Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to take the piss out of 4x4s

636 replies

JoanBias · 30/10/2012 23:19

Picked dd up from school today, she pointed at I think a Landrover Freelander (I'm not an expert) in the car park, and said 'why is that there?'

I said 'maybe they're a farmer'.

Said vehicle had clearly been the subject of regular waxing, leather interior, and so on and looked the shiniest vehicle in the car park, so this was obviously not the case, certainly not in this area.

DD said 'maybe they built that building there?'

'Maybe', I said.

I could say 'because some people make inappropriate and antisocial car choices'.

But taking the piss seems better?

OP posts:
RinderThrillerNight · 31/10/2012 11:41

I don't understand though Larry. Surely there's a total contradiction in what you're saying with other people's experiences on this thread. SUVs are too expensive to have any statistical impact, but others are saying there are only big 4x4s at their children's schools. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

theodorakis · 31/10/2012 11:42

Feel free to call my truck swanky as long as you are prepared to have an 80mph head on with an adult camel in a micra. For me, the swankiness in just an added bonus of being more likely to stay alive. And what's not to love about a 6.5l engine, the lovely purr of the engine is like music.

RinderThrillerNight · 31/10/2012 11:42

Hmm, width restrictions are hardly going to help ease congestion are they?

larrygrylls · 31/10/2012 11:43

Nope, I live in SW London. There are way too many and it has a huge impact on roads, especially around certain schools. However SW London (the naice bit) is a tiny part of London and London is still only about 1/5 of the country by population. So 4x4s can have a huge impact locally but none statistically on a national level. No contradiction.

RinderThrillerNight · 31/10/2012 11:44

I saw quite a few when I was in Peckham the other day! Grin

EdsRedeemingQualities · 31/10/2012 11:44

I'm sure it's lovely Theo. I haven't seen it; I wouldn't call it swanky. I am not talking about your vehicle specifically.

I'm talking about people considering the impact on other road users of their vehicle choice.

JoanBias · 31/10/2012 11:47

As far as I'm aware, serious and fatal RTAs have been reducing pretty much year on year for the last couple of decades. Interesting correlation with the increased popularity of the larger SUVs.

I'm not sure there are that many large SUVs on the road to make a huge difference to others, it's just that they are used so much for anti-social trips in residential areas that it seems that way. Car sales: cars.uk.msn.com/features/the-bestselling-cars-in-each-market-sector

Large SUVs are notorious for being pedestrian-killers.

www.brake.org.uk/facts/4x4s-the-risks.htm

"A pedestrian hit by a large 4x4 is more than twice as likely to be killed than if they were hit by a normal sized car.

In the UK, there have been double the numbers of 4x4s sold in the first decade of the 21st century as in the last decade of the 20th century. More than a fifth of these were sold in the Greater London area, and only a fraction of them will ever be taken off-road

Generally a 4x4 is heavier, stiffer and shaped more bluntly than normal cars and is therefore likely to cause more damage on impact. Weight is a major factor in velocity.

The size and design gives drivers a restricted view of the area immediately surrounding the vehicle. This means that young children are particularly vulnerable, as it is less likely that the driver will see them. According to the American independent body Consumer Reports, the blind spot for a driver of average height in a large 4x4 vehicle can be up to 28 feet. This is a particular danger when taking a 4x4 on the school run when there are a high number of children on pavements and crossing roads, and when using a 4x4 for shopping and parking it in busy supermarket car parks where there are lots of families about.

In safety tests, 4x4s generally perform very poorly in terms of pedestrian safety. For example the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Suzuki Grand Vitara both received zero stars for pedestrian safety when tested by the European New Car Assessment programme (EuroNCAP) in 2005 and 2002 respectively. "

And there have been a number of people saying how safe they --are- feel in a 4x4, but this is at the expense of the safety of others. An arms race, if you will.

"A recent study by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), shows many crashes now involve a collision between a large car and a small one. In such a crash the person in the smaller car is 12 times more likely to be killed than the person in the 4x4.
The study also shows the rise in sales of 4x4s and people carriers is causing more than 20 extra deaths and serious injuries a year among people in small cars when the two are in collision Research has shown that a car driver is around four times more likely to be killed if hit from the side by a large 4x4 than by a normal sized car.

The high bumpers on 4x4s tend to override the side-impact protection on small cars and penetrate the body "

"The dangers already outlined become more apparent when 4x4s are used by parents on the school run. The school run is a chaotic time on many of our roads, and causes major problems especially in small towns and villages. It brings with it a 20% increase in rush hour traffic and therefore puts pedestrians (many of them being children at this time) at a greater risk. At 8.50am in the morning, nearly 1 in 5 cars in urban areas are taking children to school .

The main ways to make school run safer are:

Do not use a 4x4. If you insist on using one, park it well away from the school, somewhere it is safe to do so, and walk the last distance with your child."

"Many individuals and groups are now recognising the dangers of the 4x4 and are attempting to tackle the problem head-on, by targeting the owners and manufacturers of these large off-road style 4x4s."

OP posts:
JoanBias · 31/10/2012 11:49

SUVs are too expensive to have any statistical impact, but others are saying there are only big 4x4s at their children's schools. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

My children's school charges around £13k/year per child.

Obviously there is significant correlation between that fact and ownership of a £50k SUV.

OP posts:
MrsKeithRichards · 31/10/2012 11:51

Reverse into spaces. It's much easier to get out.

EdsRedeemingQualities · 31/10/2012 11:51

I'm not sure anyone can argue with the stats on your post Joan.

Thankyou for copying that info here.

WileyRoadRunner · 31/10/2012 11:51

OP I bet your DD is cringing inside when you start "taking the piss" out of 4x4s.

Perhaps she is laughing at you. Not with you.

How embarrassing.

How do 4x4s possibly impact on other road users in the way being banged on about here. Sounds more like many of you lack confidence/ability in driving. Perhaps its a feeling of inferiority on the road when you are in small cars / bikes. I don't know. But it is one of the strangest posts i have come across.

JoanBias · 31/10/2012 11:52

Sorry re
"I'm not sure there are that many large SUVs on the road to make a huge difference to others"

I meant to write

"I'm not sure there are that many large SUVs on the road to make a huge difference to the overall figures"

OP posts:
EdsRedeemingQualities · 31/10/2012 11:52

I do when I can, MrsKR. Sometimes there's not enough room or the angle is too awkward iyswim.

MrsKeithRichards · 31/10/2012 12:00

You must be exhausted after all that googling Joan!

JoanBias · 31/10/2012 12:01

A study by Imperial College shows that there is indeed a correlation between selfish entitled cuntiness and the ownership of 4x4s:

nnet-server.com/server/common/conroad34.htm

'Researchers from Imperial College, found that people feel safer in four wheel drive vehicles and therefore are more likely to take risks.

The study was carried out in Hammersmith where observers noted 38,000 ordinary cars and nearly 3,000 four wheel drive vehicles pass through over a period of two weeks.

They noted that 8.2% of the drivers of four wheel drive vehicles were using a mobile, against 2% of drivers of ordinary cars stating that it was a "worryingly high level of non-compliance".'

The perceived safety effect is well-documented and repeatedly demonstrated - people that feel safer engage in riskier behaviour.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Unfortunately whereas the example above of skydivers taking more risks due to improved equipment puts only those who choose to take part in the activity at risk, giant SUVs are designed to transfer all the risk of injury onto others, specifically pedestrians and other road users, something which can only exacerbate this risk compensation effect.

OP posts:
MrsKeithRichards · 31/10/2012 12:01

If you can drive in you can reverse in. Your car doesn't all of a sudden grow 3ft and become unwieldy just because you're going backwards. Unless of course you're a shit driver.

EdsRedeemingQualities · 31/10/2012 12:04

Oh well of course I must be a shit driver then.

Thanks for that.

JoanBias · 31/10/2012 12:06

Apparently 4wd is a great boon in Hammersmith. Really helps when you need to cut someone up on the flyover.

OP posts:
Everlong · 31/10/2012 12:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EdsRedeemingQualities · 31/10/2012 12:10

I'm trying to think of the last time I couldn't reverse in.

It was in a very packed car park with single lane only in between rows.

Another car was approaching from the other direction. I wanted to reverse in, but they has just come round a corner and were waiting for me to park.

They were litrally blocking my way as I'd have had to go into their position in order to reverse into the space.

Does that make sense, can you visualise it?

Does that make me a shit driver? I didn't want to open my window and yell 'go back' like Ross Noble with his tank. So I reversed and let them take the space instead, and found a different one myself.

That's what I'm talking about when I say, sometimes it's not practical to reverse into a space.

JoanBias · 31/10/2012 12:10

parents aren't allowed in the school car park Everlong.

OP posts:
EdsRedeemingQualities · 31/10/2012 12:12

I disagree that life is too short to argue about what people drive.

In the face of the research Joan has posted I think it's bloody relevant tbh, especially to those of us with children at a school where a lot of parents drive big cars.

ExitPursuedByAaaaaarGhoul · 31/10/2012 12:12

Everlong's school doesn't have a car park.

True fact.

Plenty of 4x4s though

[hwink]

MrsKeithRichards · 31/10/2012 12:13

And on that instance ed did you just happen to be surrounded by big 4x4's that endangered your life?

RinderThrillerNight · 31/10/2012 12:13

Joan, you must have spent ages on that googling. Well done!

In 2012, the BMW X1 (a 4x$) scored 64% in euroncap's tests for pedestrian safety; the Volvo C30 (a small/medium family car) scored just 26%.

We can all produce stats to try and 'prove' our argument. The issue is of course is that there are just too many variables to make them meaningful.

A Grand Jeep Cherokee driven by Ed may well be far safer than a Ford Focus driven by me. Because we know that Ed is most definitely not a shit driver!! Grin

Swipe left for the next trending thread