Say "YES" to 4x4 tax

[Tina3]

I dont know about statistics as regards emissions and enviroment concerns,but surely we all agree there are some "normal"older cars out there chucking out pollutant more readily than a newer 4x4,as for safety again dont know the statistics,but bieng in the ambo service I regularly attentd rta's,out of every 10 I'd say two involve two or more cars colliding,usually low speed with minor injs,regardless of make,the other 8 are solo cars, whatever,usually fatal,leaving the road,hitting lamposts etc etc... the cause............. SPEED,RECKLESSNESSAND DRIVER ERROR !!And I dont wish to stir up a hornets nest but have never been to one of these that involved 4x4 !! (thats in 12 years)

Ive said once and say again a car wheter its a micra to a big range rover can only ever be as safe as the person behind the wheel,A robin reliant can be lethal in the wrong hand s!!!

 

[GrahamW]

Tina

Does this also mean you have never had to attend an RTA involving a Child and a 4x4, because if I remember correctly we 4x4 drivers have been accused of indiscriminatley mowing down small children???

 

[Lutz]

I'm sure the so-called antis don't care whether it's 2 wheel drive, 4 wheel drive, car or trucklike design, their argument is basically an attack on the need for extra energy (fuel) needed to move unnecessary deadweight and the consequent pollution caused by burning the extra fuel. Their criticism is surely not levelled against using such vehicles where necessary for commercial purposes, only when used privately and especially when seldom for towing or offroad.

Objectively, except in exceptional circumstances such as frequent off-road or winter use, there is absolutely no real need for a 4x4, off-road vehicle or whatever you want to call it tow a caravan. Even the largest caravans can be legally towed by a saloon car so long as the maximum permissible towload is adequate. Those who claim they need anything bigger do so because they feel safer to stay below the 85% ratio not because they have to.

Actually, contrary to what Clive says, the safety performance of big 4x4's is not, on the whole, that good. Hit a brick wall at 30mph and you'd probably find that your chances of survival are better in a modern saloon than in most big 4x4's, simply because they don't crumple very easily and don't absorb the crash energy as well. OK, if you hit a small car you'd be better off but that's a rather selfish attitude, "I'm alright, Jack, (and all my passengers), never mind the rest".

Therefore, people who tow with big 4x4's do so simply for emotive reasons, same as those who like convertibles and it's pointless to counter opinions with rational arguments.

 

[Tina3]

Graham,fingers crossed,touch wood and god forbid, NO I thankfully havent,of course I am speaking about my area and it has probably happened somewhere,but again I think survivability is down to speed at the time,you cannot pinpoint a particular vehicle,there are so many factors to consider,mobile phones,playing with the stereo,going too fast,looking in a shop window the list is endless,Dont get me wrong if I was to have a bump I would hope it would be a car of similar statue to mine,but sadly unpredictability is what keeps me in a job !!I suppose its a bit of a food chain

hit by 4x4, if it was a car would he have lived

hit by car,if it was a motorbike would he have lived

hit by motorbike,if it was pushbike and so on and so on ....

 

[Pete4]

OK, you win. 4x4 cars, off road vehicals or whatever the technical term is are fine.

I have seen the light and they have there place as much as any other car. The people who drive them are as unique as any other driver and so it is wrong to type cast them.

I drive a Kia Sedona anyway so my car is just as bad/good as 4x4 cars.

Anyway, there's a much better debate/argument flashing up in another thread about child only sites... see you there Clive?

Regards

Pete

 

[Tina3]

OK, you win. 4x4 cars, off road vehicals or whatever the technical term is are fine.

I have seen the light and they have there place as much as any other car. The people who drive them are as unique as any other driver and so it is wrong to type cast them.

I drive a Kia Sedona anyway so my car is just as bad/good as 4x4 cars.

Anyway, there's a much better debate/argument flashing up in another thread about child only sites... see you there Clive?

Regards

Pete

thats why I am on the fence,my kia is as big as some 4x4s but based around a car as regard drive etc ):

 

[Pete4]

OK, you win. 4x4 cars, off road vehicals or whatever the technical term is are fine.

I have seen the light and they have there place as much as any other car. The people who drive them are as unique as any other driver and so it is wrong to type cast them.

I drive a Kia Sedona anyway so my car is just as bad/good as 4x4 cars.

Anyway, there's a much better debate/argument flashing up in another thread about child only sites... see you there Clive?

