Anti the Antis

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :)

though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes (don't
know which) - have we got any regular motors that big?


"hugh" <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This was posted on A.f.l. Don't think it's appeared here but well worth
> a look at.
> http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
> --
> hugh
> Reply to address is valid at the time of posting



 
"Tommy" <@invalid.com> wrote:

> Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :)
>
> though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes (don't
> know which) - have we got any regular motors that big?


The Land Rover Discovery is 2.7 tonnes.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
 
Let me be slightly trollish in this matter as I admit mothers who take their
brats to school in their 4x4s as they are not "very good" at parking i.e
f**king dangerous to the rest of the world! do the 4x4 a dis-service

i.e its them who should be driving Fiestas "properly, safely etc" but cannot
be arsed to drive propeerly with consideration with foresite are the ones
who will eventually get 4x4s banned in towns

I hate them!

PS I admit to driving our MX5 sometimes in the summer and those flippin
idiots who cut corners i.e on your side of the road - coming towards you or
who sit a couple of feet behind you are REALLY SCARY!


 

> PS I admit to driving our MX5 sometimes in the summer and those flippin
> idiots who cut corners i.e on your side of the road - coming towards you

or
> who sit a couple of feet behind you are REALLY SCARY!
>


Nah ! I just wonder what school of Kamikaze study they attended and why
they insist on proving/ supporting the statitics that show my LR Defender
to be one of the safest cars on the road. Especially when they are
unwrapping themselves from the chassis at the front or the rear X-member.
Incidentally I make sure my brakes are A1 condition, any ar........e who
cares to drive that close behind me only has themselves to thank for any
problem.

My biggest bugbear is the idiot who closes real close to my rear on a hill;
with a diff brake it is'nt possible to do a hand brake start so the
inevitable roll back occurs even if only for a centimetre or two. Happened
the other day and despite a gentle warning, said idiot still closed up
behind. Could help touching his front end before proceeding up the hill (
honest officer !! )


 
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:07:17 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>"Tommy" <@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :)
>>
>> though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes (don't
>> know which) - have we got any regular motors that big?

>
>The Land Rover Discovery is 2.7 tonnes.


Not according to any info I can find online. The new one is 2.5, and
old ones a little less.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 

"Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:07:17 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
>>"Tommy" <@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :)
>>>
>>> though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes
>>> (don't
>>> know which) - have we got any regular motors that big?

>>
>>The Land Rover Discovery is 2.7 tonnes.

>
> Not according to any info I can find online. The new one is 2.5, and
> old ones a little less.
>
> --
>
> R
> o
> o
> n
> e
> y


Sorry to disappoint

According to my VIN plate
Disco Series II W reg 7 seat GL the GVW is 2880



 
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 00:08:28 +0000 (UTC), "GerryNutoLR"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:07:17 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Tommy" <@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larger 4x4s now banned in San Francisco - only time :)
>>>>
>>>> though to be honest "larger" in US eyes are over 2.6 tons / tonnes
>>>> (don't
>>>> know which) - have we got any regular motors that big?
>>>
>>>The Land Rover Discovery is 2.7 tonnes.

>>
>> Not according to any info I can find online. The new one is 2.5, and
>> old ones a little less.
>>
>> --
>>
>> R
>> o
>> o
>> n
>> e
>> y

>
>Sorry to disappoint
>
>According to my VIN plate
>Disco Series II W reg 7 seat GL the GVW is 2880
>
>


GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
at.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

> GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
> at.


But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
 
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:32:57 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
>> at.

>
>But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on.



I can't find that - only a reference to a 6000 lb weight limit on
certain roads. That suggests actual weight is what matters.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:23:52 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:32:57 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>wrote:
>
>>Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
>>> at.

>>
>>But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on.

>
>
>I can't find that - only a reference to a 6000 lb weight limit on
>certain roads. That suggests actual weight is what matters.



Ignore that - I've now found a reference to GVW. Seems a bit daft -
actual weight should be what counts.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said
something that might make us think.

If instead of bigger and bigger cars (for safety!) you drove a car with a
spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag people might drive more
carefully and with consideration rather than assume they are going to be
safe in an accident

Could be why death rates for drivers are coming down whilst death rates
amongs cyclists/pedestrians are going up


 
X-No-Archive: yes
In message <[email protected]>, Tommy
<?@?.?.invalid> writes
>Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said
>something that might make us think.


You don't know that he's a bigot. Either that or you don't know what it
means. Also he has the courage to broadcast under his own name.

--
James Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk

 
On Sunday, in article
<1gocbln.tatlde2ot4xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
%steve%@malloc.co.uk "Steve Firth" wrote:

> Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
> > at.

>
> But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on.


And some British legislation too.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
 
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:23:30 +0000 (GMT), [email protected]
("David G. Bell") wrote:

>On Sunday, in article
> <1gocbln.tatlde2ot4xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk "Steve Firth" wrote:
>
>> Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
>> > at.

