Originally Posted by dcfcsteve
I'm not a big fan of 4x4's, don't plan to own one at any point in my life, and would consider myself an environmentalist to a certain degree.
However - I do have to say that the whole 4x4 thing is as much a people-bashing trend as it is a genuine concern for the environment, safety etc. Why are only 4x4's being picked on ? High performance sports cars drink as much if not more fuel and are more often than not driven in a more reckless fashion by their even more irritating owners. So where's the arguements that Ferrari's, high-spec Porsches, Lambourghinis etc should only be driven round race tracks and not town centres ? They're even more impractical for the slow slog of city driving than 4x4's are ! What about big-drinkers like Rolls Royces, Jaguars, RV's (Residential Vehicles, like Winnebagos), little-used buses etc.
I'm guessing 4x4's are getting picked-on purely becuase they're financially accesible to a significant number of the population - hence there's a relatively high number of them around. They're much more affordable than performance sports cars, but have a fashion/status association that bridges the gap between then and normal family cars.
If the current trend to 'attack' 4x4 owners is the start of a genuine concern regarding what people drive, then it is to be welcomed, and one would expect the 'campaigners' to progress onto other questionable modes of personal transport afterwards. However, I fear it is not, that they therefore won't, and that it will as a consequence reveal itself to be nought but an exercise in bashing people who have the cheek to use choice of vehicle to try to visibly elevate themselves socially above the hoi polloi, without having the financial ability to pull it off convincingly by buying a genuinely aspirational vehicle.