Yep, the only things it could be criticised for are: -
1. It has the 4wd stuff on it which though rarelyused uses a little more power; and
2. It is higher which worsens the aerodynamics.
Between them say 10% worse fuel economy? It could be a Ferrari doing 15mpg - why don't they ban those?
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
>It could be a Ferrari doing 15mpg - why don't they ban those?
Because in most cases Ferraris have style and glamour. Seeing a Ferrari on the street is akin to seeing Kate Moss. Seeing the CR-V and its ilk is more like having to look at Bernard Manning in his vest and pants. Actually there are so many of the darn things it's like seeing Bernard Manning on every street corner.
|
|
They leave enthusiasts cold for most of the same reasons MPVs do; for being ugly, bulky, graceless, view-obstructing utility vehicles offering little in the way of driver enjoyment. The car reduced to mere functional transport - at least 'proper' 4X4s are. But I understand why people buy them, and I find anti-libertarian campaigns against their right to so so far more objectionable.
|
|
|
Kate Moss is too thin and Bernard Manning is very funny!
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
"Seeing a Ferrari on the street is akin to seeing Kate Moss"........
Why. Was it smoking?
|
|
|
Manning is not funny if you belong to anything that isn't white anglo saxon male.
or to quote the great Edmund Blackadder, "he is about as funny as getting an arrow through the neck and finding a gas bill stuck to the end"
|
Being Jewish and at the thick end of some very poor taste jokes, I can tell you from personal experience that Bernard Manning is a real gentleman who wouldn't hurt a fly and does not condone racism.
He is also very funny if you live within three miles of Harpurhey, as I do. I've been to his club and the worst I have suffered is a joke about the limited quantity of alcohol I drink.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
|
|
|
Bernard Manning in his vest and pants? Well, at least he makes me laugh. Kate Moss doesn't. So, does that make a 4X4 more fun to drive than a prancing horse?
No, I am afraid not....doh!
|
|
|
>>Seeing the CR-V and its ilk is more like having to look at Bernard Manning in his vest and pants
Ha ha ha ha ha, a brilliant image. It'll will now forever be for me the Bernard Manning pantsmobile. (still laughing)
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
|
|
>It could be a Ferrari doing 15mpg - why don't they ban those?
Because in most cases Ferraris have style and glamour. Seeing a Ferrari on the street is akin to seeing Kate Moss. Seeing the CR-V and its ilk is more like having to look at Bernard Manning in his vest and pants. Actually there are so many of the darn things it's like seeing Bernard Manning on every street corner.
No, it's because they are 2nd on the list for the anti-car lobby; and make no mistake they will be using the envy card against them too.
The CR-V is a very good vehicle, and if small 4x4 like this were banned there is no logical arguement against banning cars like the Audi TT, (which would make more sense if we are using criteria like NCAP pedestrian safety ratings)
|
|
|
|
|
>>I can't see why you hate the CR-V
Oh, don't get me wrong. It's not that I hate the CR-V
I hate all these ridiculous things that are way too big for our roads.
ill informed
Just because I think you're wrong doesn't make me ill informed.
What will these people be driving once everyone has a out-sized vehicle? To feel safe, my money is on a surge of 7.5tonne trucks. It happened in the States, and it's now happening here too.
Now, where's my placard kit?
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
What defines outsized?
A Citroen C5 estate is longer and 1 cm less wide
a Citroen C8 is longer taller and wider
Does this mean that they are too big for our roads?
The anti 4x4 brigade seem lose arguments badly in motoring circles since they tar all the cars with the same brush. A CRV/Xtrail etc is not the same sort of car as a Disco/RangeRover which in turn is not the same as a Hummer/F150 etc etc.
If i compared a C8 to a ford Ka, and complained that the C8 took up too much room on the road than the Ka, i would be laughed at since they are not the same class of car. Yet when the same is done with 4x4's the arguement seems to make sense for some. While watching anti 4x4 people on the TV e.g. last weeks watchdog, i found their arguements very poor. I found this not because of the content of the arguement but because they were tarring everything with the same brush.
A 4x4 is more polluting than other cars. Well yes and no. Some are and some arn't, some are cleaner than 2x4s.
4x4's are more dangerous to pedestrians, well all cars are dangerous to pedestrians, but some 4x4's may well be more dangerous, but the others arn't and are in fact safer for pedestrians (relativly).
4x4's are more difficult to see round. As are panel vans, and people carriers.
You don't need a car that big. Well some people do and some don't , if we are being honest even people who hate anti 4x4's probably have a car that is too big for them. in reality all everyone needs is a scooter to get to work, since their own car, like most cars on the road probably has only 1 person in it.
They are driven too aggressivly. Well i can drive a fiesta in such a way as to intimidate the car in front ( i don't but thats a different point), and being hit from behind at 70 mph in anything is fairly damn serious.
I have mixed views with 4x4's some i think are a little excessive, and some i don't. What irks me is blanket comments that tar a car just because it has drive to 4 wheels instead of 2, which cannot stand to scrutiny of any sort.
(Dark room time)
|
In the area I live, old, smoking and clapped out Sierra's, Cavaliers, Nova's, Sunny's, XR3's, Fiesta's abound in high numbers. They don't have brake assist, air bags, engine management, Seatbelt tensioners,Traction control, Side impact bars, Centre 3-point belts, Anti-lock brakes etc. My 4X4 does.
Whose car should be banned from the road? Mine? Get real. Take mine off the road and you should take off scores of thousands of others which are not 4X4....but are more unfit for the road than mine.
Is my car any more dangerous that a rusty Morris Marina (yes, there is one left and it lives in 7 Kings) driven by a myopic 80 year old who took his test in 1945?
|
>>(Dark room time)
(Eastender's voice) - Leave it out smoke, it's not worth it ;-)
>>Is my car any more dangerous that a rusty Morris Marina (yes, there is one left and it lives in 7 Kings) driven by a myopic 80 year old who took his test in 1945
Same fellow, outsized yank wagon. Which would you rather he hit you in?
Here's the truth of it.
*My Opinion* is that 99% of the people with 4x4s/outsized vehicles don't need them. A collision between a car and a 4x4 will cause more damage to the car than the same collision between two cars. As most people drive cars in this country, that's bad news for most people.
A 4x4 is a selfish choice, but we live in a selfish country. It's quite depressing.
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
1. The vast majority of people drive/own cars that are too big for their needs, but on ocassions they may need that extra room for a big shop or moving that armchair for Granny etc. If her indoors took Mother-in-law shopping and got our grub etc. it wouldn't fit in a micra etc.
2. We live in north Devon and we don't need a 4x4 except for maybe 1 day per year.
3. We drive a huge van, (work) and a necessity and also an ageing Volvo. Now, the Volvo is toooooo low for our roads here and in an ideal world much better visibility would be preferable. i.e 4x4 or MPV and I cannot stand MPV's.
4. I, not we, have always fancied a Camper. She prob doesn't and prefers airplanes and sun! Q. If I buy a camper, (and it would be used as the car as well), is somebody going to have a go at me cos it is big and uneconomical? AND don't ANYBODY go down the renting route cos I ain't a lottery winner. Get my drift.
5. On the thorny subject of pedestrians. We are good parents. We have the proof. Taught her to cross the road, use a knife and fork. The usual stuff that seems to be lacking in this space age of ours, but she, the Daughter and heiress to the overdraft always did and probably still does, swan across the road as if cars were/are made of sherbet and could do no harm and there are millions like her. We, the car owners can only drive sensibly and within safe limits for the conditions. We should NOT be held responsible for the pathetic attitude of pedestrians or their mates the cyclists.
Now I need a cup of tea.
VVBR........M
|
|
Unfortunately, there are many drivers with pathetic attitudes too.
|
|
|
|
absolutely brilliant mate.I drive a 2.5 pajero diesel intercooler.I have less emmisions than the average family car, because mine is an import and they have more stringent emmision controls than we do.Because she's a fairly big truck compared to the average family car I rarely take it above seventy although I have had eighty out of it downhill.Because I sit so high up I can see an accident developing far sooner than the average saloon car driver.It has tax,an mot and insurance and i've personaly never had an accident in 34 years of driving.I don't hear to many of you bigots campaigning about 17 year olds with un-insured no licence to drive deathtraps of cars.Perhaps it's a sexual thing with you,I drive a big car so mine must be bigger than yours.Ladies and gentlemen,lets get things in perspective,my car is no more dangerous than yours (in fact it is probably safer) The only dangerous thing on the road is the driver
Joe (pocuk)
|
|
|
|
The anti 4x4 brigade seem lose arguments badly in motoring circles since they tar all the cars with the same brush. A CRV/Xtrail etc is not the same sort of car as a Disco/RangeRover which in turn is not the same as a Hummer/F150 etc etc.
True, there important differences. But the term 4X4 is a convenient shorthand for a vehicle with 4WD, raised ground clearance, big wheels, and off-road capability.
It's a meaningful shorthand too: despite the differences, these machines do have some relevant things in common, things which distinguish them from ordinary cars. The extent of the difference varies, but it is a common factor.
Something like a CRV or RAV4 is not the same kettle of fish as a Shogun: the CRV is lighter, and probably has crumple zones rather than a ladder chassis. They are not as great a danger to other road-users as a Shogun.
But the likes of the CRV and RAV4 have a higher point of impact than a car or MPV (eased perhaps by intelligent design, but still higher than in an ordinary car), so they'll do more damage in a crash. They both are both likely to roll a pedestrian underneath than to lift them onto the bonnet (an effect which NCAP doesn't even attempt to measure).
And they both still gobble more fuel than an equivalent estate car or MPV.
I'm sure that the roads would be safer if folks replaced their Shoguns and Discoveries with CRVs and RAV4s, but they usually seem to appear as replacements for ordinary cars.
Yes, I know there are some situations where a traditional 4X4 is a thoroughly appropriate tool for the job, but in most cases they seem to be bought as a choice rather than because of offroad or towing ability.
|
>>And they both still gobble more fuel than an equivalent estate car or MPV.
Not true.
Also, if we wish to avoid injury to pedestrians, car design is one aspect. Pedestrian responsibility is another factor. All these factors should be addressed - including the right to cross roads at anything other than a crossing, to ever be out when drunk, to ever walk along dark roads in dark clothing, etc. etc. etc.
You also keep slipping into your arguments that people do not "need" a 4x4. What has that to do with anything ? For the most part people don't "need" Sky Television, they don't "need" a stereo, they don't "need" nice clothes. But it is, until you and your mates Gordon and Tony really get going, a free country.
Do not reply with "ah, but Sky Television doesn't kill pedestrians" because that is a different point. Whether or not a 4x4 kills pedestrians is one point. It is not connected to whether or not I "need" one.
I am permitted to own things for frivolous reasons. Please seperate your deep seated worry about whether I need something from a focus on more relevant points.
|
I've just written a clever and convincing set of arguments to support the motion "4x4 - really pretty stupid"
But I've spent too long crafting it and for the first time, the posting page timed out.
So in summary.
"I think you're wrong"
"You think I'm wrong"
"Bernard Manning's pants"
I can probably do it again, but no one is going to change their mind based on a few postings.
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
|
|
|
PS just checked HJ's assertion in his review of the CRV that "With its low CO2 output of 177g/km, its decent economy of 42.2mpg and its reasonably low weight of 1,631kg it is actually far more city and pedestrian friendly than most ordinary cars."
I just checked his review of the latest Mondeos: combined mpg: 50.4; CO2 emissions: 148g/km.
A fairer comparison may be his review of the Accord with the same engine: combined 48.4mpg; CO2 emissions 153g/km for the tourer (saloon 52.3mpg); CO2 emissions 143g/km)
So the CRV uses 15% more fuel, and produces 15% more emissions than an Accord Tourer, and about 20% more of each than the saloon. Sounds significantly less environmentally-friendly to me.
It's good news to see that it's more lighter than traditional 4X4s, but as to pedestrian-friendliness ... hmm. It does well in EuroNCAP, but EuroNCAP doesn't test for the problem of dragging pedestrians under the car.
(Mods, sorry for two consecutive posts but that's it, I've had my say in this thread!)
|
I can't help thinking that bringing in pedestrian responsibility is a bit of a red herring. Yes, pedestrians need to be as careful as possible how they interact with traffic, but they are not a seperate species or sector of society. We are all pedestrians at some time. It is not the fault of the indivdual pedestrian that they have to share roads with traffic, that is the way things are, for most areas that people live in.
One thing is for sure, however, and that is that pedestrians will be involved in accidents with traffic, and it is not always the pedestrian's fault. They will always come off worse, however!
|
I'd been going to write to letters@honestjohn, but then I found this forum. Rather than waste my letter, here it is:
You write that because the latest Honda CRV is more economical than most SUVs, "the placard-waving, ignorant anti-4x4 brigade will inevitably hate it all the more".
Whoa, steady! I'm not placard-waving, and I'm not ignorant. So perhaps you would say this wasn't addressed to me. But I do feel impugned because I am indeed generally anti-4x4. Perhaps you're just stating a dislike of people with entrenched positions, but you look pretty entrenched yourself. I'll say it again: I'm generally anti-4x4, meaning I make exception for people who really need to tow heavy loads or work off-road - and how many, frankly, are they? But the vast majority of 4x4s are bought for shopping, taking children to school, or posing (an increasingly counter-productive activity, I'd have thought, given the way SUV drivers are derided).
I'm disappointed that your column, which is generally sane and well-balanced, should get twitchy in defence of these unnecessary and wasteful vehicles. I'll know that the world has started to show a bit of sanity when reviewers put mpg at the top of their reviews, and have the courage to say that 20, or 30, or even 40 mpg is simply not good enough.
As for the Honda, why should I hate it more because it's relatively economical? I hate it less.
|
Here we go again. The 'I don't approve so it should be banned' brigade. There are some people who spend their entire lives finding fault, usually they have nothing much constructive to add; just moan, moan. Get out a bit and see the wood for the trees guys, it might open your eyes and give you something positive to write.
I'll just go for a drive in my Outback...yummmee.
|
I would imagine that there are quite few in this forum, who have no great belief in the latest forecast on global warming. Personnally, I am very concerned for the future generations (it probably won't affect me), so I would quite welcome a radical shift in how we use our cars and how they are designed. I find great difficulty in accepting an ongoing outlook of ''I have the money and I will spend it in any way I see fit'', if that means a headlong dive towards a global catastrophe.
A free society brings with it a requirement for a degree of responsibility, and the need to look beyond the needs of the next few years. As a species, we tend to think we can overcome any problem. I hope we can, but nature has a nasty habit of reminding us of our fallibility and limitations.
See the wood for the trees? Let us hope there are still plenty of trees to look at it at the end of this century.
|
|
The temperature of the earth has been going up and down like a yoyo for a couple of billion years. Each generation of the human race has had its problems and has overcome them to a greater or lesser degree, and no doubt will continue to do so. The belief that driving smaller cars in the UK is going to make any significant difference to the current climate change is ludicrous. A tiny percentage of atmospheric CO2 is caused by humans burning fossil fuel; as for UK's input; miniscule. Volcanos and other natural phenomena account for nearly all of it. If you really must have something to worry about try the killing fields of Africa and Asia, or the state of our roads!!
|
Wasn't there a report saying that cars take more energy and produce more greenhouse gases in their construction and distruction than they consume in a lifetime of burning fossil fuel.
A point which i say from observation ( rather than having concrete facts, hence is open to contradiction), is that 4x4's seem to survive much longer than comparitive standard cars, since even old ones are worth something compared to old cars which are usually worthless after about 9 years. This means that they are used for longer and not scrapped, thus if you devide total production+usage emmissions+distruction emissions by the age of the car, emissions/year may well be lower than a standard car, since i doubt that a 4x4 produces much more emissions in their construction than any other vehicle.
I may well be wrong but its an arguement i wish to put forward to the discussion :-).
|
The temperature of the earth has been going up and down like a yoyo for a couple of billion years. Each generation of the human race has had its problems and has overcome them to a greater or lesser degree, and no doubt will continue to do so. The belief that driving smaller cars in the UK is going to make any significant difference to the current climate change is ludicrous. A tiny percentage of atmospheric CO2 is caused by humans burning fossil fuel; as for UK's input; miniscule. Volcanos and other natural phenomena account for nearly all of it. If you really must have something to worry about try the killing fields of Africa and Asia, or the state of our roads!!
So, the proclamations and forecasts being made by about global warming (and the causes of it) by a mass of eminent scientists is so much drivel? Is that what you are saying? If the human race has so little effect on the earth's atmosphere, can you please tell me what is the cause of global dimming? Is that down to volcanoes and natural phenomena also? Mr Bush must be right in his opposition to the Kyoto treaty and its ilk, if that is the case.
To compare our generation with generations gone by is irrelevant, as the size of the current population of the world, and the scale and type of it's activities, is not comparable with anything that has gone before it, certainly not beyond the start of the last century.
The solution is not in driving smaller cars of the type we see today. It will take something much more radical than that.
|
So, the proclamations and forecasts being made by about global warming (and the causes of it) by a mass of eminent scientists is so much drivel
1. It's politically-correct science of the worst sort, fuelled by massive grants, and boondoggles like Kyoto, for saying the right things.
2. Equally eminent scientists, climatologists, palaentologists, geologists and even historians who take a dissenting view are shouted down.
3. Not one opposing case was allowed to be heard at Kyoto. Don't believe me? Name one.
4. The Danish study (are Danes not sufficiently 'eminent'?) linking warming to cyclical variation in solar activity gets suppressed every time.
|
1. It's politically-correct science of the worst sort, fuelled by massive grants, and boondoggles like Kyoto, for saying the right things. 2. Equally eminent scientists, climatologists, palaentologists, geologists and even historians who take a dissenting view are shouted down. 3. Not one opposing case was allowed to be heard at Kyoto. Don't believe me? Name one. 4. The Danish study (are Danes not sufficiently 'eminent'?) linking warming to cyclical variation in solar activity gets suppressed every time.
>>
Please tell me what is causing global dimming then, if it is not man made pollution. What is the cause of the destruction of natural habitats all over the world, if it is not human activity? Is the loss of these habitats not going to have far reaching effects for every animal on this planet? I suspect the effects may be detrimental to the human race.
|
Please tell me what is causing global dimming then.
Shouldn't you first present some evidence for its existence? OK, let's try commonsense -- explain why, if the amount of radiation has been declining at the claimed rate, skin cancers caused by sunshine are on the increase? This is the kind of counter-evidence that gets conveniently ignored.
'Global dimming' has come along at just the right moment to explain why global warming -- er -- doesn't seem to be happening after all. Lots of lovely new research grants here, though.
|
'Global dimming' has come along at just the right moment to explain why global warming -- er -- doesn't seem to be happening after all. Lots of lovely new research grants here, though.
I could say you provide evidence that it isn't happening. This forum isn't a science journal and is not the place to provide detailed scientific evidence. You say global warming isn't happening?
I notice that you don't deny that mass habitat destruction is being wrought by mankind. A bit difficult to deny that one isn't it? A little obvious I would have thought. A bit difficult to deny that this has far reaching effects for the planet. Some would say the loss of millions of species of plants and animals (that's not happening too?) doesn't matter; I am not one of those.
|
I could say you provide evidence that it isn't happening.
1. Prove a negative? Come off it, sunshine. Someone of your perception surely knows the answer to that juvenile standby.
2. Habitat destruction? How many topics are your trying to cover?
|
>> I could say you provide evidence that it isn't happening. 1. Prove a negative? Come off it, sunshine. Someone of your perception surely knows the answer to that juvenile standby.
Part of statistical analysis is to present an null hypothesis to show, at a particular level of probablity, that something isn't happening. Thus the null hypothesis could be that there is no evidence to show that global dimming is occurring. The alternative hypothesis is that there is evidence to show it is happening.
|
|
absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
|
|
Nicolas,
I'm generally anti you and your life and your possessions meaning I make exception for those things that you do that you really need to do and for those things that you own that you really need to own - and how many, frankly, are they ? But the vast majority of your possessions and activities are bought or done because you want to do them or have them or you enjoy to do them or have them.
There are many things you do, that you don't need to do. And I wish them banned. You see, I don't wish to do them so you need to be prohibited from doing them. Because I wish to control your life.
Your sincerely,
A small minded interfering know nothing who would dearly like a life, but must remain content to interfere in other people's.
================================================================
It is unfortunate for your beliefs that we live in a [decreasingly but currently] free country and are allowed to show free will and exhibit choice. Still, you and your ilk will no doubt resolve that one as well, given time. How gracious of you to make exception if you deem what I am doing to be justifiable but wish to ban those parts of my life that your small mind considers unacceptable.
|
Rather well put Mark.
|
Right - I'm going to settle this once and for all. Now there are far more intelligent people than me in the Back Room - in fact, I'd venture that I am in fact the most stupid person on here. However,
4x4's for the majority are unnecessary...but, and get this, who cares? It's not your car is it? So dont' buy one. I may disagree with my next door neighbour owning a Ford F350 or X5 (he doesn't) which is why I don't have one. It's none of my business.
The day we start telling people what to buy is the day everything gets out of hand. It won't be long before measly 2.0 Mondeo's are deemed wasteful.
My suggestion? Capital punishment for anyone starting another 4x4 thread.
;-)
--
Adam
|
>>My suggestion? Capital punishment for anyone starting another 4x4 thread
Cripes, this'll be my last then. :-)
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
|
Now, what was that Utopian society, founded on 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' (or similar), that gave us those ecological pinnacles the Lada and the Trabant?
|
|
i smoke i accept it is anti-social i drink not good for me but only anti-social if i get drunk i own a 4x4 i also own vans i use these vehicles for my pleasure not always business i regularly drive one of my vans about like you would your micra or whatever no passengers no goods i do this because i enjoy it i like driving big vehicles i love driving my 4x4 i pay insurance expensive too i pay tax lots of it but you dont like it so now i cant do it ok i will now sell them all to other people mmmm i still need transport i know ill buy one of those friendly vehices ... anyone know where i can buy a bus like stated elsewhere its a free ...ish country i can drive whatever i like and so can you , you may not like what i drive but there again would i like what you drive example i dont like bmw's does that mean they should be banned oh alright then lets ban bmw's oh and all small economic sensible cars ...cheers...keo
|
|
Simple stuff then.
Car driving along road. Someone misjudges a junction and hits it side on.
1) It's hit by a 4x4 / outsized car
Its extra mass and energy, combined with the relatively high point of impact results in serious injury to a child in the back of the car.
2) It's hit by a car
Although the child is still injured, the injuries are less severe as there is less energy and the impact point is lower.
If you're really lucky the car stops in time as the stopping distance is shorter and there's no impact.
Now swap "the child" for "your child".
Choose your TV, clothes, shoes, food or hair gel as you please. I don't care and it doesn't matter.
Accept my right to think anyone driving these things is an idiot (to quote Ken), just as I respect your right to drive it.
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
Fair point. You don't have to hang today then Lee.
:-)
--
Adam
|
all road vehicles are dangerous
the little old dear who pulls her fiesta out into a motorbike killing the bike rider is a million times worse than the average good driver in a 4 x 4
she will sadly only get 3 points and a slap on the wrist
and she sits at home tutting at those "idiots" in their 4 x 4's
sadly we live in a mad country where useless drivers are allowed to remain on the road if they fit a certain social profile, and the magistrates take a sympathetic view
if i were to start getting upset, it wouldnt be abloiut 4 x 4 drivers, it would be about the mass of useless drivers out there, and nothing is done but useless mindless speed campaigns which dont affect road casulties
|
all road vehicles are dangerous
>>the little old dear who pulls her fiesta out into a motorbike killing the bike rider is a >>million times worse than the average >>good driver in a 4 x 4
Almost as dangerous as the motorcyclist who slams into the little old lady as she pulls out -- because he was rounding a bend on the Kirby Lonsdale road at 130mph (case recorded by police).
Almost as dangerous as the 4 x 4 driver who tailgates her in his Kensingotn Tractor, bumber to bumper, on a winding Wiltshire track because she drives at a speed that allows her to stop within the distance she can see to be clear (happens to me frequently).
Does your brain have a special compartment for dreaming up stereotypes to fit whatever prejudiced argument you have in mind? And as anyone ever examined your driving style, or are you perfection itself?
|
i am far from perfect
a little better than average driver, nothing exceptional, based on fairly impartial feedback, police/driving instreuctor friends etc
yea i stereotype i guess, probably less than most people though
and i am increasingly cheesed off with the brutal unfairness and ineffectiveness of the road policing and judicial system as it is applied in this country
this is a debating chamber of sorts, there is nothing wrong with a bit of controversy
as far as i am concerned there are some very dangerous groups of drivers, many of whom have proved how bad they are by KILLING someone, who are free to drive their new Fiesta to work or whatever, meanwhile the government dishes out speeding penalties to all of us
the world is truely mad
|
|
Accidents happen because we are all us -- including John Deacon and Badger -- human, and therefore fallible. It is invidious to point the finger at one particular group as the scapegoat. Not even the motorcyclists or 4 x 4 drivers I deliberately singled out to illustrate my point above.
|
This thread began with a distinction (TIC perhaps) between the placard-waving ignorant anti-4x4 brigade and the placard free, informed anti-4X4 brigade.
It has included a reference (from Nicholas)to "the way SUV drivers are derided" and a comment to the effect that *anyone* driving these things is an idiot. (Anyone? Really?)
Others, who have reservations about 4X4s, have acknowledged that there some people have good reason for driving them.
Is this the basic distinction between the ignorant and the informed? The ignorant placard wavers see a 4X4 and deride the driver as an idiot - the informed see a 4x4 and pass no judgement on the driver, but simply say "That is not an appropriate vehicle for my needs."
|
Fair summation tyro, well put.
>>(Anyone? Really?)
OK, you've got me. I was trying to stimulate the debate (a little!) but no-one bit at my foray into trolldom.
My last word on the subject in this thread.
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
My last word on the subject in this thread
What kind of a troll are you, then?
|
The not very good type, I reckon!
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
To be frank, this particular thread gets on my wick at the moment. The subject of 4X4's obviously polarises views to the extent that any rational view put forward by someone which may allow some lee way to the 4X4 driver is derided by the "ignorant placard waver" (according to the "intelligent 4X4 driver")
The term "Chelsea Tractor" or "Kensington Tractor" does no favours to our impression of the mental faculties of the utterer. 4X4 vehicles are used all over the country, it is the preferred choice of a large number of people. Amen to the sort of freedom which allows you to go out and buy whatever vehicle you like. I fail to see why someone is an idiot for buying one. It is purely a choice.
I respect well thought out views propounded by some people on this site. I may not agree with them, but I respect them.
As for the others..........................
|
To be frank, this particular thread gets on my wick at the moment ... Amen to the sort of freedom . . .
Does your appeal for freedom include the freedom to get on your wick? And is no-one free to satirise the purchase of 4-wheel drive to counter wet leaves on the Brompton Road? Methinks he doth protest too much . . .
|
The term "Chelsea Tractor" or "Kensington Tractor"
I believe the latest phrase is "mum truck"
|
|
No, the latest one would be moderated out.
|
It is great to live in a free (relatively) society where we can do whatever work we want to do and spend our money freely. Everyone certainly does have the right to buy an enormous 4x4 and burn petrol at an astonishing rate.
The question of control of items available for public use depends on their relative danger. How potentially dangerous is something, and does this level of danger mean this particular item should be banned?
Handguns used to be quite freely available legally.After some horrible tragedies they were considered too dangerous for society and were banned.
Same thing with Pit Bull Terriers.A few bad ones and their perceived risk becomes too high and they are gone.(most of them).
But are 4x4s really in the same category as items like these? is the danger really that high? I don't think it is - i believe that 4x4s make our roads slightly more dangerous but that risk is acceptable.I know noone has mentioned banning 4x4s,but that is what some posters seem to be hinting at.
FWIW i don't like 4x4s or the way some are driven, but i can't and won't tell someone that their choice of car is wrong and represents a serious danger to the public.
|
i can't and won't tell someone that their choice of car is wrong
Of course not, but that should not be a pretext for inhibiting perfectly valid points of view on the logic -- or otherwise --of vehicle design and marketing.
|
Please Sir, May I buy a Kia Sorento? Only 2 wheel drive on the XE with 4x4 selected manually and 2 wheel drive on the XS with 4x4 selected electronically when conditions dictate. Please Please.
VVBR........M...........PLEASE
|
OH Dear, another 4x4 thread.....
I've worked on the development of systems for 4x4's (Rover's Project Storm and Project Thunder, for those of you 'in the know') - I've also driven most types of 4x4, including abomonations like the Frontera.
For the most part the growth in the 4x4 market represents a retrograde step in automotive technology. They have higher Centre of Gravity, Roll Centre and Pitch Centre. Inferior handling and braking. They are not particularly safer for the occupants (they tend to roll over) and the concentration of mass high-up means that they cause more severe damage in a collision with other passenger cars. They are exempt from most passenger car type approval legislation (which is good for them - because they mostly wouldn't pass). Moreover they are not particularly space efficient or fuel efficient.
The 4x4 is an answer to a specific problem - a problem which most people don't have. They do, however, create problems for other people. Each morning I drop my daughter off at school, which is in a narrow rural road. Every morning I see the same 'fleet' of 4x4's with mothers struggling to negotiate each other and parked cars. Peering forward from their seats trying to figure out where the extremities of their vehicles are. I keep well back and wait while they 'sort themselves out' - but I guess this little circus adds 5-10 minutes to my journey each day. These mothers would do us (and themselves) a favour if they bought cars which they felt more confident in driving.
The big growth in 4x4's comes from the US, where the auto companies used the fact that 4x4's don't come under CAFE regulations to make vehicles with a higher profit margin and where they didn't traditionally compete head-on with the Far East (although that is obviously changing).
The writing is on the wall for 4x4's though. New car design guidelines (relating to pedestrian impact safety) are coming in next year - they will impact heavily on 4x4 design. Furthermore there are signs that in the US and Europe there will be a move to bring 4x4's into the passenger car approval regime. Of course, this could prompt some people to move up to purchasing a truck. Maybe in a few years we'll see kids stepping out of Scania tractor units outside the school gates!
|
|
Amen to that. Thank you for that beacon of common sense and informed comment, Aprilia.
|
I think I'm not explaining my point of view very well.
There may or may not be good and valid reasons why I should or should not have a 4x4. This may or may not be pollution, obstruction, danger to pedestrians, etc. etc. etc. Those factors may determine whether or not I should or should not have a 4x4 and whether or not it is legal for me to do so.
Fine. No problem. I may not agree, but those are facts which can be assessed, discussed and proven or not.
However, the fact that I don't need one, doesn't neccessarily mean I can't have one. The fact that you don't like them, doesn't neccessarily mean I can't have one. The fact that you think I shouldn't have one, doesn't neccessarily mean I can't have one. "need" or "want" are perfectly justifiable reasons for having something. They may be outweighed by the common good or the inherent or involved risks and therefore I still may not be allowed to have one. However "not needing" is never a justification for removal per se.
So, anytime you're saying "people shouldn't have a 4x4 because they kill pedestrians" then we have something to talk about. Anytime you're saying you wouldn't have one because you don't like them, we can still talk.
But as soon as you move to "other people shouldn't be allowed to have 4x4s because I don't like them and don't want to have one" then we're going to clash.
There is too much of a culture emerging in this country of "I don't want to so you shouldn't be allowed to". And it is offensive.
|
|
I agree with all of these reasons not to have a 4x4..... but how else do (those who wish to) make such a display of their wealth (better if petrol rather than diesel) and their warrior/macho attributes too (the bigger and more aggressive design the better). Mercs and Ferrari's may be better vehicles but do they look hard enough?
|
>Mercs and Ferrari's may be better vehicles but do they look hard enough?
No they don't. They are designed for running away very fast and their owners are therefore cowards.
|
|
And that is the type of worthless, clever-clever contibution which doesn't help resolve anything.
|
And that is the type of worthless, clever-clever contibution which doesn't help resolve anything.
Mark, do you not think that for many purchasers the image of a vehicle is most important. There have been long discussions on what gives the right image in this forum.
After all the watch may be fake, not many can tell a high quality suit, but you must be a somebody if you drive a new petrol range rover and will therefore get the client's business/girlfriend/respect etc.
|
Ratty,
Your second note has some value, your first seemed just silly.
I have to say that the image isn't a bith which concerns me, although I am sure that you're right in many cases.
Rather than image, I'm sure that perception is important. i.e. I perceive that a 4x4 is safer/more dangerous than a Mondeo (which may or may not be true.
However, even if it is image, and even if that is not my way, I don't see it is relevant to the central point of whether people should have them or not.
|
Mark,
Agreed, image is not relevant to the point whether or not people should have them or not. What I was trying to say was that although many people will judge by the technical merits of a vehicle for the job to be done (inc. myself), there are also many who operate on a completely different image/status type level.
In other cultures/times there was great prestige accorded to those who had the best ostrich feather in their head-wear, or the best tulips (some bulbs costing more than a house at that time). Such things may seem absurd to us now but in a few hundred years our car habits of today may seem ridiculous too.
|
Mark,
You've got mail on a different subject.
H
|
There are plenty of ways to display wealth for those who wish to. I accept there are some people out there that use it purely to support an image. Well if that's their choice, good luck to them provided they drive it properly and are properly insured, taxed etc in case they have an accident.
4 x 4 ownership is not always one of them. I have one because I chose it above other vehicles I could afford.
Also, to my knowledge, A car has never caused an accident. It's the person driving it or in charge of it that's always the issue.
To this end 4 x 4s are perfectly safe so long as they are driven safely. If they do less MPG then that's more tax etc we pay.
I find it ironic that a motoring forum often finds itself hosting anti 4 x 4 comments on the basis of 'I don't like them thereby you shouldn't have one'. This site is supposed to me pro responsible motoring and was not created to host prejudiced comments against sectors of the motoring public.
Hugo
|
Absolutely.
Please note that I am NOT saying "4 x 4 drivers are agressive bullies". I am, however, saying that, for those drivers who want to rely on aggression and intimidation, the 4 x 4 seems all too often the weapon of choice. Often, as I have repeatedly found in Wiltshire lanes, the London-based 4 x 4 is driven in the countryside by someone who has brought his Hyde Park Corner tactics with him.
This is the 4 x 4's image problem, and it is unrealistic to blame it on the victims of those for whom -- and I know they are not in the majority -- these vehicles are the automotive equivalent of a tattoo.
The Iron Age Wiltshire Ridgeway is now in many places impassable to walkers or cyclists, following visits by 4 x 4 mud-pluggers. Is it 'anti 4 x 4' to deplore this? Is it 'placard waving' to point to what these drivers do to their own image?
|
Aggressive? Bullying? Hyde Park corner attitude?
Hold on, is it a Mum Truck? or a battle wagon? is it both? a style statement? Are Mums (Linda McCartney clad) aggressively careening around Hyde Park corner on their way to the country after they have dropped their kids off to school?
Doesn't matter what point one may put forward, along comes a general sweeping statement from out of the sky to justify your arguments.
|
As someone who purchased a brand new CRV Sport Auto a year ago, I can only tell you it has been the best car I have ever had. It is true to say it is the first "brand new" I have ever purchased, and in the end it came down to the CRV and Rav4,I went for the CRV from Bob Gerard and never once regreted it. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I would buy another one, only this time I would buy an Executive with the leather and Sat Nav, thats how good I think they are.
Best Regards to you all. Chris.
|
|
Long may you continue to enjoy it, Chris.
|
It all comes down to responsible ownership at the end of the day.
The only exeption to this rule is if you can't avoid the 4 x 4 with its 18 inch multi terrain tyres doing damage to the road that a car wouldn't do, though this is very rare, and would in any case be solved with proper highway maintenace.
H
|
For the most part the growth in the 4x4 market represents a retrograde step in automotive technology. They have higher Centre of Gravity, Roll Centre and Pitch Centre. Inferior handling and braking. They are not particularly safer for the occupants (they tend to roll over) and the concentration of mass high-up means that they cause more severe damage in a collision with other passenger cars.
Aprilia
I've a question, I'd appreciate your opinion on. To what extent are these things true of MPVs as well?
|
|
Well here I am back from my drive in my Outback, 407miles/15.4 gallons of unleaded. My my what a menace to the environment I am. Of course I should have gone on the train but I would only now be starting my return journey: or by bus but I would barely have arrived at my destination. There is always a cheap airline, how economical is that? No you dissenters and moaning minnies The art of a happy and fulfilling life is to live and let live. Right I'm off to the pub.
|
I posted earlier on this thread, have I missed something, I watch the news every day and I have a daily paper delivered, where exactly are all the pictures of 4x4's laying on their sides? I like the CRV because I can get in and out without bending, I am 6-2" and 58. I feel safer. There is plenty of room for me, the wife, daughter and granddaughter. Behind us is plenty of room for pram, bags etc, and plenty of room between the back seat and back door, which was another major reason on me buying a CRV. When I see children sitting in seven seaters, the Ka and Minis to name but a few, and to see their heads almost touching the back window, I am frightened to imagine what would happen in a serious rear shunt. I can only repeat that not only do I feel safer, I feel that my whole family are safer, if that is wrong, then so be it, I can live with that.
Regards to you all Chris.
|
I posted earlier on this thread, have I missed something, I watch the news every day and I have a daily paper delivered, where exactly are all the pictures of 4x4's laying on their sides?
I think Aprilia's point is that they are inherently less stable, because of the high centre of gravity, and are more likely to overturn. Because of the high centre of gravity, they also tend to do more damage to other vehicles when involved in collisions, so whilst you might feeler safer in one, people in ordinary saloons, etc, would be more likely to suffer serious injuries if involved in a collision with such a vehicle.
|
Yes high centre of gravity.No you wont see to many on their sides because most of us understand the responsibilities of driving a big truck and incidently for the gas gussling anti forum my 2.5 diesel does over 30mpg (not bad for a 2.5t lump)I can pull you out of the crap where you can't move (look at last weeks press 4x4 drivers requested to help the police rescue stranded drivers on Bodmin Moor.I can go places that you can't without turning over despight my high centre of gravity.I can rescue your child from a life or death situation because an ordinary sallon couldn't get there.If it was your child and I had the only vehicle for the job,WOULD YOU BE SO ANTI THEN
JOE
|
>Outback, 407miles/15.4 gallons of unleaded.
You may think that's fine, but others don't. I would think I had a serious fuel leak with figures like that,
|
|
OK ChrisR. Please be good enough to let us all know what fuel consumption you WOULD consider fine, then perhaps you can oblige everyone else to drive the 'correct' type of car at the correct speed to achieve your perceived nirvana. Naturally I would ignore you.
|
|
Well obviously the rational thing is to use as little as possible for the job we want to do--waste is inefficient and stupid--but we are not always rational beings. As PhilW says below, almost any car on the road will manage 407 miles on 15 gallons; I'd add that most will do a whole lot more. On that criterion you actually are more of a menace to the environment than most other drivers on the road. Whether you care is another matter, but a growing number of people do. Ironically enough it is those people who will put pressure on manufacturers to make better, more efficient engines, not people like you, so you'll have something to thank them for in the future, no doubt. Actually I almost bought a Legacy a few of years ago and really like the Outback, but the fuel consumption seemed like a backward step.
|
Well obviously the rational thing is to use as little as possible for the job we want to do--waste is inefficient and stupid--but we are not always rational beings. As PhilW says below, almost any car on the road will manage 407 miles on 15 gallons; I'd add that most will do a whole lot more. On that criterion you actually are more of a menace to the environment than most other drivers on the road. Whether you care is another matter, but a growing number of people do. Ironically enough it is those people who will put pressure on manufacturers to make better, more efficient engines, not people like you, so you'll have something to thank them for in the future, no doubt. Actually I almost bought a Legacy a few of years ago and really like the Outback, but the fuel consumption seemed like a backward step.
My volvo 850 2.5 glt. Between 23-26 mpg depending on journey type. Rarely driven hard. These size/type of petrol cars only do this m.p.g. There is no quick fix, but for those out there that still poo poo diesel then I suggest they get their backsides in gear and try one. My 170 bhp volvo just can't hack it against the equivalent diesel.
vvbr..........M.
|
t81,
Don't want to rain on your parade, but the Outback is little more than an estate on tip toes. It's too puny to be considered a proper 4x4.
Laughs to self at good troll-like comment.
It'll be my last, honest.
-- Lee Having a Fabialous time.
|
|
The Outback is a rubbish off roader because it is not intended for that purpose. It is however good at surviving the atrocious state of many of our roads including the man made horrors. As a matter of interest I test drove three other makes of two wheel drive cars before I plumped for the subaru, the final decider was the obvious superior build quality of the car. My ultimate choice would have been a MB 320 diesel but I could'nt afford one and as I tend to keep my cars for at least ten years I like to start with new.
|
Well from what I hear about build quality and service you might have made a better choice with the Scooby than an MB for a long term relationship...
If you think the roads are in a bad state in an "ordinary" car, you should try them in a MINI Cooper on 17s or 18s. You'll be on first name terms with your chiropractor and physio within a week, whereever you drive ;-)
-- Lee Having a Fabialous time.
|
Actualy my friend that is a scientificaly proven load of pink fluffy dice ,the larger the surface area,the less impact because it is spread over a larger area,did you know for instance that a challenger tank at 74 tonnes has less pounds per square inch ground preasure than a transit van.my pajero with its great big wheels probably has less ground preasure than a vauxhall corsa.It's all about distribution,not size.I'm sorry mate but at 30mph, the child would probably have less injuries.Being hit by a mondeo at that speed she would probably be dead.(Incidently I am a vehicle crash technician)
{swearing amended. Please read the forum policies at the top of the page. DD}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
