What wonderful news! Maybe the motoring mob is not as all powerful as
it would like to be.

"MEPs yesterday put the European parliament on a collision course with
Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, and its powerful car lobby by
rejecting Berlin's campaign to water down European proposals for
slashing greenhouse gases from road traffic.

In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
do so.

The MEPs threw out amendments that the car lobby had introduced which
would have eased the costs to industry and delayed the measures. By
voting them down, the MEPs rejected a Franco-German pact hatched by
Merkel and France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in June.

As part of its drive to lead the world in tackling climate change, the
European commission last year proposed that all new cars would have to
cut their CO2 emissions to 130 grammes per kilometre by 2012, roughly
a 17% reduction on average emission levels. The German auto industry,
a world leader in the large car sector, cried foul and mounted
ferocious lobbying to dilute the proposals..."

More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/26/automotive.greenpolitics

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

Doug wrote:
> What wonderful news! Maybe the motoring mob is not as all powerful as
> it would like to be.
> 
> "MEPs yesterday put the European parliament on a collision course with
> Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, and its powerful car lobby by
> rejecting Berlin's campaign to water down European proposals for
> slashing greenhouse gases from road traffic.
> 
> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> do so.
> 
> The MEPs threw out amendments that the car lobby had introduced which
> would have eased the costs to industry and delayed the measures. By
> voting them down, the MEPs rejected a Franco-German pact hatched by
> Merkel and France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in June.
> 
> As part of its drive to lead the world in tackling climate change, the
> European commission last year proposed that all new cars would have to
> cut their CO2 emissions to 130 grammes per kilometre by 2012, roughly
> a 17% reduction on average emission levels. The German auto industry,
> a world leader in the large car sector, cried foul and mounted
> ferocious lobbying to dilute the proposals..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/26/automotive.greenpolitics
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.


UK?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> What wonderful news! Maybe the motoring mob is not as all powerful as
> it would like to be.
> 
> "MEPs yesterday put the European parliament on a collision course with
> Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, and its powerful car lobby by
> rejecting Berlin's campaign to water down European proposals for
> slashing greenhouse gases from road traffic.
> 
> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> do so.
> 
> The MEPs threw out amendments that the car lobby had introduced which
> would have eased the costs to industry and delayed the measures. By
> voting them down, the MEPs rejected a Franco-German pact hatched by
> Merkel and France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in June.
> 
> As part of its drive to lead the world in tackling climate change, the
> European commission last year proposed that all new cars would have to
> cut their CO2 emissions to 130 grammes per kilometre by 2012, roughly
> a 17% reduction on average emission levels. The German auto industry,
> a world leader in the large car sector, cried foul and mounted
> ferocious lobbying to dilute the proposals..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/26/automotive.greenpolitics
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.


UK?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  wrote:

> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> do so.

It doesn't matter a fart in a hanky what the Eurocrats decide. The
dominant influence of car emissions is the USA which accounts for one
third of the cars on the face of the planet and half of car CO2
emissions. The USA has set itself the lofty ambition of achieving a new
vehicle fleet average of 35mpg by the year 2020 (160g CO2/km). This will
dwarf the Japanese target (138 g CO2/km) by 2015 and the EU target (120g
CO2/km) by 2012.

So, the EU has set the most stringent CO2 reduction in transport use in
the world. The target will probably be met, although there is very
little time to achieve it, but it won't matter a damn because the
world's most significant polluter doesn't give a fuck.

BTW, Duhng, why is it that your ideas about transport and emissions seem
to be derived entirely from the USA? Your complaints about "SUVs" (a
term from the USA), your belief that cars are the most significant
source of CO2 emissions (only true in the USA) and your cockwitted
approach to environmentalism is general which derives entirely from
similarly mistaken views common in the USA show that your approach is
entirely left-pondian.

Doug wrote:

> What wonderful news! Maybe the motoring mob is not as all powerful as
> it would like to be.

... or you try and portray it as.

It's something everyone, bar you, on this newsgroup has known all
along.  You've buried your head so far up your own arse you wouldn't
have seen, recognised or even acknowledged that FACT until something
like this comes along to tickle your fancy.

-- 
Paul - xxx  somewhere different ...
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
ebay stuff   http://shop.ebay.co.uk/merchant/paul-xxx

On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> do so.

And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!

Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
from cars except by pushing them along the road.

B2003

On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>
> > In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> > parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> > force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> > vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> > do so.
>
> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>
> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>
It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
efficient engines.

"Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."

