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

A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...

From http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.mencimer.html

'Have you ever wondered why sport utility vehicle drivers seem like such assholes? Surely it's no
coincidence that Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Dem-ocratic National Committee, tours Washington
in one of the biggest SUVs on the market, the Cadillac Escalade, or that Jesse Ventura loves the
Lincoln Navigator. Well, according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, High and
Mighty, the connection between the two isn't a coincidence. Unlike any other vehicle before it, the
SUV is the car of choice for the nation's most self-centered people; and the bigger the SUV, the
more of a jerk its driver is likely to be.'

Baxter, the no necked, pin headed, Range Rover driving, cyclist hating, hit and runnning, Mr Blobby
lookalike pyscho, certainly seems to fit the pattern...

And from the New York Times (Thanks to Mick of Rockfax USA for the link)

http://www.nytimes.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/automobiles/08SUV.html

In California, S.U.V. Owners Have Guilt, but Will Travel By PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN

GREENBRAE, Calif., Feb. 6 — Encased in a massive black Toyota Land Cruiser, Shirley Collenette
admits feeling a little guilty about her gas-guzzling, smog-inducing, planet-warming, road-hogging
"armor," as she calls her sport utility vehicle.

But need is stronger than guilt.

"The world is becoming a harder and more violent place to live, so we wrap ourselves with these big
vehicles," said Ms. Collenette, a 46-year-old mother of two. "It's like riding a horse. You have
more power."

Like many other S.U.V. owners in Marin County, this corner of Northern California where wealth and
liberal politics converge, Ms. Collenette has found herself stuck up the on ramp of a politically
and culturally risky freeway. A fledgling anti-S.U.V. crusade has joined the list of trendy "anti"
causes — antismoking, antifur, antimeat — and this has some members of the upper-middle class
bristling in their bucket seats.

Hostility seems to be everywhere, with attacks from all directions.

Here comes the columnist Arianna Huffington and her nonprofit Detroit Project, with its
soul-wrenching TV commercials linking S.U.V.'s to support of terrorism. The Evangelical
Environmental Network, a coalition of Christian groups, declares Jesus "lord over transportation
choices" and runs TV advertisements asking, "What would Jesus drive?" (Answer: not an S.U.V.)

Earth on Empty, a group of Boston artists, plasters fake parking tickets on S.U.V. windshields that
instruct drivers to "try to get honest with yourself." The Earth Liberation Front claims to have set
fire to S.U.V.'s recently at a dealership in Pennsylvania. The posters at a recent antiwar rally in
San Francisco said "Draft S.U.V. drivers first."

To the backlashers against the backlash, the Marin soccer moms with children, groceries and ski
equipment for weekends in Tahoe, it can feel like a personal affront.

"How else am I going to get four children from A to B?" said Zoe Daffern, 41, of Kentfield. "I don't
think we're going to solve the world's problems by getting rid of S.U.V.'s."

She certainly is not getting rid of her black Chevy Suburban. "It gives you a barrier, makes you
feel less threatened," she said.

For all their bulk, S.U.V.'s are not as safe as many owners imagine them to be, and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said it might propose new standards that would force
substantial design changes. These include adding side curtain air bags, to reduce the risk in
rollovers, and possibly lowering the profile of the biggest models, to cut the risk to cars hit
by S.U.V.'s.

And in response to tax laws that let businesses deduct $30,000 or more for supersized vehicles like
the Hummer, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, recently introduced a bill called the
S.U.V. Business Tax Loophole Closure Act.

Other gas-guzzling vehicles are out there, like pickup trucks, but none as popular and as
profitable. One of every four new vehicles sold last year was an S.U.V., said Jeff Schuster,
director of North American forecasting for J. D. Power and Associates. 3,977,864 in all. Even with
the economy slumping, he said, that number is expected to rise to about 4.15 million this year.

Government standards call for S.U.V.'s sold in the country to average
20.7 miles a gallon, while passenger cars must average 27.5 miles. The H2, the new Hummer model,
weighs more than three tons and gets 11 miles to the gallon.

Sarah Jain, an assistant professor of cultural anthropology at Stanford University, said that the
S.U.V. — a vehicle marketed for the independence it is supposed to provide even while posing serious
social costs, like smog and rollovers — embodies many incongruities in the culture.

"It represents the inability of Americans to make a connection between consumption decisions and
their social impact," she said. "The war — and the Huffington ads — are giving voice to that
frustration."

To Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, the biggest surprise
about the S.U.V. backlash is that "it took so long."

Ms. Huffington "pressed a button that was ready to be detonated," he said, on a topic made acute by
the threat of war. "It is the transmutation of a big issue into a neighborhood issue. The S.U.V.
is the place where foreign policy meets the road."

The Huffington commercials were financed by a $200,000 war chest. Critics have noted that the
sponsors themselves have conspicuously consumed: Ms. Huffington, for instance, lives in a costly
home in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles and owned a Lincoln Navigator S.U.V. before buying a
Toyota Prius, a hybrid gas-and-electric subcompact.

Csaba Csere, the editor of Car and Driver magazine, said the vilification of S.U.V.'s seemed
somewhat arbitrary. The gas mileage of the pickup truck is just as horrendous as any
S.U.V.'s, he said.

"I don't see how commuting to work in a 5,000-pound pickup is any less sinful than a 5,000-pound
S.U.V.," he added. "I hope Arianna Huffington never gets into a limousine. It's a very
fuel-inefficient vehicle."

The image of the S.U.V. taps into deep-seated yearnings in the American psyche, said Dr. Clotaire
Rapaille, a medical and cultural anthropologist in Boca Raton, Fla.

With their image of strength, power and size, the S.U.V. connects to "reptilian" instincts that are
important for reproduction and survival, Dr. Rapaille said, "disregarding the `intellectual cortex'
information that says rollovers are dangerous."

"My theory," he added, "is the reptilian always wins."

The issue has made for dissimilar political bedfellows, Hollywood liberals and evangelical
Christians. "They might not be part of a religious organization, but many are concerned about
transportation choices for spiritual reasons," said the Rev. Jim Ball, executive director of the
Evangelical Environmental Network.

"We've all seen the same evidence. First it was human health, global warming and oil dependence,"
Mr. Ball said. "With the Middle East troubles, another cause has sprung up. It's a moral issue."

People who love or hate S.U.V.'s will probably not be affected by the advertisements, said Dan
Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program.

But "the people in the middle, who may have bought an S.U.V. and are now saying `Gee' are beginning
to think," he said. "Some of them will come to the right conclusion."

It is doubtful their ranks will include Kelly Kriston, 39, who was lusting over an orange Hummer H2
the other day in Marin County. It weighed 6,400 pounds and cost around $50,000.

As Mr. Kriston considered buying it, did he feel guilt? "Not one iota," he said. "I like having all
that metal around me. It's got that massive feel-good factor."

Time to to get radical perhaps... Join

http://www.carbusters.org/

(Look at the 'automorph' at

http://www.carbusters.org/magazine/current.php

Then compare this with Baxter...

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zrage.htm

Automorphism, more then just a theory methinks...)

And for some indication as to how much car users (and especially those who drive thirsty, polluting,
dangerous SUVs) are subsidised via general taxation, even taking into account fuel and vehicle
taxes,' see

http://www.ibike.org/economics/who-pays.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/health_and_environment/page.cfm?pageID=817

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/batt_on_transportation.html

Of course, what with every other advert on TV seemingly been for 4x4 and other cars, and with the
big manufacturers spending over £80 million pounds each on advertising each year in the UK alone, I
don't really think think there is any likelihood that people with start buying fewer 4x4's in the
U.K. never mind cars in general.

(By the way I recall reading a report revealing that the cost of advertsing some models of car
amounts to well over £1000 per vehicle sold. Enjoy those fantasy car ads, after all you are paying
big money to be able to watch them...).

And to put things in perspective, a link to a cartoon stip pointing out there really is no such
thing and an 'environmentally friendly' car...

http://www.roadkillbill.com/r52.html

And lets not forget the link between car use and the threat to Iraq of invasion by the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,877203,00.html

Regards,

Howard.

 

Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
>

About as useful as "All cyclists are lycra clad louts".

Tony
--

http://www.raven-family.com

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George
Bernard Shaw.

 

Howard <[email protected]> wrote:

> 'Have you ever wondered why sport utility vehicle drivers seem like such assholes?

Because they are American?

--
Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
> >
>
> About as useful as "All cyclists are lycra clad louts".
>

hear,hear

I drive a Land Rover 110 CSW with roofrack and roof mounted tent. It has twelve seats and is used
for carting around children and friends, assorted school kit and assorted bikes. It is also used as
a mobile campsite for the family at weekends (three kids in the rooftent and me & missus in the
double bed in the back). I use it off the tarmacced roads regularly. I also give cyclists and horses
a wide berth (indicating as I go) and have even been known to stop, switch off the engine or reverse
as necessary.

As an aside, nearly all the cyclists I see are dressed in black, have no lights, go through red
lights and have a death wish

Regards Simon

 

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
> >
>
> About as useful as "All cyclists are lycra clad louts".
>

My feelings exactly. I mean, what *really* is the point of fanning these unnecessary wars between
people on bikes and people in cars?

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

 

Howard wrote:

>according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, High and Mighty, the connection
>between the two isn't a coincidence.

It will be much easier to comment on this once my copy of High & Mighty, which I ordered some time
ago, finally arrives :-/

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

> > A long post, but some good stuff amongst it methinks...
> >
>
> About as useful as "All cyclists are lycra clad louts".
>
> Tony

Hi Tony,

What part of the post says all 4x4 drivers are the same? The links include evidence that some SUV
drivers are attracted to the things because of their macho image. Hardly a surprise, after all
psychos and hard men hardly choose to drive Micras do they? To others the purchase of a 4x4 reflects
a deep seated fear of the hazards posed by other traffic, or a need to feel powerful in a society
where the individual is feeling increasing isolated and vulnerable. The cartoon link even calls for
4x4 drivers not to be unfairly singled out or scapegoated for causing pollution...

Taken as a whole the articles gives a fairly comprehensive review of the attractions of 4x4's.

Anyhow, I didn't write the articles, they simply represent a growing consciousness of just how
anti-social driving a car is, and especially something as environmentaly unfriendly as a 4x4...

Regards,

Howard.

 

Howard wrote:
> Hardly a surprise, after all psychos and hard men hardly choose to drive Micras do they?

You wanna make something of it?

 

Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
> My feelings exactly. I mean, what *really* is the point of fanning these unnecessary wars between
> people on bikes and people in cars?
It gives the enviro-whiners something to do ...

Simon
--
Simon Ward, Accent Optical Technologies (UK) Ltd., York, YO31 8SD, UK "You'd never guess the things
that I do, I've had the Devil round for tea ..."
- "60 Miles an Hour", New Order

 

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.

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

 

Paul - xxx deftly scribbled:

> 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.

Should have added ..

Our 4 x 4 also goes shopping occasionally, and to pick the kids up from school. Though the mud and
shit that's often left on it tends to frighten the 4 x 4 driving mothers ..

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

 

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:59:49 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Howard wrote:
>
>>according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, High and Mighty, the connection
>>between the two isn't a coincidence.
>
>It will be much easier to comment on this once my copy of High & Mighty, which I ordered some time
>ago, finally arrives :-/

I thought that was a clothes shop.

(Alexei Sayle: "I go to a shop for the man with a fuller figure - Mr. Fat Bastard.")

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

 

The 4x4 is a practical vehicle for a very small part of the community farmers,vets,mountain
rescue,police for others its a lifestyle choice driven perhaps by fashion or a misguided sense of
safety. The safety myth even if looked at from the occupants aspect is easy to debunk. The taller
profile and raised ground clearance make the SUV more likely to roll, and stopping distances are
long in comparison to other cars. From my experience of the States we really have not seen SUV's
quite like they use here, the Lincoln navigator mentioned is vast and makes most of the Japanese
stuff we see seem modest. I think apart from taxing them off the road, difficult to do as you have
to have deep pockets to run one, the best thing we can do for an immediate improvement of safety is
to ban all the steel work some people hang on the vehicle. Bull bars,Roo bars etc are completely out
of place on an urban vehicle in western Europe. I would personally press for a criminal injury
charge to be levied on any driver who caused injury involving bull bar type fenders. Just a thought
on how these vehicles could be made less dangerous overnight, Perhaps we should have and extra level
of driver test for vehicles above a certain engine size/weight. Maybe even make changing a wheel
part of the test, would be interesting to see how many sloans on the school run would pass that one.
But banning them is not an option and if we tax them off the road the poor will suffer
disproportional loss, Around here not many hill farmers are driving luxury landcruisers most are in
10 year old Land Rovers which struggle to break the speed limit but are perfect for moving the sheep
around the hills. So its difficult to define a SUV or utility vehicle. Now lets talk about the MTB
riders who are constantly churning up the footpaths on Kinder. A real issue around these parts.

 

Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
>My feelings exactly. I mean, what *really* is the point of fanning these unnecessary wars between
>people on bikes and people in cars?

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.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

"David Damerell" <damerell[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0FC*[email protected]...
> Sky Fly <[email protected]> wrote:
> >My feelings exactly. I mean, what *really* is the point of fanning these unnecessary wars between
> >people on bikes and people in cars?
>
> 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.
> --
> David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

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.

 

Michael Keily

Wrote;

> old Land Rovers which struggle to break the speed limit but are perfect
for
> moving the sheep around the hills. So its difficult to define a SUV or utility vehicle.

My definition is, a utility vehicle can be cleaned internally with a hose, as a S.U.V. cannot be
cleaned in this way, it has no practical use, and should be descouraged for a variety of reasons.

As a 4500 mile per year commuter cyclist, 25 miles per day in all weathers.

I do admit to owning a Land Rover ,12 seat ,1 Ton , Station Wagon, and yes it struggles to reach 50
mph, but this meets all my other transport needs.

Ben

 

Ben Stock deftly scribbled:

> Michael Keily
>
> Wrote;
>
>
>> old Land Rovers which struggle to break the speed limit but are perfect for moving the sheep
>> around the hills. So its difficult to define a SUV or utility vehicle.
>
> My definition is, a utility vehicle can be cleaned internally with a hose, as a S.U.V. cannot be
> cleaned in this way, it has no practical use, and should be descouraged for a variety of reasons.

In my opinion, your definition is wrong .. I know of many people who use Range Rovers, Daihatsu's,
Nissans etc that are all used as utility vehicles, either at the stables, on a farm or simply, as
ours is, as a general vehicle to transport equipment across and to places that are inaccessible by
any other vehicle. I wouldn't use a hosepipe in my Range Rover .. but why is this your main (it
appears) criteria for a utility vehicle ? I use it as a utility, especially when pulling trailers
down a god-forsaken mud track, but it's also a damn sight more comfortable and easy to drive than
the S3 I did use ..

So, because it can't be cleaned internally without a hose (It has decent carpets) what are the
'variety of reasons' why we should be discouraged from using it as we do ? In fact my S3 wouldn't
have liked a hose on the inside either.

> As a 4500 mile per year commuter cyclist, 25 miles per day in all weathers.

Good for you, it's your choice. I choose not to ride quite so far nowadays.

> I do admit to owning a Land Rover ,12 seat ,1 Ton , Station Wagon, and yes it struggles to reach
> 50 mph, but this meets all my other transport needs.

Again, it's your choice what you drive or ride ..

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

 

>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.

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...

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...)

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...

Regards,

Howard.

 

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? 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. I'm not saying there aren't
4x4 owners out there who don't have a real need to tow heavy gear or travel off-road, but many
(most?) of them drive the classic box-shaped Landie and not these huge glossy toys.

And if one feels car usage is not sustainable and the social effects of motor cars are damaging, one
might feel it twice as much about a vehicle that is unecessarily fuel-inefficient and dangerous to
other road users. Perhaps if everyone drove compact cars we _could_ sustain levels of car usage
while developing sensible alternatives, while greatly reducing the danger to those who are socially
responsible enough not to drive at all. Instead we get land barges and make war on oil-producing
countries in the Middle East.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

> Now lets talk about the MTB riders who are constantly churning up the footpaths on Kinder. A real
> issue around these parts.

Are those the footpaths that have been paved in an attempt to counter all the erosion caused by
walkers (and despite claims about the importance of preserving the 'Wilderness experience') or the
open areas around places such Kinder Trig point where the passage of feet has stripped all the peat
away down to the underlying rock for hundreds of square metres...

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...

I do agree with your point about the differences between Landrovers and Landcruisers, both in
relation to the vehicles themselves and their users.

A general comment.

By heck, some 4x4 drivers really don't like anyone criticising their toys do they!