>>and are perfectly justified in owning one.
I have *THE* perfect justification;
I wanted one.
|
I don't hate them or envy their owners - if I wanted one I could afford to have one, albeit a used model. I do think, though, that is wrong that 4x4s should be exempt from current car safety legislation on the grounds that they are agricultural vehicles.
That is obviously ludicrous and should be changed immediately so that 4x4s have to meet the same safety standards as other cars.
The occupants of most 4x4s in collision with another similar or larger vehicle have a much higher risk of serious injury than those in a car.
|
>>that is wrong that 4x4s should be exempt from current car safety legislation on the grounds that they are agricultural vehicles.
I would agree with that. I would also agree with different driving licence requirements.
>>The occupants of most 4x4s in collision with another similar or larger vehicle have a much higher risk of serious injury than those in a car.
I'm not sure. If I'm going to be hit by a truck I think I'd rather be in a Landcruiser than a Micra, whatever their relative safety levels - beyond the basics of belts and bags.
In a Micra, virtually everything would be bigger then me and hurt. In a Landcruiser, whilst there are still plenty of bigger things, there is definitely less chance of getting hit by something bigger.
|
do SUV drivers pay more road tax? If so then fair cop. IF not ,they should due to space taken and pollution factors.
What about the very definite chance of rolling in a SUV, is this stat true or exaggeration?
|
do SUV drivers pay more road tax? If so then fair cop. IF not ,they should due to space taken and pollution factors.
They do. They pay higher taxes due to the extra fuel the vehicles consume as does any other driver of a large engined or heavy vehicle. Other than that they are no more damaging to the road so why should their drivers pay even more tax?
What about the very definite chance of rolling in a SUV, is this stat true or exaggeration?
I think the point is, and it backs up the idea of different licensing rules for this type of vehicle, that they handle very differently from most cars and can catch their driver unawares.
Other than that - each to their own. At the end of the day 99% of us could all get by driving a very small and efficient car (e.g. Toyota Verso). As we appear to be living in a country not run by a dictatorship and which operates as a "free" market then what the hell has it got to do with anyone what anyone else drives? I could say (tongue in cheek and not to be taken seriously) I think it's revolting that obese people continue to take up more space than the rest of us and consume huge amounts of food unnecessarily etc. They should pay higher taxes and super-size McDonalds meals should be outlawed.
But then again, what the hell has it got to do with me?...
|
|
|
>>What about the very definite chance of rolling in a SUV, is this stat true or exaggeration?
If you drive something like the Landcruiser in the same way that you drive something like a Mondeo you will roll it over, run into the back of things, lose the back end on corners, repeatedly hit parked vehicles and probably get car sick.
Driven appropriately it is no more likely to roll than anything else driven properly.
|
People may sneer at mine, especially on the schoolrun.
And sometimes they attract downright hostility. Like a woman in a Sainsbury's car park having a go about me offloading my family (incl six year old) in a "mother and child" bay. Like th ewoman in Sutton Coldfield blocking me in at a crossroads and refusing to back up and let me cross.. (Does Mr Bean run a driving school in this area?)
What they don't see is that it gets used for heavy duty towing, and my small business would not function without it.
They are not all poseur machines...
rg
|
In the context of the school run I?ll add something to this debate, if I may.
Personally I have no interest in off roaders or SUV?s at all, one way or the other. The premise that they are hated will stem from the fact (I believe) that they are dangerous to pedestrians, more so than cars and are somewhat unnecessary in the urban environment. Transits, lorries etc are working vehicles and serve a purpose, they are expected and tolerated by society.
This politics of envy thing is nonsense IMO. Parents will be concerned that if a youngster steps out in the road in front of a 4x4 with a 2? steel bar ornaments attached it will be a fatal event. Substitute a 4 pedestrian star civic and it?s survivable with every chance of a complete recovery. If it were your kid making the error which would you prefer? Money has nothing whatever to do with it.
If you think this argument is false, take it to the extreme and drive a Sherman tank past a school at closing time and see the reaction you get.
Legislation is a non-starter, because as has been pointed out, where would you stop.
Out of that context, if just driving 4x4?s is so dangerous on it?s own why should you worry because the drivers take themselves out of the gene pool, thus the public risk is self limiting.
Beside that, these owners are paying through the nose to move a largely empty box of air around, that is a valid choice too as do not live in a dictatorship.
|
"If you think this argument is false, take it to the extreme and drive a Sherman tank past a school at closing time and see the reaction you get."
They'd love that!
I'm sorry I still go back to the original post. It is an irrational resentment because the danger a vehicle poses is nothing to do with it's size and everything to do with how it's driven.
Be it Micra, Elise, BMW, or Tank!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, let\'s inject a bit of fact-based knowledge and recent experience here shall we?
I have (had) a Ford F-150** which was written off with me and my daughter in on August 13th last. We were making our way home from an evening out when an unlit 10 ton truck (quite common in Manila) shot straight over a red light, forcing me to avoid it and drive into a line of concrete divider blocks (Armco isn\'t too fashionable here) at some 70 kph. The truck\'s front left wheel and suspension was ripped out and torn off, we tipped on one side. The air bags blew, we were of course strapped in, the front chassis we found later was bent at some 15 degrees out of straight. The cabin retained its integrity completely and we were pulled out with no more than some cuts and bruises. The police who attended said we would never have got away with it in a regular sedan and they would have been cutting us out with torches.
If we had been using the other car, the Lynx, I might possible not be posting to this board now, or if I were it would be from a hospital bed.
I am not interested in taking ownership of other people\'s fate who may be involved in an accident with my SUV, provided it\'s not my fault. I AM interested in my own safety and survival. I don\'t feel any guilt about choosing my vehicle on that basis.
If I pay more for gas then based on the above I would say that\'s pretty good value life insurance. I also pay more road-related tax to the government so that in theory should give me more say in road and traffic policy than the man in the street Juan de la Cruz in his Kia, who can\'t afford an SUV, feels therefore no one else should have one and gets all bitter and twisted by projecting his dissatisfaction on to me.
It\'s like the Harley argument: I would commend all those who haven\'t driven an SUV extensively or owned one, shut the hell up until you know what you\'re talking about. For my part I\'m damn glad I was riding in one and not something lesser last August 13th.
** For those who aren\'t familiar with an F-150, this is what it looks like. It\'s big, so there\'s plenty to hate.
tinyurl.com/fc6n
|
I agree completely with all the people like Growler, they buy the car because they want to, if its safer then its a bonus.
The problem in this country is the arrogance by people who drive them. I was tailgated by a little twit in his X5 today who seemed to think that by blocking all the light out from behind me would somehow make me pull over and let him by. It didn't which really annoyed him and he then cut me up and proceeded to mount the kerb to get round a line of stationary cars.
Unfortunately I see this attitude of people with SUV's on a daily basis and it's one of the reasons I didn't buy an ML.
Next time however I shall just buy what I want and not listen to people moaning calling me an idiot for wanting to buy a large 4x4.
After all it's my money.
|
Actually I don't like the ML. A colleague had one and I "look after" it while he went on holiday.
It doesn't have a very well "put together" feel. Not that its seems bad quality, it just doesn't feel like the car had been one complete thought, more a bunch of separate ones.
A lot of money for what it is. I should think a saloon and a 4x4 would be a better buy than one ML.
But then, I didn't like the X5 either.
|
Depends which ML. The old one is awfull but the newer facelift models are like driving a completely different car.
|
|
|
|
Do people drive on different roads from me? Well obviously some of you do but....
Don't have the need or want for an SUV but in this case sitting idealogically in the same corner as Mark , if he will allow it, I'm really not all that convinced about this a higher % of 4x4 drivers are ******. (fill in your own derogatory comment)
Surely whatever the vehicle make / model / type there is a complete spectrum of abilities and attitudes all the way from first rate chaps and chapesses right down to total utter numpties.
I accept that certain vehicles at extremes, eg a Caterham, may tend to attract a certain type of owner. Generally we are all guilty of profiling certain vehicles into being driven by particular types of drivers. Of course we reinforce those prejudices by the examples which support our opinions and ignore the others. For all I know somewhere there is baseball cap wearing Nova driver with a Rospa gold badge.
There is a lot more to worry about on the roads generally than this SUV issue in my opinion.
Just my 2p.
(cue for a post from MM about profiling ;-)
|
As regards the size thing, I saw a nice Jeep in the uni the other day, and I've got to admit, a little bit of me would quite like a go at the high riding position etc. etc. but I think that after the novelty wore off I would find the high bills for little driving pleasure a bit too much to stomach.
I'd rather spend c. £30K on another Z4. ;-) Much more fun to drive and attracts *much* more positive attention. As I don't normally cross mountains it wouldn't be a problem, but then I would annoy the anti-BMW brigade.
As far as safety is concerened, the Fiesta seems very safe to me, but I still wouldn't like to hit a large vehicle in it, I think I'd rather buy a Mondeo, which still has brilliant handling with very good safety if an accident should happen.
SUV drivers don't bother me, so long as they don't try to use their size to intimidate me.
If any drivers do, they get a car wash from a mis-aligned washer jet. The amount of idiot tailgaters lately that I have had to put up with I have used most of my washer tank, seems to have a positive effect though, certainly makes me feel better. ;-) Actually, I have found VW Golf drivers to be worst lately, maybe we should ban them...
Blue
|
|
|
|
|
We are very lucky in the UK that the roads are in general safe and the standard of driving is generally not too bad. I have driven (and been driven) in other parts of the world and this is definitely not the case elsewhere. So I can understand why an F-150 may be an appropriate choice for the Philippines.
However, my view is that they are simply not appropriate in the UK except for agricultural or other specialist use.
People have a right to choose but with that comes a certain responsibility. The fact is that SUVs are very dangerous to anyone they crash into and actually aren't particularly safe for their occupants either. I've never seen a saloon car on its roof but I've seen plenty of SUVs which have rolled over.
The problem in the UK is that the wrong people in general own SUVs. I can understand why someone buys an SUV for their wife to ferry their kids around in. But this causes a vicious circle. Eventually everyone will own an SUV and the perceived safety advantage will be cancelled out. Except that with everyone driving SUVs the roads will be even more dangerous for pedestrians (i.e their children). (My gran smoked 60 a day and lived til she was 95. But smoking isn't safe. The same goes for SUVs).
Hopefully the manufacturers will make SUVs more carlike over time, but for me they are just a symbol of the declining quality of life and civil society in this country.
|
|
Haven't bothered to read all the replies but does anybody else find the name Sports utility Vehicle totally inappropriate.... and just plain annoying?
|
I've never wanted one before, but there's a black, 53 plate Touareg outside my window this morning (not mine) and I'm starting to see the appeal.
I could only bring myself to drive the 2.5 TDi version, but if an SUV truly is as safe to drive on road for passengers and pedestrians, broadly as fuel efficient (if a diesel matches a large petrol saloon on CO2), and as practical as a family car, then there is no reason not to get one if it's what you want.
However when driven by people with inadequate training, experience or attitude - male or female! - I definitely have a problem with them. I'm not saying this applies to any of the SUV owners on here but I'm sure there are drivers out there who feel that there is nothing they can do to avoid an accident and/or want to be insulated from other drivers, so they feel they may as well be in the biggest vehicle possible. In that sense, SUVs definitely make selfish behaviour worse.
|
|
|
|
Yes very annoying spunky.
|
|
|
Yes.
As a horsebox towing Discovery owner i use the term '4x4' to mean 'proper' vehicles (ie those capable of doing a job of work other than being a family car / status symbol).
As for the rest (Rav 4, CRV, Vitara etc) i find the term 'Hairdresser's car' useful.
|
Sports Utility Vehicle
Sports: Porsche 911 (for example)
Utility: Transit ( " )
Is an X5 an accurate middle ground?
I suppose it does, really. Still an annoying term, mind
My feeling is that this could be the thin end of the wedge (ban SUV's, where do you stop? Fast cars, luxury cars? We'll all be in Prius's (Prii?).
That said, I do find it annoying when, say, an X5 goes hooning for a gap that isn't there, and uses size to bully others out of the way. Maybe this kind of car is a compensation for low self-esteem (as is road rage)?
Just a thought- no offence to the SUV owners in the forum.
--
Dr Alex Mears
Seat Leon Cupra
If you are in a hole stop digging...unless
you are a miner.
|
Dislike SUVs for one very simple reason - they are harder to see past when driving behind them. ie not really a big problem and this applies to MPVs, vans, lorries etc etc.
With cars at least you can usually see thru the windscreen of the person in fromt of you.
|
I can't believe the guff I've read in this thread!
1) SUV, sports car, MPV, family car, compact etc - surely down to individual CHOICE. If we all liked the same thing it would be a boring world
2)There are as many bad drivers of vehicles mentioned above as there are bad drivers of SUV's (in percentage terms)
3) Higher road taxes - already covered by someone else, the more petrol a vehicle uses, the more tax an owner pays!
4) Can't see past them? - how about dropping back off their tail and adopting a correct road position to let you see past. Same principle applies for MPV's, vans, lorries etc!
Live and let live for goodness sake!
|
A bit o/t but have you noticed any BMW X5 that does NOT have a private number plate beginning X5?
I'm a loser, baby....so why don't you kill me?!
|
The X5 doesn't count. It's an ersatz SUV for urban poofters: have you ever sen one with a speck of mud on it? No serious 4WD-er would be seen in one. Waste of money.
|
thank you perturbed,i drive a ml270 and i agree i have never read so much guff about these vehicles.please people get a life.
|
A theory: I wonder if those who dislike SUVs are suffering from a kind of "throwback" from earlier pre-motoring times when it was usually only the gentry who were able to afford a horse as a means of transport, thus towering over the peasants who had to make do with walking.
It seems that those who dislike SUVs often cite their dislike of the vehicle's height (and thus apparant "aggressiveness" of the driver within).
This may explain the frequent attempts to justify what I see as a type of chip-on-shoulder prejudice.
|
What on earth is this politics of envy business? I can't say I know what it is. I earn enough to buy a new Toyota Landcruiser or a Porsche Cayenne, and yet I have misgivings about SUVs. (I drive a small Ford Ka because a) I am tight and b) I love small cars that I can park easily.)
I guess the main reason I don't like them is that I feel decidedly ill at ease when I have one sitting a foot behind me when I am doing 30, 40 or whatever. I know that if I have to do an emergency stop, I will be squashed by the large tank driven by an idiot behind me. Of course not all SUVs are driven like this. Maybe most aren't. But many are and it makes me feel ill at ease.
The next point is the effect on pedestrians. Why should ordinary cars have to obey regulations to protect pedestrians, but SUVs do not have to comply? I think the reason is that they are considered agricultural vehicles. Ha. Good joke.
|
A friend of mine was killed by a 4x4 just before last Christmas. He'd made a pot of money selling a certain German prestige brand and was just setting himself up as an independent car retailer.
He was out test-driving a potential stock purchase (a clio). Driving into a local village he met with a 4x4 coming the opposite way - and out of control. The road is a series of 'S' bends at that point and the 4x4 driver had lost control. It went over the top of the Clio.
4x4's have a high centre of gravity and a high roll centre - coupled with compliant suspension, that makes them a real handful in an emergency situation. Even experienced drivers can come unstuck - I once witnessed a police Range Rover pulling off the M1 (blue lights on, doing about 90mph), he lost control as he moved onto the slip road and it ended up in the ditch.
I have driven a number of 4x4's on test tracks and some are really frightening - Frontera without ABS comes to mind as being almost unsafe IMHO. The fact that they are usually fitted with 'off-road' tyres doesn't help either.
As far as I know they don't have to meet car type approval regs (that was the situation a few years back, anyway).
Politics of envy (whatever it is) doesn't come into it - I could go out and buy pretty well anything on the market tomorrow and not have to borrow a penny. Its down to the laws of nature and simple physics.
|
|
there just damned dangerous and should be re-classified as such with a high road tax levy. Also the MOT should be ricourously enforced, perhaps even a special test for driving one of these "Agricultural vehicles", which is an idiotic defintion anyway, at least for 95% of SUV users - the supermarket, gym ,school run!
|
Bloke I live with has a Freelander as a company car. It's not being used for work in the traditional agricultural sense, but he works in marketing and frequently has a car full of stock, towing a trailer to exhibitions. It's also a commercial vehicle so he pays a stupidly tiny amount of tax on it. For the last two years it hasn't been the most responsive/reliable/luxury car but it has suited his needs for the 80000 miles they've covered together. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with the customer choice thing!
From my point of view, I'm not insured to drive the freelander (and wouldn't want to be) but I love being a passenger because you are higher up and can see more of the road and surroundings.
The Freelander is soon to be pensioned off and he's getting a "proper" car. I've had to endure months of agonising between Mazda 6s, Honda Accords, volvos and BMWs (we've had a 3 series coupe all weekend and it's horrible!) but had an extended test drive in the Audi A4 2.0 FSI yesterday and are both in love. And yes... I'll be begging to be insured on it! :)
|
Here's my two penn'orth.
I think the whole SUV concept is fundamentally ill-suited to UK traffic conditions and wastes juice in a cavalier fashion.
Four of the cars I'd have in my cost-no-object garage? Defender, Merc G-Wagen, Range Rover, Landcruiser VX 4.2TD.
|
|
Okay, G. But only as long as it's the real McCoy, not that pathetic imitation that's superseded it. There's a Dodge pickup with a V10 which I like the look of, but can't think of the name.
|
now the Hummer, there is a ridiculous car/truck/lorry if ever there was.
J Clarkson slammed it, the Times slammed it and so has just about everyone else....
Take a look at one:
Civilian version of course, would'nt want to drive around in an army truck now would you?
www.hummer.com/hummerjsp/index.jsp
|
>>>>>would'nt want to drive around in an army truck now would you?
YBYSAIW! --especially with a SAM missile launcher on the roof.
----
MO -You mean the RAM SRT-10 with the Viper engine:
www.dodge.com/srt-10/index.html
I LERVE the description: lay this one on the nannies and watch 'em get out of shape........
"SRT-10 has a class-demolishing 500 hp, 525 lb.-ft. torque and hits 150 mph".
Of course it's not really an SUV, it's useful, it's a truck, so that's all right then. Sorry Nanny.....
|
Y'know, I looked at the front end of the SRT 10 and a certain early 70s, very non-PC movie came to mind. Here's an excerpt of the dialogue:
"I know what yr thinkin': did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell ya the truth I kinda forgotten myself in all this excitement. So you have to ask yourself one question: d'ya feel lucky? Well...do ya, punk?"
I think the RAM's very definitely a Harry Callahan kinda car...
|
>>>>J Clarkson slammed it, the Times slammed it.
What not THE J. Clarkson? He with the lobotomised clapping audience at the end of his programme? Well in that case, the Hummer's probably worth a second look. As for The Times, well with such an authoritative organ on all things on wheels what can I say? Perhaps Rupert was trying to drive the share price down so he could buy in to Hummer..... hehe.
|
Well put.
You can tap into prejudice in a forum like this by mentioning MPVs, caravans, bicycles, motor-bikes, PCvs, trucks and so on. It's the driver as makes the difference, not the vehicle.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
|
Clarkson comes in for a lot of stick, some of it deserved, some not. Like many of these TV types, one can come to hate them regardless of there character through simple overviewing. However, from whatever position you look at it, the Hummer is a duck, no a lame camel. Sure, if you live in the Arizona desert and enjoy cruising around in scrup and mounting sand dunes, then may be the Hummer is well suited, but for just about any other scenario it's absurd! Especially at 1 mile a gallon, as tested on the much loathed Top Gear!
|
For all those amongst you who potter around town in an X5 or ML, why think small? Here's what you really want:
"The new 5.6-liter 32-valve DOHC V8 will be placed first into the new full-size Nissan Pathfinder Armada sport utility vehicle. It will also be used in the Titan King Cab and Crew Cab full-size pick-ups.
Built on a new state-of-the-art line at the engine assembly plant, the design of the Endurance V8 features an aluminum block with cast iron liners, chain-driven dual overhead cams with silent single-stage timing chain, microfinished forged crank and camshafts, molybdenum-coated pistons and electronic throttle.
The engine will produce 305 horsepower @ 4,900 RPM, and 385 lb-ft of torque @ 3600 RPM."
|
Well, some lame duck, here in Manila the Hummer the favorite of spoilt college boys with Congressmen for Dads, who buy them one on their graduation. Last night I was overtaken by one with no plates, blacked out windows and a Chicago police siren, followed by an Excursion similarly equipped, probably the body guards, both of which ran every red light they came across on Ayala Avenue (Manila's Wall street cum Oxford Street). Pretty useful for that LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
