Parking Fees for 4x4's

[Garden Carpet]

[quote=Paul mabbott;87008]

Originally Posted by Garden Carpet

Indeed - that's why we need to alter the balance between the cost of train and plane fuels - to make the latter more reflect the pollution effect and to make the former cheaper.

Mind, you should also check around about train prices: the last quote I had for London to northern Spain was about £120 return - obviously bucket plane prices are a lot cheaper but then you have to add on getting to/from airports, taxes &c? I also regard the train journey as part of the holiday and worth paying for, as opposed to plane flights which are an endurance test for which people should pay you!

Fraid my sis lives in Almeria... the return fare is around £300 and way beyond me when I can find a flight for pennies at the right times. It is a wicked shame... the train is better all round. Getting to airports is sorted for me so not a worry. I think you are right in thinking of the train journey as part of the holiday, a much much nicer way to travel.

[lewisa]

Jesus Honeybee, as the first 3 words of the post said, it isnt personal... Perhaps you skipped that bit.

For what its worth (probably little, becuase it looks like you will see anything as personal), the Daily Mail is often used (and has been for years) on web forums, usenet, ICQ etc to describe issues where the media drive public opinions in an unfair fashion. Frankly, I dont care one bit which newspaper you read.

If you want to see it as me daring to do this, daring to do that, feel free, I dont care.

I was only trying to inform you of a more balenced opinion on this matter.

Obviously a stupid thing to dare to do.

Well now I do mean it, carry on reading your preverbial daily mail and believeing every word of tabloid science bull written in it.

Im sure following the drivel they print to the letter will save the world.

[JeffH]

Paul - I'm quite happy to participate in friendly debate/banter on this or indeed any other issue and I'm big enough, old enough and ugly enough not to be the least bit concerned that others may disagree with me. However, if you're going to dissect my comments piece by piece in an effort to shoot them down, then at least please do me the courtesy of reading them properly beforehand -

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Yes. It's clear that the poodle-in-chief has no understanding of the problem so I don't think he can be used as an excuse.

I wasn't using him as an excuse but as an example!

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Ditto, the Sunday Times - colour supplements are funded by advertising: manufacturers and advertisers want to sell things and don't care what damage their products cause. I certainly wouldn't call them 'ultra-green'

I wasn't calling the Sunday Times or its advertisers 'ultra-green' - the phrase I used was 'this sort of fashionable ultra-green argument', meaning the current wave of (often illogical) debate about and generalised protest against the use of 4x4s which is being conducted by many city dwellers who like to see themselves as some kind of eco-warriors, whilst turning a blind eye to their own consumerism and carbon producing excesses (eg non-essential flights).

Finally -

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

It's nothing to do with soothing consciences, it's a matter of reducing pollution and making cities livable

If it gives you comfort to believe that then who am I to try to disillusion you However, if that's the best the city fathers can come up with to help make cities liveable, then thank goodness I live in the sticks. Perhaps more of you city folks should start looking for 'a place in the country' before we country dwellers start thinking up ways to ban/discourage you from straying outside your city boundaries

Jeff

[matt_xyz]

Are there any websites that offer fuel efficiency comparisons for different cars? I've just done a quick search but couldn't find any.

I'm sure some 4x4s are greener than others but it is surely true that the average 4x4 uses more fuel per mile than your average saloon, and emits more CO2 per mile as a result. I think Range Rovers are particularly thirsty, I seem to recall hearing they do around 12mpg in urban areas. No doubt someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not particularly anti 4x4 and can understand why some people would feel they are safer than a smaller car (and of course some people genuinely need a 4x4). But I think it's a bit misleading to claim they are not generally more thirsty (and CO2 intensive) than smaller cars.

And I can assure you that I am most definitely not a Daily Mail reader

Matt

[glsammy]

I've thought long and hard before commenting here, but I've got to make my point.

I am a Daily Mail reader, and proud of it!

Let's leave the personal comments and name calling out folks, keep it clean, please!

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I am a Daily Mail reader, and proud of it!

You must feel better getting that off your chest Graham

Matt

[Amber]

The Sun, when asked it's opinion about carbon neutrality, printed the following on page 3:

Kerry, 18, 34DD

Well, I've considered the evidence, and as a result, make sure that I plant at least one Leylandii for every flight I take to a bikini shoot in the Bahamas.

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by Amber

The Sun, when asked it's opinion about carbon neutrality, printed the following on page 3:

Kerry, 18, 34DD

Well, I've considered the evidence, and as a result, make sure that I plant at least one Leylandii for every flight I take to a bikini shoot in the Bahamas.

LOL! Tragic and funny!

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

I'm sure some 4x4s are greener than others but it is surely true that the average 4x4 uses more fuel per mile than your average saloon, and emits more CO2 per mile as a result. I think Range Rovers are particularly thirsty, I seem to recall hearing they do around 12mpg in urban areas. No doubt someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not particularly anti 4x4 and can understand why some people would feel they are safer than a smaller car (and of course some people genuinely need a 4x4). But I think it's a bit misleading to claim they are not generally more thirsty (and CO2 intensive) than smaller cars.

And I can assure you that I am most definitely not a Daily Mail reader

Matt

A forgotten point is that by and large genuine "perfomance" cars are long slung and very aero-dynamic, and not tall and blunt like most 4x4s, this is not actually about fully fuel economy but about getting the most out of what horse-power they have, quite simply a low slung aero dynamic car with the same "footprint" as a big blunt 4x4 will go faster for the same ammount of power and potentially go further on the same amount of fuel. It is a simple fact of life that a big tall blunt car like most 4x4s will use more fuel than a low slung aero-dynamic car travelling at the same speed.

This "need" for large 4x4s is actually a fairly recent thing, I can well remember farming relatives of mine with 200 acre plus farms that had nothing bigger than a 2 litre Ford Sierra less than 20 years ago and still managing without any problems.

You not being a Daily Mail reader does impress me.

Oh and one quick question.
Is Paul Mabbott a secret 4x4 owner?

[Dennis1234567]

No one has the right to.................