Regards

Pete

I know, it's early days for me yet as I've only done 9,000 miles in it but so far it's great. I'm getting over 600 miles out of a 75 litre tank.

I love the relaxing ride you get out of it with the low reving engine and soft suspension etc.

 

[CliveV]

Tina

Does this also mean you have never had to attend an RTA involving a Child and a 4x4, because if I remember correctly we 4x4 drivers have been accused of indiscriminatley mowing down small children???

Careful Graham! you will be accussed of personal abuse with this kind of attitude.

Well Done!

 

[Tina3]

OK, you win. 4x4 cars, off road vehicals or whatever the technical term is are fine.

I have seen the light and they have there place as much as any other car. The people who drive them are as unique as any other driver and so it is wrong to type cast them.

I drive a Kia Sedona anyway so my car is just as bad/good as 4x4 cars.

Anyway, there's a much better debate/argument flashing up in another thread about child only sites... see you there Clive?

Regards

Pete

wlle I love mine,its the second one I've had!its not great bobbing about but get it on the motorway and it comes into its own,for the kids its great as I got the free dvd player,having three kids,the older one always bringing a friend we all get there in comfort !!And as a towcar have had no problems but my van is very light (1300)

 

[CliveV]

At last - respect for the other persons viewpoint

Thank you

Incidently if we are talking about safety issues having witnessed a fatal motorbike crash not so long ago on one of the more notorious roads round here - I was interested to hear that the A&E staff at our local Hospital call Motorcyclists "Organ Doners"

Logicaly of course, being only one wheel drive as oppossed to two, (or even four!)these vehicle should be safer with the old Reliant Robin coming somewhere inbetween.

But perhaps that stretches the logic a bit too far - so maybe we better not go there.

 

[CliveV]

I'm sure the so-called antis don't care whether it's 2 wheel drive, 4 wheel drive, car or trucklike design, their argument is basically an attack on the need for extra energy (fuel) needed to move unnecessary deadweight and the consequent pollution caused by burning the extra fuel. Their criticism is surely not levelled against using such vehicles where necessary for commercial purposes, only when used privately and especially when seldom for towing or offroad.

Objectively, except in exceptional circumstances such as frequent off-road or winter use, there is absolutely no real need for a 4x4, off-road vehicle or whatever you want to call it tow a caravan. Even the largest caravans can be legally towed by a saloon car so long as the maximum permissible towload is adequate. Those who claim they need anything bigger do so because they feel safer to stay below the 85% ratio not because they have to.

Actually, contrary to what Clive says, the safety performance of big 4x4's is not, on the whole, that good. Hit a brick wall at 30mph and you'd probably find that your chances of survival are better in a modern saloon than in most big 4x4's, simply because they don't crumple very easily and don't absorb the crash energy as well. OK, if you hit a small car you'd be better off but that's a rather selfish attitude, "I'm alright, Jack, (and all my passengers), never mind the rest".

Therefore, people who tow with big 4x4's do so simply for emotive reasons, same as those who like convertibles and it's pointless to counter opinions with rational arguments.

OK! - So I will ask you Lutz as nobody from the anti brigade has come up with an answer yet - Its that deafening silence again.

Given that I tow large loads on trailers of various types both on and off the road at all time of the year in all weathers, as well as tow a caravan, what non-4x4 tow truck would you recommend?

As for you comment about about driving my car into a brick wall at 30mph I havn't done that for at least a week.

 

[SteveW77]

At last - respect for the other persons viewpoint

Thank you

Incidently if we are talking about safety issues having witnessed a fatal motorbike crash not so long ago on one of the more notorious roads round here - I was interested to hear that the A&E staff at our local Hospital call Motorcyclists "Organ Doners"

Logicaly of course, being only one wheel drive as oppossed to two, (or even four!)these vehicle should be safer with the old Reliant Robin coming somewhere inbetween.

But perhaps that stretches the logic a bit too far - so maybe we better not go there.

Just a quick thank you to both Clive & Stinky Pete for providing us with a realy interesting debate. I would score it as a draw and call it honours even.

Steve W

 

[Daventura]

Whoa! hold on here Steve W. This debate has only just started. First of all Im sure Stinky says what he says with 'tongue in cheek' about being a 4x4 convert and agreeing with Clives pro 4x4 rantings. Secondly, well put Lutz, youve summed it up perfectly.

 

[Lutz]

I'm sure the so-called antis don't care whether it's 2 wheel drive, 4 wheel drive, car or trucklike design, their argument is basically an attack on the need for extra energy (fuel) needed to move unnecessary deadweight and the consequent pollution caused by burning the extra fuel. Their criticism is surely not levelled against using such vehicles where necessary for commercial purposes, only when used privately and especially when seldom for towing or offroad.

Objectively, except in exceptional circumstances such as frequent off-road or winter use, there is absolutely no real need for a 4x4, off-road vehicle or whatever you want to call it tow a caravan. Even the largest caravans can be legally towed by a saloon car so long as the maximum permissible towload is adequate. Those who claim they need anything bigger do so because they feel safer to stay below the 85% ratio not because they have to.

Actually, contrary to what Clive says, the safety performance of big 4x4's is not, on the whole, that good. Hit a brick wall at 30mph and you'd probably find that your chances of survival are better in a modern saloon than in most big 4x4's, simply because they don't crumple very easily and don't absorb the crash energy as well. OK, if you hit a small car you'd be better off but that's a rather selfish attitude, "I'm alright, Jack, (and all my passengers), never mind the rest".

Therefore, people who tow with big 4x4's do so simply for emotive reasons, same as those who like convertibles and it's pointless to counter opinions with rational arguments.

Any 7 Series BMW, almost all 5 Series, and any S Class Merc, a Lexus GS or LS430 may tow 2000kg and I don't know of any heavier caravans on the European market. And there are quite a number of cars with a maximum permissible towload of 1900kg. In that category you've got certain Audi A6 models, the Jaguar XJ. At 1800kg you're already talking about relatively mondane machinery such as the Mondeo, some Vectra models etc. I've avoided mentioning people carriers but there's a big selections of capable tugs to be found there, too.

As for driving into a brick wall I don't recommend anyone to try but it's nevertheless nice to know how the car would perform if such a situation or something similar like hitting an oncoming vehicle of the same type should arise.

 

[CliveV]

I'm sure the so-called antis don't care whether it's 2 wheel drive, 4 wheel drive, car or trucklike design, their argument is basically an attack on the need for extra energy (fuel) needed to move unnecessary deadweight and the consequent pollution caused by burning the extra fuel. Their criticism is surely not levelled against using such vehicles where necessary for commercial purposes, only when used privately and especially when seldom for towing or offroad.

Objectively, except in exceptional circumstances such as frequent off-road or winter use, there is absolutely no real need for a 4x4, off-road vehicle or whatever you want to call it tow a caravan. Even the largest caravans can be legally towed by a saloon car so long as the maximum permissible towload is adequate. Those who claim they need anything bigger do so because they feel safer to stay below the 85% ratio not because they have to.

Actually, contrary to what Clive says, the safety performance of big 4x4's is not, on the whole, that good. Hit a brick wall at 30mph and you'd probably find that your chances of survival are better in a modern saloon than in most big 4x4's, simply because they don't crumple very easily and don't absorb the crash energy as well. OK, if you hit a small car you'd be better off but that's a rather selfish attitude, "I'm alright, Jack, (and all my passengers), never mind the rest".

Therefore, people who tow with big 4x4's do so simply for emotive reasons, same as those who like convertibles and it's pointless to counter opinions with rational arguments.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Even with RWD a BM is no match for a Range Rover pulling a loaded horse trailer in the new forest or on wet grass.

I have assisted these saloons when stuck in muddy conditions at various gymkanas over the years when they could not get themselves out of the mud let alone pull a horse trailer as well.

Come on Lutz - get real!!

 

[CliveV]

Whoa! hold on here Steve W. This debate has only just started. First of all Im sure Stinky says what he says with 'tongue in cheek' about being a 4x4 convert and agreeing with Clives pro 4x4 rantings. Secondly, well put Lutz, youve summed it up perfectly.

Whatever...!

 

[CliveV]

The above clearly applies to Daventura as well, whose grasp of reality and communication skills is a wonder to behold.

I am reminded of a debate in the house of commons when one MP accussed another of not having the brains of an idiot. The speaker asked him to retract this comment.

This he did. Thus confirming that his fellow MP did have the brains of an idiot.

 

[CliveV]

Well said Ian

Your post reads as though you do not come from the UK

Can I ask where - if this is the case?

