I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:40:52 +0100, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I have only ever met one woman who appreciated that one car
was better built than another.

Having met one, I stopped looking any further and
married her...

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

Al C-F said:

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?

Better take up the roads and pavements then if that is
your concern

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Better take up the roads and pavements then if that is
your concern

Sounds good. It has been demonstrated that no, we can't
build our way out of congestion. So let's dig up all the
extra roads we built trying.

Nathaniel Porter said:

I'm not sure this is true. Yes, of course the govt. would
need to recoup the revenue - but why can't it do this by
taxing people on their means to pay?

But that would penalise the frugal wealthy more than those
lower earners who, by wasting resources and unnecessarily
consuming, cause more damage to the earth.

Quoted message said:

Well, obviously it'd make you unelectable.....but it would
be fairer

No, it wouldn't. See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course - in fact there isn't a might about it; it will
happen one day. Just another reason why we need to be
moving to more sustainable energy sources.

Or, perhaps, reducing consumption?

Quoted message said:

Getting back OT, it would help if people didn't consume
large amounts of oil by idiotic SUV usage :-)

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the fact that poor households can't afford cars is
whats unfair!

How do you work that out? Is it unfair that I can't afford a
new Rolls Royce? Nor can I afford a stately home in its own
park land or a luxury yacht. All unfair?

None of these is a necessity, nor is a car.

Quoted message said:

Put another way - the rich simply don't notice the
increase, and don't bother with modal shift. I would
suggest these are the people most likely to be driving
(driven?) 0.5 of a mile :-)

How strange. The appearance of some of the cars and drivers
at my local shops suggests that they are anything but rich -
and these aren't specialist shops that you would drive to
from any distance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some people would like to use a car sensibly in order to
see the world and enjoy a certain flexibilty the car
offers (for example). I think we should think very
carefully about anything which denies sections of society
the ability to do so.

Let them use public transport. And bikes. And walking.

Quoted message said:

The solution of course is to lift the poor out of poverty

I think you'll find little evidence of real poverty in the
UK.

Quoted message said:

I mean in so much as it widens the gap between rich
and poor.

As long as the 'poor' can afford the necessities, why should
you want to inhibit the rich?

Quoted message said:

I agree that car dependant societies are also divisive -
but I would suggest a society that prevents the poor
from enjoying the benfits of sensible car use would be
equally so.

I doubt it, but feel free to demonstrate the idea to me.

Ambrose Nankivell said:

There are of course the daft dual suspension steel bikes,
but at least the purchasers aren't wholly to blame

Singly no, but as a group - yes, they are. Fashion, supply
and demand are all related, the reason that there are
cheap heavy dual suspension mountain bikes is because
people see mountain bikers and want the same image as
cheaply as possible.

Quoted message said:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers posted ...

Quoted message said:

Off-roaders have their uses - off-road. For use as
described above, they indicate quite a different thing
altogether.

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 ?

That would make you only an occasional complete idiot, I
suppose. It's a start, at least.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Yes. I guess that's the same reason my parents like their
Hyundai Atoz. But I've a feeling most people would be a
touch embarassed to be seen in one.

Quoted message said:

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.

I agree with you on this: it was a polarised thread, and
while there are IMO worthwhile 4x4 driving targets (the
posers), this was thread was far too antagonistic.

A

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the fact that poor households can't afford cars is
whats unfair!

How do you work that out? Is it unfair that I can't afford
a new Rolls Royce? Nor can I afford a stately home in its
own park land or a luxury yacht. All unfair?

None of these is a necessity, nor is a car.

And VAT aside, none of them is taxed to increase the cost.

It isn't the cost of the fuel - it's the high levels of tax
that are placed on top of it. Now I appreciate that external
costs should be internalised - but while this is only done
on a limited number of products (like petrol) instead of
everything (things like electricity etc.) all you do is make
the fuel artificially expensive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Put another way - the rich simply don't notice the
increase, and don't bother with modal shift. I would
suggest these are the people most likely

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be driving (driven?) 0.5 of a mile :-)

How strange. The appearance of some of the cars and
drivers at my local shops suggests that they are anything
but rich - and these aren't specialist shops that you
would drive to from any distance.

I didn't say that the poor would be unlikely to drive 0.5 of
a mile - rather that the rich would be more likely to do it.
Without wishing to be offensive, maybe your local shops
aren't somewhere rich people would want to go.

London (for example) is full of rich people who think its a
good idea to drive 0.5 of a mile.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some people would like to use a car sensibly in order to
see the world and enjoy a certain flexibilty the car
offers (for example). I think we should think very
carefully about

anything

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which denies sections of society the ability to do so.

Let them use public transport.

I don't want to live in a society

Quoted message said:

And bikes. And walking.

Absolutely for short distances. But it's not going to get
you all that far.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The solution of course is to lift the poor out of poverty

I think you'll find little evidence of real poverty
in the UK.

Whilst it is true some stats have too high a bar for poverty
(the anual holiday abroad for kids springs to mind), and
that there are considerable people who misspend their income
- however I think to deny real poverty exists in this
country is to bury ones head in the sand.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I mean in so much as it widens the gap between rich
and poor.

As long as the 'poor' can afford the necessities, why
should you want to inhibit the rich?

Why should the poor only be entitled to the "necessities"?
Aren't they allowed a quality of life, to have some fun?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree that car dependant societies are also divisive -
but I would

suggest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a society that prevents the poor from enjoying the
benfits of sensible

car

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

use would be equally so.

I doubt it, but feel free to demonstrate the idea to me.

You would end up with a situation where the roads become a
race track for the rich, while the poor are expected to ride
their bikes in the gutter, walk in their own designated
areas (without holding up the rich, of course), and get by
on poorly maintained unreliable and neglected public
transport.

Oh, hang on...

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Aren't *you* making assumptions that this was about *all*
off-road owners, when reading the original article it
clearly wasn't.

It said people who use them on the school run are idiots
and you said you agreed. Since the use they are put to
outside the school run and the reasons they were
purchased is unknown its not possible to say whether they
are idiots or not.

Quoted message said:

Aren't you making assumptions about the amount of time I
spend in any given locality? How do you know? ;-)

Because you post here every day to tell us what you've been
doing. Besides you've no spare time what with dancing nekkid
round the garden, hunting b*bshort wearers and cycling into
town to have arguements with geriatric drivers ;-)

Tony

On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:33:32 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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 ......

Or the London definition of off-road driving, which is
driving onto the pavement by an inch when dropping Tarquin
and Jocasta at Madame Mugge's Academy for Gifted Children
Who Have Yet To Reveal Their Special Talents, in order to be
able to use the double-yellows without having to go to the
trouble of switching on their hazard lights...

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

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:36:51 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-

family.com said:

Better take up the roads and pavements then if that is
your concern

Sounds good. It has been demonstrated that no, we can't
build our way out of congestion. So let's dig up all the
extra roads we built trying.

And strangle the economy, emit large amounts of emissions,
cause lots of disruption etc. etc. in doing so?

BTW, it has only been demonstrated that *just* building
roads won't solve congestion. But having a sensible road
network has to be part of the strategy, and that is likely
to involve building roads (and in some places narrowing and
closing them, of course).

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

I'm not sure this is true. Yes, of course the govt. would
need to recoup

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

revenue - but why can't it do this by taxing people on
their means to

pay?

Quoted message said:

But that would penalise the frugal wealthy more than those
lower earners who, by wasting resources and unnecessarily
consuming, cause more damage to the earth.

Quoted message said:

Well, obviously it'd make you unelectable.....but it
would be fairer

No, it wouldn't. See above.

Quoted message said:

?!?!?!

People don't get rich by being frugal. In the vast majority
of cases get rich by chance - being born into the right
situation for example. Whilst some poor people are wasteful,
most realise they can't afford to be.

Rich people, however, can afford to be wasteful- and often
don't care when they are. Hence buying 4x4s solely to take
Cherice and Daryll on the quater-mile school run.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course - in fact there isn't a might about it; it will
happen one day. Just another reason why we need to be
moving to more sustainable energy sources.

Or, perhaps, reducing consumption?

In the short term. See below.

Of course, reducing consumption (by getting rid of those
pesky wasteful poor people?) only delays the problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Getting back OT, it would help if people didn't consume
large amounts of

oil

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by idiotic SUV usage :-)

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

I am woman, I multitask :-)

And I am man and I'm always wrong, even when I'm right ;-)

Tony

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

And I am man and I'm always wrong, even when I'm
right ;-)

Tony

some men *think* they're right.

I think therefore I am

Tony

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

I think therefore I am

Tony

Well you're certainly something, that's for sure.

Des Cartes maybe?

Tony

Tony Raven [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

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.

London... where exactly do you go in London to travel off-
road? If you have a serious need for an off-road vehicle,
why would you be living in London? The simple fact is that
4x4s divide neatly into two categories. Plate steel
construction tanks that can pull tractors out of muddy
fields. And poncy, metallic paint jobs which will actually
die if you take them off the tarmac. Hence the recent advert
for one such vehicle which showed someone deliberately
driving it over a mound of earth by the side of the road,
with the tag-line "Sometimes you have to remind yourself
it's a 4x4". These tanks are status symbols, are designed as
such, and bought as such.

I know people who have a genuine need for 4x4s. One lives
out near Stirling and spends a reasonable amount of time on
dirt tracks and worse. It has been driven across fords in
winter and is used to tow a boat. It doesn't seem to have
the moulded dashboard, walnut steering wheel and dashboard,
and leather upholstery of its on-road counterparts.

It is loosely possible that one or two of the 4x4s in London
serve some practical purpose, but this is not the case for
the majority. Hence quotes like "Well we need one 'cause
it's quite hilly round here" - Saaf Lunduner IIRC!

As for such vehicles affecting everyone. They are
inefficient, bulky, heavy (More damage to already shoddy
roads). Tax the buggers to hell and back, and let them
reclaim their losses through the use of Red Diesel (Those
that can justify it!).

I have no time, nor sympathy for the unnecessary 4x4.

Jon

Just zis Guy said:

Or the London definition of off-road driving, which is
driving onto the pavement by an inch when dropping Tarquin
and Jocasta at Madame Mugge's Academy for Gifted Children
Who Have Yet To Reveal Their Special Talents, in order to
be able to use the double-yellows without having to go to
the trouble of switching on their hazard lights...

Which is different from dropping the boys off in a 2.5litre
turbocharged Volvo with leather upholstery, air
conditioning, etc etc how? I won't insult your children by
claiming they lack intelligence because of it.

Tony

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:00:51 +0100, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It has been demonstrated that no, we can't build our way
out of congestion. So let's dig up all the extra roads we
built trying.

LOL! Brilliant idea!

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 20:24:28 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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 tucki

Precisely the reason my parents chose the frugal and
entirely practical Toyota Yaris Verso (listed 40mpg with the
auto box; I've actually got an indicated average 48mpg on
longish round trip in it).

The side-hinged rear door is a boon for my Mum with her back
problems, and Dad, who is over six foot tall and disabled,
finds the seat easy to get in and out of.

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