 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / 4x4 Cars (UK group) / February 2005Anti the Antis
This was posted on A.f.l. Don't think it's appeared here but well worth a look at. http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php  Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :-) though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes (don't know which) - have we got any regular motors that big? > This was posted on A.f.l. Don't think it's appeared here but well worth > a look at. > http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php > Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :-) > > though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes (don't > know which) - have we got any regular motors that big? The Land Rover Discovery is 2.7 tonnes. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Let me be slightly trollish in this matter as I admit mothers who take their brats to school in their 4x4s as they are not "very good" at parking i.e f**king dangerous to the rest of the world! do the 4x4 a dis-service i.e its them who should be driving Fiestas "properly, safely etc" but cannot be arsed to drive propeerly with consideration with foresite are the ones who will eventually get 4x4s banned in towns I hate them! PS I admit to driving our MX5 sometimes in the summer and those flippin idiots who cut corners i.e on your side of the road - coming towards you or who sit a couple of feet behind you are REALLY SCARY! > PS I admit to driving our MX5 sometimes in the summer and those flippin > idiots who cut corners i.e on your side of the road - coming towards you or > who sit a couple of feet behind you are REALLY SCARY! Nah ! I just wonder what school of Kamikaze study they attended and why they insist on proving/ supporting the statitics that show my LR Defender to be one of the safest cars on the road. Especially when they are unwrapping themselves from the chassis at the front or the rear X-member. Incidentally I make sure my brakes are A1 condition, any ar........e who cares to drive that close behind me only has themselves to thank for any problem. My biggest bugbear is the idiot who closes real close to my rear on a hill; with a diff brake it is'nt possible to do a hand brake start so the inevitable roll back occurs even if only for a centimetre or two. Happened the other day and despite a gentle warning, said idiot still closed up behind. Could help touching his front end before proceeding up the hill ( honest officer !! ) Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said something that might make us think. If instead of bigger and bigger cars (for safety!) you drove a car with a spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag people might drive more carefully and with consideration rather than assume they are going to be safe in an accident Could be why death rates for drivers are coming down whilst death rates amongs cyclists/pedestrians are going up >Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said >something that might make us think. You don't know that he's a bigot. Either that or you don't know what it means. Also he has the courage to broadcast under his own name. SignatureJames Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk > You don't know that he's a bigot. Either that or you don't know what it > means. Also he has the courage to broadcast under his own name. I saw Top Gear live a few months ago and imho Clarkson is a top man. Very dry wit, approachable and friendly. A bigot? I think not. Opinionated, definitely - but hey.. B. As a top poster I think bigot is - One who is strongly partial to one's own race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. as someone who has read his columns for years even before he was "really" famous I have seen him move from his little house in west London to a house in the "midlands" and then buying a flat in Chelsea harbour - I admit he could be the loveliest man in the world , a saint , he may even walk on water BUT the views he expresses makes him sound a nasty bigot - the petrol heads' Gilbert Harding, even in his latest interview (Zoo) tells the world that he hates plebs coming up top talk to him and he would be happy to set them on fire! I'm sure it could be dry humour Regarding my name its also real and at least its not an advert for my career :-) Sorry James > X-No-Archive: yes > >Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said > >something that might make us think. > > You don't know that he's a bigot. Either that or you don't know what it > means. Also he has the courage to broadcast under his own name. > Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said > something that might make us think. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Could be why death rates for drivers are coming down whilst death rates > amongs cyclists/pedestrians are going up I'm not familiar with the statistics so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If death rates amongst cyclists and pedestrians is indeed going up, on the evidence of my own eyes I would have to say they have no-one to blame but themselves. My short drive home from Kingston to Epsom tonight demonstrated this very well. Twice I encountered pedestrians using mobile phones, oblivious to what was going on around them, step straight off the pavement into oncoming traffic without looking at all. At the approach to the Ace of Spades roundabout, a cyclist swerved straight across the traffic coming up behind him without even the most cursory glance behind. And when I got to Hook Parade, pedestrians were darting across the road between fast moving cars even though the crossing lights were against them. I find myself increasingly offering up a prayer that today's journey won't end up with some nutter pedestrian or loony cyclist throwing themselves under my car, because I know that as the biased laws stand, I'll be immediately treated as the guilty party unless I can prove my innocence beyond question. And just to rub salt into the wound, I'm the only one out of the three "protagonists" that is paying road tax for the dubious privilege of being put under this threat! SignatureDave (Sgt. Pepper) Epsom, England Nikon D2H / D100 / Coolpix 5700 / Canon Ixus 400 / Paintshop Pro 8 My photo galleries at http://www.pbase.com/davecq I was convinced it was a California thing, Dave. Perhaps not. Back in Connecticut, where I grew up, one seemed to learn that things weighing tons and your person, when co-mingling, typically didn't work to your advantage. The "right of way" at crosswalks is a legislative courtesy or mandate; this can conflict significantly with laws of physics when personal safety is involved. Then again, there is the "nut behind the wheel" factor. All of this should conspire to impart a sense of respect for things larger than you and an accompanying awareness. The wisdom imparted here in California seems to be that there is an invisible, protective shield around our bodies that allows us to stupidly step into traffic and, somehow, the painted lines on the road will protect us. Therefore, it is not necessary to look left or right, or even look up. One can read a book, zone out to the music in the earphones, look directly at one's companion when walking and talking, etc. It must be a generational thing. I pointed this out to our daughters at a young age and, hopefully, helped sustain the gene pool. But it's a loosing battle here in northern Ca. Ken > > Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said > > something that might make us think. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > of the three "protagonists" that is paying road tax for the dubious > privilege of being put under this threat! > I'm not familiar with the statistics so I'll give you the benefit of the > doubt. If death rates amongst cyclists and pedestrians is indeed going up, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of the three "protagonists" that is paying road tax for the dubious > privilege of being put under this threat! You have responsibility for the idiots all around you - OK one in their huge 4x4 might be OK but how will the rest of your life be if you killed a prat or an idiot (letr assume its their fault they died)/ their child/wife/parent would pop into your mind quite often - If you are anything approaching a decent human being> > If instead of bigger and bigger cars (for safety!) you drove a car with a > spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag people might drive more > carefully and with consideration rather than assume they are going to be > safe in an accident All very well until some other a....e runs into you. I'll stick with the survivable large vehicle and still drive carefully thanks. "Tommy" <@invalid.com> wrote in message > Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said > something that might make us think. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Could be why death rates for drivers are coming down whilst death rates > amongs cyclists/pedestrians are going up According to a test on Channel 5 'Driven' last night an older 4x4 is less dangerous to an adult pedestrian than an older car in a collision. I agree about the idea of a spike instead of a driver's airbag. Ian On Monday, in article <1102333521.55087.0@demeter.uk.clara.net> @invalid.com > If instead of bigger and bigger cars (for safety!) you drove a car with a > spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag people might drive more > carefully and with consideration rather than assume they are going to be > safe in an accident It wasn't Clarkson. Amongst others it has been suggested by Prof. Heinz Wolffe. SignatureRaj Rijhwani | This is the voice of the Mysterons... raj@rijhwani.org | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/ | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!" > Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said > something that might make us think. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Could be why death rates for drivers are coming down whilst death rates > amongs cyclists/pedestrians are going up It might also have something to do with the disregard for the law amongst a section of the cycling public.As an expample some millions of pounds have been spent around manchester airport providing cycle lanes and dedicated tunnels but still they continue to ignore them preferring to risk death by riding on the roads and through the tunnels under the runway and of course all this without lights.......................maybe a spike on the crossbar would ensure the next generation don't have this problem??? Derek >> Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :-) >> >> though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes (don't >> know which) - have we got any regular motors that big? > >The Land Rover Discovery is 2.7 tonnes. Not according to any info I can find online. The new one is 2.5, and old ones a little less. SignatureR o o n e y >>> Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not according to any info I can find online. The new one is 2.5, and > old ones a little less. Sorry to disappoint According to my VIN plate Disco Series II W reg 7 seat GL the GVW is 2880 >>>> Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :-) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >According to my VIN plate >Disco Series II W reg 7 seat GL the GVW is 2880 GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look at. SignatureR o o n e y > GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look > at. But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on. Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 >> GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look >> at. > >But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on. I can't find that - only a reference to a 6000 lb weight limit on certain roads. That suggests actual weight is what matters. SignatureR o o n e y >>> GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look >>> at. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I can't find that - only a reference to a 6000 lb weight limit on >certain roads. That suggests actual weight is what matters. Ignore that - I've now found a reference to GVW. Seems a bit daft - actual weight should be what counts. SignatureR o o n e y On Sunday, in article <1gocbln.tatlde2ot4xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> > > GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look > > at. > > But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on. And some British legislation too. SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. "History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee was bitten by a radioactive spider." >On Sunday, in article > <1gocbln.tatlde2ot4xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And some British legislation too. What bits please, David (generally - I'm not asking for chapter & verse)? SignatureR o o n e y On Monday, in article <q249r0d256h686qrbhhgmtvt254eljeolt@4ax.com> > >On Sunday, in article > > <1gocbln.tatlde2ot4xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What bits please, David (generally - I'm not asking for chapter & > verse)? Most obviously, Driving Licence classification -- you can drive up to 3500kg gross on an ordinary licence, with no need for a medical certificate. Over 7500kg, it needs the HGV licence (and now they're talking about LGV). And some vehicle classes are defined by other features. It also comes into definitions for what type of MoT station can test a vehicle. The trailer behind a car doesn't need brakes if it's small enough. Generally, and mention of a vehicle's weight is concerned with the gross weight, rather than the empty weight, at least as far as the law is concerned. Weight limits on bridges, gravity might let an empty lorry over when the law wouldn't. SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. Wrought under license granted by Her Majesty's Apostropher Royal AD MMIV >On Monday, in article > <q249r0d256h686qrbhhgmtvt254eljeolt@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >concerned. Weight limits on bridges, gravity might let an empty lorry >over when the law wouldn't. Ah - so a 7.5 tonner refers to GVW? Incidentally - can't this be driven on an ordinary licence? I've not checked mine for years but I thought it went up to 7.5. I thought the term HGV had been superseded by LGV (L for Large)? SignatureR o o n e y Rooney vaguely muttered something like ... >> On Monday, in article >> <q249r0d256h686qrbhhgmtvt254eljeolt@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Incidentally - can't this be driven on an ordinary licence? I've not > checked mine for years but I thought it went up to 7.5. Yup .. providing you have an 'early' licence, which I can't remember the cut off. I have the entitlement to drive up to 7.5 ton, but my wife doesn't as she only passed her test two years ago. SignaturePaul ... http://dogpoopblog.blogspot.com/ http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php >Yup .. providing you have an 'early' licence, which I can't remember the cut >off. I have the entitlement to drive up to 7.5 ton, but my wife doesn't as >she only passed her test two years ago. That'll be mine then. Which ones are 7.5 tonners then - furniture vans - that kind of thing, or those smaller box vans? SignatureR o o n e y On Tuesday, in article <0f2br01i72kiq06fq7gbh20q6rf2qa33o9@4ax.com> > >Yup .. providing you have an 'early' licence, which I can't remember the cut > >off. I have the entitlement to drive up to 7.5 ton, but my wife doesn't as > >she only passed her test two years ago. > > That'll be mine then. Which ones are 7.5 tonners then - furniture vans > - that kind of thing, or those smaller box vans? It depends a little on how the vehicle is "plated". The local mobile greengrocer's van is plated under 3.5 tonnes, but the same vehicle, chassis and bodywork, could have been plated at about 4.5 tonnes if he'd wanted to be able to carry the weight. SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. Wrought under license granted by Her Majesty's Apostropher Royal AD MMIV Rooney vaguely muttered something like ... >> Yup .. providing you have an 'early' licence, which I can't remember the >> cut off. I have the entitlement to drive up to 7.5 ton, but my wife >> doesn't as she only passed her test two years ago. > > That'll be mine then. Which ones are 7.5 tonners then - furniture vans > - that kind of thing, or those smaller box vans? Generally yes, but the plating laws are a bit 'strange' in that the same chassis can be plated to different weights dependant upon what's fitted to the chassis. Ask at a hire place, they'll have chapter and verse as to the exact years and what you're entitled to. http://freespace.virgin.net/empire.hire/hirevan_and_lorry.htm Has a few pictures and sizes of hire vans (First hit on a quick search) to give you an idea. It was Jan 1st 1997 that the licence changed. So if you passed your test _AFTER_ that date you're limited to 3.5 ton combined weight. (trailers etc) SignaturePaul ... http://dogpoopblog.blogspot.com/ http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php >Rooney vaguely muttered something like ... >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >It was Jan 1st 1997 that the licence changed. So if you passed your test >_AFTER_ that date you're limited to 3.5 ton combined weight. (trailers etc) Thanks - that's exactly what I was looking for. SignatureR o o n e y On Tuesday, in article <31lbqnF3a39gcU1@individual.net> > Rooney vaguely muttered something like ... > > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:15:17 +0000 (GMT), dbell@zhochaka.demon.co.uk [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > off. I have the entitlement to drive up to 7.5 ton, but my wife doesn't as > she only passed her test two years ago. Late Nineties, I think. There was some sort of EU directive on getting the whole EU on the same standards, which also extended the requirement for a medical certificate from HGVs to the smaller vehicles. It was left up to UK law to specify the details of what might lead to a failure on the medical. Much fun ensued. SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. Wrought under license granted by Her Majesty's Apostropher Royal AD MMIV "David G. Bell" vaguely muttered something like ... > On Tuesday, in article <31lbqnF3a39gcU1@individual.net> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It was left up to UK law to specify the details of what might lead to a > failure on the medical. Much fun ensued. Yeah, just checked and it was Jan 1st 1997. Wife looked on her licence bumph, she keeps that kind of thing .. ;) SignaturePaul ... http://dogpoopblog.blogspot.com/ http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php > The Land Rover Discovery is 2.7 tonnes. Even so, in American terms, the Disco is a smallish SUV. Some of their full-sized pickups have a bonnet line half way to the Disco's roof line. This is why anti-4x4 campaigners importing ready-made arguments from the USA are comparing apples with oranges. -- Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.