Cycling UK Forum

Had one the other week pulled at roundabout 4x4 pulled up close beside then pulled in front and turned left in front of me causing me to brake sharply hit the kerb.

Red mist came gave caught up bloke with kids in back not strapped in would notwind window down so got a cleated shoe in the door from me no problems.

Good on yer peter236 wish i had the opportunity to do that to some of the 4by4 plonkers. Something to dream about. Where i live the're usually used for school runs.

I have a strong opinion on cars, in that most people dont need them. But research has shown that instinctively cylists/motorylists are less likely to be seen than cars due to there smaller breadth, (e.g. you are more likely to consider a wide animal charging you a threat, than a narrow one). I found this out as i nearly walked out in front of a motorbike, with headlights on.

The likely hood is that you are less likely to be knocked off by a muddy 4x4 than one that isnt, probably because it is off the road.

surprisingly my latest encounter didnt involve a 4x4 but a mercedes, coming up through the width restriction at the bottom of winnatts pass as i was coming down, with my brakes on full, doing about 35mph. later found out (when going up winnatts) that there is no right of way specified, the driver was just playing, "see if he can squeeze through that gap then"!.

Hope you heal up quickly.

Two 4x4s in one of those slow moving but not actually stopped queues stopped to let me cross this afternoon, one after the other.
My faith in the wickedness of 4x4 drivers is waivering.
What can I do abt this?
Archie

Don't worry about it, it's just lulling you into a false sense of security. Normal service will be resumed very soon!

Mrs Tortoise wrote:Don't worry about it, it's just lulling you into a false sense of security. Normal service will be resumed very soon!

Aah, that's all right then!

Idiotic behaviour is not confined to 4 x 4 drivers and to call it idiotic can, in some circumstances, be unfair. The failure to spot an approaching bike/motorcyclist is not confined to 4 x 4 drivers but can happen to any road user. There was an article in Bike magazine a while ago which explained the phenomenon of an approaching vehicle beeing rendered 'invisible' when its approach velocity and angle of approach had certain values which then meant that it was difficult to peceive approaching motion of vehichles. It really can be a SMIDSY and not fully in control of the happless perpetrator of the 'pulling out in front of' road user.

The fact that it was in a motorcycle magazine and explained in a dispassionate manner leant credence to the idea.

As a motor cyclist and cyclist as well as motorist, I like to think that my observation skills embrace all eventualities but not long after reaing the aforementioned article, I had a car 'materialise' in front of me as I was pulling out into a main road. It was a startling experience and I don't think it was a lapse in concentration. The car simply had not registered in my vision until the very last moment - scary.

its the drivers and their mentality. I have seen it happen accross a wide range of vehicle types and i find buses the worst ofenders. HGVs seem to be ok, they cant see you as easily so tehy seem to take more care.

We have a lot of 4x4s at work (we work in forestry) so greenpeace can stick their plan to abolish 4x4s somewhere not so green. Like everything tehy have their use.

As for choosing to drive a smaller car and it being more environmentaly friendly, thats ok until you jet off to Milan on a cheap flight for teh weekend.....but thats another discussion

Jamie

The Greenpeace attack was specifically aimed at SUVs. SPORTS utillity vehicles. The great big V8 4mpg monstrosities which go nowhere near forrestry work (legally, anyway). There is no complaint against Landrovers and the action was to pressure Landrover to revert back to manufacturing the sorts of Landrovers needed for agricultural work instead of SUVs.

meic wrote:The Greenpeace attack was specifically aimed at SUVs. SPORTS utillity vehicles. The great big V8 4mpg monstrosities which go nowhere near forrestry work (legally, anyway). There is no complaint against Landrovers and the action was to pressure Landrover to revert back to manufacturing the sorts of Landrovers needed for agricultural work instead of SUVs.

Pray tell us precisely which Land Rover product returns only 4 mpg because AFAICT the most thirsty returns over 12 mpg in town and over 20 mpg in the country. The majority of big Land Rovers sold today return around 30 mpg combined - and there are lots of non-4x4s with similar or worse consumption/emissions figures.

However, while it's bad enough, even the most thirsty Land Rover is no match for the most thirsty non-4x4. For example, the V8 S/C Range Rover (at 375 g/km) fares better than the Vauxhall Monaro (384 g/km), the Bentley Anarge (495 g/km), etc. So why aren't Greenpeace chaining themselves to the railings at Vauxhall, Volkswagen, BMW, and Ford - all of who make non-4x4 cars with higher emissions than the worst Land Rover product.

Methinks I detect just a little bigotry going on there.

Geoff

Not bigotry, targeting.

The trend to SUVs was a new trend going back towards high polluting vehicles. Greenpeace were attempting to blunt the spearpoint so to speak.
I have experienced 4mpg from real life Landrovers, but I admit that was exceptional. 8mpg is a pretty common lower range mpg to get from these vehicles. However 12 or 20 are both ridiculously low mpgs and to offer such figures as OK. only helps my argument. So there are people like me who think we should be looking at 60 mpg and people like you who consider 12 mpg OK. Plenty of room for disagreement here. I dont suppose you will be joining Greenpeace in the near future.

Back to 4x4s in general. They will be driven by a cross-section of society albeit skewed a little to one side! That will include plenty of good drivers and more than enough bad ones. The latter is true of all road user types including cyclists. So my bigotry is limited in that respect.

However most people choose to drive a 4x4 or to cycle and in many cases do both. Making that choice shows certain charecteristics. eg I have refused Land Rovers which were offered for free and tax-exempt because I could not bear to keep a vehicle which is so thirsty, I have declined cheap Volvos on the same count. I would also refuse to have the Mondeo you mentioned. It is the same sort of bigotry I have against litter louts.

So I dont agree with attacking 4x4s but I do agree with disapproval of bad and agressive drivers who dominate the road by force and I also disagree with people who use an unjustifiably large amount of the worlds resources.

A good proportion of the people I know who drive SUV's say they do so because they want to keep their families safe in event of an accident. (Not sure about the percieved safety of the poor sod they may hit!)

Personally I've managed to make it through the first 34 years of my life having never owned or driven a car, the same goes for my better half who is 38, it can be done. Yes things take a bit more planning but what we've never had we don't miss.

Neither do we fly abroad on holiday, never have. A good percentage of people just stare in disbelief when they find out we don't drive or go abroad.

Good point I agree that on these roads without law enforcement driving in a mini tank could improve your personal chances of survival.
However ordinary cars are designed to absorb energy by collapsing in a crash. A good pair of bullbars bolted to a chasis might be too solid and not absorb energy, leaving the drivers body to do so. They may have been designed as crumple zones, I dont know. Anyway the driver will certainly suffer no harm hitting a cyclist or pedestrian with them.

meic wrote:Not bigotry, targeting.

No, it's bigotry and hatemongering. Of course, the fact that Archbigot Sian Berry and others can't even define their target except by appearance is conveniently forgotten by her hatemongering supporters. Since the only way they can define their target is by appearance, the real reason why Berry's Bigots want to ban 4x4s must be because they hate the look of them (or, more likely, hate the sector of society with which they associate 4x4 ownership).

Have a look at the Archbigot's website:

In case you are confused, we would like to make it clear exactly what it is we are campaigning against.

We aren't concerned about four-wheel drive in itself, and we certainly aren't after the Fiat Panda.

Well, she's made it as clear as mud. A 4x4 is a four-wheeled vehicle driven by all four wheels. So, ironically, the most spiteful anti-4x4 campaign is by it's own admission not against the only characteristic that makes a vehicle a 4x4. So what, exactly, are they against? You couldn't make it up, and it would be laughable were it not for such hatemongering being used to excuse some of the worst atrocities of modern times.

She continues:

The 'big 4x4s' we talk about are four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles with large engines, high ground-clearance and a tall, boxy shape (see graphic for the basic features). This type of design, and the extra weight that goes with it, leads to a very poor vehicle for use by families and in city streets for a number of reasons.

IOW, she can only define what she is against by the way it looks. She can't define it in terms of fuel economy, emissions, safety, or any of the other things she cites as excuses for her obsessive hatred, and this shouldn't surprise because for every excuse she uses to vilify her target something else fares worse and many 4x4s fare better than many non-4x4s.

The anti-4x4 campaign is thus completely without foundation. It is unjustified; it is evil; it is bigotry and hatemongering that should have no place in today's society.

meic wrote:So I dont agree with attacking 4x4s but I do agree with disapproval of bad and agressive drivers who dominate the road by force ...

On that we agree. However, the most aggressive drivers where I live are more likely to be young, male, and driving cars registered in Wales, the South East, or the Midlands rather than locally. Nonetheless most drivers are reasonably courteous. WRT "domination of the road by force", I suspect this is more likely to be down to your own prejudices and perceptions than reality. After all, not many drivers will go out of their way to invite a collision - even when they believe they'll come off the better.

meic wrote:... and I also disagree with people who use an unjustifiably large amount of the worlds resources.

To which I respond that people in glasshouses probably shouldn't throw stones. If you live in a house rather than a tent, have flown to a holiday destination, bought produce with thousands of food-miles, etc. I suspect that you're not in a valid position to criticize.

Just a thought,

Geoff

Are we going to compete for who can create the most pollution or for who can compete the least?
I will continue to point out the excess of a vehicle which does 12mpg even if I lived in a palace. You should point out the excess of palace dwellers from the moral advantage of the tent. I wish you every sucsess in cutting down on domestic fuel excess.
The Greenpeace attack was on the production of NEW gas guzzlers. To try and put a stop to their production. It is also the aim to show them up for what they are. Vehicles that use an excessive amount of fuel.
The government has set their sights on a very low 20% reduction of CO2 emmisions in the distant future. SUV owners could do a 60% cut by swapping to a more reasonable vehicle.
So just reversing the trend away from the proliferation of these monstrosities could reach the government targets pretty rapidly with respect to transport.
I think a more appropiate saying nowadays should be "people in glasshouses shouldnt burn petrol".
As for throwing stones it is a good idea. There is too much squandering going on, it seems like a cluster of generations are grabbing all the worlds resources and leaving the dirty remains for their descendants.
We cant just stop everything overnight but we can turn the tide. So that all new cars, houses etc are much more fuel ecconomic than their predecessors. Yes cut out the air mile food and step by step bring things down to a sustainable level. However it has to be much faster than it is now.
Lets get everyone up to the highest standards not down to the lowest.