No more school run SUVs?

On 11/04/2006 18:54, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

"We should have a notice on the dashboard to remind drivers."

Well, that will solve the problem, won't it??? Actually, I thought bull
bars were already supposed to be being banned. What happened to that, I
wonder?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

On 11/04/2006 18:54, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

"We should have a notice on the dashboard to remind drivers."

Well, that will solve the problem, won't it??? Actually, I thought bull
bars were already supposed to be being banned. What happened to that, I
wonder?

I could be wrong but I believe bull bars were banned as standard
equipment when a new car is supplied but that it is legal for 4x4
owners to have after market kits fitted.

Iain

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4900000.stm

Danger signs should be placed on 4x4 vehicles to prevent parents from
using them on the school run, teachers say.

Quoted message said:

However, US research showed sports utility vehicles (SUVs) were two to
four times more likely to kill or seriously injure people than cars, he
added.

I imagine the emissions from the things will also cause a few premature
deaths too; IMHO they missed the chance to make drivers think twice
about buying them when they increased the VED by less than half a tank
of guzzlene.

MartinM said:

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4900000.stm

Danger signs should be placed on 4x4 vehicles to prevent parents from
using them on the school run, teachers say.

Quoted message said:

However, US research showed sports utility vehicles (SUVs) were two to
four times more likely to kill or seriously injure people than cars, he
added.

I imagine the emissions from the things will also cause a few premature
deaths too;

Why more so that the filthier non-SUVs? Remember, only one of the 40
worst gas-guzzlers on sale in the UK is a 4x4 SUV.

Quoted message said:

IMHO they missed the chance to make drivers think twice
about buying them when they increased the VED by less than half a tank
of guzzlene.

How could they catch them all with VED without catching the dirtier non
SUVS? Some SUVs aren't even in the latest gas-guzzler band they are so
fuel efficient.

--
Matt B

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

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4900000.stm

Danger signs should be placed on 4x4 vehicles to prevent parents from
using them on the school run, teachers say.

Quoted message said:

However, US research showed sports utility vehicles (SUVs) were two to
four times more likely to kill or seriously injure people than cars, he
added.

I imagine the emissions from the things will also cause a few premature
deaths too;

Why more so that the filthier non-SUVs? Remember, only one of the 40
worst gas-guzzlers on sale in the UK is a 4x4 SUV.

Quoted message said:

IMHO they missed the chance to make drivers think twice
about buying them when they increased the VED by less than half a tank
of guzzlene.

How could they catch them all with VED without catching the dirtier non
SUVS? Some SUVs aren't even in the latest gas-guzzler band they are so
fuel efficient.

--
Matt B

THIS THREAD BELONGS ON A MOTORING NEWSGROUP

Tony Raven came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

History teacher Phil Whalley said 4x4s and sports utility vehicles were
more likely than conventional cars to kill children and the danger was
increased when bull bars were attached.

Out of twelve teachers at one of the schools I am caretaker of, two have
Landrover Discoveries. Another has a Subaru Forester and another has a
Mitsubishi L200.

Quoted message said:

Mr Whalley, whose Hardenhuish School is in a rural area of Wiltshire,
said many parents bought 4x4s as "status symbols".

How does he know that?

Quoted message said:

The driver's high vantage point also made it harder to see pedestrians.

High vantage point .. not able to see .. don't seem to correlate

Quoted message said:

However, US research showed sports utility vehicles (SUVs) were two to
four times more likely to kill or seriously injure people than cars, he
added.

Maybe because there is a much, much higher percentage of SUV's on Americas
roads.

Quoted message said:

In the meantime, it should issue drivers with details of international
studies, so they could make a more informed choice before buying a 4x4.

Heheheheh, like that would help. Maybe buyers of bicycles should be issued
with details of international studies into the wearing of helmets too ... 😉

Quoted message said:

"We should have a notice on the dashboard to remind drivers."

Priceless. So now he wants them to look at the dashboard instead of what's
outside ....

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

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

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4900000.stm

History teacher Phil Whalley said 4x4s and sports utility vehicles were
more likely than conventional cars to kill children and the danger was
increased when bull bars were attached.

IIRC 'bull bars' were invented in Australia.
Too many Kangaroos were being hit and wounded by cars.
The Animal protection people demanded something be done.
'roo killers' were invented so that if you hit a kangaroo it
will not be injured and suffer for days. It will be killed outright!

If it does that to a reasonably large 'roo. What do people expect
from a small child?

Dave

Does anyone know where I can get bull bars for my bike?

I'm not satisfied with the purchase I get when cycling into small children and would like to make more of an impact.

Add to that the kangaroo hazards on the trails of the UK and you can see that I've a real need for such things.

"I need my 4x4" - yeah right.

Wheelist.

Paul - censored said:

Quoted message said:

Mr Whalley, whose Hardenhuish School is in a rural area of Wiltshire,
said many parents bought 4x4s as "status symbols".

How does he know that?

he probably took a look at the [censored] sitting behind the wheel

wheelist said:

Does anyone know where I can get bull bars for my bike?

I'm not satisfied with the purchase I get when cycling into small children and would like to make more of an impact.

Add to that the kangaroo hazards on the trails of the UK and you can see that I've a real need for such things.

"I need my 4x4" - yeah right.

Wheelist.

Get a swb 'bent with a large chainwheel :-)

Bryan

Budstaff yelled:

Quoted message said:

THIS THREAD BELONGS ON A MOTORING NEWSGROUP

In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, kill it.

As someone whose commute used to include the hair-raising experience of
riding past a school at school-run time, I regard the subject of SUV's
on the school run as very relevant to cycling.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

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

Quoted message said:

Budstaff yelled:

Quoted message said:

THIS THREAD BELONGS ON A MOTORING NEWSGROUP

In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, kill it.

As someone whose commute used to include the hair-raising experience of
riding past a school at school-run time, I regard the subject of SUV's on
the school run as very relevant to cycling.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

At the time I posted there was no discernible cycling content. It was a
discussion on SUV's, their fuel economy, and the origin of bullbars.

Your argument makes _anything_ relevant to cycling, if you see it while out
on a bike. SUV's on the school run are only relevant to uk.rec.cycling _if_
the discussion includes bikes. This one didn't. There are too many
car-centric threads in this newsgroup, encouraged and fed by some noted
trolls from the motoring groups. This post no more belonged here than a
h**m*t thread would in uk.rec.cars.

In my opinion...

Budstaff said:

At the time I posted there was no discernible cycling content. It was a
discussion on SUV's, their fuel economy, and the origin of bullbars.

In your relatively short time here I notice you've contributed to
discussions on SUV reviews, how to make TinyURLs, "Speak to the Hand"
and all sorts of other OT discussions, so why the sudden Netpolice attitude?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Budstaff said:

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

Quoted message said:

Budstaff yelled:

Quoted message said:

THIS THREAD BELONGS ON A MOTORING NEWSGROUP

In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, kill it.

As someone whose commute used to include the hair-raising experience of
riding past a school at school-run time, I regard the subject of SUV's on
the school run as very relevant to cycling.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

At the time I posted there was no discernible cycling content. It was a
discussion on SUV's, their fuel economy, and the origin of bullbars.

Your argument makes _anything_ relevant to cycling, if you see it while out
on a bike. SUV's on the school run are only relevant to uk.rec.cycling _if_
the discussion includes bikes. This one didn't. There are too many
car-centric threads in this newsgroup, encouraged and fed by some noted
trolls from the motoring groups. This post no more belonged here than a
h**m*t thread would in uk.rec.cars.

In my opinion...

I couldn't agree less. As a cyclist I'm concerned about the presence of SUVs on our roads - they're more likely to kill me in a collision than your average car. Any discussion therefore, about ways to increase awareness re. the danger of such vehicles is of interest to me.

If you're not interested in the discussion, don't join in. Simple.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven (junk@raven-

family.com) said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4900000.stm

[snip]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sunshine reports:

"I've just seen the best oxymoron of the morning in an advert

'Kia - The thinking persons 4x4'

Ho ho"

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Trees, once grown in large numbers, make perfect forests.

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

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

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

Quoted message said:

Budstaff yelled:
> THIS THREAD BELONGS ON A MOTORING NEWSGROUP

In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, kill it.

As someone whose commute used to include the hair-raising experience

of

Quoted message said:

riding past a school at school-run time, I regard the subject of

SUV's on

Quoted message said:

the school run as very relevant to cycling.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

At the time I posted there was no discernible cycling content. It was
a
discussion on SUV's, their fuel economy, and the origin of bullbars.

Your argument makes _anything_ relevant to cycling, if you see it
while out
on a bike. SUV's on the school run are only relevant to uk.rec.cycling
_if_
the discussion includes bikes. This one didn't. There are too many
car-centric threads in this newsgroup, encouraged and fed by some
noted
trolls from the motoring groups. This post no more belonged here than
a
h**m*t thread would in uk.rec.cars.

In my opinion...I couldn't agree less. As a cyclist I'm concerned about
the presence of

SUVs on our roads - they're more likely to kill me in a collision than
your average car. Any discussion therefore, about ways to increase
awareness re. the danger of such vehicles is of interest to me.

If you're not interested in the discussion, don't join in. Simple.

--
wheelist

If it is a discussion about the dangers, to cyclists and others, I agree.
But defending them as not being as polluting as you'd think? And debating
the origins of bull bars?

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

Quoted message said:

Budstaff said:

At the time I posted there was no discernible cycling content. It was a
discussion on SUV's, their fuel economy, and the origin of bullbars.

In your relatively short time here I notice you've contributed to
discussions on SUV reviews, how to make TinyURLs, "Speak to the Hand" and
all sorts of other OT discussions, so why the sudden Netpolice attitude?

Because I had it pointed out to me that I was troll-feeding to respond to
some of the [censored] that the cager apologists post on this group. I'm _not_
accusing you of being one of them, but this time you gave them an
opportunity to hold forth, and I could see this turning into one of those
interminable to and fros that clogs up the group from time to time. (Funnily
enough it doesn't seem to have happened).

A thread like this could go two ways. Either the cyclists all chip in with
why they hate 4x4's, which is the converted preaching to each other, or the
cager apologists and trolls wade in and annoy the cyclists even more, which
doesn't really add to the sum of human happiness or knowledge either. Surely
you could have had a much more fruitful discussion on _this _ subject by
taking the fitght to them on uk.rec.cars.4x4?

BTW, you appear to have cited all three of my OT posts to this group in the
last six months so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand your 'all sorts of
other OT discussions' but I'll put that down to rhetorical hyperbole ;-) The
reason for my apparently recent appearance on the group is that like a fule
I had posted in the past using a reply address that I also used for
'important' e-mails and was drowning in a sea of spam, so having set up a
new e-mail account I'm now protecting it by using an alias on here (which
can be mailed to). I can assure you that I've been around for years.

Dave Larrington said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven (junk@raven-

family.com) said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4900000.stm

[snip]

Meanwhile, Mr. Sunshine reports:

"I've just seen the best oxymoron of the morning in an advert

'Kia - The thinking persons 4x4'

Ho ho"

What's the joke.

Can't envisage a "thinking person" buying a 4x4?

druidh

druidh said:

Quoted message said:

"I've just seen the best oxymoron of the morning in an advert

'Kia - The thinking persons 4x4'

Ho ho"

What's the joke.

Can't envisage a "thinking person" buying a 4x4?

This is a thinking person's 4x4
http://www.foxhomecenter.com/lumber_pics/fir4x4.jpg

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham