fucking hell, common sense

[MYstIC G]

BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Voters reject congestion charge

Excuse me doing the old BBC link-a-thon thread start but I'm impressed. Now if we can only get rid of the shitbag scheme from London...

 

[Tom]

I'm pissing myself with laughter.

Really, how a government thinks that people would support them when they say "If you want some money, you'll have to charge motorists to drive along your roads" - and with no alternative...

Fuck them. Fuck them and their stupid fucking socialist politics-of-envy tax regimes, and old-fashioned immutable methods of government. Public transport is shit and nobody wants it.

 

[Darthshearer]

Public Transport Sucks Camel COCK!

Its full of piss smelling people! The buses in Leeds are crap, they do sort of turn up on time but there isnt enought and on some of the busiest routes they put single deckers on and ram them dangerously full! all for £17 a week!

No thanks Ill pay £20 to drive in thanks

 

[rynnor]

I dont mind the london one - no-one normal drives into central london outside weekends as parking is fairly non-existent. Even when I just lived a few miles outside the zone I would never have considered driving there.

 

[MYstIC G]

I dont mind the london one

Then just be silent!

Statements like this, i.e. where you don't really care, keep the bullshit in place for people that don't want it

 

[throdgrain]

I dunno. Last year I drove into London in my Car, went to the Imperial War Museum, parked straight outside, went in.

Came out drove home, no jams. It was a bit spooky tbh

 

[GReaper]

What did the government expect? Why would any fool accept charges amounting to over £1,000 a year with a promise that public transport would be improved later?

Improve the public transport and then encourage drivers to use it, but certainly not through excessive taxes.

 

[rynnor]

Then just be silent!

Statements like this, i.e. where you don't really care, keep the bullshit in place for people that don't want it

I think London is a special case - the whole public transport system is built with london as its focus so theres no real need to drive in.

The other cities in the UK are a different story - there has to be viable public transport system in place.

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

i love the buses in Leeds, they own*











* read own as smelling of stale wee, vomit and full of chavtastic scumbags with 12 prams each

 

[Uara]

hahaha yes i totally agree about buses in Leeds!! Altho I didnt mind paying 85p for a train from Burley Park to leeds city centre. Apart from if you tried to get on at rush hour

 

[Will]

Edinburgh has an great bus system, they are building trams, and people still voted against it.

Even though everyone who voted would have been inside at least the outer zone. Fools. We could have got money from the Fifers who come here for work.

 

[MYstIC G]

You wouldn't see a dime young William and you know it.

 

[Trem]

Worrying thing is they will just find another way to fuck over the motorists, expect stupidly high car parking fees in Manchester soon.

But nice one Mancs and at least you got the chance to vote, unlike the rest of the country who didn't vote in our PM, vote for London congestion charge or vote to buy out the banks. Next I want a vote on fuel duty

 

[ECA]

Stop being such cockhurt weenies, we need to stop using the combustion engine for personal transport.

The only question is how is this achieved?

Clearly the government feels the need to push us towards it, but doesn't want to actually say so.

We need legislation to move manufacturers over to non-combustion engine power sources for personal use, ( obviously trucks/lorries etc can still use petrol ).

That or really spend a LOT of money on the public transport network.
The problem is, fuel duty makes the government a LOT of money, if you spend money on transport and then take away a major source of income by pushing people away from petrol where does the extra money come from that the government effectively loses?

 

[Tom]

What did the government expect? Why would any fool accept charges amounting to over £1,000 a year with a promise that public transport would be improved later?

Improve the public transport and then encourage drivers to use it, but certainly not through excessive taxes.

Actually the charge wouldn't have been implemented until the spending had been done.

Stop being such cockhurt weenies, we need to stop using the combustion engine for personal transport.

The only question is how is this achieved?

Clearly the government feels the need to push us towards it, but doesn't want to actually say so.

We need legislation to move manufacturers over to non-combustion engine power sources for personal use, ( obviously trucks/lorries etc can still use petrol ).

That or really spend a LOT of money on the public transport network.
The problem is, fuel duty makes the government a LOT of money, if you spend money on transport and then take away a major source of income by pushing people away from petrol where does the extra money come from that the government effectively loses?

