Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
I didn't say it was, but there are probably many statistics out there proving how much more likely you are to be killed by an SUV than a car.

A 2.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the abdomen/thorax region is going to do more damage than a 1.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the legs.
True, you are probably more likely to hit the windscreen/ roof with your head, if hit by a car. New legislation from the EU is addressing that issue.
Would you rather go over a car, or under an SUV.

The best option is to try and avoid contact with any vehicles at speed.

Sincerest apologies to anyone who might be offended by my slightly glib descriptions of getting run over.

Stay safe.
Ditto. I didnt mean to sound so sarcastic but the allegation of statistics proving this and that prove little. This morning 4 people died on a country road when their car hit a tree. The cop on the radio report said the thought speed was a contributing factor. I think the tree may have been too. Or the wet road or maybe lack of skill or innapropriate speed for the conditions. He only hit the tree at that spot so if he was travelling at that speed for any period before why didnt he crash earlier. Its the time old debate. But my point (at last you sigh), is that statistics are rarely to be trusted. This mornings accident could well be attributed to speed as the govenrment likes to justify the use of their revenue collectors. Oddly there have been more fatalities this year despite the use of these life saving devices, lower metropolitan speeds with their associated extra fines, more newer and safer cars on the road ( we have had record new car sales ) and all other associated police blitzs to fill the insatiable govenrnment coffers.

Another problem with the police reports and findings of accidents is that no accident can ever be duplicated to prove that different circumstances would have yielded a better/worse result.