John Sargeant exacerbated the nanny-state mentality that has been so prevalent in this country as long as I can remember on his programme tonight (Driving Me Crazy on ITV1)… Gah!
The test on screen now is to see whether children can be seen standing behind a 4×4. Some responsibility has to be held by other road users — it is just unreasonable to subject 4×4s to different visibility requirements than vans.
I agree with the point of the programme: it would be better if people didn’t drive 4×4s. But the implication is that banning these cars from particular areas or from roads altogether is the answer to this.
May 15th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I enjoyed that program as well, lets hope that it will help persuade more people to give up these dangerous status symbols. Obviously a ban is no answer, but taxing them is an option though I’m sure it will not really affect a lot of the owners.
The driving instructor
May 15th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Tax is not the answer. Anyone who can afford these things when they are not relay necessary will not be bothered by tax which is small in comparison to the purchase price, and the person who needs them (farmers, etc) will be priced off the road.
Also if the ban what I don’t like attitude continues it will only be a matter of time before something you like is banned.
What is needed is a return to personal responsibility and community spirit, rather than I am OK it’s your problem.
How you get there, well if I had the answer…
May 15th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Quite right Fred. I’ll quote you on this in the future I think:
“if the ‘ban what I don’t like attitude’ continues it will only be a matter of time before something you like is banned.”
With pearls like that you should set-up a blog!
May 16th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Well, if we banned what we didn’t like then I would have to outlaw the people that park outside my house and the musical canon of James Last…
However the argument isn’t about that. A significant number of people think that 4×4s are more dangerous to other road users; that as fuel-inefficient vehicles they contribute unnecessarily to climate change; and that as large vehicles commonly used in cities they add to traffic congestion.
“Banning what I don’t like” is wrong, but if the debate is about banning dangerous, polluting congestion-causers then it’s a social and moral discussion.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
You’re not wrong Kolya. I do consider those things that cause harm to be the remit of government. I don’t know whether it is a moral discussion, but definitely a social one.
The question is, is the harm caused by these vehicles tangible or is the potential for harm so significant that the state should intervene. I am yet to be convinced but I am erring on the side of the state having no remit here.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Well, pedestrians hit by a 4×4 are more than twice as likely to die as those hit by a normal car (as per University of Michigan research); and the average 4×4 (and large MPVs too) emits twice the amount of CO2 as the average Mondeo. For more data, you could try the site of BRAKE, the road safety charity, which has plenty of good links.
Cars are dangerous enough to our health and safety already. I guess the debate here is along the lines of personal choice vs. societal responsibility which has characterised issues such as smoking and alcohol over the last few decades. Prohibition doesn’t work, but equally laissez-faire is creating a situation in which bigger, more dangerous and more polluting vehicles are appearing in larger quantities. Talk of banning is premature, but health warnings and actions which stigmatise 4×4 use in urban settings may redress the balance.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I see yet another program saying ban 4×4 but where was the balance showing how we farmers and small holders who produce your food use and know how to use our 4×4s propoerly
i have already suggested a solution to unnecessary urban tractors and heavy polluters tax according to post code sw15 3000 per annum b1 same areas like devon, cornwall, spmerset dorset etc where we have working tools that also fill in as family cars tax as normal 200 per annum and theres even a clause to catch second home owners who live in the cities but drive gas guzzlers
As far as the crash sensationalism i could create the same effect with many older cars which would create the same effect as they have chassis eg triumph 2000, herald and at sixty they dont stop well as a modern car.
May 20th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
i wonder if John Sargeant lives in a house which leaves a larger carbon footprint than me.
If we all drive the same cars wouldnt life be boring,
banning 4×4s would only start the do gooders on to sports cars then executive cars where will it end.