Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
4x4 bashing - have your say
rollazuki:
This is too easy.
Find one you think is offensive, click the report box in the bottom
and report it as offensive.
It gets immediately removed............................
dew1911:
--- Quote ---
This is complete.... Stupidity.
I mean, are 4x4s really the problem here, or is the problem IRRISPONSABLE use of the 4x4. It's all fair and well to attack the 4x4, you have a right to an opinion and a right to make it known.
A Series 3 Land Rover 88" is a short vehicle, in fact, they are shorter than a Ford Mondeo. You get a better view of the road and you ARE helping the environment.
The Series 3 production was halted in the Late 80's, and surley by keeping said vehicle on the road you are not putting one more on the road, which would cause pollution to build that vehicle, and you're not causing pollution by scrapping your Land Rover.
I agree that the Chelsea tractor (BMW X3/X5) is a COMPLETE waste of space, but things like Discoverys, Defenders and Suzuki Jimny's are not, because they CAN actually be used off road, and people do use them.
At the end of the day, we're not going to be able to please everyone, but by attacking one group you are lowering yourself to the level of genocide, maybe without the killing, but it's not far off.
--- End quote ---
I'm quite proud of that :)
I wanted to call them all Hitler's, but that would have been pulled :(
Neil Jones:
I think people here are missing the point of the article. I totally agree with what the article is saying, that is that people in cities with no practical use for a 4x4 are harming the environment.
I dont think even the antis are against anyone owning a series 3, a rugged defender or disco. What they are against are sparkling discos, rangies and other makes such as BMW and Porche which are never used for the means that a 4x4 is required. If you have horses, put a sticker in the rear window or something else which highlights that you DO have a use for the vehicle.
I think that inner city 4x4's (Chelsea Tractors) are totally pointless and only cause damage to the environment, which we DO have a responsibility for.
Come on mud-clubbers, as responsible users of 4x4's we should not get hot-headed when people attack the Chelsea Tractors, instead realise that they are causing damage to the environment.
Instead of fighting off the arguements against 4x4's we could more constructively use our time and efforts to highlight that other cars, which aren't AWD can cause as much of a problem to the environment, and as they move faster and have less of a view of the road probably cause more accidents.
Bob696:
--- Quote ---Come on mud-clubbers, as responsible users of 4x4's we should not get hot-headed when people attack the Chelsea Tractors, instead realise that they are causing damage to the environment.
--- End quote ---
Thin end of the wedge and all that.
Ban urban 4x4s? Well thats me fubared then or should I have to get special permission to drive through a town? If I need special permission what reason do I give? "I go playing in mud some weekends you honour" ...... "not sure thats good enough young man, permission denied".
I suppose I could store out near some village somewhere and drive out to pick it up of a weekend and then there is the problem that I want to get to a play n play site the other side of kidderminster but I cant drive through kiddy anymore so I have to take a circular route (avoiding stourport).
If you let them ban 'chelsea tractors', either by legislation or tax, then we are all up poo creek without toilet paper.
As to causing damage to the enviroment that in itself is debatable. Greenhouse gasses from cows, running on veg oil/lpg, mpg and even is global warming man made at all :!:
It is a sad fact that society NEEDS to be scared of something. It used to be the USSR, now it global warming (in the 70s and 80s the same people were telling us that we were in for anew iceage btw).
Neil Jones:
I don't know wheter bans or taxes or what are most appropriate. Everyone is entitled to a hobby. I don't know what the solution is.
I guess what I'm concerned is about cars that use large amounts of fuel, for no reason whatsoever. I agree the cost to the environment of building a new car is far greater than the environmental cost of the fuel that is burnt.
Maybe by owning and occasionally driving an S3 I am being hypocritical, but I do everything I can to reduce the damage to the environment elsewheres to make up for it. i.e by driving a small fiesta the rest of the time, only doing about 60-65 on the motorway and not boyracing it. The same with the Landy, I know she goes slow, but if in traffic I cut the engine.
But the fact remains that the environment won't last forever at this current rate of distruction and we all have a role to play in trying to resolve the issue. Wheter your kids inherit a range rover, series, or disco they still inherit the planet. If people don't act responsibly by cutting down on emissions where they can the planet will be worthless to them.
I'm not saying we should all stop driving, but should be looking to ways we can cut down on emissions. It needs to be a personal decision wheter to buy an X5, Range Rover or daewoo matiz and no-one should be punished for whatever they choose. But it should be in your[sic] conscious as to whether you do your bit for the environment or not.
Please don't think I agree with all the antis are saying. But I do think that the article in question does have a point.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version