4WDs are still relatively cheap because the pollies like to use them on the farm. How else can you explain a tarrif scheme that penalises non 4WD vehicles.
Base BMW 540i, $136000
Base BMW X5 4.4, $111000
More = less in 4WD land.

cheers, Paul

It is possible that there are some 4WD owners/drivers with attitudes that you suggest.
But not all, by any means. I own a 4WD, live in civilisation (Upper Yarra Valley), and I have never run into anyone in my life (61 years), or run anyone off the road.
I guess my response to your rant is in two words: ballderdollacks !

Planet killers and people killers. No-one in the city needs one and if politicians had an ounce of courage and sense 4 cylinder 4X4s would attract an extra $600 odd dollars in rego and 6 cylinder and above around an extra $1500, with this price increasing by 20% per year over the next five years. The only exemptions might be for work vehicles (not company cars!) Perfect policy for the ALP since the damn things aren't even made here so it would be mostly win win in terms of their electorates.

Re the United States, mandated fuel consumption standards were brought in for passenger cars after the oil scares of the 1970s and re concern about pollution. Then oil got cheap again and four wheel drives happened to be classed as trucks and were thus exempt from the consumption standards. Hello planet killing and people killing again. Notice though that Arnie has seen the light (or at least where votes are)and handed in the keys to his Hummer.

Sorry Ron. We'd like to make an exception for you (seeing as how you're so polite and all), but you drive a 4WD, so you're anti-social by definition. Under the Bleeding Edge 4WD Action Plan, you'll have to get references from two local motor scooter riders or the truck gets confiscated.

And you'll have to prove you're not wasting precious fuel (and making the rest of us pay more for the stuff) to feed some advertising-induced delusion that driving a 4WD makes you a modern-day Clancy of the Overflow or whatever.

Nicely said Charles.

I drive a $700 1986 Mitiswasabi Magna. Its my right and privilege through the sheer fact my car still works to drive all 4WD off the road. They can handle it :)
Besides as rude and as arrogant as they think they are there is something about a rusted out bomb slowly nudging into their lane and approaching the shiny plastic monster they drive which makes them just jump right over the curb :)
Trust me when I say when pinch comes to punch they are all bluff.

"Sorry Ron. We'd like to make an exception for you (seeing as how you're so polite and all),"
Well, almost. :)
" but you drive a 4WD, so you're anti-social by definition. Under the Bleeding Edge 4WD Action Plan, you'll have to get references from two local motor scooter riders or the truck gets confiscated."
That would be difficult out here. :( I haven't seen any motor scooter drivers in this part of the country.
Or maybe I already killed them ?
"And you'll have to prove you're not wasting precious fuel (and making the rest of us pay more for the stuff)"
I buy a tankful of petrol about every three weeks. How does that stack up ?
" to feed some advertising-induced delusion that driving a 4WD makes you a modern-day Clancy of the Overflow or whatever."
Now that was unkind. :(
It is just that my wife and I enjoy camping and fishing, and we also live on a dirt road.
I guess this is one discussion where I am never going to change anyones's mind.
Time to go and monster some unsuspecting scooter driver into a panic !
With love to all .....

Stuff them all.

OK Ron. You've convinced us. If you live on a dirt road, and you go off-road, you have a legitimate need for a 4WD by our lights. (Some, no doubt, will disagree). You probably drive it with due knowledge that you're a deadly threat to other users.

But that joke about monstering a scooter rider ... We know you're not serious. But. It's. Not. Really. Funny.

I was reading this column with glee chuckling at the tongue in cheek writing of the Bolt for freedom article when I came across this, which extremely annoys me, particularly as the 4wd bashers have already made up their minds about who 4wd owners vote for and what sort of personalities they may have.
I'm not going to make excuses why I drive one as Ron did, but just want to express my distaste for such an unfunny and biased article.

That's the problem with us biased bastards, Danielle. We can't be trusted to be always on the same damned side as you!

We wouldn't expect you to make excuses - it's not in your character, is it? - so instead, why not trot out some evidence that proves we're not only biased, but wrong. Dismissing critics as "4WD bashers" isn't particularly convincing, is it? It's not what you'd call an argument.

By the way. It's the people who sold you your car who have apparently made up their minds about who 4WD owners vote for and what sort of personalities they may have. They're the ones who've pushed your buttons. We're just passing on the news.

But we do think that the ones who have tried to kill us have almost certainly put other lives at risk, and therefore shouldn't be allowed on the road. They probably got angry at us for interfering with their schedule. We think they get angry a lot, Danielle. Which sounds. You know. A bit like you.

So I was riding my bicycle where the only oil used is to lube chain's and bits yesterday when one of those pesky scooter riders thought he owned the road and near on cleaned me up thinking that the roundabout was his own high speed chicane that he could line up, wind up to fly through and clean me up.

I wanted to get back home as quickly as possible to jump in my 4'be and go find him and see how he likes it.

1xBicycle + 1x4wd = Oil Neutrality? Close enough in my book...

Cheers...

Hey, come on. Let's be understanding here. The owners of Urban Assault Vehicles have some serious personal problems that we should sympathise with...

1. The chaps have teeny weeny dicks.
2. The chapesses have a bad case of penis envy.
3. They all talk on their hand-held mobiles while driving so they need the extra protection afforded by a military vehicle with bull bar. Do you have any idea how hard it is to yack and drive at the same time? Just look at the accident statistics and you'll see how great is the peril of the UAV driver with phone. You can't expect them to drive, natter and watch out for pixies on motor scooters all at the same time. Thank god for bull bars and does anyone have a recipe for quick removal of blood and guts from same?

One wouldn't mind the bloody things so much if they were transparent. It's the blocking of every other driver's view either on the road or trying to reverse from a parking spot that is the real pain in the bum. Let's hear it for glass UAVs.

"But that joke about monstering a scooter rider ... We know you're not serious. But. It's. Not. Really. Funny."

I though it was. :)

As funny as the references to various attitudes, voting habits or appendages of us 4WD drivers.

FWIW: How many 4WDs have been aggressive to you this week ?
OK, and how many 4WDs have NOT been aggressive to you this week ?

In the tarred places I go, I see more 2WD loonies than 4WD loonies, and by a huge margin.

But its OK, let fly ! I am a forgiving sort, used to being different from those around me.
And I don't take offence easily.

Mit lieben. Penguins for ever.

I have yuppy city relatives who also talk with disdain about 'trucks' and their disgusting owners. I'm unable to prove anything statistically, just that personally it is the mode of transport that my husband and I prefer and yes, (you scoff}, feel safe in. Our vehicle is on gas and doesn't visit the city if it can help it. There are diesel models such as the Terrakan which use 10 litres of diesel per 100 kilometers. Is that reasonable? On another blog where this topic was also 'debated' this link was used http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/4wd-drivers-cause-fewer-crashes/2006/09/01/1156817064335.html
with the headline

4WD drivers cause fewer crashes
September 1, 2006

No doubt if I searched hard enough I could come up with some more statistics, but do we always trust them whoever they may champion? We are all manipulated to a large extent.
I just don't like being labelled an angry drunk, Howard voting, planet and people killer with penis envy.

Apal wrote "One wouldn't mind the bloody things so much if they were transparent. It's the blocking of every other driver's view either on the road or trying to reverse from a parking spot that is the real pain in the bum."

This is what annoys most of you I reckon and why you hate them so much. My suggestion is that if you can't beat them why not join them and have all road users in strong vehicles with good safety features for all. Economically unviable?

At last, Danielle. Some figures! That's an interesting link. But it's difficult to reconcile it with this one. On the other hand, that's also the source of one of the claims about the increase in accident rates involving 4WD, and it suggests that it merely reflects the increase in 4WD travel.

It would tend to contradict your heightened feeling of security, too ... "when taking into account the level of activity, 4WDs had a lower involvement in fatal crashes than motorcycles and heavy trucks. However, passenger cars and light trucks had slightly lower fatal crash involvement rates than 4WDs". And they seemed to have more crashes at high speed.

And Ron, it's funny you should ask how many 4WD drivers have been aggressive to me this week. About an hour ago, driving down Queen St, I had a Toyota Land Cruiser barge in perilously close to me as I was in the right wheel track at the head of a line of traffic. Its bull bars were a matter of inches from my head. Then it tried to burn me off at the lights. Unbelievable!

cw, you must remember to ride as if they are all trying to kill you - I do. It is also imperative to ignore the clowns who cut you off, getting upset with them just re-inforces their belief that we shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

cheers, Paul

Charles, that link you show us from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is a bit out of date. 1998 statistics don't seem so relevant today as cars have changed a lot since then even if not some rude drivers as you experienced today. I give you another link for the opposing team... headed "The Lies of the Anti 4WD Lobby Group". I think there is some relevance in this argument....

