Why I hate uneducation envrionmentalists

I have no problem with envrionmentalists but this is why I hate the uneducation ones



So I wonder which will pollute more a crappy old nissan micra with no cat or a BMW 4*4?

 

4x4 no competition, gross car. owners should be shot

 

just spotted the spelling errors in the title, oh dear. Just thought I would mention it before anybody else does

I agree they should be shot, but they have so much filters etc, they don't pollute much at all, a modern double decker bus would pollute less than an old carb based micra.

The problem with 4x4s is they use a lot of fuel and they are big so cause on congestion but they don't pullute. If I wanted to save the planet I would buy a modern supermini.

 

lmao where did you get that from? If you actually read up on it you'll find they chuck out about 4x the ground level pollution and do stupidly low MPG which generates far more carbon dioxide that isn't magically filtered out by the cat. F'in scum the lot of them.

If any of you 4x4 loosers had one of these http://www.wastemonsters.org.uk/#genericuk on your windscreen in manchester, it was probably me that put it there.

Urban SUVs should be banned. Most of all the BMWs, pretty much the lamest off roader in existance, serves no purpose what so ever.

 

Those Porche ones are even worse than the BMWs, they are too big and too dangerous, why would anybody want to use a £60k vehicle on a school run?

The worst thing of all is spray on mud

I found it while looking for pictures of my local area, my local area is full of hippys and young professionals so its a mixture of cars like that and BMW 4x4s, most my neighbours seem either have Mini coopers, MGFs and MX5s.

 

Sorry, I meant where did you get the idea that 4x4s don't pollute much.
I think writing something like that on the back of the car is a good idea

 

I am sure they do pollute a lot, but compared to an old catless engine management less Micra I reckon the micra will pollute more.

Also the engine could be warn which makes matters worse.

 

Cats and engine management don't work miracles, 10mpg is still 10mpg. The 4x4 will be MUCH worse.

 

To be fair most modern 4x4's are powered by extremely effecient diesel engines. I know there are the petrol monsters out there and I agree 100% that the owners of these should be smacked dam hard but its unfair to lump all 4x4's down as one. What about the new Lexus RX400h? A modern petrol hybrid that will do at least 35mpg.

I know theres the space argument and that applies to those city dwellers much more than it does to me, but again why 4x4's? If this argument is to stand-up surely it must go off the wheel-base size.

And that micra in the picture, well in my opinion it shouldnt be on our roads. If we had a half decent MOT cars like that wouldnt be legal and the roads would be much safer.

 

Some 4x4's are diesels, and can return up to 40 MPG.

Also, most of them dont take up much more room than any other large car. Given those two points, why are they singled out for abuse? Where will it end?

No doubt the owner of that Micra is a jumped up bible basher who doesn't have a clue. If they really cared, then they should get a Lupo TDI which gets about 80 MPG.

Also, buses are one of the worst culprits. They do not AFAIK have to pass any emissions tests, and most of them *struggle* to make it into 2 digit MPG figures. Also, they have I dont know how many bus lanes dedicated to them, paid for by us, the car driver, which forces car drivers onto a smaller area of road - more congestion, more pollution, more cars struggling to do decent fuel consumption because they are sitting there in the same place, burning fuel, and hardly moving.

 

That's my problem with 4x4's and so called MPV's, Safety. Yes I'm concered about the environment as well, but as I bicycle rider, when you come up against a huge 4x4 with some dozy person who isn't really paying attension to the road, this doesn't fill you with the greatest confidence that they have seen you and you KNOW you'll come of worst. That is the reason these tank like things should be banned, they are UNSAFE for OTHER yes read OTHER road users, not the selflish person sat behind the wheel.

I really wish I could get a helmet camera and video my ride into work, I assure any of you that you would be shocked at the standard of so called driving skill I have to contend with from people who have 10x better sight than I do, how any of them get a liecence is frankly beyond me, and upon gettong one, they can jump into a 4x4 and take the kids to school, I think you should have to take a HGV test, to learn how big their vehicle actually is.

 

Paul what are you on? Oh course buses have to pass emissions tests it comes under the PSV test, and they are very tight, plus the drivers have to take PSV tests (possible HGV too, not sure), so not any tom, dick or harry could drive one. They carry from 20 to 50 passengers who would otherwise be in a car producing 20 to 50 times more pollution. And how can you say a bus causes more congestion? WHAT, 1 bus compared to 30 cars, com'on surly you can work that one out for yourself.

Bus lanes paid via council tax, ie all of us, get out your car and use the bus then you'd get the benifit of it.

 

there was a massive campaign about the dangers of bull bars on a 4x4 for pedestrians, particularly children when hit by them.

I still see LOADS of them on 4x4s, these people care more for looks and would kill a kid if they hit them.they have no excuse to buy, and bull bars should be banned asap

 

Certainly in Manchester most buses are very very clean, you ocassionaly see the odd smoker but its very rare.

Some of the 6 wheel double decker buses often have 120 passangers on them (this is the official capacity) but legend has it that its not unusual to have 140 passangers on them, now on Wilsmslow Road in Manchester buses officialy come every 19 seconds and most of them are full during term time.

So if each one of these people had a car thats 140 cars every 19 seconds, and people say buses causes congestion?

I think the 4*4 gets singled out becuase that extra drive shaft uses more fuel consumption and in the city its totaly pointless, so if you put the same engine in a front or rear drive car you will much better fuel efficiency.

 

Yes but why do you need them?! Ok there is those horrible huge mercs etc. and super cars have massive engines and are totally unnecessary but at least they look good and go fast (atleast its doing SOMETHING!) and are reasonably safe in an accident, where as the hulking great """"off-roaders"""" are slow, don't go off road at all, fall over at the sight of a roundabout, are fundmentally dangerous to all involved in an accident and burn a rediculous amount of fuel. Its just addressing one problem at a time.
At some point its quite likely people will have to stop driving other big engine stuff too but 4x4s are a good place to start. There is absolutely no need for them in cities.
35-40 mpg is not that impressive a figure for a diesel, with a small hatch you could get 65 or about 50 for a medium size family saloon type thing.

 

Yeah my uncle easily gets 65mpg out of his Fabria, though my dads Escort only really gets about 30mpg but then that is city driving.

 

modern 4x4's are dam good to drive full stop. If you look at the performance figures of most modern 4x4s they are anything but slow and these days they are build with the driver in mind. The elevated driving postion gives a much improved command of the road and there is a feel good factor about driving a 4x4 vehicle. Im not totally against what your saying, I too feel that the monsters of the variety, your Range Rovers, Porsche etc are a tad vulgar to say the least. It also bugs me when you see some young mum carting her darlings round in a Range Rover, why?

Ive had a 4x4 and loved it, I used it for towing a 2.5t trailor that wouldnt have been safe on back of a car but it isnt practicle for me now. My mum has a CRV, she gets around 32-33 mpg (the same as she got from her civic before it). Id bet a fortune that the car has never been in 4wd. As my mum suffers badly with osteoparosis and is having joints replaced, the high seating position makes it very easy for her to get in and out, she simply couldnt cope in a car. I also think the CRV is one of highest rated of all vehicles in a pedestrian crash.

Surely the way forward on this is to look at the bigger picture instead of picking on one type of vehicle. If your going to restrict vehicles from certain areas this should go the footprint of the vehicle, why ban a Rav 4 but allow an E-Class merc in? If your going to restrict vehicles on their environmental performance then this, as it does, should cover all vehicles. We need to concentrate on the real issues here and not just blindly lable 4x4s as killers of the earth.

 

Personally fail to see the point in 4x4s within an urban environment, for the same money as buying a BMW X5 you could buy a 5 series which is better handling, more comfortable, better equipped, faster, and more economical oweing to its superior aerodynamics regardless.

However I do defend the right of people to make their own choice about what vehicle they drive - though thankfully the media highlighting the 'problems' of large SUVs/4x4s will bring about changes as companies engineer such vehicles in a way that makes them more socially acceptable. Evidence of this can be seen in the Lexus hybrid RX400, which is no more polluting than your average family car.

 

I suppose foot print would be a better idea. I also think unless you have a drive you should be restricted two a limited number of cars unless you're will to pay a furtune to park them.

One of my neighbours who has just bought the end terrest has a long wheel based mercedes van (their business), a Mazda MX5 and a Mazda RX7 as far as I know its just a young couple, so they have three vehicles making it hard for people like my dad to park.

 

Well in that case I stand corrected on the efficiency thing. However, the bus service for many still isn't viable, and dedicated huge stretches of road for buses is all very well and good, but it does not change peoples minds as to whether they should use a bus, and forcing the same amount of cars to use less road DOES cause more congestion and pollution. If traffic could go where it wished, and traffic lights were set up to aide the movement of traffic instead of impeding it, things might not be so bad for cars AND buses!!!

I have already said, I would happily take the bus to work every day, but my work demands that I use my car for travelling to different sites. I could use the buses for this as well, but this would make me a significantly less productive worker, as I would be spending MUCH longer travelling than I do now. Still, if my work are prepared for me to do this, then I am more than happy to sit getting paid to sit on a bus