On 14 Jul 2005 12:54:03 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


While I was searching for this, I came across something else
interesting (Gawd, but the WWW is a waste of time...!);

;-)

From the EPA website http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/ove...ilestones.htm;

1999 - "EPA announces more protective tailpipe emissions standards, marking
the first time that SUVs and other light-duty trucks are subject to the
same national pollution standards as cars."

So, another anti-4x4 rant exposed as a lie.

I don't think right minded folk have any issues re 4x4's in general
just their suitability in many cases. Yes it's their (your) choice
etc but in these days when many people are looking to reduce emissions
AND increase mpg (reducing emissions further) they are just seen as a
'luxury' that the rest of us could do without?

Also their size means they take up more room on the road (given their
typically low occupancy) creating more congestion, take up more room
when parked (congestion again) and mass mass to recycle (energy
consumption again)?

More than once I have seen big off road cars (I don't care if they
were 4x4 or not) parked across two bays because:

1) They won't fit in a std *car* bay.
2) Their owners don't want them damaged.

I wouldn't mind them doing it at the back of the car park but they
have to do it across two of the dissabled bays (and display no badge).
Ok, van drivers are often as bad but possibly for different reasons
;-)

Also there is an added risk to those of us not in 'large' vehicles
when we hit them (or they hit us) compared with hitting a similar
sized vehicle. Yes, I know we could still hit a lorry etc but they
*need* to be that big / design to (daily) carry their loads (no
haulier would run an oversized vehicle if they could help it).

To the same degree *any* big / thirsty vehicle ('old Yanks' etc) would
be frownened upon by those suffering their effects (folk living in the
cities) but they don't seem to be in such great numbers (these days)
as the ''4x4"?

I suppose because I don't (need or want) to spend many hours tearing
up and down the countries motorways, tow a twin axle caravan maybe
twice a year and don't have spare cash to p*ss away, if I was to buy a
new car (unlikely) the fuel consumption would be very high up my
'important' list.

Bottom line, vehicles should be (in my little world anyway) for taking
us and our belongings from a to b as efficiently and safely as
possible. If we could just get out of this (as I see it) marketing /
imagery / lifestyle driven push for high performace vehicles we might
just get on with actually enjoying life in other ways?

I would suggest that yer average family saloon today can easily cruise
at ~80 mph, have all the good safety features (crumple zones, airbags,
ABS (even if only as 'options')) and because they all perform
similarly are less of an issue when all thrown onto the same bit of
road at the same time. One of my more frightening moments in 30 years
of driving was when a tw*t missunderstood a trafic cops instructions
to 'keep over' (debris in the inside lane) as 'stop dead from 70+ mph
in his 911 .. my Sierra Estate didn't have 6 pot twin ventilated disks
alll round ;-( I stopped short of him just but *because* the
abilities of the two vehicles were so different it caused the problem?
Should we all drive round in Porches or (for example) Megans (etc)?

What might seem to be strange is I have no major issues with
motorsports, based on the thought that this is conducted off the
public highway and contributes (in proportion) only a tiny percentage
of the overall pollution (probably)?

I dare say we will get there in the end .. some folk will do so
because it's the sensible way to go and others because they are forced
into it finantially or legally (like smoking).

Oh well ..

All the best ..

T i m