Why have 4x4s?

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by Ambriel

We already have a national policy on taxation, in the form of the road fund license and duty and VAT on fuel. It doesn't appear to be having very much effect on the public transport infrastructure.

I suspect that Paul means a national transport policy funded by taxation

Jeff

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by Ambriel

On the face of it that seems quite sensible but then you have to factor-in situations where a larger capacity engine is a necessity: People towing caravans, and trailers; People carrying heavy plant or bulky equipment; Larger families with a need for more than 2+3 seats. I'm sure the list goes on and on.

I agree with you completely. I had a caravan myself up until recent years & a 2.5L car to pull it. I was just attempting to make the point that larger cars will be unlikely to be done away with as it would do damage to the car industry & remove a handy source of income for the taxman, which ties in with your last post, and asks the questions . Where does the tax money go? & who's fault is it that there are so many cars of any size & lorries on the roads of the UK?

Originally Posted by Coley

All I can say is, at least there are enough people who care in this world, to make a great opposing side. lol Who's with me!

Are there , really? People with fridge/freezers running 24hrs a day, central heating , lights on at night. going on holiday,(unnecessary travel?) computers,internet, mobile phones TVs & other electrical goods etc , etc. All material things, NONE of them essential, but most people have them all.and it all needs manufactured or powered up.

[robingoodfellow]

This is a very complicated debate and so reducing it to the specific issue of 4x4's distracts us from the larger question of transport policy in general. We have two huge issues on which transport has a bearing: climate change and peak oil. Out of the two, peak oil is the one which is most likely to be left out of the debate, yet out of the two, it is perhaps the most serious in the short term as it has the potential to radically affect our economy in a very short time. The correct response therefore, and one which will help to mitigate climate change, is to switch our transport policy from one based on the private motorist to one based on the provision of an efficient, clean and affordable public transport system. In such a switch there would be certain exceptions for those having an 'essential use', such as transport firms delivering essential goods such as food etc Other transport users, as far as possible, should switch to public transport.

Within this, 4x4's really should be restricted to activities in which it forms an essential means of performing that activity e.g. farming, construction, the military etc

Just having a 4x4 because you happen to think its stylish and it does something for your status or ego or something is unacceptable, and the government should do the responsible thing and curtail such use, irrespective of how much individual, current 4x4 drivers wish to grumble about such an idea.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Ambriel

We already have a national policy on taxation, in the form of the road fund license and duty and VAT on fuel. It doesn't appear to be having very much effect on the public transport infrastructure.

As Jeff has kindly pointed out (and should have been obvious from the context) I was referring to transport taxation which should be ring-fenced so that money taken from individual motorists would be transferred to public transport ...

[Paul mabbott]

Quite so, this whole issue needs a very large overview which is why I would be happy to see this thread die (... but nonetheless can't resist contributing ).

Someone made the point that large engines are necessary in certain contexts which nobody really has denied. I certainly wouldn't want to be taken to hospital, in emergency, in a smart-car.

... but one of the reasons that some would use to justify large cars is if they have large families ... clearly I would respond that they hadn't ought to have large families. No one should have more than two children per couple. However this is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion on big cars per se although it illustrates the general problem - I want to have five children, I want to have run a big car, I want to do whatever I feel like .... there are others who take a more reasonable and less selfish attitude ....

Originally Posted by robingoodfellow

This is a very complicated debate and so reducing it to the specific issue of 4x4's distracts us from the larger question of transport policy in general. We have two huge issues on which transport has a bearing: climate change and peak oil. Out of the two, peak oil is the one which is most likely to be left out of the debate, yet out of the two, it is perhaps the most serious in the short term as it has the potential to radically affect our economy in a very short time. The correct response therefore, and one which will help to mitigate climate change, is to switch our transport policy from one based on the private motorist to one based on the provision of an efficient, clean and affordable public transport system. In such a switch there would be certain exceptions for those having an 'essential use', such as transport firms delivering essential goods such as food etc Other transport users, as far as possible, should switch to public transport.

Within this, 4x4's really should be restricted to activities in which it forms an essential means of performing that activity e.g. farming, construction, the military etc

Just having a 4x4 because you happen to think its stylish and it does something for your status or ego or something is unacceptable, and the government should do the responsible thing and curtail such use, irrespective of how much individual, current 4x4 drivers wish to grumble about such an idea.

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

... clearly I would respond that they hadn't ought to have large families. No one should have more than two children per couple. ....

Well Paul, you certainly know how to kill off a thread

I think you may well have lit the blue touch paper with the above comment and I'm going to just stand back and watch the fireworks from afar

Jeff

[Coley]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Quite so, this whole issue needs a very large overview which is why I would be happy to see this thread die (... but nonetheless can't resist contributing ).



... but one of the reasons that some would use to justify large cars is if they have large families

The last time I counted, 4x4s (except some Landy Defenders) have no more seats in them than any other car. Unless by large family you mean fat/obease. :

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by JeffH

Well Paul, you certainly know how to kill off a thread

I think you may well have lit the blue touch paper with the above comment and I'm going to just stand back and watch the fireworks from afar

Jeff

Oh, I hope I didn't sound provocative ... .. just making the point that it's a very big issue, not just a simple matter of 'What motor?'.

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

... but one of the reasons that some would use to justify large cars is if they have large families ... clearly I would respond that they hadn't ought to have large families. No one should have more than two children per couple. However this is absolutely irrelevent to the discussion on big cars per se although it illustrates the general problem - I want to have five children, I want to have run a big car, I want to do whatever I feel like .... there are others who take a more reasonable and less selfish attitude ....

Well JeffH - I'll respond. You can watch!

What an absolutely ridiculous comment Paul.
I assume you are jesting!
If not, you are dangerously wrong, and completely unhinged.
There are/ were political organisations full of that sort of nonsense.
Your "comment" is not only irrelevant to (as you put it) "the discussion of big cars per se", it is completely irrelevant to ANY discussions, because it is quite obviously utter tripe.

I don't think you can be serious though, so I'll leave it there.

Doug.
(A triplet). Not that thats particularly relevant, but it makes an obvious point.

[coasty]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

Well JeffH - I'll respond. You can watch!

What an absolutely ridiculous comment Paul.
I assume you are jesting!
If not, you are dangerously wrong, and completely unhinged.
There are/ were political organisations full of that sort of nonsense.
Your "comment" is not only irrelevant to (as you put it) "the discussion of big cars per se", it is completely irrelevant to ANY discussions, because it is quite obviously utter tripe.

I don't think you can be serious though, so I'll leave it there.

Doug.
(A triplet). Not that thats particularly relevant, but it makes an obvious point.

Well put Doug and a lot more polite than I would have been, I particularly like your use of the word "Tripe" I think the older words like that express a sentiment so well.... Other words I would have been tempted to use would have been Codswallop, Balderdash and Drivel

Regards

Andy ( Proud father of three and part time 4X4 driver )