Autocar last week did a comparison test between a Lexus GS450hSE, (hybrid)
BMW 535D (diesel) and Merc E500 (petrol) Each was meant as an example of a
'state of the art' power unit in a luxury car. All were of course autos.
As expected, the 5.5 litre petrol Merc had the best performance and by
some margin. The BMW and Lexus were very close. But it's - as usual - the
fuel consumption in the real world that is of interest. Here are the
results starting with the official government ones.

BMW Lexus Merc
Urban 25.9 31.7 16.7
Extra Urban 44.8 39.2 34.4
Combined 35.3 35.8 24.6

Real world:-
Town 18.7 21.7 13.7
Motorway 31.0 29.0 20.6
Country 27.5 24.6 20.0
Test overall 26.3 25.9 16.3

So as usual, the 'official' figures bear no relation to real world driving
conditions, and favour the hybrid.

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Autocar last week did a comparison test between a Lexus GS450hSE, (hybrid)
BMW 535D (diesel) and Merc E500 (petrol) Each was meant as an example of a
'state of the art' power unit in a luxury car. All were of course autos.
As expected, the 5.5 litre petrol Merc had the best performance and by
some margin. The BMW and Lexus were very close. But it's - as usual - the
fuel consumption in the real world that is of interest. Here are the
results starting with the official government ones.

BMW Lexus Merc
Urban 25.9 31.7 16.7
Extra Urban 44.8 39.2 34.4
Combined 35.3 35.8 24.6

Real world:-
Town 18.7 21.7 13.7
Motorway 31.0 29.0 20.6
Country 27.5 24.6 20.0
Test overall 26.3 25.9 16.3

So as usual, the 'official' figures bear no relation to real world driving
conditions, and favour the hybrid.

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

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

but remember to add in the exhaust emissions to the equation.

the Toyota drive train emissions and driveability are really nice, try
driving them, the Toyota Lexus system is lovely.

as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the winter
and 55 plus in the summer. plus low tax and congestion charge.

Apparently though on long term running costs a hummer beats the lot!!!!

mrcheerful

The message
from "mrcheerful
." contains these words:

as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the
winter
and 55 plus in the summer. plus low tax and congestion charge.

I get 45mpg out of my elderly Audi and that's without the environmental
expense of producing a new car.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

I get 45mpg out of my elderly Audi and that's without the environmental
expense of producing a new car.

Yep. My wife's car gets 62mph and only costs 40 quid in tax.

I'm definitely in favour of much more punitive taxation for the higher
classes. However, I hope they don't get too arsey with 7 seat Group E
vehicles. I bought the lowest emission 7 seater I could find (and afford),
which was a Zafira 2.0DTi. It had 4g/km too much for Group E. However, as
its use often means that we don't need to run two cars for a journey, I bet,
on average, that it saves us CO2 over a 5 seater Group D. I hope that this
is eventually taken into account when the tax differentials ramp up.

Christian.

In article ,
mrcheerful
. wrote:
as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the
winter and 55 plus in the summer. plus low tax and congestion charge.

I'd suggest he checks his figures accurately. The Prius is even further
away from its 'official' figures in real world use. Those official figures
have recently been revised downwards in the US after many complaints.
Hasn't happened here yet as they're so rare on UK roads.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

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

Autocar last week did a comparison test between a Lexus GS450hSE, (hybrid)
BMW 535D (diesel) and Merc E500 (petrol)

This is the same Autocar which said the Prius did an average of 23mpg - what
a belly laugh that was. Yep, they did say that. What a laugh that was. The
emissions on the Lexus will be way down on the IC engined cars to the point
that 6 Lexus will be the equiv to one of the crocks and also the noise of it
will be whisper quiet, while diesel cars should be banned on noise alone.

The Tesla does 130mpg equiv and is silent and zero emissions.

