|
What concerns me is how these cars are identified. Will it be by postcode ? If so the wealthy ones will just register them elsewhere (second homes, office addresses po box numbers ????) My landie is registered at home and is almost always used for what could be described as "agricultural" purposes, but is taxed on a PLG disc. The Beemer is registered at my office address for no good reason other than our admin staff can handle tax renewals and service issues as they used to when I drove a company car. I had a client who registred his car at his second (rural) home to save money on his insurance premmium which was all well an dandy until someone stole it after a burglary in his primary town address...
|
I'm no lover of 4x4s but how about adding to the banned list big Jags that don't even warm up on their couple of hundred yard trips from 10 & 11 Downing St to the Commons. Bet they don't pollute much.
|
|
|
|
No. This is no longer question of selfishness or even what's appropriate and what’s not in town or in city. It's about what officials can and can not regulate First there is a doubt about the reasons. Do we actually have figures to back up this mythical 4x4 murder spree and ecological impact? I would think not. Do we really see that many Hilux Surfs running over little children by school gates? Or do we only think it's bigger, heavier and potentially more dangerous? If so why don't we fear London Cabs? Why don’t we change bus routes to never cross school paths? Why aren't we concerned about heavy, loaded rusty cheap white vans our towns and cities are full of? A Porshe or Ferrari is way more aggressive, dangerous and environment unfriendly than any offroader. Do we ever see NCAP pedestrian tests of sport cars? So, some are equal but some are more equal than others? Or maybe, just maybe it’s just another stupid topic to keep attention of public to someone’s name that needs to be promoted? Some clueless Streetwise Messiah. You may not like your neighbours Discovery. He may not like your MR2. I think driving one kid in 7 seater is just waste of road space. My girlfriend would like to see bikers banned from public roads. But when you decide to live in society it is not about what we like. It’s not a crime to own MPVs or pickups. It’s not a crime to like big or fast or aggressive cars. It’s not a crime to drive one. And there should be no doubts about it. It’s not a weapon. Grow up, wake up. Stop being stupid and selfish about it.
Secondly. Where does this 4x4 banning mania lead? Do you really think people will just scrap big cars because officials want it? And if Land Rover release Town Discovery and Toyota make Urban Landcruiser 2WD? What then? Will we ban everything with engine bigger than 2 liters? All turbo charged cars? Everything heavier than 2 tones? I will tell you what’s going to happen. Effectively we'll see even more Landies replaced with Pajeros LWB imported and registered as Mitsubishi Estate Diesel. People never stopped driving diesel cars when fuel duty was pushed up. People didn't stop speeding when cameras were put everywhere in the country. People didn't stop commuting to London when Congestion Charge was introduced. And people won't stop driving big offroaders in cities if they want to. They will simply do it illegally.
If officials can impose extra taxes on what they currently like or don't like to be driven on the roads then what's next? Seriously. It's a very simple question - should people in high places be allowed to regulate something as personal as car choice? And the answer is no. Don’t let it ever happen.
My point stands. If offroaders in the cities are the biggest problem we have on our roads we don’t have problem at all.
|
"should people in high places be allowed to regulate something as personal as car choice?"
I see what you are getting at but the simple answer is that they already do "regulate something as personal as car choice" - in fact they regulate everything that is taxed since tax will alter spending to some extent. What is more many other things are "regulated" - free choice of school for your children, when/ where you can have an operation, where you can smoke, when where you can drink, when where you can shop. In fact I can't off hand think of anything that isn't regulated in some way. (Well, I can but my wife regulates that!!)
Anyway, back to motoring - can you think of anything with regard to motoring thatisn't regulated??
|
Without wanting to turn this into another 4x4 thread...sod it...I am.
At first I agreed with the vast majority; why do you need a Range Rover 4.0 HSE for nipping to Sainsbury's. Now, my views have been changed. Consider this if you will. Let's say I go and buy a Nissan Skyline GT-R. It's 4X4 - does that get extra tax? (Probably with it being a massive car but that's beside the point). Echoing some other very good points:
1) How will these 'killing machines' be identified? Weight? Engine Size?
2) If you get hit by a Mondeo at 60mph I think it's safe to say you're dead. If you get hit by a Land Rover Discovery at 60, whilst death may be a little more messy, I really can't see you getting up and laughing about the whole thing.
3) Maybe it's where I live but, and I know there's going to be a massive uproar, 4x4's don't bother me...yes they're big but they're no more imposing than a 5 series on your back bumper. People moan when giving the reason for the choice of 4x4's. "Oh....I'm safer in it - more likely to walk away". That's true.
I would think very carefully about supporting this idea because very soon it will be those horrible child killer Espaces that get extra tax...and we all know how dangerous those 1.6 Civics are.....
|
|
Well I'm not going over old anti 4x4 ground but as NW (I think) wrote, I think if the Government's argument is that something - be it 4x4's, cigarettes or anything else for that matter - poses a proven and unacceptable risk to life they should ban that product rather than taxing it. Unfortunately successive governments have all too often seen fit to place revenue raising and the interests of big business ahead of public safety and IMO this isn't going to change in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
It's a very simple question - should people in high places be allowed to regulate something as personal as car choice?
