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]

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.