>>I care when the vehicles in question are too big for the narrow roads ...
Yup.
Big vans. Lorries. Buses. Motorhomes. And especially caravans. Don't like them at all. I wish they weren't on the roads, especially the narrow roads in the Highlands.
I don't however, have a problem with big 4x4s / SUVs.
|
I don't have any problem with people owning 4x4s. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I can force people into buying or not buying a certain car. However, two things annoy me:
1) Those who have bought 4x4s because everyone else has one, so they simply must - whether they need to or not.
2) Those who are incapable of handling them. I'm sick and tired of 4x4 owners who don't know the width of their cars, so drive 10ft away from the pavement, causing oncoming traffic to have to slow down. The worst is when you get two of these types coming towards each other, bringing traffic to a standstill as they tip-toe their way around each other - whilst there is ample space either side of them.
As for a tinge of jealousy due to price? Please - 4x4s are cheap as chips these days. Hopefully soon the majority of them used as school buses in city centres will be given a new lease of life somewhere more useful.
|
|
|
|
Not all 4x4's are chosen for reasons that the 'choice police' would deem unsuitable, what on earth are they so wound up about, get a grip.
Many are relatively simple and robust, and no bigger/heavier/polluting/dangerous than many executive cars, they are usually higher though if thats a crime now, and are often cheaper to buy, operate and maintain than many mainstream cars, last for years longer too if chosen well.
I suppose the anti brigade will say they are dangerous to pedestrians, well if you can't drive without hitting pedestrians i suggest give you up driving not buy a car that does less damage to the victim.
For the time being we are still able to have a right to choose our vehicles, i wouldn't really enjoy living in the Stalinist regime that some here would prefer, but i daresay we are heading that way.
''you must justify yourself to the peoples commissar comrade''
|
|
|
>> a lot if is hidden jealousy ! " i cant afford/justify 1; so I amgoing to get them banned if I can attitude !"
Nonsense, IMHO. I've just ordered a brand new Touran and will probably order a new Passat CC next spring to alongside it. None of it on the drip either. I can, therefore, afford a 4x4, as can many others who don't buy one, particularly now that they can't give them away.
It's more a case of those urbanites who buy a 4x4 wanting to think themselves "one up" on the Joneses. All they end up doing is making themselves look daft (in the urban context - nothing against country folk driving them, my step-father has a Navarra as he lives on a farm and uses it around the fields and to pick up heavy stuff from suppliers, however when he and Mother go to town or hit the motorway, they use Mum's Multipla).
Huge, bluff fronted vehicles, with JCB-size wheels, based on designs intended for use up a mountain in Norway are quite simply an unnecessary extra danger when in collision with a pedestrian or a proper car in the urban or motorway environment. Lorries and vans are necessary, therefore a comparison can not be made.
If people want to buy them, and the law currently allows it (but come the revolution....), then no-one can stop them, but that doesn't change the selfishness and lack of consideration of fellow man which I feel the choice embodies.
Make 'em obtain permission to purchase based on need, then make sure they pass an additional driving test to educate them in how to handle agricultural vehicles on the road, I say.
|
If it was my decision (thank goodness it's not!) I'd make it a separate test to allow people to drive them on the road. With emphasis on maneuvering and parking. Why? Because so many owners seem barely able to control their vehicles. Buses and trucks are bigger but they must pass a test that shows they can handle such a vehicle. I guess it could be based on weight or size or both. Light commercials would have to be dealt with in a similar way I suppose.
The irony of school run mums using them to protect their kids....
Steve.
Edited by Webmaster on 14/11/2008 at 00:34
|
|
|
"Make 'em obtain permission to purchase based on need, then make sure they pass an additional driving test to educate them in how to handle agricultural vehicles on the road, I say."
And then when they fill in the form to obtain permission to get their new vehicle the council will then tell them what car they are allowed on their needs basis?
As for getting a Touran because you can afford 1; fair play; go for it. I dont have a problem. I have a problem with those that cant afford them or cant justify one; and therefore want them banned or similar!
|
And then when they fill in the form to obtain permission to get their new vehicle the council will then tell them what car they are allowed on their needs basis?
