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

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.

The vehicle doesn't cause the accident, the driver does.

In two decades of driving 4x4s I've not an an accident in one. I [i]might[/i] have one in the future, sure, and [i]if[/i] I get into an accident it's [i]possible[/i] that it would cause more damage than if I were driving, say, a Twingo. But there are a lot of variables in that, aren't there.

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

That depends on whether or not you regularly drive places where you might hit a wild animal the size of a cow that moves at great speed, and whether or not you regularly drive on unsurfaced roads and tracks. Both of those apply to me, so no, I'd definitely not be better off in a 'less antisocial' car. Hit a western grey in one of them and you'll be coming worse off by some margin.

In actual fact, the freelander is about the most frugal yet still capable 4wd by some margin.

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

Your belief is that you are less likely to hit someone - insurance stats suggest its the opposite for most people.

And my car has lots of space, a high driving position, and a 2 litre engine that never feels underpowered, but it does 55mpg

In two decades of driving 4x4s I've not an an accident in one.

Another logical fallacy - that is statistically completely irrelevant.

zokes, ok so it makes sense for you to have one, it doesn't for most people. Better if you didn't drive at all though eh?

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

First off 4x4 covers a wide range of cars - You have lumped them all together into one prejudiced, ill informed lump.

You are getting angry and name-cally about very small margins based on your prejudices.

The stats may say the injury levels in an accident are higher for a large car vs a small car at a statistically significant level but that doesn't mean that practically, in real life, there is an meaningfully higher chance of killing someone just because you chose a big car.

"Significant" just means it is higher, it gives you no information on how much relative to something else such a not driving.

As a car driver you are much more likely to kill someone with your car than a non car driver, you have an almost identical chance of doing this as someone with a larger car. Yet you seem to absolve all responsibility for this simply because you chose a smaller can with a relatively miniscule difference in overall risk.

Same is true for environmental impact. All cars have a huge impact, big cars have a miniscule higher impact when viewed as a whole vs not having a car. A difference that become completely irelevant when you include all of the other factors such as distance traveled, driving style, lifetime of the car etc. But don't let that get in the way of your name calling.

By all means chose you own car based on your own reasons, but branding everyone who buys a 4x4 as "anti-social" is kinda stupid.

Better if you didn't drive at all though eh?

Undoubtedly, which is why for 5/6 days of the week, I don't usually.

Your belief is that you are less likely to hit someone - insurance stats suggest its the opposite for most people.

I think those insurance stats are made up by someone who really wants a Q7 but can't afford 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

1. 4x4s don't make the occupants safer. They make other people less safe in the event of an accident.
2. The elevated view of the road is available in smaller, more efficient vehicles. In any case, I'm sure you can see the problem of the arms race.
3. If you want to look affluent, there are is a wide range of cars available, most of which are not 4x4s.
4. The number of people who ever genuinely need the 4x4 for bad weather is a tiny proportion of overall ownership.

Lets have a look at my 1998 Land Rover.

22-26 mpg..? I don't actually care about this.

I walk to work, cycle or get the train. (that there London)

My car (well it's not a car) has done less than 4000 miles total in the last 5 years. I just don't use it.

1. It's Landy so was made in UK - Good for economy - Yay!
2. It spent it's 1st half of it's life doing 75,000 miles for the Environment Agency, no doubt doing really good things like rescuing baby seals from lakes
3. It will last a long time (Much longer than any Prius*)
4. I don't drive it much
5. When the petrol runs out it will run on chip shop fat
6. Come Zombie earth death (Feb next year) it may come in Handy

Surely it's dust to dust must be in the region of better than a Prius

It's great to throw 2 bikes in & takes stuff to the recycling centre. (It just can't stop helping the butterflies)

I have it because I like it, is that a bad thing?

(also you can drive over a childs face and not even notice - it's gripped, it's sorted it's awesome! )

*this may not be true, refer to point 1 noting country of origin , it's a bit Trigger's broom

As a car driver you are much more likely to kill someone with your car than a non car driver, you have an almost identical chance of doing this as someone with a larger car. [b]Yet you seem to absolve all responsibility for this simply because you chose a smaller can with a relatively miniscule difference in overall risk.[/b]

Yet another massive straw man.

By all means chose you own car based on your own reasons, but branding everyone who buys a 4x4 as "anti-social" is kinda stupid.

As is this.

Please quote where I said everyone who drives a 4x4 is anti-social? Lots of people have very good reasons for having one. Not usually people who live in urban areas though.

