Histavia

"With a bike there is usually an opening to avoid a crash" - -if there is an opening it is usually to a grave

All this Safety Talk,then most of the Know it All Posters boast about their Motorbikes in the back of ununstable workmans Truck. Seems to me dumping those Scooters they call Motorbikes might save your life.

Dont know how much you know about riding and scoots, but this scooter goes 0-100kmh in 3,x seconds, brakes from 100-0kmh in one third distance of an excellent car, and its 200kg allows it to handle to avoid most dangers on the road. With a bike there is usually an opening to avoid a crash. In addition, riding scooter I am extremely alert and pumped up on adrenaline. My GF rides the same model scooter, and her strong believe in Buddha on occasions makes her faster than me.

However these wokmans/farmer trucks, seating 5 and carrying stuff/bikes/dogs, going long distance covering 700-1000km/day, usually not cruising above 160kmh, there is often no way to avoid a crash due to its size, handling and brakes. Takes 43 meter to stop from 100kmh, and need a 1,8 meter hole to escape accident.

I have found the escape hole on numerous occasions, on snow and ice, on Thai Highways, on German Autobanh, but one day the hole will be to small, and then

Size Does matter

There seems to be a lot of people on this thread from the post hoc ergo propter hoc school of reasoning.

I’ll just make another observation, albeit a rather facile one.

THe US report has made comments in favor of the larger US models. The Swedish report has made comments in favor of Swedish large cars....can we spot a trend here?

As for the guy who “knows” which vehicle he’s rather be in in a head on - well no two incidents are the same - many don’t incur another vehicle at all. Direct head-ons are pretty rare but in speeds above 80 km in al likelihood you’d simply be choosing where you want to die. I’d suggest you read up a bit about absorption of energy by vehicles in a collision.

In most cases it’s how the vehicle behaves AFTER the initial collision or roll that matters.

I’m not sure either that some readers actually realise how slowly these vehicles are travelling in test crashes and that few are head-on these days.

they also might want to consider this formula for calculating the respective kinetic energy for vehicles a various wrights and speeds. This is not a definite figure only a “good approximation” i mathematical terms.

“Formally, the kinetic energy (K) of a mass (m) moving with speed (v) is defined as K=1/2 mv2.

Kinetic energy depends more on speed than on mass. That is because doubling the mass of an object doubles the kinetic energy, but doubling the speed quadruples the kinetic energy. A 4,000-kg tractor trailer [or SUV] traveling at 30 m/s has the same kinetic energy as a 1,000-kg car traveling at 60 m/s.”

If you compare the weight of a pickup in Thailand with a family saloon the difference is much less and the high centre of gravity of the pickup puts it at further disadvantage.

Does size really matter?

There are many people around who love their cars and driving and even take care of them, but still have little or no knowledge of the physics or vehicle construction. They are easily misled by reports like this even though the report itself may be quite accurate, it is the erroneous conclusions that others draw that are so unfortunate.

I wouldn't get excited by this report as it only applies to a limited range of up-market vehicles that are not commonly available in Thailand. ...and does it actually cite size as the reason?

American car culture and its aficionados are nothing it has to be said if not phallocentric. The choice of the expression "size DOES matter" is not without its own significance given the largely US based cultural subtext and envy that is commonly associated with this expression.

This dread of rejection (by women and thus/or society) has been exploited by the US motor industry and catered for by the production of ever larger automobiles for decades. The male's - in particular the White Anglo-Saxon American - perpetual feelings of inadequacy in this area are pandered to by the US motor industry with these huge SUVs capable of carrying a family but also butch enough not to be a symbol of emasculation as is the case with the MPV. So sales of the large SUV are assured so long as legislation allows. The "large" or "very large" SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicle - a misnomer if ever there was one) are the result of the American belief that "big is best" and the never ending craving for ever larger vehicles. The costs of producing a large vehicle are little different from producing a small one, but the profit margins per unit can be much larger, so even if produced in small numbers the industry likes them ..... and any report that suggests they might be a "good thing"

Legislation in the last few decades has ensured that the average family sedan has conformed to a plethora of federal safety and fuel economy standards, restricted engine and body size etc., which has squeezed profitability especially for US manufacturers who are basically ill-equipped to design or produce such vehicles. - however these regulations were deemed unsuitable for commercial or work vehicles and were not applied to SUVs. So as a result of this "loophole" the SUV market has grown exponentially as the manufacturers exploited this omission to pander to the public's craving for enormous machines with which they do little more than go shopping in.

There have been safety concerns with these vehicles right from the start and basically the manufacturers, under threat of legislation that would have killed the market, have had to pull their socks up and do something.

It seems to me that the inference being drawn here by many people including the OP is that the bigger your vehicle is, the "safer" you are - this IMO is not so straightforward at all and not really what this report is saying. It's a flawed conclusion especially when set in the context of driving in Thailand.

The OP has unfortunately appears to have made some elementary mistakes in the inferences he/she draws from this report; it looks as if he has chosen this report because he thinks it backs a commonly held misconception that "bigger is safer"in fact the report's conclusions are not so simplistic.

My first observation is concerning the choice of title and subtitle of this thread, which I think declares the OP's (and others) basic misinterpretation of the report.

" Size Does Matter"

"Less fatalities in larger vehicles"

The implication appears to be that the bigger your vehicle the safer it is - this is not how I would interpret the report.

"Size does matter" - He seems to be implying that the bigger the vehicle is the less likely you are to die - this is not actually born out by the report.

The premise "Less fatalities in larger vehicles" is false (in the remit of this report). - his conclusion, doesn't follow on from the first and they aren't actually connected or substantiated to any great extent by the report.

"Real World" - - real USA in the case of the report - the trouble with the real world is that there are so many variables that it is often impossible to get a vague trend let alone definitive answer. Even the IIHS admits in this report that they are not comparing apples with apples here as they have changed the criteria/parameters of the research from previous

At present this is the ONLY report of many that are the result of constant research all over the world that is putting forward this theory. - a first? a voice in the wilderness?..or just an attempt to reduce premiums on their "favorite" vehicle?

2 issues emerge: -

Firstly - are these figures and conclusions worth anything at all? It could be argued that this report has been loaded in favour of prolonging the production of large SUVs in the States. - however I think it is fair to assume that the figure taken as they stand on their own without inference are accurate...... but lets look at them for what they are -

They are concerned with DRIVER death rate only.

Other issues such as passengers and "collateral" damage are not addressed.

Secondly - if given the benefit of the doubt we can assume that at least they represent a real change in death rates in large SUVs - what inferences can realistically be drawn?

I think it is relevant also to consider that this report is actually only citing a handful of models that are mostly not available throughout the world. In particular it does NOT include models commonly available in Thailand either SUV or pickups and the figures are not draw from any of these models - in fact the figures would suggest the opposite for similar US vehicles in those classes.

So does size really matter??? - there is an inconsistency in the report and some of the statements included in it - The earlier versions of the vehicles that are referred to in the report (pre 2005) were FAR less safe, yet they were as heavy or even heavier - so to conclude that size is hugely important seems a little strong as it clearly wasn't with the earlier models. Driver deaths in large SUVs USED to to Higher than sedans (by IIHA's own reports) - although the death figures have changed, one factor that remains pretty much constant is the weight, so claims about size have to be suspect. It has to be said that the statements about the size and weight of the vehicle appear to be not so much drawn from the figures presented as they are from pure assumption.

Although the report suggests that size may be a factor in new model SUVs it also points out that there are other factors too and that cars of a similar weight seem to have a higher death rate - so again the evidence on size alone is simply not constant.

The design of SUVs is of course improving - but can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

In fact it is not size or weight that the report devotes most of its time on at all but suggests that the real cause of this change is in fact the near universal introduction of ESC on these models.

What about Kinetic Energy?

I haven't done the calculations myself I"m told - "A 3 tonne utility or large SUV travelling at 100 kph has the same kinetic energy as a 1 tonne small car travelling at 173 kph."

- in a collision or single vehicle incident it is the ability to ABSORB kinetic energy that counts. When a vehicle comes to an abrupt halt, the occupants keep moving - how they fare then is not up to them at all, it depends on the cars safety features - seat-belts, air-bags etc. Even then it is not over for the occupants as their internal organs then continue to move - in particular the brain. It would appear that the US industry has spent a lot of time bolstering up the internal safety of these vehicles too. They appear to be leaving the old - very old - chassis based vehicles for unibody or monocoque construction which is similar to a sedan"s - this improves handling and also the absorption of energy. It also helps the passenger compartment to stay in one piece in a crash. - The Thai pickups have none of this - as yet I don't think ANY model is fitted with ESC in Thailand.

