series3_mad Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Greenpeace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 What a load of BS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siggy Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 If the sane world ignores them will the nutters fade away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkieB Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 If we’re to stop the worst affects of climate change, we need to get gas-guzzlers off our roads. Illiterate f*ckwits too. Now how did you say eugenics worked.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffbeaumont Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 vehicles like SUVs... ...increase accidents I've yet to see that claim backed up with any statistics at all, but it seems to make every anti-4x4 press release. Gives me enormous confidence in the rest of their reporting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkieB Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I think the subscript is "when driving too close behind a bigger vehicle, you can't see through them to the road in front" / "when making a dangerous manoeuvre close to a bigger vehicle, you can't count on them to show as much concern for themselves, taking dangerous evasive action, as smaller vehicles would" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I think the subscript is "when driving too close behind a bigger vehicle, you can't see through them to the road in front" / "when making a dangerous manoeuvre close to a bigger vehicle, you can't count on them to show as much concern for themselves, taking dangerous evasive action, as smaller vehicles would" So the moral of the story is then "don't drive along with your nose 6 inches from the rear numberplate of the car you are following" Which people should be doing anyway.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minivin Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 So the moral of the story is then "don't drive along with your nose 6 inches from the rear numberplate of the car you are following"Which people should be doing anyway.... Part of the driving license test requires that you drive behind a vehicle, such that they can see you in their mirrors (trucks, lorries, et cetera), therefore, if you can see their mirrors, you can see pastand see what's developing ahead!!!!!! tw@ts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkieB Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) In fairness to our counterparts in their touaregs/landcruisers/cherokees/pathfinder.patrols/etc, you very rarely see "SUV's" being badly driven in Europe, compared to for instance MPV's. Saying that, when you do see a "SUV" being driven too fast, particularly from a pedestrian's point of view, it is a very memorable sight, making an indelible impression [thinking of driving standards in developing countries, when a nasty SUV — not generally LR though unless it's the army, even then rarely quite so badly driven — is a true status symbol for the direct oppressor of his/her fellow man]; clearly the base that greenpeace are working on, albeit very misguidedly. Edited to say: though I have seen virtually every x5 driven badly in Europe/the states. Edited January 17, 2006 by MarkieB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Have sent this to Greenpeace. Bet it doesnt go on their website though. Counterpoint. I have been reading your rant about Land Rover, and would like to put a few counter-arguments. Hopefully, as an open-minded organisation, you will give these due consideration; however I suspect you will just dismiss them out of hand as they don't fit into your beliefs. 1. Land Rovers generally last far far longer than ordinary cars. A standard car has a life of 8-10 years. Irrespective of how much fuel it has consumed over its lifetime, it will still be less environmentally friendly than a Land Rover, as these vehicles last for many years more. The BIGGEST ENERGY CONSUMPTION OVER A CAR'S LIFE IS IN IT'S PRODUCTION, therefore if a car lasts much longer, it uses far less energy overall. The biggest source of energy is electricity, so the Prius will have used a huge amount of either coal, gas or nuclear energy in its manufacture, and will be scrapped in 8-10 years. Therefore the Prius will do more harm to the environment than a Land Rover.Any Land Rover. 2. Why the fuss about 4x4s? Have you fallen for the fashionable 4x4 bashing? surely this is very narrow-minded, and blind to the truth about these and other vehicles. What about the plutocrats in their huge Mercs/Bentleys/BMWs etc? These are just as fuel inefficient, but also take up far more space on the road. I have a Land Rover 90, it takes up less space, and uses less fuel, than a Mini. I don't see you ranting about owners of the Mini, especially that enviro-criminal the Cooper, which of course is a performance car and therefore will be used as such, pumping out fumes as it races away from the lights. 3. Performance cars, whether a Ferrari or a Subaru, tend to be driven with verve. Indeed it can be said also of the young lads in their hot hatches who accelerate away from all traffic lights like they are possessed, simply to enjoy the rasp of their bean-can exhausts. They will be using FAR MORE FUEL through their driving style. Ignore the manufacturers fuel consumption figures. If you know anything about vehicles, you will know that these are produced to a set formula which bears no resemblance to real-world driving, and I challenge you to ask virtually any car driver if he/she achieves the fuel consumption that they anticipated when buying a car. Compare this to the average Land Rover owner. It is not a car bought by the hot-headed youth. It is usually driven by a more mature person, or a country dweller. Either way, they do not take part in the traffic-light Grand Prix every time they go out. The result? They get better fuel consumption. A Land Rover 90 will easily achieve over 32mpg. A hot hatch driven by a hot head will easily dip under 25 to the gallon. So who is the more environmentally friendly? 4. Next time you are out in the hills on a walking trip, just remember that if you fall and break a leg, or your elder colleague has a heart attack/stroke (remember the labour MP Robin Cook last year?), then it is the mountain rescue who will come and save your bacon, and they will do it in a Land Rover. 5. Finally, a little about accidents. You state, without evidence, that a 4x4 causes more harm than a car if a pedestrian steps out in front of it. May I refer you to a study done recently, and highlighted on Top Gear. This took a Honda saloon and a Range Rover, each of which was driven at and hit a crash dummy at the same speed. The dummy hit by the car suffered far more injury, because the car hit the dummy in the legs, breaking them, but then the dummy struck the bonnet with it's head and torso, and suffered injury which would have been terminal. The Range Rover has a larger frontal area. The result was that the impact was spread over a larger area of the dummy which as a consequence suffered far less injury. This is a fact, not a fantasy created by those ignorant people who just believe that bigger means worse. If I hit you on the knee with a hammer, your knee will be smashed. If the same force is applied evenly over your whole lower body, it will hurt but nothing is likely to be damaged. 6. We could all do far more for the environment and cut down on emissions from power stations simply by using low-energy light-bulbs in our own houses and offices. I do. Do you? If you want to do something really positive and really easy, get the government to ban the sales of conventional incandescent light bulbs. I hope this will information be given due consideration. I would be really pleased if these counter-arguments were placed on your website, so that people may consider both sides rather than just believe your very one-sided position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Boy Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Have sent this to Greenpeace. Bet it doesnt go on their website though. I BET! good points though, I just hope they do wake up to what reality is actually about. I'm all for conserving the environment, and taking action against greedy polluters, Equally I HATE ignorance! hope it gets read past "counterpoint" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthdicky Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Road transport accounts for 22 percent of the UK's CO2 emissions, which makes it the second biggest source of greenhouse gases. 22% is just over a fifth, and is the second biggest source of gasses, so what is the first? Why aren't they doing anything about that? So, only a fifth coming from the millions of the cars on the roads? I'd say they've got bigger things to worry about! Oh, just found this on the Environment Agency website: The electricity supply industry is the major consumer of fossil fuels and hence the major source of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK So why aren't they trying to stop people using electric cars, or anything else that uses electricity? Ban computers, TV's, kettles, electric shavers and lightbulbs! Nobs, the lot of them! Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 22% is just over a fifth, and is the second biggest source of gasses, so what is the first? Why aren't they doing anything about that?So, only a fifth coming from the millions of the cars on the roads? I'd say they've got bigger things to worry about! The one they can't do anything about is the biggest cause of greenhouse gases, and the biggest greenhouse gas is not Co2 but methane.... The environmental tw&ts decided burying rubbish was better than burning it - but they missed the fundamental trick in that you can scrub CO2 from chimney emissions (elementary GCSE chemistry) but you cannot stop millions of tons of rubbish rotting and producing uncontrollable methane...! Also, the biggest producer of methane is livestock - yes, cows farts...!! And unless you can think of a great way of stopping cows farting across the world, then there is no quick fix to this one. Greenpeas, Fiends of the Earth and the Rambling Association all pick on the easy target, as there are no quick fixes to the bigger problems, and all this effort they expend ensures that the Government has to spend time appeasing them instead of concentrating on bigger picture stuff...!! I drive a Land Rover, I shoot and I fart... And I'm proud...!!! Cheers Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darknight Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 what i would like to know about greenpeace is... do they use push bikes or LPC'S to get them abaout ahh LPC'S for you non-military personel are leather personal carriers........well i dont think so when you see them out onn the ocean are they in a sailing boat?????? i dont think so...so whats the boat being driven by desiel ????.........do they not say thats poluting the oceans...... and do they drive electrical cars...doubt it..and even if they did most electrisity is generated by power stations that pollute the air NOT by water powered stations .... tell me if im wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02GF74 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 So the moral of the story is then "don't drive along with your nose 6 inches from the rear numberplate of the car you are following"Which people should be doing anyway.... Many a true word is spoken in jest but this is not as daft as you may think. I worked with a very clever bod who reasoned it was safer to drive that way. If the vehicle in front of you stops suddenly, the speed difference between both vechicles is less so you do less damage to your vehicle. Whereas if you were driving further back, you get a longer run up. The result is you have more accidents but they will be less severe. (using the car in front to help braking is common practise in motorsport B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 02, A fine theory except you are ignoring the damage to the other end of your vehicle by the 17 others who were all travelling bumper to bumper using the same theory and none of whom had time to stop If you are driving far enough back you should have room to stop... which means no accidents, the accident coefficient of which - according to my calculator - is less than 1 small accident Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Fancy a laugh? Environmental group Greenpeace has been fined almost $7,000 (£4,000) for damaging a coral reef at a World Heritage site in the Philippines. OK, from an environmental point of view it's not that funny. Still made me chuckle though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.