Understanding the mind of the 4x4 driver (Well many of them)...

[Sky Fly]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eTA*[email protected]...
> Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>Western levels of car usage are not sustainable. The other side in this "war" is not cyclists
> >>but anyone with the wit to recognise that.
> >As far as I can tell, the original article wasn't about car usage levels but was out to paint SUV
> >users in a bad light.
>
> And why not?

Because painting people in a bad light just makes people defensive and rarely ever gets them to
change their ways. Just look at what goes on over at uk.transport. I prefer to listen to what the
other person has to say, present my arguments to the contrary and tell the person to think about it.
Yes, it doesn't always work, but who said life was perfect?

I don't drive, but if I did I wouldn't buy an SUV for the reasons you've given. However, I don't
think it's for me to judge whether it's unnecessary for someone to drive an SUV or not. I'm sure
someone could turn round and declare that having running water and electricity 24 hours a day is
*way* too excessive - would he be right?

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

 

[Paul - XXX]

Howard deftly scribbled:

> So are we saying that all the articles I referred to have no basis in reality whatsoever, that
> some do not drive 4x4'x because of their 'macho' image, that 4x4's do not pose a greater risk to
> pedestrians and cyclists then standard cars, that they don't use a lot of fuel, that far too many
> of them (the majority???) never are used off road and go no further then the local shop/school
> run, that Landcruisers and the like are as genuine a utility off road vehicle as something like a
> Landrover...

I'm saying nothing of the sort. You say what you will .. I pointed out that the articles you
referred to are based on American views and values and I don't believe they represent the views of
UK drivers.

I agree some buy 4 x 4's 'cos they think they make others believe they have big willies,. And yes,
as I pointed out, Range Rovers, Nissan Patrols etc can be as utilitarian as a Landrover .. just in
far, far, greater comfort and ease of use. How many farmers, nowadays, actually run old Landrovers
as working vehicles ? Very few, they normally have a Daihatsu or a Range Rover or whatever, 'cos
they both do the job but they also fulfill a more 'normal' car type role, and yes, that does mean
taking kids to school, or doing the weekly shopping trip, what's wrong with that ?

> It seems to me that the issues raised in the articles are all worthy of further thought. I really
> don't see why doing so should 'widen the gap between cyclist and driver', or in the future are all
> controversial or even 'sensitive' issues out of bounds, be it cyclists riding without lights or
> people using something as inappropriate as a 4x4 to drive half a mile to the shops. (Or is it only
> criticism of the excesses of our car obsessed society that are out of bounds...)

Your presentation of the articles appeared to me to be in an effort to 'have a go' at 4 x 4 drivers.
Why not try to understand them better, and read more UK oriented sources that will relate more to
where we live, not to the *real* gas guzzlers in the USA. Have a look on the Landrover magazine
sites etc. people do lots more with their 4 x 4's than simply take up space on a road or drive kids
to school.

> Of course there will be exceptions which is implicit in the title of this post. However, the use
> of 'Chelsea Tractors' IS an issue. Least of all no one is saying that ALL 4x4 drivers are
> 'assholes', after all many fully paid up members of the petrol head society still have a yearning
> to drive a BMW...

It appears only to be an issue in Chelsea .. It appears to me that most mums taking their kids to
school can't drive even a mini in a manner conducive to the good of the whole .. and I hate most
BMW's, 'cept the 7 series .. Though I do lay claim to being a petrol head, as well as a cyclist,
fell-walker, mountain biker, horse rider, motorbike rider/competitor, swimmer, in fact a whole host
of activities that apparently don't co-exist at a glance, but which my 4 x 4 allows me to do in some
considerable comfort and ease ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1401 wu in 10052 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Dr]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote
> Howard deftly scribbled:
>
> > A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
>
>
> However, not for any of the reasons expressed or implied in the article. We tow a small caravan, a
> motorbike trailer, a cycling club trailer, a couple of dinghies and other such stuff. Our vehicle
> also acts as a 'pits' at certain race meets, as a 'sag-wagon' for certain rides, a drinks station,
> a feeding station and all sorts of other uses that 'normal' cars either aren't big enough to do or
> simply cannot get where we can. We are often used in out of the way places, accessible only by
> walking, mountain bike or motorbike which are all impracticable because of the amount of equipment
> we carry, so our 4 x 4 serves a need, not just for us, but for others to enjoy as well.

