cleanimage Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 They are thinking of increasing the congestion charge for large 4x4s and suvs. I was going to post a poll asking if you think they should ban them from cities and towns altogether... but I'm not from the cities and towns, I live a bit further out in the country where we have narrow roads which are blighted by 4x4s. So many times, I have been on a narrow road only just wide enough to accomodate a 4x4 and another vehicle comming in the opposite direction, and seen one of these shiny offroad vehicles swerve out into the middle of the road to avoid a puddle. Shotguns! (not Shoguns) You need them in the country, but you have to prove you need one and get issued a licence. I propose you should have to do the same with large SUVs. I think you should have to do a special off-road driving test too. You should have to get an SUV licence the same as you need an HGV licence. Anyone agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_m Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Its a difficult one, and IMHO it would never happen, although a lot of us hate them, itss all down to personal choice and believe it or not, most people CHOOSE (confused smiley) to drive these monsters! I agree they can be a nightmare, especially when blocking the roads in the morning, dropping little tarquin off at school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loddrik Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 3.0d Sport X5's are superb cars though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 My thoughts on SUV 4X4 offroad things are well documented, click the link to read. I'm not getting into this one again...!! ;-D Why I hate 4X4 Offroad vehicles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustynuts Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 A. S. Some people would choose to own a Shotgun also, yet this is regulated. There has to be a need to have one, and special arrangements made for storage of both weapon and ammunition, and also a license. Is this correct? It's now someone elses decision as to whether I'm allowed to have a shotgun. Why not the same issue with a Shogun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspencex Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 If were on about banning them because of size...well while we're at it lets get rid of E class estates...oh and the new 300C estate and why not the 5 Series estates.. they all take up similar space if not more.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belchy Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] A. S. Some people would choose to own a Shotgun also, yet this is regulated. There has to be a need to have one, and special arrangements made for storage of both weapon and ammunition, and also a license. Is this correct? It's now someone elses decision as to whether I'm allowed to have a shotgun. Why not the same issue with a Shogun? [/ QUOTE ] here we go again ... Some people might also say "Why should you be allowed to drive anything but a very economical car?" I really can't get my head around people arguing against these vehicles, whilst at the same time being an active member of a forum dedicated to PERFORMANCE VEHICLES If we let some twat dictate what vehicle we drive, then before long they will whittle away at all of us and we will all end up driving Toyotas! How boring would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustynuts Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 And all eminently suited to the job of driving on the hard stuff. However, take them off road, and what do they become? It's the same with SUV's being driven on road. Just not suitable for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belchy Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] And all eminently suited to the job of driving on the hard stuff. However take them off road, and what do they become? It's the same with SUV's being driven on road. Just not suitable for the job. [/ QUOTE ] In your opinion. Others would say that they are no less suitable than a vintage car with drum brakes ... are they to be banned too?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleanimage Posted February 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] My thoughts on SUV 4X4 offroad things are well documented, click the link to read. I'm not getting into this one again...!! ;-D Why I hate 4X4 Offroad vehicles [/ QUOTE ] I had a read through that thread, it was very interesting and I agree with your sentiments. (I can also blow some of the arguments about fuel efficiency out of the window, having had some experience with tuning Derv powered vehicles and measurinf fuel consumption. Maybe on a test track at constant cruising speed these 4x4s are as efficient as a family saloon, but once you are pottering around town or hammering it along the motorway the story changes dramatically). The issue is, do I have an argument for the control of SUVs? I'd say that 3 ton+ traveling at 30mph+ is as leathal as a gun and harder to control. Maybe they should have similar restrictions as firearms? You will rarely see an old mini in the states as we were not allowd to sell them there because they were too small for their safety laws... I say one of those new Hummers last week (in Galleywood, on it's way into Stock Village between Chelmsford and Billericay for those Essex members reading this) This thing took up one and a half lanes of traffic, making it a public meanace. If the yanks can ban minis, why can't we ban Hummers? Why not new traffic signs banning SUV's from narrow roads (farm vehicles only). This thread is about solutions, not the problem, so feel free to join in Ari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_m Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 yes you are right, shotguns are a licensed item, I was just saying I doubt it would happen that Shoguns etc will be licensed as it would cause mass arguements and it could then be argued that you need to prove you need so much BHP in your sports car etc (not trying to argue smiley!