Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Larger study required?
- Niel J.P. Fagan (24 June 2006)
-
Non-compliance in 4WD Vehicles
- Martin J Griffies (24 June 2006)
-
4wd driver behaviour: false security; handsfree phoning as dangerous as hand held
- Cees Wildervanck (24 June 2006)
-
A bad decision from an absurd person
- Phillip J. Colquitt (25 June 2006)
-
A logical hole
- John Adams (26 June 2006)
-
Observational studies depend on observational quality
- Andrew J Ashworth (28 June 2006)
-
Unsafe Driving behaviour : personality factors
- Tim O Parrott (1 July 2006)
-
Risk taking behaviors of SUV drivers
- Ediriweera Desapriya, Dr. I. Pike (1 July 2006)
-
Potential study flaws fuelling media hype
- Keith Greenfield (4 July 2006)
-
Is their unsafe behaviour due to the choice or the chooser?
- Peter L. Jacobsen (4 July 2006)
-
Other road-users' perceptions of four-wheel drive vehicles (SUVs) may exacerbate SUV drivers' risky behaviours
- Tony H Reinhardt-Rutland (4 July 2006)
-
Occupant protection capabilities of SUVs
- Ediriweera Desapriya, Ian Pike, Sayed Subzwari (5 July 2006)
-
Gender/recounting possible flaws?
- Alastair J Macdonald (7 July 2006)
-
No strong support for risk compensation
- Graeme D Ruxton (10 July 2006)
-
Some poor conclusions from interesting data
- Jon G Wood (14 July 2006)
-
Unsafe driving behaviour
- Roger D Mount (29 July 2006)
|
|
|||
|
Niel J.P. Fagan, Sup't. Uni of Soton, so17 1bj
Send response to journal:
|
I found the item interesting, but still leaving some basic questions: Has there been a comparative study of ALL large/luxury car drivers as a sub group? Why were the commercial vehicle groups not included? Both large car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers break these laws, often with much larger, and therefore if we follow the authors logic much more dangerous vehicles. Having been on a coach recently where the driver when not talking on his hand-held phone was texting with it, this would seem to be a very tailored study to achieve a desired outcome? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Martin J Griffies, Businessman Ardentia House, Stafford, ST18 0LQ
Send response to journal:
|
The authors suggest that unsafe driving behaviour by 4WD owners is a form of risk compensation. An alternative theory (and one that is borne out by many subjective observations) is that the psychological characteristics of non-compliant individuals, that is, those who are less likely to observe legal and social norms, are more likely to use 4WD vehicles. The converse also appears to be true: that owners of less powerful and smaller vehicles are more likely to observe legal requirements and behave in a socially acceptable manner. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Cees Wildervanck, traffic psychologist (independent) NL 9625 TG Overschild, Netherlands
Send response to journal:
|
Re this article I would like to point out two things. In the first place: the sense of security these vehicles give is highly misleading. American research for instance shows that these vehicles are involved in twice as many single vehicle accidents, probably because of their high centre of gravity and... the feeling of safety they convey. As far as the risk of using a mobile phone while driving is concerned: the article mentions that it is "already known on this topic" that "Using a hand held mobile telephone while driving is associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of having a road crash." This should read: "Using a mobile telephone while driving is associated with a fourfold increase in the risk of having a road crash." It virtually makes no difference at all if the phone is hand held or handsfree. It is the distraction and the mental load of the telephone conversation that count, not the fact that one of your hands is not available for driving. The fact that only hand held use of a phone is prohibited is because the police can see if you are holding a mobile phone to your ear but they of course cannot check if you are singing aloud in your car or talking to a handsfree telephone set. The problem is now that people are made to think that "handsfree is safer", which it isn't. A recent campaign in the Netherlands had exactly this motto, which again emphasized the poor quality of road safety education in this country. The ROSPA approach (for instance "Switch it off - Missing a call won't kill you") shows how it should be done. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phillip J. Colquitt, technician/driver Independent Comment
Send response to journal:
|
When a 4WD person parks beside you, you can forget about any view in that direction. When a 4WD person gets in front of you on the road, you need to create a bigger space just to be able to see ahead. When they get behind you, they are menacing and military. They don't need to be in a 4WD, it's just a way of being obnoxious. So no surprise they are alienated and anti-social, as they sense their own absurdity, worry about it, and begin to make mistakes. It's deciding to use the phone in the first place that is the symptom of a driver being incompetent. The crash just proves it. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Adams, emeritus professor Geography, UCL, WC1E 6BT
Send response to journal:
|
This article has a logical hole at its centre. The study shows convincingly, that drivers and other occupants of heavy four wheel drive vehicles are safer in crashes relative to those in smaller/lighter vehicles and to those on foot or cycle. It also shows that drivers of these vehicles use mobile phones more often and seat belts less often than drivers of other cars. But by conflating mobile phone use (that distracts drivers) and seat belt non-use (that makes drivers feel less safe) as equally significant exemplars of illegal and dangerous practices they have sown confusion and undermined the prospect of a constructive approach to road safety. They appeal to “risk compensation” to explain their findings; because the drivers of these vehicles enjoy a protective size and weight advantage, they compensate by behaving more dangerously. They conclude that as a consequence drivers of these vehicles put not only themselves but other road users at greater risk. They say “Drivers of four wheel drive vehicles were more likely than drivers of cars to break both laws [using mobile phones and not using seat belts], consistent with the theory of risk compensation. Although four wheel drive vehicles are safer in a crash, their owners may be placing themselves and other road users at increased risk of injury.” Using mobile phones and not using seat belts have opposing consequences for other road users. The distraction caused by mobile phones increases the threat to others, but the non-use of seat belts decreases it. As they note: “Deaths of pedestrians, cyclists and rear seat passengers increased (by 8%, 13% and 28% respectively) after laws mandating the use of seat belts in front seats were introduced in the United Kingdom.” They miss the logic of their own theory; by putting themselves at greater risk by not using seat belts, four wheel drive motorists place others at less risk. Both using a seat belt and being in a large heavy vehicle provide protection for occupants in crashes and thereby, according to the risk compensation theory, place other non-users and non-occupants at greater risk. John.Adams@UCL.ac.uk Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew J Ashworth, GP Davidsons Mains Medical Centre EDINBURGH EH4 5BP
Send response to journal:
|
The design of the study tested the null hypothesis that penalties do not affect the studied behaviours between the two times studied. It is unfortunate that the authors go on to make claims about the relative behaviours of those in different types of vehicle. Confounding explanations such as the relative height of the observer and the observed may have affected the results in respect of the observed differences between drivers. Observer position becomes an even more pertinent potential confounder since an argument is made that tinted windows may have had an effect: it is illegal in the UK to have heavily tinted windscreens or front side windows. Weather and light conditions were not measured, even though the second set of observations were taken during the dimmest period of the UK calendar and at times when the light may have been fading. No mention is made of the optical status of the observers even though their eyesight was the basis of the observations. It is not clear from the description how many drivers were using, or had available, a hands free device (though the assumption is that “use” constituted the observation that a phone was held to the ear). More expensive vehicles tend to have adjustable seatbelt fittings that may make it difficult to observe a strap between the user and the doorpost (making false readings of no seatbelt use more likely). The use of video or photographic equipment might have helped establish the accuracy of the observations but this would presumably have failed to pass an ethics committee on the grounds of confidentiality. No conflict of interest is declared but it is difficult to imagine that the authors have no personal interest in this issue as drivers, cyclists or/and pedestrians. Unfortunately, having already been published, the media have picked up on potentially flawed conclusions and they may now become part of popular culture. Competing interests: I walk, I cycle and I drive both my 4x4 and my wife’s sports car (both were bought with integral hands free systems) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tim O Parrott, Librarian Liverpool Central Library, L3 8EW
Send response to journal:
|
I write as a layman. The authors of this study suggest that risk compensation is a key factor in unsafe driving behaviour by owners of four wheel drives. In my view the personality of drivers of such vehicles should also be considered. A four wheel drive is a symbol of aggressive ostentation. People who like to show off their wealth and power are less likely to abide by normal conventions of behaviour - so as well as using mobile phones they will park on yellow lines, smoke in no smoking areas, or push to the front of queues. Safety features are unlikely to be a major element in their choice of vehicle. In short by their nature four wheel drive owners will break the law more often than other motorists. Tim Parrott Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ediriweera Desapriya, Research Associate Department of Pediatrics, Centre for Community Child Health Research 4480 Oak Street V6H 3V4, Dr. I. Pike
Send response to journal:
|
Over 30 million people have died in traffic crashes since the very first pedestrian death in 1898 and show little improvement in traffic safety in first half decade in 21st century. (1) A recent world forum for the harmonization of vehicle regulations revealed that when a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) strikes a car in frontal impact, there are four driver fatalities in the car for every driver fatality in the SUV. The problem is even worse in side crashes. When SUVs strike passenger cars on the side, there are 22 passenger car driver fatalities for every SUV driver fatality. (2) A recent British Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial has noted that two independent trends motorized countries are likely to reverse some of the improvements that have been made in road safety. The first trend is the aging of the population and its impact on traffic injuries and fatalities in the world. The second trend is increasing SUVs and its impact on overall traffic safety in globe. (3). In 2000 Road crashes killed over 40, 000 people in the European Union and more than 1.3 million road crashes involved personal injury.(4) In North America popularity of SUVs, Pick up trucks and even heavier trucks including the military tank like Hummer is soaring. Important reason for the popularity of SUVs is that people view them as providing better protection to their occupants in crashes. (5) This in reverse influence SUV and large pick up truck drivers to engage in risk taking behaviors such as non compliance of seat belts, speeding and driving while using cell phones (6) and similarly one previous study has shown that drivers responded to the increased safety that seat belts provided by driving speeding excessively (7). Rollover risk depends particularly steeply on driver behavior, particularly speed choice and number of SUVs roll over crashes and fatalities are significantly higher in North American roads due to speeding related behavior of SUV drivers. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that shoulder and lap belt use in automobiles reduces the risk of death by 45% and the risk of severe injury by 50%, while their use in light trucks lowers the risk of death by 60% and severe injury by 65% (8). In comparison, air bags reduce the risk of death by only 12%. Seat belt use has also been shown to decrease medical costs associated with motor vehicle crash-related injuries. Over 26 billion dollars in costs could be saved each year if seat belt use were universal (9). Motor vehicle crashes contribute significantly to the burden of injury and deaths worldwide and risky driving behaviors, such as drink driving, speeding, driving and cell phone use and non-use of seatbelts are considered responsible for a significant proportion of this global burden (10). Evidence based guidence to develop policies which seriously addresses the driver risk taking behavior, is necessary to achieve further prevent loss of lives on the road. Since motor vehicle crash-related injuries are a major cause of death, disability, and years of potential life loss the prevention of motor vehicle crash-related injuries would seem to be a particularly important priority for policy makers, health care industry, and insurance companies, in an effort to maximize the efficiency of dollars spent in health care. REFERENCES: (1) Desapriya E., Pike I., Raina P., Severity of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in British Columbia: case - control study.Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2006; 13(2):89-94 (2) World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicles Regulations- http://www.rita.dot.gov/agencies_and_offices/research/hydrogen_portal/speeches/2003_03_12_runge.html (accessed 29th June 2006) (3) Simms, C., O'Neill, D., Sports utility vehicles and older pedestrians BMJ 2005; 331: 787-788 (4) European Commission European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide. White paper COM (2001), 370, 2001. (5) White, M. The "arms race" on American roads: the effect of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks on traffic safety. J Law Economics 2004;47:333 -355. (6) Walker, L., Williams, J., Jamrozik, K., Unsafe driving behavior and four wheel drive vehicles: observational study. BMJ 2006; 0: bmj.38848.627731.2Fv1 (7) Peltzman, S., The effects of automobile safety regulation . J Pol. Econ 1975;83 ;677 (8) Halman, S.I., Chipman M., Parkin P.C., et al. Are seat belt restraints as effective in school age children as in adults? A prospective crash study. BMJ 2002; 11; 324(7346):1123. (9). Blincoe, L., Zaloshnja E., Miller T. R., et al. The economic impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2002. (10). World Health Organization-Facts about injuries: Road traffic injuries, World Health Organization, Geneva 2003. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Keith Greenfield, Clinical Research Associate Neurosurgery Research Group, Frenchay Hospital, Bristol BS16 1LE
Send response to journal:
|
Unfortunately the published results only add to the media hype about “gas guzzling 4WD” vehicles and their owners. A significant majority of observed vehicles in the 4WD group would have automatic transmission, whereas in the “normal car” group, the majority (in the UK) would have manual transmission. The majority of inhabitants of planet Earth have two upper limbs. Assuming that one hand is used to control the steering wheel, this leaves one hand to either hold a mobile telephone or operate gear changing. Drivers of “automatics” would arguably be more likely to use a telephone. Obviously the researchers were not able to control for this and I suspect that here we have an important confounding variable. It may be that we would need data from a study comparing manual and automatic vehicles before giving credence to the present results. I do not know if any useful data exists and would be interested to find out. Other responses have identified that seat belt status may well be harder to assign by a roadside observer in more expensive vehicles with adjustable seat and belt provision. There is even a problem evident in the definition of subjects in this study. A “four wheel drive” vehicle is one in which power is delivered to all four road wheels. This group of vehicles includes many estate cars and saloons, and also a good many sports cars. The term "off-road" vehicle could have been used, however quite a few estate cars are structured and geared for off-road use. The researchers categorised passenger vehicles into “cars” and four wheel drive” which is misleading. One cannot help but be wary when such a fundamental error exists. No table of included models is provided. At least they did not use the almost universal term “four-by-four” (4x4) which slipped into our language following a Land Rover advertisement (the best four by four by far. We must be grateful for that small mercy. I may be biased as I drive one of these vehicles, believing in wrapping up my family in girders to protect them as far as possible from the glut of dangerous drivers we have on our roads. Piloting a 2 ton steel brick should make one feel a sense of responsibility and care towards other road users, and sensible “4WD” drivers may be the safest on the road. Competing interests: Driver of 2.5 ton "off-road" vehicle |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter L. Jacobsen, Public Health Consultant Sacramento, CA, USA 95818
Send response to journal:
|
In the United States, pick-up truck drivers buckle-up less often, and indeed have the highest fatality rates. The National Highway Safety Administration asked male drivers of pick-up trucks about buckling up in an effort to understand whether it is the choice (pick-up truck), or the chooser (pick-up driver). The men reported that they felt protected by size of vehicle; nature of vehicle use (short, work-related trips); being "trapped" after the crash; and anger/resentment over mandatory safety belt laws. The men did indicate, however, that they are more likely to wear their safety belts when family or friends are with them; on interstate highways; in large cities; and in bad weather. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/RuralPickUpTruckupdate/ExecutiveSummary.htm Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tony H Reinhardt-Rutland, Reader in Psychology University of Ulster, BT37 0QB
Send response to journal:
|
As Walker et al show, evidence from the drivers of four-wheel drive vehicles (often labelled SUVs)is pertinent to the issue of risky road behaviour: the more insulated and "safe" the driver is from the consequences of his/her behaviour, the more likely he/she is to drive more dangerously. However, SUVs differ in one important way from the engineering features - seat-belts, airbags and ABS brakes, for example - that have often provided data concerning risk and behaviour: these latter are inobtrusive to the casual observer, whilst SUVs are immediately noticeable because of their great size compared with other private cars. The size of SUVs plausibly makes them unusually threatening to other car drivers, if only because visual size at the eye is a determinant of perceived distance: a larger vehicle is inherently more likely to appear unduly close (1). Hence, other car drivers may be more cautious in the presence of SUVs, which in turn may exacerbate the SUV driver's tendency to risky behaviour. In contrast, it is often anecdotally noted that small-car drivers are defensive in their behaviour, because small cars are more likely to be "cut-up" by other cars. Hence, official efforts to promote the use of small, fuel-efficient cars may be undermined. The issue of perceived threat needs more prominence in moulding road-travel generally. (1) Reinhardt-Rutland A H. Seat-belts and behavioural adaptation: the loss of looming as a negative reinforcer, Safety Sci 2001;39: 145-155. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ediriweera Desapriya, Research Associate Department of Pediatrics, Centre for Community Child Health Research 4480 Oak Street V6H 3V4, Ian Pike, Sayed Subzwari
Send response to journal:
|
Vehicle incompatibility has been identified as an important influence in the outcomes of modern motor vehicle crashes. Importantly safety designs that were effective ten or fifteen years ago are not adequate in today’s incompatible vehicle collisions. (1, 2) In United States 40% of new vehicles purchased are classified as light trucks or vans (many of which are SUVs). Preferences to drive SUVs and pick up trucks are shaped not only by individual choice (and belief that there is a safety advantage) but also by environmental level influences including economic and social factors. (2) SUV advertising rose nearly nine-fold from $ 172.5 million in 1990 to $ 1.5 billion in 2000. SUVs are frequently advertised as being “safer” than smaller vehicles, and give the impression of crashworthiness to potential buyers. This may influence drivers to engage in highly risk taking behavior while driving. However, one recent study has shown that despite the greater vehicle weight and the size of SUVs, the risk of injury for children in SUVs and pick up trucks are similar to that for children in passenger cars. (3) Popular misbelieve that SUV has capability of providing the extra protection ability in crashes is frequently reinforced by popular culture and for this reason; change of consumers buying pattern or promotion of safe driving practices among SUV drivers may not be achieved by health promotion and education strategies alone. Popular culture itself can also be a worthwhile target for interventions. We need a strict code of practice for motor vehicle advertising in North America, Europe and Asia where SUVs and pick up trucks popularity are growing. It should be developed, stating that advertisements for motor vehicles should not portray any form of occupant protection abilities unrealistically. Lessons from the fight against smoking teach us that business and politics have a central influence on our health behaviors and healthcare costs. A recent study has importantly noted that the vehicle manufacturers are missing an opportunity to promote vehicle safety in their aggressive advertising campaigns, a feature that consumers have indicated is very important to them. (4) Informing consumers of the false protection to its occupants from SUVs may represent a useful first step in raising public awareness. (3) We could also tackle the perception that occupants of SUVs are safer in crashes, as studies indicate higher death rates and a greater chance of roll-over in SUVs than conventional cars. It is in fact many families who buy these vehicles, unaware of their increased potential dangers over a regular car. The fundamental reason for a higher involvement of SUVs in pedestrian and other road user road traffic crashes is that SUV drivers feel better protected in their vehicle than in smaller motor vehicles. (5) REFERENCES (1). Rowe, S.A., Sochor, M.S., Staples, K.S., Wahl, W.L., Wang S.C., Pelvic ring fractures: implications of vehicle design, crash type, and occupant characteristics. Surgery 2004; 136: 842-7 (2). Desapriya EB, Chipman M, Joshi P, Pike I. The risk of injury and vehicle damage in vehicle mismatched crashes. Injury Control Safety Promotion 2005; 12: 191-2 (3). Daly, L., Kalan, M.J., Arbogast, B., Durbin, D., risk of injury to child passengers in sport utility vehicles. Pediatrics 2006; 117:9-14 (4). Ferguson S.A., Hardy A.P., Williams A.F., Content analysis of television advertising for cars and minivans: 1983-1998.Accid Anal Prev. 2003:35(6):825-31. (5). Desapriya, E.B., Pike, I., Kinney, J., The risk of injury and vehicle damage severity in vehicle mismatched side impact crashes in British Columbia. IATSS Research 2005; 29:60-66 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alastair J Macdonald, Clinical academic Ladywell House Lewisham SE13 6JZ UK
Send response to journal:
|
It's a pity gender of driver was not guessed at and analysed; if more Chelsea Tractors are driven by women taking children to school than other types of car, could recounting (as they return, as opposed to other cars going off to work or somewhere else) lead to bias? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Graeme D Ruxton, Professor of Theoretical Ecology University of Glasgow G12 8QQ UK
Send response to journal:
|
I think the study of Walker et al. on unsafe driving behaviour is valid, interesting and important for road safety policy. However, I am unconvinced that their observation of more unsafe behaviour by the drivers of four wheel drive vehicles provides “strong support” for the risk compensation theory. This theory suggests that because drivers feel intrinsically safer in bigger more robustly build vehicles, they can indulge in unsafe behaviours (e.g. not wearing a seatbelt, talking on a mobile phone) without putting their life unduly at risk. Plausible as this theory is, the present study provides at best weak support, because Walker et al’s observations have a simpler explanation: variation in personality or other traits linked both to car choice and in-car behaviour. The study would be convincing if drivers were randomised to cars rather than being allowed to select them themselves. There is a strong chance that traits that affect decisions about which car to buy also affect in-car behaviour. To take a simple example, people in their sixties are less likely to own a 4x4 than those in the thirties and are less likely to use a mobile phone at any time (whether in-car on not). Gender is another likely confounding factor, as are numerous personality traits. The current study would have been no less interesting if the interpretation in terms of risk compensation had been omitted. However, it should be possible to study risk compensation easily in a future study, since many drivers live in multi-car families where they routinely drive more than one car: the powerful test of risk compensation would be to make within-driver comparisons of the same individual in different cars. The theory would predict that I’m more likely to wear a seatbelt in the 1.0litre city run- around than the 2.5litre go-anywhere colossus. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jon G Wood, NVH engineer Jaguar Cars, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
Send response to journal:
|
I have the following points to make on Lesley Walker's report: 1) She states "although four wheel drive vehicles are safer in a crash . . ." What evidence do you actually have for this? The distinction characteristic between 4x4 and car in this research is clearly defined as off-road capability. You also quote UK research stating the increased safety of large cars vs small cars, particularly in inter-vehicular collisions. I suggest that any pattern of increased safety observed in US research comparing SUVs and cars has nothing to do with off-road capabilities and everything to do with their generally larger mass. There is nothing inherent in off-road capability that improves vehicle safety - quite the opposite in fact. Jack up the vehicle, raising its centre of gravity and reducing its stability, fit chunky big and wallowy tyres that further reduce braking and handling stability, and add some "big tough" style statements which add damaging momentum and no structural integrity. That's before you consider the obsolete technology that some 4x4s still rely on. Elsewhere you mention "the feeling of safety" which is far more accurate, if entirely misplaced in reality. Given the recent spin in defence of 4x4s, pointing out that some of the more popular 4x4s are smaller than the Ford Mondeo they would like to portray as a "typical family saloon" (the reality is nearer a Ford Fiesta), the SMMT and other lobbyists will soon have to decide whether 4x4s are small and cuddly or big and safe. Because they most definitely aren't both. 2) Lesley Walker has been quoted as saying "That means drivers of four-wheel-drives are 16 times more likely to have a crash than other drivers because they are four times more likely to use a mobile while driving" That is an elementary mathematical mistake. If the 2% of car drivers who phone-drive have a four-fold risk factor, the car driving population has a 6% increase in risk over 0% phone-driving (because the 2% will still contribute 2% of accidents even if they don't phone-drive). Likewise, the 8% of 4x4 drivers who phone-drive will result in a 24% increase in risk for the whole 4x4 driving population. 124/106 = a mere 17% higher risk - still something to be taken very seriously, but nothing like your sensational soundbite. 3) Whilst risk compensation theory is a valid argument, you have done nothing to verify cause and effect here. Would 75% of 4x4 drivers who phone-drive not do so if in a "mere" car? - that is what you are suggesting. Incidentally, what your survey observed is not 2% of car drivers continually phone-driving, it is car drivers phone-driving on average for 2% of their total driving time. I suspect the 4x4 distinction is merely one of association (or coincidence) - the sort of people who think phone-driving, seatbelt non-wearing etc ("scofflaw" is the best term I have heard) is acceptable, are the same sort of people who are likely to be attracted to the "exciting lifestyle" promises of 4x4 marketeers, and taken in by the "feeling of safety" argument. This is the same form of association that leads to red cars being involved in a disproportionate amount of accidents - the red colour does not make the vehicle more accident prone (mechanically identical, more visible than most colours), but the sort of people who drive inconsiderately or riskily tend to like red as a colour. I am delighted that the SMMT have been so shocked by this report that they have questioned its validity. Since most of their doubts are actually considered and disproven in the report itself, it highlights the knee-jerk nature of their response. Competing interests: I work for a car manufacturer. I also cycle a lot, and have far too much personal experience (on the receiving end) of negligent, inconsiderate and malicious driving behaviour. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roger D Mount, Director Alwen Hough Johnson Ltd EC3N 1AN
Send response to journal:
|
As others have pointed out, these types of research are flawed for many reasons. Apart from the fact that 4x4s/sport utility vehicles are predominately automatics, therefore making it infinitly easier to use a mobile phone in city traffic. It is, also, much easier to see a mobile phone being used in such vehicles. Perhaps the conclusions would have been similar for all automatics? As for seatbelt use; police evidence does not appear to support the conclusion (non compliance being at similar levels amongst all private car types). I drive a number of different car types and do not think that I behave differently depending on which one I'm in at any given point. What I do notice is the different attitude that other car drivers have to me in each car. The BMW seems to engender the worst in many drivers of other vehicles and for that matter, the police. This suggests that the reputation of the BMW driver is as much due to some sort of automatic aggressive response to BMWs as much as to the fabled aggressive drivers of this make. Perhaps an opportunity for more research? The Range Rover does intimidate some other road users but, as suggested by others, I think that this is due to an irrational exaggeration of its size in the minds of some people (most SUVs take up no more road space than a large saloon). The worst and quite common response to meeting an SUV, is to maintain one's position in the centre of the road believing that the SUV should go through the hedge. I generally get the most polite responses from other drivers when I'm in an Italian exotic. For instance, one is let out of side roads almost immediately. Other road users don't mind being overtaken by a Ferrari, Maserati or Lamborgini but, might challenge the same manouevre by an Audi or BMW. Anyway, I hope that this might provide fuel for more interesting research. However, I think that the main criticism of these reports is that there aren't the normal controls expected of proper scientific research. Which makes one wonder what value there is in any conclusions derived from them. Competing interests: Drive 4x4 and other cars |
|||