The thing is, what you describe is not really a "need".

> Your continued perpetuation of such a stereotypical view does you no honour, and only serves to
> further widen the gap between cyclist and driver.

Although this is a cycle group, my objection to these things is having to share the roads with them
in whatever mode of transport I use. My main objection is based on their high ground clearance and
likely hood of going over the top of a car in a collision rather than meeting the crumple zones. I
really don't see why recreation, luxury or pure styling (which, let's face it, is why most of these
things are bought) justifies incompatibility on the road.

David Roberts

 

[Simon Galgut]

"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I was going to say 'Now let's talk about the destruction of ancient highways such as Mastiles Lane
> by 4x4 drivers', but I won't, Whoops I just did, never mind...
>

Of course if the Highways department did their jobs properly and maintained unsurfaced roads
then this wouldn't be a problem. And then there is the use of massive four wheel drive tractors
by local farmers. And then there are all those heavy great horses digging their hooves in
everywhere etc. etc.

> A general comment.
>
> By heck, some 4x4 drivers really don't like anyone criticising their toys do they!

It wasn't the toys that were being criticised but the drivers !

Regards Simon

 

[Russell]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Howard deftly scribbled:
>
> > A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
>
> A long post, but apparently full of guff about American SUV and Pick-up drivers . which doesn't
> appear relevant to either UK cyclists or UK 4 x 4 drivers, of which I have a foot in both camps,
> as it were ..
>
> We don't currently don't own a 4 x 4 as we recently sold the Landrover S3 SWB, but we're soon to
> pick up a Range Rover, so obviously well-loved of cyclists in this newsgroup.
>
>
>
> However, not for any of the reasons expressed or implied in the article. We tow a small caravan, a
> motorbike trailer, a cycling club trailer, a couple of dinghies and other such stuff. Our vehicle
> also acts as a 'pits' at certain race meets, as a 'sag-wagon' for certain rides, a drinks station,
> a feeding station and all sorts of other uses that 'normal' cars either aren't big enough to do or
> simply cannot get where we can. We are often used in out of the way places, accessible only by
> walking, mountain bike or motorbike which are all impracticable because of the amount of equipment
> we carry, so our 4 x 4 serves a need, not just for us, but for others to enjoy as well.
>
>
>
> Your continued perpetuation of such a stereotypical view does you no honour, and only serves to
> further widen the gap between cyclist and driver.

Surely its not just cyclists that despair of this section of road users, it must be all other road
users, but this is a cycling NG so that's where we're coming from. Surely everyone knows somebody
that drives a vast SUV with no real reason for owning such a vehicle. The particular one I'm
thinking of actually goes off road everyday, climbing up a grass bank right outside the school
causing a big nuisance. The door opens, kids climb out, SUV goes back home which is literally just
around the corner. On top of that the attitude of the driver is very clearly "get out of my way and
stop blocking the pavement, I need to get my very large, important (off road) vehicle up this, broom
broom (turbo whine sound effects), grass bank".

Russell

 

[David Damerell]

Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>As far as I can tell, the original article wasn't about car usage levels but was out to paint SUV
>>>users in a bad light.
>>And why not?
>Because painting people in a bad light just makes people defensive and rarely ever gets them to
>change their ways.

So what? This is a newsgroup (for cyclists, natch), not Parliament.

If we want to simply tell the truth about land barges, we have every right to do so. We're not
obliged to sneak up on their drivers and convince them with gentle persuasion.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[David Damerell]

Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
>By heck, some 4x4 drivers really don't like anyone criticising their toys do they!

People who've made expensive and dubious purchasing decisions often feel the need to rationalise
them, yes.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Sky Fly]

"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Ziw*[email protected]...
> Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>As far as I can tell, the original article wasn't about car usage levels but was out to paint
> >>>SUV users in a bad light.
> >>And why not?
> >Because painting people in a bad light just makes people defensive and rarely ever gets them to
> >change their ways.
>
> So what? This is a newsgroup (for cyclists, natch), not Parliament.

I wasn't restricting the scope of the 'wars' to this ng in my first post on this thread.

> If we want to simply tell the truth about land barges, we have every right to do so.