"mrcheerful ." wrote in message
k...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Autocar last week did a comparison test between a Lexus GS450hSE,
(hybrid)
BMW 535D (diesel) and Merc E500 (petrol) Each was meant as an example of
a
'state of the art' power unit in a luxury car. All were of course autos.
As expected, the 5.5 litre petrol Merc had the best performance and by
some margin. The BMW and Lexus were very close. But it's - as usual - the
fuel consumption in the real world that is of interest. Here are the
results starting with the official government ones.

BMW Lexus Merc
Urban 25.9 31.7 16.7
Extra Urban 44.8 39.2 34.4
Combined 35.3 35.8 24.6

Real world:-
Town 18.7 21.7 13.7
Motorway 31.0 29.0 20.6
Country 27.5 24.6 20.0
Test overall 26.3 25.9 16.3

So as usual, the 'official' figures bear no relation to real world
driving
conditions, and favour the hybrid.

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

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

but remember to add in the exhaust emissions to the equation.

the Toyota drive train emissions and driveability are really nice, try
driving them, the Toyota Lexus system is lovely.

as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the
winter and 55 plus in the summer.

Same as me.

plus low tax and congestion charge.

Apparently though on long term running costs a hummer beats the lot!!!!

Only if you leave it on the drive.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "mrcheerful
." contains these words:

as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the
winter
and 55 plus in the summer. plus low tax and congestion charge.

I get 45mpg out of my elderly Audi and that's without the environmental
expense of producing a new car.

And probably pollutes like hell ruining lungs by the million..

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mrcheerful
. wrote:
as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the
winter and 55 plus in the summer. plus low tax and congestion charge.

I'd suggest he checks his figures accurately.

I suggest you eff off as you are an idiot.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

The Tesla does 130mpg equiv and is silent and zero emissions.

That's zero at the point of use, of course. The energy still has to come
from somewhere and /all/ energy production has /some/ environmental
impact.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

I get 45mpg out of my elderly Audi and that's without the environmental
expense of producing a new car.

And probably pollutes like hell ruining lungs by the million..

Well, it's cat equipped and passes its particulate test each year by a
considerable margin.

Of course it pollutes, all forms of transport, except possibly walking
barefoot pollute. It's questionable whether the pollution caused by
making a new car for me would be greater than the pollution caused by me
running a well maintained old car.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Christian McArdle wrote:
I get 45mpg out of my elderly Audi and that's without the environmental
expense of producing a new car.

Yep. My wife's car gets 62mph and only costs 40 quid in tax.

I'm definitely in favour of much more punitive taxation for the higher
classes. However, I hope they don't get too arsey with 7 seat Group E
vehicles. I bought the lowest emission 7 seater I could find (and afford),
which was a Zafira 2.0DTi. It had 4g/km too much for Group E. However, as
its use often means that we don't need to run two cars for a journey, I bet,
on average, that it saves us CO2 over a 5 seater Group D. I hope that this
is eventually taken into account when the tax differentials ramp up.

Christian.


Why?

I am definitely in favour of punitive FUEL taxation, but leave the cars
alone...

Fuel savings comes from all the little cars NOT doing the school run,
NOT doing a supermarket run EVERY DAY and not doing 100 mile commutes
every day.

Not from some poor old aristo who takes out the Roller once a week to
visit Harrods..or the Range Rover to go grouse shooting.

I'm definitely in favour of much more punitive taxation for the higher
classes. However, I hope they don't get too arsey with 7 seat Group E
vehicles.

Why?

Fuel savings comes from all the little cars NOT doing the school run, NOT
doing a supermarket run EVERY DAY and not doing 100 mile commutes every
day.

By taxing at a rate that is greater than proportionate to use, you are more
likely to affect behaviour.

I just think that the number of seats in a vehicle should be taken into
account to some extent, as the extra seats will take other vehicles off the
road, reducing effective emissions. Obviously, this can't be overdone, or
people will simply buy cars with more seats that they don't need. By
dropping a band by having 7 (or possibly 6) seats or more, or rising a band
by having 2 seats or less, the market will actually be less distorted and
the tax more in line with the likely CO2 emissions per person/km.

