i really hate those poeple who drive those big petrol gussiling poluiting 4x4 in the towns. The only thing they have to get over are speed bumps. i dont mind people who hae them for a good reasion (to do what there ment to do) but it's just those poeple who driver them just becayse they want a big car. When there driving there 4x4 they think they are king of the road and cut you up, beep at you. any one el;se get anoyed at these people

My only chagrin is when people who would normally struggle with a Mini Metro go through a daily ritual trying to drive one of these beasts - and I agree, they seem to get bigger and bigger - taking their children to, and picking them up from school (despite living 300 yards down the road, but that's another argument).

Other than that, no, they don't bother me. Personally, I wish I could afford one. Not that I'd buy one. That kind of money would buy me something faster and flasher.

Or maybe a second house in Cornwall just to p155 the local folk off.

The increasing number of non-commercial "high" vehicles does annoy me when driving as you can't see "through" them. When following an ordinary car you can at least see some of the road ahead through the length of that vehicle. Following a Land-y or similar through the city streets makes me feel more claustrophobic.

They don't annoy me at all... unlike stupid little cars that people think they can drive fast and cut in to places they couldn't. All the bad driving I see is in cars like fiesta's and corsa's.

4x4's seem to be driven more slowly and sensibly... the only motive most people have for disliking them is jealousy.

Originally posted by Snook
They don't annoy me at all... unlike stupid little cars that people think they can drive fast and cut in to places they couldn't. All the bad driving I see is in cars like fiesta's and corsa's.

4x4's seem to be driven more slowly and sensibly... the only motive most people have for disliking them is jealousy.
There are reasons other than jealousy that cause dislike of 'Chelsea Tractors'...

Most aren't used for the purpose for which they were originally intended, i.e. over rough terrain, farm tracks, unmade roads etc. The farthest from the road that most get is when they are parked in the owners driveway.

As one of the reasons put forward by owners for buying them is to better protect the occupants in the event of an accident, that doesn't inspire confidence in me as to their overall driving ability, an opinion which has been justified on more than one occasion!

As hotphil has said, when driving behind them, you can't see 'through' them as you can when following a car, it's like being stuck behind a large van. The 4x4 driver, being relatively high up compared to the average saloon may have good visibility in traffic but the poor motorist stuck behind most certainly hasn't!

In some cases they're the sledgehammer used to crack a nut of the motoring world, many used almost solely for taking little Justin to school, picking up the shopping and attending coffee-mornings... Massive overkill, in other words a small saloon would do the job just as well, occupy less road-space and be much more economical into the bargain.

Judging from the clearance apparantly needed when passing parked vehicles and the amount of space needed by some drivers in which to park, I strongly suspect that many are the vehicle of choice of ex-bus drivers. :)

However, by way of partial mitigation despite all the above, if many are driven by ex-public transport employees, then who better to assess the class of vehicle that is best able to cope with the current deplorable state of the roads in Sheffield? :D

If you are trying to see the road through the windows of the car in front you are probably too close and what about vans trucks and busses?

The word gas guzzler is used against 4x4 users and probably it's a deserved tag but gas guzzling can also be used against those who drive foot to the floor at every chance they get, poor driving habits are as bad at burning fuel.

And to many it's their prefered towing vehicle, there are a lot of caravanners out there (possibly another anti thread there zinger) obviously they aren't towing permanently but we assume they have the 4x4 just to pose.

I don't own one by the way but once wished i had when i dunked a car on a slipway trying to retrieve my boat.

The 'they aren't being used for what they were built for' argument is just stupid. Nearly all SUV's were built for city driving, because that's what the manufactuers know they will be used for.

I wasn't saying that jealousy was the only reason for hating them, but it is probably the most common. I think most people would like to be able to afford to run one. I know that I wouldn't turn my nose up at the new Lexus hybrid...

woah whats with all the 'anti' threads!

Im going to start a 'anti-moaning' thread allthough its hypocritical from the start :)

Lighten up its saturday the weather is poo but cant be helped :P

Eddo

Some of these 4x4s aren't much different in terms of consumption to other cars. Many were designed and built for driving round the city, people like the better visability the offer and the increased sense of security. Some of them aren't even 4 wheel drive, or have the option of been 2 wheel drive.

I find diesel cars more offensive. I have to reach for the in car only circulation button every time I get stuck behind one... which is about 50% of the time these days.

Some people find loud cars offensive, others are intimidated by the size of 4x4's, or want to force others to adhear to their environmental beliefs even though UK trafic pollution is irrelevant in global pollution terms.

We spend allot of time and thought on motoring and human nauture is thus reflected in the outcome.

Originally posted by 40summat
If you are trying to see the road through the windows of the car in front you are probably too close and what about vans trucks and busses?...
That's a spurious argument, you should know that to see the brake-lights and positioning of the car 2-3 positions ahead, does not mean that you're driving too close to the car in front... If you only pay attention to the vehicle immediately ahead, then you're less prepared for that vehicles actions!

Originally posted by Snook The 'they aren't being used for what they were built for' argument is just stupid. Nearly all SUV's were built for city driving, because that's what the manufactuers know they will be used for....
Now you're arguing against a statement that so far hasn't been made... If you happen to be referring to what I said, it was actually... "Most aren't used for the purpose for which they were originally intended"... 4x4's of the 'Chelsea Tractor' variety weren't originally intended to be used for general day-to-day city motoring, even though now, the manufacturers do aim them at just such a market. Therefore I consider my statement to be an accurate assessment, not a stupid argument at all!

Originally posted by Snook
....I wasn't saying that jealousy was the only reason for hating them, but it is probably the most common. I think most people would like to be able to afford to run one. I know that I wouldn't turn my nose up at the new Lexus hybrid...
Hopefully you now realise that jealousy is probably very far from being the major factor in peoples' dislike of these road-tanks...

I do agree that most people would like to be able to afford to run one... Many people can afford to run one but choose not to, perhaps they are put off by knowing of the derision which the school-run/trip to the office drivers of such lumps attract from a lot of other motorists? Who knows?

To think that jealousy is the reason that they are so frequently resented, is delusional, to say the least!

To be honest, I've not got any particular hang ups with other people's vehicles... The only vehicles that annoy me are buses lol (But thats another argument!!)

4x4's have a purpose, but would you really lose sleep if you thought people weren't using them for their correct purposes? I don't care if Mummy drops Tarquin off at school in one, so long as she doesn't hold me up in the process! lol

The only resentment I'll show is when we hit the petrol blockades next week and I can't put a tenner in my car cos someone with a 4x4 has just taken £60 worth of petrol to fill theirs up... lol

Originally posted by Pseudonym
That's a spurious argument, you should know that to see the brake-lights and positioning of the car 2-3 positions ahead, does not mean that you're driving too close to the car in front... If you only pay attention to the vehicle immediately ahead, then you're less prepared for that vehicles actions!

I don't dissagree with any of what you say there but to see the position and break- lights of the car 2-3 positions ahead you don't need to be looking through the windows of the car infront, positioning yourself slightly offside or nearside works well and if you leave a decent gap you can react to the car infront quite easily.

What do you mean by the 'Chelsea tractor variety' though.
i thought the models developed for offroad originaly were the 'Defenders' and early 'series' models.
Range rovers and discovery's were developed for use on and off road which is why they have the better interior trim than the defenders.
so that would mean they are being used for the reason they where intended, they will tackle snow better than a normal car, ok not a brilliant reason to buy one as some smaller cars have 4 wheel drive but factors like snow, towing ability are probably higher on a 4x4 buyers priority list than poseability (nothing wrong with having a pose either)

My little 1.4 Seat Ibiza goes off road more than most of these Bint Mobiles!
I've been up to the axles in mud and snow in mine, driven on sheet ice downhill, engine braking for half a mile in the Peak District, and have been down (not up) hills that some 4x4 owners would not have approached. As my only means of transport you just have to get on with it.
Having said that, i wouldn't mind a Land Rover, but only 2 or 3 times a year!

Originally posted by 40summat
I don't dissagree with any of what you say there but to see the position and break- lights of the car 2-3 positions ahead you don't need to be looking through the windows of the car infront, positioning yourself slightly offside or nearside works well and if you leave a decent gap you can react to the car infront quite easily.

What do you mean by the 'Chelsea tractor variety' though.
i thought the models developed for offroad originaly were the 'Defenders' and early 'series' models.
Range rovers and discovery's were developed for use on and off road which is why they have the better interior trim than the defenders.

I think we're quibbling a little over minor points here but personally, I'd far rather see through another vehicle, particularly on a narrow road, than position myself slightly to the offside to be able to see past such as a van... I fail to see how moving across to the nearside can help... unless you have a left-hand-drive car though!

'Chelsea Tractor' describes the large Range Rovers, Discoverys, etc. That are used for school-runs, shopping, driving around town and for nothing else. Especially popular with the 'uppah-crust' in London... and totally unsuitable for the purpose... Hence the derisory term was coined... :)

I would love a Mercedes G-Wagon AMG 4x4.

it would never go off road, but so what if I want to drive a big car - im paying for it in more ways then one. If you can, then why not?

