Chelsea Tractors and other stories...
Imagine being able to see the flow of traffic ahead of you; the mythical front of a traffic jam or hold up. You don’t have to be sat aloft the cab of a juggernaught to experience this; any old 4x4 should do the trick.
4x4? As I type the three characters I feel the sharp intake of breath from a certain percentage of the population, it’s as if I’ve written the coarsest of expletives amongst a nursery rhyme. There isn’t a single day goes by recently where I haven’t picked up a newspaper or cast my eye over a news site on the internet and 4x4’s are featured. Or more precisely 4x4’s and their dangerous polluting effects.
If you believe everything you read every single feature of a 4x4 is wrong. Otherwise known as: the Chelsea Tractor; Satans schoolrun transport of choice and other demonised monikers; they’re too big; they consume gallon upon gallon of precious fuel; visibility is poor; if you’re hit by one your car will be reduced to mush; if you’re a pedestrian you want to never cross the road if one is coming in your direction – in fact just run away.
Now I’m not having a pop at the anti 4x4 brigade at all. I just don’t want it force fed to me every single time I pick up my paper or switch on my pc.
Believe it or not I do support some of the points that groups such as the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s stand for, but for the most part I’m sat firmly on the fence on this issue. I like 4x4’s, most of my primary school days I was dropped off at the school gate in a Mitsubishi Shogun and if someone offered me a Range Rover Sport tomorrow I’d snatch the keys out of their hands giggling. But I’m asthmatic and pollution is a factor in my illness, so maybe I should be apprehensive however I don’t blame every Range Rover or Touareg driver I see for that. That said I’d happily personally dispose of every single Hummer in the country, particularly the yellow and stretch 'limo' ones but that’s just because they’re rubbish, tiny on the inside therefore completely useless and ugly. They should be in the desert with Jake Gyllennhaal-a-likes doing army type things in them, not driving the highways and byways of our green and pleasant land.
I am concerned about the environment, but given that I now work for an oil company some people argue with me on that point alone. I believe in people’s right to choose what vehicle they drive. If I had children I’d want them to be as safe as possible, and if that meant driving them to school in a 4x4 then so be it.
A few years back I had my first car crash, nothing too serious but enough of my own blood to shake me up considerably. I was driving a brand new 2 door 1.2 Renault Clio. My first thought upon getting home was ‘I want a bigger car’. I simply no longer felt safe driving a little shopping car. I started to look at Freelanders. Obviously I got over that when the Peugeot 307 I eventually bought was a complete dog; but the fear factor played a huge part in my choice of car, not about making a fashion statement or whether it was contributory to global warming.
What I don’t agree with is the lack of clarity in the arguments put forward. They appear to me very London-centric. Some I think are merely scare mongering. I do not believe 4x4 drivers are going to mow down innocents in the street, which is what some of the messages appear to imply. I do not believe that they’re all middle class and posh with disregard for the environment. What about the rural family on a day trip to London? Are they evil too? I certainly don’t think my Kensington dwelling friend Alex and her series 2 land rover are evil, I think they’re positively charming.
I agree that 4x4s should have a higher level of tax and London congestion charge. But then I think larger luxury cars and the Ferraris of this land should too. I live near London, so this, by default is an issue to me personally however it is by far over arched by the bigger concern of inner city; surrounding A road and Motorway congestion which no one seems to bother about much.
As with many environmental concerns, facts, figures and statistics are often placed on the table. No one can argue with numbers right? As I examined some of the figures given, a lot of them are based upon American research. This can’t be taken into ac count for the UK no matter how much you kick and scream. Tables of C02 emissions are often proffered with masses of various off roader details however without the wider picture it can appear that the 4x4 is single handedly destroying the planet. Include a few more vehicles and although some 4x4s knock out some pretty hefty C02 emissions, but a good few cases they are by no means the worst. Again the luxury car market seems to get away scott free with a Porsche Boxster and Rolls Royce Phantom producing more C02 than a Land Rover discovery.
I’m not poo-pooing the 4x4 pressure groups, nor am I standing waving a flag for the 4x4 drivers. It is my opinion that the whole 4x4 thing should be shelved and the wider aspect of all vehicles and offering alternative fuels should be looked at. All cars are bad for the environment. Keep cars on the road, stop complaining and sort out the fuel and congestion. Simple eh?
4x4? As I type the three characters I feel the sharp intake of breath from a certain percentage of the population, it’s as if I’ve written the coarsest of expletives amongst a nursery rhyme. There isn’t a single day goes by recently where I haven’t picked up a newspaper or cast my eye over a news site on the internet and 4x4’s are featured. Or more precisely 4x4’s and their dangerous polluting effects.
If you believe everything you read every single feature of a 4x4 is wrong. Otherwise known as: the Chelsea Tractor; Satans schoolrun transport of choice and other demonised monikers; they’re too big; they consume gallon upon gallon of precious fuel; visibility is poor; if you’re hit by one your car will be reduced to mush; if you’re a pedestrian you want to never cross the road if one is coming in your direction – in fact just run away.
Now I’m not having a pop at the anti 4x4 brigade at all. I just don’t want it force fed to me every single time I pick up my paper or switch on my pc.
Believe it or not I do support some of the points that groups such as the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s stand for, but for the most part I’m sat firmly on the fence on this issue. I like 4x4’s, most of my primary school days I was dropped off at the school gate in a Mitsubishi Shogun and if someone offered me a Range Rover Sport tomorrow I’d snatch the keys out of their hands giggling. But I’m asthmatic and pollution is a factor in my illness, so maybe I should be apprehensive however I don’t blame every Range Rover or Touareg driver I see for that. That said I’d happily personally dispose of every single Hummer in the country, particularly the yellow and stretch 'limo' ones but that’s just because they’re rubbish, tiny on the inside therefore completely useless and ugly. They should be in the desert with Jake Gyllennhaal-a-likes doing army type things in them, not driving the highways and byways of our green and pleasant land.
I am concerned about the environment, but given that I now work for an oil company some people argue with me on that point alone. I believe in people’s right to choose what vehicle they drive. If I had children I’d want them to be as safe as possible, and if that meant driving them to school in a 4x4 then so be it.
A few years back I had my first car crash, nothing too serious but enough of my own blood to shake me up considerably. I was driving a brand new 2 door 1.2 Renault Clio. My first thought upon getting home was ‘I want a bigger car’. I simply no longer felt safe driving a little shopping car. I started to look at Freelanders. Obviously I got over that when the Peugeot 307 I eventually bought was a complete dog; but the fear factor played a huge part in my choice of car, not about making a fashion statement or whether it was contributory to global warming.
What I don’t agree with is the lack of clarity in the arguments put forward. They appear to me very London-centric. Some I think are merely scare mongering. I do not believe 4x4 drivers are going to mow down innocents in the street, which is what some of the messages appear to imply. I do not believe that they’re all middle class and posh with disregard for the environment. What about the rural family on a day trip to London? Are they evil too? I certainly don’t think my Kensington dwelling friend Alex and her series 2 land rover are evil, I think they’re positively charming.
I agree that 4x4s should have a higher level of tax and London congestion charge. But then I think larger luxury cars and the Ferraris of this land should too. I live near London, so this, by default is an issue to me personally however it is by far over arched by the bigger concern of inner city; surrounding A road and Motorway congestion which no one seems to bother about much.
As with many environmental concerns, facts, figures and statistics are often placed on the table. No one can argue with numbers right? As I examined some of the figures given, a lot of them are based upon American research. This can’t be taken into ac count for the UK no matter how much you kick and scream. Tables of C02 emissions are often proffered with masses of various off roader details however without the wider picture it can appear that the 4x4 is single handedly destroying the planet. Include a few more vehicles and although some 4x4s knock out some pretty hefty C02 emissions, but a good few cases they are by no means the worst. Again the luxury car market seems to get away scott free with a Porsche Boxster and Rolls Royce Phantom producing more C02 than a Land Rover discovery.
I’m not poo-pooing the 4x4 pressure groups, nor am I standing waving a flag for the 4x4 drivers. It is my opinion that the whole 4x4 thing should be shelved and the wider aspect of all vehicles and offering alternative fuels should be looked at. All cars are bad for the environment. Keep cars on the road, stop complaining and sort out the fuel and congestion. Simple eh?
posted by Manda @ 3:18 am
1 Comments:
4x4 owners don't set out to kill pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists. But if and when they do get involved in a collision, the size, shape and weight of these vehicles makes death a more likely outcome.
The "drive a 4x4 for safety" arguement is the kind of logic that starts arms races: "I feel insecure, therefore I will buy a bigger weapon, even if it makes the world a more dangerous place for everybody else". The consequences of this thinking can be seen with urban school runs. Concerns over busy, dangerous roads cause more parents to drive their kids to school, making the roads even more congested and dangerous, and so more parents choose to drive and the process continues. Traffic jams and pollution increase, and those who do still need to walk (in particular, the elderly) have to undertake a more toxic and dangerous journey. It's time to step back and look at the bigger picture.
4x4s do have their place in the countryside. In Cities they are almost totally pointless AND unsuitable and this is why they are the focus of so much anger. There is no justification for the environmental damage which they do - no "pay off" in terms of functionality, for example. And we haven't even mentioned the number of parking scrapes and dents left by oblivious Chelsea Tractor drivers who don't know the size of their own vehicles!
To say that everyone is entitled to choose their means of transport is fair, within certain parameters. Everyone doing exactly what they like is called anarchy. As anarchy creates massive social problems we have developed Laws to prevent undesirable behaviour. For example, an individual may derive pleasure from killing other people, but this is abhorrent to the majority and therefore banned. In the same way, environmental pressures may eventually mean that socially undesirable vehicles are similarly outlawed for the good of society as a whole, particularly in situations where there is no real justification for their use other than vanity and chronic insecurity. In the long term, it isn't going to be acceptable to waste fuel, poison the planet and make the streets inhospitable just so a few yuppies can feel better about themselves. The same will eventually apply to anything with high fuel consumption per passenger mile.
For those of us that love cars I think the solution is to opt for lightweight, responsive, well-balanced cars that can be hugely enjoyable without burning loads of fuel. Yes, you're still damaging the environment, but to a lesser (and therefore more morally excusable) extent. Most manufacturers have turned away from producing such vehicles - the new Mini was a wasted opportunity, for example - but the companies who have tried have found it commercially rewarding. Look at the success of relatively small but fun vehicles such as the Mazda MX5 or Smart cars, for example.
Post a Comment
<< Home