Government Committee proposes £1800 car tax for 4x4

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
> If this carries on, the country will be bled dry by the
>energy producers and reduced to the role of a vassal state, within the next
>15 years.
>

We already are a vassal state within Europe, hadn't you noticed?

Alex
 
On Thursday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Alex" wrote:

> > If this carries on, the country will be bled dry by the
> >energy producers and reduced to the role of a vassal state, within the next
> >15 years.
> >
>
> We already are a vassal state within Europe, hadn't you noticed?

The real feudal system, which wasn't all that commonplace, and soon got
warped out of all recognition, was one of the last political systems in
Europe which wasn't built on principles found in an abusive parental
relationship.



--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
 
Yep the next bit of craziness, which sounds more real a threat than the lib
dems heavy bias on the all party committees decision is daylight running
lights. On a series? you must be joking. If they really want to harmonise we
will all be driving on the same side of the road as Johnny Foreigner, and
that is just not British.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> We already are a vassal state within Europe, hadn't you noticed?
>
> Alex


 
Larry wrote:
> Yep the next bit of craziness, which sounds more real a threat than the lib
> dems heavy bias on the all party committees decision is daylight running
> lights.
Brilliant energy conservation measure - I wonder how many extra tonnes
of CO2 THAT releases.

Steve
 
On or around Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:31:15 +0100, steve
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Larry wrote:
>> Yep the next bit of craziness, which sounds more real a threat than the lib
>> dems heavy bias on the all party committees decision is daylight running
>> lights.
>Brilliant energy conservation measure - I wonder how many extra tonnes
>of CO2 THAT releases.

quite a lot - especially if they're talking about headlights. Running with
lights on uses about 150W on a typical car (plus another 110 for the fog
lights on chavmobiles, of course). say there are, on average, I dunno, 10
million cars on the road at any time in daylight hours, so that'll be 1500MW
of power, all of it generated in inefficient oil-burning generators, 'cos
the car's efficiency as an electricity generator is not a major design
issue. About as much as a decent-sized nuclear power station...

Even if there are only 1 million on the road, and I seriously doubt that,
it's 150MW.

and even if you go the same way the Swedes did, with 21W running lights,
then you still want about 54W per car for a pair at the front and a pair of
rear lights, so those 10M cars are still eating 540MW of power to little
purpose.

typical crap spouted by someone who's not even begun to think about the
consequences.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
Robert Frost (1874-1963) from Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
 
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:31:15 +0100, steve
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry wrote:
>> Yep the next bit of craziness, which sounds more real a threat than the lib
>> dems heavy bias on the all party committees decision is daylight running
>> lights.
>Brilliant energy conservation measure - I wonder how many extra tonnes
>of CO2 THAT releases.
>

Dunno, but ask the next council road planner how much extra CO2 is
released into the atmosphere due to road humps and see what he says.

Alex
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:31:15 +0100, steve
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>Yep the next bit of craziness, which sounds more real a threat than the lib
>>>dems heavy bias on the all party committees decision is daylight running
>>>lights.
>>
>>Brilliant energy conservation measure - I wonder how many extra tonnes
>>of CO2 THAT releases.
>
>
> quite a lot - especially if they're talking about headlights. Running with
> lights on uses about 150W on a typical car (plus another 110 for the fog
> lights on chavmobiles, of course). say there are, on average, I dunno, 10
> million cars on the road at any time in daylight hours, so that'll be 1500MW
> of power, all of it generated in inefficient oil-burning generators, 'cos
> the car's efficiency as an electricity generator is not a major design
> issue. About as much as a decent-sized nuclear power station...
>
> Even if there are only 1 million on the road, and I seriously doubt that,
> it's 150MW.
>
> and even if you go the same way the Swedes did, with 21W running lights,
> then you still want about 54W per car for a pair at the front and a pair of
> rear lights, so those 10M cars are still eating 540MW of power to little
> purpose.

In Sweden it's for road safety purposes, and it really does make it a
lot easier to see other cars in certain weather conditions; fog, early
morning haze, dusty weather, even just cars painted in colours that
blend in too easily. It makes a lot of sense.

(Yeah, guess who grew up in Sweden?)
 
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:35:34 +0100, Torak <[email protected]> wrote:

> Austin Shackles wrote:
>> On or around Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:31:15 +0100, steve
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep the next bit of craziness, which sounds more real a threat than
>>>> the lib
>>>> dems heavy bias on the all party committees decision is daylight
>>>> running
>>>> lights.
>>>
>>> Brilliant energy conservation measure - I wonder how many extra tonnes
>>> of CO2 THAT releases.
>> quite a lot - especially if they're talking about headlights.
>> Running with
>> lights on uses about 150W on a typical car (plus another 110 for the fog
>> lights on chavmobiles, of course). say there are, on average, I dunno,
>> 10
>> million cars on the road at any time in daylight hours, so that'll be
>> 1500MW
>> of power, all of it generated in inefficient oil-burning generators,
>> 'cos
>> the car's efficiency as an electricity generator is not a major design
>> issue. About as much as a decent-sized nuclear power station...
>> Even if there are only 1 million on the road, and I seriously doubt
>> that,
>> it's 150MW. and even if you go the same way the Swedes did, with 21W
>> running lights,
>> then you still want about 54W per car for a pair at the front and a
>> pair of
>> rear lights, so those 10M cars are still eating 540MW of power to little
>> purpose.
>
> In Sweden it's for road safety purposes, and it really does make it a
> lot easier to see other cars in certain weather conditions; fog, early
> morning haze, dusty weather, even just cars painted in colours that
> blend in too easily. It makes a lot of sense.
>
> (Yeah, guess who grew up in Sweden?)

Please don't encourage them. I am quite capable of deciding what
qualifies as poor visibility and will make use of the illumination
facilities on my vehicle to assist other road users in noticing my
presence. The last thing I need is for every driver to become light-blind
because every vehicle has lights blazing during the day.

"Common sense - waassat?"

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:58:10 +0100, "William Tasso"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> In Sweden it's for road safety purposes, and it really does make it a
>> lot easier to see other cars in certain weather conditions; fog, early
>> morning haze, dusty weather, even just cars painted in colours that
>> blend in too easily. It makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> (Yeah, guess who grew up in Sweden?)
>
>Please don't encourage them. I am quite capable of deciding what
>qualifies as poor visibility and will make use of the illumination
>facilities on my vehicle to assist other road users in noticing my
>presence. The last thing I need is for every driver to become light-blind
>because every vehicle has lights blazing during the day.
>
>"Common sense - waassat?"

You may have common sense but a large number of other people out on
the road do not!

I'm a saab driver, so quite like DRL's ;). On my saab it is just the
sidelights that stay on all the time NOT the headlights. The normal
sidelight bulbs are not very bright and i wouldnt say they 'blazed'.
They make the car that little bit more obvious - in the same way that
bike riders often keep their lights on all the time.

There are quite a few occasions where i have thought to myself that
the car infront would have been a lot more obvious if it had lights
on. Sudden rain storms or snow/fog are the most common.

Like when it suddenly starts ****ing it down really heavily in the
afternoon on the way home from work and you are on a busy dual
carriageway/motorway and there is loads of road spray not that many
people seem to turn their lights on - but it helps a lot and stops
cars suddenly appearing infront of you as they become visible..
 
Tom Woods wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:58:10 +0100, "William Tasso"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>In Sweden it's for road safety purposes, and it really does make it a
>>>lot easier to see other cars in certain weather conditions; fog, early
>>>morning haze, dusty weather, even just cars painted in colours that
>>>blend in too easily. It makes a lot of sense.
>>>
>>>(Yeah, guess who grew up in Sweden?)
>>
>>Please don't encourage them. I am quite capable of deciding what
>>qualifies as poor visibility and will make use of the illumination
>>facilities on my vehicle to assist other road users in noticing my
>>presence. The last thing I need is for every driver to become light-blind
>>because every vehicle has lights blazing during the day.
>>
>>"Common sense - waassat?"
>
>
> You may have common sense but a large number of other people out on
> the road do not!

And half of those cruise up and down the high street on Friday nights...

> I'm a saab driver, so quite like DRL's ;). On my saab it is just the
> sidelights that stay on all the time NOT the headlights. The normal
> sidelight bulbs are not very bright and i wouldnt say they 'blazed'.
> They make the car that little bit more obvious - in the same way that
> bike riders often keep their lights on all the time.
>
> There are quite a few occasions where i have thought to myself that
> the car infront would have been a lot more obvious if it had lights
> on. Sudden rain storms or snow/fog are the most common.
>
> Like when it suddenly starts ****ing it down really heavily in the
> afternoon on the way home from work and you are on a busy dual
> carriageway/motorway and there is loads of road spray not that many
> people seem to turn their lights on - but it helps a lot and stops
> cars suddenly appearing infront of you as they become visible..

Exactly. Or grey cars (why are they so popular now, anyway?) on grey
roads on overcast days... the buggers turn invisible.
 

"Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:58:10 +0100, "William Tasso"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> In Sweden it's for road safety purposes, and it really does make it a
> >> lot easier to see other cars in certain weather conditions; fog, early
> >> morning haze, dusty weather, even just cars painted in colours that
> >> blend in too easily. It makes a lot of sense.
> >>
> >> (Yeah, guess who grew up in Sweden?)
> >
> >Please don't encourage them. I am quite capable of deciding what
> >qualifies as poor visibility and will make use of the illumination
> >facilities on my vehicle to assist other road users in noticing my
> >presence. The last thing I need is for every driver to become
light-blind
> >because every vehicle has lights blazing during the day.
> >
> >"Common sense - waassat?"
>
> You may have common sense but a large number of other people out on
> the road do not!
>

Well, that's what the driving test is supposed to do, to make sure *all*
drivers have road sense, common or otherwise.

> I'm a saab driver, so quite like DRL's ;). On my saab it is just the
> sidelights that stay on all the time NOT the headlights. The normal
> sidelight bulbs are not very bright and i wouldnt say they 'blazed'.
> They make the car that little bit more obvious - in the same way that
> bike riders often keep their lights on all the time.
>

I still prefer the choice.

> There are quite a few occasions where i have thought to myself that
> the car infront would have been a lot more obvious if it had lights
> on. Sudden rain storms or snow/fog are the most common.
>
> Like when it suddenly starts ****ing it down really heavily in the
> afternoon on the way home from work and you are on a busy dual
> carriageway/motorway and there is loads of road spray not that many
> people seem to turn their lights on - but it helps a lot and stops
> cars suddenly appearing infront of you as they become visible..

It's a legal requirement to run with lights in such conditions. What p155es
me off is when in fog and you catch up with someone, the driver in front
knows you're behind but still keeps his high intensity rears switched on.

Martin


 
Tom Woods wrote:

|| They make the car that little bit more obvious - in the same way that
|| bike riders often keep their lights on all the time.

Headlights on a bike is one of the few ways that bikers can make themselves
more noticeable to car drivers. This measure would remove that small
advantage.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.


 
Tom Woods wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:58:10 +0100, "William Tasso"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> In Sweden it's for road safety purposes, and it really does make it
>>> a lot easier to see other cars in certain weather conditions; fog,
>>> early morning haze, dusty weather, even just cars painted in
>>> colours that blend in too easily. It makes a lot of sense.
>>>
>>> (Yeah, guess who grew up in Sweden?)
>>
>> Please don't encourage them. I am quite capable of deciding what
>> qualifies as poor visibility and will make use of the illumination
>> facilities on my vehicle to assist other road users in noticing my
>> presence. The last thing I need is for every driver to become
>> light-blind because every vehicle has lights blazing during the day.
>>
>> "Common sense - waassat?"
>
> You may have common sense but a large number of other people out on
> the road do not!
>
> I'm a saab driver, so quite like DRL's ;). On my saab it is just the
> sidelights that stay on all the time NOT the headlights. The normal
> sidelight bulbs are not very bright and i wouldnt say they 'blazed'.
> They make the car that little bit more obvious - in the same way that
> bike riders often keep their lights on all the time.

Indeed, but must they keep them on main beam all the time?

>
> There are quite a few occasions where i have thought to myself that
> the car infront would have been a lot more obvious if it had lights
> on. Sudden rain storms or snow/fog are the most common.
>
> Like when it suddenly starts ****ing it down really heavily in the
> afternoon on the way home from work and you are on a busy dual
> carriageway/motorway and there is loads of road spray not that many
> people seem to turn their lights on - but it helps a lot and stops
> cars suddenly appearing infront of you as they become visible..



--
If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you
asked for not what you wanted!

Do not say it cannot be done, rather what is needed for it to be done!


 
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:42:14 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Woods wrote:
>
>|| They make the car that little bit more obvious - in the same way that
>|| bike riders often keep their lights on all the time.
>
>Headlights on a bike is one of the few ways that bikers can make themselves
>more noticeable to car drivers. This measure would remove that small
>advantage.

It would really remove it, theyre still going to be more obvious, its
just that the cars will show up too.

If they do actually force this rule through then i think it is about
the only new ruling that i know about that i dont disagree with!
 
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:08:54 +0100, "Oily"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Well, that's what the driving test is supposed to do, to make sure *all*
>drivers have road sense, common or otherwise.
>
You say that like everybody on the road drives perfectly! ;)

>I still prefer the choice.

true, the choice is nice but having to put up with everybody using
DRL's wouldnt really harm you in any way.
In full daylight i dont think that my sidelights even show up much
anyway. They only start showing up as soon as the light drops (which
is when you need them anyway)

>
>It's a legal requirement to run with lights in such conditions. What p155es
>me off is when in fog and you catch up with someone, the driver in front
>knows you're behind but still keeps his high intensity rears switched on.

I wonder how often the requirement is enforced or how many people get
pulled over for it. Not many i guess!. Not the easiest thing to
enforce i suppose.
 
Tom Woods wrote:

> It would really remove it, theyre still going to be more obvious, its
> just that the cars will show up too.

Bet you pedestrian RTAs go up, especially in winter.

Steve
 

"Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message:-
> >
> You say that like everybody on the road drives perfectly! ;)
>
I wasn't aware that I'd been following you Tom :), would be nice if
they did though. The consideration for other road users is what's missing
now.

Martin.


> >I still prefer the choice.
>
> true, the choice is nice but having to put up with everybody using
> DRL's wouldnt really harm you in any way.
> In full daylight i dont think that my sidelights even show up much
> anyway. They only start showing up as soon as the light drops (which
> is when you need them anyway)
>
> >
> >It's a legal requirement to run with lights in such conditions. What
p155es
> >me off is when in fog and you catch up with someone, the driver in front
> >knows you're behind but still keeps his high intensity rears switched on.
>
> I wonder how often the requirement is enforced or how many people get
> pulled over for it. Not many i guess!. Not the easiest thing to
> enforce i suppose.


 

On 13-Aug-2006, "GbH" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Indeed, but must they keep them on main beam all the time?

NO!!, i'd rather you pull out on me and write both my life and my £5K bike
off!!! Don't be such a dipstick, bikers use theirs like because drivers
DON'T use their eyes!
 
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:50:11 +0100, "Oily"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message:-
>> >
>> You say that like everybody on the road drives perfectly! ;)
>>
> I wasn't aware that I'd been following you Tom :), would be nice if
>they did though. The consideration for other road users is what's missing
>now.

Theres a reason why i only drive cars that have proper bumpers rather
than ornamental ones! :)

 
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:57:39 +0100, <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> On 13-Aug-2006, "GbH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Indeed, but must they keep them on main beam all the time?
>
> NO!!, i'd rather you pull out on me and write both my life and my £5K
> bike
> off!!! Don't be such a dipstick, bikers use theirs like because drivers
> DON'T use their eyes!

Main beam is a pain - it's too bright. Folk in front can't tell how far
back you are.

Use whatever device your imagination can think of to ensure your
visibility but don't make it hard work for other road users.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Freelander 1 VCU off for car how to test
Replies
2
Views
740
GrumpyGel
GrumpyGel
ER1C
For Sale CAR RAMPS [sold]
Replies
0
Views
968
ER1C
ER1C
doriz
Series 3 Doriz LR illness 109”
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
9K
doriz
doriz
H
Building the dream 110
Replies
16
Views
3K
shaynecm
S
ryan_1993
Understanding a few 1990s Land Rover Trim/Options for the CSW (Research)
Replies
11
Views
3K
Stevetheplant
S
Back
Top