car seats

[2scoops0406]

3 kids, tell me about it, about as awkward as it gets, always one left over. Try going to a funfair or a family swim, Jeez!

 

[eggplant]

This is the reason we got a 4x4 in that with most cars you cannot fit 3 baby, child or booster seats in them. I couldn't bear the thought of an MPV.

Mind the new tax Ignore comments from the shedless fool, I was also looking at a 4 x 4 for work use - simply for the practicalities same as you (different practicalities of course...) but the new ideas they have about tax put me off at the moment.
We used to have a Zafira, and also a Galaxy (not at the same time) and to be honest, I hated the idea of the Galaxy, but when you get in it, it isnt at all like you would imagine - nothing like driving a tranny van at all ! and in all honsty, the zafira wasnt THAT much diffrent from the vectra to drive - and not really that bad looking.

As for causing damage to other road users, fit a bigger horn if it concerns you that much or dont run into people without side impact bars - you know, the ones that will cause more front end damage to an older car than the car thats hit.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ban, I'm sorry, mate, but I think you're losing it lately.

What basis do you have for what you say?

Listen to the common arguments that people use to justify their use of "4x4 off-road type vehicles" in urban environments. (I use that phrase in quotes to try and forestall some wally pointing out that some Porsche 911s and Audi saloons etc are 4x4s, and that vehicles like Honda CR-Vs are normally 2x4 and are pretty crap off-road).

As soon as you hear someone say "they are safer in an accident" you are listening to someone who has decided to buy his and his family's safety at the expense of other road users. The only thing that makes those vehicles safer in an accident is that they suffer less damage than the other vehicle(s), i.e. the owner has elected to crush lighter vehicles to avoid his receiving more damage.

And then, of course, there's the data from insurance companies and official crash tests that show that their poor dynamic performance results in those types of vehicles being more likely to have accidents in the first place.

So the two aspects together represent a pretty unpleasant combination of selfishness and callousness on the part of the owners of those vehicles.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, well possibly, but as you don't know where I live, and what my circumstances are, a little bit presumptous. As Gary_M was slagged off for making what were perceived as unthinking remarks recently, I would politely point you to here to aid you in perhaps a slightly more informed and balanced view.

For the record, however, I live in a very rural setting with very few pedestrians, lots of farms, and I even take it off road, admittedly only recently and for pleasure purposes only.

For the record, the only reason you gave for buying a 4x4 was that you couldn't bear the thought of buying an MPV.

Furthermore as we live in a supposedly free country I am allowed not to like MPV's.

I like handguns - could I have some please? I don't intend to kill anyone with one.

Why single out 4x4's you could just as easily hang a reckless tag on people who buy high powered 2 seat sports cars. I'm suprised that so many people jump on an ill informed populist bandwagon.

A high powered 2 seat sports car driven legally in an urban environment is not more likely to kill other road users in an accident than an ordinary car.

A high and heavy "4x4" driven legally in an urban environment is more likely to kill other road users in an accident than an ordinary car.

Quote from NCAP

21. Can results be compared between different categories of cars?
No. Results should only be compared within the same group. The frontal testing method mirrors a crash between two similar sized cars. The Euro NCAP tests cannot be used to predict the outcome of such crashes between cars of different heights and masses.

Handy for you.

Lets say I offered you a choice. You are to be a driver in a head-on crash between two vehicles. One is a "4x4" the other is a Ford Focus.

Which vehicle do you choose to drive, and why?

 

[2scoops0406]

I like handguns - could I have some please? I
don't intend to kill anyone with one.

Please tell me you're not comparing a 4x4 with a handgun

A high and heavy "4x4" driven legally in an urban environment is more likely to kill other road users in an accident than an ordinary car.

So is a van or a lorry, or a very young driver, or a very old driver or a drunk / drug driver or an incompetant driver. There are many variables.

Lets say I offered you a choice. You are to be a driver in a head-on crash between two vehicles. One is a "4x4" the other is a Ford Focus.

Which vehicle do you choose to drive, and why?

Lets say I offered you a choice. You are to be a driver in a head-on crash between two vehicles. One is a BMW 7 series the other is a Ford Focus.

Which vehicle do you choose to drive, and why?

Point is if you want totally equality, we're all going to have to drive exactly the same cars.

Incidentally you may like to know that drivers of 4x4's don't come off very well in accidents with other vehicles, really the only major difference is the height of the vehicle which I accept if you hit a pedestrian then you are more likely to kill them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Please tell me you're not comparing a 4x4 with a handgun

No - I was responding to your "Furthermore as we live in a supposedly free country I am allowed not to like MPV's. ", by pointing out that living in a free country and liking something does not mean that you are automatically allowed to have that something.

A high and heavy "4x4" driven legally in an urban environment is more likely to kill other road users in an accident than an ordinary car.

So is a van or a lorry, or a very young driver, or a very old driver or a drunk / drug driver or an incompetant driver. There are many variables.

Indeed there are. So why not remove as many as possible? Vans and lorries and buses have to be big.

5 seat cars for use in towns and cities do not have to be big.

Point is if you want totally equality, we're all going to have to drive exactly the same cars.

There is a difference between calling for a reduction in gross and unnecessary inequality, and total equality.

Incidentally you may like to know that drivers of 4x4's don't come off very well in accidents with other vehicles, really the only major difference is the height of the vehicle which I accept if you hit a pedestrian then you are more likely to kill them.

And that is reason enough for deprecating the unnecessary operation of those types of vehicles in environments where their specialist capabilities are not required.

 

[Steve]

Lets say I offered you a choice. You are to be a driver in a head-on crash between two vehicles. One is a BMW 7 series the other is a Ford Focus.

Which vehicle do you choose to drive, and why?

The BMW - at least i'd die happy

Anyone see the demonstration on 5th gear (that channel 5 motoring programme with that nice bird called vicky and that bloke called tiff ) where they pretended to be on a motorway taking a standard evasive manoeuvre (think they were doin 50 or 60) - jerked the wheel to avoid another car with a stupid driver in it, and the 4x4 rolled over for about 60 yards I just thank god i dont own a 4x4!

 

[Slogger]

DO as i do if you have the need to transport a lot of people about even kids

buy a small minibus ie a transit swb with 8 seats and your sorted much better than any 4x4 or people carrier and you can use the bus lanes

sorted

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And in London you are exempt from the congestion charge.

 

[2scoops0406]

DO as i do if you have the need to transport a lot of people about even kids

buy a small minibus ie a transit swb with 8 seats and your sorted much better than any 4x4 or people carrier and you can use the bus lanes

sorted

It's got 8 seats, and can go off road, useful for the pony club don't you know a ford transit simply wouldn't do.

 

[2scoops0406]

Lets say I offered you a choice. You are to be a driver in a head-on crash between two vehicles. One is a BMW 7 series the other is a Ford Focus.

Which vehicle do you choose to drive, and why?

The BMW - at least i'd die happy

Anyone see the demonstration on 5th gear (that channel 5 motoring programme with that nice bird called vicky and that bloke called tiff ) where they pretended to be on a motorway taking a standard evasive manoeuvre (think they were doin 50 or 60) - jerked the wheel to avoid another car with a stupid driver in it, and the 4x4 rolled over for about 60 yards I just thank god i dont own a 4x4!

Do you think perhaps it was a bit sensationalised? 4x4's are rife round here, a lot of them for farm use. As I've said before, you should not drive a 4x4 as if you were driving a "normal" car, they don't handle in quite the same way as a car, but they don't flip over at the slightest provocation either, if they did they'd be no use off road anyway. Braking distances are a bit longer.

As soon as you hear someone say "they are safer in an accident" you are listening to someone who has decided to buy his and his family's safety at the expense of other road users. The only thing that makes those vehicles safer in an accident is that they suffer less damage than the other vehicle(s), i.e. the owner has elected to crush lighter vehicles to avoid his receiving more damage.

Then they are being a bit daft, because if they are driving a proper 4x4, it doesn't offer the same protection as a standard saloon car in that it doesn't have the same crumple zones that a car has. Also 4x4's are usually driven slower than cars, worth remembering that kinetic energy whilst proportional to the mass of an object, is proprtional to the square of the objects velocity.

 

[Thermo]

As soon as you hear someone say "they are safer in an accident" you are listening to someone who has decided to buy his and his family's safety at the expense of other road users. The only thing that makes those vehicles safer in an accident is that they suffer less damage than the other vehicle(s), i.e. the owner has elected to crush lighter vehicles to avoid his receiving more damage.

And then, of course, there's the data from insurance companies and official crash tests that show that their poor dynamic performance results in those types of vehicles being more likely to have accidents in the first place.

So the two aspects together represent a pretty unpleasant combination of selfishness and callousness on the part of the owners of those vehicles.

So you'd rather give your family less protection would you?

As for the last comment you dont half come out with some holier than though clap trap.

I suspect the reply to this will be dissected and quoted and cross quoted and run to about half a page. By the way i dont nor have i ever owned a 4 x 4.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you'd rather give your family less protection would you?

So you'd buy yours' by deliberately doing something that increases the risk to mine, would you?

 

[Thermo]

id buy a vehicle that offers the most protection for my family, taking on board other factors such as comfort etc. if you choose to buy something that offers less for your family thats up to you. you could just as easily be branded selfish by buying something on the basis that it offers a higher speed, rather than safety. Since speed is the major contribution in the majority of accidents would that make you selfish?

 

[2scoops0406]

So you'd rather give your family less protection would you?

So you'd buy yours' by deliberately doing something that increases the risk to mine, would you?

Charity begins at home.