4x4's put more polution in the air so should the people driving them pay towards environmentle damage they cause? Also there a death trap to anyone they are in collision with as they are more likley to hit kids at head hight, what does ya all think?
http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/help.htm
2006-08-27 06:53:53 · 21 answers · asked by Jabba_da_hut_07 4 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
I think this is a fair and intelligent question and could give some imformative answers, but it seems mud slinging has comenced and mostley from the pro urban 4x4ers.
The question of fuel usage - the fact, 4x4 uses 3 to 4 more times fuel than it's two wheel drive equivilent. Also insurance figures and official road statistics show especialy in the case of kids in collision with 4x4's come off much worse. 4x4's for people that need them ie: work or for those on rough terrain is great, but driving them around town centers is just plain stupid, shows a disregaurd for the environment, the air your kids breath and their saftey.
Granted, the idea of people that use more fuel being taxed via petrol pumps is the right way to go and to abolish the current road tax.
How far are status symbols going to go? (great question, not a reason to start mud slinging for morons) This seems the real reason of urban 4x4's and is promoted buy the advertising and for ones status within the local jungle!!
2006-08-27 22:14:09 · update #1
yes they should. I am upset that I have to breathe their fumes.
2006-08-27 06:58:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Err how do you define a 4x4?
what about a 1000cc Fiat Panda 4x4, would that count?
Or how about a 1.2 Subaru Justy 4x4?
Small cars , 4x4`s though.
If you mean the larger off road types don't they have abysmal fuel economy meaning that they use more fuel? Guess what , More fuel used is more tax paid to the government, so they are already paying more tax, plus the taxation banding on engine sizes for your road fund licence, also with modern engines the amount of pollution that is put out now by a well maintained engine is very little, no more lead in petrol, catalitic convertors, etc,
And how are they more likley to hit KIDS? Surley that is down to the driver, are you saying that 4x4 drivers go out to run over children?
By the way front of a 4x4 is Flatter than a car so the impact area is Larger thus causing less damage, with a car a child is more likley to get throw over the vehicle and have their head smashed to pices by the windscreen.
2006-08-27 14:19:13 · answer #2 · answered by Rich S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hello mate i do but don't agree with you some people are jealous of other people and some people have a life and more important things to worry about than what everyone else is doing but then saying that i do think that people that live in the city centres and don't really need a big 4x4 should perhaps get taxed in some way but people like my self that live in the sticks and get snowed in but need to get out to go to work to survive as my road is not gritted in bad weather and with out my 4x4 could not get to the gritted road i feel that my car is a needed tool and not a ego booster or Chelsae tractor but the at the end of the day I'm sure the people that really cant stand 4x4s wouldn't object to being recovered or assisted by a 4x4 and wouldn't moan until id helped them anyway i think its those cyclists that need to be taxed as they are a menace and a nuisance and think they own the road
2006-08-28 14:35:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, there are so many things to take into consideration rather than engine size. For instance I have a Vauxhall Vectra which is smaller than a 4x4 but I drive about 30,000miles a year. My boyfriend has a Porsche 4x4 which is alot newer and cleaner than my car and he only drives it about 5,000 miles per year therefore I'll be giving out more pollution than him. Also older cars pollute more. A lot of the newer 4x4 vehicles are actually less polluting. It would be completely unfair to make 4x4 drivers pay more.
2006-08-27 14:03:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yay! Another tree-hugging hippy that hates cars.
FACT. It is the likes of you that stupidly target 4x4 drivers for causing pollution - but drive an ancient car that spews out 10's of times more noxious carcinogens than a modern engine.
FACT. 4x4 drivers DO kill more pedestrians than 'average type cars' per collision. But if you can't see a 20 foot long, 7 foot wide and 6 foot tall lump of metal in the ROAD...or be socially responsible enough to teach your children to look for cars, stay at home.....
2006-08-27 15:29:16 · answer #5 · answered by creviazuk 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No as many new 4x4s put out far less pollution than a lot of older cars also we do pay more than car drivers when we fill up at the station.Also quite a few normal cars are 4x4 now.Do you mean all 4x4s or just Land Rover type veichles.
2006-08-27 14:11:44 · answer #6 · answered by delta9 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some people need a certain type of vehicle and if this is essential to them I think it unfair that they should be taxed just because many 4x4 have become a fashion accessory for the more well off . It does infuriate me to see so many of them in our towns and in terms of emissions and fuel use I think there is a strong argument for some kind of tax. but I can't see how it can be fairly implemented.
2006-08-28 10:14:04 · answer #7 · answered by Ellie G 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no i dont think they should be taxed more..i have a BMW but i soon think i will be needing a 4x4 as there are that many speed humps on the roads now and of course the pot holes..i had to have work done on my car last week springs(suspension)..i think its the humps causing this as there are a lot in my area
2006-08-27 14:03:10 · answer #8 · answered by doreen c 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
if everyone stuck to the speak limit & followed the highway code a bit more less people in general would get killed.
its a bit rich picking on car owners when great big factories in japan & usa spew out god knows how much pollution a day
2006-08-27 13:59:43 · answer #9 · answered by tjstarbe 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, Why not tax the people that drive really expensive cars, more the are more like to kill someone, I fell safer in my 4x4 then your Lexus grocery getter.
2006-08-27 15:11:16 · answer #10 · answered by UTGirl34 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
no, because emission laws are the same regardless of what size the vehicle is. so a small car that is putting out so much smoke it could choke a donkey shouldn't be taxed as much.
2006-08-27 14:02:16 · answer #11 · answered by tnolhead4x4rnnr 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