Cycling UK Forum

meic: Had you said something along the lines of "Owners of gas guzzlers could do a 60% swap" I'd have given you some respect, but you didn't say that - you confined your comments to "SUV owners" despite the fact that not all 4x4s are "gas guzzlers" and the majority of "gas guzzlers" are not 4x4s (most vehicles in emissions band G are not 4x4s). Your comment shows precisely the bigotry that needs to be stamped out.

Geoff

GeoffL wrote:meic: Had you said something along the lines of "Owners of gas guzzlers could do a 60% swap" I'd have given you some respect, but you didn't say that - you confined your comments to "SUV owners" despite the fact that not all 4x4s are "gas guzzlers" and the majority of "gas guzzlers" are not 4x4s (most vehicles in emissions band G are not 4x4s). Your comment shows precisely the bigotry that needs to be stamped out.

Geoff

"Stamped out"?


"Charmed by the voice of reason"
"convinced of the error of my ways"
"been coaxed along the path of enlightenment to the mount of higher knowledge"

...I might buy, but I don't want to be "stamped out".



Regards,
M.

There is some confusion on my part here. The conversation started on Greenpeaces attack on SUVs in particular rather than gas guzzlers as a whole. So as we were discusing one particular type of gas guzzler, then I used that name. I am perfectly happy to say the same things about all gas guzzlers. However we are talking about why Greenpeace have singled out one particular group of gas guzzlers because they are a new phenomenom in the WRONG direction.
I have a low opinion on many Volvos, Rolls Royces(dont get me going on the new series Bentleys), Aston Martins etc etc but their sales are not rocketing up month by month.
My dislike of vehicles is inversley proportional to the mpg per occupant. The targeting is inspired by sales trends.

meic wrote:There is some confusion on my part here. The conversation started on Greenpeaces attack on SUVs in particular rather than gas guzzlers as a whole. So as we were discusing one particular type of gas guzzler, then I used that name.

My entry into this conversation started with your 4mpg claim. However, the thread started not with Greenpeace but with a tale of how a cyclist rode AFAICT without due care and attention into a foreseeable and preventable accident, which has somehow been picked up as an excuse to engage in anti-4x4 hatemongering. (Though, to be fair, not many in this thread are guilty of that hatemongering and some (like Oracle and Archer Sturmey) have tried to balance things.)

The majority of 4x4s sold in UK today return 30mpg or better, and many return over 40 mpg. These are not 12mpg-in-town "gas guzzlers", even which are nowhere near as bad as the 4mpg claim you started with.

meic wrote:.. we are talking about why Greenpeace have singled out one particular group of gas guzzlers because they are a new phenomenom in the WRONG direction.

No, I'm talking about the unwarranted prejudice, and bigotry so evident in some posts on this forum.

Geoff

montmorency wrote:"Stamped out"?


"Charmed by the voice of reason"
"convinced of the error of my ways"
"been coaxed along the path of enlightenment to the mount of higher knowledge"

...I might buy, but I don't want to be "stamped out".

It's the bigotry, not the bigot, that needs stamping out

Geoff

Regardless of the obscene fuel consumption 4X4s are far more lethal to non motorised road users in the event of a collision. That alone should be reason to ban them.
While we're at it why do we tolerate petrolheads on these boards?

PW wrote:Regardless of the obscene fuel consumption 4X4s are far more lethal to non motorised road users in the event of a collision. That alone should be reason to ban them.

Again, that's hype and prejudice. 40+ mpg is not obscene and 25mpg on renewable fuel is a lot better than 60mpg on fossil fuels in my book. Also, 4x4s don't need to be "far more lethal", most are no more lethal than other vehicles of a similar age, and some 4x4s (e.g. the CR-V) have better safety ratings than many non-4x4s. All vehicles on the road today meet the relevant safety requirements - so it's those requirements you should be seeking to change rather than engaging in anti-4x4 claptrap.

PW wrote:While we're at it why do we tolerate petrolheads on these boards?

Once could ask why we tolerate anti-motoring propaganda on these boards. Cycling and motoring aren't mutually exclusive, some of the most prominent petrolheads are also cyclists, and some of the most prominent cyclists are also petrolheads. Anti-motoring isn't the same as pro-cycling and the anti-motoring claptrap that's gone on here and on other forums has IMO caused much harm to cycling. For starters, it's alienated at least one of cycling's potential allies (the motorcycling fraternity) and looks headed to alienate several others. That is not IMO the way to go about promoting your pastime.

At the very least the anti-motoring hatemongering that abounded on another forum when I asked for help to choose a bike persuaded this (then potential) cyclist that roads were too dangerous to ride. Even though I used to cycle-commute over twenty years ago, the anti-motorist propaganda convinced me that the situation had changed and that every day some "moton" or "cager" was wreaking carnage. I bought the bike but only used it on traffic-free routes maybe a dozen or so times a year and drove up to sixty miles for each ten to fifteen mile ride. It wasn't until a cycle-commuting neighbour convinced me to have a go on the roads that I discovered the reverse of the hype to be true. Motorists seem, on the whole, to treat me with more respect and give me more room than they did a couple of decades ago - and I'm spitting feathers about the cycling pleasure that anti-motorist hatemongering has denied me. I'm now cycling between fifty and a hundred miles a week (mainly on roads), feeling better than I have in years, and hoping to do an e2e or CP ride next year. But I had to get past the FUD to get there.

BTW, a lot of people have told me that they don't cycle because they believe the roads are far too dangerous - and I do wonder how many have that impression from the anti-motorist ravings of certain members of the cycling community. Whatever, I seem to spend an appreciable amount of time explaining that cycling's basically a safe pastime to those who think I'm either incredibly brave or incredibly foolhardy to cycle on roads, but I have managed to persuade one or two to dust off their old bikes and have a go.

Geoff

GeoffL wrote:

PW wrote:Regardless of the obscene fuel



BTW, a lot of people have told me that they don't cycle because they believe the roads are far too dangerous - and I do wonder how many have that impression from the anti-motorist ravings of certain members of the cycling community. Whatever, I seem to spend an appreciable amount of time explaining that cycling's basically a safe pastime to those who think I'm either incredibly brave or incredibly foolhardy to cycle on roads, but I have managed to persuade one or two to dust off their old bikes and have a go.

Geoff

I have some sympathy with this aspect of what you write.

In defence of the "ravers", if you have been seriously cut up, or worse, knocked down, by a motorist, it is not unnatural to feel aggrieved at motorists in general in the immediate aftermath.

Hopefully later, injured parties develop a better sense of perspective and come to terms with the majority of drivers who behave reasonably ok.

I've been a bit of a hothead in my time (not only when I was young I'm afraid to say), and have been known to get quite angry with motorists at times. I try to stay calm these days.


If you go looking for trouble, you generally find it.



Regards,
M.

I find the claim that the majority of 4x4s exceed 30mpg too hard to believe. Maybee on paper they might. However personally I think 40mpg is unacceptably greedy from a new car.
But back to the point the Greenpeace action was against SUVs, big V8 gas guzzling ones made at the Landrover plant. As someone said in one of your quotes, "we have no problem with the Fiat Panda".
Your average SWB Landrover gives 20mpg in real life. That sort of fuel consumption should be reserved for off road work.
You have made your point that we should not be using the term 4x4s when we really mean SUVs. I have a similar ignorance of the finer points of jargon in many areas of human misbehaviour.

When you talk about the safety ratings of the CR-V I assume you are talking about for the occupants. Or are the bull-bars at the front made out of impact absorbing polystyrene foam?

When out on the tandem it creates a lot of interest from people, when we're stopped people ask questions, these usually start with "is it hard to ride"then, "how much do they cost" round about third question is usually "but isn't dangerous on the roads these days on a bike"these people are surprised when I tell "no its not dangerous and I would thoroughly reccomend one"but the perception of great danger is there and it will take lot of shifting. People need reassuring and stiffer penalties for criminals would help in that process, the "guilty until proven otherwise" where cars hitting cyclists are concerned as on the continent would do a lot of good.And some real policing of lunatic road users ALL road users including lunatic cyclists is whats needed.
There simply aren't enough police about willing to enforce the law, because of work load and in some cases sheer laziness the police go for high profile easy target arrests IMO.

You seem to have missed my point completely. It's that 4x4s are in general not the spawn of Satan that Berry's Bigots would have us believe. For every factor that Berry's Bigots use to "justify" their spiteful hatred, something other than a 4x4 comes out worse and many 4x4s fare better than many of the non-4x4 "alternatives". However, they don't let such inconvenient truths get in the way of their hatemongering.

The majority of 4x4s on the market today are no worse, fuel consumption-wise, than many repmobiles, MPVs, etc. (if you haven't already looked, you'd probably be shocked by how many Mondeos, Vectras, etc. and even some surprising small cars, are in band G) So it's unfair to single out 4x4s in this way.

Now if you want to campaign against "gas guzzlers" then campaign against "gas guzzlers", but accept that you'd get over half the cars on the road today without getting all 4x4s and that you'd take out a lot of cars like the 2.5 litre Mondeo before you even took out the new Discovery.

On the subject of CR-V safety, the 2002-2006 CR-V has Euro-NCAP ratings of 4-stars for occupant protection and 3 new stars for pedestrian safety, the latter being more than most family cars (large or small). Now if you look at the Euro-NCAP pages for large 4x4s you'll see that most have at least one star for the new, more-stringent pedestrian safety test - which is comparable to the one new star or two or fewer old stars scored by the majority of non-4x4 cars listed on the Euro-NCAP site. So it really makes no sense picking out 4x4s on the grounds of safety either.

Now if you want to campaign for safer cars then campaign for safer cars, but accept that you'll take out a lot of other cars and still not get all the 4x4s.

Geoff

At the end of the day, it isn't the car or the bike that causes the accident or guzzles the gas, but the driver or cyclist in control, or not of the object. In the same way that guns or knives aren't usually dangerous until someone uses them in a dangerous manner.

We all have to accept that cars and bikes are going to be here for a very long time to come and have to co-exist. I use both one for pleasure the other for work. Sometimes I carry the pleasurable one on the back of the other. My car is old and only does about forty to the gallon on urban travel, on a run it does more depending upon how hard I drive it.

I expect respect from all other road users whether I am cycling or driving, it is something I think we are all entitled to with a responsibility to reciprocate. I believe the same should apply to these message boards.

Sorry Mrs T I cant agree that the car is not responsible for 'guzzling the gas'. The driver can have an effect but not that much. I as a driver got 20mpg from a Volvo(so it was got rid of fast), 45mpg off a Fiesta, 33mpg off a Cavalier, 36mpg off an Astra and now 58mpg off a Passat. All these vehicles were being driven by me in the same conditions. Someone else could get the Passat down to 45mpg but no-one could get the Volvo up to 45mpg. Of course an SUV which is never driven is better than a Passat which is used extensivly.