|
01 Nov 03 - 02:14 AM (#1045674) Subject: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Red Eye People who drive these montrosities really need to get a life. They serve no purpose to any normal road user. I don't have a problem with farmers and Land Rovers, but Mrs Smith on the housing estate, taking her two kids 500 yrds to school in a Toyota whatever 4X4 makes me wonder, WHY??? |
|
01 Nov 03 - 04:10 AM (#1045694) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: C-flat Because it's the trend, Red Eye. To many people their cars are an accessessory and make a statement about the driver. It's unfortunate that, unlike the mobile phone, the current trend with cars is "big is best". Big cars don't offend me, some of them are very nice looking vehicles, but I've never bought a car because I wanted to fit in to a particular social group and have a hard time understanding those who do. I'm happy if my car starts when I turn the key and stops when I get to my destination, beyond that I'm not interested. (I'm not always happy) |
|
01 Nov 03 - 04:23 AM (#1045696) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Keith A of Hertford I could just laugh at people doing the schoolrun and shopping in a huge off road vehicle, except that they also Create far more emissions than a car Cause much more severe injuries and damage to other road users in an accident. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 07:47 AM (#1045735) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Sandra in Sydney here in Oz they create more than emissions - they have been the direct cause of many accidents & near accidents outside schools. As has been said they also cause/add to many road accidents. I was recently listening to talkback after another accident at a school. After the accident the Headmistress had asked parents to park away from the school & walk back to collect their primary aged children, but even then idiot parents didn't listen to her & parked & double parked around ths gates & endangered their own & other children. Other parents rang up to report similar behaviour at other schools. We also have restricted speeds in school zones, ignored by the majority of drivers. I live on the edge of the CBD in an area with lots of 4WD's & lots of rich folks. The vast majoriy in my area would never go off inner city roads, which were not even built for motor vehicles! I'm glad I don't drive. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 08:22 AM (#1045745) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: artbrooks Can't fit a half cord of wood in the trunk of herself's Geo Prizm, and it doesn't negotiate washed out dirt/sand roads very well. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 09:36 AM (#1045766) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Greg F. Big 4X4's- and especially the so-called SUV's- SHOULD offend you- they cost you money thru increased gasoline prices, through increased insurance premiums, they make it less safe for others on the roads not driving these unnecessary behemoths- AND they are inherently unsafe for those in them. They are an American disease- spawned by auto manufactureres to get around a loophone in emissions regulations, lets not forget- now being exported to the rest of the world. The U.S. pickup truck- once a REAL utility vehicle- has now become a luxury, gussies-up SUV with an open box in the back- jacked up so high as to be impractical, extended cabs, truck beds so small they'll just about carry a six-pack- just more hype and bullshit. Give the book High and Mighty: SUVs--The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way by Keith Bradsher a read and then we'll talk. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 09:45 AM (#1045768) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Rapparee We're going to replace our 1993 Accord with a Honda Element. Four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive can be a near-necessity here in Idaho, especially if we ever get a real, old-fasheioned winter again (shovel off the roofs, etc.). But the Element gets about 30 mpg, not much less than our Accord and well within the range of my Civic. It's floor is urethane, not carpet, so it can be hosed out if need be. It's got decent cargo space. It's well engineered. And it's funky enough looking that my wife likes it, even though she won't buy the green one with the black trim so that I can paint brown splotches on it to complete the camouflage pattern. We did think long and hard about it, though. Most folks don't need four wheel drive. Most folks should learn to drive well, actually. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 09:53 AM (#1045770) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Frankly, folks, I admire and enjoy 4x4 vehicles, but they look awful silly in the hands of someone barely graduated from skateboards, or being used as a commuter car. I don't own one myself but I might. Except that while I could use the cargo space, i don't go anywhere as a rule where I would need the traction. And I am sensible neough to know it. But let's not be mindless about this. THe miles per gallon of a new Highlander, for example, is a lot better than that of an old Chevy sedan -- about 25 mpg average. Judging from Bradsher's title he's being an alarmist on purpose. As far as I know the world's most dangerous vehicle is the Abrams M1A1 battle tank... A |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:07 AM (#1045777) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Rapparee I've always felt that you should buy to your needs, not to your neighbors. I drive a Civic, that's all I need to do most of what I do. We felt that an Element would answer the rest of our needs here, as the environment we live in has changed from urban to rural and semi-rural. I do NOT need a Hummer, for instance, but I can envision the circumstances where I might (granted, they're remote!). If I needed a five-ton truck, I'd buy one. It makes lots of sense to analyze your needs and buy to them instead of buying to what folks are telling you you need. You can save a bunch of money, for one thing. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:12 AM (#1045779) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: artbrooks I currently drive a '96 Blazer, and I'm waiting for the Saturn Vue with the hybrid engine. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:17 AM (#1045782) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: saulgoldie The genuine need for these vehicles by average drivers is negligible, at best as has already been said. This is a perfect example of where individual liberties collide with the needs of society. One 4x4 out of 10,000 vehicles will not bring down the driving experience or the environment. Neither will 2. But when you have 100, 500, 0r 3000 out of that group, you now have some major environmental impact. You also have, which few people who beat up on these fail to mention is that they can't park in normal parking spaces, thus endangering everyone's car doors, and when the move they effectively "block out the Sun" so that you have a more limited picture of what is going on on the road to be able to avoid accidents. In addition to their emmissions and physical danger to other vehicles, that is. Those who choose them should have to justify the need, or pay a hefty surtax to compensate the rest of us for their increased impact on the surrounding community. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:24 AM (#1045784) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Stilly River Sage I own one vehicle that has to be many things, so I own a large pickup truck (two wheel drive--I have no intention of driving far off of the pavement with it). I have a camper shell on the back and sometimes people confuse this with the Suburban because of it's size. How do I use this? I lug lots of stuff around all of the time that would never fit in a car. I moved the entire contents of an over-stuffed apartment to this house (except for the upright grand piano). I regularly haul hundreds of pounds of mulch, lumber, and lots of other stuff as I work on this house and this yard. I also haul my kids and their friends, so it is an extended cab pickup. Looks pretty big. How do I accomodate the less than wonderful mileage (with a tail wind on the highway I get about 20mpg, usually it's around 16 on city streets)? I don't drive it when I can avoid driving. I telecommute two or three days a week for work, so it stays parked in the garage. The kids know I won't make extra trips between their father's house and here, so they'd better figure out what they need for the weekend on the first trip. I keep a list of chores and do my shopping in loops of several places, not one place then back home then back out again later. I spend around $85 a month on gas, filing it about every 8-10 days. I challenge myself every time I drive it to make the trip efficient, because my goal is lower fuel bills, since those will also equal less pollution. I don't drive in places where I have to negotiate tight spaces--they are always easy to avoid, and most of the parents who think they MUST drop their child off at the door to the school rather than 200 paces away at the corner where we have a very good crossing guard, are the real problem in traffic congestion. I never drive over there--those folks don't seem to notice when they've blocked all lanes of traffic as they sit half-way through a left turn into the drive to drop little Suzy at the door. They don't seem to notice that Suzy is pudgy because she never gets to walk anywhere and get some exercise. There are folks who drive these vehicles to show that they can, because they have the money, or perhaps they want everyone to think they also have a big penis and powerful pecs. I ain't one of those. SRS |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:29 AM (#1045786) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: mack/misophist There are positive aspects to the SUV craze. Have you noticed how high off the road they sit? Very high center of gravity. Thus, in the hands of the unskilled, they exhibit a very high tendency to turn over. Couple this with the fact that the tops of almost all the crash barriers in the US are well below that center of gravity and you have evolution at work. The negative side is that the bottom of an SUV's front bumper is above the floor boards of normal cars. So if one hits you broadside, the person sitting at the impact point is almost certain to die. Perhaps the designers could all be indited for conspiracy to commit murder. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:31 AM (#1045788) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: artbrooks My Blazer is 2 inches wider and 18 longer than Jenn's Prizm. It is shorter than most 'full-sized' sedans, and fits into a normal parking space with over a foot on either side. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:35 AM (#1045791) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Stilly River Sage There is no need to "endanger" other vehicle's doors with a large vehicle in the parking lot. The trick? Don't try to park as close to the building as you can. That's what 95% of the folks do in malls, grocery stores, etc. I always avoid the high-traffic at the door anyway by heading down to the far end of the lot. I do park in such a way that doesn't invite anyone to park close to me (usually by straddling two spaces that normally people would park nose-to-nose in). |
|
01 Nov 03 - 10:49 AM (#1045799) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Midchuck What is really fun is living in snowy country, but relatively close to metropolitan areas, so that lots of skiers/snowboarders/snowshoers/snowmobilers/common drunks drive up from the cities for their winter sport. They all seem to have SUVs. And they all seem to believe that having 4 wheel drive means you can go just as fast on a snowy highway as you can on a dry one. (It doesn't. All modern cars have 4 wheel brakes, so a 4 wheel drive car can't stop any better than I 2 wheel drive car, for example.) They will often blast past you on the road, momentarily blinding you with the snow they kick up. Then you see them in a ditch a few miles later on, and they want you to stop and help pull them out. I don't stop. But I wave. Usually I keep all my fingers extended when I wave, but sometimes only one. I guess I'm not as nice a person as I should be. But then, I'm not a Christian, which means I don't have the Christian obligation to be nice even when people aren't nice to me. You've noticed how that's the way all Christians are, haven't you... Peter. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 11:28 AM (#1045817) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,pdq As usual, I would like people to look at things from a different perspective. Everyone uses energy to cook, heat their homes, run their appliances and fuel their cars. If we were all responsible citizens we would allow a reasonable amount of enery for all the jobs "in total". I have spent most of my life in small houses with no air conditioning. I keep the temps low in the winter and never travel by airplane. My total energy use is quite responsible even though I own three four-wheel drive vehicles and plan to buy the biggest 3/4 ton 4WD Suburban next week. Barbara Streisand, on the other hand, owns four mansions which she keeps heated in winter and air conditioned in summer, even though she a can only be in one at a time. She travels accross the country in the most outrageous gas guzzlers of all time, the airplane. Maybe we need a thread on "social contract". |
|
01 Nov 03 - 12:10 PM (#1045823) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos PDQ: If I were a knee-jerk liberal, which I am not, I would suggest that that "total energy use" line was just massive rationalization because you like big powerful cars, right? But I am not, so I won't. A |
|
01 Nov 03 - 12:29 PM (#1045831) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,pdq Amos: My 4WDs are 4 cyl types which I restore. Say what you want, you are usually wrong anyway, and always mean-spirited. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 12:32 PM (#1045833) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Stilly River Sage Aw, don't start a squabble, pdq and Amos--you are two of my favorites on these threads! |
|
01 Nov 03 - 12:36 PM (#1045835) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Gee, PDQ -- how unkind! I'm sorry to say that I disagree on both points. I withdraw my remark about trucks. I like big vehicles, but I don't own one because I don't really need one. Nothing mean-spirited about that. What do you mean, actually? A |
|
01 Nov 03 - 12:46 PM (#1045841) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,pdq Amos: My points about "social contract" and "total energy use" are serious and deserve more consideration than your normal flip remarks. Also note how many assumptions you made which were wrong. There is also a problem that most liberals (which you are) attack the messenger and ignore the message. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 02:33 PM (#1045889) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Jimmy Crinigan 4 X 4's are the saddest thing on the roads of Britain. Driven by suburban housewives as a fashion accessory they do nothing for the driver, but draw laughter from other road users. |
|
01 Nov 03 - 04:54 PM (#1045954) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos OK. How about a social contract to reduce interference with each other to the lowest level possible? I do like the idea of a consensual limit on total energy use but I believe it must be voluntary. A |
|
01 Nov 03 - 06:28 PM (#1045991) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Greg F. Judging from Bradsher's title he's being an alarmist on purpose Tell you what, Amos- why don't you at least take a peek at the book before you critique it, OK? ;>) |
|
01 Nov 03 - 07:07 PM (#1046002) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos You're right, Greg F. I'll stop critiquing. A |
|
01 Nov 03 - 08:16 PM (#1046023) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Bobert ".... he can't be a man 'cause he don't smoke the same cigarettes as me..." Monkey see, monkey do... But bottom line, it's terribly Narcisitic for these folks to think they have a right to cunsume as much as they can... and that's what most SUV'ers are guilty of. Consumption! Why? Because we can, you commie!!! I hope this is the last *Me* generation becuae the earth can't stand too more generations who think it is their *job* to consume as much as they can... Carpe diem gonna burn this earth up... Okay, I got a 4X4. 1975 Dodge M880 Military. It gets driven maybe 300 miles a year. It gets 14 mpg. I also have a 1991 Toyota Camry which gets driven for everything other than deep snow. Gets 35 mph... Bobert |
|
02 Nov 03 - 08:29 AM (#1046185) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: saulgoldie If people consumed at more reasonable levels (and not just in the car arena) and distribution was not so economically and politically controlled, Mother Earth could support all her children in a very satisfying comfortable life-style. 90% of the world's people will never even drive a car, much less a resource-intensive 4x4. It is not fair. It is not sustainable. And sorry to say, Bobert, this IS the last me generation. Humanity will not survive into the next century. Or at least, it will be a humanity much changed in profound ways that we cannot even contemplate at the moment in our limited thinking and approach. |
|
02 Nov 03 - 10:31 AM (#1046220) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Gareth Mind you, in a bad winter here sometimes I wish I had a 4X4 !! Gareth |
|
02 Nov 03 - 01:24 PM (#1046281) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Phot I've got a Land Rover 110 V8, she drinks fuel at 14 mpg, costs a fortune to service, is a total nightmare to insure, (12 seats) won't fit in any of the car parks in Exeter. That said, she's the only car I own, she's 16 years old still going strong, and great in the winter, I get to see parts of the country, that are not accesable to most motorists, spares grow on trees at the bottom of the garden, and no matter where you go it'll get fixed! And as for gas guzzlers, the Triumph only returns 27-30 mpg! 995cc who says small is economical!! Wassail, Chris |
|
02 Nov 03 - 01:37 PM (#1046288) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Phot Oopps! 955cc fof the Triumph, and 3528cc for the Landy(216ci in USA speak!) Sorry! Chris |
|
02 Nov 03 - 08:40 PM (#1046477) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Rara Avis Here in New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the nation, most of the land has been paved over so the only off-roading most folks do is when they turn into a mall parking lot and surely a standard auto can handle that task. It is vexing to drive behind one of these monsters, few of which look like they've ever hauled anything, because of the blocked view. I'm seeing a new problem, which the 4 x 4 amplifies, and that is a sudden reluctance to park anywhere near the kerb. My town is old with narrow streets and many houses don't have off-street parking. Trying to drive down the street lined with super-sized vehicles parked two feet from the kerb can be a challenge in my small car. It must be hair-raising to the 4 x 4 drivers. |
|
02 Nov 03 - 10:31 PM (#1046540) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,pdq Maybe we need to control the population growth, not SUV ownership. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 12:47 AM (#1046571) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: fishhead50 Once upon a time it was the station wagon. Not cool enough for the boomers it was replaced by the van. Full sized vans at first but quickly replaced by the much more practical mini-van. When the mini-van lost its cool the SUV became the latest incarnation of the family wagon. The SUV's were always there, I first drove a Chevy Suburban in the late 60's for Florida State University. The car salemen will tell you its primarily women who are buying the SUV's and if you talk to the ladies, they will tell you they like the visibility and carrying capacity. Incidentally if you look closely you'll notice most aren't really 4 wheel drive, just big. If you have 2.3 kids you're often hauling 6, plus all the stuff kids haul in those overstuffed backpacks... and don't forget the dog, groceries and soccer balls. 'Course in the goodle days down South we got by with a pickup and several lawn chairs in the back. Couldn't afford 4WD so you always kept a couple of boards and a come-along in back. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 09:23 AM (#1046766) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST Where I work the parking lot is full of huge suv's. They all drive from one suburb to the other. The vehicles I would like to to more tightly controlled are ATV and snowmobiles. They do huge damage to remore areas, farm land, beaCH AND SO. aND LETS NOT HEAR ANY OF THAT 9 OUT OF TEN DRIVES DRIVE RES[ONSIBLY CRAP CAUSE IT JUST AIN'T SO. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS...THE KEY STUCK. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 10:20 AM (#1046795) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Midchuck Maybe we need to control the population growth, not SUV ownership. What's with the "maybe?" Until we get population growth under control worldwide, all attempts to manage either world hunger and poverty, or environmental degradation, are mere stopgaps. The vehicles I would like to to more tightly controlled are ATV and snowmobiles. Amen. But you forgot "personal watercraft" commonly known as jet skis. The same plague, but spread to the lakes, rivers, etc. All my very humble personal opinion, of course. Peter. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 11:34 AM (#1046843) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Willie-O I drive a 94 Mazda B4000 extra-cab pickup. Strictly 2-wheel drive. Properly weighted in back it will go through almost anything a 4X4 will, (except long uphill unplowed snow) and it's a helluva lot cheaper to buy or service--mileage is about 26 mpg, or 10litres/100 km If I ever get my new career as a technical writer started, guess I'll look at getting a commuter car...but of all the Mazda's virtues, "PAID FOR" is #1. Willie-O and pdq has a point, but calling Amos "always mean-spirited" is just plain silly. I don't think Barbra Streisand or Bruce Willis' lifestyle is at issue here--does everything have to be left vs right? |
