UKC

What's wrong with SUV owners?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 stp 08 Nov 2007
OK, I've climbed all over the USA, Europe and in this country literally from Lands End to far north of Scotland. And in over 20 years of travelling to obviously rocky terrains I've only once ever needed an SUV to get somewhere. And that somewhere was Baldwin Creek Canyon in Wyoming, a state that has more sheep than people.

So why is it so many people in this country buying SUVs now? Why spend a load of extra cash on high ground clearance and 4 wheel drive, for a less safe vehicle that is more expensive to run, and pollutes more than an ordinary car?

My theory is that the type of people that buy these vehicles are generally unthinking types of people who get seduced (conned even) by clever advertisers which sell them something totally unsuitable for their needs. The buyers haven't thought about the high ground clearance, increased CO2 emissions or anything else. They've just seen an ad that has associated a vehicle with driving on some empty Scottish dirt road and not really figured out that most of their driving is either on a motorway or stuck in town traffic.

Can there be so many suckers with the wads of cash needed to throw away on these unnecessary, grotesque vehicles? Well take a look at car ads some time. Far more space is dedicated to promoting some kind of life style image rather giving technical info about the vehicle.

So it's sad to say but Yes there are.

(And yes I'm sure there are some people who do genuinely need SUV capabilities. But most, I reckon, do not.)
In reply to stp:
Is it not the automotive equivalent of saying:
"F*ck you"
If they crash, even if it is their fault, they wont get hurt. (Or so the theory goes.) Not to mention all the extra environmental impact.
 graeme jackson 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: 0/10. this has been done so often your trolling is obvious.
 Smitz 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: Don't worry, stupidity always gets it's comeuppance eventaully.
In reply to stp: Drivers of Chelsea Tractors also seem to have a misguided delusion of grandeur when they look down on you driving your normal sized car!
 GrahamD 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

Good marketing. Sport Utility Vehicle - WTF does that mean ? its designed to make couch potatos feel sporty and rufty tufty without them actually having to do sport.

Apparently they can be useful if you own a caravan - which sums their utility up nicely.
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

My father in law likes his Discovery because he can see over hedges - i.e. he has a good view of the road. He doesn't give a monkeys about the cost of the vehicle because he can afford it.

As far as the environmental aspect of it, he reckons the emissions of his diesel are lower than many family cars (I don't know if this is true) and when he bought it he had to pay some sort of carbon offset contribution so now he feeels he can do what he wants.

It is quite useful for taking things to the tip though and we often get up to seven people in it. 5 of us went to Wales in it, taking all our gear with us, including stuff for a toddler. Otherwise we would have needed two cars whihc would definitely have been worse for the environment. So they do have their uses.

As far as advertising is concerned, it is designed to delude us into thinking we need gear that they want to sell us. How many people really NEED all the climbing gear or clothing they have?
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Sammy the Shammy:
> ...a misguided delusion of grandeur when they look down on you driving your normal sized car!


Yeah but the weird thing now is that they've become a widely despised group of people. Why buy a status symbol if it makes you hated and looked down upon by everyone else? Just plain ignorance?

In reply to stp:

They are bought for exactly the same reason as we buy most consumer goods and most other cars. We are seduced by advertising and fashion. Obviously none of us needs to spend more than a few quid on clothes but most people do, same with Dualit toasters, new sofas, bottled largers. We're nearly all guitly of purchses that go beyond the utilitarian it's just that SUVs are the biggest and most obvious manifestation of the trend. They are also the easiest to laugh at and what with their alleged environmental impact they enable those without the money to buy one to be very pious so pretty much everyone is a winner.
In reply to stp: I know! I'm afraid I have to look far beyond the price tag and size of someones car to have any respect for them and what they've achieved in life!

In reply to stp: It's the most horrible isidious canker in our society at the moment. The cult of I. You may not be aware but the world revolves around most people and they have rights to do what they please. They never ever consider others.

Recent examples for me :-
A driving instructor parked on a blind brow on the entrance to a housing estate. When I questioned him he said I needed to drive slower - eh ? nice defence of attack. Just say, sorry I am in the wrong and move it !

A BMW driver who blocked all the traffic going e-w so he could gain 2 metres on the n-s road. The E-W road was clear - well apart from his BMW blocking it.

A bus driver doing the same as as the BMW driver above, but blocking city centre traffic on a yellow cross hatched box ! When I asked which part of the box he didn't see - he said "all of it" then I asked his name and he said "Mickey mouse" This was an anonymous bloke sitting in a bus with a number and a licence plate - did he think I was daft or what ?

I just lose the will to live on all this.

Please give me some more examples - so I realise it's not just me !
In reply to Chris James:

I don't like people carriers and SUVs because it's harder see round them.

In getting a elevated view of the road for themselves they deny a view to others.

In a crash - by making themselves safer, owners of these vehicles deny others safety (particularly pedestrians). Although it seems they are not necessary safer in reality as they don't handle so well.

Selfish?
 graeme jackson 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Sammy the Shammy:
> (In reply to stp) I know! I'm afraid I have to look far beyond the price tag and size of someones car to have any respect for them and what they've achieved in life!

And yet you're using the size and price of their car to condemn them - double standards i think.

In reply to dunc56: Has anyone done the research into the average weight of drivers versus the type of cars driven ? My money is fat blokes/women are way more prevalent in SUVS. You must have seen them huff and puff as the dismount in the disabled spaces at their local supermarket
Frodo 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James: My Passat (Big car!) will do between 50 and 60 mpg on the motorway. I very much doubt that any 4 wheel drive would get close to that.

Add on the fact it looks better, is more comfortable, faster and more maneuverable and you wonder why people buy 4x4's!

Just another big con!
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James:
> (In reply to stp)
>
> ...he has a good view of the road.

Kinda selfish coz it's much harder for someone behind to see past an SUV than a normal car.


> As far as the environmental aspect of it, he reckons the emissions of his diesel are lower than many family cars (I don't know if this is true)

A diesel family car is bound to be better than any 4WD


> Otherwise we would have needed two cars whihc would definitely have been worse for the environment.

On that particular trip yes. But unless it's being used that way most of the time the occasional two car trip is probably better.

In reply to graeme jackson:
> (In reply to Sammy the Shammy)
> [...]
>
> And yet you're using the size and price of their car to condemn them..

No I'm saying that it doesn't impress me and that the bigger the car and the more expensive etc etc the less it impresses me.
 jkarran 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Tyler:

LOL. You hit the nail on the head there.
jk
 graeme jackson 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Sammy the Shammy:
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
> [...]
>
> No I'm saying that it doesn't impress me and that the bigger the car and the more expensive etc etc the less it impresses me.


Actually, what you said was..
"Drivers of Chelsea Tractors also seem to have a misguided delusion of grandeur when they look down on you driving your normal sized car! "

That's a pretty sweeping condemnation of chelsea tractor drivers.

Incidentally, I was in London on monday and tuesday and watched the traffic on euston road while I had breakfast. Didn't see many 4x4s but I also didn't see ANY courteous drivers.
In reply to dunc56:
>My money is fat blokes/women are way more prevalent in SUVS.
Funny you should mention that.
I always think that the design of SUVs makes them look a bit like fat people in designer sports wear.
In reply to graeme jackson: Hey ho whatever! Just commenting on my experience. Can't really be arsed to argue the toss........
 Doug 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Sammy the Shammy: I used to drive a (works) Land Rover from time to time to access remote site in the Highlands - fine off the public road but a pain to drive on real roads - can't see why anyone would want one as their everyday vehicle
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Tyler:
> (In reply to stp)
>
> We're nearly all guitly of purchses that go beyond the utilitarian

Yeah nothing wrong with buying for aesthetic reasons

> it's just that SUVs are the biggest and most obvious manifestation of the trend.

No. They're designed for a specific purpose that their owners don't use.


> with their alleged environmental impact

alleged ??? Surely no doubt that that 4WD, big engine, fat tyres etc. has more impact than a typical car.

 niggle 08 Nov 2007
In reply to graeme jackson:

> "Drivers of Chelsea Tractors also seem to have a misguided delusion of grandeur when they look down on you driving your normal sized car! "

> That's a pretty sweeping condemnation of chelsea tractor drivers.

I'd agree with it though! I took the bus yesterday (big mistake) and got a front-row seat for the bleak farce of a large fat rich woman in a large SUV smashing into the side of the bus in an apparent attempt to cut it up at some road works, then storming on the bus shrieking that she had right of way.
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Swig:
> (In reply to Chris James)
>
> I don't like people carriers and SUVs because it's harder see round them.

>
> In getting a elevated view of the road for themselves they deny a view to others.

Do you dislike buses for the same reason? Do you think they should be banned?
>
> In a crash - by making themselves safer, owners of these vehicles deny others safety (particularly pedestrians). Although it seems they are not necessary safer in reality as they don't handle so well.
>
> Selfish?

I agree to an extent, but at what point do you draw the line? We could insist that car bodies are made from expanded foam and the vehicles limited to 20mph as that would also be safer for pedestrians, but we don't view people who wouldn't want to drive such a vehicle as selfish.

By the way, did you select your car by deciding which would be least likely to hurt someone else in the event of you running them over? I know I didn't.


In reply to stp: It's not just SUVs though. The way car technology is going is wrong - we now have the safest cars ever but at a price. The example is the golf GTI - the original 1600 engine 110bhp - 800kg - Gold R32 3200 engine - 220bhp - 1600kg - ie DOUBLE - so where is the progress there? Even performance cars are bloated safety mobiles. What would you give for an r32 which weighs 1000kg - how fast would that go ..... or how much less fuel would it use !
Frodo 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Sammy the Shammy: Yup, Overall I'd rather have a small/medium car thats well designed and well spec'd rather than a huge car. Fortunately most of the European and Japaneses manufacturers have cottoned on to this! Ford Focus is a brilliant example (even though its American owned company).

Just got to wait for the yanks to catch up in their own country.
ceri 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: And that somewhere was Baldwin Creek Canyon in Wyoming, a state that has more sheep than people.

Yorkshire has more sheep than people, are you allowed an SUV there?
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Frodo:
> (In reply to Chris James) My Passat (Big car!) will do between 50 and 60 mpg on the motorway. I very much doubt that any 4 wheel drive would get close to that.
>
> Add on the fact it looks better, is more comfortable, faster and more maneuverable and you wonder why people buy 4x4's!
>
> Just another big con!

I would prefer a Passat too, (although possibly not if I was taking an old fridge to the tip) although it would be interesting to see what fuel economy it gave about town in comparison to say a Smart car. The supermini driver probably thinks you drive an excessivly big car!



In reply to Frodo: Yay - me too! I don't need a vehicle to enhance who I am. If nothing else it just seems an inordinate waste of money that I could use for far more fun things! I drive across Dartmoor every working day in all weather conditions (including snow/ice etc) and feel no need to have anything other than a normal car.

The Sham x
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James:
> (In reply to Swig)

> Do you dislike buses for the same reason?

I don't think bus drivers choose their vehicles so they can get an elevated view of the road.


> We could insist that car bodies are made from expanded foam and the vehicles limited to 20mph as that would also be safer for pedestrians, but we don't view people who wouldn't want to drive such a vehicle as selfish.

It's a myth that they're safer for their occupants. And they're much more dangerous for pedestrians since they're likely to go under rather than over the vehicle. So definitely selfish.
In reply to stp:

> Yeah nothing wrong with buying for aesthetic reasons

Well there you go then! That's what people are doing when they buy 4WD vehicles so what's your problem?

> No. They're designed for a specific purpose that their owners don't use.

Like combat trousers? Training shoes?

> alleged ??? Surely no doubt that that 4WD, big engine, fat tyres etc. has more impact than a typical car.

Well obviously they have an environmental impact but then everything does. The difference between an SUV that does 30mpg and a car that does 50mpg is nominal in the great scheme of things and probably lost on someone who has no car and lives on less than a dollar a day in some third world country. The problem isn't that someone who drives a SUV has a bigger carbon foot print than you or I, the problem is that you me and everyone in the UK has a bigger carbon footprint than most people in the world.
Frodo 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James: Its a bit big for town but mostly I use it for long motorway Journeys. Its a company car and if I ever have to get my own I'd probably opt for a Focus or Leon as their a bit smaller but still great cars.

I usually cycle to work anyway although even in town it manages a respectable 40mpg. Putting the bikes on the roof can really down it though to about 35mpg on fast roads.

Quite impressive when you consider my old Astra gave only about 37mpg (although it was petrol).
toadwork 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: I don't really see the point of carrying round an extra half tonne of transmission that you'll never use.

I've driven a lot of 4x4's. A big old series 2 landy that was the single most unpleasant drive ever, several jap pick ups, including a D21 I put 100k miles on (in 10 years) and a modern defender. I did a lot of towing and a lot of "off road" - mostly unglamerous fields and muddy tracks, not extreeeeeeem off road.

So on one hand, I've got it out of my system. On the other, I enjoyed the D21. I could afford one, and it would be reasonably useful. But I can do 99% of what I want to in a diesel estate, and I just can't justify it to myself.

On another thread I mentioned the rather sad sight of a 4x4 safari in the lakes at the weekend- extreeeeeem off road on a dirt track I'd have taken the car up, like ducks in a row - nothing achieved except pissing everyone else off and the illusion of adventure. I suppose it was buying into the lifestyle ads and feeling "special", but it's a bit like me sitting at my desk typing in £250 worth of outdoor gear, when I could be wearing jeans, a jumper and a pair of Clarks loafers.
Frodo 08 Nov 2007
> Well obviously they have an environmental impact but then everything does. The difference between an SUV that does 30mpg and a car that does 50mpg is nominal in the great scheme of things and probably lost on someone who has no car and lives on less than a dollar a day in some third world country.

Does that make it right? I think you'll find there is a massive difference. Its not only using 2/5 more fuel per journey (or 40% less efficient) its the energy to build, ship and maintain said car which will be much more expensive and energy intensive than your average family car.
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to Chris James)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I don't think bus drivers choose their vehicles so they can get an elevated view of the road.
>
So you think having a blocked view of the road ahead is okay as long as the person blocking it hasn't chosen a high vehicle deliberately?

A 4x4 isn't designed to give a high seated position either, it is a by product of the design, due to the high ground clearance. The fact that some SUV drivers like that by product is incidental. If I said my father in law also liked the upholstery on his seats would that be okay with you?
>
> [...]
>
> It's a myth that they're safer for their occupants. And they're much more dangerous for pedestrians since they're likely to go under rather than over the vehicle. So definitely selfish.

Thanks for the pronouncement. I can tick the 'selfish' box and move on now. If I have any other awkward dilemmas where I am struggling to balance the evidence then I'll drop you and line and get your one eyed decree to set me straight.
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Frodo:
> (In reply to Chris James) Its a bit big for town but mostly I use it for long motorway Journeys. Its a company car and if I ever have to get my own I'd probably opt for a Focus or Leon as their a bit smaller but still great cars.
>
> I usually cycle to work anyway although even in town it manages a respectable 40mpg. Putting the bikes on the roof can really down it though to about 35mpg on fast roads.
>
> Quite impressive when you consider my old Astra gave only about 37mpg (although it was petrol).

I have got to start looking for a new car soon. We have an Almera which trundles along fine for what I do. But we have a 16 month old lad and another on the way so even with the roofbox then we won't be able to cart around enough gear when visting relatives or going on holiday. I am thinking something like Mondeo / Passat / Vectra estate, probably end up down the Ford route as they depreciate so much and I will be looking for one a couple of years old.

Yes, I agree that a family type car is much more practical for most circumstancse. I only posted some plus points on 4x4s to provide a tiny bit of balance to the argument!

 Anni 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Tyler:

Good reply. My sister likes having a 4x4 because she thinks its 'sexy'. However, most people dont give a second thought to how much pollution is created by that must have consumer good they just purchased. I know Im guilty of it!!
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Frodo:
> [...]
>
> Does that make it right? I think you'll find there is a massive difference. Its not only using 2/5 more fuel per journey (or 40% less efficient) its the energy to build, ship and maintain said car which will be much more expensive and energy intensive than your average family car.

Which leads onto the other interesting question about whetehr it is better to run an old inefficient car or a new 'green' car that has used loads of energy in its manufacture? I suppose as long as someone continues to run the old shed then it shouldn't matter, but when you see brand new Prius, made of about a house weight of steel, being touted as a greener choice than an old Escort then it makes me wonder what the stat say.

Hopefully someone will post a link to where someone has worked this out to save me the effort of researching it myself.

In reply to Chris James:

Bus companies don't have the choice "shall I get a bus or a small family car?" and hopefully buses carry lots of people most of the time.
 jkarran 08 Nov 2007
In reply to toadwork:

> On another thread I mentioned the rather sad sight of a 4x4 safari in the lakes at the weekend- extreeeeeem off road on a dirt track I'd have taken the car up, like ducks in a row - nothing achieved except pissing everyone else off and the illusion of adventure.

Surely most of us are in persuit of the illusion of adventure. Just because you consider their adventure laughable doesn't mean they do. Everyone has their own definition of 'adventure', since most of us are pretty average it stands to reason that half the population might consider our adventures illusory.

Re. 4x4 for non-technical off-road driving you're right it's not required. I do quite a bit of offroad driving in a 2wd car often on terrain I wouldn't dream of taking a modern SUV type van over for fear of scratching or bending it. I have lots of things (almost everything I own) I don't need, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with having those things.

jk
 Ridge 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James:
> (In reply to Frodo)
> [...]
>
> when you see brand new Prius, made of about a house weight of steel, being touted as a greener choice than an old Escort then it makes me wonder what the stat say.

True. In fact something like an old Landrover is probably the greenest thing you can own, regardless of engine condition.
A Prius shipped all the way from Japan, the batteries etc, plus replacement every 5 years, or a 30 year old Landrover. I bed the Landy's better for the planet, (if not your pocket).
 Postmanpat 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
Most SV drivers are barely aware they are 4WD.They drive them because they are comfortable ,have lots of space and luggage room,are safer if you get hit and have great vision. Money isn't a big consideration and if they think about it at all they reckon the alternative ie.a Jag or a volvo probably uses about as much petrol.

Yes,it's abit selfish but the idea that non-SUV drivers are morally superior is frankly bollocks .They just have different vices.

Tired old troll but worth a shot I guess.
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James:
> (In reply to stp)
> [...]
> So you think having a blocked view of the road ahead is okay as long as the person blocking it hasn't chosen a high vehicle deliberately?

It's not a purely selfish motive.

> A 4x4 isn't designed to give a high seated position either, it is a by product of the design, due to the high ground clearance. The fact that some SUV drivers like that by product is incidental.

Not if that's the reason they buy one.


> If I said my father in law also liked the upholstery on his seats would that be okay with you?

It doesn't effect me at all.



