Well that Lynn Fauld-Wood said it so it must be true, I mean it's not as if journalists make up any load of old bollocks in order to keep themselves in employment, is it?
Nor here and I have had to take avoiding action in a 4x4.
The breakdown of the figures is interesting
Rollovers accounted for more than 10,000 baneities in the USA in 1999.
Half of all rollovers in '99 involved pbuttenger cars (excluding SUVs).
More than 90 percent of rollovers occur after a vehicle runs off the road and strikes a kerb, soft shoulder, guardrail, or other object that "trips" it.
In the USA, the Chevy Blazer is the vehicle that is most prone to roll over, other SUVs are rated as good as or better than cars like the Golf, Chrysler PT Cruiser, VW Jetta, Ford Taurus, and Ford Focus.
Of the 10,000 people who died in single-vehicle rollovers, 8,000 were not wearing a seatbelt.
So in summary, "SUVs" as a clbutt have more rollovers per 100 crashes than other types of car. However the SUVs most likely to roll over are the ones that are not sold or sold in very small numbers in the UK. The remainder of the SUVs on the road appear to be as good as or better than typical cars for rollover. SUVs do not rollover when taking avoiding action, as with other cars they roll when they hit the kerb or similar obstruction.
And the msot telling statistic, in the USA the vast majority of rests in rollovers occurs because the driver and-or pbuttengers were not wearing a seat belt.
So any chance the hysterical anti 4x4 lobby can start to tell the truth rather than a bunch of pork pies? -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
