UP yours anti 4x4

Originally Posted by me283

Depends on how you define "fact"; seems more like opinion, Mr. Brent.

Anyway, to all those who brag that they get 45 mpg, as has been posted there are cars that give 70+ mpg. If that's your concern why don't you buy one of those? Or get a free one with your cornflakes more like.

---------- Post added at 00:24 ---------- Previous post was at 00:23 ----------



Haven't got any kids. And I'm not sure I would want any in this day and age... but believe me, that's nothing to do with the environment.

Sorry, can you give an example of where you'd actually need a 4x4 for day to day use in a city?
I'm flogging an extinct eqiune. Let the temperatures continue to rise and soon it won't matter.

[marky]

Originally Posted by Creative

Sorry, can you give an example of where you'd actually need a 4x4 for day to day use in a city?
I'm flogging an extinct eqiune. Let the temperatures continue to rise and soon it won't matter.

I use mine on a daily basis (not speed bumps) if you want to argue use then lets go HORSE ive never seen a 4x4 kick a person

[me283]

Originally Posted by Creative

Sorry, can you give an example of where you'd actually need a 4x4 for day to day use in a city?
I'm flogging an extinct eqiune. Let the temperatures continue to rise and soon it won't matter.

Perish the thought that people might actually want a 4x4... Anyway, what about on icy roads? They do get ice in London, and snow. And yes, others manage without 4x4s... they also manage without coats, but I'm not giving mine up just yet.

[Rob]

People curse the 4x4 for being environmentally unfreindly. With the size of the average speedhumps and pothles it's more environmentally friendly driving those than many more ordinary. economic vehicles. My local tyre centre now asys the average car should have tracking checked every 4000 rather than 6000 miles because of those things. My own car has just had £800 of suspension repair, after less than 35000 miles in 5 years entirely due to speed humps. That's not very environmentally friendly to be throwing those parts in a skip. It's all part of the equation.

There are less economic on fuel cars about supercars, luxury sallons (the Rolls Royce, Jaguars etc). but those don't have such mass appeal and thus aren't such a target. Maybe they should be?

But before we start really blaming the road user for all our environmental ills maybe we should look at our increased dependence on mobility. Lets target the school run - 20 years ago it was a treat if parents drove their kid to school. Now it's the norm, often in a 4x4 or MPV What about increased congestion, everyone pays for that, but we all need to be mobile to get to work. Perhaps better public transport might be an answer, but the time (and fuel) I and many have lost waiting at my local level crossing for a train that nobody uses is immense.

I don't drive a 4x4, and don't want to. But it does seem rather a niche blame culture to target them rather than our overall need for transport which is the real problem.

Originally Posted by marky

I use mine on a daily basis (not speed bumps) if you want to argue use then lets go HORSE ive never seen a 4x4 kick a person

What do you need 4x4 for though?
You don't do you?
Small cars also don't kick. On a related note, they don't deal drugs?

---------- Post added at 00:54 ---------- Previous post was at 00:49 ----------

Originally Posted by me283

Perish the thought that people might actually want a 4x4... Anyway, what about on icy roads? They do get ice in London, and snow. And yes, others manage without 4x4s... they also manage without coats, but I'm not giving mine up just yet.

They don't get anything like enough snow in London to warrant 4x4's. The only reason to get one is if you want one. So again sod the enviroment, the kids etc........
Coats and 4x4's? Interesting analogy. Completely related but yes I see your'e an elephant.

One of the funniest things are heard was at a ATS tyre shop.

A bloke paying for 4 new tyre's on his BMW 4x4.

Having been told that it would be £750 with the vat he said.

"she can have a ****ing mini from now on"

I found that sooooo funny


On a side note. I firmly believe that 4x4 vehicles should be charged road tax at commercial rate.

[marky]

Originally Posted by Creative

What do you need 4x4 for though?
You don't do you?

Dear oh dear, you dont know me

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Bill C

On a side note. I firmly believe that 4x4 vehicles should be charged road tax at commercial rate.

Give me one good reason why ????

[Shaun]

If you were really that bothered about safetly you'd be walking your kids to school or insisting there was a train service installed (if it is that far away).

[marky]

Originally Posted by Shaun

If you were really that bothered about safetly you'd be walking your kids to school or insisting there was a train service installed (if it is that far away).

I dont drive my kids to school, they walk

Originally Posted by marky

Dear oh dear, you dont know me

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 ----------




Give me one good reason why ????

They are a commercial vehical as far as i am concerned.

Cards on the table here i hate Chelsea tractors simple as that.

[marky]

Originally Posted by Bill C

They are a commercial vehical as far as i am concerned.

Cards on the table here i hate Chelsea tractors simple as that.

Get a life, go measure an average 4x4, they are smaller than a ford mondeo (FACT)
I'm sorry if i'm going on but i got a sticker on my car from FOE,

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Bill C

On a side note. I firmly believe that 4x4 vehicles should be charged road tax at commercial rate.

Why If they have poor efficeincy they will already have a high road tax, compared to "ordinary" cars. Moreover the cash they will be handing to the treasury for each litre of fuel they use, compared to more fule efficient cars will be hitting the wallet much harder. Of course since the fule protest a few years ago, the government has fought shy of publci opinion and not rasied road fuel taxes anywhere near as much as they had intended to reflect a tax on the environmental issues. Something I beleive the Conservatives have started to whinge about. So if you drive a 4x4, vote Labour

[AndrewJ]

Originally Posted by marky

I dont drive my kids to school, they walk

Mate both me and thee know only one thing matters in this place.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Creative

I get 44mpg, without trying. There are hybrid cars which get into the 70's or 80's. Economy is blatantly not your concern. I'm alright, so let the icebergs melt?

---------- Post added at 00:11 ---------- Previous post was at 00:09 ----------



Each child? Let them eat smog?

You would be extremeley hard pressed to find a hybrid that achieves anything close to that. The highest I know of is the new Pryus wich in reality only ever maxed out at about 55-60MPG. The 80MPG as quoted by toyota was only ever achieved on a rolling road iirc.
There are a couple of diesel ones though, the VW Lupo does 75MPG on a the motorway and I believe the smart car for two is even higher, however, saying that I wouldnt want to be in either in a crash.
We would all be better off if we all drove Large and medium sized vehicles IMO, its like it says in that report. Its the collision incompatibility of our cars that is making small cars more dangerous to be driving during a collision. If there where no or fewer 4x4s the small cars would be far safer to drive. On the other hand if we got rid of all small cars and added an armoured wall to the pavement for pedestrians we could all drive 4x4s and the risk to anyone else would be minimal .

Also I think that post earlier about 4x4s paying comercial rate tax because they are comercial vehicles wasnt relating to thier size, it was more down to thier main practical uses. There arent many genuine uses for a 4x4 that arent commercial in nature. Infact the only one I can think of that NEEDS a 4x4 and isnt comercial is offroad driving for fun, and unless you are doing that in a pre designated place there are a lot of enviromentalists that would be against that activity too.

I just dont really see the need for a 4x4 for urban use, an mpv for sure but not a full offroader. But that is certainly not an enviromental concern, more of an observation of overkill, If I can manage a speedbump fine in my 1.2 clio (We have 4 bumps in our road alone) then I dont think you really need a 10ft 3.0 4x4 with traction control to do the same, true it would be more comfortable for you but is it really needed?

Anyway I dont really care about most of that myself, Global warming being caused by cars etc has allready been accepted by the majority of the supposed scientific comunity to be unproved. The one fact that I found interesting about that was when it was pointed out sometime ago that a volcano can release more of the "harmful" gasses wich we are supposedly killing the planet with in under 10 seconds then what humans have produced in our entire existence. And that cows farting is damaging the ozone more per year ten times more rapidly then anything we are doing. Though techically that last one is our fault as well because we are breeding more and more cows for consumption.

[Gareth]

After going off-road in a Land Rover earlier this week, I'm converted... although I still hate the muppets that drive their kids to school in a Shogun or other such 4x4.

There's a world of difference between Land Rover drivers and those 4x4 drivers that consider going off road means driving over a kerb or two