UKC

There's no need for the majority of 4x4's to have a bull bar installed - as they're perfectly positioned to cave the skulls in of any child running into their path and do serious damage to 2 wheeled users and pedestrians.

Drivers should have to apply for a special license to get one fitted if they need one for work - otherwise they should take the blinkers from their eyes (which will make them drive to a better standard and perhaps more socially aware)

Whenever I see one I have to fight the temptation to lock a D-lock to it.

In reply to Australis Chris:

I agree on a ban on bull-bars but would go further and make it a condition that anyone driving a 4x4 in an urban area must have the word 'prick' tatooed on their forehead.......

In reply to Australis Chris:
Whenever I see one I have to fight the temptation to lock a D-lock to it.


Regardless of the pro and anti 4x4 spats, bull bars are inexcusable. Its not just the positioning, its the fact they concentrate the whole momentum of the car into a few inches of metal, making it far more likely to kill or maim. I would love to see them D locked!

In reply to Australis Chris:

On a related topic, was thinking of having some stickers made to put on the back of urban 4x4s, something like "I'm a Farmer", only witty and ironic. "My other car's equally unsuited to my lifestyle" something like that. Maybe "Screw the environment, I want to look like a tw*t".

In reply to Australis Chris:

Bullbars, like rear fogs in pefect weather, and side lights in fog are really big signs that say

"I am a moronic k*nt"

In reply to Australis Chris:

havent bull bars been banned out right in uk?

been a good few years now i'm sure, coming upto 10yrs

all because they did do serious damage to pedestrians stec

In reply to kms: dont think so, Iv seen a few on the road lately

Next time you're walking past your local bike emporium, pop in - £11.99 is a small price to pay for the security of your push bike...

Plenty are still seen around Guildford

In reply to Australis Chris:

Just so this doesn't turn into a general 4x4 bashing (fun though that might be); you also see them on bog-standard vans, for no good reason.

In reply to Patrick Ruane: LOL! Like it!

In reply to kms: I believe they're banned as being sold as dealership extras but if you're a big enough nob that you're intent on getting a pair they can be sourced & fitted afterwards.

Painters and decorators go to some pretty wild and remote places

In reply to Simon22:

It'd have to be backwards so they can read it each morning in the mirror

In reply to Australis Chris:
I fully agree but it's not just 4x4's, school minibuses often have a similar construction at the front - perhaps a bid to reduce class sizes?

And any vehicle with then fitted should have a MAXIMUM speed limit (say 20mph below the stated limit for the road) imposed on them.

In reply to Patrick Ruane:

You'll presumably be wearing one yourself each time you get on a plane or drive to your climbing destination ?

In reply to KeithW:


and also on the Fiat Panda 4*4 (think it was the panda a couple of models back). Although to be fair i guess it did need them to deal with rabbits.

In reply to Jenny C: This include MR landrovers?

In reply to Jenny C:

They should introduce squishy rubber ones to fit so you can look like a rugged outdoor type without slaughtering anyone as a result....

In reply to Australis Chris:

I agree.

The use of 4x4s in the UK is largely unnecessary, unless you live in a remote part of the country where the transport infrastructure is lacking, or you use it in a farming capacity.

Bull-bars are an even less necessary requirement as the chances of hitting cattle in the UK that will actually seriously damage your vehicle are pretty slim. Again only really in the country environment and with our agricultural controls most animals are fenced in most of the time.

Also, as someone mentioned schools, it's also absurd for people dropping-off and collecting children in them. Whilst I appreciate the need to do this without a currently satisfactory and safe delivery system for school kids, there is little need for one parent and one child to block the main throughfare with a large 4x4 twice a day, every day.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Absolutely - so is the popularity of the 4x4 a symptom of the 'Haul-up the-ladder-Jack-I'm-alright' mentality currently infecting large parts of the UK? and which is,incidentally as unpleasent as MRSA

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
So people should buy different cars for each occasion ?

In reply to kms: car manufacturers are not allowed to fit them to new cars since the mid-late 90's there is no requirement to remove them from vehicles predating this ban.

In reply to Australis Chris:

I think some of them that come on Freelanders etc are actually foam inside with a plastic shell. Although I appreciate that this isn't quite what you mean by bull bars.

In reply to Oli:

Possible uses of recycled bull-bars;

i. Cycle Rack.
ii. Dish draining rack for giants.
iii. The fronting for electric fires.
iv. Cattle grids.

In reply to Australis Chris:

heard on radio whilst on way to work that some mps are trying to up road tax especially for 4x4 cos of the fuel comsumption and road wear

i say there's no need for them in inner city or outskirts.

why do they need a land rover over a picasso when they just use it for a school run?

my cousin's just got a basic land rover, live in heywood, and they have no children, her hubby weekly commutes from peterbrough in company car and she goes to college. no need in my terms

In reply to Australis Chris: Unfortunately the school run mums require bull bars on their 4x4's here around Beaconsfield due in part to the large quantities of rhino and wildebeast roaming the Bucks countryside. Also, they need their Chelsea Tractors because of the steep undulating tarmac in the town.

In reply to Australis Chris:

I'd say it's definately part and parcel of the consumerist society we live in i.e. 'I fancy one of those and bugger everyone else.'

I do appreciate that some people feel safer in them but that is largely a fallacy, expecially if you go round a corner too fast or you run-over someone else's child because you can't see behind you properly when reversing. There's plenty NCAP 5 Star normal cars about, in fact you can get 5 Star rated small cars now, perfect for transporting children...

It's just personal preference which is a luxury our society has. It's been a long time since we only bought things because we 'needed' them.

