Zamzara wrote:
I hate the whole attitude of: "I don't personally like that, therefore I'm going to have it banned."
It's the same bigotry that's marred human nature for centuries, and just when you think society has become more tolerant of each other's choices, the bigotry just shifts to another area.
I agree entirely and can see no basis for the attack that the Cheltenham Bigot (Sian Berry), Red Ken, et al have launched on "SUV's".
I'd like to ask the Berry Bigot on what grounds she would like to ban 4x4s. AIUI, her stated reasons are:
- Safety.
She claims that 4x4s are statistically more dangerous in single vehicle accidents and, because of their high centre of gravity, more likely to be involved in one.
However, single vehicle accidents make up a small proportion of RTAs and 4x4s are much safer than normal cars in the majority of accident situations. Nearly all single vehicle accidents are avoidable. So, if you drive with care, you are much safer in (say) a Range Rover than you are in a more conventional car.
She makes a very false claim that none of the top ten cars are 4x4s - yet the Honda CRV has 5 stars (and in the more-stringent tests at that), which makes it more highly ranked in EuroNCAP tests than most family saloons.
- Pollution and damage to the environment.
She claims that the average urban 4x4 has an appalling environmental record. However, she conveniently omits that she's cherry-picked the worst figures. She's compared a Land Rover Discovery with a Ford Focus - hardly like-for-like. More realistic would be a comparison between a Land Rover Discovery and a BMW 7 series (or a Suzuki Jimny and a Ford Focus).
That said, if you make the same comparison but extend things a little - the Disco goes on forever (and over 70% of Land Rover products every made are still in regular use) while a Focus is likely to be on the scrap heap after not much more than 100,000 miles. Since the most damage is done to the environment in creating and disposing of vehicles, and you'd need two or more Focuses instead of one Land Rover, the Focus is actually the most harmful in the environmental sense.
Now two things that 4x4s are very good at are conserving space and negotiating the badly maintained roads of today.
They are good at conserving space because they have a small footprint. To be good off-road requires a small wheelbase with steep approach and departure angles, which implies short overhangs. This results in something like a SWB Mitsubishi Shogun having a smaller footprint than a Ford Fiesta while still having room for two adults, three kids, and the family dog. The LWB Shogun has a footprint smaller than a Peugeot 406 yet comfortably seats four adults, three children and a dog.
Big 4x4s are also superb at towing, and any mistaken belief on her part that an MPV or saloon would do the job as well is plain wrong. You need the sheer mass of a big 4x4 to keep the trailer under control and it could actually be illegal to tow a large caravan or boat with the lighter-weight vehicles she suggests. In addition, the MPV or large saloon will take up more space than the 4x4, and won't be able to cope with slippery surfaces when you get where you're going.
Notwithstanding that, I suspect that she can't conjure up one attribute that uniquely identifies the object of her obsessive hatred. Plenty of conventional-looking cars have four-wheel drive, so she can't use that. Besides, there are enough 4x2's around that look like what she wants to ban. Plenty of conventional cars have bigger footprints than 4x4s, so she can't use that. People-carriers are as tall as 4x4s, so she can't use vehicle height. Plenty of conventional-looking cars offer less fuel economy than many 4x4s, so she can't use that either. About the only thing she can do is draw up a list based on her personal bigotry. Basically, she wishes to ban these vehicles because she doesn't like the look of them!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
