On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:56:50 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If road space is finite then an automotive 'eat as much as you like
buffet' won't work in the long run...


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

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.

What I meant was that there is no incentive to use road space
efficiently, apart from extra travelling time.

BTW what car do you drive if you don't mind me asking?

cheers,
Pete.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message ws.net,
Doctor Evil writes
He certainly seems to have left
secondary modern with a chip on his
shoulder

Maxie, you should have gone to one. It would have sorted you out.
Better
than that highly rated school you went to, the highly approved one.

No, I went to a public school if you must know

Yes, publicly approved.

No, a real one

Maxie, we know it was real. Approved and all that.

- where they at least
taught me the correct use of
grammar and how to spell.

But no dress sense. Maxie, your handbags don't match your dress.

You do grasp at non existent straws, don't you

Maxie, I saw that frock you worse when up the tree. It didn't do you nay
favours at all.

Which your sec. modern obviously didn't

Maxie, a Sec Moden you did need. That
would have sorted you out.

I don't think so, i might have ended up
as the sort of ****wit that you ended up as

Maxie, a Sec Mod would have taught you dress sense.

chip on shoulder and all

Maxie, you wear a sash on your shoulder, and always the wrong colour for
your shoes.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message ws.net,
Doctor Evil writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message ws.net,
Doctor Evil writes
BTW, the first sport I competed in properly, with referee, proper
kit
and
equipment was a boxing match at the age of 8.

And soon moved on to safer sports
I bet, after you got knocked senseless
in the first round of the first bout

Defeated Maxie, by a kid 18 months older than me, but gave as good as
I
got.
I won the return bout. Biff, baff, biff, baff.

In other words, you got hammered

Close run Maxie. Next time he got the bifftas.

Only in your warped imagination

Biff, baff, biff baff.

When I was 16, I got picked on by the head prefect. I beat him
unconscious, he was a good two years older than me.

Maxie, he must have been a wimp.

No, he was the captain of the county rugby team

Rugby is a Nancy's game Maxie. Even the ball is bent.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:23:04 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:56:50 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If road space is finite then an automotive 'eat as much as you like
buffet' won't work in the long run...


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

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.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:23:04 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:56:50 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If road space is finite then an automotive 'eat as much as you like
buffet' won't work in the long run...


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

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.

And choke the rast of us in the long run.

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?

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). 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).

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.

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 ..?

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

And choke the rast of us in the long run.

You're a rasta now? Gonna call yourself Dog Evil?

Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

--
*I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.


Please tell me you've missed a smiley off of that statement. Otherwise I
think you're going to have substantiate that outrageous claim.

Rob

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

So why do they smell?

Mary

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:26:29 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

So why do they smell?

4x4 Drivers? Aircon probably (@ another ~3 mpg)? ;-)

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:26:29 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

So why do they smell?

4x4 Drivers? Aircon probably (@ another ~3 mpg)? ;-)

ALL ice emissions smell, even the newest ones. Cats are bad.

Deisels are even worsel.

Mary

T i m

Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

So why do they smell?

They don't particularly, although older diesels without particulate traps
don't count.

I remember the days when I was a child (not so long ago), where standing
near urban congestion, you could see a brown fug descend over the cars and
it got hard to breathe. Now in similar circumstances, the air is completely
clear and there is no smell at all, if you avoid any old buses.

Christian.

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

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

And choke the rest of us in the long run.

Modern cars actually clean up the air
they burn in terms of pollutants.

This one is senile. WHAT A PILE OF CRAP!!!!!! Stick to cabers.

"Rob Summers" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.


Please tell me you've missed a smiley off of that statement. Otherwise I
think you're going to have substantiate that outrageous claim.

Just call the clinic, one of their patients has wandered off again.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

So why do they smell?

Mary, he hasn't a clue. Modern cars pollute like crazy, even with
catalysts.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:43:03 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


ALL ice emissions smell, even the newest ones.

I sort of agree with you there though it's actually the Chavs
themselves rather than their In Car Entertainment or XR3i that are the
culprits.

Cats are bad.

They are indeed .. they c**p near my runner beans (now I realise why
I've never done any gardening before now) and get in my laid-up
electric car and scratch the seats! ;-(

Deisels are even worsel.

Que song: "I've got a brand new common-rail-direct-injection d-ee-sel
and I'll give you lower emissions .. " ;-) that stat statement
may or may not be correct or true.

ATB

T i m

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

So why do they smell?

They don't particularly

Perhaps my sense of smell is better than yours.

although older diesels without particulate traps
don't count.

I remember the days when I was a child (not so long ago), where standing
near urban congestion, you could see a brown fug descend over the cars and
it got hard to breathe. Now in similar circumstances, the air is
completely
clear and there is no smell at all, if you avoid any old buses.

There is. When I go into our street (not a main road with urban congestion)
in a morning I can smell the exhausts even though I can't see it.

When next door takes his (new) car out of the garage - and brings it in so
it's not just on start up - I close our kitchen door so that the house isn't
filled with the smell.

Mary




Christian.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:38:15 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.net...
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

So why do they smell?

They don't particularly

Perhaps my sense of smell is better than yours.

You have probably been smelling longer than most of us Mary? s******

although older diesels without particulate traps
don't count.

I remember the days when I was a child (not so long ago), where standing
near urban congestion, you could see a brown fug descend over the cars and
it got hard to breathe. Now in similar circumstances, the air is
completely
clear and there is no smell at all, if you avoid any old buses.

There is. When I go into our street (not a main road with urban congestion)
in a morning I can smell the exhausts even though I can't see it.

Ah, but, in comparison with the old days .. they smell much less. If I
was in my mates garage (and old blacksmisths forge and about the size
of 4 cars) when he started up a car your eyes would start to sting
after only a few mins. Now he can have a car running for a good time
before you can smell it at all? (not saying it's any better for us
just less 'smelly')?

When next door takes his (new) car out of the garage - and brings it in so
it's not just on start up - I close our kitchen door so that the house isn't
filled with the smell.

I bet *he* can smell you tripe cooking (maybe that's why he goes out
in the car)? ;-)

T i m

In article ,
Rob Summers wrote:
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

Please tell me you've missed a smiley off of that statement. Otherwise I
think you're going to have substantiate that outrageous claim.

I'll see if I can find it. It was a well argued article in Autocar some
time ago.

Of course it referred to the air in large cities, rather than in the
middle of nowhere. And only to petrol engines conforming to the latest
emission regs with their catalytic convertors fully hot.

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Rob Summers wrote:
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.

Please tell me you've missed a smiley off of that statement. Otherwise I
think you're going to have substantiate that outrageous claim.

I'll see if I can find it. It was a well argued article in Autocar some
time ago.

Bearing in mind its from a pro-car magazine this is going to have to be
*very* well argued to be believable!

Rob

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car
and fuel taxes and costs.

And choke the rast of us in the long run.

You're a rasta now? Gonna call yourself Dog Evil?

Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of
pollutants. The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of
course.

Not quite yet - some new cars do manage this, in a dense city environment
their emissions *are* cleaner than the ambient air. But only when brand new.
And only in polluted air in the first place.

It's a good start though.

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:52:26 GMT, "PC Paul" wrote:

Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of
pollutants. The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of
course.

Not quite yet - some new cars do manage this, in a dense city
environment their emissions *are* cleaner than the ambient air. But
only when brand new. And only in polluted air in the first place.

It's a good start though.

So, what we want in heavily polluted cities is more (new) cars! ;-)


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

And apart from the new fuel cell buses all the diesel ones need to
stay out of the city centre (doh .. PT ..)?


Very new diesels can do it too...

Is it Japan when any vehicle over 3 years old / 60k is 'scrapped'
(sold to us more like)?


Recent thread on uk.rec.driving. Basically it becomes totally uneconomical
to run a car over 3 years old in Japan due to exorbitant inspection and tax
costs. Hence the booming export market.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:52:26 GMT, "PC Paul" wrote:

Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of
pollutants. The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of
course.

Not quite yet - some new cars do manage this, in a dense city environment
their emissions *are* cleaner than the ambient air. But only when brand new.
And only in polluted air in the first place.

It's a good start though.

So, what we want in heavily polluted cities is more (new) cars! ;-)

And apart from the new fuel cell buses all the diesel ones need to
stay out of the city centre (doh .. PT ..)?

Is it Japan when any vehicle over 3 years old / 60k is 'scrapped'
(sold to us more like)?

All the best ..

T i m

In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of
pollutants. The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of
course.

Not quite yet - some new cars do manage this, in a dense city
environment their emissions *are* cleaner than the ambient air. But
only when brand new. And only in polluted air in the first place.

Phew. Saves me looking through back numbers of Autocar.

It's a good start though.

I'm not sure about the bit of only doing this while new, as there are
fixed dates for degrees of emissions which are tested at MOT time, and
these will undoubtedly be tightened in future years (for then new cars).
So a car has to be very close to its original spec, emissions wise,
regardless of its mileage and therefore wear, to pass.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
PC Paul wrote:
Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of
pollutants. The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of
course.

Not quite yet - some new cars do manage this, in a dense city
environment their emissions *are* cleaner than the ambient air. But
only when brand new. And only in polluted air in the first place.

Phew. Saves me looking through back numbers of Autocar.

It's a good start though.

I'm not sure about the bit of only doing this while new, as there are
fixed dates for degrees of emissions which are tested at MOT time, and
these will undoubtedly be tightened in future years (for then new
cars). So a car has to be very close to its original spec, emissions
wise, regardless of its mileage and therefore wear, to pass.

Can't (be arsed to) find the quote about 'when they leave the factory' again
now, but it was from a GM pressdroid, so I assumed he was putting the best
spin on it, and/or covering himself.

On 14 Jul 2005 12:54:03 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


While I was searching for this, I came across something else
interesting (Gawd, but the WWW is a waste of time...!);

;-)

From the EPA website http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/ove...ilestones.htm;

1999 - "EPA announces more protective tailpipe emissions standards, marking
the first time that SUVs and other light-duty trucks are subject to the
same national pollution standards as cars."

So, another anti-4x4 rant exposed as a lie.

I don't think right minded folk have any issues re 4x4's in general
just their suitability in many cases. Yes it's their (your) choice
etc but in these days when many people are looking to reduce emissions
AND increase mpg (reducing emissions further) they are just seen as a
'luxury' that the rest of us could do without?

Also their size means they take up more room on the road (given their
typically low occupancy) creating more congestion, take up more room
when parked (congestion again) and mass mass to recycle (energy
consumption again)?

More than once I have seen big off road cars (I don't care if they
were 4x4 or not) parked across two bays because:

1) They won't fit in a std *car* bay.
2) Their owners don't want them damaged.

I wouldn't mind them doing it at the back of the car park but they
have to do it across two of the dissabled bays (and display no badge).
Ok, van drivers are often as bad but possibly for different reasons
;-)

Also there is an added risk to those of us not in 'large' vehicles
when we hit them (or they hit us) compared with hitting a similar
sized vehicle. Yes, I know we could still hit a lorry etc but they
*need* to be that big / design to (daily) carry their loads (no
haulier would run an oversized vehicle if they could help it).

To the same degree *any* big / thirsty vehicle ('old Yanks' etc) would
be frownened upon by those suffering their effects (folk living in the
cities) but they don't seem to be in such great numbers (these days)
as the ''4x4"?

I suppose because I don't (need or want) to spend many hours tearing
up and down the countries motorways, tow a twin axle caravan maybe
twice a year and don't have spare cash to p*ss away, if I was to buy a
new car (unlikely) the fuel consumption would be very high up my
'important' list.

Bottom line, vehicles should be (in my little world anyway) for taking
us and our belongings from a to b as efficiently and safely as
possible. If we could just get out of this (as I see it) marketing /
imagery / lifestyle driven push for high performace vehicles we might
just get on with actually enjoying life in other ways?

I would suggest that yer average family saloon today can easily cruise
at ~80 mph, have all the good safety features (crumple zones, airbags,
ABS (even if only as 'options')) and because they all perform
similarly are less of an issue when all thrown onto the same bit of
road at the same time. One of my more frightening moments in 30 years
of driving was when a tw*t missunderstood a trafic cops instructions
to 'keep over' (debris in the inside lane) as 'stop dead from 70+ mph
in his 911 .. my Sierra Estate didn't have 6 pot twin ventilated disks
alll round ;-( I stopped short of him just but *because* the
abilities of the two vehicles were so different it caused the problem?
Should we all drive round in Porches or (for example) Megans (etc)?

What might seem to be strange is I have no major issues with
motorsports, based on the thought that this is conducted off the
public highway and contributes (in proportion) only a tiny percentage
of the overall pollution (probably)?

I dare say we will get there in the end .. some folk will do so
because it's the sensible way to go and others because they are forced
into it finantially or legally (like smoking).

Oh well ..

All the best ..

