Author Topic: 4X4: To be or not to be  (Read 107910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shads

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Forum Member
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2004, 01:13:08 pm »
i hear you can get a good deal on second hand Challenger II tanks,i reckon that woud fit quite nicely on my drive...........d'you reckon any one would ,mind ;D
 

Offline James Bentall

  • Opinions on everything
  • *****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Thanked: 27 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep :-)
    • Brookmans Park Newsletter
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2004, 01:35:47 pm »
Can't manage a tank, but you could buy a one of these to revolutionise your commute into work each day:

http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/ProductDetails.aspx?language=en-GB&product=ZZL39JET
James Bentall, Brookmans Park, Herts.
I post in a personal capacity and not on behalf of North Mymms Parish Council
 

Offline trinity

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2004, 12:29:14 am »
I don't know about tanks. Whilst 70 tons of explosively-forged steel and uranium armour would provide admirable protection for the mother of ones little 'uns on even the most distracting of school runs, the fuel bills would be horrendous.

No. What I want is an autogyro. I'm getting thoroughly sick of commuting to Richmond every day by public transport. It works, but it is slow, smelly, fragile and, if you're daft enough to get the "Silverlink" Richmond-Highbury then the We Are Going Nowhere to BP, it is 27 stops.

Not that driving is any sort of option. That would be one big stop.

So an autogyro would be ideal. Take off from the street, land in the road outside the office. All I'd have to do woul dbe to move Heathrow as well (since we're about 2-3,000 feet directly underneath the approach to the south runway on an east/west landing).

Ho hum. Maybe walking would be quicker...
 

Offline trinity

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #63 on: February 12, 2004, 09:12:27 pm »
Far more egregious than 4x4s are cars (of any sort) parked on the
pavement.

Tonight's "more nostrils than neurons" award goes to the obnoxious driver who mistook the pavement in Moffats for a car park, about 100 yards up from Bluebridge.

 

Mary_Morgan

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #64 on: February 15, 2004, 08:43:55 pm »
Thought you all might like to know that I have just ordered a new car.   Jeep Cherokee .   The environmentally correct amongst you will be pleased to know that I am giving up my Jeep Wrangler which takes up less space on the road than most average saloon cars, but has a 4.00 ltr engine for a marginally larger occupier of the road with a 2.4 ltr engine.

Jet has been plodding the streets of BP looking at cars in drives of big houses.  I have had a quick look around the car parks here from the lofty height of my little Jeep (2wd or 4x4 - takes your choice).  Most 4x4 are no longer than your average saloon, are marginally wider - certainly are taller.  Even the mighty Toyota Land Cruiser is not very long.  The exceptions, of course, are the mighty big American 4x4 - doubt you see too many of them around BP anyway.

Happy motoring folks.

Mary

PS to Margaret - I would not give a tinker's .... if my neighbour owned a lorry and parked it outside his house - I would if he blocked my drive, but most lorry drivers are considerate.    Lorry drivers, like the rest of us, have to earn a living and who am I to stand in the way of it.  
 

Offline jet

  • Opinions on everything
  • *****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Gender: Male
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2004, 01:55:27 pm »
Dear MM,

I trust its the "Grand" version ( native American P.C.)
Hope you enjoy it.

As for Builders lorries etc, anyone who has to put up with "drivers" changing vehicles in the early hours every day like Margaret has to, would have a different opinion.
regards,
jet

Who is grinning like a Cheshire Cat ( horrific sight) as he has just broken his Sea Angling clubs record catch that has stood for over 50 years. Every fish went back unharmed and released untouched in the water. Unlike our EU cousins who would have ate the lot alive.
 

AgentOrange

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2004, 03:07:45 pm »
So the issue is the consideration or lack thereof by other drivers!
With regards to the EU point, this is a mindless piece of stereotyping, short on fact and long on rhetoric. Trying to stick to the thread also helps. 8)
 

Offline trinity

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #67 on: February 16, 2004, 11:23:35 pm »
Quote

Who is grinning like a Cheshire Cat ( horrific sight) as he has just broken his Sea Angling clubs record catch that has stood for over 50 years. Every fish went back unharmed and released untouched in the water. Unlike our EU cousins who would have ate the lot alive.


Hmmm. Whilst this is no doubt a feat of great skill, I must admit to a certain degree of disbelief at the implied compatibility of "caught by an angler" and "unharmed".
 

Offline jet

  • Opinions on everything
  • *****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Gender: Male
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #68 on: February 17, 2004, 01:21:37 am »
Dear Trinity,
No skil just right place right time, the fish were caught using barbless hooks which come out as the fish surfaces. They have no swim bladders and are able to cope with depth changes. One fish known as " old spotty" identifiable by spots on its head has been caught several times. A pollack I caught was instantly dispatched and tasted very nice thank you.
As for cruelty everyone here that has had cod and chips is eating a fish that was gutted alive.
It has a lot to do with the Eu as common fishing policy has resulted in uncontrolled pillaging of our rescources ie fish stocks by foreign vessels intent on destroying our fish now they have destroyed their own.
Anglers are the only pressure group attempting by their own donations to preserve fish stocks. They also try to prevent pollution of the sea.
Believe me no one else cares.
Sorry I mentioned it, but at least its led to a tiny bit of education perhaps.
regards,
jet

 

Offline trinity

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #69 on: February 17, 2004, 01:49:46 am »
Quote

Believe me no one else cares.
Sorry I mentioned it, but at least its led to a tiny bit of education perhaps.


Not at all. It was an informative response (I've never "fished for
sport", only to eat).

And "adaptable yuk-factor" phenonmena (such as your
cod-and-chips) are something with which I'm familiar and
which I find distasteful. You did, though, leave an irresistible
opening their to pull your leg...

Anyway, I can be grumpy about the EU, too :-)
 

Offline jet

  • Opinions on everything
  • *****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Gender: Male
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #70 on: February 17, 2004, 02:10:47 am »
Its also interesting that the RSPCA finds game and sea angling acceptable as the fish can be eaten, but coarse fishing is unaceptable because they are returned alive and generaly well.
Funny old world, and no one cares about the poor old Lobster and cockle etc being boiled alive.
Baffles, yours truly,
regards,
jet

Now hows that for diversifying a topic.
 

Offline trinity

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2004, 03:02:28 am »
Quote

Now hows that for diversifying a topic.


I believe the technical term is "thread drift".
 

Offline Margaret

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #72 on: February 17, 2004, 11:58:01 am »
Mary, you must be unique in not minding a lorry parked outside your house, I say your house presuming that you live in an average sized house whereby a lorry would definitely overlap onto your land. Most lorry drivers are considerate as are most other drivers but what if you get the one who isn't considerate. Like the **** who runs his ***** business from his residential home involving lots of large vans. Lorry drivers drive long distances usually which means rising early and lorry's are not exactly quite vehicles especially when being started and they must reverse at some time which then sets up a lovely beeping noise to warn everybody that is what they are doing. I suspect you would not like having a lorry constantly parked outside your neighbours house especially if you were there for a large part of each day.
 

AgentOrange

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #73 on: February 29, 2004, 11:51:15 am »
With regard to the 'usefulness' of 4X4s, all I have to add at this point is: 2 days! ;D
 

Offline jet

  • Opinions on everything
  • *****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Gender: Male
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #74 on: February 29, 2004, 02:12:21 pm »
I can only say that the old rear wheeled heap has had no trouble at all this winter ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
regards,
jet
 

Mary_Morgan

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2004, 11:19:51 pm »
Found something on Aunty Beeb today that Ken Livingston does not like 4x4s.  If I knew how to do it, I would provide a link.

I have never driven a 4x4 in London, but am now convinced that I will never come back to live in the UK if we have idiots like KL telling us what we can and cannot do or drive.  

Yours hopefully awaiting delivery of new Jeep Cherokee to be driven most of the time in 2 wheel drive (aka as an ordinary car) (taking up less space on the road than  most family cars)), and in 4x4 if I get the urge to drive up a sand dune!!

Bye for now
Mary
She who would really prefer to have a 60s Stingray or Camaro/Mustang, which take up yards of space and even more fuel, but is essentialy practical, so will stick to a modern 2xwheel/4x4  

« Last Edit: May 23, 2004, 11:40:34 pm by Mary_Morgan »
 

Offline Margaret

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #76 on: May 24, 2004, 12:01:54 pm »
You say in your post Mary that Ken Livingston doesn't like 4x4's. Do you mean that he doesn't like people to drive them in London, as the two things are not the same. I don't like people driving them in BP but I don't dislike 4x4's.Or does he just not like them, a personal choice.
 

John_fraser

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2004, 04:08:38 pm »
Ken brands 4x4 drivers 'idiotic'


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3739495.stm


Parents who drive their children to school in huge 4x4 vehicles have been branded "idiots" by London's mayor Ken Livingstone.
"When you see someone trying to manoeuvre it round the school gates, you have to think, you are a complete idiot," he said in a GMTV interview.

Such cars had no place in the city and were largely a status symbol for people with too much money, he added.

The Labour mayoral candidate described the vehicles as "totally unnecessary".

Rugged terrain

But Mr Livingstone did not suggest there was no place for such vehicles.

"When I see a farmer, going over rugged terrain in their four-wheel drive, I think that's a reasonable decision to have been made."

"These are not cars which people should be using in London," he added.

He suggested the money would be better spent on a holiday, in the interview broadcast on GMTV Sunday.

 

Offline Margaret

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2004, 06:19:49 pm »
Gosh this is a new experience for me! I agree with Ken Livingstone!!!!!!!!!
 

AgentOrange

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #79 on: May 24, 2004, 08:13:06 pm »
Here we go again!

It is not clear as to what Ken's grounds for his objections are: engine size? vehicle size? the transmission system? Or some combination of these. There are hundred of thousands of vehicles that would fall foul of any single criteria on which 4X4 vehicles have been singled out, yet they are strangely not mentioned. Its just another easy target by a reactionary populist (and thats a Guardian description!).

The fact is that choices where there is a high degree of discretion ultimately fall back on individual values and guess what, the people who drive 4X4s in London have different values from Ken.

George Bernard Shaw said:' Do not do unto others as you would be done by: your tastes may be different.' In this case true.

The BBC article referred to a previous one about extra taxation on 4X4s: well I already pay the maximum road fund licence and I estimate I have already purchased at least 3 extra nurses since I acquired a 4X4. Or was it 1 extra GP? Or a day for 2 soldiers in Iraq? Who was going to pay for them otherwise?

Its like Yes Minister and smoking: smokers kept the NHS going by paying a fortune in tax but alas dying early. There we are: its a complex life.

If Ken decides to tax 4X4s via the congestion charge then I can see a day in the distant future where London ends up like New York in the 1970's: bust, with a high tax / high spend economy and no one prepared to stay in London to pay the taxes....

Again it all boils down to a clash of values: and we all remember Ken's values as head of the GLC.. Give him time..
« Last Edit: May 24, 2004, 08:13:52 pm by AgentOrange »
 

Mary_Morgan

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #80 on: May 24, 2004, 11:32:44 pm »
Firstly, Margaret I didn't mean anything by saying Red Ken dont like 4x4s.  I was just so amused by his ridiculous statement that I felt the urge to refer to it, but without the knowledge as to how to do the link.   Thanks JF for doing the link. The conent of the link from that to the article about extra taxes for 4x4s was even more ridiculous.

I find this whole anti 4x4 totally hilarious. ;D  I have no doubt there are people who buy 4x4s as status symbols (I think we should feel sad for them  :(), but the generalisation of Red K and some people on this site is absolutely comical.  

No one knows why a person chooses to buy whatever car they choose.  I am not, but I could be a person with a 4x4 dropping off kids at school during the week and using it at weekends to visit my caravan on the wilds of Dartmoor or some similar place up a five mile dirt track.  Am I supposed to buy two cars to appease Red Ken and others.  Is the suggestion that I drive a 4x4 so I must be rich enough to buy a second car, so I can drive that in London or BP.   What a load of tosh - I would then be accused of something else for the cheek of being one person having two cars.

Agent Orange, you are far more eloquent on this subject than I am, so I will leave it to you.  Having now revived it for a bit of a giggle I am getting bored again.

Regards
Mary



 

Offline Reginald

  • Opinions on some things
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Gender: Male
  • Gunners fan
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #81 on: May 25, 2004, 02:32:20 pm »
Look who else drives a 4x4!

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3743623.stm

Off with the heads of all ye against them!
 

John_fraser

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #82 on: May 25, 2004, 04:30:42 pm »
Quote
I am not, but I could be a person with a 4x4 dropping off kids at school during the week and using it at weekends to visit my caravan on the wilds of Dartmoor or some similar place up a five mile dirt track.
But, as you say, you are not. Nor is almost any driver or owner of these oversized status symbols. Very few of these cars get further off road than the end of the owner’s drive. And if ever they were taken off road, almost none of the drivers have the skills required to drive them off road safely or effectively.

