All round vision.....lots of elbow room......transporting garden equipment........three passengers....... etc, etc....
sounds very much like my dear Berlingo.
|
Repair and refurbish are by far much greener options than recycling or changing your 4x4, large saloon or small hatchback for a politically correct new style, low emissions city car.
The problem is endemic throughout green organizations and government. These people do not have the intellect or knowledge to see how counter productive their simplistic policies are. They never calculate the 'dust to dust' implications, they just apply a simplistic, near-sighted reaction to the problem. This usually means a predictable tendency that focuses on the least problematic area and giving the least gains; if any gain at all that in turn just feeds the fire to the very problem they're trying to solve in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
The very sight of a 4x4 approaching serves as a warning that the chances are that the driver will be a) inconsiderate b) using a mobile phone c) not be able to see/be seen because of his blacked-out windows and d) at school-run times, be distracted by the kiddiwinks.
|
|
I wonder if the two MPV owners in my street know that blacked out windows are for 4X4s only. I'd better mention it to the 3 series BMW owner as well. Grief, it really is unbelievable.
|
|
I thought the whole point of blacked put windows were to stop people looking in, reflect sunlight but allow you to look out perfectly well. (That's what it's like on the back of my car anyway).
Edited by Pica on 04/01/2009 at 19:07
|
Correct.
All new 4X4's ( or any other new vehicle for that matter ) being sold from a dealer will come with perfectly legal front tints. On the odd occasion, some idiot will have extra tints applied to the front windows. Tinted windows are a choice, like having leather or a better CD player.
Amazing what people will grasp at to display their prejudices
|
My car came with tinted standard "privacy" glass on the back windows. I also have a private plate ( which I've had for many years and is legally displayed, and which wouldn't mean a thing to anyone, but I like it and it makes my car look older than it is, and anyway I don't care what anyone else thinks, they can stick ) It also costs more than £200 a year to tax.
Does this make me a bad person?
|
|
|
>Tinted windows are a choice ... Amazing what people will grasp at to display their prejudices
Tinted windows are a choice which sometimes interferes with my wish to see approaching traffic. If you see that as a prejudice, that may say more about you than me. All sorts of choices are open to people with money to spend, which some of them make thoughtlessly.
|
|
|
|
I thought the whole point of blacked put windows were to stop people looking in>>
Exactly - less chance of being seen using your mobile phone. Of course, it also means that other drivers are unable to make eye-contact. Oh, dear - my worst fears are being backed up.
|
Exactly - less chance of being seen using your mobile phone.
And very useful when i'm snorting a line too....
Give me strength....
|
And very useful when i'm snorting a line too....>>
What!!! While you're driving??? Ah well, each to his own.
|
|
|
|
" (That's what it's like on the back of my car anyway)." If drivers are trying to make eye contact from the back of my car they are already in need of an eye test.
I always laugh when out in the LHD; other drivers making eye contact to an empty seat or look surprised when my wife is in it and puts her hands over her eyes and some drivers look horrified thinking she is driving handsfree LOL
A few months ago I called a coach company to complain their driver was on her mobile telephone with a full load of school children in the coach. I telephoned the company but it must have fell on deaf ears because I saw her a few weeks ago doing the same thing.
|
statistically 4x4's are involved in less accidents than 'ordinary' cars too this is because
a)they have the acceleration of a snail (unlike those lunatic boy racers in Nova's & Clio's)
b)are driven by a sensible more discerning group of people than 'ordinary' cars :-)
you can get a fridge in the back too, aswell as all your student daughters stuff when she goes to uni, try doing THAT in a mondeo
|
To Quote:
The bedrock of socialism - jealousy. <<
WE shouldn't have to justify what we drive any more than we should justify how many bedrooms our homes have or what we wear or what we eat. <<
The problem is endemic throughout green organizations and government. These people do not have the intellect or knowledge to see how counter productive their simplistic policies are. They never calculate the 'dust to dust' implications, they just apply a simplistic, near-sighted reaction to the problem. This usually means a predictable tendency that focuses on the least problematic area and giving the least gains; if any gain at all that in turn just feeds the fire to the very problem they're trying to solve in the first place. <<
Three of the best points made here I think - ESPECIALLY the latter...
Dan
|
Two things drive the green debate
Research scientists looking for next years grant
Governments giving the grants because the conclusion to their research means they can justify green taxation !!
|
|
|
|
you can get a fridge in the back too aswell as all your student daughters stuff when she goes to uni try doing THAT in a mondeo
Can do that in my seat altea, and on less fuel.
wrong argument you used there, 4x4's are NOT interior space efficient.
|
|
I have all ways found the height of the floor area of a Range Rover, Discovery or Jeep, ideal for loading and unloading heavy items in the rear. Better than bending in to a car boot area or rear and lifting them out.
|
All the old clichés are out in force in this thread, enjoying a little ray of winter sunshine, bless them. Time to deflate the balloon a little.
First thing, I see no problem with 4X4s as a specialised vehicle used for a specialised purpose. The only reason they have become a contentious subject is that some fashion victims have started using them as if they were ordinary cars, which means that their flaws become highlighted.
Those flaws include:
* Higher fuel consumption that an ordinary car with the same interior space. Extra weight, increased mechanical drag from the 4X4 system, and extra height all add up to more fuel used and more emissions. At a time when peak oil is on its way and global warming is a critical problem, that's bad news.
*Increased danger to pedestrians. To be able to function in rough terrain, 4X4s need high ground clearance at the front, which combines with the bluff front and higher point of impact to increase the risk that a pedestrian gets dragged under a veficle rather lifted up onto the bonnet. The EuroNCAP doesn't test for this, which is why their ratings for 4X4s are misleading.
* Increased danger to other vehicles. The high weight and higher centre of gravity of a 4X4 means that when it hits another vehicle, it is more likely to roll it over, hugely increasing the injury rates of that vehicle's occupants. Additionally, the high ground clearance of the SUV means that its point of impact is higher than ordinary car, and will often be above the side-impact protection systems on a car, a problem which is exacerbated by the 4X4s with a ladder chassis because the impact zone functions as rigid point rather than the crumple zone of an ordinary car.
* Increased danger to the occupants of the 4X4. The extra height and high COG make an SUV less stable than an ordinary car, leading to an increased number of rollover accidents.
* Reduced visibility for other road users. The usual old chestnut about measuring the footprint (length and width) of a 4X4 against other vehicles omits the problem that 4X4s are higher, so that they block the view for other road users. The higher driving position that 4X4 drivers like comes at the price of blocking forward visibility for others. It also means that a child behind an SUV is invisible to the driver unless they have a reversing camera, which has led to a significant number of cases in the US of 4X4 drivers reversing over their own kids.
All these problems are well-documented, and the most interesting thing about 4X4 apologists is the vehemence with which they profess their ignorance of these factors, or try to find some crank theory which they can cling onto instead.
One of the most frequent revealing ripostses comes from those who parrot versions of the "we shouldn't have to justify what we drive" refrain. Wrong in practice, of course; there are all sorts of restrictions on what people can drive, for reasons of safety and of emissions and fuel use.
But also wrong in principle. There's no public outcry about use of 4X4s on private land, but those vocal 4X4 drivers shouting the "my choice" mantra forget that their vehicles use fuel from the same finite sources as the rest of us, pollute the same climate that we all live in, and use the same roads as those of who are endangered by these fashionable monsters. Similar restraints exist in other areas of life, from building houses to disposing of waste to playing loud music late at night or being drunk in a public place: limits are imposed on individual choice when it has a negative impact on the lives of others.
The 4X4-drivers refrain of "it's none of your business what I drive", and their refusal to consider the impact on others, is perceived by others for what it is: selfishness. Those fixated on their own desires without regard to the impact on others are rarely popular, but much comedy is generated in their increasingly hysterical efforts to live up to the stereotype. That comedy also helps hasten the day that the law starts to restrain the proliferation of 4X4s as fashion-victim toys, so threads like these serve a commendable dual purpose: they entertain and they help bring forward the departure of 4X4s from ordinary road use.
