Bad News For Motorists..

[Mr. Sausages]

You were lucky. We had crawl to school on our hands and knees. And we didn't have shorts.

 

You were lucky. We couldn't afford hands or knees. We had to get to school by licking the ground and using our tongues to pull us along.

[Whimsy]

Hand and knees?

 

Rich bastard.

[Lonan3]

You were lucky. We had crawl to school on our hands and knees. And we didn't have shorts.

 

You were lucky. We couldn't afford hands or knees. We had to get to school by licking the ground and using our tongues to pull us along.

 

School? You mean you went to school instead of going out to work? Rich bastard!

[ccsnet]

whats wrong with a variable limit depending on the conditions ?

Because limits are already variable depending on the conditions, i.e. if it's rainy/foggy/dark, then slow the fk down, which people don't seem to get as it stands, or is it just the I'm important-that doesn't apply to me mentality?

Which brings me back to the driving standards issue - re variable limits - those variable limits can be legally enforced ie the M25. End of the day this is not about catching speeding but stopping the morons with no sense driving like loons when its not safe to drive normally.

 

Terran

[Cret]

Slim - yes they are all parked off the road on private land. Previously I had two vehicles, one with a parking permit and the other one parked on private land.

 

Mr Sausages beat me to the other comment I was going to say.

In serious terms the oil my cars use is no more than anyone else. Each vehicle covers probably less than a 3rd the amount miles than the average motorist does and I change my oil when it needs changing, not based on a manufacturer or garage telling me I should do it every 6months whether I've done 50 miles or 5000 miles.

 

When I was a kid my mum had a revolting yellow mark1 or 2 escort estate (with brown vinyl seats that roasted your skin in summer when forced to wear shorts), and she managed to fit 5 of us in that no problem, so why do people think it's so difficult to do that nowadays?

 

You were lucky. We had crawl to school on our hands and knees. And we didn't have shorts.

 

Hey, I didn't say we were taken to school in it. We had to walk. Probably one reason why walking 20 minutes into work even now doesn't bother me rain or shine. Half the time I'm walking quicker than the traffic is moving through Douglas anyway.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to imply I'm some sort of environmental saint, just that whilst on face value things might make me look like an environmental disaster zone whereas in reality I would say I'm at least better than average (despite that that may not mean all that much).

[Slim]

My vehicles are all parked off-road and have probably got less oil in them than your kitchen cupboard.

Sorry, you're clearly more environmentally aware than I am, so I guess the plastics and synthetics in your life are all made from vegetable oil and coconut husks?

Another great post in the tradition of 'I don't want so you can't have'.

 

Er fuck off? I'm not saying I'm Mr Green either, I'm just saying there is an environmental cost to having more than one car, even if you dont use more than one at a time.

[Slim]

Mr Sausages beat me to the other comment I was going to say.

In serious terms the oil my cars use is no more than anyone else. Each vehicle covers probably less than a 3rd the amount miles than the average motorist does and I change my oil when it needs changing, not based on a manufacturer or garage telling me I should do it every 6months whether I've done 50 miles or 5000 miles.

 

 

I'm talking more in terms of the environmental cost to manufacturing your cars rather than the running of them.

[Cret]

My vehicles are all parked off-road and have probably got less oil in them than your kitchen cupboard.

 

You should probably top it up then fella.

[Cret]

Mr Sausages beat me to the other comment I was going to say.

In serious terms the oil my cars use is no more than anyone else. Each vehicle covers probably less than a 3rd the amount miles than the average motorist does and I change my oil when it needs changing, not based on a manufacturer or garage telling me I should do it every 6months whether I've done 50 miles or 5000 miles.

 

 

I'm talking more in terms of the environmental cost to manufacturing your cars rather than the running of them.

 

Probably yes. But my wife doesn't drive so that's one car less that would have been bought anyway.

Plus they're second hand cars - I have never and don't intend to buy a new car ever so it's not me causing that, it's the people who 'must' have brand new cars instead of maintaining an existing vehicle that you should be complaining at. There are enough cars to go around for the human race already, it's just that a lot of people can't be arsed ensuring that their existing cars are kept in good reliable condition, and the lazy option is to buy a brand new one, meaning more old cars get scrapped and more waste is created.

 

Anyway. Enough of this for now, I have a transit that I have to fill up with my worldly goods before I move house.

[rednik]

 

 

I'm talking more in terms of the environmental cost to manufacturing your cars rather than the running of them.

 

And what's the long term environmental cost of something like a Toyota Prius? How friendly are the processes involved in manufacturing, and later disposing of the bateries etc in one of those things?

 

I can't find it now, but I am sure I read an article that showed the overall environmental impact of a vehicle, and it has very little to do with MPG and the Co2 produced when used. The Prius was actually one of the worst, and a Toyota Landcruiser one of the most environmentally friendly cars you can buy. The report looked at everything down to the manufacturing process, the lifespan of the car, and the impact of disposal of it at the end of it's life.

[thesultanofsheight]

There are plenty of £100,000 cars available secondhand on the island right now for the price of a dull new family saloon - should their second/third owners pay tax on the basis of their new value?

 

When I bought my Lotus in 1990 it almost cost as much as my house, and people called me a flash git. Had I just bought a bigger house, nobody would have batted an eyelid. But I get my jollies at Halfords rather than B&Q - so isn't that what democracy is all about? At the moment I rent a flat but I've got two nice cars and a motorbike, so am paying three lots of road tax and insurance, yet I only drive/ride one at a time - I reckon I should get a bloody REBATE!

 

As for 'rips up tarmac, economical as the space shuttle' - what planet are YOU on? And to suggest that insurance companies don't already load premiums at EVERY possible opportunity is just crazy talk.

 

I actually agree with you Stu - Ive been a Jag driver myself and love my cars but it got to a point with me that the pleasure I got from the car was offset by the stupid amount of fuel I had to put in it. Filling both tanks on a 4.2 Jag just got depressing and it ended up as a high days and holidays car.

 

It was certainly not a run around and that is really my point - if people do chose to use these cars as runarounds or for the school run etc they should cough up a fair whack of road tax.

 

On the IOM if your into cars you can have just as much fun in an MX5, or a Midget or an Elise or something similar without having to get something big and unweldy, and as for 4 x 4's I'm sorry but unless your're a farmer they are just the mobile personification of an inferiority complex.

 

I'm guessing your Lotus in 1990 was what - an Esprit Turbo. Its still only 2.2 litres. Its not the worse sort of transport compared to an X5 or any other of the nob-mobiles trolling around.

[Amadeus]

So given free choice, with high house prices you'd have no objection to people bringing over and driving around and living in caravans, or 300 people suddenly driving around in tractors on the island because their a fan of Fred Dibna? Of course not, because like SUVs they are not compatible with our roads.

I know where you're coming from with this, but the question really is where do you limit free choice? SUVs take up as much space as a big Merc or Bentley on the road - should we ban them too? As mentioned earlier - they're not good for people in smaller cars in a crash... It's not just the height of an SUV or 4x4 that makes it dangerous - it's the weight. On that basis, should we limit the use of HGVs or big double-decker buses, as they're also clearly not suited for Island roads? Where, and how, would you set the limit?

 

When a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) strikes a car in frontal impact, there are four driver fatalities in the car for every one driver fatality in the SUV. THAT's why they should be discouraged for everyday use, when there are many vehicles available with comparable space inside. SUVs are not compatible with other cars, I've seen the results first hand - and it isn't nice. These things ARE tanks when it comes to a collision.

 

Transport statistics bulletin (1996-2000)

 

As mentioned earlier, more modern cars have to have a certain degree of crash-compatibility built in to their design - government statistics good and well (actually, government statistics = not well), but these things are becoming less of a 'tank' than some might want you to believe, and that's also were the current plans (if accurate) are wrong - they would simply punish everyone with a 4x4 or SUV, instead of doing what many other countries do, and give tax incentives to people that buy modern cars with up-to-date safety technology. I rather have 10 BMW X5s on the road, than one old Nissan Patrol - it just appears to be the wrong approach.

 

I don't disagree with freedom of choice at all, but with freedom of choice comes responsibility. It's like the smoking argument: 'do it away from me'. I'm saying 'keep doing it, but SUV away from me'. People are demonstrating selectivity in their principles here.

 

Discouraging vehicles such as these on this small island will directly influence the number of road fatalities, and is, IMHO, something that SID should consider seriously if it is to maintain serious credibility.

I think it would be interesting to have a closer look at the stats for RTAs, and how many of these vehicles have been involved in them over here, and I shall have a look into that. Meanwhile - and this is my personal opinion - I do not believe that SID would lose any credibility if we don't discourage the use of these vehicles - I'm more worried about Scally Joe and his Saxo doing mad speeds over the mountain with 4 of his mates in the car and the music blarring, than I am about Finance Joe driving home from the office at reasonable speed in his X5. If I was to discourage people from using these cars, then I would do it an alternative way, as mentioned earlier - promote 'walking schoolbus' schemes, or more cycling - try and make public transport more attractive - don't just swing a sledgehammer and try to punish people for something they worked for and enjoy...

[Frances]

try and make public transport more attractive

any positive suggestions - compared to Guildford the busses are about 50% of price as well as more regular + dependable - until recently I was a fairly regular user of the X5 back to Peel which was certainly more comfortable than driving. Must admit however that the 55min journey time of the regular bus is easily beaten by car and the 'bus station' is a major disgrace

[Cret]

and as for 4 x 4's I'm sorry but unless your're a farmer they are just the mobile personification of an inferiority complex.

 

So what do I tow my bloody boat up the steep, slippy slipway with then? A fecking horse, perhaps some huskies, maybe my own personal tug-o-war team?!!

I'm not a farmer so does that mean I have an inferiority complex because I need my discovery to do a job that a normal car does quite badly? Half the farmers that have them don't even drive their SUVs round the fields anyway as they've bought expensive shiny ones and don't want to wreck them - what's the point when they have tractors for that? I do at least drive mine down a farm lane I suppose.

 

What a half assed psychobabble attempt load of poo.

 

Apology accepted though.

[Gladys]

try and make public transport more attractive

any positive suggestions - compared to Guildford the busses are about 50% of price as well as more regular + dependable - until recently I was a fairly regular user of the X5 back to Peel which was certainly more comfortable than driving. Must admit however that the 55min journey time of the regular bus is easily beaten by car and the 'bus station' is a major disgrace

Sorry Frances, but what is the major disgrace, the bus station or the journey time? If it is the latter, then that can only be improved by not stopping, in which case it will cut down on the service provided to the residents along the way. Is there a case to be made for an express service which only picks up in Peel then drops in Douglas and vice versa? If it is the bus station, then what's the problem, we don't use bus stations here as they do across?

 

Guildford has a much larger catchment area than the whole of the IOM put together, so I don't think you can correlate their experience with our own. Much more interested to hear how they do things in the Shetlands or Orkneys.