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 weather4x4 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 - hereTry 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.
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.
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?
This is all in your head.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.
You said 4x4s were antisocial cars. Since cars don't have personalities it is safe to assume you mean the people that drive them.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] .jpg)
?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
Anti-social 4x4First off 4x4 covers a wide range of cars - You have lumped them all together into one prejudiced, ill informed lump
[img]
[/img]
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.