4x4 - The Debate

[Solid Citizen]

Get Your Kicks on Route 66

If my Wife caught me driving a 4 x 4 I'd probably get hit with a 2 x 4

SC [huh]

 

[Salv]

The article that Caledonia refers to in her opening post highlights a survey that found that in London the percentage of drivers breaking the law by using a mobile phone, and/or not using a seatbelt, is 4 times greater in 4x4 drivers than in drivers of 'normal' vehicles. There's an article about the survey in The Belfast Telegraph which echoes the start of Caledonias article:

Doctors have joined the chorus of attacks on 4x4 vehicles with a warning that owners are recklessly putting other road users at risk by flouting laws over the use of mobile phones and seat belts.

Researchers who studied the behaviour of drivers of the all-terrain vehicles say that they took more risks because they felt safer than drivers of smaller cars. Scornfully known as Chelsea tractors due to their increasing appearance on urban streets, few 4x4s have seen more mud than can be picked up on a private school sports field. Teachers have tried to ban them and politicians want to impose penal tax rates on them - up to £2,000 a year, 10 times the normal road tax, in the latest proposal from the Liberal Democrats. They have been widely condemned as gas-guzzling, road-hogging and environmentally damaging. And the new front opened by the medical profession is bound further to inflame the debate on Britain's most controversial vehicle.

Although passengers in a 4x4 are less likely to suffer harm in an accident than those in a smaller vehicle, their owners are increasing the risk of injury to themselves and others by their failure to observe common safety measures, according to research from Imperial College, London, which is published in the British Medical Journal.

The pattern is an example of "risk compensation", where the safer a person feels the riskier the behaviour they indulge in.

A record 187,000 4x4s were sold in Britain last year, double the number a decade ago. One in seven cars on the road is now a 4x4, according to the Department of Transport.

However, the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, hit out at the vehicles recently, saying: "There will come a time when it will be irresponsible for those [4x4s] to be on sale."

They have also incurred the wrath of the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, who lambasted urban owners as "complete idiots". The presenter of BBC's Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson, described them as "clinically insane".

For the study by researchers from Imperial College, drivers of passenger cars were observed passing three different points in Hammersmith, west London, in February 2004.

The vehicles were monitored for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening during weekdays. More than 38,000 vehicles were studied, including almost 3,000 4x4s.

The researchers found drivers of 4x4s were almost four times more likely to be seen using hand-held mobiles. They were also less likely to use seat belts.

Those who broke one law, on using a mobile or not using a seat belt, were more likely also to break the other. Overall, one in six drivers (15.3 per cent) was not wearing a seat belt and one in 40 (2.5 per cent) was using a mobile.

Lesley Walker and colleagues say in the BMJ: "Our data show a worryingly high level of non-compliance with laws on seat belts and hand-held mobile phones by drivers in London. Our observation that almost one in six drivers was not wearing a seat belt is a public health concern."

Last October the BMJ published an American study showing that 4x4s were more dangerous to pedestrians than normal cars. Tests showed that people who were hit by the vehicles in accidents were four times more likely to die than those hit by other cars.

Previous studies have shown that drivers using mobile phones have four times the risk of an accident. On that basis, 4x4 drivers are at 16 times the risk of having an accident, given that they are four times more likely to use a mobile compared with other drivers.

Dr Walker said: "In general 4x4s reduce the risk for their occupants but increase the risk for everyone else. In using a 4x4, instead of a normal car, one's chance of death or serious injury falls by four in 1,000 but the chance of killing or injuring others rises by 11 in 1,000, with a resulting cost to the community."

So, while DiabolicalAngel may be safer in his Range Rover on the streets of London, other Londoners have become less safe. If that is the case I'd say that you do have to justify yourself to others.

 

[matei]

When I was a kid, my dad had a 4x4, a Datsun pickup truck. He used the heck out of it, hauling things in snow and mud and it eventually rusted away.

It was very handy, as my mother was disabled and at times he needed to get her to the hospital ASAP. Many times he had to do so in adverse conditions.

As necessary as a 4x4 was to him, he never went overboard and got one of those gigantic models. They were around even back then, but there weren't so many of them.

I personally never liked driving them. Visibility is OK, but they are just too large. Give me a regular size coupe any day. A few years back I drove his latest, a Blazer, and the wind was blowing me all over the highway. No thanks.

I don't like driving behind or around them either. I was nearly crushed once in my MGB when some mobile-gabbing eejit took his foot off the brake and let his behemoth roll forward. He didn't see me, and I was trapped in traffic.

When there is one in front and one behind you it can be very difficult to see what is happening on the road. All you see is SUV!

There are folks with a legit need for such a vehicle. However I think the vast majority of SUV owners don't fall into this category.

I had a friend in NY with a gigantic beast of an SUV, I think it was an Expidition or something like that. It was ridiculously large, and they never, ever engaged the 4WD.

Another problem I've encountered is that there are many SUV owners who think that 4WD is a magical feature that will let them bomb along at high speeds in horrible conditions. I've seen eejits doing 80 MPH in blizzard conditions, only to wind up in a heap a few miles down the road because they lost control on an icy patch.

 

[DiabolicalAngel]

So, while DiabolicalAngel may be safer in his Range Rover on the streets of London, other Londoners have become less safe. If that is the case I'd say that you do have to justify yourself to others.

So what you saying here Salv? Because of me as a 4x4 driver other Londoners have become less safe????? How did you work that one out? Well it's not the case with me, so I need not justify myself.

 

[jake_fink]

Walking in pablocham's, Major Danger's and Solid Citizen's (edited to add Salv's) footsteps, I have nothing to add but this observation:

I just love the single occupant person type creature in the 4 x 4 who can't find parking to suit on the city streets and has pulled up to park on the sidewalk. I love that person.

 

[Salv]

So what you saying here Salv? Because of me as a 4x4 driver other Londoners have become less safe????? How did you work that one out? Well it's not the case with me, so I need not justify myself.

The last sentence in the Belfast Telegraph article that I quoted deals with this point:

Dr Walker said: "In general 4x4s reduce the risk for their occupants but increase the risk for everyone else. In using a 4x4, instead of a normal car, one's chance of death or serious injury falls by four in 1,000 but the chance of killing or injuring others rises by 11 in 1,000, with a resulting cost to the community."

Note that Dr Walker says use of a 4X4 increases "the risk for everyone else."

 

[fortworthgal]

Pilgrim,

SUV drivers can't and don't "pay the bill" if their choice of car results in negative effects on others. For example, SUV drivers don't pay anything for the results of heightened road fatalities and emissions; instead, those costs are spread out over society in the form of air pollution, increased risk of accident fatality, and higher insurance premiums.

I find this interesting, and I would like to see your sources for claiming that SUVs and 4x4 are the sole cause of heightened road fatalities and emissions.

The pollution argument never fails to give me a good chuckle. I would very much like to hear an explanation as to how a modern SUV carrying the industry standard emission-reduction package causes more/worse emissions and risks to the environment than the guy down the street driving a 72 El Camino with a radical cam, and exempt from emissions because it is older? lol

As far as rude drivers, like LizzieMaine mentioned, I can agree with that. I see many SUV drivers who hog the road or take up 2-3 parking spaces. I personally make an effort to be very courteous... and honestly, most of the bad driving I am witness to - tailgating, zipping in and out of traffic, etc., is done by smaller vehicles - Honda Civics, Mini Coopers, etc. I read a study once that drivers of such small vehicles were more likely to speed, weave, and tailgate - I'll have to see if I can find it and post the link. It was quite interesting.