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleanimage Posted February 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 As a lover of old cars, I'd be happy to submit to a special driving test... maybe just the advanced triving test already available. (although, driving old cars tends to make you a better driver anyway, because you need to be.) So yes, by all means, restrict classics too. Just don't use it as an exuse to raise extra tax revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspencex Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 I agree about these American SUV's..they really do take the piss...but most of the SUV's we see driving round the UK are not 3 tonne guided missiles.. Also its not what you drive its how you drive that causes problems in '30mph' zones.. its the Chav in a nova doing 45 mph that worries me not the Range Rover cruising at 30..I see the person as the dangerous link not the car in most cases.. As they say.. its not guns that kill...its bullets.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] its the Chav in a nova doing 45 mph that worries me not the Range Rover cruising at 30 [/ QUOTE ] Sometime its completely the opposite. There are several areas near me where there are loads of speed bumps (because of schools etc), the average car (chav included) cannot do more that about 15mph, without ruining their car, yet i reguarly see 4x4s flying over the speed bumps. Now the bumps have been put there to slow things down, and IMO the only cars that can speed over them, are the worst possible vehicles to be speeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustynuts Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Now the bumps have been put there to slow things down, and IMO the only cars that can speed over them, are the worst possible vehicles to be speeding. [/ QUOTE ] True. Performance cars are not fast cars, they are cars designed to perform. This includes cornering, braking, handling and acceleration alongside speed. 4 X 4, SUV's etc are designed to go over rough terrain, but also do a damn fine job of going over pavement kerbs, mini roundabouts, pedestrians, and the rear end of the car in front, because they're designed to do just that. That doesn't mean they're safe, just that the driver inside it is in a safer environment. My brother bought a Kia SUV last year, supposedly for towing the caravan to France once a year. He was out in it the other day in the snow, with 4 wheel drive and all the bits engaged, and was skidding all over the road. Not really very suitable for that even! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] I really can't get my head around people arguing against these vehicles, whilst at the same time being an active member of a forum dedicated to PERFORMANCE VEHICLES If we let some twat dictate what vehicle we drive, then before long they will whittle away at all of us and we will all end up driving Toyotas! How boring would that be? [/ QUOTE ] BECAUSE OFFROAD 4X4 VEHILCES LIKE SHOGUNS USED IN THE MANNER OF NORMAL CARS ARE DANGEROUS!!! What part of that do you not get? They are dangerous to other road users! A vehicle like a Shogun or Land Cruiser cannot stop or swerve anything like as well as a normal saloon car and will do way way more damage to whatever it runs into (or more likely over) due not just to its massive weight but its construction (ladder chassis etc) and height. To suggest that we shouldn't be complaining about them on a performance car site is bizarre, a performance car is typically much safer at the same speed than a normal car due to vastly superior brakes, tyres, suspension etc. Of course a performance car can be driven in a dangerous manner, so can any car, but it isn't more dangerous driven at the same speed, its safer. A 4X4 is not. There is no problem with a 4X4 if it is driven sympathetically to its capabilities, the problem comes when these things are bought (and indeed marketed) as alternatives to executive saloons and then driven in exactly the same way as a saloon despite woeful comparative dynamics. I've said all this over and over in the other thread, if anyone needs further clarification then please, go have a browse through that thread, I've written an awful lot more on the subject there and I don't really wish to repeat it all here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspencex Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Your right a lot has been said against them...and all valid points.. I wonder what it would take to make these 4WD's safer?... Better brakes.. More secure handling.. And better drivers more aware of the vehicles limitations..So in the same way as people are offered performance driving days maybe these same style of courses should be run for new 4WD owners.. Engineering 4WD's for the road and making them as efficient as road cars isn't that difficult either...just takes money and the manufacturer no doubt would pass this extra cost onto the consumer.. The most importnat factor coming out of this argument is more the inadequcies of drivers that do not understand the limitations of their vehicle.. Someone mentioned training...all for it..for vehicles over 2.5 tonnes...Ever seen a Mercedes Sprinter Van in the outside lane doing 90 mph?... I wonder if there should be brake tests as well as crash test for new cars and 4WD's.. If they don't make the cut, they don't get sold.... that would stop American SUV's coming over here and force the motor manufacturers to improve the dynamics of 4WD's, I'm sure a few 4WD's would fail the 'Elk test'.. Well at least old 4WD's. But most of these new ones would pass them. Having driven a fair few Old and new 4WD's things have changed in a big way.. Had a 1983 Land Cruiser Imported from Saudi Arabia.. Big Heavy and thursty...Ari's nightmare...Drum Brakes the works..but of course I didn't drive it like I stole it I drove it knowing its shortcomings.. Then had a 1991 Land cruiser..discs allround...Much better faster and handled actually very well.. I drove that in a very spirited way in the desert and the road.. I'm pretty sure it would not flip on the road... And more reciently I rented a New Amazon 4.5 ltr and it drove better than the previous rental car I had.. Things are no doubt moving in the right direction as far as 4WD's becoming safer...but more to do Just the frontal impact issues to overcome I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Indeed. And manufacturers are waking up to the fact that the people buying these generally have zero intention of going offroad and are in reality only buying them presumably to make up for certain other shortcomings in their physical attributes. As a result we're starting to see vehilces like the BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne which have superb on road dynamics. There is stilll the issue of impact damage, but I feel a lot happier with an X5 behind me on the motorway than I do with a Shogun behind me. At least in an emergancy the X5 is likely to be able to shed speed as fast as I can rather than ride straight over me as I comprehensively outbrake it like the Shogun would. In the other thread I came up with my solution to the issue, I'll reprint it here for the record. [ QUOTE ] I don't think they should be banned. Driven properly they are ok, and in certain circumstances (our rural vet, the farmer) they're essential. They also make great tow vehicles for everything from horse boxes to boats. The problems only really start when people buy them as an alternative to executive cars then fling them up and down the motorway exactly as though they were executive cars as they do not perform as well either in an acident or at avoiding the accident. So it seems to me that there needs to be a way that people who have a genuine need or desire can still buy them, but those who are buying (and using) them for the wrong reasons are discouraged. So here is my plan. Get an ordinary large car, a Vauxhall Omega for example, nothing special. Do a series of tests to establish performance suych as braking distances, ability to swerve at speed, amount of damage caused to other vehicles in an accident etc. Then, test all the 4X4's. Anything that comes within 10% of the benchmark, fine, no restriction. So "intelligent 4X4's like BMW X5's are fine. Anything that proves far worse (bad stopping distances, major impact damage over and above the car etc) is still sold without restriction, but is plated as 60mph max, and banned from the outside lane of motorways. Vets, farmers, horsebox towers, will have no problem with this, but Mr. Managing Director who wants to fly up and down motorways will be put off by the performance restrictions and will be more inclined to purchase a more suitable vehicle. And manufacturers will be encouraged to build 4X4's that are safer for the rest of us to be around. No one is restriced from selling or buying anything, no freedom of choice is affected. Problem solved! [/ QUOTE ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belchy Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Ari .. do you ever break the speed limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackjack Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 I say ban them they are a danger to other road users and a danger to the kids they are supposed to be protecting. One real bug bear for me as someone who lives just beyond the suburbs of London is that the roads near me are full of the f*ckers. At night you could be driving home on a dark road and suddenly you're blinded by the lights from one of these pointlessly high vehicles reflecting off the mirrors. How safe is it to drive a vehicle that consumes lots of fuel in city driving and therefore spews more fumes in to the already polluted cities? Is it any wonder more kids have athsma than ever before when ever more large polluting 4*4s are used poinlessly on city roads. Sporty they aint, utilitarian they aint either, I'd like to seem them avaiable soley on licence. If you have lots of kids, buy an Espace, its safer and roomier but less poluting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belchy Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] are in reality only buying them presumably to make up for certain other shortcomings in their physical attributes. [/ QUOTE ] ... lets hope this doesnt apply to middle aged men driving around in cabriolets <beersmiley> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Ari .. do you ever break the speed limit? [/ QUOTE ] When its safe to do so. Back to the same point I'm afraid, you can chose how to drive a car, you cannot alter your cars dynamics. Frankly I have no problem with a SUV breaking the speed limit where it is safe to do so. A Shogun doing 80mph on a completely empty straight motorway in the dry is no danger to anybody. The difference comes when the motorway is busy and the Shogun is still doing 70mph in close promimity to other vehicles. Next time you are on the motorway look at how close the average car is to the car in front of it and how fast it is going. Then look at how close the average Discovery is to the car in front and how fast it is going. Spot the difference? Me neither but the guy with that Discovery behind will certainly know the difference if he has to hit the brakes hard. Breifly anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] are in reality only buying them presumably to make up for certain other shortcomings in their physical attributes. [/ QUOTE ] ... lets hope this doesnt apply to middle aged men driving around in cabriolets <beersmiley> [/ QUOTE ] What is the advantage of a Cabriolet over a normal saloon? The ability to drop the roof. I drive a cabriolet because I enjoy the ability to drop the roof, not because it is a style statement. I drive with the roof down often. That is why I chose a cabriolet. What is the advantage of a Discovery over a normal saloon? The ability to go offroad. How many Discovery drivers enjoy and utilise that ability? Virtually none. So I choose my car based on what it will do. They're not, the vast majority are buying theirs purely for "image". Also, my choice of vehicle is not potentially inflicting significently more danger on road users around me compared to a normal car. Theirs is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 [ QUOTE ] ... lets hope this doesnt apply to middle aged men driving around in cabriolets <beersmiley> [/ QUOTE ] And by the way, what makes you think I'm middle aged...?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belchy Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 I am very honoured to be in the company of someone who has the special ability to single handedly(sp)decide what is safe ... Especially when the rules set to be broken by this special ability are set by those elected in a democracy for the safety of others. What an excellent world you must percieve yourself to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now