4x4 Bashing

[SMason0877]

Hia Folks

You cant have failed to see or read in the press lately about all the negative issues relating to 4x4 and the use of them.  Granted it does seem to be aimed at the poeple using the as a status symbol and shopping trolleys but i think if something comes out of this it will affect all of us.  Being fairly new to of roading i guess i can see there point as well my own.  I just wondered what you seasoned professionals thought about all this.  As im the only one in my department with a 4x4 i find im having to defend my postion alot and explain to people why i need one (god knows why).  Anyways, i would be interested in your opinions.

Thanks

[datalas]

Golly, that's a difficult question :)

You see there is (as you rightly point out) a lot of press coverage about those "big horrible 4x4s", especially with Ken doing the rounds in london decreeing them to be a hazard to all and sundry.  Although if he finds that 4x4 owners are deliberately aiming for him perhaps he shouldn't blame this on the vehicles themselves.

There has been talk on *how* to penalise the 4x4 market, and it's an intreguing one, and fortunately it's actually unworkable if you look at the legality of the situation.  Not that they won't find a way of course, but they'll have to work pretty hard to get past the following arguments being used to ban 4x4s and the possible ways they could therefore penalise them

* 4x4s are very inefficient and use a lot of fuel.

Ok, let's tax fuel then, the people that use more would therefore pay more tax on it... and ... oh wait ...  you already do that don't you :)   Let's not forget my dear fellows that my bosses Jag does (on a good day with the aircon off) 26MPG.  The Discovery does 28, the 300TDi of my fathers can get better than 26 when towing...  who's the gas guzzler again?

* 4x4s have silly large engines that produce lots of emmissons.

Which are subject to the same laws, regulations, and emmissions limits as the smaller less silly engines.

Anyhow, asside from *that* the 300 TDi (for example) is a 2.5l, if we're going to start measuring things according to cubic capacity the boy racers and politicians with big mercs are gonna be upset when they start being taxed to beggery.

* 4x4s are Big and take up all the road space.

OK, so should we tax cars by the amount of space they take up, I'm fair game for this rule, since the discovery is around the same size (length and width) as an escort.   The freebie has a 100" wheelbase, so does the new Mini..  Are we going to start taxing cars on vertical height then?  since that's the only way a 4x4 is actually bigger than most vehicles.  The series 1 80" is actually shorter than an original mini,  not exactly a "huge" beastie.  The 101 is again, shorter than the new Jag... hmm....

* 4x4s are Big and destroy the roads.

Ahh... So my tonne and a half discovery destroys the road more than the tonne and three quarters jag then... Oh, wait...    

I suppose it is the fault of the 4x4 manufacturer that not only do they insist on making the vehicle taller they insist on filling that space with lead, concrete, sharp objects and remote control children spikes....

Seriously, I quite like the idea of taxing vehicles by the amount of damage they do to the road, since the only way to measure this is by doing a point weight at each wheel and dividing it by the surface area this weight is spread over.  Hell yeah, tax breaks for big tyres :)

* 4x4s kill pedestrians.

This one is actually partially accurate, but I would like to point out that asside from the people aiming at mr livingston et al there is a certain amount of hysteria involved.  You could go into the argument that you can see better in a 4x4 than something else, but to all intents and purposes this is detracting from the basic points which should be made.  

1) if you get run over by anything at 30mph there is a good chance you're going to be dead, or crippled.  

2) perhaps you shouldn't have jumped out infront of it then.  

There is an increasing tone of "it's xxx's fault" to most road incidents nowadays,  when I was knocked off my bike it was my fault as I should have been paying attention to where I was going, nowadays it would be the fault of the car driver for foolishly driving at 5mph.   This is of course not to go into the fact that a little bit of darwinism never hurt any species.

* 4x4s are unneccesary and silly and smell

a "4x4"...  A Subaru Imprezza is four wheel drive, as are a lot of volvos.  A series 2 by default isn't (unless you press the button)    What are you suggesting?  a tax according to driven wheels?  alright, when I take the series out for a drive I'll keep a little note book in the cab so I can record just how many wheels are being driven at once.     If I accidently lock a wheel up by braking too hard can I deduct a number from my tally please?


Getting back to the point,  it is *very* difficult to make a legal distinction as to what is a SUV and what isn't.  You can't do it on weight, engine capacity, driven wheels, length, width etc.     The only "simple" ways would be to tax it according to the vehicle designation, which would require changing them all since currently they're cars) or something meaningless like height or wheel size, at which point you will end up unintentionally penalising something else, MPVs for example have the same seat capacity and height issues...

Ergo, if they do decide to do something about it, they'll be hard pressed to make a law that isn't easily bypassable, or applicable to everything.

[hobbit]

Another point is, the main reason I bought a discovery was for the wife, I needed something to put her electric runabout in as she can't walk far, she also has difficulties getting in and out of an ordinary height car.

Mine being able to do these things with the load capacity to take what is needed inthe back, at least when I finish re positioning the rear seats anyway.

Mind you the lightweight is just for knocking about in.  Honest just a cheap runabout, the disco is  a large vehicle to run round with when I'm on my own :twisted:  :twisted:

I didn't fit the roll cage, mud tyres or bull bar, it came that way   :lol:

Kev

[turtle]

That was a big soap box Daz.  :D

But I agree with everything you have said. And I have nothing to add.

[SMason0877]

Thanks for your responses guys, especially you datalas.  You made some very good arguments, stuff admitidly i would have never thought of.  I had no idea the disco had the same footprint as an escort :shock: .

I printed your response out and the guys in the office are currently havin a read, (so far they seem very quiet :) but agree with most of your points.

[Eeyore]

Yep, the Dazster comes up trumps again! Clearly the man needs more work!

Actually the pedestrian point is a good 'un, because it's actually very hard to hit pedestrains unless they're in the road.

So all of a sudden, it's our responsibility if a pedestrian, who steps into the road without being fully aware, gets hit by a vehicle (and less accidents happen at crossing than you think).

Excessive and inappropriate speed still contributes to more accidents than the drive system of the vehicle.

I've followed a 200mph TVR in a traffic jam a 5mph - so if my 4x4 is unecessary, what about his Becksmobile? And which one used the most fuel?

Pollution? In the States a recent study has revealed that Off-Highway vehicles (i.e. contruction kit - 'yellow goods') contribute far more polution (such as fine particulates) than all the diesel road vehicles in the US put together.

Many of the issues and crtitisisms aimed at 4x4 drivers are simply people going around a problem to solve a problem.

Just some more fuel to the fire

Cheers
Eeyore

[datalas]

Just to add yet another log onto the fire (which seems to have been made out of that soap box I was on earlier)

There is a currently growing, and rather worrying trend of legislation in this country which is oblivious to the nature of cause and effect.

There are too many cars on the roads? let's ban cars then..  it's completely missing the point that people are not going to spend £20 or so thousand pounds on a car, or two merely on the whim, nor are they going to take the two hours a day out of their lives to drive their children to school without some form of reason.

The government should (IMHO) spend a few minutes attempting to reason *why* people feel the need to own and use vehicles before they go about stopping them by imposing a draconian and ridiculous measure against something that is a response to a different problem.

Consider the following scenario.  You're repeatedly being struck by a stick which is causing you to come up in quite painfull bruises.  Do you a) do nothing, b) put on a jumper to make the stick hurt less ?   This is the problem as far as it is currently seen, sane people of course would plumb for option "c", ask the idiot with the stick to stop hitting you.

If people are driving cars for pointless journeys, is it because of the following...

* crumbling public transport infrastructure which is dirty, unreliable and unpleasent.  Often being older than the people on them, and delapidated / vandalised.

* lack of localised facilities, caused by a "rationalisation" scheme which moves things out of the local community and into areas which are hard to get to, but curiously cheaper.

* a crumbling educational system which forces parents to have to carefully choose and cope with schools miles from where they live in the vauge hope that their children leave school with the ability to count.

* vastly overpriced alternative forms of transport, which are either inconvenient, dangerous or just not suitable.

nope, it's because we're lazy and like the status symbol apparently.

[turtle]

Gosh Daz, you should be in goverment. But again can't knock what your saying.

[hobbit]

You know daz you should go on one of the discussion progs about this, it would be interesting to say the least   :twisted:

kev

[banditman]

Politicians have silly large gobs which produce a lot of emmissions !!!!!

RANT

[davidlandy]

hang on a minute my hardtop defender is classed as a 'commercial vehicle'   I have to pay extra on the toll fees, and am not allowed into my local tip with on certain days, unlike 'cars'

with this in mind there is something coming along called lorry road user charging or similar - a scheme whereby commerical vehicles get taxed on the miles they do rather than the disc in the window - rumour has it that they will also get a new cheaper 'blue' diesel rebate.   I spose my defender being a commercial vehicle will get this rebate also?

hmmmmmm :roll:  :?

[Wanderer]

I would think that Ken Livingstone has lost the last bit of respect anyone had for his opinions after sharing a stand with and welcoming one of the mad mullahs.

Ed