A rare outbreak of common sense?

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Dave Larrington, Jun 11, 2004.

  1. <URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.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.

    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."

    "They're polluters, they're space-occupiers, they're dangerous for
    pedestrians and other road users. They're a caricature of a car."
    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
    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
    and take up too much space, " he said on Europe 1 radio.
    The city council voted to urge Socialist Mayor Bertrand Delanoe to consider
    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,
    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."

    Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during peak pollution
    periods, and denying their owners residents' parking permits. Off-roaders
    could also be banned from protected areas like the Bois de Boulogne and the
    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
    SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and called their owners
    "complete idiots." (Yay! Go Ken! - Ed.)

    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
    out of town.

    The Guardian added that France caught on late to the vogue for SUVs, mainly
    because Renault, Peugeot and Citroen have not so far offered them.

    But with luxury carmakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche selling plush
    leather-upholstered 4x4s, the vehicles are an increasingly common sight in
    Paris's wealthier quarters. Sales surged by 11 percent in France last year.

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
    Tags:


  2. Dave Larrington wrote:
    > <URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.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.
     
  3. "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]e...
    > <URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.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.
    >
    > 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....

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


    As are all cars

    > they're dangerous for pedestrians and other road users.


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

    >They're a caricature of a car."


    Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

    > 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
    > 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
    > and take up too much space, "


    See above

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

    consider
    > 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,
    > 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?

    > 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 ;-)

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

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


    Yebbut...look at London

    > 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
    > 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?

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

    mainly
    > because Renault, Peugeot and Citroen have not so far offered them.
    >
    > But with luxury carmakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche selling

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

    year.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    > ===========================================================
    > Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    > http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    > ===========================================================
    >
    >

    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
    f*cking 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.
     
  4. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    Vincent Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Dave Larrington wrote:
    > > <URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.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)
    http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online
     
  5. Andy Hewitt wrote:
    > Vincent Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Dave Larrington wrote:
    >>
    >>><URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.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.
     
  6. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

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

    > >
    > > "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.

    > > 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.

    > >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.

    > > 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
    > > 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
    > > and take up too much space, "

    >
    > See above


    See above.

    > > "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.

    > > 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.

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

    > the
    > > 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
    > > 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?

    > > 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
    > > 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.

    > 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.

    > 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.

    > 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.

    > ....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.

    > In fact, if the big oil companies and govts. stopped
    > f*cking 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.

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

    >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

    > take up more room, and are far more intimidating.
    >

    A matter of perspective.

    > > > 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.


    > > >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....

    > > > 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
    > > > 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
    > > > and take up too much space, "

    > >
    > > See above

    >
    > See above.
    >
    > > > "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.


    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.

    >
    > > > 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.


    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 f*cking 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.

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

    and
    > > the
    > > > 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
    > > > 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?
    >

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

    > > > 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
    > > > 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.


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

    >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.
    >
    > > 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.

    > > 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.
    >

    ....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....

    > > 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'


    > > ....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.


    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 f*ck
    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.

    >
    > > In fact, if the big oil companies and govts. stopped
    > > f*cking 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!

    > > 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,


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

    >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.

    > But then I hate the things.
    >

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


    > Jon


    Love and peace,

    Dave.
    :)
     
  8. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

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

    > > 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.

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

    s
    > > 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.
    =20
    > > > >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
    > > 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
    ;-)

    > > "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
    > 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.

    > 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.


    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.

    > ....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!

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

    an
    > 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 cari=

    ng
    > for future generations??...build a f*cking lorry park 200 yards up the ro=

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

    0
    > 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!

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

    y
    > 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.

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


    Bike / car.

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


    Car.

    > or
    > taking my MTB to the Welsh mountains,


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

    > climbing gear to rockfaces,


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

    > surfboards


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

    > 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
    > > 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
    > > spare, thus making it less polluting.
    > >

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

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

    r
    > > 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
    > any speed though ;-)


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

    > ....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).

    > 130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still f*ck
    > up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and nothing more tha=

    n a
    > 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.

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

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


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

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

    e
    > '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.

    > > 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,

    >=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
    > >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.

    > > But then I hate the things.
    > >

    > (hadn't noticed ;-)


    He he.

    > Which of course, is your perogative


    Free Country an' all that.

    Jon.
     
  9. "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    (t'other) Dave no-one[email protected] opined the following...
    > > 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.

    > >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.

    > > 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...

    > > 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.

    > > > >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.....


    > > "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.


    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.

    > 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.


    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.

    > ....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.....

    > ?.....
    > ...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 f*cking 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.


    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!

    > > 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

    > 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.

    > 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.

    > ...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!

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


    Car.

    need room, tend to go self catering...

    > 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.

    > 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'

    > 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
    ;-)

    > 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...

    > > 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'


    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....


    > > 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...

    > ....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).

    > 130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still f*ck
    > up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and nothing more than

    a
    > 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...

    > 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.


    Better than 50 million in vehicles that do 40mpg.

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

    > > 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??...


    > 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.

    > > 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
     
  10. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    (t'other) Dave wrote:
    >
    > 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>

    >
    > 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
     
  11. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
    > 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
     
  12. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:25:51 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:


    > <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
     
  13. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:36:00 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:25:51 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
    >
    >
    >> <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
     
  14. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:45:36 +0100, Colin Blackburn wrote:

    > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:36:00 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 05:25:51 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> <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
     
  15. (t'other) Dave (and some other people along the way) wrote:

    >> 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.


    Between 24 (for the BMX Turbo Nutter Bastard 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.

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


    Just so.

    >> 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.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!
     
  16. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:23:05 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:45:36 +0100, Colin Blackburn wrote:
    >
    >> 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
     
  17. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    Tony Raven <[email protected]> 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 http://www.clune.org
    "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook
     
  18. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:47:39 +0100, Colin Blackburn
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:23:05 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> 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 : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
    Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
    "No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
     
  19. "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > (t'other) Dave wrote:
    > >
    > > 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>
    >
    > >
    > > 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
    >
    >


    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.
     
  20. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > (t'other) Dave (and some other people along the way) wrote:
    >
    > >> 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.

    >
    > Between 24 (for the BMX Turbo Nutter Bastard 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.
    >
    > > they're 4x4s, not 'normal' cars.....

    >
    > Just so.
    >
    > >> 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.
    > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
    >
    > 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.
     
Loading...
Loading...