Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 2:37:23 GMT
I just realized that TfL, Transport for London, has been active and working now for nearly three years. Having taken control of the Tube, the Buses, the DLR, the Croydon Tramlink, the Public Carriage Office, Victoria coach station, the Thames Riverfront services and now parts of the National Rail infrastructure, combined with the congestion charge, the massive amounts of investment in the various areas, and other ancillary details, who here thinks that TfL was a good idea and has worked out?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 2, 2006 9:20:38 GMT
Well I think it was a good idea, but whether it has been a success or not I am not in a position to judge, having never used the services regularly.
Chris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 10:11:26 GMT
I think TfL is a success and it has worked out, overall. London's transport is now all (well, most of it) in one place, in the capable hands of TfL and Mayor Ken, and its clearly working!
However, some decisions like PPP are not, but thats not TfL's fault really!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 10:17:06 GMT
tfl has been around a bit longer than 3 years, it has however been 3 years when it took over lu and finished off lt
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 12:23:03 GMT
TFL has worked, but im not so sure about PPP.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 2, 2006 16:54:29 GMT
It's worked for London, certainly. You can see all the improvement / renovation works which seem to be much more prevalent than previously. However there does seem to be a massive increase in paperwork, beancounters and lawyers - look at the 50 million sets of contractors / sub contractors / sub sub contractors. Witness the aft-mentioned announcement "Could the contracted cleaner please come to the staff room where there has been a spillage" - no doubt followed by squabbling over which cleaner had it written in his contract to mop that particular corner of the staff room - whereas previously someone would have got a mop out...
It has, however, lead to a significant disparity - extra investment in London buses leading to much less elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 16:59:04 GMT
I think TfL is proof that integrated transport, when done properly, is very effective (although until it absorbs suburban rail, it's mission is not complete!), and whether you like Ken or loathe him, you can't really argue with his record on public transport. I wouldn't mind seeing him as Minister for Transport, maybe then the rest of the country will catch up with London when it comes to public transport! While the Conservatives seem good in many areas compared to Labour, London's public transport be damned if a Conservative steps foot inside the Mayor's office; it'll be tax breaks on 4x4s all round!
|
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Aug 2, 2006 17:04:40 GMT
London's public transport be damned if a Conservative steps foot inside the Mayor's office; it'll be tax breaks on 4x4s all round! In London the 4x4 situation may need dealing with, but there are places in the UK where 4x4s are essential. Never forget that many things that happen in London have unexpected side effects that impact heavily elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Aug 2, 2006 17:42:44 GMT
London's public transport be damned if a Conservative steps foot inside the Mayor's office; it'll be tax breaks on 4x4s all round! In London the 4x4 situation may need dealing with, but there are places in the UK where 4x4s are essential. Never forget that many things that happen in London have unexpected side effects that impact heavily elsewhere. why does everyone pick on 4x4's??? most people carriers out there are equally as uneconomical and rather larger in external dimensions than your average modern 4x4, and I suspect more numerous too, but for some reason these people carrier things are acceptable, maybe because our friend Tony has one? Vans and the way they are driven should perhaps also give us rather more concern than 4x4's and has anyone thought about the huge numbers of heavy black cabs using rather ancient technology diesel engines? The list goes on, why pick on 4x4's particularly? |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Aug 2, 2006 17:45:05 GMT
London's public transport be damned if a Conservative steps foot inside the Mayor's office; it'll be tax breaks on 4x4s all round! In London the 4x4 situation may need dealing with My personal opinion also is that we should be aiming, as with many European capitals, for a mostly traffic free city centre without targetting any specific vehicle type...bring back the trams Ken!! |
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Aug 2, 2006 18:10:05 GMT
In London the 4x4 situation may need dealing with My personal opinion also is that we should be aiming, as with many European capitals, for a mostly traffic free city centre without targetting any specific vehicle type...bring back the trams Ken!! I hope that you noticed the word 'may' in the quote from my post. I certainly noticed the word 'mostly' in yours. This is a tangled problem that cannot be dealt with simplistically. 'Traffic-free' sounds good, but there are practical problems. Up until the 1950s, there was a shop on almost every street corner and many people only ventured out of their immediate area to go on holiday; if at all. If everyone is expected to use public transport, how do they transport things from the DIY store/supermarket/garden centre? How do single parents cope with a couple of kids/pushchair/shopping? What about people who live out-of-town and want to go into a city to spend their money. It goes on and on. You cannot bring back the halcyon days of unlimited trains, buses and trams without radically altering a financial climate and an infrastructure that has evolved directly as a result of the changes to the public transport system. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 18:12:43 GMT
In London the 4x4 situation may need dealing with, but there are places in the UK where 4x4s are essential. Never forget that many things that happen in London have unexpected side effects that impact heavily elsewhere. why does everyone pick on 4x4's??? most people carriers out there are equally as uneconomical and rather larger in external dimensions than your average modern 4x4, and I suspect more numerous too, but for some reason these people carrier things are acceptable, maybe because our friend Tony has one? Vans and the way they are driven should perhaps also give us rather more concern than 4x4's and has anyone thought about the huge numbers of heavy black cabs using rather ancient technology diesel engines? The list goes on, why pick on 4x4's particularly? You're quite right in saying that people carriers and other vehicles are as polluting as 4x4s. I think 4x4s are just targeted because they're more dangerous (article in the paper today said you're something like 27 times more likely to die if hit by a 4x4 than a car) and because they don't perform any extra function on-road than a car (4 seater, decent boot space). At least a people carrier carries up to 7 people, I suppose. And cabs are public transport, too, so the environmental cost is offset by the fact that they're used by many people. Apologies if I offended anyone by sounding like I have a vengeance against Tories (I'm a swing voter anyway) and 4x4s, like cdr113 I agree a traffic free city centre as realistic as possible is the way to go in terms of all vehicles *saves rear*. Inevitably though, railways both overground and underground as well as trams will prevail as petrol and diesel becomes more and more expensive to the point where it's not practical for most families to use a car often (dunno how cheap this biodiesel stuff will be to use), as they're the only type of powered motion that can be powered using zero emissions energy (renewables through catenary and third/fouth rail), and so TfL will one day play an even bigger role in our lives than it does at present. |
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Aug 2, 2006 18:44:39 GMT
One of the problems with Proboards is the stupid way that it automates quotes. You may notice that I am always very careful to rearrange everything to make it clear who said what. Please be sure that you understand this when reading posts that contain multiple quotes, as I note that I often appear to be saying something that can actually be attributed to others. Anyway, to quote someone else:- I think 4x4s are just targeted because they're more dangerous (article in the paper today said you're something like 27 times more likely to die if hit by a 4x4 than a car) and because they don't perform any extra function on-road than a car. This is not exactly true. A 4x4 does have extra on-road functions. I can point you to places in the UK where 4x4 are the only vehicles that can be used on public highways (classified 'A' roads) in the winter. And cabs are public transport, too, so the environmental cost is offset by the fact that they're used by many people. Again, not exactly true. Many people only use their cars for outward and return journeys, so no wasted time. Cabs often cruise around looking for customers, which has an environmental impact. In out-of-town areas, cabs often have to make lengthy return journeys empty. Inevitably though, railways both overground and underground as well as trams will prevail...as they're the only type of powered motion that can be powered using zero emissions energy. ' can be powered using zero emissions energy' is different to ' are powered using zero emissions energy'. The generation of electricity almost always involves shifting the emissions elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2006 18:47:04 GMT
One of the problems with Proboards is the stupid way that it automates quotes. You may notice that I am always very careful to rearrange everything to make it clear who said what. Please be sure that you understand this when reading posts that contain multiple quotes, as I note that I often appear to be saying something that can actually be attributed to others. Anyway, to quote someone else:- I think 4x4s are just targeted because they're more dangerous (article in the paper today said you're something like 27 times more likely to die if hit by a 4x4 than a car) and because they don't perform any extra function on-road than a car. This is not exactly true. A 4x4 does have extra on-road functions. I can point you to places in the UK where 4x4 are the only vehicles that can be used on public highways (classified 'A' roads) in the winter. Again, not exactly true. Many people only use their cars for outward and return journeys, so no wasted time. Cabs often cruise around looking for customers, which has an environmental impact. Inevitably though, railways both overground and underground as well as trams will prevail...as they're the only type of powered motion that can be powered using zero emissions energy. ' can be powered using zero emissions energy' is different to ' are powered using zero emissions energy'. The generation of electricity almost always involves shifting the emissions elsewhere. All valid points. You win   |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,770
|
Post by Chris M on Aug 2, 2006 19:53:03 GMT
' can be powered using zero emissions energy' is different to ' are powered using zero emissions energy'. True. In this part of the world we only have diesel trains on the main line, no suburban railways to speak of (well, one woefully under-used line) which again has only diesel trains, and a couple of heritage lines running diesel and steam trains. There are no plans to electrify any of it, nor are there plans to increase the amount of trams from the current 0. The generation of electricity almost always involves shifting the emissions elsewhere. Generally speaking, concentrating emissions in one place (i.e. a power station) makes them much easier and much more efficient to deal with them than when they are distributed over a huge area. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Aug 2, 2006 20:52:52 GMT
The generation of electricity almost always involves shifting the emissions elsewhere. Generally speaking, concentrating emissions in one place (i.e. a power station) makes them much easier and much more efficient to deal with them than when they are distributed over a huge area. Correct, but there are still emissions to deal with, it is just that we do not necessarily have to handle them at the place where we use the electricity. If we used our brains we could considerably reduce or even eliminate emissions when generating electricity. The technology certainly exists, but there are financial, business and political constraints that prevent this from happening. Note: Although we appear to have strayed off topic, that is not actually the case. What we are discussing here is connected to some of the reasons that have caused Tfl to take a number of the actions that it has. Points such as this and related issues will determine future decisions. Our descendants will undoubtedly look back at what we have done and, with the benefit of hindsight, will severely criticise how we dealt with things. The Victorians at least had the excuse that they did not fully appreciate the implications of what they were doing. We quite often understand that the direction we are going is wrong and/or could impact future generations; but we still do it. |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Aug 2, 2006 21:41:36 GMT
I hope that you noticed the word 'may' in the quote from my post. I certainly noticed the word 'mostly' in yours. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 3, 2006 3:36:57 GMT
why pick on 4x4's particularly? I think 4x4s are just targeted because they're more dangerous This is not exactly true. A 4x4 does have extra on-road functions. I can point you to places in the UK where 4x4 are the only vehicles that can be used on public highways (classified 'A' roads) in the winter. I have to pick up on this point - and disagree with you cslr(  ;D): 4x4's are indeed designed for rough terrain and i'm sure cope admirably in winter (though i've never had a 'normal car' that cannot cope either). They are not however designed for use in a surbuban area. It is a fact that because of their higher centre of gravity, when involved in an accident with a pedestrian, the pedestrian has a far higher chance of being killed. This is especially true when applied to a 4x4 hitting a child, where their head is likley to be the first thing making contact. The front end of these vehicles are 'blunt ended' meaning the pedestrian (or indeed other vehicles) are more likely to end up being forced underneath - where as a 'conventional' car has a 'sloped' front end, meaning most pedestrians (or other vehicles) end up on top. Then there's the 'bull bars' - these just make matters worse. 4X4's have their place - and it ain't in suburban London. As for T fL, too early to tell ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Aug 3, 2006 6:33:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2006 8:17:15 GMT
As for T fL, too early to tell ;D Colin, you even used an f that is both lower case and italic - T fL will be proud of you! |
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Aug 3, 2006 8:31:33 GMT
This is not exactly true. A 4x4 does have extra on-road functions. I can point you to places in the UK where 4x4 are the only vehicles that can be used on public highways (classified 'A' roads) in the winter. I have to pick up on this point - and disagree with you cslr( ;D): 4x4's are indeed designed for rough terrain and i'm sure cope admirably in winter (though i've never had a 'normal car' that cannot cope either). And I disagree with your disagreement ;D ;D I assure you that there are places in the UK where 4x4s are the only vehicles that can cope on normal 'A' roads in the winter. This includes some roads where the police only allow 4x4 vehicles to pass. I will PM details to you later as they will be out of place here. 4X4's have their place - and it ain't in suburban London. I pretty much agree with you on that point, but there are other circumstances to consider:- Bunching all 4x4 together is a major mistake - not all 4x4s are off road vehicles. For example; two out-of-town members of this forum have 4x4 people carriers for their large families. They are fuel-efficient and are not high-performance (the vehicles, not the members). Unlike some 'Penthouse Farmers', these are the only vehicles that these members own. There is no question that weekend family visits to London would cease unless careful thought is given to the precise definition of what a 4x4 is. To be factual a 4x4 is a vehicle that has the ability to be driven by all four wheels; it is not just a giant brick (although many do resemble this). If 4x4s are banned from London, I am sure that it will not be long before a performance vehicle company will produce a 10-litre 2-wheel-drive conversion of the Hummer. NOTE: I agree that some vehicles are out of place in a city (bendy buses, for example  . I just think that careful thought should be given to what exactly is intended by any ban, otherwise some less-harmful vehicles will be prohibited while others that should be kept out will fall through the gap. Then there's the 'bull bars' - these just make matters worse. Bull bars are not an integral part of a 4x4. |
|
|
|
Post by citysig on Aug 3, 2006 9:41:40 GMT
I think TfL is a success and it has worked out, overall. London's transport is now all (well, most of it) in one place There used to be an arrangement some time back whereby all of London's Transport was in one place. Everything all had the same round symbol thing stamped on it with clever wording relating to something about London's Transport. It was like a central management team responsible for all of London's Transport. Damned if I can remember what is was called... But anyway, one day a group came along and broke it all up and then a while later another group came along with the brilliant idea of trying to put them all back together again - but for a profit of course. Seriously though, having everything more or less under one roof is always going to be better than several individuals all doing different things - especially when you're supplying a service to a city like London. There is good and bad in everything including Tfl but at least the intentions appear to be reasonable on the surface. (I know the quote is quite a way back in this thread but then it did drift a tad didn't it.) |
|
|
|
Post by donnytom on Aug 3, 2006 11:56:21 GMT
Bunching all 4x4 together is a major mistake - not all 4x4s are off road vehicles. For example; two out-of-town members of this forum have 4x4 people carriers for their large families. They are fuel-efficient and are not high-performance (the vehicles, not the members). Unlike some 'Penthouse Farmers', these are the only vehicles that these members own. There is no question that weekend family visits to London would cease unless careful thought is given to the precise definition of what a 4x4 is. To be factual a 4x4 is a vehicle that has the ability to be driven by all four wheels; it is not just a giant brick (although many do resemble this). If 4x4s are banned from London, I am sure that it will not be long before a performance vehicle company will produce a 10-litre 2-wheel-drive conversion of the Hummer. NOTE: I agree that some vehicles are out of place in a city (bendy buses, for example . I just think that careful thought should be given to what exactly is intended by any ban, otherwise some less-harmful vehicles will be prohibited while others that should be kept out will fall through the gap. For a start, most Subaru vehicles, including their small cars, are (/were) driven by all four wheels, but probably aren't the vehicles that generate the anger. Like you say, it is probably possible to get around this issue by making the things rear-drive only; indeed, some of them have the ability to be driven by one or both pairs of wheels- where would the legislation stand on this? The new version of the Fiat Panda can be bought in a 4wd version, but it's unlikely that anyone would attribute it to the supposed problem (and BBC Top Gear found that because of its light weight and small size, it's quite good on rough terrain). The Peugeot Partner small van can also now be bought in 4wd form. A lot of these 'Chelsea tractors' are annoying and unfriendly to traffic (either hitting them, or simply trying to see around a parked one) and the envrionment, but as has been said, so are other vehicles within the capital. Lexus has produced one which is 4-wheel drive but powered by regenerated electricity on one pair; this avoids the environmental issues (as a hybrid, I believe it's exempt from the C-charge anyway), but retains the others. It couldn't be altered to apply to all 'large' vehicles, as this would then include 'people-carriers', with their greater number of seats. Plus some 'off-roaders' can be specified with 7 seats anyway, and there would probably be issues surrounding how vehicles are classified. In other words- with the number of exceptions that might need to be created to make things seem 'fair', it's hard to see exactly how this would work without creating a lot of paperwork for someone. Then there's the 'bull bars' - these just make matters worse. Bull bars are not an integral part of a 4x4. [/quote] Oh, but they so are, dahling. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Aug 3, 2006 12:38:10 GMT
In other words- with the number of exceptions that might need to be created to make things seem 'fair', it's hard to see exactly how this would work without creating a lot of paperwork for someone. This is probably heading in the same direction that insurance companies have done where, instead of a general descriptive term, each type of vehicle is placed in a specific classification. It would be easier for Tfl to list which makes and types of vehicles are prohibited (eg. Land Rover Discovery, Toyota Landcruiser, Mitsubishi Shogun, Smart Car, etc) - the list probably would not be all that big. Any custom vehicle will probably be approved or rejected subject to a paid inspection (rather like the current system for custom vehicle licensing and insurance). I am not advocating this system, I am simply suggesting that this approach might finally be seen as more sensible that trying to handle it with a 'Ban 4x4s' rule. As for creating more paperwork, yes of course it would. Surely that is an obligation for all public bodies? |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Aug 4, 2006 2:18:42 GMT
Bunching all 4x4 together is a major mistake - not all 4x4s are off road vehicles. Now we agree  ;D ;D ;D Indeed my angle is different to yours in that my definition of a 4x4 (ignorant stereo-type coming up) consist's of the likes of Land Rover's, Mitsubishi Shogun's & Ford Maverick's. Of course other 4x4's like Lexus's and people carriers etc do not fall foul of my definition. I therefore stick by my comment that 4x4's are not needed in London - but in the context of motors like the Land Rover, the so called 'Chelsea tractor'. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Aug 4, 2006 7:32:10 GMT
Although all the discussion has been about 4x4s, is not a far simpler solution to work on engine size? Radical though it may be (and the Roller drivers would kick up a stink), a 2.2l engine size limit for cars would get rid of ALL large cars, not just 4x4s. And there would be no way out - even if the manufacturers tried putting 2.0l engines in the big bodies, the (lack of) performance would just make them unviable.
But, back on thread, TfL yes, PPP no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2006 13:01:23 GMT
Why is everyone so deluded about 4x4s? If you compare the capabilities of any 4x4 with a two wheel drive vehicle, for similar capabilities and performance, the 4x4 will always be worse. Many 4x4s are now engineered to achieve, similar levels of performance to 2 wheel drive cars, and their environmental impact is simply unjustifiable.
Furthermore it is necessary to bear in mind that a significant part of a car's negative impact on the environment, is at manufacture time. 4x4s are simply over engineered for road and more so for urban use.
The idea that they are safer is also utterly delusional. All passenger cars are converging (and have been for a long time) in terms of height. A Mondeo raised by just one inch, is significantly more dangerous in a head on collision with a standard Mondeo (as demonstrated once on 5th Gear). The height of 4x4s is a disaster for safety of other [car] drivers and pedestrians. As for the occupants of 4x4s, they are also no better off, as the significantly higher centre of gravity of these vehicles puts them at far greater risk of rolling over.
As for these barges being essential in parts of the UK, this is simply nonsense. There are no such restrictions in the Alps (although under certain weather conditions snow Tyres are required). A front drive car fitted with winter tyres, snow tyres or snow chains is every bit as safe and easy to drive as any 4x4. The greatest limitation to safety in these conditions is driver experience and competence; an inexperienced driver in snow conditions is every bit as dangerous in a 4x4! Driving such a vehicle is London makes as much sense as going out all year round in wellies and rain mac whilst carrying an open brolley!
As for integrated transport in London - there is much more to it than simply having one body responsible for all the transport. As long as buses have to compete with private road users they will not function well. As long as it is quicker, for example, to walk from Clapham to Brixton (2.6 miles) than go by bus (37) at any time of day then I think it could be said that TfL has failed. Pick your bus route for similar results.
The truth is that TfL - particularly with the Underground - is playing catch up, after decades of under investment. Our rulers, in order to absolve themselves of any responsibility for this state of affairs, have dreamed up PPP. It's also jobs for the boys!
As for cabs - I agree with most of the views here. They are filthy polluting things. It always astonishes me that they sit for ages outside stations with their engines running. Hybrids would make much more sense.
If you want to see what integrated transport really means, go live in Karlsruhe (or probably any German city) or Zuerich (Switzerland). Traveling by public transport in these cities is a joy, and whilst planning any journey, you have a number of options and public transport usually wins over the car! In London, journeys seem to take forever, whatever choice you make!
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Aug 12, 2006 15:57:06 GMT
Why is everyone so deluded about 4x4s? If you compare the capabilities of any 4x4 with a two wheel drive vehicle, for similar capabilities and performance, the 4x4 will always be worse. Many 4x4s are now engineered to achieve, similar levels of performance to 2 wheel drive cars, and their environmental impact is simply unjustifiable. don't these two sentences contradict themselves? and taking the latter, if 4x4s are now engineered to achieve similar levels of performance as 2 wheel drive cars, how is their enviromental impact unjustifiable? surely it's as justifiable as the 2 wheel drive equivalent. that's a valid point - they are more complex to build and take more time. perhaps if the roads were less bumpy, the number of 4x4s will decline - i'm sure there's a coorelation, even if there's not a causation, that big urban cars came in when speed humps did. as a more general point banning 4x4s will do nothing - similar cars, but 2 wheel drive will come out to replace them. Things like fuel efficency and economy are things to ban cars on, not how many wheels are connected to the engine. No anti-4x4 campaigner has successfully managed to pin down what they want to ban - flat fronted cars due to their danger? well, buses would have to go too. 4x4s - well that means I can drive a 2-wheel-drive Humvee around then. SUVs due to their size - does a people carrier, which has roughly the same dimensions count (and of course in terms of road space SUVs are about the same width as a new family car, and not much longer too)? fuel economy - what about old cars... You either ban lots of things you don't want to ban, or you have really complex legislation that will do nothing. of course Chelsea tractors are stupid and overly-decodent, but banning them is difficult and opens a minefield as there'll be so many loopholes that won't get rid of the problems, and would probably aggrovate some. |
|
|
|
Post by stanmorek on Aug 12, 2006 17:13:48 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2006 20:12:12 GMT
don't these two sentences contradict themselves? and taking the latter, if 4x4s are now engineered to achieve similar levels of performance as 2 wheel drive cars, how is their environmental impact unjustifiable? surely it's as justifiable as the 2 wheel drive equivalent. I don't think so, although it is possible that I am not as eloquent as I thought! I can perhaps explain using a real world example: take two cars such as the Ford Focus C-Max 1.6i lx and the Jeep Cherokee CRD Sport. the Ford does 0-60 in 12.9 secs, the Jeep 12.8, the Ford reaches 107 mph, the jeep 107. Economy figures, urban, extra urban and combined are, for the ford 31.7, 49.6 and 40.9 for the Jeep 30.4, 36.7 and 23.5. as for CO2 the Ford produces 166g/km, the Jeep 246g/km. These two vehicles have very similar on road capabilities but as you can see the jeep has a far greater environmental impact. If you are rational about it, the Ford is the far better choice, and in it's lifetime will also consume far less tyres. It is also the one I would rather be in in an accident. As for bumpy roads if you really think that a 4x4 is the better choice for bumpy roads, you are simply wrong. If Providing a decent ride in a 4x4 which is capable of serious offraod work is a major engineering challenge because these vehicle need to have extreme suspension travel and compliance in the suspension in order to have extreme off road capabilities. What I mean by "4x4s are now engineered to achieve similar levels of performance as 2 wheel drive cars", is demonstrated by the current crop of vehicles such as the Range-rover sport and its ilk. In order to achieve comparable ride, road holding and handling to road cars they have adopted ever more fancy engineering (such as air suspension) to try to achieve this. This is more complexity to achieve what road cars have been achieving for decades already - and they are still no match. They also attempt to levels of road performance. All gobbling up more fuel. As for the argument "that some MPVs are as bad as 4x4s, I just cannot see it in the figures - and I really have looked very closely. If you use examples as above the road car is far better every time. This is unjustifiable, in a world where fossil fuels are scarce, and will become ever scarcer. It is also preposterous when you consider that many of these vehicles as a result have become so compromised off road. I am not especially an environmentalist, but rather a realist; from this perspective these cars make no sense at all. They are not safer, no better in difficult road conditions and guzzle more gas for like capabilities. Ask any agricultural work if he/she use 4wd on road! Ask him how much he uses it off road either - you would be surprised - he/she would certainly never buy a permanent 4wd vehicle as it would destroy his/her land! These vehicles are widely purchased by the "me" generation as a consequence of status anxiety. Yes - many are technical tours de force - but they make no sense. I never suggesting that banning them is the answer, but those who insist on them should at least realise that they do have a huge negative impact. Fiscal policy would do the trick, as it does in many countries. Whether or not this has anything to do with TfL is another matter entirely! |
|
;D): 4x4's are indeed designed for rough terrain and i'm sure cope admirably in winter (though i've never had a 'normal car' that cannot cope either). They are not however designed for use in a surbuban area. It is a fact that because of their higher centre of gravity, when involved in an accident with a pedestrian, the pedestrian has a far higher chance of being killed. This is especially true when applied to a 4x4 hitting a child, where their head is likley to be the first thing making contact. The front end of these vehicles are 'blunt ended' meaning the pedestrian (or indeed other vehicles) are more likely to end up being forced underneath - where as a 'conventional' car has a 'sloped' front end, meaning most pedestrians (or other vehicles) end up on top. Then there's the 'bull bars' - these just make matters worse. 
. I just think that careful thought should be given to what exactly is intended by any ban, otherwise some less-harmful vehicles will be prohibited while others that should be kept out will fall through the gap.
;D ;D ;D
