Safe Speed Forums

You said, "a lot of 4x4's come out pretty poorly in N Cap tests, despite their size". The actual test results show that many come out a lot better that many other vehicles in their class. Don't forget that most 4x4's have smaller footprints than the equivalent family cars yet have safety rating in excess of cars that you'd assume to be safer if you believed all the hype and bigotry. For example, BMW's 3 series fares worse than their own X5 and is hideously dangerous compared to the Touareg and XC90. The X5 has exactly the same ratings as the Jaguar X-Type. So, the sort of generalisation that you're making just doesn't reflect reality.



... which isn't even listed in the NCAP ratings. However, even if it were I doubt it would fare better than the Mercedes E-Class, which has a worse pedestrian score than the CRV.


The thing is that most "SUV's" on our roads are not large when compared with conventional cars. As I wrote in a previous post, a SWB Shogun comfortably seats five in a footprint smaller than a Ford Fiesta and the LWB Shogun seats seven in less space than a Peugeot 406. As far as the amount of road occupied, height doesn't come into it - it's only the footprint that matters and it is a fact (albeit none too apparant until you start measuring!) that most 4x4's take up less space on the road per person than do family saloons.

So, all that hate is sheer bigotry (bigot n. obstinate believer who is intolerant of others.)

<fe>Now if you want to pick on something that's proven to be a danger in towns, that something should be hot hatches and 3-series beemers. I've seen more of those cars driven recklessly through the streets than anything else, and certainly more than off-roaders. If a boy racer want's to "Kev up" something, the chances are that something will be a hot hatch or a beemer. IOW, they are far more of a menace on our roads than 4x4's and should be banned forthwith.

(Actually, come to think of it, there is more of a case for banning those cars than for banning 4x4's -- at least we have something measurable to go on. Anyone for a campaign to ban any vehicle with a power to weight ratio greater than (say) 100 bhp per tonne?)</fe>

_________________
Will

You'd have to fight me and, even worse, you'd have to fight my wife
Both our cars have appreciably more than 100bhp/tonne, and she loves hers.
Mind you, neither of them are beemers hot hatches or 4x4s, so maybe that's OK.

Regards
Peter

How on earth did you manage when there were only Landies for the farmers To say Stupid Useless Vehicles have a 'smaller footprint' doesn't hold water in reality. Try parking a proper car between two of them in a lined out car park and you cannot open your car door Most are badly driven by teeny women who have no idea of their width, as they can barely see over the steering wheel. The rest are driven by the ex-school bullies! (and anything smaller than a Freelander is not a proper 4 by 4)

Since you've chosen Land Rover, I'll go with that. However, Land Rover are among the widest. Here are the overall dimensions for the Disco Td5 ES7 and the Mondeo Estate.

Land Rover Discovery: width=1890 mm; length=4704 mm
Ford Mondeo Estate: width=1958 mm; length=4804 mm

So, the Disco has a smaller footprint than an equivalent family car. In the majority of cases, the same holds true. Although most find it hard to believe, 4x4's generally have a smaller footprint than the "equivalent" family car. IOW, 4x4's look a lot bigger than they actually are.

HTH,

_________________
Will

I'm responding twice to Oscar's post because there are two distinct issues here. In my previous post, I dealt with the misconception of vehicle size. Here, I'll deal with the far more dangerous issues of bigotry and witchhunting; more dangerous because similar attitudes have been responsible for some of the worst attrocities in human history.

As I've written up-thread, I consider the anti-4x4 campaign to be based on bigotry. AFAICT, the anti-4x4 lobby can't define the object of their obessive hatred using measurable criteria, and so base their campaign on nothing other than personal dislike.

Although they can't define what a 4x4 is, I can define "bigot". My dictionary says, "bigot n. obstinate believer who is intolerant of others." Although I have no wish to single out Oscar, the attitude shown in his post is so typical of the ignorance, intolerance, and irrational hatred displayed by many of the anti-4x4 movent.

Now, let's look at what Oscar wrote:



Emotive stuff. He claims that all 4x4's are either driven by teeny women who can barely see over the steering wheel or by ex-school bullies. Of course, this is utter tosh. My wife and I drive a 4x4 - she's perfectly capable of seeing over the steering wheel and, as a registered minibus driver who often takes over a dozen elderly citizens on day-trips, used to driving vehicles much larger than our Shogun. Neither my wife nor I were school bullies - and I take objection to Oscar's insinuations. Also, I can assure Oscar et al. that the majority of members of the owners clubs are neither teeny women nor ex-school bullies.

So, having dismissed that utter tosh, we should look at the reason why Oscar wrote what he wrote. He clearly has a bee in his bonnet about something, but what? He certainly isn't basing his attack on the vehicles themselves. Instead he is attacking the people behind the wheel. I suspect that if you peel away the veneer of "righteous indignation", you will find a hatred of some part of society (perhaps erroneously) associated with these vehicles (perhaps mums on the school run?)

Now, I wouldn't object to anyone starting a campaign based on proper metrics (e.g. to ban anything that can't return a specified mpg). However, I do object to the current anti-4x4 campaign that is based, not on any measurable characteristics, but on the personal bigotry of its instigators.

_________________
Will

I don't care how much money your car costs, it bothers me not one jot.

Why do you need a big, high, imposing car? To intimidate others perhaps? Are you not confident enough to drive a small car? If your car is high, should I drive a higher one to get one over on you?

4x4's are safer. For who? Your banking on crashing into a smaller car with you disco/shogun/landcruiser. What if you hit a tree/digger/truck/?

Does soft, long travel suspension on a vehicle with a high centre of gravity, a seperate body and chassis and high sided knobbly tyres make for a good road vehicle? I drive on the road and need a vehicle designed for that purpose. But, 4x4 owners will then real off a list of gizmos and gagets that are there to fight the laws of physics. When all they needed to do was buy a bog standard Golf/ Focus/ Civic that goes round corners as standard with out ending up on it's roof. ... And anyway, my 4x4 has road tyres on it. So you bought an off road vehicle and fitted road tyres. Why not by and on road vehicle that comes with road tyres as standard???

Having an SUV is like those people that have a big aggressive dog. Oh but he's so soft he wouldn't hurt any one. Yer, but he looks mean, which is why you bought him right?

Steady on folks.

Let's keep it friendly and remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion. (yes, even stupid opinions).

Be logical, polite and persuasive. That's the way to win arguments and also maintains the high quality of the discussions available here.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

In a sense the anti-car campaigners have brought the growth of SUVs upon themselves by littering urban areas with humps and making driving so often a joyless, mechanical process through the spread of cameras and ludicrous speed limits.

So it's not surprising that road manners go out of the window and people choose a big, solid, cossetting car that soaks up humps and gives them a good view.

Anyone with an appreciation of car design knows that SUVs are not the best vehicles for a (hump-free) urban environment, but the factors encouraging people to buy them are all too understandable.

It's also not that long ago that anyone owning a 4x4 was still regarded as bit "funky" and alternative.

Of course the campaigners against 4x4s can't actually define what it is they're against, particularly since most of these vehicles could be built as 4x2s if market conditions or taxation required it.

It's just another manifestation of Puritanical, anti-car, nanny state sentiment. If they managed to get SUVs banned they would then turn their attentions to TVRs, Bentleys and S-class Mercs.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

adam.L claimed 4x4's to be the "spawn of satan". I asked him to share his reasons for his claim. Adam responded:


You say that you don't care how much my car costs. Frankly, I don't expect you to care and I'm surprised that you might even think I should. However, that response does indicate one reason why you detest 4x4's so much. It's inverse snobbery with a goodly slice of "dog-in-the-manger".

I bought my car for several reasons, which I don't have to justify. However, I now have a car that I bought in superb condition with 30,000 miles on the clock, that is extremely comfortable, that will tow my caravan effortlessly, that I can use on owners' club social events, and that copes with the badly maintained roads I often drive while returning about 30 mpg. I paid less than nine grand for the car. Even so, I expect it to last me at least five years. Basically, I have the most appropriate car for my requirements.

Now, Adam. You still haven't said why you hate 4x4's. You've mentioned some reasons. However, those reasons are not confined to 4x4's. For that, apart from the last point, they're not even characteristics that define 4x4's. Yet, you appear to hate 4x4's while not hating other vehicles that share the characteristics you hate. Recapping:

• Cost: I assume that you object to any vehicle that can be construed as a display of affluence. You are entitled to that opinion. However, I can't understand why you're taking a pop at 4x4's rather than Jags, Bentley's, Rollers, Ferraris, and other "prestige" cars.
• Safety: I could understand if you'd have said that you object to anything that doesn't have at least a certain NCAP score. However, you haven't said that. Now, some 4x4's are less safe than some conventional cars. Equally, some conventional cars are less safe than some 4x4's. So I cannot reconcile why you single out 4x4's rather than objecting to anything that doesn't meet certain safety criteria.
• Handling: Some 4x4's actually handle better than some people carriers. Again, I could understand if you specified a particular criteria - for example, if you objected to anything that couldn't withstand a certain cornering force, but again you've unreasonably singled out 4x4's.
• Dogs: You object to 4x4's because of the way they look

FWIW, inverse snobbery and that last point are the only coherent things that I can find about the entire anti-4x4 lobby. Take a look at the Alliance Against Urban 4x4's website and you'll find an illustration together with this text:
In other words, the main reason why the anti-4x4 brigade wants to ban these vehicles is because they don't like the way these vehicles look

_________________
Will

I tyake it you are measuring the tyre print distance, not the body!

The mondeo estate would be longer anyway.

_________________
Steve

In your dreams, certainley not with a caravan on the back!

Even so, I expect it to last me at least five years.

4x4 require the highest maintenance, i take it you have not owned one for long.



If you do not go off road, then the 4x4 is far from suitable.



I would rather be in a Ford Focus in the middle of an emergency stop, than any 4x4.



Worse than any saloon though.

_________________
Steve

Volvo XC-90 handles worse than a Kia Rio or Hyundai Accent? Really?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Due to the pedestrian element, as they have wide depth, thus spreading the impact. Does not take into account the longer stopping distance, which means the 4x4 is more likley not to stop.



The 3 series will out brake and out handle any of the above, making it less likely to get into the situaction



Maybe they could not bring themselves to throw £60,000 of car at a concrete block



Pedestrian score, is heavily relied on by the CRV for a good overall score, is it not




If you are talking about the tyre distance, yes, the shogun has a stubby tyre print, however a larger body than a fiesta.



No chance, my weekender is in excess of 300 bhp, and weighs less than a tonne Pedestrians would score extremley poorley as well, as suspension is outside of the body. But then i drive on the road not the pavements.

_________________
Steve

Are they actually classed as saloon cars

_________________
Steve

In length he's certainly measuring the overall length. Wheelbase is likely to be around 2600-2700 mm.

I suspect the figures above give the over-mirrors width for the Mondeo, and the body width for the Disco. The two are often confused when people quote car dimensions.

Cars of Focus/Mondeo size tend to have a body width of around 1700-1800 mm.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No -- it's overall dimensions (including mirrors) for both. FWIW, I couldn't get a body width for the Disco, so I had to go on overall widths. However, that's likely to favour the Mondeo because the Disco is slab-sided, and thus has more mirror protruding.

WRT SWB Shoguns vs Fiesta -- the Shogun fares better than the Fiesta because it has very short overhangs (which it needs to be good off-road). By using its height to provide an upright seating position, it can accommodate five in comfort in a space traditionally restricted to 2+2's. This characteristic of 4x4's is something that the industry has just woken up to. Witness the plethora of mini-MPVs that offer 5 seats in a small footprint -- just like short-wheelbase 4x4's

HTH,

_________________
Will

Willcove, you seem to need an awful lot of words to justify your choice of transport

BTW, I said MOST (the ones I see, any way,) are driven by titchy women!

You did not answer the parking bit

Maybe Willcove feels that there is a lot of prejudice about 4x4 and he thinks best way to fight that is to give facts, rather like Paul does about exceeding speed limits safely with this site?

I don't drive a 4x4, and do not see need for them to take children who live in cities to schools in cities, but i have no problem with them in general. But then i do live in the country.

I do however have an irrational dislike of Vauxhalls, no idea why, but i wouldn't expect them to banned either.

I knew that was a mistake. I don't need to justify my choice of transport to anyone except myself and my wife. The issue here is not choice of transport it's the validity of the anti-4x4 campaign itself.

You actually said:So, saying that if you drive a 4x4 and are not a teeny woman who drivers badly, you must be an ex-school bully.

Sorry, I thought that was implicit. As I've shown that the 4x4's you cited are smaller than a Ford Mondeo, any problems parking between them would exist even if you replaced the 4x4's with Mondeos. Thus, those problems are not the fault of the 4x4's and must be due to other factors.
----------------------------------------------

Now with all that said, the point that yourself and others have missed is the validity of the anti-4x4 campaign itself. If the campaign where based on factors like safety or pollution, I'd support the campaigners' right to campaign. However, IMO, this campaign is based on prejudice and bigory and they seem determined not to let the facts get in the way of obsessive hatred. Their campaign is not concerned with safety, pollution, or the other factors they cite to spin some credibility into their hatred. If it were, the campaign would be to deal with all vehicles that pollute more than a particular threshold, or that score lower than a particular threshold in safety tests, etc.

However, the anti's don't say that. They want to ban 4x4's and single out those vehicles. Even though there are worse performers in every aspect they cite in excuse for their hatred, it is only the 4x4 they seek to ban. They can't even properly define what a 4x4 is, yet that doesn't stop the prejudice and hate. At first, they wanted to ban all 4x4's but have now "graciously" reduced their attack to just "big 4x4's", which they define by appearance alone

In every case I've seen so far, the reason for supporting the anti-4x4 campaign has been either for political gain (jumping on the bandwagon of the anti's to curry favour and win votes), or one of these:

• Inverse snobbery with a touch of dog-in-the-manger. This is the "Who do you think you are to drive such an imposing vehicle. You're no better than I am and I'm going to take away your status symbol." syndrome.
• Hatred of some part of the population associated with these vehicles. For example, the chap with who I discussed this issue recently over a few pints. It turned out that he had a hatred of the procession of mums and children that is the school run. He lives near a school, is fed up with being denied access to his own home four times each schoolday and seeks to have 4x4's banned to wreak vengence against the mums who cause him so much inconvenience.

so, AFAICT, the anti-4x4 campaign isn't about the reasons they give for wanting to ban 4x4's (it can't be, because if it were they'd be campaigning to ban all vehicles that exhibit those characteristics); it's based on prejudice, is about seeking to put down a section of population and, as such, the campaign itself is evil.

_________________
Will

I've been confronted by ginormous SUVs driven by titchy women, swinging their behemoth of a vehicle in through the school gates, unable to judge how much space they need so taking it all just to be sure.
Then again, I was confronted by a titchy woman driving a teensy Fiat thingy the other day in PC Word carpark. She too seemed to believe she was driving an ocean going supertanker that needed the whole width of the entranceway to get through safely
SUVs, company cars, caravans, prestige cars etc etc. Seems that if you have, use or own one, some anal eedjit somewhere will make it their personal crusade to rid the road of them