A rare outbreak of common sense?

Dave Larrington said:

<URL: cnn.comfrance.sOpen ↗
uvs/index.html>

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility
vehicles (SUVs) could be banned from the chic but traffic-
clogged streets of Paris within 18 months following a
resolution passed by the city council.

Looks like the French are showing the way forward.

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

Quoted message said:

<URL: cnn.comfrance.sOpen ↗
uvs/index.html>

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility
vehicles (SUVs) could

be

Quoted message said:

banned from the chic but traffic-clogged streets of Paris
within 18 months following a resolution passed by the city
council.

Denis Baupin, a leading Green party councilor who tabled
the resolution, says the designer jeeps are "not suited to
towns" and he could not understand why people drove the
fashionable "off-roaders."

Or big gas guzzlers...or cars with seating for 5 when only
occupied by
1...or....

Quoted message said:

"They're polluters, they're space-occupiers,

As are all cars

Quoted message said:

they're dangerous for pedestrians and other road users.

Only when driven by morons, who could make any car
'dangerous for pedestrians etcetc...'

Quoted message said:

They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

Quoted message said:

Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution
could lead to a ban on the increasingly popular vehicles
in about 18 months if it is included

in

Quoted message said:

an overall project to improve traffic flow in the city.

"We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're
dangerous to

others

Quoted message said:

and take up too much space, "

See above

Quoted message said:

he said on Europe 1 radio. The city council voted to urge
Socialist Mayor Bertrand Delanoe to

consider

Quoted message said:

banning SUVs, which have become increasingly popular and
now make up about five percent of the French car market --
just below the western Europe average.

Baupin said Paris, which has been setting aside more lanes
for buses and bicycles since a Socialist and Greens
coalition took over City Hall in

2001,

Quoted message said:

could not legally ban SUVs outright.

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most
polluting vehicles," he said. "That means SUVs and lots of
other vehicles that don't meet European pollution
standards."

Why stop at most??....why not all?

Quoted message said:

Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during
peak pollution periods, and denying their owners
residents' parking permits.

Fascists!!...the land where left and right meet, right round
the back ;-)

Quoted message said:

Off-roaders could also be banned from protected areas like
the Bois de Boulogne and

the

Quoted message said:

banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups,
follows similar remarks by the mayor of London, Ken
Livingstone, who in May month

described

Quoted message said:

SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary"
and called their owners "complete idiots." (Yay! Go
Ken! - Ed.)

Yebbut...look at London

Quoted message said:

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing
that just one in eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car
off-road, and six in 10 never take

it

Quoted message said:

out of town.

and how many ferrari / Lambourghini / whatever owners have
taken theirs racing....they are a product sold openly on the
free market, with no restrictions applied over and above
'normal' cars. To impose restrictions now would be wholly
unreasonable. No comments about caravan owners using 'em or
suchlike I s'pose?

Quoted message said:

The Guardian added that France caught on late to the vogue
for SUVs,

mainly

Quoted message said:

because Renault, Peugeot and Citroen have not so far
offered them.

But with luxury carmakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and
Porsche selling

plush

Quoted message said:

leather-upholstered 4x4s, the vehicles are an increasingly
common sight in Paris's wealthier quarters. Sales surged
by 11 percent in France last

year.

Quoted message said:

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Quoted message said:

Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Quoted message said:

I've got one and love it. Never managed to kill anyone in it
yet, or even graze 'em. Very useful. Passed the exhaust
checks on the last MOT, same as applied to all other
vehicles, so how does that make it more polluting ?....in
fact, it's a Mercedes diesel engine in it that could use bio-
diesel and become far less polluting than any other carbon
fuel based motorised vehicle on the road. In fact, if the
big oil companies and govts. stopped [censored] about, they
could sort out the pollution in no time at all. This crappy
political points scoring is not worth commenting on....so
I'l shut up now and GMC...

Dave.

Vincent Wilcox said:

Dave Larrington said:

<URL: cnn.comfranceOpen ↗
.suvs/index.html>

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility
vehicles (SUVs) could be banned from the chic but traffic-
clogged streets of Paris within 18 months following a
resolution passed by the city council.

Looks like the French are showing the way forward.

Yes, who made the first MPV then?

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda
Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
thehewitts.plus.comthehewitts.plus.comOpen ↗ - now online

Andy Hewitt said:

Vincent Wilcox said:

Dave Larrington said:

<URL: cnn.comfrance.Open ↗
suvs/index.html>

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility
vehicles (SUVs) could be banned from the chic but traffic-
clogged streets of Paris within 18 months following a
resolution passed by the city council.

Looks like the French are showing the way forward.

Yes, who made the first MPV then?

Wasnt it was mostly plastic and a four banger to boot rather
than a rebodied RSJ chassis with a V8?

So what. Who invented concentration camps?

Pillock.

(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Or big gas guzzlers...or cars with seating for 5 when only
occupied by
1...or....

They're an easier target for starters. Though if they're
prepared to take steps in this direction, the next obvious
one would be a toll on single-occupant cars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"They're polluters, they're space-occupiers,

As are all cars

Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes up
most room? This is a sliding scale. For their normal usage
(on-road, carrying one passenger at most) they do more
damage to the roads, require more fuel, take up more room,
and are far more intimidating.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they're dangerous for pedestrians and other road users.

Only when driven by morons, who could make any car
'dangerous for pedestrians etcetc...'

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different
maximum G values for braking vehicles. The basic point is
that in the same circumstances, you can't stop a larger,
heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car
exaggerated out of proportion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution
could lead to a ban on the increasingly popular vehicles
in about 18 months if it is included

in

Quoted message said:

an overall project to improve traffic flow in the city.

"We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're
dangerous to

others

Quoted message said:

and take up too much space, "

See above

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most
polluting vehicles," he said. "That means SUVs and lots
of other vehicles that don't meet European pollution
standards."

Why stop at most??....why not all?

"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most
damage for the same performance. Secondly; removing all
polluting vehicles would severely damage the economy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during
peak pollution periods, and denying their owners
residents' parking permits.

Fascists!!...the land where left and right meet, right
round the back ;-)

As a 4x4 owner you obviously feel quite strongly about this.
As someone who has suffered a disproportionate number of
near misses from them, and who frequently sees large, heavy,
unwieldly status-symbols blocking the roads around their
parent's village when the kids get dropped off at school,
I'd like to see all owners be required to show genuine
necessity or suffer enormous financial penalties.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Off-roaders could also be banned from protected areas
like the Bois de Boulogne and

the

Quoted message said:

banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups,
follows similar remarks by the mayor of London, Ken
Livingstone, who in May month

described

Quoted message said:

SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary"
and called their owners "complete idiots." (Yay! Go
Ken! - Ed.)

Yebbut...look at London

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or an
example of something gone wrong?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing
that just one in eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car
off-road, and six in 10 never take

it

Quoted message said:

out of town.

and how many ferrari / Lambourghini / whatever owners have
taken theirs racing....they are a product sold openly on
the free market, with no restrictions applied over and
above 'normal' cars. To impose restrictions now would be
wholly unreasonable.

The difference being that a genuine sports car has
performance characteristics which are designed for road use.
Fast accelaration, exceptional cornering ability. These can
be used during "normal" driving. The 4x4 is (theoretically)
designed to perform well in adverse conditions such as
fording rivers, driving over mountains, pulling tanks out of
muddy fields. To see the executive editions, with their
leather upholstery and carpets pootling around cities with
their soft metallic paint finishes glistening in the
sunlight does tend to make a mockery of their (supposed)
intended purpose.

Quoted message said:

No comments about caravan owners using 'em or suchlike
I s'pose?

The only caravan owner I know used to own a Triumph Spitfire
for this purpose. The sporty engine provided all the torque
he needed.

Quoted message said:

I've got one and love it. Never managed to kill anyone in
it yet, or even graze 'em. Very useful.

For moving large bales of hay / straw. Towing vehicles out
of muddy fields. Traversing large estates.

Quoted message said:

Passed the exhaust checks on the last MOT, same as applied
to all other vehicles, so how does that make it more
polluting ?

Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close to
the limit, it's still a pass. Another vehicle can pass the
same checks with room to spare, thus making it less
polluting.

Quoted message said:

....in fact, it's a Mercedes diesel engine in it that
could use bio-diesel and become far less polluting than
any other carbon fuel based motorised vehicle on the road.

True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car
could become far less polluting than your 4x4 if they
switched too. I recently read a report of a new GM 1.3
diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa series). In
their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really roadworthy)
it achieved something like 111mpg. The same engine
(presumably the same car but not the same fuel economy) also
took them to 190mph.

Quoted message said:

In fact, if the big oil companies and govts. stopped
[censored] about, they could sort out the pollution in no
time at all.

True, but they have no incentive to do so when the consumers
are buying increasing fuel hungry cars.

Quoted message said:

This crappy political points scoring is not worth
commenting on....so I'l shut up now and GMC...

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where
practical, at a level that makes in nonsense not to use
public transport. I'd also like to see bull-bars on 4x4s
made completely illegal, and the onus placed on their owners
to demonstrate a legitimate need or face heavy taxation. But
then I hate the things.

Jon

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Or big gas guzzlers...or cars with seating for 5 when
only occupied by
1...or....

They're an easier target for starters. Though if they're
prepared to take steps in this direction, the next obvious
one would be a toll on single-occupant cars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"They're polluters, they're space-occupiers,

As are all cars

Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes
up most room? This is a sliding scale.

On which all cars sit.....

Quoted message said:

For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one passenger at
most) they do more damage to the roads, require more fuel,

My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more on
a run. The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

Quoted message said:

take up more room, and are far more intimidating.

A matter of perspective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they're dangerous for pedestrians and other road
users.

Only when driven by morons, who could make any car
'dangerous for pedestrians etcetc...'

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different
maximum G values for braking vehicles. The basic point is
that in the same circumstances, you can't stop a larger,
heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter one.

So one accomodates that fact in driving style and doesn't
push it to the limits. Cornering, accelerating or otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car
exaggerated out of proportion.

But as you've repeatedly stated, they're not a
'normal' car....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution
could lead to a

ban

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on the increasingly popular vehicles in about 18
months if it is

included

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

an overall project to improve traffic flow in the
city.

"We have no interest in having SUVs in the city.
They're dangerous to

others

Quoted message said:

and take up too much space, "

See above

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most
polluting vehicles,"

he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

said. "That means SUVs and lots of other vehicles that
don't meet

European

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pollution standards."

Why stop at most??....why not all?

"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most
damage for the same performance. Secondly; removing all
polluting vehicles would severely damage the economy.

Ah!, a balance required between the ability of the
damaging parasite to get as much from its host without
terminating it...or at least slowing the process down
slightly ;-) very good.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre
during peak

pollution

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

periods, and denying their owners residents' parking
permits.

Fascists!!...the land where left and right meet, right
round the back

;-)

Quoted message said:

As a 4x4 owner you obviously feel quite strongly about
this. As someone who has suffered a disproportionate
number of near misses from them, and who frequently sees
large, heavy, unwieldly status-symbols blocking the roads
around their parent's village when the kids get dropped
off at school, I'd like to see all owners be required to
show genuine necessity or suffer enormous financial
penalties.

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near misses.
They were all, by strange coincidences, horse
lorries....driven by women. I got the feeling that they
didn't drive them regularly and therefore weren't quite used
to the size of the things....guess we should ban them too,
huh?....The only other issues I felt I encountered were
inconsiderate exec car drivers, obviously very important and
late for some world saving meeting. ....Agree totally about
the school run, but should apply to all motor vehicles. A
congestion charge for parking within half a mile of a school
?..... ...and the local schools here suffer from 40 tonners
speeding by, less than 5 feet from 3' nothing tots on their
way to school for the day...and what do the sooper-dooper
local caring council do to show their awareness of caring
for future generations??...build a [censored] lorry park 200
yards up the road from the school, actively encouraging
overnight stops from the biggest polluting damaging vehicles
on the road - nice one!!! - we get at least 40 per night,
nice and cheap, see?....that's 40 coming past the poor
little sods on the way in, and 40 on the way out.....oh for
a few inconveniently placed 4x4s.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Off-roaders could also be banned from protected areas
like the Bois de Boulogne

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring
groups, follows

similar

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

remarks by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who
in May month

described

Quoted message said:

SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and
called their

owners

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"complete idiots." (Yay! Go Ken! - Ed.)

Yebbut...look at London

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or
an example of something gone wrong?

Something gone massively wrong, but obviously, that's just
my personal opinion..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing
that just one

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car off-road, and
six in 10 never

take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

out of town.

and how many ferrari / Lambourghini / whatever owners
have taken theirs racing....they are a product sold
openly on the free market, with no restrictions applied
over and above 'normal' cars. To impose

restrictions

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

now would be wholly unreasonable.

The difference being that a genuine sports car has
performance characteristics which are designed for road
use. Fast accelaration, exceptional cornering ability.

and that's how we should be expecting these poor car owners
with small penises to drive in compensation for their lack
of tackle??

Quoted message said:

These can be used during "normal" driving. The 4x4 is
(theoretically) designed to perform well in adverse
conditions such as fording rivers, driving over mountains,
pulling tanks out of muddy fields. To see the executive
editions, with their leather upholstery and carpets
pootling around cities with their soft metallic paint
finishes glistening in the sunlight does tend to make a
mockery of their (supposed) intended purpose.

Quoted message said:

No comments about caravan owners using 'em or suchlike
I s'pose?

The only caravan owner I know used to own a Triumph
Spitfire for this purpose. The sporty engine provided all
the torque he needed.

Ah yes, forgot about that in the glossy - "..and can even
take your family of five touring with your caravan, in
comfort and style"
- I'm not a caravan owner, nor would I ever want to be.
Stayed in a few statics which were....sufficient...but
hate the idea of touring with 'em.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've got one and love it. Never managed to kill anyone
in it yet, or

even

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

graze 'em. Very useful.

For moving large bales of hay / straw. Towing vehicles out
of muddy fields. Traversing large estates.

...and just generally tootling up to the local supermarket
on a Saturday, running the length and breadth of the country
on holiday with my family, or taking my MTB to the Welsh
mountains, climbing gear to rockfaces, surfboards to the
beach and that kind of thing....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Passed the exhaust checks on the last MOT, same as
applied to all other vehicles, so how does that make it
more polluting ?

Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close to
the limit, it's still a pass. Another vehicle can pass the
same checks with room to spare, thus making it less
polluting.

Well within 8-D....believe me, locally there are far more
polluting 'little family runabouts' of the same age than my
'big gas guzzling monster abhorrence'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

....in fact, it's a Mercedes diesel engine in it that
could use

bio-diesel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and become far less polluting than any other carbon fuel
based motorised vehicle on the road.

True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car
could become far less polluting than your 4x4 if they
switched too. I recently read a report of a new GM 1.3
diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa series).
In their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really
roadworthy) it achieved something like 111mpg. The same
engine (presumably the same car but not the same fuel
economy) also took them to 190mph.

Great...seen the advert. Nice little motor, can't get over a
speed hump at any speed though ;-)....all admiral efforts
though, but why do they persist trying to convince us they
are doing us all a favour by continuing to 'develop' more
efficient fossil fuel burners when there are other options
readily available. 130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run
out!!...it'll still [censored] up the environment big time!!, the
mpg is irrelevant and nothing more than a distraction. The
source is the problem and that remains the same.....As the
worlds population increases, along with its 'wealth' more
and more individuals will want the 'luxury' of a motor
vehicle. This year you've got 5 million driving vehicles
that can do 40 mpg, in 10 years time you've got 50 million
in vehicles that can do 100mpg.....it all still leads to
armageddon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, if the big oil companies and govts. stopped
[censored] about, they could sort out the pollution in no
time at all.

True, but they have no incentive to do so when the
consumers are buying increasing fuel hungry cars.

...and the options they are offering are......? That
arguement sits well alongside the 'selling cigarettes to the
populace 'cos they buy 'em '....verging on pure evil!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This crappy political points scoring is not worth
commenting on....so I'l

shut up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

now and GMC...

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where
practical, at a level that makes in nonsense not to use
public transport. I'd also like to see bull-bars on 4x4s
made completely illegal,

...totally agree, only with the provision that the law
breakers are seriously penalised...

Quoted message said:

and the onus placed on their owners to demonstrate a
legitimate need or

face heavy taxation.

Wholly unfair. Maybe on future sales, but existing owners
didn't purchase with a view to having to justify and pay
heavier govt. subsidies.

Quoted message said:

But then I hate the things.

(hadn't noticed ;-) Which of course, is your perogative

Quoted message said:

Jon

Love and peace,

Dave.
:-)

(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes
up most room? This is a sliding scale.

=20
On which all cars sit.....

At different ends. If you want to start making changes,
but don't want=20 to (or can't) make the sweeping change
of banning them all, you start=20 with the worst and work
from there.
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one
passenger at most) they do more damage to the roads,
require more fuel,

=20
My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more
on a run. The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A
'normal' 4x4=20 presents a greater surface area to the wind,
thus suffering higher drag,=20 and weighs more than a
'normal' car. Like-for-like, the car is going to=20 have
better efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old
Volvo, but=20 it's on a par with my dad's (very) old
Vauxhall Astra, and not a=20 contender to my mother's (much
newer) Renault Megane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

take up more room, and are far more intimidating.

A matter of perspective.

To return to a previous comparison. Modern equivalent to the
Bubble Car=20 (Smart) vs 4x4. The latter has a higher
driving position, more angular=20 bodywork and is larger in
general. If I have to be overtaken too=20 closely, by one of
them, I'd prefer the Smart car.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different
maximum G value=

s

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for braking vehicles. The basic point is that in the
same circumstances=

,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you can't stop a larger, heavier car as quickly as a
smaller lighter one.

So one accomodates that fact in driving style and doesn't
push it to the limits. Cornering, accelerating or
otherwise.

Most (IME) don't. Most are blissfully unaware of this.
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car
exaggerated ou=

t

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of proportion.

But as you've repeatedly stated, they're not a
'normal' car....

Because they are a caricature of a car... this could go
round and round.=20 ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most
damage for the same performance. Secondly; removing all
polluting vehicles would severely damage the economy.

=20
Ah!, a balance required between the ability of the
damaging parasite to g=

et

Quoted message said:

as much from its host without terminating it...or at least
slowing the process down slightly ;-) very good.

True. But the balance needs to exist. The Parisian
economy will not=20 suffer greatly from a ban / tax on
4x4s. It would suffer greatly from a=20 ban on all
motorised vehicles. Since there is a beneficial effect
from=20 both, but one has an enormous downside... you do
the beneficial one.

Quoted message said:

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near misses.
They were all,=

by

Quoted message said:

strange coincidences, horse lorries....driven by women. I
got the feeling that they didn't drive them regularly and
therefore weren't quite used to the size of the
things....guess we should ban them too, huh?....The only
other issues I felt I encountered were inconsiderate exec
car drivers, obviously very important and late for some
world saving meeting.

Of the two, I've had far more problems (Both as a cyclist
and as a=20 driver) with the car-ridden execs. With regard
to the trailers, since it=20 is very difficult to find a
trailer which a new driver (Since 1997) can=20 tow, the
government has already done this. You now have to take a=20
trailer test in order to tow one.

Quoted message said:

....Agree totally about the school run, but should apply
to all motor vehicles. A congestion charge for parking
within half a mile of a school

Definately. I'd be in favour of having an enormous fleet
of lifters on=20 stand by to take away any car breaking
the rule. A =A3100+ fine for=20 parking would soon
discourage them!

Quoted message said:

?..... ...and the local schools here suffer from 40
tonners speeding by, less th=

an

Quoted message said:

5 feet from 3' nothing tots on their way to school for the
day...and what=

do

Quoted message said:

the sooper-dooper local caring council do to show their
awareness of cari=

ng

Quoted message said:

for future generations??...build a [censored] lorry park 200
yards up the ro=

ad

Quoted message said:

from the school, actively encouraging overnight stops from
the biggest polluting damaging vehicles on the road - nice
one!!! - we get at least 4=

0

Quoted message said:

per night, nice and cheap, see?....that's 40 coming past
the poor little sods on the way in, and 40 on the way
out.....oh for a few inconveniently placed 4x4s.

While I agree that a lorry park has no place near a school,
until we get=20 a government with the sense to force freight
onto rail, I think that=20 lorries are going to remain
useful. An economic thing again!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or
an example of something gone wrong?

