Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: laser_jock99 on October 13, 2006, 12:50:29
-
....according to the Times
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-2401789,00.html
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,351595,00.jpg)
Well I never! A big, heavy car is safer to be in when comes to the crunch. Who would have thought it!
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Like a merry go round aint it, keeps coming round and round again dont it.
I think Ill stick to 4x4's eh.......
-
Check out all the stats:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_612749.pdf
-
OK, so the zooks bad, but still not as bad as the pretend 4x4s :)
-
Imagine my surprise when someone points out that MPV's and 4x4's are driven more carefully than smaller cars... :shock: :shock:
Can't be long now before they realise that despite the potential danger to pedestrians of physically larger cars... they tend to be driven more carefully.
**SLAP! SLAP! SLAP!**
Sorry about that... My unconscious mind just gre an arm out of the side of my skull and woke me up from my wonderful dream!
:lol:
-
to be fair the defenders are only safer cause they dont go over 50mph!
-
to be fair the defenders are only safer cause they dont go over 50mph!
And the fact that they caramalize anything they hit anyway.
-
Well that explains it then, My 5.0 Litre, 2.6 tonne Range Rover LSE cost less to insure than my 1.4D Micra, now we know why :roll:
-
It always amazes me how the 'greens' keep coming out with the rubbish that they purport to be the truth on the evils of the urban 4x4. When will they realise that they're just plain wrong ?