ESC or not there is no way that a chassis built vehicle (an archaic way to build a car anyway) can be built to absorb energy in the same way as a monocoque construction.

The downside of the large SUVs - Collateral Damage: -

With a body on frame design, "A pig in a silk waistcoat is still a pig,"

If a drunk driver runs into another road user he is usually held to blame - one of the criticisms is that in the wrong hands a car is a deadly weapon - so why allow these deadliest of all weapons the SUV on the road at all?

Basically the large SUVs are just too big - they aren't safe they are downright dangerous - unless of course we ALL drive one. They are in essence just antisocial - they are more likely to kill kids, pedestrians and other motorists - do you really want to share the road with these vehicles?

Don't be fooled into believing you are "safer" in your Vigo or Fortuner - they are no way as sophisticated as the much larger US vehicles.

So is bigger safer? This is by no means proven - The report notes it may be "safer" for a small group of drivers of new model very large vehicles, but even then only gives weight part of the credit devoting most of its pages to extolling the virtues of those fitted with the latest active and passive safety features-

However for the rest of us it is not good news.

Anyone unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of one of these leviathans is likely to receive injuries that would otherwise be avoided with other smaller vehicles, and as for other road users, children and pedestrians etc - watch out - they are top killers.

One of the good things about pickup based SUVs is they have a short overhang this means better entry and exit angles.

The weight distribution over the wheels is more even too.

Another thought on the Cherokee - is that it was probably over 10 years old when the breakdown occurred - which would make one wonder if "wind-up" was even the cause on that vehicle. More likely lack of maintenance.

Me if I was looking for a 4x4 would look at being different

SSANGYONG - KYRON - M200 XDi 2.0 AT

SUBARU - FORESTER - 2.0 S TURBO AWD

Kia Sorrento 2.5 Dti 4x4 auto

All around 1.7 million new and 2nd hand very little more than the Toyota or Mitz

Are these available in Thailand? - they certainly aren't common

skill is certainly a huge factor and knowledge of your vehicle's limitations - as you say it is your ability to get out that counts.

On poor roads or in dodgy conditions I stay well clear of other drivers as I don't want to end up stuck behin so=meone who has got himself stuck through poor driving.

PPS - the Cherokee has "old style" beam axles and locking diffs - quite different from the Vigo or Mitsu pick ups.

PPS - it has to be said that a lot of people using 4WDs in completion now prefer the fully automatic intelligent systems as it is almost impossible for them to loose traction in any circumstances and power is sent to the wheels that need it.

PS - both Mitsu and Toyota claim the chassis of the current models are "stronger" - but how significant that is really depends on your starting point.

THe older "strada" had a reputation for having a really strong chasis, but the fact remains its primary design is for use on a plain pickup.

If you want to take a closer look at the Mitsu or Iszu chassis, take a drive down to Laem Chabang and you'll see thousands of them.....you'll also see how "flimsy" they are.

Chassis like these can never have the torsional strength of a monocoque construction.

..gotta agree with Landcruiser off road capabilities but some say they are too heavy for beach sand and bog easier than lighter vehicles..I bought an Isuzu Jackaroo (Trooper) in Oz back in '93 for this reason.. best vehicle I ever owned ..took me up the "top end" with no problems except for a ripped off muffler crossing a river...The ex drove an older Landrover Discovery ...loved it but a shitty finish ...everything kept falling off even the radio buttons!!.

..That said don't know what the equivalent current model Trooper would be and since all manufacturers tend to value the urban tractor factor probably not the same utility now..think I would go for a Tiger or Isuzu 4WD truck now..

I've driven Land cruisers in many environments including all over Moreton Island and other sandy beaches around Qld. I’ve also pulled several other vehicles out that had got stuck - the usual reason? They didn't let their tyres down sufficiently.

Unfortunately the Holden doesn't have locking diff at the front so if you loose traction that's it.

The top gear vigo was the North pole backup truck and HEAVILY modified to cope with the Arctic conditions - also in other countries e.g. Oz both the Vigo and Mitsu pickups are fitted with different spec 4wd systems similar to the Fortuner and Pajero Sport.

As for wind up - well, it's largely a wind-up!

As the pick-up 4wds in Thailand have neither locking diff at front nor rear and usually only a rear limited slip diff - how can they wind up?????

