On 07/04/2021 22:55, JohnP wrote:
ces of their selfish actions and have added
another 5 minutes on the journey time to for no justifiable /
unavoidable reason.

In a different vein it also frustrates us when someone at the end of a
string of cars stops to let us cross, rather than carrying on past and
letting us cross in the massive gap behind them and the next batch of
cars (for the extra pollution that causes if nothing else).

Cheers, T i m



Spot on - likewise the "flasher" who waves a car out of a side turn -
oblivious to what is coming the other way. Just wanting a "nice" credit.


Or Brighton where people turning right simply drive half way across
(forcing cars to come to halt) expecting that the stream cars in
the other direction will stop/slow and allow him in.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:13:40 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On 08/04/2021 10:18, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:03:11 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

The weekend before last it was a cyclist - who kept waving me past,
despite it being a fairly narrow country road, close to a bend, with no
idea what might be coming the other way.

Is there any chance they could hear there was nothing coming, or see
over the top of stuff?

Should they expect you to believe them?

No, not at all as that wasn't my point, I was just suggesting that it
may be able to judge that 'nothing was coming.

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
At a level crossing near me, large gaps in the queue result in the tail
of the queue backing up into a roundabout, eventually blocking traffic
from four other roads that lead into it. Better awareness by some
drivers of the effects their actions are having would help.

This is often an issue when you have anything past a junction or
access where you may have two lanes that merge into one ahead (where
there may be as you say, a railway crossing).

There was a sad case in the USA some years ago where a railway ran parallel
and close to a road which had traffic lights to control access from a side
road over a level crossing on the railway. Vehicles were queued on the side
road at the traffic lights and backed up as far as the level crossing. A bus
(I think it may have been a school bus) stopped *on* the crossing. And the
lights started to flash because a train was coming...

The TV programme I saw which analysed this crash mentioned that city
authorities looked as ways of integrating the level crossing with the
traffic lights, so that when a train was due, traffic on the side road got a
green light which cleared the queue and prevented it backing up on the level
crossing. They completely missed the point that all level crossings should
be treated as what we in the UK call box junctions: do not enter unless
there is sufficient space on the far side to accommodate your vehicle. It
sounded as if in the USA, the concept of not stopping *on* a level crossing
was somewhat alien to them ;-)



Box junctions at side junctions work well, apart from one little flaw: you
can be on the major road, with traffic from a side road on the left obliged
to give way to you. And you stop at the box junction. As soon as the traffic
ahead moves, a car on the side road turns left and occupies the space. And
then another one does when the traffic moves again. And you on the major
road are stuck there like a lemon, never able to go because no-one on the
side road gives you the priority that the HC rules decree. Without the box
junction, you'd be right behind the car ahead, and the side-road car would
not be able to get out - unless you *allowed* it, as courtesy suggests
should happen *occasionally* (as opposed to every time, as a defined right).
But this would block oncoming traffic which wants to turn right into the
side road and is why the box junction is there. It could be solved by the
box junction only covering the patch of main road that right-turners need to
turn into the side road, whereas often it covers the whole width of road in
front of the side road, including the bit used by side road traffic turning
left.

On 08/04/2021 11:29, Andrew wrote:
On 07/04/2021 22:55, JohnP wrote:
ces of their selfish actions and have added
another 5 minutes on the journey time to for no justifiable /
unavoidable reason.

In a different vein it also frustrates us when someone at the end of a
string of cars stops to let us cross, rather than carrying on past and
letting us cross in the massive gap behind them and the next batch of
cars (for the extra pollution that causes if nothing else).

Cheers, T i m



Spot on - likewise the "flasher" who waves a car out of a side turn -
oblivious to what is coming the other way. Just wanting a "nice" credit.


Or Brighton where people turning right simply drive half way across
(forcing cars to come to halt) expecting that the stream cars in
the other direction will stop/slow and allow him in.

That is more a London procedure when you're fed up with waiting at a
junction. The usual technique was to either wait for a brand new car or
a taxi. Taxis will always back off and prevent an accident if they can.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 11:48:50 +0100, NY wrote:

snip

Box junctions at side junctions work well, apart from one little flaw:
you can be on the major road, with traffic from a side road on the left
obliged to give way to you. And you stop at the box junction. As soon as
the traffic ahead moves, a car on the side road turns left and occupies
the space. And then another one does when the traffic moves again. And
you on the major road are stuck there like a lemon, never able to go
because no-one on the side road gives you the priority that the HC rules
decree.

The actual rule is you may not enter the box if the exit is blocked by
stationary traffic. Once the traffic starts moving you may enter the box.
Stopping in the box because the traffic in front has subsequently stopped
is not an offence.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 08/04/2021 11:29, Andrew wrote:
On 07/04/2021 22:55, JohnP wrote:
ces of their selfish actions and have added
another 5 minutes on the journey time to for no justifiable /
unavoidable reason.

In a different vein it also frustrates us when someone at the end of a
string of cars stops to let us cross, rather than carrying on past and
letting us cross in the massive gap behind them and the next batch of
cars (for the extra pollution that causes if nothing else).

Cheers, T i m



Spot on - likewise the "flasher" who waves a car out of a side turn -
oblivious to what is coming the other way. Just wanting a "nice" credit.


Or Brighton where people turning right simply drive half way across
(forcing cars to come to halt) expecting that the stream cars in
the other direction will stop/slow and allow him in.

That is more a London procedure when you're fed up with waiting at a
junction. The usual technique was to either wait for a brand new car or
a taxi. Taxis will always back off and prevent an accident if they can.

That is because they cannot 'ply for hire' if the vehicle has body damage.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/04/2021 11:14, Andrew wrote:
On 07/04/2021 19:17, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 17:38:30 +0100, charles
wrote:

snip

I think they were saying that one EV was sold for every 37 SUV's and
from their observation, very few were required by their owners for the
characteristics that they offered, so was more a lifestyle choice

some 20 years ago, my daughter had a cartoon from the Telegraph weekend
supplement pinned up in her kitchen. In the female character was
saying "I
want my child to have wide open space, security and fresh air. So we've
bought a large 4x4 with aircondtioning and central locking."

Â* ;-)

What's new?

More cars and people in the same space?

Bigger cars (and more of them) in the same space.

If we all still drove BMC minis, Hillman imps and Bond bugs the
increased number of cars would be less of a problem.
wish I still had my 1963 mini 850 ......

"Scion" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 11:48:50 +0100, NY wrote:

snip

Box junctions at side junctions work well, apart from one little flaw:
you can be on the major road, with traffic from a side road on the left
obliged to give way to you. And you stop at the box junction. As soon as
the traffic ahead moves, a car on the side road turns left and occupies
the space. And then another one does when the traffic moves again. And
you on the major road are stuck there like a lemon, never able to go
because no-one on the side road gives you the priority that the HC rules
decree.

The actual rule is you may not enter the box if the exit is blocked by
stationary traffic. Once the traffic starts moving you may enter the box.
Stopping in the box because the traffic in front has subsequently stopped
is not an offence.

True, but is it legal to start off the instant the car on the far side has
started (hoping that they will move far enough that there will be space for
you on the far side) and then stop because a car on the side road has
started as well and got there first because they are closer? That's where
traffic light cameras and/or dashcam come into their own to support your
story.

Even without the side-road queue-jumping issue, what's the legality about
stopping on the box because you have misjudged how far the car in front will
move before stopping again? Are you expected to wait until the gap is proved
to be long enough to accommodate your car, rather than just hoping that it
will be? A bit of a grey area, and maybe one where good driving practice and
the letter of the HC differ.

A lot depends on where the box junction is: if you are overhanging at
traffic lights, the car from your left that you are blocking will be
starting from rest. You may get verbal and horn abuse, but it's not a safety
issue unless he fails to stop to avoid you. At a level crossing, where the
vehicle that you are blocking will be a train that is already moving (maybe
very fast!) it's a very different story ;-)

"charles" wrote in message
...
Spot on - likewise the "flasher" who waves a car out of a side turn -
oblivious to what is coming the other way. Just wanting a "nice"
credit.


Or Brighton where people turning right simply drive half way across
(forcing cars to come to halt) expecting that the stream cars in
the other direction will stop/slow and allow him in.

That is more a London procedure when you're fed up with waiting at a
junction. The usual technique was to either wait for a brand new car or
a taxi. Taxis will always back off and prevent an accident if they can.

That is because they cannot 'ply for hire' if the vehicle has body damage.

I didn't know that. How strictly is it applied? Is it *any* scratch or
scuff, or is there a minimum amount of dent that is allowed before the rule
kicks in? Is the taxi driver expected to "evict" his passenger immediately
the damage occurs, or is he allowed to continue the passenger's journey to
the end, and *then* withdraw from service?

I imagine the fairly hefty "puking penalties" that taxi drivers may levy to
a passenger who throws up in their car are to cover the time the car is off
the road getting valeted, because I'm sure a similar rule will apply about
not plying for hire if there's puke in the back of the car.

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:37:32 -0000 (UTC), Scion
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 11:48:50 +0100, NY wrote:

snip

Box junctions at side junctions work well, apart from one little flaw:
you can be on the major road, with traffic from a side road on the left
obliged to give way to you. And you stop at the box junction. As soon as
the traffic ahead moves, a car on the side road turns left and occupies
the space. And then another one does when the traffic moves again. And
you on the major road are stuck there like a lemon, never able to go
because no-one on the side road gives you the priority that the HC rules
decree.

The actual rule is you may not enter the box if the exit is blocked by
stationary traffic.

Ah, well, it wasn't blocked when (daughter in this case) set off
across the junction in her van.

Once the traffic starts moving you may enter the box.
Stopping in the box because the traffic in front has subsequently stopped
is not an offence.

What about going for a suitably size space beyond the box that becomes
filled by someone driving irresponsibly (pulling out in front of you
and claiming the space')? ;-(

Unless they also store (and consider) the video footage that led up to
her being stationary in the box (and I know they can / do with some
cameras), all they might see is her sat mostly in the box area?


Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:14:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

The actual rule is you may not enter the box if the exit is blocked by
stationary traffic. Once the traffic starts moving you may enter the box.
Stopping in the box because the traffic in front has subsequently stopped
is not an offence.

True, but is it legal to start off the instant the car on the far side has
started (hoping that they will move far enough that there will be space for
you on the far side)

That's sorta what happened other than the traffic ahead didn't all
move off as such but shuffled up enough for her to then be able to fit
the fan in clear of the box.

and then stop because a car on the side road has
started as well and got there first because they are closer?

Yes, pulling in front of a vehicle on the main road.

That's where
traffic light cameras and/or dashcam come into their own to support your
story.

I guess that depends on what the rules or more importantly exceptions
are.

Even without the side-road queue-jumping issue, what's the legality about
stopping on the box because you have misjudged how far the car in front will
move before stopping again?

I thought you weren't supposed to enter the box unless you could exit
it cleanly? That doesn't seem to be what Scion is stating though.

to be long enough to accommodate your car, rather than just hoping that it
will be? A bit of a grey area, and maybe one where good driving practice and
the letter of the HC differ.

Yes, if 'fairness' came into it then I predict most people would
suggest that daughter getting a ticket wasn't.

A lot depends on where the box junction is: if you are overhanging at
traffic lights, the car from your left that you are blocking will be
starting from rest. You may get verbal and horn abuse, but it's not a safety
issue unless he fails to stop to avoid you. At a level crossing, where the
vehicle that you are blocking will be a train that is already moving (maybe
very fast!) it's a very different story ;-)

Quite.

In this case the junction on the left is no right turn on the way out
so even if you blocked the mouth of that lane you wouldn't be
obstructing anyone. People wanting to exit and turn left couldn't if
there was nowhere to go etc.

Cheers, T i m

Ah but what about the tailgaters on downhill stretches of isy roads, do they
have a death wish or are they relying on the person ahead to stop them.
Lucky I don't drive, and even luckier I cannot see this behaviour any more.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"JohnP" wrote in message
. ..
Why the F do some drivers leave such a big gap behind the vehicle in
front!
Watched a busy junction yesterday - An ambulance was trying to get through
but the junction was blocked - several cars further down there were
massive gaps that, if closed up would have left the junction clear.

Another near me often has cars backing up when the light change - yet in
the distance is someone leaving a 2 car gap in front. Probably the
mentality of "I won't get there any faster if I close up"

Similar annoyance is Mr Kind who stops to let cars out of every side
road -
preferably before they have to stop. What about some consideration to
those
behind?

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:11:55 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On 08/04/2021 10:16, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:55:37 GMT, JohnP wrote:

Spot on - likewise the "flasher" who waves a car out of a side turn -
oblivious to what is coming the other way. Just wanting a "nice" credit.

There's also people who appear to be waving a pedestrian to cross when
they might be flicking ash off their fag or waving to someone they know.

Well, I don't know how many people do it for that reason (unless they
know them possibly), rather than they just aren't seeing the bigger
picture?

Most altruism is incomprehensible or anti-evolutionary; but there you are.

This lack of understanding of things like altruism, empathy, what
constitutes actually being humane to animals (showing compassion and
benevolence) seems common amongst a particular minority here.

And in contrast to what *you* believe, the ability to understand and
offer these things is the very thing that has evolved the human
species from the more basic animal we once were (and some still are).


Cheers, T i m

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

On 07/04/2021 07:17 pm, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 17:38:30 +0100, charles
wrote:

snip

I think they were saying that one EV was sold for every 37 SUV's and
from their observation, very few were required by their owners for the
characteristics that they offered, so was more a lifestyle choice

some 20 years ago, my daughter had a cartoon from the Telegraph weekend
supplement pinned up in her kitchen. In the female character was saying "I
want my child to have wide open space, security and fresh air. So we've
bought a large 4x4 with aircondtioning and central locking."

;-)

What's new?

More cars and people in the same space?

I wonder how bad (congestion / parking) things have to get before the
ability to have something that takes up more space on the road (and
parking) is made to pay their full share and / or people look to
buying smaller cars or using alternatives?

Most of us do exactly that.

On 07/04/2021 08:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message

[ ... ]

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Nope, women drivers feel safer in them, even tho they are actually less
safe in reality.

Less safe for the occupants?

On 08/04/2021 11:29 am, Andrew wrote:
On 07/04/2021 22:55, JohnP wrote:
ces of their selfish actions and have added
another 5 minutes on the journey time to for no justifiable /
unavoidable reason.

In a different vein it also frustrates us when someone at the end of a
string of cars stops to let us cross, rather than carrying on past and
letting us cross in the massive gap behind them and the next batch of
cars (for the extra pollution that causes if nothing else).

Cheers, T i m



Spot on - likewise the "flasher" who waves a car out of a side turn -
oblivious to what is coming the other way. Just wanting a "nice" credit.


Or Brighton where people turning right simply drive half way across
(forcing cars to come to halt) expecting that the stream cars in
the other direction will stop/slow and allow him in.

"Only" Brighton?

;-)

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2021 08:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message

[ ... ]

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Nope, women drivers feel safer in them, even tho they are actually less
safe in reality.

Less safe for the occupants?

Yep, more likely to roll over and not as good crumple zone wise.

Less safe for non occupants too, much easier to back over one of your little
kids too.

On 08/04/2021 19:53, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:11:55 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

On 08/04/2021 10:16, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:55:37 GMT, JohnP wrote:

Spot on - likewise the "flasher" who waves a car out of a side turn -
oblivious to what is coming the other way. Just wanting a "nice" credit.

There's also people who appear to be waving a pedestrian to cross when
they might be flicking ash off their fag or waving to someone they know.

Well, I don't know how many people do it for that reason (unless they
know them possibly), rather than they just aren't seeing the bigger
picture?

Most altruism is incomprehensible or anti-evolutionary; but there you are.

This lack of understanding of things like altruism, empathy, what
constitutes actually being humane to animals (showing compassion and
benevolence) seems common amongst a particular minority here.

Quite, there are some here who admit to not care about animal welfare
while an animal is alive.

And in contrast to what *you* believe, the ability to understand and
offer these things is the very thing that has evolved the human
species from the more basic animal we once were (and some still are).

That's right, we are a higher species. Some still think they are equal
with farm animals.

https://ibb.co/WkGb4jL

On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 06:02:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Less safe for the occupants?

Yep, more likely to roll over and not as good crumple zone wise.

Less safe for non occupants too, much easier to back over one of your little
kids too.

Yet more improvised bull**** from you, senile bull**** artist?

--
Marland addressing senile Rodent's tall stories:
"Do you really think people believe your stories you come up with to boost
your self esteem."
Message-ID:

Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on a
train. They close up when stationery and spread out when moving - But above
all stay in the same order unless exceptional circumstances.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:42:01 GMT, JohnP wrote:

Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on a
train. They close up when stationery and spread out when moving - But above
all stay in the same order unless exceptional circumstances.

Agreed.

Cheers, T i m

On 09/04/2021 08:42, JohnP wrote:
Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on a
train. They close up when stationery

How should they behave when they are in fact paperclips, instead?




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

The Natural Philosopher wrote in news:s4p5hn$g2u$3
@dont-email.me:

On 09/04/2021 08:42, JohnP wrote:
Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on a
train. They close up when stationery

How should they behave when they are in fact paperclips, instead?





Ahhhh! Well spotted - I am usually careful of that one!Of course I meant
"stationary"

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , GB
writes
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

It's the shape people prefer rather than what comes out of a wind
tunnel. BTW a large number of Evoques now on the road are 2 wheel drive.

Amazing how many people like driving something the size of a van.

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

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

On Thursday, 8 April 2021 at 20:47:34 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

We have had a number of Kugas over the years and these are based on the same chassis as the Ford Focus and as such no longer or wider just taller which is the main reason we went for one in the first place. The first one we went for was going to be just a two wheel drive but due to an offer from the main agent we ended up with a 4WD. Subsequent ones were all 4WD mainly for better cornering and the occasional snowy day we get here in the Pennines. I have only been off road on a few occasions if you can call it that when parking in a field for some festival or show. Present one is a PHEV and as such is a mere front wheel drive automatic. I like SUVs and since changing to one have never suffered the back ache I got driving a Mondeo and getting in and out is a cinch compared to saloons.

Richard

JohnP wrote

Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on
a train. They close up when stationery and spread out when moving

Wagons don’t do that.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 04:47:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on
a train. They close up when stationery and spread out when moving

Wagons don¢t do that.

Of course they do, you auto-contradicting senile pest!

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

"Rod Speed" wrote in news:idblr2F4s2iU1
@mid.individual.net:

JohnP wrote

Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on
a train. They close up when stationery and spread out when moving

Wagons don’t do that.





Imangine elastic couplings!!

"JohnP" wrote in message
. ..
"Rod Speed" wrote in news:idblr2F4s2iU1
@mid.individual.net:

JohnP wrote

Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on
a train. They close up when stationery and spread out when moving

Wagons don’t do that.

Imangine elastic couplings!!

No such animal, for a reason.

"Rod Speed" wrote in news:idcaeaF8ls2U1
@mid.individual.net:



"JohnP" wrote in message
. ..
"Rod Speed" wrote in news:idblr2F4s2iU1
@mid.individual.net:

JohnP wrote

Quite simply - in a queue of traffic the cars should be like wagons on
a train. They close up when stationery and spread out when moving

Wagons don’t do that.

Imangine elastic couplings!!

No such animal, for a reason.



I must have a vivid imagination! Able to create analogies!

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:39:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Imangine elastic couplings!!

No such animal, for a reason.

Actually, there are ONLY such elastic couplings on trains,
auto-contradicting senile asshole!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

In article , JNugent
writes
On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large
SUV fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

No

--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , GB
writes
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

It's the shape people prefer rather than what comes out of a wind
tunnel. BTW a large number of Evoques now on the road are 2 wheel drive.

Amazing how many people like driving something the size of a van.

Modern vans are very nice to drive.
--
bert

On 09/04/2021 14:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , GB
writes
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.
The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.
People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

It's the shape people prefer rather than what comes out of a wind
tunnel. BTW a large number of Evoques now on the road are 2 wheel drive.

Amazing how many people like driving something the size of a van.

When was the last time you drove a modern van?

https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-sp...Turbo-125.html

For the Vivaro 1.6 BiTurbo
Top Speed: 106mph
0 to 62mph: 12s

Your Rover might match this but I doubt it is as refined or will get the
mpg of this pretty standard van. You will be high up and can anticipate
what the car in front, or the car in front of that, will do.

On 09/04/2021 03:54 pm, Tricky Dicky wrote:
On Thursday, 8 April 2021 at 20:47:34 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.


They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

We have had a number of Kugas over the years and these are based on the same chassis as the Ford Focus and as such no longer or wider just taller which is the main reason we went for one in the first place. The first one we went for was going to be just a two wheel drive but due to an offer from the main agent we ended up with a 4WD. Subsequent ones were all 4WD mainly for better cornering and the occasional snowy day we get here in the Pennines. I have only been off road on a few occasions if you can call it that when parking in a field for some festival or show. Present one is a PHEV and as such is a mere front wheel drive automatic. I like SUVs and since changing to one have never suffered the back ache I got driving a Mondeo and getting in and out is a cinch compared to saloons.

I fully agree with you on the matter of a taller vehicle being easier to
get into and out of - and know exactly what you mean.

It's one of the reasons why I question the common sense (and empathy) of
the anti-SUV baying mob.

On 10/04/2021 02:23 pm, bert wrote:

In article , JNugent
writes
On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

Â*They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large
SUVÂ* fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall
and Ford?

No

I don't think so either.

But some have clearly persuaded themselves to have a frenzied daily hate
because of them.

On 10/04/2021 03:08 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Apr 2021 at 20:47:30 BST, JNugent wrote:

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

They appear to be taller. Not sure if they're wider door-handle to
door-handle.

Taller is good. Especially at my age.

On 10/04/2021 15:08, Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Apr 2021 at 20:47:30 BST, JNugent wrote:

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

They appear to be taller. Not sure if they're wider door-handle to
door-handle.

My XF is longer and wider than my Freelander. Too wide to fit in the garage


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/04/2021 15:08, Tim Streater wrote:
On 08 Apr 2021 at 20:47:30 BST, JNugent wrote:

On 07/04/2021 03:41 pm, GB wrote:
On 07/04/2021 15:03, T i m wrote:

Talking of inconsiderate people g, it seems there is a report that
has suggested the SUV's are the top 10 vehicles in the list of most
polluting vehicles used in cities and the owners the least likely to
take them (inc the 4WD ones) off road.

The reason they are so high on the list is that the marketing is the
most aggressive because the profit margins are the greatest.

People don't 'need' these SUVs (in the main and especially in the
inner city) but are made to believe they do by the marketing.

They get used for the school run. Half a dozen yummies take turns
picking up and dropping off each other's children, and so they need
fairly large vehicles to fit them all in. A people carrier or large SUV
fits the bill.

I know this has come up before (in other NGs), but in fact, are these
"SUVs" really any bigger (wider / longer) in footprint than very
ordinary cars from makers such as Skoda, Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall and
Ford?

They appear to be taller. Not sure if they're wider door-handle to
door-handle.

My XF is longer and wider than my Freelander. Too wide to fit in the garage


They are rather impracticality large. Enjoyed mine but also enjoyed
downsizing afterwards.

I was following a very clean 1988 Rolls Royce Silver Spirit yesterday and
from the back, it really didnt look any bigger than a Mondeo. Back in 88
Im sure it was huge but its now only €œmedium-big€�.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls