Tweet
Just emailed them. What a bunch of loons! We'll see what sort of response this gets......
"You poor narrow minded people!
Whilst I agree with the basics of your argument, why are you so predominately concerned with 4x4 vehicles!
If the truth be known, all city cars need only have a maximum 1000cc engine, since the range driven, and the maximum achievable speeds in our over-crowded cities is very limited.
Why then do you not target all large engine cars and vehicles, especially those that have no passengers in, except the driver? I note with some muse that in your comparison chart the Ford Mondeo was listed as only giving 25MPG but the X - trail gives 31MPG! Not really helping your own argument there are you!
Do not passenger jets create more green-house gasses than cars? Why not target the air industry, as they are responsible for releasing many thousand tons more of damaging gasses into the atmosphere that the urban 4x4 driver?
And if you are talking about dangerous vehicles, why would anyone need a car capable of doing much more than 70-80 MPH? Surely you should target drivers of high performance cars as well. Following in the trend you adopt I would add - "you don't need a car capable of doing 0-60 in under 10 seconds unless your a Formula One driver!" to your list.
You are just employing bully boy tactics, picking on an instantly recognisable vehicle, the 4x4., when the truth is that there are just as many 'family cars' as you describe them that return a lot less miles to the gallon, as your own web-site details!
I would hazard a guess that the majority of your campaigners have at least one car in their households, and don't complain about global warming and a depleting o-zone layer whilst jetting of for two weeks in the Canary Islands!
And for your information, families don't fit into hatchbacks! ~have you every tried to get a pushchair and the general paraphernalia that has to carried when you have small children into one yourselves?
4x4 drivers already pay more tax for their choice of vehicle - it's called VAT and fuel duty tax. If you choose to buy a bigger vehicle you will pay more tax than a 'family car' driver!
More importantly, who are you to judge that the driver has made a poor choice of car? Unless you every facet of information about that driver, his/her life-style, family and work commitments, how can you possibly label their car a poor choice.
Last time I checked, we live in a free and democratic society!
Get a life, your campaign is nothing more than a fashion statement, thinking it gives you some sort of moral high ground that you are doing your bit for the environment, and something you can feel Superior about whilst sat about all day drinking frappacinos with your mates, whilst the rest of us work for a living.
If you were serious about the environment, you would be condemning ALL internal combustion engines.
Yours faithfully,
Matthew S Jones
P. S. Yes I drive a 4x4, a honking great 3000cc beast. But I live in the country and take it off-road, so that's OK."
"You poor narrow minded people!
Whilst I agree with the basics of your argument, why are you so predominately concerned with 4x4 vehicles!
If the truth be known, all city cars need only have a maximum 1000cc engine, since the range driven, and the maximum achievable speeds in our over-crowded cities is very limited.
Why then do you not target all large engine cars and vehicles, especially those that have no passengers in, except the driver? I note with some muse that in your comparison chart the Ford Mondeo was listed as only giving 25MPG but the X - trail gives 31MPG! Not really helping your own argument there are you!
Do not passenger jets create more green-house gasses than cars? Why not target the air industry, as they are responsible for releasing many thousand tons more of damaging gasses into the atmosphere that the urban 4x4 driver?
And if you are talking about dangerous vehicles, why would anyone need a car capable of doing much more than 70-80 MPH? Surely you should target drivers of high performance cars as well. Following in the trend you adopt I would add - "you don't need a car capable of doing 0-60 in under 10 seconds unless your a Formula One driver!" to your list.
You are just employing bully boy tactics, picking on an instantly recognisable vehicle, the 4x4., when the truth is that there are just as many 'family cars' as you describe them that return a lot less miles to the gallon, as your own web-site details!
I would hazard a guess that the majority of your campaigners have at least one car in their households, and don't complain about global warming and a depleting o-zone layer whilst jetting of for two weeks in the Canary Islands!
And for your information, families don't fit into hatchbacks! ~have you every tried to get a pushchair and the general paraphernalia that has to carried when you have small children into one yourselves?
4x4 drivers already pay more tax for their choice of vehicle - it's called VAT and fuel duty tax. If you choose to buy a bigger vehicle you will pay more tax than a 'family car' driver!
More importantly, who are you to judge that the driver has made a poor choice of car? Unless you every facet of information about that driver, his/her life-style, family and work commitments, how can you possibly label their car a poor choice.
Last time I checked, we live in a free and democratic society!
Get a life, your campaign is nothing more than a fashion statement, thinking it gives you some sort of moral high ground that you are doing your bit for the environment, and something you can feel Superior about whilst sat about all day drinking frappacinos with your mates, whilst the rest of us work for a living.
If you were serious about the environment, you would be condemning ALL internal combustion engines.
Yours faithfully,
Matthew S Jones
P. S. Yes I drive a 4x4, a honking great 3000cc beast. But I live in the country and take it off-road, so that's OK."
Comment