So keep up the good work, folks. Entertainment and progress in one thread is a fine combination.
|
Dangerous vehicles to drive?
I take it you'll support a ban on motorcycles then?
|
Dangerous vehicles to drive? I take it you'll support a ban on motorcycles then?
In terms of fuel usage, motorcycles are quite efficient, so from that POV they are a good thing. As to safety, they are really only a danger to their own users, and I deplore any use of the law to protect people from themselves (such as the seatbelt and safety helmet laws), so it would be quite wrong to ban them.
If people want to risk other people's lives, the law should protect the potential victims. But if people want to risk killing themselves, the law should butt out.
|
I think you'll find nowheels that motorcycles are more of a danger to pedestrians than cars, anyway Im just being fascetious, every vehicle carries risk, to both its driver and the more vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists
And using the old tactic of dodgy statistics ill bet you more people are killed by mid range mid sized family saloon type vehicles than any other type of vehicle on the road :-0
Edited by malden blue on 04/01/2009 at 21:56
|
Danger lurks in the strangest quarters. Take innocent-looking slippers, for example. According to the latest Government figures, a staggering 37,048 people had to go to hospital because of mishaps involving slippers in 1998
Ban the Slipper I say
|
And 3500 people die on UK roads each year despite the attentions of several thousand boys in blue
20,000+ (some say 40,000) die of bacterial infections each year in hospitals because we cant keep the wards clean, and not a cop in sight!!
Its a funny old world
|
Nicely put. It's a point I all ways raise when the ' motorists are killers brigade " pipe up. Why not start with the worse problem first.
Back to 4X4's. In the early years, do you remember the outcry about bull bars that appeared on the fronts of some of these vehicles.? You know the argument..they kill kiddies.
Well a 4X4 magazine at the time dug in to the figures and found that for every one child killed in an accident with a bull bar equipped 4X4 , 20 were killed in accidents involving Ice Cream Vans. Don't know about your area but Ice Cream Vans still operate in mine.
|
I think you'll find nowheels that motorcycles are more of a danger to pedestrians than cars
I wasn't aware of that, but if you're right it's a factor to weigh against motorbikes. Sounds unlikely in practice, though, because a motorcycle rider comes of badly in most collision, so has a much stronger incentive to avoid them than any car driver.
anyway Im just being fascetious every vehicle carries risk to both its driver and the more vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists
Indeed it does. The problem with 4X4s is that a time when a lot of effort is being put into the reducing the danger that vehicles pose to others, 4X4s make things worse.
And using the old tactic of dodgy statistics ill bet you more people are killed by mid range mid sized family saloon type vehicles than any other type of vehicle on the road :-0
Dodgy statistics indeed. Keep 'em coming, it all helps hasten the demise of the urban 4X4
|
what I meant by dodgy statistic nowheel, was that mid sized family saloons probably do kill more people than any other type of car, but only because they are the most numerous type on the road
statistics they can be used whichever way you like :-)
as per some of the guff put about re 4x4's
Edited by malden blue on 04/01/2009 at 22:10
|
what I meant by dodgy statistic nowheel was that mid sized family saloons probably do kill more people than any other type of car but only because they are the most numerous type on the road
I know that was what you meant.
statistics they can be used whichever way you like :-) as per some of the guff put about re 4x4's
That's as silly an argument as your comparison with saloon cars. You deliberately misuse one statistic, and cite your own misuse as a reason to dismiss all statistics ... which may be easier than actually looking at the data, but doesn't persuade anyone.
In any case, you don't seem to have noticed that most of the points I made did not relate to statistics. They related to aspects of the design of 4X4s which make them inherently more dangerous to their users and to others ... but it's quite the norm to find 4X4 advocates ignoring all those issues and trying to throw up a smokescreen.
|
But if you say you arnt worried if people kill themselves and 4x4's seem to be more dangerous to their drivers than anyone else whats the problem
Statistics show that 4x4's have far fewer accidents than ordinary cars so aseeing that you are far less likely to be hit by one same again wheres the problem
|
Statistics show that 4x4's have far fewer accidents than ordinary cars so aseeing that you are far less likely to be hit by one same again wheres the problem
Do they? Any chance of pointing us to the source of that info?
