In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
4) Use you batteries (for a few hundred cycles and they need changing
= pollution).

Changing? They are guaranteed 8 years.

Something else you've got wrong. Is there no end to your ignorance?

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Toyota claim a 'combined' fuel consumption
that looks very good on paper.

Autocar got 55mpg in central London.

They could have got near anything while it was battery powered. But the
price is paid later when the petrol engine re-charges the batteries. They
got 23 MPG overall on the test which is pathetic.

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Unless you do mainly city driving, avoid the extravagant maker's claims
for hybrids as regards fuel consumption and emissions. On average out of
town journeys they're no better than a conventional petrol car.

How are they extravagant claims? They are the result of standardised
urban/combined fuel economy tests.

They may be, but are not representative of real life driving. And given
just how poor the Prius turned out to be, one can only assume the software
etc was tweaked for optimum results *for these tests* Otherwise, how do
you explain an overall figure of 23 MPG in an Autocar test? No other car I
can find is so far away from the 'official' figures.

Very few cars will be used only for out of town journeys, most cars
will be urban/combined.

Yup. Autocar have a test route designed to simulate this and put every car
they test over it. The Prius still did badly - considering its claims.

--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:11:21 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:05:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That doesn't stop people owning pointlessly large uneconomical cars
for status reasons and/or some irrational belief about safety. Eg my
father has a 2.7 V6 that does 25mpg.


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

But mile for mile, 'don't we all pay for it' environmentally?

One can say that about virtually anything.


Now don't get me wrong, I own (bult) a 1978 1300 Escort based kut car
that currently does 25 mpg and with a poor emissions engine, however
it is used infrequently and for short trips so probably 'pollutes'
less / year than even the best 'catted' vehicle (in fact has only done
500 miles over the last couple of years).

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

I could make the same argument about my use of a diesel 4x4. When I
am in the UK, I mainly work at home, so mileage is low and I could
make the same argument. I don't. I like to drive it, I am happy
to pay for the fuel and road tax and that is that. I don't need my
life run for me.


Now it might even end up
with my old 2L Pinto in there (giving slightly better mpg) but it will
at least be able to run unleaded (once sorted).

I hope you have your life insurance up to date or that you don't get
rear ended.....



The difference when going from the 2L Sierra to this Rover 218SD
(1900) was remarkable fuel consumption wise. 25 mpg became 50, 125
miles for 20 quids worth of fuel became 250! Even with our low mileage
I'm sure we notice the money saved. Now because I (we) don't drive for
fun, to pose or commute, any of our vehicles are generally only used
to get us to places where we also carry stuff or there is more than
one of us. Other than that we walk / cycle (rarely use PT because it's
not convienient in spite of having a bus terminus and two stations
within a 10 min walk).

I believe the bottom line (and in spite of catalysers etc) is the more
miles you can get from each gallon of fossil fuel the better, not easy
to do with something waying 3 tonnes and with the aerodynamics of a
shed?

Now, if you live in the country or places where there is a 'good'
chance of getting snowed / mudded in several times of the year a real
'off roader' (eg Land Rover 110 / Disco / Shogun? etc) with a mid
sized diesel engine might still be acceptable. For (guess) 70% of the
others something that 'looks' like a 4 x 4 (but just 2wd) but built
lighter with a smaller more economical (diesel?) engine would probably
placate their egos whilst polluting less (less fuel burnt / mile =
good). And, so what if it only does 50 mph .. they never leave the
City anyway! ;-)

Can't see it happening though .. if you have the money to afford to
run / maintain such a beast even £1000 / year road tax and fuel at 10/
gallon with make them think about anyone than No1.


This is a bull**** argument. It isn't acceptable to expect people to
justify their personal choice of mode of transport if they are
prepared to pay for it. This is typical Livingstonesque focus on the
wrong issues just for the sake of propaganda and is not addressing the
real issues.






All the best ..

T i m

p.s. There *are* folk out there that make REGULAR good use of say the
seating or load capacity of their 'bigger' / 4x4 vehicles in which
case the mpg can to some degree be justified but surely not as just an
uban taxi ..?


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Unless you do mainly city driving, avoid the extravagant maker's claims
for hybrids as regards fuel consumption and emissions. On average out of
town journeys they're no better than a conventional petrol car.

How are they extravagant claims? They are the result of standardised
urban/combined fuel economy tests.

They may be, but are not representative of real life driving. And given
just how poor the Prius turned out to be, one can only assume the software
etc was tweaked for optimum results *for these tests* Otherwise, how do
you explain an overall figure of 23 MPG in an Autocar test? No other car I
can find is so far away from the 'official' figures.

It goes to show, his Prius is just an imaginary one

--
geoff

T i m wrote:

I don't believe you can really follow the argument that it is not good
to have some vehicles outperform others though. You will always have
that situation - an 18 wheel artic will never stop as well as car.


Oh true enough, but, we *need* 18 wheelers and what they do, but tell
me who (in the UK) *needs* a Supercar? Ok, a very tiny proportion of

Sure you don't need a supercar. But need does not really come into it.
Whether you want one and can afford it is probably more relevant!

(there is an argument (less relevant these days since even many "basic"
cars are refined and well appointed) that if you are driving high
mileages either for a living, or as a fairly fundamental part of your
job, then having something that can cover distance without causing you
to arrive stressed out helps greatly.

Well, true fine and dandy if we all have the same .. if not you are
either hit or the hitter?

My argument was even if we don't all have the same it is still worth
having the extra stopping power. Yes sometimes you will be able to avoid
hitting something where otherwise you might have, only to have the car
behind hit you. But equally the first part will apply in isolation
sometimes! ;-)

Oh indeed, but (and what I was trying to say) in most cases the
builder 'needs' the van to conduct his business? The spirit of my
point was if it was a sports car that caused the accident though too
much speed or the 4x4 because of it's weight (roadholding / tyres etc)
then these may not have happened if they were 'ordinary' cars (with
'ordinary' drivers'). Not a perfect description but I hope you get the
spirit of my point. Why is it always more expensive to ensure anything

Yup I see what you mean, but you could just read that as "as many cars
as possible ought to corner and brake well". So by extension we are back
to "better get a Porsche" ;-)

that has the word 'Sports' on it than without (if the was no greater
risk)?

Except for perhaps a Jaguar XJ sport (which is IIUC the lower spec model).

Well there is more risk of the sportier motor being nicked, more chance
that its performance will out rank it's drivers etc. Not to mention
costing more to fix when you bend it!

plough into the back of his Disco at traffic lights. Result: one written
off Renault, one new rear fog light lens required for the Disco!).


I bet ;-) But we might not be laughing if the kid had died and the 4x4
was being used as a Chelsea taxi...?

Don't somehow think my though process would have been, "screech bang, oh
look flat teenager - if only I have bought a more flimsy car he might
still be person shaped" though... more like glad this is a solid lump or
it could have been curtains for me as well... (or SWMBO who was in the
car with him at the time).

(Kid was fine BTW, just a tad embarrassed).

further, how they are often used). I mean, they did a 4x4 Panda .. now
I doubt many of them were used off road and their economy 'couldn't

Oddly there were actually pretty good off road - quite popular with
farmers wives etc for that reason. (I remember reading a group test of
small 4WDs many years ago. They rated the Panda as the most capable off
road, followed by the Subaru Justy (which was really cobbled together
from an old Suzuki design). Although they preferred the Justy as an "all
round" car.

have been as good (extra weight, friction etc) as their 2wd brothers
and it wasn't like you needed to put the power down better (like a
Pretza) .. so as they must cost more to maintain what would you *need*
one for?

Smiling out of as you cruise past all the cars unable to get up an
ungritted hill perhaps ;-)

But I do few miles and drive with these thoughts / consequencies in my
mind. From *my* health point of view I don't see the risk any greater
(and probably better) than when I'm on my motorbike?

What is the other name for bike riders...? oh yes that was it "organ
donors" ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

raden wrote:

Wouldn't ABS (and or Traction Control) take care of that John, even in
the wet?

Porches are well known for losing it in wet conditions

In fact the 4WD one (928 was it?) - is quite well known as a widowmaker.
They even insist you go on their driving course before they will sell
you one!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:13:06 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Unless you do mainly city driving, avoid the extravagant maker's claims
for hybrids as regards fuel consumption and emissions. On average out of
town journeys they're no better than a conventional petrol car.

How are they extravagant claims? They are the result of standardised
urban/combined fuel economy tests.

They may be, but are not representative of real life driving. And given
just how poor the Prius turned out to be, one can only assume the software
etc was tweaked for optimum results *for these tests* Otherwise, how do
you explain an overall figure of 23 MPG in an Autocar test? No other car I
can find is so far away from the 'official' figures.

It goes to show, his Prius is just an imaginary one


Sounds more like a skin complaint to me. I wonder which marketing
luvvy dreamed up that one?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:16:16 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:05:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

That doesn't stop people owning pointlessly large uneconomical cars
for status reasons and/or some irrational belief about safety. Eg my
father has a 2.7 V6 that does 25mpg.


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

Do you drive a big thirsty car?

cheers,
Pete.


yes, a Hummer with remote controlled missile launcher targetted on
meddlesome whiners.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:59:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

But mile for mile, 'don't we all pay for it' environmentally?

One can say that about virtually anything.

Could you explain though please Andy? I was saying that if a car does
say 25 mpg it will do half as many miles and create twice as much
pollution as one that does 50 mpg (all things being equal), the 25 mpg
car will also be consuming our (valuable) oil at twice the rate (so it
will last half as long)? One reason I believe it's not being rationed
now is because the government earn too much money from taxing it. We
were told that there was so much oil in the North sea that we would
all get town gas free .. never happened here (and I believe we are
steaming the last dregs out of some of our oil fields right now?). And
why do we fight so hard in some places (Falklands) and not others ..
oil reserves possibly?


Now don't get me wrong, I own (bult) a 1978 1300 Escort based kut car
that currently does 25 mpg and with a poor emissions engine, however
it is used infrequently and for short trips so probably 'pollutes'
less / year than even the best 'catted' vehicle (in fact has only done
500 miles over the last couple of years).

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

True, and I'm currently in two minds re scrapping it. However, even
doing that has it's envionmental impact? I have never claimed to be
blame free in any of this, it's all about doing what you can when you
have the choice (isn't it?).

I could make the same argument about my use of a diesel 4x4. When I
am in the UK, I mainly work at home, so mileage is low and I could
make the same argument. I don't. I like to drive it, I am happy
to pay for the fuel and road tax and that is that. I don't need my
life run for me.

I'm not trying to 'run your life' Andy, but do you not agree your
(our) actions have an impact on all of us? I have a 15 year old
daughter and I'm seriously concerned what sort of a world will be here
for her(and all of them) when we are long since gone?


Now it might even end up
with my old 2L Pinto in there (giving slightly better mpg) but it will
at least be able to run unleaded (once sorted).

I hope you have your life insurance up to date or that you don't get
rear ended.....

I also ride a motorbike Andy .. I know the risks.


Can't see it happening though .. if you have the money to afford to
run / maintain such a beast even £1000 / year road tax and fuel at 10/
gallon with make them think about anyone than No1.


This is a bull**** argument.

It wasn't really an argument .. just my prediction ;-) 20 years ago
when I refrained from going into smoke filled places I predicted the
end to smoking in public places. It took it's time but it's getting
there. Ok, not for the reasons I hoped (health) but the insurance
implications. Dirty / uneconomic vehicles will be next along with
aircraft fuel. This will only happen of course when the cost of the
consequences outweighs the cost of the useage (in money not
environmental / moral terms). I also use my mobile phone as little as
possible ..

It isn't acceptable to expect people to
justify their personal choice of mode of transport if they are
prepared to pay for it.

But it's not just the cost is it Andy? You have already said there is
a 'moral position'.

This is typical Livingstonesque focus on the
wrong issues just for the sake of propaganda and is not addressing the
real issues.

Well, I'm no expert (never said I was) so if you have some alternative
views (other than doing what you want and the rest of humanity can go
jump g) please put them forward (always willing to learn). For
example, what are the 'real issues' please?

I've not been indoctrinated by anyone, I don't harass 4x4 drivers
outside the schools, I would just like to think folk consider their
actions / choices, be it about vehicle use, recycling / whatever? I
own an electic car, it was designed / built during the last big fuel
crisis when the cost of oil was going sky high but we had our own gas
/ coal reserves so could still generate electricity cheaply. As cars
have become more fuel efficient the viability (and 'greenness') of
electric vehicles become less tennable (so I don't use it).

All the best .. and thanks for your time ..

T i m

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:26:12 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:59:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

But mile for mile, 'don't we all pay for it' environmentally?

One can say that about virtually anything.

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.