Have any car you like, so long as it's a car. Not a farm truck. Unless you live on a farm. Seems reasonable to me. But I'm fully aware it wouldn't seem reasonable to others, and I doubt I'd get elected with such sensible policies!
Mystifies me how anyone can enjoy driving one in town, my guess is a false feeling of security and superiority.
Bit confused by your "can't justify one" comment. We seem to agree there, I have a problem with those who can't justify buying one too! I don't want them banned, just used in their correct context.
|
|
|
"Make 'em obtain permission to purchase based on need
Why not take it to the logical conclusion. Judging by the number of cars containing one person, all they need is a motorbike.
|
|
|
|
Make 'em obtain permission to purchase based on need then make sure they pass an additional driving test to educate them in how to handle agricultural vehicles on the road I say.
i rest my case comrades......
|
Well Nick
I have done my best to reliven it up ? :)
|
|
Glad although my side impact bars are in very good condition (had the door card off yesterday trying to fix a lock) I would hate for a 4x4 to get into the side of me. Luckily most 4x4s are no longer on the road, they are in dealers or auction houses.
|
|
I was in a CRV today and pulled up alongside a London Taxi and the Taxi was definitely higher and I think longer than the CRV.
|
I was in a CRV today and pulled up alongside a London Taxi and the Taxi was definitely higher and I think longer than the CRV.
The CRV is an odd car IMPO as it has this 'big 4x4' image in most people's minds but when you see it alongside most cars it is no bigger than a family saloon. It is higher but often not wider or longer.
In fact, I compared it with the specs of the new Jazz a few weeks ago using the Whatcar website and was surprised that the cockpit space of the Jazz is bigger than the CRV.
Edited by tawse on 13/11/2008 at 14:06
|
|
|
|
|
Well done Yorkie! It's nice to see the old arguments dusted off again. :-) Can't beat a bit of preposterous outrage from the hair-shirt brigade.
Edited by nick on 13/11/2008 at 13:34
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense IMHO. I've just ordered a brand new Touran and will probably order a new Passat CC next spring to alongside it. None of it on the drip either. I can therefore afford a 4x4 as can many others who don't buy one particularly now that they can't give them away.
Same here: I could go out and pay cash for several brand new large 4X4s. One of the reasons that I don't do that is because I live in a suburb rather than on a farm, and don't want to unnecessarily increase the danger which my vehicle poses to others in an urban area.
If people want to buy them and the law currently allows it (but come the revolution....) then no-one can stop them but that doesn't change the selfishness and lack of consideration of fellow man which I feel the choice embodies.
That's the core of it. A vehicle used in a public space has an effect on others, and the choice of vehicle has an effect on others. Unfortunately, some people resolutely refuse to consider the effects of their actions on others, which is why public pressure led to the courts being given have draconian powers to issue ASBOs. Similar refusal by users to consider the anti-social effects of urban 4X4s has led to them being increasingly stigmatised, and it remains to be seen whether there will be action taken against them.
|
|
I have a strange urge to go and buy a Hummer.
|
Go for it Nick, at least the manufacturer will be grateful.
Steve.
|
|
Why are there no complaints about MPVs? Some of those are as big all round as many SUVs, the only difference being two wheel drive as opposed to four wheel drive.
|
Why are there no complaints about MPVs?
The front ends of MPVs are designed to be low and sloped, and offer less risk to a pedestrian or indeed another vehicle in an inpact. Slab fronted SUVs and the massive, heavy structures the fronts conceal are entirely different beasts. Can't imagine they crumple quite as effectively as an MPV.
|
|
Look at the new CR-V, that is not slab fronted.
|
|
That's true about the CRV, it's more egg-sided than anything I suppose. I'm a bit ambivalent about the CRV, it's kind of on the limits in my world. Wouldn't be seen dead in one, but it ain't the worst offender.
|
So, are there any arguments in favour of hooning round town in a big old tractor other than:
1) I'm safer in it, don't care about the rest of you.
2) I'll drive what I flaming well like, wherever I like.
|
Ahh
4x4s
2008's equivalent of the fur coat ;)
MVP
|
Maybe:
3) I live out in the country and I'm not going to buy another car just to drive into town to pacify others.
|
No argument there, andyfr. I've already said people with a need have every right to drive one. I'm only getting on my soapbox about people who live in a town or suburb.
GJD's post is very good and very thought provoking. Much to be digested there. I guess the problem is that we are never going to come to a consensus on what is and isn't acceptable, it's too fine a point to be dealt with effectively under our system of government.
|
No argument there andyfr. I've already said people with a need have every right to drive one. I'm only getting on my soapbox about people who live in a town or suburb.
I agree with you on that. I wouldn't have a four wheel drive if we didn't need one.
|
So are there any arguments in favour of hooning round town in a big old tractor other than: 1) I'm safer in it don't care about the rest of you.
Personally, I would find that attitude worrying.
2) I'll drive what I flaming well like wherever I like.
Assuming "wherever I like" is actually restricted to the places we are allowed to drive cars (which I think is what you meant), then as long as this argument doesn't extend to "I'll drive what I flaming well like wherever I like and I don't care about the rest of you" (which might or might not be what you were implying) and "hooning round town" is not mutually exclusive with safe and considerate driving then no more justification is necessary.
|
I think they're pointless, but each to their own. So is a car that can do more than 70 mph, or one with room for more than one person for most journeys. Where do you draw the line?
If people can afford to run them, fair play.
|
4x4s are not entirely pointless, for people who chose to own larger caravans or boats the extra traction and towing capability of a big 4x4 really comes into its own.
When it comes to towing, the weight of the car you're using to pull the caravan or trailer is critical for safety and practicality (think about pulling off on steep, slipperly slopes). Regular cars (even large ones) often pull no more than around 1500kg maximum, whereas proper 4x4s usually pull up to 3500kg! Now that's a big difference.
Now cue criticism of people owning "unnecessary" caravans and boats...
For the record I own neither a caravan or a 4x4, I just appreciate other peoples needs, wants and opinions! ;)
|
I still don't care what anyone else drives. It's their choice. It is none of my, or anyone else's business. No more than it is their's what I choose to drive.
I may hold a view about someone else's clothes or taste in furniture or the way they eat their food but while they are not breaking the law I'm prepared to keep those thoughts and opinions to myself and support their right to conduct themselves as they choose.
Preposterous and arrogant in the extreme to suggest otherwise.
Those who hold strong enough views against any form of motor vehicle also have every right to make that known and campaign in a proper manner for changes in legislation but mob denigration of those who have made a legal purchase choice whatever their motivation for doing so, frankly, debase themselves.
It is quite simply none of my concern if my neighbour has a moped or a Range Rover, it's their money, their choice and it is currently legal to do either, or not.
I don't happen to favour that type of vehicle. That is my view and one to which I am thankfully entitled. The only public display of that opinion I shall make is simply not to buy one unless I change my mind at some time in which case I would and thank goodness I continue to have that choice.
People who poke their narrow minded and unwanted noses into other people's bona fide business hack me off. ( in case that wasn't clear )
|
People who poke their narrow minded and unwanted noses into other people's bona fide business hack me off. ( in case that wasn't clear )
HB, this would be a pretty sorry forum if no-one expressed their opinions in a forthright manner. Some of the posts in this thread are making me think twice about my opinions, although the safety aspect still does tip me towards favouring some form of regulation. Wonder how many others are prepared to be open minded.
I see no mob on here, in fact it appears there are more supporters of these vehicles than denigrators.
We live in a society, like it or not. I'm glad that you are 100% happy with all the laws of the land and wouldn't express an opinon even if you weren't, however those of us who favour an element of free speech being allowed are perfectly entitled to try to engage, debate with and possibly even change the minds of our fellow citizens who we believe are acting against our interests. An internet forum is surely a good place to do it.
This is neither preposterous nor arrogant.
|
I may hold a view about someone else's clothes or taste in furniture or the way they eat their food but while they are not breaking the law I'm prepared to keep those thoughts and opinions to myself and support their right to conduct themselves as they choose.
So if the law was changed to ban SUVs, you'd have no problem?
Those who hold strong enough views against any form of motor vehicle also have every right to make that known and campaign in a proper manner for changes in legislation but mob denigration of those who have made a legal purchase choice whatever their motivation for doing so frankly debase themselves.
If there's a perceived problem in behaviour, there are basically two ways of changing it; by using the law, or by persuading people to behave differently.
You object to any attempt to persuade people to change (bizarrely caricaturing it as "mob denigration" as if there were mass demonstrations outside the homes of SUV drivers like happened with paedophiles), but you don't mind the law being used. Are you really sure that's where you want to go? Do you really prefer all antisocial behaviour to be dealt with by bans rather than by people discussing between themselves what forms of behaviour allows us all to live together?
Look at the current binge-drinking problem. If we applied to that the logic that you apply to 4X4s, there'd be no attempt to dissuade pubs from piling on high-alcohol drinks in happy hours, and no attempt to dissuade rowdy binge-drinkers; instead we'd see a series of bans as the first resort. Is that what you want there, crude bans which incovenience responsible drinkers because you disapprove of any efforts to dissuade people from antisocial behaviour rather than forcing it?
If there's a water shortage, do you prefer immediate rationing rather than requests to people to reduce their consumption?
|
NW,
Your post presumes that everyone thinks owning a 4x4 is anti-social. I don't think you'll find everyone agrees with you.
|
Your post presumes that everyone thinks owning a 4x4 is anti-social. I don't think you'll find everyone agrees with you.
No it doesn't presume anything of the sort: I specifically said "perceived problem", because there are always differences in perception.
Same goes with other forms of antisocial behaviour, such as binge-drinking. Just taking that example, I think that binge-drinking can be anti-social, but clearly the large numbers of people who do it don't agree.
|
If there's a perceived problem in behaviour there are basically two ways of changing it; by using the law or by persuading people to behave differently.
If there is a *perceived* problem in behaviour, those who perceive it have a responsibility to demonstrate why it is also an *actual* problem and why they should not just mind their own business. It doesn't matter how many people perceive something as a problem - until they've come up with a good reason the only problem is with their perception.
|
If there is a *perceived* problem in behaviour those who perceive it have a responsibility to demonstrate why it is also an *actual* problem and why they should not just mind their own business. It doesn't matter how many people perceive something as a problem - until they've come up with a good reason the only problem is with their perception.
There's plenty of evidence that SUVs cause more pollution, consume more energy, and pose a higher risk of injury to others. If SUV drivers don't want to be perceived as anti-social, they should start coming up with some good explanation of why these things don't matter, rather than insisting that they are entitled not to consider the effects of their actions on others.
|
"SUV drivers... should start coming up with some good explanation of why these things don't matter, rather than insisting that they are entitled not to consider the effects of their actions on others."
It is legal to buy and own an SUV. No one has to list the reasons why they choose to buy one or the reasons why people shouldn't regard them as anti-social.
People who don't like SUVs are allowed to complain about them as fancifully as they like.
SUV owners are fully entitled to ignore the moralistic blather of people who would ban SUVs if they could.
|
If SUV drivers don't want to be perceived as anti-social they should start coming up with some good explanation of why these things >> don't matter
In the above, you could easily substitute the words "Bus", "Van" or "Truck" for SUV. Somehow then it doesn't have the same emotive impact though does it?
The reality is that the manufacturers and the owners see that these things do matter, they matter to SUVs and they matter to super-minis too. In the greater scheme of things what does it matter if someone is driving a Shogun or an Aygo?
A Shogun pollutes, consumes energy and kills people on the road. An Aygo pollutes, consumes energy and kills people on the road. The fact that one is worse than the other is neither here nor there. If you are run over and killed by an Aygo, what consolation would it be to your family that a Shogun would have made your death "more" certain?
Sure, there would be less pollution, energy consumption and deaths if everyone drove the smallest, most effiicent and pedestrian friendly cars they could. And slowly but surely we'll approach this optimum, but that will still mean some SUVs, MPVs, Buses etc. They'll just be safer than now.
There will always be amongst vehicles some that pollute more, consume more and kill more, no matter how small and safe we make them. Why should those that happen to own cars on the more undesirable end of that spectrum take all the flak? Until and unless everyone is forced into Aygos (or whatever) and NEVER ANYTHING bigger than anyone else, somewhere, someone will own a vehicle more dangerous and more polluting than the best performing car out there. Why persecute them?
Use some common sense and let's just work towards making all types of vehicle as safe and efficient as we can. And then leave people to make the appropiate choice for themselves.
Edited by TheOilBurner on 14/11/2008 at 09:19
|
HB, Apart from the 'hacked off' bit, your views echo mine entirely.
I don't have a 4x4 and I can't see me having one, not for a while anyway (and if i did it would be a non trendy one)...but nevertheless, if i did want one, i'd go out and buy one...
|
|
Not in the People's Republic you won't :-)
Edited by nick on 13/11/2008 at 16:54
|
Courtesy of wxxxxxx.com
Just to add to the mix
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%.
Edited by Pica on 13/11/2008 at 15:48
|
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.
I reckon it's because the rest of us steer well clear of the things!
|
Forbidding the use of 4X4s, in town or anywhere else, merely because some people disapprove of them and some of them use a lot of fuel, is the sort of disgraceful thinking that has been encouraged by so much recent legislation (on, for example, fox hunting, banned because it is a minority sport seen as 'cruel' and believed to be a pastime of the rich). The reasoning is as despicable as the sludgy sentimentality and mean-spirited views.
It would be no bad thing however if owners had to show they could keep the damn things out of the way before being allowed to have one, perhaps through a supplementary driving test. Saw one last night in St John's Wood (no surprise there) that I could tell immediately was going to occupy two lanes wherever it could, because it was driven by the sort of soft self-important wally who has that sort of car in that part of town. Sure enough it did, even managing to get its huge bum in the way when turning right.
|
My genuine apologies if my post implied a resistance to freedom of speech. On the contrary, it was merely my intention to emphasise my discomfort at the increasing and in my view often unnecessary regulation of freedom of choice.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 13/11/2008 at 16:32
|
It would seem that I have inadvertantly confused some other contributors as to my views. For that I apologise. If you will indulge me just once more I shall try to clarify things.
I do not especially like SUVs
I do not want an SUV
I suspect that some SUVs are bought by people who don't need them.
I do not object to the existance of SUVs
I support the right of anyone to buy one if they so choose.
I have no problem with anyone lobbying their MP if they wish to see changes in legislation.
If SUVs were banned I would have no objection, it doesn't affect me, but I would think it a shame.
To compare the owning and using of an SUV to binge drinking is at best laughable and on another hand tangential to say the least. Binge drinkers and other alcohol abusers are almost always causing circumstances which at least inconvenience themselves and others. SUV drivers for the most part do not. A cheap shot if I may say. ( Pardon the pun )
|
Having driven big 4x4s in the past, I'm now a lot happier driving a very small 4x4, a Fiat Panda Cross.
Only today, whilst driving in the back streets of Newcastle, my progress has been severely impeded by large 4x4s on several occasions. Sometimes, due to the annoying UK habit of cutting the corner when turning right into a side road, the actions of these vehicles have been dangerous as well as irritating.
It would be most unfair to ban these vehicles from these or any other roads but I will be pleased when financial considerations lead to their extinction.
|
To compare the owning and using of an SUV to binge drinking is at best laughable and on another hand tangential to say the least. Binge drinkers and other alcohol abusers are almost always causing circumstances which at least inconvenience themselves and others. SUV drivers for the most part do not. A cheap shot if I may say. ( Pardon the pun )
Indeed. A fairer analogy would be to compare antisocial behaviour on the city streets, the consequences of which can be exacerbated if the perpetrator has been binge drinking, with inconsiderate or dangerous driving, the consequences of which can be exacerbated if the perpetrator is driving a 4x4.
Happy hour down the pub, like a 4x4, is something that can be enjoyed responsibly and with due consideration for others around you.
|
To compare the owning and using of an SUV to binge drinking is at best laughable and on another hand tangential to say the least. Binge drinkers and other alcohol abusers are almost always causing circumstances which at least inconvenience themselves and others. SUV drivers for the most part do not.
Humph, what I was comparing was the response to the two perceived problems, and in particular the question of whether people should speak out against things which are legal ... and I'm pleased to see that you have now withdrawn your previous objections to people saying things you disagree with.
So it seems that you disapprove of the effects of binge-drinking, but not of SUV-driving.
You have correctly spotted that the two activities have very different types of effect; binge-drinking causes a relatively high incidence of inconvenience to others, whereas SUV-driving causes creates a smaller incidence of a much more weighty problem (serious injuries and death), and they also exacerbate the widespread problem of pollution.
We all have lots of decisions to make about risk, about how to compare a high incidence of inconvenience with a low incidence of calamity, but I find it at best laughable that someone just dismisses the low-incidence risk.
|
I have not withdrawn anything. I stand by all my comments. I have merely apologised if my views have been so unclearly expressed as to have been misinterpreted.
Like I said at the start...I don't actually care...it's none of my business but if I were pressed for an opinion, it is just another bandwagon objection from quarters who like to object to things.
'nuf from me I think.....
|
|
I've never seen anyone not caring with so much passion before HB!
|
I wouldn't support any ideas of banning classes of vehicle or curtailing choice - but I'm not sure the OP suggested that - it was merely a comment by a subsequent poster that caused the kerfufflle(sp?).
However, it has been my observation - in town & country (where I now live) - that: people who don't seem to 'need' a biggish 4x4 seem to be the worst at driving them & the most arrogant in the use of them - I often think they're making up for an inadequacy elsewhere.
Conversely, in those places & for those purposes where they seem appropriate, the use & style of usage doesn't rankle - and they can usually drive ok, esp. narrow lane & other confined space manoeuvres.
I never expect a be-suited or peroxide blonded RangeRover driver to exhibit the slightest concern for other road users, or the slightest skill in driving. The farmer or forestry worker, OTOH, can usually slither through the smallest gap or plough a soft-verge in your favour without prompting or pained expression.
The Pajero (or other grey import 2nd hand 4x4) driver, male or female, in town or country is always a hazard - keep well clear.
|
|
So the problem is the standard of driving, not the vehicle. So let's do something about that instead of pontificating on what we should and shouldn't drive. They'd be just as much a pain in a large estate car, which is probably larger than many 4x4s except in height.
Edited by nick on 13/11/2008 at 18:14
|
I don't like 4x4s. I steadfastly avoid driving the Range Rovers and Toyota Landcruisers as much as possible at work. Nor would I ever contemplate buying one. However, I would never be so pompous as to ban another persons right to chose whatever vehicle they wanted. If somebody wants a V8 Range Rover sport, good luck to them, even if they only want it to nip down to Morrisons.
What we should be focusing on is the appalling standards of driving that pervades this country. If a person is a useless, incapable driver, they'll be dangerous whether they're driving a Smart or a Hummer.
|
I agree with all the comments regarding freedom of choice. [* see below].
To the supporters of Nowwheels ideas, I say: - if the law allows people to own and drive a vehicle, and you don't agree with it, then by all means you are free to campaign to get the law changed to accord with your views. Similarly the views of your opponents will be allowed to be heard. [Assuming we live in Democracy.]
There will be some who don't agree with people owning and driving campervans and motorhomes, such as the one that NowWheels was planning to buy for herself, see her threads below:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=67090&...f
I am toying with the idea of importing a coachbuilt motorhome from Jersey ...
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=67916&...f
I am exploring the idea that a large campervan may be the solution to my travel requirements ...
[ * ;-) Of course, if I was in charge of transport policy in a Dictatorship, and I would ban all cars bigger than a 2 seater Smart and even then only allow tehm to be bought by people who could prove that they could not survive without a car for transport. ;-) ].
|
Large 4x4s were a fashion statement no more no less. Now the fashion has changed they will quicky disappear along with all those justifications for owning one. We will all be laughing at pictures of them in a few years in the same way we laugh at 1970s bell bottomed trousers. Interesting to speculate what the next automotive craze will be
|
I was working around Brentwood the other day, land of the fake tan. Every other car was a 4X4 and every single 4x4 had privacy glass fitted. 4x4s are a fad that will pass, probably when we see X5s going to seed on council estates, and then we will see exactly how many people actually need them.
I'd say less than one percent of the population.
|
|
Would that be caravanners? Perhaps if they keep getting hammered fuel duty and VED wise they might stop supporting the British tourist industry and take their holidays and money abroad.
|
No, caravanning is no excuse, 2008 tow car of the year is the Ford Mondeo estate.
Er, that just leaves people whose houses are in the middle of a lake of quicksand.
|
No caravanning is no excuse 2008 tow car of the year is the Ford Mondeo estate.
Did they test it towing a van off a waterlogged field? ;-)
|
No caravanning is no excuse 2008 tow car of the year is the Ford Mondeo estate.
You'll also notice they have different categories of winners depending on required towing abilities and budget?
Yes, the Mondeo was the best overall - but it simply is not suitable or appropriate for larger vans.
They also recommend the Kia Sorrento and Skoda Roomster Scout! Neither of these cars will be suitable for all purposes, it should go without saying...
Those that only tow little things will be happy with the Roomster, those that tow big things will like the Sorrento and Mr and Mrs Average will love the Mondeo.
Unless you're talking of restricting caravans to maximum sizes? Then we're back into the self-righteous talk of individuals trying to determine what is suitable and appropriate for other peoples needs and aspirations in life.
The Mondeo as tested for the award is hardly an evironmentalists dream either, so equipped with a 2.5 turbocharged petrol engine!
|
Unless you're talking of restricting caravans to maximum sizes? Then we're back into the self-righteous talk of individuals trying to determine what is suitable and appropriate for other peoples needs and aspirations in life.
Too late: caravans are already restricted in maximum size. If the tow vehicle is a car or light goods vehicle, the limit is 2.3m wide and 7m long. Those limits aren't set out of some desire to crush people's dreams, but because there are constraints on what size of rig can be reasonably accommodated on the roads.
"Peoples needs and aspirations in life", as you put it, are indeed important ... but every society places some limits how some things can be done, to balance the impact on others. Sadly, some people don't give much consideration to the effect of their choices on others, which is why we end up with so many laws regulating all sorts of things :(
|
|
Ah yes, but if the largest car you could drive was a Mondeo, you'd never get near the maximum size and weight limits that currently exist for caravans, limits that are reasonably set to what is practical for our roads, not set because of intolerance and prejudice of others! ;)
|
There will be some who don't agree with people owning and driving campervans and motorhomes such as the one that NowWheels was planning to buy for herself see her threads below:
I was wondering how long it would take for that to be raised in this thread. :)
As you'll see if you follow the links, I wrote of the coachbuilt motorhome "I quite sympathise with those who regard motorhomes as the being the black sheep of satan's family, and I have grave doubts about the wisdom of owning one even if it was given to me for free."
I subsequently tried one out (hired it for a few days), and I'm even more inclined to that view. It was very comfortable and convenient, but a pig to drive on the motorway, thirsty on fuel and a monster to manoeuvre in confined spaces. That's from a purely selfish POV, but it was also quite antisocial: apart from the pollution, it also impeded sightlines for other road users (those monsters block out the view even more than an SUV, and almost as effectively as an artic), and held up other traffic. On single-track roads in the Scottish Highlands I pulled in at every passing point to let my own private traffic jam get past me, and it was quite clear from the reactions of other drivers that this was unusual behaviour (they are well-used to being stuck for miles behind these monsters).
At 2.3 metres wide, and often over 20feet long, I think that most coachbuilt motorhomes are probably too big for our roads. They may have a place in less heavily populated countries such as the USA, with its wide roads and open countryside, but even aside from the resource issues, they simply don't fit on UK roads without a lot of disruption. I wouldn't have one myself, and wouldn't object to some serious restrictions on their use.
So I'm looking at a smaller campervan, something a little bigger than a Mazda Bongo, possibly more like a Ford Transit conversion or a Japanese-import Toyota Hiace camper. I'm not keen on the idea of something quite so as big, but I don't intend to use it for my everyday travels or in the cities and I reckon that something just big enough to hold a shower+toilet+cooker+fridge and fold-out bed will be little bigger than an MPV and -- for my intended use -- consume less fuel than any alternative approach.
In the course of researching campervans and motorhomes, I found to my surprise that they are unaffected by the CO2-based graduated VED, and instead get a lower flat tax by being classed as Private Light Goods (PLG) or Private HGV for the bigger machines. I can see a case for charging vans less than cars, to help small businesses, but I can't see the justification for giving a taxbreak to motorhomes. The most absurd example is the VW California camper, which gets a PLG classification while the VW Caravelle MPV gets the graduated VED even though the two are identical mechanically and in bodyshell.
|
Well I think its fair to say people are either fully anti 4x4's or accept they are personal choice.
Im open minded, I dont see the need for 1 so i havent got 1. (Have got a big van though !)
But just to keep the debate open I am going to buy 1 ! (Its been offered cheap so why not ?)
The real debate (as nick and others mentioned) is driving ability and standards!
Now that should be another thread?
|
Well I think its fair to say people are either fully anti 4x4's or accept they are personal choice.
Why do you say that? I don't see anyone posting in this thread who is "fully anti-4X4s".
I for one am definitely not "fully anti-4X4s". They are very useful and important for farmers and others who need to go off road, and my objection is to those who selfishly buy them as a fashion item for use in urban areas.
|
"and my objection is to those who selfishly buy them as a fashion item for use in urban areas."
Because most are bought and used as city fashion accesories! Very few are bought new for off road use !
So therefore you are anti (most if not all ) 4x4's !
|
my objection is to those who selfishly buy them as a fashion item for use in urban areas.
How can you possibly tell?
Just because Mrs Yummymummy drives a Land Cruiser to the urban primary school in the week doesn't mean that her Hubby doesn't use it to pull a caravan or large boat in the Summer Hols?
Who's to judge what's reasonable use and what isn't?
Is it unreasonable to have a 7 seat MPV when you have 1 child just because you value the extra space for doing tip runs 2-3 times a year or popping the family bikes in without faffing with expensive or flimsy cycle carriers? Same kind of "under use" on the whole, but not unreasonable, surely?
Edited by TheOilBurner on 14/11/2008 at 11:49
|
NW,
If you bought a Mazda Bongo or similar for your hols, i'd personally think you're mad...but....nevertheless respect the fact you are free to choose for yourself.
If I told you, you shouldn't do that, because the Mazda Bongo was inefficient and selfish to own and you ought to get public transport and then stay in a guest house ... presumably you'd think "Cheekly Blighter, i'll do what I jolly well want to"
well i'd imagine that's what a 4x4 owner thinks
i don't really see the point of a 4x4 in a town or city either....but i'd argue 'til the cows come home, someone's right to choose one if they wish to
p.s. to all,
can we stop calling them SUV's please. We're in Blighty not the States.
|
If I told you you shouldn't do that because the Mazda Bongo was inefficient and selfish to own and you ought to get public transport and then stay in a guest house ... presumably you'd think "Cheekly Blighter i'll do what I jolly well want to"
No, I wouldn't. Decorating my living room or taking someone to bed with me is a private matter, but taking a vehicle on the roads is a public act which effects others, so others have a right to a view on it, and I feel an obligation to minimise disruption and risk to others and damage to the environment. So I'd explain that I don't want the van for holidays, I want it for a work project which involves wandering around remote countryside interviewing people, and I'd be interested to see if you have any ideas for how to go about that task without using a large vehicle.
can we stop calling them SUV's please. We're in Blighty not the States.
To my mind, the term "4X4" includes the likes of a Subaru saloon, which is a very different sort of vehicle to the ladder chassis, high ground clearance, heavy weight offroad-type vehicle which is described as an SUV. 4WD of itself is not dangerous (except in inexperienced hands at the extremes of handling), so a 4X4 car such as a Subaru is no more of a danger to others than any other saloon ... but the design of an SUV poses an added risk to other road users. I don't like the Amercanism, so can you suggest a handy alternative term which doesn't include the likes of a Subaru saloon or a 4WD VW Phaeton?
|
|
|
|
