|
So, in order to avoid keeping to a sane speed in urban areas one should use a 4wd to conquer all? Somehow I don't think Ken is all that wrong.
|
|
|
|
Surely these vehicles are a style accessory, not a result of traffic calming?
|
My opinion of Ken has just risen tenfold.
Having recently had two of my cars sustain minor damage through half-wit 4x4 drivers I can certainly see his point of view!
|
what possible use can an urban/suburban dweller possibly need with one of these big clumsy beasties? they were designed mainly for rural dwellers. if they need a bit more "grip" to get on to the golf courses or point to point meets, there are several normal saloons about that have 4-wheel drive. it's just snob value!!
billy.
|
|
|
Who would have believed, in 1948 when Jeeps were providing the inspiration for the new LandRover, that one day vehicles like that would be the fashion accessories everybody would want?
And who would have predicted that one day the roads would be so bad that people would actually start to believe they needed that kind of off-road capability?
|
|
|
|
I agree.what most seem to forget is driving one is similar to driving a van but without the experience.Some who drive them have not got a clue and just insert the motor where they can regardless of others around them.
|
|
|
|
Ken brands mums dropping their kids off at school as idiotic.
Hes not saying the mums are idiots, or drivers of 4x4s are idiots, but the combination of the 2 is 'idiotic' - there is a difference.
Personally I agree, whats wrong with taking the little one to school in a micra? Would be perfect seeing as these women drive their 4x4s as if they were micras anyway!
Sadly, Smokie is correct in saying its a style accessory.
I think parents should walk their kids to school (as my partner does - with the help of the bus granted) and if its too far to walk - move house or go to a nearer school!!
On the traffic calming subject - having alomst ran over a kid chasing a ball by dong 30 in a 20mph zone i now fully support these measures (where they are justified) and will never speed in a 20mph zone again.
Dave.
|
Dave so your not going to do more than 20mph at 10pm at night on a 20 road?
People like you annoy me.
I dont have a 4wd but i can see a increasing neccesity for the vehicles as more and more road bumps are annoying, cause friens of mine 4 suspension problems and make journeys a slower and more expensive. Surely road bumps and bus lanes decrease MPG ratings?
To go to my partners house, I have to over come 9 road bumps they have put in one road due to robbed cars.
But they are still robbing them, and driving over them just as fast, as if they care if the car falls to bits or gets damaged.
They only work in slowing down the average job public, doing nothing to prevent crime.
Lets face it, this labour party hates the motorists and has no time for them.
I totally support not using 4wd for school, the schools in my area do a organised walking pick up for all the kids and works very well, but your still guaranteed the odd scally mum to pull up in her freelander with dance crap beating out.
[snip]if you want to whine about the moderating, please do it via e-mail and not here. Mark
Ken livingsotne has destroyed London network, has screwed those of us who cant afford the congestion charge leaving it for his rich gang of buracrats to drive around freely.
Im sorry, but at least steve Norris has time for the motorist.
|
............................ Surely road bumps and bus lanes decrease MPG ratings?
Not as much as switching to a 4x4 would.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't buy this at all. All my Citroens were far better over road humps than the JGC is. But then I don't use it for a school run and it does get taken further offroad than Tesco's car park.
I'm with Ken on this one.
--
Terry
"You'll have to speak up I'm wearing a towel"
|
>>Sadly, Smokie is correct in saying its a style accessory.
As is any car, unless you're driving something with no leather, no aircon, no over-sized wheels, etc. etc. etc.
>I think parents should walk their kids to school
I think parents that want to take their kids to school in the car of their choice should move to a country which allows people some freedom - oh, this is supposed to be a free country, isn't it ?
Well, maybe just move to country where the people don't have so much to say about what everybody else does.
|
|
|
Why so much dislike? Sure, most people don't *need* a 4x4, but I suspect many of us look at more than mere utility when choosing a vehicle.
Also, consider the consequences if 4x4s were banned. Do we really imagine that Ken and his ilk would be happy? Surely their focus would turn to something else: petrol engines with more than 4 cylinders, perhaps. (I once heard a rentaquote on Radio 4 say that her 1.4 litre engine was plenty, so why did people need 2 litres!)
|
It sems the closer we get to June 10th the more vitriolic Ken becomes. The cynics amongst us might think he's trying to tone down his status as official labour candidate and win over the anti-car loony brigade that got him in last time.......
|
no dosh - you thinking what im thinking!
|
no dosh - you thinking what im thinking!
If I am it's a coincidence rather than a lifestyle choice...
:oP
|
|
|
|
|
If Ken had not installed so many traffic harming measures, then people would not need Chelsea tractors to avoid damage to their vehicles. It's Ken's fault for failing to think through to the consequence of traffic harming measures. So he's the idiot.
HJ, I think you've just made Ken's point for him.
If people obeyed speed limits and drove at sensibly reduced speeds in residential streets, then there wouldn't be any need for trafic calming. Unfortunately, a significant minority refuse to slow down to speeds which make city streets safe for people on foot and for children, so traffic calming is the most cost-effective way of enforcing some sanity and making the steets safe for children again.
Using a 4X4 as a tool to evade those speed restrictions may get the driver's kids to school a little more quickly, but at the price of endangering everyone else's children. That's why, sooner or later, cities will start taking measures to prevent these stubborn idiots from being sol selfish.
Well said Ken!
|
Most pedestrians injured/killed in accidents with cars were at fault. They didn't look or were drunk. Blaming car drivers is unfair in this instance. A minority of pedestrians are injured either on pavements or proper designated crossings where drivers should be held entirely responsible. Thousands are hit each year and only a fraction are actually killed which suggests that driver behaviour is in fact saving quite a number of them in the first place.
teabelly
|
Most pedestrians injured/killed in accidents with cars were at fault. They didn't look or were drunk. Blaming car drivers is unfair in this instance.
This sort of view really depresses me.
Anyone who's ever looked after children knows that it's near impossible to guarantee that they won't at some point in their lives run out in the road without looking. They may be ever so careful the rest of the time, but mistakes do happen.
Reducing a car's speed gives a child more time to spot a car coming, and gives the driver more time to take evasive action if a child does dart out.
It's all very well to say that a child was "at fault", but politeness constrains me from saying what I think of anyone who appears to think that it's OK for a child's momentary mistake to be punished by serious injury or even death. There's an easy way for a drive to avoid blame: slow down.
Of course, mosr parents are aware of the odds, and guard their children like hawks -- they aren't let out to play on the streets, because the parents know all too well that some drivers reckon it's their right to drive at whatever speed they consider safe, and up to everyone else to avoid the strip of tarmac outside their doors which has been turned into a killing zone. The result is children turning into isolated couch potatoes because they can't walk off on their own to play with friends.
"Idiots" is far too polite a word for the sort of people who drive 4X4s to evade the devices put in place to enforce safe driving on residential streets.
|
Ack, so much division, so little agreement.
1, I don't really like 4by4's. They're inefficant, expensive, hard to get in to and don't really have anymore space than a large hatchback. I wouldn't buy one - but a lot of people like them, that's thier decision and I'm not going to stop anyone from buying the car that they want because 'I personally don't like them'
2, Speed bumps - If these things allowed you to go over them at anthing like the speed limit without significant discomfort then they'd be okay but they don't. I've noticed that many bumps are being made harsher in order to have a greater effect on bigger cars - seems like a viscous circle to me.
3, the school run - over the past few years society's become obsessed with mothers 'returning to work' and this more than any other factor has led to the rise of the school run. Parents simply do not have time to walk. The government seems to want to 'have it's cake and eat it'
4, Driver behavior is what makes for safety on the roads, not what car you drive or how many speed bumps there are outside the school and it seems to me that driver attitude and behaviour has become worse of the past few years.
whew, that turned into something of a sermon - I'll go and lay down now:)
|
Just one misconception that seems to keep popping up in here - I drive a landcruiser and they do not go over speed bumps with immunity. In fact, due to their somewhat large and wallowing behaviour I suspect that they are probably worse the "ordinary" cars.
Of course, if you go over the speed bumps at a reasonable speed, it doesn't matter what car you are in.
"My car is destroyed by speed bumps" is about as valid a statement as "I can't watch my speedo and drive safely so its not my fault I get points/fines" and that wonderful old standby of "its the kids fault for running in front of me".
And as for a 4x4 getting through the streets of London faster and safer and more comfortablly - what a load of tosh. I v. rarely drive mine in London - its size makes it too much like hard work to get around the streets or to park comfortably. I have to say I haven't been down many of these roads with all the pot holes which wreck everyone's suspension either.
|
Just one misconception that seems to keep popping up in here - I drive a landcruiser and they do not go over speed bumps with immunity. In fact, due to their somewhat large and wallowing behaviour I suspect that they are probably worse the "ordinary" cars.
Thanks for re-inforcing the point Mark - I think I already said that (except mine is a JGC) - but then everyone ignores me - I've just got used to it :o)
--
Terry
"You'll have to speak up I'm wearing a towel"
|
|
|
|
I heartily agree No Wheels. Lets also ban stairs, lino, ladders, lawnmowers.... While we're at it, shall we just get rid of cars altogether?
You use the word "punish" as if the driver sets out with intent to harm a child. Claptrap. You also refer to people "evading" speed devices. Hardly; more a case of limiting the damage caused by such devices. It is no more comfortable to lurch over a ramp at 20mph in a 4x4 than in my Alfa, in fact in my experience you are more likely to feel uncomforable in the 4x4. There is, however, a much greater risk of damage to the running gear on my car than on, for example, Mark's Landcruiser. I don't agree 4x4s are the solution but all the time these ill-conceived objects of vehicular vandalism are littered around our streets by the councils I can understand why people would opt for a 4x4.
ND
|
I think No Wheels' point was that the child was harshly punished being seriously injured for the mometary infraction of stepping in the road.
It is surely a fallacy to suggest that the sole/main reason for ownership of 4x4's in London is traffic calming. Same as everywhere else in the country, they're bought because of the way they're marketed, because peeps can afford them and, fireballXL5 style, 'cos they are safer in a bigger heavier vehicle.
|
|
|
I heartily agree No Wheels. Lets also ban stairs, lino, ladders, lawnmowers.... While we're at it, shall we just get rid of cars altogether?
Why not just use them sensibly? Any responsible gardener takes great care not to use a lawnmower beside small children, and cerainly doesn't zoom it right past their playing area.
You use the word "punish" as if the driver sets out with intent to harm a child. Claptrap.
I used "punish" to mean the consequences of the mistake: perhaps another word would be better. But I was replying to teabelly's claim that it was unfair to blame drivers.
I hope that no driver sets out with intent to harm a child, but driving too fast on a residential street has a pretty inevitable result if a child strays out.
We all make mistakes, and face the consequences of them. You and Teabelly seem to find it acceptable that the consequences of a child's mistake on their own doorstep should be serious injury: I don't. I think it's quite fair to blame a diver who doesn't reduce the risk to others, rather than to blame the child.
You also refer to people "evading" speed devices. Hardly; more a case of limiting the damage caused by such devices. It is no more comfortable to lurch over a ramp at 20mph in a 4x4 than in my Alfa, in fact in my experience you are more likely to feel uncomforable in the 4x4.
No Dosh, the idea is not to drive over the bumps at 20mph -- the idea is to slow down to a lower speed. If 20mph is uncomfortable or damaging, try 10mph. It's not exactly rocket science, is it?
|
No Dosh, the idea is not to drive over the bumps at 20mph -- the idea is to slow down to a lower speed. If 20mph is uncomfortable or damaging, try 10mph. It's not exactly rocket science, is it?
So why install them in 20mph limits if they are designed to lower the speed to 10mph? Poor design and planning is the key to this. I have no problem with speed bumps if properly thought out and installed. Sadly the typical council seems singularly incapable of this.
|
|
Whole heartedly agree. Better consultation and planning is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well if people routinely misused lino, ladders and stairs in the same way as they do cars and you made a habit of driving your lawnmower along the street at 40mph that might be a good idea ND.
|
|
|
|
You are assuming that just because it is the child's fault in most cases I don't make allowances and look out for them? Looking out for children is what saves them not necessarily driving down the road at any particular speed. Observation is what saves them everytime. Sadly most accidents are caused by inattention rather than anything else.
You are also forgetting the amount of damage humps do to a cars suspension and extra wear put on the brakes. Causing damage to these safety critical devices is not really a good idea either. Humps might save a few people being run over but countless more die on the way to hospital as ambulances have to crawl over those humps.
teabelly
|
The primary school that my daughter attends is situated on a narrow road. Every morning and afternoon there is dreadful congestion because of these wretched 4x4's. Often the drivers of these vehicles don't seem to be in full control, or are unable to correctly judge the size of their vehicles. It is not uncommon to have to wait whilst a couple of these cars painfully negotiate their way past each other (with one driving onto the pavement - school kids squeezing past).
Fortunately there is some good news on the horizon. The EU has looked at pedestrian casualty figures and found that 4x4's inflict disproportionately severe injuries on pedestrians.
MIRA was contracted to look into the situation and I gather that next year new industry legislation will be introduced to force designers to make their cars more 'pedestrian friendly' in an impact. This will have a big impact on the design on 4x4's and also small cars with engine close to the bonnet line (e.g. BMW Z4). Quite how designers will handle this is not yet known.
I also happen to know that some safety experts in the industry are lobbying the government to outlaw bull-bars. I would urge anyone who cares about road safety to write to the DoT or their MP and add their voice to those of us who want to get rid of these appalling 'accessories'.
|
|
|
Re "countless more die on the way to hospital as ambulances have to crawl over those humps." I believe an allegation that the ambulances were delayed etc causing "some" deaths that could have been prevented stems from the head of London ambulance - but when pressed to give details, no answer was forthcoming. Now Teabelly inflates this dodgy remark to a countless number! Amazing mental agility in the face of so few facts.
|
It is countless as we don't know for sure :-)
teabelly
|
|
|
If he suggests 'some' and can't find out how many, then surely that IS countless?
Sorry, just an attempt to lighten a thread which is becoming somewhat heated.
|
|
Well both yours and Teabellies responses made me smile - so all square!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree NW! Pedestrians and drivers have something very important in common - they're all people. Both categories can and do make mistakes. Implying that it's somehow less unacceptable to mow someone down because they were wholly or partly to blame is quite ridiculous and more than a little sad.
As for kids, perhaps those dangerous drivers who like to roar along paying more attention to their stereos, mobile phones and/or make-up than they do to the road in front, ought to consider the plight of those, like my youngest son, who have quite severe learning difficulties (amongst other things) and don't comprehend danger. Mind you, I suppose we could avoid impinging on your freedom and keep him locked in a room all day or on a leash when we go out. Get a life!
What is so difficult about being careful and considerate when at the wheel of a car? Why do otherwise normal people feel it's OK or big to behave like morons on the road?
I heard a well known motoring journalist on the radio last week trying to argue that speeding wasn't the major issue we all know it is and, for example, that drivers doing 40-50 on motorways are just as dangerous as people who speed and are a menace to everyone else. Well IMO anyone who is either too stupid or preoccupied to see a driver doing 40-50mph ahead and slams into them is a menace and should be banned. Isn't the point of speed limits to ensure that if you come across the unexpected you have more time to react and hopefully avoid catastrophe? How can anyone make excuses for such negligence? I don't know how many times I'll have to say this but the speed limit is the maximum speed deemed safe NOT the minimum and until more drivers decide to act accordingly people will continue to be killed on our roads in large numbers.
|
Hasn't anyone realised it is London Elections on June 10th - and Ken is a politician?!
Sitting in a humble office near the lavish former GLC headquarters, I can't help wishing that Blair was right 'Ken Livingstone would be a disaster for London.'
Next time my tube train is late/cancelled (i.e. tonight) I'll be glad Ken is focussing in the real issues - i.e. use of 4*4's by a few surburbanites.
Tim
|
|
Too true Tim but not sure RK is 'focussing' on 4x4's - he has his fingers in numerous other pies.
|
Shrewd politics from Ken?
Althought posters here like cars (presumably), most still seem to hate 4x4s. At the same time, the average X5 or Range Rover driver won't vote for him anyway!
|
|
|
|
Hasn't anyone realised it is London Elections on June 10th - and Ken is a politician?!
of course! Ken's not just a politician -- love him or loathe him, he's one of the smartest in the business.
The only reason he would have make those remarks now is because he reckons that lots of voters will support him for saying it (or at lesat think "he's got a point", otherwise he'd have kept his mouth shut.
Ken has a talent for making controversial throwaway remarks which strike a cord let people reckon he's thinking like them, and isn't afraid to speak out. This may not be something you'd support him for, Tim, and it may not be something many of his potential voters would put anywhere near the top of their priority list ... but it's got us all talking about him and about the issue.
It's not often that motoring issues get so muich notice at election time!
|
If the speed humps were merely designed to slow you down, so if you went at the required speed you could roll harmlessly over them then I would have no problem, and whilst no engineer I can not see that it would be difficult to design them to do this.
Unfortunately like most things we gave the anti-car loonies a little power and they went mad.
Many of them and particularly the high square ones with BRICK surrounds can not be passed over at any speed without damaging a normal car. Some roads in London became completely impassable for me in my old Supra (gone but not forgotten).
And don't even start me on the potholes...
That is why I now drive a 4 wheel vehicle and ride a trail type motorbike.
I assure you the roads in Abidjan (Ivory Coast) are in better shape than the ones in London.
Now Ken is the 'official' Labour candidate likely he will get re-elected so more nonsense to come.
|
|
Funny how such a champion of equal ops shows such discrimitory hypocracy to those without the same personality defects as himself!
|
Good heavens, I go out for the morning and look what erupts...
ND, NoWheels is right - children are impossible to control and on a residential street you have to keep an eye out and take care.
NoWheels, ND is right, the responsibility lies with the parent to assess the situation and safeguard the child. Also, most trafic calming measure are impossible to negotiate at the posted speed limit; this is illogical, and dangerous in those cases where they haven't painted them yet or the paint has worn. And when they are painted, they look hideous.
Anyway, returning to the thread, I must remember to sue Ken for his clear insult directed at Mrs Patently who takes the children to school in an X5. Briefly, these are the reasons he is wrong and Mrs P is not an idiot.
i. Ken might not be aware of this, but Mrs P has a degree from Cambridge and is, IMHO, slightly more intelligent that he is.
ii. We need a large family car if we are to take everyone out, say on holiday. Which is more idiotic; taking that car on the shortish journey to the school and sending me to work (100 mile round trip) in a smaller car, or vice versa?
iii. Mrs P is 5'1" tall. She needs a high driving position if she is to see out. In today's market, this means an A-class, Scenic, or a 4WD.
iv. I insist on a car with decent residuals (go away mapmaker!). She insists on utter reliability.
v. I have seen the crash test photos for the superminis she "should" be driving.
Add ii. to v. together and produce a shortlist. Only one name on the list, sadly.
|
Just a few comments about your points, Patently...
ii) How much interior space has an X5 got over a large saloon or estate car? How short is this 'shortish' journey to school, is it within walking distance? If not, isn't there a school closer?
iii) She needs a high driving position to see out? So the X5 has a seat thats higher up then with respect to the windows? Can't she see over the windows of a normal car? Other short people don't seem to have much trouble with most cars.
iv) So a £40,000 car will depreciate less than a £10,000 one in absolute, not relative terms? Can't speak about the X5 itself, but a worryingly large proportion of cars I see broken down on hard shoulders seem to be newish BMWs.
v) Have you considered the ablity of a 4x4 to avoid the accident in the first place, with that high centre of gravity, large mass and volume to change direction in an emergency? What about the thing it crashes into too? Have you seen crash test photos for 4x4s?
Also agree with the other posting concerned "stop, look & listen", why can't we have that back? However there does seem to be some public information ads where a teenage girl gets run over, so they are at least targetting young people on foot.
|
NoWheels, ND is right, the responsibility lies with the parent to assess the situation and safeguard the child.
Of course children should be safeguarded -- though the level of safeguarding needed these days ruins kids lives in most areas.
But sometimes the safeguarding fails, and higher speeds means that the consequences of the lapse can be horrific.
Reduce the speed, and reduce the consequences of the mistakes which will inevitably happen from time to time.
Also, most trafic calming measure are impossible to negotiate at the posted speed limit; this is illogical, and dangerous in those cases where they haven't painted them yet or the paint has worn. And when they are painted, they look hideous.
Sorry, nothing at all illogical here patently. It's just that I think you misunderstand what the speed limit means!
The speed limit is an absolute legal maximum: exceed it, and you can be prosecuted, regardless of any other factors.
However, you still be prosecuted for speeding even if you within the limit, if you are driving too fast for the conditions.
Regardless of the limit, there are plenty of roads where it would be near impossible to drive at the limit. For example, plenty of a country roads have a 60 limit, but one near here has a hairpin bend on a very steep hill, and anything over about 20 lands you in the ditch.
Mrs P is 5'1" tall. She needs a high driving position if she is to see out. In today's market, this means an A-class, Scenic, or a 4WD
So, she doesn't need a 4WD: it's just the option she chooses from the possibilities. The excuse about residuals doesn't add up either: you'll lose far more £££s on a BMW X5 over three years than on a small MPV, never mind have much higher running costs.
Anyway, if the roads were safer your children could walk to school!
|
Anyway, if the roads were safer your children could walk to school!
I'm afraid that whether you like it or not the roads are unsafe around schools in my area *because* of mums taking little Johhny and Mary to school in their cars, suv's or otherwise.
I have the misfortune that I have to drive past 3 schools on my work.
Here is a typical occurance
Follow [insert car model here] at a safe distance, while the driver [insert sex here because I see both men and women] simultaneously
a) shouts at kids in the back...
b) fiddles with radio
c) waves at friends in other car doing the same thing coming the other way..
vehicle stops, [often in the middle of the lane because of all the others doing the same thing], all doors fly open, numerous kids + driver all bail out like the car is gonna explode and scatter in as many directions as friends/chums/mums are spotted...
It really is this simple... walk the kids to school or have the local Ed Off. provide buses.
|
Patently,
This post IMHO is a departure from your normal high standards.
Firstly if your wife wants to drive a X5, and can afford to do so, surely the decision doesn't need defending. However if you decide to justify her(or your?) choice you really can do better than this!!
Secondly Mrs P graduating from Cambridge(or rather getting there) is a measure of her academic ability and I fail to see how you can possibly deduce that makes her more intelligent than Ken L.
It is very easy to knock politicians; but think of Ken's achievements:
He got ELECTED to run London.
When the Government decided that he would not be deposed by the electorate they disbanded the GLC.
As he wouldn't toe the party line he got kicked out of the Labour party. In the teeth of opposition from all the political parties he took on Blair and got elected again to run London as Mayor.
He had the courage to introduce Congestion Charging again with every political party against him and the experts saying it couldn't possibly work. Now it is grudgingly admitted, by almost everyone, that it has been a success and that he was right.
He has been re-admitted to the Labour party only because it is expedient for them to do so - they know he will almost certainly be re-elected.
Personally I abhor some of his views. However he has the courage of his convictions and his outburst against 4x4s on the school run is a sentiment supported by many people.
C
|
iii. Mrs P is 5'1" tall. She needs a high driving position if she is to see out. In today's market, this means an A-class, Scenic, or a 4WD.
My humble Mondeo has height-adjustable seats.
Twenty years ago, my mum used a 950cc Fiesta for the school run; when she needed a higher driving position, she sat on a cushion. Even now, a Fiesta + cushion costs less than £35,000.
|
>> iii. Mrs P is 5'1" tall. She needs a high >> driving position if she is to see out. In today's >> market, this means an A-class, Scenic, or a 4WD. My humble Mondeo has height-adjustable seats. Twenty years ago, my mum used a 950cc Fiesta for the school run; when she needed a higher driving position, she sat on a cushion. Even now, a Fiesta + cushion costs less than £35,000.
Ah, but it's Mr and Mrs Patently's £35,000 and if they want to spend it on £28,000 of raspberry jelly and a green City Rover (plus cushion) or an X5 and no jelly (mad, but then some may make that choice) then they are entitled to do so.
Now you may be happy with your humble Mondeo, but if we follow this argument to its unnatural conclusion, who's to say the car deemed acceptable by the peoples central democratic transportation committee (Ken and his mates) doesn't turn out to be a Micra. Won't be happy then, I'd guess.
|
|
|
|
It's all very well to say that a child was "at fault", but politeness constrains me from saying what I think of anyone who appears to think that it's OK for a child's momentary mistake to be punished by serious injury or even death. There's an easy way for a drive to avoid blame: slow down.
Why do we not see Stop! Look! Listen! adverts on the TV these days? All responsibility is put on the shoulders of the motorist. Why? Roads are for vehicles, pavements for pedestrians. Granted, the motorist should drive with care and attention with the expectation of someone running into the road when in urban areas, but likewise the pedestrian should be expecting there to be a car on the road. If there is no education, then how are children going to know the dangers of the road?
While they're at it they need to bring back the advert warning of not poking a metal road into a sub powerstation to get your frisbee back!
|
|
Patently, my missus is 5foot 1 and i can honestly say has never had any problem seeing out of any type of car. (she drives a fiesta)If she insists on utter reliability then why on earth did you buy a BMW?! I think it might have something to do with that little blue prop on the front...
|
Just to answer a few points....
Residuals on an X5 are in fact surprising if you look at them closely, as I have done. In addition, ours was not new and was been chosen carefully. Yes, the snob value of an X5 was a factor, but because so many others express it that it affects the residual value. She is quite emphatically not a brand snob (when it comes to cars anyway) and started off in a Clio.
The excuse about residuals doesn't add up either: you'll lose far more £££s on a BMW X5 over three years than on a small MPV, never mind have much higher running costs.
I was told this in respect of the last car I bought her. They were wrong, I was right.
She could see out of the Clio (just) but in cars with higher seating positions she feels much more in control. Historically, she has not been confident as a driver and this factor has been instrumental in overcoming genuine fear of driving.
The journey to school is about 10 mins in clear traffic, 15 at peak times. We would much prefer to have chosen one within walking distance, but sadly the provision of good primary schools in this country is lacking. There are some nearby, but they are not walking distance either and when you move to a new county with a son aged 4 1/2, you tend to find there are no places left at the good ones. Both Mrs P and I benefited from very good (state) educations and we have no intention of depriving our children of this. A drive to school is a consequence of this that I regret, but accept.
As regards the melee at the drop-off, Mrs P parks a short walk away in a local free car park and the little ones use their legs to transport themselves to the gate. Odd habit, I know.
Then there is the crashworthiness and (particularly) the active safety of a 4x4. Yes, I have seen the pictures for an X5, and they were outstanding; this was a major factor in the purchase. As regards active safety, one of the criticisms levelled at the X5 as a 4x4 vehicle is the very car-like drive that it gives; this (in my experience) resolves this issue. With the (ridiculously named) Sport suspension, things are about the right level of firmness; a soft ride in the cruise but balanced and level through corners. I did give the X5 a thorough test drive and it satisfied me that it was stable enough to entrust to it the safety of my wife & children. The same could not be said of my business partner's Discovery, which never even got within sight of a shortlist as every time he drives me somewhere I have the distinct impression that I am about to end up in a ditch.
And finally;
So the X5 has a seat thats higher up then with respect to the windows?
Yes.
|
>> The excuse about residuals doesn't add up either: you'll lose >> far more £££s on a BMW X5 over three years than on a small >> MPV, never mind have much higher running costs. I was told this in respect of the last car I bought her. They were wrong, I was right.
I'd be fascinated to see the figures on that.
If a Vaxuxhall Zafira drops to £6k after three years, that's a loss of about £6k off the discounted new price of £12k
Are you really BMW X5 at about £40k new would still be worth £34k in three years time?
|
|
|
The journey to school is about 10 mins in clear traffic, 15 at peak times.
I would think that 10/15 minute car journey equates to a 25 minute walk, by the time you've got everybody in the car I would suggest taht the actual amount of time you take to get to school is in fact about 25 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no fan of the urban 4x4 but owners earn the money to spend it how they see fit, it's not illegal, it's called choice and we must all respect that so it's tough on Mr. Livingstone.
However, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. The roads are too busy to cross safely so Little Johnny gets driven to school and the roads gets busier. Then the roads are so busy that the equivalent to an armoured car is needed to get Little Johnny to school safely.
Step in most London councils alarmed at 'rat-running' (i.e. knowledgable locals using the whole road network not just A & B roads) and they put in some 'furniture' to calm it down that'll take your sump deflector off if you breach the speed limit by 0.01 mph or narrow the road at pinch points to width of a nat's leg + the width of a 4x4. As a result, everyone gingerly drives around at 15 mph terrified of what they might come across next.
Also, children are simply not taught to respect the road (in other words, be scared stiff of it) and learn to cross it properly. Some of the road safety stuff we were shown by the Old Bill in the 1970s would probably need a team of counsellors on standby for the upset it might cause Little Johnny after seeing a dodgy special effect road accident.
Ken only represents the exact same people that amplified this chaos to begin with. Now he is anti-choice after spending OUR money on schemes that have not worked to calm traffic.
The only truly effective solution would be to stagger school start times and work start times perhaps starting school at 8.15am. All that traffic coinciding at 9am has always been a problem, still, that's too intelligent for Ken and it is actually something he could do something about.
|
He's a pinko isn't he? That must explain it.
|
He's a pinko isn't he? That must explain it.
Sadly it is the lot of "pinkos" to clear up the mess caused by "free" market forces. What amazes me is that there are still people around with the guts to try. I leave you with a quotation from Raymond Chandler, who was most certainly not a pinko:
"So many guns around town and so few brains."
|
|
|
Ken and the rest of the left wish to achieve equality by bringing the successful down.
The right wish to achieve equality by making a climate in which the opportunity to succeed is open to all.
Plus ca change.... Is this 2004 or 1979?
Who was it who said "It's like deja vu all over again"?
[ducks for cover very quickly!]
|
Ken and the rest of the left wish to achieve equality by bringing the successful down. The right wish to achieve equality by making a climate in which the opportunity to succeed is open to all.
This isn't about the opportunity to succeed -- it's about what people do with their success, viz what we do about the small proportion of financially successful people who use their wealth in ways which damage the safety and freedom of others
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no fan of the urban 4x4 but owners earn the money to spend it how they see fit, it's not illegal, it's called choice and we must all respect that so it's tough on Mr. Livingstone. However, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. The roads are too busy to cross safely so Little Johnny gets driven to school and the roads gets busier. Then the roads are so busy that the equivalent to an armoured car is needed to get Little Johnny to school safely. Step in most London councils alarmed at 'rat-running' (i.e. knowledgable locals using the whole road network not just A & B roads) and they put in some 'furniture' to calm it down that'll take your sump deflector off if you breach the speed limit by 0.01 mph or narrow the road at pinch points to width of a nat's leg + the width of a 4x4. As a result, everyone gingerly drives around at 15 mph terrified of what they might come across next. Also, children are simply not taught to respect the road (in other words, be scared stiff of it) and learn to cross it properly. Some of the road safety stuff we were shown by the Old Bill in the 1970s would probably need a team of counsellors on standby for the upset it might cause Little Johnny after seeing a dodgy special effect road accident. Ken only represents the exact same people that amplified this chaos to begin with. Now he is anti-choice after spending OUR money on schemes that have not worked to calm traffic. The only truly effective solution would be to stagger school start times and work start times perhaps starting school at 8.15am. All that traffic coinciding at 9am has always been a problem, still, that's too intelligent for Ken and it is actually something he could do something about.
;-) pretty much wot he said
@Growler....
"Pink" Ken .... it has a nice ring to it :-D
|
I think the thought of red Ken running around after 4x4 drivers with a branding iron marked 'idiot' is an interesting one ;-)
One way to clear up traffic in London would be to use a carrot and stick approach.
For example:
Offer an incentive to leave the car at home for 1 week in every 4 - with free public transport as an alternative.
That might effectively reduce traffic and all the problems associated with it.
|
One way to clear up traffic in London would be to use a carrot and stick approach.
great idea!
[tongue-in-cheek]
Give the local bad boys a stick with which to smash up all the 4X4s ... then give everyone free carrots to celebrate the improvement in road safety and the reduction in energy wastage.
[/tongue-in-cheek]
Offer an incentive to leave the car at home for 1 week in every 4 - with free public transport as an alternative.
Free public transport for everyone, or only for car owners? And either way, is there a public willingness to pay the extra taxes required to fund this free travel?
|
|
|
|
"Pinkin" -- what you get when you use sub-standard petrol I heard. Must be a parallel with politicians there somewhere.
Somebody wants to drive a 4 X 4 and can afford it? Let 'em.
Don't like it? Tough. start saving for your own. Really I hate this nanny stuff.
|
|
Growler - be thankful you don't have to put up with it every day.
|
LOL Patently come to Manila and by comparison with London all your troubles will definitely be little ones (and I am not referring to whatever the visitor gets up to in the bars with our lovely young ladies and their temptations). Our traffic is unbelievable. Jensen Button came here last year and (yes I watched his Monaco GP effort Saturday) and famously said on TV he would tackle any race course in the world rather than drive in Manila. Well I drive every day so I can say I've driven wheer no Jenson Button has been.
But I do keep a flat off the Kings Rd and visit regularly so I have some sort of a vested interest in London traffic. Not to mention the extortionate charges levied on me by Commo Ken.
But this 4 X 4 thing. We have it here. Same thing, Mums lining up outside school -- Chevy Suburbans, Nissan Patrols, Ford Excursions, Isuzu Troopers. Here it's a response to security concerns as much as anything. You feel better in a big tough car.
I had a very nasty accident last August in my Ford F-150 with my daughter. We escaped with scratches (not our fault), but had that happened in a small car I wouldn't like to say what the consequences would have been.
I think people who don't have access to a big vehicle are simply envious or being a self-righteous nanny (I can't have one why should you?) and thus inventing all kinds of rationalisations to supprt their prejududices. What's the matter with the Brits? they never used to be like this.
As for traffic management there are things that can be done with a bit of lateral thinking. Let's say cars with one ending number banned one day a week, or within certain hours. Cars with less than 3 passengers in banned/tolled. Of course these measures don't raise money to be squandered by incompetent and politicians who are more interested in grandstanding themselves and their own egos than actually doing any work, so are doomed from the start.
+
|
Patently if you saw Manila traffic every day you would yearn calm, orderly London.
|
Grass is always greener, I suppose. We would all do better to be content with our lot.
Thanks.
|
Patently if you saw Manila traffic every day you would yearn for calm, orderly London.
|
|
Problem is...
One person buys one, no problem. Ten people? Still fine. But like rats in a sewer, when they reach a certain level of saturation, it becomes a problem. We're reaching that point in the more affluent parts of our major cities at certain times. To pass the time while stuck in a jam in Chiswick one afternoon I calculated roughly that if all the large 4x4s I could see from where I was sitting were swapped for superminis, it would produce the equivalent of the entire length of Chiswick Bridge in reduced traffic.
One of the other things Ken said was that the current trend in London for paving over driveways to park cars was causing a problem with flash flooding. This was more interesting. People I know in London have done this because a) new parking restrictions mean they can't have two cars parked outside and b) 4x4s are too wide to get down their (double parked) road, so wing mirrors were getting torn off.
|
|
|
|
|
The only truly effective solution would be to stagger school start times and work start times perhaps starting school at 8.15am. All that traffic coinciding at 9am has always been a problem, still, that's too intelligent for Ken and it is actually something he could do something about.
>>
Unfortunately I don't think staggering school/work times will work as well as a lot of people think. The modern trend towards flexible working actually encourages people to, in effect, use schools as childcare and, hence, an enabler to work. Therefore if school time was moved to, say 8.15, then large numbers would simply move their work times to match the earlier time. Undoubtedly it will have some moderating effect but I think the result will be disappointing and may cause more problems than it solves.
IMHO one of the major contributors to the morning snarl has been the increase in children travelling longer distances to school which has been largely caused by 'parental choice'. We have the spectacle of people moving into one area having to 'bus' their children to the other side of town to schools with vacancies and at the same time people from that part of town are passing them coming in the opposite direction to take their children to a 'better' school.
Cockle
|
|
|
|
I truly hate 4x4's in the city, and as I live in close proximity to two public schools I also have to slalom between jeeps, landcruisers and landrovers abandoned all over the place twice a day.
However.
They might be unnecessary in the city. Mayve they are a status token. But it's still not Mayor's monkey business what cars people drive and where they drive them. This is not Albania or Cuba and London is not Peking. No Camrade Commendant has right to decide what cars are suitable or not for the city and what dealership people have a right to walk into. Sport cars are not required in the city, you can't go faster than 30 miles per hour, what you need a Porsche for? Does it mean Mayor can target sports badges next?
See. That's the beauty of Western World. You can be rude, posh, really annoying or fake royal accent if that's your fancy. You can pay stupid money for house in Chelsea or Richmond just because you like the idea. You can park TVR or golf cart on your driveway even if none of them are any use on King's Road. You can drive Hummer or roaring Ferrari to work, hell, you can drive a ten ton truck with yellow duck on the front grille if your office provide you with enough parking spaces. And I can honk and wave and call you names for driving this monstrosity in town, but as long as this is UK, it shall be still your choice and yours only. Amen.
P.S. If I had to let my wife take my kids to school in Camden, Brixton or Islington I must say I wouldn't let them move outside the gates in anything else than bulletproof SUV with crowd control bullbars and RPM mount on the roof. I'm sorry but that's the city we live in thanks to Ken.
|
i don't live in london but if people believe ken then bigger fools them.i own a mercedes 270 i am a humble telephone engineer who has saved all his 56 years to get it and the people that always whinge in some form or another really are pathetic as growler says it is supposed a free country and this is what i choose to drive,i think i have said this before some people really do need to get a life.
|
The front page news in my daily today is about an eminent scientist who firmly believes global warming is accelerating. I have posted comments on a similar issue to this before, the gist of which is that we can all make excuses for spending our money as we see fit, and ignore the ever increasing signs of the effect on the planet, of our collective actions. To take it to the extreme, it's rather like the super rich being able to afford to fly their own personal airliner as private transport. So they have the money to do it, so that makes it OK?
I live in a village which has it's own junior school and most of the kids who attend the school live in the village, but there is still the long line of cars (including 4x4s) parked outside, morning and afternoon, belonging to parents from the village, taking and collecting their children from school. Just multiply this several thousand times over and you have the situation that exists in this country every school day. The difference during school holiday periods is quite clear.
Frankly, such behaviour is ridiculous. It can take nobody more than 10 mins to walk from any part of the village to get to the school.
|
This may sound a silly question, but what does \"walk\" mean??
|
|
|
|
Absolutely Machika. The scene you describe is replicated all over the place, and its staggering how many people only drive a few hundred yards. They're not saving time, its not always raining, so as it would otherwise be inexplicable, I suspect that its the display aspect that stimulates such stupidity.
|
Not going to make too many friends then,if i buy a big yellow Hummer for the school run.
Thats what makes this country so great,ban anything that i dont like or cannot afford.That should sort it.They'll try and ban foxhunting next.
|
I do the 'school run' every day, and YES! I do it in my car, through necessity.
I have to say that I see many idiot drivers, both at this time and others, and I certainly wouldn't say they are restricted to 4x4 drivers. There are idiots in every type of car. Maybe 4x4s and other larger vehicles stand out more and thus the stupidity of their drivers stands out more, and maybe for some the size of their vehicle *does* make them feel they own the roads more than other drivers. But I'd say there are enough stupid drivers of other cars, too, not to make this a hard and fast assumption.
HF
|
|
I'm with HF on this, as a general point it is easy to knock any particular group who are readily identifiable - whether it's 4x4s, women, turbans, BMWs - whoever or whatever you personally see as a problem. Bad driving is not restricted to any particular group - all groups have bad drivers, and it is your personal perception which influences which you notice.
|
Thats what makes this country so great,ban anything that i dont like or cannot afford.That should sort it.They'll try and ban foxhunting next.
Nobody said anything about banning. Ken said such people are idiots; you may or may not agree with him. But whether you do or not his job for the time being is to make London a better place to live and work and with that aim he's chosen to make it less convenient for people to drive there, to improve the traffic flow. The benefits are obvious: less time wasted in traffic jams=better productivity AND quality of life for the majority of people. Whether you agree with his methods or not, the aim is surely a worthwhile one. This statement is consistent with everything else he's said since large 4x4s on busy city streets are darned inconvenient for everyone; driving one at peak times in central London may in fact be proof of idiocy. Come to think of it, driving anything at peak times in central London may indicate a less than sound mind.
|
ChrisR wrote:
"But whether you do or not his job for the time being is to make London a better place to live and work and with that aim he's chosen to make it less convenient for people to drive there, to improve the traffic flow.
And just how Ken made London "better place to live and work"? Let me draw you a picture:
Return ticket from one 4 to zone 1 is £6. For a 25 mile round trip from Woolwich or Thamesmead to Bank. £6 is also 7.5 litres of petrol or 60 miles through traffic in a standard hatchback. So, for the price of one daily ticket you can drive two days to work, in air conditioned car, listening to the radio. If your wife works in the city her £6 fare pays for the NCP parking. Things get out of hand even more if you live outside London. Rochester or Chatham to Holborn and back is 65 mile mostly motorway cruise. Return train ticket from medways to London Bridge is £24 plus £4 return tube ticket within zone 1. That's 35 litres of fuel! You can easily drive entire week to work for the price of one daily return ticket.
In times of R.O.B. car is not a luxury, it's a neccessity. I don't queue in traffic cause I like it, I don't treat following smelly and dying Routemaster busses through narrow streets of London as a hobby. I drive car to work because it's the only way to keep the costs of commuting to sane minumum.
By introducing congestion charge Red Ken only imposed additional cost to our commuting. My working day is worth £5 less. I'm robbed of twenty five quid every week. Why was it done. What was achieved? Speed up cabs by mere 20%? Does the fact that a cabby gets from Bank to Holborn in 15 instead of 18 minutes really justify imposing additional £5 to my daily journey? And all that because one little man from Cricklewood doesn't want me to drive to work in a car. And what he doesn't like he bans.
Of course I can always change my car to public transport and and loose 3 times in train tickets.
To justify his move and future extensions Ken uses cunning tactics. Just this year, after loosing reasons to extend CC to Canary Wharf all the exits from E14 sudenly slowed down. To the north A12 exit from Canary Wharf, speed reduced from 50 to 40, to east A13 exit from Canary Wharf, speed reduced from 60 to 30 (even through the new passage tunnels), in Limehouse Tunnel speed reduced from 40 to 30 and extension to Blackwall Tunnel approach reduced from 40 to standstill because A12 approach is clogged by slowed down traffic north. See - we have too many cars over there, let's extend Congestion Charge to that area.
How is Ken's regime good for London? Please do tell me - who is it good for? For people in Kensington who forked out fat thousands for a home and few years later found out there will be daily congestion charge to enter their own driveway? For bus journeys that despite bus lanes got even slower once doubledeckers were replaced by equaly empty but twice longer bendy buses? Regardless of his political ties Ken Livingstone is to London what Fidel Castro is to Cuba. In fact it's a miracle he isn't inprisoned yet.
Excuse my late ranting gentlemen... I work nights since CC was introduced... :)
|
v0n,
Ken made no secret of his plans to tackle the congestion in London and on that platform he was elected, repeat elected, by the citizens of London.
The congestion charge was expressly designed to deter those living outside of Central London from driving to, or through, that area. This was, and is, for the benefit of those living there; not for those from outside.
Next month the citizens of London will get the opportunity to vote him out of office - but I suspect they won't! Those living outside London will not get a vote.
Its called democracy!
C
|
>Excuse my late ranting gentlemen
There's no rant more useless than one that misses the point.If you read my post again you will see that I said Ken's aim is to make London a better place. At no time did I say he had succeeded.
However, half of my family lives in London and they seem very pleased with Ken and the improvements they tell me he's made. There is a long way to go though; and my personal solution to the problem of London is not to buy a 4x4 but to not live anywhere near it.
|
|
|
|
Harry, good luck to you my good man, you worked hard and you deserve a luxury in life. Happy driving and you enjoy that Merc mate!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
