Government Health Warning

This one

I heard it too - what an ill informed Muppet

David

See Red Ken thread :-)

Good idea, how about on the little muppets who really p..s people off in the £50 rust buckets ( no ..... not the S II ) :-))

Come to think of it perhaps we could label government ministers bits, so that they can be seen sticking em into the wrong places and then p....g everyone off with the endless reportage.

If they want to put signs on cars that are bad for the environment then how about all the rolls royce cars and big mercs and oh Jags, Mr Prescot wont like that.

Shurely this is transmissoin discrimination ;-)

Peter.

Biggest load of tosh I have ever heard.

I follow the James Whale school of thought - Everyone should have a 4X4 as they are the safest cars on the road.

Stu

for the agressive 4x4 driver "Warning, getting in my way can f***-up your day"

for the land rover driver "Warning, may contain nuts"

heheheheheh

Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

I find now I only tolerate Jeremy Vine whilst waiting for the light afternoon entertainment of the Steve Wright show.

Pass the muppetry sertifcut please...:-)

Muddy

On or around Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:39:50 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Mudd" enlightened us thusly:

I find Steve Wright's show to be irritating in the extreme. mind, I don't listen to Vine, either...

Must be a new one. most of mine have rusted or dropped off, ..... the car that is !!

Hello all fellow smelly's. Well if all there arguments are true. Then there is awful lot of MOT tester failing. I understand we have to follow the CO2 H NO emissions government guidelines.

Oh dear.

Time to dig out the old arguments.

Let's see how this goes.

1) The majority of pollution caused by a car over its lifetime is caused during its manufacture process. Thus the more often you require to replace a car the higher the pollution caused by your car driving will be *regardless* of how "envirofriendly" your newer cars are. 2) Existing cars have already caused their pollution. Putting them off the road and causing more, newer cars to be made will simply increase the overall pollution caused by cars massively due to the manufacturing process. 3) Modern "envirofriendly" cars are quite conceivably less envirofriendly than the older designs. Old designs simply required large amounts of steel and aluminimum with trivial amounts of plastics for such things as the flexi-pipes. Newer cars use more and more exotic materials which in turn are often derived from non-renewable resources such as oil for the plastics. 4) Disposing of an old car in theory simply required the splitting of all panels and major structural components and then re-smelting them. There was very little carcinogenic material to consider. Disposing of a new "envirofriendly" car will, of necessity, require the disposal of such items as circuit boards, epoxies and various exotic materials, all of which will, if handled the wrong way, release vast amounts of toxins (carcinogens, HFl etc) into the environment. 5) Modern "envirofriendly" cars are constructed in such a manner that it is almost impossible for a user to service them. Parts are becoming unavailable in increasingly short timescales and the "scrapyard" industry is all but useless for modern cars. A modern car probably has a realistic maximum lifespan of 12-15 years against a well built older car (such as a Land Rover) which can have a realistic lifespan of over 50 years. This equates to at least four times as many cars being constructed in the same timescale and thus at least four times as much pollution. 6) Older designs can be made to comply with environmental regulations as is proven by all the LPG powered Range Rovers out there which actually come in below the modern emissions regs. There is a strong argument for using older, simpler designs which have very limited long term environmental impact in terms of materials creation and recovery compared to the modern ones and simply modifying them in understood ways. Combine modern refinements in materials handling with classical designs and the overall environmental impact of the construction of a new vehicle should be reduced. 7) The argument that the drivers of a compact car will come off worst in a collision with a Ford Explorer should come as no shock to anyone. It's basic physics. The driver of a Ford Explorer will come off second best in a collision with a Scammel Explorer. Do you see anybody asking for cigarette warnings on trucks which are arguably the most dangerous vehicles on the roads?

Any comments on the above?

Also, does anybody know why trucks are governed to 56mph yet coaches which are the same size as trucks and just as dangerous seem to be completely unlimited?

P.

I know I joked about it in an earlier post but this is nothing but discrimination against a minority, marking them out against the rest of the large vehicles on the road. I'm sure that if a child was hit by a Rolls or Merc it would do just as much damage as an SUV. They are also just as bad for the environment, using about the same amount if not more fuel.

Peter.

It's remarkably like politics...

Whereas governments seem to produce the greatest amount of excrement towards the end of their term. The more frequently we elect our governments, the more crap they will emit. This is regardless of how shiny the new government's teeth are.

Putting existing governments out of office simply causes an election. This causes more manifesto-friendly crap to be produced.

Older Prime Ministers simply consumed large amounts of brandy and cigars, which are renewable sources. Modern 'electorate friendly' governments use exotic fake tan, tooth whitener and hair-care products. These are derived from highly dangerous chemicals from non-renewable sources.

That's OK. We export those so that those nice Indian people in the slums can have rewarding, if brief, careers in the recycling industry, breathing in carcinogens and filling their rivers with effluent.

Truck drivers carry expensive and much needed consumer white goods to our local stores. Coaches mostly carry pensioners and students, who are a pesky drain on the national purse.

On or around Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:47:03 +0000, "Paul S. Brown" enlightened us thusly:

all true and doubtless correct FSVO correct, but naturally, being poiticians, they're not about to let the truth get in the way of a good story... oh, sorry, that's journalists.

get in the way of their election prospects, then.

[SNIP]

Had a bad day Tim, or just found the energy to take your cynicsm for a walk.

Nice set of parallels though.

P.

So, anybody up for trying to get one of the parties to campaign against the others on green issues and see which form of environmentalism wins?

P.

Personally I wish the "SUV" had never been invented,

4X4's should be practical vehicles with none of this designer chic nonsence. Like my series 3 for instance :)

Mind you there are plenty of stealth 4x4's out there, in the form of audis and such like which again seems not to worry the knee jerk morons.

Leave us pensioners out of it mate ;-)

Peter

300TDi ES Auto Disco