I was saying that if a car does
say 25 mpg it will do half as many miles and create twice as much
pollution as one that does 50 mpg (all things being equal), the 25 mpg
car will also be consuming our (valuable) oil at twice the rate (so it
will last half as long)?

That's obvious but a very simplistic view.

One reason I believe it's not being rationed
now is because the government earn too much money from taxing it.

Of course. People will insist on voting for governments and policies
requiring a high take and spend of tax.

We
were told that there was so much oil in the North sea that we would
all get town gas free .. never happened here (and I believe we are
steaming the last dregs out of some of our oil fields right now?). And
why do we fight so hard in some places (Falklands) and not others ..
oil reserves possibly?

Could well be.




Now don't get me wrong, I own (bult) a 1978 1300 Escort based kut car
that currently does 25 mpg and with a poor emissions engine, however
it is used infrequently and for short trips so probably 'pollutes'
less / year than even the best 'catted' vehicle (in fact has only done
500 miles over the last couple of years).

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

True, and I'm currently in two minds re scrapping it. However, even
doing that has it's envionmental impact? I have never claimed to be
blame free in any of this, it's all about doing what you can when you
have the choice (isn't it?).

The important thing is having the choice and not having the government
make the choice.



I could make the same argument about my use of a diesel 4x4. When I
am in the UK, I mainly work at home, so mileage is low and I could
make the same argument. I don't. I like to drive it, I am happy
to pay for the fuel and road tax and that is that. I don't need my
life run for me.

I'm not trying to 'run your life' Andy, but do you not agree your
(our) actions have an impact on all of us? I have a 15 year old
daughter and I'm seriously concerned what sort of a world will be here
for her(and all of them) when we are long since gone?

Everybody's actions have some degree of impact on everybody else. It
would be better to focus on things that make a significant difference.




Now it might even end up
with my old 2L Pinto in there (giving slightly better mpg) but it will
at least be able to run unleaded (once sorted).

I hope you have your life insurance up to date or that you don't get
rear ended.....

I also ride a motorbike Andy .. I know the risks.


Can't see it happening though .. if you have the money to afford to
run / maintain such a beast even £1000 / year road tax and fuel at 10/
gallon with make them think about anyone than No1.


This is a bull**** argument.

It wasn't really an argument .. just my prediction ;-) 20 years ago
when I refrained from going into smoke filled places I predicted the
end to smoking in public places. It took it's time but it's getting
there. Ok, not for the reasons I hoped (health) but the insurance
implications. Dirty / uneconomic vehicles will be next along with
aircraft fuel. This will only happen of course when the cost of the
consequences outweighs the cost of the useage (in money not
environmental / moral terms).

Of course. That's why it's always better to take a positive look and
come up with a solution that is economically better and/or gives an
incentive to buy into it. This approach generally works. The
negative approach of disincenting that which is economically or
conveniently desirable but which has some environmental or other cost
doesn't work because it goes against the natural order of things and
****es people off.


I also use my mobile phone as little as
possible ..

Riiiighht.....



It isn't acceptable to expect people to
justify their personal choice of mode of transport if they are
prepared to pay for it.

But it's not just the cost is it Andy? You have already said there is
a 'moral position'.

Of course there is. But moral positions never fly unless the
economics work.



This is typical Livingstonesque focus on the
wrong issues just for the sake of propaganda and is not addressing the
real issues.

Well, I'm no expert (never said I was) so if you have some alternative
views (other than doing what you want and the rest of humanity can go
jump g) please put them forward (always willing to learn). For
example, what are the 'real issues' please?

In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.



I've not been indoctrinated by anyone, I don't harass 4x4 drivers
outside the schools, I would just like to think folk consider their
actions / choices, be it about vehicle use, recycling / whatever? I
own an electic car, it was designed / built during the last big fuel
crisis when the cost of oil was going sky high but we had our own gas
/ coal reserves so could still generate electricity cheaply. As cars
have become more fuel efficient the viability (and 'greenness') of
electric vehicles become less tennable (so I don't use it).

All of these points are fine. The point is that people should have
the choice.


All the best .. and thanks for your time ..

T i m


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 14 Jul 2005 18:50:24 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Fair enough Hugh.

Apologies for the tone. I'm hot. It makes me irritable.

No probs fella .. ;-)

If they opened a Clay
Shooting ground in the field at the back of your house you might mind
what other folk are doing (legally) every other Sunday?

As it happens, no. I'd be out there trying to improve my (risible) sporting
percentages. )

We (Wife daughter and I) have shot 'off the beaten track' at Hockley
Hall, Stumps Cross, Trenders Wood (I think they are called, Essex
mainly) and done quite a few rounds of Skeet / Trap at USAF
Mildenhall. Also took a squad to the West London shooting ground
against a few Police squads .. saw Richard Faulds in action (98 ex
100)!

You do actually have a point. A local farmer decided to allow dirt bikes
on one of his fields. Our Sundays were ruined by angry wasp noises from
a couple of km away. Fortunately for us, he had failed to obtain either
planning or environmental permissions, and we had it stopped.

Spoil sport! But as you said 'not legal' so ... good job they can't
get the 28 day thing like shooting grounds can (or can they) ;-(

Well, 'size' can mean dimensions and perceived? If it feels bigger to
(say) an inexperienced driver

Why should I drive (or indeed, do anything) as if everyone around me is
a beginner? That's *their* problem, not mine.

I think you misunderstood Huge, I was saying these drivers were
lacking in confidence and get in the way of all of us?


I hope to God you are never in that situation Hugh, where the size of
your vehicle may have played a part in a RTA fatality.

I *really* don't GAS. Honestly. I've been t-boned by some arsewipe who
didn't realise that brakes don't work in 4" of snow, who then tried to
claim it was my fault. I didn't care then, and I don't expect to care
in the future, either.

You can't go through life worrying about the effect your decisions have on
other people. Not unless you want to be *seriously* neurotic.

Not worrying no, but being concerned maybe? Everything has a cause and
effect .. you play your music loud so your neighbour turns theirs up
louder ..?

Erm, I have no power nor intention to impose any rules Hugh .. it was
just an 'in an ideal world' *thought* (therefore mine).

There's no such thing.

That's a fact! But we try to make our own worlds as ideal as possible
don't we and we can't always do that by riding roughshod over everyone
else (not suggesting you do that btw) ;-)

Maybe when no
vehicles pollute (or we find a way of cleaning the air), when we can
produce all our own fuel and live in a country with loads of space or
no congestion anywhere, we can all drive (real) lorries 'if WE want
to' ..?

There you go again, you see. Making assumptions about my life -

I did? I think I used the Royal 'we' ?

I drive
a Disco for several reasons - I live about half a mile from the nearest
tarmacced road, I tow a race car and we like to take holidays in *very*
out of the way places in Western Scotland. But why should I justify my
choice of vehicle to anyone?

I didn't expect you to and wasn't asking you to Huge? But now you have
mentioned it your application of vehicle probably does match your need
(that wasn't a judgement just my reflection before you go off on
one!). This whole thing stems from the inapropriete use angle and what
right some folk have re squandering OUR resources. No one was saying
to do so was illegal, just to some it could be seen as avoidable (in a
large number of cases). But it must be difficult being a 4X4 ownder
sometimes, being hounded by the anti brigade like the anti smokers did
(and the smokers, backed into a corner would often bite anyone who
came near) ;-)?

And while on the subject, there you are, back of beyond and all setup
and looking forward to a nice quiet couple of days (and yes I am
presuming here as that's generally why folk go to 'out of the way
placesg) and the one and only other van parked near you srarts up
their genny? (don't tell me, you use one all the time yourself!) weg

The problem is that all this stuff percolates upwards. This country
is full of people who want to stop other people doing what they
want, and it makes me *very* angry...

Oh agreed, like when 250,000 legal gun users, gunsmiths, coaches, our
olympic team(?) had to hand in their pistols (not me, not my thing but
I witnessed some of it). Now, the misinformed general public probably
sleep better in their beds because of it .. but gun crime is on the
up? Now even I (a shooter) had to accept that removing however many
thousand guns from potential access from the wrong type was probably a
good thing .. but the percentage risk was very very small (and yer
criminal get's them elsewhere anyway)? ;-(

I don't think you would find the majority of people GAS what you (or
any of us) do Hugh, or not untill it affects them or something they
care about anyway? ;-)

All the best (seriously)

Oh, absolutely.

Good, lets hope it cools down soon eh ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. Like when the council fit a new speed hump and over the first few
weeks you get the interesting collection of front spoilers and bits of
body kit left behind. Most of us don't care but I bet they are a few
that are pi**ed! ;-)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:50:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.

Indeed, and most of us (and I'm hoping to include you here Andy g)
try to do 'our bit' towards the bigger picture?


I was saying that if a car does
say 25 mpg it will do half as many miles and create twice as much
pollution as one that does 50 mpg (all things being equal), the 25 mpg
car will also be consuming our (valuable) oil at twice the rate (so it
will last half as long)?

That's obvious but a very simplistic view.

But valid though? I know it's simplistic but it is the gist of the
issue for many folk (including me in a fairly background sense).

One reason I believe it's not being rationed
now is because the government earn too much money from taxing it.

Of course. People will insist on voting for governments and policies
requiring a high take and spend of tax.

And we have better options do we (I have little knoledge re Politics
so it was a genuine question)?

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

True, and I'm currently in two minds re scrapping it. However, even
doing that has it's envionmental impact? I have never claimed to be
blame free in any of this, it's all about doing what you can when you
have the choice (isn't it?).

The important thing is having the choice and not having the government
make the choice.

Do you not find 'the Government' *generally* only step in when things
get really bad. Be it folk dying from passive smoking, not wearing
seat belts (saving lives, saving NHS costs) crime, large protest
marches about something, 'driving without due care (because you are on
yer mobile) etc etc?

I'm not trying to 'run your life' Andy, but do you not agree your
(our) actions have an impact on all of us? I have a 15 year old
daughter and I'm seriously concerned what sort of a world will be here
for her(and all of them) when we are long since gone?

Everybody's actions have some degree of impact on everybody else. It
would be better to focus on things that make a significant difference.

Ok, (and that was my que to you earlier) what are these things please?

It wasn't really an argument .. just my prediction ;-) 20 years ago
when I refrained from going into smoke filled places I predicted the
end to smoking in public places. It took it's time but it's getting
there. Ok, not for the reasons I hoped (health) but the insurance
implications. Dirty / uneconomic vehicles will be next along with
aircraft fuel. This will only happen of course when the cost of the
consequences outweighs the cost of the useage (in money not
environmental / moral terms).

Of course. That's why it's always better to take a positive look and
come up with a solution that is economically better and/or gives an
incentive to buy into it. This approach generally works.

Because many folk 'resist' the suggestion that something migh be good
for them (and hence all of us) do you think?

The
negative approach of disincenting that which is economically or
conveniently desirable but which has some environmental or other cost
doesn't work because it goes against the natural order of things and
****es people off.

Erm, will **** *some* folk off that's for sure but that's like why we
have speed cameras all over the place .. because some folk don't
believe the limits apply to them so we all suffer (those of us who use
our discresion / experience / skill when to do what speed safely)? If
going faster than the posted limit didn't occur or there were no
(speed related) accidents then it is my belief there would be no
cameras today (at 17 grand a pop or whatever)?


I also use my mobile phone as little as
possible ..

Riiiighht.....

I have word from engineers that have been involved in the testing of
some of these phones and their impact on us healthwise .. let's say
they leave their phones in the car most the time. Again, a prediction
of mine (and I felt this before I heard the above) is that we will
see a direct relationship between mobile phone useage and certian
illnesses in the future. They told us smoking was 'harmless' at the
beginning .. ;-(


But it's not just the cost is it Andy? You have already said there is
a 'moral position'.

Of course there is. But moral positions never fly unless the
economics work.

Shame though sometimes eh?

For
example, what are the 'real issues' please?

In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.

Ok, agreed about the effect but can't comment about the buisness model
;-)

snip stuff As cars
have become more fuel efficient the viability (and 'greenness') of
electric vehicles become less tennable (so I don't use it).

All of these points are fine. The point is that people should have
the choice.

But they can't have complete choice / freedom these days can they
Andy, othewise it will be chaos?

The only reason we don't have complete anarchy is there are enough law
abiding citizens to maintain the status quo (just). Tip that over the
edge and the Police would be overwhelmed.

I believe the general relaxation in disipline, the dumbing down of
school standards and a total lack of respect is our undoing.

Without respect for the Police, Teachers, Parents etc, some kids today
(?) are growing up knowing no 'rules' whatsoever, hence the goverment
have to 'interfere' (on behalf of the rest of us) to try to set things
straight?

Well that's what I think anyway ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. In years to come, when we are all walking around wearing
breathing masks and with all the fossil fuel being burnt we may well
look back and say "remember when we used to run fuel burning vehicles
and were all breathing the exhaust fumes into our lungs"!

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Evil wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:

New hybrids and electrics, yes... ;-)

Yes. I'd like to think that we'll live long enough for us to be able to
afford to replace our present car with one.

Unless you do mainly city driving, avoid the extravagant maker's claims
for hybrids as regards fuel consumption and emissions. On average out of
town journeys they're no better than a conventional petrol car.


More tripe from Mr Cranium. Autocar had a new Toyota Prius that
averaged 55
mpg in central London. In central London it was running on pollution
free
electric motors a lot, so drastically reducing pollution. All good
stuff.

Conveniently misses the fact that the environmental penalty to
manufacture and replace the batteries etc in a Prius completely
outweighs the fuel/pollution running benefits.

Proof please? The new Lth poly batteries will be made of plastic, not lead.
Don't make things up.

Also, there is no congestion charge for the Prius and parking is free.
So if
you go into London just once a day and park free, with the high mpg, the
car
pays for itself in a short time. Insurance is no more than other cars,
if
anything less, as parts are cheaper for the Prius.

Has your Prius been recalled by Toyota yet, to have it's steering mended?

No. And steering is not the issue, the driveline is.

A win.win, situation. The Prius is a big seller in London. People who
drive old pollution making V8 Rovers should be beaten by wrestlers with
batons.

So how about people who claim to run old Aston Martins in London, with
much more inefficient engines?

And run them about 1000 miles a year. Big polluters eh?

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Evil wrote:

Second hand Jap cars are sold in the UK? Only the up market ones I
would
assume.

Hmm, your spheres of ignorance are much wider than I gave you credit for!!

Yep. I am ignorant to second hand cars.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:

You really don't have a clue, do you?
When town running it uses mainly the
electric motors driven from the batteries.

You don't say.......Wow!................

It's necessary

This one is three sheets to the wind.

snip disjointed babble

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
4) Use you batteries (for a few hundred cycles and they need changing
= pollution).

Changing? They are guaranteed 8 years.

Something else you've got wrong. Is there no end to your ignorance?

This one is three sheets.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Toyota claim a 'combined' fuel consumption
that looks very good on paper.

Autocar got 55mpg in central London.

They could have

Once again, and repeat it 10 times now, Autocar got 55mpg in central London.
There, there.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:24 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:50:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.

Indeed, and most of us (and I'm hoping to include you here Andy g)
try to do 'our bit' towards the bigger picture?

Absolutely. As do I - for example high efficiency codensing boiler,
long before it became mandatory.

My objection is over a) being compelled and b) being coerced by ill
thought out schemes done to maximise political effect rather than
doing positive and meaningful things.



I was saying that if a car does
say 25 mpg it will do half as many miles and create twice as much
pollution as one that does 50 mpg (all things being equal), the 25 mpg
car will also be consuming our (valuable) oil at twice the rate (so it
will last half as long)?

That's obvious but a very simplistic view.

But valid though? I know it's simplistic but it is the gist of the
issue for many folk (including me in a fairly background sense).

OK. That's your choice, but please don't assume that everybody makes
simple choices or more to the point likes having their choices made
for them.



One reason I believe it's not being rationed
now is because the government earn too much money from taxing it.

Of course. People will insist on voting for governments and policies
requiring a high take and spend of tax.

And we have better options do we (I have little knoledge re Politics
so it was a genuine question)?

Absolutely. Lower taxation, less involvement of government and less
collectivism. It demonstrably doesn't work.



This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

True, and I'm currently in two minds re scrapping it. However, even
doing that has it's envionmental impact? I have never claimed to be
blame free in any of this, it's all about doing what you can when you
have the choice (isn't it?).

The important thing is having the choice and not having the government
make the choice.

Do you not find 'the Government' *generally* only step in when things
get really bad.

No. They step in when political capital can be made.

Be it folk dying from passive smoking, not wearing
seat belts (saving lives, saving NHS costs) crime, large protest
marches about something, 'driving without due care (because you are on
yer mobile) etc etc?

I'm not trying to 'run your life' Andy, but do you not agree your
(our) actions have an impact on all of us? I have a 15 year old
daughter and I'm seriously concerned what sort of a world will be here
for her(and all of them) when we are long since gone?

Everybody's actions have some degree of impact on everybody else. It
would be better to focus on things that make a significant difference.

Ok, (and that was my que to you earlier) what are these things please?

I already gave good examples in connection with transport to and
through city centres. Remove the "need" by making it attractive not
to go, not by forcing people into smelly tin cans or penalising them
for wanting personal space.



It wasn't really an argument .. just my prediction ;-) 20 years ago
when I refrained from going into smoke filled places I predicted the
end to smoking in public places. It took it's time but it's getting
there. Ok, not for the reasons I hoped (health) but the insurance
implications. Dirty / uneconomic vehicles will be next along with
aircraft fuel. This will only happen of course when the cost of the
consequences outweighs the cost of the useage (in money not
environmental / moral terms).

Of course. That's why it's always better to take a positive look and
come up with a solution that is economically better and/or gives an
incentive to buy into it. This approach generally works.

Because many folk 'resist' the suggestion that something migh be good
for them (and hence all of us) do you think?

Ultimately people vote with their pockets.



The
negative approach of disincenting that which is economically or
conveniently desirable but which has some environmental or other cost
doesn't work because it goes against the natural order of things and
****es people off.

Erm, will **** *some* folk off that's for sure but that's like why we
have speed cameras all over the place .. because some folk don't
believe the limits apply to them so we all suffer (those of us who use
our discresion / experience / skill when to do what speed safely)? If
going faster than the posted limit didn't occur or there were no
(speed related) accidents then it is my belief there would be no
cameras today (at 17 grand a pop or whatever)?


I also use my mobile phone as little as
possible ..

Riiiighht.....

I have word from engineers that have been involved in the testing of
some of these phones and their impact on us healthwise .. let's say
they leave their phones in the car most the time. Again, a prediction
of mine (and I felt this before I heard the above) is that we will
see a direct relationship between mobile phone useage and certian
illnesses in the future.

Possibly, but one doesn't have to hold the radio next to the head.

They told us smoking was 'harmless' at the
beginning .. ;-(

It is at the beginning. The problems come with keeping up the habit.
Personally I have never smoked because I don't see the point. I much
prefer to eat and drink in places without smoke. I suspect that the
trend, even without legislation, will be for more and more places to
be smoke free.



But it's not just the cost is it Andy? You have already said there is
a 'moral position'.

Of course there is. But moral positions never fly unless the
economics work.

Shame though sometimes eh?

Well, when I'm emperor, we can have moral positions......



For
example, what are the 'real issues' please?

In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.

Ok, agreed about the effect but can't comment about the buisness model
;-)

snip stuff As cars
have become more fuel efficient the viability (and 'greenness') of
electric vehicles become less tennable (so I don't use it).

All of these points are fine. The point is that people should have
the choice.

But they can't have complete choice / freedom these days can they
Andy, othewise it will be chaos?

The only reason we don't have complete anarchy is there are enough law
abiding citizens to maintain the status quo (just).

I would argue that there is too much in some areas.

Tip that over the
edge and the Police would be overwhelmed.

THey are anyway because emphases are wrong.



I believe the general relaxation in disipline, the dumbing down of
school standards and a total lack of respect is our undoing.

I completely agree with you there. Too much emphasis on spin of
"equal" opportunity rather than encouraging people to make their own
opportunities. Too much emphasis on collectivism rather than
responsible empowerment of the individual.


Without respect for the Police, Teachers, Parents etc, some kids today
(?) are growing up knowing no 'rules' whatsoever, hence the goverment
have to 'interfere' (on behalf of the rest of us) to try to set things
straight?

Well that's what I think anyway ;-)

On that we agree.



All the best ..

T i m

p.s. In years to come, when we are all walking around wearing
breathing masks and with all the fossil fuel being burnt we may well
look back and say "remember when we used to run fuel burning vehicles
and were all breathing the exhaust fumes into our lungs"!


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Unless you do mainly city driving, avoid the extravagant maker's claims
for hybrids as regards fuel consumption and emissions. On average out
of
town journeys they're no better than a conventional petrol car.

How are they extravagant claims? They are the result of standardised
urban/combined fuel economy tests.

They may be, but are not representative of real life driving.

They are.

And given just how poor the Prius turned
out to be,

The latest Prius is an amazing success. It doesn't have a gearbox, just one
plaetary gear assembly. Many other makers have liceneced the Toyota
drivetrain.

one can only assume the software

Don't assume, you don't know.

how do you explain an overall figure
of 23 MPG in an Autocar test? No other car I
can find is so far away from the 'official' figures.

Autocar got 55mpg in London,. Now repeat that 10 times. And mine? About
48-50mpg. And a dream to drive.

Very few cars will be used only for out of town journeys, most cars
will be urban/combined.

Yup. Autocar have a test route designed
to simulate this and put every car
they test over it. The Prius still did badly -
considering its claims.

Stop making things up.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:11:21 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:05:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That doesn't stop people owning pointlessly large uneconomical cars
for status reasons and/or some irrational belief about safety. Eg my
father has a 2.7 V6 that does 25mpg.


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

But mile for mile, 'don't we all pay for it' environmentally?

One can say that about virtually anything.


Now don't get me wrong, I own (bult) a 1978 1300 Escort based kut car
that currently does 25 mpg and with a poor emissions engine, however
it is used infrequently and for short trips so probably 'pollutes'
less / year than even the best 'catted' vehicle (in fact has only done
500 miles over the last couple of years).

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

I could make the same argument about my use of a diesel 4x4. When I
am in the UK,

Those things should be banned. People who use those are irresponsible.

This is a bull**** argument. It isn't acceptable to expect people to
justify their personal choice of mode of transport if they are
prepared to pay for it. This is typical Livingstonesque focus on the
wrong issues just for the sake of propaganda and is not addressing the
real issues.

What balls. Ken L, runs London. If he ran the government he would ban, or
tax to the hilt, polluting cars. A part of his job is to keep London's air
clean, and he attacks that in a way that is becoming more effective. He
doesn't care too much about people in Wokingham who use London as a doormat.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Unless you do mainly city driving, avoid the extravagant maker's
claims
for hybrids as regards fuel consumption and emissions. On average out
of
town journeys they're no better than a conventional petrol car.

How are they extravagant claims? They are the result of standardised
urban/combined fuel economy tests.

They may be, but are not representative of real life driving. And given
just how poor the Prius turned out to be, one can only assume the
software
etc was tweaked for optimum results *for these tests* Otherwise, how do
you explain an overall figure of 23 MPG in an Autocar test? No other car
I
can find is so far away from the 'official' figures.

It goes to show, his Prius is just an imaginary one

Maxie, you are right, Mr Cranium does imagine things. Wild things as well.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:24 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:50:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.

Indeed, and most of us (and I'm hoping to include you here Andy g)
try to do 'our bit' towards the bigger picture?

Absolutely. As do I - for example high efficiency codensing boiler,
long before it became mandatory.

My objection is over a) being compelled and b) being coerced by ill
thought out schemes done to maximise political effect rather than
doing positive and meaningful things.

To your Little Middle England mind, that means any law made by the Labour
party.

Absolutely. Lower taxation, less involvement
of government and less
collectivism. It demonstrably doesn't work.

Collectivism works.

Do you not find 'the Government' *generally* only step in when things
get really bad.

No. They step in when political capital can be made.

Do you have problems with your bodily fluids as well?

I already gave good examples in connection with transport to and
through city centres. Remove the "need" by making it attractive not
to go, not by forcing people into smelly tin cans or penalising them
for wanting personal space.

You do you have problems with your bodily fluids.

p.s. In years to come, when we are all walking around wearing
breathing masks and with all the fossil fuel being burnt we may well
look back and say "remember when we used to run fuel burning vehicles
and were all breathing the exhaust fumes into our lungs"!

The problem is that over 80 years, we allowed the car to take over cities.
They were planned with cars in mind after WW2. A motorway went right into
the heart of London (A40(M)). When the elevated section was built in the
early 1970s, it went right past, with yards, of people's bedrooms, cut right
into an existing urban area. There is a often played news film of
Hesseltine opening the section and all the resident with banners hanging
from their windows. Hesseltine walks over, on the road, and has a chat with
them, it is that close.

People like Ken L are trying to give cities back to people, and clean them
up. And he is right. Ken L wants Londoners to benefit, not people in
Surrey who sue London as a doormat and regard it as a place to make money
from.

Mary Fisher wrote:

You said load - that means bending down to pick up sprog to load it into the
vehicle.

Bending down outside the car to pick up said sprog is not the bit where
you do yourself a mischief though. Its the bending over leaning into the
car.

And you said associated kit ...

More load space...

(it was no coincidence that when we replaced SWMBO's 2+2 coupé with a
large estate car, it was within a year of the arrival of the second sprog).

But wriggling two year olds aren't the only sprogs. Most sprogs - in my long
experience - like to load themselves into a vehicle. The extra height of a

Yup, ours load and unload themselves - can't manage the seat belts /
harnesses though.

high modern vehicle makes it more difficult for them. We have a son who has
one, his daughters have to climb, inelegantly, into the back. They're far
too big to be lifted by their parents.

Once they get to that size, I doubt it matters much... they seem pretty
keen of climbing anything anywhere ISTM ;-)

Is that your experience - or what you imagine to be the case?

Not tried it personally with an off roader, although I have tried it with
a friends Renault Scenic. It does actually help... (although not enough to
make me want a diesel Renault!) ;-)


It wasn't an advantage when we had children and a Thames. We had to lift the
small ones in. The bigger ones used the step. Of course, we didn't have

That was Ford's small van before they introduced the transit IIUC?

child seats in those days (works of the devil) but in any case it was easy

Having child seats or not having them?

And how many can - in any vehicle, of either sex (or none)?

Statistically speaking probably none of us if being totally honest. Some
are obviously more aware of these things than other though.


That's not defined by sex.

Did not intend to imply it was...

There are some drivers (men and women) who seem to have little clue
about appropriate driving behaviour in reaction to different conditions.

And it's nothing to do with the type of vehicle one is driving.

It is partly - in the sense you need to be aware of any special factors
about the vehicle that will affect how it behaves should something
unexpected happen.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 03:01:57 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:24 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:50:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.

Indeed, and most of us (and I'm hoping to include you here Andy g)
try to do 'our bit' towards the bigger picture?

Absolutely. As do I - for example high efficiency codensing boiler,
long before it became mandatory.

My objection is over a) being compelled and b) being coerced by ill
thought out schemes done to maximise political effect rather than
doing positive and meaningful things.

To your Little Middle England mind, that means any law made by the Labour
party.

All parties do it. I didn't single out TB for special attention.



Absolutely. Lower taxation, less involvement
of government and less
collectivism. It demonstrably doesn't work.

Collectivism works.

Such as in the former Soviet Union, Maoist China,.... as examples?

Some animals are more equal than others......





People like Ken L are trying to give cities back to people, and clean them
up.

So what's his next ploy? Communal bathrooms?


And he is right. Ken L wants Londoners to benefit, not people in
Surrey who sue London as a doormat and regard it as a place to make money
from.


The way to do that would be to encourage people not to go into central
London at all for business purposes which was my original point.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:47:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


1) Make electricity (in this country) mainly burning gas / oil =
pollution.

The Prius can't be re-charged from the mains - it uses its own petrol
engine for this.

I was speaking about electric cars generaly but that's good to know
(out of interest).

4) Use you batteries (for a few hundred cycles and they need changing =
pollution).

And cost some 2000 quid.

My (very low tech) 8 x 6V Crompton semi-traction monoblocks were £800
20 years ago! ;-(


He only reads ads. And can't understand the concept of energy in and
energy out.

Obviously ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:39:01 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:




What balls. Ken L, runs London.

He thinks he does. I suspect that most people humour his delusions of
grandeur.


If he ran the government he would ban, or
tax to the hilt, polluting cars.

I imagine that he would. Fortunately, I don't suppose that Comrade Ken
ever will run the government.

A part of his job is to keep London's air
clean, and he attacks that in a way that is becoming more effective.

You're easily taken in, aren't you......

He
doesn't care too much about people in Wokingham who use London as a doormat.


Neither do I.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Doctor Evil" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Toyota claim a 'combined' fuel consumption
that looks very good on paper.

Autocar got 55mpg in central London.

They could have

Once again, and repeat it 10 times now, Autocar got 55mpg in central
London.
There, there.


And I got 999.9 mpg coming down Snake Pass.

Over the *whole* journey I got 22mpg.

Your point?

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:54:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Pete C wrote:
Unless you do mainly city driving, avoid the extravagant maker's claims
for hybrids as regards fuel consumption and emissions. On average out of
town journeys they're no better than a conventional petrol car.

How are they extravagant claims? They are the result of standardised
urban/combined fuel economy tests.

They may be, but are not representative of real life driving. And given
just how poor the Prius turned out to be, one can only assume the software
etc was tweaked for optimum results *for these tests* Otherwise, how do
you explain an overall figure of 23 MPG in an Autocar test? No other car I
can find is so far away from the 'official' figures.

Web reference?

Do you really believe Autocar alone? I used to get 42mpg combined from
a hatchback so claiming a Prius does 23 is absolutely laughable.

Very few cars will be used only for out of town journeys, most cars
will be urban/combined.

Yup. Autocar have a test route designed to simulate this and put every car
they test over it. The Prius still did badly - considering its claims.

See this real life test, quotes 58mpg over the first 1000 miles:

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=135

IMO you've spent so much time replying to DIMM you've started thinking
exactly the same way...

cheers,
Pete.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:25:26 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:16:16 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:05:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

That doesn't stop people owning pointlessly large uneconomical cars
for status reasons and/or some irrational belief about safety. Eg my
father has a 2.7 V6 that does 25mpg.


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

Do you drive a big thirsty car?

yes, a Hummer with remote controlled missile launcher targetted on
meddlesome whiners.



Who said...

Negative control again. The correct way os to encourage people to
use alternative routes by building appropriate capacity through ways
and bypasses.

and...

The costs aren't fixed. We have among the highest tax rates on fuel
in the world.

Sounds a little like /self interested/ whining to me...!

Isn't global warming like meddling with the planet and it's climate on
a fairly big scale?

cheers,
Pete.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.

Hmm. Despite modern systems making communication from any distance easy,
personal contact is still an important thing in business of the type where
trust may be involved. Thinking of City of London type things. The real
problem was forcing those workers to have to commute vast distances due to
the lack of suitable attractive housing closer by.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
Autocar got 55mpg in central London.

They could have

Once again, and repeat it 10 times now, Autocar got 55mpg in central
London. There, there.


I've seen 60 mpg instantaneous fuel conspumption on my 3.5 litre petrol
automatic.

Have you any real points to make other than your usual ****e?

Energy in versus energy out, dear boy. Do you understand the concept?

Watch my lips. The vehicle averaged 23 mpg over the entire test - a
disgraceful result.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
They may be, but are not representative of real life driving.

They are.

You don't know much about cars either then?

And given just how poor the Prius turned
out to be,

The latest Prius is an amazing success. It doesn't have a gearbox, just
one plaetary gear assembly.

Which is a gearbox. You really don't understand technical terms, do you?

Many other makers have liceneced the Toyota
drivetrain.

Licences are taken out on all sorts of things, but get no further than
that.

one can only assume the software

Don't assume, you don't know.

how do you explain an overall figure
of 23 MPG in an Autocar test? No other car I
can find is so far away from the 'official' figures.

Autocar got 55mpg in London,. Now repeat that 10 times. And mine? About
48-50mpg. And a dream to drive.

The one you 'own' is in your mind only, as so much else. Seek treatment
for this need to tell lies.

Very few cars will be used only for out of town journeys, most cars
will be urban/combined.

Yup. Autocar have a test route designed
to simulate this and put every car
they test over it. The Prius still did badly -
considering its claims.

Stop making things up.

It's all there in black and white. Easy for anyone to check - unlike some
of your wilder claims.

The overall MPG was appalling. Beaten by every other similar size and
performance diesel.

This is no way to save the planet. It's simply a way of making a low
pollution car for town centres where real problems are - like LA etc.

But overall, a waste of effort. Designed to fool the easily lead, like
yourself, who doesn't understand figures.

How's your 1 hp central heating programmer motor, btw? Shouldn't you have
changed it for something more efficient?

--
*i souport publik edekashun.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
What balls. Ken L, runs London. If he ran the government he would ban,
or tax to the hilt, polluting cars. A part of his job is to keep
London's air clean, and he attacks that in a way that is becoming more
effective.

Buses and taxis are among the worst polluters in London. Why hasn't he
done something about that?

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
4) Use you batteries (for a few hundred cycles and they need changing
= pollution).

And cost some 2000 quid.

My (very low tech) 8 x 6V Crompton semi-traction monoblocks were £800
20 years ago! ;-(

Lexus in the new RX400 use Nickel-metalhydride batteries with a 5 year
warranty and 2000 quid replacement cost.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
He thinks he does. I suspect that most people humour his delusions of
grandeur.

You think him grand? He looks very ordinary to me. Scruffy, even.

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 03:01:57 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:58:24 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:50:46 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.

Indeed, and most of us (and I'm hoping to include you here Andy g)
try to do 'our bit' towards the bigger picture?

Absolutely. As do I - for example high efficiency codensing boiler,
long before it became mandatory.

My objection is over a) being compelled and b) being coerced by ill
thought out schemes done to maximise political effect rather than
doing positive and meaningful things.

To your Little Middle England mind, that means any law made by the Labour
party.

All parties do it. I didn't single out TB for special attention.

Absolutely. Lower taxation, less involvement
of government and less
collectivism. It demonstrably doesn't work.

Collectivism works.

Such as in the former Soviet Union, Maoist China,.... as examples?

They had extreme versions. Taking a version that did work to get illiterate
poverty stricken people on their feet, and say all doesn't work is
ridiculous. Exteme collectivism worked for them. There are version of
democracy that aren't too good, so we must do away with all then.
Collectivism in varying degrees works. Please apply common sense.

People like Ken L are trying to give
cities back to people, and clean them
up.

So what's his next ploy? Communal bathrooms?

If you are that way inclined apply to Ken.

And he is right. Ken L wants Londoners to benefit, not people in
Surrey who use London as a doormat and regard it as a place to make money
from.

The way to do that would be to encourage
people not to go into central London at all
for business purposes which was my original point.

The public transport into the centre is superb. USE THAT!!!! It is fools
like you driving in, in diesel 4WDs that **** Londoners off. Otherwise STAY
OUT!!!

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:47:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


1) Make electricity (in this country) mainly burning gas / oil =
pollution.

The Prius can't be re-charged from the mains - it uses its own petrol
engine for this.

I was speaking about electric cars generaly but that's good to know
(out of interest).

4) Use you batteries (for a few hundred cycles and they need changing =
pollution).

And cost some 2000 quid.

My (very low tech) 8 x 6V Crompton
semi-traction monoblocks were £800
20 years ago! ;-(

The Prius batteries are about 2K. No one has bought a set yet, and no one
woprld wide has had a set replaved under the 8 years guarantee. The average
life expectancy is 12 years. So, yiou may even get 14,15 out of them. The
Prious doesn't have a gearbox. See how much it cost to replace an auto
tranny after 12 years. 2-3K.

He only reads ads. And can't understand the concept of energy in and
energy out.

Obviously ;-)

The man is pure idiot.

If you want to know about a Prius, do a Google and it all comes up. Yahoo
have dedicated groups on the Prius. It is also one of the m,most reliable
cars in the world and in the USA was NO.2 in reliability. The driveline is
simple, and very smooth; simpler than a normal engine/auto box. A
management system controls the lot. All cars have these, the Prius has a
bigger one, that's all.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:39:01 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

What balls. Ken L, runs London.

He thinks he does.

He is the mayor of London.....you know like Dick Whittington. He doesn't
run Liverpool, it is London...just in case you got the two mixed up.

If he ran the government he would ban, or
tax to the hilt, polluting cars.

I imagine that he would.

I wish he would.

Fortunately, I don't suppose that Comrade Ken
ever will run the government.

He is doing a brilliant job on London.

A part of his job is to keep London's air
clean, and he attacks that in a way that
is becoming more effective.

You're easily taken in, aren't you......

No. He want the likes of you and your 4x4 diesel crap out of London; I am
with him.

He doesn't care too much about people
in Wokingham who use London as a doormat.

Neither do I.

Then keep your polluting machine out of London.

"PC Paul" wrote in message
.uk...

Your point?

The new Prius has swept the field in awards and especially the transmission.
It really has no mechanical transmission, or stripped to the basics. No
mechanism to shift gears or wind pullies in and out. It is very simple.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?long_t...story.php...56

"The Prius's fuel consumption has also provided us with a few smiles. To
date, it has averaged an amazing 60.8mpg - an Auto Express long-termer
record."

Yes, 60.8mpg

Look at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/prius/effi...128683,00.html

"It's also one of the least expensive cars to maintain. Despite boasting
more advanced technology features than any other car in its class, there is
no penalty for owners in terms of its servicing schedule or the cost of
maintenance and crash replacement parts. Taking the price of like-for-like
components, the new Prius is actually cheaper overall to maintain and repair
than many of its key market rivals. Calculating the collective price of
front and rear body parts commonly replaced following a collision, the bill
for the new Prius is up to £762 cheaper than the most popular medium sized
competitor models. On maintenance items, such as filters and brake pads, the
combined cost works out up to £35 less than the competition."