Christian.

On 2006-08-15 13:50:30 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
said:

I'm definitely in favour of much more punitive taxation for the higher
classes. However, I hope they don't get too arsey with 7 seat Group E
vehicles.

Why?

Fuel savings comes from all the little cars NOT doing the school run,
NOT doing a supermarket run EVERY DAY and not doing 100 mile commutes
every day.

By taxing at a rate that is greater than proportionate to use, you are
more likely to affect behaviour.

Except that it doesn't work. People who want to have big, fuel
consuming cars will pay for them.


I just think that the number of seats in a vehicle should be taken into
account to some extent, as the extra seats will take other vehicles off
the road, reducing effective emissions.

I am not sure that that's a logical conclusion. It might be if you
were comparing buses of different sizes. However people use their
cars as a family for the most part. They don't generally provide a
local bus service, except in cases such as a very long run to school
where it might encourage lift sharing among neighbours.

Obviously, this can't be overdone, or people will simply buy cars with
more seats that they don't need.

Is it a question of seats or space though? I like to have a large
vehicle so that I can take stuff around easily. However, I don't want
that many seats.

By dropping a band by having 7 (or possibly 6) seats or more, or
rising a band by having 2 seats or less, the market will actually be
less distorted and the tax more in line with the likely CO2 emissions
per person/km.

Christian.

By taxing at a rate that is greater than proportionate to use, you are
more likely to affect behaviour.

Except that it doesn't work. People who want to have big, fuel
consuming cars will pay for them.

Of course. To prevent that, you'd have to ban them, which I do not propose.
However, I would like them to pay much more than proportionally more. That
money I would like to see invested in CO2 neutral energy technology.

Also, it would deter a good number of people as well. Only the real petrol
heads will continue with a Group G car. Lots of people would be put off and
buy something less damaging.

Christian.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

I get 45mpg out of my elderly Audi and that's without the environmental
expense of producing a new car.

And probably pollutes like hell ruining lungs by the million..

Well, it's cat equipped and
passes its particulate test each year by a
considerable margin.


Which means its pollutes a little than without.

Of course it pollutes, all forms of transport, except possibly walking
barefoot pollute. It's questionable whether the pollution caused by
making a new car for me would be greater than the pollution caused by me
running a well maintained old car.

A new car does nor pollute so much at point of use.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

The Tesla does 130mpg equiv and is silent and zero emissions.

That's zero at the point of use, of course.

Yep. And saves miliosn of lungs in ueban areas.

The energy still has to come
from somewhere and /all/ energy production
has /some/ environmental
impact.

Some a hell of lot more than others.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
By taxing at a rate that is greater than proportionate to use, you are
more likely to affect behaviour.

Except that it doesn't work. People who want to have big, fuel
consuming cars will pay for them.

Of course. To prevent that, you'd have to ban them, which I do not
propose. However, I would like them to pay much more than proportionally
more. That money I would like to see invested in CO2 neutral energy
technology.

Also, it would deter a good number of people as well. Only the real petrol
heads will continue with a Group G car. Lots of people would be put off
and buy something less damaging.

Christian.

I think the solution is to make people drive Ford GT40s like Jeremy
Clarkson. Single digit mpg figures when used in anger but it only works for
1 day in every 10 so the average emissions are better than a hybrid.
--
Dave Baker
www.pumaracing.co.uk
Usenet - a collection of people who only open their mouth to change feet.

I think the solution is to make people drive Ford GT40s like Jeremy
Clarkson. Single digit mpg figures when used in anger but it only works
for 1 day in every 10 so the average emissions are better than a hybrid.

The problem with your solution is that few could sleep with all the alarms
going off outside the window.

Christian.

On 2006-08-15 14:50:01 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
said:

By taxing at a rate that is greater than proportionate to use, you are
more likely to affect behaviour.

Except that it doesn't work. People who want to have big, fuel
consuming cars will pay for them.

Of course. To prevent that, you'd have to ban them, which I do not
propose. However, I would like them to pay much more than
proportionally more.

That's why it would be better to put the tax onto fuel in the form of a
higher VAT rate rather than vehicles. Those consuming more fuel and
used more often would attract higher cost.

That money I would like to see invested in CO2 neutral energy technology.

Also, it would deter a good number of people as well. Only the real
petrol heads will continue with a Group G car. Lots of people would be
put off and buy something less damaging.

Not sure about that. Taxation typically does not alter behaviour to
any great extent for any length of time; the exception being the
Lottery, which seems to attract the gullible.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
This is the same Autocar which said the Prius did an average of 23mpg -
what a belly laugh that was.

It was, wasn't it? Showed up what a con the Prius really is.

Yep, they did say that. What a laugh that was. The emissions on the
Lexus will be way down on the IC engined cars

The emissions are also calculated in a non real world way. Bit like your
boilers at over 100% efficiency...

to the point that 6 Lexus
will be the equiv to one of the crocks and also the noise of it will be
whisper quiet, while diesel cars should be banned on noise alone.

Why would it be whisper quiet when it has a petrol V6 engine running most
of the time?

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

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

In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
I think the solution is to make people drive Ford GT40s like Jeremy
Clarkson. Single digit mpg figures when used in anger but it only works
for 1 day in every 10 so the average emissions are better than a hybrid.

Must be the worst person to sell a lemon to. ;-)

--
*In "Casablanca", Humphrey Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mrcheerful
. wrote:
as to real world stuff, my friend has a prius, he gets 60 plus in the
winter and 55 plus in the summer. plus low tax and congestion charge.

I'd suggest he checks his figures accurately. The Prius is even further
away from its 'official' figures in real world use. Those official figures
have recently been revised downwards in the US after many complaints.
Hasn't happened here yet as they're so rare on UK roads.


He is a bit of an obsessive, so every litre is logged, so the 60 figure is
accurate for him, sorry about that. Try one, take it for a drive, you will
be converted.

As for the Hummer being cheap, it is worked out over a 300,000 mile
lifespan, from cradle to grave as it were, taking into account costs to
build, emissions to build, servicing etc. etc. and costs to dismantle and
scrap.

I got the link from one of the car groups.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/d...20060719.shtml

mrcheerful

In article ,
mrcheerful
. wrote:
I'd suggest he checks his figures accurately. The Prius is even
further away from its 'official' figures in real world use. Those
official figures have recently been revised downwards in the US after
many complaints. Hasn't happened here yet as they're so rare on UK
roads.


He is a bit of an obsessive, so every litre is logged, so the 60 figure
is accurate for him, sorry about that.

He must be a *very* gentle driver, then, and would get even better MPG
from a similar performance diesel.

Try one, take it for a drive, you will be converted.

I have driven one. Several times. And don't like it. It's a very boring
car to drive, once you've got over the initial differences. The
performance on the open road is very poor and it's far too expensive for a
town only car.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mrcheerful
. wrote:
I'd suggest he checks his figures accurately. The Prius is even
further away from its 'official' figures in real world use. Those
official figures have recently been revised downwards in the US after
many complaints. Hasn't happened here yet as they're so rare on UK
roads.


He is a bit of an obsessive, so every litre is logged, so the 60 figure
is accurate for him, sorry about that.

He must be a *very* gentle driver, then, and would get even better MPG
from a similar performance diesel.

Try one, take it for a drive, you will be converted.

I have driven one. Several times. And don't like it. It's a very boring
car to drive, once you've got over the initial differences. The
performance on the open road is very poor and it's far too expensive for a
town only car.


Really, I found performance perfectly adequate. Even with 4 adults in the
car it seemed ok. Were you perhaps driving a series 1 prius? I haven't
tried one of those, but I have read they are significantly slower than the
present type 2. In any case it is not marketed as a performance vehicle,
yet seems perfectly adequate for general use, he has been on a few multi
hundred mile trips and is very happy with it, so you pays yer money etc.

I wouldn't be likely to buy a new one, but a second-hand one at sensible
money maybe. the real annoyance is that in the states they are 20k dollars
and here they are 20k pounds, not fair really, because at about 12k pounds
they would really sell well, even I could just about force myself to pay
that for a car (most of my cars came free or nearly so)

mrcheerful

On 2006-08-15 22:50:19 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
That's why it would be better to put the tax onto fuel in the form of a
higher VAT rate rather than vehicles. Those consuming more fuel and
used more often would attract higher cost.

But there are many people who live in areas where there is little or no
alternative to private vehicles.

If VED was banded according to the address of the registered keeper,
people in cities would pay more for possessing a car; people in rural
areas could pay less. Similar to a congestion charge, but without the
need for spy cameras to police. Admittedly some people would falsify
the keeper's address, but that would render the insurance invalid and
would also be a specific offence.

Reasonable.



Although people moan about petrol tax, it doesn't affect behaviour
because it's paid so gradually that it's absorbed into general
household expenditure. An extra few thousand quid demand once a year
would, however, prompt a fair number of people to consider if they
really need/can afford a car.

Which would again favour those with the ability to pay. Is that what
you intended?



And any employer saying that an employee must have access to a private
car should have to pay the VED, to encourage increased use of pool cars
or even a taxi account.


That's impractical. Increasingly people work from home and so a
private car for business purposes becomes essential. Secondly, there
is a trend away from company provided cars to car allowances. This
becomes somewhat moot because it is treated as income for tax purposes.

Generally though, if people consider that they have a need or desire to
use a private car, they will do so, and TBH, the government is wasting
its time and our money if it believes it can alter behaviour.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:11:49 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Not sure about that. Taxation typically does not alter behaviour to
any great extent for any length of time; the exception being the
Lottery, which seems to attract the gullible.

It has on company cars (which significantly determine the user car mix
3+ years from now) - would 50% or so of BMWs be diesel otherwise?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:42:39 GMT, "mrcheerful
.." wrote:

As for the Hummer being cheap, it is worked out over a 300,000 mile
lifespan, from cradle to grave as it were, taking into account costs to
build, emissions to build, servicing etc. etc. and costs to dismantle and
scrap.

I got the link from one of the car groups.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/d...20060719.shtml

Sorry, but what a load of complete and utter bow-locks!

Have a look at:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63

"Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998"

(and here's an example...

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:42:39 GMT, "mrcheerful
." wrote:

As for the Hummer being cheap, it is worked out over a 300,000 mile
lifespan, from cradle to grave as it were, taking into account costs to
build, emissions to build, servicing etc. etc. and costs to dismantle and
scrap.

I got the link from one of the car groups.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/d...20060719.shtml

Sorry, but what a load of complete and utter bow-locks!

Have a look at:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63

"Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998"

(and here's an example...

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf

cheers,
Pete.

someone has to pay for research, why not oil companies?

mrcheerful

On 2006-08-16 11:56:33 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:11:49 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Not sure about that. Taxation typically does not alter behaviour to
any great extent for any length of time; the exception being the
Lottery, which seems to attract the gullible.

It has on company cars (which significantly determine the user car mix
3+ years from now) - would 50% or so of BMWs be diesel otherwise?

Different thing though.

The trend from company leased vehicles to car allowance (and typically
personal lease) is a simple cash one that can be worked out.

On the one hand there is company provided car with business mileage,
fuel allowance, personal mileage etc. leading to a certain tax
calculation.

On the other there is car allowance, business, personal use and mileage
claim for fuel. The variables are the combinations of personal and
business miles and the tax implications of those.

All one has to do is to look at a three year period (for personal lease
e.g.) and the trend on company provided car taxation.

At a certain point, they have crossed over or will cross over for most
people. At that point, the decision is for a car allowance, it's not
one of having a car or not.

Obviously it depends on the individual. I have very little UK
business mileage since most of my travel is outside the UK. Thus I
have a very low mileage on a car that I took on personal lease over
three years ago. Consequently, I can extend the lease at a very low
rate for a further two years.
Works for me.

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
It has on company cars (which significantly determine the user car mix
3+ years from now) - would 50% or so of BMWs be diesel otherwise?

My BMW is petrol, but my neighbour's one is a 535d which I've driven. And
you'd be hard pressed to know it's a diesel, apart from the fact it
doesn't rev so high when pressing on. The performance is stunning too.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

My BMW is petrol, but my neighbour's one is a 535d which I've
driven. And you'd be hard pressed to know it's a diesel, apart
from the fact it doesn't rev so high when pressing on. The
performance is stunning too.

I was down the recycling tip this morning in my diesel
Skoda but positively lusting after the vehicle alongside.
A BMW 3.0 diesel 4x4. Got talking to the lady driving it,
she said it was a turbo with oodles of welly when towing
a horsebox. Umm.... but apparently their previous one
caught fire on the road, full fire engine callout.

--
Tony Williams.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


I suggest you eff off as you are an idiot.


Stop talking to yourself!

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...
snip
The Tesla does 130mpg equiv and is silent and zero emissions.


I suspect you means *emissions natural over it's life* rather than
producing zero emissions whilst in use, the two are totally
different!...

In article ,
Huge wrote:
My BMW is petrol, but my neighbour's one is a 535d which I've driven.
And you'd be hard pressed to know it's a diesel,

I wouldn't have thought there was much work about for a deaf sound man
....

)

Pardon?

Yes, they're quiet for a diesel, but "hard pressed" is going a bit far.

Inside, of course. But apart from a cold start, they're pretty non diesel
like on the outside on a London Taxi scale...

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

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

On 2006-08-16 13:40:05 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
Although people moan about petrol tax, it doesn't affect behaviour
because it's paid so gradually that it's absorbed into general
household expenditure. An extra few thousand quid demand once a year
would, however, prompt a fair number of people to consider if they
really need/can afford a car.
Which would again favour those with the ability to pay. Is that what
you intended?

Everything favours those with the ability to pay. Even the NHS favours
those with the ability to pay and go private :-)

Hmm... Not sure about that.


Generally though, if people consider that they have a need or desire to
use a private car, they will do so, and TBH, the government is wasting
its time and our money if it believes it can alter behaviour.

Largely true, I'm afraid. But a single expensive payment might have
more effect on making people reconsider whether second car ownership
for the school run is really worthwhile.


Maybe..... however, memories of single large payments soon fade....

On 2006-08-16 14:58:22 +0100, Huge said:

On 2006-08-16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
It has on company cars (which significantly determine the user car mix
3+ years from now) - would 50% or so of BMWs be diesel otherwise?

My BMW is petrol, but my neighbour's one is a 535d which I've driven. And
you'd be hard pressed to know it's a diesel,

I wouldn't have thought there was much work about for a deaf sound man ....


Beethoven managed....

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I wouldn't have thought there was much work about for a deaf sound man

Beethoven managed....

Wish I had his talent. ;-)

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I wouldn't have thought there was much work about for a deaf sound man

Beethoven managed....

Wish I had his talent. ;-)


I come across many a 'sound' man, they seem to be invariably at least
partially deaf.
I am continually arguing that we ought to impose rigid sound limits in our
theatre, if only to reduce possible claims for hearing damage.
the hse are not issuing new guidelines/rules for theatres till 2008 ! In
the meantime the chances of permanent hearing damage are very high.


mrcheerful

"Jerry" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...


I suggest you eff off as you are an idiot.


Stop talking to yourself!

You made that up.