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
I would love a Mercedes G-Wagon AMG 4x4.

it would never go off road, but so what if I want to drive a big car - im paying for it in more ways then one. If you can, then why not?
Yeah... Go on... Get one... Make us all jealous, why don'tcha!! :wow: ... Oh Boy! :rolleyes: :D

Originally posted by Pseudonym


'Chelsea Tractor' describes the large Range Rovers, Discoverys, etc. That are used for school-runs, shopping, driving around town and for nothing else. Especially popular with the 'uppah-crust' in London... and totally unsuitable for the purpose... Hence the derisory term was coined... :)

The derisory term was coined by the press was it not?
just a little bit amused by the irony of your signature

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Yeah... Go on... Get one... Make us all jealous, why don'tcha!! :wow: ... Oh Boy! :rolleyes: :D

You only get jealous if you are a jealous person! I dont see anything special about 4x4's - i just like the look of them. They are practical for alot of things too. Do you buy D&G sweatshirts, when you could go to Primark? See, I would happily wear a Primark sweatshirt but drive the G-Wagon AMG.... am I a show off? I dont think so!

Originally posted by 40summat
The derisory term was coined by the press was it not?
just a little bit amused by the irony of your signature
Now that comment is definitely below the belt! :blush: :D

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
.....but so what if I want to drive a big car - im paying for it in more ways then one. If you can, then why not?

But we'd already detailed some of the reasons why not!

Not that you are obliged to agree or abide by them of course but nonetheless, they are reasons why not...

Hence my comment on your post... The reference to making us jealous was a tongue-in-cheek poke at another contributor, not actually at you... ;)

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Now that comment is definitely below the belt! :blush: :D

Yea sorry, i did feel a bit petty when i pressed submit reply :D

Originally posted by Pseudonym
But we'd already detailed some of the reasons why not!

Not that you are obliged to agree or abide by them of course but nonetheless, they are reasons why not...

Hence my comment on your post... The reference to making us jealous was a tongue-in-cheek poke at another contributor, not actually at you... ;)

:) Of course I could get a 1.4 LPG converter Kia, but wheres the fun in that! If we all went environmentally friendly, we would all end up on cycles, and despite the health benefits of doing that - I would feel like I was in communist China!

Should these huge truck like off road vehicles be allowed on the roads?

I can list several good reasons to impose a ban or at least tax these car-tanks to a scrap heap:

They consume more fuel, release more emissions and most importantly - being hit at 20 mph by an SUV or 4X4 is equivalent to being hit at 30 mph in a regular sized vehicle.

It's pure selfishness that people lock themselves up in what they belive is a safe enviroment (high incidence of rollovers) at the expense of the safety of others especially pedestrians.

Only those living on a farm should recieve a permit to drive an 'off road' vehicle.

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

If you're going to bother with a poll then at least put in a full range of options, rather than biased ones designed to achieve the desult you're after.

Plus use the search facility first, this topic has been done to death.

[MOD NOTE] Threads merged

Originally posted by wearetherobots
Should these huge truck like off road vehicles be allowed on the roads?

I can list several good reasons to impose a ban or at least tax these car-tanks to a scrap heap:

They consume more fuel, release more emissions and most importantly - being hit at 20 mph by an SUV or 4X4 is equivalent to being hit at 30 mph in a regular sized vehicle.

It's pure selfishness that people lock themselves up in what they believe is a safe environment (high incidence of rollovers) at the expense of the safety of others especially pedestrians.

Only those living on a farm should receive a permit to drive an 'off road' vehicle.

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

Where is the evidence that SUV's are any more harmful to the environment than any other car... I know that many of them are not as bad as 'luxury cars' and expensive sports cars... or some people carriers... are we going to ban those too?

from another post


I've got loads of flyers from Greenpeace targetting 4 x 4s. you can get flyers etc from the Greenpeace site here (http://www.greenpeace.org/international)

of course they are more harmful. they guzzle more for one.

Originally posted by robbie
of course they are more harmful. they guzzle more for one.

More than what? More than a fiesta, yeah, that's obvious... but do they use more than a sports car, or a people carrier, or luxury cars like a Sovereign... because I'm sure many SUV's don't... so why are people so bothered about SUV's?

Originally posted by wearetherobots
...They consume more fuel, release more emissions and most importantly - being hit at 20 mph by an SUV or 4X4 is equivalent to being hit at 30 mph in a regular sized vehicle.

It's pure selfishness that people lock themselves up in what they belive is a safe enviroment (high incidence of rollovers) at the expense of the safety of others especially pedestrians.
...[/url]
Well...

...I've never hit a pedestrian...

...or "rolled over"...

...but I was rammed up the rear end while stationary the other day...

...and was un-injured in my 4x4...

...should I feel guilt about this...

...like <expletive> I should.

Grow up children.

:D

If you have ever been at a T junction waiting to turn left, and one of THOSE is at the side of you waiting to turn right, then you will realise why people are so Pd off with the damn things. You have absolutely NO chance of dare pulling out, even though it may be clear, 'cos all you can see to your right is the passenger door, and nowt else.
Status symbol ?? Of course they are !!
Annoying ?? Definately !!

Most of the owners have swapped the BMW for one as they are this year's fashion accessory.

Little story, not to do with the dreaded 4x4.
I once got cut up by a BMW driver whilst on my way to Derby one day last year. So what, you say, it happens all the time. Well yes, but I was on foot at the time approaching a cash machine, and the guy pulled up in the BMW, jumped out and shoved past me to reach the cash machine before I could. Perhaps he needed the cash fast in order to purchase a 4x4 !!

Mine has a 1.8 litre engine, it does not guzzle, the cost of the tyres means that I pay additional tax, and trying to "see through" a high vehicle or "turn left" next to one is no different to being behind/next to a van.

I have to cover approx 2k miles a month and I know that this car will get me regardless of the weather. I have never struggled to park it and nor do I have (I think) 4wd attitude, but neverthess I regularly have to remove anti-guzzler leaflets from my windscreen that weren't put on the 2.5 litre estates/3 litre sports cars/ 2 litre people carriers parked next to it.

Whilst I appreciate that perhaps we should all drive very small engined cars (1 litre) until it becomes too difficult to do so I prefer to stick with my relatively small engined 4wd and make energy efficiency savings elsewhere.

I would be interested to know why my neighbour with a 15 year old porsche 911 doesn't get the grief that I do; surely her car has a more detrimental environmental impact?

Originally posted by davep
If you have ever been at a T junction waiting to turn left, and one of THOSE is at the side of you waiting to turn right, then you will realise why people are so Pd off with the damn things. You have absolutely NO chance of dare pulling out, even though it may be clear, 'cos all you can see to your right is the passenger door, and nowt else.
Status symbol ?? Of course they are !!
Annoying ?? Definately !!

Most of the owners have swapped the BMW for one as they are this year's fashion accessory.

Little story, not to do with the dreaded 4x4.
I once got cut up by a BMW driver whilst on my way to Derby one day last year. So what, you say, it happens all the time. Well yes, but I was on foot at the time approaching a cash machine, and the guy pulled up in the BMW, jumped out and shoved past me to reach the cash machine before I could. Perhaps he needed the cash fast in order to purchase a 4x4 !!





wot about being alongside a transit van, or people carrier.
same thing.

Originally posted by Pseudonym
That's a spurious argument, you should know that to see the brake-lights and positioning of the car 2-3 positions ahead, does not mean that you're driving too close to the car in front... If you only pay attention to the vehicle immediately ahead, then you're less prepared for that vehicles actions!


Now you're arguing against a statement that so far hasn't been made... If you happen to be referring to what I said, it was actually... "Most aren't used for the purpose for which they were originally intended"... 4x4's of the 'Chelsea Tractor' variety weren't originally intended to be used for general day-to-day city motoring, even though now, the manufacturers do aim them at just such a market. Therefore I consider my statement to be an accurate assessment, not a stupid argument at all!


Hopefully you now realise that jealousy is probably very far from being the major factor in peoples' dislike of these road-tanks...

I do agree that most people would like to be able to afford to run one... Many people can afford to run one but choose not to, perhaps they are put off by knowing of the derision which the school-run/trip to the office drivers of such lumps attract from a lot of other motorists? Who knows?

To think that jealousy is the reason that they are so frequently resented, is delusional, to say the least!

where does it state on any ad campaign that 4x4's are not built for urban road use.

Originally posted by willman
where does it state on any ad campaign that 4x4's are not built for urban road use.
Willman... Where did I state that it did??

What I wrote was: "Most aren't used for the purpose for which they were originally intended"... 4x4's of the 'Chelsea Tractor' variety weren't originally intended to be used for general day-to-day city motoring, even though now, the manufacturers do aim them at just such a market."

Meaning... The purpose for which they were originally intended was for frequent off-road use, being large robust vehicles with high ground-clearance, ideal for farmers, contractors needing to access building sites, towing heavy trailers, particularly caravans into fields, etc. Now unless you intend to use them to give chase to underage kids that zip around bits of wasteland on motorbikes and annoy the towns residents, I fail to see their purpose in urban (city) road use.

Manufacturers, however, have realised that some people feel safer in them than in a standard saloon and that they are seen as a status symbol by many, along with providing additional security when used as a day-to-day vehicle. Why else do you think that they are now available with every conceivable luxury on-board, if not to appeal to the every-day driver, many of whom would be hesitant about mounting a high kerb, much less be prepared to take them off-road?

Prior to these road-tanks being on the market in the UK, the tried and trusted 4x4 that would virtually climb a house-side and would slog through the deepest of rutted tracks, was the original-pattern Land-Rover. This, being almost totally bare of any driver comforts, was predominantly popular only with those who actually had a use for it. It wasn't regarded as a status symbol, or as providing additional security and was therefore generally used for the purpose for which it was built.

As I state above, in very many cases the large 4x4's that are on the roads today are not being used for the purpose for which they were originally intended... If the manufacturers were to draw attention to this fact and were to state that they weren't built for urban use, after having recognised that there is a market for them in this capacity, then they'd be shooting themselves in the foot!

Whilst the ad campaigns may show a he-man type 4x4 climbing a mountainside and battling though all manner of unfriendly terrain, the makers know that that the majority of their target market has no intention whatsoever of putting their pride and joy through the same extreme conditions... They know that the average owner is buying it to use for the school-run, shopping and going to the office, with the occasional jaunt out into the countryside at weekends... Sticking faithfully to surfaced roads!

Which boils down to the fact that for day-to-day use, by the average city and suburban driver, they amount to massive overkill !!

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Which boils down to the fact that for day-to-day use, by the average city and suburban driver, they amount to massive overkill !!
Just like any car that goes faster than 70mph - ie all of them.

Originally posted by Tony
Just like any car that goes faster than 70mph - ie all of them.
That's a rather glib and facetious reply to a reasoned argument, in my considered opinion.

Having an everyday saloon that exceeds 70mph, as you say all of them on the road today, may be overkill as far as capability of speed is concerned, I agree, but overkill of speed capability is not the subject under discussion, or hadn't you noticed? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tony
Just like any car that goes faster than 70mph - ie all of them.

only if you ignore the fact that the cars are for sale across all of europe and not all of europe is still stuck in the 60's with regards to speed regulation.

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Willman... Where did I state that it did??

What I wrote was: "Most aren't used for the purpose for which they were originally intended"... 4x4's of the 'Chelsea Tractor' variety weren't originally intended to be used for general day-to-day city motoring, even though now, the manufacturers do aim them at just such a market."

Meaning... The purpose for which they were originally intended was for frequent off-road use, being large robust vehicles with high ground-clearance, ideal for farmers, contractors needing to access building sites, towing heavy trailers, particularly caravans into fields, etc. Now unless you intend to use them to give chase to underage kids that zip around bits of wasteland on motorbikes and annoy the towns residents, I fail to see their purpose in urban (city) road use.

Manufacturers, however, have realised that some people feel safer in them than in a standard saloon and that they are seen as a status symbol by many, along with providing additional security when used as a day-to-day vehicle. Why else do you think that they are now available with every conceivable luxury on-board, if not to appeal to the every-day driver, many of whom would be hesitant about mounting a high kerb, much less be prepared to take them off-road?

Prior to these road-tanks being on the market in the UK, the tried and trusted 4x4 that would virtually climb a house-side and would slog through the deepest of rutted tracks, was the original-pattern Land-Rover. This, being almost totally bare of any driver comforts, was predominantly popular only with those who actually had a use for it. It wasn't regarded as a status symbol, or as providing additional security and was therefore generally used for the purpose for which it was built.

As I state above, in very many cases the large 4x4's that are on the roads today are not being used for the purpose for which they were originally intended... If the manufacturers were to draw attention to this fact and were to state that they weren't built for urban use, after having recognised that there is a market for them in this capacity, then they'd be shooting themselves in the foot!

Whilst the ad campaigns may show a he-man type 4x4 climbing a mountainside and battling though all manner of unfriendly terrain, the makers know that that the majority of their target market has no intention whatsoever of putting their pride and joy through the same extreme conditions... They know that the average owner is buying it to use for the school-run, shopping and going to the office, with the occasional jaunt out into the countryside at weekends... Sticking faithfully to surfaced roads!

Which boils down to the fact that for day-to-day use, by the average city and suburban driver, they amount to massive overkill !!

so by providing a reasoned excuse you therefore eliminate all the modern road users of 4x4. your comment was conveniently directed therefore at the original vehicles which were designed for more rugged terrain - most people dont drive that type so your convoluted argument is hogwash IMO.
you cant identify with one type of vehicle whilst criticising owners of different evolved cars.
sports cars - dont do what they were originally designed for i.e racing at speed.perhaps we sould ban them aswell.
you know puma,tigra,hyundai coupe,mx5

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pseudonym
[B]Willman... Where did I state that it did??


Meaning... The purpose for which they were originally intended was for frequent off-road use, being large robust vehicles with high ground-clearance, ideal for farmers, contractors needing to access building sites, towing heavy trailers, particularly caravans into fields, etc. Now unless you intend to use them to give chase to underage kids that zip around bits of wasteland on motorbikes and annoy the towns residents, I fail to see their purpose in urban (city) road use.


this is obviously your interpretation of what they were designed for or did Land Rover tell the farmers to buy 2 vehicles 'cos they couldn't drive them out on the streets taking their kids to school, or popping to the shops.

Originally posted by willman
so by providing a reasoned excuse you therefore eliminate all the modern road users of 4x4. your comment was conveniently directed therefore at the original vehicles which were designed for more rugged terrain - most people dont drive that type so your convoluted argument is hogwash IMO.
you cant identify with one type of vehicle whilst criticising owners of different evolved cars.
sports cars - dont do what they were originally designed for i.e racing at speed.perhaps we sould ban them aswell.
you know puma,tigra,hyundai coupe,mx5
I'd hoped that I was presenting a reasoned argument, not an excuse...

It's becoming obvious to me that either you don't fully read what I write or that you don't understand it... I don't eliminate anyone, I criticise the use of the large 'Chelsea Tractor' type of 4x4, which was initially designed for rugged terrain, by those who have no practical use for them.

Bringing sports cars into the equation is pointless as we are talking about 4x4 off-road vehicles.

Originally posted by willman
[Bthis is obviously your interpretation of what they were designed for or did Land Rover tell the farmers to buy 2 vehicles 'cos they couldn't drive them out on the streets taking their kids to school, or popping to the shops. [/B]

You seem to be cluching at straws now my friend! The farmer and their like obviously have a legitimate use for a vehicle with off-road capability, the average city-driver doesn't... Is that so difficult to understand?

Please could this thread (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55036) be merged as well.

That one was interesting. Once again drivers of large powerful vehicles who do not require large powerful vehicles, got personally offended by the notion that they should be made to cut down on their emissions.

I would also like to say that yes there are 4x4 vehicles that are small and do not guzzle gas and that it is generalising to say we should ban 4x4's altogether. Despite this we cannot escape the fact that there are 4x4 "off road" vehicles (the BMW X5 for example) that are blatantly not intended for off road use - aimed instead at city use.

It is these vehicles we anti 4x4 people are aggrieved by. Needless to say I am also aggrieved by other unnecessarily powerful vehicles - sports cars, tho generally these do not weigh anywhere near as much.

We need a POLLUTION TAX!

Originally posted by TimmyR
I would also like to say that yes there are 4x4 vehicles that are small and do not guzzle gas and that it is generalising to say we should ban 4x4's altogether. Despite this we cannot escape the fact that there are 4x4 "off road" vehicles (the BMW X5 for example) that are blatantly not intended for off road use - aimed instead at city use.

It is these vehicles we anti 4x4 people are aggrieved by. Needless to say I am also aggrieved by other unnecessarily powerful vehicles - sports cars, tho generally these do not weigh anywhere near as much.

We need a POLLUTION TAX!

there already is, it's the tax on petrol, the amount of which being used is directly related to the efficiency of the vehicle.

Originally posted by Cyclone
there already is, it's the tax on petrol, the amount of which being used is directly related to the efficiency of the vehicle.

Thats a proportional scale - tax increases proportionally with inefficiency. I think there should be further penalties for the driving of inefficient vehicles. We are rapidly approaching the equivalent of an SUV.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Thats a proportional scale - tax increases proportionally with inefficiency. I think there should be further penalties for the driving of inefficient vehicles. We are rapidly approaching the equivalent of an SUV.

Why? Is one sliding scale tax not enough?

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I'd hoped that I was presenting a reasoned argument, not an excuse...

It's becoming obvious to me that either you don't fully read what I write or that you don't understand it... I don't eliminate anyone, I criticise the use of the large 'Chelsea Tractor' type of 4x4, which was initially designed for rugged terrain, by those who have no practical use for them.

Bringing sports cars into the equation is pointless as we are talking about 4x4 off-road vehicles.



You seem to be cluching at straws now my friend! The farmer and their like obviously have a legitimate use for a vehicle with off-road capability, the average city-driver doesn't... Is that so difficult to understand?

i read with interest all your posts however - making comments relating to 4x4's in general and justifying them with "chelsea" tractor "facts" is quite erroneuos. likewise by extending your assumed train of thought the application to sports cars is relevant, unless your criticism of "incorrect" use only applies where it suits yourself.
quite rightly you support all your comments based on chelsea tractors therefore they dont apply to 99% of the users on here so why bother posting them. we are talking about 4x4's in general, but then again you brought up the average city driver who may not drive chelsea tractors .
perhaps that swhy i'm confused.

Tax on fuel doesn't get the point across that that wasteful vehicles are not good. There needs to be an incentive to buy cars which produce lower emissions. Already we see some 4x4's being converted to LPG. This is good. However, it still remains that these vehicles are HUGE and generally completely superfluous.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Thats a proportional scale - tax increases proportionally with inefficiency. I think there should be further penalties for the driving of inefficient vehicles. We are rapidly approaching the equivalent of an SUV.

older cars are less efficeint that many modern suv's, but then again what about white van man will he be included in the higher tax group- forcing prices up & encouraging more fuel protests.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Tax on fuel doesn't get the point across that that wasteful vehicles are not good. There needs to be an incentive to buy cars which produce lower emissions. Already we see some 4x4's being converted to LPG. This is good. However, it still remains that these vehicles are HUGE and generally completely superfluous.

such as the savings on fuel, the lower vehicle excise tax and not looking like tit? How many incentives do there need to be?

Willman - Commercial vehicles would obviously not be included, you don't see many people dropping the kids off in a white van, do you?

i'll add my two penneth then:
petrochemicals are a finite resource
demand for petrochemical products is increasing
therefore we are using up the resource more quickly

basic economics - the law of supply and demand states that where there is low supply and high demand prices will rise.

therefore petrol will become increasingly more expensive as we start to run out.

surely the real issue is not that these cars are driven in cities or that they are driven badly (there are as many good and bad drivers in all types of vehicle) but that they use more fuel than an average family saloon and therefore are using more of the finite supply of petrol than is necessary.

Originally posted by moongarden
i'll add my two penneth then:
petrochemicals are a finite resource
demand for petrochemical products is increasing
therefore we are using up the resource more quickly

basic economics - the law of supply and demand states that where there is low supply and high demand prices will rise.

therefore petrol will become increasingly more expensive as we start to run out.

surely the real issue is not that these cars are driven in cities or that they are driven badly (there are as many good and bad drivers in all types of vehicle) but that they use more fuel than an average family saloon and therefore are using more of the finite supply of petrol than is necessary.

we live in a capitalist democracy though, if I wish to spend my entire disposable income on 4* and burn it in my back yard, I can. I pay for it, I pay the usurious tax for it in the UK, so that's my choice.
Of course doing that wouldn't be very socially responsible, and neither is driving an SUV when you have no need for one.

Originally posted by moongarden
i'll add my two penneth then:
petrochemicals are a finite resource
demand for petrochemical products is increasing
therefore we are using up the resource more quickly

basic economics - the law of supply and demand states that where there is low supply and high demand prices will rise.

therefore petrol will become increasingly more expensive as we start to run out.

surely the real issue is not that these cars are driven in cities or that they are driven badly (there are as many good and bad drivers in all types of vehicle) but that they use more fuel than an average family saloon and therefore are using more of the finite supply of petrol than is necessary.

but not all of them do @ urban speeds many are better than some saloons or older cars.

f1 sports cars burn unnecessary amounts of fuel why don't we ban f1 & motorpsorts in general - it's not as though they are neccesary are they.

Originally posted by willman

f1 sports cars burn unnecessary amounts of fuel why don't we ban f1 & motorpsorts in general - it's not as though they are neccesary are they.

Bacause the technology developed makes cars more fuel efficient and safer.

Originally posted by back2basics
Bacause the technology developed makes cars more fuel efficient and safer.

i dont dispute that ,but as fuel resources are finite why not ban the unnecessary waste of fuel for f1,rally cars etc.

just to play devils advocate here :
why should a family of 6 be allowed to drive a larger vehicle than a single person, regardless of vehicle type. they will use more fuel but probably have more need for a car than a single person.
the issue of 4x4's is purely one of dislike & as yet no one has argued for the removal of 4x4's on any grounds that would not be discriminatory.

personally i try to be environmentally responsible. I walk wherever I can (for health reasons as well as environmental) and i car share.

an AA man once told me that a car with underinflated tyres can burn up to twice as much fuel for the same journey - this may be an exagerated claim but the principle is still true.

Originally posted by willman

just to play devils advocate here :
why should a family of 6 be allowed to drive a larger vehicle than a single person, regardless of vehicle type. they will use more fuel but probably have more need for a car than a single person.
the issue of 4x4's is purely one of dislike & as yet no one has argued for the removal of 4x4's on any grounds that would not be discriminatory.

Exactly bigger saving are to be made from car sharing than scrapping 4x4s... but car sharing in 4x4's would also have a large impact. I see many people in 4x4's alone.

But here is another reason to get rid of them, for me this is more compelling. They are unsafe, they do not handle well, a 4x4 hitting a pedestrian is a bigger danger than a smaller car. It's also a bigger danger to a regular car.

In short they are unsafe, cause more deaths on the road and give the driver a false sence of security, which adds to the safety issue.

my main objection to them is that they increase the risk to other road users and pedestrians by an unacceptable amount.

i wont go down the path of asking for empirical evidence to support the claims 'cos non exists relating to uk 4x4's.

however as an educated lot - look at the numbers. the % of 4x4 drivers is minmal compared to the number of other vehicles on the road.
a quick straw poll of the houses on my street show 83 vehicles of which 4 are 4x4's & only 1 has no "approved" reason for owning one.
how more likely are you to be hit by the other 79 vehicles, than the 4x4's.
therefore the risk of death by car is higher thanthe risk of death by 4x4.

( i am aware of the ambiguous reports on body damage by higher vehicles versus saloons - ambiguus because the ideology can be intepreted differently)

Originally posted by willman
i wont go down the path of asking for empirical evidence to support the claims 'cos non exists relating to uk 4x4's.

however as an educated lot - look at the numbers. the % of 4x4 drivers is minmal compared to the number of other vehicles on the road.
a quick straw poll of the houses on my street show 83 vehicles of which 4 are 4x4's & only 1 has no "approved" reason for owning one.
how more likely are you to be hit by the other 79 vehicles, than the 4x4's.
therefore the risk of death by car is higher thanthe risk of death by 4x4.

( i am aware of the ambiguous reports on body damage by higher vehicles versus saloons - ambiguus because the ideology can be intepreted differently)

There is empirical data. From insurance companies. Crashes in 4x4/SUVS are 11% more likely to end in death than crashes that do not involve and SUV.

37% of deaths involving SUV's are due to rollover. Only 15% of car deaths are due to rollover.

http://www.hwysafety.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html

Originally posted by back2basics
There is empirical data. From insurance companies. Crashes in 4x4/SUVS are 11% more likely to end in death than crashes that do not involve and SUV.

37% of deaths involving SUV's are due to rollover. Only 15% of car deaths are due to rollover.

that s true single 4x4s' that roll over usually result in death - oh **** but it's the driver that usually dies not pedestrians.

Originally posted by willman
that s true single 4x4s' that roll over usually result in death - oh **** but it's the driver that usually dies not pedestrians.

BTW i posted a link to the data.

http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/2625/event=view


"A pedestrian struck by a van is nearly three times more likely to suffer fatal injury than a pedestrian struck by a car. Pedestrians struck by large SUVs are twice as likely to die as pedestrians struck by cars," Gabler and Lefler reported.


Pedestrians are also more at risk.

But the reason more drivers die is because safety standards for SUV's and 4x4's are far lower than cars. Loophole in the law.

Also a car rollover infrontg of you on a motorway is a very dangrous thing. The bigger the object the more dangerous. Common sense.

Originally posted by willman
i wont go down the path of asking for empirical evidence to support the claims 'cos non exists relating to uk 4x4's.

however as an educated lot - look at the numbers. the % of 4x4 drivers is minmal compared to the number of other vehicles on the road.
a quick straw poll of the houses on my street show 83 vehicles of which 4 are 4x4's & only 1 has no "approved" reason for owning one.
how more likely are you to be hit by the other 79 vehicles, than the 4x4's.
therefore the risk of death by car is higher thanthe risk of death by 4x4.

( i am aware of the ambiguous reports on body damage by higher vehicles versus saloons - ambiguus because the ideology can be intepreted differently)

If all the 4x4s were replaced with normal cars, would not the chance of death be reduced? Pedestrians would be just a likely to be hit by a car (or whatever means of death) but they would be less likely to die because non of them would be 4x4's.

Stands to reason, a 4x4 weighs a lot so has a great deal of momentum with which to anihilate the innocent bystander.

Originally posted by back2basics
BTW i posted a link to the data.

http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/2625/event=view



Pedestrians are also more at risk.

But the reason more drivers die is because safety standards for SUV's and 4x4's are far lower than cars. Loophole in the law.

Also a car rollover infrontg of you on a motorway is a very dangrous thing. The bigger the object the more dangerous. Common sense.

i dont doubt the data at all, but the conclusive evidence fom other sites is that the suv/4x4 driver always comes off worse in a rollover following a collision.

the debate on injury to pedeastrians also has two opposing views re: road clearances, area of impact, whether victims are thrown etc. both differ regarding type of car & who is presenting the argument.
but statitistically you are more likely as a pedestrain to be hit by a "CAR" than an suv, therefore you have chance of being killed by a car than a 4x4 type vehicle.

You people seriously are like a broken record. :roll:
It's quite sad really.

Well at least we're just discussing the issues and not resorting to personal insult.

Originally posted by TimmyR
If all the 4x4s were replaced with normal cars, would not the chance of death be reduced? Pedestrians would be just a likely to be hit by a car (or whatever means of death) but they would be less likely to die because non of them would be 4x4's.

Stands to reason, a 4x4 weighs a lot so has a great deal of momentum with which to anihilate the innocent bystander.

any vehicle driving over 30 miles an hour has the abiltiy to kill achild - or so the advert says.
chances are that a pedestrian may see a higher ,bigger 4x4 than a speeding clio hid behind other cars.

Originally posted by TimmyR
Well at least we're just discussing the issues and not resorting to personal insult.
Sorry did I direct an insult? Or did I say you were like a broken record? I think the broken record is more of a comparisson than an insult :loopy:

The "It's quite sad really" is more of a personal opinion too.
So... my concience is clear.

I thank you.

PS cost me £19 to fill up my LPG'd Jeep t'other day, also got me a tax rebate due to fuel being better for environment and I dont pay for parking in the town centre anymore thanks to the council's view on my LPG Jeep.

Feels great being this smug ;)

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Sorry did I direct an insult? Or did I say you were like a broken record? I think the broken record is more of a comparisson than an insult :loopy:

The "It's quite sad really" is more of a personal opinion too.
So... my concience is clear.

I thank you.

PS cost me £19 to fill up my LPG'd Jeep t'other day, also got me a tax rebate due to fuel being better for environment and I dont pay for parking in the town centre anymore thanks to the council's view on my LPG Jeep.

Feels great being this smug ;)

I was referring to your previous involvement on the Pollution Tax thread.

And as I said on that thread, the argument is against polluting vehicles. Your vehicle is less polluting. My idea is to bring in a pollution tax somehow measured against emissions. You would not be as penalised because you produce less emissions.

So why is it that you got so bothered by the last thread? I failed then to understand it then TBH.

Originally posted by TimmyR
I was referring to your previous involvement on the Pollution Tax thread.

And as I said on that thread, the argument is against polluting vehicles. Your vehicle is less polluting. My idea is to bring in a pollution tax somehow measured against emissions. You would not be as penalised because you produce less emissions.

So why is it that you got so bothered by the last thread? I failed then to understand it then TBH.
Read the title of the thread and pretty much every post herein.
And to be honest, you still sound like a broken record :lol:

Maybe I should start a "The Anti cyclists thread" topic? However I'm not that shallow to feel ALL cyclists are dangerous, un-highway code following, slow moving turds. Some are decent, legal cycling individuals too.

Which are you TimmyR :roll:

Forget it, it doesn't interest me anyway ;)

Originally posted by DaBouncer
turds

Like I say at least we're not resorting to personal insult.

Originally posted by willman
i read with interest all your posts however - making comments relating to 4x4's in general and justifying them with "chelsea" tractor "facts" is quite erroneuos. likewise by extending your assumed train of thought the application to sports cars is relevant, unless your criticism of "incorrect" use only applies where it suits yourself.
quite rightly you support all your comments based on chelsea tractors therefore they dont apply to 99% of the users on here so why bother posting them. we are talking about 4x4's in general, but then again you brought up the average city driver who may not drive chelsea tractors .
perhaps that swhy i'm confused.
You're rapidly proving to be rather hard work to try and get a point across to!

If you care to read the first post in this thread, you'll see which type of 4x4's are under discussion... and why you keep trying to bring sports cars into the argument is beyond me.

99% of the users on here, by which I suppose you to mean drivers, probably don't drive road-tanks, I wouldn't know... The reason that I bother posting the argument against them is because that is the topic of this thread!!

Originally posted by TimmyR
Like I say at least we're not resorting to personal insult.
You missed:
Originally posted by DaBouncer
However I'm not that shallow to feel ALL cyclists are dangerous, un-highway code following, slow moving turds.
If you can't take it in the context it is written, don't bother misquoting. It's not becoming of you to add 2 & 2 together and make 5 TimmyR :P

Originally posted by willman
i wont go down the path of asking for empirical evidence to support the claims 'cos non exists relating to uk 4x4's.

however as an educated lot - look at the numbers. the % of 4x4 drivers is minmal compared to the number of other vehicles on the road.
a quick straw poll of the houses on my street show 83 vehicles of which 4 are 4x4's & only 1 has no "approved" reason for owning one.
how more likely are you to be hit by the other 79 vehicles, than the 4x4's.
therefore the risk of death by car is higher thanthe risk of death by 4x4.

( i am aware of the ambiguous reports on body damage by higher vehicles versus saloons - ambiguus because the ideology can be intepreted differently)

what kind of wooly logic argument is that.
It's about the chance of injury when hit by that vehicle type that matters, not the overall risk of being hit by that vehicle or not.
Otherwise you could have the most pedestrian eating vehicle in existance, but point to the fact that you are more likely to be hit by a push bike, so it's okay :loopy:

Originally posted by Pseudonym
You're rapidly proving to be rather hard work to try and get a point across to!

If you care to read the first post in this thread, you'll see which type of 4x4's are under discussion... and why you keep trying to bring sports cars into the argument is beyond me.

99% of the users on here, by which I suppose you to mean drivers, probably don't drive road-tanks, I wouldn't know... The reason that I bother posting the argument against them is because that is the topic of this thread!!

what you mean is i won't bow down to your obvious lack of debating skills.
the thread is 4x4 related, not just chelsea tractors.
if u speculate on one type of vehicle i.e chelsea tractor surely you should apply your logic/comments to other vehicles to see if it holds water.which it doesn't.
otherwise your just being biased & discriminatory.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what kind of wooly logic argument is that.
It's about the chance of injury when hit by that vehicle type that matters, not the overall risk of being hit by that vehicle or not.
Otherwise you could have the most pedestrian eating vehicle in existance, but point to the fact that you are more likely to be hit by a push bike, so it's okay :loopy:

why is it woolly logic?

u didnt say that the type of injury from a 4x4 could be worse & chance of fatality were higher.
the risk of injury by a car is higher than that of an suv, numerical evidence supports it.
if posts were clear o ftheir own intention then perhapds we wouldnt keep going round in circles.

Wow this is a weird subject to get people so angry! Would not have expected that at all.

Well no matter what anyone says, the poll has been closed and the results speak for itself

4x4 drivers have every right to protect little tabatha and pollute at will

:rolleyes:

no ones angry (well i'm not) i just dont agree with unsupported statements that are biased. usually because the poster has a different type of car to which half the comments on here do apply too.

Originally posted by willman
why is it woolly logic?

u didnt say that the type of injury from a 4x4 could be worse & chance of fatality were higher.
the risk of injury by a car is higher than that of an suv, numerical evidence supports it.
if posts were clear o ftheir own intention then perhapds we wouldnt keep going round in circles.

what I said was that in an accident involving a pedestrian the injuries will tend to be greater if the vehicle is an SUV style rather than car.

The relative chance of being hit by those vehicle classes is irrelevant. Every SUV that takes to the roads in place of a car increases the overall risk to any pedestrian.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what I said was that in an accident involving a pedestrian the injuries will tend to be greater if the vehicle is an SUV style rather than car.

The relative chance of being hit by those vehicle classes is irrelevant. Every SUV that takes to the roads in place of a car increases the overall risk to any pedestrian.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

first statement true & accurate as ever.
ok i only have to get pseudo to clarify his issues & i can sleep better at night.:roll:

Originally posted by back2basics
Wow this is a weird subject to get people so angry! Would not have expected that at all.
For me personally it's the constant going on and on and on about just 4x4's.
There are plenty of vehicles that are far worse for the environment than the one I drive but people aren't happy.

Yes they generally do less MPG than you're average small car.
However I know this, am prepared to pay more in tax (due to more spent on fuel) for the privilege so why have a go?

Yes my vehicle is handy because it gets used for towing which is something a small car cannot do well.
If you should be blaming anyone it's the government, they should provide a better public transport system with all the tax revenue they make, they should put more into finding better fuel efficient and renewable duel using modes of transport.

Not have a pop at the vehicle the average guy on the street drives because it's something he/she likes.
It just seems a little unfair.

Let those without sin cast the first stone.
We're all sat here on a computer which is burning fuel to have this little argument. Fuel which is causing pollutants in the atmosphere.
Granted it's less individually, but all of us contributing and all those reading it means more and more fuel being burned in an argument/debate over something you can't change anyway.

Originally posted by willman
first statement true & accurate as ever.
ok i only have to get pseudo to clarify his issues & i can sleep better at night.:roll:
You may be in for a sleepless night in that case because I've now grown tired of having to repeatedly simplify what I've said and correct your erroneous interpretations of my point of view, frankly my friend, it's no longer worth the hassle... :(

Originally posted by DaBouncer
For me personally it's the constant going on and on and on about just 4x4's.
There are plenty of vehicles that are far worse for the environment than the one I drive but people aren't happy....
DaBouncer, may I respectfully suggest that yourself and Willman join hands, skip to the top of the page and both look at the title of this thread! ;)

[I give up!]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
DaBouncer, may I respectfully suggest that yourself and Willman join hands, skip to the top of the page and both look at the title of this thread! ;)

[I give up!]
Yes I am aware that it's the Anti 4x4 thread, your point being? Did you have a point?

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Yes I am aware that it's the Anti 4x4 thread, your point being? Did you have a point?

dont think he did - quite strange really just sitting on the fence & taking no subjective role in a discussion.
especially when the get out clause is to say "read the title".
or did he think we can only make anti 4x4 comments on the forum.

I was attempting to point out to both of you that the topic under discussion is large 4x4's, not sports cars, or indeed any other vehicle, that is why we keep "going on and on and on about just 4x4's."

My attempt to draw the attention of both of you to this fact appears to have been a futile exercise... Which is why I say, yet again... I give up!

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I was attempting to point out to both of you that the topic under discussion is large 4x4's, not sports cars, or indeed any other vehicle, that is why we keep "going on and on and on about just 4x4's."

My attempt to draw the attention of both of you to this fact appears to have been a futile exercise... Which is why I say, yet again... I give up!

the opening statement stated that he "hated those people" and mentioned " big gas guzzlingpolluting 4x4's".
where does that support your comments and not ours.
we have had comments on speed, not being able to see,safety,efficiency & economy.
my posts inclusive of sports cars are just as valid as generalised statements over gas guzzlers.
if you have no valid point to make then i agree you should gve up.

Originally posted by Pseudonym
I was attempting to point out to both of you that the topic under discussion is large 4x4's, not sports cars, or indeed any other vehicle, that is why we keep "going on and on and on about just 4x4's."

My attempt to draw the attention of both of you to this fact appears to have been a futile exercise... Which is why I say, yet again... I give up!
However you pointed out to VIEW the title of the thread.
That title being The Anti 4x4 thread, not The Anti Large 4x4 thread nor is it The Anti Large 4x4 thread excluding Jeeps.

So your ever so clever 'point' wasn't anything now was it :lol:
And here was I hoping for something more exciting than your obvious inability to grasp this fact ;)

Here endeth today's lesson :roll:

Originally posted by TimmyR
If all the 4x4s were replaced with normal cars, would not the chance of death be reduced? Pedestrians would be just a likely to be hit by a car (or whatever means of death) but they would be less likely to die because non of them would be 4x4's.

Stands to reason, a 4x4 weighs a lot so has a great deal of momentum with which to anihilate the innocent bystander.

If all the cars were replaced with 50cc scooters, would not the chance of death be reduced? Pedestrians would be less likely to be hit by a scooter (or whatever means of death) and they would be less likely to die because non of them would be cars.

Stands to reason, a car weighs a lot so has a great deal of momentum with which to anihilate the innocent bystander.

So, is everyone going to get rid of their car, and buy a 50cc scooter...

...still got an engine, so it's easy up hills...

...no, didn't think so.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by DaBouncer
You missed:

If you can't take it in the context it is written, don't bother misquoting. It's not becoming of you to add 2 & 2 together and make 5 TimmyR :P

I think the implication was clear enough

Originally posted by spyro2000
Well no matter what anyone says, the poll has been closed and the results speak for itself

4x4 drivers have every right to protect little tabatha and pollute at will

:rolleyes:

Don't mean to be funny but 5 people can hardly represent an accurate statistical cross section of the population.

Originally posted by willman
wot about being alongside a transit van, or people carrier.
same thing.

There is a fair chance that the Transit Van is going aout his legitimate business, and most transit van drivers don't use that vehicle outside normal use. (It's not really a status symbol driving a transit van, is it ? )
People carriers are for carrying people, therefore they are probably doing the job intended of them.

Originally posted by TimmyR
I think the implication was clear enough
Well it might be in your head, but again I can't be held responsible for your mistakes.

At the end of the day you attack one section of the population, that section that drives 4x4's and whether you're having a 'discussion' without name calling or not, people are going to get upset.

You know you sound like a broken record, we know you sound like a broken record... so lets just leave it at that eh ;)

I'm not totally against 4x4's, in fact they're a sensible option out here. But I've just narrowly escaped being hit by one. Out with the dog just now I heard this frantic hooting and turned to see one of those huge SUV's sliding sideways down the road and heading straight for me.

Stone walls on either side of the lane so nowhere to go, but luckily he managed to find some traction on the verge and missed me by inches. Driver most apologetic and I hope now realises that 4 wheel drive won't save him, or the innocent, on black sheet ice.

Had the shakes for a while but cured by a stiff whiskey.

Expect the gritters will be up at around 9.30 as usual ;)

Originally posted by Greybeard
I'm not totally against 4x4's, in fact they're a sensible option out here. But I've just narrowly escaped being hit by one. Out with the dog just now I heard this frantic hooting and turned to see one of those huge SUV's sliding sideways down the road and heading straight for me.

Stone walls on either side of the lane so nowhere to go, but luckily he managed to find some traction on the verge and missed me by inches. Driver most apologetic and I hope now realises that 4 wheel drive won't save him, or the innocent, on black sheet ice.

Had the shakes for a while but cured by a stiff whiskey.

Expect the gritters will be up at around 9.30 as usual ;)

Like I've said before, unless they have good snow tyres fitted, then 4X4 SUV's are worse than normal cars in the Snow and Ice because of there weight. Even with Snow tyres they still don't fair too well on hilly roads when theres snow.

Like I've said before, unless they have good snow tyres fitted, then 4X4 SUV's are worse than normal cars in the Snow and Ice because of there weight. Even with Snow tyres they still don't fair too well on hilly roads when theres snow.

I would like to see some evidence to support this comment - from personal experience i would refute this. Ask the two guys in a car who'd slid off the Hathersage to Burbage road in the snow which vehicle pulled them back onto the road last winter. Ask the owners of the two cars that were ditched by Fiddlers Elbow after sliding off the road on black ice, which vehicle safely negotiated the patch using its Hill Descent Control. Also ask all the car drivers which vehicle was able to drive through the floods at the Rivelyn Post Office whilst all others were stranded. Yes, it was a L/R Freelander with its ordinary road tyres.

Incidentally, 4x4 was first generally used on the Wilys Jeep in 1941 on an all-terrain vehicle designed to aid man in its constant quest to kill other men. Perhaps for those who believe they are more dangerous to pedestrians and their drivers, urban 4x4 cars remain true to their origins. L/R didn't produce its first 4x4 car until 1948.

Cliff statement needs proof. So is he REALLY saying that a 4x4 is worse in the snow?? Is that why I used to get to work in the snow in my 4x4 and go past all the stranded cars on my trips to Edale?

The thing that really gets my back up is the generalisation of the hatred of 4x4's. I used to get stick all the time for mine from the "greenies" on the street. The fact I needed it for work simply wasn't a good enough excuse for owning one of those monsters.
I now have a car which does two thirds of the fuel economy, but still got a "at last you've got rid of that gas guzzling 4x4" off 'em.:loopy:

I agree that something needs to be done about 4X4's - and this is being done already. Fuel prices need to be even higher, rather than road taxes, so that inefficient vehicles pay far more. People can then decide if they want their vehicle enough to pay for it and it is then still personal choice.

But 4X4's aren't the real problem, they are just the visible face of the problem. Cars used to be much slower and much smaller. Over the years they have got bigger and the engines far more efficient, but this efficiency has led to faster and faster cars. Having a "family car" that can travel at 155mph or does 0-60 in 6 seconds is far dafter than having an off road car on the road. The speed limit here is 70mph and yet even bottom of the range cars will do 100mph. People are still attracted by aggressive looking cars, that may have poor bootspace and be hard to park, which have a top speed far in excess of any speed they will every drive at. If anyone out there has a car which is overpowered shouldn't really be critising 4X4's. Increasing the price of fuel will stop all these sorts of problems.

i notice that todays daily mail villifies the "environmentally" friendly cars in support of the Jeep amongst 4x4's as the least polluting of all vehicles.
no doubt members of the anti 4x4 lobby will dispute all the arguments presented by the SCIENTISTS and return to the favourable opinion & hearsay arguments.

on a dust to dust pretext i'e true cost of manufature,running & eventual disposal of cars
several 4x4 gas guzzlers were better for the environment thanthe Toyota Prius.

now who would have thought that.!!!!

I think it is very sad to define yourself by the car you drive

If that is the only way you get your identity, try broadening your horizons

The problem with 4x4`s is that the consequences of being crashed into by one are likely to be more serious. This is undeniable and on it`s own should mean their owners should pay a far higher road tax in an attempt to dissuade people from buying one and to contribute to the costs of the additional damage they are likely to do.
One other thing, the reason many people like them is the commanding view of the road they give. BUT as mentioned above this has a down side for the car(s) behind them as they get a worse view of the roads because they are less able to see through/round/over the car in front. The latter makes driving smoothly, economically and safely that much more difficult. I have often wondered how many additional accidents are caused by this often overlooked point. That is the main reason why I rarely let a 4x4 out in front of me at a junction.

The problem with 4x4`s is that the consequences of being crashed into by one are likely to be more serious. This is undeniable and on it`s own should mean their owners should pay a far higher road tax in an attempt to dissuade people from buying one and to contribute to the costs of the additional damage they are likely to do.
One other thing, the reason many people like them is the commanding view of the road they give. BUT as mentioned above this has a down side for the car(s) behind them as they get a worse view of the roads because they are less able to see through/round/over the car in front. The latter makes driving smoothly, economically and safely that much more difficult. I have often wondered how many additional accidents are caused by this often overlooked point. That is the main reason why I rarely let a 4x4 out in front of me at a junction.


so you dont have an obstructed view following an mpv,kango,post office red van or a bus?
following from your objection - the person having the crash is the selfish,speed merchant following the 4x4 who wants to get past without being able to see the road ahead. which i'm sure is a fail on the driving test.

so you dont have an obstructed view following an mpv,kango,post office red van or a bus?
following from your objection - the person having the crash is the selfish,speed merchant following the 4x4 who wants to get past without being able to see the road ahead. which i'm sure is a fail on the driving test.

If you`ve got the idea that I`m one of those brain deads who go speeding around with no thought for anyone else (or in fact speeding at all) you couldn`t be more wrong as a brief perusal of my contributions will reveal.
The difference between most 4x4 drivers and commercial vehicles is that the latter have no choice but to be in a truck, whereas 4x4 drivers generally do have a choice. I`m not including in this category people who live up dirt tracks etc because I have some sympathy for them in this respect.

i haven't any idea about you at all. i purely made a comment based on your post.
driver behind 4x4 cant see, overtakes and has a crash.
now who's fault would it be?
the fact you cant see past any of the other vehicles i mentioned detracts somewhat from the biased argument regarding 4x4's.

and yes i do drive a 4x4, why ? 'cos i have an equal choice of car as you do,
until some one can seriously justify why i'm not allowed equal choice of what i drive.
the arguments against 4x4's are getting fewer & fewer.

4x4 screams nouveau riche unless they're a utility vehicle (ie for driving across the fields with a sheep dog in the back). quite frankly they're tacky, and suggest something about the person driving them - to me they say 'empty life, empty head, full wallet'.

i haven't read the whole thread, but whoever it was who suggested they're usually well driven is deluded. Sometimes they are, often they're not.

they're also socially irresponsible - environmental reasons (no, i don't own a hybrid car, but i fully intend the next one i buy to be one), and for the "we'll be safer if we crash" attitude - you might be, but the other car won't, and if you run into a pedestrian in a 4x4 at the same speed as a normal car that weighs the same you're much more likely to kill the pedestrian as you hit them at abdomen height rather than leg height.


Tacky tacky tacky no taste no taste no taste.

whenever i see a 4x4 i always assume it's being driven by or the driver is related to a 40 year old woman wearing clothes that would better suit a 30 year old and with a hairstyle that would suit a teenager better (you know the one i mean - bleached blonde with darker streaks mainly underneath, really dry and brittle looking, and straightened).


Tack tack tack! Boooo! Hiissssssss!

edit - sorry if my dislike of 4x4s offends anyone who owns one, but i really do find 4x4s (well, suvs) quite offensively tasteless displays of wealth as well as everything else.

well the whole point of my post to restart this discussion was the fact that 3 of the most popular 4x4's are more environmentaly friendly than the Prius or any hybrid car.

so as is commonly stated, most peoples opinions of 4x4's are directly related to the driver & the preconcieved notion of the person driving them.

oh poop. someone has been resurrecting old threads again. bah. still, i've vented, albeit probably about a year late.

I think it is very sad to define yourself by the car you drive

It is but that is the only reason for the existence of the Porsche Cayenne THE most ridiculous of 4 x 4s. They define themselves as complete d***s. Porsche sold their soul with that thing.

well the whole point of my post to restart this discussion was the fact that 3 of the most popular 4x4's are more environmentaly friendly than the Prius or any hybrid car.

so as is commonly stated, most peoples opinions of 4x4's are directly related to the driver & the preconcieved notion of the person driving them.


i may be wrong as i'm not really interested in cars, but surely the information that some 4x4s are more environmentally friendly that any current hybrids factors in such things as research, manufacturing, testing etc? if so, then as hybrids become more standard production line vehicles, the individual environmental cost of each will drop - presumably to substantially lower than that of any 4x4.

"on a dust to dust pretext i'e true cost of manufature,running & eventual disposal of cars
several 4x4 gas guzzlers were better for the environment thanthe Toyota Prius."

It is but that is the only reason for the existence of the Porsche Cayenne THE most ridiculous of 4 x 4s. They define themselves as complete d***s. Porsche sold their soul with that thing.


in my humble experience as a 4x4 and porsche 911 owner, i agree completely.
it looks crap,is unable to perform as an off road vehicle and the people driving them always give 4x4's a bad time.

It is but that is the only reason for the existence of the Porsche Cayenne THE most ridiculous of 4 x 4s. They define themselves as complete d***s. Porsche sold their soul with that thing.

any car that has its name scrawled on the back in the ridiculous script of a 13 year old is just wrong. i don't know if that applies to the posche cayenne or not, but porsche have certainly done it to several others of their cars.

i may be wrong as i'm not really interested in cars, but surely the information that some 4x4s are more environmentally friendly that any current hybrids factors in such things as research, manufacturing, testing etc? if so, then as hybrids become more standard production line vehicles, the individual environmental cost of each will drop - presumably to substantially lower than that of any 4x4.

"on a dust to dust pretext i'e true cost of manufature,running & eventual disposal of cars
several 4x4 gas guzzlers were better for the environment thanthe Toyota Prius."


i would imagine you could be right, however the next generation of hybrid/crossover 4x4's are proving to have better safety records & economy figures than the new estate cars or mpvs.
so unfortunatley the hybrids like prius could be a few years from perfection.
(i was considering a prius next - but the figures did not stack up using it as a compnay car)
hopefully however it will be a downward spiral and everyone will benefit from better cars & environment.

in my humble experience as a 4x4 and porsche 911 owner, i agree completely.
it looks crap,is unable to perform as an off road vehicle and the people driving them always give 4x4's a bad time.If you have a 911 you must have been appalled when Cayenne came out as we all were.

i think everything about it is appalling - including the drivers in most cases.

A friend of mine offered to lend me his so that I could impress people. I said I think they will be more impressed if I tell them I turned it down. He told me only yesterday he doesn't know what he was thinking of when he bought it and blamed it on the wife. I have driven the thing and it will lift a wheel off the ground in certain situations which makes it a 3 x 3 and a bit dodgy I think.

Should these huge truck like off road vehicles be allowed on the roads?

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/


How sad, no really sad, there are many things I don't like but others do ,but thats their choice. So why do sad people with nothing better to do try and organise somebody elses life. Sad sad sad.

Status symbol ?? Of course they are !!
Annoying ?? Definately !!

Jealous?? definately :hihi:

in my humble experience as a 4x4 and porsche 911 owner, i agree completely.
it looks crap,is unable to perform as an off road vehicle and the people driving them always give 4x4's a bad time.

:love: :love: :love:
Im in love ... sorry willmanbut its your cars I'm after.

just to play devels advocate ... I love 4x4's !
________
Buy Vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/)

I don't have a problem with big cars per se...I have a problem with gaz guzzlers. Be they small sports cars with big engines, or the [road] land rover type things.

I can fully understand the appeal of these behemoths of the road...must be comfortable to drive, good visibility I assume. I used to enjoy the view I had when driving university minibuses, I imagine it is the same.

There is of course the other problem, as I see it, these big and/or sporty cars cost a lot to buy and run.

I can't help thinking how much that cash could do to help the millions of starving people in the world, fight disease, protect endagered flora/fauna etc etc.
If I could afford one, the (perceived) environmental impact and my guilt that the money could be better spent, I think would stop me buying one.

Incidently, someone said something along the lines of 'the uk is a minor producer of CO2 so why should we try?'.....
In response, let me quote what I think is one of the best sigs I have seen on the forum.
If all the people who ever said "Why should I try, i'm only one person, I can't affect the outcome" had taken a stance, the world would be a better place.

I don't have a problem with big cars per se...I have a problem with gaz guzzlers. Be they small sports cars with big engines, or the [road] land rover type things.

I can fully understand the appeal of these behemoths of the road...must be comfortable to drive, good visibility I assume. I used to enjoy the view I had when driving university minibuses, I imagine it is the same.

The perception of safety is a factor for many; they are good in some areas and poor in others..
As an owner of a small sports car with a large engine, the fuel consumption isn't as bad as you might expect; compared to (obvious) 4x4SUV it's aerodynamic and light which means that most of the time the engine isn't stressed or guzzling fuel. My car uses less fuel cruising at 100mph (where safe) than in slow traffic queues.

There is of course the other problem, as I see it, these big and/or sporty cars cost a lot to buy and run.

I can't help thinking how much that cash could do to help the millions of starving people in the world, fight disease, protect endagered flora/fauna etc etc.
If I could afford one, the (perceived) environmental impact and my guilt that the money could be better spent, I think would stop me buying one.

Fair enough, but would you, or anyone, actually spend the money on the worthy causes?

Incidently, someone said something along the lines of 'the uk is a minor producer of CO2 so why should we try?'.....

And personal road transport is a relatively small proportion of the UK's CO2 emissions, which is why many motorists are pi**ed off at being taxed to the edge for no discernible environmental benefit.

...As an owner of a small sports car with a large engine, the fuel consumption isn't as bad as you might expect; compared to (obvious) 4x4SUV it's aerodynamic and light which means that most of the time the engine isn't stressed or guzzling fuel. My car uses less fuel cruising at 100mph (where safe) than in slow traffic queues.

Engine might not be struggling, but still using more fuel than many cars. Just out of curiosity...do you know roughly what you get MPG? I'm curious to compare with my little motor. (or per litre would be easier for me to compare)



Fair enough, but would you, or anyone, actually spend the money on the worthy causes?
I regularly donate to what I consider worthy causes, yes.

And personal road transport is a relatively small proportion of the UK's CO2 emissions...
A small part, but a part nonetheless. Every little helps.

:love: :love: :love:
Im in love ... sorry willmanbut its your cars I'm after.

just to play devels advocate ... I love 4x4's !


i'm sorry to be a disappointment to you, but as of 9.30 last night i am no longer the proud owner of a porsche 911.
due to the emissions of this car and its relative economy i have sold the beast.(sarcastic grin)

yes my lovely sports car was not as environmentally friendly as my hulking 4x4, so i've flogged it.got the same for it as i paid for it,which just proves that its worth buying quality.

which means doing the parkway shuffle in "Bohemoth2" or L200 to you & me.

so you dont have an obstructed view following an mpv,kango,post office red van or a bus?
following from your objection - the person having the crash is the selfish,speed merchant following the 4x4 who wants to get past without being able to see the road ahead. which i'm sure is a fail on the driving test.

it's nothing to do with getting past.

With a normal car in front, I only spend half my time watching that car, I spend at least as much time looking 3, 4 or more cars in front, that allows you to react premptively to anything that happens, it makes your driving smoother, more efficient and safer.
If you're behind something that blocks that view you can only react to the vehicle directly ahead of you. It's impossible to drive as smoothly and you have to increase your breaking gap in order to maintain the safety.
Obviously the same applies to any high vehicle, not just to SUVs.

I regularly donate to what I consider worthy causes, yes.


That's not the question though is it. If you had say 20k spare which I might choose to spend on a sports car, would you instead give it to charity.
I suspect not.

We all donate whatever we personally feel that we can spare, but I don't know anyone who gets a payrise and goes "that's great, I can give more money to charity now".

My car gets around 34/35 to the gallon on a reasonable mixed run. As I spend most of my time in SCC created congestion I tend to actually get closer to 30.

I think the argument about CO2 is similar to the one about safety. Why focus on a group who contribute 5% to the problem and ignore the people (industry) who create 95%, it's not really the actions of a government concerned about pollution, it's just another way to get more money from the motorist.

it's nothing to do with getting past.

With a normal car in front, I only spend half my time watching that car, I spend at least as much time looking 3, 4 or more cars in front, that allows you to react premptively to anything that happens, it makes your driving smoother, more efficient and safer.
If you're behind something that blocks that view you can only react to the vehicle directly ahead of you. It's impossible to drive as smoothly and you have to increase your breaking gap in order to maintain the safety.
Obviously the same applies to any high vehicle, not just to SUVs.


so basically the selfish 4x4 driver is preventing "you" from driving how you want to.
smacks a little of i want what i want but you can't have what you want,to me.

as for high vehicles i think the protesters will find that numerically - mpv's(zafira) .minimpv's(kango) at least match if not outnumber the 4x4's on the road.so the chances of a housewife in a mpv blocking your view is just as likely as a 4x4.

That's not the question though is it. If you had say 20k spare which I might choose to spend on a sports car, would you instead give it to charity.
I suspect not.
We'll find out if I get to that position - but you're probably right.
Though I am confident a good chunk of it would go that way.

Anyway..that's another thread...


Why focus on a group who contribute 5% to the problem and ignore the people (industry) who create 95%,
To say that asking people to think about emmissions means focusing on that group and ignoring other groups is a gross assumption. This thread was asking about big cars (specifically 4x4s).
If everyone does there bit..

it's not really the actions of a government concerned about pollution, it's just another way to get more money from the motorist.
The government may be acting out of 'green' beliefs, maybe out of the need to raise funds. Either way I'm happy as it may help ;)

so basically the selfish 4x4 driver is preventing "you" from driving how you want to.
smacks a little of i want what i want but you can't have what you want,to me.

as for high vehicles i think the protesters will find that numerically - mpv's(zafira) .minimpv's(kango) at least match if not outnumber the 4x4's on the road.so the chances of a housewife in a mpv blocking your view is just as likely as a 4x4.

You think it's selfish that I like to drive safely by being able to read the road and traffic ahead? That's a strange attitude really.

I haven't argued with you about the number of high vehicles, you're probably right. Being high is just one of the problems that SUVs have.

You think it's selfish that I like to drive safely by being able to read the road and traffic ahead? That's a strange attitude really.

.

as i have expressed numerous times, safe driving and advanced driving skills are paramount in the daily commute.

i didn't say the use of the skills were selfish - but the fact that you want the large vehicle moved so that you can use your skills is selfish, and probably not in your case but it is this that stresses the "following" driver.
the suv driver probably bought the higher vehicle so that he/she can drive or feel they are driving safer.

Everything considered together though, uniform height vehicles would be safer. Everyone would be able to see a reasonable distance past the vehicle in front, rather than the current situation where some people get to be high up and so can see a long way, but they block entirely the view of the person behind them.

Creating an advantage for yourself at the expense of others must be the definition of selfish surely?

it's nothing to do with getting past.
It's impossible to drive as smoothly and you have to increase your breaking gap in order to maintain the safety.

Sounds like somebody likes tailgateing. :)

Sounds like somebody likes tailgateing. :)

You'll have to explain that.

Why would wanting to be able to see the road ahead mean that I tailgate.:loopy:

[QUOTE=Cyclone]You'll have to explain that.

QUOTE]
I was refering to you saying you have to drop back to maintain safety, which implies to me that you must be too close.
Now who's :loopy:

Right.... I also drop back if it starts to snow, or rain heavily. Does that mean that I was too close in the first place... No it doesn't.

I have to increase my breaking gap beyond the normal safe gap if I can't see past the vehicle in front, in no way does that imply that I would be too close to a normal sized vehicle that I could see past.

So it's still you who's :loopy:

normal sized vehicle


But it depends on what you class as normal.
To a little old lady or nervous driver a Corsa/ Fiesta might be normal.
To a teenage lad an Impreza might be normal.
To a 4x4 driver that might be normal.
To a lorry driver a 40 tonne artic at 55' long might be normal.
So really it's just down to personal choice what people want.....

My dads just got a 4 x 4 and it has better emmissions than both the jag and the BMW he was looking at- so what does that mean? people are going to start a campaign against them?

But it depends on what you class as normal.
To a little old lady or nervous driver a Corsa/ Fiesta might be normal.
To a teenage lad an Impreza might be normal.
To a 4x4 driver that might be normal.
To a lorry driver a 40 tonne artic at 55' long might be normal.
So really it's just down to personal choice what people want.....


Are you the master of removing context?

Normal in my statement meant 'of average height for the roads of mainland britain'.

The majority of vehicles are around 1.5m heigh. Fiestas, imprexas and the most common vehicle on the road, the ford focus.

So most of the time when you are driving, the vehicle in front is of a similar size (height) to your car.
Vehicles that are disproportionatley heigh reduce your forward visibility and make it more difficult to drive smoothly when following them, the reason being that you cannot read the road and traffic ahead as you would normally do.

Why are you arguing with me about this? Do you actually disagree?

Normal in my statement meant 'of average height for the roads of mainland britain'.
Why are you arguing with me about this? Do you actually disagree?
But as I have always had (according to your statement) large vehicles, these to me are normal, and as you have done, stated my personal view.
As to arguing, all I've done is make a couple of statements querying what you had written.

They aren't normal to the people behind you are they.

If you're in the larger vehicle, you don't have the restricted view, it's everyone else that you cause problems for.

I'm not sure you queried anything, I can't actually see a question in any of your posts. Just several statements vaguely related to my posts, but taking things out of context or making incorrect assumptions.

His first post was nonsense and it went down from there.

His first post was nonsense and it went down from there.
Well I wouldn't say nonsense but he seems to argue with anybody about anything. Wants us to see his point of view and name calls when we don't.

Well I wouldn't say nonsense but he seems to argue with anybody about anything. Wants us to see his point of view and name calls when we don't.I agree with him on this particular topic and I've disagreed with him about others but sorry, I did think your tailgating comment was nonsense.

I'm confused, who thinks who is posting nonesense?
And who is supposed to have called anyone names?

I'm confused,
That makes 2 of us...we can agree on that at least ;)

I agree with him on this particular topic and I've disagreed with him about others but sorry, I did think your tailgating comment was nonsense.

You might think it nonsense, but to me if a driver has to drop back to feel safe, at some point the driver must have realised that he was driving too close in the first place.

I'm not sure you queried anything, I can't actually see a question in any of your posts. Just several statements vaguely related to my posts, but taking things out of context or making incorrect assumptions.
I queried what you classed as normal

But it depends on what you class as normal.

And you replied
Normal in my statement meant 'of average height for the roads of mainland britain'.

What do you do if you happen to get behind a lorry or one of the many buses on our roads ? Do you pull over and let smaller vehicles get between you ? I suspect not.

I already explained what I do. I increase my braking gap as I can no longer read the road or traffic ahead.

Your reasoning regarding my normal distance is very weak.
If my normal distance is lets say x, and lets say that x is as specified in the highway code. Then when a tall vehicle is infront of me and thus removes my ability to read ahead, lets say that I increase my braking distance to y, lets say that y is 1.5x.

Does that mean that x was originally 'too close'?

Regarding your statement, it depends.
In the context I used the word normal there is no depends. I meant most common, average, not unusual. It's not a matter of opinion or debate, there is a value that is the average, and it's lower than tall vehicles, otherwise they wouldn't be considered tall.

Judging by the replies on SF I think there are many people who don't like being average.

There always are.
Personally my car is lower than average. Maybe this exaggerates the problem I perceive with taller vehicles. They do completely block my view, and I don't like only watching the vehicle in front, it's not the safest way to drive.

Personally my car is lower than average. Maybe this exaggerates the problem I perceive with taller vehicles. They do completely block my view...

Not low enough to look under the car instead then? ;)

Unfortunately not.
I did consider whether having the lowest production car there is (VX220 apparently) would allow me to just drive under car park barriers, but again, unfortunately not.

My dads just got a 4 x 4 and it has better emmissions than both the jag and the BMW he was looking at- so what does that mean? people are going to start a campaign against them?

This is one extra reason why I would fight any ban on 4x4s; what comes next? large luxury saloons, fast sports cars, anything with more significant emissions than a mouse fart?