrow dirt road if you want to avoid hitting animals, especially at dawn, dusk, and very late at night.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

What is a moonlighting cop ?

A cop is a slang term for a Police Officer.

[V8 6I]

Many years ago I was driving thru a country town on a main highway when I seen a small group of children crossing the road ahead but very slowly,They were followed by a cat,By the time I got to where they were they still had not crossed the road so I gave them a toot.The cat then did a U turn and ran under my cars front right wheel,at that moment I lost complete control of the car which then turned left towards a telephone pole but as my speed was low I stopped just short of hitting it.So even running small livestock over can have bad endings.This time it was the cat and not me.

[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

[galaxy xr8]

I was following a Prado once on a narrow country road, both of us doing just above 100k, when we started to creep up on a ute with a trailer in front, which was driven by a young farmer, this ute driver put his indicator on to turn left into a paddock, at this stage the Prado and I were still a few hundred metres behind but creeping up fast.
As the Prado driver reached close enough to the ute, they went out onto the middle of the road towards the other side of the road as the ute driver was not getting of the road as of yet, as they approached the ute driver all of a sudden started to turn right and manoeuvre into a driveway on the right hand side of the road.

At this stage the Prado was virtually at overtaking stage or in the early process of doing so and in the blink of an eye the driver had to take evasive driving actions and immediately turned to the left to avoid hitting the turning ute and ended up in the rough/dirt edges just of the road and started to head into the culvert.

All of this happened at around 100 klms an hr, when I pulled over to check the driver of the Prado, it was a very scared and horrified middle aged woman with her young child in the back, she didn’t know what had happened and was hysterical.

Quite easily the vehicle could have rolled in that instance but not once did it look like it was going to, all the DSC and VCS went into action and I could see from my view that the vehicle never once looked like it was going to roll over, even when it hit the dirt and culvert.

So no I don’t believe a Prado is what the OP makes it out to be, driver era has a lot to do with how most if not all incidents like the one mentioned in the OP occur.

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

I was following a Prado once on a narrow country road, both of us doing just above 100k, when we started to creep up on a ute with a trailer in front, which was driven by a young farmer, this ute driver put his indicator on to turn left into a paddock, at this stage the Prado and I were still a few hundred metres behind but creeping up fast.
As the Prado driver reached close enough to the ute, they went out onto the middle of the road towards the other side of the road as the ute driver was not getting of the road as of yet, as they approached the ute driver all of a sudden started to turn right and manoeuvre into a driveway on the right hand side of the road.

At this stage the Prado was virtually at overtaking stage or in the early process of doing so and in the blink of an eye the driver had to take evasive driving actions and immediately turned to the left to avoid hitting the turning ute and ended up in the rough/dirt edges just of the road and started to head into the culvert.

All of this happened at around 100 klms an hr, when I pulled over to check the driver of the Prado, it was a very scared and horrified middle aged woman with her young child in the back, she didn’t know what had happened and was hysterical.

Quite easily the vehicle could have rolled in that instance but not once did it look like it was going to, all the DSC and VCS went into action and I could see from my view that the vehicle never once looked like it was going to roll over, even when it hit the dirt and culvert.

So no I don’t believe a Prado is what the OP makes it out to be, driver era has a lot to do with how most if not all incidents like the one mentioned in the OP occur.

If your are silly enough to be doing 100 on a narrow country road and you see a farmer's ute and a trailer in the middle of the road indicating, the first thing to do is back off and try and work out what he is going to do, farmers towing trailers are about as predictable as kangaroos, never assume that because he is indicating left that he is going to go left. (The indicator may have been on since he drove it out of the shed 10 minutes earlier)

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

If your are silly enough to be doing 100 on a narrow country road and you see a farmer's ute and a trailer in the middle of the road indicating, the first thing to do is back off and try and work out what he is going to do, farmers towing trailers are about as predictable as kangaroos, never assume that because he is indicating left that he is going to go left. (The indicator may have been on since he drove it out of the shed 10 minutes earlier)

I think you should re-read my post mate..

Since when is doing 100 k on a narrow country road deemed silly ?.

Also the ute/young farmer was not in the middle of the road, he was driving on the left as you do in Australia, it wasn’t until the prado driver was virtually on top of him when he proceeded to turn right when he indicated to turn left, no different to following any car in front that has intentions to turn.

But yes I sat back and watched it all unfold in front of me and seen how easily it could have turned sour.

[ronnas07]

Originally Posted by Nova 8

Who turns for a rabbit, hit it and go back and grab him for crab bait.

Its like swerving to miss a cane toad... just hit the pest, do your bit for the environment

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

all the DSC and VCS went into action

The Prado and its ilk started getting loaded with all this stuff in recent years after previous bad publicity so, yes, newer models are no doubt less prone to becoming unstuck than previous models. The Asian manufacturers do have a tendency, though, to be reactive in introducing such improvements, whereas the European and Australian manufacturers tend to be more proactive.

But it doesn't negate the underlying issue that driver training should encompass the principles of driving such vehicles since the class of licence you can get on a Getz also allows you to drive light trucks with a higher COG.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by new2ford

The Prado and its ilk started getting loaded with all this stuff in recent years after previous bad publicity so, yes, newer models are no doubt less prone to becoming unstuck than previous models. The Asian manufacturers do have a tendency, though, to be reactive in introducing such improvements, whereas the European and Australian manufacturers tend to be more proactive.

But it doesn't negate the underlying issue that driver training should encompass the principles of driving such vehicles since the class of licence you can get on a Getz also allows you to drive light trucks with a higher COG.

What bad publicity ?.

They just evolved as did most other vehicles with DSC/VSC, the Falcon never had traction control standard in all model’s until recent year’s as well.
It’s all just safety devices that vehicles have evolved to now come with, and Toyota has been quite good at delivering such safety devices into their car’s, they are just as proactive if not more so then Australian made vehicles.

Driver’s don’t need a special licence to drive a SUV/4WD, what kind of tool would think that, all they need is common sense, But then again most driver’s these day’s lack that no matter what vehicle they drive.

[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.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by galaxy xr8

I think you should re-read my post mate..

Since when is doing 100 k on a narrow country road deemed silly ?

Since mens' brains grew large enough for them to walk upright.

[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.

[Kryton]

So much ignorance in one thread.

[ILLaViTaR]

Oh well time to look at the positives. If this keeps happening maybe I'll actually be able to afford a house in Hawthorn or Richmond along with the rest of the people who actually grew up here.

Our grandparents would be happy their grandkids get to live in Clyde North while the premium district they built with their own bare hands becomes a chinese expressway to the airport (poor Franga).

[Franco Cozzo]

Unfortunately it wasn't their car, they were borrowing it from someone else.

7 Inexperienced kids in the car from Melbourne behind the wheel of someone elses 4x4 on a country highway, good intentions to avoid killing an animal and it turned to poo.

Maybe time to change licensing requirements?

Why can someone like me who has been driving in small FWD cars such as Fiesta/Focus be able to borrow someones F350 one day when I want to load it up with 6 people and a tonne of crap in the back and do 110km/h on some place I've never been before?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Unfortunately it wasn't their car, they were borrowing it from someone else.

7 Inexperienced kids in the car from Melbourne behind the wheel of someone elses 4x4 on a country highway, good intentions to avoid killing an animal and it turned to poo.

Maybe time to change licensing requirements?

Why can someone like me who has been driving in small FWD cars such as Fiesta/Focus be able to borrow someones F350 one day when I want to load it up with 6 people and a tonne of crap in the back and do 110km/h on some place I've never been before?

FFS if you cannot handle F350, Prado or any other SUV then hand your licence back in.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by trublu

FFS if you cannot handle F350, Prado or any other SUV then hand your licence back in.

I agree. If Kramer wasn't able to drive that bus there's absolutely no way that woman would've got her pinky toe re-attached in time.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by trublu

FFS if you cannot handle F350, Prado or any other SUV then hand your licence back in.

Who said I couldn't?

These kids couldn't, problem with the system.

I did all my hours on my Ls cruising on country highways and got my license in Sunbury, I only learned what to do at traffic lights and who has right of way when I was driving customers cars through South Melbourne when I was working at a car dealership

[1TUFFUTE]

The monash university did a massive multi million car crash compilation to find the safest cars on our roads. Most will remember that at the time the FG falcon was rated the safest. Zero light cars were deemed safe at all......with only 1 4wd rating well from memory.
The results were redone last year I think and quite a few more people movers,large sedans,4wds and SUVs have stepped up big time in the rankings.....too become "safe picks". Including one of the newer prados.....oh and the territory for the terry fans
The BMW x5 (06-08 but not the newer models, to the bewilderment of BMW)took the overall top spot from the falcon with the new adjust scores.

So while older SUVs and top heavy 4wds have been PROVEN to be in more dangerous accidents(no doubt rollovers included)..... The new models are DEFF FAR safer then the older ones.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

The monash university did a massive multi million car crash compilation to find the safest cars on our roads. Most will remember that at the time the FG falcon was rated the safest. Zero light cars were deemed safe at all......with only 1 4wd rating well from memory.
The results were redone last year I think and quite a few more people movers,large sedans,4wds and SUVs have stepped up big time in the rankings.....too become "safe picks". Including one of the newer prados.....oh and the territory for the terry fans
The BMW x5 (06-08 but not the newer models, to the bewilderment of BMW)took the overall top spot from the falcon with the new adjust scores.

So while older SUVs and top heavy 4wds have been PROVEN to be in more dangerous accidents(no doubt rollovers included)..... The new models are DEFF FAR safer then the older ones.

re-read the OP, in particular the part about primary vs secondary safety. These crash tests to my understanding typically involve throwing a car at a concrete wall at a particular speed, in the process completely bypassing and ignoring the primary safety attributes of the car being tested.

[XR Martin]

I think the Monash study was on real World crashes.

[tranquilized]

Ahh yep I just found another thread by 1TUFFUTE with a link to the study.

But see the study still only looked at accidents that had already happened - there was zero consideration to the fact that the accidents may have been avoided altogether had the vehicles involved had better primary safety attributes.

This was hinted at by Volvo and Mercedes Benz who didn't rate well - because their cars don't crash as often. The newer X5 didn't rate either, while the older one did - because a lot more of them had crashed, thereby providing data for the study.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Ahh yep I just found another thread by 1TUFFUTE with a link to the study.

But see the study still only looked at accidents that had already happened - there was zero consideration to the fact that the accidents may have been avoided altogether had the vehicles involved had better primary safety attributes.

This was hinted at by Volvo and Mercedes Benz who didn't rate well - because their cars don't crash as often. The newer X5 didn't rate either, while the older one did - because a lot more of them had crashed, thereby providing data for the study.

That's not totally correct. BMW were bemused as to why their older model out performed the newer one. This is because a massive majority of accidents are exactly that........accidents. There is a very small percentage of cars on the roads even now that have new legitimate dangerous speed accident prevention systems.
One of the latest reviews of small car crash avoidance was busted wide open when it was discovered the max speed of the tests and safety gear was like 30klms or something stupid. That speed probably accounts for about 1% of injury incidents. Sooooo...just gimmicks to lift the Ancap rating and fool the masses.