It isn't purely a personal choice: it is a choice about what sort of machine to place in a congested environment, where the choice directly affects the safety of others.
It's already regulated, and has been for a long time: without vehicle type approval, you can't register a car. Usage is also regulated: e.g. London imposes restrictions on when HGVs can be driven in the city.
The question is actually one of how it should be regulated and where the lines are drawn ... just as buildings are regulated, both for the benefit of occupants and for the common good.
Sadly, the idea of "common good" seems to be overlooked in some quarters.
|
|
Agree again NW, what about individual responsibility. As for regulating personal choice, there are many countries in which freedoms we currently take for granted have either been taken away or lost for all practical purposes. Freedom of choice is fine until it impinges unacceptably on our environment at which point we must all expect to make a sacrifice. The issue is not if we will lose such freedoms but when and how. We can either do it volunarily or wait for legislation the final outcome will be the same.
|
I drive a LR Discovery around town - but not for the reasons of I want to. I have to buy a lot of shopping for a restaurant so the space in the back with the seats down is perfect. Why not buy a van then? Well, at the end of a busy night, some of my staff can't get home other than a lift home with me. If, as often happens, there are 6 members of staff needing a lift, 7 seats in the Discovery are perfect. I suppose I could get a white van and pollute the area with the dirty fumes, and also get a smaller car just to do the run home - although I will need to make at least 2 trips so pollute more!
I can't see this taxation of certain cars going ahead - would the car manufacturers just sit back and allow discrimination against their cars. I doubt it - I'm sure there is an EU Law that bans this!!
|
I suppose I could get a white van and pollute the area with the dirty fumes, and also get a smaller car just to do the run home
Or use an MPV: a much lighter vehicle, less polluting, and because of its design and construction, much less dangerous to other road users.
I'm sure there is an EU Law that bans this!!
unlikely - there are many different vehicle taxation structures in place around Europe: e.g. in Ireland the annual road tax on a car varies from 151euro to 1,343euro, depending on engine size
|
|
|
|
The whole 4x4 'fashion' (because that's what it is) started in the USA. In the US (and UK, for that matter), 4x4's are not classed as cars but as 'trucks' for design legislative purposes. That puts them outside US legislation for crashworthiness requirements and CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). This fact encouraged the US manufacturers to promote 4x4's in a big way (and very profitable for them too!). Subarus. Audi's and other 4x4 cars are not classed as 'trucks'.
Unfortunately, and in an entirely predictable way, the UK market followed along. Now we seem to be in the grip of a US-inspired 'pickup truck' boom as well.
There is absolutely conclusive proof that 4x4's cause greater pedestrian injury and higher death rates in accidents. There has been extensive research in Australia and, very recently, MIRA (Motor Industry Reseach Association) released a report highlighting the impact of vehicle design on pedestrian fatality levels, and particularly the more severe injuries associated with 4x4's. This report has gone to the EU and many of its recommendations will appear in the form of new vehicle design legislation next year.
Moreover, I read recently that this year's vehicle registration statistics show that, as a proportion of all vehciles registered, 4x4's are more common in towns than in rural areas. In fact rural areas have the lowest level of 4x4 registrations relative to other types of vehicles.
|
I've got the perfect solution...lets ban pedestrians from walking in front of 4X4s 8-).
The term 4X4 is very confusing/misleading. I understand it to mean 4 wheel drive vehicles, but in the UK it is used to describe large truck based or off-road vehicles. What do you call those large vehicles that are only 2 wheel drive?, or do you not have those here?. Also, is it the 4 wheel drive capability that makes them killers or their large mass?. Surely there are other vehicles on the road with similar or larger mass that are just as deadly...are those under fire too, or do people not care about the deaths caused by those?.
|
Surely there are other vehicles on the road with similar or larger mass that are just as deadly...are those under fire too, or do people not care about the deaths caused by those?.
I can't think of many in use as passenger cars, for which a much lighter and lower vehicle is a perfectly adequate substitute, and much safer both for the occupants and for those ouitside the vehicle. Probably the only car as heavy as a big SUV is a Rolls Royce, but even those monsters are much lower and have better crumple zones.
It's the combination of weight, height and construction that makes SUVs so deadly.
|
It's the combination of weight, height and construction that makes SUVs so deadly.
Its also their rapidly growing numbers in areas close to pedestrians (e.g. schools and shopping centres).
The UK has a *very* high level of pedestrian fatalities. About 28% of all road fatalities are of pedestrians (that compares with 15% in the US and 16% as the European average). This high levels stems partly from the fact that vehicles and pedestrians are not well separated in the UK.
Of that 28% of pedestrian fatalities, about 84% involve being hit by the front of a vehicle. It therefore follows that the frontal 'aggressiveness' of a vehicle has a major influence on its 'killer' potential. 4x4's are becoming more common and typically have very aggressive frontal design, even more so when bullbars are installed. Not only that, but 4x4's generally have a longer stopping distance than a car and are often driven aggressively - the latter being my observation (it *is* much easier to drive a 4x4 aggressively than it is, say, a Micra.....)
|
Lets try a bit of analysis:
Weight equals danger: BMW 5 series approx 1600 kgs, Nissan X-Trail 1550 kgs.
Size equals danger: BMW 5 series length 4.84 metres, width 1.84 metres, Nissan X-Trail 4.45 metres, width 1.765 metres
Emissions equals danger: BMW 530 d 219 g per Km, Nissan X-Trail 2.2 DCi 190 g per Km
Gas guzzling equals danger: BMW 530 d 31.4 mpg combined cycle; Nissan X-Trail 39.2 mpg combined cycle
NCAP Pedestian Safety rating BMW 5 1 star, Nissan X-Trail 2 stars
Yet only one of these vehicles would be taxed for being anti social because it's a 4x4. An easy political target.
We all know that Politico's and the Red top press thrive by finding a group to score cheap points off or make scapegoats of rather than identify their own faults or engage in a rational argument, and when they have chewed up one target and spat them out they move on the next.
So today it's 4x4's then what next....
Simmybear
|
Thank you! As time goes by we will see what we deem to be smaller cars now such as the Focus and Civics be penalised for having monsterous 1.4 litre engines. We could all drive around in Twingos....
Adam
|
The fallacy behind taxing things that are deemed "unacceptable" rather than banning them is that it in fact legitimises them. The government gradually becomes dependent on the tax revenue, and there then becomes an unholy alliance between the purveyors of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, 4WD, or anything else, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So the government ends up saying one thing ("cigarettes are bad") but in fact acting to maintain the revenue they generate.
So we end up with the worst of all worlds - lots of cigarette smoking, lots of lolly going to the Chancellor, lots of hot air, and lots of hypocrisy.
|
As time goes by we will see what we deem to be smaller cars now such as the Focus and Civics be penalised for having monsterous 1.4 litre engines. We could all drive around in Twingos....
Adski, you can relax a bit! Neither of those cars comes anywhere near the extreme levels of danger posed by SUVs, and the Civic scores very highly in its NCAP tests, particularly in pedestrian-friendliness: www.euroncap.com/details.php3?id=honda_civic_2001
However, all modern cars are a long way short of the standards which will be required in future. There's an intersting article about it at: drive.fairfax.com.au/content-new/news/features/200...l
I suspect that the relatively inefficient engines in the Civic and Focus may also find themselves obsoleted, but alternative technologies such as diesel and hybrids are already available
|
Ahhh NW...there you go with your statistics, facts and figures which not only do I not have the time to refute, I'm sure they are sound...but let me get back to you on it.
I really do love our informed debates by the way :-)
|
|
I'm not sure whether the X-Trail is classed as a 'truck' for legislative purposes. There are quite a few 4x4 that are not, i.e. Toyota Rav4 and Subaru Forester. I think it depends on weight and one or two other factors. I imagine if legislation does come in then the manufacturer will have to decide which category their vehicle fits in to. If they decide 'car' then it will have to meet car type approval, and if sold in the US will have to be factored into the manufacturer's CAFE figures.
|
We all know that Politico's and the Red top press thrive by finding a group to score cheap points off or make scapegoats of rather than identify their own faults or engage in a rational argument, and when they have chewed up one target and spat them out they move on the next.
If you want rational argument, take a look at some of the extensive research in the USA, to which I posted links above ... or follow up on some of the research by the Australians and by MIRA to Aprilia referred.
For example, there is a huge body of research behind the headline data, such as the NHTSA's finding that "When a SUV strikes a passenger car, there are 16 driver fatalities in the passenger car for every driver fatality in the SUV". You wouldn't just want to score cheap points, so presumably you have some evidence that all these studies are fatally flawed -- can you point us towards it?
|
Simonjl:some vital aspects were left out of your analysis. In order to achieve ground clearance for off-road use, Land rovers et al have their underpinnings raised. For rural use (i.e off road for work!) this is necessary, but do high powered Porsche Cayennes actually need this raised architecture? No. Its a response to fashion.
The raised build means that the heavy parts such as the engine and gearbox, which deliver the energy in a crash, are higher than the defences offered by the normal car. No point designing door reinforcements when the engine comes through above the reinforcement, or even your window. Additionally, the vehicles are less stable than a competently designed conventional car or people carrier, so the vaunted safety is a chimera. Not to maention braking which is affected by the higher stance of SUV's.
BTW your figures re the BMW 530d manual are not correct. From HJ: combined mpg: BMW 40.9; CO2 emissions: 184 g/km Nissan 2.2 Di diesel 6-speed manual:combined mpg 39.2; CO2 emissions 190g/km
Now tell us that the similar weight, but different distribution and handling and braking characteristics of these misplaced SUV has no bearing on the outcome of a panicy violent manoeuvre or in the event of a crash? I think the facts are building up against such optimism!
|
I actually took the figures from a rival website so apologies if some are wrong.
However whether you agree with my analysis or not you surely cannot disagree that in EURO NCAP testing the X-Trail has 2 star pedestrian safety and the BMW 1.
Since these tests are supposed to be to a common standard of analysis etc. this suggests to me that at the tested speed a pedestrian will be more likely to be injured more severely by the BMW than the 4x4.
If that is not the case then EURO NCAP is seriously flawed - I'm not sure I would accept that.
As a separate point as a past and current owner of a 4x4 I reject the concept that these make you a more agressive driver, any more than a driver of any other car may be agressive e.g. Tailgating, inappropriate overtaking etc.etc.
