Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Number of 4X4's on the roads

Cobbles said:
Exactly the rationale for driving something with long travel suspension.......like a 4x4.
Only the holes and bumps that are extremely uncomfortable and even dangerous to a cyclist aren't even noticeable in the most humble little car you could find.

Chelsea tractors are designed to go off-road and negotiate serious obstacles. Anyone who seriously suggests you need such vehicle in a city, no matter how badly kept some roads might be, needs their head examined.
 
intrestingly most range rovers have and can be boguth with hybrid kits which turn them into lgp or can have them factory fitted... has been this way for about 20 years... have been thinking about a second hand range rover for a while as it'll be lpg comfortable and congestion charge free... let's not let a little thing like facts get in the way of our prejudices about modern vechiels eh....
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
intrestingly most range rovers have and can be boguth with hybrid kits which turn them into lgp or can have them factory fitted... has been this way for about 20 years... have been thinking about a second hand range rover for a while as it'll be lpg comfortable and congestion charge free... let's not let a little thing like facts get in the way of our prejudices about modern vechiels eh....
The problem with Range Rovers and similar vehicles is not just their fuel consumption. It is also their size and shape characteristics, which make them far more dangerous to every other road user than any other car on the road.

That is precisely why Chelsea tractors attract so much contempt and protests. Not because of reverse snobbery or envy (where are all the petitions to ban Beemers, Mercs and Porsches?) but because they are indescribably absurd, inappropriate and pointless vehicles for built-up areas.
 
what he said bimbling about in a hummer in a built up area is just stupid and annoys other road users is not the same as a van builders need a van.
you don't need massive off road capability in london
 
likesfish said:
what he said bimbling about in a hummer in a built up area is just stupid and annoys other road users is not the same as a van builders need a van.
you don't need massive off road capability in london
should everyone buy a car for every area of the country they are likely to enter into is this the plan?
 
When it comes to densely populated, traffic jammed and tight city centres it makes sense to restrict or discourage the use of vehicles that are completely inappropriate for them, yes.

I don't think there is need to go any further than that. At the end of the day the immense majority of vehicles are appropriate for the immense majority of environments (town, city, open road, motorway). It is not unreasonable however to expect the one type of vehicle that is mainly designed for a different use altogether and that is inappropriate and entirely impractical for city use will attract restrictions and/or penalties.
 
It's not their length that matters- it's the height of the wheelbase and vehicle and overall mass.

Because of that 4x4s kill twice as many pedestrians and other car drivers as any other type of car.

They are also far more prone to rolling than other cars, yet give drivers a false sense of safety because they have a higher driving position.
 
T & P said:
It's not their length that matters- it's the height of the wheelbase and vehicle and overall mass.

Because of that 4x4s kill twice as many pedestrians and other car drivers as any other type of car.

They are also far more prone to rolling than other cars, yet give drivers a false sense of safety because they have a higher driving position.
ooo made up facts... got figrues to back up these please...
 
The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro-NCAP) carries out crash tests on cars available in Europe. Of the top 10 cars tested since 1998, none is a 4x4, and only three off-roaders make it into the the top 20 (see below).

Big 4x4s are right at the bottom of the class when it comes to pedestrian safety, getting an average Euro-NCAP crash test score of just 4 out of 36, compared with 10 and 13 for large and small family cars, respectively.

In October 2005, the British Medical Journal called for health warnings on 4x4s because of the dangers they pose for pedestrians,[10] and when new test results were released in November 2005, the only car with a zero rating for pedestrian safety was a 4x4 - the Jeep Cherokee.[11]

The UK Transport Research Laboratory released its annual report of deaths on Britain's roads in March 2005, providing hard evidence that the growth in popularity of big 4x4s is causing problems for road safety - 2004 saw the highest number of road deaths in seven years, reversing a long-term decline.[1]

The TRL blames the increasing mismatch between the size of vehicles on the road for a 1% rise in people killed in accidents in 2004. Passengers in 'super minis' were 12 times more likely to be killed than people in a 4x4 when these vehicles collided. The principal factor is the extra weight of the larger car, as well as extra height, which can override the bumpers and side impact protection on the smaller vehicle.

In the USA, where big 4x4s are even more common than in Chelsea, the safety record of 4x4s is appalling:

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

Origin of the above statistics and references for all of them can be found here
 
T & P said:
Origin of the above statistics and references for all of them can be found here


Not forgetting the bullbars fitted to many 4x4s which are perfectly designed to kill, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.
 
T & P said:
When it comes to densely populated, traffic jammed and tight city centres it makes sense to restrict or discourage the use of vehicles that are completely inappropriate for them, yes.

Indeed - ban all vehicles larger than a Transit Van (especially buses).
 
T & P said:
It's not their length that matters- it's the height of the wheelbase and vehicle and overall mass.

I take it, then that buses are positively lethal just to look at on that basis........
 
mauvais said:
Does anyone know when the London LEZ (Low Emissions Zone) is kicking in?
2009 or some such i think there was a problem which prevented it from being ealier ... city dreams will tell you and then demonise some one as per usual...
 
Cobbles said:
I take it, then that buses are positively lethal just to look at on that basis........
Buses are more lethal if they hit a pedestrian, yes... how could it be otherwise? :confused:

Then again each bus perform an important public service and transports thousands of passengers a day, while each 4x4 transports, er... one person forth and back (or 3 if it's carrying the kids to school).

You surely can tell the difference between private and public vehicles can you?
 
T & P said:
Buses are more lethal if they hit a pedestrian, yes... how could it be otherwise? :confused:

Then again each bus perform an important public service and transports thousands of passengers a day, while each 4x4 transports, er... one person forth and back (or 3 if it's carrying the kids to school).

You surely can tell the difference between private and public vehicles can you?
are we to ban trains for safesy sake or coaches ... you do understand the difference betwe public and private don't you... btw most buses are also privately owned ...
 
I'm confused as to how trains can be compared to road vehicles in accident terms. The safety issue can arise on the road because the driver determines the route the vehicle takes, whereas with a train it follows the predetermined track. Plus if a train carries 100 otherwise car-driving commuters, then surely that more than counteracts any safety issues that the train brings up.
 
Cloud said:
I'm really pissed off about it, it's just pointless in England. They are dangerous, uneconomical and now with the numbers of affordable 2nd hand one's on the market it's not just some stuck up tosser who has one. Round here it's become a status symbol even on the council estates.
man you're telling me!! if you live in Alaska or Kenya I can totally see the need. I see these clowns driving to work every day in their Cadillac Escalade with a 5.7L engine sucking petrol like water. One person inside. Blocking everyone's view of the road, blah blah blah.

Once gas hits $4 per gallon here in the states maybe these clowns will start to re-think their purchases. It won't be long.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
are we to ban trains for safesy sake or coaches ... you do understand the difference betwe public and private don't you... btw most buses are also privately owned ...
That is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. We are talking about a public service (i.e. public transport) as you and Cobbles know very well.

Though I'm happy. Anyone to resorts to comparing the effects of being hit by a Chelsea tractor with being hit by a bus when discussing city traffic must have nothing better to offer to the argument.

The bottom line remains that the likes of Range Rovers and Porsche Cayennes are completely inappropriate for city use, for a number of different reasons and whichever way you look at it. Anyone who insists on driving such vehicles in congested urban areas should expect to be penalised for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom