I like it!

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

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

You don't think but you don't know either. Its after
all their money

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that's the way they choose to haemorrhage it in just
the same way it

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

our

Quoted message said:

choice to haemmorrhage our money by having kids ;-)

Quite :-) - but that's not the be all and end all. There
is the extra pollution, congestion etc. etc. :-)

Know what you mean with all that pollution and congestion
in the bathroom

in

Quoted message said:

the morning. Kids huh!

ROFL :-D

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

Quoted message said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2h9afdFai9fiU4@uni-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

Quoted message said:

I thought the OPEC response to the request to increase
production to

lower

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

prices was amusing. Along the lines of the price we
charge for a barrel

of

Quoted message said:

oil is tiny compared to the taxes you levy on it so if
you think the

price

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

oil is going to ruin your economy, why don't you lower
your taxes.

Yes, I thought it was hilarious of Gordon Brown to go cap
in hand to OPEC
asking for them to step up production when he takes 85p of
every quid we

put

Quoted message said:

in our tanks in tax. On the conspiracy grapevine, the Arab
oil barons are said to be deliberately hurting the USA for
its action in Iraq by allowing the oil price to rocket.
Since it is at an all time high - that might not

be

Quoted message said:

so far fetched.

Why not? OPEC is of course a cartel, and like any
business are entitled to use the market to raise the
price (and profibitability) of it's product by
encouraging demand and suppressing supply - see the
Christmas toy fad for an example.

Just another reason why we need to get away from relying
from a foreign cartel for our fuel.

I do think that given the high tax on fuel the government
would do well to adjust tax to keep the price stable, for
the benefit of the economy (yes, that includes raising tax
when oil is cheap).

Tony Raven said:

Doki said:

I generally drive quite quickly myself, but doing it in
a 4x4 is a particularly daft thing to do because they
don't go round corners or stop nearly as well as a big
car does.

Providing you make allowances for that and corner more
slowly and leave more braking room why's it a problem? Or
should we all drive Porsches and Lotuses on the basis that
they corner and stop much better than your average car?

I was referring to tailgating in a 4x4. If you'd not snipped
half a sentence in your quote, that would be obvious...

"Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Of course, they rationalise it with something else,
normally about being a lot safer to see high up and
how it will protect their kids, and (more reasonably)
how convenient it is for getting stuff in and out of.
But basically they do it cause it gives them power
over people.

The thing is, they can't stay in their status symbol all day
long and quite a lot of the massive 4X4 drivers I work with
are very overweight. Would they swap their car and their
waistline for my bike and mine? ;-)

--
Simon M.

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:37:37 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in
>message news:c8nrr1$4i6$1@wi
>>
>> Problem with that is you also unfair price the poor
>> out of

reasonable

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

car

Quoted message said:

>> use.
>
> They might then use it only when they *have * to
> instead of driving

half

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

>mile to buy stamp.

If you can afford to run a car in the first place, you
can't be *that* poor.

A fair point

Quoted message said:

I agree with the PP; petrol can't be overly expensive
judging by the number of ridiculously short trips
people still choose to make by car rather than by foot.

But the thing is how many people who could just about
afford a car (or simply to hire one) but can't because of
high petrol prices are denied

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

benfits of sensible car use...

Those on that particular financial borderline are easily
identified by their cost-aware turning off of the engine
in traffic jams.

But there's a balence there - every time you turn off the
engine in a traffic jam you have to start it up again -
doing extra damage to the engine in the process.

Of course - this isn't much of an issue if you're at a busy
level crossing and you're stuck for 5 minutes - but in the
cue for a set of traffic lights?

Quoted message said:

I can't say I've seen that many round here.

Sorry but (sympathy for high petrol prices) = 0.

I wasn't expecting ympathy - I was merely trying to point
out that attempting to tax motorists out of their cars by
means of high petrol prices is unfair, socially divisive and
ineffective.

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

Quoted message said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

That's a load of [censored]. They use it for being seen in and
for towering over people. This is a key benefit to the
status-conscious who don't care about propping themselves
up by treading down other people.

Your inferiority complex is showing ;-)

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

I was keeping out of this, because people seemed to be
getting inflamatory but I decided to butt in because it
seemed no one else had raised it in this way, and I think it
is the key reason why this is different from people spending
money on traditional big cars, whatever rationalisations
people can make about their energy innefficiency and owners
not even using all the capabilities.

So yes, I do find them antisocial, but only when driven in
confined spaces when compromises should really have been
made to make them less intimidating in that circumstance.

Ambrose

Tony Raven said:

For many people the bulk of the anecdotal evidence
suggests that most cyclists are lycra louts who ignore red
lights and should be banned from the roads.

I believe there are already laws against ignoring red
lights. I would have no complaint if these were enforced for
operators of all vehicles - cycles and cars alike.

(That said, I'd probably be a bit upset if they were
enforced against cyclists who merely cross the stop line so
that they can wait where the advance stop line would be if
there were one. Yeah, yeah, highway code rule 55, I know)

But this is straying from the point: who said anything about
banning {cyclists,4x4 drivers,anyone else} from the roads?
It wasn't Mr Livingstone (at least, not in the parts of his
interview that the Telegraph reported); all he said was he
thought it was idiotic behaviour.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But even if you are making allowances by cornering more
slowly and leaving more braking room, that's taking up
more road space and increasing congestion, which in
London is still pretty antisocial.

How much more. Can you quantify it? Should they all drive
Smart Cars

How much more than what? You suggested that 4x4 owners
should corner more slowly and leave more braking room: as
you seem to have more experience in their driving than I
have, you tell me how much extra braking room is
appropriate, and I'll tell you how much extra road space
that involves. In fact, you'll have answered your own
question and I won't need to tell you anything.

-dan

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

Velvet posted ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers posted ...

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

Heheheh .. groups.msn.comshoebox.Open ↗
msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=109

After a mild day green-laning ..

I haven't got photo's of the 'rougher' days, where the rear
end valances have been chewed up etc etc ... and you can't
see the tree limb scratches and marks all down both sides,
or the minor 'dinks' you mention ... 😉

Does it _really_ matter whether a 4x4 is used off-road or
not ? They have so many uses otherwise, we're thinking of
getting another just for off-roading so we don't screw
this one up too much as it's such a good motorway drive,
especially when towing .. trailers, horse boxes,
caravans, etc etc.

Beats me why a cycling newsgroup has such a downer on other
road users. Who really gives a flying fart what anyone else
drives, rides or uses, when it's the driver/rider/user
that's the idiot, not the machine ...

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. 😉

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c8o05o$7q6

Quoted message said:

I do think that given the high tax on fuel the government
would do well to adjust tax to keep the price stable, for
the benefit of the economy (yes, that includes raising tax
when oil is cheap).

If they cut the tax on fuel the Govt. would only get it
back through other means, so it all amounts to the same
thing. The broader picture with oil is that no one is
making it anymore and once the Chinese start seriously
sucking the planet dry, we might be using it faster than we
can get it out of the ground and the price will keep rising
through sheer demand alone.

--

Simon M.

Paul:

Quoted message said:

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

Why not try to use your vehicle less? Walk the kids to
school, cycle or take them on the bus. That's what you
would do if you actually cared about environmental impact
and weren't just using it as a [censored] excuse for driving
your big car.

d.

Velvet said:

They'd often be mud-splattered in winter, have bits of
vegetation trapped around the bull-bar mount points or in
the edges of the bumpers, etc etc.

Sounds like my Ka 😉.

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

Quoted message said:

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:c8o05o$7q6

Quoted message said:

I do think that given the high tax on fuel the
government would do well

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

adjust tax to keep the price stable, for the benefit of
the economy

(yes,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that includes raising tax when oil is cheap).

If they cut the tax on fuel the Govt. would only get it
back through

other

Quoted message said:

means, so it all amounts to the same thing.

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

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

Quoted message said:

The broader picture with oil is that no one is making it
anymore and once the Chinese start seriously sucking the
planet dry, we might be using it faster than we can get it
out of the ground and the price will keep rising through
sheer demand alone.

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

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

vernon levy said:

Quoted message said:

On a bike, being able to see past, or over, the car in
front allows me to decide where to overtake, see traffic
lights, junctions etc. I can get in the right position,
pick lanes at junctions, See in advance if I have to turn
off the road etc. It's just easier if you have more
notice on what's coming up.

There's plenty of vehicles whose bulk matches or exceeds
that of 4WD vehicles and I don't see many folk [censored]
about their lack of 'transparency'.

Most of the bulky vehicles I see in London that aren't school-
run 4x4s are things like vans, buses and lorries that need
to be that big so they can fit the passengers and/or cargo.
That's reasonable.

If you can give an example of a bulky vehicle that's being
used where a smaller vehicle would be more sensible, please
do, and we'll [censored] as necessary. I've seen "stretch limos"
cited elsewhere in this thread, and, yeah, any stretch limo
drivers (and their passengers) using them in rush hour for
the school run are also complete idiots. But then, I see
very few of them, which makes the problem less pressing than
that of 4x4s

-dan

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

Nathaniel Porter said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those on that particular financial borderline are easily
identified by their cost-aware turning off of the engine
in traffic jams.

But there's a balence there - every time you turn off the
engine in a traffic jam you have to start it up again -
doing extra damage to the engine in the process.

Of course - this isn't much of an issue if you're at a busy
level crossing and you're stuck for 5 minutes - but in the
cue for a set of traffic lights?

"The US Department of Energy says that it's more economical
to cut the engine if waiting longer than 30 seconds."
Source: Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry but (sympathy for high petrol prices) = 0.

I wasn't expecting ympathy - I was merely trying to point
out that attempting to tax motorists out of their cars by
means of high petrol prices is unfair, socially divisive
and ineffective.

Most journeys in the UK are less than 5 miles. Let's call it
10 for a return trip. The total cost by car is about 4 ukp
(accounting for fixed costs etc) but the portion of this
cost that is fuel is only about ukp 1.10. If you pay a
couple of quid to park at your destination the proportion of
the cost of your trip that is spent on fuel becomes even
less significant.

10% increase in fuel cost:

- fuel cost = 1.21 ukp
- car costs = 4.11 ukp
- parking = 2.00 ukp
- total = 6.11 ukp

Increase in trip cost = (.11/4.00) * 100 = 2.75%

So, I'll agree that you need big fuel price increases for it
be an effective method to encourage modal shift. The Govt.
reckons that

"...the real price of fuel goes, and stays, up by 10%, the
result is a dynamic process of adjustment such that:

a) The volume of traffic will go down by roundly 1% within
about a year, building up to a reduction of about 3% in
the longer run (about five years or so)..." from --Open ↗
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstrat/documents/-
page/dft_transstrat_028644.hcsp

The idea that it's "unfair" is odd. Poorer households are
the least likely to own cars so a tax on fuel is generally a
tax that is biased towards the rich (if that's what you mean
by "unfair"😉.

Equally, motoring fuel taxes are optional taxes. No one is
forced to drive anywhere (other than by their own
lifestyle choices).

I'm not sure what you mean by "socially divisive" but it is
now generally recognised that car dependant communities are
the most socially exclusive. However, we're not at the US
state of car dependence where stopping driving because of
cost would mean that people would cease to function
economically and socially.

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those on that particular financial borderline are
easily identified by their cost-aware turning off of
the engine in traffic jams.

But there's a balence there - every time you turn off the
engine in a traffic jam you have to start it up again -
doing extra damage to the

engine

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the process.

Of course - this isn't much of an issue if you're at a
busy level

crossing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and you're stuck for 5 minutes - but in the cue for a set
of traffic

lights?

Quoted message said:

"The US Department of Energy says that it's more
economical to cut the engine if waiting longer than 30
seconds." Source: Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

The thing is that that doesn't happen often. Even at traffic
lights, the queue rolls forward every so often.

I would be interested in more details though - it's just
driving an old-ish Fiesta I'm somewhat detered by the
prospect of having to put my engine through the stress of
stop-starting - and I'm usually not massively confident in
its ability to restart :-)

(Incidentally I think that the Govt. should be pushing electro-
hybrid vehicles, as they go some way to solving both the
wastage and wear-and-tear problems :-) )

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry but (sympathy for high petrol prices) = 0.

I wasn't expecting ympathy - I was merely trying to point
out that attempting to tax motorists out of their cars by
means of high petrol

prices

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is unfair, socially divisive and ineffective.

Most journeys in the UK are less than 5 miles. Let's call
it 10 for a return trip. The total cost by car is about 4
ukp (accounting for fixed costs etc) but the portion of
this cost that is fuel is only about ukp 1.10. If you pay
a couple of quid to park at your destination the
proportion of the cost of your trip that is spent on fuel
becomes even less significant.

10% increase in fuel cost:

- fuel cost = 1.21 ukp
- car costs = 4.11 ukp
- parking = 2.00 ukp
- total = 6.11 ukp

Increase in trip cost = (.11/4.00) * 100 = 2.75%

So, I'll agree that you need big fuel price increases for
it be an effective method to encourage modal shift. The
Govt. reckons that

This wasn't really my point - my point was that people
associate petrol costs with fill-ups ; not with journeys -
thus they don't think about modal change.

Additionally - as you point out over a small 10 mile journey
the cost of fuel doesn't make that much difference. What
about over a 200 mile journey? Surely the fuel cost would be
more significant, despite the fact that this type of journey
isn't the problem (unless it was a daily commute of course).

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The idea that it's "unfair" is odd. Poorer households are
the least likely to own cars so a tax on fuel is generally
a tax that is biased towards the rich (if that's what you
mean by "unfair"😉.

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

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

Of course, fuel (and other motoring) tax is only a part of
this as you say

Quoted message said:

Equally, motoring fuel taxes are optional taxes. No one is
forced to drive anywhere (other than by their own
lifestyle choices).

True - but don't want to live simply to go to work, do the
shopping etc. - people are entitled to live a bit. Some
people would like to use a car sensibly in order to see
the world and enjoy a certain flexibilty the car offers
(for example). I think we should think very carefully
about anything which denies sections of society the
ability to do so.

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

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "socially divisive" but it
is now generally recognised that car dependant communities
are the most socially exclusive. However, we're not at the
US state of car dependence where stopping driving because
of cost would mean that people would cease to function
economically and socially.

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

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

JohnB:

Quoted message said:

He is simply showing his old red prejudices.

This comment says more about your own prejudices than
anyone else's.

d.

Paulmouk:

Quoted message said:

Jeremy Clarkson did a program condemning these a year or
two ago.

Something that Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Clarkson agree on.
How often does that happen?

Quoted message said:

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

to

Quoted message said:

be a Merc. or BMW .

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

d.

davek said:

JohnB:

Quoted message said:

He is simply showing his old red prejudices.

This comment says more about your own prejudices than
anyone else's.

Which are?

John B

Al C-F:

Quoted message said:

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

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

d.

On 22 May 2004 07:00:21 GMT, [email hidden]
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Londoners who use four-wheel-drive vehicles and people
carriers on the school run are complete idiots, according
to Ken Livingstone, the London Mayor.

Livingstone makes uncontroversial statement shock! Film
at eleven!

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

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