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

110frankie

and Paul Flynn, the Welsh MP - this would be the one that Tony Blair once told to "Shut up until you know what you are talking about".

Anyway, good old budget, my top of the range Land Rover now costs me a whole £5 a year more than last year, yawn...

...land, no I don't believe that any child who runs in front of a car deserves to be killed. But I believe that parents who can't teach their kids not to run in front of cars, as mine did over 50 years ago (and I haven't done it yet!) should not blame a motorist, driving any sort of car, that hits said child.

BernadetteN

I would love to see more done to discourage people from buying these vehicles - perhaps VAT at 50% or car tax £1000 per annum?

My sister has lived on a farm down a dirt track for years and here car is .... a Ford Fiesta.

As a mum of 4 who refuses to allow her children to be driven anywhere less than 3 kms away and is passed every day on the way to school by selfish 4*4 parents with their loved ones being driven a few hundred metres, I feel very strongly that no government has yet discouraged the sale or purchase of these cars.

I do not endanger the lives of others when I walk the children to school, so why do other parents put my children at risk?

BernadetteN

PS my sister lives on a Yorkshire hillside above the M66 and her Fiesta copes with the sharp inclines and declines, dirt tracks, winter snow and she is never late for work at Huddersfield College. the farmer next door has a Landrover Defender to cover his farm and quad bike to round the sheep up with - quite appropriate for the terrain where you will not find many pedestrians.

lisyloo

so why do other parents put my children at risk?

Why tar everyone with the same brush?

I have a 4x4 because I use it for ballooning.
There is no way you can tow 1.5 tons across a wet field with a 2 wheel drive car.

However I don't have bull bars and I don't speed unlike many 2 wheel drive car drivers.

Some 4x4 drivers are very considerate and don't put your children at risk.
Some 2 wheel drive user are inconsiderate and vice versa.

Many parents are inconsiderate by driving their children 200 yds to school in the first place !!

Ban the school run I say (tongue firmly in cheek :-)

BernadetteN

lisyloo wrote:

Why tar everyone with the same brush?

I have a 4x4 because I use it for ballooning.
There is no way you can tow 1.5 tons across a wet field with a 2 wheel drive car.

However I don't have bull bars and I don't speed unlike many 2 wheel drive car drivers.

Some 4x4 drivers are very considerate and don't put your children at risk.
Some 2 wheel drive user are inconsiderate and vice versa.


So you agree with me then - 4x4 for appropriate use of 4x4 (as I said about the farmer with his defender), not for commuting - and by that I mean use on terrain where 4x4s are designed for and not for general use on public roads.

Many parents are inconsiderate by driving their children 200 yds to school in the first place !!

You agree with me again, it is absurd firstly that parents drive their children to school rather than walk them distances under 2-3km or put them on a bus, and even more absurd that some parents choose to drive their precious cargo using 4x4s.

I understand that parents have busy lives, I am one too. I have 4 kids, 2 part-time jobs, my husband also works full time and we live 7 hours from the nearest relative so there's not so we only have neighbours who can help us out. I choose to walk the children the 2km round trip to school and I allow enough time to do this on foot - if I go to work early, they walk with a neighbour instead. In many cases, all it takes is getting up that little bit earlier, a bit more organisation, getting to know neighbours better so the walking school run is shared. Not all children live within 2-3kms of school but the majority of children who go to school by car do live within walking distance of school and their legs are the perfect way to get there.

Ban the school run I say (tongue firmly in cheek :-)

I agree, walking buses, less cars and less SUVs especially.

lisyloo

So you agree with me then - 4x4 for appropriate use of 4x4 (as I said about the farmer with his defender), not for commuting - and by that I mean use on terrain where 4x4s are designed for and not for general use on public roads.

I can't afford a collection of cars, so I use mine for commuting as well.
However I don't think that makes me a bad driver or a bad person.
Careful driving of 4x4s can be safer than bad driving of other vehicles, so having a 4x4 doesn't automatically make you a threat to society.
Speeding and driving without insurance needs to be tackled as well.
I have been on 2 courses run by the police and I am going to do a third with the Institute of advanced motorists.
I wonder how many courses the average motorist has been on?

You agree with me again, it is absurd firstly that parents drive their children to school rather than walk them distances under 2-3km or put them on a bus, and even more absurd that some parents choose to drive their precious cargo using 4x4s.

Absolutely. It causes environmental damage, obeisity and congestion from those of us who have no choice but to commute (as we can't all find jobs 2-3km from home) and don't all have access to public transport.

I agree, walking buses, less cars and less SUVs especially.

I would like to see more cycle lanes.
I have to drive 15 miles to get to a decent off road track, which defeats the purpose of getting cars off the road.
I do sometimes cycle on the road but I feel it's not as safe (and the edges of some of the roads I go on are poorly maintained, full of gravel and have large branches sticking out into the road).

lisyloo

the motorists in normal cars in front of you

Let's not glorify "normal" cars too much.

It would be in everyone's interest if we had better public transport, more walking and more cycling.
At the very least fewer cars by lift sharing etc.

110frankie

redux wrote:

Ten years ago, Mr Flynn spoke of his correspondence with insurance companies who were starting to restrict coverage of bull bar equipped vehicles - perhaps owners should think carefully about whether they have informed their insurers about the fitting of these killer devices, and whether their insurer has consented to carry the risk of increased third party payouts that ensue. If not they are liable themselves directly.
QUOTE]

Another example of the not-so-bright Mr Flynn (and we will have to make up our own minds about you)
You see, with the pedestrian AT FAULT in 85 per cent of cases. Neither the motorist nor his insurance company have to pay out to anyone.

Now read this very slowly and you may get the point.
Bull bars, cars, lorries, buses, motorcycles and steam rollers do not kill the majority of pedestrians who die on our roads in a year. The pedestrian causes their own death.

Wig

110frankie wrote:

Now read this very slowly and you may get the point.
Bull bars, cars, lorries, buses, motorcycles and steam rollers do not kill the majority of pedestrians who die on our roads in a year. The pedestrian causes their own death.

Fact....Bull bars are lethal in an accident. period. they should be banned (if they aren't already)

Brown should have put VED on heavy polluters at a 600 pound/year minimum.

FakeIrish

Wig wrote:

Brown should have put VED on heavy polluters at a 600 pound/year minimum.

Don't be silly - heavy polluters already pay extra VAT on fuel due to high consumption. Why should they be "hit" twice?