"The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe
scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive
poll for The Observer..."

"...Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed
that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are
contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes
think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both
cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite
this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate
change.

Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social
classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's
head of environmental research..."

"...Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said
they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which
they see as 'stealth' taxes..."

So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
explain a lot on this NG.

More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions


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

Doug wrote:
> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
> climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe
> scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive
> poll for The Observer..."
> 
> "...Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed
> that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are
> contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes
> think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both
> cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite
> this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate
> change.
> 
> Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social
> classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's
> head of environmental research..."
> 
> "...Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said
> they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which
> they see as 'stealth' taxes..."
> 
> So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
> denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
> relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
> explain a lot on this NG.
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
> 
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

You know even without reading the article, that last paragraph you 
posted was a complete load of biased bollocks.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  typed:

> So does this mean........

Nope.  Your extrapolations are meaningless and so far from reality that you 
appear uneducated in the extreme.

-- 
Dogpoop
http://www.glass-uk.org/
"You would probably do better not to bother with renewable
energy"  Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.

Doug  wrote:

> relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes

Talking about yourself, again Bollen?

Would you care to list your qualifications here? After all it's not
going to take long, is it?

Doug wrote:
> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
> climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe
> scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive
> poll for The Observer..."
> 
> "...Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed
> that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are
> contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes
> think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both
> cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite
> this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate
> change.
> 
> Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social
> classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's
> head of environmental research..."
> 
> "...Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said
> they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which
> they see as 'stealth' taxes..."
> 
> So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
> denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
> relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
> explain a lot on this NG.

Tell us abot your educational qualifications.

On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:

> So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
> denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
> relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
> explain a lot on this NG.

Yes, I guess so, Duhg.  I doubt many motorists have had enough
education to be able to work out that 0.108 cubic metres is 1.08
litres.  Or that there are two types of ozone.  Or that adding
together waves of wavelengths A and B gives a resultant wave with
wavelength A+B.  Such insights are given to few, fortunately.

On Jun 22, 11:08 am, BrianW  wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
>
> > So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
> > denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
> > relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
> > explain a lot on this NG.
>
> Yes, I guess so, Duhg.  I doubt many motorists have had enough
> education to be able to work out that 0.108 cubic metres is 1.08
> litres.  Or that there are two types of ozone.  Or that adding
> together waves of wavelengths A and B gives a resultant wave with
> wavelength A.  Such insights are given to few, fortunately.

He is also good at trigonometry as well- consider a triangle,
point 'A' = 'Vinces home'
point 'B' = 'Vinces place of work'
point 'C' = 'Vince's wife place of work'

He is able to move point 'A' so that 'A to B'  'A to C' becomes less,
and there is even no inconvenience or polution in the move.

Peter

In message 
, 
BrianW  writes
>On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
>
>> So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
>> denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
>> relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
>> explain a lot on this NG.
>
>Yes, I guess so, Duhg.  I doubt many motorists have had enough
>education to be able to work out that 0.108 cubic metres is 1.08
>litres.  Or that there are two types of ozone.  Or that adding
>together waves of wavelengths A and B gives a resultant wave with
>wavelength A+B.  Such insights are given to few, fortunately.

Is there no beginning to Duhg's wisdom?


-- 
Ed Banger

Ed Banger wrote:
> In message 
> , 
> BrianW  writes
>> On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
>>> denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
>>> relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
>>> explain a lot on this NG.
>>
>> Yes, I guess so, Duhg.  I doubt many motorists have had enough
>> education to be able to work out that 0.108 cubic metres is 1.08
>> litres.  Or that there are two types of ozone.  Or that adding
>> together waves of wavelengths A and B gives a resultant wave with
>> wavelength A+B.  Such insights are given to few, fortunately.
> 
> Is there no beginning to Duhg's wisdom?
> 
> 
There must be, as there is certainly an end.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
> climate change is caused by humans

Could that possibly be because it isn't?

NM

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:cedc57a7-e630-4861-a62e-072cafffdb4d@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
>> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
>> climate change is caused by humans
>
> Could that possibly be because it isn't?
>
Doug, You have to realsie that the car as a form of mass transit cannot be 
uninvented.

You must understand why people would rather be in their own car rather than 
risk go via  transport and risk bumping in Ed, Brainy,all the Steves  et al

These's also not a lot of point in banning cars in the UK If  every sod in 
China for example is P/exing his bike for a Toyota.

Possibly now that we hear that China and possibly India will no longer 
subsidise fuel costs then lower demand in these countries will lower fuel 
costs.
Even China baulked at the thought that 7% of GDP this year wouldbe spent 
subsidising oil

On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
> climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe
> scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive
> poll for The Observer..."
>

The majority of the British public are motorists. So no surprise. They
are probably in cognitive dissonance territory:-

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or
stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The
theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental
cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing
belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.

Often one of the ideas is a fundamental element of ego, like "I am a
good person" or "I made the right decision". This can result in
rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad
choice, or in other cases. Prevention of cognitive dissonance may also
contribute to confirmation bias or denial of discomforting evidence.
If not corrected, this can lead to further bad choices for the sake of
consistency, rather than learning from mistakes." (Wikipedia)

So the scientists just have to be wrong. They are up against the
majority of British motorists, who also believe that they are above-
average drivers.

The British public have also partly rejected the scientific opinion on
MMR, it seems:-

"A teenage boy has become the first person in the UK to die from
measles for two years as cases of the disease continue to rise,
Government scientists have said.
The 17-year-old was admitted to hospital in April with pneumonia,
which developed after he contracted measles. He died in hospital five
weeks later and government scientists are urging doctors to vaccinate
any children who have not had a double dose of the MMR vaccine.
The teenager, from West Yorkshire, who has not been named, had been
born with a poor immune system, leaving him susceptible to infections
and unlikely to have been able to be immunised. However, he would have
been protected if there had been high vaccination rates in the
community.
Because of the MMR scare in the late 1990s when the measles, mumps and
rubella jab was linked to bowel disorders and autism, vaccinations
levels have dropped below the threshold required to control the
diseases. In London less than half of children have had the
recommended two doses of MMR vaccine.
A spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said: "It is very rare
for measles to prove fatal, but, as this tragic case demonstrates, it
can happen where complications occur.
"This unfortunate case underlines the fact that measles is a highly
infectious and dangerous illness.
"This case also demonstrates again the importance of the MMR
vaccine."" (Telegraph)

We will find out who was right in the long term, I suppose.

On 22 Jun, 11:45, NM  wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
>
> > "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
> > climate change is caused by humans
>
> Could that possibly be because it isn't?
>
No because they don't want it to be as it reflects badly on those with
wasteful and polluting lifestyles.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

Doug wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 11:45, NM  wrote:
>> On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
>>> climate change is caused by humans
>>
>> Could that possibly be because it isn't?
>>
> No because they don't want it to be as it reflects badly on those with
> wasteful and polluting lifestyles.

Evidence?

"Doug"  wrote

 > No because they don't want it to be as it reflects badly on those with
> wasteful and polluting lifestyles.


So there never used to be changes in climate before humans came along?



-- 
Regards, Vince.

Long Distance Diary 30th May 2008-  Switzerland

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32454

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:fd6c30cb-f5d6-4754-8e4d-91a1513ef713@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
> climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe
> scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive
> poll for The Observer..."
>
> "...Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed
> that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are
> contributing to climate change',

There are indeed scientific experts that argue against the common view of 
man-made global warming.
The question was not "do *you* think it is not happening" , but "are there 
scientists who think it is not happening".

> and that four out of 10 'sometimes
> think climate change might not be as bad as people say'.

Given that predictions of the effects vary hugely , this is again entirely 
reasonable.

> In both
> cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite
> this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate
> change.

So they aren't sure it is happening , but are concerned in case it is....

Seems fair.

> Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social
> classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's
> head of environmental research..."
>
> "...Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said
> they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which
> they see as 'stealth' taxes..."
>
> So does this mean the least worried, i.e. polluting motorists in
> denial over climate change and cynical about green taxes, are
> relatively uneducated and in the lowest social classes? That would
> explain a lot on this NG.
>
The large majority of the population are motorists or users of privately 
owned cars , and they span all income and intelligence groups.

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

In article <e1fa796a-ddf4-4246-a702-
bb370740612e@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, PeterG says...

> He is also good at trigonometry as well- consider a triangle,
> point 'A' = 'Vinces home'
> point 'B' = 'Vinces place of work'
> point 'C' = 'Vince's wife place of work'
> 
> He is able to move point 'A' so that 'A to B' + 'A to C' becomes less,
> and there is even no inconvenience or polution in the move.
> 
Yebbut that's simple innit? You just merely just have to fold Space 
which even a 5 year old kid can do. If you do that, A, B and C can all 
be in the same place at the same time.


-- 
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 <e1fa796a-ddf4-4246-a702-
> bb370740612e@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, PeterG says...
> 
>> He is also good at trigonometry as well- consider a triangle,
>> point 'A' = 'Vinces home'
>> point 'B' = 'Vinces place of work'
>> point 'C' = 'Vince's wife place of work'
>>
>> He is able to move point 'A' so that 'A to B' + 'A to C' becomes less,
>> and there is even no inconvenience or polution in the move.
>>
> Yebbut that's simple innit? You just merely just have to fold Space 
> which even a 5 year old kid can do. If you do that, A, B and C can all 
> be in the same place at the same time.
> 
> 

Bugger, should have paid attention in school, my mate Hawkin said it 
could be done, wonder what happened to him.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Knight Of The Road  wrote:

> "Doug"  wrote
> 
>  > No because they don't want it to be as it reflects badly on those with
> > wasteful and polluting lifestyles.
> 
> 
> So there never used to be changes in climate before humans came along?

Tsssk, no Duhg has already explained that the UK was on the equator
125,000 years ago and that the hot climate of that period was purely a
"local" effect.

On 22 Jun, 14:56, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <e1fa796a-ddf4-4246-a702-
> > bb3707406...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, PeterG says...
>
> >> He is also good at trigonometry as well- consider a triangle,
> >> point 'A' = 'Vinces home'
> >> point 'B' = 'Vinces place of work'
> >> point 'C' = 'Vince's wife place of work'
>
> >> He is able to move point 'A' so that 'A to B' + 'A to C' becomes less,
> >> and there is even no inconvenience or polution in the move.
>
> > Yebbut that's simple innit? You just merely just have to fold Space
> > which even a 5 year old kid can do. If you do that, A, B and C can all
> > be in the same place at the same time.
>
> Bugger, should have paid attention in school, my mate Hawkin said it
> could be done, wonder what happened to him.
>

If your mate was called Jim, he used a folding map to find an
imaginary island where an imaginary pirate had buried some treasure.
He was accompanied by an imaginary friend called Long John Silver, who
later disappeared, unsurprisingly, with some of the treasure, again
unsurprisingly. Hawkins did all right, but later lost his share of the
treasure by unwise investments in origami.

I'll fold now.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:47:32 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
 wrote:

>On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
>> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
>> climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe
>> scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive
>> poll for The Observer..."
>>
>
>The majority of the British public are motorists. So no surprise. They
>are probably in cognitive dissonance territory:-

I'm doing my bit.

Instead of driving a 15mpg, 0-60mph in 8sec, 145mph Aston Martin DB5,
I drive a car that does 26mpg, 0-60mph in 7sec and 144.5mph (estimate
using simple speed³ = power, got a 3" stainless steel inch drain pipe
for an exhaust +10% power).

Thus I've gained 14% better 0-60mph, lost next to nothing on outright
top speed and use 58% of the fuel with attendant saving of 42% in CO2
emissions.

Financially I'd have been a lot better off buying a DB5 as they are
worth about 6x what they were 10 years ago (doubled in value last
month) while my car is now worth the value of the un-expired portion
of the tax disc.
-- 
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

On 22 Jun, 15:50, Peter Hill  wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:47:32 -0700 (PDT),Squashme
>
>  wrote:
> >On 22 Jun, 05:57, Doug  wrote:
> >> "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that
> >> climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe
> >> scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive
> >> poll for The Observer..."
>
> >The majority of the British public are motorists. So no surprise. They
> >are probably in cognitive dissonance territory:-
>
> I'm doing my bit.
>
> Instead of driving a 15mpg, 0-60mph in 8sec, 145mph Aston Martin DB5,
> I drive a car that does 26mpg, 0-60mph in 7sec and 144.5mph (estimate
> using simple speed³ = power, got a 3" stainless steel inch drain pipe
> for an exhaust % power).
>
> Thus I've gained 14% better 0-60mph, lost next to nothing on outright
> top speed and use 58% of the fuel with attendant saving of 42% in CO2
> emissions.
>
> Financially I'd have been a lot better off buying a DB5 as they are
> worth about 6x what they were 10 years ago (doubled in value last
> month) while my car is now worth the value of the un-expired portion
> of the tax disc.

"What does it profit a man if he gains the
whole world, but loses his soul?" Or in this case, gains a car with
more soul and more profit, but loses the world?

And the point of 0-60mph in 7 or 8 seconds would be what?

On Jun 22, 11:08 am, BrianW  wrote:

>  Or that adding together waves of wavelengths A and B gives
> a resultant wave with wavelength A.  Such insights are
> given to few, fortunately.

Woah! Is this a new Dougism I've missed? Tell me more!

On Jun 22, 2:34 pm, "Knight Of The Road" 
wrote:

> So there never used to be changes in climate before humans came along?


Ask him what drives evolution. Go on, I dare you! He'll not answer
though, I'll guess.

On 22 Jun, 23:10, conkers...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:08�am, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > �Or that adding together waves of wavelengths A and B gives
> > a resultant wave with wavelength A. �Such insights are
> > given to few, fortunately.
>
> Woah! Is this a new Dougism I've missed? Tell me more!

Take a look at this thread (I only discovered it myself a few days
ago)

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/browse_frm/thread/774afea401f462e5/c1660eed4684c246?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#c1660eed4684c246

Dung attempts to argue with Steve Firth about Milenkovic Cycles, and
(predictably) quickly digs himself into a hole.  His frantic digging
thereafter is almost (but not quite) on a par with the two ozones
episode.

"Squashme"  wrote in message 
news:922c0a08-9871-424c-9866-33b51b3f5dfe@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
...
> And the point of 0-60mph in 7 or 8 seconds would be what?

For one thing, the faster you can accelerate, the more quickly you can match 
speed with the traffic on a high speed road when joining it. As speed 
differential is a significant cause of accidents on high speed roads, that 
makes joining them much safer. I generally look for less than 6.5 seconds 
though.

Colin Bignell

In message , nightjar 
<cpb@?.me.uk.invalid> writes
>
>"Squashme"  wrote in message
>news:922c0a08-9871-424c-9866-33b51b3f5dfe@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>...
>> And the point of 0-60mph in 7 or 8 seconds would be what?
>
>For one thing, the faster you can accelerate, the more quickly you can match
>speed with the traffic on a high speed road when joining it. As speed
>differential is a significant cause of accidents on high speed roads, that
>makes joining them much safer. I generally look for less than 6.5 seconds
>though.

0-60 times aren't a particularly good yardstick of performance though. 
Standing quarter mile figures are a better indicator, it's a pity you 
don't see them quoted that widely these days.


-- 
Ed Banger

"Tony Dragon"  wrote in message 
news:VPednSacNc6xx8PVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> Conor wrote:
>> In article <e1fa796a-ddf4-4246-a702-
>> bb370740612e@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, PeterG says...
>>
>>> He is also good at trigonometry as well- consider a triangle,
>>> point 'A' = 'Vinces home'
>>> point 'B' = 'Vinces place of work'
>>> point 'C' = 'Vince's wife place of work'
>>>
>>> He is able to move point 'A' so that 'A to B' + 'A to C' becomes less,
>>> and there is even no inconvenience or polution in the move.
>>>
>> Yebbut that's simple innit? You just merely just have to fold Space which 
>> even a 5 year old kid can do. If you do that, A, B and C can all be in the 
>> same place at the same time.
>>
>>
>
> Bugger, should have paid attention in school, my mate Hawkin said it could 
> be done, wonder what happened to him.

He made a career out of annoying Doug by going everywhere on powered wheels.

wrote in message 
news:580eeee7-f1d9-49db-8418-9da862cd755e@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ask him what drives evolution.

Whatever it is in his mind, it's also hypermobile. ;)

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:14:10 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
 wrote:

>And the point of 0-60mph in 7 or 8 seconds would be what?

I'll give you a hint, 2nd gear 20-66mph takes about 5 secs and 120m. I
redline it daily.
-- 
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

On Jun 22, 11:19 pm, BrianW  wrote:

> Take a look at this thread (I only discovered it myself a few days
> ago)
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/browse_frm/thread/774af...
>
> Dung attempts to argue with Steve Firth about Milenkovic Cycles, and
> (predictably) quickly digs himself into a hole.  His frantic digging
> thereafter is almost (but not quite) on a par with the two ozones
> episode.

Breathtaking! There is a certain bizarre elegance to his cretinous
idiocy. His knowledge breaks all laws of averages from what I can see
- to be wrong about so many things, so consistently is, well...
Breathtaking (or, of course, purposely done).

He brings to mind the image of an old Ralph Wiggum (character from The
Simpsons) - eating glue, and crepe paper stuck to his face and all!

On Jun 23, 12:21 am, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Whatever it is in his mind, it's also hypermobile. ;)

Tee hee! Yes indeed. Perhaps Doug was once conditioned by a mad
scientist to lose all reason at the sight or sound of various car-
related words. Say 'drive', or bang a gong and he starts to salivate,
turn crimson and conduct mis-informed (and indeed mis-formed)
campaigns against anything that uses fuel / he doesn't understand
(delete as applicable).

On 22 Jun, 23:35, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>
> news:922c0a08-9871-424c-9866-33b51b3f5dfe@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> > And the point of 0-60mph in 7 or 8 seconds would be what?
>
> For one thing, the faster you can accelerate, the more quickly you can match
> speed with the traffic on a high speed road when joining it. As speed
> differential is a significant cause of accidents on high speed roads, that
> makes joining them much safer. I generally look for less than 6.5 seconds
> though.
>
But its a well known fact that speed is a significant contributory
factor in many road killings. High performance cars encourage drivers
to speed and waste fuel and create more pollution, just for the sake
of a few expensive thrills.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 23:35, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:922c0a08-9871-424c-9866-33b51b3f5dfe@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>>
>>> And the point of 0-60mph in 7 or 8 seconds would be what?
>> For one thing, the faster you can accelerate, the more quickly you can match
>> speed with the traffic on a high speed road when joining it. As speed
>> differential is a significant cause of accidents on high speed roads, that
>> makes joining them much safer. I generally look for less than 6.5 seconds
>> though.
>>
> But its a well known fact that speed is a significant contributory
> factor in many road killings. High performance cars encourage drivers
> to speed and waste fuel and create more pollution, just for the sake
> of a few expensive thrills.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> 
> 
> 
  Now Doug, it's good that you are beginning to see that speed in itself 
does not kill.
No comebacks please about me speeding as I have stated in the past that 
I try not to speed.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:481208ea-fabe-4b58-97b1-af7670fa817e@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Jun, 23:35, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:922c0a08-9871-424c-9866-33b51b3f5dfe@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>>
>> > And the point of 0-60mph in 7 or 8 seconds would be what?
>>
>> For one thing, the faster you can accelerate, the more quickly you can 
>> match
>> speed with the traffic on a high speed road when joining it. As speed
>> differential is a significant cause of accidents on high speed roads, 
>> that
>> makes joining them much safer. I generally look for less than 6.5 seconds
>> though.
>>
> But its a well known fact that speed is a significant contributory
> factor in many road killings.

Like many of your well-known facts, that is wrong. According to Road 
Research Laboratory studies, on high speed roads, the major cause of 
accidents is not speed itself, but the difference in speed between different 
road users. That was the main justification for the introduction of the 
national speed limit. Getting traffic to travel at roughly the same speed 
was far more important than what that speed was. We ended up with 70mph 
because that was the top speed of many cars on the road in 1962.

> High performance cars encourage drivers
> to speed and waste fuel and create more pollution, just for the sake
> of a few expensive thrills.

I drive a car capable of 0-62mph in 5.8 seconds that has a limited top speed 
of 155mph, but I use the built-in speed limiter to stay within the speed 
limits and get no thrill from riving at high speed, unless it is on a motor 
circuit, so your claim is not substantiated in my case.

In any case, you don't need a high performance car to exceed the national 
speed limits these days. A fairly typical speed-related crash (by which I 
mean that the speed was too high for the conditions - the car was probably 
travelling within the speed limit for the road) involved a group of seven 
young people, travelling home from a party, on a wet night, in a poorly 
maintained four seater saloon car, with low tyre treads and dubious brakes 
that lost control on a complex bend and crossed over into an incoming car, 
crippling an acquaintance of mine and killing his wife.. Had they been in a 
high performance car, there would have been a much greater chance that the 
tyres and suspension would have handled the fast triple change in direction 
without throwing the car out of control.

Colin Bignell.

On 23 Jun, 01:13, conkers...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:19 pm, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > Take a look at this thread (I only discovered it myself a few days
> > ago)
>
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/browse_frm/thread/774af...
>
> > Dung attempts to argue with Steve Firth about Milenkovic Cycles, and
> > (predictably) quickly digs himself into a hole.  His frantic digging
> > thereafter is almost (but not quite) on a par with the two ozones
> > episode.
>
> Breathtaking! There is a certain bizarre elegance to his cretinous
> idiocy. His knowledge breaks all laws of averages from what I can see
> - to be wrong about so many things, so consistently is, well...
> Breathtaking (or, of course, purposely done).

That's what astonishes me.  You would have thought that by cutting and
pasting from t'internet, even a total cretin could get something right
once in a while.  But Duhg, even if he manages to cut and paste from
an authoritative site, manages always to get it totally wrong.  It
really is a rare skill.

On Jun 23, 6:37 am, Doug  wrote:

> High performance cars encourage drivers
> to speed


Bullshit. People's desire to go fast 'encourage drivers to speed'.

Doug  wrote:

> But its a well known fact that speed is a significant contributory
> factor in many road killings. High performance cars encourage drivers
> to speed and waste fuel and create more pollution, just for the sake
> of a few expensive thrills.

So you're claiming that all or a majority of road deaths in the UK are
caused by the drivers of "high performance cars"?

Do you have a source for this bizarre claim?

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1iixyci.ujh9hvthuoh1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Tsssk, no Duhg has already explained that the UK was on the equator
> 125,000 years ago and that the hot climate of that period was purely a
> "local" effect.

 its a monday "Steve" -so are we for or agin' climate change today?