Drax (TOT)
 

Bill Wright wrote:

wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
All we need to do is keep the buggers out. There isn't an overpopulation
problem at the Ritz because they don't let all and sundry in. It ain't
rocket science.

... and you think that people who live in the Ritz shouldn't care
about the hoi polloi outside no doubt!

Caring about them is one thing. Letting them in is another. I expect you
cared about that alki you saw puking in the subway, but you didn't invite
him home did you? What's ours is ours and we need to preserve it for our
future generations, not give it all away to anyone who turns up on our
shores to colonise us.

Which way of looking at things condemns the world (including us) to a
very nasty end in a generation or two.

--
Chris Green

Drax (TOT)
 

Bill Wright wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

wrote in message
...
This is just playing Little Britain, the growth of world population
swamps our problem (if there is one). If the worlds overpopulation
was dealt with then there wouldn't be the pressures on ours.

All we need to do is keep the buggers out.

Out of where? I hadn't noticed any aliens landing on Earth - and it's on
Earth
as a whole that we need to sort out.

No it's the UK we need to sort out. That's where we live. Would you go and
mend your neighbour's house if your own roof had been blown off?

In relative terms we are living in a well equipped mansion while most
of our neighbours are living in hovels or worse.

--
Chris Green

Drax (TOT)
 

"JC" wrote in message
...

4x4s do use a LITTLE more fuel than smaller cars, though compared to
some luxury saloons they can seem quite frugal. They have good
visibility and clearance and usually plenty of seating and space.
Ironically they're more efficient and safer around town than, say, on
the motorway where a 4x4 can be extremely dangerous in the event of a
high speed avoiding maneuver. None of these things in my mind makes
them any better or worse than a brand new Mercedes or a clapped out
Nissan Micra. They're just a soft target for some pointless political
campaign, with unfortunately distracts people from the real issues.


You are pulling our legs?

4x4s may be safer for the occupants but they are far more dangerous to
pedestrians than a normal saloon.
Funnily they are far more likely to kill a child in an accident, when most
of the drivers buy them to keep the kids safe.
Add to that the feeling of invulnerability the driver feels and the extra
risks they then take and you know why some drivers hate them.

Then you get the real morons fitting 'roo bars as well.

Drax (TOT)
 

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:32:16 GMT, "[email protected]"
wrote:

4x4s may be safer for the occupants but they are far more dangerous to
pedestrians than a normal saloon.

Do you have any statistics to back that overall as I really want some
hard fact on this - there doesn't seem to be anything convincing that
I can find?

Funnily they are far more likely to kill a child in an accident, when most
of the drivers buy them to keep the kids safe.

I don't know if that's true or not, but are they more or less likely
to actually have an accident than a car or truck? You appear to be
using very emotive terms such as "kill a child" and unfortunately
that's all I've really hear on this issue - lots of people with well
intentioned emotions, playing on their own particularly worry.
Absolutely no evidence that the concern (environmental or safety) is
actually valid when compared to other alternatives.

Add to that the feeling of invulnerability the driver feels and the extra
risks they then take and you know why some drivers hate them.

....again, evidence?

Then you get the real morons fitting 'roo bars as well.

I thought these were illegal now due to the fact that they've been
proven to increase injury? If not maybe their removal in built up
areas should be compulsory. I know that almost all the cheap second
hand grey market japanese imports have them as standard - maybe people
can't be bothered to remove them?

Rgds
Jonathan

Drax (TOT)
 

JC wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:32:16 GMT, "[email protected]" wrote:

4x4s may be safer for the occupants but they are far more dangerous
to pedestrians than a normal saloon.

Do you have any statistics to back that overall as I really want some
hard fact on this - there doesn't seem to be anything convincing that
I can find?

You need to learn how to use google:

http://www.tcd.ie/bioengineering/doc...ser s_000.pdf

Here's a brief extract:

"In the US, Gabler and Lefler have shown that despite poorer fuel
efficiencies and increased fuel costs, 40% of new vehicles purchased are
classified as light trucks or vans (many of which are SUV's). These
researchers have used the US Fatal Accident Reporting system database (FARS)
to analyse the relative dangers posed to pedestrians by the introduction of
these high fronted vehicles. Results show that, for the same collision
speed, the likelihood of a pedestrian fatality is nearly doubled in the
event of a collision with a large SUV compared to a passenger car. To this
study has been added several more studies consistently showing
higher rates (up to four times greater) of severe injury and death for
pedestrians in collisions with SUV's"

Drax (TOT)
 

"JC" wrote in message
...

Then you get the real morons fitting 'roo bars as well.

I thought these were illegal now due to the fact that they've been
proven to increase injury? If not maybe their removal in built up
areas should be compulsory. I know that almost all the cheap second
hand grey market japanese imports have them as standard - maybe people
can't be bothered to remove them?

You can't buy them fitted by the manufacturers.
Idiots still fit them as after market bits.

All it really shows is that they think they drive badly enough to hit
something.

Drax (TOT)
 

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
No it's the UK we need to sort out. That's where we live. Would you
go and mend your neighbour's house if your own roof had been blown
off?
This country is sliding into a multicultural morass.

I think you may have inadvertently swallowed a year's worth of Daily Mail
editorials, and this has caused your "Paul Dacre Righteous Indignation
Index" to rise to dangerous levels.

A few beers and some episodes of The Simpsons may help calm you down.

None of that constituted an argument.

I wouldn't dream of reading the Daily Mail.

Who's Paul Dacre?

I don't need calming down. I need my country back.

Bill

Drax (TOT)
 

"Ivan" wrote in message
.uk...
Pyriform wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
No it's the UK we need to sort out. That's where we live. Would you
go and mend your neighbour's house if your own roof had been blown
off?
This country is sliding into a multicultural morass.

I think you may have inadvertently swallowed a year's worth of Daily
Mail editorials, and this has caused your "Paul Dacre Righteous
Indignation Index" to rise to dangerous levels.

A few beers and some episodes of The Simpsons may help calm you down.


Couldn't possibly be that like myself and millions of others, that Bill
actually lives in the real world, and as he travels around he sees things
with his own eyes and hears things with his own ears, so therefore doesn't
have to rely on the Guardian and the BBC to try and draw an assessment
about
what the real world is all about.

The media in this country are infested with lefties, especially the BBC.
That's why we have to endure so much PC ********. The kids are being
brainwashed as well. Watch the BBC's children's channels and you'll see what
I mean. The schools are at it as well. When my kids were at school I had to
be constantly correcting the left wing bias they were given as 'fact'.
Fortunately they're all pretty clued up and they have all seen though the
school propaganda.

Bill

Drax (TOT)
 

"JC" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:01:01 +0100, "kim" wrote:

When people die from respiratory problems as a result of the drop in air
quality during warm weather created by vehicle emissions, then 4x4's are
in
a similar category to drunk drivers.

But someone in a Jag or Rolls-Royce using twice the fuel as a 4x4 and
creating twice the carbon emissions would be fine? What are you on
about?
What annoys me are the supertrams that run about in Sheffield 90% empty, and
only there for political reasons.


Really, you're in no place to judge what or how another person chooses
their transport without the full facts. FWIW some 4x4s are more fuel
efficient than many luxury cars. While many 4x4s are seen on school
runs, that's often because they're the only vehicles that can fit 2
adults, 3 children, another friend and some shopping. They only need
to be full of people/shopping etc 1% of the time to make sense over a
Nissan Micra.
If you can afford to pay for the safety of a big car you should be allowed
to have one. It should be your choice.

Personally I think people who eat beans are worse than drunks. They
cause a greater pollution and create more carbon dioxide. I'd like to
see anyone who's eaten beans banned from built up areas for 24 hours
and a tax of £ 25 per tin.
I'll vote for that. All that methane is what's damaging the ozone layer.

Bill

Drax (TOT)
 

"JC" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:22:40 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:
Once in Alton there are bus services between the major towns, though
some routes go all around the villages (both a good and bad thing) can
take a few hours hours. So a 10 mile journey that take 15-20 mins by
car is a minimum of 2 hours by bus including a 1 hour walk. In my
experience the buses are for recreational use only. Everyone I know
who's carless either begs a lift, calls a taxi or walks.

Private motoring is our absolute right. Those who try to take it away from
us on so-called environmental grounds are on a very sticky wicket.

Bill