Sorry but that's not what I said in my post. I did not say that drivers of large 4x4 vehicles are dangerous
What I said was that a combination of a driver with aggressive tendancies and a large 4x4 is a dangerous combination. Part of the equation may be the sheer size and weight of such vehicles may encourage aggressive driving by giving a feeling of invincability to the aggressive driver. It does not imply that all large 4x4 vehicles drivers are aggressive by any means .
Graeme, if I misinterpreted the intended tone of your post, then I apologise.
To my eyes, a number of the specific points you made appeared to lump all drivers of 4x4s in with the lunatic that caused this tragic accident and whilst perhaps unintentional, your overall stance seemed to be anti-4x4.
I accept there’s always a danger of misinterpretation when you're not having a face to face discussion but some of the comments made in your post appeared (to me) to be based on assumptions, which is why I took issue.
People buy these behemoths for status and not to mince words for "get out of my way plebians look at my big car can't you see my journey is more important than yours." road presence.
This is an assumption. Using the word ‘
People’ implies that
most people that buy a large 4x4, automatically fit the stereotypical viewpoint that your argument propounds.
The question to be asked:- is aggressive driver behaviour indirectly facilitated/encouraged by private cars that are bigger and heavier than the average private car.
Is that REALLY anymore relevant a question than: is aggressive driver behavior indirectly facilitated/encouraged by private cars that are faster/have a larger engine/are coloured black or have a particular badge on the bonnet??
Let me explain: Would it be fair, if I were to question whether all Volvo drivers might be more inclined to drive without a care for the safety of other road users, simply because they’ve chosen to drive a vehicle that is generally accepted to be safer for the occupants than most other vehicles?
No, it would smack of an irrational predjudice towards Volvo drivers!
Weapons are safe --they are inanimate objects its when they get into the hands of unstable people you get problems.
So now, it would seem for added effect, you appear to draw a parallel between the apparent target of your ire (4x4s) and ‘Weapons’ in the hands of unstable people.
Can you see how I might have got the wrong idea about the impartiality of the point you were really trying to make?
ANY vehicle could be used as a weapon, from Mini to a Mercedes Actros but setting aside the laws of physics that govern the outcome of an accident involving a vehicle of greater mass, I don’t think the actual drivers of articulated lorries are any more a danger to you or me than anyone else o the road.
To round off, you talk about statistics.
Statistically the more large heavy 4x4 vehicles out there, the greater the chance some will be driven in an irresponsible way by unsuitable drivers with devastating results.
Surely no-one could disagree with that but then if your point was truly unbiased you could actually say that about any ‘large heavy’ vehicle on our roads, including buses, coaches, vans and aforementioned lorries – so what’s your point?
If you're going to use statistical probability to back up a well-reasoned argument then why not quote some genuine empirical evidence, otherwise it might just seem like you have a beef with drivers of certain types of vehicle.
To conclude, you've made your point and I've made mine. I don’t have a beef with you Graeme, it just appeared to me that your post was biased against 4x4 drivers and that’s why I wanted to respond but in all probability I’m wrong.
Mark
Perhaps there was a slight sense of 'I think he'll realise and stop' and dashcam driver kept his foot down?
