How does, for example, a Land Rover Freelander thicken a jam more than, for example, a Mercedes E-class estate?

Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you here. I recently had a spat with a friend who was adamant that he should buy a Freelander because it was "safer for the kids". Not according to Euro NCAP, I suggested, and that he would be better off in pure safety terms with an simple estate car of more modern origins. Isn't it funny, if not unnatural, how people equate sitting up high with feeling safe.

 

You can't tar all the SUV's and 4x4 with the same brush.
The sight of a Hummer in centre London fill me with angnst for the reasons above but it is not the same with a Toyota RAV4 or a Freelander.

 

Anyone know what percentage of Land Rover's profits are generated by Range Rover, or for that matter, Discovery and Range Rover Sport sales? I'd wager its significant, as the Freelander and Defender can't really sustain a whole company on their own, can they? Changes in taxation influence purchasing behavior, in this case, someone looking at a Range Rover might decide its the last straw, the truck has become too expensive, and buy something else, like a Merc saloon.

Land Rover is one of the few thriving sectors of the UK auto industry, is placing additional taxes on their core products really the best move? Why not tax foreign-built city cars? Surely they do more damage to the UK economy than domestically-made SUVs.

 

What I find worst with the physical effect of these vehicles is that it is so hard to see round them that they make driving more dangerous.

The fact that I find their drivers (often women) extremely aggressive and very bad ambassadors for their marque is less convincing. You could find such a "nut behind the wheel" of a conventional Audi or Alfa saloon!

Probably.

However, IMO company car tax is still far too low in the UK (I speak as someone who once had a company car). IMO it should be sharply increased for all models. IMO the issue of "not seeing round" the cars and the idea that high driving seat = Wonder Woman should be hit by at least quadrupling company car tax on these cars. Doubtless if I had to pay for one myself my view would be different. However, all taxpayers and motorists subsidise what IMO are oversized vehicles...

 

How does, for example, a Land Rover Freelander thicken a jam more than, for example, a Mercedes E-class estate?

Not that I'm completely disagreeing with you here. I recently had a spat with a friend who was adamant that he should buy a Freelander because it was "safer for the kids". Not according to Euro NCAP, I suggested, and that he would be better off in pure safety terms with an simple estate car of more modern origins. Isn't it funny, if not unnatural, how people equate sitting up high with feeling safe.

Easily answered... I can see through the windows of a large car or estate Mercedes alongside or in front of me. Thus can decide if it's safe to emerge and turn left or right from a side turning at a T-junction even with such a car alongside. Thus keeping traffic queued behind me moving. Less jamming effect. Conversely, these higher vehicles will NOT have glass but tin at my eyelevel. Thus I'd have to wait until they move before being able to see if it is safe for me to proceed thus backing traffic up behind me. You cant see round them, you can't see under them and worst of all, you can't see through them.

That's just one example which happened twice today. Only the Pajero thinggy positioned alongside also negated part of the otherside of the road by straddling both lanes so stopping a bus turning into it from the main road. It was stalemate for a while. Had that thing been positioned less selfishly - using its bulk to intimidate - the traffic would have moved freely.

I could bore you with more examples..

There are several schools nearby including a rather 'posh' one. Oh what fun we have with the parking and trying to pass those parked Monsters ..... Don't get me started on that malarkey.... Highly stressed career mums unloading the kids before off to work. One school no longer opens its gates until 8.40 to stop kids being dumped far too early and running amok..... Oh what fun we have.... NOT!

They not only thicken the jams, they create them. Or, am I the only one who observes such things ... and FAR worse!

Have a nice one.... and safety fast whatever you drive.

 

IMO the issue of "not seeing round" the cars and the idea that high driving seat = Wonder Woman should be hit by at least quadrupling company car tax on these cars.

...

Good grief patpending ...yours 21.01 mine 21.02 ... I am NOT alone.... Great minds and all that ....remarkabule...

However, all taxpayers and motorists subsidise what IMO are oversized vehicles...

I am definitely NOT alone ... there's at least two of us....

 

Land Rover is one of the few thriving sectors of the UK auto industry, is placing additional taxes on their core products really the best move? Why not tax foreign-built city cars? Surely they do more damage to the UK economy than domestically-made SUVs.

If that is the case, then the bulk of those must surely be non UK sales but exported ones. Those that can afford to run the much larger RRover or LR at UK prices would probaly not notice additional taxes. They are VERY expensive over here. Yes, most would be company financed or set against business cost allowances in the UK. Few ordinary folks could afford to run one privately. Our fuel costs averages 7 or 8 USDollars a gallon and these things use fuel like it will always be there..

 

You run a dangerous game as a car enthusiast calling for a certain type of car to be taxed, dont start complaining when your favourite saloon or sports car becomes a target


The irony of MGJohn bashing one of Britains last car makers is brilliant!

 

Ah....a thinly veiled class war thread, I wonder if Clarkson drive a 4x4.....

 

Ah....a thinly veiled class war thread,

Not class war on this forum, but!..........As we are all `Equal` we should all be driving round in Metro`s.............. and for those that are a little more `equal` than others, they could have a MG Monty!!!.:bandit:

Better Flame Red than Dead!!!..

 

Nah, just issue entry-level civil servants Ladas, the next tier up can get Moskvitchs, management can get Volgas, the top guys can get Chaikas, and the Queen and Blair can have ZILs. The government pays for everything, and everyones equal, and presumably happy. Right?

 

I think there is a far better way than just targetting the big vehicles.

The government should commision a system that principally goes on mpg aswell as pollution output.

This will be the force that may push hybrid and engine development further forward, whilst also punishing those who have a car which is pointless to them.

This will effectively also mean cars like say a Mitsubishi Evo being possibly more expensive than a large Land Rover Defender say but I think that would be the fairest option.

Maybe later on, also include the potential environmental impact of disposing of parts like tyres, etc. Again this would not favour big vehicles which have balloon tyres on.

 

The government should commision a system that principally goes on mpg aswell as pollution output.

I thought we already had that - in the form of very high fuel tax...

 

I thought we already had that - in the form of very high fuel tax...

Yeah, but that is kinda by the back door and to be honest is not enough of a force to dissuade some people - I still see the odd ridiculous car like a Hummer going around. I'd rather see less back door stuff and more 'positive' deliberate "this car gets crappy mileage" tax.

 

The irony of MGJohn bashing one of Britains last car makers is brilliant!

Alien owned and controlled.... there's the REAL irony!

Mark my words... when it suits, they'll be gone... all of them. They will still wish to vend their product in "Treasure Island" (Not my words those ... their's) which will be nice ... for them.

Be delighted to be proven wrong ... However, I won't be offering any odds on that 'racing certainty'.

You run a dangerous game as a car enthusiast calling for a certain type of car to be taxed, dont start complaining when your favourite saloon or sports car becomes a target

I will NEVER see those Monster UBVs* as a car! I will not complain when the cars I love to drive become a target as long as there's a good reason for so doing. Despite possessing several turbocharged cars, if the choice became a nice planet with trees and stuff or a depleted spent one from over greedy comsumption, you can have all my cars' keys now!

* UBVs ... unnecessarily BIG vehicles. There IS a place for them but, it's NOT on most of this over crowded little island's roads.

MGJohn... who sold a Range Rover back in the early 80s.... Had folks queuing up for it following a classified in the local paper.... and that old addage... first to see will buy did in fact come to pass on that occasion!

Funny old game folks and their cars.

 

Land Rover is owned by aliens? Do Mulder and Scully know about this?

 

Land Rover is owned by aliens? Do Mulder and Scully know about this?

Hey... like your style Susan ... cue eeerie music ...

and DON'T fire 'til you see the greens of their eyes ....

 

Land Rover is owned by aliens? Do Mulder and Scully know about this?

no but the men in black do!!!!!!!!!!:lol:

 

no but the men in black do!!!!!!!!!!:lol:

Hey .. Yo! You did lighten up at the back there..

 

Facts smacks...

I sometimes watch Clarkson... sometime ago he did a 'school run' in a Range Rover. He filled it brim-to-brim and using 4.545 to convert litres to gallons, calculated the fuel used for that school trip...

EIGHT miles per gallon!

 

MGJohn quoting clarkson now :lol:

 

I support the idea of taxing 4x4s more highly than normal cars, within a sensible limit.

As mentioned by others, one of my main issues is the sheer size of them, meaning you cannot see past them whether they are in front, at the side of you or behind. You may argue that it is the same for vans and lorries, but the major difference is that to move tons of goods/operate businesses you NEED a lorry or big van. To drive around around town, or on the school run (which is all most 4x4s do) you need no more than a car with enough space for the number of people you're carrying.

One by-product of this size is the level of the lights on many 4x4s. When they get close to you, their headlamp level is the same as your eye level in a normal car and it is obvious driving at night that you get more glare. This is particularly bad with Xenon headlamps which seem to project a more concentrated beam and I often find myself looking away from the road to protect my eyes or flipping the rear view mirror.

I would also echo this sentiment for some of the people carriers I see around. Although they aren't quite as bulky as many 4x4s, they are generally taller and take up more space than an average car. Why families with a tiny baby suddenly feel that a normal car is now not big enough for them and they absolutely need a people carrier I don't really know. There are members of my family who have done this, so I'm not attacking anybody, but I just cannot see why a little baby will not fit in a normal size car. When I was a baby all of our kit fitted in a Vauxhall Viva without any problem.

I can see that if you're a farmer or live in the country down unpaved roads than you may need a 4x4. If you live in town and go no further than the local Sainsburys then to me it seems selfish.

I believe in freedom of choice but I think people should be made to think whether they actually need a 4x4 and one way of doing this is to tax them more highly.

 

MGJohn quoting clarkson now :lol:

Oh woe is me ..... the shame of it all....

 

Maybe tax passenger cars by weight?

I realise that to some extent that's already taken account of by fuel duty, but it would also indirectly mean that those who wear out the roads the most, pay the most, and be a boost for companies experimenting with lighter construction materials, some of which at least are British.

And I'd be very happy in a 15cwt fibreglass sports car!

 

Why does there even need to be another tax in the first place? Why not just back off and let people live their lives?