The US statistics may support the anti 4WD case in some cases. However there are four serious flaws with the US statistics:

• Only 11 of the US states have seat belt laws which can be enforced by financial or points penalty. This completely skews any comparison of crash statistics but is especially relevant to rollovers for obvious reasons.
• The types of vehicles in the US are completely different from those found in Australia. Some of the US’s most popular vehicles (Chevy and Fords) are simply not found in Australia. Conversely some of the most popular vehicles in Australia (eg Nissan Patrol and Toyota Land Cruiser 75/78) are not available in the US. To compare vehicle characteristics in these very different environments is simply wrong!
  
• The US crash statistics are completely skewed due to the Ford Explorer and Firestone tyre fiasco. This is where Firestone tyres fitted to Ford Explorers exploded without warning causing many hundreds of deaths and thousands of crashes. It resulted in the largest automotive recall in history.
  
• The ATSB statistics tell us that, unlike the US, the accident rate for 4WDs and sedans is almost identical in Australia.
  
• NSW RTA statistics for 2003 tell us that in country driving sedans are nearly twice as likely as four-wheel drives are to be involved in single vehicle accidents.

Statistics do not mean a thing. The simple fact is that NOBODY needs to travel around in vehicles as large as 4WD's (or Commodores or Falcons for that matter).

And don't get me started on F-wits in V8 utes...

Aaah. Yes! The V8 ute. Conceived and marketed as the F1 substitute for the brain-dead. (They actually market stuff to them on the basis that these people literally want to destroy their own vehicles.) I was going to get around to them in my next rant.

We're pretty sure part of the purchase procedure for these little toys includes compulsory attendance at a school for idiots, where they're instructed, for example, that NOBODY is permitted ever to be on the road ahead of them, and if some other vehicle has been unfortunate enough to come within range of their mad little eyes, it has to be tail-gated until overtaken at maximum speed, with six inches clearance or less.

So far as I can gather, they are all certifiably insane. There is NO justification whatsoever for these highly dangerous things being on the road. They belong on race tracks. Their drivers belong in institutions. Possibly zoos.

I'm laughing again!

Neilgue

Exactly. The dastardly 4WD beast is is sadly another symptom of the material obsession modern upwardly mobile professionals have a taste for – also know as Affluenza. It’s the same people who own McMansions and a car for each member of the family.

But I digress – whatever happened to restraint, just because you have the money doesnt mean you need to spend it. The Jones aren't real people you idiots - they're a figment of your small imagination implanted by 'the man' (marketing executive).

These vehicles are monstrously over specified for their purpose. Ever heard of FIT FOR PURPOSE! Driving the kids to school in a 2.5 tonne tank is completely over the top. Bondi Baby Killers and Toorak Tractors are a shameful blight on humanity. Grow up.

I like the comments, anyone for a leopard tank, now I would feel safe in that so will my kids as I drop them of to the private school.

Ok Johnny Howard lets hit the pockets of 4WD ownwers
you have the guts OR HAVE you.

to all you neo-fachist basterds, if you dont have a clue about what you are talking about, shut the fuck up.Yes i drive a 4wd, i also drive a truck. I have spent the last week volentering my time a 4wd to transport water and firefighters in victoria. What have you arragant bastards done. Nothing but sit on your asses and complain. get a life and grow up. I pay taxes and vote, it is my consitutional right to own what ever car i like.

I have just survived a 4- vehicle crash involving a mystery 4WD who crashed into the back of a show-pony Hilux SRV (with illegal "blinged" 22 inch wheels on 35 series rubber), who then lost control (as if 4WD ever have control), mounted the traffic island, crashed head-on into a Toyota Prado (driven by a woman who stupidly thought she would be safe in a 4WD tank), and then bounced into my lane, giving me one car length to stop.
The cause of the crash - the mystery 4WD - then left the scene of the crash (either unlicenced, unregistered, full of drugs or alcohol, carrying guns, whatever...).

The common thing here is....each of these drivers of the 4WD were, let's face it, rocket scientists (NOT!). As an aside, the Hilux driver wanted me to withold information from the insurance company about his wheels so he would not lose his pay-out...the miserable little fraudster.....

My vision of the crash was blocked by the height of the Prado. The Hilux that crashed into her probably could not see behind to change lanes, and the first 4WD could not stop....all these are reasons these things should be off the road.

Instead of banning them, or taxing them, the road authorities have a simpler option....make it illegal for a 4WD to travel any faster than 60KPH in the city. They are not a car after all. They are dangerous, because at leat 90% of their owners do not know how to drive a car, let alone a tank that drives on a chassis and suspension that dates back to the 1930's.

Now watch them squeal,as they watch "normal" vehicles travel at a speed that they can handle; if someone is dumb enough to drive one in city traffic, then they will be dumb enough to keep owning them whilst speed restrictions happen.

But of course, governments are too gutless to do anything.

All that 4WD-haters can do is to get together and wear down the public perception that 4WD are good...we should work on 4WD drivers just like the anti-smoking campaigns did....educate and shame people into leaving these over-weight low-tech heaps of danger and do something smarter.

Some of you need to get an education before you start mouthing off about things you don't understand.

And yes, I ride bikes on the road, I also own a 4wd. To be perfectly honest, 4wd's were the least of my worries while I was on the bike, it was brain dead people in any type of vehicle that you had to watch out for, and there are plenty out there.

Read and learn people: http://www.smokinghat.com.au/bush/indexanti.htm

Yeah. You'll have to re-educate us. We're just too dumb to drive what you drive.

Glad to see you were able to come up with an intelligent rebuttal. If you are "too dumb" to drive (as you put it), then you should not be on the road. It does not matter wheather you drive a 50cc scooter or a 60 tonne truck. My personal 4wd is quite easy to drive, it is automatic and has power steering, just like my wifes Ford Falcon. It is, however, smaller in length and width than her Falcon, has a smaller engine, produces less emmisions with greater fuel economy and takes our family to great places in this country of ours reguarly. If you have a problem with that, why not back it up with some real information.

My point was regarding the education on this issue, that being the unfounded nonsense that some people dribble about 4wd's, their owners, drivers and saftey.

It may be prudent for you to actually know something about a topic before entering into arguments for or against it.

It does help if you actually read what you're criticising, jeff (and a sense of irony is also handy).

Let me repeat: I drove 4WD vehicles when I was farming. And because we also owned a remote property, I did a lot of off-road driving. I have about a decade of experience behind the wheel of 4WDs, and - you probably missed this bit too - I acknowledge their appropriateness in rural areas and for some applications. I question whether "taking our family to great places in this country of ours regularly" is necessarily one of them.

Somehow I'm not surprised to read that you've also got a Ford Falcon, so you're guzzling even more gas. Too bad you didn't get a small turbo diesel instead - like, perhaps, the Peugeot 307 HDi that we drive.

The links in the story contain real facts and statistics. Your arguments are fatuous assertions that tend to support the character analysis of the motor companies ... "apt to be self-centred and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbours or communities".

i currently drive a 4wd vehicle and those of you that are making them out to be such death machines whatabout all these v8 turbo charged 6 and 8s??? skylines,supras,vl turbos ss utes xr8 utes?? are you going to take all of there machines into account?? i see more cars disobeying the road rules than i do 4wds i do not no how often i am driving along and i see a turbo charged car doing a burnout or sliding around corners or doing inexcess on 160kph so really its a 2 way street you want to knock 4wd for being so dangerous dont you DARE try and tell me that 4wd are any more dangerous than a R34 twin turbo skyline that is capable of 280+ kph befor it rockets out of control and hits a tree or an inicent family im sure that a turbo charged car doing 220kph hitting another car would do just as much damage if not more than a 4wd. i see and hear more turbo charged and highly modded cars involved in fatal accidents than 4wds. so have a long hard think about it befor you go knocking 4wds cause those turbo charged beastly cars are more of a menase on our rodes when they come rocketing past you at 180+kph than a 4wd that wouldent even be capable of going that fast. think about it.

Hahahahaha that is so funny I can't stop laughing.

"It seems the purchase price grants these drivers the right to push everyone else off the road."

Just like having a scooter or motorbike grants the riders to break the law concerning speed, overtaking on solid lines, doing wheelies and driving on the centre line at traffic lights?

"Four-wheel-drives involved in fatal accidents increased by 85% between 1990 and 1998"

You of course failed to incorporate the next point in the ATSB statistics which states: This increase in fatal 4WD crashes is likely to be due to the growing number of kilometres travelled by 4WDs, rather than any decrease in the safety of 4WDs. The number of kilometres travelled by 4WDs almost doubled between 1995 and 1998. By comparison, the overall number of vehicle kilometres travelled increased by 4 per cent over the same time period.

"The drivers of vehicles hit side-on by 4-wheel-drives have a 26 times increase in death or serious injury than if they had been hit by a standard passenger vehicle."

You might want to rephrase that to "drivers of smaller vehicles". Of course if a 4wd was hit by a truck, conversely there would be a serious increase in death and injury to the 4wd driver. You fail to mention the danger to a Hyundai Excel driver when hit side-on by a Holden Statesman??

"Drivers of 4-wheel drive vehicles involved in smashes are more likely to be drunk than drivers of any other class of vehicle."

Not quite right, the ATSB says "The proportion of alcohol intoxication amongst 4WD drivers involved in fatal crashes (29 per cent) was higher than for all other types of vehicle operators (for example, 21 per cent of passenger car drivers involved in fatal crashes had blood alcohol concentrations over 0.05g/100ml)." Independent readers of the report put this down to a drunk driver having more difficulty controlling a larger vehicle. No where in the report does it say that more 4wd drivers are drunk drivers.

"They kill more kids - and presumably two-wheel riders - than other drivers."

According to the ATSB, between 1996 and 1998, 22% of low-speed deaths were caused by trucks, 22% by large utiilities and 22% by 4wds. So where's your campaign against trucks and utes?

You may have presumed wrong. The ATSB reports that cyclist (as in pedal power) deaths between 1996 and 2000 were attributed more to cars than 4wds. In fact 40% of deaths were from a collision with a car, with uts/vans/4wds making up only 18%.

Likewise in 1992, 64% of pedestrians were killed by cars with only 14% killed by utes/vans/4wds.

"Which is why, no doubt, our spineless politicians of every stripe have done nothing to discourage 4WD use ... instead they actually give them a 10 per cent tariff cut, as a reward for the carnage they cause. So much for the principle of user pays."

So I guess tighter controls on emissions, changes to safety requirements, inclusion of 4wds in crash-testing and the look at introduction of reversing cameras is nothing? The user does pay... you forget that they are more expensive to buy, register and buy parts for. In fact, this must mean users pay a lot more tax than the sedan driver.

"They're also chewing up far too much of the world's oil reserves."

Well this one is just a joke. A petrol 4wd uses no more fuel than a car of the same weight. In addition, turbo diesels are so efficient these days that a large Hilux, Prado, Patrol etc actually uses less fuel than your standard Falcon or Commodore. Not only does it use less, but it also emits less pollution. You might want to research that one a little better.

"There's a place for these vehicles in rural areas - Bleeding Edge owned one when we we were farming - but 80 per cent of them never leave the bitumen."

Whilst I agree that there are some people who drive them that don't need them, I'd love to know where the 80 per cent came from.... you hear it bandied around but no proof is ever given on this statistic.

"And while their proliferation is dropping because of the price of petrol, there's still far too many of them on the road."

Ahem like I said before, it's cheaper fuel-wise to run a turbo diesel 4wd than a Commodore or Falcon. Maybe there's too many Fords and Holdens on the road too? If only they were as efficient as a turbo diesel.

"If they live in the city and don't have a farm, strike them off your list of friends, and tell them why."

So it doesn't matter if they go to the Australian outback every 2 weeks?

"They're selfish, thoughtless clods who endanger other people and the planet."

I think the above already addresses that remark.

"It would be nice to have some stickers to apply to their windscreens."

Why? Can't you see a 4wd coming? You just said earlier that they're too big. Perhaps we could have the "Warning - Frequently Sideways" stickers that drivers of sedans often put on their vehicles.

"In the meantime, if you're a pedestrian, or on two wheels - for that matter if you're driving a sedan - for God's sake don't let them get too close."

If you're a pedestrian or 2 wheeler, statistically you should look out for sedans, they kill more than 4wds do.

My my my ... what an interesting little piece of garbage information this is ....... I drive a little 4.2 tonne tare truck every day at work & I cannot count the amount of times I have been cutoff and raced from the traffic lights by any number of vehicles ... It does not matter what an inconsiderate stupid ignorant daft driver actually drives it is their attitude to what is around them that makes a difference and quite often kills or injures them or others in the end ..... I get sick of ALL MANNER of vehicles that see fit to drive at 10-20 kmh under the speed limit until I overtake them and then they see fit to speed up overtake me then proceed to slow down again just so they are in front of the "little truck". I suppose I could now say that "ALL" drivers of ANYTHING suffer from being stupid, inconsiderate, dumb, just plain ignorant drive anything but trucks but no doubt the ignorant rantings of the author of the bullshit above would find some "statistics" to prove otherwise. I suggest the author takes their head out of the arse for long enough to see that NOT EVERY DRIVER OF A 4WD IS AN IDIOT or unlicenced, unregistered, full of drugs or alcohol, carrying guns, whatever.!!! Just like not every driver of anything but a little truck is not " an inconsiderate stupid ignorant daft driver" .. just the way I see them I suppose !!!!