RE: 4x4 war of words rumbles on
Monday 26th June 2006
Range Rover: it's safer, honest...The war of words of 4x4s continues, with the latest salvo coming from the motor industry. It follows a recent BBC story which claimed that "drivers of 4x4s are putting other motorists at risk by flouting mobile phone and seat belt laws" (see story link below).
4x4 war of words rumbles on
Motor industry hits back at "poorly researched report"
Range Rover: it's safer, honest...
The industry's body, the SMMT, said it was "concerned that drivers of 4x4 / SUVs have once again been blasted by a weak piece of research". According to the SMMT, an Imperial College report published in the British Medical Journal was based on observations of driver habits at only three points in central London.
SMMT reckoned this was one of several "poorly-researched reports worryingly reproduced by some in the media as fact".
"Our concern is that conclusions will be taken as read, simply because this is the British Medical Journal and the report has therefore generated media interest", said SMMT chief executive Christopher Macgowan.
"'While we welcome the fact that researchers have acknowledged 4x4s / SUVs as one of the safest cars for occupants, they seem to have made a huge leap of logic about drivers. Surely it can't be good science to suggest that the safety benefits of driving a 4x4 makes people more complacent and therefore more likely to use their mobile phone illegally while driving?"
In January, SMMT said it published a free guide to safer driving called Drive Green, Drive Safely. This encourages drivers of all types of vehicle to adhere to the rules of the road, by following a series of simple reminders, tips and hints.
SMMT said it would forward copies of the guide to the publisher of the Imperial College research for distribution to doctors' surgeries around the UK. The booklet has already been widely distributed to safety and government bodies in Britain and is also free to download as a PDF (see link below).
According to the SMMT, the facts about 4x4s are:
- 7.7 per cent of new cars leaving showrooms throughout the UK is a 4x4 / SUV. That compares to 30 per cent for supermini cars (Fiesta / Corsa sized) and 31 per cent for small family cars (Focus / Astra) sized models.
- Average CO2 emissions from 4x4s / SUVs are 12 per cent lower than for luxury saloons and on a par with sports cars. Average new 4x4 / SUV emissions have fallen by more than 17 per cent in the last six years, compared to a car-wide average drop of 11 per cent, according to the organisation.
- Each of the three best-selling 4x4s / SUVs on the road last year, the Freelander, RAV4 and CR-V, is shorter than a Mondeo or Vectra.
- There is no verifiable research which shows European 4x4s / SUVs are less safe than other types of vehicle. In fact, reckoned the SMMT, independent EuroNCAP crash tests demonstrate that many perform better than smaller cars in terms of both occupant and pedestrian protection.
This one will run and run...
Links
Discussion
The greenies don't care. They aren't arguing on a rational basis - the campaign against 4x4s is a "divide & conquer" tactic against all cars. Once they've succeeded in destroying the 4x4 market and putting thousands of people in Solihull out of work, they'll start on their next target, likely sports cars, and so on until we're all forced into a reeking bus or train, jammed up against some loon whose idea of personal hygiene was to glance into Boots the last time they walked past it.
zumbruk said:
The greenies don't care. They aren't arguing on a rational basis - the campaign against 4x4s is a "divide & conquer" tactic against all cars. Once they've succeeded in destroying the 4x4 market and putting thousands of people in Solihull out of work, they'll start on their next target, likely sports cars, and so on until we're all forced into a reeking bus or train, jammed up against some loon whose idea of personal hygiene was to glance into Boots the last time they walked past it.
Hear, hear. I couldn't agree more. This pap about SUV's really gets on my t*ts! My particular favourite is the "Lets have an extra tax for SUV's" bullsh*t. They seem to overlook the fact that, thanks to the frankly farcical level of tax on fuel, SUV owners pay double the tax that everyone else does anyway!
As for an increase in driving whilst on the mobile phone, can't say I've noticed a difference, as everyone seems to do it anyway. The point is that it's precisely what happens when you replace traffic police with speed cameras; everyone does what the hell they want where there aren't any cameras!
