Cyclists and 4x4s..........

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

I need to move livestock around on a regular basis Joe. Can you suggest a suitable alternative arrangement to replace my 4x4 for shifting two 500kg animals apart from driving them on foot ?.

Like many other horse owners, I have a NEED for this vehicle, If I were to get them moved by other means for whatever reason, it would involve a 7.5 tonne lorry which would do substantially more damage than a 4x4 and trailer.
For you and your sports car, the requirement is just driven by desire.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Wondered when you would get back to how you need a 4x4. Took 2 pages in this case. To put it simply, you don't NEED horses so you don't NEED a 4x4 to carry them around.

So having horses IS irresponsible if it means you NEED a 4x4, whereas again, having a sports car is only irresponsible IF you drive recklessly.

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

I need to move livestock around on a regular basis Joe. Can you suggest a suitable alternative arrangement to replace my 4x4 for shifting two 500kg animals apart from driving them on foot ?.

Like many other horse owners, I have a NEED for this vehicle, If I were to get them moved by other means for whatever reason, it would involve a 7.5 tonne lorry which would do substantially more damage than a 4x4 and trailer.
For you and your sports car, the requirement is just driven by desire.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Wondered when you would get back to how you need a 4x4. Took 2 pages in this case. To put it simply, you don't NEED horses so you don't NEED a 4x4 to carry them around.

So having horses IS irresponsible if it means you NEED a 4x4, whereas again, having a sports car is only irresponsible IF you drive recklessly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My horses and 4x4 are tax deductible Joe. I use the horses to advertise my equestrian focused products, they and the 4x4 are an integral part of my business. The car is used in a similar way in which a farmer would to get his products to market with. It is a tool of the trade unlike your Porsche which is used to practically demonstrate how much you overcharge your customers for your services [;)]

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

New Balls please [:D]

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco
My point is that is is irresponsible to own a 4x4 that will ALWAYS do more damage to others in an accident, whereas owning a fast car will is only irresponsible if you choose to speed in it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What if your fast car is an Ariel Atom, or a Ferrari Daytona? I can't see that doing less damage than a Ford Fiesta. You're obviously very irresponsible.....

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

I need to move livestock around on a regular basis Joe. Can you suggest a suitable alternative arrangement to replace my 4x4 for shifting two 500kg animals apart from driving them on foot ?.

Like many other horse owners, I have a NEED for this vehicle, If I were to get them moved by other means for whatever reason, it would involve a 7.5 tonne lorry which would do substantially more damage than a 4x4 and trailer.
For you and your sports car, the requirement is just driven by desire.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Wondered when you would get back to how you need a 4x4. Took 2 pages in this case. To put it simply, you don't NEED horses so you don't NEED a 4x4 to carry them around.

So having horses IS irresponsible if it means you NEED a 4x4, whereas again, having a sports car is only irresponsible IF you drive recklessly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My horses and 4x4 are tax deductible Joe. I use the horses to advertise my equestrian focused products, they and the 4x4 are an integral part of my business. The car is used in a similar way in which a farmer would to get his products to market with. It is a tool of the trade unlike your Porsche which is used to practically demonstrate how much you overcharge your customers for your services [;)]

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The fact that it is a tool of the trade is irrelevant. It could still be said to be irresponsible to go into a trade where you need one. Remember you are the one that brought responsibility into it and you are now trying to wriggle out of the fact that you drive a vehicle that is more dangerous to other road users than a car.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco
My point is that is is irresponsible to own a 4x4 that will ALWAYS do more damage to others in an accident, whereas owning a fast car will is only irresponsible if you choose to speed in it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What if your fast car is an Ariel Atom, or a Ferrari Daytona? I can't see that doing less damage than a Ford Fiesta. You're obviously very irresponsible.....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can you explain why a Daytona or Atom would do more damage than a Fiesta at the same speed in a crash please?

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

I need to move livestock around on a regular basis Joe. Can you suggest a suitable alternative arrangement to replace my 4x4 for shifting two 500kg animals apart from driving them on foot ?.

Like many other horse owners, I have a NEED for this vehicle, If I were to get them moved by other means for whatever reason, it would involve a 7.5 tonne lorry which would do substantially more damage than a 4x4 and trailer.
For you and your sports car, the requirement is just driven by desire.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Wondered when you would get back to how you need a 4x4. Took 2 pages in this case. To put it simply, you don't NEED horses so you don't NEED a 4x4 to carry them around.

So having horses IS irresponsible if it means you NEED a 4x4, whereas again, having a sports car is only irresponsible IF you drive recklessly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My horses and 4x4 are tax deductible Joe. I use the horses to advertise my equestrian focused products, they and the 4x4 are an integral part of my business. The car is used in a similar way in which a farmer would to get his products to market with. It is a tool of the trade unlike your Porsche which is used to practically demonstrate how much you overcharge your customers for your services [;)]

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The fact that it is a tool of the trade is irrelevant. It could still be said to be irresponsible to go into a trade where you need one. Remember you are the one that brought responsibility into it and you are now trying to wriggle out of the fact that you drive a vehicle that is more dangerous to other road users than a car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You mean like any retailer or business using the services of HGVs in the UK to get their stock to the shelves taking collective responsibility for encouraging big lorries on the roads, or the likes of stagecoach putting buses on the roads to transport the masses about ?

My 4x4 is a working vehicle fit for purpose and is not a posers toy [;)]

You are floundering now joe, give it up [:D]

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"

BigWomble · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

I need to move livestock around on a regular basis Joe. Can you suggest a suitable alternative arrangement to replace my 4x4 for shifting two 500kg animals apart from driving them on foot ?.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
How about a baby elephant?

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

BigWomble · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BigWomble

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

I need to move livestock around on a regular basis Joe. Can you suggest a suitable alternative arrangement to replace my 4x4 for shifting two 500kg animals apart from driving them on foot ?.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
How about a baby elephant?

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, everyone seems to have one these days.

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

grayo59 · June 2007

My Fiat van gets through floods up to 2ft quite well because it is quite high off the ground (there is a car version with the same body shell).

It only has a little 1.3 turbo diesel, averages 44 mpg in start stop driving and is the size (but not the weight, although it can legally carry 736Kg) of a small 4 x 4.

If there is flooded tarmac I don't need 4 x 4 weight and power to get about.

__________________
......heading for the box, but not too soon I hope!

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco
My point is that is is irresponsible to own a 4x4 that will ALWAYS do more damage to others in an accident, whereas owning a fast car will is only irresponsible if you choose to speed in it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What if your fast car is an Ariel Atom, or a Ferrari Daytona? I can't see that doing less damage than a Ford Fiesta. You're obviously very irresponsible.....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can you explain why a Daytona or Atom would do more damage than a Fiesta at the same speed in a crash please?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Depends on what is hit doesn't it? A pedestrian isn't going to look too pretty after being mangled by an Atom. Someone driving a Smart car isn't going to be too well if t-boned by a Daytona.

Saying that driving a 4x4 is irresponsible is pretty churlish.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

Not at all churlish. Every one is worse off when hit by a 4x4. I am talking in general terms. Haven't seen many Atoms on the road so a stupid example to use. Whether a Smart is t-boned by a Daytona or a Focus wouldn't make any difference would it!

Remember I didn't bring responsibility into it, Linford did. He has now moved away from responsibility and gone back to the feeble reasons of why he needs one. He certainly feels some guilt somewhere as he constanly needs to remind us why he needs one at every opportunity...

ransos · June 2007

Much as I loathe 4x4s there's no doubt that LLB has more of a need for one than most owners. But if only people like him owned them they would be a very rare sight on our roads, and hence the safety and environmental concerns would be greatly reduced.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Much as I loathe 4x4s there's no doubt that LLB has more of a need for one than most owners. But if only people like him owned them they would be a very rare sight on our roads, and hence the safety and environmental concerns would be greatly reduced.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Agreed. Just need to remove the use of those inefficient sports cars next.

Regulator · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

Not at all churlish. Every one is worse off when hit by a 4x4. I am talking in general terms. Haven't seen many Atoms on the road so a stupid example to use. Whether a Smart is t-boned by a Daytona or a Focus wouldn't make any difference would it!

