opinions on alliance against 4x4s?

Anyone seen this? I found it on another UK group - apologies if it has
appeared here before.

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:24:29 +0000, congokid
wrote:

Anyone seen this? I found it on another UK group - apologies if it has
appeared here before.

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

Seen it but don't agree with it. I couldn't care less what *design* of
car people drive around in.

I object to
- **** poor driving standards,
- high CO2 etc emmissions,
- low pedestrian safety
- etc

4x4s may exhibit many of the features that I dislike but I would much
rather taxation was targetted at those specific characteristics;
emissions (it is), fuel consumption (it is) etc than at exterior
design.

People moan that 4x4s serve no other useful purpose in town than
making a social statement. The same can be said for an awful lot
equally polluting/dangerous high performance sports cars.

[Not Responding] wrote:

People moan that 4x4s serve no other useful purpose in town than
making a social statement. The same can be said for an awful lot
equally polluting/dangerous high performance sports cars.

At least I can see over the sports cars.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
We have always been at war with Eastasia

See last week's Observer magazine for more on this.

NJ

"Keith Willoughby" wrote in message
...
[Not Responding] wrote:

People moan that 4x4s serve no other useful purpose in town than
making a social statement. The same can be said for an awful lot
equally polluting/dangerous high performance sports cars.

At least I can see over the sports cars.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
We have always been at war with Eastasia

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:24:29 +0000, congokid wrote:

Anyone seen this? I found it on another UK group - apologies if it has
appeared here before.

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

Far too specific - why target one type of vehicle?

All this serves to do is justify/legitimise all vehicles which are NOT
4*4s.

Far better to aim to reduce/remove urban motoring and replace it with
effective public transport.

I can't help feeling that a lot of the bad feeling about 4*4s is because
they are an example of conspicuous consumerism and it is this that people
are reacting to.

However, saying that someone else can't have one because you can't afford
one is not the way to win sympathy :-)

Cheers

Dave R

congokid vaguely muttered something like ...
Anyone seen this? I found it on another UK group - apologies if it has
appeared here before.

http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk/

Ridiculous to target a specific type of vehicle. Admittedly I have a 4x4 so
might be biased, but I don't live in a Town, let alone a City, and it does
get dirty .. every day ..

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Keith Willoughby opined the following...
At least I can see over the sports cars.

Agreed. And since most performance cars rely on removal of unnecessary
weight, the sports car @ 30mph carries a chunk less energy than the SUV
@ 30mph.

Besides, in town, most ******* in sports cars are desperate to show off
their beast by driving it slowly for people to see and avoiding
scratching the paintwork, where as most SUV drivers behave as if there
were no other vehicles on the roads.

If I had to pick a cosmetic reason to ban a class of cars, the 4x4 (And
preferably their drivers too) would be first to go.

Jon

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:55:54 -0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote this:-

If I had to pick a cosmetic reason to ban a class of cars, the 4x4 (And
preferably their drivers too) would be first to go.

Perhaps their drivers could be put in trains and taken to camps in
the east.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:17:43 +0000 someone who may be David WE
Roberts wrote this:-

I can't help feeling that a lot of the bad feeling about 4*4s is because
they are an example of conspicuous consumerism and it is this that people
are reacting to.

I think there is something in that argument.

However, saying that someone else can't have one because you can't afford
one is not the way to win sympathy :-)

This sounds like the assumption that people ride bikes because they
are poor.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:55:54 -0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote this:-

If I had to pick a cosmetic reason to ban a class of cars, the 4x4 (And
preferably their drivers too) would be first to go.

Perhaps their drivers could be put in trains and taken to camps in
the east.

Clacton?