Possibly off-topic but i see Christian Wolmar has written about a
different subject on his website this month:


http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/onl...bruary05.shtml

Online column :: February 2005
4x4 vehicles are just plain daft

There is a war rumbling on the city streets, between 4 x4 owners and the
rest of us. Driving a 4x4 in town is just plain daft. They are gas
guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and park, and take up far
more space than conventional vehicles. And yet, one in seven new
vehicles in London is some kind of SUV or 4x4.

Over the past few months, a canny little campaign, the alliance against
urban 4x4s, led by a few activists in North London, has attracted
massive publicity with a series of clever stunts. The best has been
issuing mock parking tickets, which ressemble official ones but actually
set out the arguments against driving these ridiculous cars in towns.
For example, the one in Camden has the council logo but with the word
Carbon replacing the council’s name. It highlights the ‘poor vehicle
choice’ and directs people to a website to show how our descendants will
‘pay for our dependence on fossil fuels....................[snip]


Also found this website: http://www.stopurban4x4s.org.uk




Mike

It highlights the 'poor vehicle
choice' and directs people to a website to show how our descendants
will
'pay for our dependence on fossil fuels

Possibly not that "poor" if you want to flout speed limits and tear
over speed bumps without even feeling them - that seems to be the main
selling point for these vehicles as far as "townies" are concerned and
is something our descendants probably won't be able to do.

Outside rural areas, where people need high ground clearances to drive
across fields, these vehicles are indeed "plain daft" and just seem to
be bought by people who think speed limits don't aply to them.

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")
--
Roland Perry

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.

Dan

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

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

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...

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