4x4 Environmentally Unfriendly?

I have to admit that in pointing out a particular behaviour, it is paradoxical that I am guilty of the same behaviour myself. This cannot be helped. The type of person who attacks particular groups of people, things or ideas, are mostly of a particular type themselves. Be they attacking vehicles, their drivers, gays, believers in a round Earth, they are all basically similar small minded people who have a chip on their shoulder, nothing better to do and, to various degrees, a kind of fervour bordering on religious frenzy in their 'belief' that they have the Truth while others blight the Earth with their presence.

Huw

I don't find 4x4 drivers are any worse than many other drivers in similar situations. On the school run, manouvering in car parks etc. Incompetent driving is equally as common by drivers of common cars IME.. Mike.

I haven't got a chip on my shoulder - it's simply an opinion I hold, whether its worth anything is neither here nor there. I dislike them that's all - i have nothing against the people who drive them other than the fact they drive them, i don't hate them. My own experience is that they are pollution wagons and driven by king of the road types that's all. I've recently had a car damaged by one so maybe i'm just biased.

I definitely see a bias towards knobbish driving from 4X4 drivers. It's not that having a 4X4 makes you a knob. More a case of if you're a knob, you're more likely to buy a 4X4. This is epitomized by the advert that's on the telly at the moment showing some 4X4 pickup with a twangy country and western song about how it makes you more virile and more menacing both at the same time. It's obviously aimed specifically at knobs.

Basically 4X4s are a good thing because they make the knobs easier to distinguish.

Cheers,

Colin.

Are you sure that the bias is not a chip, or at least a developing chip? You just don't like them. They pollute. They dent your car. They are driven by king of the road types. Sure sounds like a chip to me. Of course the Nazi's just didn't like the Jews either and also blamed them for all the ills in the World. It's only a short hop from idiotically hating ['disliking' if you prefer a milder word, and to be fair this is the word you specifically use] to hating another group. Escalate this to a passion and there you are, mass murder before you know it. All justified because you demonise a particular group, no matter which group. Just 'a group'.

Oh dear!

Am I going too far? Maybe. It is just an illustration of a behaviour pattern which is becoming more apparent in these politically correct days where it is [properly] frowned on to pick upon blacks, gays, socialists, the Irish etc. It does seem more politically correct to attack or pick on completely law abiding groups like 4x4 drivers, fox hunters [now law breaking of course] those that slightly exceed the speed limit [yes also breaking the law which says speed kills not that 'inappropriate' speed kills] and others.

Although I use somewhat colourful illustrations above, it is to illustrate the psychology of the process of disliking 'groups' of a population and it is not meant to imply that you personally are about to become a mass murderer. Unless you know different.

Huw

Huw (hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Godwin!

Yup. I spent a good minute or 5 behind a Starlet on Saturday while he tried to put his car into a normal sized space 20 times and finally gave up. Once he did, I swung wide and put the wife's Skoda into the same spot in one easy move. I don't even drive that car very often. I could have parked a van in that space.

Warwick

Poor form but fair enough if it wasn't for the explicit conditions and exclusions which you have snipped from my post and which explained the psychology of group hatred as I see it. Bad taste? Maybe, but I am not Royalty.

Huw

People like to have something to complain about. Take your pick from speed cameras to fox hunting to people who drive vehicles bigger than your eurobox. Always something to have a good moan about.

Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

Yes I've nothing against 4x4 or any other vehicle in itself. It's their use on public highways that i find odd. That's the sum total - you read into that whatever you like.

JohnR ( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Indeed.

It all comes down to "horses for courses" - you'd question the sanity and common sense of somebody who used a Routemaster or a Merc Actros tractor unit to take one child half a mile to school, but they undeniably have their place.

What's being questioned, if we can get past the defensiveness of those who may well have a valid reason, is the sheep-mentality of those who blindly swallow the spurious "safety" arguments and attempt to deny the undeniably higher emissions in their zeal to defend what is - ultimately - a lifestyle choice.

If somebody says "I drive a big 4x4 because I like it", that's unarguable. Just as somebody's personal belief that they are anti-social is unarguable.

If somebody says "I drive a big 4x4 because it's safer", that's a different kettle of fish, and there's a large body of evidence to show they're wrong

- or, at best, only looking at one small part of the balancing act.

If somebody says "Why shouldn't I drive a big 4x4 - it's just as green as a normal car", then - again - that can be shown to be a fallacy.

The trouble is that the number of big 4x4s on the road IS growing rapidly, and IS affecting other road users and non-road users. We have a right to question it.

The message from Adrian contains these words:

Ah, but we're not allowed to judge other people these days. Why the hell not, I don't know, but apparently we can't be judgemental. If you get into arguments with Americans you'll find that after a while they resort to telling you that you shouldn't judge 'em. Wearisome, it is.

I drive one because I like them and it comes in very handy for work.

I think the broader issue of the quantity of vehicles on the road needs addressing.

Why does so much freight go by road?

Why do so many people travel to work in offices doing work which could be just as easily done at home? the communications infastructure is now quite capable of supporting it but it's questionable if the road networks are capable of supporting the traffic. Just a thought.

Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

America was described as the land of the free, in which you can say anything you like, unless it's about america. In 1840.

Steady on mate - there's a high chance of some sensibility breaking out here, and that would never do.

cheers,

It has now grown to something like 7% of total sales. It may well be growing rapidly but if one has the income and is willing to pay the tax revenue from both the sale, the ownership and the fuel then so be it. Everyone wins apart from the owner I would think. Their place may well not be predominantly in town, from a practical point of view, but most take up no more road space than a Monday anyhow.

Huw

ROFL! 28.5mpg is terrible for a diesel! Published stats for that car is 31mpg, and 0-60 in 11.5s. Lets compare that to a massive monster, the VW Bora. The Bora gets 51mpg (extra 20mph), and does 0-60 in 9.0s. It's much faster, much more economical, and bigger than most people will want. Even the Petrol beats the Landcruiser Diesel, 180bhp Sport gets 32.8mpg, and does 0-60 in 8.2s.

I think you've just shown how thirsty they really are :-o. Even a 3l V6 Vectra beats it! I think it's time for the world to change, we need to do something about wasting fuel etc. People these days start there cars by remotes from their beds, so that it's warm when they get in :-o. They also use them for pointless trips. Then they own these

James Dore ( snipped-for-privacy@new.oxford.ac.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Ooops. Sorry. Won't do it again.

In that case you're not listening to the right places.

They are far more dangerous to people.

Because of the extra mass and the extra energy, they have longer braking distances too.

In a 4x4, the impact zone is between the hip and the chest, where your vital organs are. If you're hit there, you have a much smaller chance of survival, because your ribs get smashed into your heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys - etc.

Regular family cars have much better crumple zones, and have had them designed into them for many years. This cushions the impact further. This is only a recent design innovation on 4x4's, if they can be said to have crumple zones at all: They're usually ladder-type chassis, which are designed to be rigid in the extreme, not fold at specific areas to absorb impact. Guess where the energy that's not absorbed goes.

And that's without the kiddiekiller bullbars, which are just at infant head height.

Furthermore, according to my last Which? magazine, people are slightly more likely (between 10-15%) to have a fatal accident in a 4x4 in the first place - because they have a higher centre of gravity and topple over more easily.

If you want to move lots of stuff around in safety, and economy, get an MPV.