Safe Speed Forums

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/23/nfourby23.xml



Sooooooooo. Does that mean if you drive a 4X4 you are more likely to use a mobile phone (because of the type of care you are in), or, people who like to drive 4x4s are more likely to be law breakers (they would use the phone whatever they drive).

Or maybe they are driven by businessmen who are more likely to be using mobiles. But hey, lets just simplify it down to the lowest common denominator.

Its anoter daft survey to feed on the anti 4x4 paranoia.



Check out this for Nazi style propaganda. You would think all 4x4 owners should be burned at the stake.



So how come 4x4 sales have reached a record high and one of our domestic manufacturers Land Rover have had to put in extra capacity to meet demand......maybe because enough people realise that this is all b*llocks.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

or perhaps this might be telling you something




maybe sales are rocketing because every completely cr*p driver out there is buying one because it's "safe" and I think that's something we should be worried about. Frankly I find it scary how many people I've heard say something along the lines of "I'm not a very good driver so we got this for better protection". Yeah, too bad about the person you end up hitting with your truck.

Wonder what the result would have been if they had checked the proportion of white van drivers using mobiles?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I hear what you say about them demonising 4X4's. However 1 in 40 using a hand held phone is a discrace. This must have been monitored in an urban area, If they have that much spare cash for constant phone calls and a big car , Why won't they spend £200 on the state of the art phone and matching car kit? If they don't want to wear thier seat belt I don't realy mind. There are loads of people waiting for thier body parts.

I don't want to be hit by someone who is texting or holding a phone.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

While we're on the subject of '4x4s' and notwithstanding the massive definition problems experienced by the 'anti-4x4' campaign. I'd like to explore the situation from another angle.

I wouldn't choose a 4x4 'SUV' because:

- I value dynamic ability very highly and the inevitable higher CoG must compromise dynamic ability.

- Excessive weight annoys me (as a driver) because it wastes engine output (poorer acceleration, higher fuel consumption). This would also be a reason for avoiding 4x4 versions of saloons that may be available in 2 wheel drive and 4 wheel drive variants - you have to carry the weight of extra transmission components. It also means that I don't want to run a vehicle that is larger than my needs for it.

- In a similar argument to the one above, I don't like the idea of extra transmission losses in a more complex drive train.

- If I don't need 4 wheel drive, then I don't want to pay for 4 wheel drive components or their maintenance. (I'd rather spend the cash on a bigger engine!)

Obviously people buying tow cars, or needing off-road capability make a different set of compromises, and so they should. Mostly I've brought mid sized rear wheel drive saloons with larger engines. Such specs make sense to me for their 'mile munching' capability and enjoyable responses.

I wouldn't dream of telling people what choice of vehicle they should make, but I do wonder why so many choose SUVs. I can't see the sense in it.

Wouldn't it be interesting if a survey found that most people buy SUVs because of the need to deal with speed humps?

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

I have noticed that all the Traffic Officers on the motorway are driving BIG 4x4s

Must be a reason why. Maybe they are safer....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

the (rather lame) excuse given in another thread was that they might need to go offroad to tow someone.

Perhaps people feel a need to be rebellious? In other words the more the lentil munchers bleat about 4x4s being socially irresponsible the more appealling they become! What better way to say "Hey, look at me!" than to drive something that's never off the front pages of the papers.

For myself, I'm a great believer in primary safety and have always felt that the best compromise between primary and secondary safety was a biggish car with a low CoG and good performance. I also have to satisfy the need to cart my family and associated paraphenalia around so the best compromise to my mind is a moderately high performance estate car.

I'm doing a fair bit of building work at the moment, and our house also has a log-burning stove so I'm often out and about transporting firewood around etc. I was considering a double-cab 4x4 pickup but in the end I've simply bought a decent sized trailer instead, which seems a better compromise.

The one that always makes me laugh is when people have a baby and immediatly simply have to trade their car in for a massive people carrier. Granted, when you get to the "ferrying hordes of schoolkids around" stage I can see their merits, but why people feel that a single toddler warrants driving around in a mini bus defeats me. Maybe, as Jeremy Clarkson once said, they feel it shouts out "Look how virile I am"...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I had a long debate with a GP a couple of months ago. He runs a big 4x4 because (he said) it gives him and his family better protection in the event of a crash.

This is an essentially selfish motivation - you buy a little less risk for yourself at the cost of tranferring more risk to others. I asked him if he encouraged parents on his list to have their children inoculated (MMR etc). He confirmed he does. I asked him whether he agreed there was a risk (however small) in having MMR and other inoculations. He agreed there was. I suggested that his decision to buy a heavy vehicle because it offers better protection is analogous to parents deciding not to expose their children to the small risk of inoculation whilst still benefitting from the herd immunity which will still remain because the majority of children have been inoculated. If everybody did the same, the overall risk to the whole population would be greater with the more vulnerable worst affected.

I'm not sure that he was sufficiently persuaded but it did give him some food for thought.

A similar argument applies, imo, to the use of daytime running lights by vehicles which are not unusually vulnerable. You take a little less risk for yourself but if everbody did the same, the whole population is no better off and the more vulnerable (those who need additional conspicuity) are much worse off.

I wish all these anti-4x4 bods would make the distinction between proper 4x4s and chelsea tractors. Some of us have 4x4s because we actually NEED them. They aren't all gas gussling monsters - ours returns about 36mpg whether it has a trailer on the back or not and I'm damned if I'm going to try to pull the trailer about on the farm where it lives with my FWD drive car!

I want to trade my car in for a small 4x4 (something like an early SJ410) because I'd like to be able to go offroading in it. Its small enough to run as a day to day car so why should I be branded the same as someone in a 4.4l petrol rangerover?

Oh and the report talks about petrol saloons returning 25mph? They think that THAT'S good gas milage?!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

In my experience, 4x4 drivers are generally worse (similar to Volvo drivers). They're so cocooned, they are just not aware of what's happening outside and around them.

Having said that, the poor condition of a lot of our roads, maybe there is something to be said for them.

Personally, I don't like them because I think they make the driver less safe, and therefore more of a hazard to me.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

There again, do you mean ALL 4x4s? Even the ratty old ones covered in crud? Or just the nice shiney ones?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Yes. Not wishing to disagree with a fellow biker, but yes - IN MY EXPERIENCE, 4x4 drivers (nice shiny new variety) are generally worse.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Dude, you're not disagreeing with me if you recon chelsea tractor drivers are worse. All I was trying to point out is that not all 4x4s are chelsea tractors and IMO its the chelsea tractors that the lentil munchers are actually talking about.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Point taken...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I wouldnt buy one simply because they are rubbish. Slow - even the V8 petrols, handle comparitvely poorly, are not that roomy inside. Its a shame that the people that have no choice but to buy a 4x4 or who just like the idea of something a bit rugged get stigmatised by the bullies and the men who's wives wear the trousers so they need a big car to vent their anger on the road.

Its a shame to stereotype in that way, but Ive been in 4x4s where the driver has said "hes gotta give way with 2 tonnes of Range Rover heading towards him".

Surely there must be reasons that people are driving these vehicles around cities, I had enough troubles driving a "normal sized" car around london! I wouldn't want to drive anything larger!
What are these reasons?
Saying "don't drive 4x4s because they are bad" is only going to encourage people to drive them, isn't it?

I should think that a large part of the reason people drive off-road vehicles is due to badly surfaced roads and road humps. Those are quite compelling reasons to get a large off-roader in a city like london.

_________________
Andrew.

Now , why can't someonr start a campaign against larg(ish) executive saloons containing one MP and possibly a driver. They don't need a car like that - let them drive what they preach - give them a prius , or better still , make them use public transport - would that be what it takes to make it better ??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

As a driver of a "larger" car (not a 4x4 though) I have to say that in many ways it is easier to drive round town than a "normal car". The extra height is the main advantage, being able to see over other vehicles.

Of course, when everyone has a "larger" vehicle then I will have to get a periscope.

How about the "might is right(of way) " lobby??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on