Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. If you're talking about a
world where everyone who steps in front of a car is guaranteed to be
hit, then yeah they're irrelevant. But in a more perfect world where
some cars do better than others at preventing the pedestrian from being
hit in the first place then they're not.
> So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
> 20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
> 17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for that
> by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
Agreed.
> Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota 6.0.
> The Mazda falls down on that one.
Indeed it does.
> Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
Fuck all in it in fact, despite the huge difference in bonnet heights.
> Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So, according
> to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best, but the
> Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can be found
> in your links.
They can, but the point is that not everything with a low bonnet is
going to leave a pedestrian better off in the event of contact.
> ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
> appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link that
> I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
And given that real accidents do *not* take place in an environment
where the myriad of variables can be controlled, it's difficult to draw
reliable conclusions.
> > You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
> > fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
> > not as black and white as one might think.
>
> Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
> but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
> are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is on
> the way.
They are, but the local "everyday" stuff here is a long way from that.
In fact, whenever I hear someone say my Ranger is a hulk of a vehicle I
laugh thinking about this picture here:
>
https://ibb.co/Ct3GqgQ
If you haven't worked that out, it's a current model Ranger being
dwarfed by the current model F-150.
> > You could *also* argue that the
> > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
> > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
> pedestrian crossing.
>
> So they get what they deserve?
Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.