# Call for £20 4x4 congestion charge



## Dan U (Jun 14, 2006)

personally i would build a force field around the M25 that repelled all non-essential 4x4's..  

but i guess this might be a start

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5075722.stm


----------



## aurora green (Jun 14, 2006)

It's an excellent idea. I'm all for it!


----------



## marty21 (Jun 14, 2006)

yep, sounds good to me as well


----------



## aurora green (Jun 14, 2006)

Can't see how anyone could argue effectively against it actually...


----------



## angry bob (Jun 14, 2006)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Can't see how anyone could argue effectively against it actually...




Well I'll have a try  

To be really fair surely the congestion charge should be linked to the CO2 emissions in a way that doesnt have the arbitrary cut off of 225g/km of CO2.

Who came up with that figure anyway? And why? Why should someone driving a 224g/km car pay much less than someone driving a 226g/km car?

Surely the charge should be in direct proportion to the level of emissions? i.e. 1 pound for every 10g/km.

And then you would need to take into account the number of people in a vehicle. i.e. a minibus with 10 people produces less emmisions per person than 10 people driving individual (though fuel efficient) cars.

Problem is though it'd all get very complicated. Then you'd need a workforce, all of whom have to drive to work, working in a heated building (which will, of course result in increased pollution).


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2006)

Nah. Just slap a fucking huge charge on those selfish tossers in 4x4s/SUVs.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 14, 2006)

angry bob said:
			
		

> And then you would need to take into account the number of people in a vehicle. i.e. a minibus with 10 people produces less emmisions per person than 10 people driving individual (though fuel efficient) cars.



No you wouldn't. If you have a vehicle with high emmissions it makes sense to charge for that. If there are more people in the vehicle then they can split the charge, so the amount paid per individual will be proportional to the emmissions per individual.

The rest is fair enough though, it is an arbitrary cut off point. I'd rather see a sliding scale of some sort. Although I have no idea of the technicalities involved.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Nah. Just slap a fucking huge charge on those selfish tossers in 4x4s/SUVs.



I agree with this version...but still don't understand why they are allowed in Central London AT ALL????...let alone Greater London...why can't they jus be banned in Central London?...end of.


e2a ::: I reckon this applicable to all Cities actuarsey.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 14, 2006)

Excellent idea, but how the hell would you enforce it?


----------



## Dan U (Jun 14, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Excellent idea, but how the hell would you enforce it?









and a platoon of NCP's finest


----------



## Crispy (Jun 14, 2006)

But how would you know which vehicle is outputting more CO2?
(or am I gormless and this sort of thing is on tax discs these days)


----------



## Dan U (Jun 14, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> But how would you know which vehicle is outputting more CO2?
> (or am I gormless and this sort of thing is on tax discs these days)



 nope i am the gormless one!

i thought u meant the exclusion of 4x4's


----------



## BrixiSteve (Jun 14, 2006)

Ok, so 4x4's are bad and we base this on CO2 output...?  If that is the case I don't know why 4x4's are being singled out.  There are many cars on the road that have much bigger CO2 output than your average 4x4. Most older luxury cars, for example. If the problem is the size, again, many other cars on the road have an equal (if not greater) length wheel base as your average 4x4.  If the issue is safty, well, hit a person in any car and the results can be pretty nasty.  I think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 14, 2006)

BrixiSteve said:
			
		

> Ok, so 4x4's are bad and we base this on CO2 output...?  If that is the case I don't know why 4x4's are being singled out.  There are many cars on the road that have much bigger CO2 output than your average 4x4. Most older luxury cars, for example. If the problem is the size, again, many other cars on the road have an equal (if not greater) length wheel base as your average 4x4.  If the issue is safty, well, hit a person in any car and the results can be pretty nasty.  I think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.




As far as I can work out the thing about older cars is the volume.

if they're over 3 yrs old they're subject to MOT. If they fail emissions testing they fail the MOT.

If they're pre-1975 they're subject to a visual rather than an exhaust emissions testing, but the volume of such cars is small enough to have a negligible impact on emissions figures


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2006)

BrixiSteve said:
			
		

> think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.


4x4 Bullies?!!!!

_Bwahaha!_

I think you'll find the person buying a large, intimidating, resource-hogging, pedestrian-endangering, fellow driver-endangering, all-polluting, oversized and over-engineered metal box on wheels is the 'bully' around here.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I think you'll find the person buying a large, intimidating, resource-hogging, pedestrian-endangering, fellow driver-endangering, all-polluting, oversized and over-engineered metal box on wheels is the 'bully' around here.



which they then use to drive to the school, waitrose and thats about it


----------



## scarecrow (Jun 14, 2006)

Yeah, slap a tax on the Chelsea tractors, that'll learn 'em


----------



## Poot (Jun 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> 4x4 Bullies?!!!!
> 
> _Bwahaha!_
> 
> I think you'll find the person buying a large, intimidating, resource-hogging, pedestrian-endangering, fellow driver-endangering, all-polluting, oversized and over-engineered metal box on wheels is the 'bully' around here.



I also think they drive in a more aggressive manner (which is particularly unnecessary when you're cocooned in a tank-like metal shell with bull-bars!). Just my experience, but it's what I've found.


----------



## Poot (Jun 14, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I agree with this version...but still don't understand why they are allowed in Central London AT ALL????...let alone Greater London...why can't they jus be banned in Central London?...end of.
> 
> 
> *e2a ::: I reckon this applicable to all Cities actuarsey.*



I agree with all you've said except that I work with people who frequently have to drive into muddy fields as a part of their job. They then have to return to their office in the middle of Plymouth. They genuinely need 4x4s. However, they are the only people I've met who do!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 14, 2006)

BrixiSteve said:
			
		

> Ok, so 4x4's are bad and we base this on CO2 output...?  If that is the case I don't know why 4x4's are being singled out.  There are many cars on the road that have much bigger CO2 output than your average 4x4. Most older luxury cars, for example. If the problem is the size, again, many other cars on the road have an equal (if not greater) length wheel base as your average 4x4.  If the issue is safty, well, hit a person in any car and the results can be pretty nasty.  I think the whole picture needs to be considered and the 4x4 bullies need to get over themselves.



That'll be why the proposal isn't specifically relating to 4x4s, even though it's being reported like that.


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2006)

> UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage. Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident...
> 
> In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians...
> 
> ...


'Nuff said.


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> > In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians...
> 
> 
> 'Nuff said.



'This car can kill' plastered in large letters across the bonnet?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Nah. Just slap a fucking huge charge on those selfish tossers in 4x4s/SUVs.



Fucking right!


----------



## geminisnake (Jun 14, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I agree with this version...but still don't understand why they are allowed in Central London AT ALL????...let alone Greater London...why can't they jus be banned in Central London?...end of.
> 
> 
> e2a ::: I reckon this applicable to all Cities actuarsey.




While I agree there is no need for them in central London you can't say that of all cities. Aberdeen and Inverness are surrounded by people who NEED their 4x4s, and some of those people only have that one vehicle. 

Are they never to go into a city again? Don't think so.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 14, 2006)

^^^^ s'true.

London hasn't got anywhere you can reasonably drive a 4x4 for about a 60 mile radius 

I'd just like to see one 4x4 in London which has actually got some dirt on it


----------



## Descartes (Jun 14, 2006)

The argument of 4x4 is pandering to a social image, the capacity and emission of the modern 4x4 is less than the ten year old saloon car. The modern petrol engine is a very fuel efficient unit and does not contribute any where near the supposed levels hinted at by the Red Ken brigade. 

The 4x4 also comes in a diesel powered version, how do you regulate agianst a totally different emissions, if you clamp down on 4x4 diesels, what about the commeercial vehicles powered by diesels?

The average 4x4 engine is no larger or having greater emission levels than a lot of luxury cars and most of the vehicles used by MPs easily fall into this category. 

Consider the Land Rover freelander, 2 litre diesel engine,  a smaller diesel engine than a  BMW 53o, the same size as a Rover 820, which do you ban, the 4x4 because it's bigger, well check the wheel base aginast the BMW, the width against a volvo estate.. 

The argument is pandering to the very lowest, targetting a vehicle because of a percieved image. 

The high performance vehicle from Mitsubishi, Isuzu, Ford,etc all have higher emission than the equalvilant diesel and because of its sporting genre are usually driven at higher speeds where engines are emitting higher emission levels. 

the whole argument is flawed and should note even be considered in an enlighten society. 

Prejudice against a vehicle type is usually becaue of ignorance, a poor reason for any type of exclusion.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 14, 2006)

where those accident stats posted perceived?

or the physical size of the vehicles. london is a crowded city.

thats two whole other arguements, got a PR release for those?


----------



## trashpony (Jun 14, 2006)

Same tired old argument Descartes.

Even this site http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php can't seem to find anything to say in favour of the beasts other than wail 'well other big cars are just as bad'. Well don't drive a huge fucking car in London. 

Speed in London? Are you joking? The average vehicle speed is iirc 13mph. Most of the vehicles used by MPs are just as bad? So what? What's that got to do with Jemima ferrying her sprogs to Kensington? 

The fact is with 4x4s is that they are among the worst cars for driving in London - they're too big, they're environmentally unfriendly and they are dangerous to pedestrians and other road users. Granted, there are other cars that are just as bad but that tends to be one or two top of the range models from each manufacturer. The one thing that these have in common is that they're a stupid fucking status symbol for people whose brains are smaller than their wallets. 

Of course a law won't be brought in specifically to target 4x4s but they are an easily visible group of cars. 

What good reason does anyone have for owning and driving one of these in London? Give me one.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 14, 2006)

geminisnake said:
			
		

> Are they never to go into a city again? Don't think so.



park and ride...getta bus...car pool...lift with a neighbour/family friend...Online shopping...sorry but IMHO that answer dunt cut it _anymore_.. I too have done the whole decades of 4x4 coz I had to in forestry/conservation/farming....ironically mostly around Plymouth@Poot.....I'll even accept that most 4x4s are more efficient, produce less greenhouse gases, can transport more etc blahblahblah...but ffs this is not why they are being used is it?

Okay I'll give you those that work and require a vehicle which is utilitarian as such (eg for trailer use moving stock, vegetation,feed or  work kit). Or even those who are currently live and work in an environment as extreme the Highlands, the Moors, Peak District, The Lakes or Wales etc

But again most people drive 4x4s coz they can...not coz they have too. And most surprisingly MOST of the 4x4 owners wouldn't know what to do with their 4x4 even if they found themselves REALLY needing the facility of a 4x4.

Everyone I know who "really" works in the country, or for the countryside, comes into town with their 2wheel drive run around...only the Wankers still pose in their 4x4's.. anyone who isn't a wanker has money to burn in my experience. Most cost at least twice as much to run, overall....and I've at 10 years worth of experience with a variety of self maintained Landys (classic & modern), Nissans, Daihatsus* and some other Ruski-types I'm glad to forget! 

I daren't even consider the damage they do to roads, street furniture or people and their possesions.

Sorry, but for domestic use forget it....it's about time they were well an truly phrakked_off urbanwise. 

Finally ,,,and I promise not to come back to rant more...but this figure of CO2 emission weight really phreaks meh out...that's a whole kilo every 4km(roughly)...a _bag of sugar_ jus plopped out to where exactly?  

Am I the only one that finds this horrific?


----------



## Descartes (Jun 14, 2006)

* Speed in London? Are you joking? The average vehicle speed is iirc 13mph. *

LOL. of course you can speed in London, Sheherds Bush to Sloane Street in a hurry. throw the speed limit out of the window... In a hurry, Park Lane, easily well above the 30 mph... easily... obviously you do not drive in London...

OK how many people disliking 4x4 own a car and drive in London? 

Why is a 4x4 any more dangerous than your average white van man?

Please, not just opinions, some figures please. 


The acceleration speeds of a lot of large cars will put them above the speed limit a lot quicker than it takes to read this .. BMW 540, 60 mph in the suburbs, no problem..  The Mall is a favourite, the traffic light grand prixs are usually good for .. but  hey  not everyone has fun or gets a buzz from things like that.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 14, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> * Speed in London? Are you joking? The average vehicle speed is iirc 13mph. *
> 
> LOL. of course you can speed in London, Sheherds Bush to Sloane Street in a hurry. throw the speed limit out of the window... In a hurry, Park Lane, easily well above the 30 mph... easily... obviously you do not drive in London...
> 
> ...



*yawn*

The average speed _is _13 mph - even if you can do a really exciting 40mph up Park Lane. And don't make assumptions - I do drive in London, but not like a prick and I can think of better ways of getting a thrill than doing around half the speed I'd do on a motorway. If I want to drive a car fast, there are better places to do it  

Here are some safety stats for you:



> UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage. Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.
> 
> The RAC Foundation says, "You could blame some of the higher accident rate for 4x4s on size. Drivers who are new to these cars might not realise how wide they are. There is also psychology involved - if you feel more secure inside a big 4x4, you might drive with less care than you should." Big 4x4s are right at the bottom of the class when it comes to pedestrian safety, getting an average Euro-NCAP crash test score of just 4 out of 36, compared with 10 and 13 for large and small family cars, respectively.
> 
> In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians.



So - I'll ask you again - give me one good reason why a 4x4 is a suitable car for driving in London.


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Why is a 4x4 any more dangerous than your average white van man?


But that's not the point.

A white van is large because it is built for transporting large amounts of goods. It has a large engine because it has to move heavy goods. It is built for the job.

A 4x4, on the other hand, is grossly over-sized and over-engineered to suit the ego/fashion desires/self-centred 'safety' needs of the owner.

It doesn't _have_ to be that big, that fuel guzzling, that heavy, that intimidating or that dangerous to pedestrians and other road users alike. But it is.

See the difference?


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> The acceleration speeds of a lot of large cars will put them above the speed limit a lot quicker than it takes to read this .. BMW 540, 60 mph in the suburbs, no problem.. .


I hope such speeding twats get caught and their licence taken away from them.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 14, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I do drive in London, but not like a prick and I can think of better ways of getting a thrill than doing around half the speed I'd do on a motorway


so you drive above the speed limti on the motorway good one... so at least you bad driving is contained where it's most likely to kill you ..... good good...

there's no reason short of maybe the odd tree surgeon for a 4 by 4 in london, indeed there's precious little reason for any car other than an electric smart car in london if we are talking about general a to be driving... sadly not every journey is that though and a fair number of drivers buy their cars based on what they will need it for in most circustances... 

quick question:

consdiering that the hydrogen engine cell is going to be introduced int he next five years (some thing the editor called a flight of fantasy sci fi nonsense before now ... honda are making them i beleive) and that the predicited that the majority of the cars on the roads will be this way powered in 10 years time would people still support the congestion charge being more for 4 by 4's ...

see the thing which get's me is surely it's a congestion issue in which case ban all lorries vans and comerical vechiels from 9 through to 6 period and tour coaches too. for that matter, and the open topped buses unless they are runnign hydrogen cells... all are unnecessary during day time traffic... then tyo solve the car taxation issue we simply say that all 4 by 4's have to pay a seperate and higher based car tax with an included eco tax at say a third of current car tax again... thus making these things unfashionable on in a really punitive tax... obviously if you can prove that it's for farm yard useage or have a genuine need for it commercailly then this is not leveied but again it has to be converted to lpg and then hydrogen cell when avliable... 

It's simply not good enough to have a 4by4 ban in london and not lead that trend else where, these things are fashion items not working essentials and you need to change fashion country wide in order to make some kin do fimpact punitive taxation is one way to do that... 

Plus all the extra revune could go into say summit like transport for london to make them get rid of desil buses which out put enormous amounts of co2 each day...


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 14, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> .. but  hey  not everyone has fun or gets a buzz from things like that.



 a _twat_ would?

Having helped remove a body from the windscreen of a car in the middle of the day in the West End...and having been run over on a zebra crossing, myself, by a white van, first thing in the morning, on the Kings Road ...having "lost" at least 3 friends to stupid fucktard racers and ignorant cunts driving with no care but for their own safety ie carreering uncontrolably across the road in parts of the East End...and the countless times I've helped injured cyclists and motorbike couriers who been rearended or twatted in arrogant pullouts or jumping of lights....and having walked my children around Central London often, I find your attitude rather _twattish_.

Btw drove a white-van in Central London for 10 years and never had one SINGLE touch, bang or thwack. I always put it down to my attention to MY driving and due care and attention to others around me.  

Oh and on and off I've driven about London for nearly 25 years and in all that time I've only ever been involved in one accident where I was driving; when some aqua-planed into me on the Great Noth Road .... I was driving a brand new Hertz"it's new so don't twat it PLEASE!" Renta van. Fucker was totally written off half an hour after I picked it up from Marble Arch!  



* must NOT come back...must NOT come back...must NOT come back.....


----------



## Logales (Jun 14, 2006)

Was the aim of the congestion charge to make the roads safer?  I thought it was to cut down on congestion?  They don't really take up more road space than a large luxury saloon car, and in terms of pollution, older engines and high-powered sports cars are just as bad.

Don't get me wrong, I hate seeing these vulgar machines driving around the city but is it fair to single them out for additional congestion charges?  Why not just tax them greater in general?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 14, 2006)

Logales said:
			
		

> Was the aim of the congestion charge to make the roads safer?  I thought it was to cut down on congestion?  They don't really take up more road space than a large luxury saloon car, and in terms of pollution, older engines and high-powered sports cars are just as bad.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I hate seeing these vulgar machines driving around the city but is it fair to single them out for additional congestion charges?  Why not just tax them greater in general?



ah but the congestion charge isn't rasing the project revenue it was predicted to they need new gimmicks or red ken will be everso in the red ken...


----------



## Dan U (Jun 14, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> ban all lorries vans and comerical vechiels from 9 through to 6 period and tour coaches too. for that matter, and the open topped buses unless they are runnign hydrogen cells... all are unnecessary during day time traffic...



i disagree with that. its not commercial vehicles i have a problem with in central london, its all the needless cars being driven. 

when are all the deliveries going to be made for starters? london isnt a supermarket you can restock when everyone goes home. because it is peoples home in the centre as well.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 14, 2006)

Dan U said:
			
		

> i disagree with that. its not commercial vehicles i have a problem with in central london, its all the needless cars being driven.
> 
> when are all the deliveries going to be made for starters? london isnt a supermarket you can restock when everyone goes home. because it is peoples home in the centre as well.


at night ...

this system works fine in france and most of europe it's only the uk who persist in the old antiquated idea that deleiveries should be done durig the day....

more over congestion charging is about reducing congestion not about being punitive to certain vechiel tpyes which certain people dislike over others...


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 15, 2006)

Dan U said:
			
		

> personally i would build a force field around the M25 that repelled all non-essential 4x4's..
> 
> but i guess this might be a start
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5075722.stm



yeah, fuck 'em.  i try and be reasonable but you know what.  i'm not in the mood.


----------



## subversplat (Jun 15, 2006)

How about an extra licence to take before being allowed to drive a 4x4? A proper off-road test, with winching, hill climbing, the works. Anybody that "needs" a 4x4 needs to know this sort of stuff anyway, but I can't see anyone who doesn't need one going to all the extra bother.

It'll have the side effect of making everyone driving Audi Quattros and Subarus outlaws, but I can live with that.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2006)

Logales said:
			
		

> They don't really take up more road space than a large luxury saloon car, and in terms of pollution, older engines and high-powered sports cars are just as bad.


But the point is that you can't make an old car new but you can certainly punish the selfish cunts who elect to fill up the streets with their over-sized, over-engineered, gas guzzling, pedestrian-endangering fashion statements.

And if there was a sudden craze for Mum's to drive their little delicate Tabitha 200 yards down the road to school in high-powered sports cars, I'd be complaining about that too.

The point is that SUVs/4x4s are being aggressively promoted and have now become one of the fastest selling classes of vehicles in the UK.

And I'd say that with global warming increasingly becoming a dead cert and environmental concerns becoming a real issue, they're fair game.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

How about a tax levied, when buying the car, based on its emissions level? Would that work? ([/genuine non-rhetorical non-argumentative question tag])

4x4s in London also cause problems with parking, as they take up more than the usual parking space and take up extra space on the road itself. Parking spaces on either side of a two-lane city road, those parking spaces taken up by saloons and 'ordinary' cars = no problem for a bus or two-lane traffic to pass. Not so if half those cars are 4x4s. White vans cause a problem there too, but there are far fewer of those and they have a justifiable reason for choosing a larger vehicle over a smaller one. They also tend to park on the street for much shorter periods of time.

In any case, the 'Alliance Against Urban 4x4s,' from the link, are proposing something which does not actually have to effect 4x4 owners:



> They want owners of cars producing more than 225g/km of CO2 to pay £20 a day - £12 more than everyone else.



That would include older cars and any other high-emission vehicles. If the manufacturers of 4x4s improved their emission levels, the drivers of those cars would have nothing to worry about. 

Personally there's no way I'd want to drive or attempt to park a 4x4 in London or most metropolitan cities - I almost feel sorry for the insecure drivers who struggle through traffic to do so. 

Logales: 'Congestion charge' was a clever name - it includes all sort of congestion, including pollution. Which is pretty hard to argue against.

Anything which encourages less pollution and less petrol consumption has to be good, IMNSHO.


----------



## Descartes (Jun 15, 2006)

*So - I'll ask you again - give me one good reason why a 4x4 is a suitable car for driving in London*.

Car-jacking, the crime believed to have led to the murder of London estate agent Timothy Robinson last week, has hit the headlines again.

This time a 41-year-old mother-of-three was punched unconscious in New Charlton, south-east London, before her attacker drove off in her £50,000 Mercedes.

Police in Essex are also hunting a group who stole a BMW at gunpoint last Thursday in Loughton and are believed to have tried to steal a second BMW earlier in the evening. 

Car-jacking is a growing problem, with 90 reported cases in London alone last year.

But it is not just a problem in the capital. The crime has become such a worry in West Yorkshire police have set up a squad to deal with it.

In Bradford alone there were five reported car-jackings and four attempted car-jackings in January.

Monthly meetings have been set up between forces from London, Essex, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire to try to build up intelligence on the gangs involved.

In one incident in Essex last October a man was shot in the stomach as he was forced from his Mercedes.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "Car-jacking is affecting the whole of the country. It is a matter of real public concern.


SUV's give a feeling of security.  The same as putting dead locks on your front door.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> *So - I'll ask you again - give me one good reason why a 4x4 is a suitable car for driving in London*.SUV's give a feeling of security.  The same as putting dead locks on your front door.



How would they prevent carjackings? Inability to see short car-jackers?


----------



## Dowie (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> ^^^^ s'true.
> 
> London hasn't got anywhere you can reasonably drive a 4x4 for about a 60 mile radius
> 
> I'd just like to see one 4x4 in London which has actually got some dirt on it



probably will do if this spray on mud invention takes off:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1506025,00.html


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> How would they prevent carjackings? Inability to see short car-jackers?


----------



## Descartes (Jun 15, 2006)

* I'd just like to see one 4x4 in London which has actually got some dirt on it *

So now it's about clean cars.. what ever next...The usual farm worker will hose down any vehicle going into 'Town'. The part time land rover users will leave them dirty. The 4x4 rally types, totally different person but a lot dirtier. 

The 4x4 gives the driver a feeling of security against possible car jackers. 

Now, is it really about size, some of the 4x4 are quite small, RAV4, Suzukis but the imported shoguns are considerable larger but not as large as your average transit....The Suzuki runs a much smaller engine, more your averge small saloon, the RAV4, very much the same, The older Land Rover and range rover V8s, there is an argument about emissions but they are over ten years old now. 

Boskysquelch, let me know when you are in London, you sound like a mobile disaster zone. 

I've driven all sorts of vehicles in and around london over the years and never had any problems, maybe because I'm never there long enough.  Speed does have it's benifits.



Must be a better reason, surely?


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> so you drive above the speed limti on the motorway good one... so at least you bad driving is contained where it's most likely to kill you ..... good good...



I said 





> I do drive in London, but not like a prick and I can think of better ways of getting a thrill than doing around half the speed I'd do on a motorway



I didn't say I do double, I said I do _around _double.  And there's no point in turning this into a debate about speed on motorways. It's irrelevant.


----------



## Poot (Jun 15, 2006)

Personally I firmly believe that it is NOT a human fucking right to drive ANY car ANYWHERE and London is one place in the UK where it would be a marvellous idea to ban cars completely unless drivers can prove that their car is a necessity, in which case they would get special dispensation. The congestion charge is just encouraging those with wallets bigger than their brains (as Trashpony so eloquently put it) to feel extra smug in their oversized Chelsea tractors. 4X4s in Central London? I don't think so!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I said
> 
> I didn't say I do double, I said I do _around _double.  And there's no point in turning this into a debate about speed on motorways. It's irrelevant.


that's right pointing out your poor driving standard whilst you pointificate about other bad driving standards does after all start to show the rocky and supercilious nature of your argument... after all... which is btw irrelivent any how...as it wasn't an argument intially about peoples driving standards compared to the erfect driving of trashpony...


----------



## aylee (Jun 15, 2006)

Dan U said:
			
		

> personally i would build a force field around the M25 that repelled all non-essential 4x4's..
> 
> but i guess this might be a start
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5075722.stm



I suggest £50 which might make these fucking idiots, who drive their M5's, Land Rover Discoveries and similar absurd vehicles all around the city while yakking on their mobile phones because they're too self-important to take the train or a cab like the rest of us, think twice.


----------



## citydreams (Jun 15, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> ah but the congestion charge isn't rasing the project revenue it was predicted to they need new gimmicks or red ken will be everso in the red ken...



*yawn*


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

Dan U said:
			
		

> personally i would build a force field around the M25 that repelled all non-essential 4x4's..



Um... Isn't this just a call for less environmentally sound cars to have a higher congestion charge...?  

Oh, and if this ever went through, what about all the businesses that use lorries/vans...? Be a nice way of killing of the non-chain stores through increased costs...! 

Apart from this, it seems a bit of a sound idea. But I wouldn't expect all the "chelsea tractors" to disappear, just become more fuel efficient & cleaner...!


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> that's right pointing out your poor driving standard whilst you pointificate about other bad driving standards does after all start to show the rocky and supercilious nature of your argument... after all... which is btw irrelivent any how...as it wasn't an argument intially about peoples driving standards compared to the erfect driving of trashpony...



*yawn*


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 15, 2006)

This debate was had fairly recently and  "peeps arguing against 4x4's(PAAFFS)" won it by a country mile. Ironically you would need a 4x4 to negoitiate the distance between winners and losers. 

The only debate lleft is how much to charge them. £20 is a good start.


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> This debate was had fairly recently and  "peeps arguing against 4x4's(PAAFFS)" won it by a country mile. Ironically you would need a 4x4 to negoitiate the distance between winners and losers.



Oh, where was this...? In reality, or on some lefty (in theory) bulletin board...?


----------



## Mr Retro (Jun 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Oh, where was this...? In reality, or on some lefty (in theory) bulletin board...?



It was in the transport forum I think, I had a quick look but I can't find it. I started reading the thread not caring one way or the other about 4x4's.

By the time I finished reading it I had been convinced and I will now never buy one and will support any and all restrictions put on them.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2006)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> By the time I finished reading it I had been convinced and I will now never buy one and will support any and all restrictions put on them.


I like the cut of your jib, sir.


----------



## angry bob (Jun 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> selfish cunts who elect to fill up the streets with their over-sized, over-engineered, gas guzzling, pedestrian-endangering fashion statements.



A guy I work with drives a fuckin huge GMC suburban. When I asked him about it he explained that 15yrs ago his wife (the mother of very small children) was killed in a car wreck when someone else smashed into her. She was driving a very small car and probably would have survived if it had been a big SUV.

He is not going to risk that happening again.

Is he a 'selfish cunt'?

I drive a very old Dodge caravan which gets about 18mpg. And I mostly drive it to and from work.
The reason I bought the thing was to transport my entire family (4 people) and everything we owned from Nevada to Baltimore (a good 6 days travel). It was relatively cheap to buy and for various reasons made a lot more sense than hiring a trailer.
Of course as soon as I can afford it I'm going to trade it in for something smaller. But in the mean time, am I a selfish cunt?

A generalised statement about a diverse group of people rarely stands up to scrutiny.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2006)

Well to begin with can we start by referring to them as SUVs or similar - why should someone driving a Subaru (or even a little Fiat Panda 4x4) have to pay £20?

CCharge should be based on vehicle model and engine size - while Descartes arguments are tired there are a couple of ultimately relevant points. There_is_ a social element to this hating of SUVs because of the perception that they are only driven by West London idiots which is simply not true as anyone who has experienced bling 4x4s will testify!

While I agree with the aims of the groups involved in wanting to get rid of urban SUVs (space, pollution, safety), turning the debate into a class war issue is pointless since it isn't a class issue.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2006)

angry bob said:
			
		

> A guy I work with drives a fuckin huge GMC suburban. When I asked him about it he explained that 15yrs ago his wife (the mother of very small children) was killed in a car wreck when someone else smashed into her. She was driving a very small car and probably would have survived if it had been a big SUV.
> 
> He is not going to risk that happening again.
> 
> ...



Bollocks reason - she died because crash protection in the small car she was driving wasn't adequate (no surprise there - you're talking about US cars). It's been shown time after time that SUVs are no safer than properly protected small vehicles.

So yes, he is being a selfish cunt because he's not relying on 'it's big therefore it's safe' instinct rather than looking at what makes vehicles safe.


----------



## tarannau (Jun 15, 2006)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Is he a 'selfish cunt'?
> 
> A generalised statement about a diverse group of people rarely stands up to scrutiny.



Yes. To protect his family - and there's no guarantee that a bigger vehicle necessarily will - he's picked a mode of transport that massively increases the risks of serious injury to pedestrians and, by his/your logic at least, to other vehicle users as well. Oh and they're generally gaz-wasting energy inefficient guzzlebags too.

Now I can vaguely understand his reasons for choosing such a vehicle, but it's doesn't make them correct or any less of a selfish decision.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 15, 2006)

*4x4 Saftey*

A few years ago I was following a Landrover on the motorway.

It had a blow out.  Due to the high centre of gravity the car rolled.

The driver got thrown out of the window and died instantly.  The passengers were all quite badly hurt.

Its not just damage you do to everyone else if you choose to drive a 4X4.

Any tool we can use to make these vehicles more socially unacceptable has to be used.  It would be very sad to go down the route the US has gone where you buy a 4X4 to protect your self just because every other bugger has one.


----------



## angry bob (Jun 15, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Bollocks reason - she died because crash protection in the small car she was driving wasn't adequate (no surprise there - you're talking about US cars). It's been shown time after time that SUVs are no safer than properly protected small vehicles.
> 
> So yes, he is being a selfish cunt because he's not relying on 'it's big therefore it's safe' instinct rather than looking at what makes vehicles safe.



I didnt mean to suggest that his reasoning was neccessarily correct ... just that it was understandable and that this guy (whose a nice guy btw) is not a cunt of any description. Who doesnt put the lives of their families above those of everyone else?

Although (without any research) it seems that a general rule of 'the bigger the car: the safer you are' makes a lot of sense. From a basic physics POV: in a headon collision a small car would experience a greater acceleration and thus the passenger would be thrown into the window with more force. The mass of the car would surely be a very important factor in most accidents?


----------



## angry bob (Jun 15, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Now I can vaguely understand his reasons for choosing such a vehicle, but it's doesn't make them correct or any less of a selfish decision.



YEah ... it is a selfish decision. But then most decisions are. He puts his family first (even if his reasoning is wrong). He aint a cunt though.

And what about me? My old minivan gets a lot fewer mpg than most new SUVs. And I aint a cunt either!


And I'm pretty sure Ive seen comercials for a new hybrid SUV that gets better mpg than some small cars. And although higher, it didnt seem to be much wider/longer than a typical saloon.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 15, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I still don't understand why they are allowed in Central London AT ALL????...let alone Greater London...why can't they jus be banned in Central London?...end of.



Because for better or (in this case) worse, we live in a free country where all of us are allowed to make choices for ourselves about how we live our lives. In the case of urban suv owners, that choice is obviously a very selfish one.
Banning them is never going to happen and IMO shouldn't. It's just not helpful in the broader scheme of things, not to mention, unworkable in reality.
Whist extra charging is a good idea in theory, it's unlikely to have a huge effect - if you've got £50 - 80k for one of these things, you're hardly going to give a fuck about how much it costs to run.
I advocate a campaign of humiliation and possably shock tactics advertising ('your kids that you're so eager to protect in a 4x4 are going to have accute asthma in 20 yrs as a reult of it etc etc) similar to the drink driving campaigns - one of social unaceptability.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2006)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Although (without any research) it seems that a general rule of 'the bigger the car: the safer you are' makes a lot of sense. From a basic physics POV: in a headon collision a small car would experience a greater acceleration and thus the passenger would be thrown into the window with more force. The mass of the car would surely be a very important factor in most accidents?



Doesn't work like that at all.

A modern supermini is safer than a saloon built 10/15 years ago by virtue of the impact protection systems it's now mandatory to have (whether via govt legislation or market demand). Even in your example you aren't taking into account modern seatbelts which have two stages of 'grip' to help prevent belt-related injury.

Car construction and internal impact protection systems are far more important than size when it comes to protecting passengers. Not surprising that your tale is from the US - we're talking about a car industry that actively campaigned against fitting seat belts (still the single biggest contributor to car safety EVER) for 2 decades after it was shown conclusively that even a 2 point (lap) belt would save lives...

Have a look round the NTSB or the UK Transport Research Laboratory websites for stuff on how design and engineering, not size, are key to vehicle safety.

The absolute classic example of how wearing a seatbelt can save your life is of course Diana - the only person wearing a belt was her bodyguard and he was the only person to survive - and they were in a big luxury Merc with lots of protection!!


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I advocate a campaign of humiliation and possably shock tactics advertising....



I think the only people who will be humilated will be the protestors. I'm fine with people wanting to cut down emissions, but why not try and protest about something more than a housewife on the schoolrun... Encouraging companies to produce more efficient engines, f'r'instance...

Oh, and care how to explain how driving a 4x4 is a dangerous as drink driving...? Getting in the drivers seat doesn't automatically get you pissed...!


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

angry bob said:
			
		

> YEah ... it is a selfish decision. But then most decisions are. He puts his family first (even if his reasoning is wrong). He aint a cunt though.
> 
> And what about me? My old minivan gets a lot fewer mpg than most new SUVs. And I aint a cunt either!



Well, my decision to drive a 4x4 Jeep-type-thing is quite simple. In London the driving position is perfect, and its very nippy compared to most cars, (I think most car drivers they drive tanks the way they manouver...!). The main job its used for (in London) is shifting stuff around... I could get a hire van to do that, but they are less environmentally clean...


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Well, my decision to drive a 4x4 Jeep-type-thing is quite simple. In London the driving position is perfect, and its *very nippy compared to most cars,*



Eh?


----------



## Giles (Jun 15, 2006)

This argument that SUV drivers are somehow more selfish worries me:

OK at one extreme you have people driving 5l V8 monsters, I can see that this is selfish. 

But how exactly is driving a Suzuki Vitara, or Landrover Freelander more selfish than driving a BMW 5 series or 7 series? In this case the 4 wheel drive vehicle is both smaller and more economic.

Why not just campaign against anyone who drives any vehicle that is either bigger or more polluting than they strictly "need".

A 15+ year old 2l+ engined car pollutes loads more than almostanything brand new. Are the drivers of those "selfish" too? 

Or are they exempt from selfishness regulations because they aren't rich and therefore don't annoy people with their conspicuous consumption?

I drive a Transit bus some of the time and I quite enjoy being higher up because you can see ahead in the traffic better than you can in a car. Is that selfish? I think it's safer to be able to see what is around you better.

e2a: My dad drives around in a 1990 model Volvo 245 estate car. I'll bet thats pretty heavy on fuel, and it predates catalytic converters, too. And I know that the main reason he likes it is because it's sheer size, weight etc, combined with Volvo's known safe reputation, means that should he have an accident, he, his wife and my two kid sisters would be less likely to be seriously hurt than in a smaller, lighter car. Is that selfish?

Giles..


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Eh?



1. nimble; agile; quick; fast.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Oh, and care how to explain how driving a 4x4 is a dangerous as drink driving...?




I never said it was, you plank. Read the post. 



> Posted by Pie 1:
> *similar* to the drink driving campaigns


----------



## BrixiSteve (Jun 15, 2006)

'4x4s in London also cause problems with parking, as they take up more than the usual parking space and take up extra space on the road itself. '

Not true.  There are only a handfull of 4x4's that take up more road space than your average family car and very few that take up more road space than your average luxury car.  If they are not parked correctly then, yes, they will block the road.  Otherwise there shouldn't really be a problem.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2006)

> But how exactly is driving a Suzuki Vitara, or Landrover Freelander more selfish than driving a BMW 5 series or 7 series? In this case the 4 wheel drive vehicle is both smaller and more economic.



This is precisely why anything like this should be based around model and engine size, not whether it's 'unsuitable' to be driven around London or not...


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I drive a Transit bus some of the time and I quite enjoy being higher up because you can see ahead in the traffic better than you can in a car. Is that selfish? I think it's safer to be able to see what is around you better.



The only reason you can see more is because some of the other vehicles are smaller. If they all got bigger, then you'd have to get a bigger vehicle in order to see over them. It's an arms race. 

The drivers of those old gas-guzzlers are possibly equally selfish, or possibly just not able to afford to change car; at any rate, as someone else said, there's not the same volume of those people on the roads, so they're not the right battle to pick.




			
				angrybob said:
			
		

> Although (without any research) it seems that a general rule of 'the bigger the car: the safer you are' makes a lot of sense. From a basic physics POV: in a headon collision a small car would experience a greater acceleration and thus the passenger would be thrown into the window with more force. The mass of the car would surely be a very important factor in most accidents?



Again, it becomes an arms race. And more pedestrians die.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> This is precisely why anything like this should be based around model and engine size, not whether it's 'unsuitable' to be driven around London or not...



The proposal in the link is bsed on emissions alone.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> 1. nimble; agile; quick; fast.



I know what nippy means - I just know from having driven jeeps that they are not as nippy as many normal cars


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> The main job its used for (in London) is shifting stuff around... I could get a hire van to do that, but they are less environmentally clean...



What 4x4 do you have exactly? Seriously, cause I know that unless it's something like a Nissan Patrol, a  Landcruiser, a long wheelbase Defender or possably a Isuzu Trooper, that my estate car has more boot space than most of them. Esspecially Jeeps.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> This argument that SUV drivers are somehow more selfish worries me:
> 
> OK at one extreme you have people driving 5l V8 monsters, I can see that this is selfish.
> 
> ...



Giles I think that is selfish.  When you start getting bigger cars to be safe where does it end?

I personally think that the vast majority of car journies made are selfish.  Over 3,500 people die each year on the roads as a direct result of accidents.  Many studys suggest many thousand more die as a direct and indirect result of air polution caused by motorised road traffic.  25% of the UK's carbon emmisions come from transport.

I used to drive everywhere but I can no longer justify owning a car.  I live in a city so it makes it easy for me to be car free.  My life is better without a car - less expense, less time in traffic, less time travelling, more freedom!

OK I accept a few people 'need' cars.  But most people have the ability to organise a car free life for the benefit of theirselves and society as a whole.

Imagne how beautiful our cities could become if they were mostly car free!

On another note would it be selfish for 1.3bn Chinese to own cars?  It has to stop somewhere before the car makes it impossible to travel.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

i would advocate a direct action campaign against 4x4's

probably when drunk in posh areas in the middle of the night, someone might decide to start slashing tyres, damaging paintwork etc 

if owning a 4x4 became a liability then ownership would fall dramatically


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2006)

The other thing about mass car ownership is that it completely destroys any chance of actually having any fun while you're driving since you end up stuck in traffic all the time.

Car sharing is the way forward I reckon (there was a Times article about it a while back - you join up and there is a pool of cars that you can call on to use when you need to)


----------



## scifisam (Jun 15, 2006)

BrixiSteve said:
			
		

> '4x4s in London also cause problems with parking, as they take up more than the usual parking space and take up extra space on the road itself. '
> 
> Not true.  There are only a handfull of 4x4's that take up more road space than your average family car and very few that take up more road space than your average luxury car.  If they are not parked correctly then, yes, they will block the road.  Otherwise there shouldn't really be a problem.



Hmm, I stand partially corrected then. However, as a pedestrian they make crossing the road more difficult - you can't see past them to see what's coming towards you. Height is as much of a problem as width there.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> The other thing about mass car ownership is that it completely destroys any chance of actually having any fun while you're driving since you end up stuck in traffic all the time.
> 
> Car sharing is the way forward I reckon (there was a Times article about it a while back - you join up and there is a pool of cars that you can call on to use when you need to)



There are special parking places in West Hampstead for car pool cars. I've never seen any cars in them. That was what easycar was supposed to be but I went down there at my allotted time, waited an hour and a half and there was only one car. It was me going to take my nan shopping or a couple who were trying to get to a wedding - she was in tears. I let them have the car. 

That's the problem - people are used to being able to get in their car and pop out when they fancy it. Also - it's still cheaper to drive if there's more than 2 of you in the car than get the train - which sucks.


----------



## Giles (Jun 15, 2006)

So, to choose a car known for its safety and solidity is selfish? Well, in that case, I am selfish and proud to be so, so tough.

I also like to be able to see around me in traffic. If that is selfish, then fine also.

People should be allowed to make whatever choices they want.

This 4x4 campaign is 90% prejudice against a certain stereotyped person waving their money around in public.

If people stopped with the 4x4 thing and switched to biggish people-carriers and mini-vans, how would that be? 

They are also big, heavy on fuel, high up, etc. Just not (usually) equipped with 4wd.

Giles..


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> i would advocate a direct action campaign against 4x4's
> 
> probably when drunk in posh areas in the middle of the night, someone might decide to start slashing tyres, damaging paintwork etc
> 
> if owning a 4x4 became a liability then ownership would fall dramatically



 
Fucking stupid idea that undermines ligitimate concerns and protests.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Hmm, I stand partially corrected then. However, as a pedestrian they make crossing the road more difficult - you can't see past them to see what's coming towards you. Height is as much of a problem as width there.



He's also being slightly disingenuous - here's a comparison



> L      W (in cm)
> Chrysler Grand Voyager 2.8 crd              509  200
> Jaguar XJ8 4.2 SE Auto                         509 186
> Lexus GS300 Se Auto 4dr                       480 175
> ...



so that's 30cm narrower and around 60cm shorter than an average car in fact ...

ps these numbers are from the pro-4x4 site I quoted on page 2 of this thread


----------



## trashpony (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> This 4x4 campaign is 90% prejudice against a certain stereotyped person waving their money around in public.



No it isn't. They are representative of a 'fuck you I don't give a shit about anyone else' attitude.

That's why I don't like them. And anyone that drives a car in London with a 2.5 litre engine or bigger is a selfish cunt.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> Fucking stupid idea that undermines ligitimate concerns and protests.



it would work

unlike most of the legitimate campaigns and protests


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> So, to choose a car known for its safety and solidity is selfish?


It is when it's at the expense of everyone else's safety.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> People should be allowed to make whatever choices they want.
> 
> ..




Yeah fine - if they live alone on a desert island..


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> ...that my estate car has more boot space than most of them. Esspecially Jeeps.



Um... Which would make your car larger than mine... I thought the argument was 4x4 are bad because they are so big...!


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 15, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> So, to choose a car known for its safety and solidity is selfish? Well, in that case, I am selfish and proud to be so, so tough.
> 
> 
> Giles..



Everyone should buy a tank then.  That would make us all safe.

Anyway my points were not specifically against 4x4's but cars in general.

Due to folk driving I can get breathing difficulties when I commute using my bike on busy roads.  Due to the selfish actions of drivers making unnecessary journies I have to take the long route to work to avoid the polution.

I don't think its selfish expecting to be able to breathe with out imparement from poluting vehicles.  Particularly those that make far more polution than necessary.  

If you must have a good view at the expense of my breathing then I see no reason why you should not pay through the nose for your all important view.  You should have your choice, just pay for the privlidge.  The best views are to be had as a cyclist or a pedestrian anyway!


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> it would work
> 
> unlike most of the legitimate campaigns and protests



Translation: We don't have legitimate complaint, so lets smash someone's stuff up...


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Um... Which would make your car larger than mine... I thought the argument was 4x4 are bad because they are so big..


Big... and over-engineered, over-sized, over-polluting, intimidating, wasteful and pointless.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> Translation: We don't have legitimate complaint, so lets smash someone's stuff up



incorrect, we do have a legitimate complaint so lets take action that will be effective

if word got round places like islington that of you own a 4x4 your quite likely to wake up and find the tyres ripped and not be able to drive to work it wouldnt be long before people started to choose other types of cars

it would have the added benefit of lowering the number of 4x4's on the road whilst they were being repaired etc


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> incorrect, we do have a legitimate complaint so lets take action that will be effective
> 
> if word got round places like islington that of you own a 4x4 your quite likely to wake up and find the tyres ripped and not be able to drive to work it wouldnt be long before people started to choose other types of cars
> 
> it would have the added benefit of lowering the number of 4x4's on the road whilst they were being repaired etc



No it wouldn't - they'd just use their position of power to ensure that the OB were out patrolling and press for tougher sentences for 4x4h8rz.

Or they'd start armuor plating the things.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

your right best do nothing eh

wonders where giles lives


----------



## jæd (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> your right best do nothing eh
> 
> wonders where giles lives



Or why not protest about legitimate problems...? Or write to your MP and lobby Parliment. If you go around destroying others property you will (a) give reason for stiffer penalties to people who do and (hopefully) (b) be locked up. You can't do much protesting from gaol...!


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 15, 2006)

Or just keep a pack of post stick notes handy when walking around town to stick on any thing that irrates, in the same way a house mate does when you leave the washing up.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 15, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Um... Which would make your car larger than mine... I thought the argument was 4x4 are bad because they are so big...!



Personally I never really supported the length/width thing with the anti 4x4 ers. In that respect they don't use any more space than my car, MVP's or full size saloon cars

The height thing and the engine size are legit issues though. 
Pretty much all 4x4's are 2.5 L and higher with the majority in the higher end. That is totally unnessasary.
My car is of normal height, can carry a fuck load more that most 'designer' 4x4's and has an efficient 2.0 L engine which is more than enough to propel it easily around a city or on a motorway, even with a full load.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 15, 2006)

I must confess walking back thru a 4x4 forest one Sunday night (been out raving) and letting loads of tyres down...I viewed it as 'annoying and non-destructive protest' akin to the situationists and humourists...(well I was a bit floaty and it seemed like a laugh at the time but hey, I can justify it using historical precedents...)


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

whats my mp gonna do



> be locked up. You can't do much protesting from gaol...!



supporters of bobby sands might disagree

in any event youd have to be a bit of a muppet to get caught, not many cops about in hampstead at 4 in the morning

4x4 drivers beware

ive also heard of some v hard to remove stickers saying planet fucker

middle of the drivers windscreen best place for them i reckon


----------



## Giles (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> your right best do nothing eh
> 
> wonders where giles lives



Kilburn High Road (or just off), mate.

And I don't own a 4x4 in London. Just a Peugeot 306 and my Transit.

Although, out in Spain, I confess to ownership of a small-ish 4x4:







Giles..


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

two cars, bit extravagant aint it

gets stickers out of drawer


----------



## Dan U (Jun 15, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> The point is that SUVs/4x4s are being aggressively promoted and have now become one of the fastest selling classes of vehicles in the UK.
> 
> And I'd say that with global warming increasingly becoming a dead cert and environmental concerns becoming a real issue, they're fair game.



for once we are behind the US. sales of SUV's are decreasing - mostly due to the increase in fuel costs i understand - but even so, if the home of the SUV has woken up, its about time we did too!

theyve stopped making hummvee's too for domestic use. thank fuck,


----------



## Giles (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> two cars, bit extravagant aint it
> 
> gets stickers out of drawer



I have a car (Puggy 306). I use a van for work (and festivals, and fun).

If you want a confrontation over this, come round, ring my door-bell, and we'll have one. But don't sneak around with your stickers, you chicken.

Giles..


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

so why you sticking up for SUV's then


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

i dont have any problem with people using vans for work


----------



## Dan U (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> i dont have any problem with people using vans for work



me either. it would make there lives easier if there was a bit less traffic too.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

at least thats a cool 4x4

and spain is a bit far to go with me stickers

how many other vehicles you got though ffs

you think yer frank butcher or summat


----------



## subversplat (Jun 15, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> how many other vehicles you got though ffs
> 
> you think yer frank butcher or summat


Sometimes I have *three* vehicles!  

I balance it out though by not having a house


----------



## WouldBe (Jun 15, 2006)

subversplat said:
			
		

> I balance it out though by not having a house



Houses don't clog the roads up though.


----------



## subversplat (Jun 15, 2006)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> Houses don't clog the roads up though.


Depends where they're built.

They're much more of an eyesore in greenbelt...


----------



## smokedout (Jun 15, 2006)

> Houses don't clog the roads up though.



not like crusties


----------



## Descartes (Jun 16, 2006)

OH Dear..

Emissions and pollutions, the modern engine, regardless of size is governed to reduce harmfull emissions. The amount of hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide etc have all been greatly reduced by design, electronic engine management systems and the 'cat' exhaust systems. 

In retrospect, the gaz guzzerly monters of 1950 etc are protected by the modern legislation and * do not have emissin test to comply with MOT standards*, the greater the sophistication the more efficient the engine. less pollutions, less petrol burnt. 

The comparisons between luxury saloons and SUV, people carriers and small cars neds to have strict guide lines, Since 2000 the build quality and the emission standards have been excellent and the current improvements have further enhanced the vehicle emission. M.o T tests have and do regulate the standards, emission criteria is strict and the number of vehicles failing are very few. A reflection of the present high standards, now, selecting SUVs for some mindless and ' corupt' money making system is typical of Red Kens private agenda against Motor vehicle.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> If you want a confrontation over this, come round, ring my door-bell, and we'll have one. But don't sneak around with your stickers, you chicken.


What's so brave about intimidating pedestrians and other drivers with an over-inflated chunk of menacing metal?


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 16, 2006)

As a pedestrian and cyclist I don't like SUVs, and as a keen driver I can't see the appeal of them.  But tbh I think the emissions and the road space arguments with SUVs are a bit dubious.

The emissions argument is flawed because - as already pointed out - there are plenty of ordinary cars that will pollute as much, or more.  A 3-litre SUV is unlikely to prioduce much more in the way of harmful emissions than a new saloon with an engine of the same size, and less than a decade-old supermini.  So should we ban people from driving older/classic cars because their engines pollute more than the average?  I don't think so...  Again with road space, a decent-sized family car covers much the same area, so I can't really see any grounds for restricting SUV use on those grounds.

Also, the idea of restricting vehicles based on their transmission is a non-starter.  The terms 4x4 and SUV are often used interchangably, but they aren't the same.  The former just refers to the number of driven wheels, and plenty of smaller cars have four-wheel-drive and are all the safer for it.  It'd be silly to pass laws aimed at SUVs that have the incidental effect of impinging on the use of ordinary saloons like the Subaru Impreza that just happen to have four-wheel-drive.

My problem with SUVs is just the size and the weight.  Pedestrians and cyclists - and drivers of small cars - are far more likely to be injured or killed in a collision with an SUV than with an ordinary saloon.  Get hit by a Mondeo and you go over the bonnet, which is not nice but often survivable: get hit by a Range Rover and you go straight under its wheels.  They're dangerous to other road users, and on those grounds it _is_ fair to say that it's selfish to drive them in urban areas.  

They're no safer for the occupants than an average new saloon car - they just give the illusion of being so because of their size - and as a driver I can't imagine anything less enjoyable than trying to pilot a 17-foot, two-ton tank through central London.  Give me a Mini any day to slip in an out of the traffic - and to leave clumsy tanks for dead on a winding B-road!

What's to do?  IMO banning them is far too draconian, and increasing the congestion charge for them would be an adminitrative headache.  Better IMO just to do what the French have done and stick a big sales tax on them.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2006)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Better IMO just to do what the French have done and stick a big sales tax on them.


Paris is trying to go further than that: 





> Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) could be banned from the chic but traffic-clogged streets of Paris within 18 months following a resolution passed by the city council.
> 
> Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution could lead to a ban on the increasingly popular vehicles in about 18 months if it is included in an overall project to improve traffic flow in the city.
> "We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're dangerous to others and take up too much space, " he said on Europe 1 radio.
> ...


Go France!


----------



## Dan U (Jun 16, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Paris is trying to go further than that: Go France!



agreed.

i was reading in the last week or so they are planning to develop a chunk of the city - mostly the land that was set aside for the olympics - but it includes a net REDUCTION in parking spaces.

progressive, the french? whodafunkit


----------



## jæd (Jun 16, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Paris is trying to go further than that: Go France!



Well... I think from the preceeding pages it can be shown that most of comments in that article are flawed... I'd be suprised if this actually goes through... Perhaps Paris might consider a congestion charge if they haven't already...

Oh, and trying to ban something thats popular...? Always a good move that...! Can see that going down a treat with the French Farmers...!


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 16, 2006)

I don't agree.

Call me an old liberal if you like, but in the end I think people should have the choice to buy and use those things if that's what they really want to do.  I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of banning things that are potentially - or even actively harmful.  I think we live in a world with enough rules and restrictions without introducing more.  Rather than banning them, I'd rather see a cultural shift to make their use less acceptable, and some financial incentive not to drive them.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 16, 2006)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Rather than banning them, I'd rather see a cultural shift to make their use less acceptable, and some financial incentive not to drive them.



as has been said i dont think the financial incentive will work.

if you can afford £30k++ for a 4x4 it would have to be a stiff tax or whatever to have an impact

the flipside of that would be that those who live in rural communities and genuinely needs 4x4's will be punitively punished - not everyone in rural britain is a second home owner in the home counties..


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Can see that going down a treat with the French Farmers...!


Something tells me that the French farmers won't be that bothered about the plight of metropolitan trend-setters and their expensive,  over-priced, fashion statements.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2006)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Call me an old liberal if you like, but in the end I think people should have the choice to buy and use those things if that's what they really want to do.


People should have the right to do as they please so long as it doesn't impact on the rights of others to do likewise.

Thing is, I'd say that someone driving around an over-sized, needlessly polluting, space-hogging, respource-guzzling, intimidating and downright dangerous vehicle is most certainly impacting on the rights of others.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 16, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> People should have the right to do as they please so long as it doesn't impact on the rights of others to do likewise.
> 
> Thing is, I'd say that someone driving around an over-sized, needlessly polluting, space-hogging, respource-guzzling, intimidating and downright dangerous vehicle is most certainly impacting on the rights of others.



Well that's the nub of the issue really, isn't it?  You have to weigh up the loss of freedom to some against the gains of those negatively affected by their activities.  And much as I dislike SUVs, I don't believe that the damage they do is enough to justify yet more restrictions on people's behaviour.  That's more an instinctive reaction than a rational argument, I concede, but I worry that as a society we're becoming rather too willing too encroach on people's freedoms, though sometimes out of the best of motives.  there are other ways to discourage people from using SUVs than just banning them - such as creating a climate in which their use is seen as vulgar and distasteful.  Despite what Dan U says, I think financial incentives do have some part ot play in that too.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 16, 2006)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Despite what Dan U says, I think financial incentives do have some part ot play in that too.



i think they do too, i just dont think they should be arbitery across the country.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 16, 2006)

I like the idea of the £20 charge for them. Seeing the school run SUVs fills me with rage


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 16, 2006)

Dan U said:
			
		

> i think they do too, i just dont think they should be arbitery across the country.



I agree with that.  Some people really do need off-road vehicles, and it's unfair to penalise them for that.  The challenge is to work out some way of disincentivising driving them in urban areas, whilst not inpinging on those who actually need them.


----------



## Giles (Jun 16, 2006)

Although there SOME practical reasons for disliking the widespread use of "jeep" type vehicles, I do feel that the hatred of them is more for what they are perceived to represent: conspicuous and unnecessary consumption, the attitude of making your self safer and stuff everyone else, vulgar display of wealth, class resentment etc.

The campaign against SUVs is a handy scapegoat.

Why not campaign against Rolls Royces and Bentleys? (or Merc S class saloons, for that matter)

No-one, no-one at all, NEEDS one of these things. There is no equivalent "justification" as there is with 4x4s, where some people can claim they need one at weekends to drive around their farm, tow their boat, etc.

They weigh tons, have 6 litre engines or larger, they take up more roadspace than pretty much all SUVs apart from maybe the Hummer H1, they all do very high maximum speeds, they have abysmal fuel economy. They cost more than most people's houses. Why should they even be made?

Giles..


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 16, 2006)

They're saloon cars though, and of an ordinary height.  As far as I'm concerned, as a pedestrian and a cyclist, that's what's important.  To paraphrase what i said above, get hit by a Rolls Royce and you'll go over the bonnet: get hit by a Range Rover and you go straight under the wheels.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I do feel that the hatred of them is more for what they are perceived to represent: conspicuous and unnecessary consumption, the attitude of making your self safer and stuff everyone else, vulgar display of wealth, class resentment etc.


Add to that the unnecessary increased pollution, the increased danger to the health of pedestrians and fellow road users alike and that's about it.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 16, 2006)

Simon Jenkins has written a piece in the guardian today about parking enforcement being one of the few tools the left has to get @ the middle classes 

i am suprised he didnt extend it to 4x4's tbh - although i dont give a monkeys what 'class' of person is behind the wheel

linky


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Add to that the unnecessary increased pollution, the increased danger to the health of pedestrians and fellow road users alike and that's about it.


You will want to ban motorbikes next.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> You will want to ban motorbikes next.


How does that work then?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2006)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> I agree with that.  Some people really do need off-road vehicles, and it's unfair to penalise them for that.  The challenge is to work out some way of disincentivising driving them in urban areas, whilst not inpinging on those who actually need them.



A tax on high-emission vehicles wouldn't be unfair, since many people on here keep saying that some of these big cars don't actually have high emissions. Personally, I'd love to see an extra tax based on vehicle size (height and width, not just capacity), which could be claimed back by those who actually do need large vehicles. That one probably wouldn't be workable though.


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> How does that work then?


Dangerous etc


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> Dangerous etc


Where have I said that about motorcycles, then?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

Sorry but when it comes to driving, the argument about banning 4x4s because of the damage they cause in an accident may well hold water because of the size of the vehicle, but, at the end of the day, if you get hit by a transit, a lorry, or a bus, you are going to be just as damaged surely as if you were hit by a 4x4 jeep ?

Possibly even less chance of survival I would have thought and I don't hear calls to ban transits, buses etc.

