In the UK, the people who choose to drive 4x4s don't make their 'lifestyle' choices in isolation. Their choices endanger me and my family in just the same way as the person who chooses to have 4 pints before driving home.
The only difference is the legality of the act, and if SUV owners continue to bury their heads in the sand with their pro-choice, anti-responsibilty arguments, it won't be long before a special licence will be required for these tip-happy fashion statements.
|
>>for these tip-happy fashion statements.
I agree. And whilst we're on the subject; lets get rid of fast motorbikes, anything which is capable of travelling at more than 70mph, sports cars, any car which does less than 5,000 a year (they can walk), anything older than 3 years, classic cars, any estate car owned by single people without families or dogs, and so on and so on.
And tip happy ? Well, at least we can be pretty sure you don't drive one. I've never even had two wheels go light on me never mind roll.
Its absolute rubbish. Why does my Landcruiser do any more damage than any other vehicle with a similar fuel consumption ?
If we're all to resort to only the vehicle we *need* then there's going to be a lot more unhappy people than just the SUV drivers.
|
|
|
Yes, and the MP hasn't called for a ban. He said on the radio this morning he was looking at ways to change the culture in which people think they need these things for the school run. Large 4x4s make it impossible (I'm not exaggerating) to get out of my driveway during the school run because you can't see past them and the lane is very narrow--not so much of a problem with normal cars. I know for sure that one of these things travels all of 200 yards to park by my gate. So their freedom of choice limits mine. However local residents are campaigning successfully for parking restrictions so it looks like this particular lard lorry (you should see the size of the kids) will be getting less use.
Chris
|
>>he was looking at ways to change the culture in which people think they need these things for the school run.
That's somewhat different. And quite worthwhile I'd say.
|
|
Exactly. Tabloids again. Tsk tsk.
|
|
|
|
How about we ban people who want to ban things!
Then drive what ever we want or can afford. Then how about we celebrate the fact that it would be a dull place if we all liked the same things.
I do not agree with your car sir. But I'll defend you right to choose it!
|
|
|
|
Last year I looked at an ML270 CDI because for work it would have been ideal, loads of room for tools, could go off road across fields to attend to police radio stations, and pump stations and seemed fairly rugged. It also was good as a family car and would have saved me buying a seperate vehicle for work.
In the end I opted for a saloon E-Class and have to borrow a vehicle for going off road.
If I had chosen a 4 x 4 how on earth would it have endangered anyone?
The only person it could have endangered is me by driving it off a cliff whilst going off-road.
People need to sort out their attitudes and find something else in their lives to moan about.
|
|
I forgot to mention that I don't actually do a school run but if I did it would be ideal for those really high kerbs so I could block the pavement.
|
|
|
You miss the point slightly. I [personnally] am fine if you had bought one, you have a reason to have one. What miffs me is why in a city [like my beloved Sheffield] anyone needs an off-roader to shuttle Boobipbilly to and from school and whilst at it charge at me in my tiny Punto at full speed down middle of road usually talking on a phone. That is very dangerous.
Oh and remember that their engine is about at your head high, you get head on'ed in one of them, you may not see your daughter's graduation...
Kev
|
I have the ultimate reason...
I want one.
|
|
|
|
The only people to mention a ban on 4x4s on this thread are those defending them. No one could seriously want to ban all 4x4s on any sensible grounds at all.
Mark, you mention motorbikes and that I haven't driven a 4x4. You're absolutely right. Neither have I driven a coach, or an HGV. But if I did, I'd have to pass a different test to do so.
I can see no argument for further testing of the above and no further test for 4x4s. Indeed, those who move to 4x4s often do so, in part at least, because they're not the most confident of drivers.
|
In contrast to most large saloon cars (which are usually purchased for long-distance travel), the 4x4 around where I live seldom seem to travel more than 4 miles (to school, shop or hairdressers).
My wife's friend is the most nervous driver I have ever come across, yet a few years ago her husband bought her a Discovery 'for safety'. She is barely able to control the thing and has had two minor accidents in it - my wife will no longer go in it with her. She would be far better off with a Micra automatic.
Having driven a few 4x4 I must say that I loath the things. The handling is usually terrible. I remember driving a Frontera (no ABS) on a wet road and it felt quite dangerous, the high centre of gravity and off-road tyres made it a real handful.
I wouldn't ban 4x4's, but they *are* completely inappropriate for UK urban motoring.
|
I had a Frontera, and you're right they were awful.
However, I drive about 1000 miles a week, mostly motorway, in a Landcruiser. Although I do need to drive about 30 miles a day on windy country roads.
It handles fine. Of course its necc. to remember that one is in a truck rather than a sports car, but its fine.
The problem is not the vehicle, its the driver. And I agree with whoever it was who suggested a different driving test for the things.
They are different to drive. Not dangerous, just different.
|
"And I agree with whoever it was who suggested a different driving test for the things."
I agree with the other points made about 4x4 ownership but not this. They are different to drive compared to low suspension sports set-ups. But heck, if you were to get out of a sports car and drive a big lardy saloon or estate like that you'd end up with grief.
Anyone getting into one and driving it too fast, or not allowing enough braking distance, or cornering aggressively is likely to do that in whatever car they drive - are they not?
Then which ones would you add a test for? A RAV would not handle like a Land Cruiser. So is it size? Is it height? Is it weight?
No more regulations pleeeeeeze?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree something if possible should be done to discourage people from using 4x4's,they are very pedestrian unfriedly even without the bull bars most drivers of them seem to think necessary,they should be discouraged in any way possible,another fashion accessory which is begining to appear in ever increasing numbers are the American style pick up trucks these will cause even more problems because of their size.
ndbw
|
I agree with the freedom to choose. Problem is we don't have a freedom to choose. Normal cars must obey regulations to ensure the safety of pedestrians and other road users. Off roaders are exempt as they are agricultural vehicles. That's why they get away with bull bars.
Personally I don't see why someone should have the freedom to drive a vehicle which they do not use off road, which is not used for agricultural or similar use, but which is designed in such a way that it threatens my safety in the event of an accident. Or does fashion have precedence over safety.
Problem is how do you distinguish between a 'genuine' off road 4x4 user and a fashion statement user?
BTW A colleague drives a Disco 'cos he likes the highup driving position. Says it drives like a tank though.
|
If these vehicles are so dangerous how come they are sold in huge numbers in America.
America has one of the toughest safety laws in the world so if these 4x4's are so bad surely they wouldn't be sold there.
Bullbars and so on are a complete nonsense but generally 4x4's are quite safe even when hitting pedestrians as you tend to have more room between the bonnet and engine so when your head whacks it it is cushioned up to a point.
I may be wrong about this but I think because you tend to get a certain breed of driver with these things people tarnish everyone who owns one with the same brush. Not fair.
|
Sport Utility Vehicles in the USA are exempted from a lot of regulation, particulary the one about emissions.
Why are they exempt? because dealers/manufactures make more money on them than normal cars and the car industry has successfully campaigned to have them exempted.
Bill Clinton set a target for all cars to be able to acheive somewhere between 25 - 30 mpg (to which suv's were exempted), that would have lowered the need for middle east oil (and oil in general).
While they may be safer for the driver of the suv they are certainly not for those that drive normal cars as hitting an suv is like hitting a truck. So to be safer everyone has to buy an suv. A bit like buying a gun because everyone else has one !!
Of course if this MP really wanted to make a difference, he could have said that they would introduce school buses (at which point he would have put his bicycle clips on and riden off into the sunset).
|
Sport Utility Vehicles in the USA are exempted from a lot of regulation, particulary the one about emissions. Why are they exempt? because dealers/manufactures make more money on them than normal cars and the car industry has successfully campaigned to have them exempted.
I believe that in the US, SUVs are classified as trucks and therefore can get around a lot of legislation. If they are so classified then why don't they need a truck drivers licence?