THe key is that the "old" 4wds had solid beam axles that locked and obviously would never be in perfect sync so the old systems would "wind-up" - they needed to loose traction once in a while to loosen up.

Having said that leaving your pick up permanently in 4WD isn't going to do it any good as you'll be using a lot of transmission parts that aren't designed for sustained hi-speed use, not to mention the extra strain on the UJs and steering and loss of fuel consumption.

It is however a good idea to enage and run in 4WD just for a few km every week just to keep the parts lubricated and free.

"Everest and MU-7 both offer low range and locking diff, but their 4x4 cannot be used (safely/reliably) on-road." - not according to my local dealers - no ocking diffs - some might have limited slip on the rear but I understand that the Ford now doesn't even have that.

To be truly useful off-road a vehicle needs to be able to lock or at least restrict the drive to BOTH front and rear axles - not of the pickups available in Thailand offer this.

as stated the Mitsu has the most comprehensive 4WD.

The Everest is just a pickup with an SUV body as ae the Isuzu, Fortuner and Mitsu albeit with a few mods and upgraded drive systems.

As for rugged - well a Chassis-based vehicle that has been upgraded from a one-ton pick up is not particularly suited for heavy off- raod stuff - the chassis simply isn't that strong.

THe Land-rovers are purpose built for off-road not modified from a basic pick-up.

tHe Escape (Ford/Mazda) has a fairly sophisticated 4WD system on those actually fitted with 4wd - many aren't as does the Land-rover Freelander - they might be worth looking at.

The older Ladcruisers (10 years or so) are just about unbeatable off-road - only Land-rovers get anywhere near and they are so dated that they are hardly worth comparing.

The problem as I see it is that many people are "satisfied" with the service they get when buying things in Thailand bacause in their experience nothing has gone wrong. This would be expected in the majority of cases anyway - in any country.

What the OP has encountered is a PROBLEM and the subsequent handling of iy by a Thai business.

Two things emerge then

firstly the unscrupulous behavior of the vendor is revealed and

secondly they realize that their is virtually NO consumer protection in Thailand.

you'll find this knd of behaviour in any company big or small that deals with the public - WHY - because they can!

Coda - Not just car dealers but companies all over Thailand are looking to see how they can turn a few extra bucks out of the tsunami - Nissan's problems may be genuine but I've come across some companies that have raised prices in a way that suggests thinly disguised attempt to profit out of this disaster.

Apart from the driver - and let's face none of us are impervious to human error, the vehicle is the next factor in safety that you have any real control over.

Essentially there are 2 kinds of safety features on vehicles - active and passive - and these have little to do with the vehicle’s mass, but rely on its behavior before during and after any mishap on the road. Minor accidents have a tendency to mask the REAL problems involved in collisions or loosing control of your vehicle - its when they get serious that the vehicle shows it's real colors.

comparing cars and pickups to tanks is schoolboy physics and demonstrates little or no understanding of the issues surrounding road safety.

What is important is how the car protects its passengers and does least damage to other road users - you can see a tank would fall very short on the latter issue and in fact has huge shortcomings on the former, quite apart from being a totally impractical vehicle.

Road safety is a compromise. If your car never moves or goes onto a road it is very unlikely to be in an accident, but like the tank this is a puerile example and has nothing to do with the practicalities of motoring.

most "accidents" occur with 10 kilometres of home. no-one is ever 100% to blame, a combination of mistakes/failings by all drivers involved (even passengers!) leads to disaster. when this happens control of the vehicle is usually no longer in the hands of the driver, so what happens next is down to the construction and design of your vehicle. Regulations in US. Japan and Europe have dictated how "family" sedans are built, but commercial vehicles and their derivatives were allowed to slip through the net. This includes the ubiquitous SUV and pickup truck which now seriously lag behind in safety features and most worryingly the basic design concept. Their simplistic construction makes them ideal from a point of view of manufacturing and costs (especially with regards to countries with an abundance of cheap labor), but it does mean they will inevitably fall short in the safety stakes. How much this should affect your decision-making when buying a vehicle is really up to you....as balance of usage, performance, convenience, safety and cost.

BTW - size doesn't actually matter.<br>It is a factor but it it the DESIGN of the vehicle - the way it behaves in a collision or other situations that is important.<br>Sedans like Mercs and Volvos are intrinsically safe as are many of the smaller sedans but don't be conned by the "pickups-are-safe-because-they're-big" brigade - that is a fallacy<br>

Here's a link to some rafts in Kan. You may try the ones in Sisawat as that's up on the Srinakarin lake.

My wife saw the tv program on the nice rafts there so we had a look one day. Yes the rafts were nice but they wanted a staggering 12k bht per night

http://expo.nectec.o...nchanaburi.html

Thanks - It doesn't seem to have the guys I was looking for - I now understand their company was called A.R.K = Adventure River Kwai - still can't Google anything.

However I'm going to make some calls on that list and see what turns up.

As for price - most of the boats house 6 people or considerably more so depending on what's included, the price isn't really that outrageous

Has anyone got any information on how to contact the guy*s) who run the House boats on Sri Nakarin dam, Kanchanaburi?

I can't find a web site or any details.

I've seen the boats and been to the site but there was no-one there.

I'm told they can be found in Kanchanaburi from time to time.

I need an email or better still a phone number......even if it's a phone number of a friend who might know the right number! (the phone number for the Jolly Frog might be a start!)

If you aren't allowed to give details here - PM me,

Thanks in anticipation.

putting Nitrogen in your tires is a total waste of time - a fraud even.

You already have Nitrogen in your tires - its the main ingredient of air - 78%.

any claims are completely unsubstaiated in relation to day-to-day motoring.

The results were part of the HIV Vaccine Trial Phase III on 16,402 Thai volunteers in Chonburi and Rayong provinces. Half of the volunteers were given the RV 144 vaccine in 2006, and the other half received placebos.

Of those who got placebos, 74 became infected, while only 51 of those who got the vaccines did.

Well I admit it's been decades since I studied epidemiology and statistics but those results just don't seem significant to me.

Line up ten people who took RV 144: 7 out of 10 get infected; 3 do not. I think that is what these data can be reduced to.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Is the glass half full or half empty?

It is a start and that is good news after four decades of this horrible (and very preventable) disease.

It could lead to a more effective vaccine down the road.

after all that has been said this poster still does not gt it - this means nothing of the sort and there is nothing to indicate it is a "start" - at best it is a fluke most likely a red-herring and probably of no value whatsoever. Subsequent crits have found the study to bevthin on evidence and at best on very shaky ground.

my last reply was deleted for some reason

anyway

I checked with SSL and they are about to release the worlds first 100% effective block against AIDS, Herpes, HPV etc.

This is not a vaccine.

THat'll be a condom?

The Innova, Fortuna and Vigo are essentially the same vehicles - I wonder if the Innova's lack of sales are really to with it's late introduction - lack of advertising and the market/cultural needs .................and does it incur a different tax regime to the Vigo and Fortuna?

...and of course - out of thee very ugly vehicles, it is the ugliest.

In the UK they are called sidelights rather than parking lights. UK Law states that sidelights must be used between sunset and sunrise - headlights must be used at night (defined as 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise).

In practice I was always taught that if there was a need to use lights ie, to see or be seen, then why use sidelights as a half measure when headlights would be more effective in all cases.

I've always been under the impression that there are NO circumstances under UK driving law where you need "sidelights" and in fact only headlamps can be used....i would check your source for that one.

they certainly aren't used for parking.

another habit that boggles is on motorcycles - the placing of one's crash helmet over the headlamp at night - a kind of safety double whammy.............

THere's common sense, THai law and Thai practice - it would appear that all 3 are different.

Common sense would dictate that in bad weather or poor light you would turn on your headlights........the other two don't seem to follow this ogic.

another thing that REALLY annoys me is the new and increasingly common practice of "showing off" your rear fog lights in the rain - this is potentially a very dangerous habit.......but then in the list of potentially dangerous habits, where does it come?

A piece of incomprehensible, unenforceable and incompetant legislation - when will the people of thailand get fed up of these kind of ridiculous top-down papal bull style rulings?

Essentially if you stick to vehicles made in Thailand you will find the running costs lower.

Pick-ups being particularly simple in construction etc are cheap to repair.

You will also find that mechanics are more familiar with "local" models and don't waste time and money on unnecessary work because of product ignorance.

Diesels have lower fuel costs compared to petrol/gas counterparts - they also tend to be longer-lived

So it was only one way?...never mind I was only going one way