I like it!

Paulmouk said:

In the USA you are expected to have a SUV if you are anyone.
Of course, now lots of people have them, to stand out in the crowd it has to
be a Merc. or BMW .

Actually these days it a Toyota Prius that is the status symbol

Tony

Zog The Undeniable said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Of course, many of these "off-roaders" are simply hairdressers cars which
would fall apart at the sight of a large-ish pot hole....

Apparently the first series of Land Rover Freelanders were so bad that
you couldn't open the doors if the front wheel was in a pothole. The
body had very little stiffness.

The reliability figures for Land Rovers are also woeful - I'm amazed
anyone wants them (apart from the Defender, maybe, which is a proper
working vehicle).

They actually are very good off road though, including the Range Rover,
although I don't know about the Freelander. Most farmers would trade a
bit of reliability for a vehicle which can get around the farm without
getting stuck.

The farmers in my family generally did.

Pete

Ningi said:

They actually are very good off road though, including the Range Rover,
although I don't know about the Freelander. Most farmers would trade a
bit of reliability for a vehicle which can get around the farm without
getting stuck.

The farmers in my family generally did.

Plus they are pretty cheap to maintain if you take them to a farm mechanic
rather than a main dealer.

Tony

Zog The Undeniable said:

The reliability figures for Land Rovers are also woeful - I'm amazed
anyone wants them (apart from the Defender, maybe, which is a proper
working vehicle).

I always fancied a Defender as a sort of 'anti-fashion' statement.
Then came Lara Croft, and a special edition Land Rover.

Damn.

Ningi said:

I would say the big issue for other road users is how tall they are and
the restriction on visibility when you're behind them, either in another
car or on a bike.

Just drive further back so you can stop within the distance you can see to be
clear - or is there some imperative to sit on their back bumper?

Tony

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 22 May 2004 08:10:44 GMT, [email hidden]

(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) said:

Quoted message said:

What does a four wheel drive car do that is so different from a two

wheel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

drive car that only the former seriously adversely impinges on others'
quality
of life? If I have a car with switchable two and four wheel drive, does
using
the switch convert me in and out of being a selfish ar$eh*le? Curious

minds

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

want to know.

Tony

Reading the article, it's clear KL is referring to off-roaders being used

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the city. KL has a point that they are quite unnecessary and yes, I agree

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

his comment that those that do use off-roaders designed for such work in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

city, are indeed idiots. If that cat fits you Tony, for use as described

;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that's the wonder of living in a (theoretically) free country.
People make different choices which we might not agree with. Our
entire society is riddled with expenditures that are unnecessary and
"idiotic" in some eyes.

I'm happy to let people get on with being individuals *up and until*
what they chose impacts on others. When it comes to cars, this point
is reached pretty soon which is why I'm happy to support moves to
limit this impact (ie congestion charging, speed limits, emissions
controls, noise limits, driver testing etc).

Thing is though regulation misses the point. I doesn't address they fact
that people are dim enough to use their cars innappropriately.

I feel the same solution to many of the problems you cite is to make people
more understanding of their impact (on themselves as much as others) so they
engage their brain a little more - just like people who buy "off-roaders"
and use them only in situations where they're not very useful should be
dealt with by pointing out that they're haemorriging money (amongst over
things) driving 8 mpg monsters.

Easier said than done of course.

Tony Raven said:

Are you talking about 4x4's or any bigger car. To be honest there is
virtually no size difference between most 4x4's and a London taxi. A BMW X5 or
Range Rover weighs only 50% more than a Mondeo.

So about another 600kg? Trivial really, I'm sure.

Quoted message said:

Higher seating position gives
a better view,

Only if everything else on the road is lower - which it isn't any
more.

Quoted message said:

at London traffic speeds stability is not an issue

I suspect that these vehicles spend at least some of their time doing
more than 5mph.

Quoted message said:

parking is
the owner's problem

Until the 'empty' space next to it is unusable because it has spread
over both white lines

and why do you need to see through

Road signs, anticipation of other traffic - you mentioned the
importance of 'a better view' above. Seeing through other vehicles
gives you that.

Quoted message said:

- you can't see through
the ubiquitous London taxi.

I suspect that you can.

Nathaniel Porter said:

Thing is though regulation misses the point. I doesn't address they fact
that people are dim enough to use their cars innappropriately.

I feel the same solution to many of the problems you cite is to make people
more understanding of their impact (on themselves as much as others) so they
engage their brain a little more - just like people who buy "off-roaders"
and use them only in situations where they're not very useful should be
dealt with by pointing out that they're haemorriging money (amongst over
things) driving 8 mpg monsters.

It may be that having one off-roader is the sensible and economic solution if
you have a need of that type of car some of the time. Its cheaper than having
a small run-around plus an occassionaly used off-roader and you don't have the
parking space problems of two cars. I choose to have an economical run-around
and only use the Discovery when I need to but its certainly more expensive
than if I were to get rid of the other car and use the Discovery for
everything. Of course when I get in the Discovery I undergo a Jekyll and Hyde
transformation to an egotistical bullying monster who parks over two parking
bays just because I can.

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg which is about average
fuel consumption .I think you need a Humvee to get 8mpg.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Ningi said:

I would say the big issue for other road users is how tall they are and
the restriction on visibility when you're behind them, either in another
car or on a bike.

Just drive further back so you can stop within the distance you can see to be
clear - or is there some imperative to sit on their back bumper?

Hmm... I'm looking through my previous post to see if I said, or
implied, that stopping distance was the issue, or that I like to
tailgate people. I can't see that I did.

On a bike, being able to see past, or over, the car in front allows me
to decide where to overtake, see traffic lights, junctions etc. I can
get in the right position, pick lanes at junctions, See in advance if I
have to turn off the road etc. It's just easier if you have more notice
on what's coming up.

In a typical car, where you are seated much lower than a bike, the
issues are similar.

Pete

Al C-F said:

Not Responding said:

But picking
on 4x4s merely because of their design is, in Ken's words, "idiotic".

So, choosing to buy a vehicle that is less stable, less manoeuvrable,
harder to park, less economical, has bigger blindspots and prevents
drivers of smaller vehicles from seeing through; without needing or
using the many advantages that these vehicles confer in the right
environment is sane?

I think not.

Fine. I'll go as far as to agree that people who drive vehicles with
those characteristics are *selfish*. But my point was that a great
many vehicles have some or all of those characteristics and are not
4x4s. It is "idiotic" to point the finger only at 4x4s.

I'll declare an interest here. My wife drives a Mercedes ML which is a
hideous 4x4 thing. There are no mitigating circumstances unless being
surrounded by fields counts. I tried really hard to pursuade her to
chose differently this time. I thought she'd be taken by the
technology in the new Toyota Prius (actually it was me who liked the
idea of driving in electric mode). Or maybe the better build quality
of one of the other Mercs. Or basically Whatever She Wanted that would
mean I wouldn't have a wife doing a 0.5 mile school run in a 4x4 (the
humiliation on usenet, you see).

She wasn't budging on car choice, I'm afraid. It was all down, she
said, to the driving position.

And if you think anyone in this group is touchy and defensive about
4x4s, you should try having the debate with my SO.

Ningi said:

On a bike, being able to see past, or over, the car in front allows me
to decide where to overtake, see traffic lights, junctions etc. I can
get in the right position, pick lanes at junctions, See in advance if I
have to turn off the road etc. It's just easier if you have more notice
on what's coming up.

You can achieve all those by staying back from the car in front. Even
overtaking is easier if you stay back to get a better view although the modern
style seems to be to tailgate and pop out.

Tony

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Thing is though regulation misses the point. I doesn't address they fact
that people are dim enough to use their cars innappropriately.

I feel the same solution to many of the problems you cite is to make

people

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more understanding of their impact (on themselves as much as others) so

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

engage their brain a little more - just like people who buy

"off-roaders"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and use them only in situations where they're not very useful should be
dealt with by pointing out that they're haemorriging money (amongst over
things) driving 8 mpg monsters.

It may be that having one off-roader is the sensible and economic solution

if

Quoted message said:

you have a need of that type of car some of the time. Its cheaper than

having

Quoted message said:

a small run-around plus an occassionaly used off-roader and you don't have

the

Quoted message said:

parking space problems of two cars. I choose to have an economical

run-around

Quoted message said:

and only use the Discovery when I need to but its certainly more expensive
than if I were to get rid of the other car and use the Discovery for
everything

Indeed - but how many people need an off roader ever? 95% never off-road
(although with the state of some of the roads these days they needn't
bother...)

Quoted message said:

Of course when I get in the Discovery I undergo a Jekyll and Hyde
transformation to an egotistical bullying monster who parks over two

parking

Quoted message said:

bays just because I can.

I trust there should be a smiley here :-)

Quoted message said:

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg which is about

average

Quoted message said:

fuel consumption .I think you need a Humvee to get 8mpg.

I cited the 8mpg programme from a J*r*my Cl*rks*n dockumentary on the
history of cars. They took an off-road (a Freelander IIRC) and drove it
around town for a while (in true stereotypical "Chelsea tractor" style) and
then calculated the milage - which worked out a 8 mpg. Of course you'd get
higher in the country.

Paul Rudin said:

Not Responding said:

I'm afraid I can't agree with Ken on this one. What people choose to
spend their money on is entirely up to them. It's what's known as a
"free country" (the UK used to be one, you know).

Have a free choice and being a complete idiot are not incompatible. In
the bit quoted Ken wasn't advocating removing such choices.

He is simply showing his old red prejudices.
Supporting his views shows the same. <ducks political flames>

John B

Not Responding said:

She wasn't budging on car choice, I'm afraid. It was all down, she
said, to the driving position.

Try a LWB A Class on her - driving postion is just as good. In fact its very
interesting to park them side by side and compare.

Tony

Not Responding said:

I'll declare an interest here. My wife drives a Mercedes ML which is a
hideous 4x4 thing.

I agree

Quoted message said:

There are no mitigating circumstances unless being
surrounded by fields counts.

No. It doesn't. Unless she drives across the fields. In winter.

Quoted message said:

I tried really hard to pursuade her to
chose differently this time. I thought she'd be taken by the
technology in the new Toyota Prius (actually it was me who liked the
idea of driving in electric mode).

But unless her friends new what the car was, and appreciated its
qualities, it would be of no use for her purposes.

Quoted message said:

Or maybe the better build quality
of one of the other Mercs.

I have only ever met one woman who appreciated that one car was better
built than another.

Quoted message said:

Or basically Whatever She Wanted that would
mean I wouldn't have a wife doing a 0.5 mile school run in a 4x4 (the
humiliation on usenet, you see).

But I bet she fits in in her circle of friends!

Tony Raven said:

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg which is about average
fuel consumption .

You're comparing a Discovery to a rather thirsty petrol engined car.

Nathaniel Porter said:

Indeed - but how many people need an off roader ever? 95% never off-road
(although with the state of some of the roads these days they needn't
bother...)

We need ours only occassionally but when we do its jolly useful

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course when I get in the Discovery I undergo a Jekyll and Hyde
transformation to an egotistical bullying monster who parks over two

parking

Quoted message said:

bays just because I can.

I trust there should be a smiley here :-)

Some here seem to seriously believe it.

Quoted message said:

I cited the 8mpg programme from a J*r*my Cl*rks*n dockumentary on the
history of cars. They took an off-road (a Freelander IIRC) and drove it
around town for a while (in true stereotypical "Chelsea tractor" style) and
then calculated the milage - which worked out a 8 mpg. Of course you'd get
higher in the country.

I think that was a bit of journalistic license. We have the V8 Discovery and
rarely get below 20mpg. You would have to do really stupid driving to get it
down to 8mpg. But JC's never been averse to a good yarn.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Ningi said:

On a bike, being able to see past, or over, the car in front allows me
to decide where to overtake, see traffic lights, junctions etc. I can
get in the right position, pick lanes at junctions, See in advance if I
have to turn off the road etc. It's just easier if you have more notice
on what's coming up.

You can achieve all those by staying back from the car in front. Even
overtaking is easier if you stay back to get a better view although the modern
style seems to be to tailgate and pop out.

So why mention that the higher seating position gives a better view,
in one of your other posts? This post suggests that it isn't
important.

Tony Raven said:

I suspect those drivers would be just the same in any other car. The
stereotyping is a bit like labelling all cyclists "lycra louts" who
ignore red lights.

Here's a clue: People don't just invent stereotypes. Stereotypes occur
because a fairly large number of people actually behave that way. When I
lived in Leeds, I absolutely hated cyclists, because an awful lot of them
jumped red lights, rode knackered bikes with knackered brakes, ignored road
signs and markings, rode on pavements, and rode around at night with hugely
insufficient lights.

The 4x4 thing, IMO is just an extension of people with big cars thinking
they can intimidate other people. I don't believe that all people with big
cars drive around tailgating people and driving like [censored], probably because
I generally drive quite quickly myself, but doing it in a 4x4 is a
particularly daft thing to do because they don't go round corners or stop
nearly as well as a big car does.

Doki said:

I generally drive quite quickly myself, but doing it in a 4x4 is a
particularly daft thing to do because they don't go round corners or stop
nearly as well as a big car does.

Providing you make allowances for that and corner more slowly and leave more
braking room why's it a problem? Or should we all drive Porsches and Lotuses
on the basis that they corner and stop much better than your average car?

Tony