Woman found guilty of attempt to mow down cyclist with SUV

[kwackers]

People are able to drive 4x4s safely on UK roads, I've seen it done often enough, just that a lot aren't able to, that's down to attitude/skill, the vehicle itself isn't the problem IMHO

Is unquestionably the right answer, I think.

It misses the point though that 4x4's are intrinsically less safe than a normal vehicle. They have a higher CoG, more mass and poor 3rd party safety.
In any collision a 'normal' vehicle will come off worse if it hits a 4x4 compared to another 'normal' car. In any collision involving property the property will be more severely damaged etc etc.
(And that's before you get into the question of why a such vehicles often have race car performance...)

[Bonefishblues]

They are on a continuum of vehicles. My licence allows me to drive anything up to something of 7.5T IIRC.

Providing I drive with reasonable skill and care I'll come into contact with nothing, irrespective of whether I'm driving a medium goods vehicle, MPV, 3-wheeler or whatever.

4x4s have become symbols, rather than causes IMHO.

[Audax67]

Like to see:
Mother ==> clink + huge fine (driving an Audi 4x4 she's not short of money) + lifetime ban + obligatory psychiatric oversight on release
Kids ==> into care unless papa (he still around?) can handle them
Car ==> scrapyard

[kwackers]

Providing I drive with reasonable skill and care I'll come into contact with nothing

And if it's not your fault? A mechanical failure causes the vehicle to end up in someone's living room? A family car mistakenly pulls into your path causing you to swerve? (Or you simply hit it)

As I said; 4x4's are intrinsically less safe. I can't think of anything but the most contrived scenario were other vehicles and property are involved that a 4x4 wouldn't make the outcome worse.

However just to add that at the end of the day you're human, and that means mediocre and easily fooled senses, distractions and all the other nonsense we're capable of. It's a mistake to believe that you can do no wrong, the best you can hope for is an improvement in safety.
The roads are littered with the debris from such thinking.

[Bonefishblues]

Providing I drive with reasonable skill and care I'll come into contact with nothing

And if it's not your fault? A mechanical failure causes the vehicle to end up in someone's living room? A family car mistakenly pulls into your path causing you to swerve? (Or you simply hit it)

As I said; 4x4's are intrinsically less safe. I can't think of anything but the most contrived scenario were other vehicles and property are involved that a 4x4 wouldn't make the outcome worse.

However just to add that at the end of the day you're human, and that means mediocre and easily fooled senses, distractions and all the other nonsense we're capable of. It's a mistake to believe that you can do no wrong, the best you can hope for is an improvement in safety.
The roads are littered with the debris from such thinking.

All sorts of things can and do happen. Where does one draw a line?

It is equally a fact that it's better to be hit by a 4x4 of today than anything of a former era - but actually one doesn't want to be hit by anything, because its all going to hurt, badly.

I'm intrinsically pro choice, except when it comes to choosing to drive badly, or carelessly. That makes me cross, irrespective of what you're driving,and stereotyping vehicles helps this cause not a jot.

[Bonefishblues]

Like to see:
Mother ==> clink + huge fine (driving an Audi 4x4 she's not short of money) + lifetime ban + obligatory psychiatric oversight on release
Kids ==> into care unless papa (he still around?) can handle them
Car ==> scrapyard

Really? Honestly? You think that would be helpful or in any way appropriate?

[Postboxer]

You would rather them stay with someone who gets angry enough to potentially kill someone?

[Bonefishblues]

You would rather them stay with someone who gets angry enough to potentially kill someone?

Yes, unless we are dealing with someone who has psychiatric disorders such that these children might come to harm.

[kwackers]

All sorts of things can and do happen. Where does one draw a line?

Fairly obviously you draw the line by limiting peoples access to inappropriate vehicles.

I'm not anti-4x4 but I am anti the idea that anyone needs a vehicle that weighs in excess of 2.5 tonnes, accelerates like a sports car and handles like a truck just to take the kids to school (apart from the appalling emissions such vehicles generate).

The problem of course with 'pro-choice' is when you're freedom to choose removes someone else's freedoms and for what reason? So folk can drive an oversized truck in order to demonstrate their status???

[Bonefishblues]

But they are less consumptive, safer for their driver and others, and handle better* than vehicles from previous generations don't they?

I don't know why people choose them, maybe it is status, frankly I don't care and I don't see why others should. I'm quite secure myself, so if someone chooses a Q7 or similar, so be it. Limiting choice on such grounds is a slippery slope IMHO.

*Like a truck? Some hyperbole here, perhaps?

[kwackers]

But they are less consumptive, safer for their driver and others, and handle better* than vehicles from previous generations don't they?

I'm not sure what the point is? I'm talking about choice right now, not choice several years ago. Old cars slowly disappear so that's good.

I don't know why people choose them, maybe it is status, frankly I don't care and I don't see why others should.

I don't really care why they choose them, just that their choice is often trivial whilst it's effects aren't.

I'm quite secure myself, so if someone chooses a Q7 or similar, so be it. Limiting choice on such grounds is a slippery slope IMHO.

We limit choices on all sorts of things. Most folk are happy we don't give you a choice of gun for example. Why should vehicles be any different?
Anyway I wouldn't stop folk having one, but they should be discouraged. The first thing I'd do is reduce the maximum weight that PLG covers and require extra licensing for anyone that wants (or actually needs) something heavier.

*Like a truck? Some hyperbole here, perhaps?

A little. But they are designed to feel like cars when driven whilst in terms of physics behaving like trucks. Anecdotally I can point to a friend of mine who's now brain damaged because he drove it like a car, turns out they 'roll' over barriers quite easily, roll well down slopes and sink like a stone when they find a lake at the bottom. (A normal car wouldn't have rolled over the barrier).

[beardy]

Limiting choice on such grounds is a slippery slope IMHO.

Not slippery enough! Motorcycles have been regulated and re-regulated, in this way for over forty years.
Now most motorcyclists and policemen do not understand the rules about who is entitled to ride which bikes on which licences any more.

This was all done to stop people killing themselves on machines beyond the limits of the riders' competence. Even more call to do it to save other people from drivers' incompetence but it appears the slippery slope theory just doesnt work.

Of course a side effect of restricting motorcyclists in this way was that the would be dangerous riders took the line of least resistance and became dangerous drivers instead. So it was no longer a big problem with young male motorcyclists killing themselves and became young male drivers killing other people instead.

[Bonefishblues]

But they are less consumptive, safer for their driver and others, and handle better* than vehicles from previous generations don't they?

I'm not sure what the point is? I'm talking about choice right now, not choice several years ago. Old cars slowly disappear so that's good.

I don't know why people choose them, maybe it is status, frankly I don't care and I don't see why others should.

I don't really care why they choose them, just that their choice is often trivial whilst it's effects aren't.

I'm quite secure myself, so if someone chooses a Q7 or similar, so be it. Limiting choice on such grounds is a slippery slope IMHO.

We limit choices on all sorts of things. Most folk are happy we don't give you a choice of gun for example. Why should vehicles be any different?
Anyway I wouldn't stop folk having one, but they should be discouraged. The first thing I'd do is reduce the maximum weight that PLG covers and require extra licensing for anyone that wants (or actually needs) something heavier.

*Like a truck? Some hyperbole here, perhaps?

A little. But they are designed to feel like cars when driven whilst in terms of physics behaving like trucks. Anecdotally I can point to a friend of mine who's now brain damaged because he drove it like a car, turns out they 'roll' over barriers quite easily, roll well down slopes and sink like a stone when they find a lake at the bottom. (A normal car wouldn't have rolled over the barrier).

Am on a tablet so excuse the less than eloquent quoting...

Since I mentioned the Q7 previously and that seems something of a totem let's take a look. Weight is c2000 kgs, so roughly 450kgs more than a family saloon like a Passat, but significantly reduced compared to the previous generation. Combined mpg (yes I know, but no car does, so it's a point of comparison) is mid to high 40s mpg, depending on wheel size for a 200+ bhp diesel. Not too dusty for something that will transport 7 plus their luggage. That's a viable choice right now, I'd say.

I'm not clear what these non-trivial effects are that you allude to, tbh.

I do see a distinction between a gun and a vehicle, and a reason for licensing the former in a more restrictive manner than the latter, but I wouldn't have significant issue with a size-related licensing system for vehicles (I think gvw is not necessarily the way to go with passenger cars).

Understand your point re rollover, I think Richard Branson had something similar in a Range Rover on the M40 some years ago, but I think that it's a very limited range of vehicles involved - let's call the "true" offroad 4x4s which are necessarily taller than the average in order to achieve offroad ride height. There, you can push things but I agree, physics is physics.

[Bonefishblues]

Limiting choice on such grounds is a slippery slope IMHO.

Of course a side effect of restricting motorcyclists in this way was that the would be dangerous riders took the line of least resistance and became dangerous drivers instead. So it was no longer a big problem with young male motorcyclists killing themselves and became young male drivers killing other people instead.

Agree there's an issue with young inexperienced yet overconfident (usually male) drivers, but AIUI stats are improving, aren't they, but we should continue to address this.

Just flicking to the ONS mortality stats (as one does!) I am astonished to see the single highest cause of death for 20-34 year olds is suicide and poisoning
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/mor ... death.html

[beardy]

but AIUI stats are improving, aren't they,

If they are, I think that for once we should be grateful to insurance companies!