I totally agree with all your points Andrew,
As an onwer of an SUV and sports a car I pay double the tax that everyone else does for fuel and road tax. It just p****s me off continually being the target for the choice of vehicle that I drive... In any case for me and my other half this is all accademic - we will be out of this country within 6 months!
As for driving while using mobiles, quite frankly I've noticed many simply just don't give a dam. Drive through London at any time, day or night and you'll lose count of the amount of people that still do it. Outside the capital I've witnessed many near collisions and the trouble is how do you inforce it? not with cameras thats for sure!
As an onwer of an SUV and sports a car I pay double the tax that everyone else does for fuel and road tax. It just p****s me off continually being the target for the choice of vehicle that I drive... In any case for me and my other half this is all accademic - we will be out of this country within 6 months!
As for driving while using mobiles, quite frankly I've noticed many simply just don't give a dam. Drive through London at any time, day or night and you'll lose count of the amount of people that still do it. Outside the capital I've witnessed many near collisions and the trouble is how do you inforce it? not with cameras thats for sure!
I'm not a fan of 4x4s as urban runabouts, but I'll stand with the Yummy Mummies on this one. Most cars on the market go way beyond the remit of sensible personal transport; how long before Caterhams are taxed as frivolous and wasteful? I won't be surprised if we start hearing about a sports car tax before the end of this year...
Most SUV-haters carry on as they do because of whatever social stigmas they carry. They don't seem to complain about the supersaloons that weigh as much and have similarly dismal MPG figures.
And besides, one can't just look at fuel consumption alone, or emissions from the tailpipe. It's possible there are some supermini-producing manufacturers that leave a much larger carbon footprint, over the entire munfacturing process, then that of Land Rover.
Also, anyone who goes on about SUVs and then hops on a passenger jet is a hypocrite.
Most SUV-haters carry on as they do because of whatever social stigmas they carry. They don't seem to complain about the supersaloons that weigh as much and have similarly dismal MPG figures.
And besides, one can't just look at fuel consumption alone, or emissions from the tailpipe. It's possible there are some supermini-producing manufacturers that leave a much larger carbon footprint, over the entire munfacturing process, then that of Land Rover.
Also, anyone who goes on about SUVs and then hops on a passenger jet is a hypocrite.
Edited by ubergreg on Monday 26th June 13:52
At least one organisation seems to have had their coffee this week.
I don't own a 4x4 and quite frankly don't want one. But there are some abismal peices of journalism being flaunted around the papers - and on TV - about these cars. As has been said many time before there is a very effective method of taxing those who drive thirsty vehicles already in place.
I don't see how a 4x4 driver using the mobile phone is any more, or less, dangerous than a van, car or lorry driver using the phone?
If all the 4x4's magically disappeared over night to be replaced with Prius's you'd still have the same level of incopetant driver behind it's wheel. School run traffic wouldn't disappear because the same inconsiderate parent would still double park "I'll only be a minute" to drop off their spawn.
A private school near my office in the Westminster area have issued parents with A4 notices to stick in their car windows saying 'Dear Traffic Warden. I am dropping my child off at the ___________ School and will only be 10 minutes. Please don't ticket my car.' Now they use these as an excuse to park at, in and accross junctions; double and triple park. Not all are 4x4's but all are driven by inconsiderate a**ehol*s.
mk1fan said:
At least one organisation seems to have had their coffee this week.
I don't own a 4x4 and quite frankly don't want one. But there are some abismal peices of journalism being flaunted around the papers - and on TV - about these cars. As has been said many time before there is a very effective method of taxing those who drive thirsty vehicles already in place.
I don't see how a 4x4 driver using the mobile phone is any more, or less, dangerous than a van, car or lorry driver using the phone?
If all the 4x4's magically disappeared over night to be replaced with Prius's you'd still have the same level of incopetant driver behind it's wheel. School run traffic wouldn't disappear because the same inconsiderate parent would still double park "I'll only be a minute" to drop off their spawn.
