Urban 4x4's

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I shouldn't really call them 4x4's, because I really just mean SUV's, Chelsea Tractors or Trucks.

A program on ITV the other night was campaigning for them to be banned.
Reason:
Too big for towns
Poor visibility
Environment cries
Makes drivers more aggresive
Dangerous if collide with smaller vehicles


I agree, mostly. But do they need to be banned, or do people need to be educated.

Any opinions?

[raybak]

I don' think that they should be banned, but due to their excess fuel consumption maye they can be taxed higher to offset their greenhosue emissions, or the owners go and plant some trees on behalf of their vehicle.

I hate it how city people have these big 4x4's yet never go offroad.

Maybe there could be a rule that if you buy one you have to do a certain amount of time offroad or on dirt roads in the country. This might make some city people think twice about buying one, you know that most of them can't stand getting dirty in the country.

Ray

[Daniel]

Taxing vehicles which are 4x4's is fine BUT only if done properly. Caroline now has to pay more for tax for her Legacy Turbo than someone who drives a Ferrari Enzo. Where's the fairness in that??????????????

[AndyRAC]

Can't say I was surprised, but she didn't know what all the buttons were for. Not making use of it's capabilities. Bit like having an F1/Le Mans car, and only using it down the local High Street. Must admit I'm considering whether to get one as my current car gets wrecked on the forest car parks.

[schmenke]

Why do many people consider SUVs off-road vehicles? :mark: Our family vehicle is an SUV but it wasn't purchased, nor is it designed for, off-roading :mark:

Daniel around here the Enzo driver would be subject to a hefty "luxury tax". Something a busty wench and her Legacy wouldn't have to worry about.

[Iain]

The way I see it, if you can afford £60-80k for a Cayenne, X5, RR Sport etc, you can afford extortionate tax hikes. Putting them up won't really do much in my opinion.

[luvracin]

Why do many people consider SUVs off-road vehicles? :mark:

Because most North American type SUV's like the Chevy Tahoe's, Dodge Durango's, etc, etc are not sold in any great numbers outside of North America, if at all.

SUV's sold in Europe, Australia and Asia ARE more likely to be designed with the assumption that people will take them off-road.

Banning SUV's is a bit too facist IMO. Planting a tree to offset carbon is ... well .. I don't agree with the whole carbon trading thing so I'll leave it alone.

IMO, best way is to increase the sales(or whatever) tax on them. If you can prove that you are a farmer or have a genuine need(for example : towing horse trailers) as part of your primary income then you should get that extra tax back as a rebate. Naturally as already mentioned the tax should be applied properly and not hit things like a little Subaru.

Or... do nothing. As Fuel costs continue to rise the lack of fuel economy these vehicles exhibit will put them out of the market on their own.

[jim mcglinchey]

the ,

. If you can prove that you are a farmer or have a genuine need(for example : towing horse trailers) as part of your primary income .


(..just covering myself against the Hazell B onslaught..)

[Captain VXR]

Personally, if you think 4x4s shuld be banned because they are big and could badly damage a small car then how about vans, mpvs, camper vans, tractors, trucks, buses etc being banned. Stop jumping on the green bandwagon ffs :rolleyes:

[jim mcglinchey]

The above are mostly necessary for professional reasons whereas chelsea tractors are pure self indulgences which have no good reason to exist.

[Caroline]

Been doing a lot of thinking about this. I would like to say that I am trying to be as objective as possible, however, I don't think 4x4s should be banned. We live in a free market economy and if people choose to drive these big things then they should pay for them. If taxes on them need to be hiked up to prohibitive amounts then so be it. Supply will only be there as long as there is a demand. I don't like the fact that I will have to pay more tax this year, but I guess I love my car and therefore it is my choice.

I do think that some people need educating. The amount of cars that drop off at my school each morning is increasing - usually cars/ 4x4s with one child in, certainly not a full car. When we offered a 'walking bus' scheme it fell flat as people just weren't interested.

Schmenke....I dream of the day when I may be subject to a 'luxury tax', but alas I don't see it happening :-(

[BDunnell]

I don't like these vehicles on taste grounds, as I think they are almost all vulgar when compared to, say, a BMW 5-series or Merc E-class of similar cost. However, I have begun to think that they have become an easy target, given that there are many more vehicles in urban areas that emit just as much pollution yet aren't the focus of so much opposition.

[schmenke]

Well, I am no farmer, don't tow horse trailers and certainly don't require an SUV to supplement my income. So I should be taxed for merely owning an SUV? :s

An SUV (or as a minimum a 4X4) is almost a necessity in this city where we are subject to inclement weather six months per year and there is no snow clearing from the streets :mark:
As a family we need the room to lug around the rugrats, camping gear, skis, etc. Sorry but a regular passenger car just won't do.

Fyi, the "SUV" that we drive:
Is certainly not too big for this town.
Has excellent visibility.
Is more fuel-efficient than many passenger cars.
Does not make either myself or my wife more aggressive (I fail to understand how this would be the case with any SUV driver).
Dangerous only when driven dangerously (i.e. like a regular passenger car).

...and was cheaper to purchase than a Subaru :mark:

[Hazell B]

Well, I am no farmer, don't tow horse trailers and certainly don't require an SUV to supplement my income. So I should be taxed for merely owning an SUV? :s



You shouldn't, but only because you don't live in a UK inner city. If you moved to London, I'd like to see you taxed to the hilt quite frankly.

Yes, as already mentioned, I do drive one myself, but it doesn't mean I'm against taxing them big style. It will stop some people buying them, no matter what anyone thinks, because not all of them are £40k plus. It'd stop the person who buys a Range Rover that's ten years old and chugging out fumes from a V8 for strters. He'll look at the V6 instead and then cause a little less polution.

Only last night, thanks to that TV show, I had some stupid man think he was being clever by shouting "You're needlessly killing kids, you fashion slave!!!" at me as I parked up the Land Rover just outside York. Obviously I pointed out it says Sovereign Stables in 6 inch high letters along the side and is in fact 15 years old so far from fashionable, but you've got to wonder just how angry he is at 4x4 drivers if he shouts at them. I rarely see anyone shout like that at people dropping litter, smacking dogs or children or driving too fast :mark:

Anyway, the faster they're taxed and less fashionable, the better for me. It will mean I won't get to tow so many chump men who get Range Rovers stuck in puddles, but I'm willing to sacrifice that pleasure :p :

[bowler]

I think small cars should be banned because they get in the way of 4x4s and SUVs.

All small car drivers could be retrained.

(puts helmet on)

:-)

[inimitablestoo]

I'm not a big fan of the big 4x4s but that's just a personal preference. And I do like making random exceptions, such as the Porsche Cayenne, mainly because it's so big it kind of loops around and works its way into my affections, along the lines of Eurovision being so bad it's good.

I certainly don't like the idea of banning certain types of vehicles, especially when the rules are badly thought out (that Enzo v Legacy example is one - presumably that would also catch out tiddlers like the Fiat Panda 4x4, and favour the two-wheel-drive Nissan X-Trail over the four-wheel-drive one even though they look identical). We can't all be forced into small, fuel-efficient machinery that's identical to everything else on the road. I believe a certain moustachioed Austrian chap tried to get Germany to do that once, and look what happened to him.

For a slightly less reasoned (yes, less reasoned than bringing good old Adolf into the conversation) but nevertheless hugely entertaining response, may I direct you to this Autocar blog about the G-Whiz electric car (and the one underneath, which is equally entertaining): http://www.myautocar.com/community/blog/blog.do?method=blog&sblogId=YzM

[inimitablestoo]

Ah that's bizarre, it seems to be asking for a password when you click that link. Never mind, go to the Autocar website and look for James Ruppert's blog, I frankly can't be arsed trying to work out a way for you all to get in, I've got to go and wash my Porsche Cayenne as some stupid cyclist seems to have got entangled with its radiator :s

[Kneeslider]

I too watched that programme, and like many of you on here would stop short of trying to ban the things, even though I wouldn't have one myself, unless I had to use it in the manner the designers intended.

The present government seem to be hell bent on banning lots of things, and when ol' Gordo gets in there won't be much change.

It was interesting though that two out of the three owners on the prog seemed genuinely clueless (that woman in particular!) and the reason for them driving 4x4s came down to the way that they liked to have a high seating position which drove away their feelings of insecurity. This I find very worrying indeed. Surely it seems that people who feel insecure about their driving abilities need to have their confidence boosted by being able to see over everyone elses heads?

If so, does this mean that the so called 'fashionable' people who drive these cars are really insecure nobodies? If so, then how long will it take for society in general to see them for what they really are, as scared, vulnerable cowering idiots who need to be surrounded by lots of metal to save themselves from the world in general??

Ergo, in future will it be accepted by the populace that those who choose to drive small cars are risk taking, swashbuckling individuals who can drive a bit?

I certainly hope so!

I get a kick out of driving my TR6 for exactly this reason.

[scrappy]

If you don't think this is the governments way off picking you pocket yet again the you really have to be naive in the extreme.smoke and mirrors how can we get them to cough up again ? i know we will say it for the environment. :rolleyes: wake up and smell the coffee all this Eco friendly stuff gives me bile :eek: , take up cycling. why is the British motorist punished so badly because the american government cant walk over their people like that they get very vocal with politicians nad the Chinese don't care what the rest off the world thinks and would take no notice so little tony and Gordon say i know how to mug the british motorist again and we sit and take it. o well rant over and yes i drive a suv, i have a lot off gear to cart about for sport and sometime that means off road.

some have already said someone who pays £40-60 grand on a car doesn't give a fig about road tax or insurance and they are right. its not just suv that are being targeted but anyone with a largish engine rant over :D

[GridGirl]

I dislike 4x4's (and taxi drivers) generally becuase I find their presence in the road quite intimidating. If theres one behind me, I'm get out the way at the first given opportunity.

I can't really moan about them being gas guzzlers when my little Fiesta only averages about 33mpg. I'm sure there are a few 4x4's that get better fuel consumption that me, then again there's probably more than dont.

[CarlMetro]

An SUV (or as a minimum a 4X4) is almost a necessity in this city where we are subject to inclement weather six months per year and there is no snow clearing from the streets :mark:
As a family we need the room to lug around the rugrats, camping gear, skis, etc. Sorry but a regular passenger car just won't do.

I would say that the first part of your statement, about the need for a 4x4 for road conditions, more than justifies your need for an SUV :up:

The second part, and this is usually the reason most of the city dwelling Mummies would use too, doesn't hold any water though. If you need extra space then an estate car (stationwagon to you over there) or people carrier (minivan to........) would be a cost effective and probably more practical option.

I don't see the need to ban them, there are many different examples of people who would find daily life or their work /pleasure a great deal harder without their 4x4. What I would like to see is the need to justify the purchase. You want a 4x4, tell the government why you need it before they let you have it and if you only reason is, as a certain TV presenter stated on Top Gear, 'I've had a child and I want to keep it safe, that's why I want to own a £70,000 Range Rover, even though I live in Kensinton', then you should be taken to the nearest field and whipped with willow twigs.

[BDunnell]

What I would like to see is the need to justify the purchase. You want a 4x4, tell the government why you need it before they let you have it and if you only reason is, as a certain TV presenter stated on Top Gear, 'I've had a child and I want to keep it safe, that's why I want to own a £70,000 Range Rover, even though I live in Kensinton', then you should be taken to the nearest field and whipped with willow twigs.

That would be nigh on impossible to enshrine in law, but given time, it just may be that people are 'weaned off' 4x4s in urban areas.

By the way, I wonder how many lives have actually been saved by virtue of people having 4x4s 'because they are safer'? (I suspect that may end up being a rhetorical question...)

[Kneeslider]

I dislike 4x4's (and taxi drivers) generally becuase I find their presence in the road quite intimidating. If theres one behind me, I'm get out the way at the first given opportunity.

I can't really moan about them being gas guzzlers when my little Fiesta only averages about 33mpg. I'm sure there are a few 4x4's that get better fuel consumption that me, then again there's probably more than dont.


Chuffin' heck! 33mpg??? My Boxster gets very nearly that! Do you not think that there might be something sadly wrong with your Fiesta?

[janneppi]

By the way, I wonder how many lives have actually been saved by virtue of people having 4x4s 'because they are safer'? (I suspect that may end up being a rhetorical question...)
I can't say for numbers either way, but i do recall a study made in the US an A about SUV crashes, the gist of it was that while providing better protection in a straight line crash, their happiness to roll over lead to more injuries when the roof deformed while rolling.

There was also a study i read in a Finnish car magazine years ago about cars that have been involved in accidents, the two cars that were most involved in accidents where people died were Fiat Uno and Nissan Patrol.
People died in the Fiat and the Nissan killed other people. :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

An SUV (or as a minimum a 4X4) is almost a necessity in this city where we are subject to inclement weather six months per year and there is no snow clearing from the streets :mark:
As a family we need the room to lug around the rugrats, camping gear, skis, etc. Sorry but a regular passenger car just won't do.

Fyi, the "SUV" that we drive:
Is certainly not too big for this town.


Maybe not in canadian cities but in british towns they are. In a test people found it more difficult to do the manoeuvres required to pass the UK driving test in a SUV than in a normal car.



Has excellent visibility.

SUV's generally have bigger blind spots than normal cars. A small child could stand behind an SUV and because they are so high you wouldn't be able to see the child. In a smaller car you could see them in a rear mirror.




Does not make either myself or my wife more aggressive (I fail to understand how this would be the case with any SUV driver).

They give you a sense of power. Because you drive a bigger car you can find it easier to 'bully' other road users as you know that they will give way. Also, because you feel safer in a SUV you are more likely to take more risks.



Dangerous only when driven dangerously (i.e. like a regular passenger car).


SUV's have less pedrestrian safety and can destroy smaller cars in a collision.

[janneppi]

Well, I am no farmer, don't tow horse trailers and certainly don't require an SUV to supplement my income. So I should be taxed for merely owning an SUV? :s

An SUV (or as a minimum a 4X4) is almost a necessity in this city where we are subject to inclement weather six months per year and there is no snow clearing from the streets :mark:
As a family we need the room to lug around the rugrats, camping gear, skis, etc. Sorry but a regular passenger car just won't do.

Fyi, the "SUV" that we drive:
Is certainly not too big for this town.
Has excellent visibility.
Is more fuel-efficient than many passenger cars.
Does not make either myself or my wife more aggressive (I fail to understand how this would be the case with any SUV driver).
Dangerous only when driven dangerously (i.e. like a regular passenger car).

...and was cheaper to purchase than a Subaru :mark:
I was wondering what kind of winter tyres you use? I'm guessing studded tyres aren't allowed there like they are here.
Or is it more about ground clearence in snow than traction?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I was wondering what kind of winter tyres you use? I'm guessing studded tyres aren't allowed there like they are here.
Or is it more about ground clearence in snow than traction?


Does anyone still use chains?

[schmenke]

I would say that the first part of your statement, about the need for a 4x4 for road conditions, more than justifies your need for an SUV :up:

The second part, and this is usually the reason most of the city dwelling Mummies would use too, doesn't hold any water though. If you need extra space then an estate car (stationwagon to you over there) or people carrier (minivan to........) would be a cost effective and probably more practical option....

When we purchased our vehicle a few years back we looked at various options including a 4-wheel drive station wagon (estate wagon?), minivans and other SUVs. We were on a limited budget so price was a high priority. Of all vehicles we looked at, the one we chose was the most economical.

If I lived in a built-up urban centre that had reliable public transportation I most likely would't be driving an SUV.

[schmenke]

...SUV's generally have bigger blind spots than normal cars. A small child could stand behind an SUV and because they are so high you wouldn't be able to see the child. In a smaller car you could see them in a rear mirror....

Not necessarily. I own a second vehicle (Hyundai Accent 2-door... don't laugh :mad: ) which has horrible blind spots, including the rear, not to mention tiny mirrors :s

[schmenke]

...They give you a sense of power. Because you drive a bigger car you can find it easier to 'bully' other road users as you know that they will give way. Also, because you feel safer in a SUV you are more likely to take more risks....

Hogwash. The aggressive drivers that I encounter on the roads all tend to be driving some high-powered or pimped-up sports car.

[schmenke]

I can't say for numbers either way, but i do recall a study made in the US an A about SUV crashes, the gist of it was that while providing better protection in a straight line crash, their happiness to roll over lead to more injuries when the roof deformed while rolling.

There was also a study i read in a Finnish car magazine years ago about cars that have been involved in accidents, the two cars that were most involved in accidents where people died were Fiat Uno and Nissan Patrol.
People died in the Fiat and the Nissan killed other people. :)

SUVs are dangerous only because people think that they can be driven like a normal passenger car. You have to realise that SUVs are heavier (longer braking distance) and have a higher centre-of-gravity, so they obviously don't handle like a regular car. Most people don't adjust their driving habits to compensate.

[schmenke]

I was wondering what kind of winter tyres you use? I'm guessing studded tyres aren't allowed there like they are here.
Or is it more about ground clearence in snow than traction?

Right now I use these:
http://www.goodyear.ca/goodyeartireselectorca/display_tire.jsp?prodline=Fortera+HL&mrktarea=Light+Truck
Which work reasonably well in the snow and ice.
I don't go off-roading so I don't necessarily need ground clearance.

Studded tyres are permitted only in rural areas. They aren't allowed in most cities.

[schmenke]

Does anyone still use chains?

Yes, some drivers still use them around here in rural areas.

[schmenke]

Can you all tell that I still haven't mastered multiple quotes :s :mark:

[janneppi]

Right now I use these:
http://www.goodyear.ca/goodyeartireselectorca/display_tire.jsp?prodline=Fortera+HL&mrktarea=Light+Truck
Which work reasonably well in the snow and ice.

Those are intented for all year use? Do many people there use two sets of tires? One for summer and other for winter.

[schmenke]

It depends. Most people, especially those who don't drive a 4-wheel drive, opt for snow tyres during the winter months. Some 4-wheel drive owners just use all-season tyres all year round.

I purchased these all-season tyres last fall but will probably buy a set of winter tyres this fall and keep these current ones as summer tyres only.

[Captain VXR]

SUV's have less pedrestrian safety and can destroy smaller cars in a collision.

I can give you a large list of 4x4s that have better pedestrian ratings than a old Audi TT for example. A Mk1 Range Rover is better that a Rover 800 in pedestrian impacts as proved by Fifth Gear.
Did you know a new CRV diesel pollutes less than a Mini Cooper S convertible.
Tax those crappy large executive saloons, they pollute, take up huge amounts of roadspace ie more than a 4x4, mpv, family car etc and are just status symbols. Executives don't need a S-Class when a C-Class is a perfectly good car. At least 4x4s are safer for occupants, are good in poor conditions, some have 7 seats and some are used as farm cars, tow cars and high vis/pooor access emergency cars. Using a 4x4 just for 1/2 people in a city is stupid especially XC90, Range Rover as would 7 series, s class, xj etc

[luvracin]

Can you all tell that I still haven't mastered multiple quotes :s :mark:

Ok, so my new proposal is to impose a tax on the purchase of all SUV's but then offer a rebate on that tax to people who can prove a genuine need(ie: farmers and Hazel) AND Schmenke, because he appears to be the only level headed person(without a proffessional need) that drives one. :p :

[Daniel]

Ok, so my new proposal is to impose a tax on the purchase of all SUV's but then offer a rebate on that tax to people who can prove a genuine need(ie: farmers and Hazel) AND Schmenke, because he appears to be the only level headed person(without a proffessional need) that drives one. :p :
And Caroline :p because her 4WD vehicle isn't even an SUV :p

[Hazell B]

Ok, so my new proposal is to impose a tax on the purchase of all SUV's but then offer a rebate on that tax to people who can prove a genuine need(ie: farmers and Hazel) AND Schmenke, because he appears to be the only level headed person(without a proffessional need) that drives one. :p :

NO, no, no! Tax them and that's that.

If one is needed the cash will be found somewhere. Giving people the chance to opt out of higher tax just makes them buy a horse to pretend to tow it, or something equally stupid. They'll be buying half acres of land and claiming they need a BMW whatsit to plough the boundries :mark: Jeez, I know somebody who claimed he needed his Freelander for his golfing sticks and spaniel :rolleyes: Unmarried, childless and living in a town, yet needed a Freelander ....... until he spotted a sports car going cheap :s

Tax on engine size, no matter what the vehicle shape. Then add a few quid for pointlessly fumey vehicles and those with low pedestrian safety ratings like many 4x4s.

[BDunnell]

NO, no, no! Tax them and that's that.

If one is needed the cash will be found somewhere. Giving people the chance to opt out of higher tax just makes them buy a horse to pretend to tow it, or something equally stupid. They'll be buying half acres of land and claiming they need a BMW whatsit to plough the boundries :mark: Jeez, I know somebody who claimed he needed his Freelander for his golfing sticks and spaniel :rolleyes: Unmarried, childless and living in a town, yet needed a Freelander ....... until he spotted a sports car going cheap :s

Tax on engine size, no matter what the vehicle shape. Then add a few quid for pointlessly fumey vehicles and those with low pedestrian safety ratings like many 4x4s.

While we may disagree on a lot of things, I'm not about to do so for the sake of it. I go along with every word of what you've posted there. :up:

[Hazell B]

Why the first sentence? Stop sticking your nose up my backside looking for congratulations before agreeing - just agree for goodness sake :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Why the first sentence? Stop sticking your nose up my backside looking for congratulations before agreeing - just agree for goodness sake :rolleyes:

I was merely trying to be reasonable and polite. I shan't bother in future as far as you're concerned, then.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Handbags children :p

[GridGirl]

Chuffin' heck! 33mpg??? My Boxster gets very nearly that! Do you not think that there might be something sadly wrong with your Fiesta?

Its a Fiesta ST, its a 2.0 and has 150 horsewhatsits. Its 8 months old now and the fuel consumption as improved a hell of a lot. :p I've averaged 22mpg driving 20 miles to and from work before.

I think you can slag people off for having gas guzzlers, and I could possible be one, but to me I dont care. I love my car, its so pretty and I can afford to put fuel in it. If people can afford to run such daft cars, your not going to see a decline in their use.

[Kneeslider]

Ah, that would explain it!! I had assumed that it was a 1.1 shopping trolley! :p :

Anyway, I'm happy after getting 28mpg out of my TR6 (2.5l, straight6, arcane mechanical fuel injection, 125bhp) on a recent run. When I put it back on the road in September it was managing 15mpg. Glug glug.

Anyway, back to the topic...

[Hazell B]

..... 150 horsewhatsits.

:laugh: I'll remember that one :p :

Problem is that you can't ever comment on anybody's green credentials if you drive something like that and say you don't care. Drive it by all means, and love it as I do my vehicle, but forget complaing about other actions we make that mess up the air ..... and don't moan when your road tax get's painfully heavy.

[GridGirl]

...but forget complaing about other actions we make that mess up the air ..... and don't moan when your road tax get's painfully heavy.

Forgive me Hazel but I dont quite understand what you mean by that last comment. I'm sure there are plenty of people who drive around urban areas in 4x4's especially in urban area's that can afford the increase in road tax. If they can't surely they should stop moaning about it and buy something cheaper which they can afford to run.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Stop sticking your nose up my backside

(shudder)

[Hazell B]

Forgive me Hazel but I dont quite understand what you mean by that last comment. I'm sure there are plenty of people who drive around urban areas in 4x4's especially in urban area's that can afford the increase in road tax. If they can't surely they should stop moaning about it and buy something cheaper which they can afford to run.

Yes, that's what I mean - once it goes up in price, as it is sure to, those who chuck out fumes heavily for the fun of it shouldn't moan a word. They will moan of course, as it's human nature :s

[GridGirl]

Somehow I doubt those that moan will trade thier 4x4 in for a Toyota Prius.

[scrappy]

well i advocate get rid off all the old landrovers out there and shut down public transport as they are the biggest polluters.

[Caroline]

well i advocate get rid off all the old landrovers out there and shut down public transport as they are the biggest polluters.


Yep, those hydrogen buses are just terrible. :dozey:

[Daniel]

Wouldn't it be horrible if people could use mass transit to good effect? I mean who wants to see busloads of people saving money and not emmiting as much greenhouse gas :rolleyes:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The sad truth is that at non rush hour times, their are about 5 people per bus. :(

[scrappy]

Yep, those hydrogen buses are just terrible. :dozey:


yep full off people and hot air well it is wales :dozey:

[Daniel]

yep full off people and hot air well it is wales :dozey:
What are you on about? :crazy:

[scrappy]

sorry i though you had all been eating to much fibre in your leaks but that would give off methane. :p :

[Daniel]

I'm not Welsh even though I live here and I hate vegetables ;)