Following the discussion on use of 4x4's off road, I was wondering what you thought of the 4x4's that never see mud. They're never put in 4 wheel drive mode because all they ever see is the trip to school. We already pay a certain amount of tax to maintain the roads, is it not about time people start paying a "pollution tax" - tax that increases, i'd say exponentially with the inefficiency of the vehicle. Or more importantly should these vehicles even be allowed unless the driver can justify its use (farm vehicles)?

I read:

Wasteful
"Driving a 12 mpg 4x4 around town rather than a 25 mpg car for 1 year will waste the same amount of energy as leaving the fridge door open for 7 years."

The Safety Myth
"Urban 4x4's are involved in 25% more accidents than ordinary cars due to the risk of rollover and increased weight making them more lethal in crashes"

Off Road Vehicles?
"Only 5% of 4x4's bought are used off road"

Stop Urban 4x4's! (http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/)

Would a 'pollution tax' really work?

I expect a 15 year old, badly maintained Ford Fiesta with 900cc engine, belching out black fumes would pollute more than a well-maintained, modern 2 litre engine :?

However, the smaller engine would probably get slightly better mpg, so we'd be less reliant on invading foreign countries to secure oil supplies

Edit - Perhaps engines that use alternative fuels are the answer. Or smaller, lighter, cheaper cars. I mean, you can buy a Renault Clio for about £7000, but it's only about £1000 more for a larger, heavier, thirstier Renault Megane.

Currently, small cars just aren't that cost effective :|

Maybe not done on mpg but on emmisions.

How are small cars not that cost effective? Already you pay less road tax. But thats just my point there needs to be more incentive for people to buy less environmentally damaging vehicles.

Timmy, how many of you who are campaigning against 4 x 4's go on holiday in an aeroplane? I dare say, most if not all of you and you are therefore guilty of creating more pollution in one journey than you would in a lifetime of driving a 4x4.

;)

true indeed, and this is another area that needs cleaning up. We have to start somewhere however and taking the stance of "Oh other people pollute so much more than me so I can do what I like" won't get us anywhere!

Personally, I have flown on holiday but try to keep this to a minimum. However, I have yet to own my first car and I think I may try to live without one for as long as possible.

Originally posted by TimmyR
How are small cars not that cost effective? Already you pay less road tax. But thats just my point there needs to be more incentive for people to buy less environmentally damaging vehicles.

Small cars are not cost effective because although they are cheaper to buy, they are not such good value for money, despite a puny saving in car tax.

In my example above, there's only £1000 difference between a Renault Clio and a Renault Megane. In fact, there's only £3000 difference between a Renault Clio and a Renault Laguna - a car two or three times the size is only a few thousand more.

Small cars need to come down in price much more...

Originally posted by Mo
Timmy, how many of you who are campaigning against 4 x 4's go on holiday in an aeroplane? I dare say, most if not all of you and you are therefore guilty of creating more pollution in one journey than you would in a lifetime of driving a 4x4.

;)

Is that you Mo? I know you're not one to be described as a lefty do-gooder, but I thought of you as a sandal-wearing tree-hugger at the very least :o

Originally posted by Abdul
Is that you Mo? I know you're not one to be described as a lefty do-gooder, but I thought of you as a sandal-wearing tree-hugger at the very least :o

Hi Abdul, just trying to bring in the bigger picture.

I drive a teeny, economical car (but admitedly we do have 2) and I do wear sandals. I eat lentils am in Greenpeace, read the Daily Telegraph, am anti fluoride, won't eat beef and voted Tory at the last election.

Can you categorise that :D

I'm not entirely convinced of the logic of being in greenpeace and voting tory :)

Originally posted by TimmyR
I'm not entirely convinced of the logic of being in greenpeace and voting tory :)

They are not mutually exclusive, however there were more issues at stake at the General election than environmental ones - important as they are.

Originally posted by TimmyR
I'm not entirely convinced of the logic of being in greenpeace and voting tory :)

While some of the more cynical amongst us are not entirely convinced of the logic of either voting or joining an environmental group :D

I sometimes debate breathing due to the CO2 emissions...

But then I have many plants in my house and garden so that should make up for it.

Originally posted by TimmyR
I sometimes debate breathing due to the CO2 emissions...

But then I have many plants in my house and garden so that should make up for it.

Now that is the funniest signature I will ever read :thumbsup:

Anyway, back on the topic - what do you think of my idea that if small cars were better value for money, people would buy them instead of larger ones?

Well absolutely, on one hand the positive move to reduce the costs of small unpolluting cars by means of a reward - reduced tax or government subsidies to reduce purchase prices. On the other hand penilisation for polluting cars that are arguably totally unecessary such as hummers, SUV's, urban 4x4s etc by means of extra tax if not an outright ban.

Errrm the current taxation class is based on pollution.

The lower the emmisions the cheaper the tax.

You can't re-invent the wheel.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Errrm the current taxation class is based on pollution.

The lower the emmisions the cheaper the tax.

You can't re-invent the wheel.

Well they reduce it for lower emissions yes, BUT we need more. I notice your avatar may suggest your opinions on the subject! I don't really care about the mechanism for taxation but there needs to be more pursuasive action taken by the government to reduce the number of gas guzzlers on the road.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Errrm the current taxation class is based on pollution.

The lower the emmisions the cheaper the tax.

You can't re-invent the wheel.

And how much is the difference between a car at the top end of the car tax scale and one at the bottom? A couple of hundred quid?

I expect most people wouldn't choose a car based solely on how much the car tax costs, therefore I don't think the existing taxation classes will help reduce pollution.

more like £50.

Anyway, are the punitive 80% tax rates applied to fuel itself not incentive enough to buy an efficient car.
If they aren't then a few hundred pounds more will make little difference.

As to bigger cars being better value. I don't really see the logic.
How is it better value to pay more for a bigger car, if all you need is a small car?
If bigger were necessarily better value, then we'd all be buying buses or transit vans.

I don't know the difference sorry, as I am never likely to own a car of that era where that tax bracket applies.

I will stick to my classics.

Just to say the tax bracket is important in the choice of my everyday car.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I will stick to my classics.


Unless the anti-car protestors have their way.
They ban 'SUVs' and 'gas guzzlers' (two irrelevant american phrases, I might add), then turn their attention elsewhere.

First it'll be sports cars with large capacity engines.

Then 2 seater cars.

Then any car capable of over 70MPH.

Then convertibles which arent as safe as hard tops.

Then classics which aren't as efficient or clean as modern cars, and dont meet modern safety standards.

Then you've had it mate.
It's new Ford Focus or nothing.

Surely the issue here is not tax paid on fuel or whether you drive a 4X4 or a little mini. It has to be that sheer numbers of cars on our roads. This leads to gridlock whether they are environmentally friendly or total gas guzzlers. When the cities grind to a halt and on-one is going anywhere, the fuel they run on, tax paid etc etc will matter not one jot.!

You've nothing to worry about then Timmy, if you are going to live without a car and minimsie the travel you do by aeroplane, I will have your share of a little car and my share of a little car and have one big one!!!:heyhey:

ouch! only joking.....

Originally posted by Cyclone
As to bigger cars being better value. I don't really see the logic.
How is it better value to pay more for a bigger car, if all you need is a small car?

If you've got, say, £8,000 to spend on a car, would you buy a Clio at £7k or a Megane at £8k? I'd go for the Megane, because you're getting much more car for not much more money. In fact, if you look or haggle hard enough, you could probably get the Megane for the same price.

Given that ongoing costs such as tax and insurance won't be much different, I say bigger cars are better value.

However, if the Clio was only £4k or 5k, then I'd go for that instead.

Originally posted by Abdul
If you've got, say, £8,000 to spend on a car, would you buy a Clio at £7k or a Megane at £8k? I'd go for the Megane, because you're getting much more car for not much more money. In fact, if you look or haggle hard enough, you could probably get the Megane for the same price.

Given that ongoing costs such as tax and insurance won't be much different, I say bigger cars are better value.

However, if the Clio was only £4k or 5k, then I'd go for that instead.

if I had no use for the extra space in a megane, why would I choose to spend 1k more, find it harder to park and use more fuel.
If the Clio were the right car for me, it wouldn't matter whether it was actually £500 more, I'd still buy it.

There is no inherent value in being bigger.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Unless the anti-car protestors have their way.
They ban 'SUVs' and 'gas guzzlers' (two irrelevant american phrases, I might add), then turn their attention elsewhere.

First it'll be sports cars with large capacity engines.

Then 2 seater cars.

Then any car capable of over 70MPH.

Then convertibles which arent as safe as hard tops.

Then classics which aren't as efficient or clean as modern cars, and dont meet modern safety standards.

Then you've had it mate.
It's new Ford Focus or nothing.

What do you mean by "first it'll be"? I would like to see these cars paying significantly more tax yes. Safety is not the issue really even though I mentioned it in the first post - this was more due to the fact that safety is often cited as a reason to own a 4x4.

We have to start realising that burning fossils fuels comes with a toll on the environment and also that it is a finite resource - waste it all now and we'll regret it later. Maybe not in our lifetimes but in our childrens lifetimes. Also if we reduce our dependency on crude oil won't we help ourselves politically? The political power that certain oil rich countries have over us and the effect that crude oil prices have on the economy would be reduced???


