these massive roadtrain 'dodge ram' things are doin my head in
drivin round like badboys with uneccesary cars. get a proper offroader like a landrover

Or better yet a reasonable car!

Love em, want one - sorry

I've noticed quite a few around in the past few weeks, is there a new Dodge importer over here or something?

I can't stand seeing anyone drive a 4x4 unless you are a farmer and actually have to go OFF ROAD!! They are pointless, petrol-guzzling and are very dangerous to other road users in normal cars, and to pedestrians.

most people winge about 4x4 cos they cant afford one themselves.

Originally posted by banesmabes
I can't stand seeing anyone drive a 4x4 unless you are a farmer and actually have to go OFF ROAD!! They are pointless, petrol-guzzling and are very dangerous to other road users in normal cars, and to pedestrians.

But their comfy and they look cool. :P

most people winge about 4x4 cos they cant afford one themselves.

They're not that expensive just anti social. Another offshoot of the "private affluence public squalor" culture fostered by Madame T. Lets all have big cars and crap trains etc. A weird macho excess....who can buy the car with the least mpg and which does the most damage to the environment?

i think they look a bit 'gay.' You know what i mean? Gay men who have problems with their sexuality spend all day in the gym and drive a big truck!
Believe! You'd look better in a sports car!

Originally posted by J-Blaze
But their comfy and they look cool. :P

I don't think they look cool at all - they look bloody stupid being driven in a city :rolleyes:

StarSparkle

Originally posted by steelcitybab
most people winge about 4x4 cos they cant afford one themselves.

Load of crap as far as I'm concerned - I 'winge' about them because they are adding an awful lot of pollution to the atmosphere and are downright dangerous for anyone who isn't inside one of them! Plus people who drive them seem to think they can do anything they like on the road. They are completely unneccesary for people who don't actually have to go off-road.

Originally posted by banesmabes
are downright dangerous for anyone who isn't inside one of them!

They're not great for the person inside either! They handle poorly, stop poorly, you stand more chance of getting hurt if you crash in one.....

And it's only a matter of time before they start getting caned BIG TIME through taxation.

Rather large thread from a while ago about this subject

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29307&highlight=4x4

(well, at least they get mention)

I drive a 4wd, although not one of the truck-style ones. It has the same engine as your average rep car, and about the same economy, so I don't feel its a "petrol guzzler". Most of my travel is motorway miles, so the pedestrian risk is minimised. Having been back in Sheffield recently, I reckon a 4wd is pretty wise choice given the state of the roads.......

Originally posted by steelcitybab
most people winge about 4x4 cos they cant afford one themselves.
* sound effect of a nail being hit on the head *

Originally posted by InvalidUser
* sound effect of a nail being hit on the head *

whatever..... family forum mate.... each to their own opinion:loopy:

Originally posted by steelcitybab
whatever..... family forum mate.... each to their own opinion:loopy:
I was agreeing with you. It was a cryptic way of saying you "hit the nail on the head" with your comment.

I'll get my coat...

Originally posted by InvalidUser
I was agreeing with you. It was a cryptic way of saying you "hit the nail on the head" with your comment.

I'll get my coat...

lol sorry i miss read it :blush:

hehe my mistake... i take the sarcasm back

Originally posted by steelcitybab
whatever..... family forum mate.... each to their own opinion:loopy: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Sound effect of a case resting:clap:

Originally posted by miniminch
i think they look a bit 'gay.' You know what i mean? Gay men who have problems with their sexuality spend all day in the gym and drive a big truck!
Believe! You'd look better in a sports car!

No, I don't know what you mean - I don't know any gay man who drives one of these (and I know a few).

Gay men have much better taste sweetie.

(PS Not gonna start on the problems with sexuality - there are a lot more effed-up straight guys running about in penis extensions - sorry, sports cars...)

I'd like to see anyone tow my 19ft caravan off a muddy field with a sports car!!!

Originally posted by phawley
I'd like to see anyone tow my 19ft caravan off a muddy field with a sports car!!!

O/T slightly, but I remember driving on the motorway somewhere a couple of years back and being shocked to see a brand new Porsche 911 Turbo pulling this huge caravan.

The Porsche was loaded to the gills with a roofrack and everything. I remember thinking that if you had the readies to part with for a 911 Turbo you might be able to strech to another slightly more practical towing tool...

Also, why on earth would anyone want to ruin such a car with a tow bar?

Anyway, its ability to tow said large caravan off a field remained untested. I suppose the clever Porsche 4 wheel drive system would've given it a fighting chance...

My average, sensible family estate would do it no problem. Depends who is at the wheel though. And whether their right driving shoe has soles of lead when delicate throttle is needed.

I love my 4x4, it's great for Sheffield's roads, good for the odd kerb bounce in tight situations, gives me a bit more authority on the road (I used to be bullied in my little Fiesta) and having just come back from the States where they all have massive cars, I think it is comfortable and would love to have a Dodge but only if it had LPG conversion to avoid harmful emissions and to be more economical. My Fourby isn't particularly expensive to run, no more than a mid sized car as it is Diesel (but greatly underpowered). I'm ready for a car change, want something a bit more powerful, and will be looking around in this market.

Drive what you enjoy - as long as it doesn't kick out black smoke!

weren't the government going to implement a minimum safety standard for car vs's pedestrian impacts. That is, the car design should minimise the damage done to pedestrian at any given speed.

This would cause huge problems for 4*4's, as that big flat front tends to kill people, and means that they go under the wheels rather than over the top.

got 2 4x4 in the family with private plates & i don't care what u treehuggers think.
i don't drink, smoke or do drugs so i can afford what i want to drive.
MPG is same as a standard saloon in the biggest & equal to a fiesta on the smallest of the two.But if anyone would like to donate their car to me so i can pull it's guts out towing my trailers,water bowser & horse boxes i will gladly accept the gift.
if you get hit by a car it hurts regardless of what type it is so why blame 4x4's for killing people. when was the last time a boy racer piled his Shogun through someones wall.

Originally posted by Cyclone
weren't the government going to implement a minimum safety standard for car vs's pedestrian impacts. That is, the car design should minimise the damage done to pedestrian at any given speed.

This would cause huge problems for 4*4's, as that big flat front tends to kill people, and means that they go under the wheels rather than over the top.

Then they'd need to redesign buses, LGVs, taxis and various other models of vehicles with flat front ends.

Bouncing off the top of a vehicle is still gonna hurt like hell and is likely to be as fatal.

Bull bars on Fourbys are not good for pedestrians' health if they are hit. Although I've not read up enough on this to give meaty commentry on it.

Originally posted by Classic Rock
Then they'd need to redesign buses, LGVs, taxis and various other models of vehicles with flat front ends.

Bouncing off the top of a vehicle is still gonna hurt like hell and is likely to be as fatal.

Bull bars on Fourbys are not good for pedestrians' health if they are hit. Although I've not read up enough on this to give meaty commentry on it.

Yeah, that is true, but I fear it might boil down to statistics. The majority of vehicles on the road are privately owned cars. If this large statistic starts to become less pedestrian friendly then it would have a much large effect on the number of fatalities.

Also, people tend to see a bus or lorry coming as they're big ugly noisy things that are hard to miss. Modern cars, apart from the tyre roar, tend to be rather quiet.

Maybe Edd can fill us in with some of the physics, but what is being sought after in a pedestrain friendly car is as little transfer of forces. If the body is totally decellerated in one direction and then accelerated in the other (being bounced off the flat of bus, for example) the the transfer of energy is huge. However, if the body is deflected upwards and over a car, the resultant transfer of force is much reduced. And, as Cyclone pointed out, you wouldn't go under the wheels.

Wouldn't recommend trying either, though.

Originally posted by miniminch
i think they look a bit 'gay.' You know what i mean? Gay men who have problems with their sexuality spend all day in the gym and drive a big truck!


We were going to buy a Jeep but didn't for that exact reason, a couple of people wen't "oooh, trying to look buch are we ?"

I know you shouldn't care what people think, but you do.

Originally posted by Classic Rock
Then they'd need to redesign buses, LGVs, taxis and various other models of vehicles with flat front ends.

Bouncing off the top of a vehicle is still gonna hurt like hell and is likely to be as fatal.

Bull bars on Fourbys are not good for pedestrians' health if they are hit. Although I've not read up enough on this to give meaty commentry on it.

maybe all the SF physics experts can email the scientists who did a study and found that 4*4's kill a far higher percentage of pedestrians involved in accidents than other cars do. They must have made a mistake.

The flat and high front means that you get struck in the torso instead of legs (or if you're a child you get struck in the torso and head instead of legs and lower abdomen). The flat impact transfers force much more quickly to the head and torso, than when your head and torso bounce of the bonnet of a saloon. And, bonnets aren't rigid, which means even lower acceleration when your head is bouncing of the bonnet compared to when it's either bouncing of your bull bars or of the tarmac.

Try to rationalise it all you like, but the fact is that if you drive a 4*4 then your vehicle is more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users than if you had a saloon.

Originally posted by Cyclone

Try to rationalise it all you like, but the fact is that if you drive a 4*4 then your vehicle is more dangerous to both pedestrians and other road users than if you had a saloon.

i hate to say this but i think your talking gibberish - no facts & no evidence just opinions i'm afraid.
and like Clint once said "opinions are like ar**holes everyone's got one".

On CSI they said that 4x4's are more dangerous than normal cars, thats good enough for me (that and the mangled body they had on the slab).

Originally posted by willman
i hate to say this but i think your talking gibberish - no facts & no evidence just opinions i'm afraid.
and like Clint once said "opinions are like ar**holes everyone's got one".

feel free to make yourself look silly by not checking whenever you like. I tend to form my opinions based on evidence rather than what i'd prefer were true though.


Low speed pedestrian collisions
While any car can kill a pedestrian at 40km/h 4WD's have a habit of killing at much lower speeds. 4WD's and light commercial vehicles accounted for approximately 30% of vehicles on Australian roads in 1998, but accounted for almost two thirds of child pedestrian fatalities [7]. This is an extraordinary fourfold increase on a per vehicle basis, many caused by parents running down their own kids in driveways. It has been suggested that this may be due to poor visibility due to objects (e.g. spare tyres) in the rear window, and increased height [8]. Data in the US, for all pedestrians is similar, with two times the deaths per accident when SUVs and 'pickups' were involved [9]. Most SUVs sold here have shockingly poor pedestrian crash ratings.



or maybe you'll tell me that UK 4*4's are vastly different to Australian and US ones?

would you accept the euro ncap safety ratings as evidence, or is it all just a big conspiracy theory? Funnily enough 4*4's and SUV's rate lowest of all types for pedestrian safety.

link to ncap - large 4*4 (http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=9) small 4*4 (http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=10)

enough evidence for you?

Originally posted by willman
i hate to say this but i think your talking gibberish - no facts & no evidence just opinions i'm afraid.
and like Clint once said "opinions are like ar**holes everyone's got one".

A few quick links of gibberish from google.

First one from New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/motoring-tech/dn4462) and the second from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4043959.stm).

And as an addendum to my previous post - yeah, the lower point of impact on the body will also serve to protect your internal organs.

Surely it fits in with the very basic prnciples of motion. The greater the mass, the greater the momentum. So the heavier the vehicle, the greater the force applied to the victim in a collision.

i think if you compare the majority of uk 4x4's & suvs then yes they are different from both US & australian types.
they are manufactured for independent markets , which account for the popular uk type being less powerful than full on usa 4x4's. an suv & pickup as mentioned in your article are not the same as 4x4's.X5's etc.it also states commerical trucks & not domestic 4x4's.
your article proves nothing except you don't read the article correctly.
oh and is it th cars fault if the driver doesn't keep their kid under control whilst reversing.

bad driver not bad cars.

in order to use "bull bars" they have had to prove under legal challenge that they do not cause accidents , due to the fact that they are currently available i think the legal debate proves that they are not a danger to the pedestrians.

Originally posted by Andy78
Surely it fits in with the very basic prnciples of motion. The greater the mass, the greater the momentum. So the heavier the vehicle, the greater the force applied to the victim in a collision.


It's also the shape.

As mentioned earlier, deflecting someone over the car will cause less accellerative energy on their body than having them be repelled from the front of the car.

The former would happen with a modern 'regular' car and the latter would happen with a car with a large flat frontal area such as a high front 4x4. Or, indeed, my own VW hippy-wagon.

Originally posted by ADC_28
It's also the shape.

As mentioned earlier, deflecting someone over the car will cause less accellerative energy on their body than having them be repelled from the front of the car.

The former would happen with a modern 'regular' car and the latter would happen with a car with a large flat frontal area such as a high front 4x4. Or, indeed, my own VW hippy-wagon.

Very true. To exagerate the situation a bit, I'd much prefer to be hit by a roller skate travelling at 30 MPH than a brick wall travelling at 30 MPH

just a little supportive quote from old Quentin.
Quentin Willson said SUVs were larger in the US than in Britain.

"Their 4x4s are the size of double garages and they do eight miles to the gallon and it's completely wrong," he said.

"But over here, I don't see any empirical proof that they are either decimating pedestrians or polluting on such a massive scale."

He added: "OK, we don't like the suburban mums who drive them, but are we going to have to legislate against them because of that?"

Originally posted by willman
i think if you compare the majority of uk 4x4's & suvs then yes they are different from both US & australian types.
they are manufactured for independent markets , which account for the popular uk type being less powerful than full on usa 4x4's. an suv & pickup as mentioned in your article are not the same as 4x4's.X5's etc.it also states commerical trucks & not domestic 4x4's.
your article proves nothing except you don't read the article correctly.
oh and is it th cars fault if the driver doesn't keep their kid under control whilst reversing.

bad driver not bad cars.

in order to use "bull bars" they have had to prove under legal challenge that they do not cause accidents , due to the fact that they are currently available i think the legal debate proves that they are not a danger to the pedestrians.

whatever, you just carry on in lala land where 2 ton flat fronted vehicles just bounce of pedestrians.

oh and another one from a BBC site, as everyone else quotes the Beeb all the time.

Mr Lefley said that Volvo's XC90 4x4 had achieved the same or a better pedestrian safety score, in the Euro New Car Assessment Programme, as 45 out of 47 "supermini" class cars.

"You cannot deduce that all SUVs are, by definition, dangerous to pedestrians, because that is not the case. Some are more dangerous than others.

"This argument has been imported from America without any reference to the vehicles on sale in Europe, the range of vehicles and range of engines available."

Originally posted by willman
just a little supportive quote from old Quentin.
Quentin Willson said SUVs were larger in the US than in Britain.

"Their 4x4s are the size of double garages and they do eight miles to the gallon and it's completely wrong," he said.

"But over here, I don't see any empirical proof that they are either decimating pedestrians or polluting on such a massive scale."

He added: "OK, we don't like the suburban mums who drive them, but are we going to have to legislate against them because of that?"

Yes, Quentin, a motoring journalist, is critical of the data, and to an extent he is true. There are bigger polluters and the increased chances of a pedestrian fatality in the event of a collision is by no means epidemic. And similarly, there are 4x4s now being developed that are lower and softer to ease the problem of pedestrian or crash impacts.

However, in relation to the other choice of vehicle for a private owner, a regular car, they are more polluting and they do cause more pedestrian fatalities as a whole. The BBC will always endeavor to provide both sides to a story and quite rightly so.

To put things in a slightly different context, does anyone remember the discussions in parliament in the late 70s when compulsory use of seatbelts was being pushed through? The detractors were forever bringing anomalous cases of people who were thrown from the car through not wearing a seatbelt and would've clearly been killed if they'd remained in the car.

We can allow ourselves an amused smirk of those 'ignorant fools' in the past, but the evidence of increased danger to other road users and pedestrians plus the larger amount of finite resources to do exactly the same task as regular cars does suggest that the use of 4x4s to be something of a motoring dead end.

if people have stuff to tow then a 4x4 might make sense, but then you'd get much the same result from a powerful saloon car anyway unless you're pulling a ridiculously big, and possibly badly loaded caravan.

The problem with 4x4s is that many if not most people buy them because they feel safer in them. And what happens if you feel a little 'too' safe? You will let down your guard driving and are more liekly to make mistakes. Which is why we see so many inexperienced and inattentive drivers doing stupid things in them. And go round a corner too fast in a Land Rover and you'll be on your roof.

These vehicles are actually becoming incredibly impractical to have in a city like Sheffield. If you have a drive and can always be assured of a parking space wherever you go, as in the US, then it's no problem, but in Sheffield this is a problem. I have a neighbour with one and he can't park the thing properly because he has no drive - the other day it was parked at least two feet away from the kerb, and due to the size at the back, he takes up two spaces with the thing. And no, it's not jealousy! I could afford one myself but I choose not to waste cash on cars when they devalue so quickly.

Originally posted by steelcitybab
most people winge about 4x4 cos they cant afford one themselves.

Horrid things, I whinge about them because they're a blight on the cityscape. The city would be a much nicer (and probably safer) place to live if the countless 4x4s weren't here.