Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths, less
congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?

"New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
August since 1966, industry figures show.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
month in 2007.

It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
all major European markets..."

More:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm

Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to enforce
imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport newsgroup.

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

Doug wrote:
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
> With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths, less
> congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
>
> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
> The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
> car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
> month in 2007.
>
> It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
> all major European markets..."
>
> More:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
>
> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to enforce
> imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport newsgroup.

 I wonder if they were lower for the months prior to August? Maybe it's just 
that because of the new plate system, people aren't desperate to buy a new 
car on the 1st Aug to show off to their neighbours with any more...

Mike P

Mike P wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
>> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now
>> on? With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths,
>> less congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
>> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
>>
>> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
>> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>>
>> The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
>> car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
>> month in 2007.
>>
>> It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
>> all major European markets..."
>>
>> More:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
>>
>> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to enforce
>> imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport newsgroup.
>
> I wonder if they were lower for the months prior to August? Maybe
> it's just that because of the new plate system, people aren't
> desperate to buy a new car on the 1st Aug to show off to their
> neighbours with any more...

In fact, I'll answer that myself. Only down 3.8% over the year Duhg... 
which, when you take into account the number of cars sold each year, is, 
well, fuck all :-)

Mike P

On Sep 4, 4:49 pm, Doug  wrote:
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
> With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths
Based on what?

>, less congestion
Possibly.  More overcrowded PT though.

>, less environmental harm
What with people running older cars for longer?

>, and less wastage of non-
> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
What makes you think the usage is going to drop all that much based on
new car sales?
Used car sales have also dropped so people are just keeping the same
car.

Its boom/bust.  Next boom more car sales and probably a big wave of
next gen cars that run on alternative fuel sources*

Fod

* The development of which has been spurred on by the high fuel
prices

"Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> I wonder if they were lower for the months prior to August? Maybe it's
> just that because of the new plate system, people aren't desperate to 
> buy a new car on the 1st Aug to show off to their neighbours with any 
> more...

1st Aug was last a "new plate day" in 1998...

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
> With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths, less
> congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
>
> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
> The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
> car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
> month in 2007.
>
> It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
> all major European markets..."
>
> More:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
>
> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to enforce
> imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport newsgroup.

Don't think anyone would deny it relates to transport, or more specifically 
cars, with which you seem to have some sort of fixation. I thnk it's envy at 
those of us who choose to drive them.

Anyway, that aside, your conclusions are, as ever, wild, speculative and 
wrong. The number of new cars sold is not a good measure. You should look at 
the number of cars registered, if such figures are available. There may be a 
fall during a downturn, as some just can't afford to run a car (or choose to 
save money on such niceties as insurance and tax and having their cars 
appear in the system). Sure as night follows day, it will go up again when 
the economy picks up.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Very welcome news indeed. ...

Why do you welcome the news that older, usually more polluting, cars will 
stay on the road longer?

Colin Bignell

Doug  wrote in news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-
b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com:

> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> August since 1966, industry figures show.
> 

Apart from the fact Adrian has kindly pointed out, all it means is that 
less cars are being scrapped, and people are holding onto their smoky old 
rust buckets for longer. The upside is steel gets more expensive, so when 
you really, really have to scrap old faithful, you have more money to buy 
the next old faithful.

-- 
The above post may contain traces of irony

Doug wrote:
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
> With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths, less
> congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
> 
> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> August since 1966, industry figures show.
> 
> The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
> car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
> month in 2007.
> 
> It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
> all major European markets..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
> 
> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to enforce
> imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport newsgroup.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 
> 
> 

New car sales hit by downturn. How about "Green causes hit by moron"? 
"World to end because all environmentalists are ageing fools called 
Doug"? "Ageing idiot does more environmental damage than Esso". You 
getting the picture?

Doug, please, die.

Brian.

On 4 Sep, 16:49, Doug  wrote:
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?

Possibly.  On the other hand, perhaps it could have something to do
with the current recession we are in/facing [delete as appropriate].
I'll leave it to you to decide.

Doug wrote:

> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to enforce
> imaginary Usenet protocols 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh Doug, you crack me up, you really do...

-- 
Abo

Graculus wrote:

>> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
>> August since 1966, industry figures show.

> wrong. The number of new cars sold is not a good measure. You should 
> look at the number of cars registered, if such figures are available. 

err...

-- 
Abo

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g9pbdq$l62$2@news.albasani.net...
> Graculus wrote:
>
>>> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
>>> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
>> wrong. The number of new cars sold is not a good measure. You should look 
>> at the number of cars registered, if such figures are available.
>
> err...

Should have explained better. You need also to look at cars being SORN'd and 
scrapped as well as new ones to get the total figure.

Or summat like that.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?

No , it means that in the short term people are being sensible and not 
buying new cars while their financial position is changing.

I don't believe it has anything to do with a large scale decline

-- 
Alex

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

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
> With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths, less
> congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
>
> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> August since 1966, industry figures show.

Why buy a new car in August when you can wait for the new plate release in 
September ?

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:09:57 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>"Doug"  wrote in message 
>news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
>> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
>
>No , it means that in the short term people are being sensible and not 
>buying new cars while their financial position is changing.
>
>I don't believe it has anything to do with a large scale decline

Lots of things can contribute to this effect in a recession. A firm
can delay replacing it's fleet of cars maybe just a month or two 'till
after the end of the financial year and thereby avoid realising a big
loss in it's accounts.

Of course if the cars remain in service the mileage goes up, the
resale values go down and the repair bills and breakdown charges go up
as well. So usually sooner or later they end up having to be replaced
if the firm is to continue operating  and giving reasonable service to
it's customers. 

Some firms will, of course have to stop operating, when that happens
it fills Duhg with glee that does.

I wonder what he did for a living before he started bludging off the
state ?

Derek

On 4 Sep, 17:51, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> > passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?
> > With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths, less
> > congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
> > renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
>
> > "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> > August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
> > The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
> > car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
> > month in 2007.
>
> > It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
> > all major European markets..."
>
> > More:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
>
> > Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to enforce
> > imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport newsgroup.
>
> Don't think anyone would deny it relates to transport, or more specifically
> cars, with which you seem to have some sort of fixation. I thnk it's envy at
> those of us who choose to drive them.
>
> Anyway, that aside, your conclusions are, as ever, wild, speculative and
> wrong. The number of new cars sold is not a good measure. You should look at
> the number of cars registered, if such figures are available. There may be a
> fall during a downturn, as some just can't afford to run a car (or choose to
> save money on such niceties as insurance and tax and having their cars
> appear in the system). Sure as night follows day, it will go up again when
> the economy picks up.

This is what it says in the Times today:

"Car sales fell to their lowest level for more than 40 years last
month in the most dramatic sign yet that the country is heading into a
recession.

Britain’s biggest industry gave warning of deeper cuts in production
to come as consumers, worried about the high cost of fuel and the
economic downturn, shy away from big purchases and abandon the
showrooms.

Traders reported just 63,225 new cars sold, the worst August figures
since 1966, sending a chill through the automotive industry from
manufacturers to the secondhand market.

Premium brands, many of which are made in Britain, were among the
hardest hit, with Aston Martin suffering a 67 per cent drop to just 19
cars sold. Land Rover saw a 58 per cent fall to 422 cars and Jaguar a
41 per cent slump to 422 cars..."

It might not go up again to the same level when the economy picks up
as some will have cured their car dependency, and suffered not-to-be-
repeated withdrawals in the meantime, and altered their lifestyles
accordingly.

