Why I hate uneducation envrionmentalists

My dad used to that, we was based in North Manchester and had to travel to varius libraries in the area as he was management. He didn't have a car most the time he was at the library. He would often even walk to varius sites, of course the council couldn't say anything becuase they would look like complete hypocrits.

 

What can I say, I don't have much of a choice but to use the bus, although I do cycle if the weather is good.
But put it this way I pay £400 a year for a season ticket for the bus, it would normally cost me £5 a day so that works out best, although the downside is that it take 1.5 hours total travel time (there and back) for 8 miles, of which I can cycle it in 40 minutes. So public transport is not a perfect solution, but it is a solution never the less.
Personally I think that public transport should be government ran not run by companies.

 

I got talking to a guy in a Hotel bar down in Cambridge a couple of years or so ago. He was a Diesel engine Technician working as a sub contractor. They where getting loads of them old route-master double decker london buses and re-vamping them on a very large scale.

I'm sure it was something to do with the fact that because these buses where so old, certain new legislation didn't apply to them ( Taxation, Pollution, Emmisions,,,,,,I can't remember now) . Anyway whatever the reasons it seems that it was definately very cost effective to stripdown and re-furb these old 1960's sheds and put them back into sevice than buy/run new buses. I remember being shocked at the time, but like i've said i can't remeber why now.
Where there's a will there's a way , eh ?

 

It could be somthing to with the fact I brand new double decker bus costs £200,000, you can buy an old routemaster for about £5000.

Even an old K reg double decker is a good million on the click is worth £80k.

 

There is a good chance the Nissan pollutes less than 4x4 vechicles

Here is a list of a number of vechicles and how they pollute.

Buses have very poor mpg and pollute.

For more people to stop using their cars, public transport has to improve a hell of a lot. At the moment it is not a viable option for enough people.

SCIDB

 

The problem isn't 4x4 drivers, it's bad drivers.

I use to cycle to work years ago. I stopped for a long while due to getting mowed down by a driver in a car. I had right of way and was going round a roundabout. Nearly wrote me off. It wrote my bike off. Bad driving caused that.

There is a lot of bad driving. This cover 4x4, normal car drivers, bus drivers, motorbiker and even cyclists.

SCIDB

 

:lol:

Indeed. I often walk to various sites too when I can get away with it And as you say, because of their anti-car stance, they cant say jack shit!!

 

What I have a problem with is the idea that you've got to have a new car, whatever it is...
A 20 year old Chevvy V8, which does 10mpg on a good day is going to be less polluting than, say, a brand new VW Lupo - simply because the amount of materials going into the new car, and the environmental cost of producing them, will dwarf the emissions produced by an older motor..
Surely, rather than looking at ways of making new cars more efficient it would be better to enable more cars to stay on the road for longer?
The manufacturers wouldn't be fans of this, obviously, but it definitely makes sense in the long run!
Of course, people being badge obsessed and needing to show off that "they are considerably richer than yow" doesn't help either...

And the other thing that really annoys me is folk who buy a car that is feted for it's performance and handling (BMWs seem to be the worst example of this) only drive at 40mph when there's any corners nearby, and at 90mph and 2 feet from the car in front on the motorway.. The only reason they haven't got a Kia Pride is pure snobbery..

 

Leonard you make a good and valid point, new cars are subject to emmison laws, but old cars are not, this should either be stopped or the older cars milage be caped, ok so there might be a case for "classic" cars for shows, but these should be used to commuting unless they are modified to comply with the emmision levels.

Yes Dean, your right, its BAD drivers the cause accidents, I've had a couple of near misses and roundabouts too, drivers not knowning which direction to give way to. I don't think there is enough done to improve drivers skill, I think every driver involved in an accident to be forced to retake their test if they are found to be at fault, and in the case of older drivers a yearly sight test as well.
Yes it makes me very upset to see a fellow cyclist either ride on the pavement or run a red lights, it tars us all with the same brush.
I don't have any sympathy for owners of large 4x4's who only use them to drop the kids of, there is only 1 reason they own such a vehicle and that's to show off, or lordit over other road users, they deserve everything they get.

 

I don't drive a 4x4 but if I caught someone putting a sticker on my car I would be very annoyed :chainsaw:

 

Yet again there is a load of bollocks being talked about 4x4s and, yet again, people are lumping RAV4s in with X5s which is ridiculous.

According to amazingtrade and Anex 4x4s are:

- slow
- pollute
- huge
- only capable 10mpg
- highly dangerous to pedestrians in an accident
- use more fuel because of the extra wheels being driven

Well, let’s take Honda’s diesel CRV as an example:

- 0-60 in 10 secs
- low 177g/km CO2 emissions
- same footprint as an Audi A4 cabriolet
- combined mpg of 42
- no CAR has ever scored higher in pedestrian safety
- operates in 2 wheel drive mode unless it needs 4WD for extra traction

I’d also add, having spent most of Saturday driving it (never driven a 4x4 before) it was excellent – vision was superb – could see what was happening further ahead more easily than when in my car. I’d also add that the Sat Nav (although not exclusive to 4x4s of course) made the journey even safer as I was just following instructions instead of looking at road numbers/names etc.

Don’t get me wrong – I agree that a Nissan Patrol used in an urban area is ridiculous but to lump all 4x4s into the same category is like lumping a Ford Ka and a Merc S Class together.

Finally, if any *rse tries putting an anti 4x4 sticker on my car I may well have to demonstrate that whilst the CRV boasts class leading pedestrian safety, it still hurts when one knocks you down!

Matt.

 

Motorists are persicuted enough by this mickey mouse government without this in-fighting

 

Rav 4 and X5, what about the Fiat Panda 4x4 and a hummer.

Glad you like the CRV, my mum has a 2.0l Exec auto and she loves it. She hasnt a clue how to use the sat nav though.

 

I think in fairness Lee, there are another couple of advantages here - firstly, it's easier to get kids in without doing your back in and, secondly, the little blighters do get a decent view out (which is nice for them).

However, you don't need a V8 Range Rover to achieve this - an economical soft roader (RAV4 etc) or a small MPV (Renault Scenic etc) will achieve the same thing.

Matt.

 

Dam right. The motorist has always been a sitting duck for the government. These bus lanes still amaze me, theres a few round here that just dont make any sense. One includes driving past terrace houses, whats wrong with that you ask, well everyone parks their cars on the road so the bus, when it eventually comes, cant use the lane anyway. Madness, pure madness.

 

That's certainly NOT the point I'm making!
I'm saying that the environmental damage caused by making a car far outweighs the environmental damage it's emissions will cause throughout it's entire life!
Therefore it would be better to extend the life of a car as far as possible in order to minimise the pollution caused by making a new one to replace it!
Frinstance, if my 30 year old Land Rover (which incidentally runs in 2wd unless I press the yellow lever) were to be scrapped and replaced by a new one they'd have to mine 1/2 tonne or so of aluminium, and the same of iron, then smelt them at a couple of thousand degrees, then cast/forge them into whatever shape, then produce a shedload of plastics (that'll never degrade) out of fossil fuels, and put it together in a power-hungry factory.. Then transport away my old Landy (more fuel), and crush it, or recycle anything useable, all using more power produced by burning coal...
Surely it makes more sense to keep the old one going, then none of that extra power usage would be necessary!
I should be rewarded by the government for regularly using 2 vehicles over 30 years old, instead of having to pay £160 tax on the Landy, and £60 on the Guzzi! (The Guzzi's the year after the tax exemption cut off - should have been a rolling date!)

 

ops sorry Leonard, I got the wrong end of the stick then, apologies for that.
But they are recycling old cars now right? they get melted down and used for other things, so its not all going to waste.
I still stand by my statement though about allowing older vehicles to continue to be used on the road, just for historic sake, don't get me wrong, I like going to classic car shows, like seeing the old vehicles, but I wouldn't expect them to be used every day.

 

You wont like me then, driving round in my 15 year old Golf (that is effectively a 30 year old design now).

 

What happened to your Micra then? I've been in a time warp the last few years!
That depends if its injection or carb, the Injections models were more efficent.

 

Yeah but Leonard, what about the dozens of replacement parts that all Land Rovers require annually just to keep them on the road

Matt.