In answer to Pat's somewhat facetious comment,

'So people should buy different cars for each occasion ?'

No, they should focus on what they need and be a bit less selfish. I've seen people frantically apologising waving from their 4x4s at 8:45am because they're causing traffic jams trying to reverse onto the main road. They know they're being selfish - they just don't REALLY care.

In reply to kms:

I'm suprised there aren't more Massey Fergusons and Combine Harvesters being driven around by Mums on the school run and gun toting gangsters.

In reply to Glyn Jones: I've heard the winch comes in handy to get to the Post Office

In reply to Jon Hemlock: Agreed - like a thousand Toad of toad hall's the 4x4 drivers of Guildford are jaw-droppingly selfish

In reply to Australis Chris:

And to tow their egos (or Latte/mocha/espresso)

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
It was a facetious comment but the truth remains that we have no idea what else people use their car for . They might have lots of luggage to drive around , lots of kids , etc etc .
If somebody for such reasons needs a largish vehicle then there are three basic options : a large estate , a "people carrier" , a 4X4 . Only the very largest of the latter are significantly more pollutive or dangerous than the former and in the case of the hybrid versions not even those . Arguably the 4x4s are simply nicer to drive .

It seems absurd that so many people should get on their high horses about this particular issue when those same people probably jet or drive off to places at the drop of a hat and are more dangerous simply because they are poor drivers .

In reply to Australis Chris:

metal bull bar were banned from being fitted to any new cars after about 1995. They introduced the new rubber and plastic ones which were meant to shatter and therefore protect the person hit.

Some how I cant see this working as instead of having you head caved in you gat stabbed by bits of flying plastic instead.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I would think that the majority of urban 4x4 owners would be served just as well by a large estate car - and I don't think it's good enough for people to use the 'just because I can' arguement for ownership.

In reply to Australis Chris:


What a cracking idea! I'm off to buy some cheap D locks.

I mainly seem to see them in supermarket carparks, maybe I'll throw a trolley or two into the mix.

In reply to jam46:

Again it's image and selfishness over practicality and social responsibility.

Have you ever seen a Year 9 Design & Technology lesson?

In reply to Postmanpat:


For the hybrid i assume you are talking about the Lexus? which is only 3mpg more effective than the standard one so is really just a sop to peoples conscience for driving one (and a fking expensive one at an extra 10k).

As for the number of kids and luggage, unless something amazing has happened recently with the birthrate the average family size does not support the increase in the larger vehicles on the road.

I would guess if anything the growth in large cars and birth rate would appear inversely proportional. I was going to say "appear" being the operative word, although i guess less kids would give more money to spend on the transport.

As for good to drive? Unless its just a lookalike (eg the bmw or new audi) a vehicle created for offroad use would have disadvantages over a road only vehicle.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Urban 4x4s seem to be convenient outlet for environmental guilt among plenty of folk who are happy to eat fruit out of season, even though it's been flown halfway round the world to get here.

Most of us do things that cause environmental damage, but are, strictly, completely unneccessary, whether it's the products we buy or the journeys we take.

A Chelsea mum who drives 2 miles to and from school may be a comfortable target, but do they really do more environmental damage over the course of a year compared with a London based climber who drives to Glencoe three times a winter in his ordinary car?

Or a climber who takes two return flights to the Costas every year?

In reply to Postmanpat:
I agree that it's a wider issue, but surely you must be aware that there are a lot of 'unnecessary' 4x4s on the road? I think people-carriers are equally as hazardous on motorways but I get the impression they are more used for the reasons you mentioned. For example I know a child-minder who drives around in one a lot, but then she does regularly look after 5 kids at a time. With their improved visibility and more rounded body finish they're a lot better for pedestrians.


Firstly, the OP wasn't particularly concerned with environmental issues, more specifically safety, and secondly if you're a poor driver, you're a poor driver whether you're in a Porsche, a Mini, or a Land Rover, it's just that crashing a Land Rover will damage the other party/ s a lot more.

In reply to Simon22: I drive a 4x4 in urban areas ... do I have to go and buy a mini to go shopping in? We let you townies out in to our countryside (and we (farmers) do own the countryside) surely we can bring our landies into town.

In reply to deepsoup: Absolutely you'd be doing the supermarkets a favour - try an get a convey going I reckon about six, make sure the trolleys are jumbo family size with four seats and the special holder for flowers.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Large estates and people carriers do have some of the negative factors of 4x4s between them. However, 4x4s seem to have all the negative factors rolled into one ugly package. I think part of the reason why they are seen as antisocial is that people suspect that a significant reason why people buy them is more to do with image than the practical considerations you give. In general people don't buy estates or people carriers to look good.

Your point about jetting off or driving more dangerously is irrelevant - unless you're suggesting that 4x4 owners drive more safely and jet off to places less than other vehicle owners.

In reply to Australis Chris:

So you're onto sports cars with 'toot toot' horns, now, are you? Is no driver safe?

Incidentally, I live in a house called 'Toad Hall', though I am jaw-droppingly selfish.

In reply to jam46:

Well the way my Council has decided to cut costs is not too repair road potholes unless life threatining, the same goes for general rd maintainence so I think a 4x4 will be the way forward as the number of potholes increase...

My parents have a Land Rover. They bought it brand new in 2001. It's been to Skye in winter twice (me borrowing it) but other than that it just gos around Kent, and to France for booze every now and then.

I tried to persuade them it's un necessary but my mum likes the height (she's short) and the ability to carry 7 (which happens a few times a year).

It costs a fortune in diesel (which as it has a higher mpg I think makes them think it's better than petrol), servicing, tyres are £120+ each.

I've managed to persuade them to switch to energy saving lightbulbs. I've tried explaining the physics of our house + heating, to explain why, even with windows closed it gets cold if you open all the interior doors, but it doesn't work. The TV stays on standby for hours, and I get 'tutted at' when I switch it off.

I've come to the decision that you just can't educate some people. I've got two science degrees from Oxford yet my family still say stupid things when I try and explain about the environment.

The next time someone says "so much for global warming it's freezing" and provided I'm not emotionally attached to them, I'm going to beat the living **** out of them with a big iron bar.

In reply to hutchm: The London based climber wouldn't kill the child outright at 30mph...

In reply to Philip:

Actually, it was a bit parky out this morning, so a bit of global warming wouldn't go amiss.

Come on then...!

In reply to hutchm:

It's a good point but this thread is about 4x4s, Bull-bars, and their safety.

If the thread was in relation to their environmental effects then yes, there's probably a lot worse offenders. I have a mate who drives round Europe most Summers in a 2.5 litre diesel camper. He probably does 2000 - 3000 miles a Summer which you could argue is unneccessary.

I think the point is that there are a lot of unnecessary 4x4s on the road when there are perfectly good alternatives (whether it be for safety or the environment), and because they're large and cumbersome they're easy pickings for criticism.

In reply to Australis Chris:

Sorry - I thought we had concensus on bull bars...and had progressed to general 4x4 bashing...

In reply to hutchm: Absolutely not - the majority of drivers cars don't kill children outright at 30mph.

Do you have a friend called Badger who has a fondness for tweed and pipe smoking?

In reply to hutchm:

On the pollution issue in all fairness 4x4's arent that bad.
My vectra auto does about 24 to the gallon and my MGBGT does an astounding 14 miles per gallon, whilst my dads new discovery (which is used regularly off road) does an average of 33 miles to the gallon and puts out less CO2 emissions.

In reply to Australis Chris:

No, but I had a lovely bean stew last night and currently have severe Wind in the Willows.

In reply to johnstan:

The comments were mainly about the South, and none of the farmers i know bothers with a lannie in East anglia, since there simply is no need, unlike for hill farming.
I would also guess most of the farmers lannies are defenders, and anyone dumb enough to buy one of them as a fashion accessorie for road use deserves shooting.
As for owning the countryside, lets see how long if the subsidies stopped being paid by the townies.

In reply to hutchm: That would've made me Ratty too

In reply to jam46:


The key factor is new. That discovery looks a lot worse against a equivilant new car.

In reply to hutchm:

If you think the effect of Global Warming on the UK will be to 'make it a bit warmer', you're sadly misguided.

In reply to dissonance:

aye they arent the prettiest car in the world but the vectra couldnt have pulled a 17 tonne lorry out of a field.

In reply to t0mb0:

Funnily enough when I suggested that it was this a few weeks ago ie.dislike of the drivers as much as the vehicle that roiled people up , I was howled down by the green lobby on here .
Actually I only partially acccept the argument that they are bought to look good .A lot of people simple find a 4x4 a nicer drive . In th past , of course , Volvo estates were the butt of criticism as quintissentially middle class . It is , of course quintissentially English to resent somebody because he has something he likes which is expensive . Anybody up for scratching a Jag ?

No it's not .My point is that most people have the weaknesses .For some it may be driving an unnecessarily large and polutive car .For others it may be numerous unnecessary jet flights . For other driving when tired or just being poor drivers or using too much water in the bath etc etc .

The reason why 4X4s are picked on is as much to do with class haterd , envy , general disgruntlement as any logical reasoning .

In reply to dissonance: Bull bars are monumentally selfish and dangerous - therefore it's perhaps unfortunate that they normally come attached to 4x4's....and plumbers vans.

In reply to Australis Chris:

who cares what people drive....i could drive a double decker bus if i wanted to (but parking could be a hassle) which might take up the size of 4x4x4.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Sorry. Simply couldn't resist the challenge from the previous poster...

In reply to Postmanpat: Some people have weaknesses for GBH, shop lifting and smoking crack....

In reply to Morgan Woods: Great for the summer holiday though, Cliff could do the driving

In reply to hutchm:

No worries, a bit of humour never goes amiss!

In reply to dissonance: No one deserves shooting for owning a car - don't be silly.

In reply to Australis Chris:

So these are equivalent to 4X4 driving ?

In reply to Australis Chris:

Believe it or not I actually saw real Bull Horns attached to the front of a Bull bar on a 4x4 outside my office. Didn't think there was any way in the world that would be legal so called the polis. They did come but to late, and they would have booked him/her on the spot. Did get the reg tho so expect he would have had a visit. Not been updated by them & not seen it since so dont know the outcome. Effin Unbelievable tho

Bill

In reply to Postmanpat:
...of course quintissentially English to resent somebody because he has something he likes which is expensive . Anybody up for scratching a Jag ?


I agree with these two points, which is what I was approaching here:

<I think the point is that there are a lot of unnecessary 4x4s on the road when there are perfectly good alternatives (whether it be for safety or the environment), and because they're large and cumbersome they're easy pickings for criticism.>

...which is a shame because good arguments are always tarnished by weak ones and bandwaggoning. I get the impression people resent others with more money but I'm not too sure why...

In reply to dissonance: Oh and many many thanks for the subsidies - we'll be having a nice holiday on the proceeds, I'm also looking a smart new 5820 John Deere tractor - don't really need it but wouldn't want those subsidies to go to waste now would we (mustn't let that nasty taxman have any of it).

Are 4x4's any less cumbersome than a MPV kiddycarrier things? smaller? not really. Driving around Aberdeen at lunchtime or at school pick up time its those daft things that clog up the traffic not the 4x4's.

And BY FAR the worst and most dangerous drivers on the road are the tw*ts in small cars who race around imagining they are in something impressive whereas its actually just a Clio.

Really should stop this 4x4 bashing. Reading the thread as dispassionately as I could, you lot come across as blinkered and dare I say it, extremely hypocritical.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

I dont get why people thiank that the owners of 4x4s have money. Last night at the auctions there was a mitsubishi pikey wagon (oops meant mitsubishi shogun) for £450. anyone could have got this. its not just the upper class rich toffs who drive these cars.

In reply to Postmanpat:


For fk sake. What is your fantasy that people are envious of the cost of a 4w4. They are not that expensive (exluding the Cayennes and similar) and since you do not get the same level of abuse thrown at high end sports cars etc I am not sure how you come to that conclusion (sure you get the keyers but that is a different level).

As for class hatred, eh? where the fk did that come from.

personally i dislike people driving some oversized vehicle which puts my life at increased risk in order for them to feel a (often false) sense of security themselves. For the comments regarding the volvo. I think a lot of people who used to drive volvo's have moved on to 4*4 for the same reason they used to drive the volvo, eg sense of security. This leads on to them driving with low regard for others, since they feel safe.

In reply to Postmanpat: Only equivalent to urban 4x4 owners

GBH - Killing someone at a very low speed.

I only have issues with blatent anti-social behaviour not;

1. Fast cars
2. Big cars
3. Mauve cars
4. The Ant-Hill mob

In reply to johnstan:

nah that would be for stupidity. As impressive as a defender is offroad if you are buying it for a poser wagon for pure onroad use, stupidity has to come into the equasion.

In reply to jam46: Just selfish and blinkered people

In reply to jam46:

I was waiting for someone to say that. You're spot on, it's just prejudiced people who blanket cast people with 4x4s as having money. Although it does seem to be the case that they are status symbols in some places.

The new Discovery at £27K doesn't help this viewpoint.

However, that kind of prejudice is like accusing a black person in a BMW of being a drug-dealer.

In reply to dissonance:


The same could be said for a porsche or farrari. why buy a track car for use on the road? Is that stupidity also or do you stare admiringly at those types of car?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't think it's to do with dislike of the drivers, merely that the reason of image in the choice of an antisocial vehicle is not as valid as reasons of practicality.


Yes, but people are always questioned for their weaknesses, and pointing out others' weaknesses in return isn't a particularly valid defence.

The original thread was about bullbars though, which aren't really justifiable in any urban setting, except for reasons of image. And increasing others' potential mortality for image reasons isn't really defensible.

In reply to Australis Chris:

Anyway read the ncap safty testing. You are more likely to survive if you get hit by a new discovery that if you get hit by a ten year old nissan micra.

In reply to Australis Chris:
Are you unable to spot the differnce in the statistically tiny tiny likelihood of a 4x4 accidentally killing somebody and the deliberate act of a GBH etc ?

In reply to Bill Davidson:

Do you live in the outback?

In reply to jam46: Perhaps not because they're not so blatently anti-social as 4x4's (with a bull bar).

I stare admiringly at certain types of women

In reply to jam46:

What? When the Discovery is fitted with a Bull-bar? I doubt it.

In reply to Australis Chris:

look if people want to take GBH that's their own business....i myself have never indulged in such mind altering substance very often.

In reply to Australis Chris:

A Ferrari 360 does about 10mpg urban.

Bullbars aside, they are pretty antisocial in terms of environmental impact.

In reply to jam46:


I do have to wince when you see them being driven in the middle of london, but then i guess they can afford the new clutches etc.
They do have more of a purpose, and owners of those vehicles are more likely to do track days and aprt from the completely OTT ones can be used effectively for anything but pure town driving.

In reply to dissonance:
Well , I quote a previous poster " I think part of the reason why they are seen as antisocial is that people suspect that a significant reason why people buy them is more to do with image than the practical considerations you give. In general people don't buy estates or people carriers to look good."

We can argue the toss as to whether its dislike of people having the money to afford them or dislike of people thinking having them suggests they have the money to buy them . The ongoing language about "Chelsea tractors" and chdildern called Tarquin would suggest that class friction is not irrelevant to the debate .

My point is simply that its as much about the people as the vehicles .

In reply to Postmanpat: It's a deliberate act to have a bull bar on a 4x4 which might potentially kill someone eg a child running across a road

It's deliberate act to be aggresive and drunken in a town centre on a saturday night and start a fight...

Both are acts of utter selfishness and agression

In reply to t0mb0: As an aside to my poor attempts at getting a nibble from Dissonance - Bull bars are absolutely not required on a farm either - why would I want to drive into my bull! a good idea in Oz if you're thrashing around the outback smacking into Roos - but otherwise don't bother.

In reply to Australis Chris:

Yes there's need at all in the UK for Bull Bars and as a safety hazard it's right they should be banned.

My first car was a Metro. At that time I had a key to the gate on the forestry road up to the dam on the Ben and regularly took the metro up there, I also used to take three other folk complete with climbing and camping gear away in it in the winter so you'll excuse me if I'm a little sceptical at the perceived need some people have for a 4 wheel drive removal van.

Lets introduce variable road tax based on axle weight, CO2 emissions, wheel base etc. If folk feel they need an environmentally unfriendly vehicle to make them feel better about the "safety" of their children or the smallness of their penis then they can pay for it. Farmers etc will be able to claim the extra road tax back as a business expense.

