Down with the deathtrap
The community of Imperial College, London, was left in shock last month by the death of one of its leading scientists, Dr Judit Nadal, in a traffic collision which has gained a higher profile than most of its kind.
The reason that this tragic incident stands out from so many others is evident from the harrowing pictures of the scene (it is up to you to Google it), which depict London’s favourite electric car, the Reva G-Wiz, cut clean in two. And no, this wasn’t a collision with a coach or HGV. The object which caused such devastating destruction was in fact a humble Skoda Octavia.
For those of you who may be wondering how a car which has the right to share road space with any other type of vehicle can display all the strength and resilience of a cardboard box, enlightenment comes in the form of classification laws. You see, according to the powers that be, the G-Wiz is not actually a car, oh no. It’s actually, and rather confusingly, termed a ‘quadricycle’.
Under government legislation, these quadricycles – which also include those little two-stroke microcar things, usually with the rear lights off a Vauxhall Corsa – are not required to go through the stringent Euro NCAP testing which is compulsory for ‘normal’ cars.
Now I’m sorry, but the lack of logic here is frankly unbelievable. Why, when these vehicles are using the same tarmac as the likes of lorries, buses, Range Rovers, and (heaven forbid) the Skoda Octavia, are they granted exemption from showing even the most basic of safety capabilities?
The warning bells have sounded before: back in 2007, gurus at the revered Transport Research Laboratory put a G-Wiz through a crash test of their own. To say that the results were disturbing would be to gravely understate matters, and the pictures of the aftermath did little to quell the feeling that buyers, lured in by the idea of doing their bit for the planet, were unnecessarily putting their lives at risk.
Three years on, and with no action taken in the meantime, it has taken a fatality to turn people’s attentions to the potential consequences of G-Wiz ownership.
Debate has circled the car from the date of its first import to these shores: Does the appeal of the G-Wiz lie in a genuine desire to tackle global warming? Or is it simply a case of eco-posturing? Is it as eco-friendly as it claims to be, all things considered? I could go on.
But of the following there can be no dispute: namely the sheer irresponsibility of endangering one’s own life with the excuse of producing a little less carbon dioxide. The fact that successive governments allow it to happen is so disgraceful as to be absurd.
I sat in a G-Wiz a couple of years ago, and still find it hard to grasp how anyone could feel safe weaving through central London betwixt bendy buses and Skodas in something which feels so flimsy.
Clearly, something needs to be done. But what?
For a start, and assuming that the G-Wiz continues to be sold in the UK, it’s essential that buyers be made aware of its classification as a quadricycle and resultant lack of safety features. Poring through the esteemed SMMT’s Electric Car Guide 2010, which, incidentally, runs to 34 pages in length, I eventually found the section headed ‘Safety’, which takes up less than a quarter of a page. The part about quadricycles takes up a mere two sentences.
GoinGreen, the company selling the G-Wiz, includes some vague information relating to safety or classification on its website – surely the first place interested punters would go to find out about such things – but no explicit mention of the car’s exemption from the usual crash testing.
In my humble opinion, though, all this should be irrelevant, because the best thing that the government can do in this situation is to ban sales, not just of the G-Wiz, but of all quadricycles. Why, in 2010, when we have companies such as Volvo continually investing huge amounts into new safety features such as blind spot warning and City Safe, can we still buy cars (and give me one good reason why they shouldn’t be classified as such) which break in half when hit by a Skoda?
We can only hope that this tragedy drives the relevant parties to act – and sharpish – to prevent this kind of thing happening again.
Ben Foulds
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Obviously Ben is from the American school of thought where we all have to ultimately be driving tanks to be safe on the roads.
Now think about this. Should people be certified, approved and crash tested before they set foot on a road to cross it? Should bicycles be NCAP tested? What about motorcycles? Why aren’t they fitted with seat belts? And let’s have cameras and transponders compulsory on everything allowed on the roads so we can fine them for every law they break.
Now much like most of the folk here I’m a petrol head too. I am frequently found in a car with 450bhp per tonne overtaking Lambos TVRs Porsches and the like on several of the country’s well known race tracks. But I know accidents happen all the time on our road systems and the answer is not to go round banning everything that gets people hurt. Follow that train of thought and we’ll only be allowed to ride on… well nothing!
The fact is that there’s more and more traffic using our worn out roads. It’s usually quicker these days to get around town in anything other than a car and if we simply drove smaller vehicles there would be a lot less serious accidents.
So who should be banned? The heavy powerful trucks and 4x4s with one person taking up 20+ feet of road and a hundred yard+ stopping distances or do we go like America and simply ignore everything and drive right through anything that dares get in the way of the automible?
The auto industry is there to make money and strangely enough the government makes billions out of it. It’s you and me the public who have to pay for everything and there’s two certainties in life, death and taxes. Most of us want to try and minimise the chances of either. Think about which it is that increases the risk of both, a big heavy certified to the hilt expensive car, or a pedestrian? Make no mistake every single one of us is a pedestrian.
I’m sure you can see the general direction here. Common sense saves lives not legislation. Which makes money though?
You make some interesting points here. I am waiting to see the official report on the accident because there seems to be a lot of conflicting reports in the press: some reports say there was no other car involved, others say it was a collision. There is even some confusion as to whether the car was cut open by the emergency services or not, so I’m waiting for the official report.
Just as a point of note, it isn’t mandatory for cars to go through Euro N/CAP testing. Euro N/CAP is a voluntary test.
The standard tests as laid down by the EU are a lot less rigorous with cars travelling at much lower speeds and with many fewer safety features required in order to pass. It is down to the individual manufacturers to decide whether or not to put their own cars through Euro N/CAP.
Back in 2007, a G-Wiz was put through a Euro N/CAP crash test… and the results were not good. REVA, who make the G-Wiz, responded very quickly by commissioning Lotus to improve the structural integrity and overall safety of the car. Eight months later, a new model of the car was launched which had undergone crash testing at ARAI with a brand new crash structure, strengthened chassis and improved safety features. The new car looks virtually identical to the old one, and is called the G-WIZ I.
REVA released a video of the crash test, and you can see this on YouTube.
The issue, as I see it, is that over the past 30-40 years, successive governments have gradually increased the minimum safety standards for cars, by stipulating improved crash testing and additional features to be fitted as standard, whilst quadricycles and tricycles have been virtually ignored.
The correct approach would be for EU safety standards to be introduced for new quadricycles and then gradually ratchet up these safety standards over the years, just as has been done with cars.
There are over 300,000 quadricycles on the roads of Europe. According to the French National Interministerial Road Safety Observatory, the accident statistics for quadricycles show that quadricycle owners are only three times less likely to have an accident as a regular car driver, and that accidents that do occur are two times less likely to result in the quadricycle occupants having serious injury than other road accidents.
There has been no proven reason given for these statistics being what they are. I’m guessing that part of this is down to speed – quadricycles have a lower top speed than ordinary cars – and that most of them are used in cities where the maximum top speed is much lower.
A knee-jerk reaction isn’t the answer. But neither is ignoring the problem. I’d like to see a proper debate going on at EU level and some plans formulated for improving quadricycle safety step by step.
Thanks very much for your comments.
Kelvin: I appreciate where you’re coming from on this, and accept that accidents happen – often with dire consequences. But is it really common sense to have quadricycles on our roads?
The thing with motorbikes, bikes etc. is that they’re marketed as such – people are aware of their relative dangers and what can happen in a collision, and take the necessary precautions.
The G-Wiz is marketed as a car, and your average Joe in the street would have no reason for thinking that it hasn’t been tested by Euro NCAP. It’s essentially an eco-gimmick.
I’m certainly not stating we should run around outlawing everything it’s possible to have an accident in – I just think that any passenger vehicle with four wheels and a steering wheel which is legally allowed to travel on public roads ought to be classified as a car, and as such present an acceptable case for its own safety.
Michael: Thank you for your info on the updating of the G-Wiz, something I was admittedly unaware of. However, it still can’t be right that people can travel about in something so potentially unsafe but which is still, to all intents and purposes, a car.
You make a good point about the government’s neglect of quadricycle safety, and this is certainly the case – but I maintain that quadricycles shouldn’t need to exist, especially just to satisfy the green brigade. By all means let Reva sell us a G-Wiz MkII; just make it a ‘proper’ car (a Smart rival perhaps) which can be put through the necessary NCAP testing.
I have been driving a Gwiz for over three years and this article encouraging the ban of quads sales in the UK absolutely infuriates me . I am just back from Paris where every fourth car seems to be a quadricycle. Quadricycles are safer than motorbikes, protect you from the weather and offer room for groceries and a passenger.These quadricycles are designed for low speed predictable short distance commutes and are ideally suited for this intended use. This is the first reported fatality involving this vehicle which is really sad and deeply regrettable . From a statistics point of view it is an isolated incident given the fact that they are about 4000 of these vehicles have been put on the roads in 24 countries since 2003 . Should we ban the sales of motorbikes and cycles because they don t fare well when colliding with a bigger vehicle? Following this logic should everyone upgrade their cars to an SUV and surround themselves with as much steel as possible to make up for their poor driving abilities? I have also yet to meet an average Joe Bloggs who purchased the GWIZ and wasn t made aware that it was lighter and more vulnerable than a proper car.
@ Ollie – You’re right, statistically there have been very few accidents in G-Wiz vehicles, but then proportionally they make up a statistically insignificant proportion of cars on the roads. I’d be willing to bet that if you took another vehicle with an equivalent production run, many would have equally few accidents and/or fatalities.
That does not mean that a vehicle marketed as a car but without the legal safety requirements needed in actual cars should be exempted. As we have seen from this tragic incident, accidents can and do happen, and when taken out of their natural, crawling through traffic environment, they pose significant risk to their drivers.
The motorcycle and cyclist comparison is an irrelevant one ALWAYS brought up in these matters, since those on two wheels are well aware of their risks and take more precautions to protect themselves and are generally more aware than regular motorists. Not only that, but actual safety rarely correlates with perceived safety – many surveys have shown that cyclists are actually statistically safer if they don’t wear helmets as they’re likely to take fewer risks if they feel less safe.
In a quadricycle like the G-Wiz, it feels to all intents and purposes like a car, and many owners will drive them as such and be unaware of their safety limitations, therefore subconsciously allowing them to take greater risks than the vehicle is capable of dealing with.