4x4 Vehicles - Should they be banned from Town/City Centres

110frankie · 8 October 2006 at 10:40PM

ts_aly2000 wrote:

4x4's should have speed goveners fitted to limit their speed to 30mph.

Seriously, anyone travelling at 100mph down a muddy track is asking for trouble

very true, but your first sentence shows your ignorance of 4x4s. To keep it short we have a lower gearbox which does - strangely enough - govern our speed right down when driving on muddy tracks.

Now if all the little ordinary cars had their speeds governed down on the road there would be a lot less accidents - with vans, lorries and buses... oh and 4x4s and other little cars... to worry about.

110frankie · 9 October 2006 at 9:45AM

ts_aly2000 wrote:

And why would I not be ignorant to a 4x4? They're big. They're unnecessary. They're often used to intimidate. And I don't have one.

Your argument is flawed, since on the one hand you use the defence of muddy tracks. Then on the other hand, extend your argument to cars, vans, lorries, and buses. Have you seen many of these lately when doing your off roading? Must be a nightmare.

Of course my argument was not flawed. It was an explanation so that you know what you are writing about.
However, as with so many antis, you brush that aside because it would prove that your prejudice and bias is unfounded.
4x4s do not and can not drive at 100mph down muddy tracks. the little cars that you seem to think are so wonderful do, on the other hand, drive at dangerously high speeds on tarmac roads. At the same time the dangers on the roads provided by vans, buses and trucks are presumably acceptable while one small group of vehicles - 4x4s - are not.

Murphy_The_Cat · 9 October 2006 at 11:40AM

ts_aly2000 wrote:

Are you just here for an agument? You sound very mannish and confrontational, as if you're going to have your toys taken away.

All I can say is that on the Motorways there are plenty of 4x4's that ride right up behind people.

We're not talking about your Land Rover series II with an overdrive box..

& many, many, many more BMW 3/5 Series cars driven by halfwits doing the same.

Now if we were campaigning for the banning of ALL BMW's you'd get my vote

MTC

powermac · 9 October 2006 at 1:00PM

110frankie wrote:

So long as there is a good change of being hit by a van, truck or bus then you are completely correct. We SHOULD all strive to own large barge like 4x4s. Particularly good idea for mothers driving children around - to school for instance. Thank you for the advice.
I'm just glad I've already got one.

Not strictly true. The reason 4x4s (I'm talking real ones here, not the namby-pamby dressed up fashion statements) pose such a threat to normal cars in a crash is their lack of 'compatibility'. Whilst vans and trucks of a similar or greater size do of course pose a threat, they generally have bumpers and other design features that work well with a cars built in defences, so that airbags, pre-tensioners etc are activated, crumple zones used, and the occupants protected. 4x4s, on the other hand, need high bumpers and large clearances to provide adequate approach and departure angles for those rare occasions when they are used off-road. The rest of the time, these high bumpers pose a very real threat to the average car, as displayed by the fact that airbags are frequently not activated on a car that strikes a 4x4. Sure some people rely on trucks, but we are talking about town and city centres, not here in deepest Dorset. If I should be unlkucky enough to have an accident on a rural lane, I really hope it's not with a 4x4.

To reiterate my earlier post, if a Volvo XC90 can make such a mess of a new Golf when it has been explicitly designed to be safe and compatible with normal cars, just think what a Disco etc etc could do...

Lob_Rockster · 9 October 2006 at 3:33PM

It's preferable as an Adult to be run over by a Disco, XC90, X5 etc. Why? Because the damage to the lemming, sorry, ped, would be less as the adult bends at the curve of the bonnet.

Kids "prefer" to be run over by lower vehicles for similar reasons.

Getting run over by the "wrong" car can hurt - think head for kids and leg/knee for bigguns.

But banning 4x4s is not the answer. Banning bad driving is.

110frankie · 9 October 2006 at 5:05PM

ts_aly2000 wrote:

Are you just here for an agument? You sound very mannish and confrontational, as if you're going to have your toys taken away.

Of course your argument is flawed. The thread is about banning gigantic 4x4s from town centres, not in your case, muddy tracks.

Go and find someone you can really wind up

You are the one who wrote about doing 100mph down muddy tracks.
This whole thread is an argument.
We (4x4 owners) have already won the debate. 4x4s cannot be banned from town centres and threads such as this one don't persuade anyone who wants a more practical and safer vehicle from buying one.

livinginhope · 9 October 2006 at 8:30PM

I promised myself I wasn't going to post again in this silly 'debate',but I am soooo confused as to why 4x4s need to be banned???
Why don't we ban red cars? they get me wound up when they're not polished properly.We could also ban 5 door cars,as the more doors a car has the more door dents for others,we should definately ban cars with tartan blankets on the parcel shelf,oh and what about people carriers? these are my biggest hate,these arguments are daft,just like banning 4x4s.
Without our 4x4,my DH would not be able to work,no we are not farmers,but he has to drive across muddy fields to repair farm machinery,he couldn't do this without his 4x4,it isn't a 'beloved car' it just gets us from A to B in all weathers and all situations.
Our bumpers are no higher than a van or lorry,so why would this cause a problem? We have brilliant vision,therefore much more able to anticipate problems before they arise,it also has a lovely SOFT rubber bull bar,which is more than any other car I've seen.
It's about time 'townies' left the cities and saw what us country folk have to live with,then they may see the reason behind the 4x4.BTW not everyone who lives in the country are farmers.
I agree I can see little reason to own a large 4x4 in a city,but you cannot stop people visiting a city in a 4x4,and how do you know the 4x4 hasn't just come for the day?
I had to visit a VERY poorly relative in a city hospital a few months back,I took the 4x4 450 miles to visit,only to be verbally abused in the car park about pollution and why do I own this car in the city? I was very upset as I had just been told my relative only had a couple of hours to live,I didn't need this stress aswell,I calmly explained I was visiting from the country 450 miles away,to which he said 'a likely story' what right did this man have to abuse me like that? people need to take a step back and stop making assumptions about who own these cars.
Sorry about the rant,this is my last input on the matter!
LONG LIVE THE 4x4

Lob_Rockster · 10 October 2006 at 11:10AM

For what it's worth, by the way, my Disco3 has a smaller footprint on the road than my old car plus does the same reasonable 30mpg. Cunningly, I don't drive as fast as in my old car. I can seat 7 adults in this car. That's the same as 3½ Smart cars, for example.

So that's your Discovery -vs- Saab 95 estate comparison.

Green-ness comparison, anyone?

Edit: in both cars, I've killed the equal number of people and hit the same number of cars - none.

Murphy_The_Cat · 10 October 2006 at 11:23AM

Lob_Rockster wrote:

For what it's worth, by the way, my Disco3 has a smaller footprint on the road than my old car plus does the same reasonable 30mpg. Cunningly, I don't drive as fast as in my old car. I can seat 7 adults in this car. That's the same as 3½ Smart cars, for example.

You bugg*r I was just about to post that article.:rotfl: :rotfl:

has there ever been a study into the amount of accidents involving full size 4X4's compared to "regular cars". i.e are 4x4's involved in more or less accidents pro rata.

And one thing that has always puzzled me on the pollution front - surely a small car doing 20000 miles a year, pollutes more than a large car driving 6000 miles per year - or does that not count ? (and reading Lob's posting is irrelevant to the issue anyway).

MTC

Big_O · 10 October 2006 at 10:05PM

How is the Jeep Wrangler cheaper per mile than the Yaris? I'm surprsied at that, would like to see how that's worked out. That's a genuine question, not a dispute of your table, btw Lob Rockster!

Incidentally, not ALL BMW drivers are irresponsible! Though since purchasing mine, I've noticed I'm let out at junctions rather less. An argument for banning all non-BMW drivers, methinks...

4x4 Vehicles - Should they be banned from Town/City Centres

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free