|
03 Nov 03 - 12:36 PM (#1046904) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: open mike I live 1/2 mile from the nearest "black-top" road, and nearly 8 miles from the nearest highway. (80 curves in the road leading to our driveway) In my fore-runner (used to drive an Exploder, and before that a Colt Vista--all 4WD) I carry 3 bags of fire gear.. structure gear bag for house and car fires, wildland safety gear - all equipment needed for forest fire response, and a medical bag with Oxygen tank, blood pressure cuff, rubber gloves, etc. This life-saving equipment goes with me every where I go and that sometimes means to remote areas for rescue. No apology here for remaining ready to help others. also when it comes time to carry instruments, amps, speakers, etc. I am ready. SUV stands for sports utility vehicle and i do make use of it for UTILITARIAN purposes. I also live in the mountains, and today there is snow on the ground, the 4X4 makes the difference between being able to get in and out. One of the only obstacles to travel and transport are the vehicles not able to make it up or down the road, which get stuck and block traffic. the nearest shopping mall is over 30 miles away and i maybe go there once a year... |
|
03 Nov 03 - 12:43 PM (#1046907) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,pdq Thanks, open mike. We rural Americans will fight big-brother -isn and get what we need to get by. Maybe some people have bigger cars than they need and some people have bigger houses than they need, but that is why we call this a free country. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 12:44 PM (#1046910) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Now I'm gonna go get all introverted. Dang. :>) A |
|
03 Nov 03 - 01:43 PM (#1046950) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST I agree about the jetskis..obnoxious things. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 05:58 PM (#1047105) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,KateG at Work There's a big difference between OpenMike, who drives an SUV for all the right reasons -- and humanitarian ones at that -- and the suburbanite who uses the biggest thing s/he can find for status purposes. I was facing one of those behemoths at my gas station the other day and realized that the bumper was on a level with my windshield. Frightening thought. On the other hand, I confess to being fond of four wheel drive. I live in a hilly rural area, and there have been times when it has been a godsend. However, you don't need a gas-guzzling Suburban Assault Vehicle to get a 4x4. My last three cars have all been small 4WD station wagons getting around 30 mpg: a Honda Civic (no longer made), a Toyota Tercel (no longer made) and a Subaru Impreza. Plenty of space for me, my groceries and my rottweiler. Several years ago I rented an Explorer to go on a winter business trip -- the company was paying and my Toyota was on its last legs. My companion for the journey owned an old Volvo wagon. We pulled up in our respective cars next to the Explorer and opened the hatch. We couldn't believe it. There was less room behind the back seat in that monster than in either of our little wagons. Two wheelie suitcases (the kind that fit under airline seats), two briefcases and two overcoats filled it. And since neither of us are overtall, we had to have the seat so close to the wheel we could practically steer with our tits. The handling was also quite scary. I'm used to going between 40 and 50 mph on our wiggly, hilly roads...but this thing felt like it was going to go into orbit if I went over 35 on the same roads. A scary beast, thank heaven someone else was footing the bill. |
|
03 Nov 03 - 06:16 PM (#1047122) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: JenEllen I have a 4WD, and am not ashamed to admit it. Living and working in the places I do, it'd be difficult not to have one. However, there are adjustments people can make that lessen the impact of those (or any) cars on the environment and lives around them, but that would require thinking about something other than themselves, so I don't see folks taking to it any time soon. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 06:42 AM (#1047538) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: gnu Yup. My extended cab 4X4 pickup hauls my equipment. And she's got Kent County racin' stripes (tree scratches) from bumper to bumper, hood and cab too. When I see them yuppies with their shiny, hulkin' SUV's without a strip o' dirt or any scratches, it makes me mad. I call them Homobiles. (PC ? Not. So don't whine.) |
|
04 Nov 03 - 07:32 AM (#1047558) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Liz the Squeak A pedestrian hit by an ordinary car will be hit in the shin or knee and go over the top of the bonnet (hood). Survival rate, fairly good dependant on speed of vehicle. A pedestrian hit by an SUV or a larger vehicle with Bull bars (Roo bars as they are in Oz) will get hit in the hip and go under the wheels. Survival rate, not so good, recovery time a lot longer. A child pedestrian hit by an ordinary car will be hit in the upper leg or hip. Survival rate not good, but not bad either. Hit by an SUV, the child will be hit in the head. Survival rate, extremely small. Conclusion = SUVs and bullbars in pedestrian areas are not good. There was a move afoot to try to outlaw these bullbars but I don't know what happened to it. LTS |
|
04 Nov 03 - 07:33 AM (#1047559) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST I wonder how people got around in these so called remote places before 4x4's. I am certainly not against them when there is good reason to have them but I would guess that very few people really need them. As for ATV's, I think they are awful things and ought to be banned as they serve no useful purpose, although we seem to live in a world ffilled with things that serve no useful purpose. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 07:58 AM (#1047566) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: saulgoldie When the oxygen level in the air has been so reduced that we are gasping for air, and most of the conveniently accessible oil has been pumped, and we are in our last years of life, what will we tell the younger generations from whom we borrowed this planet and returned it to them in pitiful condition? That is the question. How much we drive, and how legitimate our needs for such vehicles are questions that pale in comparison to this one supreme question. But it is really already too late. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 08:28 AM (#1047575) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST I think it is too late. Not because of the huge damage done to date but we don't get it....at all. All of our resources are finite, if we do not understand that we will contine to run around in the ridiculous cars, we will consume too much, shower tooo often, eat too much and think that jet skis are part of our freedom of choice, this is why it is too late..we are jost so stupid, all of us. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 08:31 AM (#1047578) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Strollin' Johnny I don't own a 4x4, nor will I ever need to own one, because I'm perfectly happy with the size of my penis. Johnny |
|
04 Nov 03 - 08:46 AM (#1047591) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST Good on you, now promise to keep it for private use. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 12:49 PM (#1047760) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST This is connected to the hypocrisy thread because when we had a public meeting about banning smoking in the Pubs because it was damaging to the other people...al the fervent anti smokers came in 4X4s. Now don't that beat all. We are awash in hypocrites ..ain't we? |
|
04 Nov 03 - 12:53 PM (#1047767) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos We all have blindness in degrees and on different subjects. Yowling about hypocrisy may be satisfying, but it doesn't address the facts or raise the awareness of those whose blind-spots are being discussed. A |
|
04 Nov 03 - 01:14 PM (#1047787) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST I am not yowling Amos, nor am I satisfied. I am merely suggesting that awareness that one is a problem only starts when we stop pointing fingers at others and deal with our own vices, It is this step that many drivers of polluting vehicles fail to grasp. It is not enough to be against the failing of others, you also have to be against your own. In fact, I am not sure I understand your point, really. Are we to attack only other peoples faults then ? That is what happens now and it does not help and it is hypocritical..that is all I meant. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 01:54 PM (#1047821) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Jack the Sailor Amos, I don't think you are always mean spirited but I gotta disagree about the most dangerous vehicle. For 2003, I pick the Iraqi T72, its especially dangerous for the driver. Or Maybe Air Force One? |
|
04 Nov 03 - 02:06 PM (#1047827) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Don't all internal combustion engines pollute the air? What I think is so amusing in all of this anti-SUV stuff, is that I have yet to hear anyone come out against 18-wheelers. If you think SUVs are dangerous on the highway.... well, I suppose you've never sat in traffic for hours because two 18-wheelers collided. I suppose you've never lost a friend because he drove his VW bug UNDER one of those things. And as far as gas guzzling is concerned, where is the outcry against the large luxury sedans with V-8 engines? Buses? Vans? Hmm? Private jets? I drive a Jeep Cherokee - the one they don't make anymore. It goes off-road, it hauls firewood (because I have a woodstove instead of gas or electric heat), and it holds two large dogs and camping gear. And one time, we had to sleep in it when our tent flooded on an outing. The only time it has ever been in an accident was when someone in a small car HIT ME in a parking lot. The dent is still there. Do some people get large vehicles for status? Of course they do. I think it's a little silly. But please don't lump all of us in there together. Instead of telling people what they can & can't drive, how about we put pressure on the manufacturers to make better engines? |
|
04 Nov 03 - 02:29 PM (#1047837) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Well put Kim C. I drive a Nissan Xterra. I have two kids and my wife and I need the space for long trips. We don't care, nor can we afford to fly on vacations. The Xterra has been wonderful. I keep the car tuned and maintained. I am getting about 18 to 20 miles per gallon, not great but then again not that bad. I see dozens of old cars that are obviously burning oil and I'm sure doing worse things to the environment than my 4x2. (not a 4x4). I properly recycle my oil, avoid air conditioning unless it is absolutely brutal, wash the car by hand (and only when it really, really needs it, and I avoid unnecessary "joy" rides. Do I need such a big car? In the long run I am sure we could all get by with only bicycles. However, I do feel much safer in this vehicle. If you spend time driving the NJ Turnpike, I am sure you've noticed the tractor trailers that zip by. I do feel much safer in the Xterra than I did in our old Tercel. Did I buy it for status? Hardly. I would not call an SUV or truck "sexy" or a status symbol. It is practical for my lifestyle, and I'm not ashamed to admit it - it is the most comfortable ride I've ever owned. I would not buy a Hummer, nor would I buy a larger or more expensive SUV. The size fits my needs. There are a lot of cliches in this world, and many of them are being made at SUV owners. It is just another form of bigotry. Believe it or not, I DO, understand the problems and I am not trying to play spin doctor or justify my actions. I do think that there are ways to improve our quality of life, and I would make a strong case that the diesel burners are among the vehicles that need reformed. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 02:51 PM (#1047850) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Red Eye All the 4 X 4's that I ever see are sparkingly clean and look like they have never been off road. Also if I suggested to the driver that they try it they would think I was crazy. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 02:53 PM (#1047854) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Midchuck The 4-wheel drive isn't the issue. Kris and I have a nice matched pair of Subaru Legacy wagons at the moment. We liked hers so well that we got another one for me so she'd get to drive hers. The issue is whether you have a larger, heavier and less economical car than you really need, for the sake, either of the sheer status, or for the "safety" - meaning, in the real world, "Everybody can damn well get out of my way because they know if I hit them, they'll die and I won't!" (Yes, Ron, I know that's not what you meant - at least at the ego level. But what about the Id...?) Good point about the 18-wheelers. Especially since professional truck drivers stopped being the most competent and most polite drivers on the road, and started being the least. But what choice do we have? We have to have our Stuff, and we chose to let the railroad system go to hell, and I'm sure the environmentalists won't let us fix it now. Peter. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 03:11 PM (#1047868) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Leave my ID alone Peter!! If I ever get in an accident, I hope that there are no deaths at all. Your statement "everybody can damn well get out of my way" describes a type of driver who would be a problem in any car they drive. I don't drive fast - you've probably passed my Xterra if you ever been on the road with me. I had to do a lot of thinking before I purchased the Xterra. I found it to be the most economical vehicle that I could purchase that meets my needs. I have an issue with claustrophobia and head room. I cannot drive a car where my head is touching the ceiling. I tried a Subaru and felt very uncomfortable. Most cars would not fit my family needs. Will I be doing off-road driving? Not for sport. |
|
04 Nov 03 - 03:17 PM (#1047875) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Alaska Mike My 4x4 pickup sure is nice to drive here in Alaska in the winter. I don't care how much it costs to run, I know it is dependable in all weather and is much safer for my family on icy roads. It passes the emissions control inspections every year and gets 20+ mpg. If it ain't PC, tough tiddlywinks. I'm still going to drive it. Mike |
|
04 Nov 03 - 04:19 PM (#1047924) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Phot As my Land Rover is off the road with some body work repairs at the moment, I have to use my moterbike to get to and from work over the winter, "so what", you may say, just bear this in mind. Its a seventy mile round trip frim Honiton,where I live to Yeovilton where I work, and the weather is starting to get bad, with rain in the day and frost and ice at night, which makes things a bit tricky at six in the morning, with 150 Bhp going through a contact patch the size of a two pound coin! Add to this equasion, salt (supposed to stop the roads freezing) which draws the moisture even more, spilt Diesel fuel from trucks with overfull tanks, mud and manure from farmyards and fields, rubber from the prolnged dry spell, and loose chippings from road "repairs". You might start to see why I drive a Land Rover in The counties of Devon and Somerset! Wassail Chris....(Not looking foward to going to work for the next Few months!!) |
|
05 Nov 03 - 12:57 AM (#1048218) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: LadyJean I drive a station wagon. It holds a lot, and car thieves don't like them. The same can not be said for S.U.V.s This song goes to Get Along Home Cindy Cindy. My neighbor bought a suvey. It gave me quite a shock 'cause when he tried to park the thing, it took up half the block. Chorus: Gas it up suvey suvey, gas it up suvey suvey. Gas it up suvey suvey, and then you have to pay. And when he drives his suvey, you'd best leave it alone. He passes on the right hand side, while talking on the phone. Chorus. The suvey hit a Geo. It did it once before. The suvey has a scratch on it, the Geo is no more Chorus. The suvey hit a hairpin curve, rolled on it's back and died. The insurance wouldn't pay up, 'cause they called it suveycide. If your audience isn't throwing things at you, sing the chorus again. PLEASE! feel free to sing this song, just don't tell people you wrote it. I loathe sport utility vehicles. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 08:05 AM (#1048350) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST a landrover in Devon...Bingo. What would you drive in Manitoba...a tank ? |
|
05 Nov 03 - 09:07 AM (#1048376) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Lady Jean - if an SUV destroys just one Geo, then the world is just a little better place to live. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 09:09 AM (#1048378) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko One more item - the "myth" about SUV's taking up so much space - most are actually take less length than a station wagon. I've never found a parking space (marked) that I couldn't fit into with plenty of room for my neighbors. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 09:33 AM (#1048399) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Midchuck Face the facts, Ron. You can't win. People who drive little compact cars are sneering at you for a wasteful, arrogant exploiter of the environment and wanton destroyer of our natural resources. Meanwhile, people in Suburbans and Expeditions and Navigators and Grand Cherokees are sneering at you for a hippy wimp. Heh, heh... Peter. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 09:35 AM (#1048401) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Red Eye Went to B & Q for some paint earlier today. Went to park between two 4 X 4's. If I had been a couple of inches in width I possibly could have got out of my dor. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 09:54 AM (#1048414) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Okay Red Eye, you parked between two CARS that did not park properly. The same scenario could have happened with VW bugs! Midchuck, I'm not trying to win! People who form opinions just to follow a party line are of no concern to me. I reviewed the options and made my decision. My Xterra and the way I drive it is not destroying the enviroment any more than a beat up old Geo that is burning oil. I don't need a BMW or a Hummer to impress anyone. I don't buy a car to impress environmentalists or status seeking Yuppies. Life is not black and white. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 10:27 AM (#1048429) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST it's a shame you don't wish to impress those who are concerned for the environment. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 10:31 AM (#1048430) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Oh, Ron, why must you be soooooo RAtional???? ***bg*** When something such as a category of car or a race of people or a kind of candy bar gets elected as the Devil Iconic, there's no arguing. The discussion about the merits of the icon never address all the emotion attached to the devil part. Cf "No Irish Need Apply". You can bash any machine design on the basis of its individual wastefulness or inefficiency but deciding that anything in the SUV category is categorically bad is just dumb. A |
|
05 Nov 03 - 11:02 AM (#1048449) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Guest (if that is your real name!), none of us need to impress anyone. Our actions and the face we see in the mirror is the only thing that counts. Blindly following a party line, be it the conservatives or the left, without thinking is just dumb. Question authority. Don't believe every press release you read. The media is biased on both sides. Everyone has to do their own research and gain experience on their own. Well put Amos. There are 4x4's that are inefficent. I'm not saying that my Xterra is "good" for the environment, but there are steps people can take to minimize the impact. Change your oil regularly, get a tuneup, check the gas you put in the car, don't run unnecessary trips - and don't buy a car just for status. Also, people who run cars into the ground that fail to pass emissions tests are doing much more harm. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 11:11 AM (#1048455) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Guest: The desire to impress is no part of an intention to communicate; it is the proivince of the unmoored soul and the insecure heart. As is the frequent, cheap and easy resort to sarcasm. Like this... :>) A |
|
05 Nov 03 - 11:21 AM (#1048462) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Midchuck Ron, my point was that life is not black and white! And that you can't keep everyone happy no matter what you drive. Oh, well, maybe we should abandon the use of irony on this list as a precursor to abandoning all humor whatsoever. Perhaps the enraged audiences (see that thread) have moved into Mudcat. Peter. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 11:45 AM (#1048474) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Ach. Midchuck, the first rule of a good sense of humor is 'never give up'!!! 'S what I was taught anyway! A |
|
05 Nov 03 - 11:49 AM (#1048477) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Midchuck, I did understand your point when I responded. I'm sorry if you interpreted my comments as "enraged", it was far from that. I was adding to your comments, not disagreeing with them. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 12:05 PM (#1048490) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Greg F. Ron- Have you read Bradsher's High and Mighty... and what do you think of the points he raises? Best, Greg |
|
05 Nov 03 - 12:51 PM (#1048508) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Stilly River Sage Peter, you're kidding about environmentalists not wanting trains improved, right? Trains would be a much better arrangement for the moving of stuff than trucks, and a lot of people know it. But the subsidy for trains falls so far behind the subsidy for trucking (because what else do you call the billions poured into road building and maintenance than a subsidy?) that they can't compete well today. SRS |
|
05 Nov 03 - 01:00 PM (#1048516) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie I'm still waiting for the Anti 18-Wheeler People to show up. Anyhow.... I was lamenting the fact the other day, that cars cannot be like shoes; namely, that you can't have one for every circumstance. In a perfect world, I would have a smaller vehicle - like a Kia Sportage, a PT Cruiser, or even a Mini Cooper - for driving around town every day, and then I'd have the Jeep for camping, firewood, moving furniture, taking the dogs to the vet, etc. But vehicles are not affordable enough for most of us to have more than one, so we have to choose the One that will serve the most purposes in the most situations we find ourselves in. If it were up to me, I'd go back to horse & buggy. Then I could have several buggies for different purposes. It isn't MY fault that the vehicle I drive uses gasoline. Like I said before, if we're serious, let's put the pressure on the people who BUILD these things, to come up with some viable alternatives. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 01:06 PM (#1048521) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,pdq Government policy is a balancing act between different groups with different goals. Environmentalists want as few cars and trucks as possible, and unions want as many as possible. Labor union members drive trucks, build cars, build roads and form the most influential voting block in the country. Government policy does reflect the will of the voters more than the will of the people. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 02:15 PM (#1048565) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Greg, I admit I have not read the book, but I have heard him interviewed and I do think he raises some important points. Like I said, I do not think that all SUV's are safe. Most of what I've read and heard from Bradsher has centered on Ford and the Explorer and Expedition. When it became evident that my family needed a larger vehicle, I explored a number of options and did research on the safety of the Xterra. While the Xterra did not rate as high as I would have liked in rollovers, it did rate higher than most other SUV's. The Xterra also rated high in front and side crash tests, and the bumper is not as high as on most other SUV's. The gas guzzling station wagons that are made today are not much better than SUV's, AND they actually are longer than a SUV and take up more space to park. Bradsher also makes a strong point that many drivers are not trained to handle these cars. A very important point. I like to think that I am a safe driver and I took the time to learn about handling and how to avoid rollovers. I do not drink and drive, I do not drive recklessly, and I do not speed. Obviously you cannot anticipate every circumstance. Any time you get behind the wheel of a vehicle you are taking a great responsiblity - for your own life and that of everyone on the road. We make choices to live our lives and do what we can to help others and our environment. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 03:28 PM (#1048600) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: saulgoldie The US has on thousand times the population it had when the outsiders came when the natural balance was fairly neutral. Those 1,000X citizens have resource appetites of thousands of times the original inhabitants. The natural balance is so horribly out of balance it can likely not be restored short of major adjustments in consumption habits. Whatever we drive, we are going to have to drastically alter our notion of how much mileage is acceptable if the planet is going to survive. We have already done immeasurable irreparable harm. All we can do now is to limit our future harm. SUVs do more harm than "normal" cars, but *all* cars represent a huge consumption of resources, vaster than our predecessors and more than the Earth can handle. Rationalize it however you want to. That will not alter this reality. |
|
05 Nov 03 - 03:46 PM (#1048614) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,pdq With all due respect, the American Indian population in the lower 48 states was no less than 2.5 million people when Europeans landed. Indian activists will claim as much as 30 million. The lowest estimate of the current US population is 284 million people, that being 50 states and two protected territories. 1000X increase would be 2.5-30 Billion people, using the American definition of a billion. |
|
06 Nov 03 - 09:55 AM (#1049197) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Casual Observer "http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031105-012221-3640r.htm">GM Plans SUV Hybrids |
|
06 Nov 03 - 09:57 AM (#1049198) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Casual Observer Lemme try again: GM Plans SUV Hybrids |
|
06 Nov 03 - 01:20 PM (#1049304) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage pdq, it isn't "Indian activists" alone who claim the higher Indian population pre-Columbus. It's folks who study the spread of disease from early coastal contact, anthropologists, statisticians doing the math, etc.--some of these are Indians, a lot of them aren't. My pickup truck was very handy yesterday morning when the freeway was at a standstill due to two lanes closed ahead. I have a favorite informal "Texas offramp" (tire ruts through the grass) that took me over to the frontage road and out of the congestion. I've noticed that cars are less likely to take those exits than trucks--probably for good reason. But it is a nice option (as long as there isn't a cop around writing tickets!) SRS |
|
06 Nov 03 - 01:56 PM (#1049344) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Wesley S There is a small rental house down the street from mine and the residents drive a Hummer. They must be spending nearly the same amount on their car payment as they do in rent. What's the sense of that ? |
|
07 Nov 03 - 01:01 PM (#1049700) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Stilly River Sage They probably spend MORE on their Humvee--those things are horribly expensive. I've been seeing more of them around here lately. I can't imagine spending that much on a vehicle anyway, but if I were in such a position, it would go to something like a beemer or a jag. I linked to a page on which the vehicle in question is (gulp!) $40,000 off MSRP*!! SRS *Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price |
|
07 Nov 03 - 01:43 PM (#1049737) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Yeah, but ...they ford 20 inches of water, man!! Ya gotta love that, right? That's like, important, ya know?? A |
|
07 Nov 03 - 04:36 PM (#1049846) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: WFDU - Ron Olesko When I had my Altima a few years ago I once turned a corner and realized I had driven into a flood zone. It was raining heavily and the sewers were unable to handle the water. You could not tell that you were entering a "puddle" because the rain was coming down so hard it that everything looked like blacktop and the police had not arrived yet to block off the street from unsuspecting motorists like myself. The car actually floated a few feet, stalled out, and luckily ended up with all 4 tires still on the road. I had to get out, with water rushing in the door, and with the help of some people in a nearby house, pushed the car to somewhat drier land. After about 15 minutes I was able to start the car, but it would probably have been better if I let it be. The engine was damaged and it cost me quite a bit to repair it. This incident was another factor. Not that I intend to ford rivers, but I do like the comfort of knowing I am a bit higher up. 20 inches does seem a bit extreme. |
