[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Huge wrote:
Mike writes:

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


Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

Pot, kettle, black.

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Huge wrote:

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

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

(This has been multi-posted to a number of other groups.)

Well it may be off topic in those other groups, but it is on topic in
this one. The article you were responding to was quite sensible and
(unlike your response) was not flamebait.

I disagree with it, but he has every right to post it here. If you
object to what he's said, you're welcome to tell us why. Otherwise I
suggest you go back to uk.transport, or better still off line!

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Huge wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) writes:

Huge wrote:


Mike writes:

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

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

(This has been multi-posted to a number of other groups.)

Well it may be off topic in those other groups, but it is on topic in
this one. The article you were responding to was quite sensible


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. It was lies and bull****, beginning to end.

In your opinion.

I can't see what's wrong with posting it here, it's about transport and
there are lots of them in London

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

On 13 Feb 2005 17:43:31 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Who died and left you in charge, hypocrite?

Heavy irony.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Huge wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) writes:
Huge wrote:

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

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

(This has been multi-posted to a number of other groups.)

Well it may be off topic in those other groups, but it is on topic in
this one. The article you were responding to was quite sensible

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. It was lies and bull****, beginning to end.

Beginning to end??? I think not! He alerted us to an online column that
does exist. "Lies and bull****" may be an accurate description of the
first paragraph (though if the one in seven figure is wrong, please tell
us what the real figure is) but the same can't be said for the second
paragraph. It alerts us to a new, innovative, grassroots campaign (and
gives the URL for their website).

You may disagree with the objectives of the campaign (as I do, for I
think emmissions trading is a better solution to the environmental
problems). But if that's the case, please either post your objection or
shut up.

and (unlike your response) was not flamebait.

I disagree with it, but he has every right to post it here.

Sure he does. And I have every right to tell him to **** off and die.

Every right??? I accept you have the legal right, but I think that's the
only right you have to do so.

If you object to what he's said, you're welcome to tell us why.

Who died and left you in charge, hypocrite?

How dare you libel me like that! There is nothing hypocritical about
posting a polite objection to an abusive off topic response to an on
topic post. Assuming you are the real Huge, I really thought you'd been
on usenet long enough to know that. And I'm not in charge, I'm just
reminding you what the situation is. Why shoot the messenger down in
flames?

Otherwise I
suggest you go back to uk.transport, or better still off line!

What was it you were saying about "every right to post" not 10
seconds ago, hypocrite?

'Twas a suggestion, not a demand. And I suggested it for a reason. Do
you honestly think the newsgroup benefits from you telling people to
**** off when they've done nothing wrong? If you can't post something
intelegent, please don't post anything at all!

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Huge (to Mike)...

Ahhhh. You're a troll. **** off and die, troll.

Huge (to Aidan)...

Who died and left you in charge, hypocrite?

IRONY OVERLOAD! IRONY OVERLOAD!

I have a vague recollection that you've posted useful messages in the past,
but now you're a continuous waste of space. If you ever sort your problems
out, please come back with a different name so that you'll escape my
killfile.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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...

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

"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.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Well yes, but as it is supporting 90% of the load, it has clearly scaled
thus far... Which is why more rail should be built before other
transportation modes, but anyway...

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.

I think you have more faith than I. I walk my dog from Tooting Common
back to home each night and I often count the number of cars with two or
less passengers (yes I know, sad, but it's something that annoys me).
I'd estimate a figure of around 80% have two or less people in the car,
around 50% having one. These are in cars of all shapes and sizes, and do
not count commercial vehicles. With the quantities we are talking about,
I cannot for a second believe _all_ these people have a "very good
reason", but then I guess the discussion boils down to what a good
reason is, because ultimately that's subjective.

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.

Wasn't there also a LUL one which stated some crazy stat about journeys
under one mile being performed by a car?

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

I don't think the congestion on a single given route at a specific time
of day is pertinent, we're discussing scalability of transportation.

Dan

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

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"

I'm giving the previous model dimensions here.

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

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

Likewise - previous model.

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

The E-class and Mondeo, no. The Disco, yes.

If you're comparing discontinued models, then compare them evenly.
If you're comparing current models, then compare them evenly.

However, this is largely a minor point, as we are agreed that road
surface area is irrelevant, as a few inches here-or-there makes no real
difference in use.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim.

It certainly clouds the whole debate - and, as a result, it's a very
poor point to use.

Not sure what's lacking in the academic honesty.

"Cheating" by frigging your figures to prove your point. Comparing older
smaller 4x4 models with newer larger "car" ones to make your comparison
look better. Disco 3s are proliferating rapidly, and - given the poor
reputation that the old model had for many things - they will very soon
"feel" more numerous, especially in the centre of London.

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).

Yes. They are. There is no question about this.

Disco TD - 275g/km (249g/km manual, but the vast majority will be auto)

Mondeo TDCi - 151g/km (196g/km auto, but the vast majority will be
manual)
Astra CDTI - 118g/km (not available with autobox)

118+151 = 269 - so in typical configuration, I actually underestimated.
My apologies.

Merc E220CDi auto - 168-188g/km (manual 162-174, but the vast majority
will be auto) depending on tyre size

Still - could be worse. Disco v8 auto (no manual available) - 354g/km.
Oh, and in the interests of fairness - E55 AMG - 310g/km and Mondeo
ST220 - 249g/km.

Just to show that it's not down to different engine technologys - the
same v6 diesel used in the Disco TD when placed into the Jag S-type
(again, auto) manages 208g/km, and an automatic 545i (same engine as the
petrol Disco, X5 4.4 and Range-Rover) is 257g/km vs 317 in the X5 and
389g/km in the Rangie. The diesel X5 and Rangie share the 3.0 TD with
the 5-series, giving 250 (X5 3.0d) 299 (Rangie D6), 208 (530d) - all
paired to autoboxes, as they would be in the majority of vehicles
ordered.

One interesting point worth noting - The disparity in the Mondeo's
diesel/auto vs the diesel/manual figures suggest that that autobox
pairing is a very poor one - many of the larger cars get better CO2
figures with an autobox than as a manual. This is directly opposite
"folk-wisdom" which suggests that manuals are more efficient than autos.

(from www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk - part of the Dept of Transport)

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

In message , at
12:01:20 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Well yes, but as it is supporting 90% of the load, it has clearly
scaled thus far... Which is why more rail should be built before other
transportation modes, but anyway...

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.

I think you have more faith than I.

The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could easily
make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of public
transport are much more likely to be single travellers who therefore end
up one-per-car.

I walk my dog from Tooting Common back to home each night and I often
count the number of cars with two or less passengers (yes I know, sad,
but it's something that annoys me). I'd estimate a figure of around 80%
have two or less people in the car, around 50% having one. These are in
cars of all shapes and sizes, and do not count commercial vehicles.
With the quantities we are talking about, I cannot for a second believe
_all_ these people have a "very good reason", but then I guess the
discussion boils down to what a good reason is, because ultimately
that's subjective.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to deliver
on its timetable...

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.

Wasn't there also a LUL one which stated some crazy stat about journeys
under one mile being performed by a car?

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops and
back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was about long
distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

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

I don't think the congestion on a single given route at a specific time
of day is pertinent, we're discussing scalability of transportation.

It's pertinent in as much as it's a car journey that patently "works".
Such things encourage people to attempt ones that don't.
--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

In message , at
12:19:53 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"

I'm giving the previous model dimensions here.

Ah, "contemporary" with the old Disco, not with today.

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

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

Likewise - previous model.

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

The E-class and Mondeo, no. The Disco, yes.

Yes, I already said the Disco was the old model, as Parkers has the new
model's width including wing mirrors (?why?) which makes comparisons
invalid.

If you're comparing discontinued models, then compare them evenly.
If you're comparing current models, then compare them evenly.

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

However, this is largely a minor point, as we are agreed that road
surface area is irrelevant, as a few inches here-or-there makes no real
difference in use.

Good. That settles the debate once and for all.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim.

It certainly clouds the whole debate - and, as a result, it's a very
poor point to use.

Good, we agree.

Not sure what's lacking in the academic honesty.

"Cheating" by frigging your figures to prove your point. Comparing older
smaller 4x4 models with newer larger "car" ones to make your comparison
look better. Disco 3s are proliferating rapidly, and - given the poor
reputation that the old model had for many things - they will very soon
"feel" more numerous, especially in the centre of London.

I'd happily use their current size if it was in Parkers. All a bit moot
as the claim was they were "far larger".

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).

Yes. They are. There is no question about this.

Disco TD - 275g/km (249g/km manual, but the vast majority will be auto)

Mondeo TDCi - 151g/km (196g/km auto, but the vast majority will be
manual)
Astra CDTI - 118g/km (not available with autobox)

118+151 = 269 - so in typical configuration, I actually underestimated.
My apologies.

Merc E220CDi auto - 168-188g/km (manual 162-174, but the vast majority
will be auto) depending on tyre size

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned. (I'm not sure why, the E300D drives
just like a petrol car, but does over 40mpg).

--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Roland Perry wrote:
The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could easily
make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of public
transport are much more likely to be single travellers who therefore end
up one-per-car.

It's indicative of the unsuitability of private motor vehicles for urban
environments, or specifically London. The amount of space occupied by a
small number of travellers is discussed in another branch of this thread.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to deliver
on its timetable...

Given that the worst, most unreliable and slowest form of public
transport in London, the bus, is bound by exactly the same
infrastructure as the car (in fact, slightly better given bus lanes)
quite how so many people would come to the conclusion that their car is
better despite the roads being full to bursting already is beyond me.
Perhaps they don't care for logic. Perhaps they all have complex
journeys that would take four bus rides. Perhaps they don't give a toss
about other people using buses who do have a brain cell. I dunno. But
what I do know is that I still don't understand how people come to the
solution of the car, given that it's clearly no better anyway.

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops and
back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was about long
distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

The thing is that a lot of what I perceive isn't in central London. The
congestion charge thankfully go rid of a lot of that. What I see is car
usage in the suburbs, zones 2-3 etc, where the congestion charge should
be extended to.

People actually drive long distances into central London?

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

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

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

So stop waving it about.

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned.

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the petrol
versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs 27 for the TD
and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal" cars
are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during 2004, and
40% of Mondeos.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Neil Williams wrote:
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!)

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller
than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so the
car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.

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.

I would say that in central London, in non-equipment cases, a Travelcard
is superior to a car for flexibility, price and convenience.

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

In message , at
13:41:05 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could
easily make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of
public transport are much more likely to be single travellers who
therefore end up one-per-car.

It's indicative of the unsuitability of private motor vehicles for
urban environments, or specifically London.

Quite the reverse. The people whose lifestyle appears to dictate that
they are unwilling to be held ransom by the vagaries of public
transport, are much more likely to make singleton journeys. They don't
ant to be held ransom to car-sharing either.

The amount of space occupied by a small number of travellers is
discussed in another branch of this thread.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to
deliver on its timetable...

Given that the worst, most unreliable and slowest form of public
transport in London, the bus, is bound by exactly the same
infrastructure as the car (in fact, slightly better given bus lanes)
quite how so many people would come to the conclusion that their car is
better despite the roads being full to bursting already is beyond me.

Because many of them have travelled from far enough away that a train is
the alternative. And having been stranded, and missed an important
meeting, once too often, revert to the car.

Perhaps they don't care for logic. Perhaps they all have complex
journeys that would take four bus rides. Perhaps they don't give a toss
about other people using buses who do have a brain cell. I dunno. But
what I do know is that I still don't understand how people come to the
solution of the car, given that it's clearly no better anyway.

Because it's door to door, and runs when they want it to - not on some
mythical once-every-15-minutes that tuns out to involve half an hour
waits in the rain once too often.

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops
and back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was
about long distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

The thing is that a lot of what I perceive isn't in central London. The
congestion charge thankfully go rid of a lot of that. What I see is car
usage in the suburbs, zones 2-3 etc, where the congestion charge should
be extended to.

Is that on the trunk routes that most of the commuters are using?

People actually drive long distances into central London?

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50
miles.
--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

In message , at
13:42:23 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

So stop waving it about.

I'm trying to disperse it.

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned.

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the petrol
versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs 27 for the TD
and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

So Parkers is wrong when it says the diesel disco is 25-34 (the previous
model being 30-40). This is the smoke of which we spake.

[Although from what I'm hearing, the new Disco seems to have somewhat
crossed the line from "family man's Land Rover" to "poor man's Range
Rover", to its detriment.]

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal" cars
are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during 2004, and
40% of Mondeos.

That's good news then (apart from asthma suffers, apparently).
--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

In message , at 13:44:21 on Tue, 15 Feb
2005, Dave Arquati remarked:
Neil Williams wrote:
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!)

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller
than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so
the car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.

And you've seen this happening in practice?

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.

I would say that in central London, in non-equipment cases, a
Travelcard is superior to a car for flexibility, price and convenience.

