Even though they can be proved to be the drivers that leave the smallest carbon footprint when environmental issues are concernec and also the drivers that use their vehicles for the transportation of more than one person. I am sure that the vast majority of Citroen Saxo etc drivers only ever have themselves in the car and drive in and out of work with indemnity from abuse because they are driving a little car. Most 4X4 and people carriers are driven with at least one or more passengers. This I think says that these are best.
2007-02-07 06:36:53 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Other - Cars & Transportation
Ok prove it. Thought not, nothin but MOOT (look it up)
2007-02-07 06:40:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are confusing your arguments. Agreed, it is difficult to defend driving a car with one passenger in it, as it is clearly resource heavy. So, if you are on your own, try and use an alternative means of transport wherever possible. It doesn't matter what type of car you are talking about.
However, most 4x4 cars take at most 4 or 5 people - people carriers are really a different class of vehicle. So a full 4 x 4 car is more environmentally damaging than, say, a full Ford Ka. A 4 x 4 with one person in it is more environmentally damaging than a Ka with one person.
The engine size and fuel consumption is far in excess of what most 4 x 4's are actually used for: that is, in town driving. They are (agreed) much safer for the occupants, but much more dangerous for other road users.
That's why.
2007-02-07 06:55:40 · answer #2 · answered by hallam_blue 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't hate 4x4s when they're used for the proper purpose - off road utility for farming, forestry and the like.
I do hate them when they're used in urban envirnoments. They're not for supermarket car parks or the school run. They're simply too big for british roads and car parks and, in my experience, most of the urban owners can't drive them properly.
Anyway, how you can argue that a vehicle that does 20-30 miles per gallon of fuel has a small carbon foot print? I have a small car (not a saxo!) and it is very efficient at 70 miles per gallon, cheap to run and I'll bet has a far smaller carbon footprint than any chelsea tractor you can show me.
2007-02-07 07:05:48 · answer #3 · answered by indie_girl79 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is obvious that not every one hates 4*4s because there are so many on the road.
I don't personally hate them but I do wonder why so many people find it necessary to drive - what is after all - an off road truck which is very heavy on fuel. Why not just buy a useful vehicle like a transit.
And as to number of people in the car - I have seen just as many 4*4s with one in as any other car.
2007-02-07 07:01:35 · answer #4 · answered by Freethinking Liberal 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about Europe, but in the US, 4x4 drivers are the most aggressive, dangerous, and destructive people on the road. And they are most likely to drive singly and wastefully.
In snow, 4x4 drivers in the warmer parts of the US are the first to get themselves stuck, because they think that because they have 4 wheel drive, they can do anything, and so they quite often spin out or get stuck, and hold everyone else up.
More universally, how can a 4-ton SUV that gets 14 miles to the gallon have a smaller carbon footprint than a tiny little city car? One which might get over 40 miles to the gallon?
I think you might have been suckered by a statistical manipulation put out by industry apologists. Please study the matter further.
2007-02-07 06:51:04 · answer #5 · answered by wannabe 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
They are climate destroying gas guzzlers. I don't understand how you can claim they have a small carbon footprint. That is absurd.
Hardly anybody actually needs one. Many drivers think they are safer in them especially mums with children, but that is an illusion. They are more dangerous to other drivers and pedestrians. Some even still have lethal bull bars on the front. I am a working farmer and I manage well without one.
2007-02-07 06:56:27 · answer #6 · answered by Charles D 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I only hate the mothers that live in the city and attempt to drive one, never even attempted proper 4x4 driving in the country.
Why use it to take little tommy to school then choir practise, when you only live 5 minutes from the school anyway. And these women can never park them.
2007-02-08 07:52:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the people that drive them think they are safe (you're more likely to crash in a 4x4), they have no crumple zone, they hardly ever come with the ENCAT rating, they guzzle petrol/diesel - for starters.
However I love proper Landrovers, not Discoveries or Freelanders
2007-02-07 06:44:08 · answer #8 · answered by fact_hunt_1970 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are really annoying in supermarket car parks cos when they park on the end of the row near a junction you can't see oncoming traffic
also they are usually driven by some exec's wife to ferry one small kid to school and they never pull over on single track back country roads
2007-02-07 06:48:39 · answer #9 · answered by hkvbs 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If you had the same driving habits in an economy car, you'd be doing even better.
This is the dumbest argument I've seen in a long while.
2007-02-07 06:54:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have one and usually its full with kids and dogs whenever we use it. As a point of interest we used to have a BMW and got just as much stick over that. Fuel wise its no worse than any large car 4X4 and BMW do about the same to the gallon round town.
2007-02-07 06:52:59 · answer #11 · answered by motomarco9999 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