Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« November 2006 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Thursday, 16 November 2006
Guest contribution by Dominic Bourke.
Topic: Misc.

Give us a K, give us an E, give us an N

by Dominic Bourke

I think this is great:

My main issue is a safety one. The types of 4x4 that are driven round my area are way bigger than the average car, considerably heavier and have a far higher point of impact in any collision. If I get hit by a Ford Focus at 25 mph, I fancy my chances of walking (ok then hobbling) away from it. I would make myself a decent favourite not to suffer injuries that would diminish my quality of life on a permanent basis. If I get hit by one of the tanks that are the vehicle of choice round here, then you are pretty much attending my funeral. The fact that I keep reading studies that show these cars are in disproportionately more accidents than regular family saloons does not fill me with joy. The main theory behind it is that because the car is so big they drive in a more aggressive/reckless manner, as they feel so safe and confident. I have another theory....

I live in 4x4 central, and in this case, the C in C-Charge very much stands for ****. I would guess that about 70% of the cars that park in the bus stop outside of Raoul's and then want a shout-up with the Parking Warden would be subject to this charge (it irritates me so much because there is no lack of parking within a 5 minute walk, and it's a bloody bus stop so there is no doubt about the legality of parking there!) It just demonstrates their view that rules don't apply to them, and are merely there to tell other people what to do. They are driven by the same upper middle class couples that Dave always says aren't breeding enough and on any given day when I go to Tesco's and back I will see far more of these being driven by idiots with a mobile phone clutched to their ear than I will see being driven by a parent with a kid in the back seat.

The truth of the matter is that this car is the middle class version of the tattoo. It lets the world know they are a twat without anyone needing to speak to them.

_ DY at 3:21 AM GMT
Updated: Friday, 17 November 2006 5:50 AM GMT
Post Comment | View Comments (5) | Permalink

Thursday, 16 November 2006 - 10:26 AM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

Like guns, you need to tool up to get even.

Your car isn't capable of surviving a battle with a Chelsea Tank? You need your own tank. We all need tanks. And guns. Lots of them.

They satisfy DY's need for consummerism.

They are also aphrodisiacs. Waving a shooter in someone's face is like saying, "Here's my dick. In yo' face man!"

Driving a tank is saying, "You think only my wheels are big? So is my gear shift!"

All that sexual activity on the streets, shooters and tanks. Bound to end in lots of sex. Thus satisfying DY's second need for Wannabe Somethings like him to breed more often.

After all, if you are from the Land of Ming like DY then you need prosthetic penises like shooters and tanks to pull the birds. 

So, readers in "Clueless in Barry Bulsara Land", get a tank, get a gun, get even.

Thursday, 16 November 2006 - 4:17 PM GMT

Name: "Titmus"

David, you seem to have made a mistake. You have put Dominic's name as the author, rather than the anarcho/commie K Hawkins, who must surely have written this tract.

Thursday, 16 November 2006 - 4:51 PM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

Why worry?

Peak oil will do away with the 10 gpm SUVs then David (aka Buzz Light Year) and side kick Engel can flit around town in their nuclear powered hover pods.

Friday, 17 November 2006 - 11:36 AM GMT

Name: "Andy Ward"

"The main theory behind it is that because the car is so big they drive in a more aggressive/reckless manner, as they feel so safe and confident."

I read something the other day that suggested that in US states where compulsory seatbelts were brought in quite recently, a smaller proportion of the people who had accidents died, however, because people felt safer and drove more aggressively, there were more accidents and these two factors more or less cancelled each other out.

But the real kicker was that there were more accidents involving pedestrians, cyclists and other communist non-car-owning no-marks, who of course had no additional protection, and so more of them died.

Seatbelts and tank-like "safe" cars actually make the world a more dangerous place for me.


Friday, 17 November 2006 - 2:10 PM GMT

Name: "Titmus"

"Andy Ward" wrote:

Seatbelts and tank-like "safe" cars actually make the world a more dangerous place for me.

But what's the down side?

View Latest Entries