The 4WD Debate

You have may noticed 4WDs aren't popular in some quarters. There's a lot of sensationalism, liberally sprinkled with phrases like the "vehicles of mass destruction". Flung with the muck are a lot of naked statistics, and we all know how convincing they are. You can demonise anything with the right inflection and suitable selection of facts and quotations.

But beneath the ranting there are a few points that need addressing. As best I understand them, they are summarised as follows:

Bullbars. More likely to result in injuries than not.
Safety. 4WDs are light trucks, designed for off-road use. They are more likely to roll, need more braking room and don't deform as well in a crash.
Size. Physically larger, 4WDs block the view of other road users.
Fuel consumption. 4WDs use more fuel than roadcars.
4WDs damage the environment when used off sealed roads.

This is a response to those points from someone who owns a 4WD and uses it offroad. But before we go any further, we'd better clarify what we mean by "4WD". Technically, a 4WD is a vehicle that has four wheels, all of which can be driven. That includes cars that are purely designed for bitumen, such as Audi and Subaru all-wheel-drives.

However, in practice the term "4WD" means a four-wheel-drive car or truck type vehicle that is designed for at least a modicum of off-road use. Exactly what is a 4WD and what is an "AWD" or "softroader" is open to debate.

Even with that qualification, the term "4WD" covers a very large variety of vehicles, from the tiny Suzuki Jimny with its 1.3 litre engine, to the giant Ford F250 to "softroader" hybrids like the Forester and CR-V which are closer to plain roadcars with slightly raised suspension, to "serious" 4WDs like the Defender and Patrol. And even the Jimny is a "serious" 4WD too, as a 4WD doesn't need to be big to be a capable offroad vehicle!

All these vehicles are 4WDs, and are very, very different machines, and as such it is usually inappropriate to make generalisations. "4WD" critics would do well to be more specific about their targets. Most of the concerns seem to be centred around large vehicles, and that is not the same as vehicles with rough-terrain capability. Some focus on vehicle with a separate chassis. Some 4WDs have a separate chassis, some do not. Now to each point in turn.

Bullbars

The bullbar debate is not the same as the 4WD debate. Many 4WDs have no bullbar. Many non-4WDs, such as some metropolitan taxis, many utes and light truck delivery vehicles do have bullbars. Therefore, although there is a debate about bullbars, it is not a 4WD-only issue and so won't be covered here

Safety

The concern is that all else being equal, a 4WD is less safe than a non-4WD in terms of rollover predilection, crashworthiness, and so on, both to its occupants and other road users. This is because of its greater weight relative to other vehicles, higher centre of gravity and relatively rugged construction.

Never mentioned is that fact that some design features of a 4WD translate to better road safety. Because 4WDs are higher, the driver has a better field of vision than a roadcar driver. This can include rearward vision too. And many 4WDs have constant 4WD, which dramatically improves traction. And not all 4WDs have a separate chassis (there are those generalisations again). And what of payload? If a family of, say, four loads the car up with all their gear and heads off on a long road trip then they may be in danger of overloading a standard sedan or wagon. 4WDs are designed for higher payloads and can carry the weight more safely. A Commodore wagon has a payload of 480kg, which is significantly less than the popular medium and large 4WDs. Ever totted up how much a family and camping gear weigh? Which vehicle is safer, one overloaded or at its gross vehicle mass, or one well within? Or, for that matter, which is legally roadworthy and covered by insurance?

But to the concerns, not to the errors of omission. The laws of physics do state vehicles with higher centres of gravity are more prone to roll over and so on. So there are safety cons for the 4WD, and safety pros, as there are for any class of vehicle, and it is true that a heavier vehicle is likely to be better off in a crash with a lighter one.

But where do we stop?

Should we all drive cars with ultra-low centres of gravity, and large, sticky tyres that need replacing every few thousand kilometres, and preferably of the same weight so should there be a crash all is "fair"? That would be safer, wouldn't it? And perhaps force everyone who owns a car older than five years old to update. A new 4WD with equipment like ABS, stability control and airbags and is likely to a lot safer than an older sedan with nothing.

Obviously there needs to be a limit, to define what's safe and what's not. A good idea would be to introduce some rules, call them say Australian Design Rules, with which new vehicles have to comply that set minimum standards for roadworthiness. And publish all sorts of facts and figures about safety. That way the dangerous vehicles are kept off the road by legislation, and the public could choose how safe a vehicle they want to buy. And that's the way it works now. In the case of rollovers, low sportscars would be best, then perhaps normal roadcars, then peoplemovers and 4WDs. Driver's visibility and carrying ability is likely to be the reverse order.

