ChatterBank2 mins ago
4x4s. What's the point?
Excellent!!! http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/reasons.htm And if these reasons aren't enough, a child is almost 30 times more likely to suffer skull damage when hit by a 4x4 than a saloon car. So, are there ANY compelling reasons to drive one of these ludicrous machines if you are a town or city dweller and never go off road?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
why pedantic? You used the argument that a 4x4 uses no more fuel than any other car. Its obviously not the case.
The rover metro may not be the safest car when in a collision (especially if collided with a 4x4) but it has a better mpg than a 4x4.
You dont have to justify why you own a 4x4, i was pointing out that your mpg comment was untrue.
Farmers have them becuse the original land rovers / range rovers etc are utility vehicles and need the 4 wheel drive. Range rover have created a market for these big cars and its only recently have they been changed to include air con, sat nav, and family car extras. Personally i dont see the point of owning one but people obviously do see them as a superior car to others. Just dont make mistake of thinking that your family is necessarily safer in them than a 'normal' family car
The rover metro may not be the safest car when in a collision (especially if collided with a 4x4) but it has a better mpg than a 4x4.
You dont have to justify why you own a 4x4, i was pointing out that your mpg comment was untrue.
Farmers have them becuse the original land rovers / range rovers etc are utility vehicles and need the 4 wheel drive. Range rover have created a market for these big cars and its only recently have they been changed to include air con, sat nav, and family car extras. Personally i dont see the point of owning one but people obviously do see them as a superior car to others. Just dont make mistake of thinking that your family is necessarily safer in them than a 'normal' family car
im not argueing for the sake of it. i am simply saying my side. Your more like to kill someone in any car doing silly speeds. Yes i admit when a 4x4 hits you, not much chance in living, but your not guna have much chance in living getting hit by a 5 series, come to that a 106. the 4x4 is just going to kill you quicker. I'm a huge fan of 4x4s and its like your being mean to something i love and you can see where i come from. Its the same as vans they are bigger than 4x4s and normally worse drivers. I see everybodies sides here all im saying is just see where im coming from. They are like the BFG big friendly giants, you gotta respect your car and not rag it because there will be an accident no matter what car you drive.
the difference is, though, most large vehicles have a reason for being large - usually to carry stuff. 4x4s are superfluous for urban use, but if that's what you want to drive then go for it. I just think they're horrible to drive - all wallowy - unless you're going off road, when they are fantastic fun.
I am getting really pi##ed off with the 4x4 argument. I own a 4x4 , it often gets muddy , I use it for towing and launching my boat. The emmisions are very slightly more than a new mini. I do about 4000 miles a year in it, so my pollution is a lot less than other people doing 40,000 a year.If a car is driven badly then it does not matter wether it is a 4x4 or not. I agree ( sort of ) with school run argument, but do you these people bought the car just to do this. Or do you think they should buy another car to take the kids to school? As for the status symbol, I really don't think that mine could be called that. What about people with rolls royces and such like. There is talk of trying to ban these cars from city centres and from greenlanes in the countryside! So where the hell are they meant to go? Ps I also own a suzuki sj which has a 1000 cc engine and yes it is a 4x4. Quite frankly most of these arguments are a load of rubbish.
wallis, I dont think the argument is pointed at people who own a 1.0 litre suzuki.
And yes, there are parents out there who own a large range rover etc purely for family use.
I even know a couple who use it to go shopping and to drive places (never off road or to tow) and their kids arent even living at home anymore.
And yes, there are parents out there who own a large range rover etc purely for family use.
I even know a couple who use it to go shopping and to drive places (never off road or to tow) and their kids arent even living at home anymore.
Some of the arguments put forth on here make me depair. I'm not going to dignify GirlyGirl's lusicrous assertion that a 4x4 doesnt use more fuel than a "normal" car, because it is so completely off the planet. Also, this bizarre cry of "Well other cars are dangerous too" is laughable. ALL cars are dangerous. They are made of metal and are capable of seriously injuring or killing people. 4x4's in an urban environment are MORE dangerous because of their size and the likelihood of them running into someone. There are more people in a city than out in the country. That's how you know you're in a city. Ergo, if 4x4's were not being driven in the city, the roads, by definition, would be less dangerous to people because there would be fewer vehicles. It's pretty basic maths! Would the same argument apply if everyone was permitted to carry AK47's around? "Oh some people have shotguns for their work, so it's not any more dangerous for me to carry an assault rifle around the streets." Ridiculous. As for the environmental angle, it's pretty obvious that there is a real and clear problem with climate change, and sooner or later we, as consumers of natural fuels, are going to have to face up to it, or we are going to find ourselves in a very unpleasant situation in the not too distant future. I'm not a bleeding heart hippy or a crazy Greenpeace activist, I'm just someone who recognises that there is an issue with this, and gives a damn about other people. I'm afraid that the short sighted, self centred, ignorant squealing from the pro 4x4 lobby is not only arrogant and short sighted, it is factually incorrect!
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Basically, it all comes down to predjudice. I don't like this, therefore you shouldn't do/have it. The points above seem superflous, really, because that's the underlying argument.
I don't like smoking, but I wasn't in favour of a ban. Ditto hunting. My personal dislike is vocal minority groups forcing their opinions, philosphies and way of life onto other people. It's a totally unreasonable and self-centred attitude. It should be banned ASAP and the majority of people's lives would be much happier without it.
Carried to its conclusion, nobody could do anything because somewhere, someone wouldn't like it and would want it banned. Fishing, next, I think...
I don't like smoking, but I wasn't in favour of a ban. Ditto hunting. My personal dislike is vocal minority groups forcing their opinions, philosphies and way of life onto other people. It's a totally unreasonable and self-centred attitude. It should be banned ASAP and the majority of people's lives would be much happier without it.
Carried to its conclusion, nobody could do anything because somewhere, someone wouldn't like it and would want it banned. Fishing, next, I think...
I think the problem is a number of issues are being (somewhat unfaily) lumped together under a 4x4 heading.
I take it as read that 4x4 here refers to large off road 4x4s rather than fiat panda 4x4s little suzukis and audi quatros etc.
1/ Fuel usage 4x4s clearly guilty but then so are high performance sports cars - hence my mpg limit comment.
2/ Safety - getting hit by one is more likely to more injury but marginally less than being hit by a van
3/ Urban 4x4s take up a lot of space parking and on the road (school run argument) again no more than a commercial vehicle less than many camper vans
It seems that all 3 arguments could just as easily be aimed at camper vans and commercial vehicles.
In the case of comercial vehicles and to a lesser extent rural 4x4s there's a utility argument that many rural people need utilitarian robust vehicles like the Defender (I run one of those I carries loads of people and sacks of cement - sometimes at the same time and you can wash the inside out with a hose)
I have to say I really don't think the second two arguments are compelling but I do think a mpg limit on manufacturers would be a good start -even a high one to begin with - after all you're not allowed to build a wasteful house why should you be allowed to build a wasteful car?
Are you listening EU?
I take it as read that 4x4 here refers to large off road 4x4s rather than fiat panda 4x4s little suzukis and audi quatros etc.
1/ Fuel usage 4x4s clearly guilty but then so are high performance sports cars - hence my mpg limit comment.
2/ Safety - getting hit by one is more likely to more injury but marginally less than being hit by a van
3/ Urban 4x4s take up a lot of space parking and on the road (school run argument) again no more than a commercial vehicle less than many camper vans
It seems that all 3 arguments could just as easily be aimed at camper vans and commercial vehicles.
In the case of comercial vehicles and to a lesser extent rural 4x4s there's a utility argument that many rural people need utilitarian robust vehicles like the Defender (I run one of those I carries loads of people and sacks of cement - sometimes at the same time and you can wash the inside out with a hose)
I have to say I really don't think the second two arguments are compelling but I do think a mpg limit on manufacturers would be a good start -even a high one to begin with - after all you're not allowed to build a wasteful house why should you be allowed to build a wasteful car?
Are you listening EU?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.