Electricity....why is it still called CLEAN energy?

[Auran]

As a liberal and proponent of free choice I can't justify any discrimination against them really.

I always felt that you could justify discimination vs. free choice, on the principle that no choice of an individual should impinge on the rights of another. But am more than aware that this principle is wide open for abuse, from the point of litigation.

[mnet674]

I think chicken poo is quite efficient and clean, certainly green anyhow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...it could be pig poo? I can't remember....

Mad Max last night! We need to burn the methane from pig **** to get renewable energy

[Rave]

I always felt that you could justify discimination vs. free choice, on the principle that no choice of an individual should impinge on the rights of another.

Well quite, I know that that is the limitation of that principle. However, the fact that most drivers of SUVs are selfish ****ers doesn't mean that everyone should be banned from owning them IMO, since it is theoretically possible to drive one without disadvantaging anyone else. I say that as someone who this evening drove my car into a gap and waited for an SUV to pass (only necessary as it was such a stupidly wide vehicle) only to recieve no flash or wave of thanks at all.

[poindextermatic]

I think chicken poo is quite efficient and clean, certainly green anyhow.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong...it could be pig poo? I can't remember....

Mad Max last night! We need to burn the methane from pig **** to get renewable energy

Ah, thanks for clearing that up - not literally!!

[G4Z]

Rave I totally agree, I dont think it would be fair to ban them outright, but I think it woiuld be justifyable to impose much higher road taxes on vehicles with large engines, this would cover your little 4 litre sports car as well. To be perfectly honest the 32mpg figure isnt really that good when you consider that we can build hbyrid cars that will do over 60mpg, I drive a little 1.5 corsa diesel and I get brilliant milage out of it (id guess around the 50mpg mark)but I still choose to walk to work because I can, the poeple doing the "school run" are utterly selfish imho.

[Flibb]

This was put up in cars and bikes earlier, so terrible fuel economy and bad handling was it?




http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=42693


Another Toyota grabs my heart and wraps it round it's finger

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK....I thought the MR2 would be the last. I thought I was hardened. But I was wrong. Another Toyota has grabbed my heart, wrapped it around it's little finger, and flicked me to the floor.

I love Rav4's

I can't help myself, and I ask for forgiveness, although to be fair it was the ultimate one (in my opinion)

A Rav4 D-4D VX .Thats a 2.0 Turbo Diesel (a good 'un too) with 4 doors, and being a VX its loaded....nice leather, removable rear seats, front rubbder bars, side chrome sill bars, rear lower bar, chrome Rav4 plate on the front, Aircon, and Roof, half way decent stereo (not bad at all) permanent Chelsea Tractor 4x4, trip computer, cunningly built into the dash with the stereo display, so using one screen.

HELL I LOVE IT. Being carefull, driving to see where the trip computer rested on 100miles driving on A and B roads with no dual carriageways, I got 43mpg and going hell for leather, it dropped to 37mpg.

And she DOES go....and corner. Proper corner. Shocked? Bet your ASS I was shocked. Can't believe it. Low body roll, proper front end grip (with a gentle guiding hand) and real traction out of tight corners. Its destroys that legacy Estate 2.0 petrol...tears it a new one to be honest.

But it should really. Its enough dough. This 52 plater, loaded with toys, is gonna get £15000 with 33,000 miles. Kielder green, grey leather. I had forgotten how hormonal Toyota dealers got over them, but I've had trade enquiries on it already, so its good value.

Scary question: Would Zakster own one? Blummin cose to saying yes, too. Except for thelong term worries of having permanent 4x4 interms of cost of tyres, servicing and stuff....hell...YEAH.

I have falled in love again. Damn you Toyota. Really suprised me again, you buggers.

[poindextermatic]

Yes, ppl are getting lazy... I have seen ppl get in their car and drive to the corner shop at the end of the road! And yes, then they just drove back home again!!
Shocking how lazy ppl get when they get used to a car...
A guy at work told me he whent on the train at the weekend for the first time in over 10 years!!

[Flibb]

I cycle to work, can do it faster than driving as its more direct on the towpath. Plenty of people live closer than me and drive, think companys should be encouraged to provide a bus service. Thers around 300 people on our site, thers a large town with a railway station nearby, but thers no bus service. Takes 30mins to walk from the station

[G4Z]

Flibb, ok so we have 1 diesel 4x4 that gets reasonable milage, what about all the other numerous types (often with a larger than 2.0 engine, 2.0 is pretty small for a 4x4), I have seen numerous of those porsche cheyenne things doing the scool run, you cannot tell me that thing is gonna be fuel efficent! (4.5-litre twin-turbo V8, 450 horsepower, 13 miles per gallon). If all 4x4s were made to be as fuel efficent as possible that would be one argument down fair enough, but they are still huge and they are a pain for other road users who cant see past you. I know thats also a problem with white vans and buses but lets face it those are necessary and your massive steam roller of a 4x4 isnt.

[badass]

4x4's have a third longer braking distances. They are also very good at killing children as the bumpers are at head height. So mummy keeps here kids safer, and in the process is many times more likely to kill others kids. Very selfish. In accidents with a 4x4 vs a conventional car, the 4x4 occupants may be safer, but the occupants are at a much higher risk than if they were hit by a similar sized car.
The problem with taxing them it that the people that have them will be able to afford the tax and it won't have much of an effect IMHO. I say put 56 MPH speed limiters on them and ban them from anything but the left lanes of motorways. For all other laws treat them like vans (they have lower speed limits) That will ensure that its more of a case that the people that need them will buy them, others will go back to reasnobly sized cars.

[Flibb]

Vans dont have a lower speed limit, lorrys do.

60-0 in a rav4 is 120ft
freelander 129ft
2L focus estate its 136ft.
Mazda 6 121ft
Those figures from MSN USA car page.


This from the article posted earlier

Road Transport Laboratory figures last year showed that pedestrians hit by a 4x4 are less likely to be hurt than when they collide with a normal car.

[Flibb]

G4Z, you picked a £70,000 car. Slightly un represenatative of the majority of 4x4 I think. You might as well compare economy on that to a ferrari, bentley or TVR. You say its not designed to be fuel economics, well performance cars never are. The standard version does only 3 mpg less than an RX8.

Rather than choosing extremes I went for the most common SUVs on the road. And the majority of Ravs and freelanders are diesels around 2L. Christ my dads longwheelbase defender is only a 2.5 turbo diesel, that does around 30mpg and you can get 12 people in it.

[G4Z]

Flibb, a fair point, but I have seen a fair few of these things where I live (Newcastle), I am allways stunned when I see poeple driving round in them, parking must be a total nightmare!

Your dads freelander may do 30mpg, but thats still not great is it? Even if you can get 12 people in it I doubt you get the same milage and I wonder how ofen there is 12 people in it and how often just the 1?

Unless you live in the sticks in an area with no roads or your a farmer I think having a 4x4 is simply unecessary.

quite franky I wouldnt belive anything form a US govt report, I dare say there are a lot of inluencial lobby groups trying to protect thier new market and Mr Bush wouldnt want to do anything to stop his mates earning millions eh?

I mean come on, a peadetrian hit at 30mph by a 4x4 your seriously expecing people to belive that it will do less damage than say a small car like a fiesta or escort?

It doesnt take a report from anybody to know the answer to that question, the 4x4 is heavier and higher and often they have massive child killing bull bars attached.

[Flibb]

For starters my dads wagon is a 110 defender, he uses it for his gardening business. Most of the time its towing a 2.5ton twin axle trailer, I could suggest he buys a micra but I doubt he would fit the chipper and log splitter in the back, he might move the trailer but I doubt a micra would stop it.

US gov, where did I mention them? The breaking distances are those provided by manufacturers, its just that MSN is the easiest place to find a range of figures.

I dont expect anybody to believe what I say, the quote about padestrian accidents is from an article somebody else posted. I dont have access to the raw data, but it would be slightly stupid for landrover to put forward info that was false. But a honda crv gets 3 out of 4 in padestrian crash testing (EURO NCAP), that out scores just about any other car on the road. Yes a lot of the 4x4 get lower, but so do the majority of other cars, a 4x4 is no worse. A fiesta gets the same 2 stars for padestrian safety as a volvo XC90, so yeas a 4x4 can be better for padestrian safety than a fiesta. Most of the other 4x4 get 1 star, thats the same 1 star as a mini.

I hate to break this to you but weight has no bearing on stopping distances. The biggest 4x4 with the correct size tyres and ABS can stop in the same distance as a micra with ABS. Theres a thread in cars and bikes about grip, go read it. 4x4's often have large wheels and narrow tyres. Large wheels gives the ability to have large break discs, the narrowness of the tyres increases grip. This is due to the large weight of the vehicle being concentrated in a small area, this increases grip and keeps the breaking distance down. Thats why putting wide tyres on a car is a bad idea.

I have never had any probelsm parking a 4x4, quiet often its rather easy due to the great visibility. Those that cant park one would probably struggle parking a pushbike.

[rajagra]

I mean come on, a peadetrian hit at 30mph by a 4x4 your seriously expecing people to belive that it will do less damage than say a small car like a fiesta or escort?

Uh, oh, you've triggered a long rant...

You're quite right. Pedestrians should cross the road safely!

And children should not be allowed out alone on the streets until they learn to use roads responsibly. Until then they should be accompanied by their parents. Even up to the age of 16 if necessary.

Roads are for road vehicles, and pavements are for pedestrians.
Whenever one group ventures into the other's territory it should only be when absolutely necessary, and should only be done when safe to do so.

If everybody followed this rule, there would be practically no accidents involving cars and pedestrians!

Whenever a pedestrian is hit on the road, he is at least 50% responsible. An accident happened. Therefore it was not safe for the pedestrian to be on the road at that time. Therefore the pedestrian placed himself in danger and created a hazard for others.

I can understand why pedestrians aren't prosecuted when they cause accidents. But why is the blame always shifted to motorists? Why is the onus on the driver to compensate for pedestrians' stupidity?

Don't tell me it's because it's for the greater good and the best way to reduce accidents. It isn't the best way. The best way is to identify the person(s) who acted in a way to change a situation where accidents are avoidable into an situation where an accident is unavoidable, and then correct their behaviour. And as explained above, one of those people is usually a pedestrian.

I applaud the recent TV adverts telling schoolkids "don't die before you've lived." It's the first road safety campaign I've ever seen that has dared to accept that motorists aren't the root cause of all accidents.

[G4Z]

Rajagra, I totally agree with your post there 100%.

The point I was making was that if a peadestrian was hit by a 4x4 they would likely be more injured than if they were hit by a smaller car at the same speed.

I have had a look through some websites, on the an anti 4x4 and pro 4x4 sides, its difficult to tell and when I found the NCAP igures that Flibb has mentioned the only correlation I could see was that most cars and 4x4's score only 1 star with the odd one or two getting 2 or 3 stars. Sorry I just cant put any faith in a star rating system like like that, pile of utter tosh tbh, doest tell you anything.

I think some simple physics will suffice:

If the weight of the car is 2500 lb = 62.0503597122301 Newtons, corresponding to
mass =255.1020408163265 kg = 17.480913228600787 slugs,
and the car is traveling with a speed:
v = m/s 13.333333333333332 = km/hr 48 = 9.825817227392026 mi/hr,
then a crash which stopped the car in a distance d= 0.3048m
would result in an average impact force of

Impact force F = 4395.46247195288 N = 16725.598577327535 lb = 8.362799288663767tons!!

That calculation is based on a 2500lb car at 30mph (48km/h)

If we change that to a 3500lb that an average 4x43 might weigh (they can be more but lets be conservative)

If the weight of the car is 3500 lb = 786.8705035971223 Newtons, corresponding to
mass = 357.1428571428571 kg = 24.473278520041102 slugs,
and the car is traveling with a speed:
v = m/s 13.333333333333332 = km/hr 48 = 9.825817227392026 mi/hr,
then a crash which stopped the car in a distance d= 0.3048m
would result in an average impact force of

Impact force F = 104153.64746073405 N = 23415.838008258554 lb = 11.707919004129277 tons!

in other words, 29% more impact force. point proven there, I think they can just bugger off with their clearly inadequate star rating system.


Flibb, I also want to make it clear to you that if your dad has a need of his freelander well thats fine know what I mean, he has a NEED for it, still, im sure he could get away with a transit van but thats beside the point, I already made clear that what I object to is the uncessary use of these vehicles.

As far as US govt, you are correct you didnt mention it, dunno where that came from...

But.. I still wouldnt belive the car industrys figures, I think they are bound to spout these kind of figures as anything else may adversley effect sales, its not a case of lying its just selective marketting. The only way to be sure is an independent test, the NCAP may be independent but all they are really saying is that its not very safe to get hit by anything with that pathetic star rating system and I think we already knew that.