Who really drives 4x4s?
Research company's latest report strengthens stereotypes
As 4x4 drivers come in for growing criticism in the press and on the roads, analysis company CACI has researched who the typical 4x4 driver really is.
Popular perceptions paint a picture of a lady of leisure, dropping her kids off at school before heading off to town with the ladies who lunch. The charges are that these Kensington Tractors take up too much road, and are handled by inconsiderate drivers. What’s more, the size of the vehicle, fuel consumption and emissions are over-the-top for the urban environment.
Is this stereotype a true reflection of the people that actually own and drive 4x4s these days? Or do 4x4 drivers get their mud in country lanes rather than farmers’ markets in Chelsea?
Using ACORN consumer segmentation, CACI has identified that the 'wealthy executive' is most likely to have a 4x4 on the driveway of their detached house. Inside the house there are children who will need to be ferried to and from school and numerous social events. The 4x4 will enjoy a regular trip to the golf course -- staying only on the tarmac however.
Sadly the vehicle will be left behind when the family fly off for their annual ski trip – it would be just too dangerous to drive on snow and ice. As a quick scan of any Waitrose car park will reveal these professional managers are most often found in places such as Esher, Solihull, Beaconsfield and other rich commuter satellite towns.
These wealthy executives account 15 per cent of 4x4 owners. Another 13 per cent of 4x4 owners are 'affluent greys' who are less likely to need a car for the purpose of running children around. Some of them live and work in farming communities, but others will have taken retirement from their profession and now spend their time visiting National Trust properties in their 4x4 – very useful for those overflow car parks. South coast retirement towns are the preferred home of the affluent grey, Poole, Ferndown and Christchurch being particular favourite haunts.
The 4x4 driver comes from a variety of backgrounds, but their household income is above average and yes, the chances are they will have children to take to and from school. The discussions on how they drive and whether they really need a 4x4 will rumble on and on; what’s certain is that 'off road' is more likely to involve the gravel drive than the farmyard.
Analysis by CACI: www.caci.co.uk.
the results shock horror expected to be mainly people living on benifits in rented houses.... with the odd exentric millionaire.
DR Numpty said " We found surprisingly few of these people driving brand new 4x4 and Ferrari's "
I drive a 4x4 cos i like it Do i need any other reason
!!!!!!!!!!11
G
The 4x4 is used to ferry kids and go shopping but also doubles as my play thing at the weekend and for taking the whole family plus visitors out to the beach, pub, country club, etc when we have visitors (which is often) instead of taking two cars.
Also if the wife drove a small hatchback I would need a 4x4 to play with on the weekend anyway. We could have gone for a more sensible 4x4 but I like the sound and power of the v8 and it allows the Mrs to shove troublesome BMW's out the way like she did last Thursday!
feck me that must be like a battle of the sterotypes!"Using ACORN consumer segmentation, CACI has identified that the 'wealthy executive' is most likely to have a 4x4 on the driveway of their detached house."
One would assume that they make up the majority, but this is only 15%. Coupled with the 13% 'affluent greys' the other 72% must be numerous minority groups!
My minority group can be summed up as;
No kids, but wish to leave my village in the winter when the council can't be bothered to get out and grit the roads.
Mark
Marki said:
stop telling me what i can and can not do you w*nkers
indeed! I can drive what I like, when I like. I pay more tax via fuel duty for my 4x4 and TVR and so I already pay my dues for choosing to drive less economical vehicles.
I regularly use my 4x4 off road (its an old frontera not a £60k range rover) but to be honest I dont care if other 4x4 owners take their's off road or not - each to their own I say. If school-run-mum likes the driving postion, security and safety of a 4x4 then so be it.
If the
ing tree huggers really want to save the planet then instead of wingeing about 4x4's they should stop buying anything man-made and go and live in a ing cave. Global manufacturing businesses contribute far more green house gasses/co2 than cars. 
They're too blinded by their obsessive hatred of middle and upper-class imagery to see that what they say is utter drivel.
4*4s take up less space than most estate cars and actually last longer than most cars because of their robust construction.
The energy required to manufacture a vehicle is a very considerable factor in the whole energy consumed by a vehicle and longer-lasting vehicles, because they are not scrapped so frequently, thus do not require such frequent energy-using replacement.
Bitter lefties and nannying do-gooders are wrecking this country. Can't they just find a better hobby?
I drive an SUV and I use it for lots of sporting endeavours, towing my racing kart, carrying moutain bikes and heading off the beaten path on holiday. We also drive it twice a year to a ski resort and use it fully as it was intended.
And yes, I take my kids to school with it too..
This is how it starts. Bet they start shouting for bigger taxes on bigger cars.
Drive what you like, as long as you do it properly. If they want to drive a pisspot Dinky toy that runs on recycled Gnat wee, then good luck. I want a big nasty 4x4, so I have a Defender. I like it, I want it, I got it. It's a free country......... wasn't it?
Yugguy said:
There is a case though, that if you get hit by my Clio or that 2.7 tonne (!!!!!) new Discovery, you've more chance of surviving the Clio. 'Ordinary' cars will tend to lift up and scoop a pedestrian over the bonnet. 4x4s will drag them under the wheels.
And what injuries would a 40 tonne truck do to you ?? I don't hear or see much in the press about getting those bloody things off the roads. As far as I'm concerned, the more people who buy Landrovers the better, as it means my bonus goes up and therefore, I have more money to spend on my TVR !!
In my opinion, if the money that is being spent by motor manufacturers, to meet the ever increasing legislation for pedestrian impact safety, is spent on keeping pedestrains and vehicles apart by utilising better designed roads and pedestrian walkways, would be a better solution. No matter how heavy a vehicle is, 500KG or 40 Tonnes, it will cause you some damage no matter how well it meets impact safety requirements.
Yugguy said:
There is a case though, that if you get hit by my Clio or that 2.7 tonne (!!!!!) new Discovery, you've more chance of surviving the Clio. 'Ordinary' cars will tend to lift up and scoop a pedestrian over the bonnet. 4x4s will drag them under the wheels.
Devils advocate here. If you get hit by your Clio or his 4x4 you probably deserve it. Pedestrians should keep to the path and motorists to the road, if pedestrians used zebra crossings etc. rather than run across the road in front of people I'm sure the casualty stats will go down.
Here's an idea! Why don't the government invent a 'hero' figure for kids to look up to and educate them in the schools - I think a big green guy with a witty tag line might do it
If everybody gets the attitude that they are safer in an impact then those who drive normal cars will end up suffering or being forced to buy a 4X4.
Less likly you will be muged succesfully if you carry a gun but if everybody has a gun then nobody is safe.
PS lorrys have an actual point they transport goods and make trading possible. 4X4s on the road are pointless.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff