It's Official: 4x4's are lethal for ped's and cyclists.
Howard
(www.transalt.org) latest newsletter contains the following:
TA Bulletin 19/12/03
SUVs Twice as Lethal to Pedestrians
According to pioneering research published in the most recent issue of
the journal, , Accident Analysis and Prevention (Vol. 36, p. 295), a
pedestrian struck by a driver operating a large sports utility vehicle
is more than twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian hit by a
driver operating a passenger car at the same speed.
... They found that a pedestrian struck by a driver operating a large
van is three times as likely to die as someone hit by a driver
operating a car at the same speed. Pedestrians struck by a driver
operating a large sports utility vehicle are twice as likely to die.
In their report, the researchers observe that reducing this danger
would require a radical redesign of sports utility vehicles to replace
their blunt front ends with sloping, more aerodynamic fronts. Lower,
sloping hoods injure the legs of pedestrians in a crash, but blunt,
front ends kill pedestrians through head and chest injuries. Gabler
notes that this change will not be popular with sport utility vehicle
buyers who "Like their rugged, off-road look."
As though we didn't already know...
(T'other) Dave
"Howard" <how...@thebikezone.org.uk> wrote in message
news:60bf6ead.03122...@posting.google.com...
So, crippled for life or dead....hmmmm, a toughie.....
I'd have thought the issue was not to strike the 'victim' in the first
place, regardless of vehicle....
Howard
> I'd have thought the issue was not to strike the 'victim' in the first
> place, regardless of vehicle....
But as they say 'accidents happen' or rather 'accidents' happen and
drivers do seem to make rather frequent 'mistakes'. If the choice is
restricted to choosing between maiming and death perhaps we should
widen the choice to include 'use the road in safety' by removing all
cycle and pedestrian unfriendly vehicles from our roads or at least
restricting their sped to a point where they do less damage. Say 20
MPH for 'normal' cars and 10 MPH for 4x4's...
vernon.levy
>But as they say 'accidents happen' or rather 'accidents' happen and
>drivers do seem to make rather frequent 'mistakes'. If the choice is
>restricted to choosing between maiming and death perhaps we should
>widen the choice to include 'use the road in safety' by removing all
>cycle and pedestrian unfriendly vehicles from our roads or at least
>restricting their sped to a point where they do less damage. Say 20
>MPH for 'normal' cars and 10 MPH for 4x4's...
>
and reductio ad absurdum....
If legislation were introduced that removed cyclsits and pedestrians who
could not maintain a speed that reduced impact velocities with motorised
vehicles to sub lethal levels thered be no need for an expensive
re-signing of our roads :-)
Alternatively sterilise all pedestrians and cyclists with a genetic
pre-dispositioon to whinge about their lot on the road/pavement. Much
more cost effective than the development costs of a new generation of
vehicles :-)
There is no such thing as a 'pedestrian and cyclist friendly vehicle'.
They all bloody hurt on impact.
Education and re-education of all road users would be more beneficial.
There will always be accidents no matter how many spleens are vented in
this newsgroup and no matter what safely legislation is introduced.
Even though I fail to see how the urban safari drivers can justify
their 4 x 4 purchases, I respect their right to buy and drive them. I
just don't ventire near their natural environment - schools and
supermarkets :-)
Vernon
hunting down a bargain in the pre-Xmas sales
Michael MacClancy
> (www.transalt.org) latest newsletter contains the following:
>
> TA Bulletin 19/12/03
>
> SUVs Twice as Lethal to Pedestrians
>
> According to pioneering research published in the most recent issue of
more than twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian hit by a
> driver operating a passenger car at the same speed.
>
> ... They found that a pedestrian struck by a driver operating a large
> van is three times as likely to die as someone hit by a driver
> operating a car at the same speed. Pedestrians struck by a driver
> operating a large sports utility vehicle are twice as likely to die.
>
> In their report, the researchers observe that reducing this danger
> would require a radical redesign of sports utility vehicles to replace
> their blunt front ends with sloping, more aerodynamic fronts. Lower,
> sloping hoods injure the legs of pedestrians in a crash, but blunt,
> front ends kill pedestrians through head and chest injuries. Gabler
> notes that this change will not be popular with sport utility vehicle
> buyers who "Like their rugged, off-road look."
>
> As though we didn't already know...
I'm sure that SUVs are more dangerous for cyclists as well as pedestrians
but it would be interesting to see some figures for the relative risks.
Despite the OP's subject line cyclists aren't mentioned at all.
Also of interest (and to be recommended to journalists) is the author's
repeated use of 'a pedestrian struck by a *driver operating a* large sports
utility vehicle', thereby ensuring that there is a human factor in these
collisions.
___
Michael MacClancy
Dave Kahn
> There is no such thing as a 'pedestrian and cyclist friendly vehicle'.
> They all bloody hurt on impact.
That's true, but some designs are clearly more lethal than others.
> Even though I fail to see how the urban safari drivers can justify
> their 4 x 4 purchases, I respect their right to buy and drive them.
What about their right to charge around the streets with bull bars on?
> I just don't ventire near their natural environment - schools and
> supermarkets :-)
Perhaps that's because, like me, you've observed that these vehicles
tend to be driven more aggressively than ordinary cars, in line with
risk compensation theory. That is the risk to the vehicles' occupants
is reduced; everyone else's is increased. Does operating one of these
vehicles not carry with it a responsibilty to do so with extra care?
--
Dave...
Simonb
> Does operating one of these
> vehicles not carry with it a responsibilty to do so with extra care?
Carefully inching your pumped up, musclebound monster around the city
streets? That would look a little poncey wouldn't it? That's not what
vehicles like these are designed for.
They are designed primarily to intimidate. Get the f*** out of my way!
;-) Simonb
(T'other) Dave
"Simonb" <bellrockl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fe82ee3$0$52879$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
As a 4x4 owner (our 2nd one), I'd just like to say...
roomy....blahblah....torquey...blahblah....utilitarian....functional..blahbl
ahblah....can take 3 mountain bikes without having to dismantle or worry
about being nicked...blahblah....don't have to worry about
engine/chassis/etc being ripped out on poorly maintained roads /
off-road..blahblah.....and it's our car and we love it!!, so
neh-neh-nehyneh!!...
having said that I am also an 'aware human bean' and always drive extremely
considerately, much to the annoyance of my fellow mdg drivers in their
BMW's, Corsas, Fiestas, rovers, mercedes...etcetc...all of who are obviously
far more important than me and need to be at their destination before they
left to get there.
But, I do agree with the point about the bull bars and believe that the
owner of any vehicle fitted with them should be taken out, lined up against
a wall, then repeatedly have their vehicle driven in to them, bull bars
first of course ;-)
I have an 'unusual' 4x4, a Ssangyong Musso. I regularly see one the same
colour as ours and do the 'hiya from a member of the unofficial Musso owners
club' wave, then see his bullbars and the wave turns from a wave to a two
fingered salute!!...I'm sure he wonders wtf is going on ;-)
Dave.
Simon Brooke
They are designed primarily for operating in areas where there are few
tarmac roads, and for carrying out tasks away from the road
network. Mine is regularly used during the winter for hauling fencing
supplies and tree seedlings to areas we're planting, for example. It's
also handy for moving boats around. But I agree that such things have
no purpose in cities, and I wouldn't in the least mind be banned from
taking mine into a city - in fact, I think it would be a good thing.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --
Simon Brooke
> But, I do agree with the point about the bull bars and believe that the
> owner of any vehicle fitted with them should be taken out, lined up against
> a wall, then repeatedly have their vehicle driven in to them, bull bars
> first of course ;-)
Bullbars have absolutely no purpose except to injure. In my opinion
anyone who injures someone in an accident when driving a vehicle with
'aftermarket' modifications to its front end should be charged with
assault (in addition to whatever driving offence they are charged
with) - because the bars were clearly put there with the intent of
causing injury.
However, is this discussion not off-topic in a cycling group? If we
aloow or encourage general discussion of uk.tosspot matters here,
we'll attract all the tossers and this group, too, will become
unusable.
David Nutter
> "Simonb" <bellrockl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Dave Kahn wrote:
> > > Does operating one of these
> > > vehicles not carry with it a responsibilty to do so with extra care?
> >
> > Carefully inching your pumped up, musclebound monster around the city
> > streets? That would look a little poncey wouldn't it? That's not what
> > vehicles like these are designed for.
> >
> > They are designed primarily to intimidate. Get the f*** out of my way!
>
> They are designed primarily for operating in areas where there are few
> tarmac roads, and for carrying out tasks away from the road
> network. Mine is regularly used during the winter for hauling fencing
> supplies and tree seedlings to areas we're planting, for example. It's
> also handy for moving boats around. But I agree that such things have
> no purpose in cities, and I wouldn't in the least mind be banned from
> taking mine into a city - in fact, I think it would be a good thing.
I think the OP means that they are marketed at least in part for their
intimidating properties. The adverts I've seen for the things recently
mostly feature smart young things in a suspiciously clean and undented
vehicle barrelling through the city while pounding music plays in the
background, not some bloke in a battered pickup hauling 20 posts, a
fencing mallet, staple gun, several coils of wire and a scruffy collie
dog up a muddy hillside at half past nine on a wet thursday morning.
FWIW I haven't noticed 4wd drivers being much more or less aggressive
than others but the poor rearward visibility the drivers of some of
these vehicles have due to the vehicle design is quite concerning. One
must keep remembering to treat them like a small truck with its
consequent blind spots rather than a car...
Regards,
-david
(T'other) Dave
"David Nutter" <david....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:wtqzndj...@mira.dur.ac.uk...
> Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> writes:
>
> > "Simonb" <bellrockl...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > Dave Kahn wrote:
> > > > Does operating one of these
> > > > vehicles not carry with it a responsibilty to do so with extra care?
> > >
> > > Carefully inching your pumped up, musclebound monster around the city
> > > streets? That would look a little poncey wouldn't it? That's not what
> > > vehicles like these are designed for.
> > >
> > > They are designed primarily to intimidate. Get the f*** out of my way!
> >
> > They are designed primarily for operating in areas where there are few
> > tarmac roads, and for carrying out tasks away from the road
> > network. Mine is regularly used during the winter for hauling fencing
> > supplies and tree seedlings to areas we're planting, for example. It's
> > also handy for moving boats around. But I agree that such things have
> > no purpose in cities, and I wouldn't in the least mind be banned from
> > taking mine into a city - in fact, I think it would be a good thing.
>
> I think the OP means that they are marketed at least in part for their
> intimidating properties. The adverts I've seen for the things recently
> mostly feature smart young things in a suspiciously clean and undented
> vehicle barrelling through the city while pounding music plays in the
> background, not some bloke in a battered pickup hauling 20 posts, a
> fencing mallet, staple gun, several coils of wire and a scruffy collie
> dog up a muddy hillside at half past nine on a wet thursday morning.
>
anything else on the long empty road, giving you a buzz that outstrips
anything legal or illegal drugs can do for you and makes your willy bigger
to boot ;-)....but hey, that's ok, 'cos it ain't designed to be able to also
go off-road, so it must inherintley be safer.
> FWIW I haven't noticed 4wd drivers being much more or less aggressive
> than others but the poor rearward visibility the drivers of some of
> these vehicles have due to the vehicle design is quite concerning. One
> must keep remembering to treat them like a small truck with its
> consequent blind spots rather than a car...
>
A very.....reasonable view, david...
...and of course, as we all know, being cyclists 'n' all (bringining back on
topic ;-), all cars appear to have glaring blind spots directly out of the
front windscreen, out of both side windows and definitely out of the rear
;-)
> Regards,
>
> -david
>
Merry Christmas, y'all
(t'other) Dave.
Dave Kahn
wrote:
>Bullbars have absolutely no purpose except to injure. In my opinion
>anyone who injures someone in an accident when driving a vehicle with
>'aftermarket' modifications to its front end should be charged with
>assault (in addition to whatever driving offence they are charged
>with) - because the bars were clearly put there with the intent of
>causing injury.
The bull bars should simply be banned. There's no justification for
them in this country. They are just a lethal fashion accessory.
>However, is this discussion not off-topic in a cycling group? If we
>aloow or encourage general discussion of uk.tosspot matters here,
>we'll attract all the tossers and this group, too, will become
>unusable.
It's relevant as far as the danger to cyclists is concerned.
--
Dave...
AndyMorris
>>
> Unlike, let's say, sports cars...marketed with a view to going faster
> than anything else on the long empty road, giving you a buzz that
> outstrips anything legal or illegal drugs can do for you and makes
> your willy bigger to boot ;-)....but hey, that's ok, 'cos it ain't
> designed to be able to also go off-road, so it must inherintley be
> safer.
>
You need to get some better drugs mate.
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
(T'other) Dave
"AndyMorris" <AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote in message
news:bsam14$9t7$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Nothing wrong with my drugs mate, as I said, 'marketed'...I've got the 4x4,
not the sports car...and I don't need the bigger willy (to boot), otherwise
I'd respond to one of those wonderful adverts I keep getting in my
e-mail....talking of which, as they all seem to guarantee an extra 3 inches,
when does it stop??...If you've taken one course and gained three inches,
can you then take another course and get another three inches and so on ??
;-)...36 inches later...bit like a male version of Jordan
Dave.
(T'other) Dave
"(T'other) Dave" <no-...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:P_jGb.4914$Y45....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Drugs?!!?...who needs drugs when you've got a bike?!!?
8-P
Dave
vernon.levy
>What about their right to charge around the streets with bull bars on?
>
to their vehicles, manufacturers having stopped fitting them several
years ago. Apparently the UK is waiting for European legislation
banning them altogether before it enforces their removal.
>>Perhaps that's because, like me, you've observed that these vehicles
>>tend to be driven more aggressively than ordinary cars, in line with
>>risk compensation theory.
>>
Not really; white van man, and Mondeo man appear to be far more
aggressive in my encounters with them as a motorist. I still have not
felt intimidated or worried by motorists as a cyclist. My wide beam
forces other road users to give me a wide berth and there's no doubt in
anyone's mind that I will do serious damage to their vehicle if we
collide :-)
>> Does operating one of these
>>vehicles not carry with it a responsibilty to do so with extra care?
>>
All road users have a responsiblity to exercise appropriate care.
Vernon
>>
>>
>>
Graeme
news:57db8bde.03122...@posting.google.com:
>> I just don't ventire near their natural environment - schools and
>> supermarkets :-)
>
> Perhaps that's because, like me, you've observed that these vehicles
> tend to be driven more aggressively than ordinary cars, in line with
> risk compensation theory. That is the risk to the vehicles' occupants
> is reduced; everyone else's is increased. Does operating one of these
> vehicles not carry with it a responsibilty to do so with extra care?
Erm... I have to admit to having bought a 4x4 (a 15 year old Land
Cruiser) when I moved to Australia. Whilst a lot of them have very likely
*never* been off road, a great proportion of them have. I think it's a
case of "the dickheads stand out" and in the UK there is a relatively
small sample size so the dickheads may be over represented or perhaps the
lack of real justification for owning one (for the majority of people) in
the UK means that 4x4 really do attract more idiots.
Over here there are so many they are seen as fairly normal, and as they
are much more likely to be used for what they were designed for and many
off-road drivers put themselves through off-road training, then perhaps
the level of self knowledge limits the risk compensation factor. Having
seen a couple of 4x4s on their side off-road (and 1 Land Rover Disco on
it's roof in Scotland) I'm very aware of their flaws and actively
compensate, e.g. I used to leave a decent braking distance when I had a
"normal" car, now it is almost double what it was and my driving is very
sedate (c.f. Morgan Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy" :-)
Cheers,
Graeme
Howard
> intimidating properties. The adverts I've seen for the things recently
> mostly feature smart young things in a suspiciously clean and undented
> vehicle barrelling through the city while pounding music plays in the
> background, not some bloke in a battered pickup hauling 20 posts, a
> fencing mallet, staple gun, several coils of wire and a scruffy collie
> dog up a muddy hillside at half past nine on a wet thursday morning.
>
>
> -david
Doesn't the most common advert at the moment for one of these things
features a song about things you just don't do ending with the line
'mess about with me'...
Is it the vehicles or the drivers? Lets face it a Landrover is still a
good honest working beast. However, if you are some pin brained, no
necked 20 stone thug * with a 'hard man' image to promote you don't
buy a Micra do you? Of course a big 4x4 fits the 'image' perfectly.
* Any resemblance to 'road rage ' thug Carl Baxter of Market Weighton
near Hull who deliberately run down a cyclist and his 4 year old
daughter in his Range Rover, leaving the cyclist maimed and her in a
coma (and who got just a 2 year driving ban) is entirely
non-coincidental...
Alan Braggins
>"Simonb" <bellrockl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> They are designed primarily to intimidate. Get the f*** out of my way!
>
>They are designed primarily for operating in areas where there are few
>tarmac roads, and for carrying out tasks away from the road
>network. Mine is regularly used during the winter for hauling fencing
>supplies and tree seedlings to areas we're planting, for example. It's
>also handy for moving boats around. But I agree that such things have
>no purpose in cities, and I wouldn't in the least mind be banned from
>taking mine into a city - in fact, I think it would be a good thing.
So if you want to drive down a snow-covered track from your farm and
then into a city to buy something too heavy/bulky to carry on a bike
or public transport, you have to change vehicles somewhere along the
way? What if you want to move a boat around to a boatyard in a city?
(On the other hand I think some are designed more for image in town use
than for actual off-road use. I don't really think we can get away with
making potential owners justify why they want one before allowing them
to buy one though.)
Zog The Undeniable
> So if you want to drive down a snow-covered track from your farm and
> then into a city to buy something too heavy/bulky to carry on a bike
> or public transport, you have to change vehicles somewhere along the
> way? What if you want to move a boat around to a boatyard in a city?
> (On the other hand I think some are designed more for image in town use
> than for actual off-road use. I don't really think we can get away with
> making potential owners justify why they want one before allowing them
> to buy one though.)
According to www.honestjohn.co.uk, urbanites buy them because they can
fly over speed humps with impunity due to their wide track.
Simonb
> I don't really think we can get
> away with making potential owners justify why they want one before
> allowing them to buy one though.
Why not? After all they have a much more serious impact on energy
consumption, so their production should be controlled in some way.
Simonb
Just zis Guy, you know?
Braggins) wrote:
>So if you want to drive down a snow-covered track from your farm and
>then into a city to buy something too heavy/bulky to carry on a bike
>or public transport, you have to change vehicles somewhere along the
>way?
Straw man. 90% of offroaders never get muddy. For most urban 4x4
drivers the closest they get to offroad is putting two wheels on the
pavement when there are double yellow lines.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
(T'other) Dave
"Simonb" <sben...@YOUAREALLHERETICSwiderworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ff5cf2c$0$52879$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
*****....much more serious impact on energy...******
- Bollox!...but please don't take it personally ;-)
Simonb
> Sorry, had enough now....
> *****....much more serious impact on energy...******
> - Bollox!...but please don't take it personally ;-)
No offence taken.
Are you saying that a truck uses the same amount of fuel as a car of similar
age?
Simonb
Simon Brooke
Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Adding a transfer box
and a second part time differential to a vehicle does not have a
serious impact on its fuel usage (except when that second differential
is engaged), on its weight, or on its manufacturing cost (whether in
financial or energy terms). In any of these terms a 4x4 as such is
less polluting than an air conditioned car or an automatic
transmission car, and about equal to a five door car.
It's not 4x4s you're really complaining about: it's extra-large, extra
heavy, extra powerful vehicles. Many of these vehicles have four wheel
drive as part of a long list of features, but it isn't four wheel
drive that makes them specially polluting
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>It's not 4x4s you're really complaining about: it's extra-large, extra
>heavy, extra powerful vehicles. Many of these vehicles have four wheel
>drive as part of a long list of features, but it isn't four wheel
>drive that makes them specially polluting
This is true. Most of the really large, really heavy, really
pedestrian-and-cyclist hostile cars on the roads are these 4x4s,
though. A scoobydoo is no more deadly than any other car.
Simon Brooke
Yes. Mine has exactly the same normally aspirated 8 valve four
cylinder two litre petrol engine as a fairly basic saloon car. It's lighter
than the saloon car, but less aerodynamic. So it's a bit more economic
at lower speeds and a bit less economic at higher speeds. It's a part
time 4x4 - the transfer box is normally disengaged for on-road driving
- and has automatic freewheel hubs on the front, so the front transmission
is not dragging when in two wheel drive mode.
So, in summary, it's about the same in energy efficiency terms as the
saloon car, without automatic gearbox and air conditioning. If the
saloon car does have air conditioning or an automatic gearbox then
it would be a lot less energy efficient than my 4x4 (if you want to
air condition mine you just take the top off).
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
(T'other) Dave
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:bu0dvvg0kmm5pqgcs...@4ax.com...
'Pedestrian-and-cyclist hostile cars on the roads...' c'mon Guy, it's
starting to sound like 'dangerous roads.....'
My 4x4 has never expressed any hostility towards anyone or anything, in fact
I think it might be a vegan (poor vegetables!!)
...or am I missing traces of irony here ? ;-)
Dave.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>in summary, it's about the same in energy efficiency terms as the
>saloon car, without automatic gearbox and air conditioning.
My air conditioned automatic car achieves energy efficiency by
spreading the energy used in manufacture over the maximum possible
number of years of service ;-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<no-...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>'Pedestrian-and-cyclist hostile cars on the roads...' c'mon Guy, it's
>starting to sound like 'dangerous roads.....'
>My 4x4 has never expressed any hostility towards anyone or anything, in fact
>I think it might be a vegan (poor vegetables!!)
>...or am I missing traces of irony here ? ;-)
Large 4x4s cause much more serious injuries to peds and cyclists than
standard passenger cars. A curved-fronted passenger car will cause
leg injuries, the much higher 4x4 will cause internal injuries as
well. And then they fit bull bars...
Tony Raven
>
> My air conditioned automatic car achieves energy efficiency by
> spreading the energy used in manufacture over the maximum possible
> number of years of service ;-)
>
With 90% of the "energy impact" of a car being fuel [1]and a Volvo 940 doing
around 22mpg that's a pretty threadbare arguement. Who was it commented a
modern BMW five series has one tenth the emissions of a Moggie Minor? Plus
modern car designs post Euroncap have better pedestrian safety in a collision.
Time to get a modern fuel efficient car I'm afraid Guy.
Tony
1. Maclean H L & Lester B L Lave, "A Life-Cycle Model of an Automobile."
Environmental Policy Analysis *3* pp. 322-330 (1998)
(T'other) Dave
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:31:34 -0000, "\(T'other\) Dave"
> <no-...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> >'Pedestrian-and-cyclist hostile cars on the roads...' c'mon Guy, it's
> >starting to sound like 'dangerous roads.....'
> >My 4x4 has never expressed any hostility towards anyone or anything, in
fact
> >I think it might be a vegan (poor vegetables!!)
> >...or am I missing traces of irony here ? ;-)
>
> Large 4x4s cause much more serious injuries to peds and cyclists than
> standard passenger cars. A curved-fronted passenger car will cause
> leg injuries, the much higher 4x4 will cause internal injuries as
> well. And then they fit bull bars...
>
> Guy
> ===
(I let my feelings about bull bars be known earlier in the thread - hang
'em, burn 'em, drive into 'em whilst up against a brick wall with bull bars
attached etcetc)
...and what about those dinky little Smart cars?? High but presumably light
enough to actually bounce off you ?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote:
>> My air conditioned automatic car achieves energy efficiency by
>> spreading the energy used in manufacture over the maximum possible
>> number of years of service ;-)
>With 90% of the "energy impact" of a car being fuel [1]and a Volvo 940 doing
>around 22mpg that's a pretty threadbare arguement.
Mine gets rather closer to 25, not as good as my old Carlton but it
breaks down less often as well. Strange. When I bought it the
figures were quited the other way round: most of the energy impact
being manufacture. But then, twelve years ago maybe it was.
Manufacturing has become more energy efficient, I'm told. And twelve
years ago many manufacturers were still using solvent-based paint
(unlike Volvo).
>modern car designs post Euroncap have better pedestrian safety in a collision
On the other hand any pedestrian under 9' tall won't bang their head
on my windscreen in a crash, 'cos the bonnet is so long :-D
>Time to get a modern fuel efficient car I'm afraid Guy.
I'll be replacing it this year. With another as close to the same as
I can find :-) Probably be an 850 rather than a V70, as late 850s
were better than early V70s according to Ed, my mechanic.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<no-...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> Large 4x4s cause much more serious injuries to peds and cyclists than
>> standard passenger cars.
>So, nothing to do with the driver then ?
I'm assuming that the driver will be equally gormless whatever it
drives ;-)
Tony Raven
>
> on my windscreen in a crash, 'cos the bonnet is so long :-D
>
Memo to car designers: Make bonnet longer than the height of a pedestrian and
they won't hit their heads in an accident. Or do you have some secret
patented anti-slide agent on your bonnet?
>
> I'll be replacing it this year. With another as close to the same as
> I can find :-) Probably be an 850 rather than a V70, as late 850s
> were better than early V70s according to Ed, my mechanic.
>
If you must drive a mobile brick, at least go for a bi-fuel V70 or similar.
Its much more environmentally friendly on LPG plus they were not popular so
presumably cheaper second hand and definitely cheaper on fuel.
Tony
Simon Brooke
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> > My air conditioned automatic car achieves energy efficiency by
> > spreading the energy used in manufacture over the maximum possible
> > number of years of service ;-)
> >
>
> With 90% of the "energy impact" of a car being fuel [1]and a Volvo
> 940 doing around 22mpg that's a pretty threadbare arguement. Who
> was it commented a modern BMW five series has one tenth the
> emissions of a Moggie Minor? Plus modern car designs post Euroncap
> have better pedestrian safety in a collision. Time to get a modern
> fuel efficient car I'm afraid Guy.
I thought that roughly half of all the energy used by a motor vehicle
in its lifetime was the energy cost of manufacture (including smelting
and forming of metals), and that consequently it was energy efficient
to keep running a motor vehicle over as many years as possible?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote:
>If you must drive a mobile brick, at least go for a bi-fuel V70 or similar.
>Its much more environmentally friendly on LPG plus they were not popular so
>presumably cheaper second hand and definitely cheaper on fuel.
(a) can't afford it and (b) there's nowhere to buy LPG locally without
pissing away all the fuel savings with special trips to the filling
station.
We'll continue with plan A: use bikes most of the itme.
Tony Raven
>
> pissing away all the fuel savings with special trips to the filling
> station.
>
(b) there are four stations listed, excluding the Motorway services, for
Reading selling LPG fuel and the environmental benefits will far outweigh any
extra travel. As for (a) surely you are not saying you'll happily drive an
old pollutemobile because its cheaper ;-)
Tony
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote:
>(b) there are four stations listed, excluding the Motorway services, for
>Reading selling LPG fuel and the environmental benefits will far outweigh any
>extra travel.
I know where they are, I investigated dual-fuel when I got my last
company car (a V70). My nearest filling station is less than 1/4 mile
away, the nearest LPG station is 3 miles away through one of the most
heavily-congested parts of town.
>As for (a) surely you are not saying you'll happily drive an
>old pollutemobile because its cheaper ;-)
No, because it offers the right balance for us. We only run one car,
so it has to be able to do all the things we do often - including
transporting a triplet. Those are much easier to get onto the roof of
a Volvo estate than almost any other car.
I know you are pulling my leg, but every time I buy a car I try to get
something more fuel efficient and fail. All the fuel-efficient cars
fail to match up in at least one key respect. One day, maybe...
Tony Raven
>
> so it has to be able to do all the things we do often - including
> transporting a triplet.
So you won't be objecting to other people's judgement on their right balance
then? Even if it is a 4x4 and if its not obvious on any one particular
journey why that balance is what they have concluded?
Tony
Just zis Guy, you know?
If I had the money to buy an M-class Mercedes I would buy something
smaller and more fuel efficient. If I had the money to buy a decent
automatic Passat TDi estate I would have one like a shot (except you
can't find the TDi in auto as far as I can tell). We used to have a
Honda Civic, but that went because it couldn't do everything. Most
people who buy 4x4s seem to include "image" as the dominant factor in
the balance, and that is one thing I have never weighted highly -
which is probably why I drive a 12-year-old brick :-)
Tony Raven
>
> smaller and more fuel efficient. If I had the money to buy a decent
> automatic Passat TDi estate I would have one like a shot (except you
> can't find the TDi in auto as far as I can tell). We used to have a
> Honda Civic, but that went because it couldn't do everything.
That's fine, you've weighed your options and made your choice
> Most
> people who buy 4x4s seem to include "image" as the dominant factor in
> the balance, and that is one thing I have never weighted highly -
> which is probably why I drive a 12-year-old brick :-)
Is your assumption with no knowledge of the facts. You made your choice, let
them make theirs without being looked down on for assumed motives which are
pure speculation on your part.
Tony
(T'other) Dave
The Dark Side is calling, Guy....
Guy..Guy....Buy a 4x4, you know it makes sense ;-)
Honestly, the Volvo 740 est to Ssangyong Musso was a great move...you'd get
the triplet in the back, no problem...3ltre Merc diesel engine, loadsa
torque 30mpg...Took it on a climbing trip last year and ended up with two
blokes, 6'+, sleeping full length on foldy down seats with room to spare. My
mate reckoned it was the most comfy car he'd ever slept in and had the best
night sleep he'd had for months. I hasten to add, we were parked up at the
time!!
Goooo on, yaknowyawanna ;-)
Dave.
Graeme
news:uf8evv85r52u0clgj...@4ax.com:
> If I had the money to buy a decent
> automatic Passat TDi estate I would have one like a shot
I used to have the manual version as a company car. Very nice car, plus I
could get about 55-60mpg out of it on a long trip. Even with an open
canoe and two mountain bikes on the roof I got about 45mpg. As our
company offered fuel cards nobody could understand why I went for the
most fuel efficient car I could get that best suited my needs :-/
> Most
> people who buy 4x4s seem to include "image" as the dominant factor in
> the balance, and that is one thing I have never weighted highly -
> which is probably why I drive a 12-year-old brick :-)
My 4x4 is a 15 year old Land Cruiser (for which the description "brick
shaped" was probably invented). When I bought it, it had a great "rough,
tough" type image, complete with huge tyres and jacked up suspension. It
got many positive comments in car parks and even got wolf whistled at
traffic lights once (this is Australia, people are *definitely*
different). However, day to day practicality and road handling meant that
I lowered the suspension and got smaller tyes fitted. Gone are the wolf
whistles and people stopping me in car parks, but now I at least it
drives better and I can park it in multi-storey car parks.
Anyone who knows me could say that image counts for little, if it does
the job, then it suits me :-)
Cheers,
Graeme
Cardinal Fang
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote in
> news:uf8evv85r52u0clgj...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>If I had the money to buy a decent
>>automatic Passat TDi estate I would have one like a shot
>
>
> I used to have the manual version as a company car. Very nice car, plus I
> could get about 55-60mpg out of it on a long trip. Even with an open
> canoe and two mountain bikes on the roof I got about 45mpg. As our
> company offered fuel cards nobody could understand why I went for the
> most fuel efficient car I could get that best suited my needs :-/
900 miles per tank is useful
[Not Responding]
but, guy, so what if someone else's search requirement is 'image'
rather than 'triplet carrying'?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote:
>> Most
>> people who buy 4x4s seem to include "image" as the dominant factor in
>> the balance, and that is one thing I have never weighted highly -
>> which is probably why I drive a 12-year-old brick :-)
>Is your assumption with no knowledge of the facts.
Er, no. Things like "high driving position, lots of space" which 4x4
drivers advance as reasons also applies to more economical people
carriers. The main difference (according to the manufacturers, not
me) is that a people carrier says "married with kids" and a 4x4
doesn't. It's not my argument that 4x4 buyers are usually buying for
vanity, its the manufacturers'. It's the market research finding on
which they base their promotional campaigns.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<no-...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>Volvo 740 est to Ssangyong Musso was a great move...you'd get
>the triplet in the back, no problem
You think? It's 11ft. long and 3ft high!
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>900 miles per tank is useful
True. I miss the 520 per tank my old Carlton used to get. I could
drive to Harrogate, do a day's work and drive back without having to
refuel.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<not_res...@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
>but, guy, so what if someone else's search requirement is 'image'
>rather than 'triplet carrying'?
Fine if they are honest about it. But most of them (esp. ojn
American-dominated NGs) seem to be sufficiently insecure about theiur
choice that they try to cover up with things like "they don't make
full-size cars any more."
(T'other) Dave
No probs...might have to move the front passenger seat forward a tad, but
you'd you'd only have to fold down half of the back seat...
(T'other) Dave
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c71gvvkur47hdbjnt...@4ax.com...
That's a good one, haven't heard that before. Filed for future use....oh,
hang on, doesn't work in the UK does it??....ah well....
Tony Raven
>
> drivers advance as reasons also applies to more economical people
> carriers. The main difference (according to the manufacturers, not
> me) is that a people carrier says "married with kids" and a 4x4
> doesn't. It's not my argument that 4x4 buyers are usually buying for
> vanity, its the manufacturers'. It's the market research finding on
> which they base their promotional campaigns.
>
And what do Volvo adverts tell me about you?
"Voted the most beautiful car in the world"
Oh you shallow person you, buying for image ;-)
Or is it http://www.veritasadv.com/volvo1.html or
http://www.veritasadv.com/volvo2.html or even
http://www.veritasadv.com/volvo7.html
Those car adverts tell me so much about you that I never guessed at :-)
Tony
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote:
>And what do Volvo adverts tell me about you?
>"Voted the most beautiful car in the world"
LOL! Not my one, I assure you. It's a brick with dents.
>Those car adverts tell me so much about you that I never guessed at :-)
Those are *much* closer to the mark! Yes, we started buying Volvos
for safety reasons. Well, even that's not strictly true. My in-laws
started buying Volvoes for safety reasons and we started scrounging /
buying their castoffs for cheapness ;-)
Ambrose Nankivell
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:30:12 -0000, "Tony Raven"
> <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote:
>
> >(b) there are four stations listed, excluding the Motorway services, for
> >Reading selling LPG fuel and the environmental benefits will far outweigh
any
> >extra travel.
>
> I know where they are, I investigated dual-fuel when I got my last
> company car (a V70). My nearest filling station is less than 1/4 mile
> away, the nearest LPG station is 3 miles away through one of the most
> heavily-congested parts of town.
Hmm, sadly the nearest filling station to you with relatively
environmentally beneficial fuel is in Kent according to
www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk , but www.planetfuels.co.uk are in Sussex
and will deliver it in bulk. Bit of a problem with Volvos, though, as
diesels are a fairly recent innovation with them. Perhaps an old Merc will
do the job.
Ambrose
Ambrose Nankivell
"(T'other) Dave" <no-...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:0yzJb.2384$Od5...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...> news:bu0dvvg0kmm5pqgcs...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:35:08 GMT, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >It's not 4x4s you're really complaining about: it's extra-large, extra
> > >heavy, extra powerful vehicles. Many of these vehicles have four wheel
> > >drive as part of a long list of features, but it isn't four wheel
> > >drive that makes them specially polluting
> >
> > This is true. Most of the really large, really heavy, really
> > pedestrian-and-cyclist hostile cars on the roads are these 4x4s,
> > though. A scoobydoo is no more deadly than any other car.
> >
> > Guy
> > ===
> > May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> > http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
>
> starting to sound like 'dangerous roads.....'
> My 4x4 has never expressed any hostility towards anyone or anything, in
fact
> I think it might be a vegan (poor vegetables!!)
I imagine it eats 60Ma old animals, rather than recently harvested crushed
seeds. I just made another post on that subject.
Tony Raven
>
> Hmm, sadly the nearest filling station to you with relatively
> environmentally beneficial fuel is in Kent according to
> www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk , but www.planetfuels.co.uk are in Sussex
> and will deliver it in bulk. Bit of a problem with Volvos, though, as
> diesels are a fairly recent innovation with them. Perhaps an old Merc will
> do the job.
Curious distribution. Loads of stations in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Humberside
and next to none in London and the surrounds or up the west side of the
country
Tony
Ambrose Nankivell
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:bta4lm$4v1hc$1...@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de...
which is to say basically petrodiesel. This can be found more conveniently
by people in the South East by filling up their tank on a booze cruise in
France, as all diesel there is 5% biodiesel.
It seems to be that there's the one refiner who does that in Northern East
Anglia, or whatever you'd call that region. Other than that, things are
sparse.
James Hodson
<outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>You think? It's 11ft. long and 3ft high!
>
As compared to:
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!
James
--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.
James Hodson
<outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
OT here
>Straw man.
Guy
D'you know the URL of a page than was mentioned herein a few months
ago? It was all about straw man, ad hominem etc.
(T'other) Dave
right...but then you already knew that, didn't you?? ;-)
Dave.
(T'other) Dave
"Ambrose Nankivell" <$FirstnameInitialofSurname$@onetel.net.uk> wrote in
message news:bta3hb$4tpnk$3...@ID-93953.news.uni-berlin.de...
Reminds me of the old question, If brain transplants were possible and you
needed one, would you go for an old one (Einstein's) or a brand new unused
one (newborn) ?....obviously this is to be taken at face value and not
thought about too deeply!!...first one to reply "ah, but...." gets it ;-)
(whatever it is....).
Dave.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<$FirstnameInitialofSurname$@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>sadly the nearest filling station to you with relatively
>environmentally beneficial fuel is in Kent according to
>www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk
Reading Buses run on biodiesel, so I could probably come to some
arrangement ;-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<jUNDERSC...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>D'you know the URL of a page than was mentioned herein a few months
>ago? It was all about straw man, ad hominem etc.
Not offhand.
Alan Braggins
>"Simonb" <sben...@YOUAREALLHERETICSwiderworld.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>> > I don't really think we can get
>> > away with making potential owners justify why they want one before
>> > allowing them to buy one though.
>>
>> Why not? After all they have a much more serious impact on energy
>> consumption, so their production should be controlled in some way.
>
>Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Adding a transfer box
>and a second part time differential to a vehicle does not have a
>serious impact on its fuel usage (except when that second differential
>is engaged), on its weight, or on its manufacturing cost (whether in
>financial or energy terms). In any of these terms a 4x4 as such is
>less polluting than an air conditioned car or an automatic
>transmission car, and about equal to a five door car.
>
>It's not 4x4s you're really complaining about: it's extra-large, extra
>heavy, extra powerful vehicles. Many of these vehicles have four wheel
>drive as part of a long list of features, but it isn't four wheel
>drive that makes them specially polluting
I probably should have declared an interest as the owner of an Audi 100
Quattro and the ex-owner of a Subaru (with part time 4WD), so I might
be biased in agreeing with you. But by "4x4", I think people generally
mean the big chunky vehicles, and the thread did start with a report about
the likelyhood of a pedestrian being killed by a "large sports utility
vehicle" compared with a car.
And we do have fuel tax to discourage people buying unnecessarily large
heavy powerful vehicles.
Alan Braggins
>On 02 Jan 2004 18:13:12 +0000 (GMT), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
>Braggins) wrote:
>
>>So if you want to drive down a snow-covered track from your farm and
>>then into a city to buy something too heavy/bulky to carry on a bike
>>or public transport, you have to change vehicles somewhere along the
>>way?
>
>Straw man. 90% of offroaders never get muddy.
Does that really justify banning the 10% that do from ever going into cities?
In the context you snipped, Simon was talking about working offroaders that
were used off road. Knowing people who have offroaders because they do use
them for exactly that sort of thing, a complete ban on city use seems harsh.
Even though I also know of people who use them to drive at excessive speed
over humps in town, and someone who is thinking of getting own because when
she drove her Volvo into the back of a Discovery, her Volvo bent and the
Discovery didn't and she wants her precious children to be even safer than
they are in the Volvo. (As I've mentioned earlier, I know some decent Volvo
drivers (including one family for who "the tandem fits on easily with enough
other bikes" is a main reason for having the Volvo).)
Tony Raven
>
> when she drove her Volvo into the back of a Discovery,
> her Volvo bent and the Discovery didn't and she wants her precious children
> to be even safer than they are in the Volvo. (As I've mentioned earlier, I
> know some decent Volvo drivers (including one family for who "the tandem
> fits on easily with enough other bikes" is a main reason for having the
> Volvo).)
That's why I got a Discovery - to protect ourselves from all those Volvo
drivers, especially the ones with lots of dangerous bits of metal tubing and
spokes hung on the outside just waiting to impale some poor unfortunate ;-)
Tony
Henry Braun
> >Straw man.
> D'you know the URL of a page than was mentioned herein a few months
> ago? It was all about straw man, ad hominem etc.
Remember please that, by the immutable laws of USENET, every time you
invoke the name of a fallacy all the trolls get up and dance. Also that it
makes you sound like a knob-end.
Just zis Guy, you know?
Braggins) wrote:
>Does that really justify banning the 10% that do from ever going into cities?
In the unlikely event that they want to I see no reason why they
shouldn't. As long as they drive carefully.
James Hodson
wrote:
Hi Henry
Braun? Certainly; it's only your name. Brain? I couldn't possibly
comment.
I've been called far worse than a "knob-end" so am not overly worried
about your puerile name calling. I was merely asking Guy a simple
question, or didn't you understand that?
Regards
Simon Brooke
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >On 02 Jan 2004 18:13:12 +0000 (GMT), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
> >Braggins) wrote:
> >
> >>So if you want to drive down a snow-covered track from your farm and
> >>then into a city to buy something too heavy/bulky to carry on a bike
> >>or public transport, you have to change vehicles somewhere along the
> >>way?
> >
> >Straw man. 90% of offroaders never get muddy.
>
> Does that really justify banning the 10% that do from ever going into cities?
> In the context you snipped, Simon was talking about working offroaders that
> were used off road. Knowing people who have offroaders because they do use
> them for exactly that sort of thing, a complete ban on city use seems harsh.
Well speaking as one of those users of 'working' (some of the time)
4x4s, I think it's eminently sensible and practical. As I (and most
others in my position) visit large urban areas only rarely it's no
particular hassle for us to have to make other arrangements for the
day, and it would effectively solve the problem of suburban mothers in
BMW S5s and Range Rovers mowing down other children in their rush to
get their own little darlings as close to the suburban school gate as
possible.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
Henry Braun
> >> D'you know the URL of a page than was mentioned herein a few months
> >> ago? It was all about straw man, ad hominem etc.
> >
> >Remember please that, by the immutable laws of USENET, every time you
> >invoke the name of a fallacy all the trolls get up and dance. Also that it
> >makes you sound like a knob-end.
>
> about your puerile name calling. I was merely asking Guy a simple
> question, or didn't you understand that?
You'll find the URL you're after by googling for "fallacies". It comes
very high up the Google rankings because it's been read by a tremendous
number of argumentative USENET posters who, unable to get their own points
across clearly enough to convince anybody, look around for heavier
ammunition.
A fallacious assertion by your opponent in a debate is a crack into which
you can insert your own point; so if you know where and what to look for,
you have a certain advantage in the argument. But finding one isn't a
knock-down blow. Nothing we write or say is ever free from fallacy[1] for
the very good reason that logic alone does not get you very far---in every
debate where there is a real issue at stake, the choice between the two
sides is a matter of judgement, and a step far larger than logic will
let you take infallibly.
And your straw man is my convincing test case; and my argument from
authority is your induction from valid evidence; and your argumentum ad
hominem is my conclusive deduction of a contradiction; and really none of
this is getting us anywhere, and we should go back to talking about
bicycles after all.
So when somebody---in this case Guy, as it happens, rather than
you---begins their post "Straw man!" or "Ad hominem!" I, and I imagine a
lot of other readers, heave an inward sigh, because all sensible
discussion is at an end and people are just taking pot-shots with heavy
weaponry which they don't understand. And all the trolls get up and dance,
because they are the ones who keep this page at the top of the Google
rankings; and everybody, even Guy who is normally a good read, sounds like
a knob-end.
Do read the page, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ or one of many
others, but please, keep quiet about what you read there. It's much the
better way.
Henry
[1] Except, I hope, my doctoral thesis on mathematical logic due for
submission next week. I mention it for purposes of argumenta ad hominem,
ad auctoritatem, ad misericordiam, ad exceptionem, to muddy the waters and
to boast a little.
Ambrose Nankivell
James Hodson <jUNDERSC...@ntlworld.com.invalid> typed:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:03:05 +0000, Henry Braun <br...@maths.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, James Hodson wrote:
>>
>>>> Straw man.
>>
>>> D'you know the URL of a page than was mentioned herein a few months
>>> ago? It was all about straw man, ad hominem etc.
>>
>> Remember please that, by the immutable laws of USENET, every time you
>> invoke the name of a fallacy all the trolls get up and dance. Also
>> that it makes you sound like a knob-end.
>
> Hi Henry
>
> Braun? Certainly; it's only your name. Brain? I couldn't possibly
> comment.
>
> I've been called far worse than a "knob-end" so am not overly worried
> about your puerile name calling. I was merely asking Guy a simple
> question, or didn't you understand that?
>
posting endless 'tu quoque's at the uk.rec.driving trolls^W cross-posters.
I think I may have posted that link, but I can't remember how I'd find it
again.
A
A
Just zis Guy, you know?
> That's why I got a Discovery - to protect ourselves from all those Volvo
> drivers, especially the ones with lots of dangerous bits of metal tubing
and
> spokes hung on the outside just waiting to impale some poor unfortunate
;-)
Hey! I resemble that remark! ;-)
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
Just zis Guy, you know?
> No need for the ad-hominems, I think Henry was only trying to avoid you
> posting endless 'tu quoque's at the uk.rec.driving trolls^W cross-posters.
Although he could have been intending to do an audit of logical fallacies
used by BeHIT as per the GMTV bollocks this AM (I have counted about forty
from the list of seventy standard logical fallacies at
<http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm> which are in current use by
the Liddites).
Dave Kahn
> And all the trolls get up and dance, because they are the ones who keep
> this page at the top of the Google rankings; and everybody, even Guy who
> is normally a good read, sounds like a knob-end.
Or, in formal logic, extremitas mentulae.
--
Dave...
(T'other) Dave
"Dave Kahn" <dkah...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:57db8bde.04010...@posting.google.com...
As Henry's recommending the return to topic, i.e. bikes as we are in urc,
can I also recommend we do it in English too, as not only is it 'c' but also
'u'......
Latin's great if you happen to be in a profession that deems it necessary to
give the impression of being superior in order to warrant ridiculously high
pay, or to have enjoyed the luxury of a higher standard of education, but to
us mere plebs it all gets real tiresome real quick....
Thanks,
Dave.
;-)
(that'll be a tongue, deeply embedded)
Tony Raven
> > Latin's great if you happen to be in a profession that deems it necessary
to
> give the impression of being superior in order to warrant ridiculously high
> pay, or to have enjoyed the luxury of a higher standard of education, but to
> us mere plebs it all gets real tiresome real quick....
>
I'll have to tell that to my gardener when he next tugs his forelock and
mentions a plant name to me ;-)
Tony
Dave Kahn
> Latin's great if you happen to be in a profession that deems it necessary to
> give the impression of being superior in order to warrant ridiculously high
> pay, or to have enjoyed the luxury of a higher standard of education, but to
> us mere plebs it all gets real tiresome real quick....
Pleb? But you know the Latin for knob-end.
> (that'll be a tongue, deeply embedded)
Or, to give it its scientific name, lingua profunditer insertata :-)
--
Dave...
Just zis Guy, you know?
news:57db8bde.04010...@posting.google.com...
> Or, to give it its scientific name, lingua profunditer insertata :-)
Quiquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur...
Dave Kahn
<outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Quiquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur...
Illud dixisti, homo. (You said it, Guy).
--
Dave...