A rare outbreak of common sense?

URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) could be
banned from the chic but traffic-clogged streets of Paris within 18 months
following a resolution passed by the city council.

Denis Baupin, a leading Green party councilor who tabled the resolution,
says the designer jeeps are "not suited to towns" and he could not
understand why people drove the fashionable "off-roaders."

"They're polluters, they're space-occupiers, they're dangerous for
pedestrians and other road users. They're a caricature of a car."
Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution could lead to a ban
on the increasingly popular vehicles in about 18 months if it is included in
an overall project to improve traffic flow in the city.

"We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're dangerous to others
and take up too much space, " he said on Europe 1 radio.
The city council voted to urge Socialist Mayor Bertrand Delanoe to consider
banning SUVs, which have become increasingly popular and now make up about
five percent of the French car market -- just below the western Europe
average.

Baupin said Paris, which has been setting aside more lanes for buses and
bicycles since a Socialist and Greens coalition took over City Hall in 2001,
could not legally ban SUVs outright.

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most polluting vehicles," he
said. "That means SUVs and lots of other vehicles that don't meet European
pollution standards."

Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during peak pollution
periods, and denying their owners residents' parking permits. Off-roaders
could also be banned from protected areas like the Bois de Boulogne and the
banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups, follows similar
remarks by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in May month described
SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and called their owners
"complete idiots." (Yay! Go Ken! - Ed.)

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing that just one in
eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car off-road, and six in 10 never take it
out of town.

The Guardian added that France caught on late to the vogue for SUVs, mainly
because Renault, Peugeot and Citroen have not so far offered them.

But with luxury carmakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche selling plush
leather-upholstered 4x4s, the vehicles are an increasingly common sight in
Paris's wealthier quarters. Sales surged by 11 percent in France last year.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Dave Larrington wrote:
URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) could be
banned from the chic but traffic-clogged streets of Paris within 18 months
following a resolution passed by the city council.


Looks like the French are showing the way forward.

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message
...
URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) could
be
banned from the chic but traffic-clogged streets of Paris within 18 months
following a resolution passed by the city council.

Denis Baupin, a leading Green party councilor who tabled the resolution,
says the designer jeeps are "not suited to towns" and he could not
understand why people drove the fashionable "off-roaders."

Or big gas guzzlers...or cars with seating for 5 when only occupied by
1...or....


"They're polluters, they're space-occupiers,

As are all cars

they're dangerous for pedestrians and other road users.

Only when driven by morons, who could make any car 'dangerous for
pedestrians etcetc...'

They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution could lead to a ban
on the increasingly popular vehicles in about 18 months if it is included
in
an overall project to improve traffic flow in the city.

"We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're dangerous to
others
and take up too much space, "

See above

he said on Europe 1 radio.
The city council voted to urge Socialist Mayor Bertrand Delanoe to
consider
banning SUVs, which have become increasingly popular and now make up about
five percent of the French car market -- just below the western Europe
average.

Baupin said Paris, which has been setting aside more lanes for buses and
bicycles since a Socialist and Greens coalition took over City Hall in
2001,
could not legally ban SUVs outright.

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most polluting vehicles," he
said. "That means SUVs and lots of other vehicles that don't meet European
pollution standards."


Why stop at most??....why not all?

Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during peak pollution
periods, and denying their owners residents' parking permits.

Fascists!!...the land where left and right meet, right round the back ;-)

Off-roaders
could also be banned from protected areas like the Bois de Boulogne and
the
banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups, follows similar
remarks by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in May month
described
SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and called their owners
"complete idiots." (Yay! Go Ken! - Ed.)


Yebbut...look at London

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing that just one in
eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car off-road, and six in 10 never take
it
out of town.

and how many ferrari / Lambourghini / whatever owners have taken theirs
racing....they are a product sold openly on the free market, with no
restrictions applied over and above 'normal' cars. To impose restrictions
now would be wholly unreasonable.
No comments about caravan owners using 'em or suchlike I s'pose?

The Guardian added that France caught on late to the vogue for SUVs,
mainly
because Renault, Peugeot and Citroen have not so far offered them.

But with luxury carmakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche selling
plush
leather-upholstered 4x4s, the vehicles are an increasingly common sight in
Paris's wealthier quarters. Sales surged by 11 percent in France last
year.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========


I've got one and love it. Never managed to kill anyone in it yet, or even
graze 'em. Very useful. Passed the exhaust checks on the last MOT, same as
applied to all other vehicles, so how does that make it more polluting
?....in fact, it's a Mercedes diesel engine in it that could use bio-diesel
and become far less polluting than any other carbon fuel based motorised
vehicle on the road. In fact, if the big oil companies and govts. stopped
f*cking about, they could sort out the pollution in no time at all. This
crappy political points scoring is not worth commenting on....so I'l shut up
now and GMC...


Dave.

Vincent Wilcox wrote:

Dave Larrington wrote:
URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) could be
banned from the chic but traffic-clogged streets of Paris within 18 months
following a resolution passed by the city council.


Looks like the French are showing the way forward.

Yes, who made the first MPV then?

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

Andy Hewitt wrote:
Vincent Wilcox wrote:


Dave Larrington wrote:

URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

PARIS, France -- Bulky, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) could be
banned from the chic but traffic-clogged streets of Paris within 18 months
following a resolution passed by the city council.


Looks like the French are showing the way forward.


Yes, who made the first MPV then?


Wasnt it was mostly plastic and a four banger to boot rather
than a rebodied RSJ chassis with a V8?

So what. Who invented concentration camps?

Pillock.

(t'other) Dave opined the following...
Or big gas guzzlers...or cars with seating for 5 when only occupied by
1...or....

They're an easier target for starters. Though if they're prepared to
take steps in this direction, the next obvious one would be a toll on
single-occupant cars.


"They're polluters, they're space-occupiers,

As are all cars

Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes up most room?
This is a sliding scale. For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one
passenger at most) they do more damage to the roads, require more fuel,
take up more room, and are far more intimidating.

they're dangerous for pedestrians and other road users.

Only when driven by morons, who could make any car 'dangerous for
pedestrians etcetc...'

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different maximum G values
for braking vehicles. The basic point is that in the same circumstances,
you can't stop a larger, heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter
one.

They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car exaggerated out
of proportion.

Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution could lead to a ban
on the increasingly popular vehicles in about 18 months if it is included
in
an overall project to improve traffic flow in the city.

"We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're dangerous to
others
and take up too much space, "

See above

See above.

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most polluting vehicles," he
said. "That means SUVs and lots of other vehicles that don't meet European
pollution standards."


Why stop at most??....why not all?

"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most damage for the
same performance. Secondly; removing all polluting vehicles would
severely damage the economy.

Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during peak pollution
periods, and denying their owners residents' parking permits.

Fascists!!...the land where left and right meet, right round the back ;-)

As a 4x4 owner you obviously feel quite strongly about this. As someone
who has suffered a disproportionate number of near misses from them, and
who frequently sees large, heavy, unwieldly status-symbols blocking the
roads around their parent's village when the kids get dropped off at
school, I'd like to see all owners be required to show genuine necessity
or suffer enormous financial penalties.

Off-roaders
could also be banned from protected areas like the Bois de Boulogne and
the
banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups, follows similar
remarks by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in May month
described
SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and called their owners
"complete idiots." (Yay! Go Ken! - Ed.)


Yebbut...look at London

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or an example of
something gone wrong?

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing that just one in
eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car off-road, and six in 10 never take
it
out of town.

and how many ferrari / Lambourghini / whatever owners have taken theirs
racing....they are a product sold openly on the free market, with no
restrictions applied over and above 'normal' cars. To impose restrictions
now would be wholly unreasonable.

The difference being that a genuine sports car has performance
characteristics which are designed for road use. Fast accelaration,
exceptional cornering ability. These can be used during "normal"
driving. The 4x4 is (theoretically) designed to perform well in adverse
conditions such as fording rivers, driving over mountains, pulling tanks
out of muddy fields. To see the executive editions, with their leather
upholstery and carpets pootling around cities with their soft metallic
paint finishes glistening in the sunlight does tend to make a mockery of
their (supposed) intended purpose.

No comments about caravan owners using 'em or suchlike I s'pose?

The only caravan owner I know used to own a Triumph Spitfire for this
purpose. The sporty engine provided all the torque he needed.

I've got one and love it. Never managed to kill anyone in it yet, or even
graze 'em. Very useful.

For moving large bales of hay / straw. Towing vehicles out of muddy
fields. Traversing large estates.

Passed the exhaust checks on the last MOT, same as
applied to all other vehicles, so how does that make it more polluting
?

Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close to the limit,
it's still a pass. Another vehicle can pass the same checks with room to
spare, thus making it less polluting.

....in fact, it's a Mercedes diesel engine in it that could use bio-diesel
and become far less polluting than any other carbon fuel based motorised
vehicle on the road.

True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car could become far
less polluting than your 4x4 if they switched too. I recently read a
report of a new GM 1.3 diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa
series). In their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really roadworthy)
it achieved something like 111mpg. The same engine (presumably the same
car but not the same fuel economy) also took them to 190mph.

In fact, if the big oil companies and govts. stopped
f*cking about, they could sort out the pollution in no time at all.

True, but they have no incentive to do so when the consumers are buying
increasing fuel hungry cars.

This
crappy political points scoring is not worth commenting on....so I'l shut up
now and GMC...

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where practical, at a
level that makes in nonsense not to use public transport. I'd also like
to see bull-bars on 4x4s made completely illegal, and the onus placed on
their owners to demonstrate a legitimate need or face heavy taxation.
But then I hate the things.

Jon

"Jon Senior" jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote in message
...
(t'other) Dave opined the following...
Or big gas guzzlers...or cars with seating for 5 when only occupied by
1...or....

They're an easier target for starters. Though if they're prepared to
take steps in this direction, the next obvious one would be a toll on
single-occupant cars.


"They're polluters, they're space-occupiers,

As are all cars

Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes up most room?
This is a sliding scale.

On which all cars sit.....

For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one
passenger at most) they do more damage to the roads, require more fuel,

My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more on a run.
The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

take up more room, and are far more intimidating.

A matter of perspective.

they're dangerous for pedestrians and other road users.

Only when driven by morons, who could make any car 'dangerous for
pedestrians etcetc...'

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different maximum G values
for braking vehicles. The basic point is that in the same circumstances,
you can't stop a larger, heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter
one.

So one accomodates that fact in driving style and doesn't push it to the
limits. Cornering, accelerating or otherwise.


They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car exaggerated out
of proportion.

But as you've repeatedly stated, they're not a 'normal' car....

Deputy Mayor Baupin said Wednesday that the resolution could lead to a
ban
on the increasingly popular vehicles in about 18 months if it is
included
in
an overall project to improve traffic flow in the city.

"We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're dangerous to
others
and take up too much space, "

See above

See above.

"Our idea is to limit the circulation of the most polluting vehicles,"
he
said. "That means SUVs and lots of other vehicles that don't meet
European
pollution standards."


Why stop at most??....why not all?

"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most damage for the
same performance. Secondly; removing all polluting vehicles would
severely damage the economy.

Ah!, a balance required between the ability of the damaging parasite to get
as much from its host without terminating it...or at least slowing the
process down slightly ;-)
very good.


Plans include banning 4x4s from Paris city centre during peak
pollution
periods, and denying their owners residents' parking permits.

Fascists!!...the land where left and right meet, right round the back
;-)

As a 4x4 owner you obviously feel quite strongly about this. As someone
who has suffered a disproportionate number of near misses from them, and
who frequently sees large, heavy, unwieldly status-symbols blocking the
roads around their parent's village when the kids get dropped off at
school, I'd like to see all owners be required to show genuine necessity
or suffer enormous financial penalties.

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near misses. They were all, by
strange coincidences, horse lorries....driven by women. I got the feeling
that they didn't drive them regularly and therefore weren't quite used to
the size of the things....guess we should ban them too, huh?....The only
other issues I felt I encountered were inconsiderate exec car drivers,
obviously very important and late for some world saving meeting.
.....Agree totally about the school run, but should apply to all motor
vehicles. A congestion charge for parking within half a mile of a school
?.....
....and the local schools here suffer from 40 tonners speeding by, less than
5 feet from 3' nothing tots on their way to school for the day...and what do
the sooper-dooper local caring council do to show their awareness of caring
for future generations??...build a f*cking lorry park 200 yards up the road
from the school, actively encouraging overnight stops from the biggest
polluting damaging vehicles on the road - nice one!!! - we get at least 40
per night, nice and cheap, see?....that's 40 coming past the poor little
sods on the way in, and 40 on the way out.....oh for a few inconveniently
placed 4x4s.


Off-roaders
could also be banned from protected areas like the Bois de Boulogne
and
the
banks of the river Seine.

The proposal, certain to be opposed by motoring groups, follows
similar
remarks by the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in May month
described
SUVs as "bad for London -- completely unnecessary" and called their
owners
"complete idiots." (Yay! Go Ken! - Ed.)


Yebbut...look at London

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or an example of
something gone wrong?

Something gone massively wrong, but obviously, that's just my personal
opinion..

Britain's Guardian newspaper reported a survey showing that just one
in
eight 4x4 drivers had driven their car off-road, and six in 10 never
take
it
out of town.

and how many ferrari / Lambourghini / whatever owners have taken theirs
racing....they are a product sold openly on the free market, with no
restrictions applied over and above 'normal' cars. To impose
restrictions
now would be wholly unreasonable.

The difference being that a genuine sports car has performance
characteristics which are designed for road use. Fast accelaration,
exceptional cornering ability.

and that's how we should be expecting these poor car owners with small
penises to drive in compensation for their lack of tackle??