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure I'd go along with that logic. Machine guns are also sold in USA, so perhaps they aren't too keen on holding back public demand. And a lot of the fuss has come from the States because of the concerns over incompetent users, e.g.lardy mums. As for 4wd being "quite safe" that is somewhat idealistic. See this rather old link: list.ftech.net/pipermail/trauma-list/2000/006935.h...l. Like the idea of separate license !
|
I suggest every individual in need of transportation be required to pass a series of Gov't assessments based on his/her age, intelligence, state of health, financial status, number of children, location of residence, ethnicity, whether member of one of those minorities which are rapidly becoming a majority, and additional tests and interviews to be determined based on the report of a series of special gov't think tanks set up nationwide.
Based on the participant's performance in these tests, a permit would be issued to conduct on of a range of vehicles from a bicycle up to a four-wheeled vehicle, fuelled with a mixture of electricity and hydrogen and gasoline for emergencies (a monthly allocated ration of coupons would be available for this subject to suitable approvals) and which was no larger than the median size of the vehicle population in the same postcode (to be checked regularly by roving teams of officials and special police patrols), with stiff fines for non-compliance.
Owners of existing vehicles which fell outside this scheme would be given a grace period to comply, after which they would be required to have their vehicle crushed at their own expense and then they would be able to apply under the Government Motor-Bility Scheme. Teams of roving inspectors would be formed to supervise this process. Local citizens would be encouraged to spy on each other and inform the authorities when they thought they saw non-compliance, didn't like their neighbours, had nothing better to do or simply felt it their civic duty. They could be given badges of authority and important sounding names like Special Transportation Assessment Size Informants (STASI's).
I expect the Job Vacancies pages of the Grauniad would be bulging for years to come.
Ultimately the aim would be to produce a single utility car for all drivers who might qualify for one. Suggested names might be the New People's Car or perhaps a nation-wide competition could be run in conjunction with the National Lottery.
Legislating automobile use in such a fashion would make a considerable contribution to the removal of class privileges and bring the long-term Eurotopian concept of a standard homogenised Euroman and Eurowoman driving on Euroroads in one of the standardised European provinces closer. Naturally Gov't ministers and their employees would be exempt from the scheme.
|
|
As the proportion of SUV's in use in town increases, the more visible the increased risk to others will become. Main vehicle issues are obviously: poor braking capability and lousy pedestrian protection. See some comment: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5844-594732,00.ht...l On the whole, I prefer a society which does the boring things like setting standards and rules.
|
Well you ban SUV's then you've got some other group of vehicles annoying you. Maybe big trucks full of all those organic meals in micro-wave safe containers on their way to Sainsbury's - their braking and road-holding is a tad different too.
So you try and restrict or ban them. And so on. It's a matter of one revised perception simply replacing another. As for "poor braking capability" that's nonsense, my F-150 stops as fast and as straight as anything else. As for pedestrians they're supposed to be on the pavement or on proper crossings not on the roads. They are as responsible for their own road behavior as vehicle operators. You don't build a vehicle to provide pedestrian protection as a prime objective. Drivers are supposed to stay out of the way of people on foot and the latter are supposed to the same. The twain can still interact even if you're driving some greenie's mind trip of the perfect car. Maybe you want a sort of bouncy castle on wheels.
As I said, it's the nursery spoilsport, I can't have it, don't see why you should. Anyone complains about fuel consumption just remind 'em of all that tax you're paying and by the way just how much are they contributing to old Gord's war chest for better hospitals, schools, railways etc etc etc ;+0>
...Growler out.
|
Growler: Trucks are vital, and by and large their drivers are responsible and their employers are liable in law. There are controls that can be applied, using HSWA and other legislation, in influencing behaviour. SUV's are toys for the most part, and subject to relatively little control on driving standards. There is also an issue of numbers and tolerance. We need trucks. We can tolerate the limited number that there are, especially if they are time-limited for delivery purposes. But in towns like Lewes where the fuss has started, there seems to be a situation that has gotten out of hand. Close proximity to so many large vehicles, driven by selfish nits, exhausts tolerance.
Re braking. Sir, I believe you are talking through your nether regions. The facts on braking performance of SUv's are established. They do not stop as well as most standard cars. Finally, pedestrian safety cannot be dismissed simply on the basis that if they are struck whilst on the road, that is consented to by the pedestrian, and nothing further need be done. There are a number of scenarios where pedestrians and cyclists, who have an equal right to use the road, are struck by road vehicles, where causes include the drivers excess speed, inadequate observation, ignoring zebra and light controlled crossings, as well as failings on the part of pedestrians et al. If there is a significant risk of harm from the mass of the car, and it's fixtures and fittings, then makers of vehicles are duty-bound to reduce that risk. Honda have succeeded with their CRV. If other SUV makers are reluctant, class action may make that an expensive omission.
|
I wonder, have you driven an SUV? Don't forget a CR-V qualifies as an SUV, so be careful, that's a mighty popular vehicle and so far as I know is still within the green sector on the PC meter. So does a Freelander. Well, enough of that.
If not, suspend the old received conventional wisdom for a while and try an F-150 or an Expedition or whatever you have over there which approximates, make up your own mind, then get back to me and we'll talk about the benefits of having a large engine and serious metal.
Not all are 4X4 by the way, a goodly number are 4 X 2. So there is no immutable criterion which says you have a need to drive off-road to have one. That is a separation which is often missed, again perhaps because the critics have not informed themselves sufficiently. There are SUV double cab pickup trucks, one of which I might use in my roofing business as I serve the good people of Lewes, and which requires me for a time to park awkwardly and crave the indulgence of other roadusers while I unload the parts necessary to fix up the central heating in the local orphanage. Because I cannot afford two vehicles, my double cab pickup is quite luxuriously appointed inside (leather, CD etc) and comfortable enough for family use. If I use it for the school run as well, what say you then?
Why on earth these attempts to link SUV's to (unsubstantiated) pedestrian risk? It's careless drivers that hit pedestrians not SUV's or Vectras or Fiestas or anything else. It's careless pedestrians that get hit by vehicles, of which SUV's form merely a proportion.
I know Lewes well and I'll hazard the problem is not SUV's but Lewes. You can't seriously suggest that if all the SUV's were prohibited from Lewes it would make one rat's *** of difference, given the white vans, delivery vehicles etc etc all of whom quite necessarily I have no doubt have to clog up the streets of a medieval town to get their job done. Dammit I drove through there in January on several occasions. It took me a while to get through because of the narrow congested streets but that's because they are narrow congested streets not because cavalcades of Landcruisers were usurping the road space, merely the normal albeit heavy multi-mix of private and commercial traffic.
These politico guys grandstand to get themselves air-time with their constituents in the hope they'll be remembered when election time comes around. They need to find a cause which resonates with the targeted voter group their latest focus group says is the one that counts. Doesn't matter what the bandwagon is. Get on radio and TV and stir up the masses. Attention spans being what they are, after SUV's it'll be something else as long as it's interesting.
|
"Re braking. Sir, I believe you are talking through your nether regions. The facts on braking performance of SUv's are established. They do not stop as well as most standard cars."
Nortones2, old chap. I can't see where you're going with this. Assuming we're talking about shorter stopping distances. Sports cars have better brakes than normal cars, which in turn have better brakes than larger cars, which have better brakes than off roaders - which have better brakes than trucks....etc...etc.
The point is...each has to be driven with consideration, if it is then minimal impact will be felt by anyone other than the guy buying the petrol.
Go on, let us drive what we want.
|
SteveS: you're exactly right about driving with consideration. The problem arises where drivers of SUV's are either unaware of their inferior behaviour in the limit, or even deny it. They are not likely to adjust to the limitations if they don't know. HGV drivers are usually at least aware.
For those who continue to argue against the facts, see this from the source cited earlier: "In an attempt to settle the question The Sunday Times, in conjunction with Autocar, set a challenge. We used state-of-the-art Racelogic GPS timing equipment to test three SUVs, two MPVs and four conventional cars. We drove them on a private test track at 70mph, hit the brakes and measured the stopping distance. All cars had full fuel tanks and two occupants. And because all had anti-lock brakes, no driving skill was required.
The SUVs and MPVs occupied five of the bottom six places for braking. The top three positions, regardless of whether you?re stopping from 70mph on a motorway or 30mph in town, were taken by saloons. We found that a Land Rover Discovery requires 53ft more to stop from 70mph than a BMW 316i. In the wet the distance needed would be much greater." These are far from trivial disparities.
|
Nortones2,
"In the wet the distance needed would be much greater." These are far from trivial disparities."
I agree but the amount of 4x4 s (most are two wheel drive but no matter)that fall into that category pales by the number of vans and trucks some of which need far more breaking distance.
If you really think "most" HGV drivers are at least aware - you really are deluding yourself. Just this morning I passed a line of them - all were driving so close to the vehicle in front that they would never avoid a shunt if one stopped.
Also, it really is insulting to people to assume that 4x4 drivers are not aware of the differences. I have a 4x4 that I don't drive all the time but when I do you bet I drive it differently! There is no reason for me to assume that the majority of others don't do the same! In fact it would be impertinent for me to jump to such a conclusion based on largely tabloid driven stereotypes. Just like not many BMW drivers conform to their stereotype either.
The reason this 4x4 stuff irritates me is that precisely the same point about stability and breaking can be made big cars v small cars - so do we all have to drive 7 star rated Yaris's fuelled with LPG? Christ, what a world that would be.
|
|
Much more reasonable than banning the vehicle would be to insure that the drivers of such are capable of driving them without endagering themselves or others. This would immediately remove them from the school run.
But then, perhaps some children would immediately be forced to walk to school if this applied to every vehicle...
|
Why not have a special driving test for all vehicles weighing more than 1.75 tonnes (say)?
:-)
Personally I think people are entitled to drive what is legal on the roads. As for their exercise of that freedom, one of its problems is the poor sense of many of the users.. but hey that's one of the consequences.
Far better to solve the real driver problems we have: starting with the large % of uninsured drivers who are definitely a menace to society. Ooops many of these are constituents of many of the more "socialist" MPs... who will ban fox hunting but allow dangers to society on the loose....
madf
|
I was led to believe that "true" off roaders were more dangerous to the driver than "normal" cars. They have a much stiffer chassis and stiffer crumple zones in order that they do not fall apart when going off road. As a result, in a crash, the energy generated by an impact is not diffused so well by crumple zones and therefore the occupants are exposed to muchg reater forces.
Is this true? If so, are the occupants significantly affected (in real world situations rather than theory)?
|
It's not rocket science. An SUV is likely to be considerably heavier AND considerably taller than the vehicle we all learnt to drive in.
If you want to use it off road without a licence, fine by me. If you're driving it into the massively wilderness of South Africa or Australia, that's OK too.
But if you want to drive it on congested UK roads you should have to sit another test or learn in one in the first place. After all, the same rules apply to someone who learns in an auto and wants to drive a manual.
|
What about my dad, who drives a 4x4. He has a farm and not all the fields are next to each other and therefore needs to drive on the road.
I really do not think that there is any difference driving an SUV/4X4 or such like than a "normal" car. To be honest I think that they are a lot easier to drive than most 20 or 30 year old cars.
|
|
IIRC, can't he drive his tractor etc. to neighbouring fields provided they're less than 3 miles away?
|
IIRC, can't he drive his tractor etc. to neighbouring fields provided they're less than 3 miles away?
Is this a serious question or is it TIC?
|
A serious question. I think farm vehicles do not need an MOT provided there's 3 miles or less between farms.
Of course, I may have dreamt it.
|
Maz
I have ploughed through my notes and reaped the following, all with a grain of truth:
Under Schedule 2, Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994 vehicles used between different parts of land are exempt from duty if:
a. used for purposes relating to agriculture, horticulture or forestry,
b. used on public roads ONLY in passing between different areas of land occupied by the same person, and
c. distance travelled on a public road in such passage does not exceed 1.5 kilometres.
Whilst Sect 47 RTA 1988 deals with the obligatory Test certificate,
Reg 6 Motor Vehicles (Test) Regs 1969 exempts an agricultural motor vehicle (AMV) from the test system.
AMV has the same definition as assigned by Reg 3 MV (Con & Use) Regs as:
a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for use off road for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and which is primarily used for one or more purposes not being a dual purpose vehicle.
Note no distance mentioned re MOT exemption
DVD
|
Thanks DVD, that was what I was looking for. Most enlightening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