Getting bored of people constantly putting words into my mouth then criticising them, rather than what I actually said. I'll repeat myself, all I'm saying is that it would be good if people generally buy a car thats appropriate to the use it's going to get.

How terribly unreasonable of me.

It seems from this thread that the only people who own 4x4s never drive them, wonder why you see so many about on the school run? 🙂

Surely it's dust to dust must be in the region of better than a Prius

On this particular point, almost certainly not. The vast bulk of a vehicle's emissions occur during its use phase, rather than manufacturing and disposal. I get around 55mpg from our Prius pool car...

Of course, the best thing you can do with any vehicle is drive it as little as possible, which is what you're doing.

On this particular point, almost certainly not. The vast bulk of a vehicle's emissions occur during its use phase, rather than manufacturing and disposal.

Absolute bunkum, but carry on...

all I'm saying is that it would be good if people generally buy a car thats appropriate to the use it's going to get.

How terribly unreasonable of me.

Nope, that's quite reasonable, but it's also not quite what you have said consistently through this thread, even if it's what you meant.

It seems from this thread that the only people who own 4x4s never drive them, wonder why you see so many about on the school run?

You asked the question on a cycling forum primarily dominated by beardy, sandal-wearing green types. You might get a different answer on pistonheads.

Please quote where I said everyone who drives a 4x4 is anti-social? Lots of people have very good reasons for having one. Not usually people who live in urban areas though.

There are plenty of people who have 4x4 for perfectly logical reasons, and live in urban areas.

My point is that a 4x4 is ultimately identical to a 2wd car in almost every way, yet you have justified your choices as sound but deride the choices of the driver of large cars to such an extent you have powered 5 pages of flame war with your anger.

Maybe I will say it better with pictures:
The driver of which of these cars is antisocial?
[img] [/img]
[img] ?p=080702_05:03[/img]

Imaging the dots are one unit of environmental impact on the axis of a graph

No Car.........................................................2wd.4x4

Get it now?

Absolute bunkum, but carry on...

You're wrong, simple as. Plenty of info available on the web if you wish to educate yourself.

You're wrong, simple as. Plenty of info available on the web if you wish to educate yourself.

Lets have some links to peer-reviewed, independently-funded LCA analyses then.

EDIT: I should add - I work with several people who do research with LCAs for a living - it's frighteningly easy to generate the answer you want, simply by fiddling with how far back up the various supply chains you go, and what numbers out of thin air you grasp at to fill in the blanks you can't find data for.

You said 4x4s were antisocial cars. Since cars don't have personalities it is safe to assume you mean the people that drive them.

Generally they are more antisocial yes, for all the reasons above, but where did I say that applies to every single 4x4 driver? Lots of farmers round me have them (usually Toyota pickups though) - no issue whatsoever.

My point is that a 4x4 is ultimately identical to a 2wd car in almost every way, yet you have justified your choices as sound but deride the choices of the driver of large cars to such an extent you have powered 5 pages of flame war with your anger

Yes the actual distinction between 4wd and 2wd isn't really the issue - the issue is of excessive size, poor fuel efficiency, bad driving, and greater danger to others.

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm angry either, you seem to be the angry one.

And again

all I'm saying is that it would be good if people generally buy a car thats appropriate to the use it's going to get.
How terribly unreasonable of me.

Bored of this now.

Wow, it's kicking off here.

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.

My hire car is a base engined petrol Clio, it's nice but really underpowered and needs flogging, and it's getting 42mpg. My Passat gets 55mpg, and has plenty of power and is full of go at relaxed revs. So your Mazda experience is pretty irrelevant here.

It's good if you drive few miles, but it would be better if you drove fewer miles in a more economical car, wouldn't it?

Surely it's dust to dust must be in the region of better than a Prius

Based on what? There was one study done years ago that was widely quoted on this, but it was total rubbish. It assumed a Prius was only good for 100k miles based on no information.

There are many 300k mile Priuses discussed on the Prius forum, most having had no repairs done other than consumables like water pumps, shocks, tyres etc. I would guess that there are very few Landrovers like that. Although I fully expect someone to argue that turbos, engines, injector pumps, radiators, oil pumps etc are consumables on Land rovers 🙂

Yes the actual distinction between 4wd and 2wd isn't really the issue - the issue is of excessive size, poor fuel efficiency, bad driving, and greater danger to others.

A 2l Mondeo is both larger and has a poorer fuel efficiency than my Freelander. I'm sure I can think of many other 'normal' examples as well as the obvious comparisons to big Mercs etc

First off 4x4 covers a wide range of cars - You have lumped them all together into one prejudiced, ill informed lump

Socially responsible 2 wheel drive
[img] [/img]

Lets have some links to peer-reviewed, independently-funded LCA analyses then.

