Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:44:21 on Tue, 15 Feb
2005, Dave Arquati remarked:

Neil Williams wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:28:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")

Quite, and things like Suzuki Jimnys and, indeed, that tiny Fiat (I
think) 4x4 car are not anything like as big, nor for that matter is my
88" Land Rover, which is about the length of your typical small hatch
(hardly a Chelsea tractor, mind, more a normal tractor!)

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller
than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so
the car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.

And you've seen this happening in practice?

From personal experience outside London. I can't see why it would be
any different in London, and I know that one major claim used against
4x4s is that they make life more difficult for other motorists.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , at 19:04:38 on Tue, 15 Feb
2005, Dave Arquati remarked:
One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit
taller than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind
it, so the car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.
And you've seen this happening in practice?

From personal experience outside London. I can't see why it would be
any different in London, and I know that one major claim used against
4x4s is that they make life more difficult for other motorists.

So you'd ban vans and buses from Central London on the same principle?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:04:38 on Tue, 15 Feb
2005, Dave Arquati remarked:

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit
taller than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car
behind it, so the car behind must keep more distance in order to
retain visibility.

And you've seen this happening in practice?


From personal experience outside London. I can't see why it would be
any different in London, and I know that one major claim used against
4x4s is that they make life more difficult for other motorists.

So you'd ban vans and buses from Central London on the same principle?

Of course not. Vans and buses are necessary; in many cases, 4x4s are
not. Besides, I was just quoting one of the many arguments floated
against their use in the city.

I never even suggested banning 4x4s from central London. There are other
measures which could be taken to reduce their use.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:19:30 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

I never even suggested banning 4x4s from central London. There are other
measures which could be taken to reduce their use.

That may well be where we differ. I don't see why a 4x4 vehicle
should be considered any different from any other vehicle, in Central
London or otherwise. We may well want a target to reduce the numbers
of private motor vehicles in general in London, but to target a
specific type of *transmission* in such an ill-informed manner is not
a good idea.

I say transmission, because 4x4 vehicles come in many shapes and
sizes, the only thing they *all* have in common being power
transmission to all wheels in some way. Only *some* of them are Range
Rovers, Discoverys etc, and as has been stated even those don't take
as much road space (on the horizontal plane) as people think.

I'm not convinced by the vertical plane argument, as I would have
thought most drivers don't look ahead through other cars as a means of
seeing the road ahead, as visibility is that poor that way.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:19:30 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:


I never even suggested banning 4x4s from central London. There are other
measures which could be taken to reduce their use.


That may well be where we differ. I don't see why a 4x4 vehicle
should be considered any different from any other vehicle, in Central
London or otherwise. We may well want a target to reduce the numbers
of private motor vehicles in general in London, but to target a
specific type of *transmission* in such an ill-informed manner is not
a good idea.

I say transmission, because 4x4 vehicles come in many shapes and
sizes, the only thing they *all* have in common being power
transmission to all wheels in some way. Only *some* of them are Range
Rovers, Discoverys etc, and as has been stated even those don't take
as much road space (on the horizontal plane) as people think.

I do understand the argument you're putting across - and it's valid; it
would be silly to target the type of transmission. However, within the
4x4 class, there are a whole set of vehicles that could be classified as
a nuisance - for safety reasons (for the occupants and for other
motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) and environmental reasons. Perhaps
these factors should be concentrated on.

There are also practical factors - the large Range Rovers etc. seem to
have trouble manoeuvring into parking spaces or around each other in
narrow streets, and that has implications for traffic flow. Other bulky
vehicles like vans tend to be driven by people more experienced with
such manoeuvres.

I'm not convinced by the vertical plane argument, as I would have
thought most drivers don't look ahead through other cars as a means of
seeing the road ahead, as visibility is that poor that way.

It's not just the vertical place - as the Range Rover-type vehicles have
a larger cross-section, you have to keep a greater distance to see
things either side of the car.

I find looking through the vehicle ahead gives greater visibility (i.e.
some) of the road ahead than not looking through it (i.e. none).

Conversely, drivers of taller vehicles also have worse visibility of
smaller objects like children, especially to the rear. It's said that in
the States (where I accept that SUVs are generally even larger than the
equivalent here), every year around 80 children are killed by parents
who reverse SUVs and hit them because they can't see them.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:54:16 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

I do understand the argument you're putting across - and it's valid; it
would be silly to target the type of transmission. However, within the
4x4 class, there are a whole set of vehicles that could be classified as
a nuisance - for safety reasons (for the occupants and for other
motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) and environmental reasons. Perhaps
these factors should be concentrated on.

Perhaps so. I would expect to see old brick-style Volvo estates, for
example, being targeted in the same way. These may be lower, but are
just as wide and far longer than most SUVs (which is probably a better
term to describe the vehicles concerned) and probably pollute as much.
I doubt they're all that well-designed in terms of crashworthiness for
pedestrians or cyclists, either.

There are also practical factors - the large Range Rovers etc. seem to
have trouble manoeuvring into parking spaces or around each other in
narrow streets, and that has implications for traffic flow. Other bulky
vehicles like vans tend to be driven by people more experienced with
such manoeuvres.

MX is that dangerous and stupid driving of large vehicles is most
likely to be seen in two types of drivers - white van man and
taxi/minicab drivers. Both of these should act professionally with
their vehicles, but often IMX do not.

It's not just the vertical place - as the Range Rover-type vehicles have
a larger cross-section, you have to keep a greater distance to see
things either side of the car.

I presume you mean "wider", as this is not necessarily the case.
Refer to the figures other posters have contributed.

I find looking through the vehicle ahead gives greater visibility (i.e.
some) of the road ahead than not looking through it (i.e. none).

Each to their own. Even on the rare occasion that I do drive a
normal-height car (not often - only if I'm at my parents' house
without my own car, as I'm still on their insurance for such
situations) I wouldn't say I do to any extent. I'm more likely to
keep sufficient distance to either work with what I can see, or to see
around the sides.

Conversely, drivers of taller vehicles also have worse visibility of
smaller objects like children, especially to the rear. It's said that in
the States (where I accept that SUVs are generally even larger than the
equivalent here), every year around 80 children are killed by parents
who reverse SUVs and hit them because they can't see them.

This is the case with most tall vehicles, not just SUVs. I currently
have two cars, the 88" Landy and a Vauxhall Agila 1.2. The latter is
designed as a city car - short in length, narrow, modern,
low-pollution engine and good lock so it can be parked on a proverbial
postage stamp.

It is, however, about 5' "tall", which means that visibility out of
the rear is pretty poor. A decent driver, however, can adapt to this
by looking before they prepare to reverse (getting out if necessary)
or by the use of the side mirrors[1]. Yes, you have a blind spot, but
you do in a high-backed sports car as well.

You could ask me to drive a low-roofed vehicle, but, at 6'4" or
thereabouts, I would decline as I do not fit the majority of them
sufficiently well to be comfortable. I find this to be getting worse
with most manufacturers as they pursue the mecca of a "sporty driving
position" as well - I'm much more comfortable in a vehicle laid out
with a bus/van-style slanted steering wheel.

Anyway, back to the point, I choose not to drive in London. I would
suggest that driving in general in London (and other big cities with
good public transport) should be discouraged, and the type of vehicle
being driven be rather secondary to that.

[1] Some drivers, for some reason, shy away from these. I commented
to a (somewhat younger than I) friend who had recently passed his test
that I tended to reverse-park the Agila by dropping the left-hand
electric mirror down so I could see the rear wheel and the kerb - and
he called that cheating! I'd call it making use of the vehicle's
features.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:23:10 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

It is, however, about 5' "tall", which means that visibility out of
the rear is pretty poor. A decent driver, however, can adapt to this
by looking before they prepare to reverse (getting out if necessary)
or by the use of the side mirrors[1]. Yes, you have a blind spot, but
you do in a high-backed sports car as well.
snip
[1] Some drivers, for some reason, shy away from these. I commented
to a (somewhat younger than I) friend who had recently passed his test
that I tended to reverse-park the Agila by dropping the left-hand
electric mirror down so I could see the rear wheel and the kerb - and
he called that cheating! I'd call it making use of the vehicle's
features.

For anyone who has to drive a large vehicle, the ability to see where
the rear wheels are is an important part of reversing. You usually
cannot see out any other way, so use of the mirrors is the only
option. My first vehicle, back in 1956, was a GPO telephone van, with
miniscule rear windows, and the only way to reverse was using the
exterior mirror. It only had one, on the driver's side, but the
experience was a lesson well learnt.

My wife has a Suzuki Wagon R, which I drive a lot. It's the older
version with the large mirrors, and you can have those set to be able
to see the rear wheels all the time, as well as the road behind you.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org