Better still drastically reduce your car use, which could cut your
emissions at a stroke.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

On 26 Sep, 13:13, Doug  wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> > > parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> > > force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> > > vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> > > do so.
>
> > And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
> > safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
> > weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
> > weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>
> > Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
> > practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
> > at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
> > from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>
> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
> efficient engines.

You mean like the light, slow car with a small, efficient engine you
chose to drive?  What mpg did you get from your Land Rover, Doug?

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
> efficient engines.
> 
> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around half
> of the carbon emissions of average UK car."

So why don't Merc sell the diesel Smart in the UK?

Anyway, it's not that much below the CO2 emissions of some much larger 
"proper cars", such as the Polo BlueMotion & Ibiza EcoMotion - both 99g/km

The 130g average is only a small reduction from the current 160 - and is 
reached already by fairly sizable cars like the BMW 320d.

> Better still drastically reduce your car use, which could cut your
> emissions at a stroke.

Couldn't resist, could you?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:a1b1f59f-aeec-4428-a62b-564d404e4ce8@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>>
>> > In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
>> > parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
>> > force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
>> > vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
>> > do so.
>>
>> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
>> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
>> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
>> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>>
>> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
>> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
>> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
>> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>>
> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
> efficient engines.
>
> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
> half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
>

Smarts are fucking horrible cars.

Mike P

Adrian wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
>> efficient engines.
>>
>> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
>> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
>> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around half
>> of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
> 
> So why don't Merc sell the diesel Smart in the UK?
> 
> Anyway, it's not that much below the CO2 emissions of some much larger 
> "proper cars", such as the Polo BlueMotion & Ibiza EcoMotion - both 99g/km
> 
> The 130g average is only a small reduction from the current 160 - and is 
> reached already by fairly sizable cars like the BMW 320d.
> 
>> Better still drastically reduce your car use, which could cut your
>> emissions at a stroke.
> 
> Couldn't resist, could you?

Nice if you mess it round a little though....

"A stroke will drastically reduce your car use"

-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.

On 26 Sep, 17:46, John Wright  wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> >> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
> >> efficient engines.
>
> >> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
> >> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
> >> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around half
> >> of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
>
> > So why don't Merc sell the diesel Smart in the UK?
>
> > Anyway, it's not that much below the CO2 emissions of some much larger
> > "proper cars", such as the Polo BlueMotion & Ibiza EcoMotion - both 99g/km
>
> > The 130g average is only a small reduction from the current 160 - and is
> > reached already by fairly sizable cars like the BMW 320d.
>
> >> Better still drastically reduce your car use, which could cut your
> >> emissions at a stroke.
>
> > Couldn't resist, could you?
>
> Nice if you mess it round a little though....
>
> "A stroke will drastically reduce your car use"

Or perhaps (and appropriately in present company) "A two-stroke will
drastically reduce your car use"

On 26 Sep, 13:57, "Mike P"  wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:a1b1f59f-aeec-4428-a62b-564d404e4ce8@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
> >> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>
> >> > In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> >> > parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> >> > force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> >> > vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> >> > do so.
>
> >> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
> >> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
> >> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
> >> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>
> >> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
> >> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
> >> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
> >> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>
> > It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
> > efficient engines.
>
> > "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
> > version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
> > current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
> > half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
>
> Smarts are fucking horrible cars.
>
Well there is no such thing as a 'good car', aka 'very expensive, fast
and powerful with a full range of extras', but I suppose some are
slightly less horrible than others.

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

Doug wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 13:57, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:a1b1f59f-aeec-4428-a62b-564d404e4ce8@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
>>>> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>>>>> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
>>>>> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
>>>>> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
>>>>> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
>>>>> do so.
>>>> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
>>>> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
>>>> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
>>>> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>>>> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
>>>> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
>>>> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
>>>> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>>> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
>>> efficient engines.
>>> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
>>> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
>>> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
>>> half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
>> Smarts are fucking horrible cars.
>>
> Well there is no such thing as a 'good car', aka 'very expensive, fast
> and powerful with a full range of extras', but I suppose some are
> slightly less horrible than others.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 

Careful your stupidity is showing.
A good car does not have to be fast, expensive, etc
A good car is something that suits you & is fit for the purpose that you 
want.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 27 Sep, 11:05, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 26 Sep, 13:57, "Mike P"  wrote:
> >> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:a1b1f59f-aeec-4428-a62b-564d404e4ce8@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
> >>>>> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
> >>>>> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
> >>>>> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
> >>>>> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
> >>>>> do so.
> >>>> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
> >>>> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
> >>>> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
> >>>> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
> >>>> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
> >>>> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
> >>>> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
> >>>> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
> >>> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
> >>> efficient engines.
> >>> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
> >>> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
> >>> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
> >>> half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
> >> Smarts are fucking horrible cars.
>
> > Well there is no such thing as a 'good car', aka 'very expensive, fast
> > and powerful with a full range of extras', but I suppose some are
> > slightly less horrible than others.
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> Careful your stupidity is showing.
> A good car does not have to be fast, expensive, etc
> A good car is something that suits you & is fit for the purpose that you
> want.
>
Exactly, moving from A to B in the shortest possible time and in the
greatest comfort with loads of inbuilt gadgetry.

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

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:63430a2c-9dc4-420e-aed7-25c06595a5c3@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Sep, 11:05, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > On 26 Sep, 13:57, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> >> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:a1b1f59f-aeec-4428-a62b-564d404e4ce8@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
>> >>>> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>> >>>>> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
>> >>>>> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
>> >>>>> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of 
>> >>>>> new
>> >>>>> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail 
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> do so.
>> >>>> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
>> >>>> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which 
>> >>>> adds
>> >>>> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
>> >>>> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>> >>>> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
>> >>>> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
>> >>>> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
>> >>>> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>> >>> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
>> >>> efficient engines.
>> >>> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
>> >>> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
>> >>> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
>> >>> half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
>> >> Smarts are fucking horrible cars.
>>
>> > Well there is no such thing as a 'good car', aka 'very expensive, fast
>> > and powerful with a full range of extras', but I suppose some are
>> > slightly less horrible than others.
>>
>> > --
>> > World Carfree Network
>> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>> Careful your stupidity is showing.
>> A good car does not have to be fast, expensive, etc
>> A good car is something that suits you & is fit for the purpose that you
>> want.
>>
> Exactly, moving from A to B in the shortest possible time and in the
> greatest comfort with loads of inbuilt gadgetry.

Ah, Duhg finally comes clean. So that's what you want is it? Finally some 
honestly! I suppose your Landrover didn't really fulfill any of those 
criteria, so I'm not surprised you want something faster and more 
comfortable.

Whereas I'd rather have a 2cv and a quick motorcycle.

Mike P

Doug wrote:
> On 27 Sep, 11:05, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 26 Sep, 13:57, "Mike P"  wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>> news:a1b1f59f-aeec-4428-a62b-564d404e4ce8@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>>>>>>> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
>>>>>>> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
>>>>>>> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
>>>>>>> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
>>>>>> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
>>>>>> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
>>>>>> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>>>>>> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
>>>>>> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
>>>>>> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
>>>>>> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>>>>> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
>>>>> efficient engines.
>>>>> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
>>>>> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
>>>>> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
>>>>> half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
>>>> Smarts are fucking horrible cars.
>>> Well there is no such thing as a 'good car', aka 'very expensive, fast
>>> and powerful with a full range of extras', but I suppose some are
>>> slightly less horrible than others.
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Network
>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>> Careful your stupidity is showing.
>> A good car does not have to be fast, expensive, etc
>> A good car is something that suits you & is fit for the purpose that you
>> want.
>>
> Exactly, moving from A to B in the shortest possible time and in the
> greatest comfort with loads of inbuilt gadgetry.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Wow I must admit that I did not know that's what I posted.
You see that is not what my criteria are.
Shortest possible time? not necessary what I want depends on the journey 
& reason for it. If I am driving the kid to the hospital with blood 
dripping from the cut in its arm, then speed is good, driving to the 
wood yard to collect a fence post, why would I want to speed?
Comfort? Of course its important, but cost is a factor here.
Inbuilt gadgetry? Depends what you mean, airbags, abs etc can only be 
good. SatNav useful but not necessary all the time, anyway mines not 
inbuilt it moves between the car & the van.

But if all these things are important to you then so be it.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 27 Sep, 11:05, Tony Dragon  wrote:

>> Careful your stupidity is showing.
>> A good car does not have to be fast, expensive, etc
>> A good car is something that suits you & is fit for the purpose that
>> you want.
>>
> Exactly, moving from A to B in the shortest possible time and in the
> greatest comfort with loads of inbuilt gadgetry.

Again Doug reveals his frustration at not being able to indulge in the same 
activities and with the same level of comfort as other people.

Doug wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 13:57, "Mike P"  wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
> Well there is no such thing as a 'good car', aka 'very expensive, fast
> and powerful with a full range of extras', but I suppose some are
> slightly less horrible than others.
> 
In the same way that there is no such thing as a 'good' hypocritical 
scrounging unwashed welfare-dependant smelly piss-stained old bastard?

Doug wrote:
> On 27 Sep, 11:05, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 26 Sep, 13:57, "Mike P"  wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>> news:a1b1f59f-aeec-4428-a62b-564d404e4ce8@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On 26 Sep, 11:50, Boltar  wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 7:17 am, Doug  wrote:
>>>>>>> In a move that stunned the car industry and green campaigners, the
>>>>>>> parliament's environment committee voted by a sweeping majority to
>>>>>>> force car manufacturers to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of new
>>>>>>> vehicles by 2012 and to maintain stringent fines on those that fail to
>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>> And at the same time forcing car makers to add yet more and more
>>>>>> safety features and NOx and SO2 scrubbers to their vehicles which adds
>>>>>> weight and uses up more fuel. The average car hasn't gone up 50% in
>>>>>> weight in the last 30 years because the radios have got heavier!
>>>>>> Internal combustion engines max theoretical efficiency , never mind
>>>>>> practical, isn't very good so the EU can legislate all they want but
>>>>>> at some point it simply won't be possible to get lower CO2 figures
>>>>>> from cars except by pushing them along the road.
>>>>> It is perfectly possible if you have light, slow cars with small,
>>>>> efficient engines.
>>>>> "Smart's owner, Mercedes, claims that the new 799cc engine diesel
>>>>> version of the iconic fortwo has the lowest carbon footprint of any
>>>>> current production car worldwide producing only 88 gCO2/km, around
>>>>> half of the carbon emissions of average UK car."
>>>> Smarts are fucking horrible cars.
>>> Well there is no such thing as a 'good car', aka 'very expensive, fast
>>> and powerful with a full range of extras', but I suppose some are
>>> slightly less horrible than others.

>> Careful your stupidity is showing.
>> A good car does not have to be fast, expensive, etc
>> A good car is something that suits you & is fit for the purpose that you
>> want.
>>
> Exactly, moving from A to B in the shortest possible time and in the
> greatest comfort with loads of inbuilt gadgetry.

Usually the fastest way from A to B is on a motorbike. Lots of comfort 
if you know what you're doing, but very little inbuilt gadgetry. So not 
a car at all. Bikes beat cars all ways for speed.

-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.

John Wright  wrote:

> Usually the fastest way from A to B is on a motorbike. Lots of comfort
> if you know what you're doing, but very little inbuilt gadgetry. So not
> a car at all. Bikes beat cars all ways for speed.

Except when the journey is over more than a few tens of miles. I always
arrive in Italy long before a friend who does the 1000 miles on a bike.
Usually I'm 24 hours faster than he is, if I had a diseasel with 700
miels range I'd probably beat him by two days.

He has to stop to fill the pathetically tiny tank on his bike at almost
every service station. Even driving the 4x4 I only need to stop three
times, and two of those stops will be for lunch one for the evning
meal/hotel, so little time lost over all. Also I get there comfortable,
air conditioned, relaxed. He gets there strung out, deafened, twitching,
doubled over in agony and roasted like a pig in its own juices.

Steve Firth wrote:
> John Wright  wrote:
> 
>> Usually the fastest way from A to B is on a motorbike. Lots of comfort
>> if you know what you're doing, but very little inbuilt gadgetry. So not
>> a car at all. Bikes beat cars all ways for speed.
> 
> Except when the journey is over more than a few tens of miles. I always
> arrive in Italy long before a friend who does the 1000 miles on a bike.
> Usually I'm 24 hours faster than he is, if I had a diseasel with 700
> miels range I'd probably beat him by two days.
> 
> He has to stop to fill the pathetically tiny tank on his bike at almost
> every service station. Even driving the 4x4 I only need to stop three
> times, and two of those stops will be for lunch one for the evning
> meal/hotel, so little time lost over all. Also I get there comfortable,
> air conditioned, relaxed. He gets there strung out, deafened, twitching,
> doubled over in agony and roasted like a pig in its own juices.

Yes, most bikes do have pathetically small tanks. I used to have one 
that took all of 6 gallons - so I made it from Assen to Zeebrugge non 
stop. I saw one bike that was much faster than mine stop twice to fill 
up on that trip...

Whether in a car or on a bike its stopping that really slows you down.

-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.