Dan Gravell wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:26:00
on Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Mike remarked:


Christian Wolmar has written ...



They are gas guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and
park, and take up far more space than conventional vehicles.



Maybe he should stick to writing about trains. Yes, they can use more
fuel than a car, but are not more difficult to drive, nor do they take
up *any* more space (let alone *far* more space).

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")


I agree. It's the sheer stupidity of driving *any* private vehicle
around London that needs to be addressed.

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle
into London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.

However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving. If it
hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...

The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by those
who buy these cars should definitely be addressed.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"

Umm, no. Not the current one.

Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

Let's keep to the facts...

LR Disco - 15'10" x 6'3 - and, at up to 2.7tons, one whole ton heavier than
an E-class.

Shifting all that lard means that there's nearly 100g/km more CO2 emissions
than the E-class, too - or almost the same difference as the *total*
emissions from one of the more efficient small diseasel hatches (up to
Astra/A-class/A2-size, 120g/km is not unusual).

The Disco is so obese that it's nearly half a ton heavier, in fact, than a
LWB 4.5ton Merc 416CDi Sprinter van. Almost twice the weight of the Mondeo.
Heavier even than a Rolls Phantom. Roughly the same weight as a 6ton Merc
Vario 614 large van...

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:28:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")

Quite, and things like Suzuki Jimnys and, indeed, that tiny Fiat (I
think) 4x4 car are not anything like as big, nor for that matter is my
88" Land Rover, which is about the length of your typical small hatch
(hardly a Chelsea tractor, mind, more a normal tractor!)

And, no, I don't drive it, or indeed anything else, in London, or not
with any frequency. The public transport is such that it is
unnecessary unless you need to carry a number of large or heavy items.
I have driven into central London precisely once (for the latter
reason) and I have no desire to repeat the experience.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at
23:07:44 on Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"

Umm, no. Not the current one.

I picked the one which is most common, the 89-98 model. Unfortunately my
"Parkers Guide" only lists the latest one's width *including* wing
mirrors, which isn't a fair comparison.

Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

Let's keep to the facts...

LR Disco - 15'10" x 6'3

So a whole one inch longer than the extremely common Merc and two inches
narrower.

On what planet does such a vehicle take up "far more space"?

- and, at up to 2.7tons, one whole ton heavier than
an E-class.

Irrelevant. The proposition was *space*.
--
Roland Perry

Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle
into London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.

However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving. If it
hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...

The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by those
who buy these cars should definitely be addressed.


Of course, I understand that. Part of me is wanting to get Roland going,
part of me is thinking of the frustration I have with the utilisation of
road space in London. The car is clearly massively overused for simple
journeys in London, and I just cannot understand what goes through
people's minds when they make the conscious decision to use one.

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation. There
are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle into
London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.

However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving. If it
hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...

The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by those who
buy these cars should definitely be addressed.


Of course, I understand that. Part of me is wanting to get Roland going,
part of me is thinking of the frustration I have with the utilisation of
road space in London. The car is clearly massively overused for simple
journeys in London, and I just cannot understand what goes through
people's minds when they make the conscious decision to use one.

Perhaps that's where the real problem lies? It's not a fully conscious
decision, at least they're not thinking the situation through.

In message , at
08:27:49 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle
into London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.
However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving.
If it hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...
The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by
those who buy these cars should definitely be addressed.


Of course, I understand that. Part of me is wanting to get Roland
going, part of me is thinking of the frustration I have with the
utilisation of road space in London. The car is clearly massively
overused for simple journeys in London, and I just cannot understand
what goes through people's minds when they make the conscious decision
to use one.

Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did on
a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it wasn't
practical to get a train.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly
drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps
at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was
never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible
railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway
into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just
felt "right" to carry on, having got that far.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
09:11:19 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I picked the one which is most common, the 89-98 model.

OK, so let's use the contemporary Mondeo and E-class for comparison.
Mondeo 14'11" x 5'8"

My Parkers says "2000-" model, 15'5" x 5'11"

E-class 15'9" x 5'10"

ditto "2002-" model 15'9" x 6'5"

Have both of these been superseded since last August (the date of my
Parkers).

Unfortunately my "Parkers Guide" only lists the latest one's width
*including* wing mirrors, which isn't a fair comparison.

That's OK, I've taken all the measurements I've given from Parkers, so
they're a reasonably fair comparison.

On what planet does such a vehicle take up "far more space"?

I don't believe I said it did.

No, Wolmar did, and it was his analysis that I was critiquing.

That's an easily disproved claim. It's also a silly one in a world where
there's recommended two second gaps between all vehicles in motion, and
where parking spaces are usually of a fixed size. However, it's a claim
that has been made, and if you're going to disprove it credibly, you
need to keep some academic honesty involved.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim. Not sure what's lacking in the
academic honesty.

All modern cars are large - too large. Compare the size of a Mk 1 Golf
with the current VW range

All cars seem to get bigger over the years, and smaller models are
introduced at the bottom. I used to have a Matiz, about as small as they
come. Very useful in towns. However, it's not the sort of thing you can
use to take the family on holiday, so the appeal is limited for the
average family motorist.

As I've said before, I used to own a Range Rover (quite an old one) and
it was chosen because of the space inside, not the 4WD (although I was
living in the country and it was useful from time to time). If
people-carriers had been invented (the only one at the time was the
Espace) I'd probably have got one of them instead. 2WD, of course

- and, at up to 2.7tons, one whole ton heavier than
an E-class.

Irrelevant. The proposition was *space*.

One proposition was space. Weight is a claim that is less easily
disproved, and leads directly to vastly increased emissions - which I
noticed you snipped. I repeat - the current Disco's CO2 g/km emissions
are only slightly short of those of a Mondeo PLUS an Astra combined.

You've extended the criteria to include weight and emissions (is a
diesel Disco really as bad as you describe, please give the numbers). I
was only commenting on Wolmar's rather misleading remarks.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that
the public transport system can support that figure is because it is
more scalable. The issue is that some individuals still appear to
consider the private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or
anywhere near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic
proves my point.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a
good stats site for a while.

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did on
a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it wasn't
practical to get a train.

That's wonderful for you, I wish everyone were so considerate.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly
drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps
at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was
never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible
railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway
into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just
felt "right" to carry on, having got that far.

I am referring to anywhere that is densely populated, not just central
London. I cannot recall the development density index where car use
becomes difficult, but I would think zones 1-6 are past it.

Dan

In message , at
11:07:15 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so
the remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good
reason. Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had
very bad experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they
need the extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that
the public transport system can support that figure is because it is
more scalable.

Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private
motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a
good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point.

Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have
a *very* good reason.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for
a good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did
on a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it
wasn't practical to get a train.

That's wonderful for you, I wish everyone were so considerate.

Self preservation, more like.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would
regularly drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde
Park), or perhaps at one of the car parks in the squares north of
Oxford Street. There was never very much of a problem, traffic-wise,
and as the nearest sensible railway station to my home in rural
Oxfordshire was more than halfway into London (at the edge of the
Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just felt "right" to carry on,
having got that far.

I am referring to anywhere that is densely populated, not just central
London. I cannot recall the development density index where car use
becomes difficult, but I would think zones 1-6 are past it.

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly
congested most of the day.
--
Roland Perry