Just saw a Chelsea tractor today...
- Thread starter T & P
- Start date
Batboy
Trumpeting is good for you...
T & P said:
Don't Agree. I need to get a vehicle that suits my needs and am seriously considering a 4 x 4 - why.
1. I need space to transport bulky stuff to and from work and home (This is to do with my work and is essential)
2. We have a family of Five
The alternatives are
1. Get a car and a van
2. Get a small car and do lots of trips
3. Continue to blow excessive amounts of money on cabs until we are broke.
And I live in London.
Of course I will look at the MPG and buy accordingly I may well opt for a MPV. If I can, I may get an LPG conversion.
As usual not everything is black and white and I would hope that I have provided a single reason to consider a 4 x 4.
djbombscare
Plays with knives
This aint goona be a popular opinion here but TBH I dont really care
Why should someone have to justify getting a 4x4 for any other reason other than . .they want one. Wether its going to be urban or country
I thought there was freedom of choice, as much as the govt are doing to take awy the right. I thought it was still currentelly valid.
All this oooh your fucking up the ozone layer, its dangerous to other road users blah blah bleet bleet fucking blah
Everyone who drives a car, everyone using a diesel bus or train, anyone who travels, everyone who use electricity, everyone who consumes just about anything. Is fucking up the enviroment and dangerous. Just cos you dont use up as much fuel or take up as much road etc does not make it any different from anyone else.
Lets for example say that a 4x4 only did do 10mpg and the school run is 10 miles per day. who is riuning the ozone layer more that driver who is using a gallon a day or the guy like me that used to drive 100 miles per day to work in a car that did 35mpg, that by my estimations is just under 3 gallons. hmmmm.
Bollox to all this pointing the finger schoolyard " they're worse than me" shit
Isnt everyone guilty?
The only people I can see that can point the finger will be those who can truthely say they are carbon neutral.
Why should someone have to justify getting a 4x4 for any other reason other than . .they want one. Wether its going to be urban or country
I thought there was freedom of choice, as much as the govt are doing to take awy the right. I thought it was still currentelly valid.
All this oooh your fucking up the ozone layer, its dangerous to other road users blah blah bleet bleet fucking blah
Everyone who drives a car, everyone using a diesel bus or train, anyone who travels, everyone who use electricity, everyone who consumes just about anything. Is fucking up the enviroment and dangerous. Just cos you dont use up as much fuel or take up as much road etc does not make it any different from anyone else.
Lets for example say that a 4x4 only did do 10mpg and the school run is 10 miles per day. who is riuning the ozone layer more that driver who is using a gallon a day or the guy like me that used to drive 100 miles per day to work in a car that did 35mpg, that by my estimations is just under 3 gallons. hmmmm.
Bollox to all this pointing the finger schoolyard " they're worse than me" shit
Isnt everyone guilty?
The only people I can see that can point the finger will be those who can truthely say they are carbon neutral.
dirtysanta
Original Casual
djbombscare said:
Top post.
dirtysanta
Original Casual
bigbry said:
Exactly, you idiot. Its a 4x4 with better MPG that a car. Duh
Wake up. Thats the point. Cars arnt like for like. See Bombscares brilliant post above me.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Crap postdjbombscare said:
dirtysanta
Original Casual
lighterthief said:Crap post
Why? Dont just chip in with that and they say fuck all. What DJB says is fact. Whats your point ?
Onket
Je suis [CONTENT REMOVED]
djbombscare said:
It's just fucking selfish though isn't it. It's like those wankers who pull massive suitcases on wheels behind them through crowded tube/train stations. Or those utter cunts who for some reason think a golf umbrella is the only way to keep dry on crowded streets when it's raining.
dirtysanta
Original Casual
Onket said:
Alright then. Well ignore the top half of DJBs post this part makes perfect sense and theres no way anyone can disagree with it.
djbombscare said:
dirtysanta
Original Casual
Onket said:
Sorry Onks. Didnt read your post properly.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
the pedestrain and the cyclist are going to be damaged by being hit by anything other than air or flys... whether it's a micra or a merc truck ... what you could say here is essentially all petrol consuming vechiles are dangerous to other road users if used improperly...CharlieAddict said:
the lastest news ... well no not really...
as for the enviroment...
sure but this is a realitly small amount of enviromental damage if compared to the industrial factories and chimmenies etc....
so again you rant is not focased on those bastards who work for blue circle cement or for thrid world based gule factories...
just on idile people in chelsea...
sour grapes in action it would appear....
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Yes it does make a difference. It means they use up less fuel and take up less space on the roaddjbombscare said:
Your comparison is meaningless. You are comparing different things. But lets have a look at it:djbombscare said:
4x4 on school run, 10 miles per day @ 10mpg = 1 gallon
Car commuting to work, 100 miles per day @ 35mpg = 2.857 gallons
Now lets switch the school run and commute around:
Car on school run, 10 miles per day @35mpg = 0.288 gallons
4x4 commuting to work, 100 miles per day @ 10mpg = 10 gallons.
QED the car that does 35mpg uses less fuel, over the same distance, than a 4x4 doing 10mpg. If you would like to start another thread complaining about how people commuting 100 miles to work in fuel-efficient cars is fucking up the environment, then do. But it's a different argument, and someone is just as likely to start a thread saying that commuting 100 miles to work in a 4x4 is even worse.
If the only way you can defend your 4x4 is to bleat on about your right to "freedom of choice" then it tells me that you are basically selfish and have little consideration for others.
Like I said:
...crap postdjbombscare said:
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
intresting that your definitition of selfish is doing things which inconvenicence you is automatically selfish...Onket said:
how about the real underlying issue which is that you are selfish expecting other people to conform to you will or want's and when they don't you assume the error is theres...
a selfish control freak exposes themselves under the aucpices of enviromental concern... quelle suprise...
dirtysanta
Original Casual
lighterthief said:
Only selfish in your eyes. What your saying is you dont agree with me therefore im selfish.
So be it. Iv got no probs with 4x4s because is obvious the arent the root of the problem and if i had the cash i'd buy one.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
No - you're selfish because you seem happy to ignore (or are unable to understand) the negative effects your decisions will have on others.dirtysanta said:
zenie
>^^<
dirtysanta said:
Is that perhaps becuase you live in a rural area - would you feel the same if you lived in town?
People can drive what they like and they will- but I dont feel safe when I look out my windscreen and cant see round one of these tanks.
They also dont bother looking down and have nearly hit me a few times.
Added to the fact that people dont need to go off road in them and they are on the whole just ostentatious.
FruitandNut
New Member
Parking a car and getting out of it (and back in) can be a bit of a nightmare when 4x4s and Transit size vans are parked up on either side of that vacant space in a car-park.
djbombscare
Plays with knives
lighterthief said:Yes it does make a difference. It means they use up less fuel and take up less space on the road
4x4 on school run, 10 miles per day @ 10mpg = 1 gallon
Car commuting to work, 100 miles per day @ 35mpg = 2.857 gallons
Now lets switch the school run and commute around:
Car on school run, 10 miles per day @35mpg = 0.288 gallons
4x4 commuting to work, 100 miles per day @ 10mpg = 10 gallons.
QED the car that does 35mpg uses less fuel, over the same distance, than a 4x4 doing 10mpg. If you would like to start another thread complaining about how people commuting 100 miles to work in fuel-efficient cars is fucking up the environment, then do. But it's a different argument, and someone is just as likely to start a thread saying that commuting 100 miles to work in a 4x4 is even worse.
If the only way you can defend your 4x4 is to bleat on about your right to "freedom of choice" then it tells me that you are basically selfish and have little consideration for others.
Like I said:...crap post
When you compare things you take two, although similar, different things.
The point I was and still am making is that everyone bleats on about 4x4's damaging the enviroment as they are un economical, and yes they are.
However those pointing the finger and going "oooooh look at him ...selfish CUNT !!" are also using up fossil fuels. Some more then the 4x4's in question. Me on my commute to work could not and would not point the finger at a 4x4 driver as my fuel consumption would probably be more and thus very hypocritcal.
Yes of course it would be cheaper and better to run a more economical car, thats just stating the obvious. My point is that just because it only does 10 mpg does not mean that they are enviromental worse than someone else. If in your opinoin that makes them selfish than ok.
So is everyone else who leaves a light on, overfills a kettle, leaves the heating on at night, drives to the local shops rather than walk, that selfish as fuck when it comes to the enviroment.
In fact if you lock your doors at night your not sharing what you've got with others who could get some use out of it and just thinking of yourself. . .so that'd be being selfish than wouldn't it.
Anyone letting homeless people off the street into their homes, to share in the wartmh and heat of a night time ?
Personally I like motorbikes they take up less space use up less fuel cos they dont sit around in traffic blah blah blah.
To me a Nissan Micra is a fuel consuming pice of tin. I'm still not pointing a finger going cunt. But using everyone who's anti 4x4 idealogy I would be perfectly justifiable in calling any car driver a selfish cunt taking up more space and using up more fuel than they need.
But I dont because it is freedom of choice, they choose to be sitting there in traffic, they choose to be there in the warm, they choose to be listening to the radio, they choose to be late for work. . . again.
I choose to get to and from work quicker and not sit in traffic.
Much as I hate the quote my point is this:
Those in glass house shouldn't throw stones. And as far as I can see there aint anyone on here (unless of course there computer power is supplied by they're own personal windmill or renewable energy source) that isn't in a glasshouse. So they should stop pointing and shouting, when they themselves are just as guilty.
If someone robs £20,000 from a bank, or £20 of an old lady they are still a thief and just as guilty as each other
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Yes it does. It's all about common sense and respect for others.djbombscare said:
No one is suggesting that we should ban all vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. But seeing as climate change is a reality and that CO2 emmisions from cars bear much of the blame for it, we must be sensible about its use.
And anyone who buys and uses a 12mpg, very large and overall more dangerous vehicle as an everyday city car is being a reckless selfish wanker IMO.
Similar threads