I agree, for my lifestyle. But we were talking about the tiny minority
who find the reverse to be true.
--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Roland Perry wrote:
Quite the reverse. The people whose lifestyle appears to dictate that
they are unwilling to be held ransom by the vagaries of public
transport, are much more likely to make singleton journeys. They don't
ant to be held ransom to car-sharing either.

Well, victims of the system or just misguided idiots, I guess that's a
matter of opinion.

What I do know is that they render the London environment worse by their
selfishness through making PT (the bus network specifically) less
reliable and performant, worsening air pollution, and general anti
social aspects of car use etc etc

Because many of them have travelled from far enough away that a train is
the alternative. And having been stranded, and missed an important
meeting, once too often, revert to the car.

Sorry Roland, but I really cannot believe how an individual would
possibly think driving into central London would be quicker than getting
a train in. I guess a few are novices and might not have tried the
train. But if that were the case there must be a hell of a lot of
novices around (given your figures).

Because it's door to door, and runs when they want it to - not on some
mythical once-every-15-minutes that tuns out to involve half an hour
waits in the rain once too often.

Door to door? There's parking space outside every door in London now?
Central London?

Are we even talking about London? The picture you paint is not one I
recognise. Although I do agree about the ridiculous labelling of 15-min
frequency trains as such things as "metro" services. Need to double at
least before they're that.

Is that on the trunk routes that most of the commuters are using?

Anywhere that's congested.

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50 miles.

I think you answered above - I'd consider long to be a journey where
rail becomes the best bet.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

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

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the
petrol versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs
27 for the TD and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

So Parkers is wrong when it says the diesel disco is 25-34 (the
previous model being 30-40). This is the smoke of which we spake.

The figures I gave are from Parkers website.

[Although from what I'm hearing, the new Disco seems to have somewhat
crossed the line from "family man's Land Rover" to "poor man's Range
Rover", to its detriment.]

I think you may have your system clock set wrongly - that started about
five years ago.

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal"
cars are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during
2004, and 40% of Mondeos.

That's good news then (apart from asthma suffers, apparently).

Indeed.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

In message , at
14:24:45 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Quite the reverse. The people whose lifestyle appears to dictate that
they are unwilling to be held ransom by the vagaries of public
transport, are much more likely to make singleton journeys. They don't
ant to be held ransom to car-sharing either.

Well, victims of the system or just misguided idiots, I guess that's a
matter of opinion.

No, just busy businessmen who have found from painful experience that
their means of transport is the best on offer.

Sorry Roland, but I really cannot believe how an individual would
possibly think driving into central London would be quicker than
getting a train in. I guess a few are novices and might not have tried
the train. But if that were the case there must be a hell of a lot of
novices around (given your figures).

It's true. When you look at reliable door-to-door times, the car wins.

Not everyone's lifestyle is the same. As an extreme example, what would
you think if the PM was half an hour late for his questions in the House
of Commons because of problems on the Northern Line? And is paying him
about £100 an hour to sit on a tube train better than having him in a
car and reading his briefing papers in peace?

Somewhere between the PM and "do you want fries with that" is a
crossover line. It seems to be 90:10. I suggest you'd have a very
difficult time making it 95:5, and would be better employed making sure
it didn't degrade to 85:15.

Because it's door to door, and runs when they want it to - not on
some mythical once-every-15-minutes that tuns out to involve half an
hour waits in the rain once too often.

Door to door? There's parking space outside every door in London now?
Central London?

Close enough for most of the purposes we are discussing. And an awful
lot of the cars in *central* London have drivers.

Are we even talking about London? The picture you paint is not one I
recognise.

The people in the cars will typically live in the stockbroker belts.

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50 miles.

I think you answered above - I'd consider long to be a journey where
rail becomes the best bet.

So highly dependent on how close to a viable station the person lives.
Just the difficulty of parking near many of them rules them out as "P&R
for London".
--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

In message , at
14:25:30 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:

The figures I gave are from Parkers website.

I'm using the printed one, which I find a great deal easier.

[Although from what I'm hearing, the new Disco seems to have somewhat
crossed the line from "family man's Land Rover" to "poor man's Range
Rover", to its detriment.]

I think you may have your system clock set wrongly - that started about
five years ago.

Is that the model my Parkers says is "1998 on" ?

--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets - 1 attachment
 

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

[Although from what I'm hearing, the new Disco seems to have somewhat
crossed the line from "family man's Land Rover" to "poor man's Range
Rover", to its detriment.]

I think you may have your system clock set wrongly - that started about
five years ago.

Is that the model my Parkers says is "1998 on" ?

