Absolute cr..... "rubbish" on TV

[02GF74]

One would hope that if this was any sort of serious research they would have this data to hand, otherwise it's so ambiguous as to be completely meaningless

It is pretty clear they had an agenda in mind then collate & manipulate the data in such a way to support it.

re:

The findings also support the theory of risk compensation, which predicts that drivers of four wheel drive vehicles feel safer and therefore take more risks when driving.

Although four wheel drive vehicles are safer in a crash, their owners may be placing themselves and other road users at increased risk of injury, warn the authors.

It is effing obvious innit? You don't need to spend money on a survey and have braniacs at university and BMJ to come to that conclusion. I could have told them that and save tens of thousands of pounds, the money better spent researching cures to so far incuravble diseases.

If you fitted a 6 inch spike to a steering wheel instead of a sleeping bag or found some other way of making cars more dangerous, then the risk taking will reduce, known as the bleedin obvious.

[Les Henson]

It does seem a bit bias.

If they did a few surveys - why were they all in London?

What do they mean by 'private vehicles'? did they include Transit-type and small vans, as I would have thought that tradesmen would be more likely to use a phone while driving.

Of course there is the ever-present label of '4X4'. I think this is an unfair tag as I think most people mistakenly think that a big vehicle that isn't the stereotypical shape of a saloon car or estate, must be a 4x4.

Similarly - a lot of saloon/estate cars are also 4x4, but wouldn't get labelled as such. And just because a vehicle is a 4x4 doesn't necessarily mean that it's worse than some other 2x4 vehicles.

It also seems one hell of a coincidence that the BMJ jumps onto the anti-4x4 bandwagon at this particular moment, when you consider the survey was done so long ago. If this is such an 'important safety issue' - why wait so long before publishing it? You would have thought that the BMJ would be all for saving lives ASAP, but the obvious slowness of their actions would presumably mean that a few more bods are toast or 6-foot under.

I would have thought that any survey would be un-biased, but in this case it would seem that the opposite was true.

Les.

[Hillbilly Raider]

they should have done their reaserch on the motorways.

white vans sports cars lorries and chavs are those i see using their mobiles!

But as we have established life revolves around what happens in London and therefore nothing else counts!

[Ajlorton]

Well, I've emailed the author to ask for clarification of how they catagorised 4x4s. I've also requested a copy of the list of vehicles. I doubt I'll get an answer, but you never know.

If you read the very last bit of the article you'll see that the study was done as part of a medical student's honours degree. It received no funding, which probably explains why the study was only done in hammersmith, London.

[BogMonster]

All i can say is move to Aus where you are in the majority when you own a 4x4

It is standard here for people to drive around with Bull bars and snorkle on their trucks. In fact they look weird if they don't have it

Even a ford ad has aload of 4x4 turning up to drop the kids of at school as is the norm here

Forget that. Move here, where probably 95% of the private vehicles on the road are 4x4s

There are a lot more (spit) Mistybitchy and Toymota ones these days, but normal family transport for many is still likely to be a 110 with a roof rack and 33x12.50R15 MT's. I took a photo of something which I posted on here a while back and I think it was Tony Cordell who said "that looks like a Land Rover advert"

Should send the anti 4x4 lobby here, their heads would explode hahahahaha

Mind you though, it does make the claims true. Most drivers using mobile phones are likely to be in a 4x4. Lies damn lies and statistics eh?

[Hillbilly Raider]

THE Chelsea Tractor?

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/st...ories/08/1.html

[BogMonster]

THE Chelsea Tractor?

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/st...ories/08/1.html

"Clamp/lift/tow that you &&&&-&&&&&&&!!!"

[Holyzeus]

Heard it on radio 1 this morning, couldn't believe what i was hearing. DO non 4x4 drivers actually believe this carp?!

[Guest diesel_jim]

Heard it on radio 1 this morning, couldn't believe what i was hearing. DO non 4x4 drivers actually believe this carp?!

The trouble is, i'd say yes, they do believe it.

The "average" 2.1 kids, mundano driving, england flag on car, beer swilling Labour voter is easily lead, and believes anything that is stuck in front of them (in the press etc).

and it's not even as if they have to understand it, the phrase "gas guzzling 4x4" just sticks in their mind and everytime a 4x4 is mentioned, "gas guzzling" springs to mind.