T i m

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:04:02 GMT, "PC Paul" wrote:


So, what we want in heavily polluted cities is more (new) cars! ;-)


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

I have run (and hope to again ) an electric vehicle and it worked very
well (costwise) at the time (2 weeks 'commuting' on one 50p charge,
exempt the MOT and zero road tax). However, untill electricity
generation becomes 'cleaner', I'm not sure it's any 'better' than
burning fuel in a 'clean' car? The 'hybrid' bit just extends the range
and / or speed .. now if it was a fuel cell hybrid or charged from
solar, hydro (hmm?), wind power there would only be the battery
construction / disposal to consider ;-)

And apart from the new fuel cell buses all the diesel ones need to
stay out of the city centre (doh .. PT ..)?


Very new diesels can do it too...

Good to know Paul.

Is it Japan when any vehicle over 3 years old / 60k is 'scrapped'
(sold to us more like)?


Recent thread on uk.rec.driving. Basically it becomes totally uneconomical
to run a car over 3 years old in Japan due to exorbitant inspection and tax
costs. Hence the booming export market.

Ah, it is them then (ta) .. wasn't sure if it was an urban myth etc.
It's ironic that if it's not good enough for them that it's still good
for us (and why if it's not good enough for us it's good enough for
Eastern Europe / Africa / India etc) ;-(

All the best ..

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...



Ah, but, in comparison with the old days .. they smell much less.

Much less isn't the same as not at all, which is what was implied by the
poster who said that the only emissions were CO2and H2O.

Mary

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


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.

Mary

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:11:32 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .



Ah, but, in comparison with the old days .. they smell much less.

Much less isn't the same as not at all, which is what was implied by the
poster who said that the only emissions were CO2and H2O.

looks down and shuffles feet ;-(

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:14:00 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


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


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.

Hmmm ...? s******

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
news

looks down and shuffles feet ;-(

Careful, don't twist the you-know-what ...

Mary

Rob Summers wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Modern cars actually clean up the air they burn in terms of pollutants.
The only significant emission is CO2. And water, of course.



Please tell me you've missed a smiley off of that statement. Otherwise I
think you're going to have substantiate that outrageous claim.

It is apparently true for cities with very dense smog problems (Like LA)
- the catalysed exhaust can contain less pollutants than the air
ingested by the car.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:36:49 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
news

looks down and shuffles feet ;-(

Careful, don't twist the you-know-what ...

ouch Too late Mary .. ;-(

T i m

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:04:02 GMT, "PC Paul" wrote:

Basically it becomes totally
uneconomical to run a car over 3 years old in Japan due to
exorbitant inspection and tax costs. Hence the booming export market.

Ah, it is them then (ta) .. wasn't sure if it was an urban myth etc.
It's ironic that if it's not good enough for them that it's still good
for us (and why if it's not good enough for us it's good enough for
Eastern Europe / Africa / India etc) ;-(


For the whole horrific tale of how much it costs to run a car in japan...

http://www.iac.co.jp/~sdsk/SDSK_WWW/html/lifeinjapan/sushi/buyacar.html

T i m wrote:

I don't think right minded folk have any issues re 4x4's in general
just their suitability in many cases. Yes it's their (your) choice
etc but in these days when many people are looking to reduce emissions
AND increase mpg (reducing emissions further) they are just seen as a
'luxury' that the rest of us could do without?

Ah, envy you mean? ;-)

Also their size means they take up more room on the road (given their
typically low occupancy) creating more congestion, take up more room
when parked (congestion again) and mass mass to recycle (energy
consumption again)?

This has been disprove enough times (in this country anyway), it makes
me wonder why people keep going on about it. If you look at most of the
off roaders you actually see people driving, they are often no longer or
wider than a saloon or estate car. They may be a bit taller, but that is
not usually the "problem" axis (although it is what makes them look much
bigger).

In many ways the big people carriers would seem to suffer all the same
faults as an offroader, yet people seem to spend less time complaining
about them.

More than once I have seen big off road cars (I don't care if they
were 4x4 or not) parked across two bays because:

1) They won't fit in a std *car* bay.
2) Their owners don't want them damaged.

I have seen people do that with any (usually new) car for the same
reason....

Bottom line, vehicles should be (in my little world anyway) for taking
us and our belongings from a to b as efficiently and safely as
possible.

yup, give it a couple of hundred bhp and aircon and it sounds good to me
;-) (oh and 4wd is nice as well)

Should we all drive round in Porches or (for example) Megans (etc)?

Probably not... although one could argue that the performance car is
safer (for its occupants) for just those reasons. It will stop in a
shorter distance when required, it will also be able to swerve round a
obstacle at speed and have a better chance of the driver maintaining
control.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:57:00 GMT, "PC Paul" wrote:


For the whole horrific tale of how much it costs to run a car in japan...

http://www.iac.co.jp/~sdsk/SDSK_WWW/html/lifeinjapan/sushi/buyacar.html

Oooerr ... !

When we were thinking of adding an extension to our double story 'rear
addition' (Victorian house) the Council told us if we added another
bedroon we would have to provide 'off street parking for as many cars
as we had bedrooms' (we can currently ond cover one).

Now the rules have changed (again) .. possibly something to do with
the fact that the Council are passing loads of plans for every inch of
land to be turned into flats (including 3 petrol stations). A new
block of 18 flats was required to provide 12 parking spaces?

When it suits ..

All the best ..

T i m

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

Maxie, I heard these drying out clinics are superb.

More secondhand 'experience'?

Well tell us fist hand then. How long have you had the Scotch addiction?

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:14:00 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


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


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.

Hmmm ...? s******

Don't hold your breath.

By the time we need to replace it, barring accidents, we shan't need one
anyway. We'll manage on the scooter. We only use the car for very long
journeys or when we need to transport big stuff.

Mary

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:09:40 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I don't think right minded folk have any issues re 4x4's in general
just their suitability in many cases. Yes it's their (your) choice
etc but in these days when many people are looking to reduce emissions
AND increase mpg (reducing emissions further) they are just seen as a
'luxury' that the rest of us could do without?

Ah, envy you mean? ;-)

Well for some possibly but not in this case ;-) We (mainly my daughter
and I) were thinking of buying a older 'series' Landy after we went
round an off-road course in my BIL's Disco. Not got round to it yet
and now I'm not sure if we could afford to run it anyway ;-(

Also their size means they take up more room on the road (given their
typically low occupancy) creating more congestion, take up more room
when parked (congestion again) and mass mass to recycle (energy
consumption again)?

This has been disprove enough times (in this country anyway), it makes
me wonder why people keep going on about it.

(Sri, not seen that mentioned John)

If you look at most of the
off roaders you actually see people driving, they are often no longer or
wider than a saloon or estate car. They may be a bit taller, but that is
not usually the "problem" axis (although it is what makes them look much
bigger).

I won't argue the facts but am aware that they *are* often the ones at
the front of a blockage, holding up many cars? That could be because
the drivers only ever do the 'school run' etc so don't ever drive in
the real everyday 'driving a long way though all types of traffic'
world?

In many ways the big people carriers would seem to suffer all the same
faults as an offroader, yet people seem to spend less time complaining
about them.

Agreed (both counts). No less an issue though re fuel comsumption etc.

More than once I have seen big off road cars (I don't care if they
were 4x4 or not) parked across two bays because:

1) They won't fit in a std *car* bay.
2) Their owners don't want them damaged.

I have seen people do that with any (usually new) car for the same
reason....

True, as have I (new Marc coupe) but that was as big / wide as a 4x4
anyway!

Bottom line, vehicles should be (in my little world anyway) for taking
us and our belongings from a to b as efficiently and safely as
possible.

yup, give it a couple of hundred bhp and aircon and it sounds good to me
;-) (oh and 4wd is nice as well)

Enjoy it while you can John ;-)

Should we all drive round in Porches or (for example) Megans (etc)?

Probably not... although one could argue that the performance car is
safer (for its occupants) for just those reasons. It will stop in a
shorter distance when required, it will also be able to swerve round a
obstacle at speed and have a better chance of the driver maintaining
control.

Oh indeed .. however that set's the 'lowest (reasonable) common
denominator' at something thats unaffordable and unwanted / needed by
a majority of folk? Hence why I think motorspport has a part to play
(ignoring the pollution) re the developement of many of todays safety
features, however, they should (and happily now *are*) be incorporated
in 'everyday' cars, those that represent the majority of vehicles on
the road and are carriying everyday folk and their families.

We still haven't resolved the issue of (especially) Mr 'flash' (rather
than 'working') in his 12 mpg 4x4 when he looses it on a bend and
wipes our Mr Nice Family coming the other way in a 50 mpg Micra? Maybe
they would have had a better chance if it was another 'car' that hit
them not a truck (and I believe most 4x4's are built on a (fairly
rigid / heavy) chassis whereas many MPV's are monocoque)?

All the best ..

T i m