22 Sept. No petrol day

ResoundOh I'm not saying that the 121 wasn't a bit small, it would be. Those things
have a tiny boot. But a Falcon? I suppose all those famillies in Europe
driving Fiat Puntos and Citroen Saxos just bung the baby in the glovebox?[/QUOTE Wrote:

A Falcon is a bit over the top. You can't get a more dramatic change
from a 121.

Families in Europe probably don't rely on the car quite as much as us.
Joys of suburbia and the urban spread. And they are probably not quite
as fussed about seat belts and rear-facing baby seats/capsules. Not as
bad as the motorcycles you see in Thailand etc. with Mum, Dad, kids,
dog all hanging on and bottoming out the suspension, no helmets, no
shoes.


--
sinus

Personally I think this is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

So, we don't buy petrol today, we buy it tomorrow.

Oil company doesn't get your money today, they get it tomorrow.

If by some miracle it does hurt oil co. profits they do they hurt? No,
they make their money up buy charging more the next day.

If you want to hurt the oil companies, get on your bike, the train etc.
everyday.
If you want to hurt yourself, participate in a useless no-buy day.

Scotty


--
scotty72

The Hun columnist in the motor section added to the hyperbole regarding
Sept 22nd no petrol day in todays paper.

How do I get one of those jobs, mindlessly ape the latest email doing
the rounds.


--
PiledHigher

Resound wrote:

Oh I'm not saying that the 121 wasn't a bit small, it would be. Those
things have a tiny boot. But a Falcon? I suppose all those famillies
in Europe driving Fiat Puntos and Citroen Saxos just bung the baby in
the glovebox?

Or maybe they have different rules for child capsules etc. My
daughter-in-law had two children less than 18 months apart. Two child
capsules, a twin stroller and the shopping just did not fit into the Kia
Sorento, and that IS a two tonne 4WD. She got a Holden Adventra which has
more rear-seat depth and a much larger boot. The Adventra is 500mm longer
than even a Land crusher.

Theo

My daughter-in-law had two children less than 18 months apart. Two child
capsules, a twin stroller and the shopping just did not fit into the
Kia
Sorento, and that IS a two tonne 4WD. She got a Holden Adventra which
has
more rear-seat depth and a much larger boot. The Adventra is 500mm
longer
than even a Land crusher.

I am pretty sure (although not 100% certain as I have only heard this
from other people) that you can buy more compact baby seats (however,
probably not from Target or Big W). Apparently the big monstrosities
most people use are only that big because if they weren't, they
wouldn't pass safety tests. From what I understand, baby capsules are
more compact and remove the need to move the front passenger seat
forward.

Put it this way, if I need a bigger car to have a baby, then I'm either
not going to have any, or it can stay at home with my dogs when I need
to go somewhere (at least they don't complain about the size of my
car!).

Perhaps I'm wrong and Australian laws really do require big monstrosity
baby seats. That would explain why I so often see people with 'Baby On
Board' stickers driving like maniacs - their baby is safe, isn't it?

LotteBum


--
LotteBum

LotteBum wrote:

From what I understand, baby capsules are
more compact and remove the need to move the front passenger seat
forward.

That sounds good. The problem is that when you have two, one must be behind
the driver's seat. That made the Kia undrivable, even for her (she is a bit
short in the leg, they only just reach the ground).

Put it this way, if I need a bigger car to have a baby, then I'm
either not going to have any, or it can stay at home with my dogs
when I need to go somewhere

Hehe. Amazing how tunes change after the bub arrives. My ex-DIL was totally
organised and in control of every situation until the baby arrived. She was
devastated about her total lack of control of her life, her body, her
everything.

Theo

However, to me he is showing a distinct lack of care, particularly for
someone with three young children (hey, they seem to be the worst
offenders).

What a wild and gross generalisation. I know many people who are
childless, and with their cheery consumption and frequent travelling
(aircraft fuel consumption per/passenger dwarfs motor vehicle
greenhouse gas emissions) contribute much more to our environmental
malady.

P.S. I'm no rocket scientist, in fact I'm pretty dumb - how
dumb does this make those who drive 4WD's and other large vehicles?

I agree. Most people are dumb. But you don't have to drive a 4WD to
qualify. I own a 4WD, and I bet I use less fuel than most people who have
"economical" cars. The issue of lifestyle and its impact on the
environment is one of total effect (ie. Footprint). This concentration
on 4WD owners just allows non-4WD owners to feel better about themselves,
even though their lifestyles might require much greater energy
consumption.


Pat


--
vaudegiant

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Two child
capsules, a twin stroller and the shopping just did not fit into the
Kia
Sorento, and that IS a two tonne 4WDROFL, a Kia Sorento is a '4WD'? Surely you jest

It's a common misconception that the bigger a vehicle is, the more
space it has for passengers. People don't seem to understand that all
that extra engine, bigger bumpers to protect from all the off-roading
it will never do, etc..., has to go somewhere, space for the occupants
is much lower on the priority list


--
Peka

PiledHigher Wrote:
I'm working under the assumption that this might actually reduce the
energy input into food, in that it will make sense for distributers to
buy food from closer to the point of sale. This could improve food
quality through food spending less time in storage before sale, in
addition should support local grown products.

Yes, I know that there are energy inputs in manufacture but from what I
understand these are much less than the international travel of food,
that said a recent study suggested that one of the highest energy
inputs is getting the food from the shop to the home.

PiledHigher
We should go *really* local in sourcing our food. When we were kids,
we lived in inner suburban Brisbane and in the backyard (about a 500 sq
m block) we had chooks (eggs and meat), spuds, corn, carrots, broccoli,
lettuce, strawberries, zucchini, pumpkins and an orange tree. Food
scraps went to the chooks or into the mulch. And this was not unusual
in the neighbourhood. And we were firmly middle class.

We are going to have to get back to doing this more.

SteveA


--
SteveA

Resound Wrote:

I had heard through a grape-vine (cm-melb? Here?) the current price
point where shale oil becomes competitive is when petrol is $3/L
(can't remember the oil price), and I believe shale oil requires as
much energy to extract as is available from it.

--
TimC
That's not a tau-neutrino in my pocket; I've got a hadron.

If you had to expend as much energy to extract it as you get from it,
it
wouldn't be worth a thing. You'd be running at a loss from the start.
So you don't think we are stupid enough to spend 2x the amount of
energy extracting oil? I think that, unfortunately, as a species, we
are that stupid.

The V8 is god and we will spend or expend whatever we have to, to feed
the god.

SteveA


--
SteveA