Off-topic post: Urban 4x4s in the news again...
David Cameron, leader of the opposition in the UK, has been stirring up the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles - and quite rightly too. He's been attacked for his choice of a hybrid petrol/electric Lexus 4x4, which seems mad to me - this is a man who will nearly always have multiple passengers (colleagues, advisors etc) so how do they expect him to ferry them around in a Prius?
Please don[base ']t get me wrong, I[base ']m fiercely in favour of greater controls over emissions, and deeply disappointed at the lack of progress in recent years. But arguing about which hybrid vehicle sets the best example is nit-picking in the extreme when a greenhouse tax on aviation fuel could have a far greater impact on the problem (so long as the resulting revenues were ploughed back into environmental schemes).
And this news has stirred up the debate about urban 4x4s again. I have to declare an interest here - I own an old Land Rover, but in my defence I live in the country and I frequently need to go properly off-road (not just round the side of a polo field). I fully agree that it's time to deal with the menace of oversized, overpowered, wasteful vehicles driven by individuals who are not competent to safely control them.
So let's start by cutting through the cr*p here - the anti-4x4 lobby correctly argue that 4x4s are too big, inefficient and unsafe. But transit vans are also too big for domestic use, but plenty get used at weekends; and big executive saloons swan around drinking opious amounts of fuel, so once again this is not a problem that is unique to 4x4s.
The real issue here is large vehicles with 'pedestrian-unfriendly' bonnets and bumpers (when was the last time you saw bull bars anywhere? They've already disappeared from our roads) being driven too fast in urban areas. Frankly the issue of them colliding at speed on the open road is irrelevant, a head-on at 70mph is going to be bad news regardless of what type of vehicle is involved. Likewise, if a driver rolls their 4x4 by cornering too fast, well they should know better than that. No, the fact is that the place we want to see these things gone from is the middle of our towns and cities, and outside of our schools and playing fields.
And the problem drivers? No, it's not the farmers, rural inhabitants, 4x4 enthusiasts or tradesmen in their Land Rovers, Toyotas and Nissans. It's the mums taking kids to school in Guildford in Range Rovers; sales reps cruising around in Landcruisers; families going shopping in Warriors. They could just as easily go in fuel-guzzling Jaguars, big BMWs or high-visibility Galaxys, but none of these are guaranteed to kill a child in a pedestrian impact, and all of them will stop when you press the brake pedal.
The problem with these owners is that they will never go off-road (sorry, the edge of the school playing field doesn't count). Yet they have a powerful 4x4 and no training in how to use it either on- or off-road. This makes them a liability - many don't understand (or care about) the issues arising from a vehicle that is heavy, has a high centre of gravity, and a completely different transmission from anything they've driven before. I recently attended an event in which a lady Land Rover Discovery owner managed to get the vehicle stuck in an inch of mud, and then popped her head out of the window and asked of the assembled (and already laughing) crowd 'does this have 4 wheel drive?'
Banning the vehicles, or radically increasing their road tax, is simply not fair on many 4x4 drivers who need them, or at least can justify owning a 4x4 without being a menace. And there is a way to get these vehicles off the roads without unfairly punishing legitimate owners. Can you drive a lorry without a proper license? No. Can you drive a motorbike without a proper license? Certainly not. So why should 4x4's be allowed on the roads in the hands of people who have not been trained to use them?
Here's my reasonable, equitable, and sure-to-succeed plan:
1. Introduce a new driving license classification for '4x4 Utility' vehicles, that covers all large 4x4s. Anyone who wishes to drive a 4x4 without this classification should have 'L' plates on the vehicle and a competent passenger.
2. To qualify for this new classification, the driver must first pass a theory examination in which they demonstrate familiarity with the workings of a 4x4 transmission, the safety issues associated with the weight and centre of gravity of the vehicle, how to drive off road, how to recover a stuck vehicle, how to tow another vehicle etc. - all the things you need a 4x4 for.
3. The driver must then attend a one-day off-road driving course, in which they put all of the above into practice in an environment that is wet, muddy and generally suited to off-roaders. Most importantly, they must complete the course *IN THEIR OWN VEHICLE*. Not a school vehicle, or an instructor's vehicle. This is essential: it will weed out all of the unnecessary 4x4's that are geared for the road, and all of the unnecessary drivers who would hate to scuff their Guccis or break a nail.
4. Anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate commercial or domestic need for a 4x4 should be able to take the test for free. The cost to everyone else should not be subsidised by the taxpayer. The requirement for the new classification could be phased in over a three-year period.
This should very quickly deal with the problem of urban 4x4's without financial prejudice against those who genuinely need the vehicles. And while we await the next piece of legislation and increased road tax, maybe we can get on with discussing the real issues of CO2 emissions generated by our summer holidays and out-of-season salads in the supermarkets...
6:07:40 PM 
|