In reply to Morgan Woods: I've heard it being called Stella

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

As far as im aware you cant get the big metal bull bars for the new discoveries. And as has been stated before they were made illegal to fit to new vehicles after 1995, plus the lady of ecstasy fitted to a roles royce will do you much more damage than a bull bar.

In reply to jam46:

ermmm. isnt the rolls royce designed to drop back into the bonnet so it will not hurt somone, since the bonnet decorations are also banned so they had to come up with some technical wizardy to get round it.

In reply to jam46: Especially one of the wings - could take an eye out

In reply to Postmanpat:


Ermm, again i am really confused as to why you think the cost is important. Again they are not expensive, apart from in running fuel costs.

As for "Chelsea tractors" are you saying everyone in Chelsea is posh, or alternatively it is just a phrase used to describe the intown usage that has spread throughout the country.

In reply to Australis Chris:
Oh ,I thought we'd moved on from bull bars .I agree they are ridicloous .No idea how dangerous they are but if it's demonstrated they are then they shouldn't be allowed .

However , scythes coming out of the wheels when driving through town centres on a Saturday night might be useful

In reply to johnstan:

Good point. I had a mate when I lived in Melbourne who owned a Holden Commodore (Bit like a Vauxhall Cavalier) with an enormous Bull-bar on, but he lived and worked in the outback on a farm. He used it to get from his farm into the city and would regularly hit random animals on the way that would otherwise ruin his car and likely come through the windscreen or send him off the road.

I think he could be forgiven for bringing his car into town (as opposed to taking the bar off when he got into suburbia), and when in the city he used to take the piss out of people who had Bull-bars on their big 4x4s because they never left the city in them.

In reply to jam46:

A study from 1994 suggested that bullbars then caused 2-3 additional fatalities and about 40 additional serious injuries a year. As bullbarred vehicles are replaced, this should fall further.

With 3,500 road fatalities in 2004, I'd rather get steamed up about poor driving skills, drink driving, speeding, buckling up in the back etc etc etc.

Even driving with your sidelights on all the time will very likely save more lives.

In reply to dissonance:

Only the very newest ones do this and you can turn that option off. As it is the queens car they can bypass some of the laws. For exaple did you know it is illegal to respary a roles royce a different colour?

In reply to dissonance:

How does someone else driving a large vehicle put your life at risk? Are you in the habit of jumping into the road in front of them? Is your own driving so bad that you constantly drive into the path of one of the aforementioned behemoths? Or are you suggesting that drivers of large vehicles somehow become less able drivers when they are in their car?

In reply to jam46:

Factory fitted bonnet mascots are designend either to retract of break easily. ir hinged.


however, the re seems to be a habit of numpties putting big chrome pheasants and such like on their Ragne Rovers. Jags etc. they are illegal.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
made me laugh.....in south africa these random creatures would then be used to make biltong.

In reply to Morgan Woods:


I do much the same thing at the end of summer with whatever insect crud can be pried off my radiator grille.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: The grimy blue teddy bear on a local dust truck could take out an oik or two

In reply to Postmanpat: To quote Sophie-Ellis Bexter there certainly would be Murder on the dance floor'

In reply to dissonance:
As the quote illustrated , their is a preception that they are bought as status symbols .Status symbols are generally such because they are "conspicuos consumption" ie.they are expensive .

Now some people may accept they are status symbols on these grounds and resent them accordingly .Other people may argue they are not costly and therefore not status symbols and despise the owners who bought them on a false premise .

If you don't accept mypoint about Chelsea tractos and class friction then trawl back through UKC and the press . Ther resentment is not about Fred the butcher . It is clearly aimed at the twin set and pearls mother driving Tarquin and Camilla to school etc . The reason Chelsea is picked is becasue it it is preceived as the spiritual home of the Sloane Ranger

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I agree that mascots are dangerous too (and a bit pertentious when not fitted by manufacturers). I think the same of bull bars too, dispite the fact I used to have one on a range rover bobtail. This vehicle was never used on the road and trailered to and from a specific of road course. The bull bar was used to pull the vehicle out when it got stuck and saved numerous repairs to bodywork.

However I think they should never be used on the road.

In reply to Postmanpat: I'm pretty sure we've all agreed that bullbars on any vehicle not being driven through the rainforest is a bad thing.
My observation is that the drivers who complain about the 'chelsea tractors' blocking the roads around schools are in all probability only driving in that area so that they too can drop little jimmy off outside the school gates instead of walking / catching the bus / cycling like the majority of kids north of watford have to do.

In reply to graeme jackson:


Too right. No wonder the little sods are getting obese. What happened to walking to school come rain or shine?

In reply to graeme jackson:

Driving through the rainforest - surely almost as bad as green laning?

In reply to graeme jackson:

I think that's a bit narrow. On my route to work, during half-term and in the summer holidays it takes 10 minutes less to get to work because the school traffic isn't present.

In my experience a lot of 'one person-one child' vehicles jam up the roads around schools, and about 30% are in 4x4 vehicles, plenty of whom seem to think it is OK to stop on the main throoughfare because they are outside a school, and plenty who seem to think it is safe reversingone of these vehicles onto the main thoroughfare to hurry home for a cup of tea to watch Richard & Judy.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:


so basically your grievance is with the bad driving if the parents rather than the vehicle itself?

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Implies about 70% are in 'other' vehicles - also clogging up the roads unneccessarily.

In reply to hutchm:
Ok. substitute 'tree lined offroad course' .

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
plenty of whom seem to think it is OK to stop on the main throoughfare because they are outside a school, and plenty who seem to think it is safe reversingone of these vehicles onto the main thoroughfare to hurry home for a cup of tea to watch Richard & Judy.

So you think doing this in ,say, a fiesta is OK but not in a 4x4?

In reply to Postmanpat: I knew I 'd come across you somewhere before! arent you the bloke from the old Monty Python shows who used to sell arguments?

In reply to Psychopathic_Barbie:
Oh no I'm not....

In reply to jam46:

Yes, however I have an increased grievance with the drivers of the 4x4s because they seem to have great difficulty in safely manouvering their vehicle due to it's size in a restricted environment. There are more suitable vehicles for carrying out this function.

I also think Bull-bars on 4x4s are unnecessary and dangerous.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Which is true.

In reply to jam46:

No, as mentioned, it is more dangerous in a larger vehicle, the driver of which is often ill-equipped to manouver it in a small area packed with children and oncoming vehicles.

In reply to Postmanpat: you are!

In reply to Jon Hemlock: 4x4's have no difficulty in maneuvouring - I've seen one execute a 16 point turn flawlessy whilst the driver was smoking a fag!

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

The volkswagen sharan and the ford galaxy are both bigger than most 4x4s, plus equally as useless for a one or two child family


As do I

In reply to graeme jackson:

Or that in a random accident there is greater risk from these vehicles. Also i would tend to go with the people who prichase a vehicle because they feel it provides greater protection are likely to drop attentiveness. Bit like soloing something, leading, or toproping it. The safer you feel the more dodgy moves you might try.

In reply to jam46:
Yes, but at least the maufacturers know that they will be used for this purpose and attempt to make them safer in respect to pedestrians, and increase their driver-visibility so they are easier to use in a restricted environment.

In reply to dissonance:

If their motivation for buying it is protecting their brood in the event of a crash, at least they've mentally acknowledged that a crash is possible, unlike many of the little tw*ts in nippy hatchbacks who think they are indestructible..

Mrs 4x4 could even be a more attentive driver than average...although I suspect anecdotal evidence may not confirm this!

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Again check the ncap safety testing, you will find that most people carriers are just as dangerous to pedestrians as 4x4s.

I dont support the use for 4x4s on the roads but think it is a bit blinkered not to assume that accidents are mainly caused by the occupants and not the vehicle itself. A vehicle is only as dangerous as its driver. Plus we should do something about all the school runs not just those done in 4x4s.

If people who buy 4x4's do so primarily for safety reasons then they're buying their safety at the expense of someone else ie the damage will not be to their car, and not everyone can afford a 4x4. So they're increasing their chances of survival - whilst decreasing someone else's.

Is this the same as buying private health care, private education for your spawn and living in nice neighbourhoods?

There you go, I made it a class struggle

In reply to Australis Chris:
They could be buying them as a defence against the W@nkers in 'normal' cars who cause the accidents in the first place, thus reducing the number of potential deaths.

In reply to graeme jackson: Perhaps further proof of a siege mentality developing in the UK - it'll be gated communities and illegal immigrant gardeners next...

In reply to Australis Chris:


Woohooo! can't wait.

In reply to jam46:

I'm no expert on NCAP so you may be right.

As for the 'school-trip' I think you're right. A solution I thought of was to provide a US style bus service that collects children and delivers them to school at 7am.

I know it's not perfect but it would be better for the environment, safer for other road users, and would cut congestion enormously.

In reply to Jon Hemlock: We have a school bus service in central scotland. Perhaps it's time England followed suit.

In reply to graeme jackson: Nope, wouldn't work. My kids have to walk 500 yards to the bus stop - you'd never get tarquin to do that

In reply to Jon Hemlock: You see your mistake is using common sense to solve a transport problem, you should use gross incompetence for all tramnsport solutions - the government have been using it for years with gay abandon.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Personally I dont see why everyone who lives within one and a half miles of school cant walk or cycle there. When i was at school, not all that long ago, hardly anyone was dropped off by parents. No wonder we are becoming an obese society.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
Would you agreet aht climbers hsould all kjoin clubs and use environmentally friendly minibuses to go climbing ?

In reply to Postmanpat: I'd get a new keyboard if I were you

In reply to Postmanpat:

Want to try that one again in english?

On a serious note people can own whatever they want, that is their right after all. ie do you people who ride have a new flashy racing bike or one of the old rattley things used in holland?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Do the climbers go everyday?
Are they located in a geographic area which makes it easy for them to picked up and dropped off effectively.
Do they work to exactly the same timetable?
Does each village have say, 300 climbers all travelling a couple of k?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No.

In reply to jam46: I've got an old rattly thing with a basket on the front where I sometimes keep a bunch of tulips.

In reply to Australis Chris:

That sound so pretty. You can see the point I was trying to make though.

In reply to Australis Chris:


Tears rolling down my face, postmanpat seems to have had a liquid lunch.

In reply to jam46: Sorry - you made a good point, however a racing bike isn't detrimental to anyone else's safety.

In reply to dissonance:

Of course not.

I think the overall point is that asking other people to change their behaviour to protect the environment is probably a bit rich if we're not prepared to change our behaviour to limit our impact - for example, joining with other like-minded climbers in a club to share the environmental cost of the long journeys that many of us make.

If you don't want your freedoms restricted by a club meet programme, why should you be asking for other people to restrict their freedoms on your behalf?

In reply to Australis Chris:
Ah but you can go faster than on an old boneshakre so you're more likley to do damage to whoever jumps off the pavement. Hang on - let's ban mountainbiles as they'll no doubt have handlebar extensions pointing forwards that could gore someone to death. Better still, lets all stay in bed hiding under the duvet in case anything happens.

In reply to graeme jackson: 'mountainbiKes'!

In reply to Australis Chris:

I always work on the principal that getting hit by any car is going to f**king hurt alot regardless of what type it is and try to avoid that happening as much as possible.

Anyhow I have to go and replace the brake calipers on someones car to make sure they can stop.

In reply to graeme jackson: I wish many 4x4 drivers with a bull bar would.

Granted bar-ends can gore but other than a Raleigh Mustang very few mountain bikes weigh half a ton.

In reply to hutchm:

A lot of people with environmental and money concerns do this.

I'm not sure everyone who drives their kids to school and back in rush-hour taffic actually wants to.

In reply to Australis Chris:

You never had an Raleigh Activator then, weighed more like a tonne

In reply to Australis Chris: Sorry Raleigh Mustangs weigh more than half a ton

In reply to jam46: I was proper hardcore - no 0.2 inches of rear travel for me

In reply to Jon Hemlock:


Good point. I guess we're just having a bit of a go at those who do it out of choice rather than necessity.

In reply to dissonance:
Lots of climbers leave urban connurbations on Friday night or saturday morning for popular climbing destinations and return on saturday or Sunday evenings . They could easily do this in shareed minbuses but are too selfish to do so , preferring their own comfort and convenience .

In reply to Australis Chris:

I've not read the whole thread, so sorry if this has already been answered... I'm thinking of getting some frontal protection bars for my own vehicle, and I'm not sure if it's worth paying extra for the black powder coating over regular stainless steel, or does it get chipped easily? Thanks!

Also, do you reckon I should get some of these too? http://www.thenutshop.com/store/

In reply to Matthew B: No problems - I may have alluded to the answer earlier but it's worth going over it in more detail;

1. Get some newspaper - The Sunday Telegraph is best.
2. Mix up some flour and water to make a paste.
3. Tear the newspaper into thin strips and soak in paste.
4. Take strips out of paste and roll into thin tubes.
5. Make four small ones and four large ones.
6. Let tubes dry.
7. Stick tubes together with sticky backed plastic into a rectangular grid.
8. Paint with black poster paint.
9. Stick on front of car - Best effect is acheived with rusty Bedford Rascal.
10. Drive around paying no attention to other road users.
11. CAUTION DO NOT DRIVE IN THE RAIN.

In reply to Australis Chris:

pmsl, superb

In reply to Matthew B: My sincere apologies I forgot to mention the following;

1. Don't attempt to nudge cattle out of way.
2. Always be aware of kangeroos in Guildford, a robust bull bar is no excuse for sloppy or careless driving!
3. Never attempt to tow anything heavier than a pedal car. Although a pedal JCB is ok.

In reply to Postmanpat:

And as other said, many do or at least share vehicles. You have also ignored the obvious logistical differences between a school run and most other activities including the sheer numbers involved.

In reply to dissonance:
It's obviously different to a school run but surely it is the principle that matters ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

And we tend to be going a shade further, even if there are fewer of us.

In reply to hutchm:
That's not the point . The point is you are unnecessarily polluting the environment and risking other peoples' lives for your own selfish pleasure .

In reply to Postmanpat:

Principle is part of it but simplicity of putting into practice and overall impact also comes into it.
Moving away from the school run to organised buses would hit the number of vehicles on the road during rush hour severely (spot the difference in half term). So you would get the double whammy of cutting some environmental impact completely and reducing others (the other users by not sitting in a jam).
Organising all the climbers on the other hand would be a bit like herding cats.

In reply to dissonance:
Well ,if we are to beleive the attacks on 4x4 drivers it is a question of personal morality . Just as they should trade in their cars for A tree hugger special so we should all join clubs and use club transport whenever possible .

In reply to Postmanpat:

errr...agreeing with you...I think....

In reply to dissonance:


So introducing and organising a nationwide scheme of school buses similar to the US model would be easier to achieve than persuading a few climbers to make a personal ethical decision to make minor changes to their lifestyle?

Hmm, actually you're probably right there....

In reply to hutchm:
ah,right , i see now.

In reply to hutchm:


Many schools already have it, creating incentives for it would be fairly simplistic.

For the climbing you would need to be organising people who have different aims in many cases to do the same thing.It works to a certain extent, but can you imagine the arguments about where to go each weekend, with everyone with their individual ticklist if that was the only method available. You then get hit with accommodation etc.

On top of that you have the relative impact, taking climbers out of the equasion, relatively minor. Knocking out the rush hour traffic - major.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I will fill my car up tomorrow and drive to Scotland on Thursday, but it will be the second fill this year apart from £10 put in two weeks ago. Not really a lot is it?

In reply to dissonance:

I'd ignore the antagonism if I were you. They're putting forward a nonsensical argument.

The number of people who drive their kids to school and back everyday (using their choke and running at urban mpg levels) probably outnumber the number of climbers travelling at weekends in 100s to 1. The distance is negligible in comparison to journeys made.

It's specious reasoning and the argument is nothing to do with freedoms. It's offering a sensible alternative to a nationally recognised problem that would probably save quite a few lives whilst reducing environmental impact.

In reply to sutty:

I don't think anyone here is seriously having a pop at climbers who drive distances to get to the hills. We virtually all do it.

It's just an illustration of how the argument about 4x4 users and their 'excessive' Co2 emissions can be contrasted with the amount of Co2 the average climber contributes a year through their leisure pursuits (which are, like a BMW X5, a luxury, to be honest).

We expect them to change their lifestyle, but would resist any attempt to change ours.

It sounds as if you're one of the few who are actually in the position to indulge in a bit of moralising. Most of us are nowhere near as thrifty as you.

This is assuming you're not going everywhere by helicopter instead, of course.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

It's not entirely specious - the discussion may have evolved into something fairly practical (school buses vs school runs), but it started from the standpoint that urban 4x4 users, as individuals, were somehow selfish on environmental issues.

Perhaps they are, but if you shine the torch back the other way, so are we. We're not prepared to give up driving back and forth from the Peak or North Wales to save the planet, so why should they? Every environmental choice in the end comes down to individuals - you could have all the school buses in the world, but ultimately a 4x4 may still be more practical and comfortable to an individual parent. Why should they give up their comfort if their next door neighbour drives 400 miles every other weekend to play about on some rocks?

School buses are a great idea, and I'm sure would encourage a lot of folk to park up their volvos and X5s. But I'm not sure they're cheap - would you mind a extra few percent on your council tax to fund them?

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

just got big jobs running so baiting them is fairly amusing.

In reply to hutchm:

I think I am draining the national grid ATM charging batteries for the camera and head torches as well as the mobile phone.

In reply to hutchm:


But you are making the assumption that they do not make similar trips (incidently interesting cheap flights havent been brought up yet) in their much larger vehicle.


A mix of council tax and some charge to parents. Unlikely to be large and the advantage at rush hour would benefit everyone.

In reply to dissonance:
Not claiming that we're all polluting identically, and certainly not that 'climber travel' pollution could possibly exceed 'school run' pollution - that would be ludicrous. But I'd be surprised if the average suburban motor racks up the same number of weekend miles as the average keen climber's motor.

All I'm saying is that we're not in the strongest position to start moralising about individuals.

The school bus issue is a separate one - and a good idea, although I pity the politician who tries to get it going, given that any increase in council tax inevitably gets them squawking...

In reply to hutchm:

I agree there is a point somewhere, it's just not a reasonable comparison in terms of environmental impact.

The likes of us who do drive to the far reaches to climb/ walk/ visit people etc. should probably consider pooling resources to travel. I regularly pick up two mates at separate junctions on the M6 to go to The Lakes. It's not always that easy though.

In terms of the 4x4 argument, it's impossible to know but it would seem likely that urban 4x4 owners are at least ignorant of the increased environmental impact they are having, if not entirely dismissive of it due to personal preference.

I think there are more important factors like safety to consider first, and it would be a shame if freedom of choice disappeared entirely, but a more public spirited and unselfish viewpoint would be of benefit in a number of areas.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:


Or for the new Audi. Target audience is apparently:
'like nature but are not concerned with the environment'

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/road_tests/article345215.ece

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
>I regularly pick up two mates at separate junctions on the M6 to go to The Lakes. It's not always that easy though.
I am probably simply being devil's advocate here, but would you be prepared to adjust when and where you went climbing to ensure that you could always car-share? Or restrict yourself to club meets with minibus transport?

That would reduce your environmental impact, but also your freedom to go where you wanted, when you wanted, with whom you wanted.

Not sure that when a London climber is considering Peak vs Lakes for a weekend away, they would favour the Peak primarily because the environmental impact of the travel would be less...so while your point about ignorance of 4x4 drivers is well made, the main issue is that emissions aren't generally at the forefront of the decision-making process, either for urban 4x4 drivers or for ourselves.

The key thing (in the absence of alternatives such as school buses, which don't exist in many places), is whether a group of people is prepared to compromise with their chosen lifestyle for the greater good.

In reply to Patrick Ruane:

great idea. ive been thinking on the same lines. But more obvious like. YES I DRIVE A CHILD KILLER.

weird that so many mums seems to drive them.

In reply to dissonance:
there was a program on tv last week that discussed a families carbon output over a year. scarily the family holiday to the canaries was a huge lump almost a quarter if i remember correctly.

In reply to hutchm:


Put simply, no. I don't belong to a club and never have in all the years of climbing. To elaborate, the 'no' whilst also being for the reasons you mention below, is principally because one of my bigger reasons for climbing is to escape the rigours and entanglements of urban life. It's how I access my freedom and stay sane. I compromise my choice of location quite often with my climbing mates but I wouldn't restrict the groups' enjoyment on an environmental stance. Whether it be 4 of us in one car to The Lakes or two of us on a plane to Chamonix, the experience outweighs the consideration of environmental impact. I don't do much else to the world, I'm sure I'd be forgiven one pleasure.


I disagree, in terms of environment the key thing in my opinion is to look at the areas of greatest impact and address them. That way we can make greater improvements more quickly and work on a sliding scale until all matters are addressed in some way. To use your example however, if all the people driving kids to school and back did 3 kids to a car the environmental benefit would be enormous compared to pooled climbing trips. It's simply a matter of magnitude. If the less responsible and higher impact polluters were dealt with effectively more freedoms would remain available.

In reply to Australis Chris: the bart and the bounder (beeb 2 now) have got bull bars on their landrover, and i've got some on my van

In reply to Australis Chris:


You need also, in the interests of fairness, to ask all car drivers to stick strictly to speed limits in 20 and 30mph zones.

Bet your view won't be as popular now, as it will involve far more people having to think about how they drive in built up areas... A self-assessment, where most people will fail.

In reply to Australis Chris:

My bull bars went straight to the local recycling center when I got my 4x4. It doesn't matter how well I drive, other people do stupid things and I don't want them to die if I can prevent it.

In reply to Dominion: So how can a minority of people be encouraged to drive more thoughtfully?

One popular school of thought is that drivers go through a CBT in order to make then realize the vulnerability of other road users.

In reply to Australis Chris:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=168468&v=1#2412940

This is an excellent idea for good experienced drivers who have strayed or lost sight of some of the rules of the road.

It's designed to teach people how to approach speeding in the correct way so that you are never actually speeding in the first place, so you don't need to worry about cameras. It's a refresher course.