Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter. Or even
better, use a scooter AND public transport. Make the local leg of the
journey by scooter and the long distance leg by train. This is called
intermodel transport and its often faster than driving all the way to
work in stop and go trafic. And if u need a car for shopping on the
weekend or luggin stuff around then join a car sharing club and order
more stuff online. There is only very few of us who truly need to own
a car and drive it every day. If your not making enough money to
afford a luxury like a car then its ur fault isnt it. Stop complaning
and blaming everyone else its time for u to take responsibility for
the planet high oil prices are here to stay!

In article <13400ffe-5dab-4418-9fa0-
b0c7a7e7a41d@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, El Camionero says...
> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter. 

> Stop complaning
> and blaming everyone else its time for u to take responsibility for
> the planet high oil prices are here to stay!
> 
What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause 
TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more 
economical.

And a Scooter is still no good for me because it is too slow and can't 
carry all the kit I need for work. Bus and Train are not an option due 
to the fact I travel to work at least 2 hours before they start.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 12 Jun, 11:37, Conor  wrote:
> In article <13400ffe-5dab-4418-9fa0-
> b0c7a7e7a...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, El Camionero says...
>
> > Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> > it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter.
> > Stop complaning
> > and blaming everyone else its time for u to take responsibility for
> > the planet high oil prices are here to stay!
>
> What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause
> TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more
> economical.

This could be true of an ancient two stroke but a modern 4 stroke will
be a lot less polluting.

>
> And a Scooter is still no good for me because it is too slow and can't
> carry all the kit I need for work. Bus and Train are not an option due
> to the fact I travel to work at least 2 hours before they start.

Depending on the scooter it can be fast enough to exceed the legal
limits and they have surprising amount of luggage capacity. Several of
the drivers on the day shift at the CooP when I was agency there used
them all year round start times were 0330 to 0500 thus PT was out of
the question.

On Jun 12, 11:22 am, El Camionero  wrote:
> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter. Or even
> better, use a scooter AND public transport. Make the local leg of the
> journey by scooter and the long distance leg by train. This is called
> intermodel transport and its often faster than driving all the way to
> work in stop and go trafic. And if u need a car for shopping on the
> weekend or luggin stuff around then join a car sharing club and order
> more stuff online. There is only very few of us who truly need to own
> a car and drive it every day.

OK, I'll peer under the bridge...

Unlike the charming family I once saw in India I don't want to try and
fit all of my family on a scooter so yes I do need a car.

Scooters and trains present a problem if you need to travel a distance
from the train station at the other end surely?

I was seriously thinking about getting a motorbike but given a recent
coworkers injuries from falling off one I'm not going down that
route.  The country roads near my work tend to be slippery from cow
muck and tracker trailing stuff and they are hard to pass in the card
in the winter let alone a bike.

Fod

On Jun 12, 11:56 am, NM  wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 11:37, Conor  wrote:
>
> > In article <13400ffe-5dab-4418-9fa0-
> > b0c7a7e7a...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, El Camionero says...
>
> > > Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> > > it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter.
> > > Stop complaning
> > > and blaming everyone else its time for u to take responsibility for
> > > the planet high oil prices are here to stay!
>
> > What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause
> > TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more
> > economical.
>
> This could be true of an ancient two stroke but a modern 4 stroke will
> be a lot less polluting.
>
>
>
> > And a Scooter is still no good for me because it is too slow and can't
> > carry all the kit I need for work. Bus and Train are not an option due
> > to the fact I travel to work at least 2 hours before they start.
>
> Depending on the scooter it can be fast enough to exceed the legal
> limits and they have surprising amount of luggage capacity. Several of
> the drivers on the day shift at the CooP when I was agency there used
> them all year round start times were 0330 to 0500 thus PT was out of
> the question.

My brother in law has been using one for years to get to work in a
nearby city.  His hours make PT awkward to use).

Aside from the fact that he's had two scooters nicked and one crushed
by a bus that wasn't paying attention he's still a big fan of them.

Fod

"El Camionero"  wrote in message 
news:13400ffe-5dab-4418-9fa0-b0c7a7e7a41d@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter. Or even
> better, use a scooter AND public transport. Make the local leg of the
> journey by scooter and the long distance leg by train. This is called
> intermodel transport and its often faster than driving all the way to
> work in stop and go trafic. And if u need a car for shopping on the
> weekend or luggin stuff around then join a car sharing club and order
> more stuff online. There is only very few of us who truly need to own
> a car and drive it every day. If your not making enough money to
> afford a luxury like a car then its ur fault isnt it. Stop complaning
> and blaming everyone else its time for u to take responsibility for
> the planet high oil prices are here to stay!

And again in readable English, please?

In article <a918694b-7182-4c17-b20e-e18ebd9f4508
@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, NM says...
> On 12 Jun, 11:37, Conor  wrote:
> > In article <13400ffe-5dab-4418-9fa0-
> > b0c7a7e7a...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, El Camionero says...
> >
> > > Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> > > it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter.
> > > Stop complaning
> > > and blaming everyone else its time for u to take responsibility for
> > > the planet high oil prices are here to stay!
> >
> > What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause
> > TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more
> > economical.
> 
> This could be true of an ancient two stroke but a modern 4 stroke will
> be a lot less polluting.
> 
But they don't have a CAT so whilst it won't chuck out loads of blue 
smoke, it'll still chuck out all the gases.

> >
> > And a Scooter is still no good for me because it is too slow and can't
> > carry all the kit I need for work. Bus and Train are not an option due
> > to the fact I travel to work at least 2 hours before they start.
> 
> Depending on the scooter it can be fast enough to exceed the legal
> limits and they have surprising amount of luggage capacity. Several of
> the drivers on the day shift at the CooP when I was agency there used
> them all year round start times were 0330 to 0500 thus PT was out of
> the question.
> 
TBH, I just don't fancy doing 30 miles each way on one.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> > What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause
>> > TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more
>> > economical.

>> This could be true of an ancient two stroke but a modern 4 stroke will
>> be a lot less polluting.

> But they don't have a CAT so whilst it won't chuck out loads of blue
> smoke, it'll still chuck out all the gases.

They mainly do, now.

B'sides, cats (it's not an acronym, so why the capitals?) don't _remove_ 
"pollution", they change it. CO is oxidised into CO2. NOx emissions are 
also up. OK, so there's less unburnt hydrocarbons - because of the closed-
loop fuelling control, rather than the cat itself, and that's only really 
required because cats are very fragile - but the insistence on 14.7:1 
means that the mixture can't be run leaner when it might benefit economy 
to do so. Also, for short journeys (which scooters are typically used 
for), cats don't warm up quickly enough to work properly.

On Jun 12, 1:00 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> B'sides, cats (it's not an acronym, so why the capitals?) don't _remove_
> "pollution", they change it. CO is oxidised into CO2. NOx emissions are
> also up. OK, so there's less unburnt hydrocarbons - because of the closed-

Err , if the cats working OK , NOx should be down. In fact NOx
pollution was THE main driving
force for them being brought in in california back in the 80s because
thats the main cause of the
brown smog over LA.

> loop fuelling control, rather than the cat itself, and that's only really
> required because cats are very fragile - but the insistence on 14.7:1
> means that the mixture can't be run leaner when it might benefit economy
> to do so. Also, for short journeys (which scooters are typically used
> for), cats don't warm up quickly enough to work properly.

Not only that , the simple fact of the back pressure from the cat
makes the engine less
efficient and hence burn more fuel -> more CO2 emissions.

That aside you'd have to be suicidal to ride anything with 2 wheels
these days. If the potholes
and spilt oil don't get you , the unobservant car/bus/truck drivers
will. Either that or you'll
run out of ability and crash all on your own anyway. Still , one good
thing about motorbikes
is that there'll always be plenty of organs for the NHS donor program.

B2003

This chap may have a point there. The discussion in Britain always
seems to be about driving vs public transport, but there is no reason
the two modes should be mutually exclusive. Intermodal transport is
rarely discussed as a serious option in politics. Why is that? For
instance, there isn't a single Park and Ride facility on the entire
M25 where it intersects railways.  Why do the two modes of commuting
ignore each other?

On Jun 12, 3:47 pm, Mastuna  wrote:
> This chap may have a point there. The discussion in Britain always
> seems to be about driving vs public transport, but there is no reason
> the two modes should be mutually exclusive. Intermodal transport is
> rarely discussed as a serious option in politics. Why is that? For
> instance, there isn't a single Park and Ride facility on the entire
> M25 where it intersects railways.  Why do the two modes of commuting
> ignore each other?

Most terminus tube stations have car parks , though these arn't nearly
park & ride size, but some people do commute short distances from
outside london to use them. I guess the problem there is theres no
room to put any more parking in. I don't think however that many
people drive into central london to go to work. Anyone driving in
london in the rush hour probably work somewhere in the suburbs thats
difficult to get to (or takes a long time) by public transport. I
drive to work in a london suburb - I could use the tube but that takes
70 mins minimum on the occasions I've used it. Driving takes 40 mins
or less (once did it in 25 mins) - 60 to 90 mins a day less commute
time. No contest I'm afraid.

B2003

wrote in message 
news:85610f2a-becb-4cb9-a210-c96e433f0121@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 3:47 pm, Mastuna  wrote:
>> This chap may have a point there. The discussion in Britain always
>> seems to be about driving vs public transport, but there is no reason
>> the two modes should be mutually exclusive. Intermodal transport is
>> rarely discussed as a serious option in politics. Why is that? For
>> instance, there isn't a single Park and Ride facility on the entire
>> M25 where it intersects railways.  Why do the two modes of commuting
>> ignore each other?
>
> Most terminus tube stations have car parks , though these arn't nearly
> park & ride size, but some people do commute short distances from
> outside london to use them. I guess the problem there is theres no
> room to put any more parking in. I don't think however that many
> people drive into central london to go to work. Anyone driving in
> london in the rush hour probably work somewhere in the suburbs thats
> difficult to get to (or takes a long time) by public transport. I
> drive to work in a london suburb - I could use the tube but that takes
> 70 mins minimum on the occasions I've used it. Driving takes 40 mins
> or less (once did it in 25 mins) - 60 to 90 mins a day less commute
> time. No contest I'm afraid.

Integrated transport policy? That'll be the day!

The public transport zealots who think that PT can completely replace cars 
probably live in a well-served city like London (though, as you say, some 
suburbs fare better than others). The two can and do complement each other 
in some cases. Out here in the commuter-land green belt, most people working 
in central London will travel by train, easily the fastest method. But many 
people live several miles from the local station, and while the train 
service is pretty goos with 4 trains/hour even outside rush hour, the local 
bus services are pitiful and do not cover all the rural areas. Therefore a 
large number drive to the station, and equivalent to P&R.

But the amount of car parking space is completely inadequate, even adding up 
the station's own parking (can't park there without a season ticket before 
9:30, by which time it's full anyway) and the local council-provided ones, 
there's not enough, so people park on the nearby residential roads, or those 
without yellow lines. And now, they (council/residents) are talking about 
putting down more yellow lines on those streets, but not providing more 
off-street parking. Where's the sense in that? What are the commuters 
supposed to do? They'll end up just driving all the way, or at least to a 
more distant station with parking, both of which put more total traffic on 
the roads.

Completely barmy.

Mastuna  wrote:

> This chap may have a point there.

Why are you calling yourself "this chap", Masturbator?

El Camionero wrote:
> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter

Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really 
works with your solution.

Because I can carry two young kids (one is a toddler) on a scooter.

Worst troll effort this week...

-- 
Abo

Abo <no@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
>> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter

> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really
> works with your solution.

I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my office to 
a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

Adrian wrote:
> Abo <no@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>
>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>> really works with your solution.
>
> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

Carefully.

Adrian wrote:
> Abo <no@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
> 
>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
>>> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
> 
>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really
>> works with your solution.
> 
> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my office to 
> a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter 
with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.

Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
>>>> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter

>>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really
>>> works with your solution.

>> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my office
>> to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport
 
> Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
> with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.
>
> Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

Duhg? Any suggestions?

I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to work 
from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my car 
usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I flagellate 
myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?

On 12 Jun, 20:09, Adrian  wrote:
> Tony Dragon  gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
> >>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> >>>> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
> >>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really
> >>> works with your solution.
> >> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my office
> >> to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport
> > Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
> > with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.
>
> > Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.
>
> Duhg? Any suggestions?
>
Yes, Drain.
>
> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to work
> from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my car
> usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I flagellate
> myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?
>
The server could be delivered by TNT or taxi, for example, instead of
using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of hypermobility by
car, much of which is non-essential.

Instead of cherry-picked examples of why a car is essential in a
particular instance why not mention the much greater range of
activities which could be accomplished on a scooter or a bicycle with
trailer? We all know the answer don't we, pitiful car addiction which
excludes almost all other forms of transport, except long and short
haul flying..

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>> >>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>> >>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>> >>> really works with your solution.

>> >> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
>> >> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

>> > Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
>> > with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.

>> > Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

>> Duhg? Any suggestions?

> Yes, Drain.

>> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to
>> work from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my
>> car usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I
>> flagellate myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?

> The server could be delivered by TNT 

at 1am?

> or taxi, for example

Odd, I always thought a taxi WAS a car.

Anyway, how would the taxi driver get into my office at 1am to collect it?
 
> instead of using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of 
> hypermobility by car, much of which is non-essential.

Doug wrote:

> The server could be delivered by TNT or taxi, for example, instead of
> using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of hypermobility by
> car

The taxi would use the same amount of fuel as his own car you you 
pillock. It would also cost a lot less in expenses than what the taxi 
driver would charge and therefore makes good business sense.

-- 
Abo

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>> >>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>> >>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>> >>> really works with your solution.

>> >> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
>> >> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

>> > Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
>> > with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.

>> > Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

>> Duhg? Any suggestions?

> Yes, Drain.

>> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to
>> work from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my
>> car usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I
>> flagellate myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?

> The server could be delivered by TNT 

at 1am?

> or taxi, for example

Odd, I always thought a taxi WAS a car.

Anyway, how would the taxi driver get into my office at 1am to collect it?
 
> instead of using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of 
> hypermobility by car, much of which is non-essential.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>> >>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>> >>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>> >>> really works with your solution.

>> >> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
>> >> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

>> > Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
>> > with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.

>> > Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

>> Duhg? Any suggestions?

> Yes, Drain.

>> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to
>> work from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my
>> car usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I
>> flagellate myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?

> The server could be delivered by TNT 

at 1am?

> or taxi, for example

Odd, I always thought a taxi WAS a car.

Anyway, how would the taxi driver get into my office at 1am to collect it?
 
> instead of using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of 
> hypermobility by car, much of which is non-essential.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>> >>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>> >>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>> >>> really works with your solution.

>> >> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
>> >> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

>> > Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
>> > with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.

>> > Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

>> Duhg? Any suggestions?

> Yes, Drain.

>> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to
>> work from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my
>> car usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I
>> flagellate myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?

> The server could be delivered by TNT 

at 1am?

> or taxi, for example

Odd, I always thought a taxi WAS a car.

Anyway, how would the taxi driver get into my office at 1am to collect it?
 
> instead of using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of 
> hypermobility by car, much of which is non-essential.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>> >>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>> >>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>> >>> really works with your solution.

>> >> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
>> >> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

>> > Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
>> > with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.

>> > Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

>> Duhg? Any suggestions?

> Yes, Drain.

>> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to
>> work from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my
>> car usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I
>> flagellate myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?

> The server could be delivered by TNT 

at 1am?

> or taxi, for example

Odd, I always thought a taxi WAS a car.

Anyway, how would the taxi driver get into my office at 1am to collect it?
 
> instead of using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of 
> hypermobility by car, much of which is non-essential.

Doug wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 20:09, Adrian  wrote:
>> Tony Dragon  gurgled happily, sounding much
>> like they were saying:
>>
>>>>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
>>>>>> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>>>>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really
>>>>> works with your solution.
>>>> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my office
>>>> to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport
>>> Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
>>> with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.
>>> Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.
>> Duhg? Any suggestions?
>>
> Yes, Drain.
>> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to work
>> from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my car
>> usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I flagellate
>> myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?
>>
> The server could be delivered by TNT or taxi, for example, instead of
> using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of hypermobility by
> car, much of which is non-essential.

So TNT use their vehicle to deliver it, and then he follows on PT to 
install it?
> 
> Instead of cherry-picked examples of why a car is essential in a
> particular instance why not mention the much greater range of
> activities which could be accomplished on a scooter or a bicycle with
> trailer? We all know the answer don't we, pitiful car addiction which
> excludes almost all other forms of transport, except long and short
> haul flying..

It's terrible if somebody cherry picks isn't it?
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 

After delivering the server, what about his onward journey, who is the 
excess time booked to?
-- 
Tony the Dragon

Adrian wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>>>>>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>>>>>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>>>>>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>>>>>> really works with your solution.
> 
>>>>> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
>>>>> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport
> 
>>>> Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
>>>> with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.
> 
>>>> Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.
> 
>>> Duhg? Any suggestions?
> 
>> Yes, Drain.
> 
>>> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to
>>> work from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my
>>> car usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I
>>> flagellate myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?
> 
>> The server could be delivered by TNT 
> 
> at 1am?
> 
>> or taxi, for example
> 
> Odd, I always thought a taxi WAS a car.
> 
> Anyway, how would the taxi driver get into my office at 1am to collect it?
>  
>> instead of using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of 
>> hypermobility by car, much of which is non-essential.

Fuckin hell Adrian, you really wanted to make the point there, didn't 
you? ;)

-- 
Abo

Abo <no@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> Fuckin hell Adrian, you really wanted to make the point there, didn't
> you? ;)

<mutters something inaudible, but very rude, about Motzarella's servers>

On 12 Jun, 19:32, Adrian  wrote:
> Abo <n...@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
> >> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
> >> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
> > Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really
> > works with your solution.
>
> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my office to
> a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport

I managed to transport a large television strapped to the carrier of
my BMW, I found it easy to carry lengths of timber from the superstore
and a ladder, the shopping has never posed a problem, try it yourself
it's amazing what you can carry safely and legally if you think
positively. The traffic situation in the cities I used the bike made
daytime local runs too time consuming by car.

NM

Brimstone wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Abo <no@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
>>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
>>> really works with your solution.
>> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
>> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport
> 
> Carefully.
> 
> 
...and very slowly.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Adrian wrote:
> Abo <no@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> Fuckin hell Adrian, you really wanted to make the point there, didn't
>> you? ;)
>
> <mutters something inaudible, but very rude, about Motzarella's
> servers>

Sounds a bit cheesy to me.

On Jun 13, 7:27 am, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport
> >> >>>> cuz it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
> >> >>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four
> >> >>> really works with your solution.
> >> >> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my
> >> >> office to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport
> >> > Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter
> >> > with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.
> >> > Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.
> >> Duhg? Any suggestions?
> > Yes, Drain.
> >> I mean, it's a server. Computer equipment. Needed to allow people to
> >> work from home and save them from having to commute. Does that mean my
> >> car usage is permitted? Am I allowed to keep my car, but only if I
> >> flagellate myself after driving it? What if I enjoy the flagellation?
> > The server could be delivered by TNT
>

I had a toilet delivered by TNT... oddly the 78 bits it were in wasn't
the same number of bits that it was packaged as ( 1 bit).

As to trusting them with a vital server....

Fod

Conor wrote:
> In article <13400ffe-5dab-4418-9fa0-
> b0c7a7e7a41d@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, El Camionero says...
>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
>> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter. 
> 
>> Stop complaning
>> and blaming everyone else its time for u to take responsibility for
>> the planet high oil prices are here to stay!
>>
> What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause 
> TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more 
> economical.

He meant the push-along-with-one-foot type, surely?

In article <777a328c-c386-4202-bd36-601553c4e162
@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> The server could be delivered by TNT or taxi, for example, instead of
> using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of hypermobility by
> car, much of which is non-essential.
> 
I wouldn't trust TNT to deliver a lump of rock without fucking it up 
after what I've seen this last fortnight. A taxi uses as much fuel as a 
car and costs more.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <2b79efcb-a690-433b-a997-f1dabed9bbd0
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fod says...

> I had a toilet delivered by TNT... oddly the 78 bits it were in wasn't
> the same number of bits that it was packaged as ( 1 bit).

Wifeys company sent a metal sign down to Essex. Despite being well 
wrapped and being banded to a pallet with one pallet on either side, 
they've managed to gouge it and the other three sent as replacements.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> In article <2b79efcb-a690-433b-a997-f1dabed9bbd0
> @x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fod says...
> 
>> I had a toilet delivered by TNT... oddly the 78 bits it were in wasn't
>> the same number of bits that it was packaged as ( 1 bit).
> 
> Wifeys company sent a metal sign down to Essex. Despite being well 
> wrapped and being banded to a pallet with one pallet on either side, 
> they've managed to gouge it and the other three sent as replacements.

Hmm, I've got to send two servers to Germany shortly. Looks like TNT 
won't be getting the business. Any good suggestions on who to use, other 
than take them there myself?

-- 
Abo

Abo wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>> In article <2b79efcb-a690-433b-a997-f1dabed9bbd0
>> @x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fod says...
>>
>>> I had a toilet delivered by TNT... oddly the 78 bits it were in
>>> wasn't the same number of bits that it was packaged as ( 1 bit).
>>
>> Wifeys company sent a metal sign down to Essex. Despite being well
>> wrapped and being banded to a pallet with one pallet on either side,
>> they've managed to gouge it and the other three sent as replacements.
>
> Hmm, I've got to send two servers to Germany shortly. Looks like TNT
> won't be getting the business. Any good suggestions on who to use,
> other than take them there myself?

Have you got a reliable mate with some time to spare?

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>> Abo <no@spam.thanks> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were 
>> saying:
>>
>>>> Just use public transport LOL. And if u cant use public transport cuz
>>>> it takes too long or u live in the country then use a scooter
>>
>>> Because getting a week's worth of shopping for a family of four really
>>> works with your solution.
>>
>> I'm wondering how I'm meant to transport 40kg of server from my office 
>> to a customer's office at 1am by scooter or public transport
> 
> Simple, strap the server to a set of wheels. attach server to scooter 
> with short rope, proceed to customer, stop slowly.
> 
> Or of course you could ask for Dougs advice.

Request Duhg to write a report showing you how it should be done. Then 
wait, and wait, and wait...
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Abo wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> 
>> The server could be delivered by TNT or taxi, for example, instead of
>> using this as an excuse to engage in a wide range of hypermobility by
>> car
> 
> The taxi would use the same amount of fuel as his own car you you 
> pillock. It would also cost a lot less in expenses than what the taxi 
> driver would charge and therefore makes good business sense.

Especially at 1am

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

In article <g2utdc$9ne$2@news.albasani.net>, Abo says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <2b79efcb-a690-433b-a997-f1dabed9bbd0
> > @x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Fod says...
> > 
> >> I had a toilet delivered by TNT... oddly the 78 bits it were in wasn't
> >> the same number of bits that it was packaged as ( 1 bit).
> > 
> > Wifeys company sent a metal sign down to Essex. Despite being well 
> > wrapped and being banded to a pallet with one pallet on either side, 
> > they've managed to gouge it and the other three sent as replacements.
> 
> Hmm, I've got to send two servers to Germany shortly. Looks like TNT 
> won't be getting the business. Any good suggestions on who to use, other 
> than take them there myself?
> 
Take them there yourself. They're OK at the depot. Its when they get to 
the hubs on the night trunk where the fun and games start.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote
>
> What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause
> TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more
> economical.

If the bit about pollution is true, it is only a quirk of the law, not a 
fundamental failing of the scooter..

Besides, since pollution (which is CO, HC and NOx) is always defined as 
proportion of total exhaust mix, a machine using one quarter of the fuel 
(and hence total gas use) could be permitted to be 4 times as polluting.

.

DavidR wrote:
> "Conor"  wrote
> 
>>What an excellent idea. Use a Scooter which has been PROVEN to cause
>>TWICE as much pollution as a car despite being four times more
>>economical.
> 
> 
> If the bit about pollution is true, it is only a quirk of the law, not a 
> fundamental failing of the scooter..
> 
> Besides, since pollution (which is CO, HC and NOx) is always defined as 
> proportion of total exhaust mix, a machine using one quarter of the fuel 
> (and hence total gas use) could be permitted to be 4 times as polluting.

  No it isn't. Table 3.6 gives pollution per vehicle km:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007edition/section3energyenvironment.pdf

"Nick Finnigan"  wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>>
>> Besides, since pollution (which is CO, HC and NOx) is always defined as 
>> proportion of total exhaust mix, a machine using one quarter of the fuel 
>> (and hence total gas use) could be permitted to be 4 times as polluting.
>
>  No it isn't. Table 3.6 gives pollution per vehicle km:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007edition/section3energyenvironment.pdf

An interesting table. I stand though because the MOT can only measures 
percentage.

The table does have have a couple of faults though. Firstly it doesn't say 
what the unit of emission per kilometre is - grammes or grains of fairy 
dust?

The second is that whereas a pre 1993 car typically produces 100 grains of 
fairy dust of CO2, a modern car supposedly only produces 79. I think that 
involves a bit of a credibility stretch.

On 24 Jun, 00:10, "DavidR"  wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan"  wrote
>
> > DavidR wrote:
>
> >> Besides, since pollution (which is CO, HC and NOx) is always defined as
> >> proportion of total exhaust mix, a machine using one quarter of the fuel
> >> (and hence total gas use) could be permitted to be 4 times as polluting.
>
> >  No it isn't. Table 3.6 gives pollution per vehicle km:
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007...
>
> An interesting table. I stand though because the MOT can only measures
> percentage.
>
> The table does have have a couple of faults though. Firstly it doesn't say
> what the unit of emission per kilometre is - grammes or grains of fairy
> dust?
>
> The second is that whereas a pre 1993 car typically produces 100 grains of
> fairy dust of CO2, a modern car supposedly only produces 79. I think that
> involves a bit of a credibility stretch.

Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new and it is a
mere 32mpg at best. Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of
ALL transport and that it has increased since 1995.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  wrote:

> Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new

Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6 Mt
to 17.3 Mt since 1996. Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in fuel
consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.

> and it is a mere 32mpg at best.

Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
*average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
*at best*.

> Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of ALL transport and that it
> has increased since 1995.

Table 3.6 shows that modern cars have reduced CO2 emissions to 79% of
the pre 1993 level.

Table 3.7 shows a mix of real and made-up numbers. The real numbers show
that transport accounts for approximately 25% of all fuel use. The made
up numbers show a massive surge in transport use in the near future,
with no explanation as to why this would occur.

Perhaps you were stupid enough to confuse make-believe with fact?

Steve Firth wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
>
>> Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
>> average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
>> this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new
>
> Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6
> Mt to 17.3 Mt since 1996. Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in
> fuel consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.
>
>> and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
>
> Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> *at best*.
>
>> Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of ALL transport and
>> that it has increased since 1995.
>
> Table 3.6 shows that modern cars have reduced CO2 emissions to 79% of
> the pre 1993 level.
>
> Table 3.7 shows a mix of real and made-up numbers. The real numbers
> show that transport accounts for approximately 25% of all fuel use.
> The made up numbers show a massive surge in transport use in the near
> future, with no explanation as to why this would occur.
>
> Perhaps you were stupid enough to confuse make-believe with fact?

You make that sound unusual.

On 24 Jun, 11:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> > average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> > this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new
>
> Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6 Mt
> to 17.3 Mt since 1996.
>
Estimated.
>
>> Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in fuel
> consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.
>
For new cars only.
>
The average fuel consumption is on Table 3.4 You are also ignoring
Table 3.2 which shows that road transport petroleum consumption has
increased from 40.78 in 1996 to 42.51 in 2006.
>
> > and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
>
> Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> *at best*.
>
What is it about the word average you do not understand, i.e. the best
average is 32mpg?
>
> > Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of ALL transport and that it
> > has increased since 1995.
>
> Table 3.6 shows that modern cars have reduced CO2 emissions to 79% of
> the pre 1993 level.
>
Which does not take into account increased car numbers.
>
> Table 3.7 shows a mix of real and made-up numbers. The real numbers show
> that transport accounts for approximately 25% of all fuel use. The made
> up numbers show a massive surge in transport use in the near future,
> with no explanation as to why this would occur.
>
> Perhaps you were stupid enough to confuse make-believe with fact?

You are even too stupid to know how to read tables properly.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  wrote:

> On 24 Jun, 11:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Doug  wrote:
> > > Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> > > average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> > > this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new
> >
> > Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6 Mt
> > to 17.3 Mt since 1996.
> >
> Estimated.

Oh dear, if you don't trust the data in report then I suggest that to
read some data and to ignore that which you don't liek is "cherry
picking."

> >> Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in fuel
> > consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.
> >
> For new cars only.

Of course, new cars being the ones made with current technology. No one
in their right minds woudl expect a ten year old car to suddenly improve
its mpg to match that of a car made yesterday.

> The average fuel consumption is on Table 3.4 You are also ignoring
> Table 3.2 which shows that road transport petroleum consumption has
> increased from 40.78 in 1996 to 42.51 in 2006.

I am ignoring nothing Duhg, I'm simply not cherry picking.

> > > and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
> >
> > Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> > *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> > *at best*.
> >
> What is it about the word average you do not understand, i.e. the best
> average is 32mpg?

You didn't say "the best average" you said "it is a mere 32mpg *at
best*" If you can't remember what you wrote a few hours ago when the
quote is reproduced above then you really need the services of a
gerontologist.

> > > Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of ALL transport and that it
> > > has increased since 1995.
> >
> > Table 3.6 shows that modern cars have reduced CO2 emissions to 79% of
> > the pre 1993 level.
> >
> Which does not take into account increased car numbers.

<sigh>

Total petrol consumption is down as well. So, more cars (according to
you) less petrol used, and reduced CO2 emissions.

> > Table 3.7 shows a mix of real and made-up numbers. The real numbers show
> > that transport accounts for approximately 25% of all fuel use. The made
> > up numbers show a massive surge in transport use in the near future,
> > with no explanation as to why this would occur.
> >
> > Perhaps you were stupid enough to confuse make-believe with fact?
> 
> You are even too stupid to know how to read tables properly.

Abuse, Excellent.

DavidR wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan"  wrote
> 
>>DavidR wrote:
>>
>>>Besides, since pollution (which is CO, HC and NOx) is always defined as 
>>>proportion of total exhaust mix, a machine using one quarter of the fuel 
>>>(and hence total gas use) could be permitted to be 4 times as polluting.
>>
>> No it isn't. Table 3.6 gives pollution per vehicle km:
> 
> 
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007edition/section3energyenvironment.pdf
> 
> An interesting table. I stand though because the MOT can only measures 
> percentage.

  Eh?

> The table does have have a couple of faults though. Firstly it doesn't say 
> what the unit of emission per kilometre is - grammes or grains of fairy 
> dust?

  It does say what the numbers represent.

> The second is that whereas a pre 1993 car typically produces 100 grains of 
> fairy dust of CO2, a modern car supposedly only produces 79. I think that 
> involves a bit of a credibility stretch.

  What do you think is credible (in whatever units you prefer)?

On 24 Jun, 15:18, Doug  wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 11:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:> Doug  wrote:
> > > Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> > > average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> > > this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new
>
> > Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6 Mt
> > to 17.3 Mt since 1996.
>
> Estimated.
>
> >> Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in fuel
> > consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.
>
> For new cars only.
>
> The average fuel consumption is on Table 3.4 You are also ignoring
> Table 3.2 which shows that road transport petroleum consumption has
> increased from 40.78 in 1996 to 42.51 in 2006.
>
> > > and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
>
> > Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> > *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> > *at best*.
>
> What is it about the word average you do not understand, i.e. the best
> average is 32mpg?

OK, can you explain what you believe is meant by "average"?  And
please illustrate by letting us know what the average of these numbers
is: 18, 24, 30, 36, 42.

Go on, Gollum, give us all another laugh.

Nick Finnigan  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>>> No it isn't. Table 3.6 gives pollution per vehicle km:

>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/
>> tsgb/2007edition/section3energyenvironment.pdf

>> An interesting table. I stand though because the MOT can only measures
>> percentage.

>   Eh?

He's right, in that the emissions tests as part of the MOT are tested as 
a proportion of the total exhaust gases - either a %age (CO, CO2) or 
parts per million (unburnt hydrocarbons). I forget exactly what's 
measured for the diesel test, but seem to recall it's primarily exhaust 
opacity.

Adrian wrote:
> Nick Finnigan  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
> 
> 
>>>An interesting table. I stand though because the MOT can only measures
>>>percentage.
> 
>>  Eh?
> 
> He's right, 

  What is he suggesting about why he stands then?

> in that the emissions tests as part of the MOT are tested as 
> a proportion of the total exhaust gases - either a %age (CO, CO2) or 

  CO2 is not measured in the MoT.

> parts per million (unburnt hydrocarbons). I forget exactly what's 
> measured for the diesel test, but seem to recall it's primarily exhaust 
> opacity.

  measured in something other than percentage.

In article <47313215-380e-4f01-abd1-
4d0bcc722e0c@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new and it is a
> mere 32mpg at best. Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of
> ALL transport and that it has increased since 1995.
> 
The only car I've owned that's done under 32MPG was my 2.8i V6 Capri 
and even that managed 28..

Mondeo this week is currently on 59.4MPG.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 24 Jun, 17:48, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > On 24 Jun, 11:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Doug  wrote:
> > > > Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> > > > average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> > > > this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new
>
> > > Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6 Mt
> > > to 17.3 Mt since 1996.
>
> > Estimated.
>
> Oh dear, if you don't trust the data in report then I suggest that to
> read some data and to ignore that which you don't liek is "cherry
> picking."
>
You really are confused aren't you. Table 3.1 shows that overall
petrol use has decline while diesel use has almost doubled as motorist
migrate to diesel cars, which has absolutely nothing to do with the
fact that average petrol consumption over the years has remained at
just over 30mpg.

> > >> Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in fuel
> > > consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.
>
> > For new cars only.
>
> Of course, new cars being the ones made with current technology. No one
> in their right minds woudl expect a ten year old car to suddenly improve
> its mpg to match that of a car made yesterday.
>
Well, according to the table 3.4 new  cars are no better than old
cars, probably because motorists are using more gas-guzzlers than
previously.
>
> > The average fuel consumption is on Table 3.4 You are also ignoring
> > Table 3.2 which shows that road transport petroleum consumption has
> > increased from 40.78 in 1996 to 42.51 in 2006.
>
> I am ignoring nothing Duhg, I'm simply not cherry picking.
>
Nope. You don't know how to read the tables, as I have indicated, or
else you are loathe to admit that average petrol consumption has
remained unchanged at a pathetic 3.1mpg over the years.
>
> > > > and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
>
> > > Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> > > *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> > > *at best*.
>
> > What is it about the word average you do not understand, i.e. the best
> > average is 32mpg?
>
> You didn't say "the best average" you said "it is a mere 32mpg *at
> best*" If you can't remember what you wrote a few hours ago when the
> quote is reproduced above then you really need the services of a
> gerontologist.
>
Don't try to seek refuge in semantics again.
>
> > > > Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of ALL transport and that it
> > > > has increased since 1995.
>
> > > Table 3.6 shows that modern cars have reduced CO2 emissions to 79% of
> > > the pre 1993 level.
>
> > Which does not take into account increased car numbers.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Total petrol consumption is down as well. So, more cars (according to
> you) less petrol used, and reduced CO2 emissions.
>
See above. Fewer petrol cars more diesel cars, that is why petrol use
has declined despite average petrol consumption of cars remaining the
same.
>
> > > Table 3.7 shows a mix of real and made-up numbers. The real numbers show
> > > that transport accounts for approximately 25% of all fuel use. The made
> > > up numbers show a massive surge in transport use in the near future,
> > > with no explanation as to why this would occur.
>
> > > Perhaps you were stupid enough to confuse make-believe with fact?
>
> > You are even too stupid to know how to read tables properly.
>
> Abuse, Excellent.
>
Look who is talking, Mr Arch Abuser. Now admit that you have confused
overall petrol use with average petrol consumption.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  wrote:

> On 24 Jun, 17:48, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Doug  wrote:
> > > On 24 Jun, 11:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > > Doug  wrote:
> > > > > Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> > > > > average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> > > > > this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new
> >
> > > > Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6 Mt
> > > > to 17.3 Mt since 1996.
> >
> > > Estimated.
> >
> > Oh dear, if you don't trust the data in report then I suggest that to
> > read some data and to ignore that which you don't liek is "cherry
> > picking."
> >
> You really are confused aren't you. Table 3.1 shows that overall
> petrol use has decline while diesel use has almost doubled as motorist
> migrate to diesel cars, which has absolutely nothing to do with the
> fact that average petrol consumption over the years has remained at
> just over 30mpg.

The only one confused here is you. You said "a very interesting table
which shows among other things that the average *petrol* consumption of
cars"

The only cars that consume petrol are petrol cars. Hence there's no need
to wibble about diesel cars.

The DfT document "Vehicle licensing statistics: 2007" shows that the
total number of petrol propelled cars registered in the Uk *increased*
from 20.5 million in 1998 to 21.5 million in 2007. Hence your empty and
unsupported by evidence claim about motorists migrating to diesel
powered cars turns out to be bollocks.

> > > >> Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in fuel
> > > > consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.
> >
> > > For new cars only.
> >
> > Of course, new cars being the ones made with current technology. No one
> > in their right minds woudl expect a ten year old car to suddenly improve
> > its mpg to match that of a car made yesterday.
> >
> Well, according to the table 3.4 new  cars are no better than old
> cars, probably because motorists are using more gas-guzzlers than
> previously.

You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average for
cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.

> > > The average fuel consumption is on Table 3.4 You are also ignoring
> > > Table 3.2 which shows that road transport petroleum consumption has
> > > increased from 40.78 in 1996 to 42.51 in 2006.
> >
> > I am ignoring nothing Duhg, I'm simply not cherry picking.
> >
> Nope. You don't know how to read the tables, as I have indicated,

<snork> The only one that can't read the tables here is you.

> or else you are loathe to admit that average petrol consumption has
> remained unchanged at a pathetic 3.1mpg over the years.

Trouble with your maths, again Duhng? The average petrol consumption is
not 3.1 mpg.

> > > > > and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
> >
> > > > Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> > > > *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> > > > *at best*.
> >
> > > What is it about the word average you do not understand, i.e. the best
> > > average is 32mpg?
> >
> > You didn't say "the best average" you said "it is a mere 32mpg *at
> > best*" If you can't remember what you wrote a few hours ago when the
> > quote is reproduced above then you really need the services of a
> > gerontologist.
> >
> Don't try to seek refuge in semantics again.

Don't try to prove that "semantics" ranks alongside "hypocrite" as one
of the words you don't understand. You stated clearly that it was 32mpg
"at best" i.e. that no vehicle on the roads exceeds 32mpg. Learn to
express yourself in the English language you dolt.

> > > > > Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of ALL transport and
> > > > > that it has increased since 1995.
> >
> > > > Table 3.6 shows that modern cars have reduced CO2 emissions to 79% of
> > > > the pre 1993 level.
> >
> > > Which does not take into account increased car numbers.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Total petrol consumption is down as well. So, more cars (according to
> > you) less petrol used, and reduced CO2 emissions.
> >
> See above. Fewer petrol cars more diesel cars, that is why petrol use
> has declined despite average petrol consumption of cars remaining the
> same.

Your claim that there are fewer petrol cars is a lie. So try again,
bozo.

> > > > Table 3.7 shows a mix of real and made-up numbers. The real numbers show
> > > > that transport accounts for approximately 25% of all fuel use. The made
> > > > up numbers show a massive surge in transport use in the near future,
> > > > with no explanation as to why this would occur.
> >
> > > > Perhaps you were stupid enough to confuse make-believe with fact?
> >
> > > You are even too stupid to know how to read tables properly.
> >
> > Abuse, Excellent.
> >
> Look who is talking, Mr Arch Abuser. Now admit that you have confused
> overall petrol use with average petrol consumption.

I have done no such thing. Now admit that your ranting hyperbole was a
lie without foundation in evidence.

In article <7d308dc5-8f8d-4ec8-b5d1-0d751b866447
@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> You really are confused aren't you. Table 3.1 shows that overall
> petrol use has decline while diesel use has almost doubled as motorist
> migrate to diesel cars, which has absolutely nothing to do with the
> fact that average petrol consumption over the years has remained at
> just over 30mpg.
>
My 22 year old Ford Capri 2L does 37MPG and thats doing a 300 mile 
round trip with 2 adults, 2 kids plus picnic gear in and 3 trips down 
Santa Pod drag strip.

> Well, according to the table 3.4 new  cars are no better than old
> cars, probably because motorists are using more gas-guzzlers than
> previously.

Or because modern cars are 1/3 heavier than the older ones because of 
safety features and are also far more powerful. My Capri with a 
standard 2L engine develops 88BHP which I suspect a modern 1.4L engine 
is capable of.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 26 Jun, 13:12, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > On 24 Jun, 17:48, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Doug  wrote:
> > > > On 24 Jun, 11:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > > > Doug  wrote:
> > > > > > Yes a very interesting table which shows among other things that the
> > > > > > average petrol consumption of cars, despite the wild claims made on
> > > > > > this NG, is about the same for 10 year old cars and new
>
> > > > > Untrue, table 3.1 shows that petrol consumption has fallen from 20.6 Mt
> > > > > to 17.3 Mt since 1996.
>
> > > > Estimated.
>
> > > Oh dear, if you don't trust the data in report then I suggest that to
> > > read some data and to ignore that which you don't liek is "cherry
> > > picking."
>
> > You really are confused aren't you. Table 3.1 shows that overall
> > petrol use has decline while diesel use has almost doubled as motorist
> > migrate to diesel cars, which has absolutely nothing to do with the
> > fact that average petrol consumption over the years has remained at
> > just over 30mpg.
>
> The only one confused here is you. You said "a very interesting table
> which shows among other things that the average *petrol* consumption of
> cars"
>
> The only cars that consume petrol are petrol cars. Hence there's no need
> to wibble about diesel cars.
>
> The DfT document "Vehicle licensing statistics: 2007" shows that the
> total number of petrol propelled cars registered in the Uk *increased*
> from 20.5 million in 1998 to 21.5 million in 2007. Hence your empty and
> unsupported by evidence claim about motorists migrating to diesel
> powered cars turns out to be bollocks.
>

You obviously are also having a reading problem with your own source
as well as the tables.

Compare your tiny 4% increase in petrol cars while in the same period
diesel cars more than doubled, which you avoided mentioning. Semantic
out of that if you can!

>
> > > > >> Also figure 3.5 shows the improvement in fuel
> > > > > consumption over the period 1997 to 2006.
>
> > > > For new cars only.
>
> > > Of course, new cars being the ones made with current technology. No one
> > > in their right minds woudl expect a ten year old car to suddenly improve
> > > its mpg to match that of a car made yesterday.
>
> > Well, according to the table 3.4 new  cars are no better than old
> > cars, probably because motorists are using more gas-guzzlers than
> > previously.
>
> You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
> better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
> for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average for
> cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
>
That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.
>
> > > > The average fuel consumption is on Table 3.4 You are also ignoring
> > > > Table 3.2 which shows that road transport petroleum consumption has
> > > > increased from 40.78 in 1996 to 42.51 in 2006.
>
> > > I am ignoring nothing Duhg, I'm simply not cherry picking.
>
> > Nope. You don't know how to read the tables, as I have indicated,
>
> <snork> The only one that can't read the tables here is you.
>
> > or else you are loathe to admit that average petrol consumption has
> > remained unchanged at a pathetic 3.1mpg over the years.
>
> Trouble with your maths, again Duhng? The average petrol consumption is
> not 3.1 mpg.
>
You are seriously challenging a difference of 0.1mpg, semanticist
Filth?
>
> > > > > > and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
>
> > > > > Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> > > > > *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> > > > > *at best*.
>
> > > > What is it about the word average you do not understand, i.e. the best
> > > > average is 32mpg?
>
> > > You didn't say "the best average" you said "it is a mere 32mpg *at
> > > best*" If you can't remember what you wrote a few hours ago when the
> > > quote is reproduced above then you really need the services of a
> > > gerontologist.
>
> > Don't try to seek refuge in semantics again.
>
> Don't try to prove that "semantics" ranks alongside "hypocrite" as one
> of the words you don't understand. You stated clearly that it was 32mpg
> "at best" i.e. that no vehicle on the roads exceeds 32mpg. Learn to
> express yourself in the English language you dolt.
>
Liar! Clearly I intended that 32mpg was the best AVERAGE. Don't try to
wriggle out of those shocking petrol mpg figures which have not
changed significantly since 1995!
>
>
> > > > > > Also that cars have the biggest CO2 emissions of ALL transport and
> > > > > > that it has increased since 1995.
>
> > > > > Table 3.6 shows that modern cars have reduced CO2 emissions to 79% of
> > > > > the pre 1993 level.
>
> > > > Which does not take into account increased car numbers.
>
> > > <sigh>
>
> > > Total petrol consumption is down as well. So, more cars (according to
> > > you) less petrol used, and reduced CO2 emissions.
>
> > See above. Fewer petrol cars more diesel cars, that is why petrol use
> > has declined despite average petrol consumption of cars remaining the
> > same.
>
> Your claim that there are fewer petrol cars is a lie. So try again,
> bozo.
>
See above. If total consumption of all petrol cars has fallen and
total consumption of all diesel cars has doubled what does that tell
you?
>
> > > > > Table 3.7 shows a mix of real and made-up numbers. The real numbers show
> > > > > that transport accounts for approximately 25% of all fuel use. The made
> > > > > up numbers show a massive surge in transport use in the near future,
> > > > > with no explanation as to why this would occur.
>
> > > > > Perhaps you were stupid enough to confuse make-believe with fact?
>
> > > > You are even too stupid to know how to read tables properly.
>
> > > Abuse, Excellent.
>
> > Look who is talking, Mr Arch Abuser. Now admit that you have confused
> > overall petrol use with average petrol consumption.
>
> I have done no such thing. Now admit that your ranting hyperbole was a
> lie without foundation in evidence.
>
Put up of shut up loser and deal with the fact that average petrol mpg
of cars has not changed since 1995, as shown by the source, and
regardless of your wild semantic evasions.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 26 Jun, 20:57, Conor  wrote:
> In article <7d308dc5-8f8d-4ec8-b5d1-0d751b866447
> @r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> > You really are confused aren't you. Table 3.1 shows that overall
> > petrol use has decline while diesel use has almost doubled as motorist
> > migrate to diesel cars, which has absolutely nothing to do with the
> > fact that average petrol consumption over the years has remained at
> > just over 30mpg.
>
> My 22 year old Ford Capri 2L does 37MPG and thats doing a 300 mile
> round trip with 2 adults, 2 kids plus picnic gear in and 3 trips down
> Santa Pod drag strip.
>
How do you calculate your anecdotal result, what does it ignore,  and
how does this excuse the fact that average petrol consumption of all
the other cars still remains at 32mpg at best, regardless of age?
>
> > Well, according to the table 3.4 new  cars are no better than old
> > cars, probably because motorists are using more gas-guzzlers than
> > previously.
>
> Or because modern cars are 1/3 heavier than the older ones because of
> safety features and are also far more powerful. My Capri with a
> standard 2L engine develops 88BHP which I suspect a modern 1.4L engine
> is capable of.
>
They are still gas guzzlers. Any technical, laughingly called 'green',
improvements are more than outweighed by cravings of hypermobile
wander lust and excesses of performance.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 27 Jun, 07:20, Doug  wrote:

>
> They are still gas guzzlers. Any technical, laughingly called 'green',
> improvements are more than outweighed by cravings of hypermobile
> wander lust and excesses of performance.
>

My 4x4 is very green, it's a used cooking oil guzzler, occasionally a
rapeseed oil guzzler when used oil is not available (increasingly but
not surprisingly, getting harder and harder to find). I'm about to
hypermobilise with deep frivolity to the european continent in it,
couldn't be a more green excursion, no fossil fuels will be burned
during the entire journey, except by the dangerous filthy polluting
ferries across the North Sea..

Why is that laughable Doug?
NM

On 27 Jun, 07:10, Doug  wrote:
> > You're guessing, again. And table 3.4 does not show "new  cars are no
> > better than old cars." Table 3.4 clearly shows that the fleet average
> > for new cars in 2006 was 32mpg and that in the same year the average for
> > cars over 10 years old (i.e. old cars) was 29mpg.
>
> That is a very small difference and far removed from the wild claims
> made by the motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup and who
> often claim 45mpg and more for their wretched cars.

Gollum proves, yet again, that he doesn't understand what "average"
means.

> > > or else you are loathe to admit that average petrol consumption has
> > > remained unchanged at a pathetic 3.1mpg over the years.
>
> > Trouble with your maths, again Duhng? The average petrol consumption is
> > not 3.1 mpg.
>
> You are seriously challenging a difference of 0.1mpg, semanticist
> Filth?

Gollum proves, yet again, that he can't do maths.

> > > > > > > and it is a mere 32mpg at best.
>
> > > > > > Ah, how terribly you do when you do not understand mathematics. The
> > > > > > *average* is 32mpg. That does not mean that fuel consumption is 32mpg
> > > > > > *at best*.
>
> > > > > What is it about the word average you do not understand, i.e. the best
> > > > > average is 32mpg?
>
> > > > You didn't say "the best average" you said "it is a mere 32mpg *at
> > > > best*" If you can't remember what you wrote a few hours ago when the
> > > > quote is reproduced above then you really need the services of a
> > > > gerontologist.
>
> > > Don't try to seek refuge in semantics again.

Gollum proves, yet again, that he doesn't know what the word
"semantics" means.

> > Don't try to prove that "semantics" ranks alongside