"big engined"?- it's a pissy wee 2 litre.......
Nissan Qashqai: "The city is their playground"
- Thread starter T & P
- Start date
"big engined"?- it's a pissy wee 2 litre.......
Pingu
Credo
ah but you are forgetting that monster 1.5 diesel...
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I just got a letter from the ASA about the complaint, incidentally (that was bloody fast!). This is what they had to say:
I wasn't expecting anything to come out of it, but still a load of bollocks of an answer from them
Well I must clearly be in the minority of viewers to whom it was not clear the cars had been 'humanised'
I wasn't expecting anything to come out of it, but still a load of bollocks of an answer from them
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Judging by some of the answers on the thread it seems I was not alone in thinking suggesting cities are playgrounds for cars to have jolly fun in is not very appropriate.
Surely you can see difference between that and and a ad portraying cars as staking robots- which sadly don't exist.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I particularly despise that advert.
Nearly as bad as that one with the smug family and a car in their driveway that seems to be pretending it's a dog.
stupid dogbot
Haughty and Superior
Hideous, ugly looking thing.
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
I'm with you on this one.
Cars should come with health warnings like cigarettes plastered in large letters over at least half of the main car body.
"CARS KILL PEOPLE AND DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT If you need help kicking your car addiction please call, 0800 800 8000"
I also agree with Untethered, all advertising should be banned, all it is designed to do is to get people to buy more than they need, and often buy things they don't need at all, as a 'lifestyle accessory'. In a world of dwindling resources this is surely a bad thing.
Promote creative graffiti and ban advertising! (which is corporate graffiti)
No such thing - it's just vandalism and therefore anyone who "promotes" it should be prosecuted on an art and part basis..
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
I think you would find that helpline rather busy. And often struggling to help.
There are many excellent reasons why people from outside London drive cars. We've been through most of them before, but to me one of the most compelling is to make regular visits to elderly relatives. Even if they don't need actual care, a once or twice weekly visit to bring any shopping they can't carry on the bus, to help with the garden or just say 'hi' can be a lifeline.
Of course you don't need a 4x4 to do this, but a car of some sort is essential for many people.
Cruically the need/willingness to do this isn't linked to income, which is one reason why I believe fuel taxation is so regressive
.........
And can I also take issue with the second part of your statement? If you are talking about global warming, cars are about 11% of emissions (and falling).
So even if every last car was taken from the road, 90% of the problem would remain unsolved. A more realistic target of a 50% cut in car use would produce barely a 5% drop, and that is ignoring the emissions from the increased public transport we would need.
11% of the problem, 100% of the blame
'...
EDIT to add, I agree with many of you sentiments about advertising though, both cars and in general (although the latter is a whole other kettle of fish...)
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Where are your figures from? The table below shows a slightly different story: transport responsible for around 20% of emissions, road transport responsible for about 90% of that.
And forecast to rise, both in absolute and percentage terms.
Source:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/driving_up_co2_emissions.pdf
Attachments
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Those figures are for 'road transport', my figure is for cars.
I got it from here http://www.smmt.co.uk/industryissue...3#application.site#/industryissues/index.cfm?
"Road transport is a significant contributor to man-made CO2 emissions, but it is not the only source. In the UK road transport accounts for around 20.1 per cent: cars are responsible for 11.7 per cent and the other 8.4 per cent comes from vans, trucks, buses, coaches and motorcycles"
(if I was taking issue, I'd put motorcycles in with cars, although I doubt that makes that much difference)
So around 40% of road transport emissions are not caused by cars.
Of course that is a Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders report. However Sian Berry of the Green party links to their figures here http://www.sianberry.org.uk/blog/2009-02-12-edinburgh.html so I presume she considers them a reliable source.
EDIT to add, this more recent report gives a slightly reduced figure of 11.5%- emissions from cars are falling http://www.smmt.co.uk/articles/article.cfm?articleid=19207
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Fair enough.
But although emissions per car miles may be falling (which is good, and other transport sectors like rail ought really be trying harder to improve their emissions per passenger-mile, similarly) car miles overall continue to rise which more than cancels out the benefit (as far as I am aware.
Certainly car ownership is rising massively - by 30% in the last ten years, according to the RAC.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/UK-drivers-miss-bus-as.5184518.jp
Also - it's all very well to say that 10% isn't an enormous contribution, but if every energy sector says that and uses it as an excuse, then we're never going to get anywhere.
But although emissions per car miles may be falling (which is good, and other transport sectors like rail ought really be trying harder to improve their emissions per passenger-mile, similarly) car miles overall continue to rise which more than cancels out the benefit (as far as I am aware.
Certainly car ownership is rising massively - by 30% in the last ten years, according to the RAC.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/UK-drivers-miss-bus-as.5184518.jp
Also - it's all very well to say that 10% isn't an enormous contribution, but if every energy sector says that and uses it as an excuse, then we're never going to get anywhere.
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Not true. Traffic is falling too (although the reccesion is obviously a factor) http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...ns/roadstraffic/traffic/qbtrafficgb/2009/q109
This, however
Is a fair point. My counter is that cars should rightly get the blame for the 10-12% of the problem they are causing. My issue is they get far more blame than that.
What I have a problem with is Royrer's breaking down of the problem into 'sinners' (car drivers) and 'saints' (non-motorists). It simply isn't as simple as that. For example, if you use a car to collect a telly off freecycle, your carbon footprint is *way* less than if you walked to Currys and brought a brand new telly and had it delivered.
Another (final!) example. Last year I drove to uni. Everyday I took tap water in a bottle and sandwichs in a tin. My carbon footprint was undoubtadly lower than if I had caught the bus, but purchased plastic pre-packed sandwiches and French Mineral water from the Uni shop.
I've since moved closer and the uni has installed a drinking fountain, but my point is valid I think
Anyway, I must go!!
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Well, that's interesting.
It does seem to be a very recent reversal of the trend though. If it continues that would be great. Like you say it may be largely related to the recession though (also they make the point that the heavy snowfall this winter may have affected the data).
Here is the longer-term trend which up until 2007/08 was a clear year-on-year increase:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roadstraffic/traffic/qbtrafficgb/
Attachments
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The thing is though that emissions are only a part of the problems they cause. You have to think about the social damage caused by an increasingly car-dependent culture and the inequality that results. Noise pollution. The space taken up by roads. The large numbers of people injured and killed in road accidents. Implications for pedestrians. All these things and more.
I don't think he does, really. He hasn't done so on this thread, anyway.
And if you don't own a car, get it off freecycle, and get it delivered, your footprint is even lower.
Again, those things are commendable but your impact would have been even less if you'd have used the bus instead of your car. You don't have to own a car to be able to drink tap water.
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
It is true that the tail-pipe emissions for cars is only 10 - 13% of the UK total
However one thing that never gets deep environmental impact analysis is the entire supply chain for a car based transport system.
1. Roads - concrete, asphalt and the heavy plant machinery to make and maintain them.
2. Factories to produce the steel for cars - rubber for tires, assembly of the cars, plant machinery for the factories, delivery of the goods to the factories and export to the UK. The mining of the raw materials.
While I accept that public transport also has an impact, as does having a bicycle, and that we would still need some roads regardless.
However there is little doubt that a combination of PT for long distance and mainly bicycle transport for urban areas would be the most efficient option available to us, with no drop in accessibility.
Of course people should also endeavor to insulate their houses, reduce the number of appliances left on, should eat vegan food, (probably the biggest single thing individuals can do for the world environment is to reduce the amount of meat they eat), and reuse, repair, swap their stuff rather than buying new ones, and generally try to avoid buying things unnecessarily.
In transport terms however if you care - travel as little as possible, and try to avoid using motorised transport if you can, especially single occupancy cars, if you have to drive then pick up a hitch-hiker.
However one thing that never gets deep environmental impact analysis is the entire supply chain for a car based transport system.
1. Roads - concrete, asphalt and the heavy plant machinery to make and maintain them.
2. Factories to produce the steel for cars - rubber for tires, assembly of the cars, plant machinery for the factories, delivery of the goods to the factories and export to the UK. The mining of the raw materials.
While I accept that public transport also has an impact, as does having a bicycle, and that we would still need some roads regardless.
However there is little doubt that a combination of PT for long distance and mainly bicycle transport for urban areas would be the most efficient option available to us, with no drop in accessibility.
Of course people should also endeavor to insulate their houses, reduce the number of appliances left on, should eat vegan food, (probably the biggest single thing individuals can do for the world environment is to reduce the amount of meat they eat), and reuse, repair, swap their stuff rather than buying new ones, and generally try to avoid buying things unnecessarily.
In transport terms however if you care - travel as little as possible, and try to avoid using motorised transport if you can, especially single occupancy cars, if you have to drive then pick up a hitch-hiker.
Similar threads