I've reviewed the relevant literature and I'm aware of only one study (which was deeply flawed) that contradicts my assertion.

If you're the kind of person who can't be bothered to find out these things for himself, then I very much doubt that you're open to persuasion on this point.

I should add that I commission LCAs, so probably know a little bit about them.

 

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

Around 58mpg in the summer, 54 in the winter (at least until I put those winter tyres on).

But you overlook the fuel. Diesel produces 30% more CO2 and loads more other pollutants when used in a car, and also can take more energy to produce.

Surprised at that economy from a Transporter though - I tried very hard in the one I rented and could only brush 40mpg. Although I did drive at the speed limit.

Both Churchill and esure say the capital is the area where the highest proportion [b]of their customers [/b]have 4x4s.

Interesting I'm sure, if you work in the Marketing dept of either of those companies.

But other than that, it means nothing at all.

First off 4x4 covers a wide range of cars - You have lumped them all together into one prejudiced, ill informed lump

Guess what, the term 4x4 was being used as a shorthand for very large vehicle with very poor fuel efficiency. I am aware this doesn't apply to every single 4x4. I thought this was all pretty obvious.

But other than that, it means nothing at all.

Unlike the stat you posted? It's hardly a key point of the argument anyway is it? But by all means jump on one insignificant point and go on and on about it, if that's what makes you happy.

There are many 300k mile Priuses discussed on the Prius forum, most having had no repairs done other than consumables like water pumps, shocks, tyres etc. I would guess that there are very few Landrovers like that. Although I fully expect someone to argue that turbos, engines, injector pumps, radiators, oil pumps etc are consumables on Land rovers

Aren't there something like >50% of all land rovers ever made still on the road? Ask that of the Prius in 60 years time.

Yes the actual distinction between 4wd and 2wd isn't really the issue - the issue is of excessive size, poor fuel efficiency, bad driving, and greater danger to others.

So to summarise, you argument comes down to: Big cars are bad. You shouldn't drive them.

Fair enough, and it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Not one that I share, but that's by the by.

Though, if we're going to be critical about the way people live, we really need to do it properly. Ban flying (totally discretionary use of fuel), ban old houses (more fuel to heat), ban large families (consume resources), ban mountain biking (utter waste of resources), ban skiing (I mean, all that power to get you up a hill? Just so you can come back down?).

Why just fixate on someone's car? There's a whole world of disapproval and righteous quivering anger to be had as you tut at the way other people live.

I should add that I commission LCAs, so probably know a little bit about them.

Presumably you just get the answers you want from them? 😉

I've reviewed the relevant literature and I'm aware of only one study (which was deeply flawed) that contradicts my assertion.

Go on then - refs?

So your Mazda experience is pretty irrelevant here.

Not really, as it affected the decisions I made buying the next car. Its irrelevant to [b]you[/b], based on your experience. Different strokes...

It's good if you drive few miles, but it would be better if you drove fewer miles in a more economical car, wouldn't it?

Yes it would. Sadly, my job prevents me from doing this. Ideally I'd never have to drive, work from home all the time and live on the doorstep of some amazing riding. But I don't. So that's that.

Presumably you just get the answers you want from them?

Go on then - refs?

I repeat: if you're the kind of person who can't be bothered to find out these things for himself, then I very much doubt that you're open to persuasion on this point.

Not really, as it affected the decisions I made buying the next car

Well you seemed to be implying that anything economical is gutless and dangerous. I was telling you that it isn't.

Sadly, my job prevents me from doing this.

As has been sad a million times, 4x4s and vans are essential tools for important jobs. No-one is complaining about their use when required. However general driving does not need a big suv or a van, and is generally a waste of fuel.

You don't need a van to go biking either.

I repeat: if you're the kind of person who can't be bothered to find out these things for himself, then

You're not TJ in disguise are you?

You have data, lets see it. If you don't, how are we to know you're not just fabricating things?

I very much doubt that you're open to persuasion on this point.

As a scientist, hard data of known provenance generally persuades me. You claim to have some - lets see it.

Well you seemed to be implying that anything economical is gutless and dangerous. I was telling you that it isn't.

I note that BMW are making a 3 series that does nearly 70 mpg and 0-60 in 8 seconds. Probably not at the same time though...

You're not TJ in disguise are you?

You have data, lets see it. If you don't, how are we to know you're not just fabricating things?

You said I was talking bunkum. You must have data to prove this. If you don't, how are we to know you're not just fabricating things?

You're not TJ in disguise are you?

I saw that advertised a little while ago. Consensus seems to be that 70mpg is a bit much, but there's no reason on paper why it shouldn't be possible in a diesel.

Ransos you know there's twice as much metal and other materials in a big SUV than in a small car, right? So one could conclude twice the manufacturing footprint?

Well you seemed to be implying that anything economical is gutless and dangerous. I was telling you that it isn't.

My experience has shown me that an underpowered car was [b]FOR ME[/b] less economical and had to be thrashed to get past stuff. I'm not implying that [b]ANYTHING[/b] economical is gutless and dangerous. Just the car that I had. Which is why I got something with a bigger engine

As has been sad a million times, 4x4s and vans are essential tools for important jobs. No-one is complaining about their use when required. However general driving does not need a big suv or a van, and is generally a waste of fuel.

You don't need a van to go biking either.

Is it? I don't think it's a waste of fuel for all the reasons I stated previously. I like it and don't begrudge the cost of running it.

For the record, I have a van. It gets 60mpg, great for carrying bikes and costs £120 a year to tax. It's for sale if you want to buy it? I prefer the Q7...

Ransos you know there's twice as much metal and other materials in a big SUV than in a small car, right? So twice the raw materials environmental footprint?

That's true, but raw materials are only one part of manufacture (e.g. I doubt assembling a large car takes very much more energy than assembling a small car) and in any case manufacture is only a small part of the vehicle's total footprint. Nevertheless, it does seem a pointless waste considering what most people use an SUV for.

Surprised at that economy from a Transporter though - I tried very hard in the one I rented and could only brush 40mpg. Although I did drive at the speed limit.

I had it remapped specifically for economy, and it's a T4, not a T5 which are more thirsty.

Unlike the stat you posted? It's hardly a key point of the argument anyway is it? But by all means jump on one insignificant point and go on and on about it, if that's what makes you happy.

The stats I posted where overall UK ownership percentages, not who is insured with which company.

I only mentioned it once, you tried to disprove it with two specific insurance company's sales figures.

Thats hardly "going on and on about it" really is it ?

Also Funny how the person who brought up this point in the first place (presumably it was important then ?)
now deems it "insignificant" (after it was shown to be bollx) 🙄

So you're the one who wants a powerful car? Why is it not a waste to get a powerful car that does 30mpg rather than one that does 50mpg?

Can't see how you're not wasting 20mpg worth of fuel there.

So you're the one who wants a powerful car? Why is it not a waste to get a powerful car that does 30mpg rather than one that does 50mpg?

Because to me, having a powerful large car is a bonus. Therefore I don't see it as a waste.

Do you secretly want one? You seem a bit agitated by this, you can have a go in mine if you want

You're not TJ in disguise are you?

You [i]are[/i] TJ in disguise - throwing the question back to obfuscate the situation, rather than defending your position which you stated so clearly, and which started off this exchange.

🙂 hats off to Fish BTW great troll 🙂

You are TJ in disguise - throwing the question back to obfuscate the situation, rather than defending your position which you stated so clearly, and which started off this exchange.

I don't need to defend my position. First, because I'm right, and second, because I'm not particularly interested in obtaining your approval.

Next!

Because to me, having a powerful large car is a bonus

But you can have power AND economy.

But you can have power AND economy.

Ahh, but I don't want a Passat, because they're sh1te

Plenty of other options.

Yeah, but they're all Passat shaped....and therefore sh1te!

Ahh, but I don't want a Passat, because they're sh1te

Plenty of choice from BMW, Merc, Jag et al. My old man's jag is mahoosive and still does 45mpg...

Yeah, but they're all Passat shaped....and therefore sh1te!

Maybe, but as a Q7 owner, I'd assume that doesn't bother you. 😉

I don't need to defend my position. First, because I'm right, and second, because I'm not particularly interested in obtaining your approval.

Next!

Oh deary me.

Online discussion at its best.

Why don't you just say 'I'm an inconsiderate arse and don't give a crap'? That's what you're getting at, isn't it?

The stats I posted where overall UK ownership percentages, not who is insured with which company.

Really, I thought it said it was from Admiral insurance.

lso Funny how the person who brought up this point in the first place (presumably it was important then ?)
now deems it "insignificant" (after it was shown to be bollx)

Nope, it was one point I made once - you have tried several times to dispute it (unsuccessfully as far as I can see). And I really fail to see how it was the centerpiece of the argument. Regardless, lots of people in London drive 4x4s, for no real reason.

Though, if we're going to be critical about the way people live, we really need to do it properly. Ban flying (totally discretionary use of fuel), ban old houses (more fuel to heat), ban large families (consume resources), ban mountain biking (utter waste of resources), ban skiing (I mean, all that power to get you up a hill? Just so you can come back down?).

Why just fixate on someone's car? There's a whole world of disapproval and righteous quivering anger to be had as you tut at the way other people live.

Well, at the risk of pointing out YET another straw man - where did I talk about banning anything?

And yes I think we should try to minimize things like flying and having an house that's badly insulated, and we should try to drive less to go mountain biking etc. The thing is though, you can do those things AND have a car that's more fuel efficient. Crazy eh?

Why just fixate on someone's car? There's a whole world of disapproval and righteous quivering anger to be had as you tut at the way other people live.

It's funny, there seems to be a lot of people getting very worked up over this, while accusing me of being angry. Is that what psychologists call displacement?

Oh deary me.

Online discussion at its best.

This from the guy who accused another forum member of talking bollx...

I vote for this thread to be closed.

Why don't you just say 'I'm an inconsiderate arse and don't give a crap'? That's what you're getting at, isn't it?

BITE! And with that, my work here is done....

This from the guy who accused another forum member of talking bollx...

Well he said something quite clearly.

Which I showed to be wrong with the first hit on google.

How would you have described it ?

I don't need to defend my position. First, because I'm right,

Absolutely, definitely TJ. Consider yourself reported for having more than one username.

I vote for this thread to be closed.

STW top tip - if you don't like a thread, don't look at it.

Well he said something quite clearly.

Which I showed to be wrong with the first hit on google.

How would you have described it ?

If you were genuinely interested in "online discussion at its best", you would've been more polite. Unless you're constrained by a very limited vocabulary.

Absolutely, definitely TJ. Consider yourself reported for having more than one username.

If rather silly ad hominem is how you get your kicks, go right ahead.

I think that would be classed as humour rather than an attack.

Some people need to have a good read of this - or maybe pin it up on their wall.

Really, I thought it said it was from Admiral insurance.

Correct it was.

It was also figures on the percentage of "ownership" in the UK, not just those insured with admiral.

The figures you provided were for select insurance companies. Irrelevant to overall ownership figures.

.....you have tried several times to dispute it (unsuccessfully as far as I can see).

No. I tried once.

I posted one piece of information showing UK figures for 4x4 ownership, that showed London wasn't even in the top 5

And the top two positions were actually taken by Scotland.

Despite you claiming London was in No1 position ??

(not sure how that was an "unsuccessful attempt" to dispute your claim, as it seems pretty comprehensive to me)

.
But of course, Even though it was important enough for you to tell everyone about in the first place, in an attempt to strengthen whatever point you were making.

Clearly you have recently decided that its irrelevant for some reason.

Wonder why.

bump for the afternoon crowd

Doens't matter if London is #1 or not, does it? We know that there are many unneccessary SUVs driving around.

Despite you claiming London was in No1 position ??

So I said London was in No1 position - I should have said it's in no 1 position with two insurance companies. Big deal.

But of course, Even though it was important enough for you to tell everyone about in the first place, in an attempt to strengthen whatever point you were making.

Clearly you have recently decided that its irrelevant for some reason.

Wonder why.

Yup it was one small point I made once amongst a much wider argument, which you are pettily going on and on about.

Financial intermediary Admiral looked at over one million motorists across the UK

So your figures are only based on 1 million motorists?

Grum, it's just better not to lazily regurgitate "pub facts" to bolster your argument.

Then you won't be left looking through google trying to back them up when someone calls you on your "pub facts" not being accurate.

Leave that to the tabloid journalists.

Can we all agree on the facts here:

4x4 drivers are all (bar none) complete cocks and want to kill people

Prius drivers are all very dull, living with mum, 40 yr old lentil munchering communists

BMWs are driven by knobs

Audis are driven by knobs trying to not look like knobs

Skodas are are driven by poor knobs

All Roadies are miserable

Downhilling youths litter the Antarctic

French people smell

Singlespeed rigid niche riders have whacky facial hair

People with bad grammar will burn in hell as punishment for there (sic) stupidity

etc

To be fair, all roadies [i]are[/i] miserable........

Lets ride...........

Tiger, you do realise you've just killed STW don't you ?
We'll have to ride our bikes now.
Or discuss tyres.

there (sic)