Vomit-inducing content from the Guardian

[jgurney]

They're promoting cycling right?

In a very restricted way. They are promoting cycling, confined to paths, as a leisure activity requiring a large car.

[661-Pete]

If there's an advert which appears to promote cycling, and to promote using a car to get there at the same time, that's better than not promoting cycling at all. I appreciate that not all cyclists are alike - many are exclusively off-roaders, which I am not. I don't have a problem with them if they cycle responsibly. If they drive to get to their starting-point, I don't have a problem with that either. We need a measure of tolerance here.

But - that's not what this thread is really about, is it? It's about certain forummers doing their utmost to slang off the Guardian at all costs, is it not? I have on many occasions criticised the Guardian (the number of times my posts on their Comments pages have been moderated, testifies to that). But I don't buy into the 'slang them off' mantra.

[blackbike]

Given the way it pushes the eco-apocalypse agenda with uncritical enthusiasm it is odd that The Guardian has travel and motoring sections at all.

Most of their stuff on cycling seems to be aimed at those who earn a lot, consume a lot and therefore have a large carbon footprint.

[horizon]

But - that's not what this thread is really about, is it? It's about certain forummers doing their utmost to slang off the Guardian at all costs, is it not?

Yes, you're right, it is really about the Guardian and for this reason ought to have been in the Tea Shop. But it's also about cycling and what's being promoted and how - maybe it should have been in the campaigning section.

But the reason it's about the Guardian is that I believe (perhaps naively) that they have higher standards to uphold. Had Land Rover put this out as a pure advert I wouldn't have even blinked. But the Guardian should have known better. And if Land Rover had put out some puff about off-roading or using a 4 x 4, that too is OK. The problem is that it is Land Rover hiding behind family cycling (really, I'm sorry, but that is so disgusting) and the Guardian not minding at all and allowing it to appear as copy. This is a toxic mix.

I have very strong objections to the way that cars and roadbuilding have eaten away at people's (but especially children's) ability to experience the outdoors and cycling. It is breathtakingly shamefaced PR to associate their product with something they have taken away. Utility vehicles have their role but not as the only means by which children get out into the outdoors.

It is tempting to think about hearty Land Rovers taking kids up to the start of their mountain treks. This happens too. But the reality that Land Rover is talking about (and which we here know all too well) is their need to sell more cars to be used on city streets and thus deprive more people of a safe, healthy environment. This advert was a device to distract us from a grimmer truth. And it worked.

[reohn2]

I see it as write up about winter riding provided by Land Rover,who's products I've no use for.
A bike will fit into or on most cars providing an alternative to road cycling if conditions are iffy,I did the same thing myself yesterday and enjoyed an afternoon in the hills .
Anyone who's taken in by LR's attempt at providing cycling credentials must be blind IMHO,it's advertising,anyone can see that I would think.
As for the Guardian having scruples on the matter,they'll probably just see the article for what it is,a page filler paid for by someone to advertise their product,whilst promoting a bit of winter cycling.

My thoughts on overblown 4x4's and their higher proportion of bad attitude driver's is well documented on here and I take Horizon's point about them,but it's the way of the world.
I see LR's products and other large 4x4's FTM,for what they are for most of their owners,unnecessarily large,gas guzzling,money pits that are more of a liability than useful,but they don't as LR's success is testament to.
It's the poverty of affluence,that the affluent can't see,but then when did the affluent ever see past the end of their own cosmetically and surgically altered noses when fashion dictated otherwise.
Sad innit

[pete75]

Our local coppers and PCOs have Land Rover MTBs, but they cant ride them because they havent had nanny inspect them for 6 months. Why Land Rovers? Its a fashion brand where you pay extra for the cachet of the brand name! The police waste money alarmingly in all sorts of ways, from neglecting their buildings to buying expensive unecessesary kit to having all these different forces leading to top heavy structures that dont fight crime effectively. No wonder you hardly ever see a copper.

Al

I'd hardly call Landrover a fashion brand - the 90 and 110 are still about the toughest and most capable off road vehicles made at a reasonable price. They're working vehicles not fashion statements. The army buy enough of them and I don't think they're interested in fashion.......

There's plenty on farms round here and for those who think large 4wd vehicles are a waste of money and have no use what would you buy to tow a 3 ton cattle trailer.

[beardy]

The Landrover vehicle is not a fashion brand, just as the JCB digger isnt a fashion vehicle.

Yet all the spin-off products with that logo on are fashion brand products to my mind.

I am not all together convinced about my first sentence by the way. I dont dismiss the possibility that people buy Landrovers rather than Toyota Landcruisers out of brand loyalty. Or JCBs over Kubuto's for the same reason.

[reohn2]

............. what would you buy to tow a 3 ton cattle trailer.

A 3 ton or bigger vehicle if you wish to use it on the road and be legal

BTW how many farmers/smallholders,etc go cycling in the hills on the week end?
IMO the Guardian adverticle,is aimed at fashionistas who wouldn't be see dead in an LR 90/110 box,no leather upholstery or air con for a start,and the edges are a bit sharp for their liking

[beardy]

The law only says that trailer weights (up to 3.5t) must be within the towing vehicle's manufacturer's stated limits and you can see here that some Landrovers allow the full 3.5t braked trailers.

http://www.landrover.com/content/austra ... very-specs

I dont know if that then puts them in Tacho territory.

[reohn2]

The law only says that trailer weights (up to 3.5t) must be within the towing vehicle's manufacturer's stated limits and you can see here that some Landrovers allow the full 3.5t braked trailers.

http://www.landrover.com/content/austra ... very-specs

I dont know if that then puts them in Tacho territory.

I've just had a look at the law,it must have changed.
I stand corrected.
I'm sure it used to be in the UK that the trailer weight mustn't exceed the weight of the towing vehicle by law.
I know on the continent it was different and was determined by the manufacturers specs,I can only assume the UK has adopted the same ruling.
I've been towing caravans and trailers for 30+ years on a regular basis and this is one law that always stuck in my head,along with the recommendation that for inexperienced users and those who only occasionally tow,a trailer weight of 85% of the towing vehicle's kerb weight is safer.

[beardy]

A few laws have changed, I notice that since 2012 there are new laws about manufacture and/or sale of trailers.

Unless they are backdated, I will remember to use a Washington's axe approach in future to ensure that I do not ever make a new trailer and just repair my old ones.

[pete75]

The law only says that trailer weights (up to 3.5t) must be within the towing vehicle's manufacturer's stated limits and you can see here that some Landrovers allow the full 3.5t braked trailers.

http://www.landrover.com/content/austra ... very-specs

I dont know if that then puts them in Tacho territory.

I've just had a look at the law,it must have changed.
I stand corrected.
I'm sure it used to be in the UK that the trailer weight mustn't exceed the weight of the towing vehicle by law.
I know on the continent it was different and was determined by the manufacturers specs,I can only assume the UK has adopted the same ruling.
I've been towing caravans and trailers for 30+ years on a regular basis and this is one law that always stuck in my head,along with the recommendation that for inexperienced users and those who only occasionally tow,a trailer weight of 85% of the towing vehicle's kerb weight is safer.

That's never been the law for braked trailers. It may have been for unbraked trailers but now that limit is 3/4 ton regardless of the weight of towing vehicle.

A Defender will tow a lot more than 3 ton. I remember my father telling me he once towed a broken down Bedford lowloader carrying a D2 Cat for 20 miles back to the farm using an ex army Willis jeep , a lot less powerful than a modern Landy but a lot of people used them 60 odd years ago.

[reohn2]

That's never been the law for braked trailers. It may have been for unbraked trailers but now that limit is 3/4 ton regardless of the weight of towing vehicle.

I've tried to check it out but can't find anything on it.So I susppose I'll have to stand corrected again

A Defender will tow a lot more than 3 ton.

I've no doubt it will it was the legal side on it that concerned me,but as I'm wrong it doesn't matter much either way.

[horizon]

Can anyone enlighten me as to exactly why Land Rover produced this article about cycling? (I realise they sell bicycles but I don't think that was the point of it ...)

[al_yrpal]

Our local coppers and PCOs have Land Rover MTBs, but they cant ride them because they havent had nanny inspect them for 6 months. Why Land Rovers? Its a fashion brand where you pay extra for the cachet of the brand name! The police waste money alarmingly in all sorts of ways, from neglecting their buildings to buying expensive unecessesary kit to having all these different forces leading to top heavy structures that dont fight crime effectively. No wonder you hardly ever see a copper.

Al

I'd hardly call Landrover a fashion brand - the 90 and 110 are still about the toughest and most capable off road vehicles made at a reasonable price. They're working vehicles not fashion statements. The army buy enough of them and I don't think they're interested in fashion.......

There's plenty on farms round here and for those who think large 4wd vehicles are a waste of money and have no use what would you buy to tow a 3 ton cattle trailer.

Land Rover MTBs NOT Land Rovers, they do have one of those here too but thats a working vehicle!

Al