And a BMW, Alfa, Audi, Mercedes (you name it) isn't a style accessory I suppose?
|
So hands up all you virtuous car owners out there for whom styling, colour or a frivolous accessory (CD player/Sunroof/Aircon) were not factors in your choice of car.
|
Spot on, ND.
And I can say with utter honesty that when I joined my present firm I smirked at the partners who claimed they ran BMWs because their accountant told them to. Then I was given a hand-me-down old shape 316i Compact auto - possibly the worst and slowest example from BMW. It out-classed everything I had driven, in terms of smoothness, reliability, comfort, and the (subjective) feeling of safety.
Since then, every time I have changed I have looked around at the others. And every time returned to BMW. Next one arrives on Friday.
|
|
|
As I thought we would get, there have been stacks of posts providing reasons for people having to use their cars to commute, but I think in lots of instances, it is because people want to because of the convenience. The public transport system isn't good enough, I know, but that is not a valid reason for failing to grasp the nettle and try and reduce car use. We cannot continue to increase the number of cars on this planet year by year, ad infinitum, especially in a country like ours with a high population density. It is not sustainable.
The original post was about school runs and this has been expanded to encompass car use for commuting in general. It has also included comments on idiotic driving in general, which is nothing to do with school runs. I stick to my original belief related to the original thread, which is that most journeys involved in taking kids to school are unnecessary. A recent survey stated that one of the things that frighten kids most is traffic. The school run syndrome just increases this threat.
As far as 4x4s are concerned, most of them are much bigger and heavier than normal saloons/hatchbacks and, consequently, use much more fuel. Does saying things like ''it's my money to spend how I like'' and ''this is a free country'' make it OK? The resources of this planet are not infinite and if we carry on in the belief that mankind will ultimately find a solution for everything, I think that some future generation (not very far into the future) is in for a very unpleasant existence.
In addition, most 4x4s are not pedestrian friendly, at a time when the car industry in general is being cajoled to produce cars which will do less damage to the human body, in the event of a collision with a pedestrian. There a still people who insist in having bull bars on these things, as a style statement, and the fact that they are still allowed to do it amazes me.
|
As far as 4x4s are concerned, most of them are much bigger and heavier than normal saloons/hatchbacks and, consequently, use much more fuel.
You may be surprised to hear that the X5 diesel actually has an mpg figure comparable with a hatchback. Not an exemplary hatchback, admittedly, but comparable with the bulk of "ordinary" cars that are actually on the road.
|
You may be surprised to hear that the X5 diesel actually has an mpg figure comparable with a hatchback. Not an exemplary hatchback, admittedly, but comparable with the bulk of "ordinary" cars that are actually on the road.
only if you compare apples with oranges by comparing the X5 diesel with a petrol car.
Try comparing it instead with a few figures for modern diesel hatchbacks, HJ's car-by-car breakdown:
X5 diesel average 32.8mpg
Ford Focus TDCi 51.4mpg
Toyota Corolla D4D 50.4mpg
from HJ roadtests:
Audi A3 1.9TDI 55.4 mpg
Audi A3 2.0TDI 51.4 mpg
That's more than 50% more mpg for the hatchbacks. Not exactly "comparabale"
Also from HJ's car-by-car breakdown of the X5: "Rated one of the most expensive 'Off Roaders' to run in 2003 Which survey."
Whatever the reasons for driving one of these monsters on city streets, anyone who cites running costs in their favour is not someone I'd ask to manage my money!
HJ's breadown also notes: "Only a one star NCAP rating for pedestrian safety". Safe for people in it, maybe, but pretty unsafe for anyone it hits.
And if the same person told me he was going to make himself safer, I'd get myself a hard-hat and look for a rapid escape route
|
|
|
|
>>and, consequently, use much more fuel
My 4x4 uses less fuel than a sports car, so hadn't we best ban them first ?
>>most 4x4s are not pedestrian friendly
My 4x4 is more pedestrian friendly than a van or truck, so hadn't we best ban them first ?
My 4x4 at 30 in a 30 is more pedestrian friendly than one of the local yoofs at 50 in a 30 in their Corsa, so hadn't we best ban them first ?
On the other hand, on the subject of bull bars in this country, I totally agree that they are dangerous. But then, only if they hit something.
You cannot keep banning things you don't like because you don't want them - that will lead to 4x4s, then sports cars, then large engines, then older cars, then, then, then.
Large 4x4s need just one thing - an additional more applicable test *before* you are allowed to drive them.
This may be a bit radical, we could work on the things that cause people/car collisions in the first place so that it wouldn't matter.
The Backroom is becoming more and more radical with the incessant "things I don't like are stupid and should be banned" approach. Whether it is people with seared retinas from high-intensity lights, people who can't see brake lights because there is a fog light in the way, people whose driving style is affected by someone else's baseball cap being on backwards - whaever happened to tolerance on the one hand and personal responsibility on the other ?
|
whaever happened to tolerance on the one hand and personal responsibility on the other ?
The problem is that a majority is having to tolerate a dangerous lack of personal responsibility from an increasing minority. What to do? Just sit back and let it get worse? Or try to do something?
|
|
|
|
The resources are going to run out scare mongering has been going on for decades. It hasn't happen and it won't happen before alternative solutions are found. As oil gets more scare it costs more so there is more business benefit in finding alternatives. It also then becomes more economical to extract oil in previously uneconomic places. The available oil is always the 'available oil at an economically extractable price'.
Ford have already produced a bi-fuel focus that runs on any mix of petrol and ethanol. Biodiesel can easily be substituted for diesel. I don't see there being much of a problem as far as alternative fuel is concerned. The bigger problem is one of power generation and that may only realistically be solved with nuclear. I am not sure it is up to our generation to preserve resources, I think it is better that we grow the economy and use some of the money generated to carry out research into those alternatives. Thus mankind will progress rather than eking out an existence with whatever oil is left.
Any extra traffic we generate is going to be dwarfed by demand from places like China. Getting the chinese interested in biodiesel and bioethanol production could help make a big difference to the world's future.
teabelly
|
So you think it's scaremongering do you? All the evidence smacking us in the face, that we are seriously affecting the climate of this planet boils down to scaremongering? Nuclear power, that carries no threat either? Yes, the cavalry will come over the hill and rescue the planet just in the nick of time.
The Chinese, well they are just part of the same problem - homo sapiens - not a separate problem. Our generation isn't responsible for preserving resources? Which generation will be then?
As for an earlier post comparing 4x4s with trucks and vans, well they are carrying more than a mother and say 2 kids. There are too many vans and trucks in any case. Compared with rail transport they are a very inefficient method of transporting goods long distances, but then the road haulage lobby has a lot of political clout, doesn't it?
However, much of the above is again a digression from the original thread, which is 4x4s being used for school runs. Do they need to be?
|
However, much of the above is again a digression from the original thread, which is 4x4s being used for school runs. Do they need to be?
NO!!!
|
However, much of the above is again a digression from the original thread, which is 4x4s being used for school runs. Do they need to be?
What has "need" got to do with it ? Do you "need" that new television or refrigerator, do you "need" leather seats in your car, do you "need" designer clothes ?
What about "I want one, I can afford one, and I live in a [decreasingly] free country" ?
I dunno, in a forum in which some people bleat about their right to use bad language, about the outrageous idea of cameras enforcing the speeding laws, and about many other "infringements" of their freedom - it is strange to see this desperate need for laws in other areas simply because it affects something you don't want to do - that is how you got speed cameras and congestion charges you know - people controlling things that they didn't want to do themselves.
This topic has become the same old boring "ban it because I don't like it" rubbish based largely on the politics of envy, so no more from me on this one.
|
|
|
|
4x4s being used for school runs. Do they need to be?
Depends on the school run, doesn't it?
If we had a good village school around the corner then they would walk. I did (rain, hail, snow, etc etc).
There isn't, though. The optimum balance of educational quality and distance requires use of a vehicle. Sorry world.
Some clearly think I should feel guilty. I don't however feel any guilt that the Government managed to fool enough of the population that it would provide education, education, education but didn't.
Once again, a completely unrelated problem is being addressed by use of a car and the drivers are blamed.
|
Depends on the school run, doesn't it?
If the school is situated accross 2 miles of rugged off road terrain then by all means use a 4x4 - thats what they're made for (or rather used to be).
Granted if the school is 2 miles accross town then walking might not seem desirable. In the absence of a bus then a surely CAR would suffice?
|
Today's post justifies use of a vehicle.
Yesterday's post explains why that vehicle is the model that it is.
QED
Anyway, an X5 would probably be unsuitable for use on a rugged field ;-)
|
Ooh! I know - I could have a separate vehicle for every type of journey! Then we wouldn't need a general purpose vehicle like an X5 that can do pretty well everything. We could have the optimal vehicle for the journey.
We could have a little sports car for when just one or two adults are travelling, a minibus for when the children have friends round, a van for when we want to move big things, a saloon for long journeys and a Defender for when the snow is 2 feet deep. And so on. Suggestions anyone?
And, of course, my own garage to service and maintain them all would be justified if I had than many... and the exchequer would be pleased with all the VED, unless I had trade plates.
Or I could stick to just one idiotic vehicle that does reasonably well whatever I want it to do.
|
"We could have a little sports car for when just one or two adults are travelling, a minibus for when the children have friends round, a van for when we want to move big things, a saloon for long journeys and a Defender for when the snow is 2 feet deep. And so on. Suggestions anyone?"
Isn't that called having a vehicle which meets your everyday needs and then paying a visit to Mr Car Rental company when you need something a bit unusual.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
Incidentally I thought Mark had it right, every 4x4 I've ever driven has been monumentally bad over speed bumps. The one possible exception being a Lincoln Navigator, though the 9 mpg was a bit of a strain. The ability to cross speed bumps "comfortably" in no way compensated for that.
|
|
So you think it's scaremongering do you? All the evidence smacking us in the face, that we are seriously affecting the climate of this planet boils down to scaremongering?
That would depend on exactly which group of scientists you listen to. There is one current theory that we are due another ice age, and the only reason we aren't all moving south is that global warming is saving us from the effects. Theories abound about whether pollution is raising or lowering the temperature at the moment, all me know is the latest fashionable theory, the current paradigm.
Yes, the cavalry will come over the hill and rescue the planet just in the nick of time.
The argument that we should concentrate on finding other types of resource, rather than reserving those we have makes a lot of sense. If you have a finite resource, however much you conserve it, it WILL run out. Finding alternatives is a far longer term solution.
The Chinese, well they are just part of the same problem - homo sapiens - not a separate problem. Our generation isn't responsible for preserving resources? Which generation >> will be then?
Again, perhaps our responsibility to future generations is to ensure a healthy ecomnomy, paying for valuable research into future power sources, rather than to conserve what we have by stulting the economy, meaning they have to conserve those same meagre resources and stretch them yet further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So hands up all you virtuous car owners out there for whom styling, colour or a frivolous accessory (CD player/Sunroof/Aircon) were not factors in your choice of car."
*Raises hand*
I bought my Impreza for the performance and handling. Styling, colour and toys and badge were entirely irrelevant.
|
Oh plop. I should have added that it has to be electronically limited to 70mph.
So you can put your hand down.
:o)
|
|
|
"So hands up all you virtuous car owners out there for whom styling, colour or a frivolous accessory (CD player/Sunroof/Aircon) were not factors in your choice of car." *Raises hand* I bought my Impreza for the performance and handling. Styling ... were entirely irrelevant.
Good job too ;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
|
Here's a thought. Instead of ranting on about those dangerous 4x4s, lets get focussed and starting getting all steamed up about other cars that pollute excessively and carry a higher risk of death to occupants and pedestrians alike.
So, who wants to take on.... every car over 10 years old.
Higher emmissions
NCAP? What's that?
Rusty bits to catch pedestrians
Poorer brakes
Ah, but we couldn't rule drivers of these as being idiotic. After all, this is caring, inclusive Britain. If we were to brand those who can't afford a newer car "idiotic" and try and legislate them off the road there would be an outrcry.
But the politics of envy are fine.
Double standards and hypocrisy all round then.
Now before someone dissects this post and challenges it bit by bit, just take a long look at the arguments against the 4x4 and tell me that every single one of those can't be levied against a 10 year old car when compared with its current equivalent.
|
|
It's a bit late in the thread, but it has occurred to me that for anyone wondering exactly what Ken is up to the song 'Electioneering' by Radiohead pretty much covers it.
|
|
|
What, so a (maintained) M reg Cavalier with a catalytic converter, airbag, and ABS is more damaging than a new Landcruiser?
Only -potentially- for the occupants, I'd have thought.
Ooh dear - looks like when the new pedestrian-friendly legislation comes in, all today's state-of-the-art NCAP cars will be rendered not-worth-a-look.
Then again, why not mandate them to be fitted with a 15" deep polystyrene 'buffer' across the entire front? (with holes for the lights and air inlet)
In fact, why not do that to all cars now? Maybe the parking bays would have to be made longer.
I suppose I could afford to buy a new car, but I choose not to. Coincidentally, just recently I find I'm getting bored with modern cars' efficiency, and am seriously contemplating changing to something from the 40's or 50's as my only car (I don't have to do many miles these days).
Well, if a 10 year old car is only borderline safe, why not take the in-for-a-penny route? I want to squeeze as many thrills as I can out of 29 mph: I fancy the excitement of single-circuit drum brakes and wet roundabouts on crossplies. I guess my one nod towards safety for my occupants would be for the car to have plenty of mass, so maybe rather than a Morris 8 I might go for a Standard Vanguard, or a big Packard or Studebaker. Suppose we could all wear full-harness belts too.
I'll stick a polystyrene buffer on the front for jaywalkers, but the rest of you'd probably better make sure you're in 4x4s.
I *am* an idiot, but I *choose* to be. And similarly, if I choooose to drive along the roads of central London, I'll pay my £5 and then do it in as legally-polluting a vehicle as I choose to.
|
Mr Tuna, I think you're missing No Dosh's point rather. He isn't actually suggesting that old cars are a bad thing and should be banned. He is using them as an example of how daft the arguments for banning 4x4's are.
In a similar way he could have suggested Motorcycles be banned, since there is little or no protection for the hitter or hittee.
|
Mr Bazza,
No, I realised that, but what ND said reinforced my recent considerations of where you draw the line on the safety stuff. I?d wavered at the prospect of buying a ?pottering-about? car without an airbag, or ABS, for example. In only a few years, we?ll no doubt be wavering at cars without EBD or Emergency Brake-Assist or Adaptive Cruise Control, even though many of us are managing to get along without them at the moment. I defend people?s right to drive a 4x4, but how do you fare crashing into one in a Cinquecento? For many of their users, a 4x4 is not really the most sensible choice, but the more there are on the roads, the more the other people feel the need to be in one.
So instead of choosing a Cinquecento, I thought I might just venture even further down the ?not the most sensible? route, and consider a tank-like gas-guzzling polluter from the ?40s. I might experience greater fun, whilst driving in a more sedate manner. Win-win?
(sorry this has got rather off-thread)
|
|
|
|
I *am* an idiot, but I *choose* to be. And similarly, if I choooose to drive along the roads of central London, I'll pay my £5 and then do it in as legally-polluting a vehicle as I choose to.
Bingo. Choice. And as we have simply gone round the same old angry ranting against the choice of the individual, ladies and gentlemen, I am about 3 replies from locking the thread. More out of boredom than anything else.
If you can't come up with something better than "Ooooh, they aren't very safe and I wouldn't have one, don't they use a lot of fuel" whilst failing to see that most of these arguments can be equally applied to just about every other car on the road then away it goes.
No Dosh
Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
Unfortunately it appears that one can't make any comment which is critical of an individual's choice to do anything that they want, simply because they want to and can afford it, without the accusation of envy being brought out. I'm not envious of anyone's possessions, 4x4s or whatever it may be. I am quite content with my life and what I own, at the same time recognising that I am lucky to live where I do and that what I do is not isolated from others on this planet, who are not so fortunate.
|
I was waiting for someone to spot the irony in my dictating what you could and couldn't say, whilst chastising those who fail to embrace freedom of choice. Well done Machika, you win this afternoon's prize of
er
um....
Nope, fresh out of prizes.
Well done anyway
;o)
ND
|
I was waiting for someone to spot the irony in my dictating what you could and couldn't say, whilst chastising those who fail to embrace freedom of choice.
We all noticed, but didn't think to mention. We've got used to how all the power has effected you ;)
|
It's not that much power, after all, it's only an Alfa JTD.
Oh, that power. Well yes, you may have a point there.
;o)
|
|
As people here may know we owned a Disco as a second car and it doubled at weekends and hols for multipurpose work which included off road stuff. Whilst it replaced a third vehicle SWMBO, who was the main weekday user, thought it was a dreadful waste when in town. It was replaced witha MINI two years ago and I bought a second hand (imported) Landie. I disagree with HJ, the main purpose these are bought within cities is as designer accessories and for thei percived safety and invulnrability to contact and not to traverse the urban humps. I rarely agree with Kenneth but I do on this one. A Peugeot 306/7 will glide over speed humps you just do not need 2 tonnes of 4 wd to do so.
|
A Peugeot 306/7 will glide over speed humps you just do not need 2 tonnes of 4 wd to do so.
>>
My sentiments exactly. I was beginning to think I was on my own on this issue.
|
I'm just struck by how quickly this thread has bypassed its centenary - this must be a subject close to the hearts of a lot of Backroomers, although I can't really see why!
Are we going to have a 'Ken brands 4x4 drivers 'idiotic'' II, or will we leave it for the electorate to debate the great man further?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