Simmybear
|
As a separate point as a past and current owner of a 4x4 I reject the concept that these make you a more agressive driver, any more than a driver of any other car may be agressive e.g. Tailgating, inappropriate overtaking etc.etc. Simmybear
I don't think driving a 4x4 would *make* you more a aggressive driver, but it is certainly easier to drive aggressively in a 4x4 and many drivers do. 4x4's may also appeal to more aggressive characters. There certainly seems to be an element of this with the 'pickup truck' market.
Regular BR's may recall that late last year I had the back of my Mercedes literally 'rammed' by a tailgating 4x4 because I slowed down to take a speed hump.
I saw a good example of this aggression last night when taking my son to the swimming club. There is a narrow road with a long sweeping bend near me that always has parked cars all along it on one side. Normally I have to drive very cautiously and duck into spaces between the parked cars to let oncoming traffic continue past. Last night, however, I was behind a Mistubishi Shogun that barrelled straight on at a steady 30mph regardless; forcing the oncoming traffic hard up against the kerb. Fortunately I was behind him and was able to share the uninterrupted passage! I nearly posted about it on here, but didn't want to start another 4x4 bashing thread!
|
I have had many experiences of this kind of aggressive driving from drivers of 4x4s. The latest happened when I was driving along a short section of dual carriageway. Traffic filters onto this road from an island, in two lanes, so that there is often traffic in the outside and insides lanes until the dual carriageway runs out into a single carriageway road. Most drivers will merge onto the single carriageway in turn, but some will always want to jump the queue.
On this particular occasion, a lorry was in the outside lane as I joined from the inside lane. He was ahead of me and I expected him to pull in, in front of me, but he stayed in the outside lane. I could have gone past him on the inside, I suppose, but I stayed where I was. Behind the lorry was a 4x4 (Jeep Grand Cherokee, I think) and as we approached the end of the dual carriageway, it was evident that he was bent on getting past me. I held my ground, which was behind and inside the lorry, to allow the lorry to filter onto the dual carriageway ahead of me. In the end, I had to give way to the 4x4 driver, as he would have run me into the kerb. He continued to drive in this aggressive manner for the next two miles or so, until I lost sight of him, overtaking where it wasn't safe to do so.
|
But that holds good for a great many drivers of all sorts of vehicles who flagrantly behavein an unacceptable manner, why pick on one group to illustrate your point, I could recall incidents of white van man, Beamer and merc drivers down to those who drive micra's and polos who all get taken by "red mist" when they want to get to what they consider their god given place on the road.
If you don't recognise "red mist" try reading the Police Driving handbook which explains the concept.
If you look as the psychology of driving the car and the road we occupy becomes our personal space and an area which others trespass on at their peril hence the very often totally OTT and violent reaction of otherwise rational men and women to road traffic situations.
This is not confined to 4x4 drivers. How many people on this website have ever blown their horn for a reason of chastisment rather than the reason prescribed in the highway code? How many have pulled a face or made a rude gesture when their road use has been infringed by a thoughtless driver?
Simmybear
|
|
The x-trail may well have an NCAP 2 star rating, but thats no great credit. Overall 4x4s have a deplorable level of secondary safety towards pedestrians, but its magified with these vehicles because of the lack of primary safety and their raison d' etre. See www.greenlibdems.org.uk/resources/sites/217.160.17...r's+Report+on+4x4s+.html . Re aggression: how many 4x4's have you seen without bull-bars? Not many I'd venture. They're put on to bolster the threatening appearance - expensive pipework designed to intimidate.
|
|
It is not confined to 4x4 drivers, but I would say they are more prone to it. It is a size thing, as they feel less vulnerable in a bigger vehicle. They feel drivers of smaller vehicles are more likely to give way. It is the same reason that lorry drivers feel they can pull out in front of cars on the motorway, just as they are about to be overtaken.
|
Well I think that fashion plays a major part in the 4x4 boom and manufacturers like Volvo and even Porsche are being darwn into that market because of the rich pickings. Like it or not, many people buy their cars for image. I don't think 4x4 owners are necessarily aggressive but I do think that having a big, tough, aggressive looking car may tend to lure some people into driving more aggressively (whether it be consciously or subconsiously) in the same way that a very high powered car might lure some people into driving too fast.
I also think that some people would choose a 4x4 simply because it suits the image of themselves they like to portray to others. Finally there are those out there (a very small percentatge) who'd buy a 4x4 and equip it with bull bars to intimidate other drivers. These people are aggressive drivers plain and simple and I think they'd drive pretty much the same way no matter what the car.
IIRC someone earlier commented that it's impossible to intimidate anyone if you're driving a Micra. Well Mrs V. and I were intimidated by a guy in a Micra just a few weeks ago. We were in the MPV and this guy was right up my rear end for several miles. Despite having a much bigger car I did feel intimidated by his behaviour but managed to control the temptation to to take retaliatory 'action'.
|
IIRC someone earlier commented that it's impossible to intimidate anyone if you're driving a Micra. Well Mrs V. and I were intimidated by a guy in a Micra just a few weeks ago. We were in the MPV and this guy was right up my rear end for several miles. Despite having a much bigger car I did feel intimidated by his behaviour but managed to control the temptation to to take retaliatory 'action'.
I didn't say it was impossible to be intimidating in a Micra, its just a lot easier in a larger vehicle.
How much *more* intimidated would you have felt if it had been a Mitsubishi 'Warrior' with bullbars sitting on your tail, rather than a Micra?
If you've been to the mid-West in the US you might have seen those guys who drive around in big pickups with a rifle strapped behind them in the cab and a big dog in the passenger seat - now that is intimidating!
|
However whether you agree with my analysis or not you surely cannot disagree that in EURO NCAP testing the X-Trail has 2 star pedestrian safety and the BMW 1. Since these tests are supposed to be to a common standard of analysis etc. this suggests to me that at the tested speed a pedestrian will be more likely to be injured more severely by the BMW than the 4x4.
Simmy, pls forgive me for quoting in full, because this is a very interesting point and I did some reading on it. In summary, EuroNCAP says that you can't actually conmpare the starrs like that.
If you look on the Euro NCAP website at www.euroncap.com , you will see that the introduction page on safety ratings at www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/introducti...p says that pedestrian safety ratings changed at the start of 2002. Test results under the old system get blue stars, and those under the new system get green stars, and it adds:
"NOTE: Because of the changes to the pedestrian testing and rating procedure, a blue star result cannot be compared with a green star result." (emphasis added)
The results you quote are an (old) blue star for the BMW and a (new) green star for the Nissan: not to be compared.
Then if we go on and read the FAQ at www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/reply.htm?m=235923, it says:
"11. What is the main purpose of Euro NCAP?
Firstly, it makes information about a car?s comparative safety rating in its class available to car buyers. Secondly, it acts as an incentive for manufacturers to improve the safety of their cars. ..." (emphasis added)
In other words, EuroNCAP is not intended to give an absolute rating, and it is not intended to be a comprehensive test. Instead, it compares similar cars, and gives them a relative ranking on the points measured.
The website is very clear that crash tests are only to be compared with similar cars. I'm not certain that the same applies to pedestrian tests, though it implies that they should not be compared.
It's also important to note that if you read the explanation of the pedestrian test at www.euroncap.com/content/test_procedures/pedestria...p you'll see that while test test would show the hazard posed by bullbars, it does not even attempt to measure some of the special factors which make 4X4s particularly dangerous to pedestrians, such as the risk of a pedestrian being dragged under the car.
Essentially, it's a pedestrian test designed to assess cars rather than 4X4s.
If that is not the case then EURO NCAP is seriously flawed - I'm not sure I would accept that.
From what I can find out, I certainly wouldn't describe it as flawed, but I would describe it as limited: it is designed to encourage manufacturers to raise their game, not to give an overall risk assessment. The particular comparison you make is clearly invalid because of the changing in test procedures, but unless the test was modified to consider the risk posed by 4X4s, it shouldn't be taken as an accurate assessment of the risk posed by 4X4s.
There are many other limitations in EuroNCAP. For example, it includes no assesment of the risk to rear-seat passengers other than those in child seats. That may be why manufacturers can still get away with things like the exposed seat runners in the FIAT Panda, which HJ wisely noted at www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=120 -- no danger to a child in a chilseat, but dangerous to an adult rear passenger. Doesn't affect the Panda's EuroNCAP rating, thugh, 'cos it's not tested.
EuroNCAP is good, and it's useful. But it doesn't attempt to measure all aspects of vehicle safety, and it's a pity that the resukts pages don't imclude clearer pointers to the limitations.
|
So today it's 4x4's then what next....
It's easy.
Let's just identify the vehicle models that cause the top 10% of accidents during 2003 and ban them by model, be they BMW 5s, X-trails, Clios or Raleigh Choppers. Owners of these cars will have to crush them and fork out for a new car. After all, it's only a reasonable punishment for the bad driving shown by others who made the same choice of vehicle.
Next year, we can ban the models that caused the top 10% of accidents during 2004 and ban them. And so on until there are less than 10 accidents per annum.
Of course, the absence of any accidents will be because the only people allowed to use the roads will be there to deliver milk. Provided that their milk floats only have power to two wheels, not four.
Alternatively, we could set a minimum standard of safety and enforce that through vehicle construction & use regulations. Oh, we already do that.
|
I think 4x4s are the symptom not the cause. As motorists have generally been treated held up with traffic calming/driving enraging is it not totally unsurprising that drivers are choosing to behave in a more aggressive manner? Road humps appear and suddenly there is a fad for large off road vehicles, doesn't take a genius to realise that if the humps weren't there people probably wouldn't be driving these type of cars in the first place. The poor quality of roads must also affect people's choice of car.
I also remember reading about the increase in the number of blow outs on motorways which could easily be caused by a crushed wheel rim from either an overly aggressive speed hump or inadvertantly driving over a hump
too quickly. Do 4x4s suffer a disproportionate number of tyre failures?
teabelly
|
I think it is questionable that people buy 4x4s because of speed humps. Some relatives of mine bought two because they live in a rural area, even though they live right on the A52. They think the rural roads are more dangerous in winter. In fact, they are gritted more than our estate road, which is never gritted, and which is a nightmare whenever it snows.
|
"In other words, EuroNCAP is not intended to give an absolute rating, and it is not intended to be a comprehensive test. Instead, it compares similar cars, and gives them a relative ranking on the points measured.
The website is very clear that crash tests are only to be compared with similar cars. I'm not certain that the same applies to pedestrian tests, though it implies that they should not be compared.
A very good point.
I do worry that this is not disimilar to speed cameras in that it is focussing on a sympton rather than the actual problem.
Clearly cars need to be as safe as they can be, and as much development or whatever else should continue.
However, the real problem is people getting hit by cars which seems to be an issue largely ignored.
If, and I realise its ridiculous, we had total separation of vehicles and pedestrians then it would become a non-issue. Whilst that is unrealistic, I do think its an area which would bear more consideration.
Surely the vehicle is not really the most relevant issue - standard of driving AND standard of walking would be the real issues.
To say that 4x4s take up so much room that they should be banned is a little silly. Firstly, their footprint is no bigger than many a car. My Landcruiser, which is surely one of the biggest 4x4s, doesn't really have a bigger footprint than an S Class Merc.
What I would whole-heartedly support, even if I had to retake my own test, would be that we should not have a single driving test. we should have different tests depending on what you drive.
We have separate Bike & Car tests for fairly obvious reasons. Well in my opinion a large 4x4 is so different to drive from a car that a similar distinction is called for.
It is a pity in this world that we have come to the point where we see banning something as the only cure - whether that is higher speeds, cars in Central London, 4x4s etc. etc. There are other ways.
I use mine for its capabilities - I live on a farm, I carry the dogs and other stuff intot he middle of fields, etc. etc. However, I'd probably have one anyway because I like driving them.
|
|
And there is a separete test for the largest 4x4s. e.g. a 12 seater landrover. Young whipper snappers need to pass another test to drive them.
|
However, the real problem is people getting hit by cars which seems to be an issue largely ignored.
That's one, very important, part of the problem. But it's also vital to reduce the consequences of impacts when they do occur -- as drivers recognise when they choose cars with higher NCAP ratings and multiple airbags etc.
Even if we reduce the frequency, accidents will still happen: let's try to reduce their frequency, but also make them less dangerous when they happen.
If, and I realise its ridiculous, we had total separation of vehicles and pedestrians then it would become a non-issue. Whilst that is unrealistic, I do think its an area which would bear more consideration.
That's a good point, though as you imply, further separation is likely to be more practical than full separation.
It does raise broader questions, though, such as the extent to which it is reasonable to make roads into exclusive car-only zones. Some car drivers seem to start from the assumption that separation means keeping pedestrains off the road, but it could equally well mean keping cars off many of the roads which they currently use, as is already done in a very limited way in pedestrianised urban areas.
Another approach to the problem is not to physically separate, but instead to ecourage a convergence of behaviour, which is one of the aims behind Home Zones: to slow cars down to pedestrian speeds.
Surely the vehicle is not really the most relevant issue - standard of driving AND standard of walking would be the real issues.
I would say that both are relevant issues: whatever the standards of roadcraft, some vehicles make accidents more severe when they do happen.
Part of the problem here is one which many drivers are reluctant to consider: that the behaviour of people on foot is not always predictable, and children in particular may not behave in ways which adults consider rational.
The current solution is that they children are largely deprived of any use of the streets, so that cars can proceed unimpeded. If cars went much more slowly in residential araes, they could coexist with children in much greater safety. Unfortunately, simple measures to encourage that slowdown are resisted by car-drivers: teabelly explains elsewhere in this thread how drivers by 4X4s to evade speedbumps.
To say that 4x4s take up so much room that they should be banned is a little silly. Firstly, their footprint is no bigger than many a car. My Landcruiser, which is surely one of the biggest 4x4s, doesn't really have a bigger footprint than an S Class Merc.
It's one factor which makes them inappropriate for urban use, tho not the only one, and not an exclusive one. You rightly point out that some cars have a similar footprint, but I think there's also a serious question to be answered about whether it's not anti-social to clutter up a town with a huge S-class Merc.
However, a 4X4 poses an extra problem because of its height, which impedes visibility (same applies to large MPVs).
That's without considering the further dangers posed by 4X4s because of their weight, shape, and construction.
What I would whole-heartedly support, even if I had to retake my own test, would be that we should not have a single driving test. we should have different tests depending on what you drive.
I'd agree entirely with that. 4X4s require different skills to ordinary cars, just as high-performance cars need difft skills.
It is a pity in this world that we have come to the point where we see banning something as the only cure - whether that is higher speeds, cars in Central London, 4x4s etc. etc. There are other ways.
Banning some things is a reasonable part of the mix of solutions: not the only solution, but not one to rule out.
I use mine for its capabilities - I live on a farm, I carry the dogs and other stuff into the middle of fields, etc. etc. However, I'd probably have one anyway because I like driving them.
Sounds like a sensible use of a 4X4, and there are lots of folks in rural areas who use them in a similar way. But that's a separate issue from whether it's appropriate to bring a 4X4 into town: you wouldn't expect to be allowed to routinely drive a tractor into a city centre [*] , it's surely a legitimate qurestion to consider whether we move the dividing line between specialised offroad vehicles and urban transport.
[*] unless it was Italian, of course ;-)
|
I think it is questionable that people buy 4x4s because of speed humps. Some relatives of mine bought two because they live in a rural area, even though they live right on the A52. They think the rural roads are more dangerous in winter. In fact, they are gritted more than our estate road, which is never gritted, and which is a nightmare whenever it snows.
Machika, this tendency to buy 4X4s because of winter conditions actually seems to be misplaced: $X4s may be more dangerous in the wonter than ordinary cars. I had noticed that on my road it's the 4X4s which seem to end up in the ditch first when it snows, but there are some interesting pointers to the reasons at www.vehicle-injuries.com/suv-rollover-danger.htm
From what I have seen, the biggest factor affecting grip in ice and snow seems to be not the number of driven wheels, but the width of the tyres: the narrower the better. (Presumably it's different if you use snow tyres, but nobody around here does)
When the snow comes on my road, the 4X4s are the first ones to pile up in the ditch. Meanwhile the ancient Nissans with narrow tyres can tootle up and down the hill: the mischievious ones stop beside the beached Range Rovers etc and offer to sell their superior cars :)
|
Again people don\'t know how to drive them. Of course a Landcruiser will accelerate better on snow than a Mondeo. Its also likely to steer better. But all cars brake with 4 wheels and a heavy 4x4 with great fat tyres takes a long time to stop in the best of conditions never mind when its slippery.
4x4s (SUVs) end up in the ditch because people don\'t know how to drive them.
|
The common denominator with all this is driver behaviour. There aren' t dangerous roads or dangerous vehicle types there are only dangerous drivers. The Buxton-Macclesfield road that has been branded lethal is perfectly safe when there aren't idiots driving on it. Ditto 4x4s. If driven properly a 4x4 shouldn't be hitting people in the first place and in fact telling people how nice their car is to pedestrians when they bounce off the bonnet could actualy be making people less careful around pedestrians and more likely to hit them in the first place. It could also be changing pedestrian behaviour as the recent safety culture says how safe modern cars are for pedestrian impacts and how drivers should be the ones taking all the responsibility (same with the recent idea in trying to make driver's insurance pay for all impacts with cyclists regardless of fault) so are pedestrians taking more risks?
4x4 is very reassuring in icy and snowy conditions but braking is no quicker and abs is useless in snow. I wonder how many 4x4 drivers think they are able to stop faster in snow because they have abs?
teabelly
|
|
"The common denominator with all this is driver behaviour. There aren't dangerous roads or dangerous vehicle types there are only dangerous drivers" You're quite right, teabelly. But apart from driving aggressively, I think those drivers are criticised for demanding more than their share of limited road space, especially on urban roads at rush hour, and in narrow country lanes. We all accept that for some, a 'country' vehicle is a necessity, but for most it is just a fad, and a greedy one at that.
|
The common denominator with all this is driver behaviour. There aren't dangerous roads or dangerous vehicle types there are only dangerous drivers.
Teabelly, that's a bit silly :)
Of course there are dangerous vehicle types: those with bullbars, those with unpredicatble handling vices, those with poor brakes, those with poor crash protection. That's without even considering extreme horrors, such as a tractor driving on a public road with its hay spikes sticking out behind it.
And there are also dangerous roads, such as those identified with accident blackspots.
A good driver can drive those dangerous vehicles more safely than a bad driver, even on those dangerous roads. But in each case, it's still more dangerous than a safer vehicle on a safer road.
|
NoWheels,
Whilst you have a polite and admirable aproach to your arguments, I am finding them close-minded and based on a single approach which is that the car is wrong and it must be limited.
In asnwer to points that enforcement is not the issue, you revert immediately to enforcement.
On comments that banning something is not always appropriate, you revert to banning.
On comments that vehciles are nto the problems as much as driving you revert to the fact that vehicles are dangerous.
No doubt you will progress to anything bigger than Micra at speeds of anything greater than 2 furlongs per micro-fortnight should also be banned.
I find your arguments narrow-mindedly pushing the abolition of vehicles and anything to do with them, in particular those which you do not wish to drive yourself in places you do not wish to drive them.
Everybody else will no doubt continue to discuss with you, I have reached the point where I find it too tedious and predictable an activity.
Are you sure that you are writing in the correct Forum ? Given a choice I would put you and bogbrush into the same forum and ignore you both happily knowing that you will fanatically \"soapbox\" each other to death without intruding upon my world.
|
Well said, but I wouldn't want to get anyone banned from the forum as that would lower me to the same "let's ban all 4x4" vehicles that some individuals want to endorse.
The point is if we ban large and potentially difficult to stop and top heavy vehicles with poor manoeuverability then we would of course have to ban all those large articulated lorries (now whose ever been tailgated by one of those?), then of course there would be caravans (how many of those have we seen rolled?), then of course White Vans (high tops must be more dangerous than smaller ones of course?, all cars that have a top speed above the national speed limit (of course they'd have to go)....
I could go on but like you I am tired of the intolerance of the few, that will not be ameliorated by any rational debate.
In my other life I'm involved with the magistrates court system(who deal with 97% plus of criminal cases in the UK so fairly wide ranging experience) and I have to say that I have never encountered any motoring cases that directly involved a 4x4 as a design, and only one involving the driver of a 4x4 (who incidently was drunk and ran away from an accident) however I have encountered thousands of cases of uninsured, unlicenced and un-MOT'd drivers of cars large and small but of course as long as they don't drive 4x4's they must be good guys.
I won't bother to read this thread any more because it is clearly only a bashing thread no more no less.
SB
|
So being a mod means we can't have opinions?
Mark expressed his views on NW oft-repeated arguments against any car that she chooses not to aspire to (so pretty much anything with more than 2 seats and 600cc).
I'll say no more. Mark's a big boy and I'm sure will post his own response later.
|
|
one has deleted this as not relevant to the discussion. M.
|
I bought my SUV 4x4, as it is a bit heavier than the average saloon, to tow my caravan to enable me to take my fully functional family away on relaxing de-stressing holidays. Away from the grind and filth of daily life where I pay all my dues and conform to the norm. It suits my requirements but unfortunatly I have to drive it around the rest of the year. Is that so wrong that I be branded so extravagent.
Perhaps, as Martin 123 pointed out 1/5th of cars stopped in Hull on a special operation had no insurance, our politicians would be better employed in providing robust legislation to deal with this epademic.
Then there would be more room for law abiding,tax contributing citizens to drive whatever they wanted.
Fullchat
|
Perhaps you need a second identity for posting your opinions?
Maybe we already do??
DD.
|
Of course you will have opinions, ND. Problem is - a policeman can't afford to express his opinions when in uniform, and at least the public can see that. Mods are just a name. Perhaps you need a second identity for posting your opinions?
Hmmm, not sure that's an appropriate analogy. For a start policemen get paid, and a modicum of respect?
;o)
|
>>Problem is - a policeman can't afford to express his opinions when in uniform,
Don't be ridiculous. I am not a policeman, I don't wear a uniform and I will express my opinions whenever I like and leave you to struggle with whether it was an opinion or a moderating decision.
My opinion of NW's opinions stands. However, despite your over-reactionery rubbish, I saw no mention of her being banned.
And as for all your trumpeting, one thing is for sure about NW, if she wants to argue with me she is more than capable of doing it on her own. But you shouldn't be jealous.
|
|
one has deleted this as being not relevant to the discussion. M.
|
Right, now everybody has had their little say, I shall later today remove the comments about moderation.
As always, if you have something to say about the moderating policy on this site you should use e-mail to a moderator, the moderators or Honest John.
|
\"I am not a policeman\" - just so, Mark. But as a Mod you have the task of telling participants when they have gone too far. Bit like plod really. For the rest of your last post, I am assuming you forgot the smiley.
Can\'t let that one slide I\'m afraid. Thanks for telling us what our duties are as moderators. If you want us to act like the Police we can, but there wouldn\'t be too many people left on here after a couple of weeks.
Now all of you back in your boxes please. Nobody forces you to access this site, certainly I don\'t see anyone stipulating that you must post here. If you don\'t like the three unpaid volunteers who keep the riff-raff at bay having their own opinions, tough. Find a site where there\'s no moderating or the mods are faceless entities with no personal contribution to make or interest in the subject at hand and see how long you can tolerate it.
The moderating policy here is not up for discussion.
|
Back in your boxes, moderate chaps, we all love you!
A virtual bunch of flowers for nice young man ND - I know RF will be contributing to these too; a virtual mow of the lawn for Mark; and a virtual anything he likes for DD - struggling to think of something suitable for you.
I'm afraid I've stopped reading (most of) NW's posts this last week or so(sorry, NW) as I am being bored senseless by them at the moment (sorry, no offence NW, just a statement of fact). If I had to read every word of them I should think I'd be looking to the 'ban' button, purely through boredom - they're always very polite posts.
|
Mark,
NoWheels is entitled to her opinions, and provided she continues to make them in the polite manner that she has to date, she is equally entitled to express them.
You are equally entitled to you opinion re NW's posts, and expressed those opinions politely.
So no need for any fuss, surely?
NoWheels is of course misguided in that she seeks to remove all risks at source, rather than accepting the simple fact that we cannot do so and are therefore constrained to set a maximum acceptable level. But we don't have to reply if we don't feel like it.
NoWheels also has a lovely sense of humour and it would be sad not to hear from her.
|
This post pretty much says it all. That someone can consider a lump of inanimate metal (or length of asphalt paving) dangerous is beyond me. Both will do you absolutely no harm unless you add a human equation. You absolutely need a driver behind those bullbars to cause any damage whatsoever, short of a dozey pedestrian walking into a parked set and even that includes a human.
The idea of a killer road is simply laughable.
|
There wouldn't be much point to either roads or vehicles without the human input would there? To try to evaluate the potential danger of a road, or a vehicle, by just considering them to be inaniminate objects, seems pointless to me also. You might as well say that a loaded gun isn't dangerous either.
|
"You might as well say that a loaded gun isn't dangerous either."
They are not dangerous in the least..not until handled by a human. Anything has a potential to be dangerous when used/abused by human hands.
|
"You might as well say that a loaded gun isn't dangerous either." They are not dangerous in the least..not until handled by a human. Anything has a potential to be dangerous when used/abused by human hands.
I think that is the point I was trying to make. It is the human interaction with vehicles and roads that causes the potential danger. Trying to say a road or a vehicle isn't potentially dangerous, without the human input, seems rather pointless to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
