[Closed] Where the anti 4x4 brigade when this happens?

What's so bad about Landies......Defenders with roof mounted gimpys are useful for keeping the zombies away....any that get close can then me run under the wheels with impunity.

[img] [/img]

Starting off, better. Slowing down and cornering, no change.

Assuming you're going too fast for the conditions.

If driven properly, a 4wd will get much further than a 2wd car on the snow. Slowing down thanks to engine breaking and low range (not to mention the various electronic traction aids in more modern vehicles) is much more effective than slowing down a 2wd car in steep, slippery conditions.

There is a lot of grumpy old men posts, I have to smile. 😀

Who cares about 4x4s, next people will say having a car that does more than 70mph is shameful because the national speed limit is 70 mph...

*shakes fist angrily* boo hiss Ferrari /rage

Pretty sure all the girls & boys at Jaguar-LandRover are more than happy people buy the cars they build. By the way 4x4 will get more economical I've seen the development theories JLR are predicting (just give it 5-10 years in R&D). If they crack it expect to see more BIG cars on the road.

I've had a few 4x4s and just sold my 2004 Defender and replaced the wife's car for an X5 (I've 8 bikes and a motorbike so we all have our vices)

In the 3.5yrs, 12,000miles I lost £400 on the Defender. In a similar vain but 19'000 miles I lost £31,500 on my wife's unpractical sports car (we have 2 dogs).

Both averaged about 26mpg. The Defender was cheaper to insure and service.

The X5. Far better then the first one. Drives like a car. Changes gear at around 1200rpm and for the grunt very economical. Would I have one -NO. But then again would the Wife have 8 bikes - NO.

I'm going to replace my ageing Volvo XC70. I want a cheap ass run around. Something I can put 2 dogs in / bikes, use sod all fuel and costs £35 a year to tax. I'm looking at Citroen Nemo Multispace. All bar one of my mates is threating to disown me.

So where's the vanity?

If driven properly, a 4wd will get much further than a 2wd car on the snow. Slowing down thanks to engine breaking and low range (not to mention the various electronic traction aids in more modern vehicles) is much more effective than slowing down a 2wd car in steep, slippery conditions.

I'm intensely sceptical of this, and I am not alone. But we've done all this before on STW.

So where's the vanity?

Driving an X5 even though it does 26mpg? Does that not count?

So molgrips, I'm sure you've got a 2l tdi with dsc box. If im right, there are cheaper, more frugal cars out there. Why have you got that one? We all make choices, it's not a communist state, we're allowed to have impractical things purely because we want to.
In fact, if hitler had had his way, we'd all be driving in the same car, a sodding beetle (huzah, godwins law!)

lot of tierd people on here , i got a disco 2 cos i like it , i also have used it off road, and it tows my pikey van nicely up to scotland and back very well thanks.get over yer selfs.

I'm intensely sceptical of this, and I am not alone. But we've done all this before on STW.

Just checking: You're intensely skeptical of something you've never actually experienced?

If a 4wd with high centre of gravity heads round a snowy corner as fast as a lower slung normal car, [b]assuming grip is the same[/b], then of course the normal car stands less chance of rolling. That assumption is of course flawed as a 4wd with proper tyres will have much more grip - which I admit might lull an inexperienced driver into a false sense of security.

If however, both vehicles are trying to negotiate their way down a snowy steep twisty hill. The 4wd's ability to smoothly regulate its speed to a walking pace means it's likely to get down in a controlled manner. This is my experience of driving 4wds in such conditions. My experience of cars in such conditions is that with some luck you might get to the bottom in one piece, but you'll have spent most of your time fighting the ABS. You'll also have much less chance of avoiding anything coming the other way.

You do know the main reason 4wds have low range is for descending, rather than climbing, don't you?

the key thing to driving in snow is tyres. a 4x4 on racy low profile road tyres will get stuck before a 2wd on mud and snow tyres.

I remember driving a 2cv around in snow one year - it was great - tall narrow tyres gave great grip and they had a fairly open tread pattern

the key thing to driving in snow is tyres. a 4x4 on racy low profile road tyres will get stuck before a 2wd on mud and snow tyres.

Absolutely. But a 2wd on M+S tyres will get stuck before a 4wd on the same.

UK insurance industry figures from Churchill show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.[2] Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident.[3]

The RAC Foundation says, "You could blame some of the higher accident rate for 4x4s on size. Drivers who are new to these cars might not realise how wide they are. There is also psychology involved - if you feel more secure inside a big 4x4, you might drive with less care than you should."[2]

When accidents happen they are also significantly more damaging to other cars and pedestrians, especially children due to the greater height making it more likely to cause head injuries. But hey, as long as little Tarquin and Jemima inside are ok on the school run, and you can drive through some snow once a year, who cares?

A 4x4 is twice as likely to be involved in a fatal rollover as an ordinary car.[5]
If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed.[6]
In a side-impact collision with a 4x4, a car driver is around 4 times more likely to be killed than if they were hit by another car.[7]

When I lived the hills i quickly swapped to a Subaru Impreza with H/L ratio gear box and winter tyres after my car got stuck at the first sign of snow. Its not just snow either. Living somewhere a couple of hundred feet higher means a significant increase in light snowfalls when its raining elsewhere, frost and ice over the winter. Even passing other cars in narrow lanes is much easier without the fear of getting stuck on the verge.

Then we moved to the City and my car got some odd looks. Came in handy though the first winter, when I spent an afternoon towing cars and small trucks out of the snowed up inclines around the local hospital where the Wife works.

You're intensely skeptical of something you've never actually experienced?

Yes. I've never experienced it (directly) which is why I can't claim that it's not true. I'm just skeptical that's all. I think that unless you are off-roading or snow is deeper than about 6-8" you will manage as well in 2wd as 4wd if you have appropriate tyres. If you are skillful with the brakes that is.

So molgrips, I'm sure you've got a 2l tdi with dsc box. If im right, there are cheaper, more frugal cars out there. Why have you got that one?

I have two cars: the above mentioned TDI I got for towing purposes (I regretted the DSG afterwards as it does cost MPG, I got it because Mrs Grips is less comfortable with manuals), and the Passat bought three years before because it was the lowest emissions car available at the time (early 2006).

(Now that's not to try and claim I'm the greenest person around - I have driven a lot in the past although much less now, and of course two cars isn't great. Neither are transatlantic family visits.)

These threads always seem to end up in environmental-oneupmanship.

I (currently) work in promoting sustainable transport of one form or another, and the simple fact that all the contributors to this thread have actually considered their choices is more than most people seem to do!

So on the whole, despite some of the vehicles mentioned being stereotypically ungreen, you're all one step ahead of most of the folk I work with!

These threads always seem to end up in environmental-oneupmanship.

I prefer to think of it as pointing out a certain demographic that ruins the whole image of a particular brand:

[img] ?1[/img]

I prefer to think of it as pointing out a certain demographic that ruins the whole image of a particular brand:

But some do - so the point is indeed moot (i.e. up for discussion - I assume you meant mute?)

[url= http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/moot-point.html ]Moot/Mute. [/url]

So, pro 4x4ers - never mind environmental issues, are you happy about the increased likelihood of being at fault in an accident, killing other drivers, and pedestrians, especially children? Or does it not apply to you because you're special?

Grum, would a 4x4 driver also be less likely to be injured or killed themselves in an accident than a non 4x4 driver. ?

If so then it seems sensible.

EDIT- correct auto spellcheck.

You say sensible, I say incredibly selfish and anti-social. 'I'm all right Jack'.

I'm not sure that many drivers of ordinary cars die when they run over children either tbh.

Grim, would a 4x4 driver also be less likely to be injured or killed themselves in an accident than a non 4x4 driver. ?

I'd say that depends. If you hit another car, maybe you'd be less likely. However there's more to it than that. You might hit a lorry, in which case you'd be worse off (more energy); you might be knocked into a stationary object, which would again be worse; then there's the issue of being less able to avoid an accident due to size and worse handling (in most cases).

I saw a list of road deaths in the USA sorted by model of car adjusted for mileage - there was no correlation between size and number of deaths.

There seem to be differences of opinion though.

I know it's the daily mail, but TRL did the research.

[url] http://www.****/news/article-517515/Forget-reputation--4x4-drivers-SAFESTon-road-report-claims.html [/url]

I think this study is from the Mail too, but the stats are from Churchill - says the opposite

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1585016/Safe-bet-for-a-bump.html

As I said

There seem to be differences of opinion

😉

I think that unless you are off-roading or snow is deeper than about 6-8" you will manage as well in 2wd as 4wd if you have appropriate tyres. [u]If you are skillful with the brakes that is.[/u]

But if you're not, you're more likely to have an accident through losing control.

So, pro 4x4ers - never mind environmental issues, are you happy about the increased likelihood of being at fault in an accident, killing other drivers, and pedestrians, especially children? Or does it not apply to you because you're special?

Well, as statistically (according to insurance companies) anyone male is more likely to have an accident than anyone female, most of us had better stop now eh? Or perhaps only women should be allowed to drive 4wds to equalise the risk?

You say sensible, I say incredibly selfish and anti-social. 'I'm all right Jack'.

Depends where you live I guess. If you don't drive in towns much, you'd be much less likely to kill a child if you drive a tank on a daily basis than someone who drives a prius past a school every day.

Even the one you linked though says

the study showed pedestrians, in particular children, motorcyclists and occupants of small cars were significantly more likely to be killed or seriously injured when in a crash with a large SUV.

@zokes

Well, as statistically (according to insurance companies) anyone male is more likely to have an accident than anyone female, most of us had better stop now eh?

Except being male is something you have no control over. Whereas very few people, especially those living in urban areas, need to buy 4x4s.

Depends where you live I guess. If you don't drive in towns much, you'd be much less likely to kill a child if you drive a tank on a daily basis than someone who drives a prius past a school every day.

If you don't drive in towns much you might have some reason to get a 4x4. And lots and lots of people drive 4x4s on the school run - ever gone past a school at 3.30pm? Most of the time it's absolute bedlam at schools near me.

Whereas very few people, especially those living in urban areas, need to buy [s]4x4s.[/s]cars

FIFY

I wasn't saying they are safe, just saying that it doesn't appear as simple as you made it out to be.

But to be honest, I would go for whatever is safest for me.

What about being hit by Vans or Trucks ? Is that safer or more dangerous ?

Do people who drive those deserve the same sort of flack 4x4 drivers get.

I do try to avoid pedestrians whenever possible anyway, so I don't feel the need to take any extra precautions in that respect, regarding the choice of what I hit them with if my normal "don't run people over" precautions fail.

Would you think driving around with an old mattress strapped to my bonnet would help ?

(I don't drive a 4x4 by the way)

zokes - If you don't need a car at all, then it makes even less sense to buy a massive, expensive, environmentally unsound one that's dangerous to everyone else around you, no?

But to be honest, I would go for whatever is safest for me.

What about being hit by Vans or Trucks ? Is that safer or more dangerous ?

I'm all-right Jack.

Vans or trucks have a practical purpose though.

Would you think driving around with an old mattress strapped to my bonnet would help ?

Reductio ad absurdum argument.

If you don't need a car at all, then it makes even less sense to buy a massive, expensive, environmentally unsound one that's dangerous to everyone else around you, no?

Very few people [i]need[/i] cars - instead they have grown to want them to allow them to fulfil various life choices, including where they live, work, go at the weekend etc.

Let's face it, most people killed on the roads are killed by cars. Just because there are more of them doesn't make that OK. If you're killed, you're dead, and probably past caring about whether it was a prius, a RR, a bus, or a giant panda dropped from a great height.

I do try to avoid pedestrians whenever possible anyway

Most people do. However accidents do happen, of course.

Zokes - but you might not be dead if you were hit by a normal car, as opposed to a 4x4! What a bizarre argument.

Reductio ad absurdum argument

Not really.

You say people are more likely to die if they are hit by a 4x4 than a car.

So people should get rid of their 4x4's and buy cars instead. Fine that's that sorted.

But what about the fact that people are more likely to die when hit by cars than milk floats ?

Or what about Vans ?

Or what about Lorries ?

Why are people so keen to stop other people driving 4x4's ? Because they don't go offload ? So what.

Most car never reach there top speed. Get rid of them.

Most vans are never fully loaded. Get rid of them

So people should get rid of their 4x4's and buy cars instead. Fine that's that sorted.

But what about the fact that people are more likely to die when hit by cars than milk floats ?

That is precisely a reductio ad absurdum argument because milk floats aren't remotely practical for most people's uses.

Lots of 'whatabouttery' in that last post too.

All I'm suggesting is that people should buy cars appropriate to the use they are for (with the bonus of not creating unnecessary danger to others/damage to the environment). No-one has to wear a hair-shirt or do anything silly.

That is precisely a reductio ad absurdum argument because milk floats aren't practical for most people's uses.

But what about the fact that people are more likely to die when hit by cars than milk floats ?

Or what about Vans ?

Or what about Lorries ?

Vans and lorries are required for a purpose. You need them to keep the economy running.

Urban SUVs are not required in any way. There's absolutely no reason to have one.

So if someone wants to use a vehicle that makes them feel safe, gives them a good elevated view of the road, looks affluent and could be useful in occasional bad weather

4x4 is the most appropriate car for them.
Or Maybe a nice big pimped out Van.

(I think that covers most of the people that buy them ?)

Zokes - but you might not be dead if you were hit by a normal car, as opposed to a 4x4! What a bizarre argument.

But if there hadn't been a car because the driver chose not to be so selfish and screw the environment and everyone else around them, and so chose not to make the journey, there wouldn't have been an accident in the first place.

How often have you driven somewhere when:
a) you didn't really need to make the journey at all
b) you could have walked / cycled
c) you could have caught public transport, even if it might have involved a bit of faff

Urban [s]SUVs[/s] cars are not required in any way. There's absolutely no reason to have one.

FIFY

Urban SUVs are not required in any way. There's absolutely no reason to have one.

Vans and lorries are required for a purpose. You need them to keep the economy running.

I have two vans.

One is a working van, but the other is my everyday "car"

I have no real "need" for it, but I like it.

Everyone always bangs on about 4x4's as if they are the worst thing ever because they "don't go offload" but there are other worse things on the road.

Massive saloon cars with massive engines and power. Far worse that 4x4's for the environment, and totally pointless.

But nobody seems to worry about them.

So.. don't drive, but if you must drive, don't drive an SUV.

Seems fair, no?

But nobody seems to worry about them

I do. They are just as bad.

Next straw at which to clutch?

So.. don't drive, but if you must drive, don't drive an SUV.

Seems fair, no?

Indeed, but only if the "if you must drive" is because you work for the emergency services. There is an alternative, no matter how long winded, for almost any other journey - including not making it.

Who's clutching at staws ?

I don't drive a 4x4 like I already said a couple of times.

I just don't see them as being particularly important. That's all.

Whereas some people seem fixated by them........

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

If you include public transport, then MOSTLY there is an alternative. Not everywhere is served by public transport.

Not everywhere is served by public transport.

So move somewhere that is, or make the choice not to make the journey. Remember how many people are killed each year by cars.

I don't drive a 4x4 like I already said a couple of times

You drive a van though. So you choose to get what, 35mpg, instead of 55mpg. How many wheels have power in your vehicle is of no significance, the CO2 emissions are.

I just don't see them as being particularly important.

Now we're onto climate change denial, which is a different argument really.

So move somewhere that is, or make the choice not to make the journey

So hang on - are you advocating rural depopulation? And I already live somewhere well served by public transport, but not everywhere I need to go is!

but not everywhere I need to go is!

Define "need" - are people's lives dependent upon you making the journey, or do you just [i]want[/i] to?

Indeed, but only if the "if you must drive" is because you work for the emergency services. There is an alternative, no matter how long winded, for almost any other journey - including not making it.

I'm with you on that campaign, but until it succeeds, how about we don't drive pointlessly anti-social cars in the meantime? Seem reasonable?

I'm with you on that campaign, but until it succeeds, how about we don't drive pointlessly anti-social cars in the meantime? Seem reasonable?

Why not make a start by not driving yourself? This is like the climate change debate: "Why should our country reduce its emissions when they aren't" etc...

Or, perhaps a more rational stance would be to accept that people can make choices; and that the decision to make the journey, rather than the vehicle it was made in, is the biggest factor involved in whether or not someone is killed by you driving a car / 4wd / pink elephant.

I do try not to drive as much as possible. I'm actually planning on moving partly so i can bike from the door and commute on the train. I also don't have a silly massive car with really poor fuel efficiency that's particularly dangerous to others.

Isn't that less anti social than driving a massive 4x4 on the school run because you are too lazy to walk your kids to school?

Why not make a start by not driving yourself? This is like the climate change debate: "Why should our country reduce its emissions when they aren't" etc...

Except thats not the same argument is it?

Or, perhaps a more rational stance would be to accept that people can make choices; and that the decision to make the journey, rather than the vehicle it was made in, is the biggest factor involved in whether or not someone is killed by you driving a car / 4wd / pink elephant.

Except that it is not, as was established earlier.

Isn't that less anti social than driving a massive 4x4 on the school run because you are too lazy to walk your kids to school?

Absolutely yes.

So what was your point again?

I'm actually planning on moving partly so i can bike from the door and commute on the train.

I used to live about 5 miles from work and ran in and home each night through woods and paths. Oh the joy!

So if someone wants to use a vehicle that makes them feel safe, gives them a good elevated view of the road, looks affluent and could be useful in occasional bad weather

4x4 is the most appropriate car for them.
Or Maybe a nice big pimped out Van.

(I think that covers most of the people that buy them ?)

^ This (if you add in a large load carrying capacity)

Complaining about this is incredibly sanctimonious. The sanctimony is multiplied by 10 if the complainer drives a Prius. (You know the car, the one with one of the highest environmental impacts over its lifetime due to its heavy, polluting battery and manufacturing methods.)

People have choices, they don't always agree with you, get over it.

Except thats not the same argument is it?

It is a very similar argument. Half the internet is full of Australian right wing press saying we shouldn't be trying to reduce emissions because "look at China"

Here we have: "I shouldn't have to stop driving until everyone else does"

Except that it is not, as was established earlier.

So, I have a 4wd that stays in the garage all week whilst I cycle to work. Please explain how it's more likely to kill a kid than someone who drives past the school I cycle past in a Prius on a daily basis.

"I shouldn't have to stop driving until everyone else does"

Who said that? This is a straw man as is your climate change argument.

Please explain how it's more likely to kill a kid than someone who drives past the school I cycle past in a Prius on a daily basis.

Its only really a risk when you drive it of course but when you do as has been illustrated above it constitutes a greater risk (to everyone bar yourself)

Who said that? This is a straw man as is your climate change argument.

Grum agreed to this principle - [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/where-the-anti-4x4-brigade-when-this-happens/page/4?replies=139#post-3752581 ]here[/url]

Try reading

Here we have: "I shouldn't have to stop driving until everyone else does"

Another massive straw man. Maybe you should start your campaign by targeting those driving 4x4s, seeing as they are the most anti-social?

Who said that? This is a straw man as is your climate change argument.
Grum agreed to this principle - here

Try reading

I didn't, that's putting words into my mouth and then criticising them rather than what I actually said - aka straw man argument

People have choices, they don't always agree with you, get over it.

And people have opinions on those choices. They don't always agree with you. Get over it.

You drive a van though. So you choose to get what, 35mpg, instead of 55mpg. How many wheels have power in your vehicle is of no significance, the CO2 emissions are.

Presuming something is much worse than it actually is ?

Actually over the last 9000 miles of so, my Transporter has done an average of 53.5 MPG (worked out properly)

(what does a Prius average, or a Golf Blue Motion ?)

Mine is a big T4 Multivan with a 150BHP engine remapped to 185BHP, so it must be really bad right ?

The next straw at which to clutch 😉

Its only really a risk when you drive it of course but when you do as has been illustrated above it constitutes a greater risk (to everyone bar yourself)

But it constitutes much less risk only driven at the weekends out of the city than someone driving their prius past a school every day. By choosing to ride my bike past the school, rather than drive past it, I mitigate that risk - the prius driver does not.

Grum agreed to this principle - here

I have no issue using Grum as a reference however I think you have misread what he said.

I'm with you on that campaign, but until it succeeds, how about we don't drive pointlessly anti-social cars in the meantime? Seem reasonable?

Is this what you are basing your argument on?

Its only really a risk when you drive it of course but when you do as has been illustrated above it constitutes a greater risk (to everyone bar yourself)
But it constitutes much less risk only driven at the weekends out of the city than someone driving their prius past a school every day.

I don't recall anyone arguing that every single 4x4 is going to kill more children than a normal car, regardless of when/where it's driven.

I didn't, that's putting words into my mouth and then criticising them rather than what I actually said - aka straw man argument

Grum - you agreed to the principle that it would be great if noone drove unless absolutely necessary. You then said but until then, try driving a less dangerous car.

How about starting it being 'then' by not driving? You never know - it may catch on...

But it constitutes much less risk only driven at the weekends out of the city than someone driving their prius past a school every day. By choosing to ride my bike past the school, rather than drive past it, I mitigate that risk - the prius driver does not.

But these are baseless assumptions. Driving styles, speeds, attitudes to risk and consideration to other people may be totally different.
The point of the matter is that all things being equal the 4x4 is more likely to have an accident and the outcome of that accisdent is likely to be worse for the victim.

zokes, in fact the 'what about China' argument you refer to is more akin to your 'well cars kill people and pollute anyway so why not drive a more dangerous/polluting one'.

I don't recall anyone arguing that every single 4x4 is going to kill more children than a normal car, regardless of when/where it's driven.

So I should trade my Freelander in for a prius on the tenet that the prius is less dangerous to pedestrians, when its rarely driven anywhere near any pedestrians?

Why not get the prius driver to ride their bike - it would be more effective at reducing the risk of deaths than me changing my car. I assume the objective of this exercise is indeed to make the roads safer?

But these are baseless assumptions. Driving styles, speeds, attitudes to risk and consideration to other people may be totally different.

By not driving past the school, I completely mitigate the risk of killing a kid by running them over. It's far from baseless

The point of the matter is that all things being equal the 4x4 is more likely to have an accident and the outcome of that accisdent is likely to be worse for the victim.

And I am demonstrating that by my choice not to drive past the school, all things are not equal.

A good friend of mine has one of those enormous Audi 4x4s. A Q7, I think. He's not remotely bothered about cars (or if he is, he's not letting on), and drives very slowly and carefully. What on earth possessed him to buy such a spectacularly ugly, inefficient waste of road space is beyond me.

I've got one of them. It's massive, does 25/30 mpg and eats tyres like they're going out of fashion. Its not great for carrying bikes as the 7 seats bit takes up valuable bike space. Also, I don't have kids so I've no real need for 7 seats or a car as big as this.

But I think its ace. Initially I hated it, but now its the nuts. Nice high driving position, dead comfy, loads of toys and an electric tailgate (which makes me enormously happy). I also looked at a Range Rover Sport but was concerned about reliability but the TDV8 is a lovely engine.

For the record, I've had quite a few fast cars and drove them accordingly (like a n0bber). They used much more fuel and I was a danger to myself and others. I'm much more careful in this, don't speed everywhere (what's the point) and I'm far more careful parking it because I don't want to curb my 21's.

I'm also a lot more concious of how I drive it in relation to what would happen if I hit another car. No doubt about it, the other car would come off a lot worse (unless it was a similar size) so therefore braking distances are more of a consideration. I don't get as wound up from driving (I do a lot of miles) because the car is a nice place to be and I arrive at where ever I'm going relaxed, not deaf (Cayman was SO noisy) and with my bikes in the back ready to go.

So, I use less fuel, drive less erratically and therefore am less of a danger on the roads. Where's the problem?

zokes, you are confusing one individual scenario with the wider picture. Perhaps it makes sense for you to have a 4x4, I don't know. But for the vast majority of people it is pointless and anti-social. The highest proportion of 4x4s to normal cars is where do you reckon? Scottish highlands? The Lake District?

No, it's London.

So, I use less fuel, drive less erratically and therefore am less of a danger on the roads. Where's the problem?

lol, 'I'm a bit less of a nob in one than when I drove a sports car, what's your problem' hmmmmm.....

zokes, in fact the 'what about China' argument you refer to is more akin to your 'well cars kill people and pollute anyway so why not drive a more dangerous/polluting one'.

You can spin it both ways:

Not driving at all would mitigate the risk of killing a pedestrian more than changing from a 4wd to a prius or similar.

Not burning fossil fuels at all would mitigate CO2 emissions more than changing from coal to coal seam gas.

No, it's London.

And this is clearly daft I agree. But then why do you need a car at all in London of all places? - This is the argument you should be having.

lol, 'I'm a bit less of a nob in one than when I drove a sports car, what's your problem' hmmmmm.....

Well? The overall result is that I'm a more careful driver than I was before and use less fuel.

The highest proportion of 4x4s to normal cars is where do you reckon? Scottish highlands? The Lake District?

No, it's London.

Is it ?

Admiral Insurance : Highest in the UK for 4x4 ownership as a proportion of total vehicles -

Perth (8.28%)
Galashiels (7.99%)
Tunbridge Wells (7.66%)
Llandrindod Wells (7.25%)
Hereford (6.98%)

The Average across the whole of the UK being 5%

Not driving at all would mitigate the risk of killing a pedestrian more than changing from a 4wd to a prius or similar.

Not burning fossil fuels at all would mitigate CO2 emissions more than changing from coal to coal seam gas.

Or you could try to do both.

lol, 'I'm a bit less of a nob in one than when I drove a sports car, what's your problem' hmmmmm.....
Well? The overall result is that I'm a more careful driver than I was before and use less fuel.

You'd use even less fuel (and be less likely to kill someone if you did hit them) if you drove a normal car.

nealglover:

Even the sarcastic nickname, the Chelsea Tractor, used to mock the legions of 4x4s used in and around central London, seems justified. Both Churchill and esure say the capital is the area where the highest proportion of their customers have 4x4s.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1585016/Safe-bet-for-a-bump.html#ixzz1tiJ1I2jY

You'd use even less fuel (and be less likely to kill someone if you did hit them) if you [s]drove a normal car[/s] didn't drive.

FIFY

Or you could try to do both.

What? Not driving, and also driving a smaller car? How would the latter help if you were already doing the former?

FTFY

Not really zokes - both of those statements are true, but only one of them is likely to happen I suspect.

What? Not driving, and also driving a smaller car? How would the latter help if you were already doing the former?

But you do drive! In which case better to have a less anti social car. Obvious.

You'd use even less fuel (and be less likely to kill someone if you did hit them) if you drove a normal car

But if I'm less likely to hit them in the first place then surely that's better isn't it?

Small engined cars are hateful (for the most part). 90% of my driving is done on M-roads. I bought a 1.6 Mazda 3 once, and at 75mph it was pulling 4k revs and drinking fuel. More fuel than the bigger engined BMW I replaced it with afterwards. It was also woefully underpowered so when overtaking I had to give it death to get anywhere. More dangerous and using more fuel.