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

lisyloo

The fact is that 4X4 cars in towns are driven by selfish scumbag ignorant idiots

I disagree.
I have been on several police courses and have no points or accidents.

who want to impress by conspiculouse wealth

My car is 16 years old, rusty and falling apart. I can't imagine it would impress anyone.

while bring up their brats as selfishly as the parents

No kids.

too bone idle to walk to school

I cycle 20 miles to/from work some days.
Most people couldn't manage that.

too important to sit at the normal height

My 4x4 is a normal height car.

They can all go and rot

Well I plan o be cremated rather than buried, but suggest you get your facts right as in my case you are wrong on pretty much every count.

chriz1000

I agree with that lisyloo. Its people like mdean who are generalising, this is a topic about 4 wheel drive vehicles, not just Range Rovers or Jeeps.
Most people wouldn’t even realise my car was 4 wheel drive, and at 23 I’ve got no children. Ignorant? I would say making generalised comments such as yours is being ignorant.
It’s the same with many other cars. Quite a few Golf’s and Skoda’s for instance are 4 wheel drive, there no bigger than a normal car, and they use less fuel than a lot of 2 wheel drive cars on the market.

110frankie

mdean wrote:

The fact is that 4X4 cars in towns are driven by selfish scumbag ignorant idiots who want to impress by conspiculouse wealth - while bring up their brats as selfishly as the parents- too bone idle to walk to school - too important to sit at the normal height

They can all go and rot

hank you for that well thought out addition to the debate.
It has helped the anti-4x4 campaign no end. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself but the type of person who writes what you did hasn't any concept of shame.

As 4x4s actually outsold so-called "economy cars" last year, and are again in front in the first quarter of this year you are in for a frustrating, sad time of it.
I'm pleased to be able to write :-)

Thanks for cheering me up.

Murphy_The_Cat

mdean wrote:

The fact is that 4X4 cars in towns are driven by selfish scumbag ignorant idiots who want to impress by conspiculouse wealth - while bring up their brats as selfishly as the parents- too bone idle to walk to school - too important to sit at the normal height

They can all go and rot

good to see someone using logic and common sense to make a point - pity it's not you mdean.

Are you after the award for the highest number of sweeping statements in one post ? If so, I think that you may be in the running.

MTC

steve!_10

110frankie wrote:

so it's no longer a ban 4x4 thread but a ban everything bigger than a Micra thread...

But then I didn't say that, did I? I'm just underlying the fact that if you were going to get hit by a car, you'd want it to be as small as possible. I can promise you there will be a correlation between damage caused relative to the size of the vehicle. But if you can't understand basic physics or misinterpret what I'm trying to say, then I can't help you.

lisyloo

I'm just underlying the fact that if you were going to get hit by a car, you'd want it to be as small as possible.

If what you are saying is true - I don't think it justifies banning lorries, vans, large cars for large familes etc.

But I am not sure it is true - can you procvide evidence, data, facts? etc.

I'm not sure the size of the car is a huge factor.
Some cars have "crumple zones" to absorb impact.
I'm not sure it's all to do with size.

But even if it was, I don't hear calls to ban lorries and vans, so banning 4x4s on the basis of size is not logical.

Anyway we already know tha in cases of cars hitting pedestrians, it's the pedestrians fault 85% of the time, so this doesn't justify banning caertain types of car in my opinion.

nej

steve! wrote:

nej: So accidents only happen when someone isn't being careful, but if you mount the pavement by not being careful, then it's not an accident? I had to re-read your first two sentences, but I'm fairly certain you just contradicted yourself.

No, it isn't an accident. It's me not being careful and driving like a moron. All accidents have somebody to blame. If there is ever a thing where people say "It was nobody's fault" then what they actually mean was "both were equally at fault." All "accidents" are avoidable by drivers paying more attention to what they are doing. I have had two accidents in my life. One was caused by inexperience coupled with bad road conditions. The other was caused by tiredness and not paying enough attention. But accidents? Ok, I didn't mean to do it, but it's a child's argument. "I didn't mean to break that plate it was an accident!". That's the child's way of not accepting the blame. It wasn't intentional therefore it's Ok and no fault should be given. Sorry it might not have been pre-meditated, but the fault lies squarely with me for not being careful.

110frankie

Gotcha. So when the police say it was the pedestrian's fault they are wrong according to you, it is the motorist's fault.
Clever!

david29dpo

this is getting silly. each to there own.

nej

110frankie wrote:

Gotcha. So when the police say it was the pedestrian's fault they are wrong according to you, it is the motorist's fault.
Clever!

Sorry frankie, are you referring to my post? If so, I'm not sure what you mean. I certainly would think it's the pedestrians fault if he/she stepped in front of my car.