Typical 4X4's

[User482]

Selfish or stupid driving is not the reserve of 4x4 owners. I am just as likely to be pee'd off by a Fiesta doing this as a Hummer.

However resentment and envy play a part in the reaction to a badly driven Hummer.

Your assertion of insurance companies comes from a report commissioned by Churchill. This is not reflected in the premiums of the Insurance companies I have dealt with over the years who specialise in underwriting the policies on them.
Churchills article just looks like a lazy way of excluding them as they cost more to put right than regular shopping trolley cars. They have never been able to offer a competitive quote on any vehicle I've owned whenever I've tried them.


I expect they say the same about Jag owners as well.

You've rather missed the point, which is that stupid driving in a 4x4 is likely to present more risk to others than stupid driving in a smaller car.

My "assertion" comes from two large insurance companies, based on their data of real insurance claims. If you're able to show that they are wrong then please present your evidence. The cost of premiums isn't relevant.

If you really believe that people are envious of large 4x4s then you are rather detached from reality. If I wanted one, I would buy one.

 

[jimboalee]

Selfish or stupid driving is not the reserve of 4x4 owners. I am just as likely to be pee'd off by a Fiesta doing this as a Hummer.

However resentment and envy play a part in the reaction to a badly driven Hummer.

Your assertion of insurance companies comes from a report commissioned by Churchill. This is not reflected in the premiums of the Insurance companies I have dealt with over the years who specialise in underwriting the policies on them.
Churchills article just looks like a lazy way of excluding them as they cost more to put right than regular shopping trolley cars. They have never been able to offer a competitive quote on any vehicle I've owned whenever I've tried them.

I expect they say the same about Jag owners as well.

Quotes on newer Jags will always be high. They are aluminium bodied and Jag have a list of approved repairers. Its not up to the insurance company to select the repairer.

 

[very-near]

You've rather missed the point, which is that stupid driving in a 4x4 is likely to present more risk to others than stupid driving in a smaller car.

My "assertion" comes from two large insurance companies, based on their data of real insurance claims. If you're able to show that they are wrong then please present your evidence. The cost of premiums isn't relevant.

If you really believe that people are envious of large 4x4s then you are rather detached from reality. If I wanted one, I would buy one.

And stupid driving gets rewarded through loading insurance premiums if the drivers get caught. Drivers with a good track record pay lower premiums at the end of the day and a 4x4 is very difficult for a younger less experienced driver to insure.

The envy comes from the display of disposable income. The same attitude of derision is shown to people driving exotic sports cars. You can keep on denying it, but your motivation is fairly transparent.

No doubt this 'data' is a bit like the spoof 'spray on mud' for the chelsea tractors advert which was created by the web designing mate of the Guardian writer - In absence of real facts, just make it up

Who are these insurance companies and where is their 'data' ?

 

[nilling]

Hands up who has ever been envious of a Hummer driver......

Every time I see a Hummer I try to think where the nearest petrol station is

 

[skwerl]

You've may the huge but predictable assumption there that everyone is materially driven. Any that's not the case. Neither is it the case that 4x4s are affordable only by the rich. You've got one.

Take that out of the equation and you've got nothing.

I think the last 10 years and the financial mess we're now in is proof that a large chunk of the western world is materially-driven.

You've made an equally huge and predictable assumption that they're not.

 

[User482]

And stupid driving gets rewarded through loading insurance premiums if the drivers get caught. Drivers with a good track record pay lower premiums at the end of the day and a 4x4 is very difficult for a younger less experienced driver to insure.

The envy comes from the display of disposable income. The same attitude of derision is shown to people driving exotic sports cars. You can keep on denying it, but your motivation is fairly transparent.

No doubt this 'data' is a bit like the spoof 'spray on mud' for the chelsea tractors advert which was created by the web designing mate of the Guardian writer - In absence of real facts, just make it up

Who are these insurance companies and where is their 'data' ?

Try google - two insurance companies have provided data based on claims they receive. If they're wrong, show how, or admit defeat. I note that the best "fact" you can come up with is some irrelevant and unsubstantiated drivel about insurance premiums. If you're in a glass house, don't through stones...

I'm staggered that you think that people are envious of 4x4 drivers. I pity them actually - they just go to prove that a fool and his money are soon parted. In a list of things to spend my disposable income on, cars are way down the bottom. You need to understand that for most people, cars are simply a means of transport.

Your self-interested defence in the face of all the available evidence is dull, familiar, repetitive and wholly unsubstantiated.

I note you failed to respond to the point that stupid driving in a large, heavy car is riskier to others than stupid driving in a smaller, lighter car.

 

[skwerl]

I know a bloke who is a multimillionaire. He's just got rid of his 16 year old Volvo because he'd run it into the ground. He replaced it with another average Volvo.

that's great. yet again we get the n=1 statistcal analysis that's extrapolated to the rest of the world

 

[Bigtwin]

The envy comes from the display of disposable income. The same attitude of derision is shown to people driving exotic sports cars. You can keep on denying it, but your motivation is fairly transparent.

This is brilliant entertainment - rarely have I heard such drivel.

The value of 4x4s has gone through the floor now that fuel is up, and they are to pay swinging road tax. Driving one simply says more than ever "more money than sense" - not a source of envy in any intelligent person's book, or "I really screwed that up didn't I - listen, you can hear the depreciation" - ditto.

 

[garrilla]

An old Toyota 4x4 was behind me at the lights today, revving his 3l engine. When the lights changed I nipped off, he flooded and stalled.

 

[skwerl]

No, read my posts again.

It wasn't a response to you anyway. It was a single illustration of my previous point.

I know. you were trying to illustrate that not everyone is materially-driven. So now we know that at least everyone except yourself (i assume) and your millionarie friend is possibly materially-driven.

My point being that you're attempting to derail an argument that uses sweeping assumption by making, that's right, a sweeping assumption.

"It's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron".

 

[very-near]

This is brilliant entertainment - rarely have I heard such drivel.

The value of 4x4s has gone through the floor now that fuel is up, and they are to pay swinging road tax. Driving one simply says more than ever "more money than sense" - not a source of envy in any intelligent person's book, or "I really screwed that up didn't I - listen, you can hear the depreciation" - ditto.

What aircraft were you flying in your military career?

Are you afraid or too embarrassed to answer ?

 

[mangaman]

Sorry to butt in - I've had a £20 on Betfair that this will be in Room 101 by page 30 and it still hasn't moved

What's wrong with you?? How about a little more aggression?

 

[very-near]

Try google - two insurance companies have provided data based on claims they receive. If they're wrong, show how, or admit defeat. I note that the best "fact" you can come up with is some irrelevant and unsubstantiated drivel about insurance premiums. If you're in a glass house, don't through stones...

How about you try Google and post up the URLs seeing as yet again you are on a mission to prove me wrong

I'm staggered that you think that people are envious of 4x4 drivers. I pity them actually - they just go to prove that a fool and his money are soon parted. In a list of things to spend my disposable income on, cars are way down the bottom. You need to understand that for most people, cars are simply a means of transport.

Spare me the reverse snobbery User482. A tax payer and his money is easily parted by the shower of shyte you have voted in. Do you think I run an 18 year old car as a status symbol ? .
The problem with the likes of you is you get jealous about the chelsea tractor driving land owners in their £70k top of the range Vogues and transpose it onto the rest of us - you are so shallow

Your self-interested defence in the face of all the available evidence is dull, familiar, repetitive and wholly unsubstantiated.

Of course it is a self interested defence nubnuts - self defence is self interest

I note you failed to respond to the point that stupid driving in a large, heavy car is riskier to others than stupid driving in a smaller, lighter car.

Didn't you apply this same argument to the 60mph NSL down to 50 mph a while back ?

Make up your mind because 4x4's are not bought as speed machines.

Most 4x4s are slow to accelerate, drink loads of juice, and as such are not driven that the speeds of 'normal' cars - therefore making them less risky (by your NSL argument)

 

[very-near]

Not at all.

I said that not everyone is materially driven, in response to Linfy's sweeping assumption-led statement that 4x4 hate is driven by financial envy. No assumption on my part, and no brooms used.

I'm not sure which bit you don't understand. My response to the sweeping assumption, or the fact that giving one example is not a sweeping generalisation.

Now stop it before someone's head explodes.

Some people are driven by money. Some aren't.

Some people who aren't driven by money don't understand the logic behind unnecessary 4x4 ownership. These people are clearly not envious about any financial status of the 4x4 owner. So linfy's assumption is incorrect.

I can only reconcile envy as your motivation to despise the lifestyle choices of so many other people MrP - oh and self denial.

 

[skwerl]

Not at all.

I said that not everyone is materially driven, in response to Linfy's sweeping assumption-led statement that 4x4 hate is driven by financial envy. No assumption on my part, and no brooms used.

I'm not sure which bit you don't understand. My response to the sweeping assumption, or the fact that giving one example is not a sweeping generalisation.

Now stop it before someone's head explodes.

Some people are driven by money. Some aren't.

Some people who aren't driven by money don't understand the logic behind unnecessary 4x4 ownership. These people are clearly not envious about any financial status of the 4x4 owner. So linfy's assumption is incorrect.

ok. now reverse all of that and you'll see that his assumption is also correct. that's what I'm trying to point out