 

[Daventura]

Youve said this once already havent you Clive?

 

[Lutz]

I'm sure the so-called antis don't care whether it's 2 wheel drive, 4 wheel drive, car or trucklike design, their argument is basically an attack on the need for extra energy (fuel) needed to move unnecessary deadweight and the consequent pollution caused by burning the extra fuel. Their criticism is surely not levelled against using such vehicles where necessary for commercial purposes, only when used privately and especially when seldom for towing or offroad.

Objectively, except in exceptional circumstances such as frequent off-road or winter use, there is absolutely no real need for a 4x4, off-road vehicle or whatever you want to call it tow a caravan. Even the largest caravans can be legally towed by a saloon car so long as the maximum permissible towload is adequate. Those who claim they need anything bigger do so because they feel safer to stay below the 85% ratio not because they have to.

Actually, contrary to what Clive says, the safety performance of big 4x4's is not, on the whole, that good. Hit a brick wall at 30mph and you'd probably find that your chances of survival are better in a modern saloon than in most big 4x4's, simply because they don't crumple very easily and don't absorb the crash energy as well. OK, if you hit a small car you'd be better off but that's a rather selfish attitude, "I'm alright, Jack, (and all my passengers), never mind the rest".

Therefore, people who tow with big 4x4's do so simply for emotive reasons, same as those who like convertibles and it's pointless to counter opinions with rational arguments.

You're bringing another variable into the equation when you're talking about muddy conditions, Clive. Of course, if you want to cover such eventualities a saloon car will reach its limits earlier than a Range Rover or something similar but for 99% of its use it will cope quite adequately. If I were towing something really heavy without 4 wheel drive I'd just avoid using sites where I see a risk of getting stuck.

Don't knock me as I tow with a 4x4 myself but only because I like it, for no other reason and I offer no justification or excuses for the purchase. On odd occasions I have had to take advantage of its 4 wheel drive capabilities but then that was on pitches that I would not even have considered trying when towing with a saloon. In other words, 4 wheel drive is a nice-to-have feature but not really vital and I'd be just as happy towing with something else. Only in isolated incidents would I really experience any real disadvantage and I could live with such a low risk. But, like I said, I like my Monterey (although I generally only use it to tow). For everyday use I have an Agila and that's right at the other end of the scale. Of course it doesn't even have a towbar.

 

[CliveV]

Youve said this once already havent you Clive?

whosacleverboyden!!

 

[Surfer]

Well said Ian

Your post reads as though you do not come from the UK

Can I ask where - if this is the case?

South Africa and formerley Rhodesia now Zimbabwe.

 

[CliveV]

Oh crikey Stinky you really do have problems don't you!

I do not think the GNVQ or those that take it were being criticised but you clearly saw it as such. All kids are different if they are selected for GCSE's thats great. If they are selected for GNVQ's that SHOULD BE great as well.

For your children sake I hope you are not openly displaying your disapointment.

There is always a higher level - Phd vs MSc, Degree vs HNC/D. Don't get bogged down in who does what.

 

[CliveV]

You're bringing another variable into the equation when you're talking about muddy conditions, Clive. Of course, if you want to cover such eventualities a saloon car will reach its limits earlier than a Range Rover or something similar but for 99% of its use it will cope quite adequately. If I were towing something really heavy without 4 wheel drive I'd just avoid using sites where I see a risk of getting stuck.

Don't knock me as I tow with a 4x4 myself but only because I like it, for no other reason and I offer no justification or excuses for the purchase. On odd occasions I have had to take advantage of its 4 wheel drive capabilities but then that was on pitches that I would not even have considered trying when towing with a saloon. In other words, 4 wheel drive is a nice-to-have feature but not really vital and I'd be just as happy towing with something else. Only in isolated incidents would I really experience any real disadvantage and I could live with such a low risk. But, like I said, I like my Monterey (although I generally only use it to tow). For everyday use I have an Agila and that's right at the other end of the scale. Of course it doesn't even have a towbar.

Disagree Lutz - I made it quite clear what I needed the vehicle for and the conditions I encounter.

 

[CliveV]

Yep! - once again I agree with Mathew as outlined in my responce.

As far as I am aware I thought GNVQ's were a bit of a joint effort between industry and the world of academia to try to provide a more usefull qualification. I have seen absolutley NO evidence that teachers discriminate against one in favour of the other!