Regarding the TVR vs 4x4 question though, all I was saying is that if you have to have a car, maybe you should go for the safer option as a method of damage limitation?
So repeating the question, why did no-one ask the questions of Jez and his TVR? Here is a car that is renowned for it's unpredictable handling, is capable of far higher speeds than a 4x4, has very poor all round visibility, all of which is not true of most 4x4s. Safety is not all about the affect of an impact, but also the contributing factors that can put it in one.
Can you honestly say that you buy a car purely based on it's safety to pedestrians, 'green'ness and all that good stuff, or do you also consider what pleasure it gives you (how it looks, performance, how it handles, etc). If that is the case, then what makes you (or anyone else) the ruling judge on what is an acceptable compromise.
I get frustrated with the anti-4x4 lobby who feel they have the right to define this compromise to tackle a small issue when, as you say, thousands of people die on the roads in the UK, in accidents where no 4x4s are involved.