You certainly have every right to express your opinion on cars any way you want on this ng, just as
I have the right to disagree with how you express that opinion.

> We're not obliged to sneak up on their drivers and convince them with gentle persuasion.

Interesting idea... the 'sneaking up' bit, I mean. But no, you're not obliged to convince *anyone*
of anything, and I don't think I said so either.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

 

[Paul - XXX]

DR deftly scribbled:

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Howard deftly scribbled:
>>
>>> A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
>>
>>
>> However, not for any of the reasons expressed or implied in the article. We tow a small caravan,
>> a motorbike trailer, a cycling club trailer, a couple of dinghies and other such stuff. Our
>> vehicle also acts as a 'pits' at certain race meets, as a 'sag-wagon' for certain rides, a drinks
>> station, a feeding station and all sorts of other uses that 'normal' cars either aren't big
>> enough to do or simply cannot get where we can. We are often used in out of the way places,
>> accessible only by walking, mountain bike or motorbike which are all impracticable because of the
>> amount of equipment we carry, so our 4 x 4 serves a need, not just for us, but for others to
>> enjoy as well.
>
> The thing is, what you describe is not really a "need".

Is all your cycling a 'need' ? If you cycle at all for pleasure, then no.

It's a need if we want to pursue our leisure activities as a family group. It's a need when a race
needs an out-of-the-way marshall point or feeding station. It's a need when we take the caravan so
we have adequate sleeping, showering, sleeping facilities for the family, in a field somewhere,
without paying for a hotel.

Please, as you consider our use of a Range / Land Rover isn't a 'need', then explain to me how we
can, as a family, do the same things differently. And please, don't say Public Transport.

>> Your continued perpetuation of such a stereotypical view does you no honour, and only serves to
>> further widen the gap between cyclist and driver.
>
> Although this is a cycle group, my objection to these things is having to share the roads with
> them in whatever mode of transport I use. My main objection is based on their high ground
> clearance and likely hood of going over the top of a car in a collision rather than meeting the
> crumple zones. I really don't see why recreation, luxury or pure styling (which, let's face it, is
> why most of these things are bought) justifies incompatibility on the road.

If you're main objection is having to share then I pity you.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Paul - XXX]

Russell deftly scribbled:

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Howard deftly scribbled:
>>
>>> A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
>>
>> A long post, but apparently full of guff about American SUV and Pick-up drivers . which doesn't
>> appear relevant to either UK cyclists or UK 4 x 4 drivers, of which I have a foot in both camps,
>> as it were ..
>>
>> We don't currently don't own a 4 x 4 as we recently sold the Landrover S3 SWB, but we're soon to
>> pick up a Range Rover, so obviously well-loved of cyclists in this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, not for any of the reasons expressed or implied in the article. We tow a small caravan,
>> a motorbike trailer, a cycling club trailer, a couple of dinghies and other such stuff. Our
>> vehicle also acts as a 'pits' at certain race meets, as a 'sag-wagon' for certain rides, a drinks
>> station, a feeding station and all sorts of other uses that 'normal' cars either aren't big
>> enough to do or simply cannot get where we can. We are often used in out of the way places,
>> accessible only by walking, mountain bike or motorbike which are all impracticable because of the
>> amount of equipment we carry, so our 4 x 4 serves a need, not just for us, but for others to
>> enjoy as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your continued perpetuation of such a stereotypical view does you no honour, and only serves to
>> further widen the gap between cyclist and driver.
>
> Surely its not just cyclists that despair of this section of road users, it must be all other road
> users, but this is a cycling NG so that's where we're coming from. Surely everyone knows somebody
> that drives a vast SUV with no real reason for owning such a vehicle. The particular one I'm
> thinking of actually goes off road everyday, climbing up a grass bank right outside the school
> causing a big nuisance. The door opens, kids climb out, SUV goes back home which is literally just
> around the corner. On top of that the attitude of the driver is very clearly "get out of my way
> and stop blocking the pavement, I need to get my very large, important (off road) vehicle up this,
> broom broom (turbo whine sound effects), grass bank".
>
> Russell

I must admit that there are some folks driving, and riding, who annoy me, but my philosophy is
really to live and let live. Just 'cos some ******** wants to drive up a bank at school time doesn't
mean that's what I also want to do, or that that's what all 4 x 4 drivers want to do, which is
roughly what was expressed in the articles.

There are many, many responsible 4 x 4 drivers out there, and yes, some of us do abhor what
others do.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[Clive George]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The thing is, what you describe is not really a "need".
>
> Is all your cycling a 'need' ? If you cycle at all for pleasure, then no.
>
> It's a need if we want to pursue our leisure activities as a family group.
It's
> a need when a race needs an out-of-the-way marshall point or feeding
station.
> It's a need when we take the caravan so we have adequate sleeping,
showering,
> sleeping facilities for the family, in a field somewhere, without paying
for a
> hotel.
>
> Please, as you consider our use of a Range / Land Rover isn't a 'need',
then
> explain to me how we can, as a family, do the same things differently.
And
> please, don't say Public Transport.

Oh careless man. Obviously none of what you describe is a 'need'. You're describing leisure
activities, which is most definitely a 'want'.

Easy way of differentiating : what would happen if your rr/lr broke down and thus prevented you from
doing them? Or if you were to be insufficiently persuasive and were to lose your driving licence

Be honest with yourself about what is a need and what is a want. And don't ask people to respect
your choices.

(oh - a 2wd normal car will do for pretty much all you want. Quad bike + trailer will do the rest -
it's what the local hill farmers use. Obviously it's possible to do all you describe under entirely
human power as well, but I understand you may not _want_ to).

(I've got a car. I don't need it, but I do want it, and I do understand the difference).

clive

 

[Paul - XXX]

Clive George deftly scribbled:

>> Please, as you consider our use of a Range / Land Rover isn't a 'need', then explain to me how we
>> can, as a family, do the same things differently.
> And
>> please, don't say Public Transport.
>
> Oh careless man. Obviously none of what you describe is a 'need'. You're describing leisure
> activities, which is most definitely a 'want'.

I see it dfifferently (wouldn't you guess) and see taking the family as a true need. And as I also
get a certain amount of payment for what I do it's not purely a leisure activity. The fact that it
happens to also be a hobby, or two, is a happy coincidence ..

> Easy way of differentiating : what would happen if your rr/lr broke down and thus prevented you
> from doing them? Or if you were to be insufficiently persuasive and were to lose your driving
> licence

We wouldn't go, as happened once last year and seriously jeopardised a whole weekend for 120
competitors, or we'd hire another, or a truck, well a horse box we have occasional access to. We
often carry a lot of kit, and often very large bits of kit.

> Be honest with yourself about what is a need and what is a want. And don't ask people to respect
> your choices.
>
> (oh - a 2wd normal car will do for pretty much all you want. Quad bike + trailer will do the rest
> - it's what the local hill farmers use.

I seriously doubt a 2wd car would for what we do, and certainly a Quad + trailer wouldn't do. How
would we get them to events ? We travel all over UK, Tiverton in April, Bury Metro in September and
many points in between, almost every weekend from Friday to Monday. We also don't have large or
secure enough storage for a Quad bike, and we often have to tow a caravan or the trials bike to the
event already, so couldn't tow a quad+it's trailer too .. and I'm not a hill farmer.

Would you want to spend a day, voluntarily, at the top of a big hill with only a quad bike for
shelter ? The vehicle is needed to at least have a semblance of warmth, comfort and shelter,
especially in our fine weather ..

> Obviously it's possible to do all you describe under entirely human power as well, but I
> understand you may not _want_ to).

How would you tow a caravan from Nottingham to Tiverton ? Pray tell how that can be accomplished
without a decent tow car. And yes, as well as a base for us, the caravan is also integral to the
sports we do, often acting as a 'race control', cum canteen, cum rest place etc etc ..

> (I've got a car. I don't need it, but I do want it, and I do understand the difference).

My needs are obviously different to yours ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

[John Blake]

In message id <eTA*[email protected]> on 10 Feb 2003
19:39:36 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

>And why not? The vast majority of the damn things are not used for any purpose which an ordinary
>motor car could not fulfil; and even those used simply for the transportation of large numbers of
>people could be replaced with those multi-seat "people mover" things.

Where I come from it is called a bus. Some people call it a coach.

HTH

 

[Clive George]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George deftly scribbled:
>
> >> Please, as you consider our use of a Range / Land Rover isn't a 'need',
then
> >> explain to me how we can, as a family, do the same things differently.
> > And
> >> please, don't say Public Transport.
> >
> > Oh careless man. Obviously none of what you describe is a 'need'. You're describing leisure
> > activities, which is most definitely a 'want'.
>
> I see it dfifferently (wouldn't you guess) and see taking the family as a
true
> need. And as I also get a certain amount of payment for what I do it's
not
> purely a leisure activity. The fact that it happens to also be a hobby,
or two,
> is a happy coincidence ..

Snip the rest. No, you still don't get it. No matter what you say, it isn't a need. Your life will
not come to an end if you cannot do it.

There's no loss to you to accepting it isn't a need. There are very few puritans around these
days, so you are allowed to do things for pleasure. There may even be a gain, in that people
appreciate honesty.

clive

(part answer to some of your questions can be seen in various orienteering events etc - they quite
often use tents for what you use a caravan. Shelter
= need, caravan = want. There is a difference.).

 

[Dr]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote
> DR deftly scribbled:
> > "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> Howard deftly scribbled:
> >>> A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...

> >> equipment we carry, so our 4 x 4 serves a need, not just for us, but for others to enjoy as
> >> well.
> >
> > The thing is, what you describe is not really a "need".
>
> Is all your cycling a 'need' ? If you cycle at all for pleasure, then no.

Quite right. There are things I happen to "like" doing. Just like you and your family "like" doing
things. It is not a "need".

> > Although this is a cycle group, my objection to these things is having to share the roads with
> > them in whatever mode of transport I use. My main objection is based on their high ground
> > clearance and likely hood of going over the top of a car in a collision rather than meeting the
> > crumple zones. I really don't see why recreation, luxury or pure styling (which, let's face it,
> > is why most of these things are bought) justifies incompatibility on the road.

> If you're main objection is having to share then I pity you.

No, sharing the roads with other users is not the issue. It is about sharing the roads with these
vehicles and issues of compatibility.

I am not calling for taxes or commisars to control their proliferation. But I think there is a
pressing need for technical specifications to regulate the designs. It is more than obvious to me
that some of their aggresive mechanical features only exist for styling or cheapness sake.

David Roberts

 

[Tony Raven]

John Blake <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Where I come from it is called a bus. Some people call it a coach.
>

You don't come from the countryside then.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

[Clive George]

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Please, as you consider our use of a Range / Land Rover isn't a
'need',
> > then
> > > explain to me how we can, as a family, do the same things differently.
> > And
> > > please, don't say Public Transport.
> >
> > Oh careless man. Obviously none of what you describe is a 'need'. You're describing leisure
> > activities, which is most definitely a 'want'.
>
> In the last 2 years since my wife has been studying, I haven't had enough time to go to enough
> rallies, or use the mountain bike, or walk, believe me leasure activities , especially outdoor
> ones, soon become a NEED!

heh. agreed. Why do you think I live in the dales? But it is entirely feasible to do outdoor leisure
activities without the aid of a 4x4. Whether you _want_ to do otherwise is a different matter.

cheers, clive

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:14:40 -0000, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Snip the rest. No, you still don't get it. No matter what you say, it isn't a need. Your life will
>not come to an end if you cannot do it.

But wait - the missing phrase is surely "frivolous hypermobility"

You are Duhg Bollen & ICMFP :-D

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Tony Raven]

Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Snip the rest. No, you still don't get it. No matter what you say, it isn't a need. Your life will
> not come to an end if you cannot do it.
>

Everything except water, air and a bit of basic food is not a need in your definition. Bikes aren't
a need. You could walk wherever you wanted to go barefoot and naked but then you don't actually need
to go anywhere so that's a luxury.

What you are arguing about is life choices. You have made certain life choices, Paul-kisses has made
other life choices. Yours are no more or less valid than his except in your belief system. Get used
to it, live and let
live.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

[Clive George]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:14:40 -0000, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Snip the rest. No, you still don't get it. No matter what you say, it
isn't
> >a need. Your life will not come to an end if you cannot do it.
>
> But wait - the missing phrase is surely "frivolous hypermobility"
>
> You are Duhg Bollen & ICMFP :-D

Careful there...

Guy - Do you understand the point I'm making?

clive