[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



Following up to Peter Clinch

>Because I don't regularly get held up by queues of aircraft as I go
>about my day to day business, and I doubt many other people do, and
>though I do make unnecessary trips by plane I don't do it on a daily
>basis. There is simply far more scope for reducing car use /without
>actually making anyone worse off as a result/ than just about any other
>common travel habit.

Stand on the flight path of Heathrow, air traffic is growing
fast, remember the amount of pollution, emissions etc and noise
every flight makes. Remember its not taxed. Remember the
pressures for extra airports, When did you last stand on a ELD
hill and not hear and see aircraft? We started off talking of all
aspects, not just congestion and air travel is predicted to
increase hugely and will be having a big impact on pollution of
several sorts and yet where are the anti air travel brigade?

I agree there are lots of unnecessary car journeys and stupid
choices of 4x4s etc, but not by me, preferring to walk short
journeys. But I think there is quite enough anti motorist
pressure as it is, so I wont be joining ETA, in fact I left
Greenpeace for that reason and joined the ABD instead.

I make a regular journey on the M25 (I have to chauffeur SWMBO to
work- bad back) and do you know what the biggest causes of
congestion are (semi peak)? Its not cars with one person in, its
a) Lorries blocking L1 and L2 with 1mph speed differential,
(often transporting food half way across Europe or 200 miles to
be washed before going another 200 to a supermarket depot when it
was grown 30 miles from its market).
b) Having to stop for a toll on the bridge
c) Bad lane use, hardly anybody is willing to drive a car in the
left lane, so often there is a jam in L3 with no one in L1,
except when (as is happening more and more) people lose patience
and undertake and cut back in, which is dangerous.

>> and another thing, I get fed up with people telling me you can
>> get about just as well without a car, you cant.
>
>When has anyone in this thread said that?

Not yet. I'm ready to flame them :)
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:40:50 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>"There are a number of possible threats to humanity's future: climate
>>change is probably the most serious."
>>"the general consensus is that within this century, if we do nothing,
>>our present civilisation would end. "
>>
>>Rofl!
>
>I'm not laughing.
>
>>'Green tips'
>>"Buy nearly new. Try not to buy a new car unless you absolutely have
>>to. Be aware however, that newer vehicles pollute less and tend to be
>>more environmentally efficient."
>>
>>Baffled!
>
>>"Buy infrequently as the second-hand car market is very imperfect. It
>>is best to choose a car where you know its history. It is even
>>economic to spend more repairing a vehicle than its market value.
>>Reliability is the key. Once a vehicle becomes unreliable sell it."
>>
>>Sell it? Who to?
>>
>Where to place yourself in the life cycle of cars seems an
>irrelevance to congestion and pollution, but presumably that's
>not their only angle? Are not the latter points just general
>common sense advice on car buying?

They come under 'Green Tips'. They also suggest you should drive
without your shoes on - no kidding!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
O
>But they come across to me at any rate as being crackpots:
>
>"There are a number of possible threats to humanity's future: climate
>change is probably the most serious."
>"the general consensus is that within this century, if we do nothing,
>our present civilisation would end. "
>
>Rofl!

So the sod tomorrow... Laws of physics dont apply to me mob are not
crackpots...

Some of us see two sets of crackpots... And I know which set are the
most dangerous.....

Doesent it all boil down to SEP.... The big problems will be after I
die, so why should I care........

Richard Webb
 

>I believe some companies prefer certain driver/vehicle profiles, but
>I've never been able to fathom any of it out.

I have suddenly become uninsurable to a lot of companies... Change
of "job".... Thats all it takes and you fall out of the cherry
pickers pet box. Then you pay!

Richard Webb
 
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:34:00 +0000, Fran wrote:
> Well OK, perhaps the heading's a .....<snipped>

Oh Fran!.............look what you started /o;
 
In article <[email protected]>, The Reids
<[email protected]> writes
>Following up to Peter Clinch
>
>>> obviously, not a brilliant choice, though.
>>
>>Irrelevant, really. Is anyone with a working brain going to confuse
>>them?
>
>Why did anyone with a working brian choose it?

