Zelezny Chucks wrote:Iron Fist wrote:brod wrote: My 5c worth of what gives me the shirts. The increase of four wheel drives in the inner city. They never go bush and they seem to be the new status symbol amongst the CUBS in my suburb, who take their precious little CUBBETTES to school in them because they can't walk them the three blocks, and thereby clog up small, clogged up roads even more.
"Hey mate. St Kilda got rid of it's sandhills 160 years ago. You don't need a 4WD here!!!"

I see what ya mean, I drive a big 4wd but go away at almost every opportunity in it.
Its funny seeing the rich snobbie people on my way to work in either a land rover, discovery or prado and you can just tell that they never use it to go away. Doesnt effect me as much as I can see past them but it used to piss me off when I had a smaller car!
Unfortunately there is nothing you can really do about it.
I've always wondered why rego increases with engine size? Surely weight of the car would be a better indicator on what is doing more damage to the roads etc. therefore costing tax payers more.
Interesting point. i guess generally years ago cars with more cylinders were usually bigger so they went down that path.
meanwhile i was part of an interesting discussion a while ago. supposedly the total "damage" caused to the roads by light vehicles (ie sedans, wagons, utes etc) is nil. absolutely zero! the vehicles that cause the most damage are obviously the semis and b doubles etc.
however "nature", being rain, sun etc causes quite a bit of deterioration also. basically the only reason light vehicles are charged rego is cos the government cant charge mother nature for the deterioration, and subsequent necessary maintenance, to the road network!!
i thought it was a very interesting point of view if true. not that it would change my rego at all if it was, but if someone could argue the point maybe all "light" vehicles could then pay the same and my ute rego wouldnt cost me as much!!