Something gone massively wrong, but obviously, that's just
my personal opinion..

Congestion charging? Everyone I've spoken to who lives there
goes on=20 about how much better life is since it was
introduced.
=20

Quoted message said:

and that's how we should be expecting these poor car
owners with small penises to drive in compensation for
their lack of tackle??

Indeed. The point however was that the performance
features of a sports=20 car are designed to be appreciated
on-road, while those of a 4x4 are=20 designed to be
appreciated off-road.
=20

Quoted message said:

Ah yes, forgot about that in the glossy - "..and can even
take your famil=

y

Quoted message said:

of five touring with your caravan, in comfort and style"

He wasn't the only one. A reasonable number of the sports
car owners=20 that I've met over the years, had one for the
towing ability.

Quoted message said:

...and just generally tootling up to the local supermarket
on a Saturday,

Bike / car.

Quoted message said:

running the length and breadth of the country on holiday
with my family,

Car.

Quoted message said:

or taking my MTB to the Welsh mountains,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

Quoted message said:

climbing gear to rockfaces,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

Quoted message said:

surfboards

Car. Probably wouldn't want to cycle with a surfboard.

Quoted message said:

to the beach and that kind of thing....

As in... things that don't actually require 4 wheel drive.
Things that=20 can all be achieved with an ordinary car
(Maybe requiring a roof rack),=20 or which at most might
need an estate.
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close
to the limit, it's still a pass. Another vehicle can
pass the same checks with room t=

o

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

spare, thus making it less polluting.

Well within 8-D....believe me, locally there are far more
polluting 'litt=

le

Quoted message said:

family runabouts' of the same age than my 'big gas
guzzling monster abhorrence'

What is your 'big gas guzzling monster abhorrence'? Just
think what=20 wonderous things could be done by putting that
engine and transmission=20 into a lighter weight, more
aerodynamic car.
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car
could become fa=

r

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

less polluting than your 4x4 if they switched too. I
recently read a report of a new GM 1.3 diesel engine
(Soon to become part of the Corsa series). In their
special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really roadworthy) it
achieved something like 111mpg. The same engine
(presumably the same car but not the same fuel economy)
also took them to 190mph.

=20
Great...seen the advert. Nice little motor, can't get over
a speed hump a=

t

Quoted message said:

any speed though ;-)

Not meant to... it was a showcase vehicle.

Quoted message said:

....all admiral efforts though, but why do they persist
trying to convince us they are doing us all a favour by
continuing to 'develop' more efficient fossil fuel burners
when there are other options readily available.

Since it is a diesel it will also probably easily convert to
bio-diesel.=20 In the meantime... like-for-like against
other vehicles it will use=20 considerably less fuel. This
is a Good Thing (TM).

Quoted message said:

130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still [censored]
up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and
nothing more tha=

n a

Quoted message said:

distraction.=20

To quote your example. 130mpg vs 30mpg means over 4 times
the distance=20 for the same negative effect. Yes fossil
fuels will still run out, but=20 that's not a good reason to
burn through as fast as possible.

Quoted message said:

The source is the problem and that remains the same.....As
the worlds population increases, along with its 'wealth'
more and more individuals will want the 'luxury' of a
motor vehicle. This year you've g=

ot

Quoted message said:

5 million driving vehicles that can do 40 mpg, in 10 years
time you've go=

t

Quoted message said:

50 million in vehicles that can do 100mpg.....it all still
leads to armageddon.

Better than 50 million in vehicles that do 40mpg.
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True, but they have no incentive to do so when the
consumers are buying increasing fuel hungry cars.

...and the options they are offering are......?

Only on the increase due to university projects and home-
builds. IIRC=20 Ford were recently (within the last 2 years)
demonstrating an electric=20 car.

Quoted message said:

That arguement sits well alongside the 'selling cigarettes
to the populac=

e

Quoted message said:

'cos they buy 'em '....verging on pure evil!

Possibly. The difference is that smoking is (AFAIK) on the
decrease,=20 while purchasing of over-sized, over-specced,
under-performing cars is=20 on the increase.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where
practical, at =

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

level that makes in nonsense not to use public
transport. I'd also like to see bull-bars on 4x4s made
completely illegal,

=20
...totally agree, only with the provision that the law
breakers are seriously penalised...

Yup. Ban from driving and a compulsory purchase of a bicycle
to be used=20 as a replacement vehicle.
=20

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the onus placed on their owners to demonstrate a
legitimate need or

face heavy taxation.
=20
Wholly unfair. Maybe on future sales, but existing owners
didn't purchase with a view to having to justify and pay
heavier govt. subsidies.

Those that bought them for genuine off-road use will have no
problems=20 with this. Those that bought them as a status-
symbol can usually afford=20 it anyway. There will be one or
two caught in the middle who can=20 undoubtedly survive with
a smaller car.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But then I hate the things.

(hadn't noticed ;-)

He he.

Quoted message said:

Which of course, is your perogative

Free Country an' all that.

Jon.

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...
(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes
up most room? This is a sliding scale.

On which all cars sit.....

At different ends. If you want to start making changes, but
don't want to (or can't) make the sweeping change of banning
them all, you start with the worst and work from there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one
passenger at most) they do more damage to the roads,
require more fuel,

My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more
on a run. The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A
'normal' 4x4 presents a greater surface area to the wind,
thus suffering higher drag, and weighs more than a 'normal'
car. Like-for-like, the car is going to have better
efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old Volvo, but
it's on a par with my dad's (very) old Vauxhall Astra, and
not a contender to my mother's (much newer) Renault Megane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

take up more room, and are far more intimidating.

A matter of perspective.

To return to a previous comparison. Modern equivalent to the
Bubble Car (Smart) vs 4x4. The latter has a higher driving
position, more angular bodywork and is larger in general. If
I have to be overtaken too closely, by one of them, I'd
prefer the Smart car.

I'd prefer not to be overtaken too closely by anything, so
ride accordingly...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different
maximum G values for braking vehicles. The basic point
is that in the same circumstances, you can't stop a
larger, heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter one.

So one accomodates that fact in driving style and doesn't
push it to the limits. Cornering, accelerating or
otherwise.

Most (IME) don't. Most are blissfully unaware of this.

Yeah...perhaps an insistence on an additional driving course
when purchasing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car
exaggerated out of proportion.

But as you've repeatedly stated, they're not a
'normal' car....

Because they are a caricature of a car... this could go
round and round. ;-)

It could, but they're 4x4s, not 'normal' cars.....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most
damage for the same performance. Secondly; removing all
polluting vehicles would severely damage the economy.

Ah!, a balance required between the ability of the
damaging parasite to

get

Quoted message said:

as much from its host without terminating it...or at least
slowing the process down slightly ;-) very good.

True. But the balance needs to exist. The Parisian economy
will not suffer greatly from a ban / tax on 4x4s. It would
suffer greatly from a ban on all motorised vehicles. Since
there is a beneficial effect from both, but one has an
enormous downside... you do the beneficial one.

Quoted message said:

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near misses.
They were all,

by

Quoted message said:

strange coincidences, horse lorries....driven by women. I
got the feeling that they didn't drive them regularly and
therefore weren't quite used to the size of the
things....guess we should ban them too, huh?....The only
other issues I felt I encountered were inconsiderate exec
car drivers, obviously very important and late for some
world saving meeting.

Of the two, I've had far more problems (Both as a cyclist
and as a driver) with the car-ridden execs. With regard to
the trailers, since it is very difficult to find a trailer
which a new driver (Since 1997) can tow, the government has
already done this. You now have to take a trailer test in
order to tow one.

Quoted message said:

....Agree totally about the school run, but should apply
to all motor vehicles. A congestion charge for parking
within half a mile of a school

Definately. I'd be in favour of having an enormous fleet of
lifters on stand by to take away any car breaking the rule.
A £100+ fine for parking would soon discourage them!

That'd do.....

Quoted message said:

?..... ...and the local schools here suffer from 40
tonners speeding by, less

than

Quoted message said:

5 feet from 3' nothing tots on their way to school for the
day...and what

do

Quoted message said:

the sooper-dooper local caring council do to show their
awareness of

caring

Quoted message said:

for future generations??...build a [censored] lorry park 200
yards up the

road

Quoted message said:

from the school, actively encouraging overnight stops from
the biggest polluting damaging vehicles on the road - nice
one!!! - we get at least 40 per night, nice and cheap,
see?....that's 40 coming past the poor little sods on the
way in, and 40 on the way out.....oh for a few
inconveniently placed 4x4s.

While I agree that a lorry park has no place near a school,
until we get a government with the sense to force freight
onto rail, I think that lorries are going to remain useful.
An economic thing again!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or
an example of something gone wrong?

Something gone massively wrong, but obviously, that's just
my personal opinion..

Congestion charging? Everyone I've spoken to who lives there
goes on about how much better life is since it was
introduced.

Not the congestion charging, just London as a general thing

Quoted message said:

and that's how we should be expecting these poor car
owners with small penises to drive in compensation for
their lack of tackle??

Indeed. The point however was that the performance
features of a sports car are designed to be appreciated
on-road, while those of a 4x4 are designed to be
appreciated off-road.

Quoted message said:

Ah yes, forgot about that in the glossy - "..and can even
take your family of five touring with your caravan, in
comfort and style"

He wasn't the only one. A reasonable number of the sports
car owners that I've met over the years, had one for the
towing ability.

Quoted message said:

...and just generally tootling up to the local supermarket
on a Saturday,

Bike / car.

I am actually thinking of buying a Ford Ka for just that
purpose. My wife don't do bikes!

Quoted message said:

running the length and breadth of the country on holiday
with my family,

Car.

need room, tend to go self catering...

Quoted message said:

or taking my MTB to the Welsh mountains,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

Convenience of lobbing bikes in back wins out.

Quoted message said:

climbing gear to rockfaces,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

Provides cost free sleeping facilities (very
comfortable...or as a climbing friend said - "that is the
most comfortable car I've ever slept in...and I've slept in
a few!!"😉...and we are both over 6'

Quoted message said:

surfboards

Car. Probably wouldn't want to cycle with a surfboard.

Ford Ka??....hhhmmm, have to get a slightly bigger one for
that...gosh, at this rate I'll end up with more cars than
bikes...and I've only got 10 bikes ;-)

Quoted message said:

to the beach and that kind of thing....

As in... things that don't actually require 4 wheel drive.
Things that can all be achieved with an ordinary car
(Maybe requiring a roof rack), or which at most might need
an estate.

Choice....I can do it all in my (wifes) 4x4, ta!....not
doing it every day, but haven't got to anything yet that I
haven't managed to do in it...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close
to the limit, it's still a pass. Another vehicle can
pass the same checks with room to spare, thus making it
less polluting.

Well within 8-D....believe me, locally there are far more
polluting

'little

Quoted message said:

family runabouts' of the same age than my 'big gas
guzzling monster abhorrence'

What is your 'big gas guzzling monster abhorrence'? Just
think what wonderous things could be done by putting that
engine and transmission into a lighter weight, more
aerodynamic car.

See below....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car
could become far less polluting than your 4x4 if they
switched too. I recently read a report of a new GM 1.3
diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa series).
In their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really
roadworthy) it achieved something like 111mpg. The same
engine (presumably the same car but not the same fuel
economy) also took them to 190mph.

Great...seen the advert. Nice little motor, can't get over
a speed hump at any speed though ;-)

Not meant to... it was a showcase vehicle.

and a joke....on my part there...

Quoted message said:

....all admiral efforts though, but why do they persist
trying to convince us they are doing us all a favour by
continuing to 'develop' more efficient fossil fuel burners
when there are other options readily available.

Since it is a diesel it will also probably easily convert to
bio-diesel. In the meantime... like-for-like against other
vehicles it will use considerably less fuel. This is a Good
Thing (TM).

Quoted message said:

130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still [censored]
up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and
nothing more than

a

Quoted message said:

distraction.

To quote your example. 130mpg vs 30mpg means over 4 times
the distance for the same negative effect. Yes fossil fuels
will still run out, but that's not a good reason to burn
through as fast as possible.

Agreed, but see previous below...

Quoted message said:

The source is the problem and that remains the same.....As
the worlds population increases, along with its 'wealth'
more and more individuals will want the 'luxury' of a
motor vehicle. This year you've

got

Quoted message said:

5 million driving vehicles that can do 40 mpg, in 10 years
time you've got 50 million in vehicles that can do
100mpg.....it all still leads to armageddon.

Better than 50 million in vehicles that do 40mpg.

But only marginally and temporarily, in the geological
timescale of things.....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True, but they have no incentive to do so when the
consumers are buying increasing fuel hungry cars.

...and the options they are offering are......?

Only on the increase due to university projects and home-
builds. IIRC Ford were recently (within the last 2 years)
demonstrating an electric car.

and whatever happened to the water powered motors that the
oil companies all bought up and suppressed??...

Quoted message said:

That arguement sits well alongside the 'selling
cigarettes to the populace 'cos they buy 'em '....verging
on pure evil!

Possibly. The difference is that smoking is (AFAIK) on the
decrease, while purchasing of over-sized, over-specced, under-
performing cars is on the increase.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where
practical, at a level that makes in nonsense not to use
public transport. I'd also like to see bull-bars on 4x4s
made completely illegal,

...totally agree, only with the provision that the law
breakers are seriously penalised...

Yup. Ban from driving and a compulsory purchase of a bicycle
to be used as a replacement vehicle.

eminently reasonable...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the onus placed on their owners to demonstrate a
legitimate need or

face heavy taxation.

Wholly unfair. Maybe on future sales, but existing owners
didn't purchase with a view to having to justify and pay
heavier govt. subsidies.

Those that bought them for genuine off-road use will have no
problems with this. Those that bought them as a status-
symbol can usually afford it anyway. There will be one or
two caught in the middle who can undoubtedly survive with a
smaller car.

98% of the population could happily survive without a car at
all...I know, I tried it following a temporary loss of
licence several years ago...however.... So why penalise one
particular section when they're all (mostly) being selfish
and thoughtless?....it's only a matter of degree.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But then I hate the things.

(hadn't noticed ;-)

He he.

Quoted message said:

Which of course, is your perogative

Free Country an' all that.

Jon.

indeed...tired now, going to bed..... ....only response I
can give is that I like it....it's actually my wife's car,
but she don't drive and wanted our own following loss of my
company car Freelander when I took voluntary redundancy. She
*really liked* that....As it is we now have a Ssangyong
Musso, No. 50 in Jeremy Clarkson's 50 worst vehicles ever,
(see - not a status symbol ;-) I checked his reasoning and
it was mainly because it is slow and not very aesthetically
pleasing (to him). He actually reckoned the diesel was not
quite as disappointing as the petrol, although the GX220
will happily see off most hot hatches. Funnily enough, since
I took it in to have a transmission oil leak fixed last
November, the switchable 4x4 hasn't worked, so I 've been
driving in 2 wheel drive. I'd only switch to 4 wheel drive
off road and so far this hasn't been a problem....
<yawn>...bored now, night-night.... Dave.

(t'other) Dave said:

At different ends. If you want to start making changes,
but don't want to (or can't) make the sweeping change
of banning them all, you start with the worst and work
from there.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A
'normal' 4x4 presents a greater surface area to the wind,
thus suffering higher drag, and weighs more than a
'normal' car. Like-for-like, the car is going to have
better efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old
Volvo, but it's on a par with my dad's (very) old Vauxhall
Astra, and not a contender to my mother's (much newer)
Renault Megane.

Good idea. So starting from the worst means getting rid of
all the old cars with their low efficiency high pollution
engines such as the old Volvos. Ban all cars older than
say P-reg.

Tony

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

Quoted message said:

Good idea. So starting from the worst means getting rid of
all the old cars with their low efficiency high pollution
engines such as the old Volvos. Ban all cars older than
say P-reg.

From Paris? Of course, while a brilliant idea, it doesn't
address the other problems of space and intimidation that
the average 4x4 engenders. As a non-car owner I'm quite
happy to see any reduction in the number of vehicles on
the roads.

Jon

Tony Raven said:

<snip>

Thank you for keeping your posts short and pertinent. It's a
good way of getting your stuff read.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "His mother should have
thrown him away and kept the stork." - Mae West
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Michael MacClancy said:

Tony Raven said:

<snip>

Thank you for keeping your posts short and pertinent. It's
a good way of getting your stuff read.

???

Tony did actually write something in that post so either
you failed to scroll down or you are making some more
esoteric point.

Colin

(t'other) Dave (and some other people along the way) said:

Quoted message said:

My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more
on a run. The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

Quoted message said:

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve.

Between 24 (for the BMX Turbo Nutter [censored] version) and 43
(for the D5).

Mine gets about 25 in town driving, which we try not to do,
and comfortably 38 on the motorway, provided it's not
weighed down with bikes.

Quoted message said:

they're 4x4s, not 'normal' cars.....

Just so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near
misses. They were all, by strange coincidences, horse
lorries....driven by women.

Rigid horseboxes are a work of Stan and probably the single
most incompetently driven vehicle you will ever encounter.
There are a few which are big, expensive and driven by
professional drivers, but large numbers are driven by horsey
women who have NO CLUE how to drive something that big and
are more worried about Dobbin in the back than about killing
other road users anyway.

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Colin Blackburn said:

Michael MacClancy said:

Tony Raven said:

<snip>

Thank you for keeping your posts short and pertinent.
It's a good way of getting your stuff read.

???

Tony did actually write something in that post so either
you failed to scroll down or you are making some more
esoteric point.

Colin

I was comparing his post with some others in the thread.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "A modest little person,
with much to be modest about."- Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Michael MacClancy said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Tony did actually write something in that post so either
you failed to scroll down or you are making some more
esoteric point.

I was comparing his post with some others in the thread.

Well, what do expect if you are going to employ such an
unusual device as a lack of sarcasm?

<fx: turns sarcasm detector limit setting down two notches>

Colin

Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Good idea. So starting from the worst means getting rid of
: all the old cars with their low efficiency high pollution
: engines such as the old Volvos. Ban all cars older than
: say P-reg.

The great thing about old cars is that most of them die
over time anyway. How many cars out there still take
leaded petrol?

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

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

Quoted message said:

(t'other) Dave said:

At different ends. If you want to start making changes,
but don't want to (or can't) make the sweeping change of
banning them all, you start with the worst and work from
there.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A
'normal' 4x4 presents a greater surface area to the
wind, thus suffering higher drag, and weighs more than a
'normal' car. Like-for-like, the car is going to have
better efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old
Volvo, but it's on a par with my dad's (very) old
Vauxhall Astra, and not a contender to my mother's (much
newer) Renault Megane.

Good idea. So starting from the worst means getting rid of
all the old

cars

Quoted message said:

with their low efficiency high pollution engines such as
the old Volvos.

Ban

Quoted message said:

all cars older than say P-reg.

Tony

Heh-he, excellent idea..means I can justify getting rid of
the 'M-reg' Musso and get a newer, less- polluting (in
theory) 4x4 - go-on!! Dave.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(t'other) Dave (and some other people along the way)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg,
more on a run. The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

Quoted message said:

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve.

Between 24 (for the BMX Turbo Nutter [censored] version) and
43 (for the D5).

Mine gets about 25 in town driving, which we try not
to do, and

comfortably

Quoted message said:

38 on the motorway, provided it's not weighed down
with bikes.

Quoted message said:

they're 4x4s, not 'normal' cars.....

Just so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near
misses. They were all, by strange coincidences, horse
lorries....driven by women.

Rigid horseboxes are a work of Stan and probably the
single most incompetently driven vehicle you will ever
encounter. There are a few

which

Quoted message said:

are big, expensive and driven by professional drivers, but
large numbers

are

Quoted message said:

driven by horsey women who have NO CLUE how to drive
something that big

and

Quoted message said:

are more worried about Dobbin in the back than about
killing other road users anyway.

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Must admit, I did wonder if it was just me, you know, when
you seem to get unreasonably focused?...and it was a
solitary ride, so strange things did occasionally drift
through my incredibly relaxed mind from time to time...
Glad to hear that it's a 'Recognised Fact', thanks for that
Guy ;-) Dave.

Colin Blackburn said:

Michael MacClancy said:

I was comparing his post with some others in the thread.

Well, what do expect if you are going to employ such an
unusual device as a lack of sarcasm?

<fx: turns sarcasm detector limit setting down two notches>

CBG: Oooh a sarcasm detector, that's a *real* useful
invention. (detector explodes)

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here :
pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like
it!" - Mr Horse