A private school near my office in the Westminster area have issued parents with A4 notices to stick in their car windows saying 'Dear Traffic Warden. I am dropping my child off at the ___________ School and will only be 10 minutes. Please don't ticket my car.' Now they use these as an excuse to park at, in and accross junctions; double and triple park. Not all are 4x4's but all are driven by inconsiderate a**ehol*s.
Likewise, don't own a 4x4 or want one. Recently drove a friend's Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.7 V8. Appalling to drive; it's like driving a small bungalow and handles about as well. Never driven a car that wobbled side-to-side before; presumably the very tall tire walls flexing. Scary. However we still live in a, (moderately), free country and people drive what they like and can afford. There are lots of exec saloons that spew out more CO2 than the average 4x4 but they seem to be left alone. That's life when "public opinion" is generated by - not reflected by - the media.
As for the school in Westminster, that is disgraceful and they should get a visit from BiB to explain the error of their ways..........unless, of course, they have the children of rich/famous/influential parents attending; in which case it's perfectly O.K. dontcha know. Wonder what would happen if our village Primary School tried the same trick ? Money doesn't talk - it screams.
Keep on driving what you like as long as you can afford it and do it safely, legally and courteously. End of rant.
Sorry guys, I completely agree with raising vehicle tax; except that it should be on all cars. Then only people like the vast majority of Pistonheads members could afford to drive!
Roll on £1,000 per year road tax and get the people who don't like driving or don't need to drive, off the roads...
Less accidents, less pollution, same income for Gordon and half the cars off the road! Is there a downside?
I now throw myself to the ground at the mercy of flaming replies! But... think about it first - would you pay £1,000 per year to half the cars on the road? I know I would! Could not agree more with those comments above. I have a Land Rover and a Caterham, so the 'Greenies' will be after me a second time once they have banned my Landie cos my Caterham does not run on Jam and I do not posess full facial hair. My Landie does very few miles per year but this I suspect will not detract them from hating me. I suspect the next things on the hit list will be:
-Large houses that use too much gas/coal
-drivers driving uneconomically at 45 mph plus
-engine capacity over 1300cc
-frivolous journeys (ie anything not attending the latest, greenpeace of save the seal protest).
-motor racing (burning fuel just to go round in a circle!!!!)
-nights out with friends (often a taxi would be used so that's out)
well the list goes on.....I'm off to live in a cave.
-Large houses that use too much gas/coal
-drivers driving uneconomically at 45 mph plus
-engine capacity over 1300cc
-frivolous journeys (ie anything not attending the latest, greenpeace of save the seal protest).
-motor racing (burning fuel just to go round in a circle!!!!)
-nights out with friends (often a taxi would be used so that's out)
well the list goes on.....I'm off to live in a cave.
I dont own a 4x4 or SUV but am tempted to own one for lugging gear around and generally doing the stuff i dont want to do in the TVR.
The main reason being that the quality of road surfaces around my way is appauling with big ol pot-holes all over the place. If they spent some of their Tax cash on things they should be like road surfaces then maybe some of us wouldnt need big ol tough motors.
(yes there are some 4x4 drivers that only own them for the status etc.. but that goes with all 'minority' cars)
At the end of the day, as quite rightly said, people should be allowed to drive what they like cause if you discriminate against 4x4's it wont be long before they move onto the next 'minority' vehicle which they can claim is ruining our society.
And on the subject of Mobile phones etc, If they acknowledged the fact that 'Bad Driving' incorporating all factors was the cause of accidents instead of simply things they can sprout Cameras up for then a far greater number of these 'bad driving' incidents would go away and the roads would be safer.
Government stance : Ban everything then you dont have to police anything..
The main reason being that the quality of road surfaces around my way is appauling with big ol pot-holes all over the place. If they spent some of their Tax cash on things they should be like road surfaces then maybe some of us wouldnt need big ol tough motors.
(yes there are some 4x4 drivers that only own them for the status etc.. but that goes with all 'minority' cars)
At the end of the day, as quite rightly said, people should be allowed to drive what they like cause if you discriminate against 4x4's it wont be long before they move onto the next 'minority' vehicle which they can claim is ruining our society.
And on the subject of Mobile phones etc, If they acknowledged the fact that 'Bad Driving' incorporating all factors was the cause of accidents instead of simply things they can sprout Cameras up for then a far greater number of these 'bad driving' incidents would go away and the roads would be safer.
Government stance : Ban everything then you dont have to police anything..
Having worked in safety testing for many years, I am convinced that all the above are just the ill-informed posturings of SUV rights activists. Large SUVs are less stable and do have significantly worse active safety characteristics than any other class of car. Most SUVs have substantially worse pedestrian impact protection. They are much more prone to roll-over. The fact that many other cars polute as much (even my trusty 3.4 litre Alpina) does not in any way detract from this. A luxury saloon can steer and stop far better than a car with its centre of gravity so much further above axle height even if the two vehicles do weigh the same. Stop bleating and look at the facts. Regarding the Imperial College study published in the BMJ, it seems perfectly valid. Chris hasn't said why three study sites is not enough because it is enough. The statistics are fine, as you would expect from such an eminent university and a paper reviewed by peers for a highly regarded journal.
I really really really do not understand the fuss.
Some cars are bigger than others, some are smaller, some are faster, some are slower, some cars are driven further than others, some cars are hardly driven at all.
How your car choice makes any impact at all when it's cheaper to FLY to Scotland than get a train thus spewing tonnes of emissions into the air that are entirely avoidable is beyond me.
Why are there lorries from the ports? what's wrong with a rail link? How can it be more economical to drive something to Scotland (for example) than put it on a train?
Methinks they have the wrong target in their sights.
Some cars are bigger than others, some are smaller, some are faster, some are slower, some cars are driven further than others, some cars are hardly driven at all.
How your car choice makes any impact at all when it's cheaper to FLY to Scotland than get a train thus spewing tonnes of emissions into the air that are entirely avoidable is beyond me.
Why are there lorries from the ports? what's wrong with a rail link? How can it be more economical to drive something to Scotland (for example) than put it on a train?
Methinks they have the wrong target in their sights.
Strider said:
Large SUVs are less stable and do have significantly worse active safety characteristics than any other class of car. Most SUVs have substantially worse pedestrian impact protection. They are much more prone to roll-over. A luxury saloon can steer and stop far better than a car with its centre of gravity so much further above axle height even if the two vehicles do weigh the same.
True, but the same can be said about extreme sports cars as well. A TVR for example, in wrong hands it is a killer machine, too much power, no active safety devices. Then again a sports car can steer and stop far better than a luxury saloon, even if the two vehicles do weigh the same. Pedestrian safety, I'm pretty sure that a low sports car is not at all better than a SUV when it comes to pedestrian safety. Being hit by a Ferrari, the first impact is just below your knee, the next impact is when you fall down on the low bonnet, hit your head (through) the windscreen...
It's not so much about the type of car, it's about the driver.
Strider said:
Having worked in safety testing for many years, I am convinced that all the above are just the ill-informed posturings of SUV rights activists. Large SUVs are less stable and do have significantly worse active safety characteristics than any other class of car.
Who mentioned safety? That's the problem with being too eager to display specialist knowledge of one particular area, you don't fully appreciate what's being said. But as we're now onto safety; Do you agree that as long as there is more than one model of car available, there will always be one that is the least safe in a certain area? So who are we to say what is acceptable and what is not? Do you want to make that decision or, as the buying public, should I?
Moreover, in terms of injuries per Km driven; both in occupants, other road users and pedestrians; is a typcial SUV more or less safe than an Austin Metro? Because you can still buy those, so it's an alternative. In fact, what about Smart ForTwo versus SUV?
I don't own an SUV. I've driven quite a few and I actively decided against buying one not least on a basis that I thought it inefficient and unnecessary for someone in my position to own such a vehicle. So don't tar me as an "SUV rights activist", and don't suggest that I'm ill-informed or biggoted.
I do, however, cherish my freedom to make the decision of what vehicle to buy, and to make it on a level playing field free from punitive taxes or arbitrarily assigned edicts on what is safe and what is not.
Edited by Andrew D on Monday 26th June 17:10
I read a test in (I think) Auto Express where the braking distances of cars was measured. Both the New ML and new Discovery stopped in less distance than most (ie above average) bettering the golf GTI and focus ST. In addition I'd like to find a way that I could accelerate my Land Rover as fast as comparative saloon, so I guess on average my impact velocity will be lower anyway. Sorry but I'm not a great fan of 'safety' professionals.
Thank You, Strider!
Yes, to all. Drive what you want. Pay more fuel tax if you drive a less efficient car. Keep the choices as free as we can.
And I accept that as long as councils keep on building obstructions into their roads, 'speed humps', that increase pollution, decrease road safety both by distraction and by damaging important suspension components, most city dwellers are going to be tempted by an off roader. i.e. a 'car' designed to cope with ups and downs of six inches or so. Our city roads are now more rutted than our country lanes......
But please, let's have some facts/information/EDUCATION! Most I know who drive 'SUV's' say they do so because 'they feel safer'. Thank You, Strider. SUV's ARE NOT SAFER. Witness our recent police trained chase driver, who lost control of an MPV whilst braking sharply for a camera. SUV's and MPV's TIP OVER. They are not stable. Not only are they more dangerous for the occupants, but they are also more likely to kill other people. We also have the problem of perceived safety. I remember well the days of the Volvo 240 series. My, what a bunch of drivers chose that car! So safe in their 'safe' cocoons they really didn't seem to worry about us others in our little cars.
Have any of you ever tried some 'desperate' avoidance manoevres in a big tall 'car'? Not too easy, is it? Rather frightening, in fact.
Motorcyclists don't ignore other motorists. They can't afford to if they want to live. They are 'out there' in the traffic, ALIVE to what is going on. (But me, I do like my creature comforts.....)
As a driver doing something like 30,000 miles a year (for the last 30+ years) I do so wish more SUV drivers understood the laws of physics that say that, although their vehicles 'feel' safer, they are not.
Why does it matter to me? Because I drive a car (or two!) and like to see where I'm going. I can accept driving behind a lorry, or a van. Or a big tall motorbike with panniers. But when I can't see anything beyond the vehicle in front because someone bought it because they mistakenly thought it was safe, because, in truth, they've been conned, I find myself swearing at SUV/MPV drivers.
It's the lies that get my goat. The lies and the ignorance.
remember the first rule of studying any piece of 'research'. Ask who paid for it. Society of Motor Manufacturers? Biased? Us?
Enough. Drive what you want, pay for your fuel. But please don't con yourself, or your wife/husband and children, by claiming you're safer in a big, tall, heavy and comparatively unstable machine. You're not. And neither are we.
Al
Yes, to all. Drive what you want. Pay more fuel tax if you drive a less efficient car. Keep the choices as free as we can.
And I accept that as long as councils keep on building obstructions into their roads, 'speed humps', that increase pollution, decrease road safety both by distraction and by damaging important suspension components, most city dwellers are going to be tempted by an off roader. i.e. a 'car' designed to cope with ups and downs of six inches or so. Our city roads are now more rutted than our country lanes......
But please, let's have some facts/information/EDUCATION! Most I know who drive 'SUV's' say they do so because 'they feel safer'. Thank You, Strider. SUV's ARE NOT SAFER. Witness our recent police trained chase driver, who lost control of an MPV whilst braking sharply for a camera. SUV's and MPV's TIP OVER. They are not stable. Not only are they more dangerous for the occupants, but they are also more likely to kill other people. We also have the problem of perceived safety. I remember well the days of the Volvo 240 series. My, what a bunch of drivers chose that car! So safe in their 'safe' cocoons they really didn't seem to worry about us others in our little cars.
Have any of you ever tried some 'desperate' avoidance manoevres in a big tall 'car'? Not too easy, is it? Rather frightening, in fact.
Motorcyclists don't ignore other motorists. They can't afford to if they want to live. They are 'out there' in the traffic, ALIVE to what is going on. (But me, I do like my creature comforts.....)
As a driver doing something like 30,000 miles a year (for the last 30+ years) I do so wish more SUV drivers understood the laws of physics that say that, although their vehicles 'feel' safer, they are not.
Why does it matter to me? Because I drive a car (or two!) and like to see where I'm going. I can accept driving behind a lorry, or a van. Or a big tall motorbike with panniers. But when I can't see anything beyond the vehicle in front because someone bought it because they mistakenly thought it was safe, because, in truth, they've been conned, I find myself swearing at SUV/MPV drivers.
It's the lies that get my goat. The lies and the ignorance.
remember the first rule of studying any piece of 'research'. Ask who paid for it. Society of Motor Manufacturers? Biased? Us?
Enough. Drive what you want, pay for your fuel. But please don't con yourself, or your wife/husband and children, by claiming you're safer in a big, tall, heavy and comparatively unstable machine. You're not. And neither are we.
Al
Strider said:
all the above are just the ill-informed posturings of SUV rights activists... many other cars polute as much (even my trusty 3.4 litre Alpina) does...
I don't think anyone here is saying that SUVs are inherently good passenger cars, or that they are even safer cars (except if you're the occupant of a modern one -- active safety is another matter).
Our concern is that, once they've successfully made SUVs a scapegoat in their (well-intentioned) quest to create a greener environment, and the SUV's very obvious presence is greatly diminished, where do you think they will turn next, Mr. Alpina Driver? (And just think: Goodwood FOS and Revival won't be the same either if all the tasty cars turn up on trailers and don't so much as turn a crank. Or worse, do the hillclimb with engines no greater than 1300cc.) And where will you and I enjoy testing the abilities of our cars when trackdays become a 'frivolity that the environment can do without'?
Those who would try to remove SUVs altogether don't only cite safety reasons for doing so, which means they won't stop there. The next logical target are sports cars and very large cars with very large/powerful engines.
Cars like yours.
95% of SUVs are pointless. As pointless as your modified BMW. But I can no longer begrudge SUV drivers their right to drive what is for sale on the open market, because once those are gone, performance car lovers like you and I will targeted next, guaranteed.
It's freedom of choice vs. acting on prejudice to pick on obvious targets that, in the grand scheme, have little green/safety impact compared to other factors.
Edited by ubergreg on Monday 26th June 17:35
I have no dislike of 4x4s, just a minority of the people who drive them and to be honest are not capable of doing so safely.
Unfortunately the big 4x4s (x5, Rangerover, Disco, Jeep) has become the default choice for the 'yummy mummys' and image conscious followers. They simply do not buy them for the excellent advantages they offer (offroad ability, load lugging), instead it's just because 'everyone else who is anyone is getting one' and they are 'higher up than other cars' and apparently safer for those within. I despair at this reasoning whereby you are making yourself safer in a collision simply by reducing the chance of survival for those in any smaller car you hit. How selfish. I'm gonna drive around in an HGV cab, stuff those minions in their 4x4s, I'll crush em all in a crash! At least I will be safe though.
The whole 'higher emissions' thing is a joke though. My car is probably much dirtier than any 4x4.
Unfortunately the big 4x4s (x5, Rangerover, Disco, Jeep) has become the default choice for the 'yummy mummys' and image conscious followers. They simply do not buy them for the excellent advantages they offer (offroad ability, load lugging), instead it's just because 'everyone else who is anyone is getting one' and they are 'higher up than other cars' and apparently safer for those within. I despair at this reasoning whereby you are making yourself safer in a collision simply by reducing the chance of survival for those in any smaller car you hit. How selfish. I'm gonna drive around in an HGV cab, stuff those minions in their 4x4s, I'll crush em all in a crash! At least I will be safe though.
The whole 'higher emissions' thing is a joke though. My car is probably much dirtier than any 4x4.
alhuyshe said:
So let's go for freedom of choice.....INFORMED CHOICE.
Al
Al
Exactly, freedom of choice, and informed by the type of car you are buying!
Once again, a MPV/SUV/van can not be driven in the same way as a Ford Mondeo, as little as that Ford Mondeo can not be driven like a Lotus Elise.
A driver MUST adapt his/her driving to the type of vehicle he/she is driving!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff