Safe Speed Forums

So, I'd better tell the bloke across the road from me that he's violating bmwk12's principle of each vehicle only having one possible use. FWIW, he has a LWB Transit that he uses to ferry his to kids to school. It's his only vehicle, so he uses it to go shopping as well. He's a self-employed, loft-conversion specialist and, for him, his Transit is absolutely the right vehicle even if it is bigger and thirstier than my Shogun and a royal pig to park.


It's called a "sports utility vehicle" because it can perform many functions (hence "utility") and can access areas to which "alternative sports" enthusiasts (like surfers, rock-climbers, and canoeists) may wish to travel. The primary purpose of those vehicles is to transport their occupants and contents from A to B, wherever A and B are.

Choosing a vehicle is, for most people, a compromise. Most people must use their one vehicle to do everything, and so must choose a vehicle that will at least do what they need even though it is not the optimal vehicle for any one of those requirements. For example, if you need to tow a large trailer, a BMW 3 Series is inadequate and, even if it were the better car for everything else, not meeting that one requirement makes it unsuitable for your requirements as a whole.

Now, the attributes of an off-roader (heavy with short rear overhang, "agricultural" suspension, and drive to the rear wheels) are ideal for towing. Now, there are some non-4x4 vehicles that make reasonable towcars (the Kia Sedona springs to mind). However, they tend to be MPVs with front-wheel drive that are bigger than the 4x4 alternative, not too clever on wet grass, and certainly no good on a road like this:

_________________
Will

They feed you, clothe you , bring your fuel, etc. Their usefulness is endless. If you bought it, a truck brought it!

and certainly no good on a road like this:

Strangest road I've ever seen Looks more like a nice area chewed up by some 4 by 4's

No - it's public highway. FWIW, there are over 4,000 miles of unsealed public roads in this country. Most of these pre-date many of those nice ribbons of tarmac you probably drive on each day. Even though many ignorant bods think these are just bits of land that have become chewed up by some 4x4's, they are usually properly constructed roads with drainage and hardcore substrates. However, many have been neglected by those responsible for their upkeep. And so organisations like GLASS have stepped in to keep this heritage for all. When you see a country road with deep wheel-ruts, it's usually because neglect has allowed a lot of silt to build up over the road surface - and the ruts only go down through the layer of silt (a bit like how it would be if any road was unmaintained for several decades or even centuries).

_________________
Will

Jeez, we'll all need 4x4s in forty years or so then.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Rather good job he only has 2 kids then eh!



They are not used off road, the nearest they get in a vast majority is off road parked on the curb.



Where is that then, London to Birmingham for example, would you want to do that in slouch 4x4 or a car that will get you from A to b in a reasonable time.




That would classify the 3 series then

are ideal for towing.





Can just manage to pull its own weight, and you can forget about stopping, it is next to useless, they still fit drum brakes on them

Any decent size saloon makes a good towing tool.

Citroen have won tow car of the year with saloon's, for years, aint no 4x4's get close to them.

For towing a caravan, a 4x4's gearing is all wrong.

_________________
Steve

That is called a byeway, not a road, simply a route that can legally be accessed by a vehicle.

They are not, or have they ever been under the control of the Highways Department

_________________
Steve

I thought most byways are very old roads that have never been tarmac'd.
Definately all road laws apply, so should be HA. Is this so?

Max tow weight on a 50mm towball is 3500kg. What 4x2 cars are rated at this?

A to B in reasonable time? Faster than a 4x4? Do you mean illegal time?

The point Will seems to be making is that, for this particular individual, they are able to successfully use a single vehicle for multiple roles. Doesn't mean every single family would be able to use a Transit for the school run, but then not every single family would be able to use an average family car for the school run either...



But does it matter? When buying a vehicle, if you have a list of must-have requirements and you find that the only vehicle that fits all of them is one which also features a bunch of abilities you'll never use (say, for instance, a world-class off-roading capability), then should you turn your back and wait for a manufacturer to build you a vehicle that does everything you do need without doing anything you don't? If a 4x4 fits the requirements of a particular driver despite them never EVER needing to off-road in it, so what.




I've lost count of the number of times I've been making progress along the motorway only to be passed quite rapidly by one or another model of 4x4 (usually, but not always, a Range Rover Vogue - they seem to be the BMW of the 4x4 world as far as being driven at excessive speeds in L3, by drivers who think they own the road, goes )


The only things I dislike about sharing the road with a 4x4 are the lack of through-visibility when following one (though the same criticism can be applied to people carriers, vans, buses, HGVs etc.) and the ease with which their high mounted headlights can blind you if they're tailgating you (though the same criticism can be applied to some people carriers, vans, buses, HGVs etc...). So really, from a driver perspective, I have no reason to specifically dislike 4x4s, and I entirely fail to understand the reasoning of anyone who is capable of holding as strong an anti-4x4 opinion as several of the posters in this thread. They take up no more space than many cars, they drink fuel no faster than many cars, and for many people they are a genuinely practical choice of vehicle for all their requirements - particularly if they don't have the luxury of being able to run a fleet of vehicles each tailored to one specific requirement.

Personaly I don't care what others drive. Its called freedom of choice. We don't always need to have a 4x4 but some do. By the same token we don't always need huge people carriers but some people like them.

Whats wrong with driving something we like to drive. I don't drive on myself but I have no issues with someone else who does. It's what makes humanity interesting. And long may it continue.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

AFAICT, the Highways Agency only have responsibility for trunk routes. From their web-site:
All other roads are the responsibility of the local authority. Since (unless someone knows otherwise) all trunk roads are sealed, all the roads commonly called "green lanes" are the responsibility of the council in whose area they are (exactly the same as sealed roads that are not trunk routes).

_________________
Will

I partly agree with both sides in this.

Most (approx90%) of the 4x4s i see are used to ferry kids to school and back with no more off roading than over the occasional kerb. I do not like them in this context as while the driver may have better visibility, every other 'normal' car has worse visibility as a consequence, they use more fuel than a normal car of similar length/width, they're slower, handle less well and are more likely to kill/injure anyone they hit (if being slightly safer for the occupants).

However, many people do NEED cars like these for various reasons and we should ALL have the choice as to the type of car that we buy, so i don't think that they should be banned.

I can live with that if the drivers make allowance for the poor visibility.

The only particular point i hate about 4x4's is the damage they cause in car parks to other motor's. Generally they have a care free attitude whilst parking & getting in & out of the motors, causing £££'s of damage to the more fragile paintwork of saloon car.

Other than that, if people wish to pay a higher price for a slower more fuel guzzling motor, that is upto them.

_________________
Steve

We had some snow this morning. This would have meant that SUV drivers could justify their car. I could almost here them saying... "I need a 4x4 for (the very odd day) when the weather is bad," .. as I was over taking them in my 2wd car in the slushy bit that they were too affraid to drive on

Willcove. That picture you showed. If I was in a real 4x4 (tractor) in that picture, I'd still be in 2wd without the diff lock.

Perhaps they treating the conditions with respect that was needed, 4x4 will give you extra grip over 2wd - but stopping still takes considerably longer then in normal conditions.

Biggest problem in snow is not the snow itself, but the people who carry on as if their stopping distances not affected in any way.

GENTS - IF YOUVE GOT TO JUSTIFY ANYONES DECISION TO BUY WHAT THEY WANT - YOU VE LOST THE PLOT.


YOU CAN AFFORD A ????, YOU LIKE IT?? -- THEN SO WHAT - HAS UK LAW UNDER THE LABOUR IDIOTS COME TO THE STAGE WHERE YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR TELL YO WHAT CAR YOU BUY ???



IF SO THEN THE BRITISH WAY OF LIFE HAS FAILED AND THE RULE OF MOB HAS TAKEN ITS PLACE AND THE SOONER THAT WE VOTE OUT THESE IDIOTS THE BETTER

While we're at it let's ban mountain bikes. Why do we need an all terrain bike on a city street?


Regards


Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

I don't think MTBs and roadbikes are as different as SUVs and saloons. Both tend to have good visibility, similar footprints, heights and wheelbase lengths. There are proabbly similar issues concerning the tyres though, more rubber is in contact with the ground with road tyres in comparison to off-road.

Interesting idea bnning MTBs from urban areas. It'd probably stop a lot of pavement cyclists, it's very uncomfortable bumping up and down kerbs and paving slabs on 23mm, 120psi rubber, without suspension.

But "SUVs" are very similar in general configuration to "MPVs".

Which reminds me - Renault used to do a mildly butch-looking 4x4 version of the old-model Scenic MPV, although they don't seem to have done a similar one for the new model. Probably in overall dimensions fairly similar to a RAV4.

Would that be acceptable to the SUV-haters?

_________________
"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

I don't know, find one and ask. As far as I'm concerned these vehicles are ugly, dangerous pieces of heavy machinery. A bit like any other badly designed (from an aesthetic point of view) car on the road!

I can see the arguments for wanting to get rid of the larger ones, but as to where to draw the line? Who knows. To be honest I think they annoy other motorists more than they annoy cyclists.