safest vehicle to drive

[Zeegator]

Here we go, he's off again! Moderators get ready.

Your recommendation to the OP's topic is what exactly? Mine would be a Tesla, if it so important, might as well go to the only car in the world that exceeded the 5 star crash rating and be environmentally conscious at the same time. Can be had in Thailand and comes with the same safety package regardless of location. Does the troll have a better contribution?

Simply making a fairly accurate observation which some might say is a better contribution than yours. Do your years of experience allow that? That was a rhetorical question, it doesn't need an answer.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Zeegator

[Zeegator]

"...I've made more then enough salient points and it grows tiresome repeating them."

Tiresome, WarpSpeed, tiresome? That's an understatement. And to claim that your points are salient is a rather subjective description.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Zeegator

[transam]

"...I've made more then enough salient points and it grows tiresome repeating them."

Tiresome, WarpSpeed, tiresome? That's an understatement. And to claim that your points are salient is a rather subjective description.

And, I have not had an answer as to why hot hatch racers have to have a roll cage IF they are all perfect drivers, even 12 second drag street cars must have a roll cage................

[Zeegator]

"...I've made more then enough salient points and it grows tiresome repeating them."

Tiresome, WarpSpeed, tiresome? That's an understatement. And to claim that your points are salient is a rather subjective description.

And, I have not had an answer as to why hot hatch racers have to have a roll cage IF they are all perfect drivers, even 12 second drag street cars must have a roll cage................

Why are you asking me that question? The little professor's the one to direct that to.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Zeegator

[transam]

"...I've made more then enough salient points and it grows tiresome repeating them."

Tiresome, WarpSpeed, tiresome? That's an understatement. And to claim that your points are salient is a rather subjective description.

And, I have not had an answer as to why hot hatch racers have to have a roll cage IF they are all perfect drivers, even 12 second drag street cars must have a roll cage................

Why are you asking me that question? The little professor's the one to direct that to.

Not asking you, just want racer "folk" reading to reply, .........

[Spoonman]

And, I have not had an answer as to why hot hatch racers have to have a roll cage IF they are all perfect drivers, even 12 second drag street cars must have a roll cage................

Is the 12 second rule a UK Thing ?

I ask because both NHRA (USA) and ANDRA (Aus) the rule is 10.99.

This is for vehicles built before 2008, for vehicle built after 2008 the cut is 10.00 but they must retain all OEM safety devices.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Spoonman

[transam]

And, I have not had an answer as to why hot hatch racers have to have a roll cage IF they are all perfect drivers, even 12 second drag street cars must have a roll cage................

Is the 12 second rule a UK Thing ?

I ask because both NHRA (USA) and ANDRA (Aus) the rule is 10.99.

This is for vehicles built before 2008, for vehicle built after 2008 the cut is 10.00 but they must retain all OEM safety devices.

Yep, UK fun stuff at our best strip.

[Spoonman]

And, I have not had an answer as to why hot hatch racers have to have a roll cage IF they are all perfect drivers, even 12 second drag street cars must have a roll cage................

Is the 12 second rule a UK Thing ?

I ask because both NHRA (USA) and ANDRA (Aus) the rule is 10.99.

This is for vehicles built before 2008, for vehicle built after 2008 the cut is 10.00 but they must retain all OEM safety devices.

Yep, UK fun stuff at our best strip.

Yeah 11.99 is the cut from what I have just read. thats pretty craptacular considering you can buy cars from the showroom floor that will run faster than 11.99.

[transam]

My car never had a cage and run faster , but it looked like it couldn't run that fast........ ............

[lvr181]

Top stuff, you're one class act, with that sort of response. I guess it's the best you can do and is par for the course where you're concerned so I should expect the same sort of driving responses as well, it's no wonder the concept goes right past you...

I have been in the past a heavy goods vehicle driver that has seen lots of stuff on the road/motorways. Your assumption that EVERYONE could avoid being hit by something is ridiculous.

Try sitting in a traffic jam on a three lane highway and a ride is going to rear end you.

Where are YOU going to go......?............

Don't tell me, your rides have helicopter rotors that pop out the roof............

Aw c'mon - stop picking on Mr perfect driver, WarpSpeed!

Perhaps WarpSpeed does not understand (or does not want to) "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft a-gley....."

[Mike45]

I did some research and found this:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-PEMD-95-4/html/GAOREPORTS-PEMD-95-4.htm

THE EFFECTS OF AUTOMOBILE

WEIGHT DIFFER BY CRASH TYPE

-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

Considering all crash types together, GAO estimates that each

500-pound increase in car weight reduces the risk of driver injury by

14 percent in tow-away crashes. However, the protective effect of

automobile weight differs by the type of crash. Compared to light

cars, heavier cars offer more occupant protection in collisions with

cars and light trucks, and in one-car nonrollover crashes, but

drivers of heavier cars are more likely to be injured in one-car

rollover crashes, once a rollover has occurred. One explanation for

this is that it takes more energy to roll over a heavier car than a

lighter one, meaning that rollover crashes involving heavy cars are

typically more severe than those involving light cars. GAO estimates

that in multivehicle collisions, each 500-pound increase in

automobile weight decreases a driver's injury risk by 23 percent but

increases the probability of injury to the driver of the other car by

13 percent (see chapter 2).

DOT HS 808 569 NHTSA Summary Report http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov April 1997 Relationship of Vehicle Weight to Fatality and Injury Risk in Model Year 1985-93 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Other studies on vehicle size and safety The Department of Transportation is not alone in being concerned over the size and weight of vehicles and the resultant effect on safety. During the past 18 years, numerous public and private groups have studied the relationship of passenger car size to safety. The Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight of passenger cars pose a safety threat. These studies did not analyze weight-safety relationships for light trucks. The report by the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern about the growing numbers of light trucks, noting that collisions between light trucks and cars are often very damaging to the cars.

[Mike45]

And this study on minicars.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle

[wilcopops]

And this study on minicars.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle

Size and weight are only one factor - it is the shock aborption that is crucial.

Many large pickups especially chassis built or older ones don't absorb shock very well so the passengers come to a halt too rapidly and suffer internal organ damage, whilst the smaller vehicle with better shock absorption may LOOK worse but it has in fact keep the occupants safer.

Larger pickups also have a greater propensity to rollover in and accident this can mean more damage to passengers and of course collateral damage.

Rear passengers in either vehicle who are not belted in also present a danger to other passengers inside the vehicle as they fly around smacking into people.

the truth is that no 2 incidents are the same and seldom involve direct head-on or side on collisions....damage may occur on the initial impact but this then renders the vehicles "out of control" where they go AFTER this is crucial in how the occupants survive.

this again involves the passive safety features of the vehicle, but it also involves the design of the road and its environment.

For example in Thailand many dual carriage ways have trees planted in the central reservation - those are death traps, especially if your vehicle is poor at absorbing impact (i.e. pick up) the passengers even in belts may be jarred to death.

Road safety and vehicle safety are intrinsically combined and in Thailand there is a huge lack of concern about this.....roads are DREADFULLY designed and safety on vehicles (roadworthy tests/modification regulations/approved vehicle designs are just so lax as to be non-existent.

one could of course a rue that heavy vehicles should be banned as they are capable of inflicting more damage collaterally and to other road users.........

Edited August 28, 2014 by wilcopops

[keemapoot]

Rear passengers in either vehicle who are not belted in also present a danger to other passengers inside the vehicle as they fly around smacking into people.

This is what I consider to be one of the greatest safety dangers on the road in Thailand, that being that perhaps 90% of the rear passengers inside Thai vehicles do not wear safety belts and are therefore "human missiles."

I have to constantly educate Thais who climb into my backseat to put on their belts, FOR MY SAFETY. I'm not sure why this part of seatbelt education never reached the vast majority of Thais.

Of course, one can only imagine the damage in a typical Cab pickup crash where 5 people are crammed in the rear jumpseat with no belts, and grandma is holding the baby in the front.

[lvr181]

Rear passengers in either vehicle who are not belted in also present a danger to other passengers inside the vehicle as they fly around smacking into people.

This is what I consider to be one of the greatest safety dangers on the road in Thailand, that being that perhaps 90% of the rear passengers inside Thai vehicles do not wear safety belts and are therefore "human missiles."

I have to constantly educate Thais who climb into my backseat to put on their belts, FOR MY SAFETY. I'm not sure why this part of seatbelt education never reached the vast majority of Thais.

Of course, one can only imagine the damage in a typical Cab pickup crash where 5 people are crammed in the rear jumpseat with no belts, and grandma is holding the baby in the front.

I can only concur with your observations. My Thai partner (who is a nurse btw) I have to remind her to "buckle up"when ever we are using a taxi around Bangkok.

[BSJ]

Rear passengers in either vehicle who are not belted in also present a danger to other passengers inside the vehicle as they fly around smacking into people.

This is what I consider to be one of the greatest safety dangers on the road in Thailand, that being that perhaps 90% of the rear passengers inside Thai vehicles do not wear safety belts and are therefore "human missiles."

I have to constantly educate Thais who climb into my backseat to put on their belts, FOR MY SAFETY. I'm not sure why this part of seatbelt education never reached the vast majority of Thais.

Of course, one can only imagine the damage in a typical Cab pickup crash where 5 people are crammed in the rear jumpseat with no belts, and grandma is holding the baby in the front.

You have to remember older extra cab pick-ups don't have proper seats or seatbelts in the extra cab bit. Mine is an 02 Strada and it's got after market seats and no belts in the back!

[SDM0712]

.............I agree but I also take the captain Kirk approach in that I don't believe in a no win scenario however, by that I mean far more people die in "avoidable collisions" instead of "no way out collisions" ..........

Warpeed? Kobi yashi maroo ? I'm slow to join the dots !! Perhaps shields are the answer !

For all the accidents I have been involved in in my youf*, excess speed without the experience to plan was always the culprit and I freely admit it. With more observation and a lightler right foot most could have been avoided. With experience I have learned, as I was always taught but ignored, that when driving to be concentrating in the mid distance rather than a few centimetres in front of the bonnet. Some accidents are unavoidable which is why they're called accidents. It's not really relevant to the thread but, in my opinion, as someone else mentioned, I think different cars may offer different amounts of safety in different conditions.

Jolan Tru

SDM

* Intentional mis spelling to mimic London youth slang accent for our (former) colonial friends.

PS Incidentally Kirk was wrong about many things, he always said he would die alone, which is how he knew on so many occasions it was not the time for his death. He was wrong about that too.

Edited August 30, 2014 by SDM0712

[wilcopops]

It seems too that there is a preponderance here to look only at one crash test org - the IIHS.....thisi is funded by US insurance companies....whereas I'm not going to detailed debate about their accuracy, one needs to bear in mind that taking only one org's advice is like just listening to Big Pharma's research results on drugs.

inEurope, NCAP which is based originally on a US model and developed by UK is more or less a quango and accountable to no-one........their are similar orbs around the world. There are also other regulators/testers of vehicles in US and Europe.........

Edited August 30, 2014 by wilcopops

[lvr181]

It seems too that there is a preponderance here to look only at one crash test org - the IIHS.....thisi is funded by US insurance companies....whereas I'm not going to detailed debate about their accuracy, one needs to bear in mind that taking only one org's advice is like just listening to Big Pharma's research results on drugs.

inEurope, NCAP which is based originally on a US model and developed by UK is more or less a quango and accountable to no-one........their are similar orbs around the world. There are also other regulators/testers of vehicles in US and Europe.........

"Conspiracy theories" here?

Most motor vehicles these days are far safer than those of 10 years or more ago. So progress has been made according to how the buyers perceive these safety features and whether they can afford the "best". At the end of the day they are still safer now than ever before (that is progress in the right direction) therefore deaths and injuries have been minimised by comparison to earlier times. But deaths and injuries will always continue as long as there are people driving vehicles. If you can afford NOT to require a motor vehicle (or any vehicle) then perhaps that is your safest course of action.

I love motorcycles and cars and spent many years racing them! My Toyota car doesn't have the "latest and greatest state of art" crash protection but I take all reasonable care when driving and have yet to run into anyone and only once run off the road (but have been run into a few times) during 50 years of driving. Perhaps some of us get lucky and some don't.

[WarpSpeed]

Has been stated already. It depends on the crash involved. If rolling over, i'd prefer to be in a swift than a ranger or similar. If head-on then the opposite. If we are comparing Japanese cars there really is no safest in my opinion. The crash type, impact point are very different. Motorcycle helmets vary but may win the same safety rating award. a 5 star sharp helmet may receive 5 stars for side impact while the other the front.

Yep truth in this though the physics involved in a head on collision still say that the body inside the vehicle is going to suffer higher impact forces due to the mass of the vehicle, something often over looked while listening to the salesman.. And as you mention not only are you likely to have less injury in a rollover in a car but you're also less likely to even have a roll over in the first place.

The mass of the car in which you are sitting when it crashes has not much to do withe speed of the body inside. What happens is that the vehicle has to come to a full stop when it crashes, say in a wall. The stopping distance is the crumple zone. The bigger the crumple zone the more energy it can absorb through deformation.

Of course a heavier car has more mass and thus more kinetic energy. But more important is the speed at which it hits the wall and the stopping distance.

And the better the crumple zone, i.e. the more energy it can absorb, the lower the negative acceleration (g forces) for the body (hopefully firmly attached to the car with per-tensioned safety belts). In simple words, the car hitting an obstacle with say 54 km/h (15 m/s) has to come to a stand still after 50 cm (deformation of the rumple zone), if the obstacle does not have any deformation itself.