>>
>> But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on.

>
>And some British legislation too.


What bits please, David (generally - I'm not asking for chapter &
verse)?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 

"Tommy" <@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeremy Clarkson that ignorant right wing bigot once (just once) said
> something that might make us think.
>
> If instead of bigger and bigger cars (for safety!) you drove a car with a
> spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag people might drive more
> carefully and with consideration rather than assume they are going to be
> safe in an accident
>
> Could be why death rates for drivers are coming down whilst death rates
> amongs cyclists/pedestrians are going up


I'm not familiar with the statistics so I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt. If death rates amongst cyclists and pedestrians is indeed going up,
on the evidence of my own eyes I would have to say they have no-one to blame
but themselves. My short drive home from Kingston to Epsom tonight
demonstrated this very well. Twice I encountered pedestrians using mobile
phones, oblivious to what was going on around them, step straight off the
pavement into oncoming traffic without looking at all. At the approach to
the Ace of Spades roundabout, a cyclist swerved straight across the traffic
coming up behind him without even the most cursory glance behind. And when
I got to Hook Parade, pedestrians were darting across the road between fast
moving cars even though the crossing lights were against them.

I find myself increasingly offering up a prayer that today's journey won't
end up with some nutter pedestrian or loony cyclist throwing themselves
under my car, because I know that as the biased laws stand, I'll be
immediately treated as the guilty party unless I can prove my innocence
beyond question. And just to rub salt into the wound, I'm the only one out
of the three "protagonists" that is paying road tax for the dubious
privilege of being put under this threat!
--
Dave (Sgt. Pepper) Epsom, England
Nikon D2H / D100 / Coolpix 5700 / Canon Ixus 400 / Paintshop Pro 8
My photo galleries at http://www.pbase.com/davecq

 


> If instead of bigger and bigger cars (for safety!) you drove a car with a
> spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag people might drive more
> carefully and with consideration rather than assume they are going to be
> safe in an accident


All very well until some other a....e runs into you. I'll stick with the
survivable large vehicle and still drive carefully thanks.


 

> You don't know that he's a bigot. Either that or you don't know what it
> means. Also he has the courage to broadcast under his own name.


I saw Top Gear live a few months ago and imho Clarkson is a top man.
Very dry wit, approachable and friendly.

A bigot? I think not. Opinionated, definitely - but hey..

B.

 
On Monday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Rooney" wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:23:30 +0000 (GMT), [email protected]
> ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, in article
> > <1gocbln.tatlde2ot4xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> > %steve%@malloc.co.uk "Steve Firth" wrote:
> >
> >> Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
> >> > at.
> >>
> >> But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on.

> >
> >And some British legislation too.

>
> What bits please, David (generally - I'm not asking for chapter &
> verse)?


Most obviously, Driving Licence classification -- you can drive up to
3500kg gross on an ordinary licence, with no need for a medical
certificate. Over 7500kg, it needs the HGV licence (and now they're
talking about LGV). And some vehicle classes are defined by other
features.

It also comes into definitions for what type of MoT station can test a
vehicle.

The trailer behind a car doesn't need brakes if it's small enough.

Generally, and mention of a vehicle's weight is concerned with the gross
weight, rather than the empty weight, at least as far as the law is
concerned. Weight limits on bridges, gravity might let an empty lorry
over when the law wouldn't.


--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

Wrought under license granted by Her Majesty's Apostropher Royal AD MMIV
 
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:15:17 +0000 (GMT), [email protected]
("David G. Bell") wrote:

>On Monday, in article
> <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Rooney" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:23:30 +0000 (GMT), [email protected]
>> ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, in article
>> > <1gocbln.tatlde2ot4xsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> > %steve%@malloc.co.uk "Steve Firth" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > GVW isn't what your car weighs. Kerb weight is what you need to look
>> >> > at.
>> >>
>> >> But GVW is what the Californian legislation is based on.
>> >
>> >And some British legislation too.

>>
>> What bits please, David (generally - I'm not asking for chapter &
>> verse)?

>
>Most obviously, Driving Licence classification -- you can drive up to
>3500kg gross on an ordinary licence, with no need for a medical
>certificate. Over 7500kg, it needs the HGV licence (and now they're
>talking about LGV). And some vehicle classes are defined by other
>features.
>
>It also comes into definitions for what type of MoT station can test a
>vehicle.
>
>The trailer behind a car doesn't need brakes if it's small enough.
>
>Generally, and mention of a vehicle's weight is concerned with the gross
>weight, rather than the empty weight, at least as far as the law is
>concerned. Weight limits on bridges, gravity might let an empty lorry
>over when the law wouldn't.



Ah - so a 7.5 tonner refers to GVW?
Incidentally - can't this be driven on an ordinary licence? I've not
checked mine for years but I thought it went up to 7.5.

I thought the term HGV had been superseded by LGV (L for Large)?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Back
Top