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

[libellum.livejournal.com]

Did you get my text?

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

No, I missed it. Or rather, yes but I missed it. Not that you'd guess it from the amount of LJ'ing I'm doing, but I'm actually having a rather stressful afternoon at work.

I'm happy for you to arrange things this weekend however you need them arranged love, I'll speak to you when I get out of work and find out what we're doing. *hugs*

[libellum.livejournal.com]

K. Sorry, was getting stressed there. *cuddles* Talk to you soon.

[mejoff.livejournal.com]

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

Maybe, but the first lot have both Jeremy Clarkson and Ken Livingstone, which in general should let them win both sides of any argument!

[djlongfella.livejournal.com]

"PRACE BETS NOW!"
Does number 2 come with rice and those funny biscuits with a message in ?

[(Anonymous)]

gah the anti 4x4 people really annoy me, If its the enviroment they care about then fuel tax should be raised (again) thus people who abuse the enviroment the most be it with a big car, an inefficient old car, a high powered sports car of or whatever pay, and it is completely fair. I haven't managed to grasp the other problems with them other than plain preducice and bigottry.

*sigh*

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

sorry thought i was logged in...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

The environmental impact of a vehicle extends considerably further than its fuel efficiency - there's the environmental debt (amount of materials and energy required to build it - more for a bigger vehicle), how recyclable it is at the end of its life, how much damage it does to the road surface requiring more frequent repairs (again generally more for heavier vehicles), and so on.

Also, the societal impact of a vehicle extends beyond its environmental impact. For instance, my biggest objection to most 'off-road' vehicles on the road is that they're driven by people who feel safer inside them, and therefore tend to drive more dangerously - a phenomenon referred to as 'risk compensation'. The driver of a fortified vehicle is more safe, but everybody around them is more endangered - both because of their belief in their own safety, and because of the more serious damage a heavier and taller vehicle does in the event of an accident.

I do agree that fuel tax should be higher (I also think that road tax should be scrapped entirely), but it's not the sole solution to the problem of whether a 4x4 is an appropriate vehicle to use to take your children to school in the morning.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

surely busses and lorries and all idiot drivers should be banned along with the 4x4 drivers (and I think it's a hideous generalisation about their character and driving standard but hey)...

Went to an environmental talk the other day and put the 'but buying a new car surely has implications re materials build etc environmental cost' and was refuted. he seemed to think if you brought a new fuel efficient car you would reclaim that debt with in the first year of driving it and thereafter be in credit.. having said that he didn't specify what stats he was using for distance driven nor what the model car was.

I worry about my tank, which as a ford estate does make me feel fairly crunch proof (perhaps that makes me a bad driver? I'm not convinced I drive it any differently to the substancially uncrunch proof citroen 2cv I used to have though) and being old has bloody awful fuel economy. I don't see how my car is any worse for the enviroment than a modern fuel efficient car, be it four wheel drive or not. In fact what has 4 wheel drive got to do with anything. Perhaps weight and engine efficiency (back to the fuel tax argument for the latter) would be more useful ways of judging.

And busses should be banned, oh and taxis, and lorries, oh and definately vans. And your sports car.

GRRR. Sorry this one really pisses me off.

I agree the enviroment should be protected from the evils of cars. But picking out one arbitrary factor, and making laws about it because you can, because people are snobby and judgemental, rather than for any just reasons really irks me. There are better and fairer and less bigotted ways of dealing with the traffic/pollution problem!

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Answers to various points in no particular order:

I don't think any kind of vehicle should be banned outright... just discouraged. Certainly my car should be discouraged, it's ridiculously fuel hungry. Lorries and buses already pay really seriously high road tax to make up for the road damage they cause, so I don't think that's much of an issue.

4 wheel drive isn't the thing being complained about by these people, it's 'off road' vehicles being used on the road. '4x4' is just a convenient short-hand way of saying it.

Re: the 'buses and lorries and vans and taxis' rant, they're all working vehicles. A 4x4 on a farm (or owned by a farmer) is a working vehicle, and shouldn't be discouraged. A 4x4 being used to collect children from school, or drive one person to an office job in the city, should be discouraged, in my opinion.

The ideal way to judge the thing I'm worried about (the safety aspect) is the ratings given out by the CAP - for why large off-roaders worry me, see the pedestrian safety ratings on this page:
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=9

I'm not sure how you'd go about making less-safe cars (and I mean safety for those around the car, not those inside it) less desirable - higher road tax maybe?

The generalisation about the type of car that encourages 'riskier' driving isn't unfair, it's statistically proven... I'll try to find a link later. I think everyone knows the reputation Volvos have though - ask a biker, any biker. It's not undeserved, and it's symptomatic of the same thing - make a car 'nice and solid' and the person inside it feels able to take more risks.

Idiot drivers should definitely be banned, and of course a legal framework already exists for doing so.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

A 4x4 being used to collect children from school, or drive one person to an office job in the city, should be discouraged, in my opinion.

why because of the fuel economy (some are up to 60mpg, my car, not 4x4, for comparison, is at very best 35mpg) - surely it's better for the enviroment if modern cars with good fuel economy, be than large or not, are used rather than ones with bad fuel economy, and 4x4 ness, or even off road ness is not a judgement on that.

And as your volvo argument illustrates perfectly, it doesn't have to be a 4x4 (or off road vehicle) to have the safety for occupants not outsiders thing.

Maybe we should ban volvos too. And maybe voltswagens, they're pretty strong.

Again if it IS about fuel economy, fuel tax is the way to fairly tax this, not generalisations that bear no relevance to this.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

You're the only person who's particularly interested in discussing fuel efficiency in this thread - you keep returning to it as if it's the only thing that counts against 4x4s. As I pointed out in my original comment, there are several lines of argument which all count against the urban use of off-road vehicles - and the reason people are unhappy about their proliferation is a combination of all of those reasons, not any one point. Make them as fuel efficient as you like, they're still too big, too heavy, and too solid. For instance, an impact between an off-roader and a pedestrian is still vastly more likely to injure a pedestrian than one with a Volvo, because of the height of the vehicle (tends to hit upper body and head rather than just legs).

Yes, fuel tax should be raised, but that's because there are too many of all kinds of vehicles on the road, not just 4x4s (or sports cars, or luxury saloons, or whatever). Driving should cost more than it currently does. People should walk their kids to school, not drive them. Affordable housing should be closer to workplaces, so people could walk to work too. While we're at it, public transport should be efficient and affordable. Maybe they could harness the flying pigs to pull the buses ;)

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

and the if someone's going more than 5mph over the 30 limit they're more likely to kill the pedestrian whatever vehicle. Maybe all cars should be made to go no more than 30mph to increase pedestrian safety, or perhaps the best way not to kill pedestrians is not to drive into them *remembers bus driving Over bicycle incident on zebra crossing*.

The reason I come back to fuel is that it seems to be the most valid of the frankly tenuous reasons to pick on four wheel drive vehicles. What is too big, how much is too heavy, what is too solid? Pressure per wheel is presumably more important than weight...

And frankly with you driving a sports car I really can't see how you can criticise other peoples stupid vehicles!!!

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

[um, disclaimer *pmt* plus exhaustion after 12hour day of manual labour... ]

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't feel particularly safe in my car, it's no sturdier than the average saloon (probably less, it's intentionally designed to be light and fast) - so I don't fall foul of risk compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation). If anything, I feel slightly threatened on the road, because other cars tend to loom over mine a bit, it having a fairly low roof height.

Also, if I hit someone, they're probably going over the top with broken legs - my car is only waist-high, the bonnet only knee-high. Hit them at the same speed in a Range Rover and I think the outcome would be considerably more serious - the bonnet is going to hit at the height of their internal organs, and the roof is almost at head height.

Isn't pressure per wheel going to be a linear function of weight anyway? I'm assuming all the vehicles involved are stationary and have four wheels, I suppose.

Of course reducing urban speeding is important - that's why speed cameras should be put in 30 and 40 limits, particularly in areas with high pedestrian concentrations - rather than on A roads (and motorways) that don't even have paths alongside them most of the time. Also outside schools should have 20 limits at school start and finish times, or, even better, be pedestrian zones.

Not hitting people is obviously ideal, but accidents do happen - traffic planning takes that into account and tries to minimise both the incidence and the effect of accidents when they inevitably happen.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

of course speeding on a motorway could never cause a pile up and death could it?

The lower bonnet height doesn't do it for me - what about children? which are the ones that are more likely to end up the the road...

It's all a bit TOO tenuous really, as the most relevant bit is the driver and their awareness, and the next bit is speed, and then perhaps car weight/bulk safety (which you don't have to be a 4x4 to have) and finally, if you are unaware, stupid driving to fast and hit something, then the dimensions of the car become relevant.

http://www.4x4prejudice.org/safety.php

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this, if you have read the websites etc and come up with a different point of view.

No people shouldn't drive tanks when they don't need to, no people shouldn't drive fuel inefficient cars when they don't need to, yes people should use public transport as much as possible, yes people should always drive safely and be aware of other road users and pedestrians at all possible times. Yes different cars have different statistics for different safety things and enviromental things, but pigeon holing them into broad groups is not fair on the individual cars and drivers.

Maybe we should all drive 2cvs or motorbikes, and it'd be great if there were no lorries or white vans or 4x4s and all bulk was transported by train, and mule, but there are a range of vehicles, and whilst it's fine to encourage people not to use them for the wrong reasons, and not to have a bigger vehicle than necessary, or a more enviromentally damaging vehicle than necessary, it is NOT fine to do a 'them and us' judging people on an image rather than on anything more concrete.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

of course speeding on a motorway could never cause a pile up and death could it?

Are you being silly, or do you really not know anything about road safety statistics? Motorways have a vastly better safety record than any other type of road.

The lower bonnet height doesn't do it for me - what about children? which are the ones that are more likely to end up the the road...

The point is all the more relevant for children... they're going to be hit IN THE HEAD by a Range Rover.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue this, if you have read the websites etc and come up with a different point of view.

I've done a lot more than read those two websites - I've been doing road and traffic related political campaigning for over 11 years now, mostly from the point of view of vulnerable road users (motorcycles being my main interest, but cyclists and pedestrians too, as they're all inter-related and for the large part, similarly vulnerable).

it is NOT fine to do a 'them and us' judging people on an image rather than on anything more concrete.

You don't think the figures from the insurance companies constitute "something more concrete"?

* "Churchill compared the insurance records of 4x4s with family cars, including the Ford Focus, Vauxhall Astra and Renault Clio. It found that owners of four-wheel drives were 25% more likely to make a claim for accidents and that their claims cost 30% more than average"

* “Drivers of 4X4s are more likely to have convictions for dangerous driving, speeding and driving without due care than other motorists. They are also more likely to be at fault in an accident, according to a survey by Admiral, the insurance company. Admiral looked at the driving records of 38,000 4X4 owners and compared them with those of other motorists on its database of more than one million policy holders. 4X4 drivers were found by the survey to be 27 per cent more likely to be the ones at fault in an accident and 15 per cent more likely to be convicted of driving without due care and attention. Convictions for speeding and dangerous driving were 11 per cent more common among 4X4 owners.”

I dunno about you, but I think that's fairly clear evidence that a disproportionate problem exists with one class of vehicle.

[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]

you're back to using the 4x4 terminology. Or do you still mean larger poncier vehicles? Or was it heavier ones, or just taller ones?

I maintain that the four wheel driveness has nothing to do with the stats, though the type of driver may well do, but if you shove them in a different car they'll probably still have accidents, though the killing pedestrian rate may well be lower if the bonnet is lower...

[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]

Well, those are both quotes from the reports about the insurance companies' findings - it's not my choice of terminology. I don't know which vehicles the insurers included in their sample of '4x4s'... it would be interesting to find out actually.

Four wheel drive in and of itself should be a safety feature if anything - better traction and control - although it does carry a weight penalty.

Your theory that the drivers would still have accidents if you put them in a different car is indeed probably correct, but it's interesting that given the choice, they choose 4x4s. I guess they'd probably move to Volvo estates if their 4x4s were taken away :)

In sort-of related and good news, there's currently new driving license legislation going through EU Parliament which would require compulsory re-tests every 10 to 15 years, which is something me (and a lot of other people I know) have been hoping for for the last 15 years or so. As you've already said in this thread (and I totally agree), getting the bad drivers off the road (or getting them to be better drivers) would be the ideal solution to many safety-related issues.

[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.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

*nods*

[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.