Modern, expensive cars tend to have a saver construction and a good crumple zone while the passenger compartment is stiff (so that the passenger is protected and can open the door after the crash.

The often heard belief that a pick-up truck is saver because of its mass and massive construction is therefore wrong. The old fashioned chassis of these trucks does not deform much under a crash. So the pick-up truck hitting the same obstacle at the same 54 km/h or 15 m/s has only maybe 15cm of deformation and thus only 15 cm to come to a full stop. Result: much high g forces on the body, often lethal ones.

We should choose cars with a good rating in the NCAP crash test. 5 stars, if possible.

Nonsense....Utter bunk....

[WarpSpeed]

And this study on minicars.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle

Size and weight are only one factor - it is the shock aborption that is crucial.

Many large pickups especially chassis built or older ones don't absorb shock very well so the passengers come to a halt too rapidly and suffer internal organ damage, whilst the smaller vehicle with better shock absorption may LOOK worse but it has in fact keep the occupants safer.

Larger pickups also have a greater propensity to rollover in and accident this can mean more damage to passengers and of course collateral damage.

Rear passengers in either vehicle who are not belted in also present a danger to other passengers inside the vehicle as they fly around smacking into people.

the truth is that no 2 incidents are the same and seldom involve direct head-on or side on collisions....damage may occur on the initial impact but this then renders the vehicles "out of control" where they go AFTER this is crucial in how the occupants survive.

this again involves the passive safety features of the vehicle, but it also involves the design of the road and its environment.

For example in Thailand many dual carriage ways have trees planted in the central reservation - those are death traps, especially if your vehicle is poor at absorbing impact (i.e. pick up) the passengers even in belts may be jarred to death.

Road safety and vehicle safety are intrinsically combined and in Thailand there is a huge lack of concern about this.....roads are DREADFULLY designed and safety on vehicles (roadworthy tests/modification regulations/approved vehicle designs are just so lax as to be non-existent.

one could of course a rue that heavy vehicles should be banned as they are capable of inflicting more damage collaterally and to other road users.........

Surprising post Wilco, caught me off guard, well stated..

[WarpSpeed]

And this study on minicars.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-demonstrate-the-influence-of-vehicle-size-and-weight-on-safety-in-crashes-results-are-relevant-to-fuel-economy-policies

Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle

Actually not, the movement of the smaller vehicle being pushed absorbs and distributes energy away from the passengers, A sudden stop of equal forces would be far more damaging to occupants.

[WarpSpeed]

.............I agree but I also take the captain Kirk approach in that I don't believe in a no win scenario however, by that I mean far more people die in "avoidable collisions" instead of "no way out collisions" ..........

Warpeed? Kobi yashi maroo ? I'm slow to join the dots !! Perhaps shields are the answer !

For all the accidents I have been involved in in my youf*, excess speed without the experience to plan was always the culprit and I freely admit it. With more observation and a lightler right foot most could have been avoided. With experience I have learned, as I was always taught but ignored, that when driving to be concentrating in the mid distance rather than a few centimetres in front of the bonnet. Some accidents are unavoidable which is why they're called accidents. It's not really relevant to the thread but, in my opinion, as someone else mentioned, I think different cars may offer different amounts of safety in different conditions.

Jolan Tru

SDM

* Intentional mis spelling to mimic London youth slang accent for our (former) colonial friends.

PS Incidentally Kirk was wrong about many things, he always said he would die alone, which is how he knew on so many occasions it was not the time for his death. He was wrong about that too.

Off topic but no he wasn't, he died when Captian Picard was with him and did he die or was he reborn in the nexus?. Anyway much of the rest of your post is correct. Shields would be the answer actually maybe you're on to something there.

[WarpSpeed]

Rear passengers in either vehicle who are not belted in also present a danger to other passengers inside the vehicle as they fly around smacking into people.

This is what I consider to be one of the greatest safety dangers on the road in Thailand, that being that perhaps 90% of the rear passengers inside Thai vehicles do not wear safety belts and are therefore "human missiles."

I have to constantly educate Thais who climb into my backseat to put on their belts, FOR MY SAFETY. I'm not sure why this part of seatbelt education never reached the vast majority of Thais.

Of course, one can only imagine the damage in a typical Cab pickup crash where 5 people are crammed in the rear jumpseat with no belts, and grandma is holding the baby in the front.

I was driving a pick up in Phuket and brought my nanny and her children to the beach with us one weekend and she wanted to sit against the tail gate and was quite miffed at my insistence that she and her children ride up next to the cab and down in the bed not on the fender wells..

But seeing things like this always makes my skin crawl . Yep, speed is the culprit in Thailand...

Edited August 30, 2014 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

This is classified as an unfortunate and unavoidable accident for the scooter rider and the pickup he impacted after the fact, but a perfect example of how 2 other incompetent drivers have taken an innocents persons life with their lack of good defensive driving skills. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqPerOptM8

I would say however that if the scooter rider had stopped back where the white line is instead of the cross walk he may have likely not been hit or hit with less impact and survived so tragically even he still has some responsibility for his demise.

Edited August 30, 2014 by WarpSpeed

[wilcopops]

Something big with allot of mass and decent safety kit...the top-spec Ford Ranger comes to mind...lots of mass and 6 airbags. All Nissan Teanas, even lowest spec, come with 6 airbags as well. I'm looking at the Teana. The Volvo XC-60 would be nice but over 3M baht is just too much.

mass of course is NOT the be-all and end-all...you need shock absorption....and pickups are very bad at that, they also have a high centre of gravity which is not desirable.

[seedy]

Leopard 2

License plate may be a bit difficult tho'

[mike324]

We got a Pajero as we have two little kids, need the space, enjoy the safety factor, and it's not insanely expensive (1.2mb).

It also runs on diesel, which is cheaper.

http://www.ancap.com.au/crashtestrecord?Id=512

+ 1 for the Pajero - been driving them since the 80's on and off road in 3 different areas of the world....have seen them roll and or land on the roof - turn them back over & let the fluids drain down and away they go usually with a cracked windshield (we ususally had to pool our AAA cards for the other 4x4's that tried to come along due to carnage) - these are very strong cars.....had someone hit in Calif by a drunk driver in a dually 3/4 ton Ford F350 - the drunk was doing 70 MPH down hill when he lost it - hit head on to the Montero doing 55-60 going uphill - everyone survived....many reports over the years of these stout cars giving it up while keeping their owners alive/safe under accident conditions.....that's what I drive in LOS (diesel also) and although I may not have the mobility many espouse sometimes trading armor for mobilty has proven fatal more often than not when push comes to crunch.....I like driving a vehicle that sits high for visibilty reasons - if I'm not driving as squirrelly or as fast as the more mobile cars so be it....I can get 650+ k per tank (important to me) and usually keep rolling along while their getting topped off......

In the states had 3 vehicles - Montero/Pajero = fun car could go anywhere feeling safe.....Lexus sports car I drove thoughout the western states participating in sports - extremely quick for a production car and very agile - but I never felt completely safe - a lot had to do with limited visibilty compared to the other vehicles even though the mileage was great as well as the fun of pure driving.....car 3 is a Toyota 4 Runner - same safety rating as the MB 400 (highest at time of production) - this is used for touring and towing and has all the airbags and curtains + a capable 4x4 for adverse conditions (important to me) - of all the vehicles this is what I feel safest in.....have driven the Fortunas (not avail in US) and they are not very solid feeling or impressive.....Did had a Hilux 4 door 4x4 Diesel here in LOS for 2 years and felt safe in that but not very good on twisty wet roads.....

The old Pajeros or the ones made in other countries (Monteros / Pajeros) are very different than the ones made in Thailand. The ones made in Thailand essentially use the truck chassis and add on top of it. They are very top heavy, safety wise I don't think any of these Thai made SUV (Fortuner, Pajero) are safe. I believe all of these fail the moose test also. I know two people who rolled their Pajero, one had to do an evasive maneuver to avoid hitting a dog. The other was involved in a serious car accident with another truck.

They may be safer when the car accident involves other sedans, but if you are hit by another truck or 6 wheeler, the likelihood of rolling over is high.

Someone mentioned Proton here, stay away even if they advertise all that airbags. The steel is thin and cars are not designed good.

European cars seems to be the safest out there, especially large sedans / suv.

[wilcopops]

the Pajero/Shogun and the Pajero sport available in Thailand are completely different vehicles....the Pajero Sport is a pick-up based derivative.

"Strong" doesn't necessarily equate to safe either.

how they drive is only part of the safety.

Safety in vehicles is classified as either "active" or "passive" - basically the former is how you AVOID accidents the latter how the vehicle protects you and OTHERS during and after the incident.

Edited September 27, 2014 by wilcopops

[seedy]

I know two people who rolled their Pajero, one had to do an evasive maneuver to avoid hitting a dog.

To avoid people - yes.

But a dog !!!