Cyclone I believe the point Abdul is trying to make is that there is no incentive to buy a smaller car. People want big cars as a status symbol. They aren't really that much more expensive.

If it was me I would buy a car for £500 and pocket the rest of the cash, there is no benefit from buying new car except to impress friends and family. A car for £500 is just as reliable.

Originally posted by TimmyR
What do you mean by "first it'll be"? I would like to see these cars paying significantly more tax yes. Safety is not the issue really even though I mentioned it in the first post - this was more due to the fact that safety is often cited as a reason to own a 4x4.

What are you asking me Tim?

My post was aimed at Skatiechick's statement about sticking to classic cars, and how that might not be possibility for ever.

Originally posted by TimmyR
What do you mean by "first it'll be"? I would like to see these cars paying significantly more tax yes. Safety is not the issue really even though I mentioned it in the first post - this was more due to the fact that safety is often cited as a reason to own a 4x4.

We have to start realising that burning fossils fuels comes with a toll on the environment and also that it is a finite resource - waste it all now and we'll regret it later. Maybe not in our lifetimes but in our childrens lifetimes. Also if we reduce our dependency on crude oil won't we help ourselves politically? The political power that certain oil rich countries have over us and the effect that crude oil prices have on the economy would be reduced???


Cyclone I believe the point Abdul is trying to make is that there is no incentive to buy a smaller car. People want big cars as a status symbol. They aren't really that much more expensive.



just thought i'd add my twopenneth as an owner of 2 4x4's.
both my vehicles return better mpg figures than a ford mondeo,vauxhall vectra/zafira & half a dozen other cars i can't be bothered to mention including ALL the exec merc's & bmws.

no one has cited safety as reason for buying a 4x4, the opinion is that the driver "FEELS" safer.


cars including 4x4's only contribute 12% to the pollution and fossil fuel consumption in the world -FACT.
why not just turn all the little red lights off at night that will save u up to 25% of YOUR fuel bill annually.

Originally posted by TimmyR

We have to start realising that burning fossils fuels comes with a toll on the environment and also that it is a finite resource - waste it all now and we'll regret it later. Maybe not in our lifetimes but in our childrens lifetimes. Also if we reduce our dependency on crude oil won't we help ourselves politically? The political power that certain oil rich countries have over us and the effect that crude oil prices have on the economy would be reduced???


.

why not stop wasting electricity using a pc on the forum, that would have a direct benefit on the fossil fuels used.

Originally posted by willman
why not just turn all the little red lights off at night that will save u up to 25% of YOUR fuel bill annually.


In fairness, TimmyR did mention something similar in a previous post:

Originally posted by TimmyR
We have to start somewhere however and taking the stance of "Oh other people pollute so much more than me so I can do what I like" won't get us anywhere!

Which sounds very similar to the excuse smokers use :roll:

Originally posted by willman
why not stop wasting electricity using a pc on the forum, that would have a direct benefit on the fossil fuels used.

Have you considered installing a windfarm in your back garden?

With all the hot air and wind you're making, you've probably generated enough juice to power the National Grid for a week :|

I realise that this thread was originally about tax and pollution etc etc, but the point I made about congestion and gridlock doesn't seem to have been addressed. Everyone talks about what sort of car they'd prefer etc but when gridlock occurs ownership of a car will be immaterial. Walking boots on!!:D

Originally posted by Abdul
Have you considered installing a windfarm in your back garden?

With all the hot air and wind you're making, you've probably generated enough juice to power the National Grid for a week :|

i hope thats not a personal attack or an insult.I dont think that's allowed on this forum.i'll just check with the mods.

Originally posted by Phizzy
I realise that this thread was originally about tax and pollution etc etc, but the point I made about congestion and gridlock doesn't seem to have been addressed. Everyone talks about what sort of car they'd prefer etc but when gridlock occurs ownership of a car will be immaterial. Walking boots on!!:D

Well, if cars were cheaper and smaller, we wouldn't be so reliant on using the buses.

We'd have no need for bus lanes, which would free up an extra lane on many roads in and out of the town centre, relieving the congestion problem.

We'd no longer have to be stuck behind a bus travelling at 15 mph up one of Sheffield's majestic hills, so we'd get to work to quicker, and lower our stress levels, which would save the NHS a fortune in a couple of decades time.

We'd no longer be held to ransom by First Mainline's six-monthly price increases.

However, we would have to flatten many of the citys fine old buildings to make space for the extra car parks.

Edit - why not just flatten the entire Castle Square area to make way for the car park? When the ring road completes in a few years time, access to that area of town will be made easier.

Abdul
I'm not talking only about Sheffield. I take your point about First's ridiculous price hikes, but making cars smaller will not reduce congestion.
Think about how many families there are in the country, all with kids and all the kids want to drive and own their own cars. What do you think will be the result of this? It is sheer numbers not size! Especially as most British drivers are incredibly selfish and will not share their vehicles!

Originally posted by Skatiechik
If it was me I would buy a car for £500 and pocket the rest of the cash, there is no benefit from buying new car except to impress friends and family. A car for £500 is just as reliable.

that's a load of old rubbish. An older car is less reliable than a newer one, I don't see how you can even debate it.

Not that i'll be buying brand new, the loss of reliability in 1 year is minimal, whereas the lost of value is significant, so I expect i'll always buy cars at least 1 year old, but I don't particularly want to keep them beyond 5 or 6 years old.

A megane has no status symbol value above that of a clio, size not withstanding.
People buy a larger car because it makes more sense for them. if they need the facilities that provides then no amount of price reduction on smaller ones would tempt them away.
The reason for the small price difference is probably down to that being the difference that it costs to make one, most of the costs of a car aren't down to raw materials, so it makes sense that an increase in size doesn't proportionally increase cost.

Originally posted by Abdul
Well, if cars were cheaper and smaller, we wouldn't be so reliant on using the buses.

We'd have no need for bus lanes, which would free up an extra lane on many roads in and out of the town centre, relieving the congestion problem.

We'd no longer have to be stuck behind a bus travelling at 15 mph up one of Sheffield's majestic hills, so we'd get to work to quicker, and lower our stress levels, which would save the NHS a fortune in a couple of decades time.

We'd no longer be held to ransom by First Mainline's six-monthly price increases.

However, we would have to flatten many of the citys fine old buildings to make space for the extra car parks.

Edit - why not just flatten the entire Castle Square area to make way for the car park? When the ring road completes in a few years time, access to that area of town will be made easier.

your answer to congestion is to make cars cheaper and a fraction smaller, and remove bus lanes??? I think that might need a rethink. The majority of space taken up by a car on the road isn't down to it's size, it's more down to braking distance.

Originally posted by Cyclone
your answer to congestion is to make cars cheaper and a fraction smaller, and remove bus lanes???

I'd get rid of the buses too - big, slow, lumbering dinosaurs that they are

No No No!! AYSOS?
It's not down to size of vehicle OR braking distance or any other feature. Congestion is due to the number of vehicles on the road. All at the same time. It's nothing to do with value of car, resale price or whatever. It's really quite simple. More People = More cars on road! With a finite space for roads this will increase congestion.What part of that don't you understand?

Originally posted by Phizzy
No No No!! AYSOS?
It's not down to size of vehicle OR braking distance or any other feature. Congestion is due to the number of vehicles on the road. All at the same time. It's nothing to do with value of car, resale price or whatever. It's really quite simple. More People = More cars on road! With a finite space for roads this will increase congestion.What part of that don't you understand?

whats AYSOS mean?

nice simplistic view which will always be accurate regarding congestion.

Originally posted by willman
whats AYSOS mean?

I'm guessing it means Are You Stupid Or ... some other word beginning with S.

Are you still here, willman? I thought you had gone home :|

Originally posted by Phizzy
No No No!! AYSOS?
It's not down to size of vehicle OR braking distance or any other feature. Congestion is due to the number of vehicles on the road. All at the same time. It's nothing to do with value of car, resale price or whatever. It's really quite simple. More People = More cars on road! With a finite space for roads this will increase congestion.What part of that don't you understand?

So what is your answer then? All you seem to do is ridicule mine :|

Problem to every solution, you are. Maybe that should be your autosig :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Phizzy
No No No!! AYSOS?
It's not down to size of vehicle OR braking distance or any other feature. Congestion is due to the number of vehicles on the road. All at the same time. It's nothing to do with value of car, resale price or whatever. It's really quite simple. More People = More cars on road! With a finite space for roads this will increase congestion.What part of that don't you understand?

ermm, I think you misunderstand.
It's a combination of number of vehicles and the amount of space that they occupy, this is fairly obvious.
If all cars suddenly occupied half the space (not half the size of the car, half the space of road occupied) then there would be room for twice as many cars at the same level of congestion.

There are researchers looking into ways to do this, the american highways agency experimented a few years ago with electronically controlled convoys of cars travelling with a 6m braking gap at 60mph, not possible for humans, but perfectly feasible for computers.
When I said braking distance, I didn't mean that it varied from car to car, i meant that a travelling car takes up say 25 m of space, so getting a smaller car and cutting .2 or .3 m off that won't make a hell of a difference.