If it's a safety or environmental argument then there are many other safety issues to resolve first... For example speeding, drink driving etc

Also, it does seem that a lot of the anti- 4x4 debate is based on a dislike of the perceived owners or type of people that own these vehicles ("Chelsea Tractor owners") and it seems more than a little hypocritical to be criticising people for spending their money how they want to

After all, we are supposed to believe in the and support freedom of the individual...................... aren't we ?

End rant ...... sorry


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

And no I don't have a 4x4    

P


----------



## laptop (Jun 18, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I do feel that the hatred of them is more for what they are perceived to represent: conspicuous and unnecessary consumption, the attitude of making your self safer and stuff everyone else, vulgar display of wealth, class resentment etc.



"I know what, I'll buy a machine that might as well have been designed for mincing other people's children - on the (entirely false) excuse that it'll make mine safer. What do those feckless parents whose children spend time outdoors expect, anyway?"​
Fuck it. I'm tempted to believe that this is a case where we should stop with the argument already. The electorate should hand the authorities entirely abitrary powers - within this limited area. Some coppers obviously like having an arbitrary "sus law" - and why else would anyone become pseudoplod? So we give them one. 

But they have to say the words. Exactly. "Good morning madam, I am from the Style Police and I am impounding your tractor because its presence in Crouch End (wherever) is an offence against taste."


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2006)

I agree with the £20 congestion charge for SUVs but not the blanket proposal for all 4*4s, there is a difference you know and I wish people would realise that.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> Sorry but when it comes to driving, the argument about banning 4x4s because of the damage they cause in an accident may well hold water because of the size of the vehicle, but, at the end of the day, if you get hit by a transit, a lorry, or a bus, you are going to be just as damaged surely as if you were hit by a 4x4 jeep ?


Buses are built for the job of carrying lots of people. Transit vans are built for carrying goods. SUVs, on the other hand, are over-engineered, over-sized dangerous chunks of metal created in the name of_ style._



> UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage. Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident...
> In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians...
> ...the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has described 4x4s as "totally unsuitable for the school run."
> http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/safety.htm


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2006)

there is a physchological condition in a driver to take more risks in a vehicle when he feels s/he is better protected from harm than other car drivers, these people that "feel safer" in a SUV are prime examples, taking risks in traffic knowing they aren't going to get as injured as the other person, fucking road bullies.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

OK, I accept the statistics, but I stand by the bulk of my post which was that if you get hit by a bus or commercial vehicle you are going to be as severely damaged as if you are hit by a 4x4. It wasn't about the intended use of a vehicle

And I still think there are other more pressing or just as pressing issues to be dealt with and choosing the easy target of 4x4 owners is an easy option

What I was trying to get at (in my usual sort of left-handed way) is that cars don't cause accidents - the drivers do and if someone is a bad or careless driver then they are a danger, irrespective of the vehicle they are driving!

Of course saying that 4x4s are unsuitable for the school run is an interesting one... personally, I'm of the school of thought that in an ideal world no vehicles are suitable for the school run, but I'll probably get shot down for saying that as parents wouldn't want their children walking to school these days (and rightly so)

But then again I remember my headmaster at junior school some 40 years ago complaing bitterly about parents in cars dropping off the children and picking them up... so it just shows... nothings changed in 40 years


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> Of course saying that 4x4s are unsuitable for the school run is an interesting one... personally, I'm of the school of thought that in an ideal world no vehicles are suitable for the school run, but I'll probably get shot down for saying that as parents wouldn't want their children walking to school these days (and rightly so)


Why wouldn't parents want their kids walking to school, then?

Or is it because you think they'd be right to be worried about the increased chance of an accident caused by...err... 4x4/SUV drivers?


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> OK, I accept the statistics, but I stand by the bulk of my post which was that if you get hit by a bus or commercial vehicle you are going to be as severely damaged as if you are hit by a 4x4. It wasn't about the intended use of a vehicle
> 
> And I still think there are other more pressing or just as pressing issues to be dealt with and choosing the easy target of 4x4 owners is an easy option
> 
> ...






will you please stop lumping 4*4s in one category, the problem is with SUVs.

I have an Audi Quattro and it does not present any of the problems that SUVs present.


----------



## laptop (Jun 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> there is a physchological condition in a driver to take more risks in a vehicle when he feels s/he is better protected from harm than other car drivers



I'm with the accident researcher who said we don't want airbags, we want a nice glittery sharp 300mm spike in the middle of the steering wheel.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> there is a physchological condition in a driver to take more risks in a vehicle when he feels s/he is better protected from harm than other car drivers, these people that "feel safer" in a SUV are prime examples, taking risks in traffic knowing they aren't going to get as injured as the other person, fucking road bullies.



I only know a small number of people with 4x4s (4) and because last year I was thinking of a Land Rover, I asked why they had bought them.... Believe it or not, none of them said "it makes them feel safer" was a reason

Better driving position, higher up from the road, being able to see better and being able to carry more in the vehicle were the reasons given

I've been driving for years (150 miles a day) for the last few years and believe me I don't feel safe on the roads because I'm fully aware that it's not about me having a false sense of "safety"  it's about awareness, driving to conditions, leaving gaps etc

I've gone past the aftermath of a significant number of accidents in the last week alone - one transit in a ditch on the M23, 2 lorry fires on M25, 2 cars ran into each other looking at one of the lorry fires, 1 car head on into a small commercial van on the A281 and come to the conclusion again that bad driving is the real problem we face not bad vehicles

P


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> will you please stop lumping 4*4s in one category, the problem is with SUVs.
> 
> I have an Audi Quattro and it does not present any of the problems that SUVs present.



Sorry, I was going from the thread title which does mention 4x4s  

Apologies
P


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one

4*4

http://www.reportmotori.it/Audi RS4 - Frontale2 800.jpg

SUV

http://www.merchand.nl/Nissan-Navaro-for-web.jpg


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't parents want their kids walking to school, then?
> 
> Or is it because you think they'd be right to be worried about the increased chance of an accident caused by...err... 4x4/SUV drivers?



 
Every time I've suggested to my friends that the children walking to school's a good idea, I've been told "oh no, it's not safe enough these days" not to do with cars though...


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> .... I asked why they had bought them.... Believe it or not, none of them said "it makes them feel safer" was a reason


I'd suggest that they're in a minority


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> Sorry, I was going from the thread title which does mention 4x4s
> 
> Apologies
> P



ok no probs but it does muddy the water, especially when congestion charges of 20 quid are directed at all 4 wheel drive vehicles, there is a difference.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

Ak!
Just looked at the time and I am heading to me bed... S'good to have a reasoned, sensible debate though & I'll have another look lata
TTFN & cheers folks
P


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> Every time I've suggested to my friends that the children walking to school's a good idea, I've been told "oh no, it's not safe enough these days" not to do with cars though...


That's strange because traffic is the *single biggest cause *of accidental death for 12-16 year olds.

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/teenagers/teenagers.htm

So what is this sudden new danger then?


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> That's strange because traffic is the *single biggest cause *of accidental death for 12-16 year olds.
> 
> http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/teenagers/teenagers.htm
> 
> So what is this sudden new danger then?



peados, don't you read the papers......


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> peados, don't you read the papers......


Best transport the kids in big fuck-off 4x4s then.

That way, only the poor kids get killed or injured!


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> ok no probs but it does muddy the water, especially when congestion charges of 20 quid are directed at all 4 wheel drive vehicles, there is a difference.



very true

Anyhow.. off to bed 

Cheers all
P


----------



## laptop (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So what is this sudden new danger then?



Welll... 

I think the danger is that people might have to face up to the fact that their child is statistically in far more danger of sexual or other assualt _inside_ the hermetically sealed home/SUV complex, than outside. 

But... considering the far smaller risk...

...surely SUVs would be far more useful for abductions than saloon cars? 

That's it. "Nonce tractors" is a great headline!


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jun 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> peados, don't you read the papers......



That's exactly the reason


P


----------



## snadge (Jun 18, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> Welll...
> 
> I think the danger is that people might have to face up to the fact that their child is statistically in far more danger of sexual or other assualt _inside_ the hermetically sealed home/SUV complex, than outside.
> 
> ...


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> And I still think there are other more pressing or just as pressing issues to be dealt with and choosing the easy target of 4x4 owners is an easy option



Well, yes: you pick your battles. Ever heard that phrase before? What's wrong with the easy target if that 'easy target' reduces fatalities from vehicles whose owners do not actually need those vehicles? 

I refer you, among many others, to the article linked in the initial post in this thread, which was about high-emission vehicles, not 4x4s. Did you read that article?

My friends, who, like me, have children of primary school age, do not want them to walk to school alone because of the traffic. There is no other comparable fear.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 18, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> ok no probs but it does muddy the water, especially when congestion charges of 20 quid are directed at all 4 wheel drive vehicles, there is a difference.




They're not. They're directed at high-emission vehicles.


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Where have I said that about motorcycles, then?


Just following your arguement to its logical conclusion/reading between the lines. As soon as you find out that the average bike above 600cc struggles to manage 30mpg (mines 22mpg ) you will be attempting to charge/ban them out of existence.
So stop being so trendy and have the intellectual integrity to identify other vehicle types you wish to villify.


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> A white van is large because it is built for transporting large amounts of goods. It has a large engine because it has to move heavy goods. It is built for the job.
> 
> A 4x4, on the other hand, is grossly over-sized and over-engineered to suit the ego/fashion desires/self-centred 'safety' needs of the owner.



Surely the level of congestion charge would be based on emmisions rather than car type so white van man is going to have to pay the higher rate as well which would really fuck him over if he's having to pay £100 a week just to drive in London ( compared with £40 he would now ) . 
My dad owns a 4x4 which he uses to drive all his catering stuff round in and as his main car so he doesn't need a van and a car , so he hasd a 4x4 for a purpose so he can do his job as well but in your world everyone who owns a 4x4 is using it as a status symbol when it could be used for people doing a job just as easily !


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> So stop being so trendy and have the intellectual integrity to identify other vehicle types you wish to villify.


How about you stop trying to put words in my mouth and keep your home-made 'logical conclusions' to yourself?

If you want a discussion on superbikes, start  a new thread and I'll give you my opinion there.


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> How about you stop trying to put words in my mouth and keep your home-made 'logical conclusions' to yourself?
> 
> If you want a discussion on superbikes, start  a new thread and I'll give you my opinion there.


Thought we were talking about vehicles/emissions/congestion??


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> Thought we were talking about vehicles/emissions/congestion??


How about you:
(a) read my posts
(b) check the title.


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> How about you stop trying to put words in my mouth and keep your home-made 'logical conclusions' to yourself?
> 
> If you want a discussion on superbikes, start  a new thread and I'll give you my opinion there.


Think you will find that a lot of 600cc + bikes arent actually "Superbikes" too.


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> How about you:
> (a) read my posts
> (b) check the title.


Dont expect you know the answer (I certainly dont). The difference is that Im not scared to discuss it.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> Think you will find that a lot of 600cc + bikes arent actually "Superbikes" too.


_Fascinating._


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> Dont expect you know the answer (I certainly dont). The difference is that Im not scared to discuss it.


That doesn't even make sense, but seeing as your arguments seem to run in a make-believe parallel universe where you're busily projecting your own agenda, opinions and emotions ("scared," my fucking arse) on to others, I'll leave you to it.


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> That doesn't even make sense, but seeing as your arguments seem to run in a make-believe parallel universe where you're busily projecting your own agenda, opinions and emotions ("scared," my fucking arse) on to others, I'll leave you to it.


Been exposed as a bully and an intellectual lightweight, by quite a lot of people on here, so you resort to personalising this.
I never argue with an idiot they bring you down to their level, then beat you with their experience.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> Been exposed as a bully and an intellectual lightweight, by quite a lot of people on here, so you resort to personalising this.


Now *that's *what I call a hypocrite! Or is it a wannabe trollster?

Not only are you clearly incapable of comprehending the title of this thread or reading my posts on the subject, but it seems you've already forgotten the content of your own posts!

Quite remarkable!


----------



## yellowmonster (Jun 18, 2006)

Here we go label me as a Troll. Lining me up for a ban are you?


----------



## jæd (Jun 18, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> My dad owns a 4x4 which he uses to drive all his catering stuff round in and as his main car so he doesn't need a van and a car , so he hasd a 4x4 for a purpose so he can do his job as well but in your world everyone who owns a 4x4 is using it as a status symbol when it could be used for people doing a job just as easily !



Isn't it strange how slimplistic stereotypes don't really work in the real world...! Oh, does your Dad realise that his 4x4 might be damaged by some of the anti-4x4 vigilantes...? 'Cos he should buy a white van like everyone else...


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Isn't it strange how slimplistic stereotypes don't really work in the real world...! Oh, does your Dad realise that his 4x4 might be damaged by some of the anti-4x4 vigilantes...?


I'd suggest that there's a focus on 4x4s/SUVs because they're being aggressively and expensively marketed and have become one of the fastest growing types of vehicle.


----------



## jæd (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that there's a focus on 4x4s/SUVs because they're being aggressively and expensively marketed and have become one of the fastest growing types of vehicle.



So... Who is focussing on them...? The only people I see getting worried about them are those on U75...

If they are the fastest growing type of car, perhaps thats because people want them...? Or are people unable to think for themselves and dumbly accept what the "expensive marketing" tells them...? Though I wish I could lash out on an X5 because I'm brainwashed by TV ads...


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> So... Who is focussing on them...? The only people I see getting worried about them are those on U75...


You've missed the stories that have been on the news for years on end? _All of them?!!!!_

Blimey.

Here's some clues to get you up to speed - and these are just from the BBC!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5075722.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4164001.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4900000.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3739495.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2940776.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4829628.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/C2314


----------



## toggle (Jun 18, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't parents want their kids walking to school, then?
> 
> Or is it because you think they'd be right to be worried about the increased chance of an accident caused by...err... 4x4/SUV drivers?




My kid is 8, and we walk to school unless I'm heading of somewhere in the car straight after. I'm already starting to walk him half way and let him walk the rest on his own in the morning. In september, I'm considering meeting him in the park, so he can walk home most of the way on his own as well. 

the traffic botheres me a hell of a lot more than the tabloid led hysteria about the 'huge' risk of him being snatched by a roving nonce on the way there or back. Any consideration of him going to school on his own, or being allowed to walk to the shops on his own is led entirely by my consideration of thesafety of the roads and his ability to judge traffic speeds safely enough not to throw himself in front of a speeding vehicle. 

The 4x4's are worse, because they are far more liklely to cause fatal injuries than a car would at comparable speeds, add the chance of bull bars on the front, and the fact that they are often driven faster because the drivers are less concerned with the effect of racing over speed bumps than car drivers and they are a danger.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> Just following your arguement to its logical conclusion/reading between the lines.
> As soon as you find out that the average bike above 600cc struggles to manage 30mpg (mines 22mpg ) you will be attempting to charge/ban them out of existence.


"Logical conclusion"?
Care to establish your chain of "logic"?
I'm betting it has more holes in than a tramps' underpants.
And I believe you'll find that motorbikes are exempt from the congestion charge, not on grounds of engine size, but because of their mobility. Even a Yank piece of shit Harley is more manouverable than an Austin Mini.

Where's that "logic" of yours again, gone AWOL has it?


> So stop being so trendy and have the intellectual integrity to identify other vehicle types you wish to villify.


Are you going to stop trying to be "controversial" if he does?, or will people have to read more of your sad "look at me, aren't I iconoclastic" witterings?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2006)

yellowmonster said:
			
		

> Here we go label me as a Troll. Lining me up for a ban are you?



It's what you expect and want, isn't it?


Can't think of any other reason (except perhaps brain damage or membership of the tory party) that you'd have made so many of your few posts so aggressively contrarian.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> It's what you expect and want, isn't it?
> 
> 
> Can't think of any other reason (except perhaps brain damage or membership of the tory party) that you'd have made so many of your few posts so aggressively contrarian.


Indeed.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 18, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> Also, it does seem that a lot of the anti- 4x4 debate is based on a dislike of the perceived owners or type of people that own these vehicles ("Chelsea Tractor owners") and it seems more than a little hypocritical to be criticising people for spending their money how they want to



thats not my motivatation for disliking them.

there's plenty of Shoguns on the estate near me!


----------



## Descartes (Jun 19, 2006)

* The 4x4's are worse, because they are far more liklely to cause fatal injuries than a car would at comparable speeds, add the chance of bull bars on the front, and the fact that they are often driven faster because the drivers are less concerned with the effect of racing over speed bumps than car drivers and they are a danger. *

Bull bars are banned and have been banned for a number of years, driven faster.... the white van man is the faster of the two  even over the humps

I was chatting to two 4x4 users, both rely on the size to carry their trade bits and at weekends, their large than normal family... average fuel consumption, one had been modified and gave a fuel consumption of approx 35 to the gallon the other was the larger engined but still returned approx 30  on a long run.... I will admit that town mileage did not get into the conversation...     

both said that a comparable people carrier or large saloon would not be suitable for their needs...


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> I was chatting to two 4x4 users,



Thing is, I'd rely on an SUV owner's rationalisation to be a true account about as much as I'd rely on an alcoholic's rationalisation of their drinking...


----------



## Descartes (Jun 19, 2006)

* I was chatting to two 4x4 users, *


Now, if you had asked in what circumstances this took place I could give your argument some credence.. but such  ... well, not a lot I can say about your stance on this.


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2006)

In the absence of additional information, I would rely... But SUV owners' conversation is more boring than alcholics'. Don't want to encourage it.

If this discussion took place at the Society for Epistemology it _might_ make a difference to my assessment.


----------



## pk (Jun 19, 2006)

Yep, fuck 'em.

£20 for a 4x4, no problem with that.


----------



## Descartes (Jun 19, 2006)

Epistemology

Hmm, to which I can only refer ypu to Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, This would establish the validity of the comments and render your argument as superfluous to the debate

PK, isn't that a screw, self tapper, metal thread, it can screw itself into anything... sounds about right.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 19, 2006)

*Now, if you had asked in what circumstances this took place I could give your argument some credence.. but such  ... well, not a lot I can say about your stance on this.*

Said by a cunt who thinks it acceptable to race around Central London if  you have a vehicle that enables you.

My stance is that you are a Twat.​
Freely given with prejudice.

If you have nothing to comment upon another posters reasoning then fuck off and shut the flow of shit come from your fingers.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> Said by a cunt who thinks it acceptable to race around Central London if have a vehicle that enables you.


Stop the personal abuse, please.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 19, 2006)

Spoof penalty tickets spook SUV owners


----------



## jæd (Jun 19, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> Spoof penalty tickets spook SUV owners



Oooh look... Yet another news report that shows there is no actual cause for alarm, and apart from a few tree-huggers, suvs are quite popular.

Btw, gotta love the way 4x4 opponents use abuse and emotive arguments against them, and the actual owners & drivers use practical reasoned. comments...!


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Btw, gotta love the way 4x4 opponents use abuse and emotive arguments against them, and the actual owners & drivers use practical reasoned. comments...!


What, _all of them?_

Nothing like a nice slice of wild stereotyping, eh?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 19, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Btw, gotta love the way 4x4 opponents use abuse and emotive arguments against them, and the actual owners & drivers use practical reasoned. comments...!



I must admit, I find some of the 'against' arguments on here such fact free, hysterical rants, I almost begin to start siding with the 'for' camp.
Get a grip people, really.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I must admit, I find some of the 'against' arguments on here such fact free, hysterical rants, I almost begin to start siding with the 'for' camp.


Feel free to have a go at tearing mine apart.


----------



## jæd (Jun 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Nothing like a nice slice of wild stereotyping, eh?



Well... "Wild stereotyping" seems par for the course for this topic...!


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Well... "Wild stereotyping" seems par for the course for this topic...!


Could you give me some examples where I've been as guilty as you of making wild, all-encompassing statements about an entire group of people please?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Feel free to have a go at tearing mine apart.



Whilst you are normally on the ball with your facts & figures, The last time we had this sort of debate you were shown to be rather fact free and about your claims of the 'size' of these vehicles, which a few people, myself included,  then proceeded to show you were not correct.

I'm afraid I also find this sort of rhetoric unhelpful and frankly, rather silly.



> Editor: What's so brave about intimidating pedestrians and other drivers with an over-inflated chunk of menacing metal?





> Editor: Best transport the kids in big fuck-off 4x4s then.
> 
> That way, only the poor kids get killed or injured!


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I also find this sort of rhetoric unhelpful and frankly, rather silly.


You may not like the 'rhetoric', but if you bother to read the links I've posted up, you'll find it rather accurately reflects one of the reasons why some people are buying pointlessly over-engineered, resource-hogging and _downright dangerous _4x4s.


----------



## jæd (Jun 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> ...and _downright dangerous _4x4s.






			
				BBC article said:
			
		

> In terms of pedestrian harm, 4x4s are often no worse than ordinary family cars, according to Euro NCAP results.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4829628.stm


----------



## The Pious Pawn (Jun 19, 2006)

More bollocks , This is just another tax to rip people of .

Some cretins smashed a 4 x 4 up near to me not so long ago ! the divs didnt relise the lady who owned it run a sanctuary for horses !! !!


----------



## trashpony (Jun 19, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4829628.stm



Shall I just quote a little bit more of that, just to even up the balance a bit in case people don't have time to click through the link?



> The law of physics says that when a heavy car, be it a 4x4 or anything else, hits a lighter one the big car will come off better," says Chris Patience, head of technical policy at the AA.
> 
> The height advantage many 4x4s have over ordinary cars can be a drawback to others. In head-on collisions a 4x4 is more likely to "ride over" the lower car - good news for the driver of the off-roader, bad for the other guy. With side impacts (a 4x4 driving into the side of a normal car), the height disparity is again liable to leave the "little guy" worse off.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4829628.stm


Whoops! You seemed to have missed out the rest of that sentence: 





> In terms of pedestrian harm, 4x4s are often no worse than ordinary family cars, according to Euro NCAP results......That's still true, but getting less so as car makers up their game.
> 
> "The law of physics says that when a heavy car, be it a 4x4 or anything else, hits a lighter one the big car will come off better," says Chris Patience, head of technical policy at the AA.
> 
> The height advantage many 4x4s have over ordinary cars can be a drawback to others. In head-on collisions a 4x4 is more likely to "ride over" the lower car - good news for the driver of the off-roader, bad for the other guy. With side impacts (a 4x4 driving into the side of a normal car), the height disparity is again liable to leave the "little guy" worse off.


And let's see what else they said:


> Big 4x4s are right at the bottom of the class when it comes to pedestrian safety, getting an average Euro-NCAP crash test score of just 4 out of 36, compared with 10 and 13 for large and small family cars, respectively.


And what does the BMJ say about 4x4s? Heck, they issued a health warning on them!!!!





> In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians, and when new test results were released in November 2005, the only car with a zero rating for pedestrian safety was a 4x4 - the Jeep Cherokee.
> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7520/787?etoc


----------



## jæd (Jun 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Could you give me some examples where I've been as guilty as you of making wild, all-encompassing statements about an entire group of people please?






			
				editor said:
			
		

> Nah. Just slap a fucking huge charge on those selfish tossers in 4x4s/SUVs.


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=166355


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=166355


I believe that someone driving a SUV in London is indeed being a selfish tosser. 

They're endangering other drivers, they're endangering pedestrians while needlessly consuming valuable resources and contributing to greenhouse gases with their over-sized, over-engineered, resource-hogging enormo-trucks.

But feel free to defend them, if you can.


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 19, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I believe that someone driving a SUV in London is indeed being a selfish tosser.
> 
> They're endangering other drivers, they're endangering pedestrians while needlessly consuming valuable resources and contributing to greenhouse gases with their over-sized, over-engineered, resource-hogging enormo-trucks.
> 
> But feel free to defend them, if you can.



Youv'e had 3 anecdotal references of people using SUV's as their work car for transporting equipment because they are better for that purpose than an estate ( I think thats the volvo style car type I'm thinking of ) yet your still insisiting that SUV are unnecessary and only used for a status symbol . Should small businesses be made to have 2 cars - one for work and one of home because you don't like SUV's on the streets of london ? 

If pollution is the problem then you need to increase the tarriff on the congestion charge for all vehicles that have high pollution , or if it's a matter of safety then maybe SUV's need to be included in a different class of vehicle requireing a more detailed driving test before people are quallified to drive them ! I don't believe your argument isn't enough to justify charging SUV's more !


----------



## jæd (Jun 19, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> ...or if it's a matter of safety then maybe SUV's need to be included in a different class of vehicle requireing a more detailed driving test before people are quallified to drive them !



Perhaps the best suggestion yet... And perhaps the only one that wouldn't penalise those who need to use them for their living...!


----------



## subversplat (Jun 19, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> or if it's a matter of safety then maybe SUV's need to be included in a different class of vehicle requireing a more detailed driving test before people are quallified to drive them !


I already suggested this and everybody ignored me 

*jumps around and points at self*


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 19, 2006)

subversplat said:
			
		

> I already suggested this and everybody ignored me
> 
> *jumps around and points at self*



top of page 2 ! I saw it and thought it was a great idea thats why I stole it !


----------



## Giles (Jun 19, 2006)

Changing the driving test groups would not be easy (the groups are supposed to be standardised across the E.U.) and would have serious consequences for lots of other drivers - you are allowed to drive a 3 ton van on a normal car licence, and also a 16 seater minibus.

So I can't see an easy way of picking out "SUVs" as a separate class of vehicle without imposing needless new driving tests and restrictions on millions of other drivers, since most SUVs are nowhere near as big, heavy etc as what you can already drive on a car licence.

Giles..


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 19, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> Changing the driving test groups would not be easy (the groups are supposed to be standardised across the E.U.) and would have serious consequences for lots of other drivers - you are allowed to drive a 3 ton van on a normal car licence, and also a 16 seater minibus.
> 
> So I can't see an easy way of picking out "SUVs" as a separate class of vehicle without imposing needless new driving tests and restrictions on millions of other drivers, since most SUVs are nowhere near as big, heavy etc as what you can already drive on a car licence.
> 
> Giles..



Which brings us to the question of should the higher congestion charge also include vehicles like 16 seater minibusses or 3 ton vans ?


----------



## subversplat (Jun 19, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> top of page 2 ! I saw it and thought it was a great idea thats why I stole it !


You're going to go far in life


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 19, 2006)

subversplat said:
			
		

> You're going to go far in life



Not if I steal more of your ideas !


----------



## smokedout (Jun 19, 2006)

> and apart from a few tree-huggers, suvs are quite popular.



gotta watch them tree huggers

we're still here


----------



## Descartes (Jun 19, 2006)

Lets clarify some misconceptions, the grams per kilogram, the measurement for CO2 emissions for vehicles does not vary according to vehicle. 

Manufacturering standards and UK requirements demand that capacity ( cubic centimentres) of engines will meet CO2 emission requiremts. Therefore if a 2500 cc engine is in a 4x4 the emission will compare with a 2500 cc engine in a car. In some cases, performance cars have higher g/kilo outputs than comparable 4x4. It is also evident that some luxury saloons have a higher putput than 4x4s. All of comparable engine size. 

The continued argument that 4x4 are gas guzzling monster also falls down under scrutiny. The variance between saloons, 4x4 and sports vehicles, all of similar engine sizes, is only 2 to 3 miles per gallon.  Now, when you consider the fact that 4x4 are usual of a lower gear ratio than performance saloons it is evident that the 4x4 engine is actually more efficient. 

The arguments of size and height of bumper needs a physical tests and finding the variance. A long standing joke was that the comparisons of bumper height between a Mini and a Rolls Royce was virtually nil. Because of the Over riders on the Rolls covered a greater area and allowed a matching height with the mini.

It is easy to target a style of vehicle to use as social misfit but the whole mass of dis-information about the vehicle does not stand close scrutiny. The need to compare like with like and not just to use some of the infomation in an attempt to justify some misconcieved argument. The most surprising element is that professional bodies make unfounded claims without any statistical information to substaniate their claims.

Having someone say more 4x4 kill speople than other vehicles is, at close inspection a spurious and totally misleading statement. The therory that a side impact would overun a smaller saloon again is spurious and misleaading.

The smaller veehicle will, as has been proved, slide along a road before any possibility of overturning is ever reached.  A Foden 32 ton truck pushed a rover 2200 saloon along the entrance road to the Hammersmith fly-over and both vehicle came to a standstill without any ' turning over' of the smaller vehicle. The discrepancy in bumper height to car is greater than the 4x4 and the average car.   

The smaller sorts car, Mazda, Lotus, etx have a much lower profile and are at equal risk from vans, commercial vehicle and trucks as from 4x4 so it would be unrealistic to make the statement without qualification.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 19, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> The smaller sorts car, Mazda, Lotus, etx have a much lower profile and are at equal risk from vans, commercial vehicle and trucks as from 4x4 so it would be unrealistic to make the statement without qualification.



Well you see some 4x4s have this ability to do staaaaarnge things you see...see?







Has anyone mention the extra wear and tear of tyres/parts/oils/brakes pads and fluids/suspension/gear boxes and parts/drive shafts/extra fkkkn plaggi-watchamacallits  in use of 4x4s....yet?

IMHO the engine is only the start of 4x4 _stuff_. 

*not that I belittle pedestrian damage...I jus _like_ to assume that that is actually the least of _the_ problems...even if they monumental they still are little in comparison to all the _other _shite they bring into Central London...noooo neeeed!


----------



## Descartes (Jun 19, 2006)

I love the generaisation, but what * extra * wear, if the driverr were in a saloon car instead of a 4x4 parts would still be wearing, but why extra? 

The roads are constructed to bear the weight of continental lorries, a lot heavier than 4x4.. so?


----------



## Giles (Jun 19, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> Which brings us to the question of should the higher congestion charge also include vehicles like 16 seater minibusses or 3 ton vans ?



In fact, minibuses with 9+ seats are exempt from the C.C. entirely. You just have to fill in a form and send it in to TfL.

Giles..


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 19, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> In fact, minibuses with 9+ seats are exempt from the C.C. entirely. You just have to fill in a form and send it in to TfL.
> 
> Giles..



As were LWB Landys last-time I sold one to someone in Chelsea.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> Should small businesses be made to have 2 cars - one for work and one of home because you don't like SUV's on the streets of london ?!


Why would a business need a _Sports_ Utility Vehicle?


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> The continued argument that 4x4 are gas guzzling monster also falls down under scrutiny.


You're missing the point spectacularly.

By buying a needlessly over-engineered, resource hogging, dangerous, bulked out intimidating beast of a fashion statement, the owner is pumping out far more pollution than if they bought a car appropriate to their needs rather than their desire to look stylish.

You might say it's their right to buy any massive car they choose. 

I'd say that their responsibility to the environment, other drivers and pedestrians should come before their need to look hip.


----------



## rich! (Jun 20, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> I love the generaisation, but what * extra * wear, if the driverr were in a saloon car instead of a 4x4 parts would still be wearing, but why extra?
> 
> The roads are constructed to bear the weight of continental lorries, a lot heavier than 4x4.. so?



wear and tear on roads goes up with the *fourth power* of the axle load of the vehicle. (Which is why the new >40ton load capacity lorries must have 6 axles)

(source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506830.hcsp at the bottom)

So a 50% heavier 2-axle vehicle is 2.44 times more damaging to the roads it traverses.

Which, coincidentally, is almost exactly the increase in congestion charge they would be paying under this plan!


----------



## laptop (Jun 20, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> wear and tear on roads goes up with the *fourth power* of the axle load of the vehicle.



Has it been settled? Last I checked, the Department of Transport wasn't sure whether it was the fourth power - or the *sixth*


----------



## rich! (Jun 20, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> Has it been settled? Last I checked, the Department of Transport wasn't sure whether it was the fourth power - or the *sixth*



oooh, interesting. That was a DFT page; Hansard quotes "fourth power", but I've seen "cubed" bandied around.

*goes off to worship at google again*

Australian statistical modelling of road damage, 2001, fourth power:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00128000002000103000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Wikipedia on 1950's measured study, establishes fourth-power result:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHO_Road_Test

you got a reference for that sixth power? 'cos that would be very high wear indeed...


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why would a business need a _Sports_ Utility Vehicle?



I've covered that allready , read my posts please then you'll know


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> needlessly over-engineered, resource hogging, dangerous, bulked out intimidating beast of a fashion statement



Any chance of toning down the hyperbole?

You're losing the plot on this one.


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Any chance of toning down the hyperbole?
> 
> You're losing the plot on this one.


Any chance of you toning down the ad hominens?

My description of SUVs is perfectly accurate.


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> I've covered that allready , read my posts please then you'll know


No. All you've done is present a case where a business might need an estate car or a small van, but you haven't come up with a remoitely credible reason why a city business would need a large, extra-rugged, fashionable sports vehicle designed for off road activities.


----------



## Giles (Jun 20, 2006)

How is a Land Rover "intimidating"? 

I don't anthropomorphise cars and trucks when I drive around, and I am sure that most other people don't either. 

I drove past a double decker bus yesterday (several of them in fact) and I didn't even feel "intimidated" by them, and they are quite big!

Giles..


----------



## jæd (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> No. All you've done is present a case where a business might need an estate car or a small van, but you haven't come up with a remoitely credible reason why a city business would need a large, extra-rugged, fashionable sports vehicle designed for off road activities.



So you would rather a business in London would buy a car and a van...? And then pay for the maintaining of both...? Using double the resources so that your prejudice is met...? And where shall this small business park both its vehicles...?




			
				Giles said:
			
		

> I don't anthropomorphise cars and trucks when I drive around, and I am sure that most other people don't either.



What was the comment I made...? Something about the opponents of 4x4's using emotive arguments. And the Editor said *I* was stereotyping...!


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 20, 2006)

It's rather telling that none of the 'pro-SUV' camp on here have come up with any sort of sensible answer to the point that SUVs are more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists (or other drivers, for that matter) than ordinary-sized cars...


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> How is a Land Rover "intimidating"?


It's big. It's large. It's tall. You can't see over it. If you're a cyclist you can't see the road ahead. They tower over city streets. They're over-sized for the job. _They're simply too chuffing big for city streets _ and are  *DANGEROUS* to others.

Morevoer, they represent a needless waste of resources and because of their needless bulk, weight and size they create needless pollution in the name of fashion.


----------



## laptop (Jun 20, 2006)

rich! said:
			
		

> you got a reference for that sixth power? 'cos that would be very high wear indeed...



Just the one so far: 


> http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JFE/bin/get6.cgi?directory=July99/&filename=martin.html
> 
> The relative damaging effect of an axle is considered to be approximately proportional to the fourth power of the load [1, 30]. However, this has been found to be an under-estimate for flexible pavements on weak subgrades such as peat [3, 23], where damage has been found to be proportional to the sixth power and higher.
> 
> ...



So it appears to be a higher power than four for roads on soggy substrate. Such as over a leaking water main or other incipient pothole.

NB: I'm not asserting the damage *does* go as the sixth power of axle weight: I am saying that as far as I can tell it's not settled what the relatioship is.


----------



## Giles (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's big. It's large. It's tall. You can't see over it. If you're a cyclist you can't see the road ahead. They tower over city streets. They're over-sized for the job. _They're simply too chuffing big for city streets _ and are  *DANGEROUS* to others.
> 
> Morevoer, they represent a needless waste of resources and because of their needless bulk, weight and size they create needless pollution in the name of fashion.



I still don't find them "intimidating", any more than I find buses, coaches, vans or lorries "intimidating". And to drive, sitting higher up gives a much better view of the road ahead.

Giles..


----------



## trashpony (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I still don't find them "intimidating", any more than I find buses, coaches, vans or lorries "intimidating". And to drive, sitting higher up gives a much better view of the road ahead.
> 
> Giles..



Yes - and everyone driving behind you can't see a thing except for your fat arse. 

But hey? You can see really well so who gives a fuck?


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

If you want the best view walk or ride.


----------



## jæd (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's big. It's large. It's tall. You can't see over it. If you're a cyclist you can't see the road ahead. They tower over city streets.



Um... How tall are you...? I'm 5ft 8inches, and I don't find them intimidating, or towering over city streets... What do you make of Double-deckker buses...?


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> And to drive, sitting higher up gives a much better view of the road ahead.


And a much greater chance of killing fellow drivers and pedestrians.





> SOMEONE struck by a large sports utility vehicle is more than twice as likely to die as someone hit by a saloon car travelling at the same speed. The finding by American researchers will add further weight to calls for SUVs - sporty vehicles with a high, blunt-fronted body atop a broad chassis - to be made safer.
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024253.300.html





> People in small cars are 12 times more likely to be killed than those in a 4x4 when the vehicles collide, according to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The study found that the rise in sales of 4x4s and people-carriers was causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1534514,00.html


----------



## trashpony (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> If you want the best view walk or ride.



 

So not liking SUVs is okay if you're a cyclist or a pedestrian but not if you're a driver or motorbike rider?


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> I still don't find them "intimidating", any more than I find buses, coaches, vans or lorries "intimidating".


As a cyclist in London I find all of the above intimidating.


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> What do you make of Double-deckker buses...?


Not this again.

Double decker buses are built to carry large amounts of passengers. Therefore they need to be large.

However, if they were built in the aggressive , over-sized style of a SUV and driven accordingly, I'd certainly find them considerably more  intimidating.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> So not liking SUVs is okay if you're a cyclist or a pedestrian but not if you're a driver or motorbike rider?



Like what you will.  You'll simply get the best views of the world if you do not have steel and glass wrapped all around you!


----------



## trashpony (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> Like what you will.  You'll simply get the best views of the world if you do not have steel and glass wrapped all around you!



Yes I know. I was making my point in _specific _response to giles' that driving an SUV affords him a better view. Personally I'm not keen on being behind them on my bicycle either - it's no better or worse.


----------



## laptop (Jun 20, 2006)

If I ever learn to drive, it's got to be one of these:







I expect the fuel consumption is worse than an SUV, but the hazard to other road users slightly less


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> If I ever learn to drive, it's got to be one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> I expect the fuel consumption is worse than an SUV, but the hazard to other road users slightly less



The tank is where the SUV argument ends.  

1.  In order for me to be safe with SUV's on the road I must get a bigger vehicle

2.  What other vehicle can I fit all the kids in for the school run and not risk getting scratched when parking

3.  How to get justice with people who put fake parking tickets on my vehicle

4.  Protect myself from any attacks from anyone trying to scratch my vehicle

5.  I can sit on the roof to get a good view

6.  Is it selfish of me to dirve a tank to protect myself and my family from contact with any other road user?

7.  I will not even notice it when I run over any inconvient pedestrians or cyclists who get in MY way


----------



## Giles (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> People in small cars are 12 times more likely to be killed than those in a 4x4 when the vehicles collide, according to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The study found that the rise in sales of 4x4s and people-carriers was causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars.
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...534514,00.html



So, people-carriers are also bad, then? Obviously, smaller vehicles afford less accident protection than bigger ones. This has always been the case. 

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Should everyone be forced to drive small, lightweight cars, just so no-one has a better chance of survival in an accident?

What if you have 4 kids and want a Renault Espace or similar? They are big and high. Or, god forbid, a 7 seater jeep of some kind? Should you have to travel in 2 small cars so as not to offend other road users? I don't buy this at all.

Giles..


----------



## The Groke (Jun 20, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> but the hazard to other road users slightly less



Not if its loaded surely....

Not sure I would be able to keep my finger from the trigger - especially here in Dubai...


----------



## laptop (Jun 20, 2006)

The Groke said:
			
		

> Not if its loaded surely....



I was relying on my good sense and calm temperament  

Aided by the security of knowing my vehicle was harder than anything else on the road.


----------



## rich! (Jun 20, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> Just the one so far:
> 
> So it appears to be a higher power than four for roads on soggy substrate. Such as over a leaking water main or other incipient pothole.
> 
> NB: I'm not asserting the damage *does* go as the sixth power of axle weight: I am saying that as far as I can tell it's not settled what the relatioship is.



So, heavy vehicles are *even more* damaging on crappy roads than usual - and, presumably, driving on low-grade country roads, off-road entirely, and so forth, a vehicle with 50% heavier axle-weight goes from 5 times more damaging to 11 times more damaging.

Good argument for keeping heavy vehicles to high-quality roads, not countryside


----------



## rich! (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> You pays your money and you takes your choice.



Do you mind if those of us choosing to use non-polluting transport spend the money we saved on rocket-propelled grenades? I *choose* to clear the road ahead of people in motor vehicles....


 


(in fact, the modern mountain bike with suspension should take an RPG-launching facility pretty well. May yet become the latest urban cyclist accessory...)

And remember: studies show an RPG-equipped cyclist is no more dangerous, pound for pound, than an SUV.


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> No. All you've done is present a case where a business might need an estate car or a small van, but you haven't come up with a remoitely credible reason why a city business would need a large, extra-rugged, fashionable sports vehicle designed for off road activities.




Estate cars are not suitable , to use my father as an example again , he used an estate car but it didn't have the right capapcity to put the stuff in and an SUV did , as for the small van since the SUV is the business and personal vehicle either you think he should get 2 vehicles or he could stick my nephew in the back of the van where it's really unsafe ! I know which option I'd prefer ( and it's the one that doesn't risk my nephews life ) .


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles, 

Do you accept that climate change is real and as a direct result of human activity?
Do you accept that in a society one should pay for their consumption and the effect of this consumption on others?
Do you accept that one should not be more vunrable when on the road because they cannot afford to invest in a large and ofton expensive vehicle?

If you accept the above I cannot see a reason one can justify driving an overspecified vehicle as you are just adding to the problems.

If you reject the above please state your objections.  Lets get to the heart of the matter.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> My description of SUVs is perfectly accurate.



No, it's not. 
It is a description _of your opinion_.

Tabloids do this a lot. Dressing up opinion as fact.


----------



## Giles (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> Giles,
> 
> Do you accept that climate change is real and as a direct result of human activity?
> Do you accept that in a society one should pay for their consumption and the effect of this consumption on others?
> ...



Climate change: yes, up to a point. I also think that "climate change" very conveniently provides the powers-that-be in many countries with an excuse for loads more taxes and restrictions on people's behaviour.

Your second point, no, not really. Who are you supposed to "pay for your consumption" and how does that make that consumption OK because you have paid for it?

Third point, no. You can choose what kind of car to drive. To take your statement to its logical conclusion, everyone would have to drive the same car, to iron out inequalities in safety, and I regard that as an intolerable intrusion on people's freedom. Some people want a sports car, some people want a van, some people want a Volvo, some people want a hatchback. Some people will be able to afford a brand-new car, bristling with airbags, extra steel bars in the doors, and all sorts of safety technology. Other people will be stuck with a 15 year old car.

What you can "justify" to yourself is a question of how green you want to be. Real greens would feel that they can't justify owning any kind of car at all, and won't take planes. Others assuage their conscience with Toyota Prius's etc, others will draw the line at a small car. I reserve the right to drive what I want. I don't have an SUV, by the way.

Giles..


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> To take your statement to its logical conclusion, everyone would have to drive the same car, to iron out inequalities in safety,



And the last time that happened, the bugger's had fibreglass bodywork and ended up hanging precariously, nose end over U2 concerts.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

Thanks for that Giles, briefly...

At heart I'm a capatilist and believe that people should have choice over how they spend their cash.  However it is up to the state to tax folk for consumption which has a negative affect upon society.  So if you choose to drive a bigger car which consumes more then it should be paid for.  Therefore paying a fair price for your consumption can make it fair as the taxes go back to society to pay for your 'external costs' on society.

The point I was making about vunrability is based on the argument that 'I dirve a big fuck off car to protect my kids and myself'.  If we follow this argument for a road user to be safe they must always get a bigger vehicle, such as a tank.

Drive what you want.  Just pay for it.

On a personal note I was involved in an accident with a 4x4.  The Range Rover rolled as it had a blow out on the motorway.  The driver died, passangers badly hurt and the acident caused carnage.  It would not have rolled with a regular veicle.  This is one of many reasons why I believe financial tools should be used to make them more socially unacceptable.

I no longer have a car.  I can not justify owing one.  Personally I think car ownership and usage is far too cheap and a driver does not even come close to paying for the real cost of car usage.


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> So if you choose to drive a bigger car which consumes more then it should be paid for.  Therefore paying a fair price for your consumption can make it fair as the taxes go back to society to pay for your 'external costs' on society.
> 
> 
> Drive what you want.  Just pay for it.



What about fuel duty then . If SUV's are so polluting and uneconomical then surely they will do less MPG than other vehicles so the owners will be paying more tax on fuel to travel the same distance as someone in a more fuel efficient car , what your wanting to do is use a system put in place to reduce congestion in London - which is why it's called a congestion charge - to further your political aims . 

I support the congestion charge if it's being used for it's stated purpose but if it's being used as taxation through the back door and for people to push their political agenda , which is what seems to be suggested by comments on this thread and the article I would rather see it abolished !


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

and I've found an SUV game as well 

http://www.esuvee.com/game/


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> No, it's not.
> It is a description _of your opinion_.
> Tabloids do this a lot. Dressing up opinion as fact.


Well, let's hear you challenge it then.

Here we go. I said that SUVs are:

1. Needlessly over-engineered
2. Resource hogging
3. Dangerous


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> If SUV's are so polluting and uneconomical then surely they will do less MPG than other vehicles so the owners will be paying more tax on fuel to travel the same distance as someone in a more fuel efficient car , what your wanting to do is use a system put in place to reduce congestion in London - which is why it's called a congestion charge - to further your political aims .


Why don't you think that people should be actively encouraged to drive city-friendly, pedestrian friendly, low polluting vehicles with low fuel consumption?


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why don't you think that people should be actively encouraged to drive city-friendly, pedestrian friendly, low polluting vehicles with low fuel consumption?




I do think they should be encouraged to drive pedestrian friendly , low polluting vehicles with low fuel consumption that is why you'll notice I haven't said SUV's aren't polluting or city unfriendly anywhere if you want to check back through my posts . I just think shoving extra congestion charge for SUV is an oversimplistic way of doing it and to me it sounds like people wanting to use a system intended for 1 purpose to serve their own needs , a thing which most people on this board would be up in arms about if it was a subject we disagreed with . 
There have been alternatives to increasing the congestion charge suggested but you you haven't commented on those yet , and increasing the congestion charge will only have an impact on London , why not try to find an alternative action that will benefit the whole country ?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Well, let's hear you challenge it then.
> 
> Here we go. I said that SUVs are:
> 
> ...



Most new vehicles are over engineered
All vehicles are resource hogging
All vehicles, by their very nature, are dangerous.


You forgot:
4. Over-inflated chunk of menacing metal
5. Bulked out
6. Intimidating
7. Over-priced 
8. Fashion statements

Do you not conceed that they are your opinions, and _not_ a factual description? 
This is not about whether or not I agree with SUV's. It is about your ability to have a reasoned debate on the subject without resorting to semi hyserical ranting when offered opinions and data that counter your opinion of SUV's


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> This is not about whether or not I agree with SUV's. It is about your ability to have a reasoned debate on the subject without resorting to semi hyserical ranting when offered opinions and data that counter your opinion of SUV's


I see you *still* haven't troubled yourself to _actually answer any of my points _- in particular about the increased danger posed by these vehicles.

As for the other bits you're requoted:

4. Over-inflated chunk of menacing metal  - yep, that's my opinion on some SUVs
5. Bulked out - absolutely true. They don't_ need _to be that big.
6. Intimidating - to a lot of people, absolutely (look it up)
7. Over-priced - for the functionality, no question about it
8. Fashion statements - to a lot of people, most certainly.

See, I'm prepared to engage with this debate, whereas you're only capable of poting up a stream of increasingly tedious ad hominen attacks ("Semi hysterical ranting", FFS)


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> What about fuel duty then . If SUV's are so polluting and uneconomical then surely they will do less MPG than other vehicles so the owners will be paying more tax on fuel to travel the same distance as someone in a more fuel efficient car , what your wanting to do is use a system put in place to reduce congestion in London - which is why it's called a congestion charge - to further your political aims .
> 
> I support the congestion charge if it's being used for it's stated purpose but if it's being used as taxation through the back door and for people to push their political agenda , which is what seems to be suggested by comments on this thread and the article I would rather see it abolished !



Thats a fine argument if you accept that tax on fuel covers the true cost of burinng it.  I do not.  Burning more fuel costs society more.

Take a look at a interesting article by George Monbiet entitled 'Passive Driving' , which references a EU paper attributing 39,000 deaths in this country which are caused or hastened by air pollution.  Fuel duty cannot pay for this.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/01/passive-driving/


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm prepared to engage with this debate, whereas you're only capable of poting up a stream of increasingly tedious ad hominen attacks



And if our arguing roles were the other way around, you wouldn't be pressing me to clarify such issues as fact & opinion? Bollocks.

 Back at you.


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> And if our arguing roles were the other way around, you wouldn't be pressing me to clarify such issues as fact & opinion? Bollocks.


I see you're still doing your very best to avoid engaging with the debate. so I'll make it easier for you and do it one point at a time.

Research has proved 4x4s to be more dangerous to both other cars and pedestrians.

Can you refute this and if not, why are you defending the supposed right of people to selfishly endanger others by driving vehicles that are more likely to maim and kill?


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> Thats a fine argument if you accept that tax on fuel covers the true cost of burinng it.  I do not.  Burning more fuel costs society more.




I accept SUV's do more damage/cost more to soceity , I havenever said different . Why not address my points about using the congestion charge being used as a political tool and attempt to sneak taxation in through the back door ?
SUV's do not increase congestion any more than a car does so they should not pay more congestion charge . If the government have a problem with inefficient vehicles then why not increase tax on them at point of purchase or increase road tax for them , I just think the whole extra congestion charge is a stupid route to take !


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Can you refute this and if not, why are you defending the supposed right of people to selfishly endanger others by driving vehicles that are more likely to maim and kill?



and extra congestion charge will make SUV's safer how . If SUV's are given their own seperate classification for driving tests would hopefully mean it is harder for people to be able to drive them and maybe put people off buying one , and those that do drive SUV's will hopefully be proven to be better drivers , this idea has been suggested by 2 different people and generally been ignored rather than repeating the dangers of SUV's could you not comment on ideas to make them safer ?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I see you're still doing your very best to avoid engaging with the debate. so I'll make it easier for you and do it one point at a time.



Ah, I see. Lets go all sarcastic & condecending. Charming. 

I'm not defending them as you well know. 

I found your anti 4x4 ranting unhelpful and sometimes rather kneejerk - IMO.  and picked you up for claiming that your opinions were 'accurate descriptions'.
You've gotten very arsey with me for doing so.

Whatever.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> I accept SUV's do more damage/cost more to soceity , I havenever said different . Why not address my points about using the congestion charge being used as a political tool and attempt to sneak taxation in through the back door ?
> SUV's do not increase congestion any more than a car does so they should not pay more congestion charge . If the government have a problem with inefficient vehicles then why not increase tax on them at point of purchase or increase road tax for them , I just think the whole extra congestion charge is a stupid route to take !



Air polution is a bigger threat to human health in built up areas.

For that reason, as far as I am concerned, when a vehicle emits more polution, especially in a built up area the driver should be charged extra for this 'privlidge'.

Taxes are always a political tool.  Any why not?  If your goverment is into income re-distribution tax the rich, if your goverment is into making one form of transport less desirable than another encourage this though the tax system.

If we are getting hung up on the term 'Congestion' lets look at the bigger picture.  Big poluting vehicles make it less desarible for other non poluting road users to be walking, or cycling.  If more dangerours and poluting vehicles are on the road they'll force other people into cars.  And hence more congestion

I've alredy mentioned that once people start thinking that they need bigger cars to be safe then all cars need to be big to be safe and they must get bigger.

Lets use every tool possible to make these things socially unacceptable!


----------



## editor (Jun 20, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I found your anti 4x4 ranting unhelpful and sometimes rather kneejerk - IMO.  and picked you up for claiming that your opinions were 'accurate descriptions'.
> You've gotten very arsey with me for doing so.
> 
> Whatever.


Still don't fancy engaging with the debate then?

Oh well. I tried.


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> Air polution is a bigger threat to human health in built up areas.
> 
> For that reason, as far as I am concerned, when a vehicle emits more polution, especially in a built up area the driver should be charged extra for this 'privlidge'.
> 
> ...



How will this measure help people in other cities and towns though ? Don't you think an alternative method which can cover the whole country of making SUV's undesirable would be better than a London only system !


----------



## Termite Man (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> Air polution is a bigger threat to human health in built up areas.



Ban cars in built up areas then ! Something I doubt will happen while revenue is being made from those cars being there !


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> Ban cars in built up areas then ! Something I doubt will happen while revenue is being made from those cars being there !



I am not suggesting that.  However I quite like the idea.  I was answering you question about taxation for political reasons.  As far as the revenue do some research into 'true cost economics' and 'external costs' and you'll find many arguments that the cost of car ownership to the driver does not cover the cost to society.

Smoking has been baned in pubs in Scotland and soon to be in the UK.  Passive Smoking causes far fewer deaths than Passive Driving.

In the Inderpendant a couple of days ago there was a stat that around 2,000 pedestrians were killed by cars (in the uk in 2005).  Let alone direct and indirect deaths due to polution.

Try to imagne a far free city.  That would be bliss!

I accept that the car can be of use.  But why not make our streets for people and not for cars?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh well. I tried.



No, you didn't.


<waits for further sarcastic/condesending last word>


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> How will this measure help people in other cities and towns though ? Don't you think an alternative method which can cover the whole country of making SUV's undesirable would be better than a London only system !



Its just another tool.  I quite myself from the post

"Lets use every tool possible to make these things socially unacceptable!"


----------



## Giles (Jun 20, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> I am not suggesting that.  However I quite like the idea.  I was answering you question about taxation for political reasons.  As far as the revenue do some research into 'true cost economics' and 'external costs' and you'll find many arguments that the cost of car ownership to the driver does not cover the cost to society.
> 
> Smoking has been baned in pubs in Scotland and soon to be in the UK.  Passive Smoking causes far fewer deaths than Passive Driving.
> 
> ...



A car free city would not be "bliss". It would be a dead city. A hell of a lot of economic activity would simply relocate elsewhere, rather like has happened in loads of town centres where parking has been made so difficult and expensive that people doing "serious" shopping prefer to go to out-of-town centres where they can park outside.

Giles..


----------



## subversplat (Jun 20, 2006)

Isn't the safety argument even a bit misleading on SUVs? The high centre of gravity and boxy chassis means that it's rubbish in anything more than the lightest crashes and is predisposed to flipping itself over if driven evasively (you know, to _avoid_ a crash, rather than just ploughing through it). They are horribly over engineered, and I don't see why the manufacturers don't make a 2wd version which has much less wear on driving gear (as it only has one axle to power, it only has half the gear to wear out), would improve fuel consumption by a few percent and would be fine for my proposed new licence scheme thinger 

Still, as it stands now, getting the Mercedes M-Class means you've got the biggest, shiniest, most visibile Mercedes logo short of making a trip to a Merc truck dealer.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> A car free city would not be "bliss". It would be a dead city. A hell of a lot of economic activity would simply relocate elsewhere, rather like has happened in loads of town centres where parking has been made so difficult and expensive that people doing "serious" shopping prefer to go to out-of-town centres where they can park outside.
> 
> Giles..



I'll have to be breif on this one, but...

I was being idealistic.  I accept that cars are a tool for a functioning econonmy.  However they do distroy cities and make them unpleasnt places to inhabit if they are allowed unchecked.

I visited Prague before the Velvet Revolution, there were few cars on the road and I remember being amazed by the beauty of the city.  Now the city is poluted and many streets a stressful place to be.

Oxford is not particularly car friendly but commerece still does fine.  Infact many tourists visit this city because it is not completley clogged with cars.  However it still has a long way to go before I would say it was pedestran friendly compaired to other European cities, such as Copenhagen.

Now take it to the extreem.  Bangkok is a filthy poluted mess.  Cars travel this city unchecked.  It is overflowing with cars and has all the associated public health problems and takes an age to get around.

Now pick my arguments apart with population size and the realities of public investment.  However as a vision, a car free city would be bliss.  Think of the spaces you enjoy, are the congested?

Anyway I'm going off thread.  The bottom line is I don't like cars.  They kill, polute, look ugly, and stop people enjoying our urban spaces.  They may well have their benefits but my oppinion this is at a large costs.  I think I'll have to leave this debate now as I will not change my mind.


----------



## Giles (Jun 20, 2006)

subversplat said:
			
		

> Isn't the safety argument even a bit misleading on SUVs? The high centre of gravity and boxy chassis means that it's rubbish in anything more than the lightest crashes and is predisposed to flipping itself over if driven evasively (you know, to _avoid_ a crash, rather than just ploughing through it). They are horribly over engineered, and I don't see why the manufacturers don't make a 2wd version which has much less wear on driving gear (as it only has one axle to power, it only has half the gear to wear out), would improve fuel consumption by a few percent and would be fine for my proposed new licence scheme thinger
> 
> Still, as it stands now, getting the Mercedes M-Class means you've got the biggest, shiniest, most visibile Mercedes logo short of making a trip to a Merc truck dealer.



A lot of "4x4s" actually operate in 2WD mode most of the time for precisely the reasons you mention. My old Landrover Lightweight is usually just a 2WD car, driving the back wheels. I only use 4wd (and/or the low ratio gears) if stuck in sand or mud, or on a steep and slippery hilly road.

Giles..


----------



## Descartes (Jun 21, 2006)

ROFLMAO


Damage to roads.....  consider... tyre size... tyres on 4x4 are larger, contact area with road is larger.. i.e footprint.... weight is spread across a greater area thus weight per square centimetre is less ... smaller vehicles with smaller tyres exceed weight per square centimetre than 4x4..... fact of life, not opinion, not conjecture.

Over engineered. falsehood.... 4x4 do not comply with BSI crash standards, so... pracitically and scientifically the driver is in greater danger in a crash than the average saloon. 

4x4 do not kill or maim or injure.   they way they are driven causes the problems. So, a short test and acclimatisation for * drivers * would reduce ' supposed' or ' alleged' figures. 

Weight, Mitsubishi shogun  Gross vehicle weight kg  2510 

Weight Mitsubishi Lancer  Gross vehicle weight kg   1885

Weight BMW 520 max permissable:  (Kg )         	2150

Played with the Mercedes site.... got up to 117k in vehicle spec.... yer  dream on... S class with all the kit... but heavy and only 19.6 to the gallon.... and grams per kilo emissions    very high...lot higher than any 4x4 but hey that 's not part of the argument, is it? 

But back to the debate..

There is so much spurious info, It is unbelievable....  opinion and red top papers .. well say no more... excitable and misleading are a good start for descriptions... 

length and weight are just distraction to the real debate, and ... the wording of ' more 4x4 than...'  The large number of fatalities in accidents involving commercial vehicles, trucks, vans, light vans far exceed accidents in 4x4s. The type of accident, the vehicle responsibility for the accident is not given, just that a given type of vehicle was in an accident, again misleading.as to the cause.

The hyperbole from uninformed sources is the cause of more trouble than any 4x4 driven across the local common. 

The outlet for prejudices, social indignation, and class warfare are all tools to attack, what is only a motor vehicle, not the biggest, heaviest, the least miles per gallon, the most grams per kilo emissions and not the most determental to the roads or the enviroment

In consideration, a Porsche, in comparison, a tablespoon of petrol split onto the raod has a greater determental effect that a Porsche driven from London to Edinburgh.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> In consideration, a Porsche, in comparison, a tablespoon of petrol split onto the raod has a greater determental effect that a Porsche driven from London to Edinburgh.


Not sure what this "tablespoon" stuff is all about, but what's your opinion about the well-documented increased risk to pedestrians and fellow drivers brought about by people driving 4 x 4s?


----------



## subversplat (Jun 21, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> A lot of "4x4s" actually operate in 2WD mode most of the time for precisely the reasons you mention. My old Landrover Lightweight is usually just a 2WD car, driving the back wheels. I only use 4wd (and/or the low ratio gears) if stuck in sand or mud, or on a steep and slippery hilly road.
> 
> Giles..


I always thought Land Rover were one of the stalwarts of full-time 4x4s, but fair dues if you've got a modified one that is nicer to the world, but surely that's generally the reserve of somebody who's genuinely thought about their motor and what they want it to do - very much unlike people that buy them as a fashion-mobile where the most the 4x4 ability is going to do is help them climb an 8" curb. I'd _think_ that most people who took such an interest in having a 4x4 would be alright with taking an extra test to make sure they could use it properly, no?

I'm not against 4x4 motors on principle. Far from it! Having lived on some very muddy traveller sites in my life, having a mate with a Landcruiser has meant that my home doesn't sink into the earth  I'm just against the huge amount of misinformation spread (like SUVs being safer in all situations, which they're rather not) and that it's somehow fashionable to be driving a _horribly_ wasteful 4x4 in place of something perfectly adequate like a Citroen Picasso.


----------



## Descartes (Jun 21, 2006)

* Not sure what this "tablespoon" stuff is all about, *

All the accusations of gas guzzling and comments concerning emission damage... The Porsche 4x4 is a clear target for the anti brigade.

* but what's your opinion about the well-documented increased risk to pedestrians and fellow drivers brought about by people driving 4 x 4s? *

Inflammatory, to say the least.. the wording invariable adds 4x4 to the list of vehicles that are dangerous... but ignores the fact that all vehicles are dangerous to pedestrians. A lack of figures to confirm casts doubts on their veracity. 

If you want to put forward an argument on 4x4, a co relation between the number of accidnet where 4x4 were involved and not the supposition that a 4x4 could or would cause more damage becuse the words 4x4 could be suberstituted for any type of vehicle on the road. 

For example, sports cars built with a large body content of fibre glass or plastic 'will' cause increased damage and injuries to children unde rthe age of 14. But this does not go on to establish the truth of the statement by quoting the number of accidents or incidents involving fibre glass or plastic bodied vehicles with children of or under the age of...e tc etc.. but it makes good reading as a derogatory statement about sports cars. Suddenly, the public become aware of another danger to their children and swooosh   ... the safety crowd are off and running with the wording of an opinion. 

The 4x4 is seen as a target that cannot defend itself, but the increased sales world wide under mine the protests of fashion object, over engineered because the cry of over engineered immediately brings to mind a safer and better vehicle. Things won't drop off because it is overengineered, of course people want a vehilce that stands out from the crowd, all part of the ego and to make statements of fashion object... double whammy, people like the description.... self defeating, all the cries against the 4x4 are helping to sell more.... QED.    

The cries of waste of money, costs etc, well, to be seen driving one automatically means yu must have money to drive one... Ohhh must have one and the friends and neighbours will now we have made it... 

Fabulous reverse publicity. .. don't buy it unless you can afford it.. everyone wants one to show they* CAN *afford it... 

This is an excert from the BSI site:

John Lennox, the transport expert for BSI, announced in his speech on Corporate Killing at the Society of Operational Engineers annual conference last week that more must be done in terms of ensuring occupational health and safety (H&S) whilst driving vehicles.

John cited the unnerving statistic that 33 per cent of all road traffic accidents, that is to say crashes, involve people driving * FOR * work.

"Presently, the 'mobile workforce': * sales staff, company reps, van drivers etc, * by the nature of the job has low visibility and as a result is not seen as a high priority in terms of H&S by businesses and other organisations." says John Lennox. 

Wooow, ban all saleman and women.. immediately cut the accident rate by 33% Make all Ford and Vauxhalls stronger and safer... but, it is a massive generalisation.  it does not go on to defferentiate the type of journeys just that the people that cover the most mileage will have the most accidents.... DUH... defeats all logic, drive more have more accidents... the people spending hours and hours in their cars... etc etc.

The motor car is seen as the second most expensive object most people buy and it attracts all the attention, motor magazines prosper, TV programs develop their own personalities, all just driving and talking about Motor cars... so any section or model will attract atention be it good or bad depends on the needs of the moment.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jun 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Nah. Just slap a fucking huge charge on those selfish tossers in 4x4s/SUVs.



LOL. If a 4x4 owner stopped to let you cross the road, would you thank him/her ?

Would you accept a lift of a 4x4 owner? (You never know you could steal some lose change down the seats and swap it with used chewing gum).

4x4's aren't my thing, but I don't see the need for an extra congestion charge on them.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> LOL. If a 4x4 owner stopped to let you cross the road, would you thank him/her ?
> 
> Would you accept a lift of a 4x4 owner? (You never know you could steal some lose change down the seats and swap it with used chewing gum).


If all you've got to add to this debate is moronic comments like the above, kindly stay out of this thread.


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> If you want to put forward an argument on 4x4, a co relation between the number of accidnet where 4x4 were involved and not the supposition that a 4x4 could or would cause more damage becuse the words 4x4 could be suberstituted for any type of vehicle on the road.


There is ample documentation of the increased danger presented by 4x4s.



> UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage. Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.
> 
> Darren McCauley, head of car insurance at Churchill, says: 'Our data shows that 4x4s are more likely to be involved in urban accidents.
> 
> ...





> People in small cars are 12 times more likely to be killed than those in a 4x4 when the vehicles collide, according to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL). The study found that the rise in sales of 4x4s and people-carriers was causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars.
> 
> The research provides the first evidence in Britain that the popularity of big vehicles is a key factor in rising road deaths
> http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/safety.htm
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1534514,00.html






			
				Descartes said:
			
		

> The 4x4 is seen as a target that cannot defend itself,


What utter, utter tosh. The SUV is not some poor defenceless little thing being unfairly picked on by nasty environmentalists.

It is a product of a powerful $$$$ industry.

It is the pedestrians and fellow road users who are unable to defend themselves against this unsafe, dangerous brand of vehicle.


----------



## jæd (Jun 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> If all you've got to add to this debate is moronic comments like the above, kindly stay out of this thread.



"Moronic" comments and "selfish" "tossers". Not an emotional subject at all...!


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> "Moronic" comments and "selfish" "tossers". Not an emotional subject at all...!


Oh come on. His post was utter drivel.

People are entitled to feel passionate about the subject, but posting up wildly irrelevant drivel about "accepting lifts off 4x4 owners", "stealing some lose (sic) change" and "swapping it with used chewing gum" is just disruptive bullshit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> A car free city would not be "bliss". It would be a dead city. A hell of a lot of economic activity would simply relocate elsewhere, rather like has happened in loads of town centres where parking has been made so difficult and expensive that people doing "serious" shopping prefer to go to out-of-town centres where they can park outside.
> 
> Giles..



You're so right, Giles.

After all, London was absolutely *DEAD* for the 1900+ years of its' existence that motorised vehicles didn't exist, wasn't it?   

Perhaps, contrary to your doom-laden thesis, "business" would do what it  claims to be good at and adapt to new circumstances?


----------



## Giles (Jun 21, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You're so right, Giles.
> 
> After all, London was absolutely *DEAD* for the 1900+ years of its' existence that motorised vehicles didn't exist, wasn't it?
> 
> Perhaps, contrary to your doom-laden thesis, "business" would do what it  claims to be good at and adapt to new circumstances?



Before there were motor vehicles, there was mass horse-drawn transport - which caused pollution of its own - in Victorian days, there serious worries about what to do with all the horse-manure in the streets! 

My point is that if you attempt to "pedestrianise" large chunks of city centres, you end up with places that are just tourist attractions and no longer living, working city centres. A lot of the real business will adapt - it will move elsewhere.

Giles..


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> My point is that if you attempt to "pedestrianise" large chunks of city centres, you end up with places that are just tourist attractions and no longer living, working city centres. A lot of the real business will adapt - it will move elsewhere.


Why not just make the big city shopping streets bus/tram/taxi/delivery vehicle* only?

(*vans only allowed between certain hours)


----------



## rich! (Jun 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why not just make the big city shopping streets bus/tram/taxi/delivery vehicle* only?
> 
> (*vans only allowed between certain hours)



Worked for the ancient Romans - pretty much the first civilisation to restrict deliveries to nighttime hours...


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jun 22, 2006)

FWD OWNERS 'MORE LIKELY TO USE PHONES WHILE DRIVING'
By Peter Woodman, PA Transport Correspondent
Owners of four-wheel drive vehicles are more likely to flout mobile phone and seatbelt laws than other drivers, it was revealed today.
A study of driving habits showed showed that drivers of 4x4 off-roaders were four times more likely to use a hand-held mobile while behind the wheel than other other motorists, a report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) said.
The 4x4 drivers were also more likely not to comply with seatbelt regulations.
The study took place at three different sites in Hammersmith, west London.
A total of 38,182 normal cars and 2,944 4x4 vehicles were studied. Overall, 15.3% of drivers were not wearing seatbelts and 2.5% were using hand-held mobiles while at the wheel.
The first observations were carried out in February 2004, within the "grace" period regarding use of hand-held mobile phones, during which police only cautioned offenders.
Observations were repeated one month later, after police began to impose penalties for non-compliance with the new law.
Levels of non-compliance with both laws were slightly higher in the penalty phase of observation than during the grace period, and breaking one law was associated with an increased likelihood of breaking the other.
The BMJ study authors said: "Our data show a worryingly high level of non-compliance with laws on seatbelts and hand-held mobile phones by drivers in London, and almost no effect of the end of the grace period on the use of a mobile phone while driving.
"Our observation that almost one in six drivers was not wearing a seatbelt is a major public health concern."


----------



## Dan U (Jun 22, 2006)

blimey, 12 pages

4x4 = shit for london. getters?


----------



## Descartes (Jun 22, 2006)

Don't yer just love the wording......are more likely....  note the asociation... _A total of 38,182 normal cars and 2,944 4x4 vehicles were studied. Overall, 15.3% of drivers were not wearing seatbelts and 2.5% were using hand-held mobiles while at the wheel._

* Overall * 15.3% and 2.5%  total of 38k and 2,900    isn't that a toal of 41,126 vehicle, the percentage give 15.3 and 2.5% of the * overall* gives.....  6292.2 and 1028 but without the exact groupings... flawed argument.

* Our observation that almost one in six drivers was not wearing a seatbelt is a major public health concern." *

almost one in six... one in 6.5 people, please.  but driving what vehicles...

But, wait a moment: a voice in the wilderness: 

Paul Everett, from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said this style of vehicle had become very popular because they were "useful and flexible."

"The environmental performance of your average 4x4 is no worse than a large saloon or people carrier," he told BBC News.

"In many cases the safety performance of these vehicles is better than many other vehicles on the road.

"People do find the raised driving style to be safer, they see more of the road, feel more in control and in many cases drive more responsibly." 

What...


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Paul Everett, from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said this style of vehicle had become very popular because they were "useful and flexible."
> 
> "The environmental performance of your average 4x4 is no worse than a large saloon or people carrier," he told BBC News.


Well, there's a fabulously unbiased source for you.


----------



## Descartes (Jun 22, 2006)

Another voice of reason:
The anti-4x4 movement has no reasonable foundation. For every excuse they use to "justify" their obsessive hatred, the worst performer is not a 4x4 and many 4x4s fare better than many non-4x4 types. For example, many 4x4 types return more than 30 mpg while many non-4x4 types return much less. It's the same for every excuse the anti-4x4 movement cite. The anti-4x4 movement don't campaign against "gas guzzlers", vehicles with large footprints, etc; they campaign only against 4x4s while ignoring the many vehicles that return fewer miles to the gallon, take up more space, etc.

The anti-4x4 movement can't define in measurable terms what it is they are against. For example, on the web-site of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s [sic] is a picture and words to the effect of "this is what we mean". Nowhere do they give a measurable benchmark that can be used to determine whether a particular vehicle is, or is not, a "4x4".

The only way they can "define" what they are against is by physical appearance, and that suggests they are against 4x4s because they don't like the look of them. Because they can't define what they are against in measurable terms, any anti-4x4 legislation must be based on subjective criteria - you would or would not pay extra taxes etc. depending on whether some bureaucrat likes the look of your car!

It gets more perverse (and you couldn't make this up!) ... the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s say they are not against 4x4s! On their website, they say, "We aren't concerned about four-wheel drive in itself ..." Now, 4x4 means a four wheeled vehicle driven by all four wheels, so any campaign that "isn't concerned about four-wheel drive" is not, by definition, against 4x4s.

I suggest that the anti-4x4 movement don't know exactly what they are against and I have to ask how then can anyone else know!

So, the anti-4x4 campaign has absolutely no reasonable foundation. Having spoken to several of the anti-4x4 movement, the real reasons appear to be misplaced jealousy and class hatred. I strongly suspect that the anti-4x4 campaign is an excuse to incite social hatred against the sector of society that its leaders associate with 4x4 ownership. As such, that campaign is evil, as abominable as any other unjust prejudice or discrimination, and its leaders reprehensible.

Wooow


----------



## oicur0t (Jun 22, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> So, the anti-4x4 campaign has absolutely no reasonable foundation. Having spoken to several of the anti-4x4 movement, the real reasons appear to be misplaced jealousy and class hatred. I strongly suspect that the anti-4x4 campaign is an excuse to incite social hatred against the sector of society that its leaders associate with 4x4 ownership. As such, that campaign is evil, as abominable as any other unjust prejudice or discrimination, and its leaders reprehensible



teehee, you are a wag!


----------



## Descartes (Jun 23, 2006)

There is an anti 4x4 article in todays Independent, ... what a crock full of smelly stuff...... 

When comments such as : Department of Transport, 2005

Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.

ROFLMAO   that just about sez it all... 

I cannot think of anything so totally absurd to back up s supposed serious article, brings the whole thing into disrepute... 

The our good friends ... Alliance Against Urban 4x4s

Range Rovers with a 4.4-litre engine have an urban mpg of 12.2 and emit 389g carbon dioxide per kilometre. In contrast, a Ford Mondeo 2-litre fuel-injected saloon has an urban mpg of 25 and emits 190g carbon dioxide. A Smart car emits 138g carbon dioxide.

Why not compare it with a 16 litre Scania, not there is a gas guzzling beast,,,, four times larger than the Range Rover, it makes the Range Riover look like a Esso Economy run winner.  

The problem, it's just jumping on a ... 4x4 band wagon.. LOL...


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 23, 2006)

<tries to take a wild stab at guessing what kind of vehicle Descartes drives>


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> So, the anti-4x4 campaign has absolutely no reasonable foundation. Having spoken to several of the anti-4x4 movement, the real reasons appear to be misplaced jealousy and class hatred.


Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 23, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Another voice of reason:
> The anti-4x4 movement has no reasonable foundation. For every excuse they use to "justify" their obsessive hatred, the worst performer is not a 4x4 and many 4x4s fare better than many non-4x4 types. For example, many 4x4 types return more than 30 mpg while many non-4x4 types return much less. It's the same for every excuse the anti-4x4 movement cite. The anti-4x4 movement don't campaign against "gas guzzlers", vehicles with large footprints, etc; they campaign only against 4x4s while ignoring the many vehicles that return fewer miles to the gallon, take up more space, etc.
> 
> The anti-4x4 movement can't define in measurable terms what it is they are against. For example, on the web-site of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s [sic] is a picture and words to the effect of "this is what we mean". Nowhere do they give a measurable benchmark that can be used to determine whether a particular vehicle is, or is not, a "4x4".
> ...



Hey Descartes

Go way back to the begining of this thread.  I recall the subject is something about cars with an emmision of over a certain threshold being charged an extra congestion charge.  This is a clear defination and can easily be applied to all newly resestered vehicles

It provides a clear signal to anyone who buys a new vehicle that if they want to polute more they have to pay more.  4 x 4 vehicles generally have a level of emmisions over this threashold.  And as it happens they are fastest growing niche of cars which have emmisions over this threashold.  Cars which produce more polution than necessary are of no benefit to anyone.

The aim of this tax, and how it is planned to be applied is clear to me.


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> There is an anti 4x4 article in todays Independent, ... what a crock full of smelly stuff......


Be sure to list the areas where they've got their facts wrong.


Meanwhile, some excerpts:





> The researchers found drivers of 4x4s were almost four times more likely to be seen using hand-held mobiles. They were also less likely to use seat belts.
> 
> Last October the BMJ published an American study showing that 4x4s were more dangerous to pedestrians than normal cars. Tests showed that people who were hit by the vehicles in accidents were four times more likely to die than those hit by other cars.
> 
> Dr Walker said: "In general 4x4s reduce the risk for their occupants but increase the risk for everyone else. In using a 4x4, instead of a normal car, one's chance of death or serious injury falls by four in 1,000 but the chance of killing or injuring others rises by 11 in 1,000, with a resulting cost to the community."





> f a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed than if they were hit by a saloon car.
> 
> New Scientist


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1095828.ece


----------



## jæd (Jun 23, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.



Ooh... So... Obviously driving a 4x4 causes road rage, innit...


----------



## jæd (Jun 23, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> Go way back to the begining of this thread.  I recall the subject is something about cars with an emmision of over a certain threshold being charged an extra congestion charge.  This is a clear defination and can easily be applied to all newly resestered vehicles
> 
> It provides a clear signal to anyone who buys a new vehicle that if they want to polute more they have to pay more.  4 x 4 vehicles generally have a level of emmisions over this threashold.  And as it happens they are fastest growing niche of cars which have emmisions over this threashold.  Cars which produce more polution than necessary are of no benefit to anyone.



Well... This might apply to older 4x4 but aren't "greener" 4x4s being manufactered...!


----------



## kingmaker (Jun 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> "The researchers found drivers of 4x4s were almost four times more likely to be seen using hand-held mobiles. They were also less likely to use seat belts.
> "



You are not seriously suggesting these people would miraculously start wearing seat belts and switching off their phones if they drove normal cars


----------



## trashpony (Jun 23, 2006)

kingmaker said:
			
		

> You are not seriously suggesting these people would miraculously start wearing seat belts and switching off their phones if they drove normal cars



I think he's suggesting that drivers of 4x4s are more likely to be stupid tossers than most drivers actually. Well - that was my interpretation of the research


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Well... This might apply to older 4x4 but aren't "greener" 4x4s being manufactered...!


Still nowhere near as "green" as a car that hasn't been monstrously over-engineered and bulked out in the name of fashion and style.

Oh, and 'safety' at the expense of everyone else.


----------



## kingmaker (Jun 23, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I think he's suggesting that drivers of 4x4s are more likely to be stupid tossers than most drivers actually.



 Might be true- but they are still gonna be stupid tossers in Beamers or people carriers or whatever........


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2006)

kingmaker said:
			
		

> You are not seriously suggesting these people would miraculously start wearing seat belts and switching off their phones if they drove normal cars


The research suggests that the inflated sense of security brought on by people driving these dangerous tanks around town might make some of their drivers less concerned about safety.

If they were, for example, pedalling a bike around town instead, I wouldn't be surprised if they started paying a bit more attention.


----------



## kingmaker (Jun 23, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> The research suggests that the inflated sense of security brought on by people driving these dangerous tanks around town might make some of their drivers less concerned about safety.



Maybe, but I think it has more to do with the type of people that choose 4x4s in the first place......, but I hear what you are saying)


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 23, 2006)

Does any know anything about 4 x 4's having to be technically classed as trucks in the US and the EU as in general they fail car emission thresholds?


----------



## scott_forester (Jun 24, 2006)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Can't see how anyone could argue effectively against it actually...



When you look into this Ken isn't suggesting higher congestion charging just on 4x4's he's actually saying he's going to base it on carbon emissions to paraphrase he said 'if a car has more than double the average carbon emissions you should pay twice, if more then three times you pay triple and so on' 

If this is what he does, whats the average carbon emission? And does this mean black cab's, trucks and old cars will pay more as well?


----------



## jæd (Jun 24, 2006)

Well... "When you see someone trying to manoeuvre it round the school gates, you have to think, you are a complete idiot" can be reported as "KEN CALLS 4x4 DRIVERS IDIOTS", and thats a much better soundbite.


----------



## sorter (Jul 9, 2006)

the majority of you are class snobs, and know NOTHING about engines, cars, emmissions, 4 wheel drive systems or owning a 'practical' motor.

research people for gods sake, and learn that there are as many cars as damaging to the planet, as there are 4x4s that are good to it!!

if you have a problem with people swanning around in a 60k range rover then just say so, instead of hiding behind the 4x4s are planet killers 'bandwagon'. distribute your hate towards M-B s class, 7 series, imprezza, lancer, RS4, S6, M3, M5, M6, C36, E55, SL55, XJ, XK, 350Z, Alfa Romeo, Bentley, Rolls, 911, 996, Boxster, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Maserati owners etc etc.............

i can list 4x4s that do over 35mpg if you wish.............

decide where your argument is coming from, and stick to it. please.

some of you sound like dicks...........


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2006)

sorter said:
			
		

> research people for gods sake, and learn that there are as many cars as damaging to the planet, as there are 4x4s that are good to it!!


Tell me how an over-enginnered, over-sized, resource-hogging 4x4 is "good for the planet" please.






			
				sorter said:
			
		

> if you have a problem with people swanning around in a 60k range rover then just say so, instead of hiding behind the 4x4s are planet killers 'bandwagon'. distribute your hate towards M-B s class, 7 series, imprezza, lancer, RS4, S6, M3, M5, M6, C36, E55, SL55, XJ, XK, 350Z, Alfa Romeo, Bentley, Rolls, 911, 996, Boxster, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Maserati owners etc etc............


Thing is, they're not the fastest growing sector of cars in the UK are they? That's why SUVs and 4x4s are being rightly targeted.


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> Does any know anything about 4 x 4's having to be technically classed as trucks in the US and the EU as in general they fail car emission thresholds?



I'm sure that the manufacturers invented SUVs as something that would technically be classed as a "truck" - *in order to evade* US emissions standards.

That is, to be able to sell vehicles to little pricks who think gas-guzzling has something to do with potency.

You see the difference?


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?



Cars are more dangerous than bikes. If you got your own way, you would only start to campaign for ever smaller and smaller cars until there was none at all.

Busses are way more dangerous than 4x4s..a mate of mine knows, he was knocked over by one and it was the bus drivers fault. 

Another friend of mine almost lost both her legs and spent over a year in a wheelchair thanks to a bus she was waiting, knocking her from the bus stop straight through a shop window.

I don't see the reason for singling out 4x4s for their size, when there is far larger vehicles on the road.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Cars are more dangerous than bikes. If you got your own way, you would only start to campaign for ever smaller and smaller cars until there was none at all.


I'll tell you what. When you've stopped trying to shove your stupid words down my mouth, I might just bother to engage with your 'points.'



			
				TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Busses are way more dangerous than 4x4s..a mate of mine knows, he was knocked over by one and it was the bus drivers fault.


Irrelevant drivel.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what. When you've stopped trying to shove your stupid words down my mouth, I might just bother to engage with your 'points.'
> Irrelevant drivel.



Alright then, on a personal level I'll let you off the charge that you would campaign until there are no cars on the road, but you do see my point though don't you. If you carry over the logic that 4x4s are more dangerous simply because they are bigger than normal cars, then surely people would want to keep up the campaign against cars with the exact same argument that they are more dangerous than bikes. Just because one vehicle happens to me more dangerous than the other, I still see no logical reason to tax it or ban it from city centres.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 10, 2006)

*Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?*

The arugment and statistics used to 'prop up' this argument are using the old and original American 4x4, the type of chassis and body construction has now been supeceded by a monocoque and integral body and floor pan method of assembly. This allows progressively collapsable impact areas and undermines the argument of the danger to the pederstrian being sufficiently greater than the car. But, any car and 4x4 of similar weight will create similar damamge on impact. Simple, equation of momentum, mass weight/speed/impact.

Now, the argument of bumper height, do a simple test, walk up to say a, Chrysler jeep, check front bumper height, stand alongside and just hold a finger aagainst your leg as to the top plane of the bumper.... then check that against.. say a Rover metro... 

For a normal traffic accident,  rear of the Metro car and the front of following Jeep,  hmmm, there are almost identical,   Try it, this high lights and contradicts the misconceptions about the supposed difference between the vehicles.  

The present range of 4x4 built for the European market do not have the huge diffeence seen in the States or Australia, between AWD/4WD/4x4 derivatives.
The methods of construction, materials used and research have taken the 4x4 away from its original truck sources towards the car markets.

The use of modern plastic in impact zones, the integral body and floor pan both contribute to greatly reducing the dangers to pedestrian with the modern AWD/4WD/4X4. The weight saving has seen a dramatic improvement in fuel savings, the greater use and efficiency of the diesel engine has, again, reduced the emissions and proved to be more environmentally friendly than a huge number of vehicles. 

The huge number of Totyota/Honda/Nissan that are replacing the heavier GMC/Ford/ Chrysler units contradicts the out of date statements of the anti brigade. Massive imporovements in production and purpose built vehicles by the major manufacturers have seen vast iprovements in the ' crumple zone' with reduced danger to pedestrians and  

Lets just agree on one point, it doesn't matter what vehicle hits a pedestrian, it is dangerous and will lead to fatalities.  

Now, instead of the pro guys continually have to prove the point, where is the up to date research and figures that contribute or reinforce the argument that 4x4 hare a 'hazard'  

Please, up to date and not all that supposition stuff, and not a set of doctors sponsored by the anti brigade.... have you everknown a sponsor to be proved to be the bad guy in their own research....

Hmm, didn't think so.


----------



## Dougal (Jul 10, 2006)

Dan U said:
			
		

> personally i would build a force field around the M25 that repelled all non-essential 4x4's..
> 
> but i guess this might be a start
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5075722.stm




What about little landrovers and such like that are fourwheel drive and pollute no more than your average car? Surely you want to link engine size to tax not the amount of wheel drive? Just a thought like.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Alright then, on a personal level I'll let you off the charge that you would campaign until there are no cars on the road, but you do see my point though don't you.


No, I don't actually.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> *Any chance of you addressing the issue that 4x4s are demonstrably more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users?*


Can't you read?



> UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.[2] Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.[3]





> Transport Research Laboratory blames the increasing mismatch between the size of vehicles on the road for a 1% rise in people killed in accidents last year. Passengers in 'super minis' were 12 times more likely to be killed than people in a 4x4 when these vehicles collided. The principal factor is the extra weight of the larger car, as well as extra height, which can override the bumpers and side impact protection on the smaller vehicle.
> http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/safety.htm





> # 4x4 is twice as likely to be involved in a fatal rollover as an ordinary car.[5]
> # If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed.[6]
> # In a side-impact collision with a 4x4, a car driver is around 4 times more likely to be killed than if they were hit by another car.[7]





> PEDESTRIAN HIT BY A LARGE 4X4 VEHICLE IS MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY TO BE KILLED THAN IF HIT BY A NORMAL SIZED CAR
> Researchers from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rowan University in America discovered that somebody hit by a large 4x4 vehicle would be more than twice as likely to die as someone hit by a normal sized car [2].
> http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=267


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 10, 2006)

sorter said:
			
		

> the majority of you are class snobs, and know NOTHING about engines, cars, emmissions, 4 wheel drive systems or owning a 'practical' motor.
> 
> research people for gods sake, and learn that there are as many cars as damaging to the planet, as there are 4x4s that are good to it!!
> 
> ...



Sorter

Take a look at the story which prompted this thread.  I quote a section

They want owners of cars producing more than 225g/km of CO2 to pay £20 a day - £12 more than everyone else.​
This is not a direct attack on 4 x 4's.  It just happens that, along with other poluting vehicles, 4 x 4's fall under the extra congestion charge which is being lobbied for.

4 x 4's are part of the problem.  They just happen to be the biggest growing niche of cars and therefore require more attention.  Rightly so Urban 4 x 4's have become short hand for highly poluting vehicles.  In the same way a 'Gas Guzzler' technically includes some vehicles with are deemed acceptable to consume lots of fuel, such as lorries

Most people here will agree that most guzzlers are more of a problem than more efficient vehicles.  BUT NOT ALWAYS

On another note Sorter, many people on this thread argue from different angles.  Don't expect everyone 'stick to' the same argument.  If I present a different argument that you expected I'm sorry for sounding 'like a dick' - what ever that sounds like.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 10, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Cars are more dangerous than bikes. If you got your own way, you would only start to campaign for ever smaller and smaller cars until there was none at all.
> 
> Busses are way more dangerous than 4x4s..a mate of mine knows, he was knocked over by one and it was the bus drivers fault.
> 
> ...



what toss. Trains are also much more dangerous than buses. Etc etc.


----------



## kingmaker (Jul 10, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> what toss. Trains are also much more dangerous than buses. Etc etc.



Not true. When was the last time a train knocked down a cyclist or pedestrian? 

Trains are one of the safest forms of transport there is. It's just that when it goes wrong it goes wrong *bigtime* and so you get the big banner headlines.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 10, 2006)

kingmaker said:
			
		

> Not true. When was the last time a train knocked down a cyclist or pedestrian?
> 
> Trains are one of the safest forms of transport there is. It's just that when it goes wrong it goes wrong *bigtime* and so you get the big banner headlines.




that was kind of my point. I didn't make it particularly seriously, because what i was responding to was such utter bullshit


----------



## Descartes (Jul 10, 2006)

People quoting figures from mystical sources are more * likely * to be fixated about non sensical problems

People most *likely* to pursue 4x4 vehicle had dogs as pets during childhood.

People demanding figures about 4x4 are most * likely * to ride bicycles


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> People quoting figures from mystical sources are more * likely * to be fixated about non sensical problems


So you don't think SUVs and 4x4s do any harm to the environment, you don't think that some of them present a greater danger to pedestrians and fellow drivers alike and you don't think that driving over-engineered, over-sized chunks of gas-guzzling metal around the urban environment has_ any negative impact at all_, yes?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 10, 2006)

*So you don't think SUVs and 4x4s do any harm to the environment*

In comparison to what?  In a direct test with the 19 litre Scania truck the toyota 4x4 was most likel;y to give a 600% cleaner burn engine emission 

*you don't think that some of them present a greater danger to pedestrians and fellow drivers alike *

In direct comparison tests between Humvees and Nissans on Iraqia road it was most likely that the Nissan in head on collisons with pedestrians would most likely only require short term hospilisation. The Humvee casualties were most likely to require extensive surgery and prolonged hospitalistion.

*you don't think that driving over-engineered, over-sized chunks of gas-guzzling metal around the urban environment has any negative impact at all*

It is most likely that the expression negative impact is an inexact mathamatical expression and could be onen to mis-intrepretation and misconstrude by uninformed by standers. 

In local tests it is most likely that errosion by water leaks from underwater pipes will contribute by a sum in excess of £10bn over the next ten years The subsidense of building foundations and roads. This is most likely to exceed the projected figures for errosion to steps and pavements of tourist sights over the next ten years. Estimated figures will be supplemented by an increase in the charges  for the sixe of prams and the number of children contained within each. Prams are most likely to cause injuries to ankles and knees than any other pavement riding vehicle. Legislation will most likely be introduced to curtail the weight and number of wheels. Parents with more than one child in a pram should expect to faces charges in escess of £2500 per year to subsidise the maintenance cost. 

It is most likely that water shortage will contribute to the a loss of over 2000 acre in the capital of vegitation and essential life supporting oxygen converting foiliage.   

It is most likely that the growth in the restrurant trade will directly assist in feeding and the up keep of the rat infestation within the capital. It is most likely that the present figure of more rats than human in the capital will be doubled withint the next five years.

The most likely moral to this array of useless information is that, Buy a 'kin 4x4, it's the only way you will get out of the capital.  All the rats, the bodies from lack of fresh air and the building falling down and the roads collasping.

Make sure it's big, powerful and seats more than enough, because it is likely that your neighbour will want a lift as well.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> *So you don't think SUVs and 4x4s do any harm to the environment*
> In comparison to what? .


In comparison with a car built to reflect the fact that:
(a) city centres are increasingly crowded
(b) over-sized SUVs/4x4s contribute needlessly to pollution levels
(c) we should be more environmentally friendly and use less materials, not more
(d) big cars have been proven to be more dangerous to pedestrians and other drivers
(e) we should be working to reduce fuel consumption (and pollution) by making smaller, lighter cars more appropriate to the urban environment, not building pointlessly heavy fashion statements



			
				Descartes said:
			
		

> In local tests it is most likely that errosion by water leaks from underwater pipes will contribute by a sum in excess of £10bn over the next ten years


Utterly_ utterly_ irrelevant, issue-evading tosh.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 11, 2006)

No, it only proves that as obsession go, you are in the forefront over 4x4s.

The amount of plastic recycleable materials being used in car manufacturer, 

The failure to consider that the city centre has a congestion charge zone that is actually costing Londoners money and the present publicity drive to dscriminate ageinst 4x4 owners is nthing more than a ' smoke screen' and, in all honesty, I am surprised you have been sucked into a very badly and misinformed  bunch of tree huggers. 
I can present facts 24/7 and you will continue to post argumentative question beased on little more than supposition and ignorance. 

My last post was an attempt to inject some humour but like all obsessed individuals you failed abysmally to see the ridculous position you have asumed over this. 

With that, i will leave you to play with your dinkey toys, Oh by the way.. the rats and the water problem, the loss of greenery in the capital is a real and growing problem... but hey,  when there are 4x4 to pick who gives a tinker's cuss.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> I can present facts 24/7 and you will continue to post argumentative question beased on little more than supposition and ignorance. .


All this bluster, personal insults and off topic excursions into unrelated topics really isn't covering up the paucity of your own piss-weak argument, you know.

But here's a simple question for you:

Which is better for the city streets and the environment: a small, quiet, compact, lightweight, fuel-efficient car designed for the narrow streets or a needlessly oversized, needlessly tall and heavy beast of a machine with a huge engine and comically massive tyres designed for ascending mountain paths and traversing muddy plains?


----------



## oryx (Jul 11, 2006)

*just one car-user's view...*




			
				editor said:
			
		

> Which is better for the city streets and the environment: a small, quiet, compact, lightweight, fuel-efficient car designed for the narrow streets or a needlessly oversized, needlessly tall and heavy beast of a machine with a huge engine and comically massive tyres designed for ascending mountain paths and traversing muddy plains?



It's a no-brainer (actually, I hate that phrase!)

I want a small, quiet, compact, lightweight, fuel-efficient car for my next car (unless I get a permanent office-based job, which I don't really want to). I need a car for work as it will usually involve evening meetings & being in one borough in the morning & another in the afternoon. 

I feel really annoyed that it is hard to buy such a car (I'd really like a smaller & considerably cheaper version of a Toyota Prius). It's appalling that the sales of large 4 x 4 cars has increased at a time when people actually want more ecologically sound cars.  

More has to be done in terms of disincentives for 4 x 4s and other large ecologically unsound cars. An increased congestion charge is a good start. There is *nowhere near* enough discrepancy in the taxing of smaller, more fuel-effiecient cars as opposed to larger ones.

I think you should need two licences to drive a 4 x 4 - one to show you can drive   (an ability sadly lacking in many aggressive, mobile-phone-using 4 x 4 drivers) and one to show you need it to get up a dirt track to your sheep farm or similar.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2006)

Problem: the world's heating up, there's thousands being killed over oil, exhaust fumes are contributing to global warming, there's more and more traffic on the streets, the cities are getting more crowded, we're trying trying to get more people to walk and cycle, so what shall we do?

Hell, let's create a pointlessly over-sized, resource-hoggin', fuel consumin', needlessly pollutin', pedestrian intimidatin', extra dangerous fashion statement on oversized wheels!

_Way to go!_


----------



## oryx (Jul 11, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> fashion statement on oversized wheels![/I]



Airbrushed nails, fake tan, footballer's wife wannabee fashion statement.  

You have to laugh at them, really.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 11, 2006)

*The irony*

A Land Rover which is often parked near to where I work has a poster in the back window entitled ‘Action on Asthma’ - the poster is calling for more support for people with Asthma.

Funny how the driver of this urban 4 x 4 is not capable of making the link between emissions from highly polluting vehicles and peoples health.

Cycling to work the issue is in my face every day!  On days of high pressure I have to take the long, off road route to work to avoid traffic pollution so I’m able to breathe!

Have all your arguments about personal freedom having the right to pollute etc, but please if you are in the position to buy a new car; for the sake of our health, my lungs and the sake of the planet buy an efficient one.  Better still work out a way to live with out a car.

I really don’t see how this argument is a difficult one.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 13, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> what toss. Trains are also much more dangerous than buses. Etc etc.



Trains aren't on the road. They kinda run on tracks mate.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 13, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> A Land Rover which is often parked near to where I work has a poster in the back window entitled ‘Action on Asthma’ - the poster is calling for more support for people with Asthma.
> 
> Funny how the driver of this urban 4 x 4 is not capable of making the link between emissions from highly polluting vehicles and peoples health.
> 
> ...



If you want to argue the toss about pollution then fair enough, but this thread is about 4x4s.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 13, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Problem: the world's heating up, there's thousands being killed over oil, exhaust fumes are contributing to global warming, there's more and more traffic on the streets, the cities are getting more crowded, we're trying trying to get more people to walk and cycle, so what shall we do?
> 
> Hell, let's create a pointlessly over-sized, resource-hoggin', fuel consumin', needlessly pollutin', pedestrian intimidatin', extra dangerous fashion statement on oversized wheels!
> 
> _Way to go!_



Erm, I can see your point about polution. I would like to see cars being more efficient, but there are both cars that are bad polluters while there are good 4x4s. 

As for your stats about 4x4s being involved in more accidents - well these days there is a lot of 4x4s and they are driven by certain types of people. 

A 4x4 once went into the back of my car. It was mother on the way back from home with her kids and she turned around to tell her kids to stop fighting in the back....then wack! 

They are no harder to drive than any other car and I don't believe that their drivers drive any different because of the type of car that they driving. 

Larger Volvos are built like tanks and their owners know it - yet the stats aren't high for them in accidents. 

There are plenty of larger vehicles on the road, yet you have no problem with them. 

Like you, I would have a problem with some Land Rovers, but I'm worried that  there is going to be fuel efficient 4x4s that are driven responsibly by their owners, yet are liable for congestion charges - not cool.


----------



## Loki (Jul 13, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> If you want to argue the toss about pollution then fair enough, but this thread is about 4x4s.


er, which cause more pollution per passenger than smaller vehicles.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Erm, I can see your point about polution. I would like to see cars being more efficient, but there are both cars that are bad polluters while there are good 4x4s.


Actually there's only one 'good' kind of car for congested cities, and that's small, efficient, human-scale, quiet, environmentally friendly vehicles built for the job and not oversized, off-road brickhouses on Everest-scaling tyres.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 13, 2006)

Loki said:
			
		

> er, which cause more pollution per passenger than smaller vehicles.



You do you realize there is saloon cars out there bigger than the smaller 4x4s?


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> You do you realize there is saloon cars out there bigger than the smaller 4x4s?


Do you realise that there's 4x4s out there that completely tower over saloon cars?

Do you realise that there's 4x4s are the fastest selling new category of urban car?


----------



## Loki (Jul 13, 2006)

Hehe, that smacks of desperation, TonkaToy.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 13, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> If you want to argue the toss about pollution then fair enough, but this thread is about 4x4s.




TonkaToy, you are wrong for two reasons.  

1.

This thread started with an article similar to the one published in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1818800,00.html?gusrc=rss

An extract:

Following a consultation, congestion charge rates in the capital will vary based on road tax bands from A (100g CO2 per KM) to G (over 225g CO2 per KM).​
2.

It just so happens that most 4 x 4's fall into this criteria because they polute more


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 13, 2006)

kingmaker said:
			
		

> Not true. When was the last time a train knocked down a cyclist or pedestrian?
> 
> Trains are one of the safest forms of transport there is. It's just that when it goes wrong it goes wrong *bigtime* and so you get the big banner headlines.



Ever hear of level crossing accidents?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/2292.aspx

Altho you're right from a passenger perspective, they are safer.

All the 4x4 stuff is just symbolic anyway - it's an easy and very visible target to highlight the problem of urban motor vehicle pollution because unlike a large saloon car like a 7 Series or Merc 4x4 SUVs have no reason to be on urban roads beyond fashion and status grabbing (that's not to say that 7 Series and their ilk aren't but you get my point I hope).


----------



## T & P (Jul 13, 2006)

Well those complaining the poor oppressed 4x4 is being targeted unfairly should be happier this morning. The £25 charge will be based on vehicles that emit more than 225 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre regardless of their size: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...3/ncharge13.xml&pPage=/core/Matt/pcMatt.jhtml

That means that some, smaller 4x4s will not be charged extra (damned shame if you ask me) and some state cars and saloons will.

It's a good thing of course but I would have included all 4x4s regardless of emissions on account of their inadequacy as city vehicles.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 13, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> TonkaToy, you are wrong for two reasons.
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...



If I'm wrong, fair enough, but then the thread title is misleading. If the thread title is misleading, I apologise if I've missed any post saying so.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 13, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Do you realise that there's 4x4s out there that completely tower over saloon cars?
> 
> Do you realise that there's 4x4s are the fastest selling new category of urban car?




Yes and yes.

So what if they tower over saloon cars? So would a bus. Any calls to phase out double deckers? 

Of course people find larger vechiles to the ones they are driving, intimidating  but if was to use that as a punitive reason to go after vehicle owners there would never be an end to it. Cars are intimidating to cyclists. I agree with should encourage people to use cycles, but for green reasons, not because they would otherwise be driving around in something which is "intimidating" to other users.

Personally, if a single person without kids was looking at buying one and I had the chance, I would try and discourage it. But if they are practical for families, I don't see the problem here.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Yes and yes.
> 
> So what if they tower over saloon cars? So would a bus. Any calls to phase out double deckers?


 If double deckers were used as a private vehicles by single users, then yes. But that isn't the case.



> Of course people find larger vechiles to the ones they are driving, intimidating  but if was to use that as a punitive reason to go after vehicle owners there would never be an end to it. Cars are intimidating to cyclists. I agree with should encourage people to use cycles, but for green reasons, not because they would otherwise be driving around in something which is "intimidating" to other users.
> 
> Personally, if a single person without kids was looking at buying one and I had the chance, I would try and discourage it. But if they are practical for families, I don't see the problem here.


The problem is:

-they're far bulkier

- they're far more polluting

- they're far more dangerous to pedestrians

- they're far more dangerous to other road users

- and they're even more dangerous to its own occupants

than any other car on the road, bar none.

As such, 4x4s are about as suited for city use as a Challenger 2 tank.

And those who insist on using such ill-suited vehicles in congested cities are being fucking selfish and should be penalised and encouraged to switch to a more suitable vehicle.


Couldn't be simpler, really.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> So what if they tower over saloon cars? So would a bus. Any calls to phase out double deckers? .


And why do you think double deckers are so tall?

Go on. Have a wild guess.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 14, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> And why do you think double deckers are so tall?
> 
> Go on. Have a wild guess.



LOL, but you know that's not the point though! 

If these cars weren't well suited for city use, then these people wouldn't be going out buying them, would they?

Don't get me wrong, I find the argument for taxing vehicles that polute a logical one, but I just can't see how it's pracitcal to go after 4x4s.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2006)

Er... in case you missed it just above:

-they're far bulkier

- they're far more polluting

- they're far more dangerous to pedestrians

- they're far more dangerous to other road users

- and they're even more dangerous to its own occupants

than any other car on the road, bar none.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 14, 2006)

i can't see this working, i mean what about all the lorries & delivery vans, they can't be paying £25 everytime they wanna make a drop?


----------



## g force (Jul 14, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> That means that some, smaller 4x4s will not be charged extra (damned shame if you ask me) and some state cars and saloons will.
> 
> It's a good thing of course but I would have included all 4x4s regardless of emissions on account of their inadequacy as city vehicles.



By 'small' 4x4 do you mean these:







Or these?






An Impreza is pretty much an average wheel base, isn't that threatening and certianly isn't tall. There's a lot of people confusing SUVs like BMW X5s, genuine 4x4 work cars like a Landrover and other cars with 4 wheel drive.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2006)

I agree that the line becomes rather blurred with smaller 4x4s (or rather, SUVs). My main issue is with big, chunky SUVs, and to a lesser extent with smaller ones because they are still more dangerous to pedestrians and other road users than 'standard shape' cars.

It is good that high polluting vehicles regardless of their size are being targeted. However there are a few SUVs such as the Land Rover Freelander that would escape the higher charges because their emissions are under the threshold. The Freelander is not a small vehicle by any means.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 18, 2006)

Trolley buses

Repeat after me, trolley buses.... the cleanest and most envoromental friendly of all the public transport  vehicles but the most ignored.

For every one vocalising their feelings about 4x4.. get real.. look at the buses and the huge amount of enzymes and pollution into the atmosphere and realsie that the policy regarding 4x4s is a political offensive against Chelsea and Kensington.. 

If you really want to evaluate the good and the bad in the way of transport..... Smart car, what ever you hit, broken legs...

The small hybrid car is dangerous, full stop, what ever you collide with you have serious injuries... and nothing to do with 4x4s..

Fact of life. live with it, Ken does not care about you, Ken cares about income....  

The large white c in the red circle should be collect for Ken....

Another form of stealth tax...


----------



## stopurban4x4s (Jul 20, 2006)

Hi Folks
Please remember that the SMMT and pro-4x4 lobbyists are trying anyway they can to muddy the argument about 4x4s, just like Exxon Mobile has tried to muddy the facts about climate change. 
Buses, at least in London, as well as lorries and taxis, are under the scrutiny of the Mayor, and will be covered in their new exclusion zones regulations. 
The recent move towards charging according to CO2 emissions levels will capture most of the highly polluting and heavy 4x4s out there. 
Still as we all know most 4x4s present a particular threat to our communities based on their unique combination of height weight shape and emissions. 
And with the increasing sales of 4x4s, you see where our roads are heading. More and more large 4x4 vehicles. That's because the industry is agressively marketing these types of vehicles. 
So what can all of us do to turn that trend around? We have to do it, because the manufacturers won't do it, the SMMT won't do it, the countryside alliance sure won't do it, and national government won't do it. 
It's up to each of us.


----------



## Giles (Jul 20, 2006)

stopurban4x4s said:
			
		

> Hi Folks
> Please remember that the SMMT and pro-4x4 lobbyists are trying anyway they can to muddy the argument about 4x4s, just like Exxon Mobile has tried to muddy the facts about climate change.
> Buses, at least in London, as well as lorries and taxis, are under the scrutiny of the Mayor, and will be covered in their new exclusion zones regulations.
> The recent move towards charging according to CO2 emissions levels will capture most of the highly polluting and heavy 4x4s out there.
> ...




Simple: If you don't want a large 4x4, don't buy one. 

That is the best thing that you can do. 

If, as you state, "we all know" that these vehicles are so intrinsically bad, then hardly anyone will buy them, and there won't be much of a problem any way, will there?

Giles..


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> Simple: If you don't want a large 4x4, don't buy one.


Err, doesn't help me much that, does it?

And the notion that people won't buy them because "they know they're bad" is hardly working is it? 

After all, the cigarette industry managed to ride that particular storm for a very long time, helped by their handsome advertising budget.


----------



## stopurban4x4s (Jul 20, 2006)

This might help - have a view and send the link out to all your friends!
What does your car say about you?

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gasguzzler/downloads.html


----------



## Descartes (Jul 20, 2006)

I just love the accusation of of, ' they try and muddy the waters'  when any pro 4x4 comments...

Would someone out there in the anti 4x4 brigade actually deliver some facts....

What model 4x4 are you complaiing about?

Is it petrol or diesel? 

How many of the particualr model are in London? 

Of the list of cars cited by Greenpeace how many are petrol driven?


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> I just love the accusation of of, ' they try and muddy the waters'  when any pro 4x4 comments...
> 
> Would someone out there in the anti 4x4 brigade


Let's make it simple.

Do you think over-sized, needlessly large, needlessly heavy, over-engineered 4x4 vehicles are:
(a) good for the environment?
(b) good for urban areas?
(c) a responsible purchase?
(d) helping the fight against global warming?
(e) friendly to city streets and pedestrians?
(f) a great step forward in preference to smaller, lighter, less aggressive and less polluting city vehicles?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 20, 2006)

Why is it that the antis cannot answer the most simple of questions? 

Answering a question with a question only undermines your position and reveals the whole thing as a charade. 

Facts   guys... good hard cold facts.. not some gibberish... 

Diesel clean.. petrol dirty....     *Smart car petrol   diesel not available in this country... fact *    4x4s diesel...   cleaner.... teehee...

What 4x4 are we talking about that is unclean?  don't dodge the issue... and what number are we talking about? 

If you really want to get into the weight argument... some figures...  then we will answer the question and put you right as to which vehicle causes the most damage..... that is if you can find time to supply the facts....

The truth the whole truth and nothing b7ut the truth .. lets rock and roll guys...  gimme some facts..... the the new buxz phrase for the antis... Gimme some facts....

Is not goone be difficult to supply the facts? , Is it?


----------



## T & P (Jul 20, 2006)

It's been done answered many times before.

But just for you

4x4s are more polluting

more dangerous to other road users

bulkier

more dangerours to pedestrians

and more dangerous to their own occupants than any other car.

For the above reasons, and for the simple fact that 4x4s are designed to be used off road, not in congested city centres, they should not be used in urban areas.

End of.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 21, 2006)

Yawn... doooooozzzzzzze  .. broken record job....

Well... prove it... where is the evidence of these shocking lies... 

Which 4x4...? the Ford Sierra 4x4? ohh no.

The freelander 4x4   oh  no... 

The Suzuki 4x4   .. again a big no...

The Fiat Punto 4x4 ... oh no...

The original ... emission regulations...but which 4x4 fails the standards.... 

You hide behind ambiguity, behind nonsense  .. more dangerous to pedestrians than... lions and tigers....  more  dangerous than vans, little vans, big vans, small trucks, little truck, big trucks, massive trucks,  baby elephants, 

Standing in front of trains is most dangerous, the diesel engine of trains do not have an emission controls or standards... when was a train last MOTed

What a lot of nonsense... 

what 4x4? which emission regulation apply to what 4x4? 

Stop just blathering and produce some good cold hard facts...  


4x4s are more polluting.. sez who and which 4x4? Make and model please?

more dangerous to other road users ... *Than what? *, cracks in the road? 

bulkier.... *Than what ?*? vans, Oh no there are not.

more dangerours to pedestrians   _gettng hit by any motorcar or similar is dangerous to your health and is to be avoided at all costs, do not step in front of moving vehicles. _ That's just logic and not to 4x4 in particular

and more dangerous to their own occupants than any other car.  LOL  sez who...

For the above reasons, and for the simple fact that 4x4s are designed to be used off road, not in congested city centres, they should not be used in urban areas.   *Wrong * the 4x4 has the facility to travel across unpaved areas but it's prime design now,  is as a normal road going vehicle. The level of equipment and suspension design allows a dual function...

Charges agianst 4x4 are just another stealth *TAX*  beware, Ken will collect.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Why is it that the antis cannot answer the most simple of questions?


Are you a bit slow or something?

I've already explained exactly what kind of 4x4 I'm against.

Here's a clue: it's the big over-engineered ones.

Any chance of you answering my questions now chief?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 21, 2006)

Next time you see one, look at the make and model....  Sighs.... 

What does * over engineered * mean? 

Dp you have an engineering back ground? 

Answer your question, you failed to answer any of mine yet, bro.... I know you love ambiguity ... but .. lets have at least some detail... 

How many of these * over-engineered * things do you see a day?


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Let's make it simple.
> 
> Do you think over-sized, needlessly large, needlessly heavy, over-engineered 4x4 vehicles are:
> (a) good for the environment?
> ...



Let's make it simple?

Great idea! 

Why can't we just tax people based on their emmisions?

I've never felt more threatened by a 4x4 than a normal car. If someone feels that 4x4's are threatening, they must be petrified of buses and lorries.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Are you a bit slow or something?
> 
> I've already explained exactly what kind of 4x4 I'm against.
> 
> ...



Over engineered is better than under-engineered don't you think?

Let's face it. The computer you are sat in front of is most probably over engineered.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Over engineered is better than under-engineered don't you think?


So you think the trend for larger, bigger, heavier, over engineered cars is a good thing, yes?

And what's wrong with cars being appropriately engineered for the job?


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> If someone feels that 4x4's are threatening, they must be petrified of buses and lorries.


Cycle much, do you?

And you seem to be *completely missing the point.*

Buses and lorries are big _because they have to be. _

But do you think that for city streets, smaller, lighter, less polluting cars are more appropriate, or do you think that huge great over-engineered chunks of metal are better all round?


----------



## Sweetpea (Jul 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Cycle much, do you?


Easy... you don't want to come across as militant, do you?


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

Sweetpea said:
			
		

> Easy... you don't want to come across as militant, do you?


Well, the case for big hunking SUVs/4x4s just defies all logic.

The population is growing, city traffic is becoming more congested, cities are becoming more condensed, pollution is rising, global warming is happening and natural resources are fast running out.

So some twat comes up with a resource hogging, needlessly polluting, pointlessly bulky, over-engineered road-hog, all in the name of a fucking fashion statement. And people rush out to buy them so that they can look  oh-so _stylish_ while placing their safety above that of everyone else.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 21, 2006)

*resource hogging, needlessly polluting, pointlessly bulky, over-engineered road-hog, *

Sounds like a Peterbuilt Truck, I haven't see one of those in this country....ever. 

You can detail all the faults  but no name. or model...   Hmmmmm 

Are you sure this is not some figment of your imagination? 

Just a clue to what vehicle you are refering to. 

It would appear that under close scrutiny your supposed argumrnt falls aparts and that;s why the anti 4x4 brigade talk in riddles.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> You can detail all the faults  but no name. or model...   Hmmmmm
> .


You could start with this ridiculous beast:





 and then add one of these: 




and then this thing:





And then there's this vast chunk of metal:




which, apparently, "carries the wisdom of seven continents in its soul."

I could go on, but I don't imagine your weird, reality-challenging bout of denial is likely to end.

Now, will you FINALLY answer my fucking questions please?


----------



## aurora green (Jul 21, 2006)

Very reluctant to post on this thread. Just being subscibed to it is doing my head in...

It's blatently obvious, even to a very small child, that these 4X4s are significantly bigger than 'normal' cars. 
Bigger = using more resources. Something we have a *finite* amount of, as do we space.

For all small people, the hazardous act of crossing the road is made even more dangerous by these vehicles, because of their hieght. You simply cannot see over them, and it's safe to say that is true of all models.


Personally, I feel the whole 4X4 issue is a bit of a red herring, because it's _all_ cars that are the problem. We all urgently need to be seriously considering alternatives to the private motor car, and imagining our future cities car-free.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

aurora green said:
			
		

> Personally, I feel the whole 4X4 issue is a bit of a red herring, because it's _all_ cars that are the problem. We all urgently need to be seriously considering alternatives to the private motor car, and imagining our future cities car-free.


There's quite an irony to the fact that way back in Roman times wagons, carts and other wheeled vehicles were forced by law to only move around at night because of congestion.


----------



## T & P (Jul 21, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Blah blah blah.



I don't need to give you evidence any more that I would have to give you evidence that the Earth is round. 

Look it up yourself. Plenty to find out.

You know you're in the wrong. You can admit it or not, I don't give much of a fuck either way.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 21, 2006)

ROFLMAO.... 

Four photographs  only one... one.... could be remotely connected with the debate.. one Japanese registed... and the other two from US publications...

You guys, I can understand if you have thrown your rattles out of your prams.. but please be realistic.. UK   United Kingdom...

Now, sit and read... you might just learn if you could understand... US and japanese emission regulations are different from ours. 

Emissions from state to state in the US vary... 

Emission for UK are checked yearly on the MOT test, the standards are very  strict and the modern emission are miniscule...  parts per million...  not to be confused with American or foreign vehicles... 

Now, if yu could for one moment stop and have a reality check... the supposed 4x4 that you believe cause all the trouble.... please .. identify and publish  and not all this   I think therefore it is... 

If you want to get into damage to the roads.. scientific facts will reveal that you are suffering from masses of mis information...  but you can't or dont want to believe anything but the supposition and bilge that wallows around... 

Picutres of vehicle in other countries do nothing to confirm their presence in London.. let alone any where else in the country...

The numbers of vehicles, the percentage of 4x4 in the capital, repeat in the capital is very small.  very very small and if you guys could just sort out some facts.... you know those things that relate to the truth,    we could reach an understanding

You give me facts because if I supply them,... you won't believe me... because you don't know the truth.. 

Stop believing all that could, might, should and suppose and get into the real world...

Just for a reality check, the £25 surcharge on a friends 4x4 was off set by the saving on the wife's Diesell BMW mini....  overall difference , a saving 
What you give with one hand is taken ( partly ) by the other. 

But, photos of vehicles with Japanese registration plates.....  you cannot be serious...


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> ROFLMAO....
> 
> Four photographs  only one... one.... could be remotely connected with the debate.. one Japanese registed... and the other two from US publications...
> 
> You guys, I can understand if you have thrown your rattles out of your prams.. but please be realistic.. UK   United Kingdom...


Are you ever going to get your head out of your arse?

There are plenty of over-sized 4x4s/SUVs on the streets of London. I see them every single day.

In fact, there's a fucking ludicrous Landcruiser (or whatever the tank-like thing is called) outside my block right now.

And I've seen most of these over-engineered blocks of metal polluting their way around the small city streets too:






















Now are you going to answer my questions or are they just too difiicult for you?

PS Do you live in London, and if so what is your strange medical condition that blocks out all sign of these cars?


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh, some more here too.
ALL available in the UK:


----------



## Descartes (Jul 21, 2006)

Don't yer just love these people...

Yep, I live in a london suburb, commute back and forth, drive around London  ..  

and would you believe, know more about the motor industry than you would believe possible.. from design, manufacture, retail units and the general mis conceptions of the general public.. 

Now the vehicles you have listed are great  but... you have missed the point again, either that or you are totally unaware that those vehicles come in all different engine types and sizes....  ohh drat, what a let down...

To the casual looker they are all the same but, to the more techie guys, they are all different, in engine size and spec, interior trim and finish and just puting some photos up without models,,,   that word again  models  does little to clarify exactly what we are debating.. 

 Now as far as emission go, the most determental to the enviroment is Nitrogen... and the problem is it is a constant... very little variation between the large and the small .. it's there and it is the most corrosive towards the enviroment... and when everyone jumps up and down...  lets consider...

Just pause for a moment... everyone pushes for leadfree, because of the damage to unborn, to the people and the enviroment...... now, leaded is replaced with unleaded... but and this is the silliess...... car burn more unleaded than leaded.  mile per gallon, kpm .. so the dreaded nitrogen is being pumped at a greater volume by using lead free...  fact of life.. 

Now, large diesels,greatly reduce the nitrogen content, reduce the hydro carbon content, reduce both carbon di oxide and mon oxide... and most of those gas guzzling monster.. hey  would you believe  run on diesel....  more enviro friendly than those nasty unsafe city cars... .. wow....  

NOW, no one wants to upset the status quo... just sell the petrol and  wait, too much diesel being used.. put the price up, .... make more money  encourage people to run diesels..... WTF  who cares...  tell them SUVs are the monsters.. they'll believe it....  

Engine for engine, the variation between a 2 llitre car and a 2 litre SUVis negilble...... now you talk about size.. ever looked at a MPV....  thos people movers.... longer taller and .. wait  a turbo diesel engine.. bigger than a lot of SUVs...... 

Next time you are out in London stop and pause and count the numbers of MPV against SUVs....   the SUVs are out numbered.... but nobody cares about the people movers ... 

I have been in the traffic in Purley...   Kia, Toyota, Mercedes, Renault  all larger and more spacious than a lot of SUVs.......

So, Conclusion.. the anti SUV brigade have been fooled, and that is the silly, the engines, emissions etc  are little or no difference with the large saloon, petrol more corrosive, more SUV diesels, more eco friendly...

Spacious body work, here we go, the modern construction of vehicle is to a weight, the panels are no longer steel. next time yiou pass a Renault, stop and feel the front wings.. plastic, check out... but the list goes on, the supposed heavy vehicles   awell. they aren't... built to a weight to achieve good fuel consumption...   

No, weight, small cars small weight.. but that weight is concentrated on a smaller area because of the small tyres...  pound per square inch is greater than a lot of much larger vehicles... larger tyre greater area, better weight distrubution.....the most damaging of aircrafts to runways .. Concorde.. because of the smaller wheels and tyres on landing.. runways had to be reinforced ... it's not the overall weight but the distrubution.. large tyres .., greater rolling diameter, 

But, hey  who really cares about the truth, put out a load of disinfo and the mob will follow...  but... before you get all up tight...  what's one of the most valued commodities .. Petrol    stop using it.. yer right.. 

What we should be considering, a city with pedestrian movement without any vehicles.. moveing footwaysdriven by steam powered.. , three tier, slow, medium and fast,, step across and move along quicker...

All the major vehicle manufacuturers are chasing electric, renewable fuels, solar power but to target SUV when larger more resorce wasteful vehicles are being presented as the panacea ..  well  cut my legs off and call me shorty.. it#s not real.....

Recyclable plastic body panels with bar codes for dismantler to identify and allow reuse, well one day.... and electric wiring looms that use highly acidic materials that burn humam skin and have to be surgically cut out... Ok  talk about SUVs   but don't forget the rest...

Editir, research and research  and learn the truth...  small is not beautiful, the materials used have a greater determental effect.. latest plastics, latest compound friction materials.. 

enough 

Oh, people movers do not have to be BSI approved for collisions...  safety...  spheriods..


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 21, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> There's quite an irony to the fact that way back in Roman times wagons, carts and other wheeled vehicles were forced by law to only move around at night because of congestion.



Didn't the GLC (under Ken) have something similar? All delivery trucks/vans etc could only deliver at night? Or am I remembering something else?


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 22, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Cycle much, do you?
> 
> And you seem to be *completely missing the point.*
> 
> ...



It depends what they are used for, doesn't it? 

I don't like the idea of going after cars by their size, because the logical conclusion to all of that is to ban cars altogether on the premise that ALL cars are over-enginered for the purpose they serve.

Any such tax would be a dangerous precedent to set.


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 22, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh, some more here too.
> ALL available in the UK:



Stoppit! I'm getting a hard on!


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> To the casual looker they are all the same but, to the more techie guys, they are all different, in engine size and spec, interior trim and finish and just puting some photos up without models,,


But they have one thing in common. They're ALL TOO BIG for city streets. And with that increased size comes increased use of materials, increased weight and, ergo, increased fuel consumption.

And with that increased fuel consumption comes increased pollution.

It's really that simple. 

People should be encouraged to drive LESS and in smaller, lighter, quieter and more fuel efficient vehicles that are more appropriate for congested cities.

Instead we get berks like you apologising for the most socially and environmentally irresponsible car trend to hit this country for decades.






4x4s 'should carry health warning'


----------



## paolo (Jul 22, 2006)

A little anecdotal aside...

I used to work with a guy who'd spent all his career in the car industry - most of it at Land Rover. He was Land Rover man through and through - loved them and loved working for them.

At the time, he was on secondment to Ford of Europe, planning to go back to Land Rover. One day, just before he left his FoE post, we were discussing the situation with SUVs. His view was that ultimately, social pressure will kill the SUV market.

People forking out for, say, a new Discovery could easily afford a chunk of tax slapped on the vehicle. But, he speculated, even rich people don't like being hated.

He didn't go back to Land Rover in the end. Instead he moved into commercial vehicles at Ford UK. He genuinely expected the SUV market to have a big downturn and didn't want to be on board when it happened.


----------



## Giles (Jul 22, 2006)

For all types of vehicle, I still think that fuel tax is the fairest way of penalising polluters.

It is directly proportionate to the amount of pollution you produce. 

Whether you have a big car but only use it once a week, or have a small car, but are one of those people who drive everywhere, even when its only up the road.

It penalises those who drive aggressively - and therefore inefficiently. 

It penalises those who don't keep their cars maintained, and who therefore produce more pollution by wasting fuel.

Best of all, it cannot be evaded, and there is no need for ever more complex, privacy-invading databases of who is doing what where in order to collect it.

Giles..


----------



## arty (Jul 24, 2006)

exactly Giles. It's really very simple innit?
The only problem being there is no big profit to be made by some company setting up a hugely complicated satellite/database/camera system involving lots of government money.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

arty said:
			
		

> exactly Giles. It's really very simple innit?
> The only problem being there is no big profit to be made by some company setting up a hugely complicated satellite/database/camera system involving lots of government money.



What on earth are you talking about?

Crapita is making a mint off the only big govt IT contract it's managed to pretty much get right, the congestion charge.


----------



## jæd (Jul 24, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> But they have one thing in common. They're ALL TOO BIG for city streets. And with that increased size comes increased use of materials, increased weight and, ergo, increased fuel consumption.



Um... Didn't someone boint out that 4x4s can actually be quite small and have a footprint of less than a BMW...?


----------



## jæd (Jul 24, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> For all types of vehicle, I still think that fuel tax is the fairest way of penalising polluters.



Yep, much easier to implement this then some wishy-washy tax on ill-defined group of vehicles a minority doesn't like that much.


----------



## Jangla (Jul 24, 2006)

angry bob said:
			
		

> Well I'll have a try
> 
> To be really fair surely the congestion charge should be linked to the CO2 emissions in a way that doesnt have the arbitrary cut off of 225g/km of CO2.
> 
> ...


At the end of the day the congestion charge is there to decrease the number of vehicles in the city - if your vehicle is larger, heavier and takes up more room, you should pay more.  Simple as.


----------



## jæd (Jul 24, 2006)

Jangla said:
			
		

> At the end of the day the congestion charge is there to decrease the number of vehicles in the city - if your vehicle is larger, heavier and takes up more room, you should pay more.  Simple as.



But won't larger vehicles have larger engine sizes, emit more pollution...?


----------



## The Groke (Jul 24, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> Um... Didn't someone boint out that 4x4s can actually be quite small and have a footprint of less than a BMW...?



But that is just arguing over the definition of the 4x4 again...

Really, as stated earlier in the thread, a slightly better term would be "SUV", but even then there are exceptions.

I think really people are just using "4x4" for convenience, rather than having to write "Those particularly large 4x4's with a long wheelbase which are capable of carrying 7 people and often have a 4 litre or larger engine.....etc" 


My car is a "4x4" and it is no bigger than a mid-sized estate car. It has a 2.5 litre engine.

Yes there are smaller and more economical cars than this, but this one was the perfect blend of all-wheel drive and increased ground-clearance (which I need sometimes), alolng with space to transport people and "stuff" and yet it still it isn't a huge monster truck.

I had the option of getting something bigger, but didn't see the point - there are only 2 of us and I wouldn't be going out in to the Desert and off road that often!

As Ed mentioned - as far as I am concerned, it is "Engineered just right" for our needs - and no more.


----------



## jæd (Jul 24, 2006)

The Groke said:
			
		

> As Ed mentioned - as far as I am concerned, it is "Engineered just right" for our needs - and no more.



I think this is the crux of the problem... Its engineered just right for you, but not the Editor. And I think the Editor is more mindful of his needs than yours. The same goes for mums on a school run. How else can they safely get their kids to school and back, in their minds...?


----------



## The Groke (Jul 24, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> I think this is the crux of the problem... Its engineered just right for you, but not the Editor. And I think the Editor is more mindful of his needs than yours.



Of course he is and I wouldn't expect it to be any other way!

I only passed my driving test last year, at 28, having lived in London for 10 years and used public transport/lifts all my life.

Now I am in Dubai, I have to have a car (no public transport), I need something big enough to carry me, my wife and friends if needs be as well as luggage and furniture (can't call in favours/lifts so easily here) and 4x4/ground-clearance is good when I visit sites for my job (rough tracks, sand etc) or sometimes when parking off-road (always sand) or taking day trips or otherwise navigating the sand covered and slippy roads generally.

Now clearly the Ed has no need for any of the above and copes with bike plus public transport plus lifts from mates etc.

Like I said, I _could_ have bought a Landcruiser or Patrol or Jeep like everyone else does here - I chose the Forester as it was "Baby-bears porridge" as far as our exact needs were concerned.

I would _generally_ agree about the innapriopriate nature of many suburban large 4x4's - sometimes however they _can_ be useful and "just right" it is not possible to know the why every 4x4 driver bought theirs - it could well be "justifiable".




			
				jæd said:
			
		

> The same goes for mums on a school run. How else can they safely get their kids to school and back, in their minds...?




I guess a lot of folk equate "Big" with "Safe"....when it certainly is not always the case.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 24, 2006)

Lets play a little game, what would happen to your tax bill if we did away with, say 50% of the vehicles that have an emission output in excess of the .... BMW mini.... cooper s,  nice small. racey and town type.... 

Fuel, petrol and diesel, still have a tax on a tax..... the original fuel price included Purchase tax, when VAT came in, the VAT was added to the purchase tax, the only country to tax a tax..

Now, buy a new car, opps, car tax,,,, buy a commercial, a small van even, car tax and VAT.... yer .. more tax on tax... 

Now take away, the road tax, DVLA and all that, take out of towns the parking fines, the biggest source of income for most of the larger cities and towns... 

The congestion charges....

Boy you had better get ready.. becaue the Motorist is subsidising you, your family, your right to use your bike on the road,  .the National Health, .. the motorist has been used as the financial barometer of this country since the car was built.

If you for one silly deluded moment think you can get by withut the motorist. 

Well, just think again. and get ready to start paying.

How ever much you shout and scream, without it, you aint going nowhere.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Boy you had better get ready.. becaue the Motorist is subsidising you, your family, your right to use your bike on the road,  .the National Health, .. the motorist has been used as the financial barometer of this country since the car was built.


Naturally, you're talking utter shite as usual.

Your car licence doesn't pay for roads - it is a tax on a luxury item and forms a small part of general taxation. 

The tax disc has never paid for roads, other than by adding to the general taxation pool, any more than the tax on alcohol subsidises pubs.

In any case, taxes on vehicles do not cover the full cost of roads and traffic and the damage they do. Therefore, everyone, including cyclists, subsidises motorists out of general taxation.



> The cyclist is ‘a guest on roads that are paid for by motorists’ so said the motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson. Every cyclist has heard similar accusations countless times. In fact the opposite is true.
> 
> In law, cyclists have the right of way on roads; motorists must use them under licence and as studies by Transport 2000 and Leeds University show, it is the cyclist that subsidises the motorist.
> 
> ...


Do you think that there should be a pavement tax too, by the way?


Excellent resource here too: http://www.transport2000.org.uk/factsandfigures/Facts.asp


----------



## Giles (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't think I would ever want one of those really big SUVs, no matter how much money I had, even just for the selfish reason that I am not going to buy and run som machine that gives less then 25mpg for no useful purpose. 

But I don't see why a little "jeep" type car is any worse than any other car.

Do the anti "4x4" people object to things like:

Suzuki SJ410s and 413s?

Toyota RAV4s?

Freelanders?

Old-style Landy series 2 and 3s?

None of these is even the same "footprint" or engine size as your average large family saloon or "people carrier".

Is it just the really big and big-engined SUVs that people see as a problem, or is there something about a "jeep" bodystyle that makes it worse than a Renault Espace, for example?

Giles..


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> None of these is even the same "footprint" or engine size as your average large family saloon or "people carrier".
> 
> Is it just the really big and big-engined SUVs that people see as a problem, or is there something about a "jeep" bodystyle that makes it worse than a Renault Espace, for example?


You're missing the point. 

Cars for the city should *all* be getting smaller, lighter, more fuel efficent, less polluting and less resource hogging. 

There can still be larger vehicles if the user's _needs_ require it, but this current trend for outragreously large macho vehicles for running down the shops or taking little Timmy to school is fucking crazy.


----------



## Giles (Jul 24, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You're missing the point.
> 
> Cars for the city should *all* be getting smaller, lighter, more fuel efficent, less polluting and less resource hogging.
> 
> There can still be larger vehicles if the user's _needs_ require it, but this current trend for outragreously large macho vehicles for running down the shops or taking little Timmy to school is fucking crazy.



I was a straightforward question.

Is a "baby jeep" like a 3 door RAV4 (5 seats) in some way worse than either a large-ish Mondeo or above sized car, or than pretty much any "people carrier", or not?

I am just interested.

For the record, I totally agree that people shouldn't drive fuel-hog cars just for the image or "fashion".

I don't.

Giles..


----------



## paolo (Jul 25, 2006)

"weeny" SUV pretendalites (e.g. RAV4) are better than the monster things... but overall, for the city, we need less cars and smaller cars. Oh and better public transport of course.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> Is a "baby jeep" like a 3 door RAV4 (5 seats) in some way worse than either a large-ish Mondeo or above sized car, or than pretty much any "people carrier", or not?


It's worse than a proper lightweight city car.

I can't be arsed to start trawling through spec sheets to work out the nuances of various cars, because it's got very little to do with my point.

I want smaller, quieter, lighter cars more appropriate to the urban environment. And I'd like less of them too, with people encouraged to walk, cycle and use public transport.


----------



## Hollis (Jul 25, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Boy you had better get ready.. becaue the Motorist is subsidising you, your family, your right to use your bike on the road,  .the National Health, .. the motorist has been used as the financial barometer of this country since the car was built.



And the thickest twat of the day award goes to..


----------



## paolo (Jul 25, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> And the thickest twat of the day award goes to..



There's been other weird shit too. The UK's implementation of certain railway level crossings is, hey presto, relevant to SUVs!

I expect he'll post more gobshite soon. He seems to.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 25, 2006)

Wow, I am amongst all these clever people that can't add 2 and 2 together because they are so involved in 4x4...

Get you new glasses and look around.. 

The largest source of income to cities and most major towns, parking. Major source of income for central gov, tax on petrol.  Now, if that disappeared who would be expected to pay?  

And all you guys can imagine or think about is Road tax, The figures you are quoting are 20 years out of date. 

All right smartie pants, The 4x4 that everyone is getting excited about, how many are registered in this country?

There are none so blind.. etc etc..


----------



## Descartes (Jul 25, 2006)

Penalty notices have increased from just over two million a year in 1994-95 to nearly six million in 2003-04. * Boroughs in London now make more than £112 million a year from parking enforcement services. *  Evidence received by the Committee stated that parking managers are allocated specific financial targets at the start of a financial year with the expectation that parking fines will deliver this income.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 25, 2006)

The order came as it was revealed income from parking fines smashed the * £1billion figure for the first time in 2003-04.* From that, * £439million is supposed to go on improving transport systems * but the memo admits there is "not much information" about what benefits there are.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 25, 2006)

* City of Westminster, which last year issued 817,596 penalty charge notices and earned £72 million from parking – making it Britain’s highest-ranking council on both counts. *The ticket machine, on a traffic island separating two wide traffic lanes, belongs to the neighbouring* Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (on-street parking income: £39,219,000), *but it would take a close reading of the payment instructions to notice the distinction, and there is no warning, even in the small print, that this machine’s tickets are invalid in the nearby bay.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 25, 2006)

So, lets do away with the car, and where, clever clogs, do we get the money .. Oh  got it, Council Tax... yer good idea... how many million?


----------



## jæd (Jul 25, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I can't be arsed to start trawling through spec sheets to work out the nuances of various cars, because it's got very little to do with my point.



i think this sums up the 4x4 "haters" point... They're trying to argue against a varied class of vehicle with little success.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> I want smaller, quieter, lighter cars more appropriate to the urban environment. And I'd like less of them too, with people encouraged to walk, cycle and use public transport.



Personally I would want cars that emit as little pollution as possible. With the congestion charge and the decrese of vehicles on Londons rounds, size is less of a concern... "lighter" would be handy as it would decrease mpg...


----------



## trashpony (Jul 25, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> i think this sums up the 4x4 "haters" point... They're trying to argue against a varied class of vehicle with little success.
> 
> Personally I would want cars that emit as little pollution as possible. With the congestion charge and the decrese of vehicles on Londons rounds, size is less of a concern... "lighter" would be handy as it would decrease mpg...



How do you make a lightweight X5?  

In answer to Giles' question - I don't really have more of an issue with a Rav4 than a Mondeo estate. I do think a lot of people buy an estate the moment they reproduce which is utterly unnecessary in most cases. I've just taken my sister, my bil and my nephew and all our bags on holiday to France for a week. In a Peugeot 206. So all this 'I need more space' thinking is just stuff and nonsense.

I would just like Londoners to think about the impact of their car purchase on other road users (and I include other drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians in that) and the community at large.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> So, lets do away with the car, and where, clever clogs, do we get the money .. Oh  got it, Council Tax... yer good idea... how many million?


So you'd like more and more cars clogging up the streets because law-breaking motorists create some money for local authorities - and to hell with global warming, pollution, noise, congestion, quality of life issues etc, yes?

Oh, and I trust you'll now concede that your claim that motorists supposedly "subsidise" cyclists was in fact, a stinking piece of ill-informed claptrap?


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> i think this sums up the 4x4 "haters" point... They're trying to argue against a varied class of vehicle with little success.


I'm arguing against a _trend_ of new vehicles, which sees larger, bulkier, heavier machines being aggressively marketed at a time when we should be promoting the use of  smaller, lighter, more appropriate vehicles on our streets.


----------



## Jangla (Jul 25, 2006)

jæd said:
			
		

> But won't larger vehicles have larger engine sizes, emit more pollution...?


Yeeees, and they'd pay more.  What's your point?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 25, 2006)

Editro, ROFLMAO..

you are a voice in the wilderness... do you honestly believe that boroughs can run without the monies from the motorist...all that lovely money paid into those little machines   just to park, then pay to drive in and out and pay if you use the wrong machine next to you becasue it's not sign posted correctly.

Let you into a secret, all the tickets I have contested, I have won.... yiii Haaa.... 

Still ROFLMAO.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> you are a voice in the wilderness... do you honestly believe that boroughs can run without the monies from the motorist...


Do you think your little tax disk pays the full cost of your driving? ROFLMAO!

But I've got bored with your endless wriggling and weird bouts of denial about the impact of pointlessly oversized cars on the environment.

I've rarely come across a more wilfully misinformed person.

 I guess that's why you keep on avoiding those tricky questions that challenge your self centred viewpoint.


----------



## Giles (Jul 25, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> How do you make a lightweight X5?
> 
> In answer to Giles' question - I don't really have more of an issue with a Rav4 than a Mondeo estate. I do think a lot of people buy an estate the moment they reproduce which is utterly unnecessary in most cases. I've just taken my sister, my bil and my nephew and all our bags on holiday to France for a week. In a Peugeot 206. So all this 'I need more space' thinking is just stuff and nonsense.
> 
> I would just like Londoners to think about the impact of their car purchase on other road users (and I include other drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians in that) and the community at large.



Small city cars are a nice idea, and practical for some. 

And you are right about not NEEDING an estate car just cos you have a kid or two.

But, most people, if they can afford only one car, will tend to get one that does everything they will ever need. 

So, they end up with a biggish car suitable for long trips with all the family, luggage etc, rather than a littler one.

Giles..


----------



## Poot (Jul 25, 2006)

I'm with Trashpony on this one. I need a car but manage just fine with a Vauxhall Corsa, which takes all 3 of us everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE including on holiday! It would never cross my mind to buy anything bigger because it would seem foolish and greedy. I'm a firm believer that the way you drive says a lot about your personality. Maybe the same could be said about the car you choose.


----------



## JoePolitix (Jul 25, 2006)

Surely the most proportionate response to this crisis effecting our nation is to round up all the 4 x 4 drivers and slaughter them like so many mangy dogs?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 25, 2006)

*I've rarely come across a more wilfully misinformed person.
*

Such a shame, I feel you have that special inability to move into the 21st century and realise the motorist pays for lots more than you could possible comprehend 

Road tax disks, just check out parking costs, through out the country and what happens to the money.

What happens to all that tax on fuel..

All I I can say for you: in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.


----------



## laptop (Jul 26, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Surely the most proportionate response to this crisis effecting our nation is to round up all the 4 x 4 drivers and slaughter them like so many mangy dogs?



But not before we've made them *eat* their SUVs.

A nail-file will be provided to assist palatability.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 26, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Surely the most proportionate response to this crisis effecting our nation is to round up all the 4 x 4 drivers and slaughter them like so many mangy dogs?




MMm yes, that sounds like the reasonable next step in a rational argument.

 

This thread does seem to bring out some insufferable smugness and self-righteousness in folk.

Saying:
_"all 4x4's are bad M'kay, and everyone who drives one is clearly a paedo"_,
 whilst waving your pitchfork,  is just as moronic as declaring:
_ "4x4s are just as safe for pedestrians as a wheeled mattress, as economical as a 2 stroke lawnmower and the emissions are no different to that of dairy cow"_,
 which seems, on the whole, to be the dominent two sides of the argument appearing on this thread.

Yes, these large 4 wheel drive vehicles are in _many_ cases (and quite possibly _most_ cases), completely unnecessary, and significantly more detrimental to our UK urban environment than other, smaller and more apposite vehicles. 

Most often, people _do_ buy them as a status symbol or because they erroneously assume that they have the right to protect their kids "that little bit extra" to the detriment of everything else around them.

That said, their _are_ circumstances where a person could have good reason to buy car A over car B - and that car A may well be a mid to large size 4x4. 

Bear in mind also, that despite the views of certain people in this thread, it is not as simple as believing that you can divide everything in to two camps - cars and 4x4's, where Cars=Good and 4x4=Bad- there really are some subtle variants between the two.

Should they have to pay extra for it? Well to an extent maybe they already do - if it _is_ eating more fuel, they are buying more fuel and thus paying more tax, but yes - I do think people should have to pay a premium on road tax or a pollutant/environmental tax, providing that the scale was worked fairly, and providing that the same fees were leveraged against sports and performance cars with high emissions and low fuel economy, polluting and road damaging big vans and lorries etc as well.

Its deciding that scale that is the tricky part.

When does a 4 wheel drive car stop being a car and start being a 4x4 SUV?

What about a new SUV to the market that could carry 7 people and was as fuel efficient as a mid-size saloon car?

What if parents started car pooling - 1 mum taking 6 kids to school in her Landcruiser, rather than 5 mums driving 5 different vehicles of varying sizes and outputs? SHould she be penalised?

What about really fast, high polluting, low fuel economy sports cars....with 2 wheel drive?


I just don't think it is quite as cut and dried as some people seem to think it is.
 Assuming of course that a society with cheap, effective, clean, safe and reliable public transport accross _all_ areas of the country is out of our reach at the moment.

WHich it clearly is.


----------



## lyra_k (Jul 26, 2006)

My biggest issue with SUVs is the sheer size of them.  I'm sure that in terms of emissions and petrol consumption some of them are no worse than an old banger, or a sporty car.

They block the view of drivers driving smaller cars.  They just do.  And in accidents they cause more damage whether to pedestrians or to smaller vehicles.  And the size/height is just completely unnecessary.

My biggest gripe though is how (in the US at least) family SUVs are becoming more and more like sitting-rooms-on-wheels - automatic transmission as standard, cruise control, climate control, DVD players (sometimes even in the front FFS), which IMO creates both a false sense of security, and the lack of effort in propelling the thing means that people can't actually really drive, and in a crisis situation are no better than your average 9 year old in having a bloody clue how to control their 2-ton behemoth.

People who can't drive a basic manual transmission vehicle should NOT be allowed on the roads.


----------



## Jangla (Jul 26, 2006)

lyra_k said:
			
		

> My biggest issue with SUVs is the sheer size of them.


Interestingly a new golf GTI has almost the same useable internal space as most 5 seater SUV's and does as well if not better in the NCAP tests.  And it's smaller, cheaper and more economical.  Go figure.


----------



## Jangla (Jul 26, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Do you think your little tax disk pays the full cost of your driving? ROFLMAO!


Sure, but bear in mind only a 6th of all monies taken by the government from tax discs actually goes back into the roads in the first place.

Personally I think any kind of road taxation (whether that be road tax, congestion charges or tolls) needs to be a three fold calculation: emmisions, weight and footprint based.


----------



## JoePolitix (Jul 26, 2006)

The Groke said:
			
		

> MMm yes, that sounds like the reasonable next step in a rational argument.



There's a time and place for rational argument and it certainly *isn't* on an SUV thread! Clearly anybody who lives on an urban terrain and chooses to drive a monstrosity like this







is beyond the realm of reason and should be surgically removed from society. This is a clash of civilisations muthafucka - humanity or barbarism.


----------



## Giles (Jul 26, 2006)

lyra_k said:
			
		

> My biggest issue with SUVs is the sheer size of them.  I'm sure that in terms of emissions and petrol consumption some of them are no worse than an old banger, or a sporty car.
> 
> They block the view of drivers driving smaller cars.  They just do.  And in accidents they cause more damage whether to pedestrians or to smaller vehicles.  And the size/height is just completely unnecessary.
> 
> ...




Forcing people to drive a manual transmission would immediately rule out most Americans, whether they drive an SUV or not. Almost every car over there is, and always has been, automatic.

I don't think that SUVs are more likely to have air-con or cruise control. Again these are general features found on many American-built cars right back to the 1950s, before anyone had heard of SUVs as a type of vehicle. Back then you just had cars, and pick-up trucks. And vans.

Giles..


----------



## The Groke (Jul 26, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> There's a time and place for rational argument and it certainly *isn't* on an SUV thread! ...... This is a clash of civilisations muthafucka - humanity or barbarism.



I would like to think that one of the marks of a civilised and intelligent society is the ability to always form and use rational arguments - no matter how emotive the subject may be to some......

I notice that single line was the _only_ part of a substantial post that you chose to respond to.

 

Also: I think you will find it is spelt "motherfuck*er*"


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 26, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> This is a clash of civilisations muthafucka



Dad forget to set the parental controls again?


----------



## The Groke (Jul 26, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Dad forget to set the parental controls again?



Word and shit.

yo?


----------



## lyra_k (Jul 26, 2006)

Giles said:
			
		

> Forcing people to drive a manual transmission would immediately rule out most Americans, whether they drive an SUV or not. Almost every car over there is, and always has been, automatic.
> 
> I don't think that SUVs are more likely to have air-con or cruise control. Again these are general features found on many American-built cars right back to the 1950s, before anyone had heard of SUVs as a type of vehicle. Back then you just had cars, and pick-up trucks. And vans.
> 
> Giles..



I'm not suggesting that automatics should be banned, just that people should have to REALLY know how to drive before getting a driving licence (which IMO would involve knowing how to drive both).  People here (in the US) who learn and take their test in an automatic really don;t have the slightest clue how to drive, especially in a crisis.  Their vehicles are one step away from having a button for "stop" and a button for "go".

And as far as which cars are most likely to have the wide-spaced, armchair-like comfy seats, the onboard DVD players, and the rest of the sitting room accessories, it's the SUVs and the minivans.  Fact.  Sorry.


----------



## paolo (Jul 26, 2006)

I've spent years in automotive, so i'll try to bring some clarity.

SUVs were, originally, designed for off road use.

There is no need to get "clever" about pretending there is no definition of SUV. CAP Automotive, who are the dominant supplier of automotive definition data in the UK, clearly categorise models as being SUV or otherwise. The automotive industry worldwide acknowledges the difference between an SUV and, say, an estate with four wheel drive. It's a high floored off road capable vehicle. Yep, there's some smaller ones, but that doesn't "magic away" the definition. The trade understands it, so the "pro urban SUV" people ought to aswell.

The controversy has arisen because SUVs are now being purchased solely for urban driving. If buyers had chosen MPVs instead, it's unlikely we would be where we are now. SUVs are seen as a fashion purchase, MPVs a necessity purchase (just as noone buys a van, travels by bus, ships goods by truck, for "style").

I would totally refute the "need" to by an SUV for urban driving. There are some very safe estates that can be bought with enough seats for a very large family. More seats than the average SUV you see in the city. Or buy an MPV.

The tradesmen who want a dual purpose vehicle can buy an estate or an MPV. Both can have configurable seats. There is no need for a high floor platform for trade. In fact, a selling point for commercial vehicles is a *LOW* loading platform, not a high one.

So buying an MPV or an estate or van weeds out the "style purchase". So only those that really need them will buy them. All good.

Rating things by emissions is good, and right. But it's not the whole story. Safety of other road users is relevant too. The front profile of SUVs is getting better, but it's still very bad news for pedestrians vs. getting hit by a small car designed for urban use. And that isn't debatable - at least if you accept the automotive industry authorities on the matter.

Spurious arguments about level crossings, trucks, etc are total diversions. The issue here is 'utility'. A bus, van, truck or train is designed for a purpose. As is an SUV. The automotive industry is quite clear on what SUVs _were_ designed for. The problem is that they are being bought and used with an intent that conflicts with that.

If you *need* a high floored vehicle to go off road, then an SUV - with it's endemic safety issues - is still a logical purchase. If you don't need to go off road, then why do you need one?


----------



## trashpony (Jul 26, 2006)

paolo999 said:
			
		

> I've spent years in automotive, so i'll try to bring some clarity.
> 
> SUVs were, originally, designed for off road use.
> 
> ...



Amen to that


----------



## JoePolitix (Jul 26, 2006)

The Groke said:
			
		

> I would like to think that one of the marks of a civilised and intelligent society is the ability to always form and use rational arguments - no matter how emotive the subject may be to some......



Another mark of a civilised society is not being a humourless glit who treats a bit of playful banter/satire as though it were a policy declaration.

Butcher Those Who Drive SUVs!


----------



## JoePolitix (Jul 26, 2006)




----------



## Jangla (Jul 27, 2006)

paolo999 said:
			
		

> The automotive industry is quite clear on what SUVs _were_ designed for. The problem is that they are being bought and used with an intent that conflicts with that.


Sure, but the automotive industry has been complicit in promoting them as a style choice rather than a functional choice for some time.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 27, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Another mark of a civilised society is not being a humourless glit who treats a bit of playful banter/satire as though it were a policy declaration.
> 
> Butcher Those Who Drive SUVs!



And again you seem to chose to avoid addressing any of the points that anyone has made.....

  back at you.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 28, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I do think a lot of people buy an estate the moment they reproduce which is utterly unnecessary in most cases. I've just taken my sister, my bil and my nephew and all our bags on holiday to France for a week. In a Peugeot 206. So all this 'I need more space' thinking is just stuff and nonsense.
> .


As a lurker just like to add my twopence worth, a fully loaded "small " car such as yours reving its arse off on the motorway wont be as economical as a larger engined car designed for motorway cruising under load.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 28, 2006)

Gixxer1000 said:
			
		

> As a lurker just like to add my twopence worth, a fully loaded "small " car such as yours reving its arse off on the motorway wont be as economical as a larger engined car designed for motorway cruising under load.



I'm well aware of that. 

However I, like most people, only do that kind of driving a few times a year. For town driving to and from the supermarket/school/granny's house, my car is much more economical though. Which is what this discussion is about.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 28, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I'm well aware of that.
> 
> However I, like most people, only do that kind of driving a few times a year. For town driving to and from the supermarket/school/granny's house, my car is much more economical though. Which is what this discussion is about.


Yes and the point Im making Is that for some motorists, yes even some who come into London it can be more enviromentaly sound to be in a larger vehicle.

I like many on here despise 4x4's but what I despise more is fascist, keyboard warriors.(not necessarily directed at you t/pony)


----------



## Descartes (Jul 28, 2006)

what, allow people a choice, ohhh heaven forbid, what ever next, believing that you use of the car is the only and proper way of travel. Long journeys, tosh, pople only do that going on holiday, Don't they? 


*If you don't need to go off road, then why do you need one?*   It's called freedom of choice.  and having the money to afford it.. 

*what I despise more is fascist, keyboard warriors*   What a lovely phrase. I wonder who fits that role?

What I really enjoy, pictures of american registered vehicles that are not available over here and the models that are available.... are so few it doesn't matter... 

Imports, limited numbers, very few in london... but, when did that ever stop a 
 a good rant.


----------



## Loki (Jul 28, 2006)

Gixxer1000 said:
			
		

> ... but what I despise more is fascist, keyboard warriors.(not necessarily directed at you t/pony)



Well you've chosen the wrong place to lurk then


----------



## Descartes (Jul 28, 2006)

Wow, Unbelievable, |The UK Comission for Intergrated Transport has stated.....and I take the liberty to quote: 

* Whilst, sales of 4x4 and sports vehicles have been rising over recent years, these vehicles have also seen above average improvements in fuel consumption rates. Thus, the impact of these vehicles on average car fuel consumption is perhaps not as great as some might imagine. We expect continued strong improvements in fuel consumption rates going forward, despite any continued small rise in 4x4 and sports car sales. *


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 28, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Wow, Unbelievable, |The UK Comission for Intergrated Transport has stated.....and I take the liberty to quote:
> 
> * Whilst, sales of 4x4 and sports vehicles have been rising over recent years, these vehicles have also seen above average improvements in fuel consumption rates. Thus, the impact of these vehicles on average car fuel consumption is perhaps not as great as some might imagine. We expect continued strong improvements in fuel consumption rates going forward, despite any continued small rise in 4x4 and sports car sales. *



The bizarre thing is that demand for these types of vehicles, which once had abysmal mpg, has forced manufacturers to direct research/techniques to *improve * fuel economy which has the spin off to benefit all types of vehicle.
The only people likely to suffer at the hands of Herr Livingstone are those who can only afford older less efficient vehicles.


----------



## paolo (Jul 29, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> *If you don't need to go off road, then why do you need one?*   It's called freedom of choice.  and having the money to afford it..



...and fuck everyone else?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 30, 2006)

*..and fuck everyone else?*

Beautiful turn of phrase, reflects the true nature of your feelings towards your fellow man, but there are always those who will bring up the subject of sex to detract from the argument. 

Dare I ask if you are old enough to drive? or are you still on the little bike with the stabilisers?


----------



## Gmart (Jul 30, 2006)

Surely a tax system based on emissions and fuel efficiency would be easy to do? We live in a liberal society, or should be trying to, just make it more expensive for them. I am not keen on ushering Authoritarianism in just because one set of people don't particularily like another set of people.


----------



## paolo (Jul 30, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> *..and fuck everyone else?*
> 
> Beautiful turn of phrase, reflects the true nature of your feelings towards your fellow man, but there are always those who will bring up the subject of sex to detract from the argument.
> 
> Dare I ask if you are old enough to drive? or are you still on the little bike with the stabilisers?



Eh?

I mean honestly, WTF are you on about?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 30, 2006)

Sorry, do you find words of more than one syllable confusing?


----------



## Gmart (Jul 30, 2006)

it's so much more fun to carry on insulting each other rather than return to the subject at hand.


----------



## T & P (Jul 30, 2006)

From Monday Albert Bridge will have only one lane for each direction, instead of the two northbound lanes it had until now. This is because selfish twat 4x4 owners are using the bridge even though it has a two-tonne weight limit and engineers are concerned about the integrity of the weak structure.

In comparison with normal cars (1.2-1.5 tonnes) the monster trucks some wankers insist on driving in cities weigh as much as 2.6-2.7 tonnes (Range Rover and the BMW offering). Even smaller ones easily go over the 2 tonne mark.

So that's yet another instance of twattish urban 4x4 users fucking things up for the rest of us.

But hey, we should embrace "freedom of choice" eh?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 30, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> what, allow people a choice, ohhh heaven forbid, what ever next, believing that you use of the car is the only and proper way of travel. Long journeys, tosh, pople only do that going on holiday, Don't they?
> 
> 
> *If you don't need to go off road, then why do you need one?*   It's called freedom of choice.  and having the money to afford it..


And when that freedom of choice affects *other people* then that's when we need to curb it. Tough eh?.


----------



## Gmart (Jul 30, 2006)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> And when that freedom of choice affects *other people* then that's when we need to curb it. Tough eh?.



But all our actions affect each other, surely there has to be tolerance of other people as well. I may not agree with the choices of other people all the time, but i will defend their right to do what they like within the law. The key is to have a law system which reflects how society is, rather than how people wish it would be.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 30, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> From Monday Albert Bridge will have only one lane for each direction, instead of the two northbound lanes it had until now. This is because selfish twat 4x4 owners are using the bridge even though it has a two-tonne weight limit and engineers are concerned about the integrity of the weak structure.
> 
> In comparison with normal cars (1.2-1.5 tonnes) the monster trucks some wankers insist on driving in cities weigh as much as 2.6-2.7 tonnes (Range Rover and the BMW offering). Even smaller ones easily go over the 2 tonne mark.
> 
> ...



 Funny how the council still wont enforce the 2T ban isnt it? Please dont forget how many MORE vans also fall foul of the weight limits on this structure which is long overdue strengthening works 
But hey lets not let the truth get in the way of a good topical story eh


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 30, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> . The key is to have a law system which reflects how society is, rather than how people wish it would be.


No no, please keep up in the back, you should be threatening to key a 4x4


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 30, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> But all our actions affect each other, surely there has to be tolerance of other people as well. I may not agree with the choices of other people all the time, but i will defend their right to do what they like within the law. The key is to have a law system which reflects how society is, rather than how people wish it would be.


That's a bit of a nonsence answer, we need to have laws which protect important things and the environment, road safety etc are important things, more important than a bit of status anxeity.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 30, 2006)

Boils my piss that bull bars can still be legally fitted to 4x4's, so if you're waiting for legislation............


----------



## laptop (Jul 30, 2006)

Gmarthews said:
			
		

> The key is to have a law system which reflects how society is, rather than how people wish it would be.



So murder should be a teensy bit legal, burglary a bit legal, tax-fiddling almost entirely legal and speed limits entirely optional?


----------



## TonkaToy (Jul 30, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> From Monday Albert Bridge will have only one lane for each direction, instead of the two northbound lanes it had until now. This is because selfish twat 4x4 owners are using the bridge even though it has a two-tonne weight limit and engineers are concerned about the integrity of the weak structure.
> 
> In comparison with normal cars (1.2-1.5 tonnes) the monster trucks some wankers insist on driving in cities weigh as much as 2.6-2.7 tonnes (Range Rover and the BMW offering). Even smaller ones easily go over the 2 tonne mark.
> 
> ...



If the bridge can't handle more than a tonne, then they should put a weight restriction on it or strengthen it. It's stupid to blame 4x4 drivers.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 30, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> If the bridge can't handle more than a tonne, then they should put a weight restriction on it or strengthen it. It's stupid to blame 4x4 drivers.


Got to be impressed by Councils spin. They havent spent the 10million required to strengthen it or enforced the unenforcable so they reduce the number of carriageways and blame everyones favourite bogeyman .


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2006)

Gixxer1000 said:
			
		

> Got to be impressed by Councils spin. They havent spent the 10million required to strengthen it or enforced the unenforcable so they reduce the number of carriageways and blame everyones favourite bogeyman .


So, no blame in your eyes due to the people driving 4x4s over the bridge then, no?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So, no blame in your eyes due to the people driving 4x4s over the bridge then, no?


No more than anyone driving a van,estate car etc.
Read this;
"Albert Bridge was built in 1873 and this grand Victorian suspension bridge links Chelsea to Battersea. After World War II the Victorian bridge was too weak to bear the increased weight of modern traffic. When the LCC announced that they intended to demolish Albert Bridge there was a huge outcry from the Chelsea conservationists, led by Sir John Betjeman. Fortunately the conservationists overcame the town planners and Albert Bridge was saved. As a result Albert Bridge is the only bridge in central London never to have been replaced. At each end of the bridge is a notice instructing the soldiers of nearby Chelsea Barracks to break step when marching over the bridge. It is thought that the vibrations caused by marching in step would damage the delicate structure"
Kind of puts it into context dosent it


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2006)

Gixxer1000 said:
			
		

> No more than anyone driving a van,estate car etc.
> Read this;


Err, fascinating.



So the current trend for manufacturing oversized, overweight, resource-hogging, noisy, polluting, over-engineered _style statements_ over smart, efficient, sensibly proportioned, urban vehicles more appropriate for the job and the environment doesn't bother you in the slightest, no?

And you'd be happy to see the roads clogged up with endless rows of 4x4s, yes?


----------



## T & P (Jul 30, 2006)

Gixxer1000 said:
			
		

> Funny how the council still wont enforce the 2T ban isnt it? Please dont forget how many MORE vans also fall foul of the weight limits on this structure which is long overdue strengthening works
> But hey lets not let the truth get in the way of a good topical story eh


How do you propose they enforce it?

There are metal posts limiting the width of any vehicle going through. Larger vans and trucks will not fit through. 4x4s, unfortunately, do. Just about. But the cunts will go as slow as it takes (so they're fucking up the traffic behind them as well, on the Enbankment) so they can cheat and drive through a bridge they're not allowed to fucking drive through.

As the recent study showing that 4x4 drivers are far more prone to driving like dickheads or being on the phone when driving, it would seem they have a fair amount of law breakers amongst them as well.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> As the recent study showing that 4x4 drivers are far more prone to driving like dickheads or being on the phone when driving, it would seem they have a fair amount of law breakers amongst them as well.


Indeed. The study found that drivers of 4x4s "were almost four times as likely to be using hand held mobile phones. They were also more likely to not be wearing seatbelts."

But of more concern is the conclusion of report author Dr David Walker, as quoted in The Independent: "In general 4x4s reduce the risk for their occupants but increase the risk for everyone else. In using a 4x4, instead of a normal car, one's chance of death or serious injury falls by four in 1,000 but the chance of killing or injuring others rises by 11 in 1,000, with a resulting cost to the community."


----------



## Loki (Jul 31, 2006)

So-called "risk compensation" - due to feeling more secure in your vehicle, you take more risks.


----------



## laptop (Jul 31, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> How do you propose they enforce [the Albert Bridge weight limit]?









Battersea Park, soon


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Err, fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry i'll condense it for those with a short attention span (Geddit!!) -the bridge is underengineered.
I think you will find that I have previously stated that I despise 4x4's but I was looking for a reasoned arguement based on facts.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 31, 2006)

T & P said:
			
		

> How do you propose they enforce it?
> 
> There are metal posts limiting the width of any vehicle going through. Larger vans and trucks will not fit through. 4x4s, unfortunately, do. Just about. But the cunts will go as slow as it takes (so they're fucking up the traffic behind them as well, on the Enbankment) so they can cheat and drive through a bridge they're not allowed to fucking drive through.
> .



Short of having a weighbridge either side its unenforceable. The council could stick up a couple of signs identifying which vehicles are specifically banned (by default from manufacturers data, which is usually a "dry" weight, I suggest that quite a few saloons once fully laden would also transgress) but they dont, why? because the real problem is the cumulative effect of vehicles backed up on the bridge at peak times.


----------



## TonkaToy (Aug 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Err, fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're loading up his position with loads of assumptions there. No one wants to see endless rows of any particular type of car - that would be boring.

First off someone made the claim that 4x4s are the reason for Albert bridge being restricted to one lane. They are no more the reason than other vehicles.

I also don't see how you can claim that 4x4s are noisy compared to other cars. Quite the reverse. Underpowered cars will also be more noisy than overpowered cars. Ever heard that awful hairdryer like screech that mopeds emite? It's because they are underpowered with a 2 stroke engine. In any case, to tax a product because it's noisy would be a silly thing to do. £200.00 noise tax on sound systems over 100 watts anyone?

There are many products in our daily lives that are over engineered and could be made so they only just manage to serve the purpose they was intended for. The problem there, is, who gets to decide who has the right to use that product for that purpose and who get's to decide what the REAL purpose is of the product. 

It's best to tax people for their fuel consumption. Socially if you want to laugh your tits off at people that have bought £40,000 on a vehicle that doesn't best serve them, then by all means, I'd be quite happy to laugh along side you.

However, I'm worried that what you want is the government, be it central or local government to set dangerous precidents that will punish people unfairly and restrict choice.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Your car licence doesn't pay for roads - it is a tax on a luxury item and forms a small part of general taxation.
> 
> The tax disc has never paid for roads, other than by adding to the general taxation pool, any more than the tax on alcohol subsidises pubs.



Hmm. I'd not be quite so sure about that. There's a historical pointer in the name: 'Road Fund Licence. While admittedly has not been the official term since 1936, it's still in common use, even in government.

When the original Road Fund was proposed in 1909, with taxes on vehicles and fuel to pay for it, Chancellor Lloyd George was asked by the leader of the Opposition:

"Is it intended to go to general revenue? If it is going to roads, we think it a fair proposition."

Lloyd George replied:

"My proposal is the whole of the moneys should go to the roads"

Anyhow, enough history. How do things work out nearly a century later?

According to the Department for Transport, the total expenditure on construction and maintenance of roads in the UK, including lighting, safety measures and the costs of depreciation, by both national and local authorities, for the financial year 2003/4 was £5,435 million.

[Source: DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2005, pp 131/132]

In the same period, Vehicle Excise Duty raised £4,937 million, Duty on Fuel raised £22,561 million, a total of £27,498 million.

Leaving a surplus to the Treasury of £22,063 million.

N.B. This would exclude the contribution of VAT on fuel sales (approx £4.9 billion) to the Exchequer's coffers and other sources of income to government such as parking fees/fines, the Congestion Charge, etc.

In the same period, central government spent £2,650 million on rail capital projects, with £1,091 million on rail revenue support.

Local government spent £648 million on public transport, with an additional £1,479 million in revenue support to public transport (N.B. this rose to £2,803 million in 2005) and a further £657 million on Concessionary fares.

[Source: DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2005, page 25]

The total spending on public transport by UK government was £6,525 million, approximately £1.2 billion more than it spent on roads.

If we assume that Car Tax and Fuel Duty are helping to pay for the running of public transport (which is a stated aim of the government) and deduct this and the spending on roads from the income raised by Fuel Duty and Road Tax alone, a surplus of £10 billion is still available for the general public purse. £15 billion if you include the VAT paid on fuel.



> In any case, taxes on vehicles do not cover the full cost of roads and traffic and the damage they do. Therefore, everyone, including cyclists, subsidises motorists out of general taxation.



While you have a fair point that there are other unaccounted environmental costs of motor vehicles, I do not think it can be justifiably said that non-motorists are subsidising cars out of general taxation.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 1, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> It's best to tax people for their fuel consumption. Socially if you want to laugh your tits off at people that have bought £40,000 on a vehicle that doesn't best serve them, then by all means, I'd be quite happy to laugh along side you.
> 
> However, I'm worried that what you want is the government, be it central or local government to set dangerous precidents that will punish people unfairly and restrict choice.



The goverment needs to take every action possible to address the most pressing issue ever faced by the human race, that of Climate Change.

Every tool possible has to be used to ensure that unnecessary consumption is reduced to the minimun.

Choice needs to be restricted for the sake of those we leave this planet to.

Charging more for the most poluting cars to enter the congestion charge zone may not be the most effective way of doing this.  But it is a step in the right direction.

We must remember that the extent of our personal carbon footprint is largely down to consumer choice.


----------



## TonkaToy (Aug 1, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> The goverment needs to take every action possible to address the most pressing issue ever faced by the human race, that of Climate Change.
> 
> Every tool possible has to be used to ensure that unnecessary consumption is reduced to the minimun.
> 
> ...



Cool. Sure thing. Do you really need that PC you are typing from? Surely a £300.00 tax on all new consumer PCs should stop all this uneeded hardware from being produced and used?

Sorry but a lot of arguments which are dressed up as green and environmentally friendly are nothing more than attacks on capitalism by those who despise capitalism. 

Show me stuff which helps the environment on a generic basis then I'm all for it. 

Show me stuff which is nothing more than "green envy" rather than "environmental green" and I'm not interested in the slightest.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Cool. Sure thing. Do you really need that PC you are typing from? Surely a £300.00 tax on all new consumer PCs should stop all this uneeded hardware from being produced and used?
> 
> Sorry but a lot of arguments which are dressed up as green and environmentally friendly are nothing more than attacks on capitalism by those who despise capitalism.
> 
> ...


You think that computers harm the enviornment as much as car exhaust?. They don't, you tackle the biggest problems first.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 1, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Cool. Sure thing. Do you really need that PC you are typing from? Surely a £300.00 tax on all new consumer PCs should stop all this uneeded hardware from being produced and used?
> 
> Sorry but a lot of arguments which are dressed up as green and environmentally friendly are nothing more than attacks on capitalism by those who despise capitalism.
> 
> ...



If there is to be additional tax on PC's it should be for their safe disposal.  On another note due to increasing energny costs the efficiency of servers is increasingly important.  People who host servers are now really taking notice of their energny consumption.  But I digress.

Of course this tax is to raise money.  But if as a result of the tax drivers of the most poluting cars have more of a stigma attached and have to pay more money I don't see the problem.

As for an attack on capatilism.  No, isn't it just trying to get a correct price for consumption, paying for your externalaties and all that?  Isn't this what capitalism is supposed to be all about?


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 1, 2006)

Gixxer1000 said:
			
		

> Sorry i'll condense it for those with a short attention span (Geddit!!) -the bridge is underengineered.



It isn't 'underengineered': it's just not designed for the volume and weight of traffic it now has to take.  The same problem exists with much of London (and various other British cities): the roads were largely laid out before mass car ownership.

Chelsea council's suggestion - taking one lane out to lighten the load until the opportunity to strengthen the structure arises - is an eminently sensible one.  Doubtless the drivers will whine about the traffic moving more slowly, but that's their tough shit: it's because of them the bridge is suffering anyway.


----------



## TonkaToy (Aug 1, 2006)

BigPhil said:
			
		

> If there is to be additional tax on PC's it should be for their safe disposal.  On another note due to increasing energny costs the efficiency of servers is increasingly important.  People who host servers are now really taking notice of their energny consumption.  But I digress.
> 
> Of course this tax is to raise money.  But if as a result of the tax drivers of the most poluting cars have more of a stigma attached and have to pay more money I don't see the problem.
> 
> As for an attack on capatilism.  No, isn't it just trying to get a correct price for consumption, paying for your externalaties and all that?  Isn't this what capitalism is supposed to be all about?



No........

Consumer PCs use energy needlessly. They should be taxed as such. Along with every other consumer product that needlessly burns up energy. As you might of guessed, I'm throwing up a devils advocate argument based on your logic.

If you want to tax the most poluting cars, what about the good old fashioned fuel tax? Rather than some random tax on a class of cars simply described as "4x4" or "SUVS" ??? Hardly catches those who are driving around in 10 year old V12 Jaguars, does it?


----------



## TonkaToy (Aug 1, 2006)

These silly campaigns against 4x4 owners, simply alienate such drivers. Heck I even bet there people who love them because it pisses off those "green hippies". 

Rather than alienate such drivers by calling them selfish and just about every other negative name under the sun, would it not be more productive to generically pursaude all vehicle owners to ask themselves if that journey is really neccessary?

I would rather convince everyone to use their motors less, than be a part of a hateful campaign which serves no other purpose than to alienate and divide people.


----------



## TonkaToy (Aug 1, 2006)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> You think that computers harm the enviornment as much as car exhaust?. They don't, you tackle the biggest problems first.



Oh gooody. Then perhaps you would agree that it's far more productive to persaude everyone including 4x4 owners to use their cars less rather than alienating people.


----------



## T & P (Aug 1, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> First off someone made the claim that 4x4s are the reason for Albert bridge being restricted to one lane. They are no more the reason than other vehicles.


 How could it be so? There is a 2 tonne limit per vehicle crossing the bridge. For decades this arrangement worked well as the immense majority of cars (bar the likes of Bentleys and Rolls Royces) are well under two tonnes. Trucks and larger vans cannot physically enter the bridge.

But since the meteoric rise in numbers of 4x4s on the roads in the last few years, a considerable number of vehicles over two tonnes are now regularly crossing the bridge, and with the two northboound lanes often busy this meant too much weight was being supported by the bridge at peak times at any one time.

So one lane has had to go, to account for the cheating, law-breaking 4x4 owners who insist on using Albert Bridge putting extra strain on it.

I'd personally monitor the bridge with CCTV and give any 4x4 crossing it an instant £100 fine (I'm tempted to say £1,000 but never mind). That might make some of the twats see sense.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> Oh gooody. Then perhaps you would agree that it's far more productive to persaude everyone including 4x4 owners to use their cars less rather than alienating people.


And that is what measures like the increase in the congestion charge will do, so you're in favour of it?.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 1, 2006)

TonkaToy said:
			
		

> No........
> 
> Consumer PCs use energy needlessly. They should be taxed as such. Along with every other consumer product that needlessly burns up energy. As you might of guessed, I'm throwing up a devils advocate argument based on your logic.
> 
> If you want to tax the most poluting cars, what about the good old fashioned fuel tax? Rather than some random tax on a class of cars simply described as "4x4" or "SUVS" ??? Hardly catches those who are driving around in 10 year old V12 Jaguars, does it?



Its not a random tax.  It is defined as a certain amount of CO2 per whatever.  

The affects of polution to peoples health are more accute in cities so why not put an extra penality on the additional costs placed on 'society' while driving said vehicle in a city.

As for the tax not reaching existing vehciles.  I think its fair to only charge this on new vehicles - in the same way vehicles registered before VED (road tax) was introduced are exempt from paying VED.  If consumers know that purchases of highly poluting vehicles have additional costs associated they might think twice before making the spending decision.  However if you already own that vehicle the tax did not exist when you made that purchasing decision.

Back onto Computers, more can be done to make them more efficient and to encourage people to dispose of them better.  However action or inaction on this issue should not stop taxation being used to encourage different consumer behaviour in another area.

And yes as you say, good old fashioned fuel tax should and is also be used as a tool.  However its such a shame that Labour did not have the courage to stick to the 'fuel tax escalator' scheme introduced by the tories - if we still had this policy real change would have been brought about in peoples driving habbits.


----------



## Errol's son (Aug 1, 2006)

"ban all lorries vans and comerical vechiels from 9 through to 6 period"

so builders who generally use vans are meant to work outside of 9-5? In the dark, during winter?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Aug 1, 2006)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> It isn't 'underengineered': it's just not designed for the volume and weight of traffic it now has to take. .


Nor could it cope with the volume and weight of traffic 60 years ago, werent many 4x4's then were there.
(Should I try a larger font?  )


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 1, 2006)

Gixxer1000 said:
			
		

> Nor could it cope with the volume and weight of traffic 60 years ago, werent many 4x4's then were there.
> (Should I try a larger font?  )



What's the relevance of 60 years ago?  The bridge was built in 1873, before the car was even invented!

No wonder it can't cope with the strain of modern traffic: it's hardly alone in that.  That's why they should simply cut the volume of traffic using it - SUVs or otherwise, although there's something to be said for banning the heaviest vehicles from it.  It's hardly a new principle: there are weight limits on all sorts of roads for various reasons.  Impose a two-ton weight limit on the bridge and knock out one line of traffic: problem solved, for the time being.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Aug 1, 2006)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> What's the relevance of 60 years ago?  The bridge was built in 1873, before the car was even invented!
> 
> No wonder it can't cope with the strain of modern traffic: it's hardly alone in that.  That's why they should simply cut the volume of traffic using it - SUVs or otherwise, although there's something to be said for banning the heaviest vehicles from it.  It's hardly a new principle: there are weight limits on all sorts of roads for various reasons.  Impose a two-ton weight limit on the bridge and knock out one line of traffic: problem solved, for the time being.



I think you will find I am agreeing with you Only I believe bridge should have been strengthened years ago rather than the council have to resort to reducing traffic flow over one of the limited crossings we have over the Thames, and I suggest this is exactly what will happen


----------



## T & P (Aug 1, 2006)

But then the question is: had 4x4 owners obeyed traffic laws and stayed away from the bridge, would the authorities have still gone ahead with the new restrictions? 

I don't think so. I don't think the bridge is getting weaker. It's the payload that's getting far heavier. And it's getting heavier because too many 4x4 owners don't have any concern for traffic laws and doing as they please.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 1, 2006)

Cars in general have been getting much heavier over the last 25 years.

1976 Mk 1 Golf GTi - 840 Kg
2005 Mk 5 Golf GTi - 1328 kg

(the high-performance R32 version weighs in at 1590 Kg)

All those modern doodads like sound insulation, side impact protection bars and air-bags add up.


----------

