Urban S.U.V. owners

[beamer]

Why do some people who live in big towns and cities buy huge 4x4 off-road vehicles when they have absolutely no intention of ever driving them around the type of terrain for which they were designed?

[sddsddean]

Because they are (enter expletive here) thick!

[Miss Zippy]

Because they're not very bright and have an inferiority complex.

[beamer]

ahh... that's what i thought. 

I was just wondering if there could possibly be any other reason than that.

[Jay70]

Because if you've got you loved ones in one and some idiot driving recklessly drives into you, you stand a much better chance of not getting injured.  The view of the road ahead is much better as you are higher up and speed humps are but a distant memory.

[beamer]

Understandable Jay70. However on the flipside, if you have your loved ones with you in a normal sized car and some idiot in a 4x4 driver drives into you, they are likely to come away okay while you and your family...

On that basis, why not try to get your hands on a tank? They would do roughly the same mpg and are virtually indestructable. Just a shame about the poor folks you'd roll over but, hey, you'd be okay eh?

Speed humps - err... aren't they supposed to make you slow down?

[sweetchariot]

How about, because they want to?
SUVs meet the same emissions legislation as all other passenger cars.
Fuel consumption for the petrol models is similar to that of many classic cars, and sports cars - should owners of these cars be victimised too?
Many SUVs have diesel engines which produce very good fuel consumption.

As for safety concerns, Top Gear on the BBC did a test in their last series which showed that for an average sized person, being hit by an SUV (a Range Rover in this case) was better than being hit by a saloon car.

I ride a bike to work, and therefore being hit by any vehicle would probably cause me serious injury or death.

[beamer]

Interesting Mr Clarkeson & Co. should reach that conclusion. A similar test carried out by The New Scientist (13th December 2003 �Pedestrians at risk from sports utility vehicles�) concluded; "If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed."

As a cyclist I would be more concerned by the serious blind spots extending behind these types of vehicles.

[sweetchariot]

Blind spots which are typically worse on coupes which have large C-pillars.
Basically you could argue that any one type of car is more or less safe than any other, but I fail to see why owners of SUVs should be called thick, or told they have an inferiority complex or whatever the insult of the day happens to be.

beamer and others - what is it that drives you (pardon the pun) to abuse these people and the choices (we can still make some) they make? Can you not find anything or anyone that offends you more?

Recently there's been a pilot project to remove all the street signs and white lines on a street to make it safer, this is based on a similar scheme in Holland, which has been successful for quite a while now. Why don't you all join forces and wage a war on white lines?

[sweetchariot]

Red cars are more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than other colour cars. Why do people buy red cars? Is it because they're thick?

[beamer]

I can understand what your saying sweetchariot. 

There are some things that offend me more, though at the moment these "chelsea tracktor" drivers are right up there. This can be traced back to a couple of months ago when one of them reversed into my front wheel which, as a responsible and highly visible London cyclist, put my back up somewhat.

I can only be thankful it wasn't a red 4x4, otherwise I don't think I'd still be around to tell the tale!

[jake-the-peg]

Hope you don't mind me butting in on this one but you might like to consider the danger of taking statistics at face value.

You have one set of statistics arguing that 4x4s are more dangerous and and another (Clarkesons - NCAP based I think) saying that they are not.

I suspect the New scientist data may have come from this work

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rnotes/2003/809-640/page%202.html

If you look at this it does show that 4x4's have a history of causing more deaths but the risk is no more than from vans  - is this enough to be statistically significant? Unfortunately it does not seem to have been recorded whether the SUVs involved were equipped with bull bars - these would be likely to strongly skew the statistics - and have been banned by manufacturers for some time.

I also notice a link Beamer published in a similar thread to an anti-4x4 website I believe most of the environmental data on this website actually pertains to the US and so is not directly applicable to the UK.

Climate change is very scary but if you consider that a family of 4 flying to Disneyland in Florida from the UK is responsible for the same CO2 emmissions as driving a 4x4 for 14,000 KM I think it's clear that the first enviromental concern is to reduce air traffic rather than forcing everbody to drive fiat pandas - even though there is a very good 4x4 fiat Panda :c)

  

[davver]

Look at the rear end of the vehicle. Does it have a tow-hitch? If not, it's clearly never meant to go off-road or do anything other than ferry children around, and is probably a ghastly piece of vulgar junk like a Jeep or Mitsubishi. Now, the Land Rover, there's class.

[davver]

Actually I might point out that although you see a lot of these vehicles in cities, they do get out into the countryside as well. Someone who lives and works in London may well have a country cottage and so a Land Rover would be useful for throwing children wellies dog into, driving down to the cottage for the weekend, getting up the track etc. Or for towing a boat or a caravan - see my earlier comment about a tow hitch.

[Jay70]

Well beamer this is exactly the reason people do have a 4x4.  That is if the other person also has one you would still be better of than in an average family saloon in the case of an accident.

I was only joking about the speed humps statement by the way it was a joke.

Oh and as for cyclists - when they start paying road tax like other road users their views should then be taken seriously.

[jake-the-peg]

As a 4x4 owner (although not urban) I'd like to distance myself from the comment about bikes and road duty.

But I do think they should be made to take out third party insurance. If a cyclist causes an accident as it stands chances are some car driver will be held responsible simply because the cyclist won't be insured and if one of those damn dispatch riders puts a whopping great scratch along the side of a car what do you reckon the chances are of him stopping and paying for it?

There are irresponsible 4x4 drivers but there are irresponsible cyclists too 

[beamer]

jake-the-peg: That makes sense, and I'd like to distance myself from bicycle despatch riders who have single-handedly managed dirty the name of all urban cyclists.

Jay70: Making cyclists pay road tax... Rarely have I come across a more incendiary statement! Are you serious? Apologies to jake-the-peg, but I fear you are taking a giant leap in propagating the stereotype expressed in the first two posts.

[Jay70]

Why should cyclists not pay road tax?.  They use the road and cycle lanes which take up part of the roads car tax payers have to pay to use.  Oh and for the record I am a cyclist too.   

[jake-the-peg]

Because we need to encourage more people to use bikes

a) because of pollution issues

b) because of conjestion issues

c) because of health /excercise issues

True money is being spent on cycle lanes and tracks but I doubt the total amount would equal the money spent on 5 miles of motorway.

I still think they should be insured though 

[Jay70]

jake -the-peg:  Your post about the reasons cyclists shouldn't pay road tax is ok in theory but in practise if a great deal of people started riding bikes and got rid of their cars then where is the money to maintain the roads going to come from as it would be considerably reduced.

Also you say cycling is good for your health - what about all those fumes you'd be breathing in unless you had a mask on.  Also if you have an accident on a bike I would think your probably going to get hurt - doesnt sound to good for your health to me. Also as for aiding conjestion,  cycle lanes have been put on many roads in my area which has reduced the width of the lanes for cars.  Some junctions where there was room for two lanes their is now only 1.5 lanes so hence only room for one car and hence more conjestion.

[jake-the-peg]

This is an interesting angle - although I think we may have wandered far from the original post ( that may not be a bad thing given it's nature)

You may well be right that there is a point where more cyclist accidents etc. cost more to the health service than the benefits seen - If I had more time I'd try and find some stats from Holland - hopefully those who set policy in government do have more time and have looked. Live in hope eh?