I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:17:20 +0100, "\(t'other\) Dave"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

yeah!, personal choice, eh?...it's a [censored]!!

They are free to make a stupid choice if they want, but it
doesn't make it any less stupid ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quoted message said:

What about those of us who use an off-roader both off-road,
and take it to the shops, or to drop the kids at school
occasionally ?

Those are not the sort of people that Red Ken was talking
about. As you are perfectly aware.

Tony Raven said:

Are you talking about 4x4's or any bigger car. To be
honest there is virtually no size difference between most
4x4's and a London taxi. A BMW X5 or Range Rover weighs
only 50% more than a Mondeo.

Well, a Mondeo is already severely overweight, as are all
cars these days [1]. It's the "safety" arms race, which just
guarantees a bigger bang when you hit someone driving an
equally heavy car.

[1] an example; a Mk1 Nissan Micra was 610kg. The current
model is just short of 1000kg. And compare the size of
an 1970s Honda Civic to the current one. Isn't it
ridiculous that "superminis" - personified by the Metro
and the original Fiesta - have grown to the extent that
a whole new model range can be fitted in below them?

On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:18:07 GMT, Velvet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

If off-roaders were used off-road for a significant
percentage of the time, they'd not be in pristine gleaming
condition that I see around london - completely scratch and
small-dink free. They'd often be mud-splattered in winter,
have bits of vegetation trapped around the bull-bar mount
points or in the edges of the bumpers, etc etc.

And they'd be the type of 4x4 that works off road, not a
butch posemobile that's frightened of mud.

Tony Raven said:

Vincent Wilcox wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway they're old hat now, didnt you know that Hummers
are appearing on the streets of London.

So are stretched limos.

More proof, if it were required, that petrol is far too
cheap. (and yes, I do own a car).

Tony Raven said:

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg
which is about average fuel consumption .I think you need
a Humvee to get 8mpg.

My ex-boss (OK, she is a phenomenally poor driver) only
managed 11mpg average from her Land Cruiser Amazon. It
actually touched the white lines on each side of the parking
spaces at work.

davek said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, now lots of people have them, to stand out in
the crowd it has

to

Quoted message said:

be a Merc. or BMW .

Ah yes, the kind of "off road" vehicle that wouldn't last
five minutes if it actually went off road.

You'd be surprised. They're both quite competent off-road
which is more than can be said of Jeeps.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Not Responding said:

Not the freedom to do things of benefit only to oneself
at the expense of the wider community. In this instance,
the concreting of front gardens is bad news for pretty
much everyone with the exception of the person who gets
free parking.

Have you considered that being forced to do gardening might
be bad news for pretty much everyone but yourself?

Have you ever heard the term 'water table'? Do you know
what it means and how it is maintained? Have you ever
seen a flood?

Al C-F said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:21:10 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-

family.com said:

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg
which is about average fuel consumption .

You're comparing a Discovery to a rather thirsty petrol
engined car.

Our Octavia turbodiesel gets 55mpg in average use, 63mpg on
a long motorway run. It's perfectly fast enough - actually
it's like driving a Ferrari after my 1.2 Micra - and has a
massive boot.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:15:15 GMT, Velvet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Al C-F said:

(In fairness, they offer protection against hazards in
these vehicles' natural habitat. i.e. they protect lights
from shopping trolleys in Waitrose's car park).

If a driver needs bull-bars to protect their lights from
shopping trolleys, then I'd suggest they're unfit to be in
charge of a vehicle as large as that (their 4x4ish thing,
NOT the trolley, though sometimes I wonder about that
too..) - if they can't manuevre it in a confined space
without running over trolleys, what chance have they of
seeing and not squishing a kid?

That wasn't the way I was thinking, actually. I was thinking
about stray and badly driven trolleys, particularly in any
supermarket carpark on a slope.

And I was being sarcastic.

davek said:

Al C-F:

Quoted message said:

I always fancied a Defender as a sort of 'anti-fashion'
statement. Then came Lara Croft, and a special edition
Land Rover.

Nah, you want to get yourself one of those bombproof Toyota
pick-ups for that.

The thought had occured. Especially after Jezza had shown
how good they are.

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Maybe. But I do think that that's a lot of the reason for
their popularity, and I find that a bit unpleasant,
especially if they really are primarily used for the
school run, when the users know there'll be narrow
pavements and people whose heads don't even come up to
window level around.

Many people like the fact that you do not have to bend down
to get into them. Certainly as I've gotten older I've
appreciated something with the seat that is easy to sit on
and my wife with her bad back certainly does. The days of
folding up and tucking myself into a seat a few inches off
the ground with dignity are going.

My objection to this whole thread is it automatically
stereotyped 4x4 drivers as "not one of us" and "idiots". Its
just the same as car drivers stereotyping all cyclists as
lycra louts and too poor to afford a car. Neither is right
but people do love their stereotypes.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

OK. What about the other 95% :-)

No idea but prepared to give them the benefit of the
doubt along with all the mountain bike riders you see on
the roads.

Another idiotic choice driven by fashion.

In "]news:[email hidden],
Al C-F <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:33:35 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-

family.com said:

Quoted message said:

OK. What about the other 95% :-)

No idea but prepared to give them the benefit of the
doubt along with all the mountain bike riders you see on
the roads.

Another idiotic choice driven by fashion.

Yeah. Like the 2 months last year when I was riding a
lightweight dual suspension mountain bike along towpaths
and roads when I needed exercise cause it was the only
bike I had.

OTOH, many of the bikes that I see being ridden around are
up to the job and do it as well as they could regarding
price. I saw a £60 bike in Safeway's yesterday and I
couldn't find anything obviously bad about it. Even had
eyes for mudguards and a rack. Shame about the front
suspension, though.

There are of course the daft dual suspension steel bikes,
but at least the purchasers aren't wholly to blame: it's the
manufacturers and retailers who lie to them that's the main
problem, not their mild cupidity. And it doesn't hurt or
intimidate anyone if they're just using them to go a
distance of 2 blocks, whereas SUVs are intimidating and
often chosen for that reason.

A

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

But Tony, I'm not labelling *all* owners of off-road
vehicles as idiots - indeed, just the ones who insist on
using them on-road all the time, with no intention of
using for the purpose for which they are suited - off-
road, muddy fields, forests...

But how do you know? Just because you see them on the road
looking clean doesn't mean they don't get used off road or
to tow a boat or caravan or go to the country cottage at the
weekend or to carry an infirm relative that needs a car that
is easy to get into or ...... In fact in London you are more
than likely to have to chose one car to do everything
because parking space at home is so limited and controlled.
You are just making assumptions about things you do not know
and condemning them for making life choices that you chose
not to make and which in any case do not affect you as I
doubt you spend much time in London during the school run.
Live and let live for heavens sake.

Tony

davek posted ...

Quoted message said:

Paul:

Quoted message said:

We have a choice to make, and buying one vehicle that can
satisfy the multiple roles that we use vehicles for makes
far more economical, environmental and basic common sense
than having the seven or eight 'specialist' vehicles we'd
need to satisfy our lifestyle.

Why not try to use your vehicle less?

We do ..

Quoted message said:

Walk the kids to school, cycle or take them on the bus.

We do .. when we can.

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. 😉

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Taking Tarquin and Jemima from Kensington to their school
and back is *not* one and that's the kind of use KL's
article was about - and with which I entirely agree with
his sentiments.

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

just the ones who insist on using them on-road all the
time, with no intention of using for the purpose for which
they are suited - off-road, muddy fields, forests...

But how do you know? Just because you see them on the road
looking clean doesn't mean they don't get used off road or
to tow a boat or caravan...

For my part, I would say I know enough people who own and
misuse toy tanks to be fairly accurate about many of the
others I see.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:21:10 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg which
is about average fuel consumption .I think you need a
Humvee to get 8mpg.

I have a friend with a diesel Disco which averages 22mpg;
on a run he gets low 30s at best, and book mpg is 27 for a
Tdi, one less than for my 2.5 litre turbocharged automatic
Volvo estate.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:29:13 +0000 (UTC), "davek"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Ah yes, the kind of "off road" vehicle that wouldn't last
five minutes if it actually went off road.

I saw one of those Porsche 4x4s the other day. Not only was
it pig-ugly, it was absolutely evident that any attempt to
drive it off road would be short, amusing and highly
unsatisfactory for the driver (think low profile road tyres
and negligible ground clearance on rutted muddy tracks).

It is a car which screams "fashion victim!" at the top of
its voice!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University