time to p*** off the motorists again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
So you can not excuse the high pollution costs upon the initial creation of what is considered to be one of the greatest advances in automotive history of the past ten years even though the pollution costs of its production today are significantly less than they were ten years ago and will continue to reduce as the Prius and indeed other vehicles like the Prius gain in popularity.

Are you aware that every vehicle incurs costs upon production also? Be those costs financial, pollutant or both, as in the cases of most, however with time and volume these costs are greatly reduced through efficiency.

Based on Elements' logic I had better switch off my electricity and revert to a coal or peat fire and gas lamps.
 

Bicycle

Guest
[QUOTE 1544302"]
3000 people are killed here on the roads each year, by your figures, and you consider that to be acceptable.
[/quote]


We are currently at fewer than 40 deaths annually on the road per million population.

The word 'acceptable' may not be helpful here in every context, but it appears to be a figure the wider population 'accept' as one of the risks of using our road system.

I've said before on this thread that I'm surprised it's as low as it is. It doesn't for a moment put me off cycling.

I accept the current road-death figures and I continue to ride. I'd probably do so at 80 per million, 120 per million and higher. I think many would. (I wonder how high the figure would need to be to deter a significant number of cyclists.)

That doesn't mean that in all senses I find them acceptable.

But... I'm not actively doing anything to reduce them, so one might argue that I'm 'happy' with them and that in one sense I find them perfectly 'acceptable'.

It is my intention not to become one, although few of us get to choose. :rolleyes:
 

henshaw11

Well-Known Member
Location
Walton-On-Thames
Ah, f*ck it.

Since Mr Osmium* appears to be either thick or stubborn wrt taking in simple ideas, or is just a troll (and judging by some other threads probably the former) - he's on the ignore list - that's a first for me :laugh:

*wikipedia is your friend ;)
 
Location
Rammy
So you can not excuse the high pollution costs upon the initial creation of what is considered to be one of the greatest advances in automotive history of the past ten years even though the pollution costs of its production today are significantly less than they were ten years ago and will continue to reduce as the Prius and indeed other vehicles like the Prius gain in popularity.

Are you aware that every vehicle incurs costs upon production also? Be those costs financial, pollutant or both, as in the cases of most, however with time and volume these costs are greatly reduced through efficiency.

The issue with the prius specifically, is that the environmental impact of shipping the components the equivalent of twice round the world is more than the car itself saves in the life span of it's batteries (3 years before replacement iirc)

considering the environmental costs of building and running a normal family hatch for 3 years has less environmental impact than building and running a prius for the same length of time.

personally, i have a 10 year old car, it's been in the family from new, it will be fixed and run until it's too unreliable and then scrapped as I feel this better than buying a new car every 3-5 years like a lot of people seem to do.



with regards to cycling in poland, I felt safer riding round Krakow than riding round coventry - I never said they were better drivers, I just felt safer.
 
Your information is dated and based upon the 1995 trials and the 1997 first production models.

The batteries now last far longer than 3 years and the environmental impact upon the production has since greatly reduced with increases in volume, demand and efficiency.

What is often forgotten about in the argument is that all vehicles incur and environmental impact upon production.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
Your information is dated and based upon the 1995 trials and the 1997 first production models.

The batteries now last far longer than 3 years and the environmental impact upon the production has since greatly reduced with increases in volume, demand and efficiency.

What is often forgotten about in the argument is that all vehicles incur and environmental impact upon production.

In fact everything that is produced incurs environmental impact!
 
You have piped up with your life story thanks but I never felt the need to list the number of countires I have droven in, I am not that insecure.
Now I'm bored. Hey, you're good; very good
















........................ at entirely missing the point. You failed when offered some facts. You failed to take the chance to change or withdraw extraordinary trolling generalisations you made about cyclists as some sort of "different" animal, who never drive nor ride motor bikes.

The only person on here whinging or complaining is you. And you're boring. Go crawl back under your stone.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
Now I'm bored. Hey, you're good; very good
















........................ at entirely missing the point. You failed when offered some facts. You failed to take the chance to change or withdraw extraordinary trolling generalisations you made about cyclists as some sort of "different" animal, who never drive nor ride motor bikes.

The only person on here whinging or complaining is you. And you're boring. Go crawl back under your stone.

I think our :troll: is Francium*



































*Francium is the most unstable of the naturally occurring elements
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom