Chelsea Tractors

[JonFB]

...As for chelsea tractors, I ****** hate them, some of them are absolutely apalling, this is one thing I agree with Red Ken on, he is determined to wipe them out. I hope Britain follows the lead taken by some US states and bans them from town centres, or at least Ken congestion charges them off the road. Could easily be done; no private vehicle over a certain kerb wait should be allowed in the town, without special reasons (farmer Palmer pops into town in his Landy etc). I'm getting annoyed just thinking about them! Driving a ****** great 4x4 to drop the kids of at school...

Far be it for me to start some new controversial thread :roll: BUT:....

I live in the wilds of Norfolk but I can see why a townie would want to drive a 4x4. They are safe as houses (as long as your inside them, and not on the receiving end), and give you a good view of the road.

If they were cheap cars made by Proton :???: I'm not sure they would excite so many negative comments. Perhaps it's because some of them are so hugely expensive and a very visible sign of someone's wealth...

Why should someone be penalised for driving one of these beasties compared to a great lump of a BMW or Jag etc? (Also aren't there now 4x4s with more efficient engines so they actually are "better" than an old family saloon from twenty years ago?)

So having defended the city folk I am also concerned that this government are getting gee-ed up to start taxing 4x4 owners higher than others. My village is only accessible via single track country lanes. Needless to say we are not high on the gritters schedule in winter and it has been known for people to be cut off, 4x4s increase your chances of making it out.

Also the roads often flood to the point that normal cars are stupid to try and cross through a foot of water, whereby 4x4s sail thru.

Is it right that someone in the country should be penalised for a car that they can justify because of their location (or indeed needed for their work).

Isn't the bottom line that cars should be taxed on their impact to the environment not on their basic body style? So we don't penalise someone for driving a 4x4 but we do if it's hugely inefficient?

We don't seem to get many posts from ML drivers, do they have their own forum or are they too afraid to identify themselves...

Right, having lit the blue touchpaper I'll stand back and see what you guys think...:lol:



Jon

 

[Alfie]

Far be it for me to start some new controversial thread :roll: BUT:....

I live in the wilds of Norfolk but I can see why a townie would want to drive a 4x4. They are safe as houses (as long as your inside them, and not on the receiving end), and give you a good view of the road.

If they were cheap cars made by Proton :???: I'm not sure they would excite so many negative comments. Perhaps it's because some of them are so hugely expensive and a very visible sign of someone's wealth...

Why should someone be penalised for driving one of these beasties compared to a great lump of a BMW or Jag etc? (Also aren't there now 4x4s with more efficient engines so they actually are "better" than an old family saloon from twenty years ago?)

So having defended the city folk I am also concerned that this government are getting gee-ed up to start taxing 4x4 owners higher than others. My village is only accessible via single track country lanes. Needless to say we are not high on the gritters schedule in winter and it has been known for people to be cut off, 4x4s increase your chances of making it out.

Also the roads often flood to the point that normal cars are stupid to try and cross through a foot of water, whereby 4x4s sail thru.

Is it right that someone in the country should be penalised for a car that they can justify because of their location (or indeed needed for their work).

Isn't the bottom line that cars should be taxed on their impact to the environment not on their basic body style? So we don't penalise someone for driving a 4x4 but we do if it's hugely inefficient?

We don't seem to get many posts from ML drivers, do they have their own forum or are they too afraid to identify themselves...

Right, having lit the blue touchpaper I'll stand back and see what you guys think...:lol:



Jon

I agree with you.

However, the myth that 4x4's are somehow worse for the environment is just plainly out of control. As we know the methane produced by cows is far worse for the enviroment than all the cars in the world. So lets tax farmers heavily then if its environmental impact that is the concern. A 4x4 is no more harmfull to the environment than any other equally sized engined car. Fact.

It all these pathetic mamby pamby green types who have jumped onto a bandwagon they know nothing about spouting off about 4x4's when they do not (and in many cases wont listen to) the whole debate and all the facts. They target 4x4's because its an easy target. A symbol of the well off.

Why doesnt Red Ken ban aircraft from flying over London if he is worried about the planet? Aircraft are far more harmful than cars to the environment. Red Ken is simply an anti-car person. Witness the changing of the traffic light signalling. He has made it difficult for motorists to navigate around London - full stop. All he is interested in is raising taxes however he can - just like his lefty buddies in parliament.

The fireworks may commence!

 

[stumpy]

I don't think 4x4s are being singled out because of their boxy shape (except for pedestrian safety perhaps) It's just the media have seized upon that term to raise feeling amongst us. The Richmond thing and VED is done on emissions not size. My Peugeot 205 sits in the top VED band and that weighs 900 kg.

Banning 4x4s would be an impossible task - what about the small Nissan Xtrail? Looks like a 4x4 but is 2WD.

 

[NorthDownsMerc]

I don't think 4x4s are being singled out because of their boxy shape (except for pedestrian safety perhaps) .

<<Lights match>>

don't walk in the road when there's a car coming...problem solved.

<<Runs away screaming>>......

 

[jberks]

I don't know what your problem is.
Government policy is driven purely and sensibly by what happens throughout the UK as a whole.
What I suspect you don't understand (you are a thick country yokel after all) is that the UK consists of Westminster and that gorgeous, rural idyl that is Notting Hill. After all, why would anyone want to live anywhere else?

The fact that you have a car at all proves your utter contempt for the environment and your selfish attitude to others. Why you can't simply hail a black cab to the nearest tube station is beyond me. Failing that, you could ride your bike the few miles from your home in Notting Hill to your job in Central London, or get an electric car that is exempt from the congestion charge. There is an excellent bus service throughout the country with good old cockney drivers and friendly helpful staff. The UK recently did away with the old routemaster for your comfort and safety. This was a national news story as it affected the entire population. I had to wipe the nostalic tear from my eye (though I don't think I've seen one since 1974 but thats because I don't live in the UK but rather some far off irrelevant country called Yorkshire).

In this environment, the fact that you have a 4x4 is outrageous so stop whinging and get on the tube!
What ... there is no tube station? Then you don't live in the UK so who cares what you think!

Actually, I've just had a thought. Lets blow up all chelsea tractors. They are pointless after all. I can say this as my 'chelsea' tractor has never been near f'in chelsea! It's a Yorkshire tractor and so exempt from this insanity. We have mud and everything!

 

[gls5000]

I don't have a problem with 4x4s themselves, though I doubt many people's motives for having one (obviously there are perfectly good reasons like the starter of this thread) but many city dwellers have them, in my opinion, because of the subconscious feeling of dominance it gives them on the road.

But it's actually some of the drivers of them that get on my nerves. No doubt there are many exceptions but in recent history I cannot recall seeing a 4x4 driven by a man, and I have NEVER been let out of a junction by one (I think it goes back to the dominance thing). That's purely an observation.

 

[Hibbo]

I don't have a problem with 4x4s themselves, though I doubt many people's motives for having one (obviously there are perfectly good reasons like the starter of this thread) but many city dwellers have them, in my opinion, because of the subconscious feeling of dominance it gives them on the road.

But it's actually some of the drivers of them that get on my nerves. No doubt there are many exceptions but in recent history I cannot recall seeing a 4x4 driven by a man, and I have NEVER been let out of a junction by one (I think it goes back to the dominance thing). That's purely an observation.

Absolutely right, it is a dominance thing, the mumtrucks think they have right of way over everyone.

As for them being "safe as houses" to those inside them; did anyone see Top Gear a couple of years ago when they were going on about crash safety and ncap ratings etc? They had a (then) new Landrover Discovery on there that had been in an ncap test, it was either 2-star or 3-star, anyway, the steering column was about a foot back and the brake pedal was at stomach level. I would not have liked to be sat in one of them in a smash. Don't get too carried away with American thinking 'bigger = safer', not neccessarrily. Also Chelsea tractors tend to have a much higher centre of gravity and so are more prone to toppling over.

I know it is unfair to immediately judge an entire group of drivers by the type of vehicle they drive, just as happens with Merc drivers or BWM drivers etc etc, but it is fun! Seriously though, they are en easy target for people like me, and the media.

Honestly; how many people who buy a Chelsea Tractor have got ANY intention of EVER taking it off-road? Yes yes, I can hear it already 'blah blah, why do people buy 155mph sports cars blah blah ****** blah'. A sports car doesn't stop me seeing past it on the road and doesn't take an acre to park.

As for my '20 year old family saloon' (23 year old actually), as I said in the ohter thread it runs on vegetable oil, a fully renewable and carbon neutral fuel, so my concience is clear. In fact if I'm going to get on my high horse, the amount of energy used (and therefore emmisions created) in making a car far outway the emmisions the car will produce during its typical life, so it could be argued that driving an old motor is the environmentally aware thing to do - especially if it runs on biofuels!

If you do live in the sticks then I have no issue with you owning an entirely practical vehicle. But come on; people who buy a huge 4x4 to take the kids to school and do the shopping in, get a grip.

Banning/charging them differently could be done simply on kerb weight, that way there can be no calls that certain styles of vehicle are being discriminated against. Mind you my w123 may be pushing it on that front Commercial vehicles would obviously be exempt.

I know there are loads of agruments to be trotted out (I've got a bad back and need a high vehicle, etc) but these apply in very few cases. I'm sorry, there can be no moral justification in Mrs Brockington-Hutherway driving a huge great farmer's wagon when the most tretcherous terrain she is likely to meet is the throng of pedestrians trying to cross the road.

 

[television]

I have to gree with Hibo and GLS5000, my main objection is the way they are driven, middle of the road,never give way, and drive straight at you 90% are women drivers, few are very safe like the XC70 etc, the rest of them are not.
the roads around Dorset cant take them,and its unfair to drivers of normal cars.


Malcolm

 

[5imon]

I have to gree with Hibo and GLS5000, my main objection is the way they are driven, middle of the road,never give way, and drive straight at you 90% are women drivers, few are very safe like the XC70 etc, the rest of them are not.
the roads around Dorset cant take them,and its unfair to drivers of normal cars.


Malcolm

The footprint of an ML is no bigger then an SL/CL/S class.......

 

[johnmc]

Hmm,
Members of my extended family have lived in the Scottish Countryside for years, and did without 4x4s. One of the four has recently bought a 4x4, X-trail I believe, and the others totally wind them up. They coped just fine without one for years, why start now. I can see the attraction for bad country weather, but being a towny can't see any point. My estates and MPVs have been and will continue to be superior cars.

Sorry!
John

 

[television]

The footprint of an ML is no bigger then an SL/CL/S class.......

Why did you have to say that, its spoilt it all now, in fact the SL is bigger than my V70,( but don't tell anyone )

Malcolm

 

[SLinKyjoe]

).
We don't seem to get many posts from ML drivers, do they have their own forum or are they too afraid to identify themselves...

Jon

they are too busy having them fixed, so they dont come on here much:grin:
that should get some exploding!!

 

[big x]

However, the myth that 4x4's are somehow worse for the environment is just plainly out of control. As we know the methane produced by cows is far worse for the enviroment than all the cars in the world. So lets tax farmers heavily then if its environmental impact that is the concern. A 4x4 is no more harmfull to the environment than any other equally sized engined car. Fact.

It all these pathetic mamby pamby green types who have jumped onto a bandwagon they know nothing about spouting off about 4x4's when they do not (and in many cases wont listen to) the whole debate and all the facts. They target 4x4's because its an easy target. A symbol of the well off.

Methane ? What on earth are you talking about.If you think vehicles don't pollute start one up in a closed garage and see what happens! The carbon dioxide and Nox will kill you. A 4x4 with the same engine but using less road area than a large estate car is more harmful because it is less efficient moving from A to B. A higher drag figure,more friction from the tyres,more friction from the beefed up drivetrain and more weight..that is the true fact.Check out BMW and MB catalogues for the figures.

adam

 

[Tony]

Chelsea tractors are not safer than cars - not for those in them and particularly not for those outside them, be they pedestrians or other cars. They were exempted from some of the safety legislation (e.g. bumper height) on the grounds that they were going to be mainly driven off road. Yet another case of the government getting things spectacularly wrong.

They pollute more for the simple reason that they have the aerodynamics of a brick and are very heavy. Simple physics.

They give their drivers a better view of the road but only at the expense of everybody else's view of the road. They also cause congestion in urban areas wher eroads were never designed for huge vehicles. They're basically a big two fingers to the environment and other road users.

The legislation I'd like to see is:
- Restrict them to 50mph and ban them from the outside lane on motorways
- Pass legislation to limit the width of vehicle that can be parked on the public road. There already is some legislation but it doesn't seem to be enforced.

This should diminish their popularity, without being of too much inconvenience to those people who for one reason and another actually need this type of vehicle.

 

[jberks]

The legislation I'd like to see is:
- Restrict them to 50mph and ban them from the outside lane on motorways
- Pass legislation to limit the width of vehicle that can be parked on the public road. There already is some legislation but it doesn't seem to be enforced.

This should diminish their popularity, without being of too much inconvenience to those people who for one reason and another actually need this type of vehicle.

If you are referring to Chelsea tractors, then do what you like. The London only muppets with 4x4s can be shot as a local sporting activity for all I care.

However if you include Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire etc tractors then a little harsh perhaps. Perhaps an extended driving test before you can drive one. Questions such as "Is this a cow or a sheep?", "Name 2 manufacturers of shovels" and "How much dung can you get in a wheelbarrow?"
Seriously, the issue is that few people need a 4x4 every day, but many of us do from time to time. I'm basically a townie, I drive an E class, but when I need to get a horsebox down a muddy track, through a field and into a yard, the Merc just ain't going to cut it!
That said, when a mum at the kids school was stuck a couple of years ago, all the mums in their freelanders just looked on. It was me that towed them off the field, in the E class!

 

[Speedmaster]

Until a couple of months ago we had a Porsche Cayenne (DO NOT buy one ever ever ever!!) and a number of times had sticker put on it in supermarket carparks by the "green brigade" who took great offence to it. Now, I must be honest and say it never ever went near any mud in a year of ownership (I was too busy crying from the depreciation). I do think the chealsea tractor thing is a bit daft and they are v popular up here with the urban mums. But this did not put me off. The £1k of tyres every 7/8000 miles, awful seats, useless climate control, rude dealers and horrific depreciation was the killer. In a year I lost far more than the value of my 1999 Sl320, so will not be spending that sort of money on a car like that again.

I do miss the awesome noise fromt he quad exhausts though:grin:

 

[JPM993]

I do own an ML and to be honest, can see both sides of the picture on this one. What makes me laugh is that my E500 uses a lot more petrol, goes through tyres quicker, is around the same footprint and would hurt someone just as much as the ML if I crashed into them, but the greenies are fine with that!

The ML is really practical, I do live in the sticks and it does give some added confidence (to my wife) during the winter months.

That being said, most of the mothers at our kids schools also drive all sorts of 4x4s and most haven't got a clue how to drive them. I hate dropping the kids off, it's painful to watch them trying to negotiate the thin roads. They also take up more than their fair allocation in car park spaces (well, it is a big car you know!!).

So, is the question that 4x4s are a pain, or that mothers driving 4x4s are the real issue!

On a seperate note, the E500 has seen the inside of the dealer repair facilities far more than the ML, which in it's 2 years have only been in for servicing only. Granted, the ML is not the best put together car, but the same can be said for most current Mercs (IMO), but I still continue to buy them!

 

[Rory]

I'm sure most women that buy/drive then do because they feel a sense of invulnerabilty (which is also why they won't give way to anybody). They're also very useful for coping with today's pot-holed roads and speed humps.

 

[Tony]

If you are referring to Chelsea tractors, then do what you like. The London only muppets with 4x4s can be shot as a local sporting activity for all I care.

Agreed. The trouble is that under this insane government only criminals are allowed to carry firearms.

 

[Alfie]

Chelsea tractors are not safer than cars - not for those in them and particularly not for those outside them, be they pedestrians or other cars. They were exempted from some of the safety legislation (e.g. bumper height) on the grounds that they were going to be mainly driven off road. Yet another case of the government getting things spectacularly wrong.

They pollute more for the simple reason that they have the aerodynamics of a brick and are very heavy. Simple physics.

They give their drivers a better view of the road but only at the expense of everybody else's view of the road. They also cause congestion in urban areas wher eroads were never designed for huge vehicles. They're basically a big two fingers to the environment and other road users.

The legislation I'd like to see is:
- Restrict them to 50mph and ban them from the outside lane on motorways
- Pass legislation to limit the width of vehicle that can be parked on the public road. There already is some legislation but it doesn't seem to be enforced.

This should diminish their popularity, without being of too much inconvenience to those people who for one reason and another actually need this type of vehicle.

Rubbish.

The physics dont stack up either. Lets ban all transits and lorries and coaches as well then. 4x4's have pretty good aero dynamics actually far better than many older cars and all commercial vehicles.

If you are going to comment on an issue, at least consider all the points first. Lets face it even the greens now admit that to produce and then eventually dispose of these hybrid cars is far more harmful to the environment than conventional cars.

This debate surfaces every few months and years and will rage on and on ad infinitum. What is certain to happen is that increased taxation of any 'easily identifiable' groups of user will continue.