Originally posted by Abdul
I'd get rid of the buses too - big, slow, lumbering dinosaurs that they are

every bus on the road might mean 30 or 40 less cars at rush hour. Do you think that replacing that bus with 30 small cars will increase the space on the road? I don't think so.

And at non peak times when the bus has only 3 people on it. Who cares, it's not rush hour and the roads are jammed.

Oh, and they also provide a vital service for all those people not fortunate enough to be able to afford a car.

Originally posted by Abdul
I'd get rid of the buses too - big, slow, lumbering dinosaurs that they are

You've really gotta be joking! Do you really think that you go slow because of buses? You go slow on roads because of traffic! A bus relieves congestion.

Lets get rid of a few of those lanes on motorways and put nice trainlines down instead - and that is efficient trains not these massive heavy 30 year old things that chug round the UK.

It really annoys me that the M6 toll road popped up - great route for a nice high speed train line up the west of the country.

Abdul
Just because the view is simplistic dosen't make it wrong.
The problem of congestion will be solved when there are less cars all travelling in the same direction at the same time.
BTW,I didn't ridicule your "solution". I just think that getting rid of buses (which can carry far more people than any car ever can) is not the way forward. Drivers tend to carry only themselves. ie one car with one person which leads to congestion.
Cyclone I take your point about car size, but with an increasing population, most of whom will want to drive just like their parents before them, and with selfishness thrown in (This car is mine and I'll share it with no one) then congestion can only increase?

ignoring congestion issues would a pollution tax work.
as i have stated my super duper gas guzzling 4x4's return similar emissions to those of a standard family car. therefore everyone would need to pay more for their cars.
i also have a large estat car that has the lowest fuel emissions which does benefit me in a 3% tax saving.(which is reason number 2 i had for buying it)
perhaps reducing tax may encourage people to buy more efficient cars.

Originally posted by TimmyR
.

Lets get rid of a few of those lanes on motorways and put nice trainlines down instead -

lets not, lets build more roads so we can all use different ones therefore relieving congestion on busy roads, whilst maintaining the main reasons for cars - ease of use & convenience.

Originally posted by Phizzy
Abdul
Just because the view is simplistic dosen't make it wrong.
The problem of congestion will be solved when there are less cars all travelling in the same direction at the same time.
BTW,I didn't ridicule your "solution". I just think that getting rid of buses (which can carry far more people than any car ever can) is not the way forward. Drivers tend to carry only themselves. ie one car with one person which leads to congestion.
Cyclone I take your point about car size, but with an increasing population, most of whom will want to drive just like their parents before them, and with selfishness thrown in (This car is mine and I'll share it with no one) then congestion can only increase?

i'd agree with you except for a minor problem.
The population of the UK hasn't increased in the last 10 years, and estimates are that it may start to shrink unless we increase immigration.

Which isn't to say that the number of drivers won't increase, it will because the population will become more top heavy, less under 17's who can't drive, and the general level of car ownership is probaby still increasing.

It might actually be feasible though to build enough roads and introduce the correct schemes to keep a lid on the whole thing, and indeed even to get ahead of it.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Following the discussion on use of 4x4's off road, I was wondering what you thought of the 4x4's that never see mud. They're never put in 4 wheel drive mode because all they ever see is the trip to school. We already pay a certain amount of tax to maintain the roads, is it not about time people start paying a "pollution tax" - tax that increases, i'd say exponentially with the inefficiency of the vehicle. Or more importantly should these vehicles even be allowed unless the driver can justify its use (farm vehicles)?

I read:

Wasteful
"Driving a 12 mpg 4x4 around town rather than a 25 mpg car for 1 year will waste the same amount of energy as leaving the fridge door open for 7 years."

The Safety Myth
"Urban 4x4's are involved in 25% more accidents than ordinary cars due to the risk of rollover and increased weight making them more lethal in crashes"

Off Road Vehicles?
"Only 5% of 4x4's bought are used off road"

Stop Urban 4x4's! (http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/)
I couldn't be arsed to read the rest of the crap you've written, but as an urban 4x4 driver I obviously take exception to your pointless post.

Yes my 4x4 can do off road and yes at some point (being new to owning a 4x4) I will take it off road.
I'll put money on it that I already pay more tax than you in 2 areas.

1) My car tax is £170 per annum due to it's 4lt engine.
2) Quite rightly you stated it does 12 mpg (mine actually manages roughly 16 mpg) therefore I pay more tax in petrol costs.

I accept these since it was my choice to choose a 4x4 vehicle. I can afford to run the 4x4 vehicle and I like the look, feel, and safeness that my 4x4 vehicle gives me.
Like it or not... you get into an accident with my 4x4 and the chances are you'll come off worse... therefore... I'm safer.

Also on the subject of emissions, what fuel does your vehicle run on? Well I'll put money on that in less than 2 weeks time the same 4x4 I drive will produce less emissions than your car.

Why? Well it's getting LPG converted, Liquid Petroleum Gas is far better for the environment, is classed as a green fuel and as such produces far far far less emissions.

You'll find that A LOT of Urban 4x4's are being converted to run on LPG, thus making the average 2.0lt car that will never see LPG being the main offender in excess pollution due to emissions.

Like it... or lump it, but please.... please... get a life :loopy:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

you're safer in a collision, but actually less safe overall due to the increased risk of rolling.
By making yourself safer you also make everyone else less safe, particularly pedestrians, a tad selfish no?

How can a pedestrian be scared of a 4 x 4 when there are busses, tractors, lorries, dumper trucks etc etc on the road?????

Originally posted by Cyclone
you're safer in a collision, but actually less safe overall due to the increased risk of rolling.
By making yourself safer you also make everyone else less safe, particularly pedestrians, a tad selfish no?
Selfish... erm no!
How am I making pedestrians less safe? Because my vehicle can fair better in a collision than say... yours... what has that got to do with pedestrians?

My vehicle has risk of rolling... yes this I will accept.
Your vehicle has a risk of rolling too... but if it's your average Corsa or something then it's centre of gravity obviously make it less likely than my Jeep.

However the risk of rolling comes into play how you drive it.
I drive my vehicle very carefully and with courtousness to other road users... just as I did when I drove my Z3 and as I did with my BMW 520i. So that argument can go back too!

The people who make these roads less safe are those who drive without regard for other road users and pedestrians.
They drive fast, dangerous and without proper care... yes they're boy racers!

All you're doing is making assumptions and generalising with a narrowminded point of view... I thought you had more intellegence than that Cyclone... was I wrong?

Regarding 4X4s. I thought that the latest research says that they produce more CO than other vehicles. So there's selfishness for a start. You contribute more to global warming that way!
As for pedestrians being more at risk from 4X4 drivers when there are buses, lorries etc. But lorry drivers and bus drivers have had extra training to drive the vehicles they do whereas 4X4 drivers have just had extra money to spend!

I took a 4 x 4 driving course....

Originally posted by Colorado
I took a 4 x 4 driving course....

The answer is 16 :roll:

Originally posted by Phizzy
whereas 4X4 drivers have just had extra money to spend!

I think that's the basis of much of the resentment pitched at 4x4s.

And it's just not true.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Selfish... erm no!
How am I making pedestrians less safe? Because my vehicle can fair better in a collision than say... yours... what has that got to do with pedestrians?

My vehicle has risk of rolling... yes this I will accept.
Your vehicle has a risk of rolling too... but if it's your average Corsa or something then it's centre of gravity obviously make it less likely than my Jeep.

However the risk of rolling comes into play how you drive it.
I drive my vehicle very carefully and with courtousness to other road users... just as I did when I drove my Z3 and as I did with my BMW 520i. So that argument can go back too!

The people who make these roads less safe are those who drive without regard for other road users and pedestrians.
They drive fast, dangerous and without proper care... yes they're boy racers!

All you're doing is making assumptions and generalising with a narrowminded point of view... I thought you had more intellegence than that Cyclone... was I wrong?

now now, don't get all upset :-)
Pedestrians are more at risk because if you do hit one (the likelihood of which is partly down to how good a driver you are i'll admit {although that said 85% of pedestrian accidents are the pedestrians fault}) because of the high flat front of your vehicle.
It's a fact that high fronted vehicles cause much more serious injuries and fatalitites than more average cars.
Look up the Euro NCAP safety stars for your vehicle if you like and compare the pedestrian safety rating against a mundano.

Originally posted by Cyclone
now now, don't get all upset :-)
Pedestrians are more at risk because if you do hit one (the likelihood of which is partly down to how good a driver you are i'll admit {although that said 85% of pedestrian accidents are the pedestrians fault}) because of the high flat front of your vehicle.
It's a fact that high fronted vehicles cause much more serious injuries and fatalitites than more average cars.
Look up the Euro NCAP safety stars for your vehicle if you like and compare the pedestrian safety rating against a mundano.


now why when dscussing pollution, do we have to start citing american based safety evidence or even going down this road.

Originally posted by willman
now why when dscussing pollution, do we have to start citing american based safety evidence or even going down this road.

EURO NCAP

and because that's the way the discussion went.

Euro NCAP isn't american.

I saw a recent test (only a TV programme) where they did a real-world pedestrian collision with an early Range Rover.

The 'injuries' that were sustained by the dummy were not as serious as those caused when the same dummy was hit at the same speed by a saloon.

So it's not quite so clear-cut, I dont think.
Many people point out flaws in the Euro NCAP testing, but it's the best we have, so we have to go by it.

Personally as a pedestrian I wouldn't want to be hit with a bus, coach, lorry, tram, dumper truck etc etc, so maybe I should have a go at them:rant:

need to get my eyes checked,
however there is insufficent evidence relating too british vehicles.mainly because of the "recent"trend in this type of vehicle.
i wasn't having a go at cyclone, but every potst relatingto 4x4'x always has safety thrown up regardless of the start point.
almost never instigated by 4x4 drivers might i add.

Originally posted by willman
lets not, lets build more roads so we can all use different ones therefore relieving congestion on busy roads, whilst maintaining the main reasons for cars - ease of use & convenience.

i don't find it particularly convenient on the odd occasion when I drive a work pool car home and it takes me up to two hours. The train has failed me twice in the last year but otherwise takes 1 hour.

If thats the freedom you want to enjoy, I'll leave you to it thanks.

Originally posted by TimmyR
i don't find it particularly convenient on the odd occasion when I drive a work pool car home and it takes me up to two hours. The train has failed me twice in the last year but otherwise takes 1 hour.

If thats the freedom you want to enjoy, I'll leave you to it thanks.

the train takes an hour, you have to get to the station, buy aticket wait in a queue, stand up if the trains full,queue to get off, wait for a taxi, no catch a bus then walk fromt he bus stop to your house.
could be a bit more than 1 hour!!

Originally posted by TimmyR
i don't find it particularly convenient on the odd occasion when I drive a work pool car home and it takes me up to two hours. The train has failed me twice in the last year but otherwise takes 1 hour.

If thats the freedom you want to enjoy, I'll leave you to it thanks.

I caught the train home yesterday and back this morning. Door to door 5 hrs.

I drove on Monday, 3:15 at rush hour. I'll see what it's like getting home at 12 on Fri... But i'm betting i'm there before 17:00

Originally posted by Phizzy
Regarding 4X4s. I thought that the latest research says that they produce more CO than other vehicles. So there's selfishness for a start. You contribute more to global warming that way!
As for pedestrians being more at risk from 4X4 drivers when there are buses, lorries etc. But lorry drivers and bus drivers have had extra training to drive the vehicles they do whereas 4X4 drivers have just had extra money to spend!
What a load of tosh.
4x4's produce more CO2 than other vehicles... What sort of percentage? are we referring to? Which vehicles are you compairing it to? I dare say the average 4x4 may produce more CO2 than say a Toyota Corolla (I say may because I haven't been presented with the facts yet). However that Toyota Corolla I'll bet produces more CO2 than say a Smart fortwo or even a Smart forfour so it's all relative.

I'd even put money on the fact that Lorry's, Buses and other LARGE vehicles produce more CO2 than my 4x4... so putting it into your words... we're all selfish :lol: Please... produce a better argument :loopy: or one that has evidence to back it up and is substantial from a reliable source.

4x4 driver may not have had to go through special 4x4 training to drive the vehicle... but there is a reason; 4x4's ARE NOT MUCH LARGER THAN ORDINARY CARS :roll:.
Granted engine size is larger... and some 4x4's have a higher risk of rolling than say a Ford Ka but it all depends on the driver.

I'd say the public are just as likely (if not more) to be hit by wreckless boy racer speeding around in his Corsa or Nova than they are by your average 4x4 driver... who I might add tend to stick easily to the speed limit due to the amount of fuel they use when you attempt to drive them like a smaller car.

So again... if you're going to make a point at least make it a good one with a genuine and factual argument behind it :loopy:

Originally posted by jackthedog
I think that's the basis of much of the resentment pitched at 4x4s.

And it's just not true.
I'd agree with you mate.
Yes I can afford the fuel and extra road tax (more so now that my Jeep will be LPG converted soon), but the Jeep cost me just £2995.

My BMW Z3 (which I owned before my Jeep) cost me thousands more than that.
My brother in laws Renault Megan cost him more than that.

You will see a noticable difference between 4x4 drivers and those who dispise 4x4 drivers due to their dislike and obvious feeling that 4x4's serve no use in urban society, that difference is that they're moaning about what we drive... where as we couldn't care less what they drive.

We live and let live, yet they obviously have some form of single mindedness about them.

Shame really.

Originally posted by Cyclone
now now, don't get all upset :-)
Pedestrians are more at risk because if you do hit one (the likelihood of which is partly down to how good a driver you are i'll admit {although that said 85% of pedestrian accidents are the pedestrians fault}) because of the high flat front of your vehicle.
It's a fact that high fronted vehicles cause much more serious injuries and fatalitites than more average cars.
Look up the Euro NCAP safety stars for your vehicle if you like and compare the pedestrian safety rating against a mundano.
I wont dispute that fact, but you're right... it comes down to the driver. If I may refer you to my earlier post, 4x4 drivers are more likely to stay within the speed limit due to the amount of fuel consuption 4x4's use when you drive them too fast in conditions which do not warrant it.
So the chances of this happening is less likely.

Also to address the point of 4x4's being in more accidents... I haven't heard this, however if it's true... would it be that the vehicle is slightly bigger and easier to be hit by other cars?
I'd say that would account for a large percentage of the increase in accidents.

Also with the 4x4 being high fronted... a pedestrian is just as likely to be seriously injured by a Transit Van or Bus or even a Lorry. Also if you drive a Mundano into a child at 40mph there is an 80% chance it'll die... same with my Jeep. So the law of averages really aren't that different.

Personally, I think drivers of 4 x 4's are penalised enough... It's their CHOICE to drive such a car... It isn't always neccessary, infact I'd go as far to say it isn't neccessary at all to have a vehicle like that in the city, but at the end of the day it is their choice.

If they want to pay more tax, pay more out on petrol, find it harder to park... that's their decision and they can just deal with that! (Not sure what insurance is like on the bigger cars, but I can imagine for a young person, it'd be silly money)

As far as I can see, if we're going to have a go at 4x4 users, why aren't we having a go at people with 1.8 and 2ltr engines? Is it neccessary for them to drive a vehicle that is so uneconomical? Chances are that it isn't...

I agree with the previous posts about smaller cars should be cheaper in order to encourage people to think of their needs... My needs are to get from A to B, cheaply... That's why I drive one of the smallest, lightest and economical cars on the road! And I'll tell you something else, I don't thrash the car by any stretch of the imagination... But I can sure leave some 1.6 and 1.8's standing, cos the car has less weight to shift...! My car tax is £40 for 6 months... Think its £79 for the year!

When cost becomes less of an issue to me, I might go for a 4x4... I might go for some silly 2ltr car... It's my choice. I might even stay with a small economical car cos lets face it, there's nothing wrong with it! Who knows, but the name of the game here is that its people's choice and I do think that they're being penalised enough, in all fairness... *Takes cover*

Originally posted by willman
the train takes an hour, you have to get to the station, buy aticket wait in a queue, stand up if the trains full,queue to get off, wait for a taxi, no catch a bus then walk fromt he bus stop to your house.
could be a bit more than 1 hour!!

Nope, I'm talking door to door. I live in hillsborough. Oh how I laugh on a daily basis cycling past all those queues of traffic.

Originally posted by willman
ignoring congestion issues would a pollution tax work.
as i have stated my super duper gas guzzling 4x4's return similar emissions to those of a standard family car. therefore everyone would need to pay more for their cars.
i also have a large estat car that has the lowest fuel emissions which does benefit me in a 3% tax saving.(which is reason number 2 i had for buying it)
perhaps reducing tax may encourage people to buy more efficient cars.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that standard family cars get 12 mpg. ANd yes if that is the case then everyone should pay more for their cars.

OR cars should be made to be more efficient - hybrids which are only expensive due to lack of demand. There are many options.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I couldn't be arsed to read the rest of the crap you've written, but as an urban 4x4 driver I obviously take exception to your pointless post.


Another intelligent poster arrives


Yes my 4x4 can do off road and yes at some point (being new to owning a 4x4) I will take it off road.


You and very few others I'm afraid.


I'll put money on it that I already pay more tax than you in 2 areas.

1) My car tax is £170 per annum due to it's 4lt engine.
2) Quite rightly you stated it does 12 mpg (mine actually manages roughly 16 mpg) therefore I pay more tax in petrol costs.


ANd Im saying you should pay a lot more than that.


I accept these since it was my [b]choice to choose a 4x4 vehicle. I can afford to run the 4x4 vehicle and I like the look, feel, and safeness that my 4x4 vehicle gives me.


Fell for the advertising I guess.



Like it or not... you get into an accident with my 4x4 and the chances are you'll come off worse... therefore... I'm safer.


I'm sure that kind of thinking should be illegal



Why? Well it's getting LPG converted, Liquid Petroleum Gas is far better for the environment, is classed as a green fuel and as such produces far far far less emissions.