 

[DiabolicalAngel]

Well you can take me out of Dr Walker's statistic, I have 20 years plus No Claims Bonus and accident free ! Anyone who drives any type of car can potentially harm another human being or another persons property. Also as for being enviromentally friendly, I had my converted to run dual fuel on Liquid Gas...yeah great...find me a place that sells it in London, scarce ! So I still run it on petrol !

Be it that what ever stats show that 4x4's are frowned upon, maybe Dr Walker should come and do a survey in parts of London like Harlesden or Brixton (same as the roughest parts of Detroit or East LA). See what cars the drivers drive round there, not 4x4's but run of the mill cars. Some of those drivers don't even know what a seat belt is and as for using a mobile, part of the parcel, as for accidents, they are hit and runs or drive by shootings ! Let's see how long those people with their little yellow jackets sitting on their stools with their clip boards would last there making observations !

Either way, maybe the likes of people who don't like 4x4 drivers should club together and purchase vehicles they think right for people to drive instead of driving their 'put people at risk wheels' - so I am open to offers for a new vehicle if any 4x4 anti's want to buy me one........any offers???

 

[Salv]

Well you can take me out of Dr Walker's statistic, I have 20 years plus No Claims Bonus and accident free ! Anyone who drives any type of car can potentially harm another human being or another persons property. Also as for being enviromentally friendly, I had my converted to run dual fuel on Liquid Gas...yeah great...find me a place that sells it in London, scarce ! So I still run it on petrol !

Be it that what ever stats show that 4x4's are frowned upon, maybe Dr Walker should come and do a survey in parts of London like Harlesden or Brixton (same as the roughest parts of Detroit or East LA). See what cars the drivers drive round there, not 4x4's but run of the mill cars. Some of those drivers don't even know what a seat belt is and as for using a mobile, part of the parcel, as for accidents, they are hit and runs or drive by shootings ! Let's see how long those people with their little yellow jackets sitting on their stools with their clip boards would last there making observations !

Either way, maybe the likes of people who don't like 4x4 drivers should club together and purchase vehicles they think right for people to drive instead of driving their 'put people at risk wheels' - so I am open to offers for a new vehicle if any 4x4 anti's want to buy me one........any offers???

Well done on the 20 years accident free; I'm at 22 years so far but of course I realise that could end the very next time I get in a car. I appreciate that there is a risk associated with me driving - the point of the article is that driving a 4x4 increases that risk. It doesn't matter how good a driver you are - if you're driving a 4x4 you are increasing the risk to others.

That "there are more dangerous people than me out there" argument doesn't really work. If you really want to use drivers in Harlesden and Brixton as your yardstick you'll need to tell us how many deaths have been caused by drive-by shootings in those areas over the last few years, and then compare that number to the number of deaths caused by badly driven 4x4s in the same period.

I've got a spare bike you can have if you really want to trade in your 4x4. It's guaranteed to be faster in the central London rush hour than car you could care to name.

 

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim,

SUV drivers can't and don't "pay the bill" if their choice of car results in negative effects on others. For example, SUV drivers don't pay anything for the results of heightened road fatalities and emissions; instead, those costs are spread out over society in the form of air pollution, increased risk of accident fatality, and higher insurance premiums. So really it is incorrect to say that they "pay the bill," though they certainly pay part of the bill. As you say, they are legal, but so what? Heroin and cocaine used to be legal too. Moreover, plenty of things are legal and heavily regulated or taxed. Alcohol and tobacco come most readily to mind. In many states taxes on cigarettes have been increased to pay for the health care costs associated with smoking. Why not do something similar for people who drive dangerous vehicles?

I think that SUV drivers should be made to pay the full costs of their choice, and I think that people should be discouraged from using them just as we discourage people from engaging in any other harmful activity.

I will take issue with these comments.

"SUV drivers don't pay anything for the results of heightened road fatalities and emissions; instead, those costs are spread out over society in the form of air pollution, increased risk of accident fatality, and higher insurance premiums."

• Prove to me that SUVs increase road fatalities! I don't believe you can do it. For every vehicle on the road, there are others that are bigger, wider or otherwise likely to win in a crash. Sports cars like my 280ZX lose to SUVs. Small SUVs lose to Hummers and trucks. Everyone loses when they collide with a bus or semi. all of the above happen every day. I grant you that a lot of SUV drivers are incompetent, inattentive morons who shouldn't have licenses, but that's true of more than half of all the drivers in the U.S. regardless of the vehicle they drive.
  
• As for emissions, my Blazers both create FEWER exhaust emissions than my 1958 Fiat Roadster or my 1983 280ZX, and they get better gas mileage! The newer the car, the cleaner the exhaust; in fact, auto emissions are extremely limited these days. ANY new SUV is emitting fewer pollutants than any 20 year old car, and less than any 10 year old car.
  
• In a column in Car & Driver within the last couple of years, Pat Bedard noted that in some parts of California, the air coming out of an SUVs tailpipe was cleaner than the air going into the motor. I don't have the numbers, but the fact is that automobiles are clean enough today that in many areas their emissions are not as big a problem as pollution from industrial operations.
  
• I challenge you to define a "dangerous vehicle" in a practical, legally defensible way. Ferraris are extremely dangerous by many definitions. 1957 Chevies are classics, but they have no safety gear at all - much more "dangerous" than a worn-out, highly polluting 1995 Impala. Because of pollution, we need to get rid of all cars older than 20 years, don't we? That means all old, classic cars. And all sports cars, because they're low-slung and dangerous. And all small cars, because they will lose if they run into bigger cars.
  
• I see absolutely no basis for defining SUVs as "dangerous", or driving them as a "harmful activity". These statements appear to me to be entirely emotional, lacking a basis in fact, and unsupportable. If we outlaw SUVs for being harmful, then we'd better do it right and get rid of skateboards, bunji jumping, inline skates, downhill skis, all existing contact sports, coffee, tea, alcohol, soft drinks and red meat (just a partial list, of course), all of which can be shown to offer direct threats to personal health.

Strong opinion available on request.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

The article that Caledonia refers to in her opening post highlights a survey that found that in London the percentage of drivers breaking the law by using a mobile phone, and/or not using a seatbelt, is 4 times greater in 4x4 drivers than in drivers of 'normal' vehicles. There's an article about the survey in The Belfast Telegraph which echoes the start of Caledonias article:


So, while DiabolicalAngel may be safer in his Range Rover on the streets of London, other Londoners have become less safe. If that is the case I'd say that you do have to justify yourself to others.

I would just like to step in here and remind anyone who cares that CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. Thank you.

 

[DiabolicalAngel]

I've got a spare bike you can have if you really want to trade in your 4x4. It's guaranteed to be faster in the central London rush hour than car you could care to name.

Nah, that's ok, ride a bike and get my shoes dirty... so many cyclists get flatenned by those stupid new bendy buses that are in London...18 metres long ! The same reason why my motorbike sits in my garage now !

I'll stick to my 4x4 thanks. Just looking at what other new 4x4 I can blow my bonus on this year.............maybe a Porsche Cayenne Turbo with a great big bull bar on the front...............

Maybe I should sit up and trade in my Rolex for a Timex....................

Pilgrim, I am with you all the way !!!!! :eusa_clap

 

[Salv]

Nah, that's ok, ride a bike and get my shoes dirty... so many cyclists get flatenned by those stupid new bendy buses that are in London...18 metres long ! The same reason why my motorbike sits in my garage now !

I'll stick to my 4x4 thanks. Just looking at what other new 4x4 I can blow my bonus on this year.............maybe a Porsche Cayenne Turbo with a great big bull bar on the front...............

Maybe I should sit up and trade in my Rolex for a Timex....................

Pilgrim, I am with you all the way !!!!! :eusa_clap

So you don't want to provide statistics for death by drive-by shooting vs. death by 4x4 then...

 

[Pilgrim]

We live at 5000 feet of elevation next to the Rocky mountains, and a very high proportion of the vehicles around here are AWD or 4WD. Snows are frequent and occasionally heavy, and any trip out of town in the winter has the potential of dealing with significant snow either leaving or returning. SUVs, Audis and Subarus sell very well here.

This ain't Florida or Louisiana, folks. There are good reasons for people to drive AWD vehicles in much of the northern US. Gas mileage issues are a reason that somewhat smaller and lighter "crossover" vehicles are like the Honda CRV and Ford Escape are becoming popular as well. But I'm perfectly happy with my Blazers, including their gas mileage.

Crossover vehicles are generally limited to 3500 lbs. towing capacity at most, and many have much less (if any) towing capacity. They also carry a limited number of passengers...although often the same number as a mid-size SUV.

If you really want a vehicle that does most things well, the mid-size SUVs are awfully hard to beat. They get decent gas mileage (20 MPG+ on the highway), hold 5 people, tow 3500-5000 pounds, have good comfort, and they are durable and dependable. I fail to see what's wrong with any of that.

If you don't need a 12-15 MPG V-8, 3/4 ton 4WD pickup, don't drive one. If you DO need one, drive it and quityerbitchin about the gas mileage; it's a cost of ownership. If you don't like SUVs or trucks, then don't drive them, but shaddup and don't criticize others who do: they can drive what they want to. It's legal, it's their choice and it's their budget. If you don't like any of the above, talk to your legislators and change the laws.

 

[fortworthgal]

Just a footnote:

As my SUV sits in the parking lot this very minute, riding in the back is a 6300 series Graphotype, dating to the 1940s, for stamping dog tags and metal plates.

Specifications: Width of Machine 41”; Depth of Machine 27”; Height of Machine 46"; Net weight: 340 lbs. Shipping weight: 520 lbs. It is sitting on a wooden skid and had to be loaded in with a forklift.

I'd like to see THAT fit into an average sized car.

 

[Serial Hero]

I typed "SUV safety" into google. These are the first things to pop up:

http://www.suv.org/safety.html

http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...-safety-how-to-avoid-a-rollover-304/index.htm

http://www.insweb.com/learningcenter/special-reports/suv/default.htm

 

[Caledonia]

So many opinions and strong ones too! Seeing as I started this I think I should explain more about my own views. But first try this.

http://www.carbonneutral.com////calculators/index_shop_calculator.asp

I drive a 4x4. Husband hates it and drives a small berlingo van. He wants an electric or dual fuel vehicle. He is more environmentally correct than I am, I admit. The 4x4 is necessary for two reasons: work and where we live. But it rarely gets used for work as we don't often need to go off road to 4WD extent, and in the winter we only usually get two bad weeks that we need it for. So, most of my driving is on road, through towns, and absolutely not requiring of a 4x4. I do not use my mobile when driving whatever car I'm in. I always wear a seatbelt. I just planted 1100 trees out the back. If I split that with husband I get 550. Using the above link that gives me about 15 years of carbon neutralisation for my household and car usage. Am I happy about that and going yah boo sucks to people who hate my 4x4. No, because I know that I should drive something smaller because it's not whether you have the money and can afford it and it's your right to drive what you want, I actually do believe we should be looking at emissions.

But. It's been said earlier in this thread. People who don't like 4x4's - most of them are doing nothing or very little that is constructively benefiting their local or the global environment, or even minimising the impacts they have on it. I do agree that most 4x4 drivers are using them as toys with no need for them whatsoever, and I do think they have that right but are probably not considering the impacts they have, and being deliberately unaware and insensitive to the impacts you have by the way you live is morally and ethically wrong in my view, despite my vehicular tendencies. And yes, I do drive a 4x4 because I love the size and the look as well as it being occasionally necessary. Having said that, it isn't one of those gigantic ones, it's just your regular sized 4x4 and I even abandoned the pickup for the one I have, which makes it even smaller! Excuses, excuses.

In the UK you don't see a lot of huge 4x4s really, or do they turn up in greater numbers in the cities? I don't know that as I don't often go to the big cities - just the wee scottish ones. I certainly can't see the merit in running a hummer unless you're in the military - that's just down right silly.

Summing up. I feel guilt about my 4x4, but I will continue to drive it, and offset the environmental impacts in other ways, and no, I don't know how to offset the safety bit except by making sure I drive well and try not to run into anybody. Any user of a big vehicle, 4x4 or not, should be sensitive to other people, ie not blocking roads, not being arrogant, letting bikes and pedestrians have a chance too. And plant a few trees, turn off the light bulbs, insulate the loft, stop consuming. And that goes for everybody, particularly me!

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

People who don't like 4x4's - most of them are doing nothing or very little that is constructively benefiting their local or the global environment, or even minimising the impacts they have on it.

This has been asserted a few times in this thread but I suspect it is patently false. I think if you need a 4x4, drive one. But don't say "Well YOU guys aren't doing anything EITHER" unless you know that to be true.

 

[Pilgrim]

Interesting thought, to type "SUV safety" into a web browser. But given the current debate about SUVs, should we anticipate that it will yield much except criticism?

Checking the links above:

Despite its title, SUV.org is a blatantly anti-SUV website. Anything it says will make SUVs look as bad as possible. Nothing but propaganda.

PublicCitizen.org is a group with some merits, but its President is Joan Claybrook, former Administrator of the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), an agency which under her "leadership" proposed some really loopy ideas relative to automotive transportation. She personally is no lover of automobiles, nor do I expect any organization she heads to provide consistently rational information about automobiles.

Consumer Reports is a solid organization. They say SUVs roll over more than standard passenger vehicles. Aside from this being very, very old news, I will offer this: GASP!!!!!!!!! The very thought that a vehicle designed with a higher center of gravity might roll over more easily than those with lower center of gravities - well, the idea strikes fear into the very heart of anyone who has no idea how physics work! Actually, this was a good study in pointing out some vehicles that were poorly designed and needed improvement. But at its base, it's true that SUVs, Vans and other high center of gravity vehicles will roll more easily than passenger cars. Does that mean we shouldn't build them? I don't think so.

The InsWeb site is interesting, and the primary points in the linked article are that SUVs roll over more often per 100 accidents (hmm, physics still works) and stand taller than smaller cars, causing potentially more damage and more dangerous impacts than collisions between smaller cars. They aver that "...the safest SUVs to drive and ride in are those that have a wider wheel base and a higher load capacity, and ride closer to the ground." No argument here. If you want one, drive one. If not, don't. If you drive a 280ZX like I do, don't get T-boned by a passenger car OR an SUV - you lose either way. So should we stop building or importing sports cars?

All in all, the first site is pure propaganda, the second is essentially the same, the third states something that's worth knowing but has been public knowledge for some time. Both the third and fourth websites add notes of common sense badly lacking in the first two.

None of which should deter anyone who feels they need an SUV from buying one. Or selling one.

 

[Caledonia]

This has been asserted a few times in this thread but I suspect it is patently false. I think if you need a 4x4, drive one. But don't say "Well YOU guys aren't doing anything EITHER" unless you know that to be true.

Sorry, I typed that badly and should have taken more care. You're right to point it out. What I should have said was that I've been in this and other environmental debates where if you ask the other person how they use their own car, or run their household for example, there are people who drive 250 yards to go to a shop for a paper, or won't even consider an energy saving light bulb, but have a go at somebody else for their lack of environmental credentials. And I've got a foot in both camps which is why I concede I haven't got a leg to stand on by driving a 4x4 outwith the times when I need it.