I like it!

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Article in the Telegraph today.

It's online, but you have to register for the Telegraph to
access it..

Here's part.

"Livingstone condemns 'Chelsea tractor' drivers By George
Jones, Political Editor (Filed: 22/05/2004)

Londoners who use four-wheel-drive vehicles and people
carriers on the

school

Quoted message said:

run are complete idiots, according to Ken Livingstone, the
London Mayor.

Four-wheel-drive vehicles, such as Range Rovers, and up-
market BMW and Mercedes, are known in London as "Chelsea
tractors" - which rarely go off

road.

Quoted message said:

In an interview for GMTV's Sunday Programme to be
broadcast tomorrow, Mr Livingstone said: "When I see a
farmer going over rugged terrain in a four-wheel drive, I
think that's a reasonable decision to have made.

"When you see someone trying to manoeuvre it round the
school gates, you

have

Quoted message said:

to think, 'You are a complete idiot'."

I think he's totally correct :-)

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the
tunnel is switched

off--

Quoted message said:

yeah!, personal choice, eh?...it's a [censored]!!

Quoted message said:

yeah!, personal choice, eh?...it's a [censored]!!

Indeed it can be when the personal choice of one person
severely impinges on the quality of life of others in a very
adverse way. That's called "being a selfish ar$eh*le"

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel
is switched off--

On 22 May 2004 07:00:21 GMT, [email hidden]

(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) said:

Article in the Telegraph today.

It's online, but you have to register for the Telegraph to
access it..

Here's part.

"Livingstone condemns 'Chelsea tractor' drivers By George
Jones, Political Editor (Filed: 22/05/2004)

snip

It's reported elsewhere; including the Times website which
doesn't ask for registration details.

I'm afraid I can't agree with Ken on this one. What people
choose to spend their money on is entirely up to them. It's
what's known as a "free country" (the UK used to be one,
you know).

If he wants to tackle drivers who endanger school children
or cause congestion and pollution then I'm right behind him.

Banning or slowing down traffic around schools would get my
support. Banning or taxing polluting vehicles would get my
support. But picking on 4x4s merely because of their design
is, in Ken's words, "idiotic".

Of more interest was the second part of Ken's interview.
Where he said that he wanted to stop Londoners concreting
over their front gardens to make car parking space. This one
would get my vote every time. The current trend to take out
the hedge or wall and lay down tarmac is ruining some
streets. It makes beautiful streets ugly. It makes pavements
unpleasant strips between rows of parked cars. The constant
up-down for drop kurbs is uncomfortable to walk on. And, of
course, it's dangerous to have cars crossing and reversing
across the footway.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Indeed it can be when the personal choice of one person
severely impinges on the quality of life of others in a
very adverse way. That's called "being a selfish ar$eh*le"

What does a four wheel drive car do that is so different
from a two wheel drive car that only the former seriously
adversely impinges on others' quality of life? If I have a
car with switchable two and four wheel drive, does using the
switch convert me in and out of being a selfish ar$eh*le?
Curious minds want to know.

Tony

Not Responding said:

I'm afraid I can't agree with Ken on this one. What people
choose to spend their money on is entirely up to them.
It's what's known as a "free country" (the UK used to be
one, you know).

Have a free choice and being a complete idiot are not
incompatible. In the bit quoted Ken wasn't advocating
removing such choices.

(OTOH we already have various regulation about what kind of
vehicles you can drive - which do impinge on peoples'
freedom to choose to drive vehicles that fail to meet those
regulations.)

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

What does a four wheel drive car do that is so different
from a two wheel drive car that only the former seriously
adversely impinges on others' quality of life? If I have
a car with switchable two and four wheel drive, does
using the switch convert me in and out of being a selfish
ar$eh*le? Curious minds want to know.

Tony

Reading the article, it's clear KL is referring to off-
roaders being used in the city. KL has a point that they
are quite unnecessary and yes, I agree with his comment
that those that do use off-roaders designed for such work
in the city, are indeed idiots. If that cat fits you Tony,
for use as described ;-)

You should be a politician Helen. What is it about "off-
roaders" versus "on-roaders" that makes only the former
"quite unnecessary" with a serious adverse impact on others'
quality of life?

Tony

Not Responding said:

But picking on 4x4s merely because of their design is, in
Ken's words, "idiotic".

So, choosing to buy a vehicle that is less stable, less
manoeuvrable, harder to park, less economical, has bigger
blindspots and prevents drivers of smaller vehicles from
seeing through; without needing or using the many advantages
that these vehicles confer in the right environment is sane?

I think not.

Tony Raven said:

You should be a politician Helen. What is it about "off-
roaders" versus "on-roaders" that makes only the former
"quite unnecessary" with a serious adverse impact on
others' quality of life?

At a rough guess, a 2 ton weight, fuel consumption below
20mpg (and CO2 emissions to match), a bulk wider than some
parking spaces and bull bars?

Plus they tend to be driven by people who feel invulnerable
because of all that metal, and behave accordingly.

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

without a care in the world of how the bull-bars on the
front of their pristine off-roader can adversely impact on
human flesh and bone.

What happened to the plan to ban bull bars on the public
highway? There's no need for them there really.

On 22 May 2004 08:10:44 GMT, [email hidden]

(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) said:

Quoted message said:

What does a four wheel drive car do that is so different
from a two wheel drive car that only the former seriously
adversely impinges on others' quality of life? If I have a
car with switchable two and four wheel drive, does using
the switch convert me in and out of being a selfish
ar$eh*le? Curious minds want to know.

Tony

Reading the article, it's clear KL is referring to off-
roaders being used in the city. KL has a point that they
are quite unnecessary and yes, I agree with his comment
that those that do use off-roaders designed for such work
in the city, are indeed idiots. If that cat fits you Tony,
for use as described ;-)

But that's the wonder of living in a (theoretically) free
country. People make different choices which we might not
agree with. Our entire society is riddled with expenditures
that are unnecessary and "idiotic" in some eyes.

I'm happy to let people get on with being individuals *up
and until* what they chose impacts on others. When it comes
to cars, this point is reached pretty soon which is why I'm
happy to support moves to limit this impact (ie congestion
charging, speed limits, emissions controls, noise limits,
driver testing etc).

If people drive slowly, with care in quiet vehicles that
don't pollute or endanger others[1], we shouldn't care less
whether it's a Ferrari designed for a racetrack, a Landrover
designed for the country or Guy's Volvo. KL's condemnation
of Mercedes MLs but not the equally "unnecessary" Ferrari or
big Jag illustrates his inconsistency.

We need to become a little more tolerant as a society of
differences that don't matter. Throwing phrases like "idiot"
(although accurate seeing as the Greek root means "private
person"😉 is not helpful. Instead, we need to be more aware
of *selfishness*; concentrating on condemning those
behaviours that *do* matter to other people.

[1] I know of no such vehicle.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Living in a place (even rural as I do), off-roaders are
driven by ladies and men who are clearly not intending to
take their pristine Toyota Landcruiser, Range Rover etc.,
into a muddy field. They are however, quite content to use
them to go at great speed along narrow lanes for example,
to bully their way past cyclists or pedestrians by
intimidation - I've had this happen to me - and in
dropping Little Johnny or Little Camilla off at school,
bulldoze their way on to pavements to drop the precious
offspring off at the school gate, without a care in the
world of how the bull-bars on the front of their pristine
off-roader can adversely impact on human flesh and bone.
Or yesterday - in Tesco carpark when the female twit in
the Landcruiser seemed to think the size of her vehicle
gave her priority in parking in such a way as she needed
to use the white line indicating the edge of a parking bay
to actually be a white line to park the centre of her
vehicle one - thus effectively taking up room that could
be used by others.

Off-roaders have their uses - off-road. For use as
described above, they indicate quite a different thing
altogether.

I suspect those drivers would be just the same in any other
car. The stereotyping is a bit like labelling all cyclists
"lycra louts" who ignore red lights.

Tony

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:25:50 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

without needing or using the many advantages that these
vehicles confer in the right environment is sane?

Of course, many of these "off-roaders" are simply
hairdressers cars which would fall apart at the sight of a
large-ish pot hole....

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

But picking on 4x4s merely because of their design is, in
Ken's words, "idiotic".

So, choosing to buy a vehicle that is less stable, less
manoeuvrable, harder to park, less economical, has bigger
blindspots and prevents drivers of smaller vehicles from
seeing through; without needing or using the many
advantages that these vehicles confer in the right
environment is sane?

I think not.

Jeremy Clarkson did a program condemning these a year or two
ago. He felt that it was stupid to use them as the main car
in London when they use so much fuel and take up so much
room. I seem to remember that he concluded that it's like a
nuclear weapon. You get one to protect yourself from
everyone else that also has one. He interviewed people for
their reasons for owning one and they said things like "to
get up a hill if it's snowing" (in Hampstead!).

When he pressed them further and asked which hill they never
used to be able to get up and what car it was, they became
defensive.

Unfortunately, it's a free country and they're seen as a
status symbol (in the 60's it was having the word de-luxe on
the back of the car).

In the USA you are expected to have a SUV if you are anyone.
Of course, now lots of people have them, to stand out in the
crowd it has to be a Merc. or BMW .

Paul.

Al C-F said:

Not Responding said:

But picking on 4x4s merely because of their design is, in
Ken's words, "idiotic".

So, choosing to buy a vehicle that is less stable, less
manoeuvrable, harder to park, less economical, has bigger
blindspots and prevents drivers of smaller vehicles from
seeing through; without needing or using the many
advantages that these vehicles confer in the right
environment is sane?

Are you talking about 4x4's or any bigger car. To be honest
there is virtually no size difference between most 4x4's and
a London taxi. A BMW X5 or Range Rover weighs only 50% more
than a Mondeo. Higher seating position gives a better view,
at London traffic speeds stability is not an issue, parking
is the owner's problem and why do you need to see through -
you can't see through the ubiquitous London taxi.

Tony

Nathaniel Porter said:

Of course, many of these "off-roaders" are simply
hairdressers cars which would fall apart at the sight of a
large-ish pot hole....

Apparently the first series of Land Rover Freelanders were
so bad that you couldn't open the doors if the front wheel
was in a pothole. The body had very little stiffness.

The reliability figures for Land Rovers are also woeful -
I'm amazed anyone wants them (apart from the Defender,
maybe, which is a proper working vehicle).

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 22 May 2004 08:10:44 GMT, [email hidden]

(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) said:

Quoted message said:

What does a four wheel drive car do that is so different
from a two

wheel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

drive car that only the former seriously adversely
impinges on others' quality of life? If I have a car
with switchable two and four wheel drive, does using the
switch convert me in and out of being a selfish
ar$eh*le? Curious

minds

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

want to know.

Tony

Reading the article, it's clear KL is referring to off-
roaders being used

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the city. KL has a point that they are quite unnecessary
and yes, I agree

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

his comment that those that do use off-roaders designed
for such work in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

city, are indeed idiots. If that cat fits you Tony, for
use as described

;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that's the wonder of living in a (theoretically)
free country. People make different choices which we
might not agree with. Our entire society is riddled
with expenditures that are unnecessary and "idiotic" in
some eyes.

I'm happy to let people get on with being individuals *up
and until* what they chose impacts on others. When it
comes to cars, this point is reached pretty soon which is
why I'm happy to support moves to limit this impact (ie
congestion charging, speed limits, emissions controls,
noise limits, driver testing etc).

Thing is though regulation misses the point. I doesn't
address they fact that people are dim enough to use their
cars innappropriately.

I feel the same solution to many of the problems you cite is
to make people more understanding of their impact (on
themselves as much as others) so they engage their brain a
little more - just like people who buy "off-roaders" and use
them only in situations where they're not very useful should
be dealt with by pointing out that they're haemorriging
money (amongst over things) driving 8 mpg monsters.

Easier said than done of course.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tony Raven said:

You should be a politician Helen. What is it about "off-
roaders" versus "on-roaders" that makes only the former
"quite unnecessary" with a serious adverse impact on
others' quality of life?

At a rough guess, a 2 ton weight, fuel consumption below
20mpg (and CO2 emissions to match), a bulk wider than some
parking spaces and bull bars?

Plus they tend to be driven by people who feel
invulnerable because of all that metal, and behave
accordingly.

I would say the big issue for other road users is how tall
they are and the restriction on visibility when you're
behind them, either in another car or on a bike.

Pete

Paulmouk said:

In the USA you are expected to have a SUV if you are
anyone. Of course, now lots of people have them, to stand
out in the crowd it has to be a Merc. or BMW .

Actually these days it a Toyota Prius that is the
status symbol

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Are you talking about 4x4's or any bigger car. To be honest
there is virtually no size difference between most 4x4's
and a London taxi. A BMW X5 or Range Rover weighs only 50%
more than a Mondeo.

So about another 600kg? Trivial really, I'm sure.

Quoted message said:

Higher seating position gives a better view,

Only if everything else on the road is lower - which it
isn't any more.

Quoted message said:

at London traffic speeds stability is not an issue

I suspect that these vehicles spend at least some of their
time doing more than 5mph.

Quoted message said:

parking is the owner's problem

Until the 'empty' space next to it is unusable because it
has spread over both white lines

and why do you need to see through

Road signs, anticipation of other traffic - you mentioned
the importance of 'a better view' above. Seeing through
other vehicles gives you that.

Quoted message said:

- you can't see through
the ubiquitous London taxi.

I suspect that you can.