[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by GTO

Lets have that test again with a modern SUV which enjoys a 4 - 5 star NCAP rating.

I was replying more from an Indian context. the only budget options in India currently in SUV space are Ladder on frame.
In the fifth gear test, they said that even if airbags had fired, injuries to driver would have been much more.
A monoque body distributes the force all over the body shell, but ladder on frame chasis SUVs usually do not crumple gracefully.
Think about it, so many "tiny" cars have 5* safety ratings from NCAP, however most SUVs(Ladder on frame) make it to a max of 4 and the norm is 3. There are exceptions however to the rule

[GTO]

Yeah true, definitely not an old school SUV design versus a modern sedan. More so in the case of the Safari & Scorpio which, I doubt, have ever been crash tested.

But then it comes to modern designs - say the Mercedes M Class for example - and all things being equal (vintage, technology, safety features etc.), an SUV will be safer in a crash than a hatch or regular sedan.

[n.devdath]

So, on a so called "equal cost comparison", cars are better than SUVs at least with the current choices in the Indian market??

Also, like a few of us have pointed out, many cars that are cheaper than SUVs have gotten 4 or 5 stars in NCAP ratings proving them safer.

Coming to speed, are SUVs, again in the "equal cost comparison" scenario faster than cars on a mix of roads over long distances?

[Sawyer]

For the information of forum members, in many parts of the UK and Europe, SUV owners now have a hard time dealing with vocal and other disapproval from the communities in which they live. More and more, the only people that buy these cars are those that need the 4x4 capability for their farms and are very apologetic about driving these cars on other roads. Almost as much as smokers do, for the harm they cause to the environment disproportionate to their number, and for driving cars that keep them safe at the cost of others, SUV owners get a lot of dirty looks. This mass movement has slowed down SUV sales growth considerably there, and the US may be following suit.
Indeed in Europe, people are buying more and more hatches these days.
Like smoking, the auto companies continue to see the third world as a market where they can still sell SUVs, once SUV sales go into a negative spiral in their home countries.

[raj_5004]

when we talking about handling, braking, body control, etc., i feel SUVs are far behind modern sedans, especially the indian SUVs like scorpio & safari.

but in addition, i also feel that when these SUVs collides with a sedan, say a civic or corolla, there are more chances of the SUV's occupants to be relatively unhurt. this is not because the SUV is engineered to be safe but it is because of the height of the SUVs as compared to cars. i feel lower cars always suffer more damage. secondly, these SUVs are built of very heavy guage metal compared to sedans & hence carry a lot of inertia, so eventually its the sedan which takes the beating.

[musicmanaman]

Originally Posted by raj_5004

when we talking about handling, braking, body control, etc., i feel SUVs are far behind modern sedans, especially the indian SUVs like scorpio & safari.

but in addition, i also feel that when these SUVs collides with a sedan, say a civic or corolla, there are more chances of the SUV's occupants to be relatively unhurt. this is not because the SUV is engineered to be safe but it is because of the height of the SUVs as compared to cars. i feel lower cars always suffer more damage. secondly, these SUVs are built of very heavy guage metal compared to sedans & hence carry a lot of inertia, so eventually its the sedan which takes the beating.

I totally agree with the above comments.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by musicmanaman

I totally agree with the above comments.

What makes this worse is that SUV owners drive as if they totally believe this, and think that by virtue of this, smaller cars should give way to them, regardless of who has the right of way. Cars tend to bring out the worst in people, SUVs tend to mine deep to do this even more.

[freewheelburnin]

Here is my opinion... All crash tests designed by a european or American organisation are meant for driving conditions prevailing in their respective countries....
1)There are clear driving patterns and hazards in developed countries which can be taken into account easily during crash tests, for India we need more exhaustive models.
2)Trucks do not have a railing protecting cars from going underneath it....Here an SUV will fare better
3)If an SUV and car crashes.... the SUV will be unhurt because the car's crumble zones will absorb most of the impact and the SUV owing to more structural strength will stand strong .
4)Safety has two aspects one is avoiding the accident and second is how the vehicle fares in case of collision.In the first aspect cars will definitely be better.
5)SUVs are prone more to single vehicle involved accidents like roll over etc if not driven well...
6)In a much higher speed crashes like other countries SUVs may not fare better but as seen in Indian accidents on relatively lower speed indian highways SUV crashes were not fatal to occupants...

[shankar.balan]

This is OT but Sawyer's post made me think a bit and then rant a bit. Apologies for the OT.

in a way, we "third world" countries are just at the beginning of the consumption cycle (including conspicuous consumption).

the US, UK and Europe markets went through this era in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's AND upto say a year back.

Now that our economies are faster growing, our people have every right to consume as much as they want, as long as they pay for it.

I dont agree that all SUV's and Big cars burn the environment - todays cleaner greener technologies ensure that many of them dont.

Also in a sense, we can all see that the vast majority of these big cars are mostly concentrated in the urban pockets - think about the relative size of these urban pockets when compared with the larger mass of under developed, un developed India.

Im not for a minute condoning any adverse impact on the environment. Im only saying that after the Western World has continually burned the planet for centuries, now they come with these "holier than thou" kind of mealy mouthed statements.

Just consider what they've done over the last few centuries to rain forests in the Amazon area, the Wildlife and trees/ forests of India, the Teak forests of Burma/Myanmar, the cane forests of Malacca, Indonesia, Vietnam and Laos and of course other places.

Plus who created the Black Hole of Plastic waste in the Pacific ocean? The dear old United States of course, right from the 1960's!
Who burned a hole in the Ozone? - largely Europe and US, with their CFC spewing Fridges and AC's right from the 1970's!
Who still drinks up the maximum Petrol and Gasoline and Petro products? The US of course.
Who dumps perfectly good food and wheat etc in the ocean to control the prices and keep them from falling? The US of course. (The same food and wheat could have been shipped away to the poor guys in the rest of the world who are starving and famine ridden.)

Now in hindsight everyone knows all this is wrong, but I guess humans learn best from mistakes, by committing them and never second-hand!

I know 2 wrongs dont make a right etc, but I think also it is time that the Western World desists from this kind of "preachy advice", "motherhood statements" and "patronizing" sort of attitude, especially considering the wickednesses that they themselves have perpetrated for centuries.

We will figure it out ourselves - take Delhi and the CNG clean up etc! There are positives too!!

[greenhorn]

generally, a bigger vehicle is safer than a smaller vehicle in the case of impact.
Of course, everyone cannot be in a bigger vehicle. This will only lead to a sort of arms race where everyone tries to get a bigger vehicle , and nobody wins.

[alpha1]

I think there was a point being made earlier, which somehow got lost during merging of two threads.

It was about safe - not only for the occupants but also those who are outside.
When there is a collision of a pedestrian or a two wheeler with an SUV - the elevated platform makes this impact lethal - direct impact to the vital organs above waist.

Whereas a sedan because of its low height, has an impact on the legs and below - which is not as lethal as the case with SUV.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

generally, a bigger vehicle is safer than a smaller vehicle in the case of impact.
Of course, everyone cannot be in a bigger vehicle. This will only lead to a sort of arms race where everyone tries to get a bigger vehicle , and nobody wins.

Right on.
Ppl favoring larger vehicles for safety should also be in for the private gun ownership.

[greenhorn]

TSC Newsletter: History of SUVs a tragedy of the commons
Disinfotainment: SUVs and The Tragedy of the Commons

[pratim]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Cars tend to bring out the worst in people, SUVs tend to mine deep to do this even more.

Can't agree more; I have observed this with myself. Once noticed, I started thinking and ended up concluding that it's that ego of driving a "car" in Indian context brings about this negative attitutude. Nowadays, I try to avoid this tendency conciously.

Cheers

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Now that our economies are faster growing, our people have every right to consume as much as they want, as long as they pay for it.

Here's the thing - over the last hundred or so years of such behaviour, those countries have paid a very high price as well, for their deeds. In every sphere, including the environment, health and personal values.
We are seeing the impacts of the "consume as much as you want, provided you pay for it" philosophy sow the seeds of a crisis here too, as evidenced by being the country with the fastest growing rates of obesity and type II diabetes, CHD and other killers. While remaining the country with the largest population of people that die from malnutrition because of poverty.
So do we want to go through the entire cycle that these countries have gone through, where there is now a greater awakening to non material growth and values, including Eastern philosophies of life, while we turn into a fully materialist and consumerist society, and insist on our obtaining our fair and rightful share of damaging the environment? Or is there any sense in learning from their experiences and incorporating their learnings on our journey?