There may be a link on their site later, which I'll add, but I have to post on this morning's BBC Breakfast TV 'piece' on urban 4x4s.
Seems they are, on top of all else, less reliable than other cars (more complex drivetrain? Ceratinly another eco, if not financial-nail in their coffins), which gave the producers the chance to throw two fighting cocks in the ring.
So we have a slick (in every sense), suited petrolhead who was allowed to claim, amongst other things, that they were safer (I thought they were more prone to fall over), pitted against yet another frizzy-haired earth mother from London ('No darlings, it's not a class issue (you bet, it's a 'we have decent public transport to do our thing, and sod the rest of you'. Here WE lead, and the rest of the country will follow'). Let's just say I didn't identify too closely with either.
In the great scheme of things, her rebuttals were plain daft, where she could have scored some points. And despite being waaaay too extreme in a few areas (and being allowed to get away with them), he made a lot more sense and came across a lot better.
Though aware of it so not a new point, as he asked: why indeed is so little being done to restrict the actual causes of more pollution and emissions, such as vans and trucks, as opposed to such divisive, spiteful, ill-informed and tokenistic campaigns?
And why is the media stoking them with such mouthpieces in the pro/con debates?
Answers please, on a ratings card.
No comments:
Post a Comment