Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
View Poll Results: Should 4x4 vehicles be banned from town/city centres
Yes - They are a hazard 109 59.24%
No - They protect the occupants 29 15.76%
I have one and disagree 18 9.78%
I have one and agree they should be banned 2 1.09%
Other - please post reason 26 14.13%
Voters: 184. You may not vote on this poll

  • FIRST POST
    zincoxide
    4x4 Vehicles - Should they be banned from Town/City Centres
    • #1
    • 6th Mar 06, 9:56 AM
    4x4 Vehicles - Should they be banned from Town/City Centres 6th Mar 06 at 9:56 AM
    I'm a great believer that the only reason people should have a 4x4 is if they intend to take it off road, own a farm or live somewhere where the roads require it.

    Surely the idea of taking little Tariq to school in a 4x4, although great for the occupants, is increasing the risk of serious injury to pedestrians due to the height of the vehicle i.e. childs head height.

    Just thinking - who would like to see them banned from town or city centres?
    Treat others as you would like to be treated
Page 12
  • TBC
    What an absolute disgrace!! 81 people so far trying to tell people what to drive! What about banning milk floats and the such because they drive a lot slower than me?

    Well just to confirm, I say let people drive what ever they want! It's their own money, they pay the road tax, they pay the fuel (even though a few are economical) they pay their repairs, insurance and all other costs associated.

    My car a Legacy estate takes up pretty much the same amount (if not more) road space as most so called 4x4's (shoguns and the like)... it's a 4x4 so I assume on these counts alone it should be banned?
    Well it also does between 10 and 20mpg depending on how you drive it so theres a third reason.....

    Why on earth should somebody tell me I can't drive it to a town centre or anywhere else for that matter? should it be resigned to off roading only? of course not it's an estate car, it IS a big, uneconomical, 4x4 estate car though.

    In fact, I wonder if those 81 people don't actually enjoy driving, they only do it because they "need" to get from A - B, well don't let me hold you up.......
    Oh thats right I won't it's also one of the fastest family cars around which is another reason to ban it....

    I realise that people arn't complaining about cars like mine but other than the height of the vehicle it suffers all the traits being complained about.


    Get a life people!
    Last edited by TBC; 28-05-2006 at 4:44 PM.
  • 110frankie
    Actually I might have changed my mind. I went to a city the other day (in my 4x4 of course, it's the only car I own).
    Didn't like it - all those people living close to each other, cars, of every description, all over the place. People on the pavement walking slowly and bumping into other people.
    Ugh!
    Yeah ban vehicles like mine from cities - then I might not have to go to one again :-)
  • BertieMeldrew
    They should be banned full stop except for farmers.

    And road Tax should be 400quid a year for all the road damage they cause.
    by intel
    Thanks (!)

    I am not a farmer. I live 850 above sea level at the end of a one mile road that is "unsuitable for motor vehicles" - and half of which is an unadopted track that we have to maintain ourselves. The road from the village (3 miles away) is steep - 1 in 4 at the worse. In the winter we frequently get conditions that a non-4x4 just can't cope with. Equally, the track is pretty rough and at least one non-4x4 car that I had in my time here had the suspension ruined! Most of the track is unfenced and sheep and cattle roam the fells, and the track, at will. Whilst I felt they were justified I actually ditched the bull-bars!

    There are several properties around this area that have similar problems. Most of the residents just wouldn't survive part of the year without a 4x4.

    What you are saying then is that we should either (a) move or (b) stay indoors when the weather is bad or (c) become farmers



    AAMOI Intel, what sort of car do you drive?
    Last edited by BertieMeldrew; 30-05-2006 at 11:50 PM.
  • steve!
    My car a Legacy estate takes up pretty much the same amount (if not more) road space as most so called 4x4's (shoguns and the like)... it's a 4x4 so I assume on these counts alone it should be banned?
    Well it also does between 10 and 20mpg depending on how you drive it so theres a third reason.....

    Why on earth should somebody tell me I can't drive it to a town centre or anywhere else for that matter? should it be resigned to off roading only? of course not it's an estate car, it IS a big, uneconomical, 4x4 estate car though.

    In fact, I wonder if those 81 people don't actually enjoy driving, they only do it because they "need" to get from A - B, well don't let me hold you up.......
    Oh thats right I won't it's also one of the fastest family cars around which is another reason to ban it....

    I realise that people arn't complaining about cars like mine but other than the height of the vehicle it suffers all the traits being complained about.


    Get a life people!
    by TBC
    For the record I love driving.

    My gripe is mainly the environmental impact. It seems one thing everyone agrees on is that we all have to drive, but why do you need a car that can polutes twice as much as some other cars? It exacerbates a problem we have already of polluted air, especially in cities.

    With regards to towns, the fact I can't see over or around the bigger 4x4s is a nuisance, but a petty one at that. They can take up a lot of parking space though. I know they can fit between the lines in most multistoreys, but somehow I don't think those places were designed with those vehicles in mind. The height restrictions are put on carparks like that to keep vans out because they're too wide. About as wide as some 4x4s which now slip through the net. So a pain to everyone else, but still, as long as you're happy.
  • 110frankie
    If only it were so simple - ban 4x4s and the air would be cleaner...
    Cars do not create as much pollution throughout their lives than was created in making them... so those people changing their ickle cars every few years are causing more pollution than someone keeping his 4x4 for a long time.
    Mine is 23 years old, I bask in the pride of knowing how much pollution I have saved by not buying a new car every three or four years.
    Cars themselves - all of them, every type lumped together - are responsible for between 2 and 3 per cent of atmospheric pollution in this country. If you banned one particular type how much difference do you suppose that is going to make?
    I run on bio-diesel, as do an increasing ammount of 4x4s, many others run on lpg, making many 4x4s cleaner than many small cars
  • 110frankie
    oh, sorry, I forgot.
    One airplane flight to Australia creates more pollution than any 4x4 creates in its entire existence.
    Ban airplanes?
  • rdwarr
    oh, sorry, I forgot.
    One airplane flight to Australia creates more pollution than any 4x4 creates in its entire existence.
    Ban airplanes?
    by 110frankie
    No, just those with four engines. Those with two engines are fine.

    One of my "fleet" is a Jag XJS (2WD) that I guarantee will kick out more pollution driving round London at 8mpg than any modern 4x4. I don't drive it round London BTW, that was where I bought it and noticed the mpg driving home.
    Can I help?
  • Lob Rockster
    I have to say the Saab 9-5 estate my LR Disco3 is replacing is identically in width and only 10cm shorter. Emissions? Get all the old !!!!bangers off the road first An effiicent TD with particle filter doesn't hammer the environment.

    Of course I've only bought one because my chances of being snowed-in from December to March are higher than a high thing
    In the United Kingdom 200,000 people are bitten by dogs every year and some people will die as a result. Of those bitten, 70% are children... So the question has to be asked....... Has the time come to ban children?
  • prettypennies
    Haven't read whole thread (yes lazy I know) I am not a huge fan of the great big 4x4 jobbies but have to say I am tempted to buy one anyway. My poor little Astra is suffering due to the number of flaming road bumps I have to cross a day. Each morning I set off form my home:

    cross 5 bumps to get off my estate

    collect my niece from her house and cross 8 bumps to get onto her estate and 8 bumps to get off her estate

    drop my children and niece at school

    drive to my work at a nearby school 1 mile away and cross another 23 bumps in the process.

    I then have to cross them all again to get home.

    I would be happy to make use of public transport or cycle, walk but could not possible manage it in the time I have to get from one destination to the next.

    I know road bumps are designed to save lives but I would welcome any other method of traffic calming (i.e speed cameras) or even a better public transpor system.
    Twins, twice the laughs, twice the fun, twice the mess!

    2012 in 2012 member #114 8.33/2012
  • powermac
    Of course the fact that the average 4x4 consumes more fuel and contributes more to global warming is a good reason to limit their use, but far more relevant to me is their crash safety and the threat they pose to other road users in the event of a collision.

    My father is an assessor for the local vehicle crash repair centre and some of the cars we see that have impacted with large 4x4's do not bare looking at. There are some interesting pictures floating around the net produced by EuroNCAP or Volvo (I think) of the latest Golf (a safe, modern family car) in a simulated crash with an XC90 (the first 4x4 to be specifically designed as 'car compatible' in a crash, that is to say it has lower mounted members to activate a cars safety features in an crash) - it's not pretty. In the offset impact (as most real world crashes are) the 4x4 makes a total mess of the car. Now extrapolate that across the huge park of older, not so safe small cars and the equally wide range of less 'car friendly' 4x4s and the consequences of them coming together in a crash is not a nice one.
    Either we should all strive for big, barge like vehicles or we should only use them where necessary. If not for the planet, then for each other.
  • 110frankie
    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.
  • Big O
    So the alternative is everyone who actually needs an off-roader has a second car to travel into a city centre? That's very environmentally friendly... two cars instead of one.

    I find them to be no worse than your average van when encountering them around town; they don't bother me in the slightest. And as I'm sure various people have pointed out, the most popular 4x4 in the UK is the Freelander Td4. Using BMW's 2 litre M47 diesel, it's surprisingly economical - more so than your average petrol Mondeo. And the causing more wear to the roads piece confused me - surely with a lower pressure (i.e. weight to area ratio) they wouldn't do any more damage to the roads? I think that's more down to how you drive (harsh acceleration will put more strees ont the road surface as well as the tyres).

    Oh, and looking when crossing the road should prevent being hit by one!
  • blue_haddock
    Given the choice i'd rather crash in my old landrover than in my 106!
  • zacspeed
    Me & a mate using his Suzuki Vitara for what it was designed for:



    It's the best fun you can have with your clothes on
    Women priests. Great. Now there's priests of both sexes I don't listen to - Bill Hicks.
  • 110frankie
    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
    by ts_aly2000
    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
    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.
    by ts_aly2000
    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
    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..
    by ts_aly2000
    & 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
    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.
    by 110frankie
    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
    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.
    In the United Kingdom 200,000 people are bitten by dogs every year and some people will die as a result. Of those bitten, 70% are children... So the question has to be asked....... Has the time come to ban children?
  • 110frankie
    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
    by ts_aly2000
    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.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,089Posts Today

6,225Users online

Martin's Twitter