New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[mpinco]

You still haven't shown how a pedestrian friendly front makes it more lethal than a non-friendly front. Dead KSI or not. What you have "established" is that people can still die if hit by a vehicle regardless of the front. Well, duh.

Edit: Btw, the following is awfully convenient (even though it doesn't support your argument at all):

Last reply on the subject:

Collision course: why are cars killing more and more pedestrians?
Guardian
Thu 3 Oct 2019

"....Through the 90s and 00s, the pedestrian death count had declined almost every year. ...

.....The US road death statistics of the last decade have blasted a hole in that theory. (A similar trend has been observed with regards to the country’s cyclists: a recent analysis found that cyclist fatalities decreased through the 80s, 90s and 00s, but since 2010 have increased 25%, with 777 cyclists killed in 2017.)

Trouble, albeit of a less dramatic sort, has also been brewing in the UK and western European countries, long seen as bastions of pedestrian-friendly (and cyclist-friendly) conditions. Through the 70s and 80s, these countries’ fatality rates were just as bad as America’s, or worse. But, since then, their progress has been more substantial and more enduring. The problem is that, since 2010, that progress has mostly sputtered to a halt. In general, the fatality numbers are not going down......

.....An older variety of sensor, made available in 2005, had equipped some cars to sense pedestrian collisions while they were in progress and, in response, pop up their hoods a few inches, creating a “crumple zone” between the bonnet and the hard machinery inside, making for a softer landing. But these systems had been sold only in Europe, and they did nothing to stop cars from hitting pedestrians in the first place .......

.....At first glance, this all sounds like a long-overdue corrective to the car-first chauvinism that has made American roads so deadly. But none of the safety experts I spoke to were terribly excited about pedestrian avoidance technology. ......."

So even the EU, with the all the regulation and avoidance technology, is seeing an increase in pedestrian deaths. The article goes on the blame urban design but the data on the street (literally) highlights the inebriated or mentally ill pedestrian, at least here in Colorado. It's common practice to give the homeless a wide bearth when you can see them. The problem is at night when they are roaming.

At least for the US homelessness has significantly increased over the last decade as have the vehicle / pedestrian encounters. Frontal design changes is a bandaid (no pun intended) on the real issue. Reducing urban speeds to minimize lethality is also not an option.

Now in the high country we have a significant level of vehicle / wildlife encounters, usually at high speed. Large deer/elk, while killed, sometimes also kill the vehicle occupants. Solution? Stout bull bars angled down and tall wire fences with wildlife crossing mounds every mile or so. Should we be fencing off the pedestrians?

 

[Pilat]

Nope, still nothing in there to support your assertion that pedestrian friendly fronts on vehicles cause MORE harm than non-friendly fronts. I like how it is evident you googled for something without actually reading it.

And the part you bolded (apart from the headline) talks about how UK and European COUNTRIES being "pedestrian friendly" (and cyclist-friendly).
There is absolutely nothing in your quote to support your ridiculous assertion that pedestrian-friendly fronts on cars cause MORE harm than a non-pedestrian-friendly front.

Last reply on the subject:

Collision course: why are cars killing more and more pedestrians?
Guardian
Thu 3 Oct 2019

"....Through the 90s and 00s, the pedestrian death count had declined almost every year. ...

.....The US road death statistics of the last decade have blasted a hole in that theory. (A similar trend has been observed with regards to the country’s cyclists: a recent analysis found that cyclist fatalities decreased through the 80s, 90s and 00s, but since 2010 have increased 25%, with 777 cyclists killed in 2017.)

Trouble, albeit of a less dramatic sort, has also been brewing in the UK and western European countries, long seen as bastions of pedestrian-friendly (and cyclist-friendly) conditions. Through the 70s and 80s, these countries’ fatality rates were just as bad as America’s, or worse. But, since then, their progress has been more substantial and more enduring. The problem is that, since 2010, that progress has mostly sputtered to a halt. In general, the fatality numbers are not going down......

.....An older variety of sensor, made available in 2005, had equipped some cars to sense pedestrian collisions while they were in progress and, in response, pop up their hoods a few inches, creating a “crumple zone” between the bonnet and the hard machinery inside, making for a softer landing. But these systems had been sold only in Europe, and they did nothing to stop cars from hitting pedestrians in the first place .......

.....At first glance, this all sounds like a long-overdue corrective to the car-first chauvinism that has made American roads so deadly. But none of the safety experts I spoke to were terribly excited about pedestrian avoidance technology. ......."

So even the EU, with the all the regulation and avoidance technology, is seeing an increase in pedestrian deaths. The article goes on the blame urban design but the data on the street (literally) highlights the inebriated or mentally ill pedestrian, at least here in Colorado. It's common practice to give the homeless a wide bearth when you can see them. The problem is at night when they are roaming.

At least for the US homelessness has significantly increased over the last decade as have the vehicle / pedestrian encounters. Frontal design changes is a bandaid (no pun intended) on the real issue. Reducing urban speeds to minimize lethality is also not an option.

Now in the high country we have a significant level of vehicle / wildlife encounters, usually at high speed. Large deer/elk, while killed, sometimes also kill the vehicle occupants. Solution? Stout bull bars angled down and tall wire fences with wildlife crossing mounds every mile or so. Should we be fencing off the pedestrians?

 

[blackangie]

Not at all. There was another KSI last night, same area as the homeless frequent, hit by a SUV that features the design attributes intended to minimize pedestrian injury. Except that design spec is for low speed travel, much less than posted limits. The real issue? Mental health, drugs, alcohol, combo of all where the inebriated pedestrian is unpredictable and follows no laws, no matter how many you write. The frontal design would not have prevented the KSI. The real issue? Well mental health, drugs, alcohol, ..... Note that Colorado legalized marijuana. Accidents are now up 5%, a statistically significant number. Among the homeless? Much more prevalent and in fact a factor in homeless being drawn here from those states where it is still illegal. Is that a statement against marijuana? No. Is it highlighting where the real issues is, inebriated pedestrians? Well, yes.

Let's return to the discussion of the Luxury Defender's with the face of Disneyland and your latest Cars movie. Can the entire front clip be removed as one piece?

Mate, To be fair you were wrong about ancap 5star rated cars having little effect on pedestrian safety.

Its great you care about the homeless but that's another subject.

Look up what a scientific study is.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[blackangie]

Last reply on the subject:

Collision course: why are cars killing more and more pedestrians?
Guardian
Thu 3 Oct 2019

"....Through the 90s and 00s, the pedestrian death count had declined almost every year. ...

.....The US road death statistics of the last decade have blasted a hole in that theory. (A similar trend has been observed with regards to the country’s cyclists: a recent analysis found that cyclist fatalities decreased through the 80s, 90s and 00s, but since 2010 have increased 25%, with 777 cyclists killed in 2017.)

Trouble, albeit of a less dramatic sort, has also been brewing in the UK and western European countries, long seen as bastions of pedestrian-friendly (and cyclist-friendly) conditions. Through the 70s and 80s, these countries’ fatality rates were just as bad as America’s, or worse. But, since then, their progress has been more substantial and more enduring. The problem is that, since 2010, that progress has mostly sputtered to a halt. In general, the fatality numbers are not going down......

.....An older variety of sensor, made available in 2005, had equipped some cars to sense pedestrian collisions while they were in progress and, in response, pop up their hoods a few inches, creating a “crumple zone” between the bonnet and the hard machinery inside, making for a softer landing. But these systems had been sold only in Europe, and they did nothing to stop cars from hitting pedestrians in the first place .......

.....At first glance, this all sounds like a long-overdue corrective to the car-first chauvinism that has made American roads so deadly. But none of the safety experts I spoke to were terribly excited about pedestrian avoidance technology. ......."

So even the EU, with the all the regulation and avoidance technology, is seeing an increase in pedestrian deaths. The article goes on the blame urban design but the data on the street (literally) highlights the inebriated or mentally ill pedestrian, at least here in Colorado. It's common practice to give the homeless a wide bearth when you can see them. The problem is at night when they are roaming.

At least for the US homelessness has significantly increased over the last decade as have the vehicle / pedestrian encounters. Frontal design changes is a bandaid (no pun intended) on the real issue. Reducing urban speeds to minimize lethality is also not an option.

Now in the high country we have a significant level of vehicle / wildlife encounters, usually at high speed. Large deer/elk, while killed, sometimes also kill the vehicle occupants. Solution? Stout bull bars angled down and tall wire fences with wildlife crossing mounds every mile or so. Should we be fencing off the pedestrians?

Still no science, just some theorys and a lot of words

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[blackangie]

Nope, still nothing in there to support your assertion that pedestrian friendly fronts on vehicles cause MORE harm than non-friendly fronts. I like how it is evident you googled for something without actually reading it.

And the part you bolded (apart from the headline) talks about how UK and European COUNTRIES being "pedestrian friendly" (and cyclist-friendly).
There is absolutely nothing in your quote to support your ridiculous assertion that pedestrian-friendly fronts on cars cause MORE harm than a non-pedestrian-friendly front.

Agreed.

Using logic alone one can ascertain that rounded front edges, raked winscreens(so people dont get their head caved in), pedestrian sensing, windscreen airbags, DRL, auto headlights, auto braking (vulnerable road user), ABS all would lead to reduced injurys, anyone that says otherwise im guessing also has sharp edged coffee tables around babies/kids.

Oh my goodness!

 

[givemethewillys]

How about we all just agree to stop mowing people down with cars? Problem solved!

Evidence shows that around the time that pedestrian deaths started going up, the take rate of manual cars started becoming very low. Also around that time smart phones started becoming much more integrated into cars. Also, they started putting touch screens where you physically have to look at what you're pressing, and 50 buttons on your steering wheel.

My point is that people still get hit by cars whether they shape the front of the defender like a kia or not. Whether people bounce or not seem to be up for debate. I think we should just bring back the stick shift and put down our big gulps and smartphones, and start paying attention to not hitting pedestrians. And the defender is still ugly.

 

[blackangie]

How about we all just agree to stop mowing people down with cars? Problem solved!

Evidence shows that around the time that pedestrian deaths started going up, the take rate of manual cars started becoming very low. Also around that time smart phones started becoming much more integrated into cars. Also, they started putting touch screens where you physically have to look at what you're pressing, and 50 buttons on your steering wheel.

My point is that people still get hit by cars whether they shape the front of the defender like a kia or not. Whether people bounce or not seem to be up for debate. I think we should just bring back the stick shift and put down our big gulps and smartphones, and start paying attention to not hitting pedestrians. And the defender is still ugly.

No its not up for debate,highly rated ancap pedestrian safe cars save lives.

Other things may contribute to deaths, however this fact is not up for debate, its science.

New JLR cars even try to preempt a pedestrian impact with its eyes(dual cameras) and stop a hit in the first place, how is that so hard to comprehend.

Ever used android auto and apple car play, everything is done by voice.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Pilat]

Same old non sequiturs as has been used earlier. I am beginning to suspect a sock acount.

Next you will attempt to argue that the rise of ABS, or the rise in stock prices, or the advent of photobucket screwing their users, first by holding their images hostage and then by blurring them is, the cause of some rise in pedestrian deaths. Or how about the rise of Uber as a service (not the self-driving cars), or maybe it's the rise in disk brakes on road bikes that is the cause of all this.

In other words:Correlation does not equal causation.

How about we all just agree to stop mowing people down with cars? Problem solved!

Evidence shows that around the time that pedestrian deaths started going up, the take rate of manual cars started becoming very low. Also around that time smart phones started becoming much more integrated into cars. Also, they started putting touch screens where you physically have to look at what you're pressing, and 50 buttons on your steering wheel.

My point is that people still get hit by cars whether they shape the front of the defender like a kia or not. Whether people bounce or not seem to be up for debate. I think we should just bring back the stick shift and put down our big gulps and smartphones, and start paying attention to not hitting pedestrians. And the defender is still ugly.

 

[Pilat]

No its not up for debate,highly rated ancap pedestrian safe cars save lives.

Other things may contribute to deaths, however this fact is not up for debate, its science.

New JLR cars even try to preempt a pedestrian impact with its eyes(dual cameras) and stop a hit in the first place, how is that so hard to comprehend.

Ever used android auto and apple car play, everything is done by voice.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Exactly!

 

[REDROVER]

oh you 2 are so cute
You know so much about science,

There is no evidence that newer cars with there shape kill Less ppl,
If a person survives in a car accident in newer vehicle, it’s because the airbags, head rests, more padded items and ever growing popcorn design/shape of newer cars,
Pedestrian survival is absolutely unpredictable regardless of the shape of the car,
Outside shape has nothing to do with anything.

go on argue how you know everything and when you done with your argument, speak to any highway patrol officer and ask if outside shape maters,
They see plenty of fatal accidents in new cars.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Pedestrian safe regulations are a bandaids. They do not address the cause. Keep treating the symptoms, forcing automakers to compromise design, and we’ll end up with only a few design solutions deemed optimal. Every vehicle will look even more similar than they already do. Functionality will be further lost.

A Defender is first and foremost a vehicle built to traverse rough terrain and perform work. If that definition is compromised, it is no longer a Defender, it’s just a car, of which there are already plenty.

 

[Pilat]

Pedestrian safe regulations are a bandaids. They do not address the cause. Keep treating the symptoms, forcing automakers to compromise design, and we’ll end up with only a few design solutions deemed optimal. Every vehicle will look even more similar than they already do. Functionality will be further lost.

With that kind of argument, Seatbelts, ABS, regulations about roll-overs (Moose-testing), various crash testing and regulation derived crumble zones as well as mandated seatbelts and safe carriage of children, crash barriers/guard rails next to the road and so on are all "band-aids".
I don't know what "functionality" you think you're losing from making the front safer for pedestrians, or when you have crumble zones to protect the occupants of the car itself. Or from having a collapsible steering column.

 

[blackangie]

oh you 2 are so cute
You know so much about science,

There is no evidence that newer cars with there shape kill Less ppl,
If a person survives in a car accident in newer vehicle, it’s because the airbags, head rests, more padded items and ever growing popcorn design/shape of newer cars,
Pedestrian survival is absolutely unpredictable regardless of the shape of the car,
Outside shape has nothing to do with anything.

go on argue how you know everything and when you done with your argument, speak to any highway patrol officer and ask if outside shape maters,
They see plenty of fatal accidents in new cars.

Sorry your wrong

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[blackangie]

Pedestrian safe regulations are a bandaids. They do not address the cause. Keep treating the symptoms, forcing automakers to compromise design, and we’ll end up with only a few design solutions deemed optimal. Every vehicle will look even more similar than they already do. Functionality will be further lost.

A Defender is first and foremost a vehicle built to traverse rough terrain and perform work. If that definition is compromised, it is no longer a Defender, it’s just a car, of which there are already plenty.

New defender is more tough and more capable then the old, does that make the old defender less defender then the new? Please

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Pilat]

I agree. The old one was overtaken in capability in the last couple of decades. It was time they upgraded it to make it Land Rover's most capable again.