The counter argument is that the ADRs should be lowered to exclude 4WDs. That is the wrong way to look at any regulation. You decide what's safe, and then set the bar. You don't decide you don't like a certain class, and then set the bar based on prejudice. The same logic applies to the number of rules that a vehicle has to comply with before being allowed on the road. The best solution of course is to prevent accidents happening in the first place, and as driver error is a major cause of accidents addressing that would seem to be logical. It's amazing how often you read that "someone's car left the road" or "the driver's car crashed into a tree." Why don't we face the facts? Simply, the driver lost control in most of these cases, through speed, inattention, poor judgement or other factors. Let's fix the problem, which is the driver.

What we need is a far more stringent driving test, to include driving at night, on freeway, dirt roads, icy roads, skid control, observation, technology such as ABS and how to use it, car sympathy, basic car maintenance such as checking tyre condition and pressures, the elements of first aid and so on would be a good start. Given that ABS and non-ABS cars require completely different styles of braking in an emergency, why aren't there placards stating which cars have ABS and which do not?

Then follow it up with specialised licenses for special cars, like forward-control vehicles, high-performance cars, trailers and yes, 4WDs. And make it a renewable license every four years or so. We then get a far better trained (safer) set of drivers on the road, the Government gets a revenue stream which it can offset by reducing taxes elsewhere and the road toll comes down, and isn't that what the root of this particular anti-4WD argument is all about? The 4WD license should include basic offroad driving techniques, knowledge of 4WD transmissions, tuition on road handling and a manoeuvring test. While post-crash safety is important, the focus should be on preventing crashes in the first place, and that is a much wider issue than which class of vehicle exceeds the defined safety standards by the largest amount.

The issue of reversing safety is also frequently brought up. Many 4WDs actually have better rearwards visibility than many sedans, and because of their relatively boxy shape additional mirrors on the rear door, or "vanscope" type lens improve this still further. And again, if someone runs over a child in a vehicle, it is not the vehicle to blame but the driver. 4WDs also afford a higher view, and this can often to be to the driver's advantage.

Size

"4WDs are too large". Again, which 4WDs, and too large for what? Perhaps the critics mean the largest common ones on the market, specifically the Nissan Patrol and Landcruiser 100 Series. In that case, we're back to a complaint against large vehicles, not necessarily 4WDs. Those who rush to advise owners of Patrols and Landcruisers to switch to Falcon and Commdore wagons should check the dimensions of each. The four vehicles have virtually the same width, but the 2WDs are in fact longer.

The 4WDs are taller. Therefore, the problem must be with the vehicle's height. Complaints are made that drivers cannot see past 4WDs. Those drivers who find this a problem should either stop driving immediately, or take sufficient additional training until their observation and ability to position the car on the road is such that they can safely operate in traffic. Any driver who cannot safely follow a 4WD, large truck or other vehicle simply should not be on the road.

Fuel Consumption

Gas guzzler" is an epithet often applied to 4WDs. The criticism is that 4WDs use "more fuel" than a roadcar. This is because driving all four wheels requires additional driveshafts and other items, hence additional weight, and the less than perfect aerodynamics of a 4WD.

It's worth examining the root concern here. It must be use of petroleum, due to the fact it's a finite resource, and also the effect on the environment. Therefore, what the argument is really saying is that we must seek to reduce such usage, and not use "too much". But who will say "your car uses too much fuel"?

Families in Europe manage with Astra, or Vectra-sized cars. They don't have something the size of a Commodore. Perhaps pressurise all Falcon and Commodore owners to change, too?

And what about "unnecessary" trips? If I own a 4WD but I take public transport to work, so my annual mileage is a third of my neighbour who drives to work, then is it ok for me to own a 4WD? No, I hear, because I should do my mileage in a smaller car anyway. We'll come to that argument later.

And then there is poor driving that requires constant braking, negligent maintenance such as underinflated tyres and other factors which cause people to use more fuel than some arbitrary minimum. Or what about non-4WD all-wheel drive cars, those that are designed for bitumen use only? They use more fuel than the 2WD equivalent.

What's "too much fuel"?

Is the solution to give up cars as we know them completely? For some people, the answer will be yes and eventually we'll need to move to a different energy source, such as biodiesel, as petroleum runs out. But in the meantime, that's not feasible, so be realistic. If your problem is with automobiles in general, that's fine, but it's hardly a 4WD-specific issue. If you're really concerned about petroleum use and pollution, then I suggest you investigate biodiesel and devote your energies to supporting that fuel rather than denigrating 4WDs. It'll do the environment much more good.

A mere look at how many litres per 100km is too narrow a view. The bigger picture is how much you use in total against your needs. Whatever your "needs" are, as opposed to wants.

So if we don't give up cars immediately, we should seek not to waste fuel. Should we all drive small cars like the Huyndai Excel? Or motorcycles?

Ah no, I hear a cry. I need a larger car, as I have a family, people to transport, a boat to pull, dogs to move…the list is endless. Fine. Perhaps we should say "don't buy a car any larger or more powerful than you need". That allows those who "need" them to have large cars. It denies single people the right to their powerful, large sportscars unless they can prove they "need" them. And that is a slippery path to the sort of state few people want to live in, where we begin to legislate to differentiate between "need" and "want".

So let us suppose everyone buys no more car capability than they need. I'm happy with that. My requirements are for a car that can transport my family, camping gear and remote-area equipment over rough terrain. The solution is commonly called a 4WD. And while it uses more fuel than, say, the sedan car equivalent, the sedan can't fulfil my requirements any more than a two-door compact car can fulfil the requirements of a large family.

Now I hear that I shouldn't be offroad anyway, therefore my requirement is invalid. That's a separate concern, addressed below.

4WDs in the Environment

The argument is that 4WDs damage the environment in forests, deserts and other terrain that isn't a bitumen road.

I think there is a stark choice. Either have a forest used for recreation, or have no forest and have suburbia instead. If you would have no human activity in a forest, there will be few humans to fight for that forest. There are some places in every part of the world where human activity should be banned, but it shouldn't be everywhere outside of the suburbs. National Parks are valuable and have their place, but not every non-suburban square metre needs to be turned into a no-human-access park.

The number of forest users is large; 4WDers, dirtbikers, bushwalkers, fishermen, hunters, canoeists, cyclists, horseriders, hunters, rogainers, joggers, birdwatchers, miners, orienteers, campers…the list goes on. Properly managed, the forest can easily survive use. Within every group of users there will be a rouge element of idiots, but don't tar the responsible majority with the brush of the irresponsible minority.

If we look at the average forest it is many hundreds of square kilometres, if not many thousands. Is anyone seriously suggesting some 4WD tracks in a forest ruin the entire environment? There may be the loss of some trees, but does pruning a hedge kill it? Even bushwalking tracks require modifications to the natural environment, and more so if you consider the wide, gravel roads used for access. If any given track becomes problematic, that's where good management steps in and repairs, or closes the track. The same happens if an area is over-fished, over-camped, or people start to cut corners on bushwalks or any other part of the forest is threatened by incorrect use. If eventually we need to charge access fees for the forest, so be it, provided that fee goes towards management directed at sustaining the environment for the good of all.

I also don't believe that 4WDs in a forest have any significant effect on the wildlife compared to other human activity. I have never seen any dead animals on or by the side of a 4WD track, but plenty on higher-speed dirt roads where even normal roadcars can venture. A 4WD track is narrow, and the environment isn't modified with bitumen or gravel. Vehicles necessarily move slowly along it. So animals are able to cross it easily, and safely, unlike a wide dirt or bitumen road. Obviously such roads need to be built, and should be, but the point is a 4WD track has less impact on the environment.

4WD tracks also need to exist for management vehicles, and for emergencies. Recreational 4WD users help maintain, and keep these tracks clear. I've lost count of the amount of fallen trees we've cleared from tracks after storms. I think even the bushwalkers would thank us for that, and the CFA and SES certainly would if they need to get somewhere in a hurry. And most 4WDers of any experience have stories of assisting others, non-4WDers in the bush or remote areas.

The image of 4WDs wheelspinning their way, or even jumping their way over lush forests or scenic deserts is often used to advertise vehicles. This practice is quite simply wrong, and irresponsible. It is not the way 4WDers are trained to drive. It erodes the tracks unnecessarily, risks damage to the vehicle and leads people to the dangerous belief that the vehicle is all-powerful and will simply sail across the toughest obstacles. Recreational 4WD organisations have spoken to manufacturers about this form of advertising and wish to see the practice stopped.

4WDs Not Used Offroad

The term "offroad" is a bit of misnomer as it implies that a 4WD can be driven anywhere. In reality, 4WD clubs stick to 4WD tracks which are legal roads. They may be rough and rutted, but they are roads. So they're not really offroad at all in the strictest sense of the word, but the term is used for what could be more accurately but more clumsily described as "non-bitumen driving".

I use my vehicle offroad. Many owners of 4WDs do not. There are reasons for owning 4WDs and not using them offroad, and these include towing large and heavy trailers, and many people with limited joint flexibility prefer not to have to bend down to get into their vehicle. Others buy them because they simply need the space, or up to seven seats and a people mover may not have been an option.

It is wrong to assume that everyone with a 4WD that doesn't use it offroad does not have a good reason for their choice of vehicle. Of course, one person's "good" reason may be another person's pathetic excuse.

The safety aspect is also a significant factor. Many people consider 4WDs safer because they are usually heavier, and taller than conventional cars. In some circumstances that may well be true, in others it may well not. There are probably also some people also drive large 4WDs simply because they are large, and they like the feeling of safety, and they like to feel they can bully other road users. The vehicle itself should not be blamed for the personality defects of a minority of its owners. If we blamed the tool for the problem, we'd better take up arms against the printing press and email while we're at it. There also is an argument that a roadcar station wagon would do just as well as a 4WD for any dirt-road trips. And that is certainly an interesting point. The Birdsville, and Oodnadatta tracks for example don't require a 4WD.

But let's think about this for a moment. Years ago, roadcar magazines included critiques of roadcar handling on dirt roads as part of their reviews. No longer, because dirt roads are becoming rarer. In line with that trend roadcars are becoming more road-oriented. Lower to the ground, low-profile tyres, space-saver spares, alloy wheels, high-strung engines running on premium unleaded petrol; I think it fair to say that the average car of yesteryear was probably a better bet for the outback than today's roadcar.

And there is a big difference between "can do it" and "can do it comfortably and safely". A roadcar can negotiate many outback roads. But a 4WD can do so better because it's designed for it. Better suspension, traction, visibility, greater payload and so on. If you wanted to kit out a vehicle for outback travel, with say stronger tyres, long-range tanks, rear cargo storage and more the 4WD industry is ready and waiting to help you. Some of those accessories are available for roadcars too, but far fewer, less choice and therefore more expense.

So it can be done, but why not use a better base vehicle to begin with? If you were to do a 15km bushwalk, you could achieve it patent leather work shoes, but wouldn't it be better to wear more appropriate? I've seen people walk around Kings Canyon with a small bottle of water between the group. Possible, but advisable? Why would you do it, then brag about not needing bushwalking boots?

Economics of Owning a 4WD

It has been pointed out that if one uses a 4WD just for a 4-week trip every year it would make more sense to rent, rather than own one, and use a small car for the rest of the year. The economics may make sense in some cases and this option should be considered when assessing the cost of a 4WD. However, this argument is somewhat narrow and overlooks many other factors. For example, most 4WD-owning families would go on one long trip a year, and many other shorter trips, over weekends and long weekends. It ignores the availability or otherwise of the vehicle in a given area, makes it harder to go on last-minute trips (or cancel, for that matter) and does not consider the convenience of having one's own vehicle set up exactly as the owner prefers. It also reduces vehicle ownership to a purely monetary decision, and if that were the sole, or even primary consideration of public then there would be very few cars available on the market, and all of them basic models.

Exports and Jobs

4WD is a big industry. There is a huge modification and accessory market, in which Australia is a world leader with brands like ARB and TJM. The 4WD touring market is a significant source of income to many outback localities. Many overseas visitors are lured by the thought of self-drive 4WD tours. Would the same amount of people still come if 4WDs were banned and we all had to arrive in tour buses? I suspect not.

And if you, as an Aussie resident, buy a 4WD, kit it up, with Australian-made accessories, bought in Australia, fitted in Australia, then learn how to drive it (via an Australian training course), what are you likely to do with your 20 days of leave a year? Probably spend them touring…well…Australia, which helps the Aussie tourism industry - which needs all the help it can get. That's a fair bit of cash ploughed straight back into Australia. Recreational 4WD means jobs for the 4WD industry, and in rural Australia, and it means exports. It's certainly an area where Australia can claim some measure of world leadership and renown.

Emotion and 4WDs

This could be an essay by itself. It does seem apparent that a lot of the anti-4WD ranting is not based on logic but emotion. Something about 4WDs stirs emotions that lead to anger, sometimes almost hatred. Why?

The fact that the 4WD is used on roads, where it can be a target of road rage is also probably a factor. The fact that humans transform into entirely different beings when behind the wheel is well known, and everyone else becomes bloody fools in Porsches, stupid Sunday drivers, idiot taxi drivers…and of course, bloody idiots in 4WDs.

Perhaps it's because 4WDs are seen by some as status symbols because they are more expensive than a conventional vehicle, and any status symbol in Australia attracts derision, from Ferraris to mansions.

Perhaps it's fear. Some 4WDs are taller than the average car with the driver sitting higher, and anything larger than what you're in can be intimidating. And if you feel at all intimidated, or inferior, then you're not going to like what you're intimidated by.

Perhaps some believe that by owning a 4WD people are directly financing terrorist activities by using "more fuel", being ecologically irresponsible and generally being a danger on the roads. They would have read the anti-4WD propaganda, and perhaps not stopped to question it and see if there is another side to the story.

The answer isn't clear, but it is apparent that more letters are written to newspapers on the subject of 4WDs than any other vehicle type, so somewhere, somehow, the subject of 4WD is sufficiently emotive for many to air their views publicly. And yes, there is irony in that statement.

What is the anti-4WD movement's plan?

I've read a fair few anti-4WD articles. I have not yet seen any coherent, realistic plan to deal with their grievances, usually just a lot of inflammatory rhetoric and hyperbole. Personally, I don't like to complain unless I have suggestions for a solution. Blithe comments like "get them off the streets", while perhaps striking an emotional chord, simply aren't realistic because they aren't thought through. And as much as some people would dream it, no government is going to force all 4WD owners to drive their vehicles to a compactor and destroy them, or ban their sale forthwith. So, my question to any anti-4WD campaigners is quite simple. You've said there is a problem. Firstly, can the problem be cleared stated, and secondly, do you have a realistic solution to your perceived problem? Preferably one that can be stated without hysterics.

Feedback

I welcome debate and feedback. Please note that anything you send me may be published on this site and edited for clarity, unless you state otherwise. Both arguments for and against will be included. I like to hear the arguments against, as after I've finished understanding them if I haven't changed my mind it just reinforces my original position. However, communications that are more emotion and sensation than reasoned argument - from either side of the debate - are of no interest to me as they merely fan the flames of what is already an overheated issue.

Here is the feedback so far:

What a load of pompous, self opinionated rubbish, masquerading as rational debate. -- Anonymous

I think your idea about being tested is great - I am very much about being qualifed, certified, experienced and current none of which happen either by buying the thing off the showroom floor or off your mate at bargain basement price when it's falling apart, regardless what vehicle you drive.

the argument that 4WDs are gas guzzlers HAS to be applied to all v8s too. can't argue with that!

I know someone very much anti 4wd. if he can provide something that is "safer" and meets my non offroad requirements:-
* fits all dive gear (6 tanks, two tubs,
* kayak and surfboard SAFELY on roof
* capable in snow covered roads, limestone, gravel, slippery boat ramps and sand to the waters edge
* fits MTB inside (for security on single activity trips before after work) or outside (inconvenient but suits on long trips)
* does ALL the above at the one time (water based holidays may include surfing, kayaking and dive gear and MTB)

in addition to my offroad requirements

I don't have an issue with people buying 4wd and not using em offroad - i do however have an issue with KITTING THEM UP and not using it! but maybe that's just me!

the vision of driving 4wd THRU the bush is interesting. the track is already there, already a DIRT swathe thru the bush. far better than asphalting a 2 lane way surely.

people don't like stuff. big deal. let em. People also complain about me in my dive gear, surfing in the winter, hauling a paraglider up the hill - but I do all these things because I enjoy them and am not significantly harming anything. And a 4wd gets me to all of these. And gets me into SEE the forest we're all trying to protect with no significant impact on flora, fauna, or other users (bushwalkers need a track, single track mountainbikers need a track - the track is only SLIGHTLY wider for 4wd users - and already in place across all of our national parks)

--Tony Morris

I totally agree with the writer of the article, no matter what you do or where you do it, there will always be someone who cannot afford or lacks the experience to do it them selves, so they attack those who can, this is the "Australian Tall Poppy Syndrome" it Stinks and is holding Australia Back, I invented a technology that will save over 200 tons of C02 emission per year on a supermarket size building as well as half A/C costs, and do you think they want to go first ... i have the Americans crawling down my throat for it, begging us to go to the US. The Australian Attitude towards different activities wether it be 4wding or business is appaling when compared to the rest of the world. I want to see Australia do well in the international market, but sadly i think i will have to move to the markets that work.