Nobody needs a 4x4.
Nobody needs a telly that's over 21 inch. Or is in colour. Or at all.
Nobody needs a ten thousand pound kitchen.
Nobody needs a garden bigger than 100 square yards.
Nobody...
Shall I stop?
|
Strange attitude exhibited by the chap who parked across 2 spaces, very reminiscent of the story I heard about the 4*4 wielding mother (actual mother, not an Americanism!) who upon seeing her stupidly parked car being ticketed just trumpeted "Oh darling.... I can afford a ticket.. how much is it?". These people think of things in terms of buying their way out (or in) of things, and don't understand that the reason one should park in one space is a lack of space in general. I don't give a fiddler's flump if he bought 2 tickets, or indeed 10. It's anti-social behaviour.
On the other views expressed: I don't think 4*4s should be banned. The fashion for them will fade in time, and the market will adapt. Trouble is, folks, there's always a fashion for something that offends someone! Yes, the stereotype of nouveau-riche "look at me" or arrogant Sloane is often depicted by 4*4 drivers, but then we all remember the ubiqituous Volvo Estates, the estate agent's Golf GTi, the (still current) Foxton's special Minis..... the list is endless.
Unfortunately, with consumer culture comes very defined groups. It's like Chavs agains Goths, but for grown-ups.
Nobody, as mk124 points out, needs more than the basics, but we live in a "culture" where conspicuous consumption is for some people, their only defining quality, so there will always be conflict... and of course, selfish attitudes to such things as parking, because our society encourages us to think of being wealthier as being better.
|
I don't envy anyone, I live my life the way that suits me, I could clear all my debts this afternoon, I buy the best I can afford look after it and make it last.
Interest rates are on the climb, it won't affect me I live within my means. A lottery win would'nt change me.
Now can the Chelsea 4X4 brigade say the same?
|
>>A lottery win would'nt change me.
Well if you do win then pass it on to me, because it'll damn sure change my life.
|
|
|
|
I'm reminded of the current adverts all over the tube:
"Looking good isn't important, it's everything".
My reaction was something along the lines of "you vacuous ******" (my *'s, not the swear filters).
|
Good point Dipstick, one man's excess is another's basic. I don't think the 2 space parker was trying to hog space as much as stop other cars, like the battlescarred Citreon, parking too close and opening doors onto their sides creating carpark dings!
Much cheaper to buy two tickets than pay for bodywork repairs.
Jealousy is an unfortunately common trait.
|
|
Cheaper, but socially infra dig. Take your chances with the rest of us "plebs" and stop making a statement about how clever you think you are would be my comment to 2 Spaces Man. And to post it on a forum?!! How self-satisfied... "I am rich, and clever, and smug, and get off on annoying people...". KABOOSH! That's a pistol noise.
|
|
|
|
Dear insert deity... that's as bad as those AWFUL Jaguar ads.
And I'm not jealous, cos I am actually incredibly attractive... just don't play on it!!!! : )
|
|
The above was supposed to fit in below the Tube ad comments. Forgot how to work it momentarily. Apols.
|
Buy a copy of December "Car" and turn to page 19 on the Bulletin section. It's a two-year Oregon-based study on the total environmental impact of a vehicle, they call it "dust to dust" So it's not just fuel comsumption, they even go so far as to measure energy used by an employee commuting to the factory to make the parts. Cars score for recyclability and durability.
Of the cars available in the UK, the greenest was the Jeep Wrangler, second was Toyota Yaris. (I'm just gonna quote chunks from the article here)
The dust to dust energy cost of a Prius is almost five times that of a Yaris
Hybrid Lexus RX400h scored lower than a stock Range Rover
Hybrids scored poorly because of low durabilty of key components and replacement and disposal cost of complex items like batteries and electric engines. High R&D energy costs and complicated to manufacture (two engines) and lightweight steels are energy intensive to make and harder to recycle.
4X4s did well, easy to manufacture using simple grade easily recyclable steels and have good durability. Prius will last 100,000 miles before major replacement costs; the Landcruiser will last three times as long.