Remember I didn't bring responsibility into it, Linford did. He has now moved away from responsibility and gone back to the feeble reasons of why he needs one. He certainly feels some guilt somewhere as he constanly needs to remind us why he needs one at every opportunity...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Actually Smart cars are extremely good at coping with crashes. They're designed to fall apart (thus dissipating the energy of the impact) with the driver and passenger(s) left in a safety cage. This safety aspect was amply demonstrated on Top Gear by Richard Hammond driving a Smart ForTwo (the half-loaf version) into concrete blocks at 60 mph... A classic Top Gear moment IMHO.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

Not at all churlish. Every one is worse off when hit by a 4x4. I am talking in general terms. Haven't seen many Atoms on the road so a stupid example to use. Whether a Smart is t-boned by a Daytona or a Focus wouldn't make any difference would it!

Remember I didn't bring responsibility into it, Linford did. He has now moved away from responsibility and gone back to the feeble reasons of why he needs one. He certainly feels some guilt somewhere as he constanly needs to remind us why he needs one at every opportunity...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There is absolutely no need to justify one's choice of car to anybody but one's self.

Ban 4x4s, and it will be sports cars next. Mark my words.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> There is absolutely no need to justify one's choice of car to anybody but one's self. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interesting.

So you would not remove bull bars, for instance, despite the knowledge that they are far more likely to kill or cripple any children you hit?

You would continue driving a dangerous car because your considerations override all others.

A fascinating, albeit disturbing response.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> There is absolutely no need to justify one's choice of car to anybody but one's self. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interesting.

So you would not remove bull bars, for instance, despite the knowledge that they are far more likely to kill or cripple any children you hit?

You would continue driving a dangerous car because your considerations override all others.

A fascinating, albeit disturbing response.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm all for controlling stupid accessories like bull bars by legislation, but surely choices must be left to the individual? The alternative is having to ask someone for permission to buy a car.

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

Not at all churlish. Every one is worse off when hit by a 4x4. I am talking in general terms. Haven't seen many Atoms on the road so a stupid example to use. Whether a Smart is t-boned by a Daytona or a Focus wouldn't make any difference would it!

Remember I didn't bring responsibility into it, Linford did. He has now moved away from responsibility and gone back to the feeble reasons of why he needs one. He certainly feels some guilt somewhere as he constanly needs to remind us why he needs one at every opportunity...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Worse off than what ? You set up a straw man argument, we can do some numbers !

Driving along your average rural road, my 2000kg 4x4 would be driven at about 60mph (ambitious perhaps) and carry 719,441 joules of kinetic energy.

Drive along the same road in a 'spirited' manner in your Porsche (call it 1400kg for arguments sake) at say 80mph (perhaps conservative for a Porsche driver) and it carries 895,304 joules of energy.

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> There is absolutely no need to justify one's choice of car to anybody but one's self. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interesting.

So you would not remove bull bars, for instance, despite the knowledge that they are far more likely to kill or cripple any children you hit?

You would continue driving a dangerous car because your considerations override all others.

A fascinating, albeit disturbing response.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The bull bars legislation has already been passed:- The way I read this article is that the company is suggesting that a car fitted with their products is actually more pedestrian friendy than a regular car.
What is worrying is the blurb implies that bull bars are killing 900 people each year in the UK which is obviously not true.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Non-Compliant Metal Bull Bars Banned From Friday 25th May...Encouraging Safer Frontal Protection Systems for Pedestrian Protection

WOLVERHAMPTON, England, May 23 /PRNewswire/ -- From Friday 25th May 2007, the UK Minister of State for Transport has confirmed it is illegal to continue to manufacture, market non approved metal bull bars (no sale is necessary to be breaking the law) and sell metal bull bars that do not comply with the new EU legislation (Directive 2005/66/EC) for pedestrian protection. The maximum penalty to be imposed within the UK is 12 months in prison and a substantial GBP20,000 fine.

Metal bull bars, nudge bars and none compliant Frontal Protection Systems (FPSs) will be banned by the new European law but a new generation of energy absorbing products have shown that unlike their metal equivalents they significantly reduce the risk of pedestrian injury - making large 4 x 4s, SUVs and LCVs up to 50 times safer. This life saving product is known as the Endura FPS (www.endura-fps.com) and like the metal bull bar, Endura offers similar protection to the fronts of vehicles, reducing vehicle damage when involved in collisions.

Testing based on the 2005/66/EC legislation, carried out at MIRA (one of Europe's leading vehicle design, development and certification centres), has shown that the risk of pedestrian head injury is dramatically reduced from greater than 98 per cent to less than 2 per cent when a large 4x4 is fitted with an Endura FPS. The risk of injury to the abdomen, upper leg and lower leg is also reduced with a substantial 79 per cent improvement to the pelvis and abdominal area. For test results video footage and more information please see, www.frontalprotectionsystems.eu.

According to the VCA report, Concept Mouldings (www.conceptmouldings.co.uk) is the only UK manufacturer known to have developed a non-rigid FPS that has been demonstrated to comply with the requirements of the EU Legislation. Concept Mouldings have been working with pedestrian protection technology since the early 1990's.

"The adverse publicity regarding Metal bull bars stimulated our thought process to develop a product that did not exacerbate the problems of the vehicles themselves but to enhance the safety of the vehicle for vulnerable road users with the introduction of energy absorbing surfaces." said Ian Finney, Managing Director, Concept Mouldings.

According to the British Medical Journal, (Crandall, JR, Bhalla, K, and Madeley, NJ. 11th May, 2002) 99 per cent of all serious and fatal injuries Are caused from injury to the head and abdomen (including pelvis) regions. The Endura range of products have been specifically manufactured and focused upon these regions to ensure maximum protection for the vulnerable road user. The Endura FPS absorbs massive amounts of energy on impact, protecting pedestrians and cyclist from hard parts of vehicles such as engine, bonnet leading edge and radiator.

The purpose of European legislation it to ban rigid structures on the fronts of vehicles such as bull bars and nudge bars and thus introducing objective, performance standards for FPSs with the purpose of reducing the potential for vulnerable road users to be killed or seriously injured in collisions with vehicles.

Figures from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) highlight a growing concern for vulnerable road users throughout Europe. More than 900 UK and 12,000 European pedestrians and cyclists are killed every year and more than 9,000 and 290,000 respectively are seriously injured.

The risk to pedestrians and children in particular is increasing as changing online shopping habits have lead to more fleet vehicles in residential areas, resulting in many children being seriously injured or killed by large vehicles in built-up areas. By fitting an Endura FPS, Fleet owners will now be able to meet corporate social responsibility goals by doing everything they can to make their vehicles safer for vulnerable road users and start saving lives, while at the same time gaining a spin off benefit of reducing vehicle damage and related costs, reducing insurance claims and time off the road.

The widespread use of Endura Frontal Protection Systems and immediate action from the UK Government to enforce compliance will contribute to saving countless lives and reduce the number of serious injuries across Europe.

Notes for Editors

1) An Endura FPS can now be purchased online at the Endura Webstore, www.endura-fps.com. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I'm all for controlling stupid accessories like bull bars by legislation, but surely choices must be left to the individual? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Of course, but cretin has admitted that the only worthwhile consideration is the driver's choice, all other issues are peripheral.

Nothing demonstrates cretin's selfishness better than this.

Regulator · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> There is absolutely no need to justify one's choice of car to anybody but one's self. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interesting.

So you would not remove bull bars, for instance, despite the knowledge that they are far more likely to kill or cripple any children you hit?

You would continue driving a dangerous car because your considerations override all others.

A fascinating, albeit disturbing response.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm all for controlling stupid accessories like bull bars by legislation, but surely choices must be left to the individual? The alternative is having to ask someone for permission to buy a car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And what is wrong with that? Why do people think they have a 'right' to own a car? We restrict access to other dangerous items (such as guns) - why not restrict access to cars? After all, cars kill more people than guns each year in the UK.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Cretin · June 2007

I don't recall there being 30 million guns in circulation, in use every day in this country.

Pandaboy · June 2007

I don't want a 4x4 or a baby heffalump for the floods.

I want an Amphicat.

One banana, two banana, three banana, four
Four bananas make a bunch and so do many more
and so on

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

Not at all churlish. Every one is worse off when hit by a 4x4. I am talking in general terms. Haven't seen many Atoms on the road so a stupid example to use. Whether a Smart is t-boned by a Daytona or a Focus wouldn't make any difference would it!

Remember I didn't bring responsibility into it, Linford did. He has now moved away from responsibility and gone back to the feeble reasons of why he needs one. He certainly feels some guilt somewhere as he constanly needs to remind us why he needs one at every opportunity...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Worse off than what ? You set up a straw man argument, we can do some numbers !

Driving along your average rural road, my 2000kg 4x4 would be driven at about 60mph (ambitious perhaps) and carry 719,441 joules of kinetic energy.

Drive along the same road in a 'spirited' manner in your Porsche (call it 1400kg for arguments sake) at say 80mph (perhaps conservative for a Porsche driver) and it carries 895,304 joules of energy.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why in your example is the Porsche going faster than the 4x4, that is not the argument.

My point is the 4x4 causes more harm at same speed in same accident. You must agree with that?

linfordlunchbox · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by linfordlunchbox

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

Not at all churlish. Every one is worse off when hit by a 4x4. I am talking in general terms. Haven't seen many Atoms on the road so a stupid example to use. Whether a Smart is t-boned by a Daytona or a Focus wouldn't make any difference would it!

Remember I didn't bring responsibility into it, Linford did. He has now moved away from responsibility and gone back to the feeble reasons of why he needs one. He certainly feels some guilt somewhere as he constanly needs to remind us why he needs one at every opportunity...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Worse off than what ? You set up a straw man argument, we can do some numbers !

Driving along your average rural road, my 2000kg 4x4 would be driven at about 60mph (ambitious perhaps) and carry 719,441 joules of kinetic energy.

Drive along the same road in a 'spirited' manner in your Porsche (call it 1400kg for arguments sake) at say 80mph (perhaps conservative for a Porsche driver) and it carries 895,304 joules of energy.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why in your example is the Porsche going faster than the 4x4, that is not the argument.

My point is the 4x4 causes more harm at same speed in same accident. You must agree with that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well obviously that is the case given exactly the same circumstances, my car weighs 2000kg and yours weighs 30% less, but what you are assuming is that my car can cruise happily at 80mph on a winding A road - which it can't, and someone who bought a Porsche to drive in a 'spirited' manner will not be happy to stick to the posted limits for any length of time unless stuck in traffic.

Now you are going to claim that you have not only never exceeded 100mph in it, but that you also drive this œ60+K - 300+BHP supercar at a maximum speed of 55mph on A roads due to the enormous restraint you are able to show. This same restraint kinds of defeats the object of ownership of this awesome fanny magnet doesn't it apart from using it as a garage ornament to massage ones ego [;)]

"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"

Archcp · June 2007

See picture 3, and the caption..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6240038.stm

My first thought was "wade"? That's not wading! That's driving. Wading has to be done on foot!

My second thought is that they are going far to fast? I realise that some bow wave is going to be inevitable with such a blunt fronted vehicle, but that looks like a heck of a lot... I suspect they're having a jolly fun time...

Apparently some wag in Pocklington ignored signs telling traffic not to drive through the town due to a flood of standing water, and the resultant bow wave broke a shop window.... That's the trouble, give most people a car like that, and it's way more capable than they are...

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

You got it at last LLB. Your car will cause more damage in the same circumstances than mine, hence you are less responsible. I can choose to speed or not and become more or less responsible. You have made the choice to be less responsible at all times whilst driving your 4x4.

And just because you have a bad 4x4 doesn't mean everyone does. A lot of 4x4s can cruise quite happily at 80mph on country roads.

ransos · June 2007

Joe, I don't think that the owner of a gas guzzling Porsche is really in a position to lecture someone else on their poor choice of vehicle.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

Joe, I don't think that the owner of a gas guzzling Porsche is really in a position to lecture someone else on their poor choice of vehicle.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I realise that. I just had to take LLB up on his less responsible comment. Remember we are talking about damage to others in crashes, not fuel usage. You seem to have got confused there.

Cyclists and 4x4s..........

Comments

Categories