Safe Speed Forums

You could improve the quality of life in urban areas to a far greater degree by banning delivery trucks and vans - they take up more space, pollute more, damage the roads more and create more noise than the average car. But that's never mentioned (what else would bring the environmentalists their far eastern tofu dinners?)

People buy them because they like them, end of story. I think all those 'pro' arguments about towing boats, taking kids riding and what have you probably don't apply to the majority of city-living 'big 4x4' owners. But that's fine, because people are allowed to buy whatever they want.

The roads support buses, trucks and vans with no complaint so why not something smaller? If you personally don't like them, don't buy one. If you get 'stuck behind one' then drive as you would when behind a bus or a van - hang back for a better view of the road.

The 'anti' mob are so self-righteous that it's surprising they don't recognise their own superiority and just smile down on the rest of us magnaminously. They don't do this of course because the real issue is in their heads, not wearing 20" tyres.

I don't really understand the hatred. There are so many more things worse than big cars in our cities today, even just on our roads. Get some bloody perspective.

Congestion would be worse, oil prices would be higher, and global warming arguments would be 5-10 years further down the line than they are now.



It's that word again "appropriate"!

If you live lets say <5 miles from work, is it a wise idea to drive there in an SUV? It's probably not even wise to drive there at all if you can avoid it!

It's that we in Western society have mostly become accustomed to the easy life, it will be so difficult to perform any regressive change because people expect a certain level, even though that level may be unsustainable, and SUVs are unsustainable in an urban setting. They'll either be taxed out, or banned.



People have the right to make these choices, however they must realise the impact their choice makes, and be prepared to take flak from others who are affected by the consequences of that choice.

I guess I don't understand the point of an SUV in an urban environment. What do you actually gain, apart from a nice seat and high driving position? The traffic jams are still the same!

You are from Transport 1650, paid for by bus companies, and I claim my five pounds.



Perhaps they make road humps a little more bearable?

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

You're dead wrong there I'm afraid. I might not be supportive of your arguments, but I'm certainly not stupid enough (yet) to subscribe to T2000 policies!

It's straightforward common sense. Take your average City!

Same road space + Bigger cars + More of them = More Congestion.
Bigger cars + bigger engines + More of them = Higher oil prices.

Higher oil prices + More congestion = Bad = Unsustainable.




Yeah probably, that's the only benefit - but remember, road humps wouldn't be neccessary if people travelled at appropriate speeds in the first place!!

It would seem that the 4x4-haters like to spew out the same rubbish again and again in the hope that if repeated often enough people will actually believe in.

The typical "SUV" occupies less road space than its saloon or estate equivalent. Ax X5 is shorter than a Mondeo. And, because of separation distances, the effect on roadspace of driving 5 m cars rather than 3.5 m cars is pretty minimal anyway.

And arguably if road space is at a premium, then it's sensible to make cars taller rather than longer.

_________________
"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 always have travelled at appropriate speeds...

Humps wouldn't be required if we had more and better educated drivers.

And more

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

So it's bigger cars now? Not SUVs?

Anyway it's rubbish. The space around vehicles required for safe use is far larger than the vehicles themselves. So much so that the size of the vehicle is irrelevent (when concerned with private passenger vehicles).

And if you want more road space, get rid of the anti-car measures in force.



Eh? Why? Economies of scale usually reduce prrice as sales volume increases.



Eh? Why would higher oil proices lead to more congestion?



Right. So they aren't necessary. I'm glad we cleared that up.

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

PLUS
EQUALS

HTH

Andy

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Humps aren't "required" in the first place. They're installed by ignorant councillors in the mistaken believe that they improve safety, enhance quality of life, or something

_________________
"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

Is there any other sort?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Except the basic economic theory of supply and demand tells us that higher oil prices should mean less congestion.

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

OK, here's a challenge for mpaton2004 (and anyone else who cares to have a go).

Please define the type of "4x4" or "SUV" vehicle that you are objecting to, in terms of any combination of one or more of the following objective criteria:

• length
• width
• height
• weight
• transmission type
• engine size
• engine power
• CO2 emissions
• fuel consumption
• list price

Now I'd like to bet that you either can't or won't, and even if you did come up with a definition I could guarantee that it would both include many vehicles that nobody in their right mind would describe as a "4x4", and exclude many that the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s object to.

It's all very well saying "you know one when you see one", but if you can't define it, how do we know what you're complaining about?

_________________
"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

You're right that it is extremely challenging to come up with a definition, with any definition creating a 'line in the sand' that fails to demark vehicles that some would wish to demark on a subjective basis.

But that's the nature of prejudice isn't it? Pick a bad black or a bad jew or a bad gypsy and project those characteristics onto a wider population. And what have you got? Inciting hatred. Same story. New target.

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

I don't really like 4X4 cos they are ugly
If people want to buy them, it's their choice, they pay for it.
I drive a car with low profile tyres and quite stiff suspension.I understand why you would get a 4X4, cos the roads are shit.
I have also found people in 'ecomical cars' are rubbish drivers, and over break, very ecomical. That toyota hybrid thing is pants, carkson tested one 45mpg was what he got out of it a desiel lupo was better.

Hydrid cars are pants how can having so many energy transfers in a system be ecomical(as energy transfers are never 100%)?
Hybrid
[chemical E (petrol) ---> Ke in engine ------> to chemical energy
(battery) -------> electrical energy --------> Ke to move car]

Normal
[chemical E (petrol) -------> Ke in engine car moves ]

Oh a hybrid needs TWO bloody engines.

If you rember on the top gear when the new S Class was tested WITH ITS BIG ENGINE, it was found to be more enviormental friendly than that toyota crap.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Going back to line one of the topic:



Yeah, what's that about?

And also getting a perfectly respectable (well the HA seem to think so ) 4x4 and LOWERING IT so it looks more like a car. Take a bow Range Rover Sport!

Eventually 'normal' cars and 'SUV's' will meet in the middle!

On the main theme of the topic....

I will defiantly continue driving a very small and very fast 2.0 litre car, because that's what I like. If someone wants to drive an SUV, providing they do so courteously, why should I be annoyed?

OK, I'll have a go!

Range Rover HSE V8 (the most popular model)

Width: 2.2 m
Height: 1.9m
Length: 4.97m
Weight: 2,599kg
Transmission: 6-spd auto
Engine size: 4,394cc 8 cylinder V8
Engine power: 308 PS @ 5,000 rpm
CO2 emissions: 374 g/km
Fuel consumption (u) (e) (c) 13.4 / 24.9 / 18.9 mpg
NCAP (occupants) - 4*
NCAP (pedestrian) - 1
Price - £54.000

OTOH, I do see quite a few laypeople driving nth-hand 4x4s - not every 4x4 on the roads is a brand new blinged up pimpmobile...




Maybe because they wanted a car with lower emissions The point being made seems quite valid to me - the anti-4x4'ers make a general, all-encompassing claim that they're worse for the environment than "normal" cars, a claim which is blown out of the water by this simple example.

_________________
Chris

A BMW M5 outputs less CO2!

No, what I meant was to define thresholds to separate the sheep from the goats (as I'm sure you knew).

Go on then...

_________________
"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

So, both a big nasty evil planet-smothering fluffy-bunny-killing 4x4 AND an equally big nasty etc. etc. exec saloon (in its sports-tweaked variant, no less) are less damaging to the environment than an utterly average family eurobox. Remind me, exactly how is this supposed to endear me to the anti 4x4'ers claims

_________________
Chris