These can be used during "normal"
driving. The 4x4 is (theoretically) designed to perform well in adverse
conditions such as fording rivers, driving over mountains, pulling tanks
out of muddy fields. To see the executive editions, with their leather
upholstery and carpets pootling around cities with their soft metallic
paint finishes glistening in the sunlight does tend to make a mockery of
their (supposed) intended purpose.

No comments about caravan owners using 'em or suchlike I s'pose?

The only caravan owner I know used to own a Triumph Spitfire for this
purpose. The sporty engine provided all the torque he needed.

Ah yes, forgot about that in the glossy - "..and can even take your family
of five touring with your caravan, in comfort and style"
- I'm not a caravan owner, nor would I ever want to be. Stayed in a few
statics which were....sufficient...but hate the idea of touring with 'em.

I've got one and love it. Never managed to kill anyone in it yet, or
even
graze 'em. Very useful.

For moving large bales of hay / straw. Towing vehicles out of muddy
fields. Traversing large estates.

....and just generally tootling up to the local supermarket on a Saturday,
running the length and breadth of the country on holiday with my family, or
taking my MTB to the Welsh mountains, climbing gear to rockfaces, surfboards
to the beach and that kind of thing....

Passed the exhaust checks on the last MOT, same as
applied to all other vehicles, so how does that make it more polluting
?

Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close to the limit,
it's still a pass. Another vehicle can pass the same checks with room to
spare, thus making it less polluting.

Well within 8-D....believe me, locally there are far more polluting 'little
family runabouts' of the same age than my 'big gas guzzling monster
abhorrence'


....in fact, it's a Mercedes diesel engine in it that could use
bio-diesel
and become far less polluting than any other carbon fuel based motorised
vehicle on the road.

True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car could become far
less polluting than your 4x4 if they switched too. I recently read a
report of a new GM 1.3 diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa
series). In their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really roadworthy)
it achieved something like 111mpg. The same engine (presumably the same
car but not the same fuel economy) also took them to 190mph.

Great...seen the advert. Nice little motor, can't get over a speed hump at
any speed though ;-)....all admiral efforts though, but why do they persist
trying to convince us they are doing us all a favour by continuing to
'develop' more efficient fossil fuel burners when there are other options
readily available. 130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still f*ck
up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and nothing more than a
distraction. The source is the problem and that remains the same.....As the
worlds population increases, along with its 'wealth' more and more
individuals will want the 'luxury' of a motor vehicle. This year you've got
5 million driving vehicles that can do 40 mpg, in 10 years time you've got
50 million in vehicles that can do 100mpg.....it all still leads to
armageddon.


In fact, if the big oil companies and govts. stopped
f*cking about, they could sort out the pollution in no time at all.

True, but they have no incentive to do so when the consumers are buying
increasing fuel hungry cars.

....and the options they are offering are......?
That arguement sits well alongside the 'selling cigarettes to the populace
'cos they buy 'em '....verging on pure evil!

This
crappy political points scoring is not worth commenting on....so I'l
shut up
now and GMC...

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where practical, at a
level that makes in nonsense not to use public transport. I'd also like
to see bull-bars on 4x4s made completely illegal,

....totally agree, only with the provision that the law breakers are
seriously penalised...

and the onus placed on their owners to demonstrate a legitimate need or
face heavy taxation.

Wholly unfair. Maybe on future sales, but existing owners didn't purchase
with a view to having to justify and pay heavier govt. subsidies.

But then I hate the things.

(hadn't noticed ;-)
Which of course, is your perogative


Jon

Love and peace,

Dave.
:-)

(t'other) Dave opined the following...
Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes up most room?
This is a sliding scale.
=20
On which all cars sit.....

At different ends. If you want to start making changes, but don't want=20
to (or can't) make the sweeping change of banning them all, you start=20
with the worst and work from there.
=20
For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one
passenger at most) they do more damage to the roads, require more fuel,
=20
My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more on a run.
The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A 'normal' 4x4=20
presents a greater surface area to the wind, thus suffering higher drag,=20
and weighs more than a 'normal' car. Like-for-like, the car is going to=20
have better efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old Volvo, but=20
it's on a par with my dad's (very) old Vauxhall Astra, and not a=20
contender to my mother's (much newer) Renault Megane.

take up more room, and are far more intimidating.

A matter of perspective.

To return to a previous comparison. Modern equivalent to the Bubble Car=20
(Smart) vs 4x4. The latter has a higher driving position, more angular=20
bodywork and is larger in general. If I have to be overtaken too=20
closely, by one of them, I'd prefer the Smart car.

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different maximum G value=
s
for braking vehicles. The basic point is that in the same circumstances=
,
you can't stop a larger, heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter
one.

So one accomodates that fact in driving style and doesn't push it to the
limits. Cornering, accelerating or otherwise.

Most (IME) don't. Most are blissfully unaware of this.
=20
They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car exaggerated ou=
t
of proportion.

But as you've repeatedly stated, they're not a 'normal' car....

Because they are a caricature of a car... this could go round and round.=20
;-)

"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most damage for the
same performance. Secondly; removing all polluting vehicles would
severely damage the economy.
=20
Ah!, a balance required between the ability of the damaging parasite to g=
et
as much from its host without terminating it...or at least slowing the
process down slightly ;-)
very good.

True. But the balance needs to exist. The Parisian economy will not=20
suffer greatly from a ban / tax on 4x4s. It would suffer greatly from a=20
ban on all motorised vehicles. Since there is a beneficial effect from=20
both, but one has an enormous downside... you do the beneficial one.

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near misses. They were all,=
by
strange coincidences, horse lorries....driven by women. I got the feeling
that they didn't drive them regularly and therefore weren't quite used to
the size of the things....guess we should ban them too, huh?....The only
other issues I felt I encountered were inconsiderate exec car drivers,
obviously very important and late for some world saving meeting.

Of the two, I've had far more problems (Both as a cyclist and as a=20
driver) with the car-ridden execs. With regard to the trailers, since it=20
is very difficult to find a trailer which a new driver (Since 1997) can=20
tow, the government has already done this. You now have to take a=20
trailer test in order to tow one.

....Agree totally about the school run, but should apply to all motor
vehicles. A congestion charge for parking within half a mile of a school

Definately. I'd be in favour of having an enormous fleet of lifters on=20
stand by to take away any car breaking the rule. A =A3100+ fine for=20
parking would soon discourage them!

?.....
...and the local schools here suffer from 40 tonners speeding by, less th=
an
5 feet from 3' nothing tots on their way to school for the day...and what=
do
the sooper-dooper local caring council do to show their awareness of cari=
ng
for future generations??...build a f*cking lorry park 200 yards up the ro=
ad
from the school, actively encouraging overnight stops from the biggest
polluting damaging vehicles on the road - nice one!!! - we get at least 4=
0
per night, nice and cheap, see?....that's 40 coming past the poor little
sods on the way in, and 40 on the way out.....oh for a few inconveniently
placed 4x4s.

While I agree that a lorry park has no place near a school, until we get=20
a government with the sense to force freight onto rail, I think that=20
lorries are going to remain useful. An economic thing again!

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or an example of
something gone wrong?

Something gone massively wrong, but obviously, that's just my personal
opinion..

Congestion charging? Everyone I've spoken to who lives there goes on=20
about how much better life is since it was introduced.
=20
and that's how we should be expecting these poor car owners with small
penises to drive in compensation for their lack of tackle??

Indeed. The point however was that the performance features of a sports=20
car are designed to be appreciated on-road, while those of a 4x4 are=20
designed to be appreciated off-road.
=20
Ah yes, forgot about that in the glossy - "..and can even take your famil=
y
of five touring with your caravan, in comfort and style"

He wasn't the only one. A reasonable number of the sports car owners=20
that I've met over the years, had one for the towing ability.

...and just generally tootling up to the local supermarket on a Saturday,

Bike / car.

running the length and breadth of the country on holiday with my family,

Car.

or
taking my MTB to the Welsh mountains,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

climbing gear to rockfaces,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

surfboards

Car. Probably wouldn't want to cycle with a surfboard.

to the beach and that kind of thing....

As in... things that don't actually require 4 wheel drive. Things that=20
can all be achieved with an ordinary car (Maybe requiring a roof rack),=20
or which at most might need an estate.
=20
Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close to the limit,
it's still a pass. Another vehicle can pass the same checks with room t=
o
spare, thus making it less polluting.

Well within 8-D....believe me, locally there are far more polluting 'litt=
le
family runabouts' of the same age than my 'big gas guzzling monster
abhorrence'

What is your 'big gas guzzling monster abhorrence'? Just think what=20
wonderous things could be done by putting that engine and transmission=20
into a lighter weight, more aerodynamic car.
=20
True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car could become fa=
r
less polluting than your 4x4 if they switched too. I recently read a
report of a new GM 1.3 diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa
series). In their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really roadworthy)
it achieved something like 111mpg. The same engine (presumably the same
car but not the same fuel economy) also took them to 190mph.
=20
Great...seen the advert. Nice little motor, can't get over a speed hump a=
t
any speed though ;-)

Not meant to... it was a showcase vehicle.

....all admiral efforts though, but why do they persist
trying to convince us they are doing us all a favour by continuing to
'develop' more efficient fossil fuel burners when there are other options
readily available.

Since it is a diesel it will also probably easily convert to bio-diesel.=20
In the meantime... like-for-like against other vehicles it will use=20
considerably less fuel. This is a Good Thing (TM).

130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still f*ck
up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and nothing more tha=
n a
distraction.=20

To quote your example. 130mpg vs 30mpg means over 4 times the distance=20
for the same negative effect. Yes fossil fuels will still run out, but=20
that's not a good reason to burn through as fast as possible.

The source is the problem and that remains the same.....As the
worlds population increases, along with its 'wealth' more and more
individuals will want the 'luxury' of a motor vehicle. This year you've g=
ot
5 million driving vehicles that can do 40 mpg, in 10 years time you've go=
t
50 million in vehicles that can do 100mpg.....it all still leads to
armageddon.

Better than 50 million in vehicles that do 40mpg.
=20
True, but they have no incentive to do so when the consumers are buying
increasing fuel hungry cars.

...and the options they are offering are......?

Only on the increase due to university projects and home-builds. IIRC=20
Ford were recently (within the last 2 years) demonstrating an electric=20
car.

That arguement sits well alongside the 'selling cigarettes to the populac=
e
'cos they buy 'em '....verging on pure evil!

Possibly. The difference is that smoking is (AFAIK) on the decrease,=20
while purchasing of over-sized, over-specced, under-performing cars is=20
on the increase.

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where practical, at =
a
level that makes in nonsense not to use public transport. I'd also like
to see bull-bars on 4x4s made completely illegal,
=20
...totally agree, only with the provision that the law breakers are
seriously penalised...

Yup. Ban from driving and a compulsory purchase of a bicycle to be used=20
as a replacement vehicle.
=20
and the onus placed on their owners to demonstrate a legitimate need or
face heavy taxation.
=20
Wholly unfair. Maybe on future sales, but existing owners didn't purchase
with a view to having to justify and pay heavier govt. subsidies.

Those that bought them for genuine off-road use will have no problems=20
with this. Those that bought them as a status-symbol can usually afford=20
it anyway. There will be one or two caught in the middle who can=20
undoubtedly survive with a smaller car.

But then I hate the things.

(hadn't noticed ;-)

He he.

Which of course, is your perogative

Free Country an' all that.

Jon.

"Jon Senior" jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote in message
...
(t'other) Dave opined the following...
Smart car vs. Renault Espace. Which is heavier and takes up most room?
This is a sliding scale.

On which all cars sit.....

At different ends. If you want to start making changes, but don't want
to (or can't) make the sweeping change of banning them all, you start
with the worst and work from there.

For their normal usage (on-road, carrying one
passenger at most) they do more damage to the roads, require more fuel,

My old Volvo used to do 18-20mpg, my 4x4 does 32mpg, more on a run.
The Volvo was designed as a 'road' car

And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A 'normal' 4x4
presents a greater surface area to the wind, thus suffering higher drag,
and weighs more than a 'normal' car. Like-for-like, the car is going to
have better efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old Volvo, but
it's on a par with my dad's (very) old Vauxhall Astra, and not a
contender to my mother's (much newer) Renault Megane.

take up more room, and are far more intimidating.

A matter of perspective.

To return to a previous comparison. Modern equivalent to the Bubble Car
(Smart) vs 4x4. The latter has a higher driving position, more angular
bodywork and is larger in general. If I have to be overtaken too
closely, by one of them, I'd prefer the Smart car.

I'd prefer not to be overtaken too closely by anything, so ride
accordingly...

See an earlier thread where Guy (IIRC) posted different maximum G values
for braking vehicles. The basic point is that in the same circumstances,
you can't stop a larger, heavier car as quickly as a smaller lighter
one.

So one accomodates that fact in driving style and doesn't push it to the
limits. Cornering, accelerating or otherwise.

Most (IME) don't. Most are blissfully unaware of this.

Yeah...perhaps an insistence on an additional driving course when
purchasing.

They're a caricature of a car."

Interesting statement...wtf does it mean ?

It means that they have had the normal features of a car exaggerated out
of proportion.

But as you've repeatedly stated, they're not a 'normal' car....

Because they are a caricature of a car... this could go round and round.
;-)

It could, but they're 4x4s, not 'normal' cars.....


"the most" ie. The top percentile which cause the most damage for the
same performance. Secondly; removing all polluting vehicles would
severely damage the economy.

Ah!, a balance required between the ability of the damaging parasite to
get
as much from its host without terminating it...or at least slowing the
process down slightly ;-)
very good.

True. But the balance needs to exist. The Parisian economy will not
suffer greatly from a ban / tax on 4x4s. It would suffer greatly from a
ban on all motorised vehicles. Since there is a beneficial effect from
both, but one has an enormous downside... you do the beneficial one.

I rode e2e a year last March. I encountered 3 near misses. They were all,
by
strange coincidences, horse lorries....driven by women. I got the feeling
that they didn't drive them regularly and therefore weren't quite used to
the size of the things....guess we should ban them too, huh?....The only
other issues I felt I encountered were inconsiderate exec car drivers,
obviously very important and late for some world saving meeting.

Of the two, I've had far more problems (Both as a cyclist and as a
driver) with the car-ridden execs. With regard to the trailers, since it
is very difficult to find a trailer which a new driver (Since 1997) can
tow, the government has already done this. You now have to take a
trailer test in order to tow one.

....Agree totally about the school run, but should apply to all motor
vehicles. A congestion charge for parking within half a mile of a school

Definately. I'd be in favour of having an enormous fleet of lifters on
stand by to take away any car breaking the rule. A £100+ fine for
parking would soon discourage them!

That'd do.....

?.....
...and the local schools here suffer from 40 tonners speeding by, less
than
5 feet from 3' nothing tots on their way to school for the day...and what
do
the sooper-dooper local caring council do to show their awareness of
caring
for future generations??...build a f*cking lorry park 200 yards up the
road
from the school, actively encouraging overnight stops from the biggest
polluting damaging vehicles on the road - nice one!!! - we get at least 40
per night, nice and cheap, see?....that's 40 coming past the poor little
sods on the way in, and 40 on the way out.....oh for a few inconveniently
placed 4x4s.

While I agree that a lorry park has no place near a school, until we get
a government with the sense to force freight onto rail, I think that
lorries are going to remain useful. An economic thing again!

What about it? Are you holding it up as a good thing, or an example of
something gone wrong?

Something gone massively wrong, but obviously, that's just my personal
opinion..

Congestion charging? Everyone I've spoken to who lives there goes on
about how much better life is since it was introduced.

Not the congestion charging, just London as a general thing

and that's how we should be expecting these poor car owners with small
penises to drive in compensation for their lack of tackle??

Indeed. The point however was that the performance features of a sports
car are designed to be appreciated on-road, while those of a 4x4 are
designed to be appreciated off-road.

Ah yes, forgot about that in the glossy - "..and can even take your family
of five touring with your caravan, in comfort and style"

He wasn't the only one. A reasonable number of the sports car owners
that I've met over the years, had one for the towing ability.

...and just generally tootling up to the local supermarket on a Saturday,

Bike / car.

I am actually thinking of buying a Ford Ka for just that purpose. My wife
don't do bikes!

running the length and breadth of the country on holiday with my family,

Car.

need room, tend to go self catering...

or
taking my MTB to the Welsh mountains,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

Convenience of lobbing bikes in back wins out.

climbing gear to rockfaces,

Car / cycle it there (Depends where you live obviously)

Provides cost free sleeping facilities (very comfortable...or as a climbing
friend said - "that is the most comfortable car I've ever slept in...and
I've slept in a few!!")...and we are both over 6'

surfboards

Car. Probably wouldn't want to cycle with a surfboard.

Ford Ka??....hhhmmm, have to get a slightly bigger one for that...gosh, at
this rate I'll end up with more cars than bikes...and I've only got 10 bikes
;-)

to the beach and that kind of thing....

As in... things that don't actually require 4 wheel drive. Things that
can all be achieved with an ordinary car (Maybe requiring a roof rack),
or which at most might need an estate.

Choice....I can do it all in my (wifes) 4x4, ta!....not doing it every day,
but haven't got to anything yet that I haven't managed to do in it...

Simple. If your vehicle passes the checks, but is close to the limit,
it's still a pass. Another vehicle can pass the same checks with room to
spare, thus making it less polluting.

Well within 8-D....believe me, locally there are far more polluting
'little
family runabouts' of the same age than my 'big gas guzzling monster
abhorrence'

What is your 'big gas guzzling monster abhorrence'? Just think what
wonderous things could be done by putting that engine and transmission
into a lighter weight, more aerodynamic car.

See below....


True. But of course a more efficient diesel engined car could become far
less polluting than your 4x4 if they switched too. I recently read a
report of a new GM 1.3 diesel engine (Soon to become part of the Corsa
series). In their special ultra-aerodynamic car (Not really roadworthy)
it achieved something like 111mpg. The same engine (presumably the same
car but not the same fuel economy) also took them to 190mph.

Great...seen the advert. Nice little motor, can't get over a speed hump at
any speed though ;-)

Not meant to... it was a showcase vehicle.

and a joke....on my part there...

....all admiral efforts though, but why do they persist
trying to convince us they are doing us all a favour by continuing to
'develop' more efficient fossil fuel burners when there are other options
readily available.

Since it is a diesel it will also probably easily convert to bio-diesel.
In the meantime... like-for-like against other vehicles it will use
considerably less fuel. This is a Good Thing (TM).

130mpg or 30mpg it'll still run out!!...it'll still f*ck
up the environment big time!!, the mpg is irrelevant and nothing more than
a
distraction.

To quote your example. 130mpg vs 30mpg means over 4 times the distance
for the same negative effect. Yes fossil fuels will still run out, but
that's not a good reason to burn through as fast as possible.

Agreed, but see previous below...

The source is the problem and that remains the same.....As the
worlds population increases, along with its 'wealth' more and more
individuals will want the 'luxury' of a motor vehicle. This year you've
got
5 million driving vehicles that can do 40 mpg, in 10 years time you've got
50 million in vehicles that can do 100mpg.....it all still leads to
armageddon.

Better than 50 million in vehicles that do 40mpg.

But only marginally and temporarily, in the geological timescale of
things.....

True, but they have no incentive to do so when the consumers are buying
increasing fuel hungry cars.

...and the options they are offering are......?

Only on the increase due to university projects and home-builds. IIRC
Ford were recently (within the last 2 years) demonstrating an electric
car.

and whatever happened to the water powered motors that the oil companies all
bought up and suppressed??...


That arguement sits well alongside the 'selling cigarettes to the populace
'cos they buy 'em '....verging on pure evil!

Possibly. The difference is that smoking is (AFAIK) on the decrease,
while purchasing of over-sized, over-specced, under-performing cars is
on the increase.

I'd like to see congestion charging in all cities, where practical, at a
level that makes in nonsense not to use public transport. I'd also like
to see bull-bars on 4x4s made completely illegal,

...totally agree, only with the provision that the law breakers are
seriously penalised...

Yup. Ban from driving and a compulsory purchase of a bicycle to be used
as a replacement vehicle.

eminently reasonable...

and the onus placed on their owners to demonstrate a legitimate need or
face heavy taxation.

Wholly unfair. Maybe on future sales, but existing owners didn't purchase
with a view to having to justify and pay heavier govt. subsidies.

Those that bought them for genuine off-road use will have no problems
with this. Those that bought them as a status-symbol can usually afford
it anyway. There will be one or two caught in the middle who can
undoubtedly survive with a smaller car.

98% of the population could happily survive without a car at all...I know, I
tried it following a temporary loss of licence several years
ago...however....
So why penalise one particular section when they're all (mostly) being
selfish and thoughtless?....it's only a matter of degree.

But then I hate the things.

(hadn't noticed ;-)

He he.

Which of course, is your perogative

Free Country an' all that.

Jon.

indeed...tired now, going to bed.....
.....only response I can give is that I like it....it's actually my wife's
car, but she don't drive and wanted our own following loss of my company car
Freelander when I took voluntary redundancy. She *really liked* that....As
it is we now have a Ssangyong Musso, No. 50 in Jeremy Clarkson's 50 worst
vehicles ever, (see - not a status symbol ;-)
I checked his reasoning and it was mainly because it is slow and not very
aesthetically pleasing (to him). He actually reckoned the diesel was not
quite as disappointing as the petrol, although the GX220 will happily see
off most hot hatches.
Funnily enough, since I took it in to have a transmission oil leak fixed
last November, the switchable 4x4 hasn't worked, so I 've been driving in 2
wheel drive. I'd only switch to 4 wheel drive off road and so far this
hasn't been a problem....
yawn...bored now, night-night....
Dave.

(t'other) Dave wrote:

At different ends. If you want to start making changes, but don't want
to (or can't) make the sweeping change of banning them all, you start
with the worst and work from there.

snip


And what fuel economy does a modern Volvo achieve. A 'normal' 4x4
presents a greater surface area to the wind, thus suffering higher drag,
and weighs more than a 'normal' car. Like-for-like, the car is going to
have better efficiency. I'm sure that your 4x4 beats your old Volvo, but
it's on a par with my dad's (very) old Vauxhall Astra, and not a
contender to my mother's (much newer) Renault Megane.


Good idea. So starting from the worst means getting rid of all the old cars
with their low efficiency high pollution engines such as the old Volvos. Ban
all cars older than say P-reg.

Tony