|
08 Nov 03 - 04:17 PM (#1050243) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Red Eye What does SUV stand for?? |
|
08 Nov 03 - 04:24 PM (#1050246) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos Sports Utility Vehicle, Redeye.... |
|
08 Nov 03 - 06:09 PM (#1050279) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Ebbie Open Mike, Nov. 3, 12:36: "In my fore-runner I used to drive an Exploder" I can understand why you carry three bags of fire gear. Forgive me, open mike- I like juxtaposition:) |
|
08 Nov 03 - 09:41 PM (#1050403) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Stilly River Sage Actually, I think that is what some people were calling them for a while. It had to do with some other problem than the tires. SRS |
|
08 Nov 03 - 10:10 PM (#1050421) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Amos I have to say that I have moments when I believe that the Toyota 4Runner SRS is perhaps the most beautiful poem ever written by automotive engineers. A |
|
23 May 04 - 01:16 PM (#1192032) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Ed. Ken Livingstone has been having his say, on these vehicles, today: "When you see someone trying to manoeuvre it round the school gates, you have to think, you are a complete idiot" Have to agree with him on this one. |
|
24 May 04 - 02:44 AM (#1192430) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Phot Just a quick thought as you mentioned Ken Livingstone Ed. The London congestion charge is there to encourage motorists to use public transport, and therefore reduce pollution. So whats this got to do with a thread on 4X4's? My Land Rover 110 V8 has 12 seats, and is classified as a minibus under the rules of the congestion charge, and therefore, Exempt from the charge!! And before Ken starts to cast aspertions on my ability to drive large veichles, I hold a class 1 PSV (Bus and Coach) licence with double decker rating. Wassail!! Chris |
|
24 May 04 - 02:58 AM (#1192436) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST Ooooooooo he has a big 4X4, that explains the small penis. |
|
24 May 04 - 05:05 AM (#1192500) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,freda Amos' comment of 8 Nov reminded me of .......... On a cycle the frame is gone. You're completely in contact with it all. You're in the scene, not just watching it anymore, and the sense of presence is overwhelming. That concrete whizzing by five inches below your foot is the real thing, the same stuff you walk on, it's right there, so blurred you can't focus on it, yet you can put your foot down and touch it anytime, and the whole thing, the whole experience, is never removed from immediate consciousness. I have seen these marshes a thousand times, yet each time they're new. It's wrong to call them benign. You could just as well call them cruel and senseless, they are all of those things, but the reality of them overwhelms halfway conceptions. There! A huge flock of red-winged blackbirds ascends from nests in the cattails, startled by our sound. Unless you're fond of hollering you don't make great conversations on a running cycle. Instead you spend your time being aware of things and meditating on them. On sights and sounds, on the mood of the weather and things remembered, on the machine and the countryside you're in, thinking about things at great leisure and length without being hurried and without feeling you're losing time. The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha...which is to demean oneself. We're out of the marshes now, but the air is still so humid you can look straight up directly at the yellow circle of the sun as if there were smoke or smog in the sky. But we're in the green countryside now. The farmhouses are clean and white and fresh. And there's no smoke or smog.On this trip I think we should notice it, explore it a little, to see if in that strange separation of what man is from what man does we may have some clues as to what the hell has gone wrong in this twentieth century. I don't want to hurry it. That itself is a poisonous twentieth-century attitude. When you want to hurry something, that means you no longer care about it and want to get on to other things.(from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance) freda |
|
24 May 04 - 05:31 AM (#1192513) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: el ted 99 |
|
24 May 04 - 05:32 AM (#1192514) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: el ted post no 100. I thank you, my work here is done. |
|
24 May 04 - 06:20 AM (#1192566) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: robomatic What Your Car Says About You: Americans: What Your Car Says ABout You - Americans U.K.: What Your Car Says About You U.K. I drive a 1991 Toyota 4x4 in Alaska and a Toyota Camry in Massachusetts. Oh What a Feeling! |
|
24 May 04 - 07:13 AM (#1192590) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Skoda man So a female in an S.U.V (S-taggeringly U-gly V-ehicle) will be suffering from "penis envy" then? Have you noticed that S.U.V owners/drivers have very small heads?? Well - in Britain certainly! |
|
24 May 04 - 09:09 AM (#1192649) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST Nothing wrong with a little head ;-) |
|
24 May 04 - 10:43 AM (#1192732) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: GUEST,Skoda man And on that subject ;- George Bush has a heart attack and dies. He goes to Hell where the Devil is waiting for him. "I don't know what to do", says the Devil. "You're on my list but I have no room for you but you definitely have to stay, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I've got three people here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let YOU decide who leaves" George thought that sounded pretty fair and nodded his agreement. The Devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty handed over and over again. Such was his fate in Hell. "No!" George said. "I don't think so, I'm not a good swimmer and don't think I could do that all day long". The Devil led him to the next room. In it was Tony Blair with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer time, after time after time. "No! I've got this problem with my shoulder, I'd be in constant agony if all I did was break rocks all day!" The Devil opened the third door. In it, George saw Bill Clinton lying on the floor with his arms staked over his head and his legs staked out in spread-eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky doing what she does best. George Bush looked at this in disbelief for a while and finally said, "Whoaa momma!, I reckon I can handle this." The Devil smiled and said........."Monica, you're free to go!" |
|
24 May 04 - 06:09 PM (#1193130) Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's From: Phot Guest, in Post No. 97 - Please do not insult that which brings a smile to my face and joy to my heart. I had always believed in BCSD till I met my lovely husband. He's a BIG Boy, who just happens to drive a big car. In his favour he does mostly drive it in the country not around the streets of London. Mrs Phot. |