Most people in the UK have no idea that ETA are a terrorist organisation
in
Spain. Why would they? It is not as if there is much of a fuss about it
over
here.

>Would you start a
>business called Inland Road Assistance and call it IRA?

Not in the UK but then the initials IRA have a great significance to the
UK population - unlike ETA.

>But, yes,
>irrelevant except in assessing their competence.

If you really think that is a measure of their competence I feel you are
misguided.

--

Dominic Sexton
 
Dominic Sexton wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, The Reids
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> Following up to Peter Clinch
>>
>>>> obviously, not a brilliant choice, though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, really. Is anyone with a working brain going to confuse
>>> them?
>>
>>
>> Why did anyone with a working brian choose it?
>
>
> Most people in the UK have no idea that ETA are a terrorist organisation in
> Spain. Why would they? It is not as if there is much of a fuss about it
> over
> here.
>
>> Would you start a
>> business called Inland Road Assistance and call it IRA?
>
>
> Not in the UK but then the initials IRA have a great significance to the
> UK population - unlike ETA.
>

An IRA in the US is a retirement account. (and we do know of the other IRA)

Katherine
 

>Not in the UK but then the initials IRA have a great significance to the
>UK population - unlike ETA.

And IRS has an even more sinister signifigance to our friends across
the Atlantic.

Richard Webb
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:41:29 GMT, [email protected] (RJ Webb) wrote:

>O
>>But they come across to me at any rate as being crackpots:
>>
>>"There are a number of possible threats to humanity's future: climate
>>change is probably the most serious."
>>"the general consensus is that within this century, if we do nothing,
>>our present civilisation would end. "
>>
>>Rofl!
>
>So the sod tomorrow... Laws of physics dont apply to me mob are not
>crackpots...

>Some of us see two sets of crackpots... And I know which set are the
>most dangerous.....
>
>Doesent it all boil down to SEP.... The big problems will be after I
>die, so why should I care........
>
>Richard Webb

If we live to be 150 I'll remind you about that old global warming
story - assuming I'm not under house arrest and banned from the
internet, of course.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
[email protected] said...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:34:00 +0000, Fran wrote:
> > Well OK, perhaps the heading's a .....<snipped>
>
> Oh Fran!.............look what you started /o;
>
*Sigh* I'm ever so sorry, really I am. Shall we leave them
to get on with it and talk about something else instead?

--
If you can keep your head when all around are losing theirs...
then you've failed to grasp some important aspect of the
situation.
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:45:19 +0000, Dominic Sexton
<{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, The Reids
><[email protected]> writes
>>Following up to Peter Clinch
>>
>>>> obviously, not a brilliant choice, though.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant, really. Is anyone with a working brain going to confuse
>>>them?
>>
>>Why did anyone with a working brian choose it?
>
>Most people in the UK have no idea that ETA are a terrorist organisation
>in
>Spain. Why would they? It is not as if there is much of a fuss about it
>over
>here.
>
>>Would you start a
>>business called Inland Road Assistance and call it IRA?
>
>Not in the UK but then the initials IRA have a great significance to the
>UK population - unlike ETA.
>
>>But, yes,
>>irrelevant except in assessing their competence.
>
>If you really think that is a measure of their competence I feel you are
>misguided.

I'd have thought that most people would know what ETA was, and that
it's a bad idea to drive without your shoes on!
I can just imagine Mike, broken down outside the local branch of the
Guardia Civil, trying to explain that he's waiting for the ETA man to
arrive, flashing his membership card...

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:33:18 -0000, "Nick Pedley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>BTW, I let BBC Watchdog know of the ripoff Tesco tried to pull and am just
>waiting for their reply...

This snippet appeared somewhat out of context. Did I miss something, and
should I be unduly concerned ? (I'd rate all insurers about an average 2
out of 10 on the honesty scale, just want to watch out for those who get nil
points ! Tesco were absolutely fine when I had my car broken into,
temporary hire car, new radio, door fixed, all with no hassles.)

--
Just a fake guitar player in the Monkees of life.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:43:13 +0000, Fran wrote:
> [email protected] said...
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:34:00 +0000, Fran wrote:
>>
>>> Well OK, perhaps the heading's a .....<snipped>
>>>
>> Oh Fran!.............look what you started /o;
>>
> *Sigh* I'm ever so sorry, really I am. Shall we leave them to get
> on with it and talk about something else instead?

Yes I think so , now how about this question on boot
durability....................

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



Regards Jeff C

www.astrecks.co.uk

Remove yourbrain to reply
astrecks(at)yahooyourbrain(dot)com
 
The Reids <[email protected]> wrote :

>however I never told them my
>opinions on anything when I was a member, or wanted them to do
>other than fix the car.

That greatly ****** me off as well. Pure arrogance.

I joined AutoAid
<URL:http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1095600098,32594,#>.
Does what it says on the tin, no more, no less.

Daytona
 
Richard G. <[email protected]> wrote :

>Where's the best place to go and check prices then?
>I'm in the market for motor insurance after the last 17 years as a company
>car driver, and not having owned a car previously. Yeah, I know... welcome
>to the real world...

If the industry still hasn't got used to the idea of giving NCD to ex. company
car drivers, you might have to talk to a broker this time. Otherwise I'd suggest
<URL:http://www.confused.com/> as a starting point.

Daytona
 
Chris Townsend <[email protected]> wrote :

>Are there any rescue organisations that won't comment on speeding or any
>other motoring issue if asked?

The one I use don't even publicise themselves (they rely on word of mouth), so
I'd lay odds that they won't talk about other issues. And I wouldn't have it any
other way....

They're a good demonstration of what it costs to run a pure breakdown operation;
£29pa. They've been around for years, so they're obviously making a satisfactory
profit.

I don't think people realise the extent to which they're funding the grandiose
marketing schemes and political ideals of the better known services.

Daytona
 
Rooney wrote:

> But they come across to me at any rate as being crackpots:
>
> "There are a number of possible threats to humanity's future: climate
> change is probably the most serious."
> "the general consensus is that within this century, if we do nothing,
> our present civilisation would end. "
>
> Rofl!

We /know/ the climate is changing because there's plenty of statistical
evidence to show ice sheets are melting and glaciers are retreating, and
it's not too difficult to work out where the water's going. It's also a
matter of public record that a significant chunk of the earth's
(increasing) population live in coastal areas. The century lasts
another 95 years, if you can't put these facts together and interpolate
a few problems then you've got your laughing head in the sand, not on
the floor.

> "Buy nearly new. Try not to buy a new car unless you absolutely have
> to. Be aware however, that newer vehicles pollute less and tend to be
> more environmentally efficient."
>
> Baffled!

Why? It's common knowledge that a new car loses a significant chunk of
value the minute you drive off the dealer's forecourt, and it provides
the manufacturer with an excellent excuse to build another which has the
potential to get in /your/ way when it's sold.
It's also common knowledge that a Brand X Model Y car is a lot cleaner
than its contemporary of 10 years ago.

> "Buy infrequently as the second-hand car market is very imperfect. It
> is best to choose a car where you know its history. It is even
> economic to spend more repairing a vehicle than its market value.
> Reliability is the key. Once a vehicle becomes unreliable sell it."
>
> Sell it? Who to?

Anyone that will take it. Scrap value has gone up, so people will pay
for an otherwise unreliable car for spares and metal.

> Nuff said.

You said enough when you said you were "anti-green, pro-car". That
isn't sustainable, and will result in the wild places most of us love
being destroyed and/or the routes to them being clogged. If everyone
exercises their right to make pointless trips then /that/ is what will
prevent you making a pointless trip, not somebody banning them. You
have failed to realise that the primary beneficiary of fewer cars on the
roads will be any road users. We know that direct promotion of cars and
road building hand in hand makes the roads /less/ usable, because we can
see it any day of the week.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
The Reids wrote:

> Stand on the flight path of Heathrow, air traffic is growing
> fast, remember the amount of pollution, emissions etc and noise
> every flight makes.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that since planes don't
generally affect many people's day to day journeys by getting in their
way then they will naturally tend to put more pressure on the things
that /do/. You did ask why cars get so much heat...

> I agree there are lots of unnecessary car journeys and stupid
> choices of 4x4s etc, but not by me, preferring to walk short
> journeys. But I think there is quite enough anti motorist
> pressure as it is,

If there was quite enough then those unnecessary journeys and stupid
choices of 4x4s would be decreasing, but I don't see any evidence of
that. If there was enough then 3000 people a year wouldn't be killed on
the UK roads, but they are. I think there's room for a lot more
pressure on motorists, while I also appreciate that there are many good
and considerate drivers who don't do anything that needs changed much.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:55:15 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> But they come across to me at any rate as being crackpots:
>>
>> "There are a number of possible threats to humanity's future: climate
>> change is probably the most serious."
>> "the general consensus is that within this century, if we do nothing,
>> our present civilisation would end. "
>>
>> Rofl!
>
>We /know/ the climate is changing because there's plenty of statistical
>evidence to show ice sheets are melting and glaciers are retreating, and
>it's not too difficult to work out where the water's going. It's also a
>matter of public record that a significant chunk of the earth's
>(increasing) population live in coastal areas. The century lasts
>another 95 years, if you can't put these facts together and interpolate
>a few problems then you've got your laughing head in the sand, not on
>the floor.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

>> "Buy nearly new. Try not to buy a new car unless you absolutely have
>> to. Be aware however, that newer vehicles pollute less and tend to be
>> more environmentally efficient."
>>
>> Baffled!
>
>Why? It's common knowledge that a new car loses a significant chunk of
>value the minute you drive off the dealer's forecourt, and it provides
>the manufacturer with an excellent excuse to build another which has the
>potential to get in /your/ way when it's sold.
>It's also common knowledge that a Brand X Model Y car is a lot cleaner
>than its contemporary of 10 years ago.


What's green about not buying a new car unless you have to?

>> "Buy infrequently as the second-hand car market is very imperfect. It
>> is best to choose a car where you know its history. It is even
>> economic to spend more repairing a vehicle than its market value.
>> Reliability is the key. Once a vehicle becomes unreliable sell it."
>>
>> Sell it? Who to?
>
>Anyone that will take it. Scrap value has gone up, so people will pay
>for an otherwise unreliable car for spares and metal.

The advice isn't to scrap it. The advice is that it's green to get rid
of a dodgy car, provided someone else is using it instead of yourself.
Right.
>
>> Nuff said.
>
>You said enough when you said you were "anti-green, pro-car". That
>isn't sustainable, and will result in the wild places most of us love
>being destroyed and/or the routes to them being clogged. If everyone
>exercises their right to make pointless trips then /that/ is what will
>prevent you making a pointless trip, not somebody banning them. You
>have failed to realise that the primary beneficiary of fewer cars on the
>roads will be any road users. We know that direct promotion of cars and
>road building hand in hand makes the roads /less/ usable, because we can
>see it any day of the week.
>
>Pete.

Now who's being paranoid?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> We'll have to agree to disagree.

You're being blind. Whether by deliberately not looking or just having
poor vision I don't know.
While it's certainly true we don't fully realise how much of climate
change is our own work, there is *no* doubt that the climate is
changing, and that it is already significantly affecting human populations.

> What's green about not buying a new car unless you have to?

Since a car isn't intrinsically "green" on just about any scale (unless
it's coloured green, that is), we are at differing and relative shades
of grey, while you're assuming black and white.

> The advice isn't to scrap it. The advice is that it's green to get rid
> of a dodgy car, provided someone else is using it instead of yourself.
> Right.

Wrong, because all a potential buyer needs to do is follow the *same
advice* about reliability not to buy it. Which leaves you with scrap
and spares.

> Now who's being paranoid?

Not me, I can see the congestion and environmental destruction I've
described quite easily and openly happening today. If you opened your
eyes enough between laughing on the floor, you'd see it too.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back