End of the line for Hummer cockmobiles?
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
not only that but they spend a lot of time in teh shop
Griff
Feeding the foxes
Think this is what you mean.
Yikes! Even Ferrari has a bad day.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That's horrible. Looks like it's shat its pants. Bet it really mings from behind.
Jesus, a 250GT SWB and you people say that.
It's the end of civilisation.
sacrilege init!
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Fiat lights at the back
looks better there tbf.
you choose to own a huge fucking SUV in the middle of a city you are a wanker.
end of really
Which bit of the SUV is detestable?
Size? yes, nothing larger than a coach and pair should blot the urban landscape, in which case farewell buses.
4x4 drivetrain? - why does this invoke such hatred?
Potential less than-full-ness? (see also buses) - that's an end to white vans, then.
editor
hiraethified
You've really lost it here, you know.
You only need a couple of people on a bus and the pollution created per passenger kilometre is under that of even standard cares let aloone an SUV.
Cobbles, you have "issues" with buses we know.
I think you have some kind of pythological feel of a fall down the social ladder.
Cobbles, you have "issues" with buses we know.
I think you have some kind of pythological feel of a fall down the social ladder.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
size and the 4x4 drive train for moving about slowly in a city.
you don't need cross country performance in a city in fact even if you live in the country you probably don't need 4x4 performance.
its the stupidity of buying a car designed for the great outdoors and then use it to drive around a city, badly(
iF you mount bull bars on them your are a major cunt.
The military does'nt mount bull bars on 4x4s that actually get muddy as it can train squaddies (well most of them ) not to bump into solid things.
not only are you a cock for making a stupid choice of urban transport you compound it by advertising the fact you doubt your ability not to hit things
you don't need cross country performance in a city in fact even if you live in the country you probably don't need 4x4 performance.
its the stupidity of buying a car designed for the great outdoors and then use it to drive around a city, badly(
iF you mount bull bars on them your are a major cunt.
The military does'nt mount bull bars on 4x4s that actually get muddy as it can train squaddies (well most of them ) not to bump into solid things.
not only are you a cock for making a stupid choice of urban transport you compound it by advertising the fact you doubt your ability not to hit things
When Hummers and SUVs start to drop in secondhand value, some enterprising person could buy them up. They could then rig them up with massive trailers made from old caravan bodies wyith more windows cut out. This could be used to create fleets of 'banana bus' style transport systems similar to but smaller than the ones they made in Cuba from old semi-trailer tractors attached to low loaders.
They could start by using them as school buses which might mean that young Tarquin could still go to school transported by his mum's old SUV but he might have 150 friends riding with him standing up. I suggest using filtered chip shop oil as fuel.
They could start by using them as school buses which might mean that young Tarquin could still go to school transported by his mum's old SUV but he might have 150 friends riding with him standing up. I suggest using filtered chip shop oil as fuel.
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
Link please (actual figure is 16)
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
The part that is most detestable is the fact that SUVs are off-road vehicles that are ill-suited for urban areas. They are too big, too wide, too polluting and far more lethal to pedestrians and other road users than cars.
Yet thousands of residents of towns and cities choose them and use them as everyday city vehicles. Seeing as 90%+ of all SUVs never see a dirt track, there is no justification for those people to use such vehicles as their everyday car.
It is quite simple concept to grasp, I would have thought.
So we shouldn't be allowed to have high performance sports cars in the urban environment either as they're patently "ill-suited" to driving in town?
Once again we come back to "too big" - if a 4x4 the same length as a Ford Sierra and maybe a chip wrapper wider is "ill-suited" then why are bendy buses (twice the width and Christ knows how many times longer) "suitable"?
mattie
missing in inaction
A bus can travel set routes only. Which, by and large, have certain accommodations made such that said buses can safely use these routes. And it takes a lot of people - less obstructive to have a half-full bus than 40 cars, surely?
I take it that you're talking about congestion generation schemes such as bus lanes, forcing th erest of the traffic to travl in a fuel inefficient stop-start fashion.
That's file if the road is suitable (e.g. wide enough to accommodate bus stop laybys), otherwise the bus just ends up as a rolling roadblock, bringing all traffic to a halt every time it stops.
QED - Edinburgh princes Street Bus Jam.
mattie
missing in inaction
I take it that you're talking about congestion generation schemes such as bus lanes, forcing th erest of the traffic to travl in a fuel inefficient stop-start fashion.
That's file if the road is suitable (e.g. wide enough to accommodate bus stop laybys), otherwise the bus just ends up as a rolling roadblock, bringing all traffic to a halt every time it stops.
QED - Edinburgh princes Street Bus Jam.
Because, prior to these bus lanes, traffic just flew through town centres?
Perhaps not.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Why? Do they get stuck in narrow streets? Do they kill twice as many pedestrians and twice as many car occupants in collisions? Do they tower over other vehicles blocking cyclists and motorcyclists' side view and making collisions with pedestrians far more likely?
I thought not.
onthebrightside
thinking too much
I don't care if nothing but clean air, world peace and kittens come out the back of them. The only thing I expect to block my view and subsequently impair my judgement is some form of mass transport.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
exactly the new landrover discovery comes with loads of gadgets to make it extra
off road worthy fine . BUT you just know most will never go off road
.
Why do you need a HUGE OFF road truck to dawdle around in urban areas?
its even sadder when you see something like an x5 or a cayenne 4x4 off road drive train with no ability to go off road
whats the point extra space with no extra ability.
and in the cayenne's ugly as shit
off road worthy fine . BUT you just know most will never go off road
.Why do you need a HUGE OFF road truck to dawdle around in urban areas?
its even sadder when you see something like an x5 or a cayenne 4x4 off road drive train with no ability to go off road
whats the point extra space with no extra ability.and in the cayenne's ugly as shit
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
exactly the new landrover discovery comes with loads of gadgets to make it extra
off road worthy fine . BUT you just know most will never go off road
Why do you need a HUGE OFF road truck to dawdle around in urban areas?
its even sadder when you see something like an x5 or a cayenne 4x4 off road drive train with no ability to go off road
and in the cayenne's ugly as shit
erm the cayennes rated as being a jolly good off raod vechile to the x5 on the other hand...
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
Two points Cobbles:
1. Congestion.
I know from previous discussions that you favour more congestion.. at least you were against road charging which means that you must support congested roads?
Since without road pricing the only marginal cost of travelling by car is time. Thus without a charging scheme, congestion is the only possible result.
While in almost all sectors where infrastructure must be built to accomodate peak usuage there is variable charging, thus peak time train tickets are more expensive, and gas and electricity become cheaper non-peak etc.
Cobbles believes it is better to have congested roads, than to have marginally priced roads. So anything he says about congestion can be immediately discounted as worthless.
2. Bus Lanes:
While taking some road space from other traffic at peak times increases congestion for car users, initiatives such as bus lanes provide much faster travel times for the majority of people. However as Cobbles supports congestion he won't mind sitting in his beloved car for longer than is necessary.
This movie shows 5 lanes of slow moving traffic for one minute, and an empty bus lane, the single bendy bus that comes by carries 150 people, the five lanes of traffic averaging 1.4 passengers per vehicle carry 75 people in five lanes of traffic.
Just in case you are interested in what would happen if the bus lane network was expanded. The Bus Rapid Transit lanes built in Curitiba Brazil in the early 1970's, replaced near gridlocked roads with efficient mass transit at a fraction of the cost of building an underground system.
Is there any evidence that suggests that road pricing reduces congestion (apart from a teeny effect where users move to other previously less used roads that subsequently become congested themselves).
The peak charging point is ridiculous - peak travel pricing on trains isn't a clever mechanism to smooth out usage throughout the day, it's just the easiest way to maximise revenue - people don't avoid travelling on trains at peak time - they generally have no choice!
Like parks and hospitals, roads are publicly funded infrastructure, free at the point of usage. If roads are to be charged for, then why not parks and A&E, with an additional week-end heavy usage multiplier?
Buses are fne if your only travel requirement is to get to work and return home at fixed times via a fixed route. Bus lanes may well "speed up" bus flow by a tiny fraction but that's clearly not attractive to majorities of users such as the overwhelming proportion of Edinburgh voters who panned that last Council's cockeyed road pricing & more bus lanes scheme.
If an inflexible daily commute's the extent of your travel requirements then you haven't got much of a life.......
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
This is one area where there is plenty of evidence...
London famously got a 20% reduction in traffic in the congestion zone
Stockholm has even better data as they first had a pilot scheme, so we got before, during and after data. During the seven month trial period, between January 3, 2006 and July 31, 2006, traffic passing in and out of the cordon reduced by between 20 and 25% during the period of the trial and that air quality improved.
After the trial traffic volumes built up again to the same levels as before.
Looking at graphs of the full data is simply amazing, car journies to and from the center decreased in peak times, the big question that was also answered was, where did it go.
Apart from a total reduction in trips, bus use was up, (they laid on extra express bus services)
An increase in pre-peak time traffic and post peak traffic was noticed as people changed their habits to avoid paying the charge.
In other words a massive success and the population who pre-trial were only 30% in favour of congestion charge, voted after the trial for keeping it.
Almost all charging schemes show similar sucesses, Singapore being another great example.
There is NO doubt that charging works, the only problem is explaining to motorists that the choice is: a. Congestion or b. Charging
Motorists of course want no charging and no congestion which is impossible in peak times.
BRT is fast, using Curitiba as an example, they designed both radial and orbital routes which were run as high volume high frequency services, similar to an underground, but the buses could run along normal roads on less congested roads in the suburbs allowing even greater flexibility.
Just a pity we have to rely on some dorp in Brazil for an example of a successful bus system:
"Each of the five arteries contains one two-way lane devoted exclusively to express buses. This inner lane is flanked on either side by 1) a local access lane for cars and 2) a high-capacity one-way route for use by both cars and buses."
So all we need to emulate this in any UK city is bulldoze out an arterial network of 6 lane highways - easy peasy.......
If we'd left space for this kind of infrastructure in the 1560's then it might just make sense.
Why did they bother leaving mixed use lanes in the scheme - to cater for the inevitable fact that as their wealth and aspirations grow, the citizens might want a more flexible means of transport - e.g. a car?
There have been UK experiments with busway systems as well, in Telford and Runcorn if I recall. Washington, Tyne and Wear has a system IIRC called "bus link" which are short bus only sections of street between adjacient estates that allow buses through but prevent residential areas becomeing rat runs.
Busways can have a role to play but I am wary of them being pushed by monopoly bus operators who are just after public lolly eg First in Bristol when a rail based system would be more apropriate.
Busways can have a role to play but I am wary of them being pushed by monopoly bus operators who are just after public lolly eg First in Bristol when a rail based system would be more apropriate.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
It could, and should have been done in the 60s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringway_1
Every time I drive the A202, I wish they'd demolished Camberwell and Peckham when they had the chance. Would have cut down on the stabbings too.
Similar threads
