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

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 ;-)

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--

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.)

Quoted message said:

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

Quite.

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--

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.

Quoted message 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?

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.

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--

"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.

"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.

"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....

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

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).

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

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