It goes on to say if fuel consumption is your priority, sure buy a hybrid, if you really care about the environment, larger more conventional models have a lower impact.
|
We live in a wrold where it is hard not to have your wants and desires moulded by peer pressure/advertising and simple envy/greed/one uppersonship...(not man/womanship!:_)
Each to their own and If someone wants to drive a 4x4 let them. But equally I will refuse to have any sympathy if they complain about running costs/parking etc.
It's their choice.
And comments created by greed /envy /dislike should - imo - be treated with the gravitas they deserve... i.e. none.
As far as the Oregon study is concerned ,
"The dust to dust energy cost of a Prius is almost five times that of a Yaris"
but we know the purchase cost of a Prius is not 5 times that of a Yaris..
So on that basis I say energy costs are still low in relation to other costs.
And whilst energy costs are low in relation to other costs, there is not YET an energy crisis.
Of course you could also do the same study and compare a Model T Ford against a Yaris. I would imagine the ModelT (or Model A, or Ford Popular etc) would win.
Why? Because the KEY assumption is model longevity. But the reality is not the theoretical life but the actual life in practise..So a Model T lasting 80 years is always going to win:-))
" Prius will last 100,000 miles before major replacement costs; the Landcruiser will last three times as long."
Yes : but the key is : what is the average model life in reality? For example today's cars can do 200k miles easily when serviced. See the adverts today. The number of cheap cars with over 100k miles is huge, especially compared to 20 years ago. But I bet the average mileage is much less for each model. Many will be scrapped due to lack of maintenace or accidents/corrosion/uneconomic repairs..
madf
|
The most environmentally friendly car is one of reasonable fuel consumption (doesn't have to be a foul sooty diesel), simple to construct and maintain (none of this trip to the dealer to change a lightbulb nonsense or 10 hours to change a cambelt, making an old car uneconomic to service) and one of high reliability (no need for manufactured and transported spare parts).
Job done.
|
|
|
Why? Because the KEY assumption is model longevity. But the reality is not the theoretical life but the actual life in practise..So a Model T lasting 80 years is always going to win:-))
Ther eare not many Model Ts around these days, and I would bet that none ever did 100K miles!
Their cost per mile would be astronomical, especially if you look at their real cost in 1930s value.
|
|
|
"We live in a wrold where it is hard not to have your wants and desires moulded by peer pressure/advertising and simple envy/greed/one uppersonship...(not man/womanship!:_)
Each to their own and If someone wants to drive a 4x4 let them. But equally I will refuse to have any sympathy if they complain about running costs/parking etc.
It's their choice.
And comments created by greed /envy /dislike should - imo - be treated with the gravitas they deserve... i.e. none."
Eloquently put madf.
|
|
|
|
Buying a 4x4 SUV or 'gas guzzler' is completely legal.
However, some councils are trying to discourage their use - such as making parking bays too narrow. The owner of this 4x4 appears to have taken an entirely reasonable view to parking - (s)he just buys two tickets, and uses two adjacent bays
Now, I'm no fan of 4x4s - but they are entirely legal (and no, I don't want one).
If a car park operator wants to limit parking spaces to vehicles no more than 2m wide, 4m long, 2m high and less than 1600Kg - then they should state so at the entrance; and then ticket or prohibit any vehicle that doesn't comply.
Else they should cope with any legal 'private car' - perhaps by allowing some bigger spaces.
I really can't stand this attitude where a council, or some other relevant authority, gets all sniffy about a legal vehicle. Post the rules so a reasonable person can see and understand them, and then enforce them, and keep quiet !
|
|
I've just had an idea for a new "must-have" car for town use - why not a tracked vehicle? A sort of tank, but with windows, looking a bit like a SUV. Rubber tracks are perfectly legal, and the car would be unaffected by speed humps, potholes, etc. Superb manouevrebility, no problem with bumper scrapes.
|
|
Try this CP ://www.mohawkltd.com/productdetail.asp?key=777&service=yes
|
Looks fun. Yes, something like that, only a bit more car-like. It needs tinted windows, a row of blue-tinted spotlights on a roof bar, an exposed chrome exhaust pipe with a silencer the size of a dustbin, doors so big they take up half the pavement, fold-down mounting steps that you would naturally leave permanently in position. Possibly some enormous bike carriers, to demonstate your green committment.
The Boggs Kerb-Crawler Duo-track.
|
|
Only 16mph in high range though... perhaps a stripped and lightened Abrams with rubber pads on the tracks. Wd have advantage of being able to climb over other traffic when pushed, too. I know there are some quite big tanks that can do 50 or 60 mph...
|
i haven't got a 4x4, but would be perfectly willing to have one..........and no amount of peer pressure, bullying or nanny state would stop me
i've just bought a house load of low energy light bulbs, the house is double glazed, we recycle everything we can and if the cost comes down i'll consider solar heating etc
but i'll still choose to have a 4x4 if i fancy one
do i not still live in a democracy?
|
I'm not entirely sure whether your saying 'because' you have a 'green' household you're more entitled to a 4x4
Doesn't really matter whether you feel entitled or not - your choice, you pay the cost whatever that may be - financial, guilt for damaging the world and all that, the disapproval of some of your fellow citizens
Nobody says you can't do it but you will pay for it -
The Chinese and Indians are making a right mess of the atmosphere with all their emissions - by your argument does that mean we should too?
|
I'm not entirely sure whether your saying 'because' you have a 'green' household you're more entitled to a 4x4
I was stating the green element to show i'm not 100% selfish and do care about some of the concerns that are currently topical.........however...........i still intend to exercise my choice
and someone else's hand wringing will not make one iota of difference.........i'll make my own mind up
i don't like the current atmosphere of 'jumping on the bandwagon' and all of a sudden something (whatever it is) is not 'allowed' because the politically correct brigade have decided it shouldn't be........often that viewpoint can be misinformed and can be most selective.
as stated previously...... a decent brand new 3.0 TD 4x4 by most manufacturers will be more/equally economical than a 7-8 yr old average 2.0 petrol anything......why not a clamour for people to get rid of their 7 yr old petrol cars then........... because that would be ridiculous and unfair on those with a degree of limited income....but it's ok to slate a 4x4 just because some see them as 'unnecessary'........ do we not have choice in our country any more?
|
|
|
|
Always loved Vacuous. Five stars would be sufficient though. Don't want to waste them.
Very best regards to all......................MD.
|
Very interesting article.. .. www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
>>
that article states:
Fred J. Schaafsma, a top engineer for General Motors, says, "Sport-utility owners tend to be more like 'I wonder how people view me,' and are more willing to trade off flexibility or functionality to get that. " According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills. Ford's S.U.V. designers took their cues from seeing "fashionably dressed women wearing hiking boots or even work boots while walking through expensive malls. " Toyota's top marketing executive in the United States, Bradsher writes, loves to tell the story of how at a focus group in Los Angeles "an elegant woman in the group said that she needed her full-sized Lexus LX 470 to drive up over the curb and onto lawns to park at large parties in Beverly Hills. " One of Ford's senior marketing executives was even blunter: "The only time those S.U.V.s are going to be off-road is when they miss the driveway at 3 a. m. "
so the question for all the 4x4 owners : is the above true ?
|
|
What's a 4*4?
|
I don't get the logic behind the theory that people would think "I can't afford one of these so nobody should have them". There are cars out there that I would like to be able to afford, but currently can't. I certainly don't want them banned - that would remove any remote possibility that I might someday own one! Having said that, the Lexus IS220d or Accord diesel are closer to what I would aspire to than any SUV.
Ref the discussions about emissions, fuel consumption etc., if I was asked to describe a polluting car, I can't say I'd think of SUVs specifically, but rather any vehicle which is fuel-inefficient - the Bugatti Veyron or Bentley Continental or Ford Mustang would be a lot more polluting than the RAV4. Ok, there are a lot more RAV4s around, but what about any middle or exec saloon with a petrol engine over say 2.2 litres? Plus cars with an older engine, especially petrol ones. Generally speaking the older a car gets the greater the disparity between petrol and diesel emissions, and it's petrol which is the main offender - in spite of any poorly maintained smoke belchers! I know, let's have another petrol vs diesel debate ...... ;-)
Finally, the title of the thread is "excess on the road". As well as the additional fuel consumption/emissions of less efficient vehicles, to me this also implies a question about space/size. This has never been an issue for me, in fact I've only thought about it since reading comments on here when the congestion charge debate first began, but then I don't live in London and never have. What's the population there nowadays, 9 million or so? That's a lot of people and a lot of vehicles to fit into a fairly tight geographical area, especially one with a lot of narrow streets, limited parking facilities and a less than ideal trunk road system. So, maybe there is an issue with regards to the amount of space each person can expect to take up, especially when parking. To ask how many Smarts would fit into the space occupied by a single Hummer is an excessive comparison, but I'm sure you get my drift.
Still, putting aside the question of "entitlement", from a purely practical viewpoint I guess if I lived there I'd find a Focus/Golf sized car more suitable for my needs, simply in order to make my passage through the streets and ability to park easier. If I had a family I'd probably look for the Tardis effect - the most internal space with the smallest footprint, something like a Mazda5 that I could enjoy driving.
Please note that the above is just me thinking out loud - not an attempt to dictate to anyone!
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Excessive concern about what others drive is envy.
Excessive concern about what you drive yourself is called paranoia.
So we have a lot of envious paranoid people. (many appear to be politicians).
So what's new?
:-)
madf
|
|
You can say the same thing about any car. ANY CAR. Why do sales reps need Mondeos when they could fit their laptop into Yaris? Why do people buy MPVs instead of 5 door Chevy Matiz for their two children? Why do "insecure, vain, self-centred, self absorbed and nervous" execs insist on buying performance beemers, or Porsche, or Astron, when the only time they will see 70 mph is when valeter's foot it on roundabout by underground parking at Canary Wharf? We don't need 50 inch projection plasma hyper definition digital hoobbaloobba freeview hard drive recording quadrupple tuner surrounding TVs to watch saturday footy. Or ice cube producing double door wall to wall fridges for curry take away. We don't need maxi king size beds, power hungry dual core hyper threading PCs to browse internet pages. Do we really need £800 computerized washing machine to run for two pairs of socks every evening? Or full size dishwashers to run for two hours around two plates and a handful of greasy cutlery for our convenience? As far as civilisation is concerned, we probably DON'T NEED 95% of things in our life to be as advanced, big or power hungry as they are. But you will still go to the shop, to buy a microwave and you will still go through appropriate Which? consumer tests and end up buying one that does defrosting, quick cooking, convection grilling and self weighting like you were going for Jammie Oliver's job, even though you could just as easily shove that curry and rice ready meal into a £15 worth of no name chinese appliance.
We don't buy things because we must have them or need to use them in every aspect. We buy things because we want them. It's one of the unflattering human characteristics to presume it's always THEM, not us, that are pretencious or vain when it comes to their goods. We might be the household with 5 DVD players in the loft and new TV set come every world cup, but hey - it's the guy with pretencious 4x4 thats consumer driven, isn't he?
If someone wants a red Ferrari to drive from Beckton to West India Quay and someone else Escalade on 18" alloys to mount kerbs up Brixton Hill it is not our business to question his need for it. It's not illegal for him to do so. You start questioning his purchases you must expect others to question your need for stuff too....
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
|
My microware is a Tesco value microwave; total cost £25 or something. I find it so much simpler to operate than a £500 one. Same goes for cars!
|
|
|
Why do sales reps need Mondeos when they could fit their laptop into Yaris?
Sales reps need a car that will enable them to do large mileages in comfort, and to take customers out to lunch etc. Also don't forget that the car (as well as the rep) is representing the company.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Sales reps need a car that will enable them to do large mileages in comfort, and to take customers out to lunch etc. Also don't forget that the car (as well as the rep) is representing the company.
Well there you go. Just like Kev's mum needs Freelander to enable her to do short milages in comfort and never run out of space for kids when she picks them up from school after shopping. Also let's not forget that the car (as well as the mum) is representing the Richmond-Barrister family.
Any "need" can be justified.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