Quote
it is not clear as to what Ken's grounds for his objections are: engine size? vehicle size? the transmission system? Or some combination of these. There are hundred of thousands of vehicles that would fall foul of any single criteria on which 4X4 vehicles have been singled out

true, but 4x4s fall foul of all of the criteria, not just one. And then add a few more. Uniquely among domestic verticals, they block the view of the road for any following drivers in “normal” cars. This is extremely frustrating as well as dangerous. Lorries, vans and busses at least require their size in order to function. Domestic cars do not. With a normal car, when pedestrians are hit they are knocked over the bonnet, which is dab enough. With a 4x4, the pedestrian normally goes under the car. Taller 4x4s such as Range Rovers, have a high centre of gravity and have been know to “tumble” over the central crash barrier of motorways during crashes.

 

AgentOrange

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #83 on: May 26, 2004, 12:46:15 am »
Oh dear, tangled arguements again!

John, I agree about the skills side, but there is more than a hint of the green eyed yellow idol about your comments. Oversized status symbols? Cars have a unique place in the British psyche, so is it no more than a case of jealousy?

Your arguement about 4X4s falling foul of the 3 minimal criteria I suggested is fallacious. There are many of these vehicles on the road (and a good few on fields) (oops and no comments about the appalling state of Hertfordshire's roads - I know - a tracked vehicle would sometimes be better) with fuel consumptions less than that of an estate car or a sports car. Some are not even 4X4s, they just look like them.

Engine size? Look at the cars in BP. SOme 4X4s look like models of modesty in comparison!

And picking on a vehicle becasue of its transmission system? Get a life! Or argue with an engineer (like me).

And actually given 2 kids, wife, the car seats the kids need and the clobber for even a holiday, I do need this size vehicle.

As for vehicle size, if you can't see past the vehicle in front, check your Highway Code - you are driving too close to the vehicle in front and thats all there is to it. Drop back and save your self from an accident.

Your points about pedestrian safety are not entirely correct either. Whether you go under or over a vehicle as a pedestrian is to a large extent irrelevant. Whether you have your head broken by a wheel or by the bonnet or your throat cut by the windscreen you went though - you are dead anyway. SPEED is the most important factor in pedestrians surving an impact with a vehicle. So vehicle type is a red herring.

Also given the large numbers of lorries and delivery vehicles present on the roads, complaining about 4X4s on these grounds, no matter what angle you take, is simply not a substantial arguement.

No, the whole thing smacks of the politics of envy, that most terrible of British diseases. No factual basis, incomplete arguments and grandstanding by politicians..where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him the most?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2004, 12:47:26 am by AgentOrange »
 

John_fraser

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #84 on: May 26, 2004, 01:56:14 am »
I have no envy of a 4x4. I could afford one, but I really don’t like them. Still if people couldn’t accuse others of envy and being PC I don’t think there would be any debate left in this country.

If you drove a normal car you would understand my comments about the way they block the view of the road ahead. There is little difference between being stuck behind one of these and being stuck behind a lorry – except that a lorry is easier to over take.

I do realise that not all of these oversized Tonka Toys are 4WD, but I use the term – as do most people – to cover this class of over sized car. There other fuel guzzlers with smaller road foot prints, but that doesn’t make these steroid enhanced monsters any better. Nor does it make them any safer. While speed is key, going under the car – especially one which weighs as much as a small truck – is always going to reduce your odds. Nor should it be forgotten that many of these “cars” have bull bars on the front, which reduce the pedestrian’s odds even further.  I could also add that a normal car hitting one of these things has no chance: Their “improved safety” being bought at the cost of other road users.

You may need the space, or you may not need the space. Parkinson’s Law – or the appropriate variant - applies.
 

AgentOrange

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #85 on: May 26, 2004, 10:48:56 am »
I drove what you describe as a normal car for many years and had no problem with 4X4s. It still remains you are driving too close to the vehicle in front then. The Highway Code clearly states ( and the Police Driving Manual) that you should drop back to obtain a clear view of the road before overtaking in order to obtain a better view of the road. If the vehicle in front is obstructing your view to that extent you are tailgating - very dangerous.

The term gas guzzlig monsters? Again, the facts are that other cars have the same fuel consumption issues but irraionality seems to rule. If you drive a 4X4 with a big engine, problem: a so called ordinary car, no problem. Big ordinary car, no problem, 4X4 problem. Logic has been distorted by being wrapped round what after all is a matter of choice, which in the case of vehicles, a large amount of individual bias applies.

With regard to the safety point, bull bars are a danger, but they are not under the vehicle, are they? Its speed that kills pedestrians.

Parkinsons law? Piddle. I tried to take my family to the Lake District a few years ago and had to leave half of what we needed behind an then got stuck in a snow drift. For me it was and is an entirely logical choice.

At then end of the day its about the choices we make. We all make different ones: there is no right choice that universally applies. So grind an axe with some facts, not your biases!
 

Offline Margaret

  • Opinions on many things
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #86 on: May 26, 2004, 11:15:15 am »
I am somewhat surprised at the use of the word 'envy' which keeps coming up in this deabate. Just because you dislike a particular car 'being used' on quiet 'village' roads, doesn't mean you dislike the car or are filled with envy. The residential roads of Brookmans Park and the overfilled roads of London are not the place for 4x4's. They are too big as are most lorries and vans, that is why most towns try and have by-passes built to stop all these big heavy vehicles damaging the roads and polluting the air. Introducing large numbers of 4 x4's or similar vehicles to small villages etc. is detremential to the welfare of the village.
As to your remarks Agent Orange about needing extra big cars to take your children and all the needs on holiday. I have three children and we managed to fit everything in including their bikes and sheets etc., as when my children were young we had to take such things when renting cottages etc., we managed this by buying an estate car, or just trimming everything down, after all how many of us go on holiday with far too many things.
The whole point of this debate is not the people who buy 4 x 4's to use them off road and in bad weather (not something we have in this country very often) like farmers etc. but the people who drive them as 'status symbols' and have no idea how to handle them which is proved frequently just by watching them drive. As to your remarks about having to buy two cars, how many people do you know who drives a 4 x 4 or similar who doesn't have access to at least one more car?
 

John_fraser

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2004, 12:30:08 am »
I am not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting me in order to win a debate. I hope you are, because if you are not I am worried about your standard of driving. Cars of any kind do not become invisible by dropping back. No matter how far back you go, the break lights and indicators of the car in front of the 4x4 will not miraculously taken on the ability to tunnel through the car and become visible. It is very good driving practice to look at more than the car in front of you. But this good practice is denied to others by 4x4s. Ironically, 4x4 drivers wax lyrical about the improved visibility they gain while being ignorant of, or willfully ignoring, the cost to others.

I never really thought bull bars went under the car, although they would have as much point under the car as sticking out the front. I suspect you understood my point, but incase it wasn’t clear: Bull bars are predominantly, or even exclusively, on 4x4 style cars. They add increased danger to pedestrians and increase the risk of serious injury.

The key word here is “risk”. Speed kills. It kills pedestrians and drivers and passengers. But it isn’t a simple black and white event. At 20mph a pedestrian has a 90% chance of escaping, but 10% are still seriously injured or killed. At 40mph there is a 90% chance of seriously injured or death, but 10% still escape. It’s all about odds. Being hit by a car that pushes you down and ends up on top of you results in a higher probability of death – regardless of speed.

Likewise car collisions are more likely to result in death when a small car hits a big car, but only for the people in the small car. The improved safety 4x4 drivers harp on about is again bought at the cost of lower safety for other road uses. Yes it’s all about choice, but choice is exercised at the expense of others.
I’m sure the extra room in a 4x4 would be handy, but do they actually have any? In this thread the drivers of 4x4s seem to claim that they don’t take up any more room on the road – so I’m not sure where they fit the extra space in. Parkinson’s Law is probably the most rigid non-physical law I have ever known. You will always fill the space you have when going on holiday. Like Margaret, I don’t have problems with needing a bigger car for holidays, nor did my parents when I was a child. Perhaps you should have left out the stuff you didn’t need instead of half the stuff you did.

I can’t recall anyone saying that big wasteful inefficient cars were acceptable, provided they weren’t 4x4s. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps someone would like to point it out. For the record, I personally don’t like big wasteful cars of any type. To be honest, I don’t really like cars that much at all, as I see them as tool – and one we are being forced to use due to the shambolic state of public transport and the drive to out of town supermarkets. But this thread is about 4x4s

I agree with Margaret. 4x4s have their place, just as large lorries do, but it is not on the roads of a city like London or a village like BP.
 

Offline eric

  • Opinions on some things
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2004, 11:33:52 am »
If large lorries "don't have their place ... in London or a village like BP ..."  how precisely (with all the economy and convenience we demand) are our shops going to get stocked with food  ?  clothing ?  furniture moved in to our new houses/ extensions ?  (and the rubbish taken away/ fly-tipped ?) - - -

' My lorry good - your lorry bad ' ?
 

John_fraser

  • Guest
Re: 4X4: To be or not to be
« Reply #89 on: May 27, 2004, 01:42:30 pm »
40ton lorries don't normally deliver to shops. They are usually used to transport between distribution depots, factories, ports etc.
 

Tags: