Monday, Nov 17, 2003 at 14:17
What a can of worms.
I drive a 4wd, like many other people for two distinct purposes (3 when I get my van).
No 1 - I need a vehicle with at least 6 seats to cater for my family structure. Of the choices, I could:
a. by a Tarago or similar van that
places myself right up front and really requires a bullbar (oh no, another anti pedestrian piece of kit) to ensure my surviveability should I have an accident). You then still have the same visibility options, arguably the same pollution and, possibly less interior space to carry things other than your passengers (kids!). These things, no matter how much they are dressed up, are carry vans with seats in my opinion.
b. Purchase a Ford Falcon with the small 'dicky seat' between the front seats. This allows good luggage carriage but
places one of my kids at the front of the vehicle, in a somewhat limited seat with only a lap belt. The other option is for a passenger wagon with the added seat in the back of the wagon. Have you seen these things. One rear end accident and your kids (if they are small enough to fit into the space) are likely to end up squashed. Was consided for purchase and then considered too dangerous.
c. 4wd - Patrol now. Options range from Suzuki X7 to Cruiser. 7+ seats. some protection and the ability to arrange the seats to allow luggage space with 6 ikn the vehicle.
No 2. I actually enjoy getting off the beaten track once in awhile. No, I don't do it every weekend and no, I don't do serious 4wding. I do the occasional hill and track work that would be prohibitive to a normal car and, in many instances, a small 4wd. I have, through work, been fortunate enough to have undertaken a formal 4wd training course (through DECA) and received the appropriate experience in offroad situations, recovery, emergencies, etc.
no 3. - i am in the process of searching for and, eventually, purchasing a caravan that I wish to tow long distances. I have done extensive towing with both sedans and 4wds. Considering the size of the van, I am not comfortable with towing it with a sedan and, (from point No1) wouldn't consider this with all of my family in tow.
As a motorcyclist, fisherman and 4wd owner, I have seen and read the many arguments by various lobby groups to ban or limit these and various otheractivities. As many are aware, you can lobby for or against any thing if you present the right argument and produce the statistics that suit your cause. Pedestrian injuries in cities are attributed to the vehicle class as road accidents; regardless of the actual cause. Many pedestrian accidents are caused by careless pedestrians. It just doesn't suit statisticians to actually state this. Govt departments can't have a pedestrian toll on the nightly news. That is why it is a road toll and is attributed to vehicles.
Regarding bullbars and 4wds in the various urban areas - trucks, vans, buses, taxis, trams etc, don't have crumple zones. They, like 4wds are lower performance (in both acceleration, cornering and braking - except for taxis) and present limited road view opportunities and limit motorcycle lane splitting (an illegal activity anyway). They all have the potential to kill the poor pedestrian that happens to wander into their path yet there are not too many lobby groups canvassing for their removal from the streets because public transport and commercial activity is seen as essential and politically 'in favour'. 4WDs are an easy target that has people thinking about there purpose.
A few months back, Today Tonight (I think it was) ran an article about the lack of protection in 4WDs (based on USA crash testing figures) and also detailed the 185% increase, over so manh years, in 4WD accidents in Aus. It didn't, however, explain that 4WD ownership had actually increased by a significantly higher % figure and that, statistically, the accident rate would also increase. Just an aside, statistically, motor vehicle accidents are increasing as a whole regardless of the limiting and preventitive measures being implemented by all govt authorities. This includes lower suburban speed limits, better safety features, better training (ha!), double demerit points during specific periods. Why? Because, as I said, you canprove anything statistically. The fact is, that cars are more affordable than ever and, with a growing population , of course accident rates will climb.
I agree that 4wds are less than ideal for city driving. Do you suggest that I now have two seprate vehicles to carry my family and enjoy my leasure time? Wow, what a waste of materials, money, more pollution through manufacturing and running 2 vehicles. Yes they do cost more. So does owning more than one vehicle. That is my choice. I accept the costs and responsibility for ownership. That is how democracies work.
What about the advantages of 4wd ownership. Better road view and stance, safer on marginal (ie dirt) roads with the ability to employ 4H as required. Towability for horse floats, boats, vans, trailers of any sorts, etc.
Like many have said in this form, don't crap in your own nest or those of your brethren. This is a 4wd folder and is likely to give a positive response.
I don't agree with separate licensing. Motorcycles are different beasts and require different skills and techniques. Yes, 4wds require a more proactive response for braking and acceleration. The problem is when people try to drive them like sports cars. they aren't so they shouldn't.
The funny thing is, that I suspect that most people buy and own a 4wd to satisfy one or all of the same 3 requirements that I have. There are options. But there aren't too many that can satisfy all at once.
E-mail now too long. Temperature now below boiling point.
Regards
rob
AnswerID:
37549