I can think of at least two familes where people were killed just before christmas by 4x4s who may just disagree...
|
|
I'm passing through this place the once so I'm going to have everything I can out of it before I get to the next place. If there's nothing left in my wake for those following, then tough.
|
I'm a bit short of time but I'll have a quick go at some of these, hopefully to NW's approval ;-)
* Higher fuel consumption that an ordinary car with the same interior space. Extra weight increased mechanical drag from the 4X4 system and extra height all add up to more fuel used and more emissions.
How about the higher weight from all new cars? I regularly got 60mpg from a Citroen AX that had nothing cleverer than a carburettor. With modern engine management and higher compression ratio surely you could get at least 25% better nowadays?
*Increased danger to pedestrians.
Very true, but why not address the real problem of hitting pedestrians? A broken leg from being hit by an Astra is better than a broken back from a Range Rover, but why not do something which reduces injuries significantly?
* Increased danger to other vehicles.
Pretty much see the answer above. While NCAPs and crumple zones are great, not crashing is always better. I've had a crash in an old car and a new one, and not crashing at all was far safer than either. Address the root of the problem rather than tinkering away IMHO.
* Increased danger to the occupants of the 4X4.
Again, only if you crash. I had a ride in a 4x4 last week where I suffered no discomfort at all. Didn't crash of course.
* Reduced visibility for other road users.
True, but vans with no rear windows are much worse than some glasshouse 4x4s. Nothing that can't be cured by dropping back a few yards in traffic though.
One of the most frequent revealing ripostses comes from those who parrot versions of the "we shouldn't have to justify what we drive" refrain.
If you're after increased safety and all round niceness for road users (and I'd love driving to be a more pleasant experience), I don't think it makes a significant difference what they drive, attitude and their own safety has a far bigger impact. Target the driver, not the car.
|
|
|
My one is, with the back seats down, and I mean properly down not at 45 degrees like most cars, the rear space is CAVERNOUS!
|
more room in a scenic if you take the rear seats out.
|
An MPV?
You still have the bulk/height of vehicle selfishly blocking other car drivers view thing to get round
Very practical vehicle though IMHO, 4 blokes all their golf clubs and luggage no problem
|
On the loadspace thing.
I can get much more stuff in the back of my Mondeo estate than my friend can in get in the back of his X5. My car is also easier to load with heavy things than his due to the lower load height.
His X5 is very nice and he likes it. My Mondeo suits me and I like it.
We are both happy.
So that's good isn't it?
|
|
Yes - if only the rest of the world was like that. Now I'm off to ruffle the feathers of my duck.
|
|
Sounds reasonable to me Humph
|
|
Well I drive a 4x4 and couldnt give a stuff what any of the 'eco warriors' think... I mean don't know about you lot but I can't wait for 'Global Warming' its been flippin freezing here this week!!!
|
Interesting post. I would not normally agree with NowWheels, but, in this case, I do, and only because of the safety concerns.
It seems to me that there's a bit of an arms race going on, with the trend being for people to get bigger and bigger cars. My wife drives an old-shape Nissan Micra without any airbags and I hate to think what will happen to her car if she collides with a 4x4. You may say that, if we have these concerns, we should enter the arms race ourselves and get a bigger car. But the fact is that my wife, while a perfectly competent driver, is not very confident and will only drive a small car. So I'm currently looking to replace her car with another small one, but a lot safer. But, however safe her replacement car is, it would still not fare well in a collision with a 4x4. I agree 4x4s have a role in rural areas, but not on the school-run!
|
4x4s safer ? but more dangerous
27 February 2008
? 4x4 drivers less likely to be in accident
? Better view of road thought to be the reason
? Chance of injury is greater in an accident, though
New research shows drivers of 4x4s are less likely to be involved in crashes, but when they are, injuries are more serious.
The survey was conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) on behalf of Transport for London (TfL).
It found that the collision rate for 4x4s was 30% lower than that for other cars. This is believed to be because 4x4 drivers are higher up and have a better view of traffic, allowing them to react to incidents quicker.
However, a TfL spokesman said the study highlighted that pedestrians, in particular children, motorcyclists and occupants of small cars, were significantly more likely to be killed or seriously injured when in a crash with a large 4x4.
The report found that, for those hit by a large 4x4, there was a 26% chance of injuries, compared with a 22% chance when hit by a smaller off-roader. When hit by a family sized car, the rate of injury was 21%.
|
So the roads would be safer if we all drove 4x4's then Pica
a 26% chance of injury if hit by a 4x4
vs
21% when hit by a family sized car
and
only a 1% difference with small offroaders!
that 5% is more than offset by the fact the collision rates are 30% lower for a 4x4!
or have I got my sums wrong?
Edited by malden blue on 04/01/2009 at 22:23
|
"So the roads would be safer if we all drove 4x4's then Pica"
Quite possibly :)
|
I understand how you feel about your wife and agree with you but the sheer fact that we get into any vehicle means were putting ourselves in danger all the time, Isn't any collision potentially life threatening? I fail to see why the height of a 4x4 is more dangerous than any other vehicle regardless of all the ever expanding words used to describe them!
|
Yes, but it's not just the height of the car that makes it a danger to smaller cars. I'm no scientist, but I would have thought the bigger factor is the weight of 4x4s.
Then again, height would be an issue as well - a higher car is bound to inflict much greater damage on a lower car than the other way round.
|
|
Do buses pose a bigger danger to small cars on the road.... big bendy buses, double deckers , coaches ?
|
Well MB, your thread has led exactly where you probably thought it would, its brought out those who enjoy them personally, those who don't own but are happy for people to live as they wish, those who can't see the point in them, those that hate them, and those who manage to leave me in a depressed state whenever they comment on a thread, mainly because of their sheer boring predictability.
The cliches have been wonderful, i can't wait for the next phase in motoring in this country, the application for a permit to own a particular type of vehicle, i wonder who will be in charge of the peoples motorised transport dept...eh comrade.
|
Whats wrong with a brand 2 litre diesel powered 40mpg+ 4x4
It's ugly - all 4x4s are - enough reason in my book.
|
Its the inability of people to see how this arguement has been hijacked for political purposes GB (I mean by the politicians and certain lobbies not we here) that gets me
I dont know for a fact what causes the majority of accidents and deaths on our roads but Im willing to bet its speed combined with poor driving not the nake of vehicle
Plus the 3500 deaths on our roads really should be looked at in the context of the 400,000 + deaths that occur in the uk each year from all causes
How many peoples lives would be spared if smoking was banned btw anyone know?
Edited by malden blue on 04/01/2009 at 22:32
|
I dont know for a fact what causes the majority of accidents and deaths on our roads but Im willing to bet its speed combined with poor driving not the nake of vehicle
Ooh, you shouldn't say speed, or you'll have all the speed-cameras-are-stealing-my-freedom complainers down on you like a ton of bricks.
But the cause of accidents isn't the major problem with 4X4s: the problem is that when they have accidents, they cause more damage, both to people and to vehicles. It's a similar effect to putting a spike on the front of a vehicle: even if it doesn't the car more likely to crash, it increases the damage when a collision does occur.
Anyway, it's fascinating how persistent some people are coming up with distractions from that problem.
|
|
4x4's have less accidents per mile than ordinary cars though and unlike HGV's are not normally driven by people who have just dome 24 hours straight at the wheel
|
I dont know for a fact what causes the majority of accidents and deaths on our roads but Im willing to bet its speed combined with poor driving not the nake of vehicle
NO NO NO - This is what we're being brainwashed to think. Its been covered here before. Speed (even as a secondary factor) is not the top cause. We're being herded into a world where driving skill is being reduced, and speed is seen as the big killer. The result is poor driving, tailgating, people using mobile phones but claiming their driving was fine 'because they were below the speed limit'
In no other aspect of life are we allowed to do a dangerous activity without some form of top-up training, but we can drive from 17-70 with no further review.
|
those who manage to leave me in a depressed state whenever they comment on a thread, mainly because of their sheer boring predictability
My point exactly, GB. The me-me-me 4X4 brigade always come back to the same varieties of bluster.
i can't wait for the next phase in motoring in this country the application for a permit to own a particular type of vehicle i wonder who will be in charge of the peoples motorised transport dept...eh comrade.
That's existed for years: it's called an application for a driving licence, and requires different tests for different classes of vehicle.
|
So a CRV or RAV4 is 1% 'worse' than a normal family car and the big problem is the huge discovery, landcruiser, etc, sized 4x4s?
Surely that would mean that the very big MPVs are equally as much a danger on the roads but more so, again, than a CRV or RAV4?
I think one problem is that 4x4 is used to lump in cars of quite different size and weights. I had a neighbour's discovery reverse into my parked car last year and it was a tank going over it. Whereas when I first saw the new model CRV I was amazed how 'small' it looked alongside many other saloons both in width and length.
Isn't it just a case of cars that are either too big, too heavy or too fast, or all three, are a menance on the road and especially so if driven by a numpty? Then again, I live near a comprehensive and each day loads of 17 years zoom out of the school in their fiesta, 105s, etc, and drive at speed down the road.
I would be happy if all th big 4x4s and MPVs were taken off our roads but then, dare I say it, I would be happy if all the fast engine cars disappeared too. Then again, speeding coaches and lorries scare the life out of me sometimes on the roads so where do we stop? Anything that makes the roads safer and potentially saves lives should be done though IMPO.
|
GB
And also those who see this as a serious issue and are concerned about the possible safety impact for those of us that don't wish to participate in this particular arms race!
|
A few drivers doing "their thing" divert BiB resources
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7809579.stm
|
|
Meanwhile in other parts of the country, horse riders have been asked not to use various byways. We are just a petty nation involved with tit for tat actions borne out of resentment and jealousy.
|
We are just a petty nation involved with tit for tat actions borne out of resentment and jealousy.
If that's how you see it, then what did someone do to you to make you so resentful and jealous that your tit-for-tat cation is to take an offroad vehicle onto the roads?
|
Meanwhile in other parts of the country horse riders have been asked not to use various byways. >>
Many byways in Cambridgeshire have had to be gated-off because of the damage caused by the 4x4 brigade.
|
Blimey a 4x4 with no MOT!
I can start to see your point now :-)
|
Same problem in Wales and also wrecking the lives of many who live in the countryside. There have been several reports on the Welsh news about 4x4 owners driving up tracks next to 'quiet' country cottages at all hours, not only stressing out the locals but causing considerable damage to the countryside.
A tad selfish and perhaps indicative of a particular type of 4x4 driver?
|
Driving up 'country tracks' at 'all hours' and 'causing considerable damage' will they stop at nothing? :-)
PS what sort of vehicle normally uses these country tracks?
|
Driving up 'country tracks' at 'all hours' and 'causing considerable damage' will they stop at nothing? :-) PS what sort of vehicle normally uses these country tracks?
Malden blue, I'm beginning to think that you are an agent provocateur for some extremist group trying to stir up hatred of 4X4 drivers. Please don't do that, because such things can easily get out of hand and lead to people being hurt.
|
I would humbly submit wheels you redicover a sense of humour
(unless you are on a windup in which case well done) :-)
|
I would humbly submit wheels you redicover a sense of humour (unless you are on a windup in which case well done) :-)
Don't worry, soh alive and well here. :) I have been chortling away for a while at how enthusiastically some 4X4 drivers rush to confirm all the stereotyped views of them, but some are so bizarrely OTT that I really do wonder if they aren't trolls of some form.
|
|
So there are 4X4's in the country. Does it say ' Being driven by a townie " on the side so that the cottage folk can tell it shouldn't be there ?
|
>Yes - if only the rest of the world was like that. Now I'm off to ruffle the feathers of my duck.
Anyone got the number for RSPB (or maybe Vice)?
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
