"Chelsea tractors" are far less likely to be involved in crashes than other cars because their drivers are safer, says a new study.
The study contrasts with claims by anti-4X4 campaigners, who say the vehicles are involved in a quarter more accidents than "ordinary" cars.
Today's study by the Transport Research Laboratory shows the collision rate for 4X4s is 30 per cent lower.
However pedestrians, motorcyclists and drivers of small cars are more seriously hurt when hit by large 4X4s. Small 4X4s are no more dangerous in an accident.
The study, obtained by the Standard, was commissioned by Transport for London.
Today the Institute of Advanced Motorists said the low collision rate was because 4X4s were often bought by drivers for transporting their families.
"One reason people buy sport utility vehicles [4x4s] is they think they will be safer," said Kevin Delaney, head of road safety of the IAM. "They are looking for a safe journey for themselves and their familiesand drive accordingly." The study draws a clear distinction between small and large cars. It says big 4X4s are "more dangerous" to drivers of small cars.
For pedestrians hit by a big 4X4 there's a 26 per cent chance of injury compared to a 22 per cent chance when hit by a small 4X4 and a 21 per cent chance when hit by a car.
Nigel Wonnacott, of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said: "Drivers in a 4X4 are higher up and react to hazards further down the road because they see them sooner. Around 70 per cent of them have active safety systems compared to up to 40 per cent of cars."
A TfL spokesperson said: "Our research shows large 4X4s are more likely to cause death or serious injury when involved in an accident."
okay, you can remove anything nigel wonnacott says because he is employed by the industry. i've seen him on tv programmes making this argument and it never holds water because it's what happens in an accident that is important. and that 70% figure refers to new cars, not cars on the road now.
and comparing 4x4s driven by families to All THe Rest Of THe Cars In The World and concluding they are safer isn't relevant unless you have the accompanying figs for other family cars. you've got to exclude the boy racers, no sense in lumping them in with all non 4x4 owning drivers.
on that ITV john Sargent programme they did compare the volvo with the woman's 4x4 and found it cheaper to run, bigger inside and safer, as i recall. but she didn't want it cos it wasn't shiny and intimidating.
seems to me this 'A TfL spokesperson said: "Our research shows large 4X4s are more likely to cause death or serious injury when involved in an accident' is the more relevant piece of information in that article.
seriously, ask any journalist, this isn't a story, it's filler. i could take the same literature and find you the opposite story. what we need are the figures from the research, an article in the standard isn't real.