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

Doug wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 17:51, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
>>> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now
>>> on? With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths,
>>> less congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
>>> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
>>
>>> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
>>> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>>
>>> The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
>>> car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
>>> month in 2007.
>>
>>> It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
>>> all major European markets..."
>>
>>> More:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
>>
>>> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to
>>> enforce imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Don't think anyone would deny it relates to transport, or more
>> specifically cars, with which you seem to have some sort of
>> fixation. I thnk it's envy at those of us who choose to drive them.
>>
>> Anyway, that aside, your conclusions are, as ever, wild, speculative
>> and wrong. The number of new cars sold is not a good measure. You
>> should look at the number of cars registered, if such figures are
>> available. There may be a fall during a downturn, as some just can't
>> afford to run a car (or choose to save money on such niceties as
>> insurance and tax and having their cars appear in the system). Sure
>> as night follows day, it will go up again when the economy picks up.
>
> This is what it says in the Times today:
>
<snipped>
>
> It might not go up again to the same level when the economy picks up
> as some will have cured their car dependency, and suffered not-to-be-
> repeated withdrawals in the meantime, and altered their lifestyles
> accordingly.

And in the meantime new and more people will have entered the market, be 
earning decent and will invest in personal transport.

The only way to achieve a sustained fall in cars on the road is for the 
population to fall. But you're too dumb to accept that.

Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:09:57 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>> news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
>>> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now
>>> on?
>>
>> No , it means that in the short term people are being sensible and
>> not buying new cars while their financial position is changing.
>>
>> I don't believe it has anything to do with a large scale decline
>
> Lots of things can contribute to this effect in a recession. A firm
> can delay replacing it's fleet of cars maybe just a month or two 'till
> after the end of the financial year and thereby avoid realising a big
> loss in it's accounts.
>
> Of course if the cars remain in service the mileage goes up, the
> resale values go down and the repair bills and breakdown charges go up
> as well. So usually sooner or later they end up having to be replaced
> if the firm is to continue operating  and giving reasonable service to
> it's customers.
>
> Some firms will, of course have to stop operating, when that happens
> it fills Duhg with glee that does.
>
> I wonder what he did for a living before he started bludging off the
> state ?
>
Is there any record of him ever doing anything?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:22f8c047-d457-4588-baa6-d0e07bf48aa1@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

It might not go up again to the same level when the economy picks up
as some will have cured their car dependency, and suffered not-to-be-
repeated withdrawals in the meantime, and altered their lifestyles
accordingly.

---

Eh? Says who? How on earth do you reach the conclusions you do based on the 
scant, and  normally completely unrelated, information in the newspaper 
articles you keep on quoting?

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:44:49 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:


>
>Traders reported just 63,225 new cars sold, the worst August figures
>since 1966, sending a chill through the automotive industry from
>manufacturers to the secondhand market.
>
>Premium brands, many of which are made in Britain, were among the
>hardest hit, with Aston Martin suffering a 67 per cent drop to just 19
>cars sold. Land Rover saw a 58 per cent fall to 422 cars and Jaguar a
>41 per cent slump to 422 cars..."
>
>It might not go up again to the same level when the economy picks up
>as some will have cured their car dependency,

Whaaaat?

Your Aston Martin drivers giving up motoring and going on the bus
because of 2 quarters flat trading.

>and suffered not-to-be-
>repeated withdrawals in the meantime, and altered their lifestyles
>accordingly.

I heard it's more likely that funeral directors will have to give up
on the futile hypermobility of using hearses and funeral carriages and
start storing corpses up frozen solid prior to shipping them 600 at a
time in black painted artics to be cremated at the Isle of Grain.

"Experts say" The power station could handle 50 truckloads per hour.

You know it makes sense !

Derek

On 5 Sep, 08:58, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:22f8c047-d457-4588-baa6-d0e07bf48aa1@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> It might not go up again to the same level when the economy picks up
> as some will have cured their car dependency, and suffered not-to-be-
> repeated withdrawals in the meantime, and altered their lifestyles
> accordingly.
>
> ---
>
> Eh? Says who? How on earth do you reach the conclusions you do based on the
> scant, and  normally completely unrelated, information in the newspaper
> articles you keep on quoting?

I note that house prices have fallen by 10% over the year.  By Dung's
argument, this is now a permanent feature, and by 2020 we can expect
to be able to pick up a house for the price of a pack of fags.  Can't
wait!

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6iagflFl0jfnU3@mid.individual.net...
> "Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> I wonder if they were lower for the months prior to August? Maybe it's
>> just that because of the new plate system, people aren't desperate to
>> buy a new car on the 1st Aug to show off to their neighbours with any
>> more...
>
> 1st Aug was last a "new plate day" in 1998...

I stand corrected, I thought it was 2001 ish. I shall learn to check my 
facts better before I have a go at Duhg, or it would make me as bad as him..

Mike P

"Gizmo." <mo¬01@ltlrm3.com> wrote in message 
news:3mZvk.148924$6s4.10642@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
>> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
> Why buy a new car in August when you can wait for the new plate release in 
> September ?
>
exactly - August (The number plate change month)  used to have huge sales so 
we're not comparing like with like

Its  a non story by selfish car dealers who want interest rates lowered so 
we can buy more cars and put ourselves more in debt

(and the TV and papers lap up press releases without any thought)

On 5 Sep, 13:29, "Tommy"  wrote:
> "Gizmo." <mo¬0...@ltlrm3.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3mZvk.148924$6s4.10642@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> > "Doug"  wrote in message
> >> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> >> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
> > Why buy a new car in August when you can wait for the new plate release in
> > September ?
>
> exactly - August (The number plate change month)  used to have huge sales so
> we're not comparing like with like
>
> Its  a non story by selfish car dealers who want interest rates lowered so
> we can buy more cars and put ourselves more in debt
>
> (and the TV and papers lap up press releases without any thought)

Hey, Tommy, someone is using your computer.  Did you know?  We know
you can't have sent this post, because it actually makes sense.

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:7ab9b17d-54d1-4275-9d2f-
Hey, Tommy, someone is using your computer.  Did you know?  We know
you can't have sent this post, because it actually makes sense.

Sh1t, praise from black'ed - I apologise, I was wrong in my previous 
assertion

"Tommy"  wrote in message 
news:6id0foFptv9rU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "BrianW"  wrote in message 
> news:7ab9b17d-54d1-4275-9d2f-
> Hey, Tommy, someone is using your computer.  Did you know?  We know
> you can't have sent this post, because it actually makes sense.
>
> Sh1t, praise from black'ed - I apologise, I was wrong in my previous 
> assertion
You were back to your old self in the maintenance group a few mins later tho 
;-)

Mike P

BrianW  wrote:

> Hey, Tommy, someone is using your computer.  Did you know?  We know
> you can't have sent this post, because it actually makes sense.

Maybe Toomy is a follower of Glug? Is there a time-based element to his
incoherence? I've not yet seen him post "you know what, you're my bessht
mate you are" but it may still happen.

On 5 Sep, 13:29, "Tommy"  wrote:
> "Gizmo." <mo¬0...@ltlrm3.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3mZvk.148924$6s4.10642@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> > "Doug"  wrote in message
> >> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> >> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
> > Why buy a new car in August when you can wait for the new plate release in
> > September ?
>
> exactly - August (The number plate change month)  used to have huge sales so
> we're not comparing like with like
>
> Its  a non story by selfish car dealers who want interest rates lowered so
> we can buy more cars and put ourselves more in debt
>
> (and the TV and papers lap up press releases without any thought)


Tommy, I agree with you, except your last line, which should read :-
(and Doug,the TV and papers lap up press releases without any thought)

Francis

On 5 Sep, 16:10, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > Hey, Tommy, someone is using your computer.  Did you know?  We know
> > you can't have sent this post, because it actually makes sense.
>
> Maybe Toomy is a follower of Glug? Is there a time-based element to his
> incoherence? I've not yet seen him post "you know what, you're my bessht
> mate you are" but it may still happen.

I wondered that as well.  The coherent post was posted at 13.29
today.  At 15.53 he then posted this:

"Once bitten old darling,

I did once and then you come out with cannot believe anything you read
on
the electric interweb (that does
 not support your extremely bigoted POV)

(I know that makes me ilitarate rather than ironic :) "

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/d0517ee7b1fa9217?hl=en&dmode=source

In other words, his usual mixture of lies and gibberish.  Perhaps he
starts his boozing after lunchtime?

On 5 Sep, 07:56, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 4 Sep, 17:51, "Graculus" 
> > wrote:
> >> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> >>> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now
> >>> on? With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer road deaths,
> >>> less congestion, less environmental harm, and less wastage of non-
> >>> renewables, which has got to be a good thing surely?
>
> >>> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
> >>> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>
> >>> The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that new
> >>> car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the same
> >>> month in 2007.
>
> >>> It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales across
> >>> all major European markets..."
>
> >>> More:
>
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
>
> >>> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to
> >>> enforce imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport
> >>> newsgroup.
>
> >> Don't think anyone would deny it relates to transport, or more
> >> specifically cars, with which you seem to have some sort of
> >> fixation. I thnk it's envy at those of us who choose to drive them.
>
> >> Anyway, that aside, your conclusions are, as ever, wild, speculative
> >> and wrong. The number of new cars sold is not a good measure. You
> >> should look at the number of cars registered, if such figures are
> >> available. There may be a fall during a downturn, as some just can't
> >> afford to run a car (or choose to save money on such niceties as
> >> insurance and tax and having their cars appear in the system). Sure
> >> as night follows day, it will go up again when the economy picks up.
>
> > This is what it says in the Times today:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > It might not go up again to the same level when the economy picks up
> > as some will have cured their car dependency, and suffered not-to-be-
> > repeated withdrawals in the meantime, and altered their lifestyles
> > accordingly.
>
> And in the meantime new and more people will have entered the market, be
> earning decent and will invest in personal transport.
>
> The only way to achieve a sustained fall in cars on the road is for the
> population to fall. But you're too dumb to accept that.

You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
population levels. Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.

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

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:833c7a1d-54ad-4027-a3ed-17afb6da9eb5@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
> or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
> population levels. Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
> car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
> and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.

You really are a demented old moron, aren't you, who refuses to understand 
some basic facts.

No, not everyone has a car. Some who don't would really like to, but can't 
for various reasons, and so probably don't manage "perfectly well" but 
struggle to manage. And not everyone lives in a city like London where cars 
are not always the best way to do some things. But that does not represent 
most of the country. If noone had a car, do you really think that you and 
everyone else could live to the standard of living you do? While you may 
dislike car use, all the goods and services you enjoy have car use at the 
back of them: by employees, by suppliers and their employees, and so on 
back.

On 6 Sep, 07:31, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:833c7a1d-54ad-4027-a3ed-17afb6da9eb5@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
> > or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
> > population levels. Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
> > car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
> > and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.
>
> You really are a demented old moron, aren't you, who refuses to understand
> some basic facts.
>
> No, not everyone has a car. Some who don't would really like to, but can't
> for various reasons, and so probably don't manage "perfectly well" but
> struggle to manage. And not everyone lives in a city like London where cars
> are not always the best way to do some things. But that does not represent
> most of the country. If noone had a car, do you really think that you and
> everyone else could live to the standard of living you do? While you may
> dislike car use, all the goods and services you enjoy have car use at the
> back of them: by employees, by suppliers and their employees, and so on
> back.

You really do need to learn to differentiate between 'essential' and
'non-essential' car use. My contention is that the latter is but a
small minority of the former and it would be beneficial to dispense
with the former. While many may regard their car use as essential, in
much the same way as a junkie regards their next fix, when carefully
analysed this may not always be the case and a simple change of
lifestyle could be a cure.

--
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:

> You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive

...then car use will be a status symbol for the well-off to flaunt their 
wealth at the poor.

Yeh, that'll really help.

Doug wrote:
> You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
> or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
> population levels.

How would you achieve that?

> Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
> car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
> and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.

I have a number of friends and acquaintances who don't use cars, I'm also 
aware that there are a great many other people who don't use cars and my 
previous employment relied on people using transport other than cars Doug. 
What jobs have you done that directly benefitted people?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:19b5a38c-b9b9-4d64-bc93-da75a853b5ce@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 Sep, 07:31, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:833c7a1d-54ad-4027-a3ed-17afb6da9eb5@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
>> > or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
>> > population levels. Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
>> > car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
>> > and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.
>>
>> You really are a demented old moron, aren't you, who refuses to 
>> understand
>> some basic facts.
>>
>> No, not everyone has a car. Some who don't would really like to, but 
>> can't
>> for various reasons, and so probably don't manage "perfectly well" but
>> struggle to manage. And not everyone lives in a city like London where 
>> cars
>> are not always the best way to do some things. But that does not 
>> represent
>> most of the country. If noone had a car, do you really think that you and
>> everyone else could live to the standard of living you do? While you may
>> dislike car use, all the goods and services you enjoy have car use at the
>> back of them: by employees, by suppliers and their employees, and so on
>> back.
>
> You really do need to learn to differentiate between 'essential' and
> 'non-essential' car use. My contention is that the latter is but a
> small minority of the former and it would be beneficial to dispense
> with the former. While many may regard their car use as essential, in
> much the same way as a junkie regards their next fix, when carefully
> analysed this may not always be the case and a simple change of
> lifestyle could be a cure.

You really do need to learn to differentiate with the widely accepted 
definition of words and your own perverted definitions. And (once again) who 
are you to determine what is essential and what isn't?

One day, when you apply a consistent and rational set of rules to your 
incessent ranting on this ng, people may take you seriously. Until then...

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Sep, 07:56, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 4 Sep, 17:51, "Graculus" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached
>>>>> and passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline
>>>>> from now on? With fewer cars on our roads we can expect fewer
>>>>> road deaths, less congestion, less environmental harm, and less
>>>>> wastage of non- renewables, which has got to be a good thing
>>>>> surely?
>>
>>>>> "New UK car registrations last month hit the lowest level for any
>>>>> August since 1966, industry figures show.
>>
>>>>> The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said that
>>>>> new car registrations were down 18.6% to 63,225 compared with the
>>>>> same month in 2007.
>>
>>>>> It said that declining consumer confidence was hitting sales
>>>>> across all major European markets..."
>>
>>>>> More:
>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7597954.stm
>>
>>>>> Definitely transport related, for those motorists who seek to
>>>>> enforce imaginary Usenet protocols while dominating this transport
>>>>> newsgroup.
>>
>>>> Don't think anyone would deny it relates to transport, or more
>>>> specifically cars, with which you seem to have some sort of
>>>> fixation. I thnk it's envy at those of us who choose to drive them.
>>
>>>> Anyway, that aside, your conclusions are, as ever, wild,
>>>> speculative and wrong. The number of new cars sold is not a good
>>>> measure. You should look at the number of cars registered, if such
>>>> figures are available. There may be a fall during a downturn, as
>>>> some just can't afford to run a car (or choose to save money on
>>>> such niceties as insurance and tax and having their cars appear in
>>>> the system). Sure as night follows day, it will go up again when
>>>> the economy picks up.
>>
>>> This is what it says in the Times today:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> It might not go up again to the same level when the economy picks up
>>> as some will have cured their car dependency, and suffered
>>> not-to-be- repeated withdrawals in the meantime, and altered their
>>> lifestyles accordingly.
>>
>> And in the meantime new and more people will have entered the
>> market, be earning decent and will invest in personal transport.
>>
>> The only way to achieve a sustained fall in cars on the road is for
>> the population to fall. But you're too dumb to accept that.
>
> You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
> or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
> population levels. Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
> car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
> and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.

You are obviously too dumb to realise that this will never happen. Car 
manufacturers are not going to make cars that are too expensive or 
inconvenient. Car manufactures want to make money Duhg!!  Although a 
majority of people in this country own a car, those that do not also 
probably use them reasonably regularly. I know my car-free friends 
certainley don't turn down a free ride when they can get one.

Mike P

Doug wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 07:31, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:833c7a1d-54ad-4027-a3ed-17afb6da9eb5@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive
>>> and/ or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction
>>> regardless of population levels. Strange as it may seem to you, not
>>> everyone uses a car and most of those who don't can manage
>>> perfectly well without one and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted
>>> car dependency.
>>
>> You really are a demented old moron, aren't you, who refuses to
>> understand some basic facts.
>>
>> No, not everyone has a car. Some who don't would really like to, but
>> can't for various reasons, and so probably don't manage "perfectly
>> well" but struggle to manage. And not everyone lives in a city like
>> London where cars are not always the best way to do some things. But
>> that does not represent most of the country. If noone had a car, do
>> you really think that you and everyone else could live to the
>> standard of living you do? While you may dislike car use, all the
>> goods and services you enjoy have car use at the back of them: by
>> employees, by suppliers and their employees, and so on back.
>
> You really do need to learn to differentiate between 'essential' and
> 'non-essential' car use. My contention is that the latter is but a
> small minority of the former and it would be beneficial to dispense
> with the former. While many may regard their car use as essential, in
> much the same way as a junkie regards their next fix, when carefully
> analysed this may not always be the case and a simple change of
> lifestyle could be a cure.

Who decides what is essential and non-essential Duhg? My cars are essential 
to me, they provide transport, amusement and it's my main hobby. Take them 
away, and I wouldn't be at all happy. Therefore to ME they are essential.

Mike P

In article <0158e574-b5e4-4fca-a96d-
b2114491c82b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> Very welcome news indeed. Does this mean we have at last reached and
> passed 'peak car use' and can expect a continuing decline from now on?

Nope. People are just keeping them longer.



-- 
Conor

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

On 6 Sep, 07:46, Doug  wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 07:31, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >news:833c7a1d-54ad-4027-a3ed-17afb6da9eb5@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
> > > or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
> > > population levels. Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
> > > car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
> > > and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.
>
> > You really are a demented old moron, aren't you, who refuses to understand
> > some basic facts.
>
> > No, not everyone has a car. Some who don't would really like to, but can't
> > for various reasons, and so probably don't manage "perfectly well" but
> > struggle to manage. And not everyone lives in a city like London where cars
> > are not always the best way to do some things. But that does not represent
> > most of the country. If noone had a car, do you really think that you and
> > everyone else could live to the standard of living you do? While you may
> > dislike car use, all the goods and services you enjoy have car use at the
> > back of them: by employees, by suppliers and their employees, and so on
> > back.
>
> You really do need to learn to differentiate between 'essential' and
> 'non-essential' car use. My contention is that the latter is but a
> small minority of the former and it would be beneficial to dispense
> with the former.

you need to differentiate between you theory and fact.  They are not
automaticaly the same thing and othe peoples reasoning is just as
valid as yours without supporting evidence.

Given that we're entering a bust part of a boom/bust cycle then more
people will be out of work and pepole will be spending less.
Once we get back into the next boom the reverse will be true and it
will be new cars all round.

( have a look at the spending patters of the last several cycles...)

Fod

On 6 Sep, 10:16, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive and/
> > or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction regardless of
> > population levels.
>
> How would you achieve that?
>
> > Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
> > car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
> > and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.
>
> I have a number of friends and acquaintances who don't use cars, I'm also
> aware that there are a great many other people who don't use cars and my
> previous employment relied on people using transport other than cars Doug.
> What jobs have you done that directly benefitted people?

given Dougs solution to the problem is to get people to move house/job
and we're in an economy that makes this hard I'm curious as to how
he'll solve this problem.

And we can't simply make the city slums bigger as the construction
industry is depressed.

Fod

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> You are too dumb to realise that if car use is made too expensive
>> and/ or too inconvenient that will also produce a reduction
>> regardless of population levels.
>
> How would you achieve that?
>
>> Strange as it may seem to you, not everyone uses a
>> car and most of those who don't can manage perfectly well without one
>> and they wisely avoid a self-inflicted car dependency.
>
> I have a number of friends and acquaintances who don't use cars, I'm
> also aware that there are a great many other people who don't use
> cars and my previous employment relied on people using transport
> other than cars Doug. What jobs have you done that directly
> benefitted people?

No response Doug?