Both Churchill and esure say the capital is the area where the highest proportion [b]of their customers [/b]have 4x4s.
Interesting I'm sure, if you work in the Marketing dept of either of those companies.
But other than that, it means nothing at all.
First off 4x4 covers a wide range of cars - You have lumped them all together into one prejudiced, ill informed lump
Guess what, the term 4x4 was being used as a shorthand for very large vehicle with very poor fuel efficiency. I am aware this doesn't apply to every single 4x4. I thought this was all pretty obvious.
But other than that, it means nothing at all.
Unlike the stat you posted? It's hardly a key point of the argument anyway is it? But by all means jump on one insignificant point and go on and on about it, if that's what makes you happy.
There are many 300k mile Priuses discussed on the Prius forum, most having had no repairs done other than consumables like water pumps, shocks, tyres etc. I would guess that there are very few Landrovers like that. Although I fully expect someone to argue that turbos, engines, injector pumps, radiators, oil pumps etc are consumables on Land rovers
Aren't there something like >50% of all land rovers ever made still on the road? Ask that of the Prius in 60 years time.
Yes the actual distinction between 4wd and 2wd isn't really the issue - the issue is of excessive size, poor fuel efficiency, bad driving, and greater danger to others.
So to summarise, you argument comes down to: Big cars are bad. You shouldn't drive them.
Fair enough, and it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Not one that I share, but that's by the by.
Though, if we're going to be critical about the way people live, we really need to do it properly. Ban flying (totally discretionary use of fuel), ban old houses (more fuel to heat), ban large families (consume resources), ban mountain biking (utter waste of resources), ban skiing (I mean, all that power to get you up a hill? Just so you can come back down?).
Why just fixate on someone's car? There's a whole world of disapproval and righteous quivering anger to be had as you tut at the way other people live.
I should add that I commission LCAs, so probably know a little bit about them.
Presumably you just get the answers you want from them? 😉
I've reviewed the relevant literature and I'm aware of only one study (which was deeply flawed) that contradicts my assertion.
Go on then - refs?
So your Mazda experience is pretty irrelevant here.
Not really, as it affected the decisions I made buying the next car. Its irrelevant to [b]you[/b], based on your experience. Different strokes...
It's good if you drive few miles, but it would be better if you drove fewer miles in a more economical car, wouldn't it?
Yes it would. Sadly, my job prevents me from doing this. Ideally I'd never have to drive, work from home all the time and live on the doorstep of some amazing riding. But I don't. So that's that.
Presumably you just get the answers you want from them?
You presume incorrectly, which says more about you than me.
Go on then - refs?
I repeat: if you're the kind of person who can't be bothered to find out these things for himself, then I very much doubt that you're open to persuasion on this point.
Not really, as it affected the decisions I made buying the next car
Well you seemed to be implying that anything economical is gutless and dangerous. I was telling you that it isn't.
Sadly, my job prevents me from doing this.
As has been sad a million times, 4x4s and vans are essential tools for important jobs. No-one is complaining about their use when required. However general driving does not need a big suv or a van, and is generally a waste of fuel.
You don't need a van to go biking either.
I repeat: if you're the kind of person who can't be bothered to find out these things for himself, then
You're not TJ in disguise are you?
You have data, lets see it. If you don't, how are we to know you're not just fabricating things?
I very much doubt that you're open to persuasion on this point.
As a scientist, hard data of known provenance generally persuades me. You claim to have some - lets see it.
Well you seemed to be implying that anything economical is gutless and dangerous. I was telling you that it isn't.
I note that BMW are making a 3 series that does nearly 70 mpg and 0-60 in 8 seconds. Probably not at the same time though...
You're not TJ in disguise are you?You have data, lets see it. If you don't, how are we to know you're not just fabricating things?
You said I was talking bunkum. You must have data to prove this. If you don't, how are we to know you're not just fabricating things?
You're not TJ in disguise are you?
I saw that advertised a little while ago. Consensus seems to be that 70mpg is a bit much, but there's no reason on paper why it shouldn't be possible in a diesel.
Ransos you know there's twice as much metal and other materials in a big SUV than in a small car, right? So one could conclude twice the manufacturing footprint?
Well you seemed to be implying that anything economical is gutless and dangerous. I was telling you that it isn't.
My experience has shown me that an underpowered car was [b]FOR ME[/b] less economical and had to be thrashed to get past stuff. I'm not implying that [b]ANYTHING[/b] economical is gutless and dangerous. Just the car that I had. Which is why I got something with a bigger engine
As has been sad a million times, 4x4s and vans are essential tools for important jobs. No-one is complaining about their use when required. However general driving does not need a big suv or a van, and is generally a waste of fuel.You don't need a van to go biking either.
Is it? I don't think it's a waste of fuel for all the reasons I stated previously. I like it and don't begrudge the cost of running it.
For the record, I have a van. It gets 60mpg, great for carrying bikes and costs £120 a year to tax. It's for sale if you want to buy it? I prefer the Q7...
Ransos you know there's twice as much metal and other materials in a big SUV than in a small car, right? So twice the raw materials environmental footprint?
That's true, but raw materials are only one part of manufacture (e.g. I doubt assembling a large car takes very much more energy than assembling a small car) and in any case manufacture is only a small part of the vehicle's total footprint. Nevertheless, it does seem a pointless waste considering what most people use an SUV for.
Surprised at that economy from a Transporter though - I tried very hard in the one I rented and could only brush 40mpg. Although I did drive at the speed limit.
I had it remapped specifically for economy, and it's a T4, not a T5 which are more thirsty.
Unlike the stat you posted? It's hardly a key point of the argument anyway is it? But by all means jump on one insignificant point and go on and on about it, if that's what makes you happy.
The stats I posted where overall UK ownership percentages, not who is insured with which company.
I only mentioned it once, you tried to disprove it with two specific insurance company's sales figures.
Thats hardly "going on and on about it" really is it ?
Also Funny how the person who brought up this point in the first place (presumably it was important then ?)
now deems it "insignificant" (after it was shown to be bollx) 🙄
So you're the one who wants a powerful car? Why is it not a waste to get a powerful car that does 30mpg rather than one that does 50mpg?
Can't see how you're not wasting 20mpg worth of fuel there.
So you're the one who wants a powerful car? Why is it not a waste to get a powerful car that does 30mpg rather than one that does 50mpg?
Because to me, having a powerful large car is a bonus. Therefore I don't see it as a waste.
Do you secretly want one? You seem a bit agitated by this, you can have a go in mine if you want
You're not TJ in disguise are you?
You [i]are[/i] TJ in disguise - throwing the question back to obfuscate the situation, rather than defending your position which you stated so clearly, and which started off this exchange.
🙂 hats off to Fish BTW great troll 🙂
You are TJ in disguise - throwing the question back to obfuscate the situation, rather than defending your position which you stated so clearly, and which started off this exchange.
I don't need to defend my position. First, because I'm right, and second, because I'm not particularly interested in obtaining your approval.
Next!
Because to me, having a powerful large car is a bonus
But you can have power AND economy.
But you can have power AND economy.
Ahh, but I don't want a Passat, because they're sh1te
Plenty of other options.
Yeah, but they're all Passat shaped....and therefore sh1te!
Ahh, but I don't want a Passat, because they're sh1te
Plenty of choice from BMW, Merc, Jag et al. My old man's jag is mahoosive and still does 45mpg...
Yeah, but they're all Passat shaped....and therefore sh1te!
Maybe, but as a Q7 owner, I'd assume that doesn't bother you. 😉
I don't need to defend my position. First, because I'm right, and second, because I'm not particularly interested in obtaining your approval.Next!
Oh deary me.
Online discussion at its best.
Why don't you just say 'I'm an inconsiderate arse and don't give a crap'? That's what you're getting at, isn't it?
The stats I posted where overall UK ownership percentages, not who is insured with which company.
Really, I thought it said it was from Admiral insurance.
lso Funny how the person who brought up this point in the first place (presumably it was important then ?)
now deems it "insignificant" (after it was shown to be bollx)
Nope, it was one point I made once - you have tried several times to dispute it (unsuccessfully as far as I can see). And I really fail to see how it was the centerpiece of the argument. Regardless, lots of people in London drive 4x4s, for no real reason.
Though, if we're going to be critical about the way people live, we really need to do it properly. Ban flying (totally discretionary use of fuel), ban old houses (more fuel to heat), ban large families (consume resources), ban mountain biking (utter waste of resources), ban skiing (I mean, all that power to get you up a hill? Just so you can come back down?).Why just fixate on someone's car? There's a whole world of disapproval and righteous quivering anger to be had as you tut at the way other people live.
Well, at the risk of pointing out YET another straw man - where did I talk about banning anything?
And yes I think we should try to minimize things like flying and having an house that's badly insulated, and we should try to drive less to go mountain biking etc. The thing is though, you can do those things AND have a car that's more fuel efficient. Crazy eh?
Why just fixate on someone's car? There's a whole world of disapproval and righteous quivering anger to be had as you tut at the way other people live.
It's funny, there seems to be a lot of people getting very worked up over this, while accusing me of being angry. Is that what psychologists call displacement?
Oh deary me.Online discussion at its best.
This from the guy who accused another forum member of talking bollx...
I vote for this thread to be closed.
Why don't you just say 'I'm an inconsiderate arse and don't give a crap'? That's what you're getting at, isn't it?
BITE! And with that, my work here is done....
This from the guy who accused another forum member of talking bollx...
Well he said something quite clearly.
Which I showed to be wrong with the first hit on google.
How would you have described it ?
I don't need to defend my position. First, because I'm right,
Absolutely, definitely TJ. Consider yourself reported for having more than one username.
I vote for this thread to be closed.
STW top tip - if you don't like a thread, don't look at it.
Well he said something quite clearly.Which I showed to be wrong with the first hit on google.
How would you have described it ?
If you were genuinely interested in "online discussion at its best", you would've been more polite. Unless you're constrained by a very limited vocabulary.
Absolutely, definitely TJ. Consider yourself reported for having more than one username.
If rather silly ad hominem is how you get your kicks, go right ahead.
I think that would be classed as humour rather than an attack.
Some people need to have a good read of this - or maybe pin it up on their wall.
Really, I thought it said it was from Admiral insurance.
Correct it was.
It was also figures on the percentage of "ownership" in the UK, not just those insured with admiral.
The figures you provided were for select insurance companies. Irrelevant to overall ownership figures.
.....you have tried several times to dispute it (unsuccessfully as far as I can see).
No. I tried once.
I posted one piece of information showing UK figures for 4x4 ownership, that showed London wasn't even in the top 5
And the top two positions were actually taken by Scotland.
Despite you claiming London was in No1 position ??
(not sure how that was an "unsuccessful attempt" to dispute your claim, as it seems pretty comprehensive to me)
.
But of course, Even though it was important enough for you to tell everyone about in the first place, in an attempt to strengthen whatever point you were making.
Clearly you have recently decided that its irrelevant for some reason.
Wonder why.
bump for the afternoon crowd
Doens't matter if London is #1 or not, does it? We know that there are many unneccessary SUVs driving around.
Despite you claiming London was in No1 position ??
So I said London was in No1 position - I should have said it's in no 1 position with two insurance companies. Big deal.
But of course, Even though it was important enough for you to tell everyone about in the first place, in an attempt to strengthen whatever point you were making.Clearly you have recently decided that its irrelevant for some reason.
Wonder why.
Yup it was one small point I made once amongst a much wider argument, which you are pettily going on and on about.
Financial intermediary Admiral looked at over one million motorists across the UK
So your figures are only based on 1 million motorists?
Grum, it's just better not to lazily regurgitate "pub facts" to bolster your argument.
Then you won't be left looking through google trying to back them up when someone calls you on your "pub facts" not being accurate.
Leave that to the tabloid journalists.
Can we all agree on the facts here:
4x4 drivers are all (bar none) complete cocks and want to kill people
Prius drivers are all very dull, living with mum, 40 yr old lentil munchering communists
BMWs are driven by knobs
Audis are driven by knobs trying to not look like knobs
Skodas are are driven by poor knobs
All Roadies are miserable
Downhilling youths litter the Antarctic
French people smell
Singlespeed rigid niche riders have whacky facial hair
People with bad grammar will burn in hell as punishment for there (sic) stupidity
etc