Anti 4x4

.. despite the school bus being bigger than those nasty dangerous 4x4s?

Matt M wrote: SNIP

On the whole I thought it was a good programme and, yes, the police bikes with blues and two's were hilarious. There's no way you'd get me riding one of those with the sirens going - how embarrassing :-)

Hugh, you're missing the point somewhat. It's not only the footprint of the vehicle that's important in this situation but the overall size (length, width and height) that has an impact.

I used the term 4x4 simply because Martin used it in his OP. Adding words like large or big was done simply to eliminate the Subaru's and Fiat Panda's from the discussion. In reality we should be taking about large vehicles in general rather than 4x4's in particular.

What the hell has ground force got to do with the suitability of any vehicle for city use? Are you worried the roads will collapse under the weight of all those mondeo's?

...........

.....

All your comments are about you driving past or reversing, nothing about the problems a big car might cause for others. No consideration that they might be more likely to cause an accident for someone else than be in one. Ever tried to reverse a little car from between a van and a Nissan Patrol? Hey I drive a "rangie", I don't want 4WD's off the road. Cars all have better and worse features, you must realise that with your collection. Blocking others' visibility is a feature of high, square vehicles. This

4WD/school issue is raised everywhere, so ubiquitous there is likely more to it than jealousy. I see the ignorance on both sides and the good driver is not the problem. People who only consider their own viewpoint are the problem.

They do complain or are aware. Trucks are often kept out of cities. Most are required to have "beware children" or "keep clear while turning", "hazchem" etc. You need a better license to drive one. It's not ideal to have rubbish trucks, but is there something different you can do with your rubbish? Do you have a better answer to a fire than a fire? Because we use them doesn't mean we can't see their problems.

Then one should keep the obligatory "two seconds" behind the vehicle ahead. I get seriously pissed off by tailgaters, and those who hassle me to close up on the vehicle ahead. When I learned to drive, my instructor was *very* strong on keeping at least one metre gap *visible* between the bonnet of my car and the vehicle ahead when stopping. How many people follow that rule?

In my experience, Land-Rover drivers are better than the general population - an opinion backed up by the examiner who tested me for my School Minibus test in Derby, who, when I had passed with flying colours, remarked "all the Land-Rover owners I have driven with handle vehicles very well".

The fact is, (and I've said this before), most drivers pass their test too easily. There should be a more stringent test, drivers should have to drive a two wheeler before they move to a four wheeler, and the test should be re-taken every five years. Only then would we see a reduction in road deaths, and a general improvement in driving standards.

Stuart

Stuart

Well, I use my wing mirrors most of the time, along with my rear view mirror - most of the drivers I observe use neither. The problem (IMO) is that most drivers are not skilled, and the driving test is too easy. If it were made harder, and needed to be taken every five years, it would stop most of the "I'm sorry, I didn't see you" type accidents (you can tell I'm also a biker, huh?).

Frankly, there are too many bad drivers on the road, and too many lax parents how don't want to teach their children the right way to behave.

Stuart

|I absolutely agree with you, Austin, school runs should be banned except |in exceptional circumstances and the car involved could then be issued |with a permit. I was fortunate enough to grow up in an age when parents |weren't unjustifiably paranoid about the safety of their children and |either walked or rode my bike to school every day.

I'm sure I read a government report a few years ago that stated that; since the advent of the school run, more children are killed on the road on their way to/from school than ever had been killed in any other way previously.

Beautiful expression in the Guardian the other day - helicopter parents, they hover continuously over their offspring.

I'm sorry, on which planet do you live? Trucks are *not* kept out of cities, most do not have any warning signs beyond indications of what they carry. A close friend of mine was run over by a rubbish truck - that driver was "licensed better" than me, but I've not run over anyone in my Land-Rover.

The problem comes in drivers thinking that they are invulnerable, and so (on the whole) reducing their awareness, couples with more comfortable and "safer" cars.

Stuart

Yes, but a bus carries what, 48 children? That means over 40 car trips are saved, the bus blocks the traffic whilst the children disembark and enter the school grounds, and the bus driver pulls away slowly, because he isn't in a rush to get to work.

And yes, my youngest (3 year old) travels in just such a manner from home to school. He can walk to the pick up point (the school in our village) with his mum, and returns the same way in the evening. No problem, and less traffic. The elder four are away at school during the week, and leave and return by bus at the weekends.

Stuart

Footprint = length and width. Everything I've read on here about impact of eight is IMO rubbish.

My other car is Polo. I don't have any problems with driving behind larger vehicles (i.e. Golf upwards). I stay far enough behind so I can see under parked cars for tell-tale legs of pedestrians. In fact it's easier to see under LR's and the like cos their ground clearance is greater.

Which is exactly the point I was making - give me strength!!!!

Finally, someone's said it .... well done Stuart.

This is a two way thing - it's not all a matter of large vehicles, restricted visibility, 4x4s being unsuitable etc.. Pedestrians and others have their part to play, too.

Why do many parents no longer instill some sort of awareness of the danger of vehicles into their little darlings and/or adequately supervise and control them. Kids need to learn that vehicles are dangerous and can move without warning. They need to to learn that any vehicle with a running engine is a hazard.

Parents, too, need to get their act together. We've already discussed tragedies occurring in domestic driveways. That's avoidable with a little common sense.

Is it all about this idea of removing risk to that point that no learning takes place? How do you find out that flame is hot until you get burnt? I'm not suggesting that we put children under car wheels but you get the idea.

A large proportion of the discussion has been about accidents involving children - others occur, too. As a whole we are not careful enough around vehicles and that needs to change.

I agree. I had a "debate" with a tree-hugger at my workplace before Christmas when I said I intended to bring my Rover back after the holiday. She presented me with one of those faux "parking tickets" from Friends of the Earth. Once I had corrected the misinformation, she seemed to grasp my point.

Stuart

Well, as an owner of noth a Land-Rover 110 SW and a Vauxhall Astra, I can tell you that each is as manoeuverable as the other, except in terms of tight turning circle. I prefer the Rover (which does not have PAS) because I can see more of the surrounding area, even though I use the wing mirrors on both as much as the rear view. I can see small things as easily in one as the other. I drive carefully, and I reverse VERY slowly.

I do care about other's visibility, which is why I only drive the Rover in the countryside, or when I have to carry my whole family (which doesn't fit in the Astra). I avoid towns and cities like the plague, and when I have to go there, I drive to the nearest public transport and then use that (since the city makes PT affordable and viable). But then, I live in Switzerland and the family lives in France, where people seem much more sensible than in the UK.

Stuart

hugh was very much talking about overall size - apart from the height, the 110 is smaller than the vehicles he quotes, and compared to most MPVs, it isn't much different in height.

Then say large vehicles, if that's what you mean. I have many frinds with large families and MPVs, and they are all about the same size as my

110. What make the LAnd-Rover seem bigger is the upright sides and back (which also makes it more practical as a load carrier). raw dimensions are similar.

Stuart

Yebbut, in my experience I can see the car driver look straight at me and then pull out, the "It's only a bike, that can't hurt me" attitude. Oh yes, they've definitely seen you.

Absolutely.

Martin