OT Smart cars

Quoted message said:

according to the new poster campaign for these cars they are not bound by the usual traffic
regulations (eg traffic cones etc).

I suspect it was a metaphore for them being able to get to places more easily than other cars.

Quoted message said:

A new one on me! and they only carry two people (I know that's one more than most cars but..)

And the point you are making is.....

MartinM said:

me! and they only carry two people

They do only carry one or two people.

In "]news:[email hidden],
MartinM <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

according to the new poster campaign for these cars they are not bound by the usual traffic
regulations (eg traffic cones etc). A new one on me! and they only carry two people (I know that's
one more than most cars but..)

Tell the ASA, then. They have special rules about car advertising. I got a positive response from my
complaint of last month.

John Hearns said:

MartinM said:

me! and they only carry two people

They do only carry one or two people.

And a Brompton in the space behind the seat that might in another car be called the boot.

Colin
--

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:20:16 -0000, in
<[email hidden]>, Colin Blackburn

Quoted message said:

John Hearns said:

MartinM said:

me! and they only carry two people

They do only carry one or two people.

And a Brompton in the space behind the seat that might in another car be called the boot.

I've just bought some new panniers that are probably big enough to carry a Smart car.

I'm having thoughts of Guy towing a Smart behind his 'bent ...
--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which appears in my inbox is mine to do what I
like with. Anything which is sent to me (whether intended or not) may, if I so desire, form a legal
and binding contract.

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

according to the new poster campaign for these cars they are not bound by the usual traffic
regulations (eg traffic cones etc....

You mean they can use motorway lanes that are coned off??

"vernon levy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

according to the new poster campaign for these cars they are not bound by the usual traffic
regulations (eg traffic cones etc).

I suspect it was a metaphore for them being able to get to places more easily than other cars.

cones are cones, irrespective of vehicle size. A Smart is no more able to drive in a coned off area.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A new one on me! and they only carry two people (I know that's one more than most cars but..)

And the point you are making is.....

That basically Smarts are extra vehicles on the road, nice though they may be, as they don't serve
the purpose of conventional 5 seater cars. IMBW but I don't think they are puchased as replacements
for Fiestas/Metros etc.

Quoted message said:

cones are cones, irrespective of vehicle size. A Smart is no more able to drive in a coned
off area.

I never suggested that they were allowed to drive in coned off areas just that they were small
enough and manoeverable enough to do things that larger cars couldn't. Revise the meaning of
metaphor :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A new one on me! and they only carry two people (I know that's one more than most cars but..)

And the point you are making is.....

That basically Smarts are extra vehicles on the road, nice though they may be, as they don't serve
the purpose of conventional 5 seater cars. IMBW but I don't think they are puchased as
replacements for Fiestas/Metros etc.

I'd rather see a Smart car with one person in it than a Rolls Royce with two...less fuel per person
mile and less CO2. They were never intended to be a five seater car, that's why they were fitted
with two seats. Furthermore when a Smart car is being driven, its owner is not driving a bigger more
puluting vehicle unless of course he's driving a flat bed truck with the Smart car on the back with
the engine running.

I still don't see the point of your beefing....

"vernon levy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I still don't see the point of your beefing....

That Smarts are
a) immune from the usual problems that beset car drivers.This is not really true. I love Smarts,
would have one in my garage if I could justify the extra car tax/insurance etc, and also if it
did what my AX does (ie trips to the dump, bike carrier,school run with my two and aften another
two). But they still cause congestion, need a car parking space (albeit smaller) at the other
end, and I suspect, due to their limited space, replace possibly some journeys that could be done
by public transport/ walking/bike (ok thats pure speculation)
b) I don't have any problem with one or two people using a Smart rather than a larger more petrol-
thirsty car. There was a posting in this NG a few weeks ago about an extra 3 million cars in the
UK since 1997; well Smarts and also other _lifestyle_ vehicles, e.g. 4x4s used to go
shopping/school runs etc probably contribute to this number. Thus they are extra vehicles. As
long as Smarts do not represent extra unneccesary journeys they are are good thing, but what
about the additional environmental aspects of manufacturing all these extra cars (and of course
scrapping the old ones)?

Quoted message said:

That Smarts are
a) immune from the usual problems that beset car drivers.This is not really true.

Counldn't disagree more. My most enjoyable driving experiences came from a Fiat 126 a small car,
totally impractical by your definitions but it could cut through heavy traffic with minimal fuss.

Quoted message said:

I love Smarts, would have one in my garage if I could justify the extra car tax/insurance etc, and
also if it did what my AX does (ie trips to the dump, bike carrier,school run with my two and
aften another two).

Why beef about a vehicle which was not designed to meet your needs and lifestyle? I'd have a Rolls
Royce if it did 40 miles to the gallon, could be serviced at Kwik Fit and could fit in my drive
without me having to move the gateposts. It doesn't, it can't and I won't - end of story. That the
car is unsuitable for my needs doesn't remove the right for it to be owned by folk who can
accomodate its needs.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Martinm
according to the new poster campaign for these cars they are not bound by the usual traffic
regulations

What about the dog food advert where the dog pulls a guy on a bike; surely thats illegal or am I just being as picky as you???

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
What about the dog food advert where the dog pulls a guy on a bike; surely thats illegal or am I just being as picky as you???

Hmmm. But with the smart car advert, the car is breaking the law as advertised by the car company. Do you plan to sue say Trek because one of their bikes was used illegally in a pedigree Chum (or whatever) ad?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by davebee
Hmmm. But with the smart car advert, the car is breaking the law as advertised by the car company. Do you plan to sue say Trek because one of their bikes was used illegally in a pedigree Chum (or whatever) ad?

Of course not!!! Don't you think that Martinm should get out more; its only an advert!

Whats with all the complaining on this site? I would have thought that with the quality of life improvements that cycling provide there should be a lot more happy people!

Quoted message said:

Whats with all the complaining on this site? I would have thought that with the quality of life
improvements that cycling provide there should be a lot more happy people!

It's the lack of endorphins - they only get the happy rush when they're out cycling.

2LAP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

davebee said:

Hmmm. But with the smart car advert, the car is breaking the law as advertised by the car
company. Do you plan to sue say Trek because one of their bikes was used illegally in a
pedigree Chum (or whatever) ad?

Of course not!!! Don't you think that Martinm should get out more; its only an advert!

...cue Michael Winner saying "Calm down, dear - it's just a commercial" ;-)

David E. Belcher

David E. Belcher said:

...cue Michael Winner saying "Calm down, dear - it's just a commercial" ;-)

Reasons not even to contemplate approaching an in-sewer-ants company for a quote

1. Using Michael Winner in advertisements
2. Do you /really/ need another?

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

2LAP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Martinm said:

according to the new poster campaign for these cars they are not bound by the usual traffic
regulations

What about the dog food advert where the dog pulls a guy on a bike; surely thats illegal or am I
just being as picky as you???

--

Slightly diviated off the subject........As a Smart Car owner the vehicle is capable of 57 miles to
the gallon and there is surprising amount of room in one for very tall drivers and shopping, plus a
cycle rack is manufactured for them. Cheaper parking in South West trains car parks, and parking end
on if you can get away with it. Top speed 85 mile an hour unless you get a remap which could take
you up to 115 Mph but wider wheels a must so I am told.

Brompton in the back no problem.

A similar car is coming out shortly made by Vauxhall / Opel called a Trixx with electric doors, and
a deisel but more room for passengers.

Phil.

2LAP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

davebee said:

Hmmm. But with the smart car advert, the car is breaking the law as advertised by the car
company. Do you plan to sue say Trek because one of their bikes was used illegally in a
pedigree Chum (or whatever) ad?

Of course not!!! Don't you think that Martinm should get out more; its only an advert!

There was an even sillier one for a Vauxhall Corsa that involved it driving along tube tunnels. I
didn't write to the ASA about that either. The only time I wrote to the ASA was when they started
selling Heineken _Export_ at a inflated price claiming it was imported. They lost, they now import
it and it is cheaper!

In "]news:[email hidden],
MartinM <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

2LAP <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

davebee said:

Hmmm. But with the smart car advert, the car is breaking the law

as > advertised by the car company. Do you plan to sue say Trek because one > of their bikes
was used illegally in a pedigree Chum (or whatever) ad?

Of course not!!! Don't you think that Martinm should get out more; its only an advert!

There was an even sillier one for a Vauxhall Corsa that involved it driving along tube tunnels. I
didn't write to the ASA about that either. The only time I wrote to the ASA was when they started
selling Heineken _Export_ at a inflated price claiming it was imported. They lost, they now
import it and it is cheaper!

<pedant> TV ads are (or will be) regulated by Ofcom, not the ASA, who do print, cinema & poster ads.
I forget the current name of the TV ad regulator</pedant