>>for they are clearly compensating for a serious lack of self-esteem and self confidence.
Now there's a first - I have never been accused of those two things before.
And I have a Toyota 4-Runner (Land Cruiser) and Dodge Ram in Chile, Prior to that had a Cherokee and a Blazer in Brazil and before that a Suburban in the US. I *really* like driving big 4WD, even if all I do is tarmac.
I would have bought another Landcruiser here but he new modeals have only just come out.
I think what surprises me is that anyone should think they have any say in what someone else drives, which they should prefer to drive, and whether or not they are sad because of their choice.
Why would you think it is anything at all to do with you whether I spend my money on a 4WD, on a new car, or on a 20 year old Lada ?
I don't care if you think I should drive a transit van ? What kind of ludicrous thing is that ? "I could afford and would like to have a Landcruiser, but bazza won't approve of me unless I have a Transit"
To be honest, I feel sorry for you. Clearly you see other people's approval as very important.
Fortunately I do not, and I spend *MY* money on what *I* would like to.
And equally fortunately I can afford to spend it on big cars.
Bazza, I feel sorry for you that you have to drive around in a Transit because its all you can afford, but please don't take your bitterness and envy out on people to cover up for your feelings of inadequacy.
Get help, professional help, you'll be so much more comfortable with yourself and will stop worrying about how everyone else compares.
It will help you understand that you needn't try to drag others down to your level out of frustration and jealousy, but if you redirect this negative emotions you might be able to pull yourself up to our level.
|
Well said Mark, we all don't use 4x4 for posing about in, some earn their keep.
I have an old Seies III Land Rover which runs on LPG and to be quite honest I couldn't manage without it. We use it for;
1. Takeing garden rubbish and tree branches to the local tip.
2. It's invaluable in getting me to work when the local roads are flooded (a normal car would just stop)and saves me going on a long detour.
3. I do a fair amout of shooting so it's good for driving across muddy fields.
4. I have an allotment so it's good for carrying my rotovator.
5. Good for carrying a muddy labrador about.
6. Excellent for picking up the Xmas tree.
7. Carrying loads of kids about.
8. Saves getting the Volvo all messed up.
Wouldn't be without it.
Cheers
VD5D
|
|
|
|
Well said, Mark. I drive a Jeep Cherokee because I like it. It's my money, a free country, I'll take my choice. I live in rural Lincolnshire down a track, quite a few unsalted roads, but, hey!, I don't have to justify anything to anyone. I just enjoy driving it. Each to their own. End of story.
|
|
|
I thought you wanted a heated debate, but oops! I've hit a raw nerve here havnt I? Perhaps I'd better nip off Xmas shopping ( in my Disco!)
Merry Xmas all!
|
|
Think i'll go looking for 'Weapons Of Mass Destruction'on the mean streets of Southampton this afternoon in my Landcruiser.Keep your hatch backs out of my way.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are right, Mark, in your assertion that you should be able to drive anything you want. However, others further up the thread have suggested another factor - if you want to drive something bigger than a normal car (Maybe even extend this to more powerful) then you should have more training. I'm not saying that you yourself aren't perfectly capable of driving such a car, but there are a lot of people for whom the step up from a Fiesta-sized car to a Landcruiser or a 2.0 Mondeo etc is more than they can handle straight away. I suspect I mentioned this earlier - we really need graded licences for different grades of vehicle.
|
Defending the Defender.
1.I use it off road on a shoot, almost every weekend.
2.Working dogs are filthy beasts. I can hose the Defender out.
3. Rural delights, flooding and the occasional snow storm
4. Cheaps as pomme de frites to own.
5. I love it
6. Beats my old Disco into a cocked hat.
|
|
|
SteveH42,
Now that I would agree with. The first silly sized car I owned was the Suburban. Hugely powerful and very, very big.
As it happens, with a new one of those you get training, just as well because it was scary until I got used to it.
And certainly a different prospect. You don;t have to get used to how quickly it does or does not accelerate, but how quickly it does not slow down can catch you well unawares.
Also more worrying because one does not have small accidents in them. I hit a car with my Dodge Ram one time, and not particularly hard. (it wasn't my fault). Worryingly it absolutely destroyed the car I hit - a Subaru.
The trouble would be drawing the line as to where you needed a different licence. For example, look what happened when the largest bike you could drive without a full licence was a 250cc - some of those machines were lethal. But, at the time the law cam out, it was a resonably sensible line to draw.
|
I suppose for those things, stopping time is a big consideration. Maybe they could design in a system that lessened impacts? These things are so big that surely there would be space for an external air bag or something to cushion any blows?
Braking style is probably one of the most important things to be taught I feel. Too many people rely on their brakes working very well - a friend of mine always waits until what seems like the last second to brake. I'm very surprised he hasn't been caught out yet, or that he hasn't been rear-ended by someone who wasn't expecting such a harsh application. He is certainly not a very good person to be a passenger of! I don't know if it's any better, but I tend to decelerate very slowly towards obstructions - for example, I see lights on red so I back right off the throttle, gently apply the brake as I get closer and usually can drop down to 2nd or 3rd to carry on as things have started moving by the time I get there. I'd prefer to be surprised at how well my brakes work in an emergency than surprised when they don't work as well as I was expecting IYSWIM.
The physical size is also an aspect - which sort of ties in with the male vs female thread. I've seen a number of occasions where someone hasn't appreciated how wide or long one of these is (applies to larger cars as well) and has clipped someone on the inside when turning or tried to go for too small a gap. I believe that women typically have less spacial awareness than men but even still a lot of people seem to struggle with cars this size whether male or female. It seems people don't always even consider the size of a vehicle - I one remember a lass loudly proclaiming to the whole bus that she thought the driver was rubbish as he (in her opinion) went much too far past a junction and only just got the front around before the barrier. I almost didn't like to point out that the side of the bus was almost scraping the inside barrier and that he would have demolished it if he hadn't gone so far forward. Such things seem obvious to me, but seemingly aren't to other people?
I agree that it would be hard to get a good formula for where to draw the lines. Physical dimensions would be a good start but short of taking a tape measure to the garage with you how do you know if you can drive a particular car? Power to weight would be another one, but again how do you know what is allowable? Plus, I can't see manufacturers being too keen on you limiting who can drive their cars...
The only other suggestion would be a suitable implement aimed at a delicate part of the anatomy and linked to impact sensors on the car. After all, the main problem is that these things give people too much confidence and security and can make them careless. (I should add a very big smiley after this paragraph! :):):) )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most annoying thing about other people in 4x4s is they get in the way of my humble hatchback, particularly on twisty roads ...... oh and 4x4s kill a disproportionately high number of motorists/pedestrians/cyclists when they get into accidents ........ but as long as you can drive what you want that's not a problem is it?
|
>>...... oh and 4x4s kill a disproportionately high number of motorists/pedestrians/cyclists when they get into accidents ......<<
That's a very interesting statement Micky. Can you back up with stats and the source or is it just a general comment?
Would like too know.
DVD
|
|
It's certainly true in the US. I stumbled on a web site. I'll see if I can find it.
|
Couldn't find the page I was looking for, but I did find:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/et...l
|
|
|
|
Summary: Kinetic energy, design, driver atitude.
All other things being equal (primarily driver training) the greater the mass of a vehicle, the greater its propensity to inflict catastrophic damage to smaller vehicles and vulnerable road users. Basic physics.
Detail (US related):
Peds: engineering.rowan.edu/~gabler/publications/esvped_...f.
">One out of every 20 pedestrian accidents involving a car resulted in a pedestrian death. For large SUVs, one out of every 7 accidents resulted in a pedestrian fatality<"
Cyclists: www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
"> Bicycle collisions with automobiles (odds: 1 in 113) are more than twice as survivable as collisions with pickups, SUV's, and vans (odds: 1 in 47) which are three times more survivable than collisions with trucks (odds: 1 in 14) <"
Cars: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-50/ciren/0901nhtsa.p...f
"> LTVs as a group present a greater risk as a collision partner<" LTV = light trucks and vans
M
|
Acceptable the fact that the bigger the hit the harder the fall for this is common sense.
As to involvement/causation, US stats, I would submit have little relevance to UK due to the American dream of nearly everybody owning a LRV.
At the end of the day it is generally the nut behind the steering wheel of any vehicle that is at fault.
DVD
|
">As to involvement/causation, US stats, I would submit have little relevance to UK due to the American dream of nearly everybody owning a LRV.<"
Nothing to do with involvement/causation.
Read the stats, it's not about how many SUVs/4x4s are involved in accidents, it's not about how many accidents SUVs/4x4s cause, it's about what happens when these vehicles have an accident with a more vulnerable road user.
It's simple, the laws of physics apply in the UK as they do in the US (or are you going to tell me otherwise?), SUVs/4x4s generally carry more kinetic energy than cars, crumple zones are less effective and frontal impact area is more "aggressive"
When SUVs/4x4s are involved in accidents with more vulnerable road users, the damage is more likely to be catastrophic.
">At the end of the day it is generally the nut behind the steering wheel of any vehicle that is at fault<"
Nothing to do with fault .......... it's about what happens when these vehicles have an accident with a more vulnerable road user.
There are other issues, ability to brake (kinetic energy, tyres), stability (again, kinetic energy, tyres), competence of drivers to handle SUVs/4x4s.
4x4s have their place, very suitable for crossing the Australian outback. But for the school run?
M
|
|
It's also to do with how high the bumpers are on many of these vehicles, and where they impact a 'normal' car.
|
|
and the fact that most seem to have taken many of their exterior design cues from industrial size chest freezers !
|
Taking this logic we should ban everything heavier than a 2CV. Or stay at home. Given that there are lots of 4x4s out there, not to mention vans and lorries, if you are going to have an accident it would be best to be driving one. I'd be happier with my family in a jeep than a mini. To quote a sticker seen on a landy: 'YOU are my crumple zone'. Anti-social maybe, but if the law allows a big vehicle, I'll drive one and put my family in one.
I'd agree that they are not really appropriate in towns, but I wouldn't go as far as restricting their use. But I think bull bars are silly unless you do serious off-roading.
Perhaps we should also ban cars that do more than 70mph or accelerate quickly? I don't think so, but more people die the faster the vehicle is doing at impact.
|
">Taking this logic we should ban everything heavier than a 2CV.<"
Not about banning, more about ensuring that everyone has a level playing field. Perhaps this means restricting the use of SUVs/4x4s - particularly in town. It's not just about lightness either, it's also about good design, The 2CV is not "crash friendly" for occupants or vulnerable road users.
">Given that there are lots of 4x4s out there, not to mention vans and lorries, if you are going to have an accident it would be best to be driving one. I'd be happier with my family in a jeep than a mini. <"
If you value your family's safety then out them in a C Class Merc or a Laguna. you might even be able to avoid a collision completely by using superior braking and handling.
As a pedestrian, would you rather be run over by a Laguna or a Disco?
|
|
">out them" = put them. Where is the edit button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Micky
Already agreed on the result of impact between a large vehicle
and a small one.
Would have perhaps agreed totally with all you have said if you had phrased it
" when vunerable road users have an accident with a 4x4"
We 4x4'ers do have a sensitive soul :-)
DVD
|
I seem to remember some research shown in Autoexpress in the early 90s that showed that the view of a large 4x4 as a safe place to be was a fallacy. The lack of crumple zones, use of rigid ladder chassis and their higher kinetic energy all resulted in much more of the impact being passed on to the passengers. I think the photos (TUV?) were of a LWB trooper at the time.
A similar point should be made about large MPVs. 1* NCAP, anybody? That will be the Voyager. But it's so big, it must be safe for my kids.....
Exactly the same problem with an SUV, only amplified by the use of full or partial ladder chassis. Unless you have a monocoque SUV of course, in which case it's a tarts handbag and not a car at all ;o]
Still, I agree with comments made elsewhere in this post. You pays your money, you takes your choice. The last thing we need in this country is more legislation to restrict driving!
|
Somebody said something similar about the lack of side impact bars or side airbags on my Dodge Ram.
My point of view was that I didn't see how a car was gonna get up that high anyway, and if I got hit by a truck then SIPs wouldn't be much use anyway.
|
"Given that there are lots of 4x4s out there, not to mention vans and lorries, if you are going to have an accident it would be best to be driving one. I'd be happier with my family in a jeep than a mini. To quote a sticker seen on a landy: 'YOU are my crumple zone'. Anti-social maybe, but if the law allows a big vehicle, I'll drive one and put my family in one."
I'd refer you to this article which was quoted not long ago by someone else in a similar thread
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.menci...l
and particularly this passage
"The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars--8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000 occurred in rollover accidents. SUVs don't handle well, so drivers can't respond quickly when the car hits a stretch of uneven pavement or "trips" by scraping a guardrail. Even a small bump in the road is enough to flip an SUV traveling at high speed. On top of that, SUV roofs are not reinforced to protect the occupants against rollover; nor does the government require them to be."
and to stir things up even further (without any comment from me!!)
"SUV buyers tend to be insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."
He says, too, that SUV drivers generally don't care about anyone else's kids but their own, are very concerned with how other people see them rather than with what's practical, and they tend to want to control or have control over the people around them. David Bostwick, Chrysler's market research director, tells Bradsher, "If you have a sport utility, you can have the smoked windows, put the children in the back and pretend you're still single."
|
Well, I did say I wanted a heated debate!!
Most of the points made so far have been valid (apart from Bazza's!), especially the views on driver training and the "perceived safety" aspect of driving these things.
I certainly wasn't suggesting banning them, merely that given the extra space they take up, that some form of extra tax be payable. Yes, I know it won't go to the upkeep of the roads, but if I could see that it was a tax on the nuisance aspect of them, I might feel a littles less irritated and annoyed by their presence on already inadequate roads.
|
Of course, the only fair way to tax larger vehicles more (if you think that is the way to go) is to put more tax on fuel, the bigger they are, the more they guzzle. Soon hear plenty of whinges then though, wouldn't we? If you don't like 4x4s then don't drive them. Lots of things annoy me about driving, but I just try to ignore them and get on with life.
Regarding accident safety, I agree that roll-over stability is not good, but if you drive sensibly that is hopefully avoided. Reagarding impacts, in a collision between a ka, clio or saxo and a Landcruiser Amazon, which would you rather be in? Running vehicles into concrete blocks in tests isn't like the real world. In a crash, mass is king.
Another odd thing, in another thread I was criticised by a poster for commenting (tongue in cheek) that you would have to be soft in the head to buy a new car because of the depreciation. SITH is a figure of speech from where I come from that just means that you don't agree with someone, not that you think they have a mental disability. Yet in this thread it seems to be acceptable to suggest that anyone who drives a 4x4 is somehow inadequate and selfish and worse!
Funny world, ain't it?
|
Nick - if you drive a 4x4 unnecessarily, when a smaller car would meet your needs just as well, it is selfish. It doesn't make you a bad person because all unnecessary driving is selfish to a certain extent, but using more fuel, causing more pollution, taking up more roadspace and risking injuring others more severely in any collision, is selfish.
I'm not in favour of licensing or regulating SUV use, because the only benefit would be for the people employed by the bureaucracy; the rest of us would just find a way around it, if we wanted to, but it doesn't mean that I approve of unnecessarily large, often impractical vehicles, being used around roads.
Where I live, in a nice area of London, I have heard people wondering whether to go for a 3.2 Mercedes or a 4.3 Jeep - they're not sure if the 3.2 litre will get them up the kerbs, or something. That's badly informed and socially damaging.
In terms of safety, SUV drivers as a group are unlikely to drive more sensibly than car drivers as a whole. Worse, what is sensible in a car may be beyond the capabilities of the SUV; but someone who uses it like a car, and is used to cars, may not find this out until they have the accident. As an individual, do you have enough faith in your ability as a driver to say that you, unlike the average driver, will be safer becuase the only crash you have will be one caused by someone else? I don't.
|
>>if you drive a 4x4 unnecessarily, when a smaller car would meet your needs just as well, it is selfish.
My needs include liking what I drive. And I choose my car for no better reason than I want to have that particular thing.
|
I choose mycar for no better reason than I want to have that particular thing.
So presenting 4x4 ownership as pro choice.
But the effect of all the oversized cars on the road is that people stop feeling safe in ordinary sized cars, especially for their children.
I feel it is self evident that unless something unpopular, and by that I mean anti-choice is done soon, in 20 years we will have forgotten what any real choice was like. Anything smaller than an X5 will belong in a museum.
|
>>But the effect of all the oversized cars on the road is that >>people stop feeling safe in ordinary sized cars, especially >>for their children.
The same is true of vans and lorries. What do we do about them? Or should cars that can do more than 40mph be discouraged from urban areas? There is certainly no 'need' to have a car capable of that in a town, or any 'need' to have a car capable of more than 70mph anywhere, it's illegal don't forget. Where do you stop curtailing personal freedom? I wouldn't want to live in such a country.
If I lived in a city, I would never consider a 4x4, I'd buy the smallest car I could live with at banger prices. I'd then have a big vehicle for long journeys, or probably cheaper, hire a big car when I needed one.
But I don't live in a city, thank God. I live in the sticks. So I choose to drive a 4x4 for longer journeys, when the weather's really bad or I need to carry a big load, as I do often, and Morris Minor the rest of the time. Perhaps the use of moggies should be curtailed, their bumpers are a bit sharp!
|
Hmm... Interestingly enough very little seems to have been said about the fuel comsumption of big vehicles. I'm no enviromentalist but just because I can afford something doesn't mean I'll waste it. Look at it this way, how many people will rip the insulation out of their lofts so they can store more junk? If we all used less fuel we'd have far less reason to get involved in middle eastern wars! Don't get me wrong some things are worth fighting for but how many drivers of gas guzzlers are prepared to join up and fight for the fuel?
Steve.
|
My view, which I don't expect anyone to share, is that in this country we used to strike a reasonable balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community as a whole. Sadly, we seem to be drifting away to the American view of life, which is that the rights of the individual are paramount: ^%$ you, Jack, I'm all right. But I'm getting political, which is against the charter of the Backroom.
|
">In a crash, mass is king.<"
Wrong, design is king. F1/rallycar drivers can survive high speed accidents, including ramming immoveable objects, and survive, why? Nothing to do with mass, all to do with design. Light weight can be good in a crash, less kinetic energy to absorb.
38 tonne HGV rams an immoveable object at speed eg motorway flyover support = high probablity of death for the driver, why? High kinetic energy crushes cab.
">Regarding impacts, in a collision between a ka, clio or saxo and a Landcruiser Amazon, which would you rather be in"
A Laguna or a C class Merc.
More to the point, if you were a pedestrian or a cyclist, which would you prefer to have a collision with, small car or Landcruiser Amazon?
If you value the lives of other, more vulnerable road users, why drive a 4x4/SUV?
If you value your life and the lives of your passengers, why drive a 4x4/SUV?
|
"The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars--8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000 occurred in rollover accidents.
I was also under the impression that because these behemoths were designed for off road (to some capacity) that they were much more rigid, so that they did not fall to pieces when going over a pothole. The affect of doing this is that the crumple zones are much stiffer/smaller so much more energy goes through the cabin/occupants in a crash.
I think that the perception of the safety of these vehicles is misplaced and if that is tackled then less people will feel the need to drive them.
|
>>"if you drive a 4x4 unnecessarily, when a smaller car would meet your needs just as well, it is selfish."
To follow this argument, would it not be true that driving any car bigger than is necessary is also selfish.
|
Last night I was driving home in my Citroen BX estate with a tandem on the roofrack. Tandems are heavy and this arrangement affects the handling on twisty roads, so I was pottering (50mph rather than 60). About three miles from home the driver of a large 4x4 decided it would be fun to tailgate me, so he did. The problem was, when we had to go round corners this 4x4 dropped back from a couple of metres to maybe ten metres, simply because the beast wouldn't go round the bends. At one point it did a funky little shimmy and I thought it was going off the road. It was lucky nobody was coming the other way round that particular blind bend.
I've read somewhere (was it that Washingtonian article?) that once grip has been lost drivers of the large 4x4s are more likely to completely lose control than in normal cars, and that large 4x4s are more likely to lose traction on road in bad weather than your average saloon. I'll steer well clear thanks.
It was a bad journey home actually. There was some idiot towing another car on a ten foot rope on the M6. The comedians involved seemed to think that having hazards flashing made it ok.
Chris
|
Hah! I think I might print out some of these...
www.cartalk.cars.com/Tickets/print-ticket6.html
|
Slice - that's exactly what I'm saying. I'd qualify it by adding that, if you need to do regular 200 mile trips by car, it's reasonable to drive something larger than a Seicento, even if there's only one person on board.
What constitutes needs, rather than desires, is subjective. It's selfish to consume what we don't need, merely want, but it's also natural and normal; we're all selfish to a certain extent. Simply preferring a larger car doesn't count as a need, in my opinion, but it's so difficult to legislate against with any degree of fairness or effectiveness, that fuel tax (and maybe a reduction in road tax for cars that are light, low emission and pedestrian friendly) is probably as far as we can go.
|
After the fuel tax protests I can't see any government bringing in higher fuel taxes. I would support removing the road fund licence and putting it on fuel, but many argue that this disproportionately hits the less well off and those in rural areas.
I think targeting car emissions alone is daft. Far more emissions come from centrally-heated houses and from power stations producing electricity to run all our PCs. Do we 'need' central heating? What's wrong with putting a jumper on? (joke! before somebody slags me off!)It all seems pretty pointless anyway with the USA stoking its boilers merrily and the third world industrialising like mad. If action has to be taken to reduce energy consumption it needs to be done across the world. I don't fancy wearing a hair shirt if no other b***** is going to.
The previous post about the 4x4 being driven dangerously behind the poster just proves that there are bad drivers out there. It could equally have been a baseball cap in a clapped out Astra. Any vehicle can be driven dangerously, perhaps we should have different tests for different types of vehicle? But do we really want more reasons for the government to extract money from us?
|
|
My point was that it didn't seem to be handling as well as a twelver yearold BX with a tandem on the roof. What a pain in the neck that must be on a daily basis.
|
Maybe we need a "People's Car".
Oops, no, that's already been done hasn't it :)
|
Reading the anti-posts on the 4x4 makes me wonder how many have actually driven them for any length of time?
Being a bit like Mark and believing a car is car with a job to do and not a status symbol I chose mine because it accomodates me in comfort and therefore I am more relaxed through not being cramped when driving and hopefully therefore safer. In my case in the majority of cars I overlap onto the nearside passenger and there is no leg room for anyone behind. Should I therefore not have the choice?
As to safety I have driven Police Range Rovers at full chat in all weathers and did not have any problems nor encountered any roll overs. OK you are all going to mention the RR that went adrift on a M way down south but was it not later discovered it was a new driver who was not used to the roll when cornering which is a bit strange until you get used to it. Far safer than the 3 litre Capris we once had, the ones with the power bulge on the bonnet. Now were they skittish. The slightest damp and the back end drifted. Horrible cars.
All in all it is horses for courses and I still maintain a lot of problems in driving is down to the nut behind the wheel.
|
Well my little Fiesta is quite adequate for my needs at the moment, I rarely carry more than one passenger and most of the time it is just me. But, I want a bigger car when I can afford it, I just happen to like them, so I can see why some people may like 4X4s (not that I would ever dream of buying one, I think they're awful). I think the high ride position may have something to do with it, I certainly liked that in the Merc...
I think as soon as I need to start covering a few more non-city miles, it'll be time to nip down to Arriva and get a Focus or a Mondy, and yes, it'll still just be lonely little old me driving it. :(
Blue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
