Paris to ban 4wd

emmemm

Yippee.Hope the world follows suit.

DukeDredd

Got a link to that story?

unkel

Great news

Heard the other day that 80% of all 4WD cars never leave the city boundaries in their lifetime...

Antisocial vehicles

Mailman

Note that this is a car manufacturing country that doesn't make 4X4 in any great quantities so it might be little more than an invisible barrier to trade but I wouldn't be sorry to see fewer 4X4 vehicles on the road.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5173020/

leeroybrown

Good riddance. The vast majority of 4x4/SUV sales are to people who don't need them. I used to live near three large secondary schools and every third car in the morning traffic going in that direction was a big 4x4 stuck in morning traffic with one parent and usually one kid.

seamus

Hmm.....
While I'm not fan of morons who drive these without cause, I'm not a fan of limiting people's freedom of choice either.

I'd rather see heavier taxation on them, or a surcharge on SUVs entering certain areas.

mike65

I'm just surprised "Red Ken" did'nt do something similair
before the Parisians did. Fair play though like Seamus there alot to be said for taxing the bejasus out of 4WD owners, I'd go for a weight/width/consumption formula so a Suzuki Jimmy would be ligtly taxed compared to
Hummer...

Mike.

JohnBoy

there alot to be said for taxing the bejasus out of 4WD owners

Ammm what about the people that need the pulling power or off road capability of them? tax the bejasus out of them too just because a bunch of morons also decide to buy the same type of vehicle?

there are a lot of people out there for whom a vehicle is more than just a fashion accessory.

John

Mailman

Ammm what about the people that need the pulling power or off road capability of them? tax the bejasus out of them too just because a bunch of morons also decide to buy the same type of vehicle?

Let them buy Citroen Diesels which was what people used to buy before these 4X4s became fashionable.

If they need off-road capability for work let them buy Landrover Defender pickups or vans and do the job right.

If they need to tow a yacht then I think they can afford to be taxed.

mike65

JohnBoy I was refering to city-slickers not country bumpkins!

Mike.

kdevitt

A program on Channel 4 a year or two back showed just how dangerous 4x4's are in comparision to normal cars. Because they sit so high, they completely avoid the impact bars on standard cars and generally cause fatalities at 30mph. At the time the programme was aired, 4x4s didn't need to be tested properly for road safety because they were classed as off-road vehicles...

Would agree with non-commercial ones being banned...

Kersh

Of course dont forget that there are 4x4 cars too, so Suv is a better definition if you all dont agree with them and want them off the road.

Kersh

To mailman...
Taxing people more jus cos they 'have a yacht' is the stupidest thing I have heard. They might have a yacht cos they got a bankloan. Have you ever considered that. I bet you are a FF supporter.

seamus

Originally posted by Kersh
To mailman...
Taxing people more jus cos they 'have a yacht' is the stupidest thing I have heard. They might have a yacht cos they got a bankloan. Have you ever considered that. I bet you are a FF supporter.

His point being, you don't buy a yacht unless you have the money to afford it. Even if someone did require a loan to get a yacht, it's a luxury purchase. You don't purchase luxury items unless you can afford them. People take loans out for cars and houses, and put themselves under considerable financial strain doing so. But for all intents and purposes aren't luxury items.

Anyone who puts themselves under financial pressure to purchase a luxury item is an idiot.

Mailman

Fianna Fail supporter?
I'm highly insulted : )

Taxation would be on the 4X4 to pull the yacht, not the yacht itself.

Definition of a yacht - commonly used to describe any boat prior to its purchase, and by many boat owners to describe their vessel to persons who have never seen it and are likely never to do so.

Kersh

Seamus,
That whole post of yours is pure BS. A pc is a luxury item to some people. You cant just heap taxes on everything jus cos someone is successful.
Affording drink is a luxury to some people too. So your definition of a luxury item depends purely on an individuals circumstances.
For instance, I dont earn enough to get a mortgage, but I have 2 'luxury cars'. So a house is a luxury item to me. Plenty of people break the bank to own a house...what idiots eh?

seamus

Originally posted by Kersh
A pc is a luxury item to some people

A PC is a luxury item to consumers, period.

Affording drink is a luxury to some people too.

Drink *is* a luxury item.

For instance, I dont earn enough to get a mortgage, but I have 2 'luxury cars'. So a house is a luxury item to me. Plenty of people break the bank to own a house...what idiots eh?

Sorry, I should distinguish between "luxury item" and "luxury expense". Accomodation and transport are not luxury expenses. A luxury item is something that you do not need, period. However it is possible to class a vehicle or a home as "luxury", despite them both being things that you need. A boat is a luxury item. No consumer needs a boat. Unless of course you're living on it, or you live in a lighthouse. In both cases you don't need an SUV to pull it. Which is the point of Mailman's post. If need an SUV to pull your private yacht, then extra taxation is an incidental cost of owning a boat, not an extra taxation on successful people.

Kersh

Then in that case eveything is a luxury item. The only thing you need is food/health.
The point is you cant jus come out and say 'more taxes please' jus cos someone has a boat/2nd house/big car.
We pay enough taxes in this country without resorting to luxury item taxes. People can drive what they like, as often as they like, and with as many occupants as they like. You all sound llike 1940s germans going on about 4x4s and how to get rid of them.

seamus

Originally posted by Kersh
We pay enough taxes in this country without resorting to luxury item taxes.

We already pay more tax on luxury items.

Kersh

I dont see how. We get taxed twice alright.
road tax/toll roads
income tax/ bin tax
vat/vrt
Its the great FF stealth tax method.

Soon there will be water charges, air charges, walking tax and fat tax. Thieves:mad:

PBC_1966

Soon there will be water charges, air charges, walking tax and fat tax. Thieves

There is already a tax tax! Just get something above a nominal amount sent to you from outside the EU and you'll be charged import duty and VAT. The only problem is that the VAT is calculated on the price after duty has been added. So you're paying VAT on the import tax! :mad:

I agree that there are many people with an SUV who probably don't need it, and a recent news item came up with similar figures for the U.K. -- Something like 95% of the SUV's in London never leave the city, or therabouts.

But I don't agree with banning the things from cities outright. People have already paid the exorbitant amount of tax on purchase, registration, license, and fuel to use them. To turn around and then tell people they can't actually use their vehicle for its intended purpose would be grossly unfair.

Also, spare a thought for those (mostly rural) people who do need an SUV or similar but who also need to drive their kids to school. It's unreasonable to expect them to buy, tax, insure, and maintain another small car just for the school run when the SUV would otherwise be sitting there idle.

Rabies

Originally posted by Mailman
Let them buy Citroen Diesels which was what people used to buy before these 4X4s became fashionable.

If they need off-road capability for work let them buy Landrover Defender pickups or vans and do the job right.

If they need to tow a yacht then I think they can afford to be taxed.

I do see a lot of "soccer mom" jeeps around. Most have something like a small Land Rover Freelander, Honda HRV or something like that. In my opinion they are jeeps for town and city people. That is who they are aimed it. Most of these jeeps will never drive over rough terrain or pull heavy loads.

Citroen diesels? Mailman, I don't what your talking about, I presume it is a 4x4 car.

Some people need a 4x4 for work. They are used for more than taking kids to school. Don't tar everyone with the same brush.

In my house we have 2 jeeps.
One is my fathers, a commerical Toyota Lancruiser. This is used for business. He spends his days driving on various sites around Ireland. I car isn't viable for the work he does. He often needs high ground clearence and pulls very heavy loads with him.
My mother has a Landrover Discovery. This is needed to bring the kids to school :eek: soccer mom i hear you say. A few times a week it is used to pull a horses box to the riding school and most weekends it is used to bring the horses to shows or sales. It is a passenger jeep. It is needed.

People should have the right to buy what ever car or jeep they want. But they should sit down and think about it first and ask is it really needed. If there is a genuine use for it then thats fine.

That yacht comment is stupid :rolleyes:

BrianD3

In my house we have 2 jeeps.
One is my fathers, a commerical Toyota Lancruiser. This is used for business. He spends his days driving on various sites around Ireland. I car isn't viable for the work he does. He often needs high ground clearence and pulls very heavy loads with him.
My mother has a Landrover Discovery. This is needed to bring the kids to school soccer mom i hear you say. A few times a week it is used to pull a horses box to the riding school and most weekends it is used to bring the horses to shows or sales. It is a passenger jeep. It is needed.

As regards pulling heavy trailers and horseboxes, I presume that both your parents have their EB trailer licence? Otherwise they're driving unlicenced and therefore uninsured. AFAIK, EB used to be issued automatically with B years ago, but in recent years it has changed so that you need to do an actual trailer test to be awarded an EB licence. Not a lot of people know that and and there are many, many people driving around towing trailers without having the correct licence for them.

As well as this, how many SUV owners check their handbook/VIN plate for the maximum trailer weight they're permitted to tow with their vehicle. Every day of the week I see muppets towing trailers that I know are too heavy for the towing vehicle. Eg today I saw a farmer using a Toyota Hilux to tow a hefty trailer with TWELVE round hay bales :rolleyes: Also there are many trailers out there that should have trailer brakes fitted but haven't. I believe that any trailer over 750 kg D.G.V.W is required to have trailer brakes, not 100% sure about that though.

BrianD3

Victor

Originally posted by PBC_1966
To turn around and then tell people they can't actually use their vehicle for its intended purpose would be grossly unfair.

You mean the intended purpose of showing off your flash motor? It's a little silly to claim city SUVs are being used for their "intended purpose".

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Also, spare a thought for those (mostly rural) people who do need an SUV or similar but who also need to drive their kids to school.

This is (a) why we have a school bus service (b) an awful lot of "rural" people work in towns and the SUV is not needed.

kdevitt

A few times a week it is used to pull a horses box to the riding school and most weekends it is used to bring the horses to shows or sales. It is a passenger jeep. It is needed.

People should have the right to buy what ever car or jeep they want. But they should sit down and think about it first and ask is it really needed. If there is a genuine use for it then thats fine.

There are **** loads of cars that are capable of towing a trailer and carrying several passengers, your father may need a jeep for his job, but your mother definitely doesn't. I'm sure you realise as well that most jeeps will kill a child at 8mph as opposed to 20/25mph or so in a standard car.... but of course, this is your 'right'

Mailman

Before 4X4s became commonplace people used Citroen BXs, CXs, XMs etc... to pull trailers because they had big torquey engines and self levelling suspension which meant they were very good for pulling Horse boxes, trailers, caravans, etc....

BrianD3

I'm sure you realise as well that most jeeps will kill a child at 8mph as opposed to 20/25mph or so in a standard car.... but of course, this is your 'right'

Yep. And when a jeep collides with a normal car, the damage is similar to the damage that would have occured had the car collided with a small truck. You need to pass a C1 driving test to drive a truck, yet you can drive a jeep on a car licence. I would like to see a special licence required to drive a jeep over a certain size/weight. This wouldn't really affect those who need a jeep for their work - they would just go and get the licence. But it might deter the D4 soccer moms who just wouldn't bother and would just get a conventional car instead.

With the present setup, someone can pass their test in a 1.0 litre Nissan Micra one day then the next day jump into a 4.2 litre Toyota Landcruiser Amazon. I think that's madness.

Not only do jeeps do a lot of damage in a crash, dopey jeep drivers who can't handle their jeeps properly are responsible for a lot of damage that occurs to other vechicles in car parks. I have seen this happen and been a victim of it myself.

And naturally enough, jeeps handle differently than cars and require a different driving style. You can get away with sloppy driving in a car that you wouldn't get a away with in a jeep. In a worst case scenario, you could end up rolling the jeep.

Don't even get me started on bullbars. Why do so many jeep owners feel the need to fit "armour" to the front of their vehicles. I suppose it's so their jeep will be protected in case they "have a crash" :rolleyes: I thought bullbars had been made illegal? I seem to remember that manufacturers have stopped offering bullbars as options but that there are plenty of aftermarket vendors willing to supply and fit them. I'd say at least 50% of the jeeps I see have some sort of armour protecting the front end. Obviously the comments I made earlier about the damage SUVs do to other road users are magnified if the SUV is fitted with bullbars.

BrianD3

Rabies

Originally posted by kdevitt
There are **** loads of cars that are capable of towing a trailer and carrying several passengers, your father may need a jeep for his job, but your mother definitely doesn't. I'm sure you realise as well that most jeeps will kill a child at 8mph as opposed to 20/25mph or so in a standard car.... but of course, this is your 'right'

The life span of a jeep constantly pulling 2 horses at least 3-4 times a week (some short drives others long) is a lot longer than a standard family car. Most cars (1.6L) would be able to pull a trailer with ease but would struggle on hills and rough ground. Horse show during the summer are in open fields, a 4x4 is needed if the ground is soft. We live pretty much in the country on the side of a steep hill, a car would struggle to make it up our drive way with a horsebox. Our jeep serves two purposes, it is a work jeep for the horses and passanger jeep for day to day running around. I'm from a big family, 7 kids. We need the extra space that a normal family car can't give.

I understand the point you are making about jeeps and the higher chance of death from a road accident to a pedestrain. The bumpers are higher than cars. This is because of the ground clearence that is needed. It can't be avoided.

Rabies

I think the idea of needing to sit a test for jeep is a good idea. I would have no problem doing it. Would deter soccer moms giving the rest of us a bad name.

you mentioned carparks. Just today i was in dublin the landrover. i was on the street. some guy drives in a little to fast in the space behind me and hits the back of my jeep. i get out and take a look. no damage done to my jeep because of the hitch on the back, it would be set higher than on cars. he had a small dent in the front of his car. he didn't seem to care about his car, neither did I.

Jeeps do handle different from cars. our two are totaly different. the landrover wouldn't hold the road as well as the toyota. acceleration and over all power is seriously different from the two.

Bull bars, don't use them. If we lived on a farm and the jeeps spent most of there time in fields then maybe then we would put them on. but right now there is no need.

BrianD3

Rabies I think we're more or less in agreement. If it sounded like I was anti-jeep, I'm not. Jeeps are OK, I just don't like many of the people who drive them without having any use for them and without being able to handle them properly.

I drive two 4WDs regularly myself, Mitsubishi L200 crew cab and a Landcruiser "Colorado" LWB. The Mitsubishi is the most uncomfortable vehicle I have ever driven, it bounces all over the road. Not surprising given that it has a live rear axle with cart springs i.e 1950's technology. Overall, it's an extremely crude vehicle and also has the turning circle of a bus. Terrible, terrible jeep. The Toyota is a million miles ahead of it in every way.

BrianD3

PBC_1966

Originally posted by Victor
You mean the intended purpose of showing off your flash motor? It's a little silly to claim city SUVs are being used for their "intended purpose".

I didn't think SUV's were considered that flashy, but if that is the case, couldn't the same argument be made for BMW drivers as well?

This is (a) why we have a school bus service

In the rural part of England where I live, there are plenty of kids who live off the beaten track where there isn't any school bus service and it would be uneconomical for the council to provide one. Wouldn't the same be true for many parts of Ireland, particularly the west?