Kens proposed 4x4 ban

"Mother" <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When _did_ we ever live in a true "democracy"?
>
> Can you tell me any subject of any State who does?
> The Americans p'raps?

Of course. The greatest democracy in the world!

On the understanding that big 4x4's guzzle fuel, are big and heavy, low
miles to gallon. I propose we ban all big cars of same ilk eg. Bentley's,
Rollers, Jaguars ( or two ) etc. Won't half bugger up the ministerial perks
for the jerks ??

I seem to remember a time ago the term NIMBY was the in word, seems its
back. Wonder what school little Livinstone will go to ........... London
Oratory perhaps ??




> So our Ken, Mayor of London, is proposing some sort of ban on large,
> polluting, gas guzzling 4x4's entering the city and seems to be receiving
> some applause from various sections.
> Whilst this would not affect most manufacturers much, e.g.Toyota would
just
> sell more cars, what effect would it have on Land Rover who don't make
> anything else other than the aforementioned 4x4's?
> Also, I wonder if a Defender van would be caught up in this too, I know
two
> workmen that use these in preference to a normal van.
>
> Is it me, or are we no longer living in a democracy.

In message <[email protected]>, Bob Hobden <[email protected]>
writes
<snip>
>Interestingly, as an example of how a politician thinks, I believe it's the
>French that intend to have a special extra £2,500 Purchase Tax on 4x4's.
<Snip>
A typical Chirac move - guess which countries automotive manufacturers
do not actually build any 4x4's (how I hate the term SUV). Just means
the French will order them from Belgian dealers.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

"Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My understanding is that Ken wants 4x4's banned in London and others,
> especially some Lib Dems, want a ban on the School Run nationwide. How
they
> intend to legislate that beggars belief and may well show up their
ignorance
> of the types of vehicles involved.

It's frustrating as a Lib Dem voter that the Torys and Labour can do
ridiculous things, like invade other countries for political reasons, mess
around with the education system so only rich kids can go to university,
blow a billion pounds on a useless dome, etc*, and largely get away with it;
whereas the Lib Dems make some stupid comments about 4x4s and all of a
sudden get universally slated for it. Let's not forget what the Labour
government is doing about rights-of-way for 4x4s.

Yes, I disagree with it too, but don't forget that the Lib Dems have a lot
of sensible policies too! They may not be perfect but they're a hell of a
lot better than the rest of 'em, in many respects. I'm not saying they're
up to running the country, but hey, give it time.

It's like the Lib Dems break somebody's window and get sent down for it,
whilst the government are driving round gunning down old ladies and nuns in
the street and everybody puts it down to high spirits.



On another note, is it just me, or do you feel like the victim of a
witchhunt when you own a 4x4 these days? Sheesh.

David

* Yes, OK, these were largely Labour's fault, but I couldn't think of any
snappy Tory examples

"David French" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > My understanding is that Ken wants 4x4's banned in London and others,
> > especially some Lib Dems, want a ban on the School Run nationwide. How
> they
> > intend to legislate that beggars belief and may well show up their
> ignorance
> > of the types of vehicles involved.
>
> It's frustrating as a Lib Dem voter that the Torys and Labour can do
> ridiculous things, like invade other countries for political reasons, mess

<snippety-snip>

The problem with the lib-dems is that every single one of their policies is
underscored with rabid pro-europeanism. To me it is irrelevant what their
stance on 4x4's is when they want to immediately adopt the euro, harmonise
all of our taxes and pension funds with europe and hand over our defense and
sovreignty lock, stock and barrel to brussels - all without any referendum.

In message <bpdHc.13020$I%[email protected]>, Exit
<[email protected]> writes
>
>"David French" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > My understanding is that Ken wants 4x4's banned in London and others,
>> > especially some Lib Dems, want a ban on the School Run nationwide. How
>> they
>> > intend to legislate that beggars belief and may well show up their
>> ignorance
>> > of the types of vehicles involved.
>>
>> It's frustrating as a Lib Dem voter that the Torys and Labour can do
>> ridiculous things, like invade other countries for political reasons, mess
>
><snippety-snip>
>
>The problem with the lib-dems is that every single one of their policies is
>underscored with rabid pro-europeanism. To me it is irrelevant what their
>stance on 4x4's is when they want to immediately adopt the euro, harmonise
>all of our taxes and pension funds with europe and hand over our defense and
>sovreignty lock, stock and barrel to brussels - all without any referendum.
>
>
It's the only policy they have - the rest of the time they just go with
whatever is the current populist vogue

The Iraq war is unpopular - we're against the war

The public support the troops - we support the troops

So you support the war - no we don't support the war but we will support
the troops if they go to war.

What about ID cards - we must give that some serious pondering

What about legalising heroine - we need a public debate about it

4x4's seem to be unpopular - we're against 4x4s

etc
etc
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

Bob Hobden wrote:
> "hugh" wrote in message
>> On what basis should we pay more for 4 wheel drive?
>>
>> Engine size? OK so that applies to several cars - Rolls Royce,
>> Bentley, some Mercs, Jags etc etc What about small 4x4s - Suzukis,
>> Series LR. Defender diesels are only 2.5 litres compared to some
>> diesel cars.
>>
>> Footprint - no bigger than many cars.
>>
>> Emissions - company car tax system is now based on emission so the
>> bigger, dirtier the engine the higher the tax
>>
>> Fuel consumption - the more fuel you use the more fuel tax and vat
>> you pay, and that is a very high proportion of the actual fuel
>> charge.
>>
>> Risk to pedestrians? The biggest danger to them arises from the
>> standard bumper height introduced by the motor manufacturers in the
>> 1950s long before safety figured in their thinking and unfortunately
>> the height they chose is about he worst possible. A 4x4 would
>> naturally have a higher bumper height which would be less damaging
>> if not artificially lowered to comply with this standard.
>>
>> Height - as suggested in the Guardian this week? Well, Ken should
>> visit the M6 Toll booths and see that a Landrover is classified as a
>> car whereas an MPV, being higher is classed as a van.
>>
>> 4 wheel drive? That is an option on Transit vans ( and others),
>> Renault Espace etc, and, oh yes, not forgetting the Lada. And what
>> if you have 2/4 wheel drive like a series LR, Jeep Cherokee/Ford
>> Ranger etc? Yes you can bring it in to London provided you keep it
>> in 2 wheel drive?
>>
>> This move is just a distraction to draw attention away from his other
>> transport problems - not that it worries me - I wouldn't want to go
>> near the dirty stinking place let alone drive in it.
>> --

The obvious, preferable, alternative would be to adapt the existing cameras
to measure reflected light and charge on that basis.

Series Landie (clean) - 50p/day.
Series Landie (used) - free
Discovery - £5/day
Big Silver Merc - £20/day
Big Chrome 4x4 - £50/day

Sounds very fair to me.



Alan

Still missing a V8 Lightweight, saving for a more economical Series Landie.

"Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bpdHc.13020$I%[email protected]...
> > It's frustrating as a Lib Dem voter that the Torys and Labour can do
> > ridiculous things, like invade other countries for political reasons,
mess
>
> <snippety-snip>
>
> The problem with the lib-dems is that every single one of their policies
is
> underscored with rabid pro-europeanism. To me it is irrelevant what their
> stance on 4x4's is when they want to immediately adopt the euro, harmonise
> all of our taxes and pension funds with europe and hand over our defense
and
> sovreignty lock, stock and barrel to brussels - all without any
referendum.

I'm neither anti nor pro Europe myself - I'm fairly ambivalent about it -
but one thing I do know is that the vast majority of the British population
are anti-Europe without any actual understanding of the implications either
way. It's a knee-jerk reaction for most people. I'm not implying this is
the case for you, Julian, but it sure as heck is for a large percentage of
the population.

As for a referendum, I agree it's a good idea, but realistically, if the Lib
Dems were to get voted in, I think it would be a pretty fair sign that the
population was pro-Europe. The election would in a way stand for a
referendum. But I see your point here.

David

"hugh" <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >The problem with the lib-dems is that every single one of their policies
is
> >underscored with rabid pro-europeanism. To me it is irrelevant what their
> >stance on 4x4's is when they want to immediately adopt the euro,
harmonise
> >all of our taxes and pension funds with europe and hand over our defense
and
> >sovreignty lock, stock and barrel to brussels - all without any
referendum.
> >
> >
> It's the only policy they have - the rest of the time they just go with
> whatever is the current populist vogue

You could argue that about any policy which happens to agree with public
opinion. Have you considered that maybe the policies come from a
common-sense approach?

And doesn't that argument ring true just a little for David "Let's See What
The Sun Says About It First" Blunkett?

> The Iraq war is unpopular - we're against the war

No, they were against the war because the government were trying to mislead
the public into supporting an illegal invasion of another country, for
reasons of politics and oil. It was nothing to do with whether that was the
prevailing public opinion.

> The public support the troops - we support the troops
>
> So you support the war - no we don't support the war but we will support
> the troops if they go to war.

Abso-bloody-lutely. There is no contradiction in disagreeing with the whole
idea of the war, but supporting the troops who have been ordered there. I
was against the war (if you hadn't noticed) but I'm hardly going to turn
round to the troops who are there doing what they're paid to do (without any
say in the matter) and criticise them for that, am I?

If they hadn't supported the troops, you'd have found fault in that too!
Haven't you engineered this into a no-win situation?

Libdems say something which goes along with public opinion - they're doing
it to curry favour.
Libdems say something which goes against public opinion - bunch of idiots
who aren't in tune with public opinion.

You've proved *exactly* what I was trying to say about the Lib Dems. Thanks


David

"David French" wrote in message after "hugh" wrote
> > >
> > >
> > It's the only policy they have - the rest of the time they just go with
> > whatever is the current populist vogue
>
> You could argue that about any policy which happens to agree with public
> opinion. Have you considered that maybe the policies come from a
> common-sense approach?

Consultation even?

>
> No, they were against the war because the government were trying to
mislead
> the public into supporting an illegal invasion of another country, for
> reasons of politics and oil. It was nothing to do with whether that was
the
> prevailing public opinion.

You sure that was the reason, oil, I thought it was to give the militant
Muslims somewhere to get at the westerners that wasn't in the west.
Somewhere they would be up against a well equiped army and on someone elses
land.
Everyone expected another 9/11 in the west within a few months and it's not
happened, that is more likely the real reason for the Iraq invasion. That,
and they did want to get rid of Saddam as he was possibly threatening
Israel.

--
Regards
Bob

1974 LR S111 2.25 petrol "88" H/top
1987 LR 90 2.5 petrol H/top
2004 BMW330i Sport (the wife's)

> referendum.
>
> I'm neither anti nor pro Europe myself - I'm fairly ambivalent about it -

Surely you should then vote for a party that is ambivalent towards europe
and not one which is recklessly pro and damn the consequences?

> but one thing I do know is that the vast majority of the British
population
> are anti-Europe without any actual understanding of the implications
either
> way.

No offence intended but I do tire of this weak argument. The EU has an
annual propaganda budget of 200million euros which it uses to promote its
largely unelected self. This money comes from mine and your taxes. No money
whatsoever is provided to those who wish to challenge the euro superstates
undemocratic dictats. If any part of the electorate is badly informed about
the EU this is why, not because The Sun occassionally runs a daft headline.

It's a knee-jerk reaction for most people. I'm not implying this is
> the case for you, Julian, but it sure as heck is for a large percentage of
> the population.
>
Ones own reasoning is always fair, the opposition are always knee-jerk
reactionaries. This is the same flawed reasoning that sees 90% of drivers
rate themselves as above average - the mathematical contradiction is
obvious.

> As for a referendum, I agree it's a good idea, but realistically, if the
Lib
> Dems were to get voted in, I think it would be a pretty fair sign that the
> population was pro-Europe. The election would in a way stand for a
> referendum. But I see your point here.
>
Fortunately they won't, though the biggest problem is apprently the large
number of the electorate who don't realise just how keen the libdems are to
hand any power they gain in an election immediately over to the unelected
franco-german superstate. They really should be made to wear jackets with
yellow EU symbols on the back so we can spot them easily in the street. . .
.. . . ;-)

"Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > No, they were against the war because the government were trying to
> mislead
> > the public into supporting an illegal invasion of another country, for
> > reasons of politics and oil. It was nothing to do with whether that was
> the
> > prevailing public opinion.
>
> You sure that was the reason, oil, I thought it was to give the militant
> Muslims somewhere to get at the westerners that wasn't in the west.
> Somewhere they would be up against a well equiped army and on someone
elses
> land.
> Everyone expected another 9/11 in the west within a few months and it's
not
> happened, that is more likely the real reason for the Iraq invasion. That,
> and they did want to get rid of Saddam as he was possibly threatening
> Israel.

I'm making an educated guess. There are probably lots of reasons, but none
of them had much to do with what they told the public at the time.

Don't forget that 9/11 was nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam. There was no
connection between Al Qaida and Iraq prior to us invading it. Since we did,
there now is.

David

"Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> > I'm neither anti nor pro Europe myself - I'm fairly ambivalent about
it -
>
> Surely you should then vote for a party that is ambivalent towards europe
> and not one which is recklessly pro and damn the consequences?

No. There is no one party which accurately represents everything I would go
for. Lib Dems are by far the closest at the moment. But of course, I don't
agree with all their policies.

> > but one thing I do know is that the vast majority of the British
> population
> > are anti-Europe without any actual understanding of the implications
> either
> > way.
>
> No offence intended but I do tire of this weak argument. The EU has an
> annual propaganda budget of 200million euros which it uses to promote its
> largely unelected self. This money comes from mine and your taxes. No
money
> whatsoever is provided to those who wish to challenge the euro superstates
> undemocratic dictats. If any part of the electorate is badly informed
about
> the EU this is why, not because The Sun occassionally runs a daft
headline.

So, what are the implications then? Your op focussed on emotive statements
rather than an analysis of what the outcomes would be.

Just calling my argument "weak" doesn't make it so. Are you telling me that
the majority of the British public are anti-europe because they've
understood the pros and cons, analysed the results and made an educated
decision? Or is it more likely because of the tabloid press playing the
"Germans are going to replace the good old British Pound with monopoly
money" card?

> It's a knee-jerk reaction for most people. I'm not implying this is
> > the case for you, Julian, but it sure as heck is for a large percentage
of
> > the population.
> >
> Ones own reasoning is always fair, the opposition are always knee-jerk
> reactionaries. This is the same flawed reasoning that sees 90% of drivers
> rate themselves as above average - the mathematical contradiction is
> obvious.

Not necessarily. The "opposition's" opinions may or may not be knee-jerk.
In this case, I think they are. Taking other examples, such as education
and healthcare, I think most people have taken time to weigh up the options,
whether or not they agree with my opinions.

> > As for a referendum, I agree it's a good idea, but realistically, if the
> Lib
> > Dems were to get voted in, I think it would be a pretty fair sign that
the
> > population was pro-Europe. The election would in a way stand for a
> > referendum. But I see your point here.
> >
> Fortunately they won't, though the biggest problem is apprently the large
> number of the electorate who don't realise just how keen the libdems are
to
> hand any power they gain in an election immediately over to the unelected
> franco-german superstate. They really should be made to wear jackets with
> yellow EU symbols on the back so we can spot them easily in the street. .
..

So what party are you going to vote for then Julian?

Mother" <"@ {mother} @ wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:31:38 GMT, "Andy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the good people of London should not have re-ellected him
>> then !
>
> I've met him on a good number of occasions over the years. Like him
> or loath him, he tells it the way he sees it. I prefer to see this in
> any publicly elected representative rather than the spin and skim,
> lies and simple overall fraud that is currently seen as 'politics'.

I agree; I always admire a straight talker, whether I agree with what they
say or not. Anne Widdecombe, Claire Short (until her recent laughable
contortions over the Iraq war), Dennis Skinner - at least they say what they
mean. I have found Ken's cosying up to the IRA over the years a bit hard to
take, though.
>
> Tony Benn reckons that the current electoral system gives everyone the
> ability to collectively sack their MP should they so desire. Ken once
> wrote (also the title of his autobiography): "If voting changed
> anything, they'd abolish it".

To put it another way, no matter which way you vote, the Government always
gets in.

--

Rich
Tiggrr - V8 trialler
RR 4.6HSE

"Her name was Mia
From North Korea
I said come over
Bring your Land Rover"

Andrew Renshaw wrote:
> Ken is a right plonker,
>
> I will confess what I do. I am a Reverend (Methodist) and live in the
> north East. I have four chidlren and so need at least a six seater
> and if we are going to carry the pram a seven seater. So I need a
> large vehicle.

<massive snip>

> Or when a baby is about to die and I need to
> baptise it in hospital.
>
> These damn politicians are so insensitive.
>
> I think Ken needs sectioning.
>
> Andrew
>
>

You're over-reacting. No-one is arguing that doctors, farmers, forestry
workers (or even men of the cloth) who need a 4WD should not have one and
use it. The argument is (AFAIUI) all about using large 4x4s in congested
city environments when a small economical car would do the job as well or
better, and I think they have a point. My worry is that Labour are once
again stoking the old class-envy against a section of society that makes an
easy target - last year it was fox-hunters and now it's 4x4 drivers. (Funny
how they never gang up against lawyers. Oh, hang on, they are all lawyers.)
But that is not the same issue.

--

Rich
Tiggrr - V8 trialler
RR 4.6HSE

"Her name was Mia
From North Korea
I said come over
Bring your Land Rover"

"David French" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > > I'm neither anti nor pro Europe myself - I'm fairly ambivalent about
> it -
> >
> > Surely you should then vote for a party that is ambivalent towards
europe
> > and not one which is recklessly pro and damn the consequences?
>
> No. There is no one party which accurately represents everything I would
go
> for. Lib Dems are by far the closest at the moment. But of course, I
don't
> agree with all their policies.
>
If you don't understand and agree 100% with their european plans you should
not vote for them however much you agree with their other plans as their
european policy involves giving away all sovreignty making their other
policies irrelevant as they will not have the power to implement them.

> > > but one thing I do know is that the vast majority of the British
> > population
> > > are anti-Europe without any actual understanding of the implications
> > either
> > > way.
> >
> > No offence intended but I do tire of this weak argument. The EU has an
> > annual propaganda budget of 200million euros which it uses to promote
its
> > largely unelected self. This money comes from mine and your taxes. No
> money
> > whatsoever is provided to those who wish to challenge the euro
superstates
> > undemocratic dictats. If any part of the electorate is badly informed
> about
> > the EU this is why, not because The Sun occassionally runs a daft
> headline.
>
> So, what are the implications then? Your op focussed on emotive
statements
> rather than an analysis of what the outcomes would be.
>
A simple glance at the markets will tell you what the implications are.
Compare the UK economy with those of euroland. Compare euroland levels of
tax. Look at the euroland pensions crisis - they have only a fraction of the
pension funds necessary to maintain their current pension levels, the UK has
huge pension reserves the EU is desperate to absorb towards the euroland
pension deficit. Compare current UK unemployment levels with those across
euroland.

The real implication of the EU is communism - what is commonly refered to in
EU circles as 'harmonisation'. Harmonisation in reality means taking an
average. This is great if you live in a country which is in the bottom half
of the EU - you can expect your standard of living, social security and
pensions to rise. If you live in the 4th largest economy in the world (the
UK) you can expect the inherent wealth of that economy to be used up to
bring the poorer countries of the EU up to the average, while we are dragged
down to the average. That is harmonisation.

> Just calling my argument "weak" doesn't make it so. Are you telling me
that
> the majority of the British public are anti-europe because they've
> understood the pros and cons, analysed the results and made an educated
> decision? Or is it more likely because of the tabloid press playing the
> "Germans are going to replace the good old British Pound with monopoly
> money" card?
>
Your argument is weak because the EU only fund the propaganda for one side.
In the UK it is electoral law that all parties who poll above a certain low
level are granted free access to party political broadcasts so that the
electorate may see all sides. The EU is undemocratic and does not support
this fair access for all and thus people only see the EU message or believe
the tabloids by your example. This is the fault of undemocratic practices
within the EU propaganda machine that under UK law would be illegal. If you
want an educated electorate campaign for our taxes to be spent fairly to
give both sides, not kept by the EU and spent on one-sided propaganda. If
you are not stupid enough to believe the tabloids, it is very patronising of
you to assume that most others do. You evidently believe yourself to be far
more intelligent that the poor mass of tabloid reading fools who believe
everything they read. Perhaps people like yourself should be given several
votes to make up for all the electoral dunces who aren't as bright as you?
;-)

> > It's a knee-jerk reaction for most people. I'm not implying this is
> > > the case for you, Julian, but it sure as heck is for a large
percentage
> of
> > > the population.
> > >
> > Ones own reasoning is always fair, the opposition are always knee-jerk
> > reactionaries. This is the same flawed reasoning that sees 90% of
drivers
> > rate themselves as above average - the mathematical contradiction is
> > obvious.
>
> Not necessarily. The "opposition's" opinions may or may not be knee-jerk.
> In this case, I think they are. Taking other examples, such as education
> and healthcare, I think most people have taken time to weigh up the
options,
> whether or not they agree with my opinions.
>
You think anti-EU opinions are knee-jerk because you don't agree with them.
You have already made it clear you think you know better than much of the
electorate - whereas you can see through the nationalistic knee-jerks, the
rest of them just drink it in as gospel. I don't have such a patronising
attitude towards the electorate, as any successful politician will tell you,
the british electorate have a remarkable ability to spot the bull**** and
underestimating them has been the downfall of many a politico.

> > > As for a referendum, I agree it's a good idea, but realistically, if
the
> > Lib
> > > Dems were to get voted in, I think it would be a pretty fair sign that
> the
> > > population was pro-Europe. The election would in a way stand for a
> > > referendum. But I see your point here.
> > >
> > Fortunately they won't, though the biggest problem is apprently the
large
> > number of the electorate who don't realise just how keen the libdems are
> to
> > hand any power they gain in an election immediately over to the
unelected
> > franco-german superstate. They really should be made to wear jackets
with
> > yellow EU symbols on the back so we can spot them easily in the street.
..
> .
>
> So what party are you going to vote for then Julian?
>
Like you, there is no one party that fully represents my views, but the
possibility of our loss of sovreignty via short-sighted, expeditious
politicians means that I must put the european question above all others at
the coming election. Currently this will lead me to vote Conservative, but I
will speedily swap that vote to whichever party gives me the best chance of
allowing my country to continue to decide it's own tax, defence and
financial decisions in perpituity.

God save the Queen! ;-)

Well I hate japanese SUV's as much as the next (non japanese SUV owning) man
but vintage Landies are something different.

Today I did my bit in London, by refusing to take the pedestrian diversion
around the works in Kings Cross station and walking against the rush hour
traffic on the road, making the routemasters and taxis drive around me, I
have pedestrian rights to the road as well

No I did not have my Landie with me, I went in by train.


--
þT

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"



"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Renshaw wrote:
>
> You're over-reacting. No-one is arguing that doctors, farmers, forestry
> workers (or even men of the cloth) who need a 4WD should not have one and
> use it. The argument is (AFAIUI) all about using large 4x4s in congested
> city environments when a small economical car would do the job as well or
> better, and I think they have a point. My worry is that Labour are once
> again stoking the old class-envy against a section of society that makes
an
> easy target - last year it was fox-hunters and now it's 4x4 drivers.
(Funny
> how they never gang up against lawyers. Oh, hang on, they are all
lawyers.)
> But that is not the same issue.
>
> --
>
> Rich
> Tiggrr - V8 trialler
> RR 4.6HSE
>
> "Her name was Mia
> From North Korea
> I said come over
> Bring your Land Rover"
>
>

Red Ken whatever exams he may have passed or not passed is either and
idiot, or someone who doesn't really give a **** so long as it looks good on
some distorted and innacurate manifesto.

I do not think much of people who create a great danger around schools by
cocooning there kids, whilst threatening everybody elses in some oversized
and unsuitable vehicle for the school run.

But that is not a problem you can solve with a blanket ban. As it was in
central London, I saw few 4x4's Central London is not there natural
environment anyway, loads of white vans though.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Bob Hobden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "hugh" wrote in message
> My understanding is that Ken wants 4x4's banned in London and others,
> especially some Lib Dems, want a ban on the School Run nationwide. How
they
> intend to legislate that beggars belief and may well show up their
ignorance
> of the types of vehicles involved.
> i.e. how about an Audi TT Quattro, would that be banned? It's certainly
4x4.
> If they do it on size then most MPV's would also be caught, and how about
> the rich kid in the Roller or the poor kid in the old Granada smoker.
> I reckon it would be almost impossible to legislate for and to police.
>
> The answer is more school buses together with proper car parking at or
near
> the schools, and education of parents, but that's the positive approach
and
> politicians aren't ever into that 'cause it costs money instead of
bringing
> more in.
>
> Interestingly, as an example of how a politician thinks, I believe it's
the
> French that intend to have a special extra £2,500 Purchase Tax on 4x4's.
>
> My original question was on the effect that sort of thing will have on
Land
> Rover who make nothing other than 4x4's.
> A LR car perhaps.
>
> --
> Regards
> Bob
>
> 1974 LR S111 2.25 petrol "88" H/top
> 1987 LR 90 2.5 petrol H/top
> 2004 BMW330i Sport (the wife's)
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Richard Brookman) wrote:

> The argument is (AFAIUI) all about using large 4x4s in congested
> city environments when a small economical car would do the job as well or
> better, and I think they have a point

Fine if one can afford to own several cars and choose the most suitable one
for the occasion

--
Niamh
4x4 Cymru
http://www.4x4cymru.co.uk

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Alan Walker) wrote:

> The obvious, preferable, alternative would be to adapt the existing
> cameras
> to measure reflected light and charge on that basis.
>
> Series Landie (clean) - 50p/day.
> Series Landie (used) - free
> Discovery - £5/day

You obviously haven't seen my colleague's Disco, I think he'd be paid to
take it in.

--
Niamh
4x4 Cymru
http://www.4x4cymru.co.uk