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

fattyrae1

When someone says "we should ban these......" why do some people come out with rubbish like "in that case, we should ban people who wear gloves"????? If you are insinuating that it is ridiculous to criticise 4x4 drivers then at least pick a sensible comparison. People who wear gloves do not kill kids, block roads at schools and have unbelievably stupid (and incredibly dangerous) bull bars.
Driving a 4x4 is a choice, not a necessity (unless you are a farmer). If you have one, admit it is for the status and stop making stupid excuses. :mad:

p4psb

I drive a small 3 door Toyota Rav 4 Diesel, it is smaller in length than most cars and is a diesel. It does over 40 MPG and is just a great vehicle to drive.
I do though wonder why anyone (in any vehicle) drives a few hundred yards to drop their kids to school (or any other place)!
I have seen it done many times.

zincoxide

Back to the school-run, wouldn't it be better to get kids to walk in groups to school? Groups for safety and walking to get rid of all the pent up fuel they have? (well, fat but I'm not tarring all kids like that - although its known that obseity rates are up!).

As for the 4x4 - yes I'd like to see them banned unless you have a genuine need for one.

Which brings me to another idea...

Could HGV's & JCB's etc be banned from travelling during rush hour to allow a free flow of traffic?

Get rid of the school run & the HGVs etc and we'd all have a much better journey to work!!

As for public transport....don't get me started!

iwanttosave_2

I am not sure about the HGVs, the costs would go up as they could only travel at a certain time. Where we live there are not many HGVs going round, mainly on the moterways at night. My FIL is a HGV driver and my partner is a fitter, I think this may have an impact on the jobs. It would be too difficult to maintian that sort of ban, if a driver was running late and found himself in an urban area there are little choices of where to pull over.

nej

My god, the attitude of people here! I thought most MSE's were not the kind to respond to media hype and fallacy, but the misinformed opinions and general sheep mentality I am seeing beggar belief!

I cannot believe people would honestly ban a car for the fact that four of it's wheels have power, and that it sits a little higher off the tarmac.

Great idea. That would put a nice black hole in the economy, as thousands of people would be left with cars that they couldn't use, and couldn't sell.

Given that the point seems to be "you don't need 4-wheel drive" (ignoring the fact that it's very useful in the snow), let's also ban:

5th and 6th Gear - most of you don't use them anyway, as you're driving around town.
Sunroofs - you don't need them.
Aircon - if you can prove that you really need it and that the temperature averages over 27degrees all year round then you may have it. If we can't have 4-wheel drive for the 2 months of slippery conditions, you can't have cool air for the 2 months of hot weather. Air-con also saps your MPG's so anyone using it should be shot in the head.
4 Doors - 2 is enough, you can climb through to the back. This alone will save the planet as each car will require only half the amount of hinges, thus reducing the strain on our metal reserves.
Leather seats - unfair to cows.
Traction Control - if you need this then you drive like an idiot and can't be trusted to own a motor vehicle.
Electric Windows - something wrong with your arms?

Oh, and also every person will have their houses tested. If they have more bedrooms than they need for the number of occupants in the house, then this house will be knocked down and a smaller house built in it's place. Obviously this is fair as it was taking up more room than strictly necessary.

And again, as for the environment... you will happily buy a car that has been produced from a great big dirty polluting factory, using raw materials ripped out of the ground and you will then fill it up with polluting fuel and drive it around, smug in the knowledge that whilst you are still polluting the planet, you aren't doing it *quite* as much as the guy in the 4x4 (who is probably actually driving a diesel and doing more MPG's than you anyway). If you really care 2 hoots about the environment, either cycle or buy a horse. If you won't do that, shut up.

iwanttosave_2

nej wrote:

Given that the point seems to be "you don't need 4-wheel drive" (ignoring the fact that it's very useful in the snow)

You have missed the point completely, we are talking about 4x4s not four wheel drive cars, they are a completly differente kettle of fish. It is a different matter between a 4ltr Range rover and a 1.8ltr Subaru legacy.

Rubber_Duck_4

fattyrae1 wrote:

Driving a 4x4 is a choice, not a necessity (unless you are a farmer). If you have one, admit it is for the status and stop making stupid excuses. :mad:

I don't have one..... yet and when i do it will all be for the look. I will take it off road (minor off roading up to the OH's farm where she keeps her horse) but it is all about the look. I am a carefull and usually considerate driver but people will always have a problem with a big 4x4 not entirly sure why they just do.

At the moment there is nothing that would convince me not to get one. Everyone has the freedom to make their own choices it's what makes individual.

I wouldn't have a go at someone who spent over £300k on a sports car when that kind of money could feed plenty of familys in the third world. or have a go at people who drive small town cars and consistently weave in and out of traffic cutting people up.

Not all drivers are the same and you should have the right to express yourself in any part of your leife wether it be your clothes, hair or the car you drive.

lisyloo

If you have one, admit it is for the status and stop making stupid excuses.

I have a 4x4 because I used to use it for hot air ballooning.
Ok it wasn't a necessity for life, it was a hobby, but it certainly wasn't for status reasons.
It didn't have bull bars and it just looks like a normal car.

Let's stop making sweeping generalisations shall we.

There are some good reasons for having these including being safer in the snow and ice.
Why assume everyone has them for negative reasons?

Debt_Free_Chick

If 4x4s are banned in town, what happens to the genuine 4x4 owner who needs to go into town occasionally? Are they to leave their vehicle "at home"? And what's a town, anyway?

There are plenty of market towns near me where practically everyone genuinely owns a 4x4 .... Battle, Tenterden, Heathfield (East Sussex/Kent border).

nej

iwanttosave wrote:

You have missed the point completely, we are talking about 4x4s not four wheel drive cars, they are a completly differente kettle of fish. It is a different matter between a 4ltr Range rover and a 1.8ltr Subaru legacy.

I don't think I have. I'm actually pointing out the stupidity of this argument. The "anti" brigade have 2 points: 1) The four-wheel drive being less economical; 2) the size.

I was exposing the daftness of the 1st point, because any 4-wheel drive car will be slightly less economical than an identical 2-wheel drive car.

And as for size... I'm currently looking at buying a family-friendly MPV. It's longer than any car I've ever owned. I once had a 4x4 - it was the SHORTEST car I've ever owned.

By this argument, driving my new MPV into town is no problem, despite the fact that it's tall and long (and less fuel efficient than my old 4x4). Driving my old tall but much shorter and more fuel efficient 4x4 would therefore stop me from entering the town. Where is the logic???

And as for 4ltr Range Rovers, what about sports cars that do very little MPG? For that matter, my current 1.8 engine tends to give me a touch under 20MPG in the morning. A Range-Rover probably doesn't give a lot less.