Frodo 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Postmanpat: I think the point is that smart car drivers are morally superior to all of us!
 Eric9Points 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

Even if these wankwagons were no more polluting than the average car I still think their owners should be penalised because they make driving, especially in cities, more difficult because they reduce visibility and they take up much more space when parked.

Let's have a sliding scale of road tax rising to £2000 pa for the largest and most polluting of private cars. Those who need large vehicles for their work can claim the tax back as a business expense.
 Postmanpat 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Frodo:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) I think the point is that smart car drivers are morally superior to all of us!

It's all bollocks .Just a lot of tree hugging sheep latching on the latest campaign.
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James:
> (In reply to Frodo)
> [...]
>
> probably end up down the Ford route as they depreciate so much and I will be looking for one a couple of years old.

I have a Mondeo TDCI. Seems pretty good. 50mpg at 70mph. And up to 136mph (in France). Runs on recycled chipfat biodiesel, though a mix of 30/70 or 50/50 is recommended it seems to do fine on nearly 100%. Currently about 10p per litre cheaper too.


 DougG 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Postmanpat:

Personally, I think the "sheep" are the people who buy SUVs whether they actually need them or not. Just because every other bugger seems to have one.
 Postmanpat 08 Nov 2007
In reply to DougG:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Personally, I think the "sheep" are the people who buy SUVs whether they actually need them or not. Just because every other bugger seems to have one.

Nonsense.They're great cars to drive,lots of space blah blah bla. Most cars are sold on the back of some image nonsense .I have no idea if that's why they are bought but guess a lot are but not just SUVs.Most people could get buy with a VW Polo but they don't.

Personally I don't have a car for now.
michael lawrence 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: 4x4 owners = easy target for criticism. I bet that a huge proportion of the population have cars, clothing, houses, etc, etc, etc that are in excess of their needs so should we all be reduced to a single common denominator for everything we buy and do?

We could simply have a government monopoly for all products and services and if you wanted, say, an estate car you'd have to past a needs test before you could have one. We could also ban everyone from doing anything that wasn't absolutely necessary and that they don't need to do. I should think climbing might be in a spot of bother with the last idea.

The point is that people have a choice and they need guidance in their choices but remove that choice and who knows where it could all end.
 DougG 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Most cars are sold on the back of some image nonsense.

Aye, to sheep.

I've got a Skoda.
 petellis 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
Why spend a load of extra cash on high ground clearance and 4 wheel drive, for a less safe vehicle that is more expensive to run,
> (And yes I'm sure there are some people who do genuinely need SUV capabilities. But most, I reckon, do not.)

Landrover Defender and Discovery are apparently the 2 safest cars of on the road in 2 car impacts.

According to a programme on Radio 4 some of it is to do with the wring in womens brains that goes thus "if somebody else has a big safe 4*4 to take their kids to school in then I am failing my kids if I don't do the same".

 graeme jackson 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Ridge:

> A Prius shipped all the way from Japan, the batteries etc, plus replacement every 5 years, or a 30 year old Landrover. I bed the Landy's better for the planet, (if not your pocket).

About a year ago a 'dust to dust' report was published that indicated that the prious was actually one of the worst enemies of the planet in terms of design, manufacturing and disposal costs. As you suspect, landies and even hummers were pretty near the top.
Here's a link to the report.

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf

The dust to dust cost per mile of the prious is $3.249, the current discovery is $2.535 and the hummer H3 is $1.949

No doubt these statistics will be ridiculed by the Anti4x4 brigade as they're notorious for ignoring facts.

JAMES OLSEN 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

i look forward to the first successful lawsuit brought by someone injured by the impact of an SUV, who can show that the owner (who must by now understand the danger of the added momentum and potential for damage thier vehicle has) is responsible for the damage done by their choice of vehicle.
anyone understand law enough to know if this is possible? obv theres more to a crash than the type of vehicle and they are no worse than a loaded van in this respect, but the element of buyer choice / need for the vehicle may be a point.
if i got hit by one i know the damage from the high front / added momentum is likely to be a lot worse, so if i was badly injured could i use crash test stats to show their choice of vehicle was a contributory factor to the injury, something the owneris responsibble for managing, and claim higher damages? not that i'm a sue-happy type, but it would be one more negative for owning an suv and may help make their drivers aware of the added danger (in terms of potential to cause damage) they can present to other road users in an accident.
when an X5 etc can easily out-accelerate many normal cars, the momentum gained and impact they could cause is worrying.
 Padraig 08 Nov 2007
In reply to JAMES OLSEN:

Any possibility of you throwing yourself at one this afternoon?
 John Wood 08 Nov 2007
In reply to ceri:

Unfortunately, yes.
JAMES OLSEN 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Padraig:

yeah if i can drag you with me
 jkarran 08 Nov 2007
In reply to JAMES OLSEN:

> i look forward to the first successful lawsuit brought by someone injured by the impact of an SUV, who can show that the owner (who must by now understand the danger of the added momentum and potential for damage thier vehicle has) is responsible for the damage done by their choice of vehicle.

In which case you're a fool. Sorry to be rude but I mean it.
jk
 niggle 08 Nov 2007
In reply to jkarran:

> In which case you're a fool. Sorry to be rude but I mean it.

I'm sure he meant he looked forward to the lawsuit, not the accident which causes it.
In reply to JAMES OLSEN:

It's because they are too dead to sue.
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to graeme jackson:

Thanks Graeme. Interesting, although I notice that one of their suppositions was a $3 a gallon fuel price!! So the fuel part of their monetary calculations woudl be a bit out for the UK.

It would be interesting if the same thing was done but for energy consumption.

A general point:

We are allowed to spend our money on what we want within reason. If 4x4s are expensive and fuel inefficient then the driver will pay for his or her choice by the VAT, VED and fuel duty they get landed with.

I find the idea that someone is selfish because they might block MY view on the road a bit laughable. Moaning about others because they inconvenience you fractionally could also be viewed as having a selfish attitude. Basically I think people should live and let live.

Next we'll have people being pilloried for not having enough energy efficient lightbulbs in their house or not enough inches of loft insulation.
Frodo 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris James: Agree with all your points but realistically the only way the government can change behavior is through taxation. People still have their choices but may have to pay more for it.

I don't see this as a stealth tax as long as its simple and clear and reinvested in public transport (rather than foolish wars).

If that takes 2K a year road tax for poor efficiency cars (poor efficiency not necessarily just 4x4) then so be it. I'm all for the congestion charge in manc provided it makes my train journeys in mac cheaper and better.
In reply to Chris James:

I only want to overtake the ponderous buggers!

Don't tell me you've not got the requisite 270mm of loft insulation as well as being some sort of apologist for 4x4s.

JAMES OLSEN 08 Nov 2007
In reply to niggle:

may be a fool but thats why i wanted to know the legal likelihood - nothing wrong in hoping for more accountability for choices that affect others is there?

and yes i meant the lawsuit )
 jkarran 08 Nov 2007
In reply to niggle:

> I'm sure he meant he looked forward to the lawsuit, not the accident which causes it.

So was I.
jk
 graeme jackson 08 Nov 2007
In reply to JAMES OLSEN:
> - nothing wrong in hoping for more accountability for choices that affect others is there?
>

Such as exceeding the speed limit
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Swig:

I have 300mm of loft insulation.

Those who merely follow the reccommended thickness are environmental hooligans in my eyes. I also have cavity wall insulation.

Mind you, we put in a chimney (and airbrick) a year ago letting the warm out leave and the cold air flood in our front room and I keep accidentally leaving the oven on all night so I am not sure what I have gained.
 Chris James 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Swig:

By the way, I only have 1.5 Almera and find it impossible to overtake anything other than tractors. Maybe that's why 4x4s don't bother me much?
In reply to Postmanpat: Hang on, let's not forget freewheel hubs - and 2WD switches - so you can turn off the 4WD - what for ? To save fuel - duuurrrrrrrrrrrr
In reply to Chris James:

Yeah me too, I've got a Polo so I don't succeed in overtaking many. I mainly just aspire to.
 John_Hat 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

Slightly off topic - well off at a tangent, anyway (**grin**), but there are lots of good reasons for 4WD apart from a muddy field. Anywhere there may be a traction issue - wet roads, corners, etc, 4WD is useful and the effect of having the extra traction is noticable including at lower speeds.

Saying that, a four ton 4WD with bull bars is utterly pointless for most people.

I've driven 4WD cars for about ten years, all being 4WD versions of normal road cars (Volvo V70, Suburu Legacy, Skoda Octavia). The last of these is stupidly economic - averaged 65mpg from Leeds to Gloucester on one occasion.

Saying the above, if someone wants to spend lots of dosh on a SUV (of the traditional four ton variety), it's their money and none of my business! **grins**.

Also, lots of people spend lots of cash pointlessly - anyone who buys an Audi is effectively buying a VW/Skoda/Seat, but will pay £10k more for the name - why particularly pick on SUV drivers?
In reply to John_Hat: And how many of those cars were permanent 4wd cars ? With a lot of non off-road specific cars the 4wd is only engaged when the front wheels spin. So for the rest of the time you carry round 100kg of useless 4WD driveshafts and associated stuff. Well worth it.

And when was the last time you were driving on a road when the limit of adhesion of modern tyres was reached ? (so the 4wd kicked in) hmmmmmm

Also on a corner a 4wd car is likely to understeer anyway if the limit of adhexsion is reached - which is hardly safe is it ?
 jkarran 08 Nov 2007
In reply to dunc56:

> And how many of those cars were permanent 4wd cars ? With a lot of non off-road specific cars the 4wd is only engaged when the front wheels spin. So for the rest of the time you carry round 100kg of useless 4WD driveshafts and associated stuff. Well worth it.

Most 4wd 'cars' are 'full time' 4wd with the front rear torque split being handled by a 3rd diff, generally some kind of limited slip type. Very few are actively controlled exept for some Japanese exotica Skyline, Lancer Evo, some Imprezza etc

> And when was the last time you were driving on a road when the limit of adhesion of modern tyres was reached ? (so the 4wd kicked in) hmmmmmm

See above re 4wd 'kicking in'. I light my back tyres up quite a bit in the wet but I have heavy clogs for feet. Fwd hatches are worse still for putting power down being short, tall and wrong wheel drive.

> Also on a corner a 4wd car is likely to understeer anyway if the limit of adhexsion is reached - which is hardly safe is it ?

Most cars understeer on the limit if you're carrying too much speed including fwd, 4wd and rwd models. It's considered safer, easier and more intuitive to deal with than oversteer.

4wd tames the oversteer tendancy of high performance cars that would otherwise be RWD (obviously the best drive configuration when too much power is applied in a bend. Most high power 4wd cars will oversteer quite happily and controllably on the throttle... which is good for hooligans that like that kind of thing.

jk
 charl 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: hasnt it got something to do with they fact they call them SPORTs UTILITY VEHIcLES ,said in ab america advert kinda way,

they're 4x4 s their not sfaer for taking the kids to school and guzle fuel
 John_Hat 08 Nov 2007
In reply to dunc56:
> (In reply to John_Hat) And how many of those cars were permanent 4wd cars ? With a lot of non off-road specific cars the 4wd is only engaged when the front wheels spin. So for the rest of the time you carry round 100kg of useless 4WD driveshafts and associated stuff. Well worth it.

All permanent 4WD, with a varying percentage going to each wheel depending on grip.

If I'm getting 65mpg (ok, in town 45-55mpg) and have low carbon emissions (which I have), then why is the weight of the car relevant when my car is demonstrably more efficient than most of the other cars on the road?

> And when was the last time you were driving on a road when the limit of adhesion of modern tyres was reached ? (so the 4wd kicked in) hmmmmmm

Erm. All the time. In fact pretty much any wet road.

I had a 2wd car for a bit (Mondeo) and was quite alarmed at the massive difference the 2WD made. It's not just adhesion, its just that when you are, say, going around a roundabout, the front wheels have to do both steering and traction, and in the wet they don't do both at the same time well.

I appreciate that to many 2WD owners there is only one reason for 4WD and that is muddy fields. I was stunned at the **massive** difference it made to the way the 4WD cars reacted in the wet or on any poor surface. It isn't just traction, its balance and security and stability.


>
> Also on a corner a 4wd car is likely to understeer anyway if the limit of adhexsion is reached - which is hardly safe is it ?

I don't go anywhere near the limit of adhesion on corners, thanks! Cornering near the limit is something I only ever do by accident. However all the FWD cars I have driven understeered (I was more of a loon in them days) **grin**.

Bingly Bong 08 Nov 2007
In reply to dunc56:
> (In reply to stp) It's the most horrible isidious canker in our society at the moment. The cult of I. You may not be aware but the world revolves around most people and they have rights to do what they please. They never ever consider others.
>
> Recent examples for me :-
> A driving instructor parked on a blind brow on the entrance to a housing estate. When I questioned him he said I needed to drive slower - eh ? nice defence of attack. Just say, sorry I am in the wrong and move it !
>
> A BMW driver who blocked all the traffic going e-w so he could gain 2 metres on the n-s road. The E-W road was clear - well apart from his BMW blocking it.
>
> A bus driver doing the same as as the BMW driver above, but blocking city centre traffic on a yellow cross hatched box ! When I asked which part of the box he didn't see - he said "all of it" then I asked his name and he said "Mickey mouse" This was an anonymous bloke sitting in a bus with a number and a licence plate - did he think I was daft or what ?
>
> I just lose the will to live on all this.
>
> Please give me some more examples - so I realise it's not just me !


What make of car was the driving instructor and bus driver driving?

Hmmmm

Seems there's a little bit of animousity towards Beemer drivers there...
scrubmunched 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
> So why is it so many people in this country buying SUVs now? Why spend a load of extra cash on high ground clearance and 4 wheel drive, for a less safe vehicle that is more expensive to run, and pollutes more than an ordinary car?


I dont really need one for work but its better than a van, as much room for my tools/materials, more comfortable more stylish (use it as my everyday car) and I like to go away 1 in 3or4 weekends offroading around the country with my mates.
Why is that wrong?
(I don't understand the less safe bit, but maybe if I get round to reading the full thread this will clear up.)
 Laubie 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

f*cking idiots
 Dominion 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

> alleged ??? Surely no doubt that that 4WD, big engine, fat tyres etc. has more impact than a typical car.

Funny how you don't see mass condemnation of cars like these on RT, though, based on those same criteria (apart from the 4WD, obviously)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini#Models

 Chris H 08 Nov 2007
In reply to everyone: Next time you get let out into a queue of traffic / right turn, make a note of what type of car lets you in. In my experience it is rarely a 4x4 / BMW.
 SC 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

I have owned a couple Isuzu 4x4s, the wife breeds horses & competes with them. Being too poor to buy a lorry a 4x4 was our only choice, needing a large towing capacity. I can honestly say that for anything other than towing a big heavy trailer I would rather dive a normal car. 4x4's are not good on the road. Crap suspension, & a high centre of gravity makes them a nightmare in the wet & massive weight makes them slow & thirsty (18mpg average from a 2.8 litre diesel!)
Much happier with my VW Passat
 Burns 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

The roads are very very poor where I live. You can bet increased use of suv type vehicles is a contributing factor, along with genrally increased traffic and an outdated way of funding road building.

 Dominion 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris H:

> Next time you get let out into a queue of traffic / right turn, make a note of what type of car lets you in. In my experience it is rarely a 4x4 / BMW.

Bet it's rarely a Ford Mondeo, either

But you probably don't pay attention to that breed of car as much...
 marie 08 Nov 2007
In reply to Dominion: To be quite honest, I dont pay that much attention to any car on the road (unless it's an M3).

I do get let out, and I do let other cars out, but I'm not anal enough to note down the make of car for Chris's statistical analysis...
scrubmunched 08 Nov 2007
In reply to SC:
> (In reply to stp)
>
> I have owned a couple Isuzu 4x4s, the wife breeds horses & competes with them. Being too poor to buy a lorry a 4x4 was our only choice, needing a large towing capacity. I can honestly say that for anything other than towing a big heavy trailer I would rather dive a normal car. 4x4's are not good on the road. Crap suspension, & a high centre of gravity makes them a nightmare in the wet & massive weight makes them slow & thirsty (18mpg average from a 2.8 litre diesel!)
> Much happier with my VW Passat



I wouldn't change my L200 for any other car, its comfy, quick and handles brilliantly in the wet and I've had to pull quite a few cars out of our ditches around here in the winter, so it has its uses. Apart from that, I know if anyone hits me, they will most likely be going under the thing and a head on will definately decapitate the oposing vehicle and not me. I drove alongside an MGB the other day and he made me paranoid as I thought, jesus, be careful mate, this thing will literally drive over you if you keep swerving.
Thats what I like.
Oh, and I get 30mpg
 Chris H 08 Nov 2007
In reply to marie: do get let out, and I do let other cars out, but I'm not anal enough to note down the make of car for Chris's statistical analysis...

Do you drive a 4X4 though? Anyone who wants to get anal email your results on excel spreadsheet to me.
 toad 08 Nov 2007
In reply to scrubmunched:
I found the metal on the jap pick ups bends just as well as a lancer or corolla - made of the same tin - had a few low speed tree incidents when I worked in the woods, so I wouldn't put too much faith in its indestructability.

It also was truly awful in mud. Most tarty 4x4s have road tyres on them, which just gives them an extra set of wheels to fail to stick. You also get a false sense of security on snow/ ice 'cos if 2 wheels can't get a grip 4 won't either. Got to say the more I read these threads, the more I like my passat. You also don't get a hernia lifting heavy weights into the back of an estate. Getting an arthritic old lab into the back of the nissan was a nightmare.
 David Hooper 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
I have a Nissan X-Trail which i think is classed as a "compact" 4X4 - it is incredibly enjoyable and FUN to drive and pretty economical - although it is a 4X4 there is no way I would want to be seen in a big Cayenne,Merc or BMW 4X$ -ugly and ostentatius.

Our car gets used (and abused) on and off road - filled with dogs, climbing gear, people, dead trees for the woodburner - think I vacuum it out and wash it about twice a year.

I think it makes me a safer drive because of the view, its advanced handling and I have to drive a little more sedately in it than in my last sportier small car.

I have no intention of giving up the X Trail and would happily buy another.
scrubmunched 08 Nov 2007
In reply to toad: I put my 20's with ego's on to go off road. I've got bars, front and back so not alot of front impact if I hit a rock. I find it the best multi use beast I've had and that was available for my money and what I wanted. Pull a house down!!
Although not the best ineach individual case alrounder, L200 rules for me.
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to michael lawrence:
> so should we all be reduced to a single common denominator for everything we buy and do?

Well if you read the latest stuff on climate change it might not be such a bad idea. Arctic melting much faster than expected. Stabilising temperature at +2C may still be too high. A reduction in 90% of emissions is needed.


> The point is that people have a choice and they need guidance in their choices but remove that choice and who knows where it could all end.

And unfortunately the guidance they get is from the people who profit from their poor choice of vehicle.

We remove the freedom to choose from some people - criminals. Maybe we should see excessive CO2 emissions as a crime?

 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to scrubmunched:

> (I don't understand the less safe bit, but maybe if I get round to reading the full thread this will clear up.)

Just did a search for SUV safety and the first hit I got was this: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/suvs/idx.htm

A book: High and Mighty: SUV's - the World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way.

And some quotes...

Fewer than 5% of SUV owners will ever use their off-road capabilities, and SUV drivers are far less safe than motorists driving regular cars.

Less well known is the tendency of SUVs such as the Ford Explorer to flip over after striking a guardrail or having a tire fail - problems that don't affect cars

and finally:

SUVs represent the biggest menace to public safety and the environment that the auto industry has produced since the bad old days of the 1960s.

Columbia753 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
Yet another anti 4x4 thread. Am sure most people remember the thread I started on here about 4x4s.

Vented my feelings about them got some support but it did get quite heated.Quite clearly most people see that owning a large 4x4 is anti social too say the least and mostly totally unwarranted.

Am at present driving a Merc Sprinter van 2.3 turbo (high ratio gear box)hundreds of miles a week for work. And I never ever give way, or let out of a junction etc ANY 4X4s at all. But I do give way to cyclists, motorcyclists, standard cars and trucks.
Alot of 4x4 drivers think they can intimate people but they dont like it when you push back.
scrubmunched 08 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> [...]
>
> Just did a search for SUV safety and the first hit I got was this: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/suvs/idx.htm
>
> A book: High and Mighty: SUV's - the World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way.
>
> And some quotes...
>
> Fewer than 5% of SUV owners will ever use their off-road capabilities, and SUV drivers are far less safe than motorists driving regular cars.
>
Fair enough, I presume its because we will drive over the top of you, but fair enough!!
> Less well known is the tendency of SUVs such as the Ford Explorer to flip over after striking a guardrail or having a tire fail - problems that don't affect cars
>
> and finally:
>
> SUVs represent the biggest menace to public safety and the environment that the auto industry has produced since the bad old days of the 1960s.

Bollox, down to the driver!!

scrubmunched 08 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho:
> (In reply to stp)
> Vented my feelings about them got some support but it did get quite heated.Quite clearly most people see that owning a large 4x4 is anti social too say the least and mostly totally unwarranted.
>


Please tell me who are you to tell me what is anti social to drive. I am unwarranted to go offroad with my friends for fun? I am unwarrented to use my vehicle for work and a family car all rolled into one?
Please take the daisy out of your arse and suck on my tailpipe!
 stp 08 Nov 2007
In reply to scrubmunched:

> Bollox, down to the driver!!

Denial.

This is about a book by a Pulitzer Prize winning, New York Times journalist.

Another quote: The public needs to know that rollover death rates for sport-utes are double those of regular passenger cars and that SUVs kill non-passengers as well, causing an additional 2,000 deaths a year in vehicles they strike.

 Postmanpat 08 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho:
> (In reply to stp)
>
>
> Am at present driving a Merc Sprinter van 2.3 turbo (high ratio gear box)hundreds of miles a week for work. And I never ever give way, or let out of a junction etc ANY 4X4s at all. But I do give way to cyclists, motorcyclists, standard cars and trucks.
>
I'm not clear.You are proud of this or what ? Is your van a special fuel efficient van ?

 stp 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

The people that know SUV owners best of all is the people that sell them. The manufacturers need to know about their market. Here's a quote from the an AUTO INDUSTRY's market report:

"They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities."

That last bit sounds especially true. They couldn't give a monkey's about the environment either.

scrubmunched 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to stp)
> That last bit sounds especially true. They couldn't give a monkey's about the environment either.


Take a leaf out of my book and learn about the people you are talking about before you talk about them in such ways. I hope if 1/1000 people on here do more conservation work in thier life than I done in mine....... please call back when you know more about how useful vehicles like this are instead of casting other views of uninvolved assumptions you don't see outside the guy inthe bigger truck than you. I spent the 20 year volunteering and don't feel the need to boast about it and slagging people in little fiat pandas holding me up with black fumes drawing out the pipe while I try to get a battered deer or badger to the vet. Hold your tongue and write it, tell me at the crag and we may have a conversation. At the minute you are a view of one, you! And that means nothing to me!
Thankyou!
Columbia753 09 Nov 2007
In reply to Postmanpat: Mentioned that so I can comment on this thread with authority of driving a large fast van and seeing so many 4x4s on the roads.
Am not proud at all of having to drive so many miles a week but is multi-drop work so thats the job.

My own car is a old Astra, so I do not want or desire (but could afford)a large cumbersome vehicle too make my self look big, rich or something im not.

This thread will run and run. Every time this subject appears on here it always does. lol

Columbia753 09 Nov 2007
In reply to scrubmunched: Yeah right, thats the point. Im not sucking on your tail pipe you are on mine. My work van is fast, with full load on. Unloaded is even faster.
scrubmunched 09 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho:
> (In reply to scrubmunched) Yeah right, thats the point. Im not sucking on your tail pipe you are on mine. My work van is fast, with full load on. Unloaded is even faster.

OK, enough, we have different needs ideas and expectations. Peace!
I'm right though ;0
scrubmunched 09 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho: And I'll still run over you entire van with my 20's on
 Postmanpat 09 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho:
> (In reply to Postmanpat) Mentioned that so I can comment on this thread with authority of driving a large fast van and seeing so many 4x4s on the roads.
>
Cars are about as interesting to me as double glazing.They perform a function and I might as well have a decent one if I can but that's about it.
I think people who are interested in them at all have very small willies.....
 graeme jackson 09 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho:
> And I never ever give way, or let out of a junction etc ANY 4X4s at all. But I do give way to cyclists, motorcyclists, standard cars and trucks.

Which just goes to show what an ill educated thoughtless cvnt you are. If that's the way you treat other road users you don't deserve to be on the road yourself.

 graeme jackson 09 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho:
> My work van is fast, with full load on. Unloaded is even faster.
So you're the kind of penile deficient tw*t that regularly breaks the legal speed limit in your death machine.

 davidwright 09 Nov 2007
In reply to petellis:
> (In reply to stp)
> Why spend a load of extra cash on high ground clearance and 4 wheel drive, for a less safe vehicle that is more expensive to run,
> [...]
>
Around here (north london) the chelsea tractor crowd make good use of the high ground clearance of 4x4's as they drive there kids to school with 2 wheels on the road and 2 on the pavement....

Can't park 2 4x4's oposite each other and leave room of 2 others to pass in the roadway? doesn't matter there are these handy raised hardstandings on either side of the road to park on. Its not as if anybody is going to walk along them...

 darren-surrey 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

When I'm followed by a 4x4, to minimise potential impact damage to my car, I always drive 2mph under the speed limit. There are other side-effects to this action, naturally. And, of course, that is the reason why I drive 2mph below the speed limit when stupid mum with her 2 yr old on the back seat is desperate to get to morning coffee with her 4x4 friends in Fulham.
 darren-surrey 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

PS it is particularly psychologically effective if the guy in front is doing 5mph over the speed limit, thus the gap between you and the guy in front increases and anyone who is in a tall vehicle behind you will notice this. This is also because in the event of a rear-end shunt, I won't hit the vehicle in front.

 stp 09 Nov 2007
In reply to scrubmunched:

> At the minute you are a view of one, you!

Well it sounds rather a lot of people share my feelings about SUV owners including - reading between the lines - the automotive industry.

This whole thread is about generalisations and not you or even every SUV owner. Since you actually use your SUV's off road capabilities you are already in a 5% minority group of SUV owners. And if you're using it for conservation volunteer work then hats off to you.

But surely must realise that most (95%) of SUV drivers aren't like that and don't even go off road. And it's them that this thread is about.
 graeme jackson 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
> But surely must realise that most (95%) of SUV drivers aren't like that and don't even go off road. And it's them that this thread is about.


Where does that (95%) statistic come from?
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator  UKC Supporter 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:


Does anybody use 100% of their car capabilities ever - I certainly don't?



Chris
 Postmanpat 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to scrubmunched)
>
> [...]
>
> > This whole thread is about generalisations and not you or even every SUV owner. Since you actually use your SUV's off road capabilities you are already in a 5% minority group of SUV owners. And if you're using it for conservation volunteer work then hats off to you.
>
95% of SUV owners don't buy it for the 4 wheel drive.They buy it because it's bg and comfortable.What's wrong with big and comfortable ?
 GrahamD 09 Nov 2007
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to stp)
> [...]
> 95% of SUV owners don't buy it for the 4 wheel drive.They buy it because it's bg and comfortable.

They buy it because its big. If they wanted comfort they would buy a Lexus.
Etak 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: whats wrong with them is that they own SUVs?
Columbia753 09 Nov 2007
In reply to graeme jackson: MMMMMM lol, oh I do so luv winding 4x4 owners up. Ace fun.

Am not penile deficent, am quite well endowed actually never had any complaints. lol.

Have you a few more grey hairs now??

 Undertow 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: SUV stands for "suburban vehicle" dontcha know
Columbia753 09 Nov 2007
In reply to dunc56:
> (In reply to dunc56) Has anyone done the research into the average weight of drivers versus the type of cars driven ? My money is fat blokes/women are way more prevalent in SUVS. You must have seen them huff and puff as the dismount in the disabled spaces at their local supermarket

Yes, but surely most of them are driven by women who are mostly blondes.
 stp 09 Nov 2007
In reply to graeme jackson:

> Where does that (95%) statistic come from?

As mentioned above...

was this: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/suvs/idx.htm

A book: High and Mighty: SUV's - the World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way.


Fewer than 5% of SUV owners will ever use their off-road capabilities, and SUV drivers are far less safe than motorists driving regular cars.

 stp 09 Nov 2007
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> Does anybody use 100% of their car capabilities ever - I certainly don't?

Sure there maybe some features you never use.

But the defining characteristic of an SUV is it's off road capability. So if you shell out loads of extra cash for a vehicle that is less safe on the roads and NEVER use it off road you might rightly be accused of having more money than sense.
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator  UKC Supporter 09 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:

I was referring to top speed mainly - so my question was rhetorical really.
Actually had my 1st ride in an SUV recently - testing driving a Lexus - horrible!


Chris
 graeme jackson 10 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
> (In reply to graeme jackson)
>
> [...]
>
> As mentioned above...
>
> was this: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/suvs/idx.htm
>
> A book: High and Mighty: SUV's - the World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way.
>
>
> Fewer than 5% of SUV owners will ever use their off-road capabilities, and SUV drivers are far less safe than motorists driving regular cars.

And where do these statistics come from? a random survey of Southern drivers no doubt. Hardly representative of the other 80% of the country (that was yet another made up statistic)

p.s. Despite my advancing years i have no grey hairs as I don't go through life getting worked up about irrelevant things like what car mrs jones takes her kid to school in.
 Timo Austino 10 Nov 2007
In reply to stp: you sound like a student
 Padraig 10 Nov 2007
In reply to Timo Austino:
> (In reply to stp) you sound like a student

Nah! He's just a troll!
 Timo Austino 10 Nov 2007
In reply to Padraig: A student troll that will never graduate to greater things whilst spending so much time inspecting his navel
Columbia753 10 Nov 2007
In reply to Timo Austino: He maybe a student, but his opinion is very valid and a large portion of the population in this country do want SUVs / 4x4s of the road.

Any idiot can buy a big car and make themsleves look more powerful, richer and many other things while having no thought for other people.

That goes for any car not just 4x4s.
 mattsccm 10 Nov 2007
In reply to stp:
"OK, I've climbed all over the USA, Europe and in this country literally from Lands End to far north of Scotland. And in over 20 years of travelling to obviously rocky terrains I've only once ever needed an SUV to get somewhere. And that somewhere was Baldwin Creek Canyon in Wyoming, a state that has more sheep than people."


Bet my Landrover which started life in 74 has caused less pollution than you jetting off all round the world. its the modern selfishness like that which is creaing a problem. Stopping all holiday flights would be umpteen times more useful than stopping a few Chelsea tractors.
 Postmanpat 10 Nov 2007
In reply to mattsccm:

Maybe he swam to the USA ?
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator  UKC Supporter 10 Nov 2007
In reply to thewho:
> (In reply to Timo Austino) He maybe a student, but his opinion is very valid and a large portion of the population in this country do want SUVs / 4x4s of the road.
>
> Any idiot can buy a big car and make themsleves look more powerful, richer and many other things while having no thought for other people.
>


Any idiot with enough spare dosh of course!


Chris


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...