Unfortunately this ignores one rather important point, and that is that if such things were technically possible, and cheaper than fossil fuels, you'd already see them on the roads. Even in my 3.0 Mercedes I can still get 40mpg, which isn't far off what a Pious can do.

 

[TdC]

United Kingdom

The official fuel consumption data, provided by the Department for Transport, rates the Prius as: 56.5 miles per imperial gallon (20.0 km/l/47.0 mpg-US) urban, 67.3 miles per imperial gallon (23.8 km/l/56.0 mpg-US) extra urban and 65.7 miles per imperial gallon (23.3 km/l/54.7 mpg-US) combined.[51] Eleven diesel-powered cars, some of them smaller, have a better fuel-efficiency (by fuel volume) than the Prius for combined use

meh Tom, a 16.5 mile difference is a helluva long walk tbh. please note I am using the DOT urban figures here to not hit the 60% more efficient than your merc mark

 

[Trem]

In the grand scheme of things the Prius costs the enviroment more than the Merc I would bet (from beginning to end of their lives, as in materials used).

 

[Tom]

meh Tom, a 16.5 mile difference is a helluva long walk tbh. please note I am using the DOT urban figures here to not hit the 60% more efficient than your merc mark

Those figures are largely bullshit. There is no way a Pious will ever see 67mpg.

 

[TdC]

In the grand scheme of things the Prius costs the enviroment more than the Merc I would bet (from beginning to end of their lives, as in materials used).

ofc ofc, I'm semi-sure it does tbh.

Those figures are largely bullshit. There is no way a Pious will ever see 67mpg.

I know nothing of cars, so I am inclined to trust official DOT figures. if you can find a real-world usage chart I'll equally gladly believe that tbh.

 

[Tom]

DOT figures are made on a rolling road in a laboratory. They're a benchmark, nothing more.

 

[JingleBells]

This is the first time I've voted for something and I've been on the winning side

It was noticeable that the area with the highest turnout, Trafford, had the most to lose from it, although it's fairly surprising that even areas outside the area, such as Wigan and Bolton, voted against it. They potentially have the most to gain by getting people put off by the congestion charge visiting them.

 

[kirennia]

The prius parts because they aren't widely used, are shipped around from all over the world using much more fuel per part then most other cars, even much larger ones will ever use in their lifetime.

It costs less to use each time but if people are buying them to save the planet, they're doing more damage then good...

 

[TdC]

DOT figures are made on a rolling road in a laboratory. They're a benchmark, nothing more.

real world figures of my Arosa say it does about 1l:15km combined. I drive it like I stole it though. to my mind anything better than that is good, anything worse than that is bad. the car I plan on getting does about 1l:11km on a good day.

funnily enough, the XC90 I once drove did 1l:9km or thereabouts, but it was a huge and heavy landrover-esque thing. That would mean it actually had a very efficient engine no? I mean, it weighs more than twice my Arosa (about 2.2x). were the engines swapped around, would it be 2.2x more fuel efficient?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Meg, for the love of god please correct the grammar in your comment under your name.

 

[old.user4556]

I feel this would be appropriate in this thread:

YouTube - Toyota Prius vs BMW M3

 

[TdC]

I think Clarkson's last comment hit the nail on the head tbh. So, like all responsible car drivers, if I ever come to own an M3, I will surely put it in 5th gear at 30mph and tailgate some Prius owner

 

[Gemma the Dog]

Those figures are largely bullshit. There is no way a Pious will ever see 67mpg.

umm...go to about 2 mins into this...

YouTube - 70 miles per gallon

(btw no, I don't have one of these cars !

 

[Tom]

Wow. That obviously wasn't difficult to fake was it. I could get the trip computer on my Audi A4 to read 999mpg if I wanted to. I wouldn't mind betting he tailgated HGVs all the way.

And you managed to find just about the smuggest individual ever - someone who typifies the average Pious owner. It's a wonder he doesn't live in San Francisco.

I wonder what he'll do when the batteries give up the ghost. Will he be buying new ones then?

 

[kirennia]

Isn't he the presenter from scrapheap challenge?

 

[TdC]

lol my thoughts exactly! I did think he looked familiar!