Following my previous post, again, on the TV which, generally transmits banal crap continuously about such earth shattering subjects as the latest big brother with trees, the odd snippet shines.
This time Ken has has stated that 4 x 4 vehicles in London cause damage to your health and irepairable damage to the environment. He went as far as to suggest that 'warnings' should be provided to all prospective purchasers as to the damage they will cause should they buy a 4 x 4.
I would like to see a comparison between a 4 x 4 and say, a 3.5 tonne Transit, lets look at the actual numbers of each vehicle on the road in London, gross weight, emissions and the driving attitude of 'white van man' complete with shaven head and baseball cap!!!!!
I know which category poses a greater threat......
You must remember that Ken is a politician and that often what they say/do/believe is not necessarily based on the 'common sense' logic that you or I would apply to the situation.
I imagine that his comments are designed to attract the votes (that's the currency these people deal in) of a certain group or groups within London. In the "anti 4x4' case I think he's attracting the affluent dwellers of places like Islington, Wimbledon etc - usually families with young children - whose fear of things is vastly disproportionate.
It's similar to the fears shown by those parents who are protesting, blockading and demonstrating against mobile phone masts - they use the phones themselves, their kids use mobiles but they don't want a mast anywhere near them (irrespective of any findings for/against the health issues). It's irrational fear.
From what I've seen, these protesters also are affluent, urban/suburban dwellers and they mostly drive larger vehicles (they turn up in mini-buses, estate cars and people carriers - not public transport because these same people objected to the tram system being extended to the area!)
So it's nothing to do with "logic" which is why we all read the stuff that comes from Ken's mouth and the anti-4x4 groups and can't beleive it as it doesn't make sense - it makes sense to them because they are scared - scared of not getting to work on time - scared of sitting in traffic on the school run and feeling frustrated - scared of all sorts of things because our politicians tell us that we are seconds away from total destruction....and TV projects the image that everyone else is really rich and famous and we're not.
...reminds me of those guys with the boards saying "The end of the world is nigh"...
Possibly........ but as far as I can see it's all down to it being fashionable to be "anti" something these days. Anti hunting Anti Ssmoking Anti drinking Anti car Anti lorries Anti roads Anti people who wear the same coat as their partners Anti 4x4 Anti..... anything.
The bit that gets me is that people are quite happy to be anti-, but get terribly upset when it's their is the one that gets the chop.
Personaly I call it hypocrasy (sp?). Me, I'm just anti the anti's, becasue no one has the right to tell others what to think.
No need for that. I agree with you. Where do people get the idea from that because they don't like, or approve of, or participate in something, they now have the right to ban other peope from doing it? It seems a very recent thing - the last 10 years or so. I can think of at least two things (not going to say what - I'm not here to start a row) that I don't personally like and stay well away from. I can think of a number of very sound reasons - public safety, public health, morality, economic, aesthetic - why people should be forbidden from doing them. But that's my opinion, nothing more. I'm not campaigning to ban them. Each to his own.
The animal rights argument is interesting. If you agree that animals have the same rights as humans, then the AR people are absolutely correct and consistent in their opposition to animal testing. If you don't agree, and believe that animals are, well, just animals, then they are a bunch of dangerous and psychotic bunny-huggers. The argument is not around "cruelty" or any other animal rights "issue", it's a deep philosophical division in how different people view the world. In the past, we have always allowed people to have their own view of the world. If we get to a stage when one kind of world-view is approved and accepted,and others are "wrong" and in need of "re-education", then God help us all. Think Soviet Russia, or the Inquisition.
If I run someone over in my 4x4, they have a right to object. They do not have a right to decide what vehicle I wish to drive.
Why the hell pick on 4X4's in fact any car at all - for all vehicular traffic aerospace contribute 95% of all pollution If all the worlds aicraft landed there would be no room for them - they have to keep aroung 25% up in the sky just for space limitations Red Ken should try lobbying for Boeing and the others to fit Catalysts to their aircraft flying over London to see how far he gets!!! they burn millions of gallons a day. Not that I'm anti flying, as I have to go "over the pond" every now and then with work, but if you want to tackle the problem you need to look at the root causes not the minority offenders!
About time Ken and the entire Labour party buggered off anyway!
Yes, if they are to be consistent. The problem is where to draw the line, and that's where the inconsistency comes in. Cuddly, cute things - foxes, beagles, monkeys - and they are up in arms. Things like rats and insects (about 95% of all animal experiments are on insects) and they don't have a problem. When did you ever see an animal rights poster with a fruit fly on? I guess that they suspect (rightly) that the public would find their attitude ridiculous and their support from the well-meaning middle class would evaporate. I will respect anyone's point of view, as long as it is a consistent one. If someone wants to criticise me for shooting and eating a pheasant, that's fine - as long as that person is a vegan and doesn't have a crafty bacon sarnie or visit Macdonalds on the way home from the demo. And they can criticise my choice of vehicle if they never catch a bus, drive a car or fly in an aeroplane.
I think there is some strange sociology / anthropology taking place at the moment. For the first time in history, the great majority of people (in our society) have nothing to worry about. I live in the centre of a Northern town, and as I look around me...
Few are hungry Few are in poverty (everyone has food, clothes, housing etc) We are not about to be invaded by an evil foreign power or conscripted to fight in trenches in a world war. Few have jobs which are really dangerous, exploitative, physically exhausting etc Few are unemployed A great many incurable diseases are now, in fact, curable. We live longer and in better conditions than ever before
In fact, most people have everything they need to be happy, prosperous and comfortable. Yet it seems that fewer people than ever are any of those things. There seems to be nothing to fight for, fight against or otherwise 'worry about'. Which can't be right, can it?
I can't explain why this translates itself into the feeling that if only 4x4's were gone / foxes weren't hunted / handguns were banned / smoking was banned / immigrants were sent home (delete as appropriate) then suddenly we would be happier. Neither can I explain why people feel the need to push, shove and otherwise intimidate others on the roads when they are not actually in a hurry, or are going to a job they hate.
Perhaps there's nothing to fight for any more, so we need to find something to be angry about. It's odd that these groups are all about 'banning something', rather than 'in support of' something. How many 'anti foxhunters' actively support charities that positively help animals? How many 'anti pollution' campaigners recycle their rubbish or help clean up their local canal?
Is it coincidence, perhaps, that in countries without the comforts of the UK there is actually no pressure group against 4x4s, foxhunting, handguns, smoking, immigration etc?
I do know one thing for sure. When my grandfathers and their friends went to war they were fighting for the freedom of people to live how they wanted to. Those freedoms are being eroded seemingly on a daily basis.
How about a pressure-group to campaign for the banning of pressure groups? Sod that. I'm just going to get in the 101 with my big dog, smoke a Bolivar and think up an entry for the Mud Club sticker competition.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.