Disco 2. Yes. Same basic shell as the previous one, but tarted over.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Roland Perry wrote:
It's true. When you look at reliable door-to-door times, the car wins.

Source? Or is this a Jeremy Clarkson style "a car can beat a jet
fighter, if I have a five month headstart and the jet has no wings" claim?

Not everyone's lifestyle is the same. As an extreme example, what would
you think if the PM was half an hour late for his questions in the House
of Commons because of problems on the Northern Line? And is paying him
about £100 an hour to sit on a tube train better than having him in a
car and reading his briefing papers in peace?

Somewhere between the PM and "do you want fries with that" is a
crossover line. It seems to be 90:10. I suggest you'd have a very
difficult time making it 95:5, and would be better employed making sure
it didn't degrade to 85:15.

But what about when the actions of the ten effect the PT QoS and QoL for
the ninety? Because of the scalability (that word again) the system
would work better if we got it to 95:5. The PM is hardly representative
or comparable to "business men". I don't know what you mean by "business
man" but I'm guessing there's too many of them to cater for aI'm afraid,
and frankly they're not important enough to concede to (unlike the PM).

Door to door? There's parking space outside every door in London now?
Central London?


Close enough for most of the purposes we are discussing. And an awful
lot of the cars in *central* London have drivers.

I really do not believe this. How many people work in the City? How many
people park there? I'd be surprised if the figure is as much as 10%.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

In message , at
15:39:51 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
The PM is hardly representative or comparable to "business men". I
don't know what you mean by "business man" but I'm guessing there's too
many of them to cater for aI'm afraid, and frankly they're not
important enough to concede to (unlike the PM).

So where do you draw the line?

At people with "Minister" in their job title.
"Junior Minister"
Managing Director of a PLC
Director of any registered Company
People called "Sales Manager" of a company with more than 1000 employees

....

Door to door? There's parking space outside every door in London
now? Central London?
Close enough for most of the purposes we are discussing. And an
awful lot of the cars in *central* London have drivers.

I really do not believe this. How many people work in the City? How
many people park there? I'd be surprised if the figure is as much as
10%.

A lot of them are driven to work, or drive to work. Otherwise this
conversation would not exist.
--
Roland Perry

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:44:21 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller
than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so the
car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.

I'm not so sure that's an issue unless you tend to look at the road
ahead "through" other cars. Then again, I've always preferred tall
cars because of the extra space they tend to give (I'm 6'4" and fairly
heavily built so I need it!) so I'm more used to looking over than
through.

I would say that in central London, in non-equipment cases, a Travelcard
is superior to a car for flexibility, price and convenience.

Absolutely.

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.

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:44:21 on Tue, 15 Feb
2005, Dave Arquati remarked:

Neil Williams wrote:

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!)

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller
than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so
the car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.

And you've seen this happening in practice?

From personal experience outside London. I can't see why it would be
any different in London, and I know that one major claim used against
4x4s is that they make life more difficult for other motorists.

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

[OT] 4x4 cars on London streets
 

In article ,
Dan Gravell wrote:
Sorry Roland, but I really cannot believe how an individual would
possibly think driving into central London would be quicker than getting
a train in.

I've driven from Leytonstone to Paddington on a number of occasions.
Certainly more convienent when meeting She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named
and her luggage. It was probably quicker than the Tube (the PT
alterantive), but it's hard to be sure. Certainly not much slower.

I guess a few are novices and might not have tried the
train. But if that were the case there must be a hell of a lot of
novices around (given your figures).

We did that too; frankly the biggest turn-off is carting the bags
rather than the time.

Are we even talking about London? The picture you paint is not one I
recognise. Although I do agree about the ridiculous labelling of 15-min
frequency trains as such things as "metro" services. Need to double at
least before they're that.

Lets say that for something to be a metro service, it needs to be
frequent enough that a timetable is pointless. Comparing the number
of people arriving at the station per minute over the course of the
day would be an interesting way to find out if the passengers bother
with learning the timetable.

My guess is that there will be little variation at Camden Road -
about as many passengers will arrive at the platform looking to
catch a train the minute before the train is due as the minute after
- indicating that 15 mintute wait between trains is "metro", while
at Upper Holloway, there will be a vast difference - indicating
that 30 minute waits are not "metro".

But I'm guessing; hard figures would be interesting.

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50 miles.

I think you answered above - I'd consider long to be a journey where
rail becomes the best bet.

That can be remarkably short, sometimes.

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver