A former member·
Certainly is - put it this way, I pay more road tax for my family oriented 2.2 Mitsubishi Grandis than I do for my enviro-selfish Porsche 911 which has an engine over 50% bigger :crazy:Get real ... its another tax con ... (good lord I'm starting to sound like Jeremy Clarkson ... except I kinda like my diesel people carrier.)
The motor manufactures must play a bigger part in fuel consumption issues.I simply look at it this way - fuel ain't gonna last for ever - now is it. So the less we use uneccessarily the longer it will last - so the longer we get to drive. Do you believe we should be allowed to drive whatever we want without some sort of restriction.
What harm is a 4x4 really doing if it's being driven 50 miles a week? Is the driver really doing more harm than someone with a Smart who does 200 miles a week? Of course not - the differences aren't that great at all. Without taking the absolute extremes, there's typically no more than a 2 to 3 times improvement between driving one of the thirstiest cars you can and driving one of the most economical.Hi, Trucks what's up with you today - off on a wee rant of your own. I simply look at it this way - fuel ain't gonna last for ever - now is it. So the less we use uneccessarily the longer it will last - so the longer we get to drive. Do you believe we should be allowed to drive whatever we want without some sort of restriction.
I'm making an abstract point that it is crazy.Hi OG - Apart from your political rant - Exactly what point are you trying to make.
Straight answer then: No.Nice rant Horatio but pity it didn't answer the question. You sure your not a politician - it was a typical politicians answer. Rant, rave, go off on a tangent (seen it all before). I just asked the question should there be a limit on the size of what people should be able to drive. And your 2-3 times more should read 200%-300% - I don't know about you but that's a helluva lot in my book. I'm sure others reading this thread would like to hear your answer the question.:steam:
my vote chrisJust to slightly hijack the thread, I have a plan:
Forget talk of ideology either political or religous, most recent wars / conflicts are about who controls the dwindling oil resources. If we remove the reliance on oil we remove the need for conflict. The technology is there for electric cars, solar, geothermal and wind / water power. If more money was spent on developing these energy sources and less on cleaning up after polution or fighting wars to get oil we would have a cleaner peaceful world.
Vote Chris for world president, you know it makes sense.