4WD Debate - work in progress document

maybe your mate should put bulbs in his brakelites then!!
(just having a laugh!!)

Old-plodder,

I too am a Pajero owner and as my adult children often remark, I drive like an old fart.
After driving, somewhat professionally, for the last 30 years (sales and marketing) and doing a minimum of 40,000 kms in mostly Sydney metrpolitan traffic, I have only copped one spoeeding fine (running late for an areoplane) and had one accident.
The accident was very serious and the injuries (not to me) were serious. I was not at fault , but side swiped by a fully laden blue metal double trailer semi. While the truckie was at fault, the research I did concluded that he had only about 250 mm either side of his rig in the lane he was travelling. That did not include his mirrors.
So what's my point?

Trucks, anecdotally, seemed to be over represented in motor vehicle accidents but they don't seemed to be targeted to the same way we do.
While in my case it was my vehicle that caused the injuries it was the truck that caused the accident in the first place and I assume that the this would be recorded as a 4WD causing an injury.

Roscoe,

Agree with you.

Instead of arguing against the others, and an emotional argument at that, lets start getting some facts and positive statements on the table.

Thanks, I'll give them a try.

Have been to a couple of meetings, haven't joined a club yet as haven't found one I like. I will join one though.

Incidentally, there's 3-4 pages to go in that document yet.

You are also dead right, there's no benefit in showing it here as everyone here knows the details. It has to hit mainstream, which was my point earlier this afternoon on a different thread.

And finally, I've actually changed my mind a bit and am working on a document with a working title of "Why are 1 in 4 cars sold in Australia, a 4WD?" or "What do YOU know about 4WD's?" Something like that. It will be much more of a positive document that doesn't really argue against points raised like this one does, but more positive to help educate.

I started writing this one when angry, which is a bit of a mistake. There is an important rule in publicity, which is to never give your opponent any free publicity. Meaning, let them argue there own points and you just keep talking the positives.

Cheers.

Thanks Andrew, let me work on another one first, which may be more to your liking. This current one is probably going to be 5 or 6 pages and is more of a detailed anti-anti-4WD if you know what I mean.

Be happy to send you them both and you pick and choose what you would like to print. The more education the better.

A friend of mine is a lobbyist for the Government, so I'm waiting until I get something decent together and see what he can do. He drives a Disco by the way, and I'm certain he doesn't know what locking hubs are.

Cheers.

Absolutely Brad, in due course. Let me finish it and it can be public property. Currently working on one with a different angle.

It won't happen overnight........ but it will happen.

I'm taking a step, that's all. As I said somewhere else, there is a MASSIVE 4WD movement out there. Ford, Toyota, Nissan and the others make Squillions out of these cars.

They're already changing their adds. We've got to start portraying these things in a positive light and as you said, when someone says "I saw a dic*head 4wd driver last week, say I know what you mean, I saw a dic*head in a Falcon yesterday too. Cut me off and flipped me the bird. Their everywhere."

And remember what I said, do a good deed a day. Let people in when they indicate. etc.

Hi Phil,

there's 2 main problems with the whole argument.

1. The term "4WD". All the comments of "they're too big to see around" etc. Now it's going to take me time to get everything I need, but only the big 4WD's affect vision. MOST of the 4wd and AWD vehicles sold are not Land Cruisers. Let's get to the crux of the problem: They don't like Yuppies driving them in the city, so don't blame the broader community

2. Selectively picking on 4WD's as you say. You can't see around vans, buses, trucks either. But these are on the road due to their benefit to the owners. SO ARE 4WD's. Whether the buyer wants the bigger safer car or the ability to load it up, they buy it for a reason.

I'm hoping to concentrate primarily on these 2 points to diffuse the issue a bit.

Hi Phil

You are correct in saying that people argue they can not see around these big 4wd's and it's mainly due to their very poor driving skills(if they have any). How many times do you drive at the speed limit (or at any speed for that matter) and have these very impaitent dim wits sitting about 1/2 a car length off your butt, it's no wonder they can't see past us.

Smocky good stuff, I congratulate you on having a go, and as far as Scruby is concerned he would do more good if was to put his money and effort into educating the pedestrians of the world.
Safe travells
Jim-Bob

Hi Wombat,

Yep, I agree. I've admitted that I didn't like the first one and I'm working on a second one.

The challenge is that I'm writing this not for the benefit of 4WD owners as they know the facts, it's for the benefit of NON-4WD owners. Also, I'm definately not trying to convince them to love us, that will never happen. I'm also not trying to convince them that they are safer for kids in drive-ways. That won't work.

What I'm trying to do is to diffuse the arguments and put some perspective into the "4wd's are the cause of everything evil" and "all 4wd's are shopping trolleys.

Thanks for your help. Will put updated one on tonight.

Hi Phineas,

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

Just a couple of comments regarding your post:

1. "clogging the urban and suburban streets with excessive numbers of 4WDs for no legitimate reason"

I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with you on this point. I think P platers in hotted up V8's or lowered turbo-charged race carts are WAY more dangerous and account for far more of the accidents and deaths. What are the 3 main causes of accidents and death from motor vehicle? SPEED, ALCOHOL and FATIGUE.

I'll defend to my last breath, any Australian's right to choose on ANY purchase, so long as it's legal. It will be a very sad day indeed when we have to apply for permission for things like 4WD's.

2. "I suspect there are too many stats against that line for a start"

This isn't true. Studies (including the Monash Uni study) generally show that 4WD's are SAFER for their occupants. There are a few extra issues like roll-overs, but this is a small percentage of the overalls. When you factor in other things like the fact that 4WD's would account for higher rural accidents and fatalities at higher speeds due to them being more common in the bush, it's pretty clear that they are safer. What the anti-4WD mob are complaining about is that they are NOT safer for everyone else. Try using that argument to ban buses !!!

3. "If anything I suspect the yuppie-driven demand has made the vehicles and their parts and accessories more pricey"

With due respect, so what? Ususally demand LOWERS costs and competition from venders ADDS VALUE to the market. Being harsh for a minute, What right do you have to say that someone in Nth Sydney shouldn't be able to buy a 4WD because it will make it less of a vehicle for you?

I thank you for your courage to be honest on here and wish everyone were the same. BUT, your post is a great example of the problem 4WD's face at the moment. Does everyone NEED a mobile phone? DVD player? Rally Car? etc, etc. Of course not, but everyone has the right to choose what they want. And thank God for that.

"I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with you on this point. I think P platers in hotted up V8's or lowered turbo-charged race carts are WAY more dangerous and account for far more of the accidents and deaths. "

Two wrongs don't make a right.

"I'll defend to my last breath, any Australian's right to choose on ANY purchase, so long as it's legal."

Dangerous argument: in that case, why not make them illegal?

"What the anti-4WD mob are complaining about is that they are NOT safer for everyone else. Try using that argument to ban buses !!!"

Silly argument. Buses are public transport, as are trains.

"Does everyone NEED a mobile phone? DVD player? Rally Car? etc, etc. Of course not, but everyone has the right to choose what they want. And thank God for that."

Well, no. You don't have the right to keep dangerous animals in your backyard, for example. Public debate is over what's good for society, and therefore how individual rights/choice should be limited.

I'm making these points even though I drive a 4wd myself, in the interests of rational debate. Pointing the finger at others, comparing apples with oranges, or asserting selfishness against (some) justified public concerns, won't get us anywhere.

"2 wrongs don't make a right" How did you come to 2 wrongs?. drink-driving and speeding are wrong, but driving a 4WD isn't. I pointed out that limiting what P platers can drive may help. Or tougher penalties for speeding. My point of this was that 4WD's are not the problem. They don't need to be banned and the original post was saying that people who don't go off road don't deserve to have a 4WD. Read my responses in line with the original post.

"why not make them illiegal" On what grounds? That's ridiculous. Again, my point is that why shouldn't a family be able to choose what they want to drive? What about the other benefits of a LandCruiser other than off road?

"Silly argument" No it isn't. The point is that trucks, buses, vans etc are tolerated due to their value. Why is it so different for 4WD's?

And whilst we're on this subject, let's not refer to them as 4wd's as this is half the problem. You don't want to ban ALL 4wd's do you? Just stop people who don't need to go offroad from buying the big ones. THIS is the silly argument!

"what's good for society" this is an interesting argument and probably the crux of it. Things like dangerous animals is different. AND the reason they are banned is because they get out and kill on their own. Again what I am saying with this point is that why make a discriminatory ban on something like this?

Finally, apologies if I offended with my comments, but really, saying that "I'm allowed to have one as I go offroad, but no-one else can" IS selfish. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone. I responded to Phineas' post directly and argued the other side.

This is a quote from the post I responded to: "how to we promote the off-roader's interests without seeming to argue the case for those who use large 4WDs as a fashion accessory?"

They're only a big wagon, not much bigger than a Ford Territory.

Kind regards,

Jason.

Whoops, I think I have been misrepresented. I do not favour any bans. Bans are a politician's solution and generally represent a failure of civil society to deal sensibly with a problem. For instance, I am opposed to smoking bans, firearms bans, and bans on using mobile phones while driving. And I'm a non-smoker and non-shooter. Why should the majority of sensible people be denied a pleasure or service because of the carelessness of a few?

I certainly don't favour a ban on large 4WDs in cities: my argument was the opposite in fact. It's the use of these commercial truck-type vehicles by people who do not need them and are essentially being misled into buying them (by marketing them as accessories not to be done without in fashionable society) that is putting pressure on legitimate users, and yes, some politician or other is going to start espousing bans.

Education is my solution to problems such as "urban cowboys". Work patiently to counter the marketing campaigns and convince people that the selfish (that word again) pursuit of an undesirable whim, habit, whatever you like to call it, is just bad form, and eventually it just might become unfashionable and the problem will disappear. Or at least abate.

I believe that is what Smocky wants to achieve, but to use his own argument, let's accentuate the positive features of the sensible use of 4WDs, and encourage people to differentiate between legitimate off-roaders and the Toorak tractor set.

Phineas_NO_BANS_p

Hi Phineas, well said.

I can get caught up in this discussion. My WHOLE angle on this is basically as you said, with a slight differnce.

4WD's are not the problem. Like anything else, it's the user. Take a 4WD off an idiot and give them a different car (or someone who can't drive for that matter) and the problem is the same.

The slight difference is that I don't really have a problem with Toorak Tractors. If there were more tolerence and consideration, this wouldn't be a debate (not directing that at you by the way.) For some reason, there are sections that beat this up into some major problem with society when it isn't.

Cheers.

P.S. I think it was ME that introduced the word ban.

"The slight difference is that I don't really have a problem with Toorak Tractors. If there were more tolerence and consideration, this wouldn't be a debate (not directing that at you by the way.) For some reason, there are sections that beat this up into some major problem with society when it isn't."

Well if the Toorak Tractors weren't a problem we wouldn't be discussing all this! Like it or not, they are perceived as a problem, and the danger is that the answer to that problem might affect those of us who use 4wds for their intended purpose. And that's my point: we have a better chance of getting somewhere if we acknowledge that problem. It shouldn't be beyond society's wits to discourage the overgrown shopping trollies without affecting legitimate 4wding.

""Silly argument" No it isn't. The point is that trucks, buses, vans etc are tolerated due to their value. Why is it so different for 4WD's?"

This is the nub of the issue. Buses etc, as you say, are tolerated due to their value to society. 4wds, by contrast, are not seen as having a value to society, on the contrary: they're more polluting, more wasteful of resources, and take up more space than other cars. Those who drive them are perceived as selfish.

This is what needs to be addressed.