Fore buy for.

[denny]

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

http://www.4x4prejudice.org/

PRACE BETS NOW!

I have to say, the second lot have a better web design team.

Comments

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this

As recently pointed out in my Rules of Engagement post, I do like to debate issues - it forces me to examine my beliefs and make sure they're on solid ground. I have to say, the more I read on this issue, the more convinced I am that the problem is real rather than just being the latest media fad. 27% more likely to be at fault? That's a hefty statistical bias.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

mm 27% is high, I grant you that!
but again, that is the owner of the car at fault, not the car itself!! and those people will still be out there driving!

And Not All owners will be bad ones. (lies damn lies and statistics. Like the (flaws in IQ tests aside) black people STATISTICALLY score lower in IQ tests than white people, who score lower than asians - that doesn't tell you anything about an individual, likewise women vs men. It doesn't mean all women or all black people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed jobs, neither does this stat mean All 4x4 drivers are evil and wrong and should be banned from the road. If they drive unsafely they should be punished accordingly...

And the four wheel driveness is a stupid way of judging bad drivers!


So far good points:

Bonnet height more likely to kill - fair enough, also applies to busses, some vans, trucks though.

Weight - maybe, also applies to the above, and some larger/older cars, a somewhat tenuous argument I feel, compared to say, frequency of road use, but I come from a point of ignorance here.

Fuel economy - completely depends on the car, and fuel tax is the fairest way of penalising this one.

Stupid drivers - going to be the same in any car they drive.

Stupid drivers because they feel safer - going to be the same in a Range of vehicles, not just 4x4s (volvos are the other pet hate aren't they?), maybe we should remove the seatbelts to maket them feel less safe in all these vehicles?


I'm still really struggling to find your arguements reasonable or fair.

blanket gerneralisations and judgements bother me.


Having said that I don't really see why people need to drive in london at all unless they're delivering something big, as the public transport system is good enough to take you to within a short walk of anywhere, except in the middle of the night when people tend to be out on the piss, and not in a fit state to drive. But then people are individuals and I'm sure there are good reasons...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

For instance, I don't drink, so my car is the most sensible option for getting me home after late-night clubbing :) I'm not sure what I'd do if the tube was open all night... I might be tempted to use the tube, to save the hassle of parking in the center.

Removing seatbelts (and airbags) is a running joke with people who know about risk compensation. It's a tempting extrapolation of the theory, but of course it's not going to happen - even if it could be proven to save lives overall, I still doubt it would get done.

Discouraging the 'fortress' mentality in vehicles in general would be good - more effort put into safety features that protect those around you (ABS, impact crumple zones, etc) and less into features that protect the person inside (SIP, airbags, etc). The only way I can see this happening is if insurance premiums for cars with poor CAP ratings start getting higher. Presumably if 4x4s are causing more accidents than they should then their insurance premiums must be climbing already.

Again, I'll point out that buses, lorries and (most) vans are working vehicles - they have a reason to be that large and that heavy, it's so they can fit all the [whatever] inside them that they're meant to be moving around. A Range Rover being driven around London is unlikely to have any such justification for its height - unless you count being able to go over speed ramps faster as a good reason for having extra ground clearance :)

I'm not sure that "4x4 drivers are more likely to cause accidents" is a blanket generalisation - I think it's a statement of probability analysis, or something like that :) and if it is a generalisation then it's certainly not an unjustified one given the statistical evidence from the insurance companies.

[olithered.livejournal.com]

Weight is not at all tenuous:

Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight.

That means that if a 4x4 was twice as heavy as a car it would cause sixteen times more road wear.

Since fuel tax already covers the environmental aspect, I think it would be reasonable to link road tax (for private vehicles) to the fourth power of their weight.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

how significant is the wear on the road? and surely the amount you drive on the road is relevant for this.

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

how significant is the wear on the road?

Road wear is blanket term used to refer to any destruction, due to use, of a road surface, including but not limited to erosion, vibrational damage (causing the surface to crumble into potholes), and the sagging patched areas of tarmac (such as the ones made by utility companies after laying pipes/cables). Potholes, sagging patched areas, and other irregularities in the road surface cause mere discomfort for car drivers, but can throw a rider off their two-wheeled vehicle, which, of course, can be fatal. Such irregularities are not always immediately visible to the rider and so cannot always be avoided; also sometimes stopping/slowing or swerving to avoid them can put a rider at risk in heavy traffic.

As Oli says, doubling a vehicle's axle weight increases the road wear it causes sixteen-fold, meaning that repairs need to be carried out sixteen times more often in order to keep the roads safe for motor- and pedal cyclists to use. In short, if you drive a vehicle with a heavy axle weight, you'd better like being held up by roadworks.