I'm waiting for the time when an ill informed thwack/rambler (is there a difference? B) ) says "oh, you're driving a gas guzzler".

I just want to answer "well, a) it's a diesel, doesn't have propane injection and doesn't run on LPG, B) isn't "petrol" powered, and c) why are you talking in an Amercanism.... we use "petrol" here, not "gas"

[chalkie52]

Just emailed GMTV....

Your report on the fact that more 4x4 drivers use mobile phones whilst driving was utter carp and yet another strike on the small minority of people that wish to drive this type of vehicle. When will the whole media get off the bandwagon? If its not 4x4 owners, its smokers, gun owners, fox hunters, etc, etc... Get a grip and give us the real news... We have thousands of squaddies over in the Gulf doing a brilliant job, in the crappest of surroundings, lead by the biggest muppet of a prime minister we've ever had... and all the media can come up with is the same old tripe.. Sort it out!!! Dave White www.sadlrc.com

..... 'ave it!!

[chalkie52]

and then got this....

Important note:

Due to the huge number of responses we receive it is not possible to reply individually to your emails, but please rest assured we do read every one.

GMTV HAS RECEIVED YOUR MESSAGE, THANK YOU.

..... To$$ers!!!

[GBMUD]

I can think of a number of reasons why that research/report was bull. Mostly because it was not a fair test - you may as well compare apples and kidneys.

- The test was carried out by one researcher. In order to see each car the researcher must have been looking at only one lane of traffic - assuming that there was more than one lane. If there was a single lane, was it a residential street, therefor not forming a representative sample of the population? If it was, for example, on the A4, there could have been three lanes of traffic. Choose only one lane and you may bugger up your survey as there may be more sales reps in lane three for example or more 4x4 drivers in lane one. Your sample is effectivly self selecting by it's driving style/preference.

- Results taken between 9- 10am, 1-2pm and 4-5pm? By 9 am most people are at work and before 5pm most have not left work. That leaves mums on the school run, sales reps, delivery drivers and cabbies (ruled out for some reason) and grannies. For one thing, we hear a lot about school run mums driving 4x4s, so immidieatly they are potentially over represented in the sample. Grannies do not own/cannot operate mobiles and drive Mini-metros.

- Excluding vans: By excluding vans you are excluding a huge group with a reputation for driving without seatbelts (some legally) and while on the phone. It occurs to me that, as an alternative to a van, a lot of trades people choose a 4x4. They are therefor included in the sample without their van driving colleagues being counted for balance.

- One that has just occurred to me: If a Chelsea tractor driving school run mum is in the bun club again then she need not wear a seat belt by law.

There must be other flaws but these are some that stand out to me. If anyone would like to pass them on to the BBC, BMJ, GMTV, Newpaper, McDonalds then feel free. I can't be bothered.

FWIW, I usually forget my seatbelt. Not a deliberate act and when I remember it I put it on. I blame this on a lorry driving past where there were no seatbelts provided and I got out of the habit.

Chris

[SimonPearson]

I just posted this onm a mountain biking Forum I ferquent... it's time we 4x4 drivers started shouting some REAL data back at the media and pressure groups - car size data, fuel economy, instead of just suckming up the fatuous twaddle they propagate:

Sorry - did I log onto an Anti 4x4 Forum by mistake?

Gas-guzzling, road-hogging, air-polluting..

The Independent article starts.

Hhmm, how many miles to the gallon does a 5 Series BMW do? Or a TVR? Or in fact most of the exec saloon cars and luxury barges seen on our roads today? My diesel Range Rover did 29.5mpg - my wife's Isuzu Trooper 24mpg.

When I test drove a 328 BMW I was thinking of buying the trip computer read 17.8mpg. And the larger BMW's and Mercs return 14-16mpg. Our petrol Ford Galaxy returned 22mpg if we were lucky. I must have missed the logic that a 4x4 delivering better fuel economy than a lot of the other cars on our roads today is a gas-guzzling air polluting monster....

Road-hogging... ?

Checking the Government's own databse on UK vehicle size data, a Land Rover Discovery at 4484mm length is smaller than a Ford Mondeo, Audi A4, BMW 3 Series, Honda Accord, Ford Galaxy, Mercedes E class, Peugeot 406, Vauxhall Vectra, VW Passat, and almost every model Volvo make!

Oh, and it's and only marginally longer than a Ford Focus.

When is the media and our Government going to start using real data instead of stirring up vehemence based on twaddle and conjecture?

As for taxing 4x4 drivers £2,000 - personally, I can't understand why most urban 4x4's are used, but I'm absolutely against singling out a tiny minority of the population and unfairly penalising them based on their chosen behaviour. If we allow this to happen what next? Taxing mountain bikers because they create so much havoc in the countryside?

Frankly, anyone who drives whilst on the phone or doesn't wear a seat belt is an idiot, whether in a 4x4 or any car.

[bishbosh]

Whilst I stongly support the sentiment in this thread I think we all need to stop and think a minute.

The vast majority of people who buy 4x4's are not like the considerate educated (Les excepted )members of this and other 4x4 fora. They are infact mostly to$$ers who buy a 4x4 for image / intimidation / protecting Tinker Bell etc. etc.

They do use their vehicles for the school run and never go off road. Their choice and they're welcome to it.

I would not be at all surprised if there is a modicum of truth in the research as inconsiderate people in big cars think they are invincible and that the law does not apply to them. "I'm not going to have an accident, and if I do my 4x4 will protect me" tw@ts.

Just last night whilst at the chippy, a shiny (gold bluuurgh) Discovery was leaving the car park with the driver not wearing her seatbelt. Oh and she couldn't reverse for toffee. Sounds familiar...?

How many Range Rover drivers have you seen in lane 3 of the motorway on the phone? I know it happens with other makes too, but just because we love our hobby does not mean that the researchers are wrong.

My 2p.

[GBMUD]

I would not be at all surprised if there is a modicum of truth in the research as inconsiderate people in big cars think they are invincible

just because we love our hobby does not mean that the researchers are wrong.

I agree absolutely. I still feel that the research was flawed though, for the reasons given.

Chris

[FridgeFreezer]

just because we love our hobby does not mean that the researchers are wrong.

True enough - but the reporting was hardly unbiased. Also, bear in mind the quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" you can prove anything with statistics, believe me I work for a company driven by meaningless stats

People who buy a big 4x4 for image/protection are no worse than people who buy a ferrari to pose in, a superbike to speed on, or a classic car to cruise round in. None of those is entirely practical, but it's their choice to buy them and use them.

Someone who buys a 4x4 to protect thir child may appear more selfish than someone in a normal car - but wait! As we know, some cars are less environmentally friendly than 4x4's. So - if someone buys a large Volvo instead, which is bigger, uses more fuel, and is pretty likely to have a better crash protection rating they are actually more of an arse than someone who buys a Disco, it's just less obvious or easy to identify. A 4x4 is an easy target because it's a different shape to other vehicles - a big Volvo/BMW/Merc is basically the same shape as a smaller car, just bigger and heavier. Less easy for environmentalist cretins to identify.

[Late in Life]

Someone appears to be talking sense is on our side SMMT.

SMMT Article

[02GF74]

Someone appears to be talking sense is on our side SMMT.

SMMT Article

Now will this make the front pages or be mentioned on the BBC news? I somehow doubt it as it is not part of the anti'/s agenda.

[Andy]

i never knew the bun again club where exempt for seatbelts. learn something everyday.

i agree with the 'i can drive like an arse cause my 4x4 will protect me' suggestion, i see it a lot - then they notice my coach is larger & move anyway.

4x4s for most people who dont use them properly (& lets face it how many new 4x4s could be used offroad properly) are prestige motor so they drive like twats as they think they are better than everyone else. you could pick any of these anti 4x4 comments & swop the 4x4 for BMW & it'd still be true, or go back 10 years & pick on the volvo drivers.

biased as all reports are nowdays, but probably a basis of fact in there somewhere. if they really wanted to reduce polution they'd get everyone to drive to cornwall or blackpool in RRs rather than fly to spain in an airbus.