If thats the case then great! I'm all for that. I fail to see why your getting so upset about this post then. My point is that worse emmisions = higher tax. And I think there should be a maximum allowable emmisions level.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Another intelligent poster arrives
That's true, I wish I could return the compliment.

Originally posted by TimmyR
You and very few others I'm afraid.
So what? If people would rather use their 4x4's for road travel only, what gives you the right to condemn them?
They don't condemn you (although I think they should).
Originally posted by TimmyR
ANd Im saying you should pay a lot more than that.
That's your right I guess, I suppose that's why they call it an opinion. We can't all be right, and in this case you're not.
I feel you should turn off your PC, cut the plugs from the wires and never return to SheffieldForum.co.uk again.. but we don't always get what we want.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Fell for the advertising I guess.
I can't remember the last time I saw any 4x4 advertising, and being an ex salesman I know what advertising is a con and what's not. I made an informed decision to purchase a 4x4 on my own merits. One I stand by, in fact I'm going to look at another one tomorrow for my wife :D

Originally posted by TimmyR
I'm sure that kind of thinking should be illegal
What kind of thing? My car being harder than your car :lol:
Hey it's not my fault you drive a car not much stronger than tin foil. Why not try a BMW X5... they're pretty sturdy ;)

Originally posted by TimmyR
If thats the case then great! I'm all for that. I fail to see why your getting so upset about this post then. My point is that worse emmisions = higher tax. And I think there should be a maximum allowable emmisions level.
You're within your rights to have that opinion.
I'm getting upset that you're bad mouthing 4x4 drivers without actually even making a true informed decision. The only way you could make that is by owning a 4x4 for a time.
You make assumtions and moan about the vehicles we drive and love but do you see us doing the same? No.
Wanna know why? It's because we have a higher moral standing and prefer not to bad mouth other drivers who don't deserve it. We do our own thing, mind our business and watch our own yard... yet you and people like you feel the need to point accusations and assumptions which are downright pathetic.

It's a shame you found this site and it's more of a shame you haven't found a life yet Victor Meldrew :roll:

Originally posted by TimmyR


Wasteful
"Driving a 12 mpg 4x4 around town rather than a 25 mpg car for 1 year will waste the same amount of energy as leaving the fridge door open for 7 years."

[/B]

Hi TimmyR

I drive a 4x4 and have driven them for over 20 years. I have never had one return less than 20mpg, my present one does about 35 mpg round town and about 45 mpg on a run, the emissions are carbon neutral so is less polluting than a smart car, but I still have to pay more road tax than it.

Buses cause more pollution for the amount of people that use them out of rush hour.

Trains cause more pollution than most forms of transport out of rush hour when you can travel from Sheffield to Lincoln and have no more than 15 - 20 people on the train, most local trains do about 3mpg. High speed inter city trains are lucky to do 1 - 2 mpg.

Who's polluting now?

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I wont dispute that fact, but you're right... it comes down to the driver. If I may refer you to my earlier post, 4x4 drivers are more likely to stay within the speed limit due to the amount of fuel consuption 4x4's use when you drive them too fast in conditions which do not warrant it.
So the chances of this happening is less likely.

Also to address the point of 4x4's being in more accidents... I haven't heard this, however if it's true... would it be that the vehicle is slightly bigger and easier to be hit by other cars?
I'd say that would account for a large percentage of the increase in accidents.

Also with the 4x4 being high fronted... a pedestrian is just as likely to be seriously injured by a Transit Van or Bus or even a Lorry. Also if you drive a Mundano into a child at 40mph there is an 80% chance it'll die... same with my Jeep. So the law of averages really aren't that different.

I didn't say that they're in more accidents, at least I didn't mean too.
I doubt they are for the reasons you've mentioned, better visibility, more mature drivers, etc...

Commenting when other people do something that impacts all of us is fair enough.
You've made your choice to drive a 4*4 (fortunately you're going to get it lpg'ed up), that has an impact, both environmental, and in the higher risk to us if we have an accident with you. i guess that's what makes people feel like it's their business.

Caprice - you're comments about 1.8 and 2.0 litre cars made me chuckle.
I presume yours is something like a 1.2 or even a 1.0. And I presume you don't drive on the motorway or ever drive very far.
Modern petrol engines of any size are very efficient, in fact the size of the engine between the 1 and 3 litre marks actually makes little difference to the efficiency. If you're engine is more powerful you don't need to make it work as hard to reach a given speed, thus no worse than a smaller engine straining. For example (I just happen to know these figures) 2.0l v6 bmw z4 around 30mpg, 2.5v6 around 30, 3.0v6 guess what, around 30.

If I had to drive a 1.2 or 1.0 i'd probably torch it and have to put up with the 5hr train ride instead, it would be torture driving such a car down the motorway for two hundred miles at least twice a week.

Originally posted by TimmyR
[B]They're never put in 4 wheel drive mode because all they ever see is the trip to school.


Most 4x4 vehicles are permenant 4 wheel drive so they are always in 4 wheed drive mode!!!

Originally posted by mad_hatter
Most 4x4 vehicles are permenant 4 wheel drive so they are always in 4 wheed drive mode!!!
Mine is usally always in 4WD mode. It give far better road stability and control in wet weather and uses no more petrol than if it was in 2WD.

Cyclone, the enviroment impacts are not massive and I'll tell you why.
1) There are by far less 4x4 vehicles on the road than there are "normal" cars (for want of a better word). So in comparisson the extra output on emissions is not that great. Granted they may be a little higher than "normal" cars but then you really should be arguing with the government about greener fuel than 4x4 drivers.
2) 4x4 drivers are now (en mass) looking at converting to LPG. Some are doing this for environmental reasons, most for fuel costs. So the emissions argument is gonna blow out of the water soon enough.

And in regards to higher risk to you if you have an impact with my vehicle. Isn't that the same as a moped driver dissing you for all the same reasons? They'd come of worse and your emissions will be higher.

It's all relative and to be honest, and argument for nothing.
It just comes across as peoples bitter attitudes for no good reasons as far as I can see towards 4x4 drivers.

Originally posted by mad_hatter
Most 4x4 vehicles are permenant 4 wheel drive so they are always in 4 wheed drive mode!!!

In my (albeit limited) experience this generally isn't true of SUV type vehicles, but is more true of 4 wheel drive for performance vehicles.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Mine is usally always in 4WD mode. It give far better road stability and control in wet weather and uses no more petrol than if it was in 2WD.

Cyclone, the enviroment impacts are not massive and I'll tell you why.
1) There are by far less 4x4 vehicles on the road than there are "normal" cars (for want of a better word). So in comparisson the extra output on emissions is not that great. Granted they may be a little higher than "normal" cars but then you really should be arguing with the government about greener fuel than 4x4 drivers.
2) 4x4 drivers are now (en mass) looking at converting to LPG. Some are doing this for environmental reasons, most for fuel costs. So the emissions argument is gonna blow out of the water soon enough.

And in regards to higher risk to you if you have an impact with my vehicle. Isn't that the same as a moped driver dissing you for all the same reasons? They'd come of worse and your emissions will be higher.

It's all relative and to be honest, and argument for nothing.
It just comes across as peoples bitter attitudes for no good reasons as far as I can see towards 4x4 drivers.

saying that there are more of other types doesn't alter anything on an individual basis. At the moment your car does 1/2 the mpg mine does, and mines not actually that efficient.
I suppose it is a bit like a moped rider saying that... Or a pedestrian arguing that we should all use moped because they don't kill pedestrians as easily as saloons do. But... (you knew there was a but) there are good arguments for using a car instead of moped, despite the increased pedestrian risk, there aren't many good reasons (and none for city dwellers) to balance the increased risk to everyone else for using an SUV.

Originally posted by Cyclone
saying that there are more of other types doesn't alter anything on an individual basis. At the moment your car does 1/2 the mpg mine does, and mines not actually that efficient.
I suppose it is a bit like a moped rider saying that... Or a pedestrian arguing that we should all use moped because they don't kill pedestrians as easily as saloons do. But... (you knew there was a but) there are good arguments for using a car instead of moped, despite the increased pedestrian risk, there aren't many good reasons (and none for city dwellers) to balance the increased risk to everyone else for using an SUV.
First can I say... I dont call mine an SUV.
It's not.. it's a 4x4 Jeep. I know.. it's piniticky but it is what it is :D

Again it all depends on your point of view.
If someone sees owing a larger 4x4 vehicle as being safer for themselves, their children, can fit more shopping into it and gives a better viewpoint on the road then I'd say they're pretty damn good reasons and advantages to owning one.

Just because they dont fit in with your priotities doesn't make your single viewpoint the only one that matters.
At the end of the day can't you and other with a similar view point accept that you dont want a 4x4, you'll never need a 4x4 therefore you wont drive a 4x4 but if others want to... hey that their business.

After all they're not dissing the car you drive ;)

And as for MPG, in 2 weeks time mile will do a third more MPG than your car for the same amount of fuel bought... and mines a 4lt tank of a Jeep ;)

Thank about it :D

Originally posted by DaBouncer
That's true, I wish I could return the compliment.


So what? If people would rather use their 4x4's for road travel only, what gives you the right to condemn them?
They don't condemn you (although I think they should).

That's your right I guess, I suppose that's why they call it an opinion. We can't all be right, and in this case you're not.
I feel you should turn off your PC, cut the plugs from the wires and never return to SheffieldForum.co.uk again.. but we don't always get what we want.


I can't remember the last time I saw any 4x4 advertising, and being an ex salesman I know what advertising is a con and what's not. I made an informed decision to purchase a 4x4 on my own merits. One I stand by, in fact I'm going to look at another one tomorrow for my wife :D


What kind of thing? My car being harder than your car :lol:
Hey it's not my fault you drive a car not much stronger than tin foil. Why not try a BMW X5... they're pretty sturdy ;)


You're within your rights to have that opinion.
I'm getting upset that you're bad mouthing 4x4 drivers without actually even making a true informed decision. The only way you could make that is by owning a 4x4 for a time.
You make assumtions and moan about the vehicles we drive and love but do you see us doing the same? No.
Wanna know why? It's because we have a higher moral standing and prefer not to bad mouth other drivers who don't deserve it. We do our own thing, mind our business and watch our own yard... yet you and people like you feel the need to point accusations and assumptions which are downright pathetic.

It's a shame you found this site and it's more of a shame you haven't found a life yet Victor Meldrew :roll:

I don't own a car! And I won't own a car for as long as I can.

You seem to think I posted this to have a go at people who drive 4x4's. I posted this thread in order to raise the issue that some cars, a good example of which is 4x4's like the BMW X5 that produce poor emissions should pay more harsh penalties for the environmental damage they inflict.

If you wish to take personal offence at this thats your own problem.

MY OPINION: We need to clean up our act. In order to do this the government has to do somehting because people will not do this otherwise. I do not agree with your right wing opinion that you can do what you like. We all live on this earth and hence we have a responsibility to our fellow man and to future generations.

Having said that, before tree hugging accusations are brought in, I'm not going to suggest we all go communist or anything. What is true is that we need REGULATION. The trouble with REGULATION is that it stops people having FUN. And if a government stops people having fun they wont vote for them. And so the cycle goes - this is a flaw of democracy if you ask me.

DaBouncer if you could just calm yourself down we could have a more reasonable discussion. I'm not here to have a slagging match.

And one other thing. If you think I'm posting this because Im jealous of people with 4x4's you have formed completely the wrong opinion of me. You may feel superior in it, but I certainly don't feel inferior outside it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
In my (albeit limited) experience this generally isn't true of SUV type vehicles, but is more true of 4 wheel drive for performance vehicles.

I was taking about true 4x4's of the Land Rover marque, not the SUV (sports utility vehicle) as these are not true 4x4's

Originally posted by Cyclone

Caprice - you're comments about 1.8 and 2.0 litre cars made me chuckle.
I presume yours is something like a 1.2 or even a 1.0. And I presume you don't drive on the motorway or ever drive very far.
Modern petrol engines of any size are very efficient, in fact the size of the engine between the 1 and 3 litre marks actually makes little difference to the efficiency. If you're engine is more powerful you don't need to make it work as hard to reach a given speed, thus no worse than a smaller engine straining. For example (I just happen to know these figures) 2.0l v6 bmw z4 around 30mpg, 2.5v6 around 30, 3.0v6 guess what, around 30.

If I had to drive a 1.2 or 1.0 i'd probably torch it and have to put up with the 5hr train ride instead, it would be torture driving such a car down the motorway for two hundred miles at least twice a week.

As a matter of fact, I have taken the car on the motorway and it has also been "on a run" - 180mile+ on Dual Carriageways and whatnot... It's done almost 700 miles in the 3 weeks I've had it... Having never drove a 1.8/2ltr, I wouldn't know what on earth you're talking about. Is it a smoother drive or something? Call me naive but if I'm changing gear at just under 3,000 revs (Like I'm supposed to) how can I be straining the engine when that's the correct way to pick up speed?

Also, if I managed to drive 180 miles, using less than 3 gallons of petrol, what life changing, mood enhancing properties does a 1.8/2ltr have, that would justify be putting more of my money into the taxmans pocket to fuel the damn car?
Cos I'm telling you now, I'd need my mood lifting if I had to pay out more than I do in fuel tax! Or, am I being comical in missing the point that ALL cars can do 180miles on less than 3 gallons... :confused:

So... onto more serious matters:

Nobody agreed with my idea of ridding the streets of buses, or bus lanes. Therefore, in an attempt to win back the popular vote, I'll pledge the opposite:

1) Ban cars from cities
2) make all city centre roads into 24 hour bus lanes, and
3) encourage (or force*) people to walk, cycle and use public transport, by making it cleaner and much, much cheaper.

£1 for a few bus stops? If this continues, it will be cheaper to run a car instead of catching a bus :gag:

*I'm recruiting wardens now, btw. You get a uniform and an electric cattle prod.

DB - sorry, I was just saying SUV to seperate the discussion from 4*4 saloons or even superminis now.
I can see that there are advantages for it, the primary one being that it's safer for you in an accident. On the flip side, it's more dangerous for everyone else involved in an accident. That's the kind of thing that makes the 'everyone else' call you a bit selfish. It is, you gain a benefit at the detriment of someone else, that's pretty much the definition of selfish.

Caprice, you misunderstand slightly. I don't drive down the motorway now and again and do a long trip once a month. I do it 2 or 3 times a week, this week i'll have done well over 600 miles, with 400 of them being motorway, and this is just an average week.
And i've done it in all types of cars, I've borrowed my SO's 1.4 polo (newer than my car actually) and I used to do it in a 1.2 nova (quite old), i've also had various hire cars, and driven a variety of other cars that my parents owned.

The polo is a nice car, but driving it to London and back is far more stressful than doing the same in my car.
It's not smoother, that would imply that yours is lumpy, it's just easier. The car accelerates quicker, it feels more comfortable at speed, in fact that's probably it, it just feels easier to drive at 70 or 80.
BTW - who told you that you're 'supposed' to change gear under 3000 rpm, why do you think the engine goes above that if you're not supposed to use it?
Based on your 3 gallons it makes your car roughly twice as efficient as mine, but if I was offered one tomorrow in exchange for mine I'd turn it down.
The last point i'll make is that part of the reason for turning it down would be that i like to enjoy driving sometimes (not on the motorway) and i doubt i could do that in your car.

Originally posted by Abdul
So... onto more serious matters:

Nobody agreed with my idea of ridding the streets of buses, or bus lanes. Therefore, in an attempt to win back the popular vote, I'll pledge the opposite:

1) Ban cars from cities
2) make all city centre roads into 24 hour bus lanes, and
3) encourage (or force*) people to walk, cycle and use public transport, by making it cleaner and much, much cheaper.

£1 for a few bus stops? If this continues, it will be cheaper to run a car instead of catching a bus :gag:

*I'm recruiting wardens now, btw. You get a uniform and an electric cattle prod.

seriously, you need to think these ideas through.
People need to drive through the city to get from one side to the other, what do you suggest these people do when the cars are banned? And there are often good reasons for taking a car. You don't go to argos, buy 40kg of flat pack and then take it home on the bus.

Sure encourage public transport and make it flow better, etc... but you can't force people to do things, that's what p*sses people off.

Public transport is run as a business, there are some arguments for making it more regulated in order to control prices, but as someone who infrequently uses it, I don't want my taxes to contribute to other peoples journeys.

This argument usually splits into two camps:-
1) Drivers who use their cars, won't get out of them no matter what.
They won't be persuaded to give up their cars even when the evidence that global warming is happening is there for all to see.
They have lots and lots of excuses as to why they should use their cars even if it's for a journey which would only take ten minutes walking. Or the dreaded "School run" (actually that should be a "run" so the dear little darlings can lose the weight they are piling on through a diet of crisps and Coke).
I call this the George W Bush attitude. Heads in the sand and the problem will go away.

2) Those who argue the opposite viewpoint ie that cars have their uses, but on the whole if we used them a little less, we may shed the excess pounds that we,as Westerners, are probably carrying, and make the air slightly more breathable in the process.

Originally posted by Phizzy
This argument usually splits into two camps:-
1) Drivers who use their cars, won't get out of them no matter what.
They won't be persuaded to give up their cars even when the evidence that global warming is happening is there for all to see.
They have lots and lots of excuses as to why they should use their cars even if it's for a journey which would only take ten minutes walking. Or the dreaded "School run" (actually that should be a "run" so the dear little darlings can lose the weight they are piling on through a diet of crisps and Coke).
I call this the George W Bush attitude. Heads in the sand and the problem will go away.

2) Those who argue the opposite viewpoint ie that cars have their uses, but on the whole if we used them a little less, we may shed the excess pounds that we,as Westerners, are probably carrying, and make the air slightly more breathable in the process.


To be honest, I'd say the two camps are more like this:

1. Those people who have a bee in their bonnet about a particular issue and take a slightly 'holier than thou' attitude.

2. Those people who have more imortant things in their life to worry about and just get on with it.


Don't take that as an offensive comment - that's not my intention. I simply take issue with the fact that debates like this tend to turn into "good versus evil".
Dont think that, simply because people might not see eye-to-eye with your way of thinking, they are vulgar overweight pigs.

It's not the case, and saying that is based in no truth whatsoever.

After being involved in a 'discussion' like this before on here, I have come to the conclusion that it is not worth arguing with someone who in anti 4 wheel drive, 'cos you will never change their mind. They have never owned one, because they say they 'wouldn't want to', mmmmmm....

They talk about global warming yet hop on to a very, very, smelly emission belching bus, train, or aeroplane. Fair enough they are carrying a damn sight more people, but they are also belching out a damn sight more fumes!

4 wheel drives - why - engine size? they come in all engine sizes petrol and diesel, just like every other car, from a small car to a super car, so let's have a go at say anyone driving a 3 litre Jaguar - surely THEY are also at fault???? but then again the argument doesn't sound as good does it, and won't get up so many peoples nose's.

Nope - can't understand it myself - but roll on the snow eh? when all of the do gooders are stuck in their little cars in the middle of the road and could do with towing out......:heyhey:

Originally posted by jackthedog
To be honest, I'd say the two camps are more like this:

1. Those people who have a bee in their bonnet about a particular issue and take a slightly 'holier than thou' attitude.

2. Those people who have more imortant things in their life to worry about and just get on with it.


Don't take that as an offensive comment - that's not my intention. I simply take issue with the fact that debates like this tend to turn into "good versus evil".
Dont think that, simply because people might not see eye-to-eye with your way of thinking, they are vulgar overweight pigs.

It's not the case, and saying that is based in no truth whatsoever.
I don't take your comment as offensive, but I didn't use the words "vulgar" or "pigs"but as to being overweight?.
Also what's more important than a functioning planet?
Ok so we can't breathe the air anymore, the sea levels have risen so that low lying countries are flooded, GW Bush is still in the Whitehouse and all's OK with the world.
Seriously though, we do need to reach a concensus on these issues before we're all overtaken by events.:)

The whole anti-4x4 movement is an ill-educated, misplaced attack. Hopefully this thread will not go much further down that route, although people seem unable to let go of it.

It's a good one for green activists to latch onto, and it gets a lot of mileage. Look at Greenpeace, chaining themselves to the Land Rover production line at Solihull. What will that acheive? Publicity. That's the only thing they'll get out of it.

They used to save the whales. They managed it, in the end. And good on them.
Now what are they going to do? Yup, latch on to a weak environmental issue and milk it for all it's worth.

Then, when their protest has finished for the day, they go home, by whatever vehicular means they see fit, to their houses with gas and electricity supplies, run a hot bath, boil the kettle for a cuppa, put some food in the oven, use a PC to further their green debate, put the radio or television on, run the washing machine, and enjoy the pleasures of a modern house, in all it's fossil-fuel-burning glory.

The world as we know it is built on fossil fuel. It's the only reason we have this forum to debate on. It's the only thing that has allowed us to build the cities we live in. It's the only thing that allows us to live in the developed world we do.

Unfortunate, but it's the way things are.

Originally posted by Phizzy
I don't take your comment as offensive, but I didn't use the words "vulgar" or "pigs"but as to being overweight?.

I'm not so much going on the actual words used. Rather the picture you painted of the 4x4 owner with his overweight children full of crisps and Coke.

I'd say that's imagining a vulgar, over indulgent person. That's how I took your statement. Others may take it differently, of course :)

Apologies if I read too much into your statement, but you wouldnt be the first to make such judgements.

Don't you find it ironic to call the anti 4X4 brigade "ill-educated" and all the pro 4X4 people are the ones with all the dreadful spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

your defense for using an inefficient car seems to be that other things also cause pollution.

That's like spreading nuclear waste over the countryside with the defense that sometimes a nuclear accident does the same thing.

Its about more than just the efficiency though isn't it, the safety of pedestrians and other road users being compromised is the one that I think is actually a reasonable argument.

Originally posted by Phizzy
Don't you find it ironic to call the anti 4X4 brigade "ill-educated" and all the pro 4X4 people are the ones with all the dreadful spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

Apologies if my english isn't up to standard. I dont know how to improve it, to be honest.

Cyclone - the safety issue is a definate negative when it comes to off-road vehicles. They aren't as compatible with smaller vehicles. Neither are other larger vehicles, such as vans. It's an unfortunate truth that driving is a dangerous activity, and some vehicles will fare better than others in an accident.

The whole argument has been muddied somewhat by the overuse of American statistics related to "SUVs".
The off-road vehicles we drive in Europe are not the same as American SUVs, as I know you're aware, having an interest in cars as you do.

Also note the frequency with which remarks like "gas guzzler" and SUV are used in the debate. Two very American phrases.

So things arent quite so extreme here in Europe. But yes, unfortunately off-roaders will generally cause more damage to things they collide with.

As said before, safety is a seperate argument to the one of the environment. But it is valid, when talking about off-road cars.

Originally posted by jackthedog


Unfortunate, but it's the way things are.

And thats the way things shouldn't be. If, the government provided me a grant I would happily spend some money putting solar panels on my roof, making my house carbon neutral. Many people could do this. WHat gets up my nose is that fact that so much could be done but not a lot is. There isn't the pollitical pressure yet.

Maybe I shouldn't have started this thread directly aimed at 4x4's but it got the discussion going!

Originally posted by jackthedog


Also note the frequency with which remarks like "gas guzzler" and SUV are used in the debate. Two very American phrases.


Ok SUV is not accurate but gas guzzler is perfectly relevant. In english : high petrol/diesel consumer

vans are more dangerous also, but nobody drives a van because they want too (or very few people) whereas the 4*4 has become popular.

The fact that vans are dangerous isn't a counter argument for 4*4's being dangerous.
Some political pressure from this front my encourage the manufacturers to improve the safety of them.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Ok SUV is not accurate but gas guzzler is perfectly relevant. In english : high petrol/diesel consumer

he's right, nobody calls it gas in the uk, it's an american phrase.

Originally posted by jackthedog
To be honest, I'd say the two camps are more like this:

1. Those people who have a bee in their bonnet about a particular issue and take a slightly 'holier than thou' attitude.

2. Those people who have more imortant things in their life to worry about and just get on with it.

Exactly!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Phizzy your post to which Jackthedog replied above is exactly the sort of attitude I'd expect from someone as bitter as you.

Shame really that there are people like that in the world :(

Ah well... I'll just go bury my head in the sand and hope that people don't give a monkies about my Jeep or the fact I'm buying another 4x4 today for my wife ;)
(Incidently the 4x4 I'm buying is already LPG converted, thus better for the environment).

In fact... nah I don't give a monkeys whether people like me driving my 4x4 or not. That's the way it is.

TimmyR, far from being "worked up" or "right wing" I'm more what you would call a realist. I use the modes of transportation that the government choose to instill upon it's population.
If the government brought out a 4x4 that would run on sugar or water then I'd drive it, but I'm not giving up that which provides a lot of use to me and advantages because you think I shouldn't.

Like I say I think you shouldn't we whinging on SheffieldForum like this, but we don't always get what we want.

I did a small calculation last night (albeit rough) to give a visual example of how much more tax I pay for my 4x4, than someone in their 48mpg economical car.

Car A is my 4x4 Jeep
Car B is a smaller and more econimical car such as a 1.2 VW Polo.

1* Lets say it costs me roughly £56 of unleaded to fill Car A. Lets say it costs someone else £28 to fill Car B.

2* Let say on average Car B can get to and from work as well as the usual other nipping to the supermarket and short journeys we make each week and their £28 lasts for a fortnight (this is doable).
Now lets argue that Car A runs out of fuel after 7 days of doing the same sort of travelling (this is a doable prospect).

3* £56 x 2 (weeks of fuel) - £28 (only fuel CAR B bought) = £84. That's £84 per fortnight Car A spends more in fuel.

4* £84 / 2 = £42 per week more Car A spends on fuel than Car B (remember these are rough calcs).

5* We all know that 80% of the cost of what we pay at the station is GOVERNMENT TAX. So each week Car A pays £33.60 MORE in government tax than Car B. Not fuel... just tax.

6* Now £33.60 (extra tax) x 52 (weeks per year) = £1747.20. I pay as a ball park figure £1747.20 each year MORE in tax for my 4x4 than the average economical car.
Tell me TimmyR, how much more bloody tax is enough for you that I have to pay to stop you bloody whinging?

Originally posted by TimmyR
In english : high petrol/diesel consumer

The term 'Gas Guzzler' originated in america, where the anti-SUV debate has been raging for much longer than it has here.

The difference between the US and the UK is huge however, so simply using the same parameters here is unfair due to the vast differences between what is considered an 'SUV' on either side of the Atlantic.

Well, I opened this thread expecting a debate on the merits of how taxation effected the choice of "engine size" and/or “efficiency” when purchasing a vehicle, and maybe people debating whether the current high levels of taxation being applied to fuel were enough, or if more should be done to apply pollution bandings to the car tax system etc, etc...

...but no, we get this instead:
Originally posted by TimmyR
Following the discussion on use of 4x4's off road, I was wondering what you thought of the 4x4's that never see mud. They're never put in 4 wheel drive mode because all they ever see is the trip to school. We already pay a certain amount of tax to maintain the roads, is it not about time people start paying a "pollution tax" - tax that increases, i'd say exponentially with the inefficiency of the vehicle. Or more importantly should these vehicles even be allowed unless the driver can justify its use (farm vehicles)?

I read:

Wasteful
"Driving a 12 mpg 4x4 around town rather than a 25 mpg car for 1 year will waste the same amount of energy as leaving the fridge door open for 7 years."

The Safety Myth
"Urban 4x4's are involved in 25% more accidents than ordinary cars due to the risk of rollover and increased weight making them more lethal in crashes"

Off Road Vehicles?
"Only 5% of 4x4's bought are used off road"

Stop Urban 4x4's! (http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/)

I think I said something about vendetta on the “other” thread, but this has just confirmed it to me, instead of trying to intelligently debate the issues, this is merely another attempt to decry 4x4 vehicles from your own peculiarly petty and narrow point of opinion.

If someone wants to start another thread on the issues around the thread title I'd be happy to joint in...

...until then :wave:



Just for reference, the thread title at the time of this post is:
Pollution tax for vehicles

Phizzy your post to which Jackthedog replied above is exactly the sort of attitude I'd expect from someone as bitter as you.

Shame really that there are people like that in the world :(

Ah well... I'll just go bury my head in the sand and hope that people don't give a monkies about my Jeep or the fact I'm buying another 4x4 today for my wife ;)
(Incidently the 4x4 I'm buying is already LPG converted, thus better for the environment).

In fact... nah I don't give a monkeys whether people like me driving my 4x4 or not. That's the way it is.

TimmyR, far from being "worked up" or "right wing" I'm more what you would call a realist. I use the modes of transportation that the government choose to instill upon it's population.
Thank God there are people like me otherwise we'd all be choking on your fumes!]
Since when did the Government force you to buy a car? 4X4 or otherwise?
When cyclists are having to wear masks when cycling through heavy traffic, doesn't that give you a clue?
And you can't spell for toffee!!

Originally posted by Phizzy
Phizzy your post to which Jackthedog replied above is exactly the sort of attitude I'd expect from someone as bitter as you.

Shame really that there are people like that in the world :(

Ah well... I'll just go bury my head in the sand and hope that people don't give a monkies about my Jeep or the fact I'm buying another 4x4 today for my wife ;)
(Incidently the 4x4 I'm buying is already LPG converted, thus better for the environment).

In fact... nah I don't give a monkeys whether people like me driving my 4x4 or not. That's the way it is.

TimmyR, far from being "worked up" or "right wing" I'm more what you would call a realist. I use the modes of transportation that the government choose to instill upon it's population.
Thank God there are people like me otherwise we'd all be choking on your fumes!]
Since when did the Government force you to buy a car? 4X4 or otherwise?
When cyclists are having to wear masks when cycling through heavy traffic, doesn't that give you a clue?
And you can't spell for toffee!!

Out of that lot, I presume this bit is your new post...?

Thank God there are people like me otherwise we'd all be choking on your fumes!]
Since when did the Government force you to buy a car? 4X4 or otherwise?
When cyclists are having to wear masks when cycling through heavy traffic, doesn't that give you a clue?
And you can't spell for toffee!!

To be honest, once spelling and grammer errors start being used in arguments, threads tend to fall apart a bit. I have little interest in continuing debates when they get like that. :(

Yep!
This technology foxes me occasionally.
But in Britain, it is perceived that Public Transport is somehow a bad thing to use whereas Private Transport is ok.
Don't know how this came about, perhaps when the Thatcher Government "deregulated" the buses and sold off Britsh Rail.
If there were a way of changing the image of Public Transport, then far from being the second class option, we might treat it more like it is treated on the Continent?:)

For the record, I think foo_fighter has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Linking to the 'stop urban 4x4s' campaign in the opening post perhaps shows the original intention of the thread.

Originally posted by Phizzy
Thank God there are people like me otherwise we'd all be choking on your fumes!]
Since when did the Government force you to buy a car? 4X4 or otherwise?
When cyclists are having to wear masks when cycling through heavy traffic, doesn't that give you a clue?
And you can't spell for toffee!!
Oooh nice argument, saying I can't spell... well done you on your debating skills :roll:

And you can't quote to save your life, but do you hear me complaining? ;)

Would it suit you more if I drafted a 10,000 word dissertation to your arguments and had it run through the oxford english disctionary prior to my post? To be honest... I couldn't give a toss.

Choking on my fumes? What fumes are those? My LPG fumes?
Yeah lets thank god for people like you... people who have nothing better to do than complain about life and what other people are doing, simply because their owns lives are so shallow and boring that they take pride in having a pop at other people. Yay... you certainly are a fantastic individual :lol:
Tell me, were you emotionally left out in the cold as a child, thus giving you this attention seeking craving to knock everyone else in the world that doesn't share your opinion or way of life?
In fact, don't answer that, I really don't care.

When did the government force me to buy a car? Since it thought profit was a better way of life than public good and sold off it's government run public transport systems such as the railway and buses to leave a rip off service that's overpriced so much it's cheaper, faster and more comfortable to use my 4x4.
That's when!

gotta agree with that, public transport is a nightmare. See my comments on the time it took me to get to work on the train versus the car. And that's still using a car at either end for the start and final bit, otherwise another hour could easily be added on top.

[deleted due to incorrectly reading a post..]

Hmmmm, its all gone a bit angry in here. I think I might leave you to it. I'm off on my hols.

EDIT: Im not flying before any of you start on that.

It's not down to size of vehicle OR braking distance or any other feature. Congestion is due to the number of vehicles on the road. All at the same time. It's nothing to do with value of car, resale price or whatever. It's really quite simple. More People = More cars on road! With a finite space for roads this will increase congestion.What part of that don't you understand?

Not sure I agree that it is purely down to quantity.

The problem as I see it is that congestion is created by vehicles not being able to move. A motorway handles huge quantities and generally runs smoothly and very quickly (on the whole).

Congestion is created by vehicles having to stop. An example of which could be the school run where vehicles have to be parked on what would be normal thoroughfares, pedestrian crossings operate more frequently, lollipop people stop vehicles etc etc. Whilst the number of cars does drop during school holidays, vehicles have to stop less frequently.

Another example is a motrway with a busy exit and traffic lights are placed to ease congestion but have the effect of queueing traffic onto a motorway which subsequently causes congestion on the motorway itself simply because the flow has stopped.

Not suggesting for a minute that less cars means no reduction in congestion but that within the confines of our world today it's stop/starting that causes the congestion.

I believe that personal transport (the car) has liberated the world and allowed freedom to people who otherwise would have not had the opportunity to progress their lives.

If you make vehicles more expensive, all you do is disadvantage tihe poorest, the rich don't care. I remember seeing a guy in the petrol crisis filiing his Rolls Royce up at £1.50 per litre . Did he care - no - all it meant was that he didn't have to queue up with the minnions. He could just drive in and fill up, how many others were queuing to fill up at that price?

I am not rich but do drive a 1996 Range Rover 4.6, worth about £4000 with 170k miles on it and has cost me approx £500 in running csts over 3 years inc MOT's and which runs on LPG, I do so because I enjoy the seating position, I use it on long journeys where the 3 children get a great view, my dog sits on the parcel shelf and the luggage goes underneath. It's practical, currently, for my needs. I'll have to pay more road tax but I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't go out beating people up or mugging them so is that vice too much to ask. I think not

My other car is a SAAB 900 TURBO with 200k miles on it worth about £1000 and has cost me about £600 inc MOT's in 4 years. I haven't bought new cars that have cost the environment in manufacturing yet another vehicle to put on the road.

An answer to the congestion problem is surely to make clean, tidy public transport that is free to use but has used taxpayers money to create that doesn't affect other modes of transport.

BUT that wouldn't suit any government that relies on fuel taxation, excise duty and VAT to generate income - so cars are here to stay for the foreseeable future. How many want to go on holiday using 2 buses, 3trains carrying all their luggage, 2 kids and a baby etc etc etc. We left that behind (or at least I did) when I left Sheffield in 1981 from a council house with a black and white TV, no telephone and an outside loo

Steve

Dont worry everyone, this will all sort it self out as we run out of oil, and it becomes too expensive for most of us to keep a car on the road. Unfortunately this may not be soon enough to stop the run away super heating of the environment, mass unemployment and the migration of whole sections of the worlds population.
Whos for banning the import or manufactor of any more cars, let alone 4 x 4s, at least one government scientific advisor who made a statement to this effect several years ago.
I do enjoy a good rant.!

Gordon Brown yesterday proved that he is not concerned about the environment and only about raising cash. LPG to run cars hardly produces any pollution and in fact LPG cars are exempt from the congestion charge in London for that reason. Yesterday he increased the duty on LPG road fuel by 2.25p/litre but only 1.25p on petrol. That 2.25p is also plus VAT. Since LPG yesterday was around 40p/litre, that is an increase of 6.6%. Environment my a***.