I like it!

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

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

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

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.

Paul Rudin said:

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message 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

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" <[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.

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

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

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

Nathaniel Porter said:

What happened to the plan to ban bull bars on the public
highway? There's no need for them there really.

It's a bit like th e bells on bikes scenario, except in
reverse; it is not permitted to sell a vehicle new with bull
bars fitted, but it is OK to add them after purchase. So you
can go and buy your SUV, and immediately get bars fitted at
the garage round the corner. This is what pisses me off
most: every 4x4 you see with bull bars has had them fitted
on owner's active insistence -- they are willfully making
their vehicles more dangerous to peds and the like! [censored].

Simonb said:

every 4x4 you see with bull bars has had them fitted on
owner's active insistence -- they are willfully making
their vehicles more dangerous to peds and the like!

And that affects the driver how, exactly?

(In fairness, they offer protection against hazards in these
vehicles' natural habitat. i.e. they protect lights from
shopping trolleys in Waitrose's car park).

Tony Raven said:

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.

I'm sure that with numerous short, stop-start journeys in
London in the morning hate, you could manage it.