From David Rotherham.
ONCE again the anti-4×4 campaign is breaking out. I keep seeing letters arrogantly telling motorists that they shouldn’t be driving what they do, and proposing that 4×4 users in particular should be victimised by the States.
It’s true that you do often see a big 4×4 being used to transport just a housewife and a couple of shopping bags or a toddler. However, you never know what else that car gets used for on other occasions.
These days it is not as cheap as it was to keep a big car and a little runabout. If you can only afford one car, you have the one that meets all your requirements.
It would be greener to go shopping in your Smart car, if you have one, but your Smart car will not tow a boat or horsebox, whereas a big jeep will do it all in its thirsty way.
The capital cost, insurance cost and sometimes the fuel cost are all higher for 4x4s, so running one, when all your needs would be met by a small hatchback, is already a self-punishing folly, without any specific extra taxes.
And what benefit to other road users would be achieved by forcing 4x4s off the road? In general they are narrower and shorter than cars of the same class, and not all that much longer than equivalent people-carriers.
Compare like with like. A Bentley takes up more road than a Cay-enne, a Jaguar more than a Shogun, a Transit more than a Defender, a Scenic more than a Vitara, and a Mini One more than a Terios.
People who need or just want big cars will still have them, people who need workhorses will still have them, and drivers of small hatchbacks will have to console themselves with the thought of their lower bills.
Vue des Champs,
Rue de la Petite Lande,