Some stupid tree hugging bint is on the Jeremy Vine show boasting about
putting 100,000 bogus parking tickets entitled "Poor Vehicle Choice" on 4X4
vehicles just because they don't like them.

What a complete waste of paper, talk about Kettle, Pot & Black!

Why don't they put them on under used buses that take up a whole lane in
most city streets?

Brainless morons!

"RT" <noreply.com> wrote in message news:4385c5b7.0@entanet...
> Some stupid tree hugging bint is on the Jeremy Vine show boasting about
> putting 100,000 bogus parking tickets entitled "Poor Vehicle Choice" on
> 4X4 vehicles just because they don't like them.
>
> What a complete waste of paper, talk about Kettle, Pot & Black!
>
> Why don't they put them on under used buses that take up a whole lane in
> most city streets?
>
> Brainless morons!
>
I think the bint(s) you are talking about started off their protests mainly
at the larger 4x4's that have no use off road at all. Their main gripe was
the school run mum in the likes of Range Rovers/X5's/Porsche thingy etc.
Although we all have a personal choice in what car we buy, we should as
human beings buy a car that suits its intended purpose as close as possible.
I own an X-trail Dti. I tow a largeish caravan with it and use it for my
work (im a contractor) where 4x4 access is often the norm. I could afford to
buy a large Nissan/Toyota but decided that the X-trail would suit my need
enough and be economical to run. If mummy is going to buy a large 4x4 just
to drive little Paris half a mile to school and to go to Sainsburys then I
think that is a poor choice of vehicle. As the campaign has got more
publicity, those jumping on the bandwagon have decided that all 4x4's are
bad for all us earth dwellers whether or not they are used for a genuine
use. They also seem to overlook the fact that many
saloons/hatches/exec's/sports cars are more polluting than the small/mid
size SUV's.

If the anti 4x4 lobby had stuck to what i saw as been the original issue
(large 4x4's been used unessasarily in urban areas) then I would be behind
them. It may in time come down to 4x4 owners having to somehow justify their
individual ownership of them as they cant surley disciminate against someone
that needs a 4x4 for their job compared to someone that has bought one for
status etc.

Just my 2 penneth worth anyway

Steve

Steve wrote:
>
> Just my 2 penneth worth anyway

Aren't you a good little boy. Your mummy is surely proud of your righteous
high-and-mighty stance.

Huw

Slap down the tree hugging, yohgurt knitters by placing your vote here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/

Nevillef

"RT" <noreply.com> wrote in message news:4385c5b7.0@entanet...
> Some stupid tree hugging bint is on the Jeremy Vine show boasting about
> putting 100,000 bogus parking tickets entitled "Poor Vehicle Choice" on
> 4X4 vehicles just because they don't like them.
>
> What a complete waste of paper, talk about Kettle, Pot & Black!
>
> Why don't they put them on under used buses that take up a whole lane in
> most city streets?
>
> Brainless morons!
>
>

Steve wrote:

> If the anti 4x4 lobby had stuck to what i saw as been the original issue
> (large 4x4's been used unessasarily in urban areas) then I would be behind
> them. It may in time come down to 4x4 owners having to somehow justify their
> individual ownership of them as they cant surley disciminate against someone
> that needs a 4x4 for their job compared to someone that has bought one for
> status etc.

Jeesus H Christ what a brain-dead ****ing ****er you are. Is someone who
drives a 4WD for work supposed to leave the vehicle at home (somehow) if
they drive into town? My local agricultural suppliers is in the City of
Winchester. Am I supposed to hire a ****ing Fiesta every time I want to
pick up some feed/wormer/whatever?

ANd all car drivers are supposed to submit their chosen vehicle for
scrutiny by a pack of brain-dead tossers who think they have a right to
interfere in other people's lives? **** off and live in bloody China
where you will find people who think just like you.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:47:34 +0000, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>
>> If the anti 4x4 lobby had stuck to what i saw as been the original issue
>> (large 4x4's been used unessasarily in urban areas) then I would be behind
>> them. It may in time come down to 4x4 owners having to somehow justify their
>> individual ownership of them as they cant surley disciminate against someone
>> that needs a 4x4 for their job compared to someone that has bought one for
>> status etc.
>
>Jeesus H Christ what a brain-dead ****ing ****er you are. Is someone who
>drives a 4WD for work supposed to leave the vehicle at home (somehow) if
>they drive into town? My local agricultural suppliers is in the City of
>Winchester. Am I supposed to hire a ****ing Fiesta every time I want to
>pick up some feed/wormer/whatever?
>
>ANd all car drivers are supposed to submit their chosen vehicle for
>scrutiny by a pack of brain-dead tossers who think they have a right to
>interfere in other people's lives? **** off and live in bloody China
>where you will find people who think just like you.


What he said.
--

Paul Rooney

Steve Firth came up with the following;:
> Steve wrote:
>
>> If the anti 4x4 lobby had stuck to what i saw as been the original issue
>> (large 4x4's been used unessasarily in urban areas) then I would be
>> behind them. It may in time come down to 4x4 owners having to somehow
>> justify their individual ownership of them as they cant surley
>> disciminate against someone that needs a 4x4 for their job compared to
>> someone that has bought one for status etc.
>
> Jeesus H Christ what a brain-dead ****ing ****er you are. Is someone who
> drives a 4WD for work supposed to leave the vehicle at home (somehow) if
> they drive into town? My local agricultural suppliers is in the City of
> Winchester. Am I supposed to hire a ****ing Fiesta every time I want to
> pick up some feed/wormer/whatever?
>
> ANd all car drivers are supposed to submit their chosen vehicle for
> scrutiny by a pack of brain-dead tossers who think they have a right to
> interfere in other people's lives? **** off and live in bloody China
> where you will find people who think just like you.

Round of applause.




--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Steve came up with the following;:
> If the anti 4x4 lobby had stuck to what i saw as been the original issue
> (large 4x4's been used unessasarily in urban areas)

Who says they're unnecessary?

We use ours for everything. We do have a Corsa as well, and other vehicles,
but the 4x4 (Discovery) is a general vehicle to carry seven people and goods
anywhere. Why should we have to leave it at home and make two journeys in
the Corsa?

> then I would be behind
> them. It may in time come down to 4x4 owners having to somehow justify
> their individual ownership of them as they cant surley disciminate
> against someone that needs a 4x4 for their job compared to someone that
> has bought one for status etc.

Do you know _anyone_ who's actually bought one solely for status? I don't.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

"Steve" <steve@nospam.com> wrote in
news:ktohf.67202$375.7962@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> If the anti 4x4 lobby had stuck to what i saw as been the original
> issue (large 4x4's been used unessasarily in urban areas) then I would
> be behind them. It may in time come down to 4x4 owners having to
> somehow justify their individual ownership of them as they cant surley
> disciminate against someone that needs a 4x4 for their job compared to
> someone that has bought one for status etc.
>
> Just my 2 penneth worth anyway

The anti-4x4 lobby is bigotry of the worst kind. Their arguments just
don't hold up under scrutiny. For every criterion that the anti-4x4 lobby
choose to vilify the object of their obsessive hatred, something other
than a 4x4 fares worse than most (if not all) 4x4s, and some 4x4s fare
better than many non-4x4 vehicles. Safety: according to Euro-NCAP tests,
the Honda CR-V (a 4x4) is safer than over 95% of vehicles on the road
today from both a pedestrian and passenger point of view. Fuel economy:
Freelander Td4 - nearly 40 mpg, Volvo V70 - about 33 mpg; i.e. the 4x4 is
more economical than a "family" car. Road space occupied: Discovery Td5
7-seater - 4704 x 1890 mm, Ford Mondeo Estate (5 seats) 4804 x 1958 mm;
i.e. the 4x4 (and one that most anti's would call "monstrous") has a
smaller footprint that a typical repmobile. Whichever criteria you
choose, the anti-4x4 campaign just doesn't hold up and is seen to be
spin-fuelled hype and prejudice.

The anti-4x4 brigade can't even define what it is they would ban except
by appearance. Sian Berry writes on her website, "See graphic for the
basic features". I have to assume that she wants to ban them simply
because she doesn't like the look of them. More to the point I wonder how
many the anti-4x4 brigade are involved in the campaign from hatred of
those who they associate 4x4 ownership. This is surely the sort of anti-
social, lynch-mob mentality that needs to be stamped out from this
country.

4x4 owners should not be asked to justify their choice of vehicles,
rather those who would unreasonably campaign against them should be asked
to justify their anti-social, unreasonable, spiteful, and bigoted
behaviour.

Remember, the anti-4x4 campaign isn't big, it's bigotry.

Will

Will Cove (no.spam@here.please) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> The anti-4x4 lobby is bigotry of the worst kind. Their arguments just
> don't hold up under scrutiny. For every criterion that the anti-4x4
> lobby choose to vilify the object of their obsessive hatred, something
> other than a 4x4 fares worse than most (if not all) 4x4s, and some
> 4x4s fare better than many non-4x4 vehicles. Safety: according to
> Euro-NCAP tests, the Honda CR-V (a 4x4) is safer than over 95% of
> vehicles on the road today from both a pedestrian and passenger point
> of view. Fuel economy: Freelander Td4 - nearly 40 mpg, Volvo V70 -
> about 33 mpg; i.e. the 4x4 is more economical than a "family" car.
> Road space occupied: Discovery Td5 7-seater - 4704 x 1890 mm, Ford
> Mondeo Estate (5 seats) 4804 x 1958 mm; i.e. the 4x4 (and one that
> most anti's would call "monstrous") has a smaller footprint that a
> typical repmobile.

And for every such justification, there's a *very* careful amount of
cherry-picking going on. To the point of mendacity.

Safety? EuroNCAP yesterday released the figures on the new Grand Cherokee.
On the same day as the figures were released for the first car to get the
full four stars for pedestrian safety, the Jeep got zero marks. Not zero
STARS. No. Zero MARKS. Woo. State-of-the-art, guys.

Economy? Yes, a Td4 Freelander will get 40mpg. 42.2 extra urban, actually,
for a 2006 manual-box. Not that shabby.

But to compare it to a V70 doing "about 33mpg" is a bit of a cheat, when
the only V70 to claim even remotely near that (33.6 extra urban) is the
£40,000 autobox (Geartronic, but "not-manual") 300bhp V70R. Compare it to a
manual 2.4D, at 51.6mpg extra-urban, and the Freelunch suddenly looks a bit
****. Now bear in mind that the Freelander replacement is using the same
pan and mechanicals as the Focus and V50, and perhaps a fairer test would
be to look at the diesel V50, wouldn't it? Manual box, of course.

Hmmmm. 58.9mpg extra urban, and 50g/km of CO2 less than the Freelander. The
Landy's not quite so impressive, is it?

So - that leaves us with your Disco/Mondeo size comparison. Well, the
original Disco was launched back in the late 80s, and is a LOT bigger than
a Sierra of the time. But let's compare the current Disco to the Mondeo?

Mondeo - Well, the figures I found are 4804x1812 - so 8,704,848 sq mm

The current Disco's a bit larger than your figures, though.
4835x1915 - 9,259,025 sq mm.
No, it's not a vast difference. Just over 6%. But it's one that you chose
to try to hide. I wonder why?

Should I point out the Disco weighs a bit over 70% MORE than the Mondeo.
Why's that? Why does it need to? Do you think that might be why a 190bhp
2.7TDV6 Disco gets about the same performance figures as the woefully
underpowered entry-level 90bhp TDCi Mondeo? You can tell that TDCi 90 is
underpowered in the Mondeo, because it's actually slightly thirstier than
the more powerful versions - yet it *still* gets damn near 50% further from
a gallon than the Disco.

No, I don't think there IS a case for the "anti-4x4" loons to go around
petitioning and calling for bans and generally looking foolish - but lying
in support of what you drive, as you do, is not exactly helping your
position.

On 2005-11-24, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> **** off and live in bloody China where you will find people who
> think just like you.

Blimey, I find myself agreeing with Steve!

I've got 3 cars, a commute wagon, a landy and a small pile of parts
that used to be an old Lotus. Tree hugging ****s who tell me what I
should and shouldn't drive can just lay in the road and wait for a few
minutes for my answer. They choose to concentrate on one small item
and ignore factors like the cost to the environment of things like the
clothing they buy but don't need, transportation of goods they buy,
the cleaning fluids they use to clean their immaculate loo, the
inefficiency of cooking at home, and basically a whole ****load of
things that multiplied by a few million times far outweigh the tiny
contribution of people who don't drive so-called "eco friendly" cars.
Then there's the cost of manufacturing the "eco-friendly" cars and the
chemicals and materials used in the manufacture of the hybrid drive
trains and the relatively small increase in economy they give over a
decent diesel etc etc etc...

*sigh*

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9718ED65A2067adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170:

> And for every such justification, there's a *very* careful amount of
> cherry-picking going on. To the point of mendacity.
---
Of course I'm cherry-picking - but not as carefully as you'd think
because it only took a few minutes to research the examples that I gave
and I'm confident that better ones exist. The anti-4x4 lobby would have
you believe that *all* 4x4s are evil. A few well-chosen examples show
that just isn't so. I don't claim that 4x4's are safer than, more
economical than, or take up less space than any other vehicle on the
road. My point is entirely that the broad, sweeping statements that the
anti-4x4 brigade make are unjustified. It's them, not I, that's mendacic.

>
> Safety? EuroNCAP yesterday released the figures on the new Grand
> Cherokee. On the same day as the figures were released for the first
> car to get the full four stars for pedestrian safety, the Jeep got
> zero marks. Not zero STARS. No. Zero MARKS. Woo. State-of-the-art,
> guys.

.... and you say that I'm cherry-picking! If you look at the Euro-NCAP
site, you'll see that there are not too many family cars that beat the
CR-V and X-Trail on safety. Yet the anti-4x4 would have you believe that
*all* 4x4's are unsafe. Of course, I note that you conveniently forgot to
mention that the GC you so vilify rated pretty highly for occupant
safety.

>
> Economy? Yes, a Td4 Freelander will get 40mpg. 42.2 extra urban,
> actually, for a 2006 manual-box. Not that shabby.
>
> But to compare it to a V70 doing "about 33mpg" is a bit of a cheat,
> when the only V70 to claim even remotely near that (33.6 extra urban)
> is the œ40,000 autobox (Geartronic, but "not-manual") 300bhp V70R.
> Compare it to a manual 2.4D, at 51.6mpg extra-urban, and the Freelunch
> suddenly looks a bit ****. Now bear in mind that the Freelander
> replacement is using the same pan and mechanicals as the Focus and
> V50, and perhaps a fairer test would be to look at the diesel V50,
> wouldn't it? Manual box, of course.

http://www.volvocars.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/08DD308F-04EB-43A3-9742-
12A5CF18272D/0/UKMY06S60RV70R.pdf shows the V70R manual at 33.2 mpg -
worse than the geartronic. The cooking (140 bhp) V70 also doesn't match
the Freelander. FWIW, someone I work with recently bought an 02-plate V70
diesel - and he can't get 40 mpg out of it. FWIW, I chose the comparison
because I recently switched from a 2.5 litre Volvo 850 from which I
couldn't get more than about 32 mpg.

>
> Hmmmm. 58.9mpg extra urban, and 50g/km of CO2 less than the
> Freelander. The Landy's not quite so impressive, is it?

But it's nowhere near as thirsty as many non-4x4 types. If you want to
legislate against the Freelander on grounds of "poor fuel economy", it's
only fair to catch all those cars that fare worse. This is the point. The
anti-4x4 campaign is unfair and cannot be justified.

>
> So - that leaves us with your Disco/Mondeo size comparison. Well, the
> original Disco was launched back in the late 80s, and is a LOT bigger
> than a Sierra of the time. But let's compare the current Disco to the
> Mondeo?
>
> Mondeo - Well, the figures I found are 4804x1812 - so 8,704,848 sq mm
[ you forgot the mirrors - the width is 1958 including them! ]
>
> The current Disco's a bit larger than your figures, though.
> 4835x1915 - 9,259,025 sq mm.
> No, it's not a vast difference. Just over 6%. But it's one that you
> chose to try to hide. I wonder why?
---
Again, the anti-4x4 brigade would have you believe that *all* 4x4's are
evil. To disprove that, I don't need to show that all 4x4's are wonderful
- I merely need to show exceptions to prove their claims are untrue. If a
fair campaign against large vehicles won out, they would probably get the
Disco 3 banned from cities - but they would also get the Jaguar XJ, BMW
7-series and similar vehicles that have a larger footprint than the Disco
3. If you want to ponder, ask about the fairness of a campaign that seeks
to ban one vehicle type yet does not seek to ban vehicles that fare worse
in the criteria that campaign chooses.

>
> No, I don't think there IS a case for the "anti-4x4" loons to go
> around petitioning and calling for bans and generally looking foolish
> - but lying in support of what you drive, as you do, is not exactly
> helping your position.
---
Nowhere have I lied. I have given reasoned argument why the anti-4x4
campaign is unfair and cannot be justified. If the anti's want to
campaign against "gas guzzlers", let them do so. Equally, if they want to
campaign against large vehicles, those with a low safety rating, etc.
I'll support their right to run that campaign (although I'll reserve the
right not to agree with their position). However, the anti-4x4
campaigners don't campaign against gas-guzzlers, or large vehicles, etc.
They campaign only against 4x4's and develop convenient amnesia when
reminded that for every criterion they use to vilify the object of their
obsessive bigotry, something other than a 4x4 fares worse than most (if
not all) 4x4s and many 4x4s fare better than many non-4x4 types.

Will

Will Cove (no.spam@here.please) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>> Safety? EuroNCAP yesterday released the figures on the new Grand
>> Cherokee. On the same day as the figures were released for the first
>> car to get the full four stars for pedestrian safety, the Jeep got
>> zero marks. Not zero STARS. No. Zero MARKS. Woo. State-of-the-art,
>> guys.

> ... and you say that I'm cherry-picking!

I do. You don't seem to like it one bit when you perceive that others
may be doing it, do you?

> If you look at the Euro-NCAP site, you'll see that there are not too
> many family cars that beat the CR-V and X-Trail on safety.

For occupants, true.

Because it's far easier to make occupants safe in a larger heavier
vehicle.

> Of course, I note that you conveniently forgot to mention that the GC
> you so vilify rated pretty highly for occupant safety.

Actually, it didn't.

Four star occupant safety for a brand new large heavy car is really
nothing special at all. Disappointing, in fact.
It'd be a reasonable score for a modern Supermini, without all that
structure to dissipate the crash energy.

In the EuroNCAP new Nov 05 ratings, there's only one vehicle gets lower
than 4*. The Chevrolet Matiz. The child occupant safety of the GC is
equal lowest, at 3*.
http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ratings.php?id1=6

Quote from the EuroNCAP chairman in the press release from the 23rd (on
EuroNCAP's website, under Media Centre) - "(The 4* ped safety)
achievement is particularly clear, coming as it does in the same phase
as a car that has scored no points for pedestrian protection. There is
no longer any excuse for such neglect"

And I haven't even mentioned the JiangLing LandWind yet.
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1783784,00.html
<shrug - it's a barely-warmed-over Frontera, so no surprise it's ****>

> FWIW, someone I work with recently bought an
> 02-plate V70 diesel - and he can't get 40 mpg out of it. FWIW, I chose
> the comparison because I recently switched from a 2.5 litre Volvo 850
> from which I couldn't get more than about 32 mpg.

Try learning to drive economically. Fuel economy is *entirely* in the
driving style. Does your driving include *any* urban/cold-start/short-
journey? Of course it does. The extra-urban figure doesn't. Here in the
real world, you'd get nowhere near 40mpg out of a Diseasel Freelunch,
either. Or, indeed, anywhere near the extra-urban figure for ANY car.

If you want achievable figures, use the combined, not the extra-urban.
36.7 for a TD4 Freelunch, 48.7 for a V50 D4, 41.5 for a 2.4D V70.

Perhaps the 29.1 for a petrol auto 2.4 V70 should be compared with a 2.5
V6 auto Freelunch? 22.7? Ouch.

>> Hmmmm. 58.9mpg extra urban, and 50g/km of CO2 less than the
>> Freelander. The Landy's not quite so impressive, is it?

> But it's nowhere near as thirsty as many non-4x4 types. If you want to
> legislate against the Freelander on grounds of "poor fuel economy",
> it's only fair to catch all those cars that fare worse. This is the
> point. The anti-4x4 campaign is unfair and cannot be justified.

Have I said it is fair and can be justified? No, because I don't think
it is. I'm merely pointing out that your feeble rebuttals are easily
demonstrated to be massively flawed, and certainly do not help your
case.

Choosing to drive an SUV (and I loath that term) 4x4 DOES use more fuel
and pollute more. That is incontrovertible. They do not offer more
safety, when viewed as a whole - they don't even offer big benefits when
viewed for occupant figures alone. There are no tangible reasons to use
an SUV/4x4 in an urban/suburban environment.

Why do people? Style. Fashion. Preference.

That preference carries a cost. Fact. Accept it.

>> Mondeo - Well, the figures I found are 4804x1812 - so 8,704,848 sq mm

> [ you forgot the mirrors - the width is 1958 including them! ]

Both figures were from Parkers. OK, we'll go with manufacturer figures.
www.landrover.com gives the Disco 3 as 4835x2190 with mirrors.
www.ford.co.uk gives the Mondeo estate as 4804x1958 with mirrors.

Ooops. That difference just doubled to 12%.
<looks down> I'd get a doctor to have a look at that bullet hole in your
toe, IIWY.

> but they would also get the Jaguar XJ, BMW 7-series and similar
> vehicles that have a larger footprint than the Disco 3.

How many people use XJs/7-s/S-class for the "school run"? VERY very few.
How many use large SUV/4x4s? Many.

> If you want to ponder, ask about the fairness of a campaign that seeks
> to ban one vehicle type yet does not seek to ban vehicles that fare
> worse in the criteria that campaign chooses.

Indeed. You are aware that the unladen weight of a Disco 3 is up to half
a ton heavier than a LWB 416CDi Merc Sprinter? Yet many places have bans
on vehicles of over 3.5ton MAM. Indeed, many people's driving licences
won't even permit them drive vehicles of over 3.5t MAM.

The only reason the Disco 3 comes in under that 3.5t MAM is because of
an artificially low payload - so low that it's barely any higher than
that of my 602cc 1979 Citroen Dyane van. 500kg payload for a 7-seater is
not far off the absolute bare minimum for Type Approval of 68kg per
occupant seat. Still, with all the seats in place, there's not much over
a foot of boot length left anyway.

On 25 Nov 2005 09:27:38 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Choosing to drive an SUV (and I loath that term) 4x4 DOES use more fuel
>and pollute more.

Than something that pollutes less and uses less fuel. Obviously.
What about it? It doesn't pollute or consume more than lots of other
cars on the road.


>That is incontrovertible. They do not offer more
>safety, when viewed as a whole

Of course they do.

> - they don't even offer big benefits when
>viewed for occupant figures alone. There are no tangible reasons to use
>an SUV/4x4 in an urban/suburban environment.

So, keep a second car at the city boundary?

>
>Why do people? Style. Fashion. Preference.
>
>That preference carries a cost. Fact. Accept it.


You're a bigoted tosser. Fact. Accept it.
--

Paul Rooney

Paul Rooney (paulrooney@aol.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>>Choosing to drive an SUV (and I loath that term) 4x4 DOES use more fuel
>>and pollute more.

> Than something that pollutes less and uses less fuel.

Than a market-equivalent non-SUV, yes.

>>That is incontrovertible. They do not offer more
>>safety, when viewed as a whole

> Of course they do

I've shown facts that they do not.
Now it's your turn to show some facts that they do.

>>That preference carries a cost. Fact. Accept it.

> You're a bigoted tosser. Fact. Accept it.

Stop talking to yourself, Paul, and learn to play with the other children
nicely. I'm sorry if the facts don't support you, but it's really not my
fault, so don't get angry with me.

On 25 Nov 2005 10:07:07 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul Rooney (paulrooney@aol.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>>>Choosing to drive an SUV (and I loath that term) 4x4 DOES use more fuel
>>>and pollute more.
>
>> Than something that pollutes less and uses less fuel.
>
>Than a market-equivalent non-SUV, yes.

Bollox.
>
>>>That is incontrovertible. They do not offer more
>>>safety, when viewed as a whole
>
>> Of course they do
>
>I've shown facts that they do not.

You haven't.

>Now it's your turn to show some facts that they do.

They've been posted already.

>>>That preference carries a cost. Fact. Accept it.
>
>> You're a bigoted tosser. Fact. Accept it.
>
>Stop talking to yourself, Paul, and learn to play with the other children
>nicely. I'm sorry if the facts don't support you, but it's really not my
>fault, so don't get angry with me.

Who's angry? I'm not the one seething with envy and rage against those
who are well off enough to buy SUVs.

As has already been pointed out, the only way they differ as a class
is in their appearance. There is no criterion by which, as a class,
they are environmentally worse than most other cars.
--

Paul Rooney

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Paul Rooney (paulrooney@aol.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>>>> Choosing to drive an SUV (and I loath that term) 4x4 DOES use more
>>>> fuel and pollute more.

>>> Than something that pollutes less and uses less fuel.

>> Than a market-equivalent non-SUV, yes.

> Bollox.

<points to vcacarfueldata.org.uk>

>>>> That is incontrovertible. They do not offer more safety, when
>>>> viewed as a whole

>>> Of course they do

>> I've shown facts that they do not.

> You haven't.

<points to euroncap.com>

>> Now it's your turn to show some facts that they do.

> They've been posted already.

Claims have been made. But they've all been either easily debunkable, or
just picked out of fresh air.

Where's the consistent proof from respected and independent sources?

> Who's angry?

Mmmm. Maybe it's the limitations of plain text as a medium, but "You're
a bigoted tosser. Fact. Accept it." doesn't sound exactly all lovey-
huggy, Paul...

> I'm not the one seething with envy and rage against those
> who are well off enough to buy SUVs.

Nor am I. You seem to have over-snipped, since you missed this bit :-

Will >> The anti-4x4 campaign is unfair and cannot be justified.

Me > Have I said it is fair and can be justified? No, because I don't
Me > think it is.

Perhaps if you wiped the foamy spittle off your screen, you'd be able to
see that a bit clearer?

> As has already been pointed out, the only way they differ as a class
> is in their appearance. There is no criterion by which, as a class,
> they are environmentally worse than most other cars.

Yes, Paul, there are.

When you compare market-like with market-like, SUVs are much thirstier
and more polluting. We've done this umpteen times before, and you always
snip the numbers and rant, like you're doing again now.

Look at the same engine in different, market-similar, applications. You
like to point to the X-Trail, but you always ignore the fact it's far
thirstier and more polluting than the same engine in the Primera. Look
at the BMW 3.0d across 530d and X5. Look at any of the Merc CDi lumps
across E, ML, S. Look at the V70/V70AWD/XC70/XC90. They are
*consistent*.

Heavier vehicles with greater frontal area and more complex drivetrains
use more fuel. It's that simple.

Or are you planning on denying the fundamental laws of physics? Please
show your working. You may use both sides of the paper.

On 25 Nov 2005 10:41:04 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul Rooney (paulrooney@aol.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>>>>> Choosing to drive an SUV (and I loath that term) 4x4 DOES use more
>>>>> fuel and pollute more.
>
>>>> Than something that pollutes less and uses less fuel.
>
>>> Than a market-equivalent non-SUV, yes.
>
>> Bollox.
>
><points to vcacarfueldata.org.uk>
>
>>>>> That is incontrovertible. They do not offer more safety, when
>>>>> viewed as a whole
>
>>>> Of course they do
>
>>> I've shown facts that they do not.
>
>> You haven't.
>
><points to euroncap.com>
>
>>> Now it's your turn to show some facts that they do.
>
>> They've been posted already.
>
>Claims have been made. But they've all been either easily debunkable, or
>just picked out of fresh air.
>
>Where's the consistent proof from respected and independent sources?
>
>> Who's angry?
>
>Mmmm. Maybe it's the limitations of plain text as a medium, but "You're
>a bigoted tosser. Fact. Accept it." doesn't sound exactly all lovey-
>huggy, Paul...
>
>> I'm not the one seething with envy and rage against those
>> who are well off enough to buy SUVs.
>
>Nor am I. You seem to have over-snipped, since you missed this bit :-
>
>Will >> The anti-4x4 campaign is unfair and cannot be justified.
>
>Me > Have I said it is fair and can be justified? No, because I don't
>Me > think it is.
>
>Perhaps if you wiped the foamy spittle off your screen, you'd be able to
>see that a bit clearer?
>
>> As has already been pointed out, the only way they differ as a class
>> is in their appearance. There is no criterion by which, as a class,
>> they are environmentally worse than most other cars.
>
>Yes, Paul, there are.
>
>When you compare market-like with market-like, SUVs are much thirstier
>and more polluting. We've done this umpteen times before, and you always
>snip the numbers and rant, like you're doing again now.
>
>Look at the same engine in different, market-similar, applications. You
>like to point to the X-Trail, but you always ignore the fact it's far
>thirstier and more polluting than the same engine in the Primera. Look
>at the BMW 3.0d across 530d and X5. Look at any of the Merc CDi lumps
>across E, ML, S. Look at the V70/V70AWD/XC70/XC90. They are
>*consistent*.
>
>Heavier vehicles with greater frontal area and more complex drivetrains
>use more fuel. It's that simple.
>
>Or are you planning on denying the fundamental laws of physics? Please
>show your working. You may use both sides of the paper.

<PLONK the PLONKER>
--

Paul Rooney

Paul Rooney (paulrooney@aol.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>>> Who's angry?

>>Mmmm. Maybe it's the limitations of plain text as a medium, but "You're
>>a bigoted tosser. Fact. Accept it." doesn't sound exactly all lovey-
>>huggy, Paul...

>>> I'm not the one seething with envy and rage against those
>>> who are well off enough to buy SUVs.

>>Nor am I. You seem to have over-snipped, since you missed this bit :-

>>Will >> The anti-4x4 campaign is unfair and cannot be justified.

>>Me > Have I said it is fair and can be justified? No, because I don't
>>Me > think it is.

>>Or are you planning on denying the fundamental laws of physics? Please
>>show your working. You may use both sides of the paper.

> <PLONK the PLONKER>

<snort>

You're funny, Paul.