to get fed up with receiving more than the average amount of abuse on the road just because I drive a range rover?

[Mrs4x4]

I get the whole environment thing psses some people off but this seems out of proportion with the abuse. I am a considerate driver and really object to the abuse especially when my DC's are in the car and people are swearing. Recently parked car in a supermarket carpark to have someone who lived in a nearby flat on one of the higher floor start shouting that i should get back in my RR and pss off.

No, of course not [thud]

I do think most of the arguments on here are deeply flawed however - 'lol' is because there is simply no point in countering them, even though I could (and have done so on many occasions) very cogently, and with a great deal more supporting evidence than the aimless irrational blustering on here...there is no point in trying to counter rationality and entrenched prejudice...and frankly it is not worth my time and attention.

That's what the lol was about.

Don't address me again on this thread - you're boring me

Their visibility when reversing is a huge risk to smaller people i.e. children too because of the height of the back windscreen. this has been proved in tests. Children and x9 more likely to get hit by a reversing 4x4 than drivers in normal cars.

Thsi is especially true around schools where they park (incompetently) and pull out all the time. Lots of school age kids and their younger siblings running about.

Glad you feel safe in your vehicle though Mrs 4x4

cool, kitty. like i said, it's not an option for us. when the astra's broken, we'll be using a two-door clio, so someone will have to take a bus.

but even if i had all the money in the world i wouldn't drive a 4x4.

they're completely unecessary in most cases.

that would be counter 'irrationality'

there's also a huge amount of statistical evidence that they are more likely to kill people in a normal car when involved in a collision with them.

but yes, that's just all us prejudiced, judgemental, jealous people spraffing nonsense.

Shergar has seen the evidence, handlemecarefully. She at least is speaking from experience.

Psst - I've gone Expat because I haven't got all night to take each point in turn (but believe me I could, for example, peacelily's point a couple of posts down - blown completely out of the water with a one word statement 'rear parking sensors'...I could go on, but I won't - you'll be relieved to hear. Need to get some sleep tonight)

This is begining to sound like I am some kind of child killer . All I am trying to say is that I think some people apply less than fair stereotypes to me because of the car I drive which i think is well demonstrated by this thread. Clearly I would not wish to do any harm to children, other pedestrians, other drivers etc and therefore take due care when I drive. Just can't help thinking that you don't here people get hot under the collar about a Nissan Patrol the same way they do about a Range Rover. I agree there are some shocking 4x4 drivers out there but I'm not one of them. Am begining to wonder if my point about "feeling safe" is really accurate given the aggression people are demonstrating on this one.

It was me but you have to admit you had it coming.

Too much parking space, too tjreatening and too too dangerous to other road-users.

Handlemecarefully, let's hear your cogent argument against 4X4s being disproportionate pedestrian killers. Our local audit indicates that they kill pedestrians about five times as often as collisions with non-4X4 cars, and children about 7 times more frequently than non-4X4 collisions. This is because a child's head and thorax are more likely to be in the direct line of the 4X4 bumper - on a normal car children tend to be hit on the legs, which is less often fatal. Anecdotally this is bourne out by the year-on-year increase in the number of children we autopsy at my (large, city) hospital each year who were hit by 4X4s. Knowing that, I just don't understand how people can buy them to drive in cities, but if you can shed some light that'd be great.

No - it is perfectly reasonable for you to be fed up with the abuse. It is also perfectly reasonable for others to be offended that you are driving the car equivalent of a steroid stoked thug.

However nicely you drive it - those monstrosities are just damn intimidating.

Only if you drive it in the city. If you need it 'cos you live in the country that's kind of OK. If you don't, you don't deserve more abuse, but you should understand that it's a selfish choice and other people will be angry at you for it.

If it's a significant safety issue then I think people do have a right to be judgmental. Kerrymums point is a good one, especially regarding passive smoking. Our kids no longer have to put up with this in public places. why should they be put in a risky situation involving vehicles that are significantly more dangerous to pedestrians and other road users on a daily basis?

It's appalling that someone swore at you especially in front of your kids and you should not have to tolerate that.

However your choice of vehicle is irresposible and selfish and your reasons for choosing it somewhat superficial IMO.

sexism, pure sexism.

question? why don't people moan about racing cars? aren't they meant to be driven around a racetrack, and yet people drive them on roads, farraris, porsch etc. They aren't supposed to go above above 70mph but look at their speedo, they can reach up to 240mph. Talk aboput bloody dangerous.Accelerating at the lights up to 60miles in 5 secs.

and they eat fuel, cars like jaguars have 2 petrol tanks cos they do so few miles to the gallon.

and yet nobody complains.

why?

cos they are mainly driven by men - 4x4s are mainly driven by mums,

and come on women know your place.. you should be in a meek little fiesta. How dare you take up such a manly chunk of the road.

so girls you have been sucked into it and should be ashamed!

A 4x4 driver wrote off my brand new car outside the school gates.

It was four years ago but I am still bearing a grudge.

Joking apart, it could so easily have been one of my children. Frightening really. Don't know how anyone could drive those things.

Sexism? Er, no. You're talking out of your arse.

microwaveonly, a child hit by a low, light car like a ferrari is far less likely to be killed than a child hit by a high, heavy 4X4. Fact. And plenty of women drive sports cars (in the hospital where I work the female consultants overwhelmingly have sports-type cars, and I can't think of one who drives a 4X4). I think you are guilty of stereotyping too!

Nothing to do with sexism. Nothing at all.

Ferraris just kill fewer children than 4x4s. That's all.

"Figures from Churchill Insurance show that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more
accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage [quoted in ?Safe bet for a
bump?, Mail on Sunday, 10 October 2004]
Figures from Admiral Insurance also recently released figures showing that 4x4 drivers
are 27% more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident [Admiral Insurance, in
Sunday Times, 10 July 2005 ]
The RAC Foundation says, "You could blame some of the higher accident rate for
4x4s on size. Drivers who are new to these cars might not realise how wide they are.
There is also psychology involved - if you feel more secure inside a big 4x4, you might
drive with less care than you should."[2]